Most accurate Bible Translation

[Peri]

That's actually late Middle English, but I agree... While it can be fun to read something like The Canterbury Tales in ME, it's not my cup of tea for something that I'm picking up to read multiple times of day. With the rare exception, I fail to see how ME is any better than Modern English. Off the top of my head, I can't think of an ME word that doesn't have a modern equivalent. And what if you're going to quote the Bible to someone else? To edify or to witness... Is some homeless person in the ghetto going to even understand what you're saying if you talk in ME? Most people won't even understand what you mean when you talk in the language of the NKJV. I really don't think that it's less holy to read/write/speak in the language of our time. We must remember that the purpose of language is to communicate, and we can't communicate well with others if we're speaking like people out of another century!

Since you asked, I use the 1611 Version of the King James Version Bible, and believe it is the most accurate. The main thing is that it is translated from the Textus Receptus, as are all the King James Version Bibles. That is what makes them superior to the new translations.

I have heard all the arguments from the defenders of new translations, and I reject them. You are relying on historical information you believe, and I don't. I have my own books that claim historical information, and they are at odds with the people you would look to in order to support your claims. There is such a thing as revisionist history, and it comes down to who we trust? Once again, I will state for the record that new translations are of the devil, and I believe that those who would say otherwise have an attitude that is of the devil. See how we just go around in circles?

C'mon B -

You really read the 1611 Version of the King James Bible?

Where Genesis reads like this:

In the beginning God created the Heauen, and the Earth. And the earth was without forme, and voyd, and darkenesse was vpon the face of the deepe: and the Spirit of God mooued vpon the face of the waters. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. And God saw the light, that it was good: and God diuided the light from the darkenesse. And God called the light, Day, and the darknesse he called Night: and the euening and the morning were the first day.

Now if you really read that, then it's gotta be slow going as you spend so much of your time translating the old English words.

But if you didn't mean to say that you read the 1611 version, but rather something else, then I gotta wonder what other things do you write that you really didn't mean to say ... ?

[Watchman Neo]

After having been around this particular block several times elsewhere, I’ve been lead to the conclusion that it really, really mattereth not what translation one uses unless one also heeds the still, small, inner voice of the Teacher.

1 John 2:20,27 But you have an anointing from the Holy One, and you know all things…But the anointing which you have received from Him abides in you, and you do not need that anyone teach you; but as the same anointing teaches you concerning all things, and is true, and is not a lie, and just as it has taught you, you will abide in Him.

Scholarship has its roots in man’s wisdom. It must always take second place to the leading of the Spirit…who will not lead one contrary to what He inspired to be written. All doctrinal disagreements have, at their core, at least one party that is not listening, or is not hearing the Spirit clearly.

Blessings,

Watchman Neo

Edited December 29, 2011 by Watchman Neo

[Guest]

... You really read the 1611 Version of the King James Bible? Where Genesis reads like this:

In the beginning God created the Heauen, and the Earth. And the earth was without forme, and voyd, and darkenesse was vpon the face of the deepe: and the Spirit of God mooued vpon the face of the waters. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. And God saw the light, that it was good: and God diuided the light from the darkenesse. And God called the light, Day, and the darknesse he called Night: and the euening and the morning were the first day.

Now if you really read that, then it's gotta be slow going as you spend so much of your time translating the old English words.

But if you didn't mean to say that you read the 1611 version, but rather something else, then I gotta wonder what other things do you write that you really didn't mean to say ... ?

Well I May Not Read Shakespearian English As Well As Dear Brother Butero But This Passage Is As Clear As A Bell In Any Of It's Versions

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day. Genesis 1:1-5

The KJV Was My First Reading Primer (1948-1950) And It Is The Bible Of My Heart.

I Am Not A KJV Only But I Go To It First To Find The Scripture I Need To Look Up In The NASB And Others

I Think In Some Cases The Root Problem May Not Be With The Original 1611 KJV Language At All

But With The Very Words Of God Themselves

And God saw euery thing that hee had made: and behold, it was very good. And the euening and the morning were the sixth day. Genesis 1:31

Be Blessed Beloved Of The KING

The Lord blesse thee, and keepe thee:

The Lord make his face shine vpon thee, and be gracious vnto thee:

The Lord lift vp his countenance vpon thee, and giue thee peace.

And they shall put my Name vpon the children of Israel, and I will blesse them. Numbers 6:24-27

Love, Your Brother Joe

[L.J.]

well as far as the Modern vs Middle English goes, there are alot of alternatives.

NKJV does use a more Modern English, plus the notes in the margins notes the differences between the recieved text and the majority text. Just wish they did it the other way around and went with strictly the majority text and noted the received text in the margins.

Also I have "The Sword" Bible which is KJV-easy to read. It's pretty good in the modern english and also has on its front pages all the words that was modernized from the KJV. They do a pretty good job of trying to alleviate some of the worries from the kjv only crowd.

I wish there was more Majority text bibles out there. The only one I know of is from the guy who had the dtl site (darkness to light ministry). I'm just leery of one person doing the translation.

Does anyone here read the Geneva Bible?

[enoob57]

With the increase of knowledge in these last of days- so ordained by God

Da 12:4

4 "But you, Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book until the time of the end; many shall run to and fro,

and knowledge shall increase."

NKJV

God here indicates that increase in the understanding of His Word will be when these things come about!

I would say we are here... wouldn't everyone? So use what God has given us to increase in Him through

His Word! Let's certainly use good judgment about consistent reasoning about original manuscripts and

their copies, also that God chose The Greek language for a reason (the most accurate ever spoken)!

KJV only people are rather harsh in their spirit and love many times is not seen causing me to examine

closely the S/spirit form which the fruit of belief comes!

Religion is holding to a thing because that is always how it has been done. True religion is spiritually seeking

out a matter cause God is the only Essence in Spirit and Truth that you desire within!

Love, Steven

[Guest Butero]

Since you asked, I use the 1611 Version of the King James Version Bible, and believe it is the most accurate. The main thing is that it is translated from the Textus Receptus, as are all the King James Version Bibles. That is what makes them superior to the new translations.

I have heard all the arguments from the defenders of new translations, and I reject them. You are relying on historical information you believe, and I don't. I have my own books that claim historical information, and they are at odds with the people you would look to in order to support your claims. There is such a thing as revisionist history, and it comes down to who we trust? Once again, I will state for the record that new translations are of the devil, and I believe that those who would say otherwise have an attitude that is of the devil. See how we just go around in circles?

C'mon B -

You really read the 1611 Version of the King James Bible?

Where Genesis reads like this:

In the beginning God created the Heauen, and the Earth. And the earth was without forme, and voyd, and darkenesse was vpon the face of the deepe: and the Spirit of God mooued vpon the face of the waters. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. And God saw the light, that it was good: and God diuided the light from the darkenesse. And God called the light, Day, and the darknesse he called Night: and the euening and the morning were the first day.

Now if you really read that, then it's gotta be slow going as you spend so much of your time translating the old English words.

But if you didn't mean to say that you read the 1611 version, but rather something else, then I gotta wonder what other things do you write that you really didn't mean to say ... ?

I did mean just that. About 10 years ago, a man at my church gave me a copy of the 1611 King James Bible, which has old English spelling and the Apocrypha. I was already familiar with the Authorized Version, as I had been reading it for years. I have read the Authorized Version cover to cover more than 10 times. After getting this Bible, I began reading through it. I had a little trouble adjusting at first, but by the time I had finished Genesis, I had little problems with it. The only thing that sometimes gives me trouble is the Roman numerals, but that is no big deal. If you don't believe me, here is an example, right out of my 1611 King James Bible.

PSAL. LXXV

VNto thee, O God, doe we giue thankes, vnto thee doe we giue thanks: for that thy name is nere, thy wonderous works delcare.

What is so hard about that? I have no trouble at all translating old English words. I will demonstrate right now.

Unto thee, Oh God, do we give thanks, unto thee do we give thanks: for that thy name is near, thy wonderous works delcare.

I do this all the time. If that isn't plain enough, how is this?

To you, Oh, God, we give thanks, to you we give thanks, for your name is near, your wonderous works delcare.

As for definitions, I have an Abington-Strongs Exhaustive Concordance with a Greek and Hebrew Bible Dictionary, which I have also studied for years when a word was unclear.

[Guest Butero]

well as far as the Modern vs Middle English goes, there are alot of alternatives.

NKJV does use a more Modern English, plus the notes in the margins notes the differences between the recieved text and the majority text. Just wish they did it the other way around and went with strictly the majority text and noted the received text in the margins.

Also I have "The Sword" Bible which is KJV-easy to read. It's pretty good in the modern english and also has on its front pages all the words that was modernized from the KJV. They do a pretty good job of trying to alleviate some of the worries from the kjv only crowd.

I wish there was more Majority text bibles out there. The only one I know of is from the guy who had the dtl site (darkness to light ministry). I'm just leery of one person doing the translation.

Does anyone here read the Geneva Bible?

I do just the opposite. I reject the majority text like the plague, and stay with the TR. That is because I place my confidence in the TR, and have zero confidence in the majority text. This, like so many other dissagreements in the church, comes down to what someone believes to be correct? If someone is insistent on reading a modern English translation, I have found the NKJV to be the best by far, but I don't use any modern translation personally.

[OneLight]

If you want difficulty, try reading the word for word translation in a Interlinear. Here is an example of Psalms 75:1.

<<To the chief Musician, Altaschith, A Psalm [or] Song of Asaph. >> Unto thee, O God, do we give thanks, [unto thee] do we give thanks: for [that] thy name is near thy wondrous works declare.

(v1)for•^the•one-making-it-premanent must-not-be you-are-^cbringing-ruin psalm to•Asaph song (v2) we-^cacclaim to•you Elohim we-^cacclaim and •near name-of•you they-^mrecount things-being-ⁿmarvelous-of•you

In the Interlinear, there is a break in verse one where in our bibles, there is not. The above is a word for word translation. I would include the Hebrew, but I don't know how to do it quick enough. I have to go to work

God Bless

[L.J.]

well as far as the Modern vs Middle English goes, there are alot of alternatives.

NKJV does use a more Modern English, plus the notes in the margins notes the differences between the recieved text and the majority text. Just wish they did it the other way around and went with strictly the majority text and noted the received text in the margins.

Also I have "The Sword" Bible which is KJV-easy to read. It's pretty good in the modern english and also has on its front pages all the words that was modernized from the KJV. They do a pretty good job of trying to alleviate some of the worries from the kjv only crowd.

I wish there was more Majority text bibles out there. The only one I know of is from the guy who had the dtl site (darkness to light ministry). I'm just leery of one person doing the translation.

Does anyone here read the Geneva Bible?

I do just the opposite. I reject the majority text like the plague, and stay with the TR. That is because I place my confidence in the TR, and have zero confidence in the majority text. This, like so many other dissagreements in the church, comes down to what someone believes to be correct? If someone is insistent on reading a modern English translation, I have found the NKJV to be the best by far, but I don't use any modern translation personally.

Ok B,

I'm asking not to debate but I truly want to know:

What makes you trust the TR over the others?

[L.J.]

If you want difficulty, try reading the word for word translation in a Interlinear. Here is an example of Psalms 75:1.

<<To the chief Musician, Altaschith, A Psalm [or] Song of Asaph. >> Unto thee, O God, do we give thanks, [unto thee] do we give thanks: for [that] thy name is near thy wondrous works declare.

(v1)for•^the•one-making-it-premanent must-not-be you-are-^cbringing-ruin psalm to•Asaph song (v2) we-^cacclaim to•you Elohim we-^cacclaim and •near name-of•you they-^mrecount things-being-ⁿmarvelous-of•you

In the Interlinear, there is a break in verse one where in our bibles, there is not. The above is a word for word translation. I would include the Hebrew, but I don't know how to do it quick enough. I have to go to work

God Bless

That would so give me a headache lol.