# Which Bible translations are considered the best?



## Free Christian (Sep 4, 2013)

Hello everyone. I was wondering which Bible translation is considered the best. 
I was told the KJV is.
I do wonder though why in this version they retain the word Easter, given its origans, instead of using Passover in Acts 12 v 4?
With others I wonder why they have things such as, the MKJV and many others, like the following.
MKJV Genesis 28 v 13 "And behold! Jehovah stood above it and said, I am Jehovah....."
MKJV Exodus 6 v 3 "And I appeared to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob as God almighty, but I was not known to them by the name Jehovah" But in the dream God called Himself to Jacob Jehovah?
I see this in many other version too?
I see many other questionable things in many of the other versions too.
What please do people here consider the most faithful translation?


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Sep 4, 2013)

Free Christian said:


> Hello everyone. I was wondering which Bible translation is considered the best.



The main thing is to avoid translations that use Australian scholars. Those translations are quite dodgy


----------



## Eoghan (Sep 5, 2013)

King James had a vested interest in the term bishop as I recall. NASB is the most accurate word for word translation. Like the KJV it puts in italics any words not found in the text - this I like!


----------



## Zach (Sep 5, 2013)

Answering your will likely include answering the question of which manuscripts of the original language text you prefer. Many on the board prefer the KJV or NKJV because it uses the majority text rather than the critical text. I still haven't worked out which original text I think is preferable to use, but I also think the differences are minor enough that they don't critically effect any doctrine. I don't mind more modern translations that use the critical text and I like the ESV. I think it has found a good balance between readability and being a word for word translation of the original languages. I think it is really difficult to consider one translation "the best". I know some of the KJV readers will certainly agree with that statement.


----------



## Edward (Sep 5, 2013)

Start with which texts you favor.
Then what translation philosophy (dynamic, word for word, or blended) do you think gets closest to the original meaning. 
Then do the words used by the translators still mean the same thing they meant when they were selected.
Then what hidden or overt agenda is evident in the final product. 
Should be easy at that point.


----------



## Nebrexan (Sep 5, 2013)

_The Word of God in English_ (book, free PDF) established for me that the ESV, KJV, NKJV, NASB, and HCSB are best.



> As I will show in a chapter devoted to the history of English Bible translation, a seismic shift in translation theory and practice occurred in the middle of the twentieth century. Up to that point, most English Bible translations had operated on the premise that the task of English Bible translation was to reproduce the words of the original in the words of the receptor language. Accuracy of translation took precedence over literary style, though compared to modern colloquial translations, it seems from our viewpoint that literary beauty was still accorded a very high position. Certainly dignity and relative formality of language and syntax prevailed.
> 
> The person who almost single-handedly changed the course of English Bible translation was Eugene Nida, who championed his theory of “dynamic equivalence.” This theory was first introduced by Nida in the mid-twentieth century. Briefly stated, the theory of dynamic equivalence in Bible translation emphasizes the reaction of the reader to the translated text, rather than the translation of the words and phrases themselves. In simplest terms, dynamic equivalence is often referred to as “thought for thought” translation as compared to “essentially literal” translation (for more on these terms, see the end of this chapter).


----------



## JimmyH (Sep 5, 2013)

My personal study solution is to routinely read the same texts in KJV, NKJV, ASV, NASB, ESV and once in awhile the 1984 NIV. I do this on a regular basis. I recently picked up a copy of Bill Mounce's "Greek For The Rest Of Us." He was chairman for the New Testament committee for the ESV, and has a chapter titled, "What Are Translations," that is very instructive in helping the layman understand the difficulties in accurately conveying the meaning from one language to another.


----------



## JohnGill (Sep 5, 2013)

Free Christian said:


> Hello everyone. I was wondering which Bible translation is considered the best.
> I was told the KJV is.
> I do wonder though why in this version they retain the word Easter, given its origans, instead of using Passover in Acts 12 v 4?
> With others I wonder why they have things such as, the MKJV and many others, like the following.
> ...



At the time the AV was translated Easter was equivalent to the word Passover. 

Any Reformation era translation will be sound, free from logical contradictions, and will be based on the Greek & Hebrew texts considered authentic by the Reformers, and free from the texts the Reformers considered corrupt namely Aleph & B. Furthermore, Reformation era Bibles will be accurate in translation as they retain the 2nd person singular/plural distinction and have a better translation philosophy. You will not have the theological problems found in Prov 8:22, Mic 5:2, Jn 1:18, et al. And you will have a translation based upon the Greek & Hebrew texts that formed the foundation for Reformed Theology. Modern translations are based upon texts that were rejected as corrupt by the Reformers. The Tyndale, Geneva, & the AV are the one's in English. Of these three the AV is the best.


----------



## SinnerSavedByChrist (Sep 5, 2013)

NU-text type: NASB hands down. (Honourable mentions: ESV, HSCB)

Majority text type: KJV for those who can understand it (I can't and I'm studying medicine). NKJV for better readability. 

I use NKJV at the moment and I think I will purchase an NASB in the future.


----------



## Herald (Sep 5, 2013)

> However, if we would like to define _best_ by whatever we personally like, or whatever a committee filled up with both professing Christians and unbelievers (who do not believe what they are translating is the very Word of God) approves under no ecclesiastical authority whatsoever, then, probably not the AV.



Josh,

Tell us what you really think. ;-)


Sent fron my Galaxy S4 using Tapatalk


----------



## Herald (Sep 5, 2013)

"Best" is a subjective term when used in the context of this discussion. One can debate the superiority of the MT or the CT, but that will not necessarily settle the issue of which translation is best. 

The fact is that the Church is blessed with a number of wonderful translations that can be called the Word of God. That does not mean textual criticism is not worthy of discussion. It most certainly is. But do not let that debate keep you from the scriptures.



Sent fron my Galaxy S4 using Tapatalk


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Sep 5, 2013)

The more the discussion/argument goes around, the more convinced I am that at the level of the poor, humble, pious, individual Christian--he is simply desirous to be encouraged in his precious possession of the communication of divine love.

I think there is jealousy and fear that stir up the most impassioned parties on any side. "If mine is not the best, then I am the loser!"

Are there rubbish translations out there? Without question. What about the different text-bases of the "better" ones? What of them. "My sheep hear my Voice, and they know Me." As far as I'm concerned, at the level of Joe Christian, it's willingness to deal a bloody nose over a Sony or a Samsung receiver. "You can't even hear the music on one of those! Bah!"

Put yourself in the place of a 1st century Christian, whose physical possession of the Word was confined to some scraps of parchment or papyrus on which he had scribbled some handwritten quote from the reading or sermon he recalled (as best he could). Maybe he got a word wrong. And? Though the medium be not perfect, yet the comfort surely is. The modern contention is barely even conceivable, without the printing press.

Obviously, believers' overall *care* for accuracy meant as much over the centuries as it does now; and so we have always sought to correct and preserve the text, down to the letter. This is a fallen world. The Bible is not an "unblemished" artifact, dropped (as it were) out of heaven--as the Muslms believe of the Koran--that reveals our frailty, but a revelation divinely preserved _despite_ our weakness and miserable contribution. The fierceness of contentions over slight things obscures the message itself, which is plain in virtually any case.

It is like fury over whether or not Beethoven's 5th was actually played by Berlin's or Vienna's Philharmonic, because differences were heard or felt. Really? You didn't recognize the piece, the master's work?


What I'm advocating is for a due allowance of the element of subjectivity, of the individual ear. I am as firm a defender of necessary objectivity having to do with the divine Word as any defender of inerrancy. But scholars' debates carried on by their simpler devotees are usually unbecoming of Christians.

Find a translation--preferably not a paraphrase or a "colloquial," time-and-culture-bound rendering--but a decent word-for-word presentation, and follow the call of your Good Shepherd. Take the advice of someone you know well. "This is a faithful Word, which has guided me securely." And do not stumble over the choice of another man. "To his own Master he either stands or falls."


----------



## Romans922 (Sep 5, 2013)

I hear the LXX is pretty good.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Sep 5, 2013)

Romans922 said:


> I hear the LXX is pretty good.


You are such a rebel rouser. LOL.


While I am a Majority Text person I truly wish that we all had this kind of desire. 
[video=vimeo;35041231]http://vimeo.com/35041231[/video]

Kimyal Bible Dedication....
http://vimeo.com/35041231

I would also recommend Robert P. Martin's book Accuracy of Translation. 
Accuracy of Translation: The Primary Criterion in Evaluating Bible Versions With Special Reference to the New International Version: Robert P. Martin: 9780851517353: Amazon.com: Books


----------



## Fogetaboutit (Sep 5, 2013)

Contra_Mundum said:


> The more the discussion/argument goes around, the more convinced I am that at the level of the poor, humble, pious, individual Christian--he is simply desirous to be encouraged in his precious possession of the communication of divine love.
> 
> I think there is jealousy and fear that stir up the most impassioned parties on any side. "If mine is not the best, then I am the loser!"
> 
> ...




I differ a bit from you on this point. The difference is that today we "do" have the option of purity of scriptures vs more rubish. We can't really compare with believers from past centuries who only had access to what they had. I'm not advocating that God cannot work from imperfect translation or manuscripts but I cannot accept that we reject purer stream when it's readily available to us. 

How many on this board would advocate that it's fine to use a confession of faith that is not entirely based on scritpures or sound doctrinaly since God can still work through it when we do have confessions available to us that are sound and proven. How much more zealous we should be when we are dealing with holy scriptures.


I cannot accept the we would stop fighting for the purity of scriptures on the basis of not wanting to cause differences within the body of Christ. Without assurance of the purity of scriptures (infaliblity) the doctrine of Sola Scriptura is void.


----------



## Zach (Sep 5, 2013)

Contra_Mundum said:


> The more the discussion/argument goes around, the more convinced I am that at the level of the poor, humble, pious, individual Christian--he is simply desirous to be encouraged in his precious possession of the communication of divine love.
> 
> I think there is jealousy and fear that stir up the most impassioned parties on any side. "If mine is not the best, then I am the loser!"
> 
> ...





Thanks for putting it so well, Rev. Buchanan.


----------



## alec (Sep 5, 2013)

I'd like to vote a few of these posts helpful, but am not able. Let me just say how great a resource is The PuritanBoard.

FreeChristian, my advice to you is to find an English Bible that you can be confident is the Word of God. If you doubt your Scriptures it will be exceptionally difficult for you to maintain a stable faith.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Sep 5, 2013)

Fogetaboutit said:


> I differ a bit from you on this point. The difference is that today we "do" have the option of purity of scriptures vs more rubish. We can't really compare with believers from past centuries who only had access to what they had. I'm not advocating that God cannot work from imperfect translation or manuscripts but I cannot accept that we reject purer stream when it's readily available to us.
> 
> How many on this board would advocate that it's fine to use a confession of faith that is not entirely based on scritpures or sound doctrinaly since God can still work through it when we do have confessions available to us that are sound and proven. How much more zealous we should be when we are dealing with holy scriptures.
> 
> I cannot accept the we would stop fighting for the purity of scriptures on the basis of not wanting to cause differences within the body of Christ. Without assurance of the purity of scriptures (infaliblity) the doctrine of Sola Scriptura is void.



I don't mind your zeal for what you think is best. Or your willingness to advocate for your side.

But scare tactics bother me, as do ad hominem slights of those who remain unpersuaded or are actual advocates of another text as superior. And I think both offences can be found among advocates of any translation.

I'm not convinced that the differences between good translations of varying textual bases amount to much of anything, when the subjective issue of the hearer having a submissive heart to the content conveyed is the rub. An airy dismissal of the KJV, because it sounds "moldy-oldy" is just as damning as refusing to be convicted by the NAS, because its very existence somehow undercuts the idea that there is any sure content of divine revelation there.

Such examples strike me as irrational as a person captivated by an event on TV; but suddenly he noticed that the model was "Made in China," and he decided that the quality was most likely defective, and he probably didn't see what he thought he saw. That could conceivably be the case, if the resolution was so grainy and the reception truly awful. Perhaps one might reasonably dismiss TV altogether in that event. But if the communication was at all effective in the first place, it would be more rational to go find a model he thought better ("Made in USA" or the like), and compare the reception.

Actually, I find that people don't want to hear the convicting Word, period. Typically, argument over "which version" is just a smoke screen.


----------



## JohnGill (Sep 5, 2013)

Contra_Mundum said:


> Fogetaboutit said:
> 
> 
> > I differ a bit from you on this point. The difference is that today we "do" have the option of purity of scriptures vs more rubish. We can't really compare with believers from past centuries who only had access to what they had. I'm not advocating that God cannot work from imperfect translation or manuscripts but I cannot accept that we reject purer stream when it's readily available to us.
> ...



Could you clarify your statement with regards to scare tactics and ad hominems. I'm unsure if you're claiming such have been used in this thread or if you are just speaking in general.


----------



## Edward (Sep 5, 2013)

Of course, to those who prefer the Geneva, the KJV is modernist innovation. If it's good enough for Cromwell....


----------



## Free Christian (Sep 5, 2013)

Thanks everyone for the replies. My faith I would consider stable, im not perfect, but what I believe is rock solid. I suppose I asked because of the difficulties I see with people reading the KJV at times. Not knocking it, no way, just that the language seems to be not understood by many today. To me the Word should be in the known spoken language and easy to understand. No slang mind you, just the plain known language so that even an unlearned person can clearly read/see what is being conveyed or taught. When I first became a Christian I was reading the GNB and because of that I thought Jesus was just a man. Seriously! Then a person I knew showed me the KJV and the passages which I drew my conclusion of Jesus being just a man in comparison to the GNB. I was shocked, stunned and a whole lot of other things as well. It took a few days to sink in but when it did I ditched that version instantly. I have no great scholastic mind and admit that at times I don't retain as much as I would like to, a few accidents in my youth and a bad sporting choice took care of that. So studying a whole lot, though I would like to, you know what I mean. But I will check out some of the versions mentioned by you all and do some comparison. I agree that a person can still be saved by/using a not so great translation, I was myself and at the time in a pretty not so great church as well. But I asked God when I did become saved to no matter what, or what it takes, to please not let me believe a lie and, no matter what, please lead me into the truth, even if it leaves me a poor man. Many thanks to you all for you replies. Ill take it all on board and do appreciate it.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Sep 5, 2013)

JohnGill said:


> Could you clarify your statement with regards to scare tactics and ad hominems. I'm unsure if you're claiming such have been used in this thread or if you are just speaking in general.


No, I'm not taking aim at anyone on the thread, or on the P-B in general. Discussions of translations, exclusive Psalmody, baptism, etc. usually takes place in an atmosphere of grace and spirited conviction, but not hostility.

But it isn't hard to find folks who make the use of a particular translation a sign of "bad breeding" or of evil intentions (take your pick). Same with flavors of eschatology: for some people, you are either with them or with the Enemy.

Best to just leave such people alone, Tit.3:10, "A factious man after a first and second admonition refuse."


----------



## BibleCyst (Sep 5, 2013)

Speaking as a lay person who has done extensive research on which Bible translations are the "best," here is my take: don't worry too much about it. Pick the translation that you understand best, and stick with it. The internet is a dangerous place for lay people researching Bible translations, due to the shockingly high volume of KJV Only material (which always seems to pop up first in search engines). Some of this material is highly convincing at face value, and is an easy stumbling block.

That being said, here is my opinion on which Bible translation is the "best." The KJV is a literary masterpiece, and a monumental achievement. Even if it is not your primary translation, it deserves a spot on your book shelf. Every house hold needs one! The downside to using the KJV as a primary translation is that you have to teach yourself to read it. (I, personally, have to read some parts outloud to understand.) I would recommend using an essentially literal translation, such as the ESV, KJV, or NASB. Personally, I use the KJV for the Psalms and the ESV for everything else.


----------



## SolaSaint (Sep 5, 2013)

Zach said:


> Answering your will likely include answering the question of which manuscripts of the original language text you prefer. Many on the board prefer the KJV or NKJV because it uses the majority text rather than the critical text. I still haven't worked out which original text I think is preferable to use, but I also think the differences are minor enough that they don't critically effect any doctrine. I don't mind more modern translations that use the critical text and I like the ESV. I think it has found a good balance between readability and being a word for word translation of the original languages. I think it is really difficult to consider one translation "the best". I know some of the KJV readers will certainly agree with that statement.




Very well said, totally agree and I like the ESV also as well as the NASB.


----------



## Free Christian (Sep 6, 2013)

Again, thanks to everyone for their replies. I suppose in hindsight I should/could have said "which is the most reliable, in keeping with reformed doctrines, without detracting from them?" What I mean by that is that I have read some versions that leave out some serious wording. An example, unless it has been changed since I read it, is Luke 4 v 4 in the KJV vs Luke 4 v 4 in the NAS where it leaves out in the NAS "but by every word of God" ,or has a side note on those words that they may not have originally been there. I see that same word omission in the ASV , GNB and RV version as well. I notice in some they have things like "this verse not in earlier mss" and things like that. I find that odd to have that. Did God say it or not, or should I believe it was said? I think, myself, that leaving things out may not mean a person will not or cannot be saved or be a good Christian but may not get the full feeding of what the Word can truly supply! Like a slightly unbalanced diet, with a few things missing. Fed, but maybe not as good as they could be perhaps!? It was from that that I thought Jesus was just a man. Words omitted and changed. I hope my post has not caused any upset to anyone. I guess what I could be asking is there a version in keeping perhaps with the KJV that is easier to read? I have read the KJV a number of times over the years but still do struggle at times with what some things mean. I know the advice of others to use another version alongside for those occasions is good advice. Its just I have for ages wondered what else was out there, that I am not aware of. Oh , and to Stephen from NZ. Ha ha , I did once hear of an Aussie slang Bible that used some of our ockerisms, I never read it but shudder to imagine what they did to Gods Word in it. Yeah, I wouldn't trust that either.


----------



## Marrow Man (Sep 6, 2013)

Free Christian said:


> I have read some versions that leave out some serious wording. An example, unless it has been changed since I read it, is Luke 4 v 4 in the KJV vs Luke 4 v 4 in the NAS where it leaves out in the NAS "but by every word of God" ,or has a side note on those words that they may not have originally been there.



Read Matthew 4:4 in the NAS, along with verse being quoted (Deuteronomy 8:3). The "serious wording" may not appear in Luke 4:4, but it is obviously not being omitted elsewhere in the translation. No one (I hope) would accuse the KJV of omitting "serious wording" because the readings of Matthew 16:16 and Mark 8:29 are different.


----------



## Somerset (Sep 6, 2013)

To my mind, the best Bible, regardless of translation, is one that is starting to fall apart from constant use. We can see that in the video clip above, those Bibles are going to be used.


----------



## Marrow Man (Sep 6, 2013)

> That noted, I do believe the LORD has perfectly preserved His Word over the ages and that modern translations have been used in the conversion and edification of His people. This not to be denied.



For what it's worth, I was converted, in part, through the reading of the NIV translation.

Do not take that as an unqualified endorsement!


----------



## Zach (Sep 6, 2013)

The first bible I started to read was NLT. I doubt I was converted, but I remember reading Romans and going to my Mom and saying something along the lines of, "Whoa!"

The Lord uses plenty of imperfect vessels. I'm reading through the book of Genesis and that truth is all over the place.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Sep 6, 2013)

Marrow Man said:


> > That noted, I do believe the LORD has perfectly preserved His Word over the ages and that modern translations have been used in the conversion and edification of His people. This not to be denied.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I will one up you. I was converted reading the Living Bible.  A major paraphrase of the ASV.


----------



## Marrow Man (Sep 6, 2013)

Phil Johnson tells the story of a time in Italy, after WWII, when there was a paper shortage. They would use just about anything for paper. A man went to the fish market and when he arrived home, he discovered that his purchase had been wrapped in a page of the NT (I don't know what passage). He was converted reading that one page (he had never read the Bible before). He wound up starting a Protestant church in Italy. Praise be to God.


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Sep 6, 2013)

Free Christian said:


> Oh , and to Stephen from NZ. Ha ha



nothing like putting an Aussie in his proper place 

Seriously I have given a lot of thought to the area of Bible Translations so will share my comments:
1. The ESV is probably the most popular in Reformed circles and for good reason. it is a very good translation overall. This is my main translation.
2. For a translation a little more 'dynamic' I use the HCSB. I think it is much better than the NIV. Greenbaggins on this list also rates it highly. Generally I use the HCSB alongside the ESV.
3. I also make good use of the NASB and the NKJV - also fine translations.


----------



## Edward (Sep 6, 2013)

Marrow Man said:


> For what it's worth, I was converted, in part, through the reading of the NIV translation.
> 
> Do not take that as an unqualified endorsement!



The original NIV isn't bad. It was popular in evangelical and reformed circles when you were young. 

TNIV and later, however, should be burned or shredded lest they fall into the hands of those without discernment and lead a lamb astray.


----------



## Edward (Sep 6, 2013)

Stephen L Smith said:


> The ESV is probably the most popular in Reformed circles and for good reason. it is a very good translation overall.


I'm not as big a fan of the ESV as many here; it is generally good but I do have some concerns about gender neutrality in some places. That being said, it's what our church uses so it's what I regularly use, with reference to the NKJV.


----------



## DMcFadden (Sep 6, 2013)

As I have often observed on the PB, whatever you will USE is the best one for you.

Having used Greek since taking it in 1971 before many of you were born, my preference is for an essentially literal one.

My Critical Text Preferences in Order - ESV, HCSB, NAS95.
Majority Text Preferences (not in order) - KJV and NKJV.

I am using the ESV mainly now and miss the fact that the NKJV is not only extremely readable, but offers footnotes to show where it differs from the TR and the UBS traditions of texts.

God will use any English translation to achieve his purposes. He will also use Balaam's ass. Neither is an excuse for "settling" when a more faithful option is available.


----------



## Marrow Man (Sep 6, 2013)

Edward said:


> The original NIV isn't bad. It was popular in evangelical and reformed circles when you were young.



It would have come out when I was in high school, but I was reading it when I was 21. When I read Ephesians 2:8-9, it was out of the NIV.


----------



## reaganmarsh (Sep 6, 2013)

I also favor the formal equivalence translations. But I share with several brethren above the conversion experience through the NIV. Most of the Scripture I memorized as a child and young teen was KJV and I still cherish that translation and refer to it freely in preaching (in fact, for our Wed evening prayer times, I prefer to use the KJV for our public reading of Scripture, as it is the translation most of our elderly saints know best). 

I've toyed around with the idea of preaching from the Geneva before...but then I remembered that I'm serving a non-reformed SBC church, and would like to keep my job. 

That being said, at present I preach from the ESV and, in the whole, I am satisfied with it.


----------



## Free Christian (Sep 7, 2013)

Hello Tim, Marrow Man. I see that you are a Pastor and I do not want to seem to want to argue with someone who is. I do however have concerns over what I fully believe are serious word omissions in that particular version, as well as some others. Here are just some of the others it omits and leaves me asking "what on earth went on with the writing of this version?" Omissions - From Mathew - 1 v 25 Firstborn 8 v 29 Jesus 9 v 13 Repentance 16 v 3 O ye hypocrites 19 v 17 God 20 v 16 For many are called but few chosen 27 v 35 That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, they parted my garments among them and upon my vesture did they cast lots Or a few of the suggestions that the text did not exist in the oldest manuscripts (often a reference to the Vaticanus and Siniaticus) From Mark - 11 v 26 - 15 v 28 and 16 v 9 to 20. These are just a handful of examples from that version. I know I have asked what is considered a good one. I do know that there are some not good ones though and where they came from and sometimes who had an influence in the writing of them. Origen, Wescott, Hort. Three who held views extremely far from that of Reformed beliefs. Again I am not trying to disrespect you here or your views, that's the best way I can think of to put it, but seriously do question versions such as that one. I guess my hope is for a version like the KJV which is easier to read, nothing changed or questionable, nothing omitted nothing left to the imagination "hmm, I wonder if that should really be in the Bible, that text?" With all respect, and in the Lord, Brett.


----------



## Wololo (Sep 10, 2013)

I think if one can afford it, then they would be wise to get multiple translations. I like having different versions for multiple reasons: accuracy, readability, et al. For instance, I love the NASB because it seems to be the most literal word-for-word translation while italicizing words that are implied in the text, but aren't in the originals. Also, I like how it capitalizes the OT text in the NT, so one knows immediately that it is a quote from the OT. I use the ESV as my main reading bible because it is nearly as literal as the NASB with a slightly better readability factor. The NIV isn't too bad of a version either except I use that sparingly compared to the other two. I have a HCSB, but only because it was an apologetics study bible and it has some good nuggets of information in there. 

Basically, it boils down to what your using the bible for at the time. If you're going to be doing a bible study, then the NASB or ESV is a better choice, but if you want to just read the bible and be confident that the text your reading is accurate AND readable then an NIV or a HCSB are fantastic as well. 

Just my two cents


----------



## JP Wallace (Sep 11, 2013)

Brett

Just a note - 'serious word omissions' are only serious word omissions if they are in fact omissions - i.e not additions as judged against some other point of reference. Unless you have previously settled on a 'gold standard' translation or manuscript translation to compare to how can you term anything either an omission or additon never mind 'serious'? And, if you have so settled upon another gold standard text such as the KJV, or Majority text then you're going to have to be happy with either the KJV or NKJV and such. So, you have to ask yourself, against what are you measuring that makes you think these are serious omissions? Just because a word is missing in one place does not demerit the translation, so long as the doctrine is resident elsewhere in a version (See Marrowman above)

Furthermore, older manuscrpt evidence is not limited to Sinaitius and Vatincanus, that is a bit of a straw man, the oldest references are papyrii and a host of others as well as references in the Fathers etc.


----------



## KMK (Sep 11, 2013)

JP Wallace said:


> Just because a word is missing in one place does not demerit the translation, so long as the doctrine is resident elsewhere in a version



I don't disagree with the rest of your post, but this sounds fishy. It is not only the presence of data and doctrines that is important, but their repetition as well. God reveals himself not only in the presence of data and doctrine, but also in the repetition of data and doctrine. If the resurrection is supposed to be present in all four gospels then it is a big deal if it is present only in three of them.


----------



## JohnGill (Sep 11, 2013)

JP Wallace said:


> Just because a word is missing in one place does not demerit the translation, so long as the doctrine is resident elsewhere in a version



One word does in fact demerit a translation because the Bible must be taken as a whole. One contradiction refutes the entire text. For if scripture truly is God's word, and its teaching that it reflects God's character is true, then it must be without contradiction.

The RSV was rejected by conservative Christian scholars for replacing virgin with "young woman" in Is 7:14, even though the doctrine of her virginity at conception is taught in the NT.

The Wicked Bible

Exodus 20:14 "Thou shalt commit adultery."

Even though the doctrine that adultery was not to be committed was found in other places, the publishers where called to the Star Chamber and fined 300 pounds and deprived of their printing license. The majority of these Bibles were burned. And all because one word was missing, even though the doctrine that adultery is sin was found elsewhere. Would we had such seriousness concerning God's word in our day as they did.


----------



## Free Christian (Sep 12, 2013)

Hello Paul. My comment on the Vaticanus and Siniaticus was used with the word "often" not always or only. It would be true that at times those manuscripts are the ones. Perhaps I should have used sometimes. But even if it were just sometimes it would still be not a good thing. I do believe that words have been omitted. In doing this I believe also that this detracts from the harmony of the scriptures, where one verse in a particular place complements or backs up the same elsewhere. As that harmony is reduced by omissions it cannot be a good thing. Sometimes in a service in the past I would hear being read one particular passage and the Minister would say turn to this one also, where it is repeated or backed up in harmony in another. If those words are not present then this cannot be done. The harmony has been taken away. Yes it may appear elsewhere but now it is lessened. For what good reason one may ask? Why tell us that this text may not be in the oldest or others? Why omit the name of our Glorious Saviour? Why change the words worship to just bowed down. I can bow to anyone and still not be worshipping them!
My searching is based upon what I believe as a Christian I should do. 
It reminds me of a passage I read in the Reformation In England by J H Merle d'Aubigne where a young Minsiter Lambert was addressing an Archbishop on the scriptures. Though I am not saying it is speaking on this subject, although it certainly could be applied to it, I believe.
"When you desire to buy cloth, you will not be satisfied with seeing one merchants wares, but go from the first to the second, from the second to the third, to find who has the best cloth. Will you be more remiss about your souls health? When you go on a journey, not knowing perfectly the way, you will inquire of one man after another, so ought we likewise to seek about entering the kingdom of heaven."


----------



## JP Wallace (Sep 12, 2013)

KMK said:


> I don't disagree with the rest of your post, but this sounds fishy. It is not only the presence of data and doctrines that is important, but their repetition as well. God reveals himself not only in the presence of data and doctrine, but also in the repetition of data and doctrine. If the resurrection is supposed to be present in all four gospels then it is a big deal if it is present only in three of them.



Brother's you all missed the point (or I communicated it badly), that last sentence goes along with the previous ones, it is not a standalone statement. What I was trying to say was that a word being judged as missing in a textual variant, according to a prejuded standard, as written about in the rest of the post, does not necessarily demerit a translation, as it may not have been there in the first place. The rest of the sentence merely was meant to set forth the widely agreed truth that just because a given text say misses a word which points towards Christ being divine in one place, so long as other texts assert this doctrine then no doctrinal harm is ultimately done.

So for example Matthew 4:18

ESV Matthew 4:18 While walking by the Sea of Galilee, *he* saw two brothers, Simon (who is called Peter) and Andrew his brother, casting a net into the sea, for they were fishermen.

NKJ Matthew 4:18 And *Jesus*, walking by the Sea of Galilee, saw two brothers, Simon called Peter, and Andrew his brother, casting a net into the sea; for they were fishermen.

Jesus is missing from the critical text - but that does not mean the ESV is to be rejected, as it is clear that it is Jesus from the context, parallel accounts in the other Gospels are agreed etc. etc. The material sense, meaning and significance of the text is not affected detrimentally by that 'omission'. Though again it is only omission if you are weighing it against certain other manuscripts!

So Kevin I have no problem with your post either, but I do draw your attention to one phrase which is what I was homing is on in mine..." If the resurrection is supposed to be present in all four gospels then it is a big deal if it is present only in three of them."

If....x is supposed to be. If it is, of course it must be. But if evidence supports its exclusion then it ought not to be. I of course refer again to a certain word, not the resurrection per se. What I am arguing is that omissions and additions can only rationally be tested against the whole manuscript tradition - not some 'gold standard' whether that be Hort's Sinaiticus or the Textus Receptus mss. If the mss collections point to an omission, then a word's omission does not detract from our understanding of God's Word. We are all pursuing God's Word, and every word that is meant to be there is vital, but how do we know what is to be included or not - that is the issue.


Chris, re: your post,

That is not a textual issue but a translation issue on one hand (and a doctrinal presupposition driving it too, and in the second case, a printing issue, which is very different. I do not, and I hope no one else would argue that such changes and omissions are of no consequence.


----------



## KMK (Sep 12, 2013)

JP Wallace said:


> We are all pursuing God's Word, and every word that is meant to be there is vital, but how do we know what is to be included or not - that is the issue.



Agreed.


----------



## Free Christian (Sep 15, 2013)

Hello again Paul. I do understand what you are saying. My problem with many of the new versions is that they change what needs not to be changed. If they were just hard to understand words or words that once meant one thing but now mean another, then fair enough, but too often they are words and phrases that do not need to be omitted or changed whatsoever. For example with the word worship. I can use the Bible to show how Jesus was/is God. By showing where people who went to worship anything or anyone else were stopped from doing so. From men to angels. But when Jesus was worshipped they were not forbidden to do so. But in passages where worship is changed to merely bowing down, an act I would do in respect for say our Queen upon meeting her, how can I prove that that passage showed that Jesus is God, to be worshipped? The harmony is gone from those passages, as is the proof. They may appear elsewhere, but when I for example once had several proofs I now have just a few. Less. The more witnesses you have in anything the better off you are! The other thing is the use of the Vaticanus in many of them. Whether or not it was/is used a lot or just a bit is not the issue to me. I ask, myself, where is the Vaticanus from, this manuscript which was used, more or less, along with others I know and not just it entirely? The church of Rome. Where is it held? The church of Rome. Who did the reformers fight against, who killed so many of the good Godly people in that time? The church of Rome and those who followed it. Would they have accepted the use of it? No. Then neither will I. If we are to judge a tree by its roots, and know that a bad tree cannot give out good fruit. The church of Rome and all that it is and has is bad. The Vaticanus is a bad fruit of that bad tree and yet has been accepted into the use for the translating of the Bible. That tells me enough to reject them. I didn't start off this post thinking like this or start it to finish with this, as I looked into things and found things out though I came to this. All I came across pointed out clearly that the Vaticanus and the Siniaticus were used for many of the modern translations. Given the Roman catholic churches history even up until this very day, I have seen pictures of a pope kissing the Koran in our modern days, pictures of the St Bartholomew day massacre painting/mural and the medallions struck to celebrate it with the picture still hanging/displayed in the Vatican. The worldwide abuse of children and more that leaves me to ask myself. Why would I accept a version that had the input/use of its own Vaticanus? I cannot and will not. 
I am sorry if during this post and the others I have offended anyone or made anyone think that I was out to. I haven't, it was a search on my own behalf with my thoughts and conclusion being expressed as it is now. 
In the Lord, Brett.


----------



## One Little Nail (Sep 25, 2013)

Stephen L Smith said:


> Free Christian said:
> 
> 
> > Hello everyone. I was wondering which Bible translation is considered the best.
> ...



Nathaniel has been quoted as saying does anything good come from N.Z. 
all jokes aside i would agree with you considering Kel Richards Aussie Bible.


----------



## jandrusk (Sep 25, 2013)

The KJV I think is the best as it has been proven to stand the test the time (400+ years) and is based on the Textus Receptus and was not translated by secular humanists. The "Critical Text" versions were based on manuscripts that came out of Alexandria, Egypt, which was the home to numerous Christian heresies.


----------



## irresistible_grace (Sep 25, 2013)

I have loved the ESV since I read my first copy cover to cover in 2008. That is the year I was introduced to the faith of the Reformers. For the last 3 years I have fought against using the AV (aka KJV) exclusively but the more I use it in corporate, family & private worship ... the more I love the Authorized Version. 

It doesn't matter which one is the "best" if you don't read it!
Pick one translation, stick with it & love reading God's Word.
The only translation that will be of any eternal benefit is the one you hide in your heart!
As for my family we will continue using the Authorized Version (for reasons found in Joshua's post above).


----------



## One Little Nail (Sep 26, 2013)

Stephen L Smith said:


> Free Christian said:
> 
> 
> > Oh , and to Stephen from NZ. Ha ha
> ...



watch it Kiwi, Congratulations are at hand, Squandering an unassailable 8-1 lead in the 
Americas Cup Priceless, how my heart bleeds 


1. the ESV is apparently Im told a literal conservative translation though its drawback is
the use of the Critical Textual Apparatus.
2.there is a need to stick to a more literal translation as it is God's Words we wont to hear
not a translators interpretation which would rule out any dynamic equivalence "translations"
3. The KJ Bible is still in my opinion the best translation with its great readability, Literalness'
& use of TR Textual Base, if you need something more literal you can use JP Greens Literal
Version alongside of this,as well as his Modern King James Version which is quite good if you
need to read a modern TR based version I rate it higher than the NKJV which betrays the 
Hebrew Masoretic text as well as using RSV readings in the NT.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=OTL9kLt8Bik


----------

