I happen to read few scriptures online and at one website, I could see a specific verse in 5 different version. The message and the meaning of the verse was the same, yet the words were not the exact.

Which version of the Bible is nearest to accuracy to the very original Bible?

Scholars as usual, disagree. The problem is that if the translation is very close, it's hard to understand due to idioms and syntax. For example, in English, we say, "the green pencil" in Spanish, they say, "the pencil green" The important thing is the thought being transmitted. As you said, the message and the meaning are the same but the words aren't exact. The difference is a word for word translation or a thought for thought. Most Bible translations are fairly accurate so choose whatever version is easily read by you. Better yet, read several different versions to get a better feel for what is being said. The only Bible not worth reading and is difficult to read anyway is the New World translation put out by the Watchtower Society. They have an agenda to bend the scriptures to fit their heretic interpretation of scripture, which no Bible scholar has ever endorsed. I personnaly like and have read through,the New King James, the NIV, The Message, The Living Bible, and the Amplified Bible.

Youngs literal translation.

I happen to read few scriptures online and at one website, I could see a specific verse in 5 different version. The message and the meaning of the verse was the same, yet the words were not the exact.

Which version of the Bible is nearest to accuracy to the very original Bible?

I've found the NKJV to be an excellent translation with respect to accuracy.

Triund - what Jeff said highlights the challenges the translators of any bible face when trying to translate... several idioms in one language hardly translate well into another. One idiom I am thinking of is Jesus's use of the idiom of the single eye (or good eye vs evil eye): “The eye is the lamp of the body. So, if your eye is healthy, your whole body will be full of light, but if your eye is bad, your whole body will be full of darkness. If then the light in you is darkness, how great is the darkness!"

The challenge with this idiom is that it doesn't make sense to us in our ordinary vernacular. It's an old idiom but the translators have attempted to translate it but we have to really try to understand it as it was used in that culture's context. Difficult to do.

Some translations take greater liberties than others in terms of their translations of expressions and idioms. A literal translation of Greek to English is probably more beneficial because it gives you the opportunity to have to make decisions of the text yourself, whereas in some translations the translators have already made an interpretative decision for you. I prefer the former and I read the ESV, which if you were to get a Greek condorance, would follow it closely.

The bottom line is that we have many tools at our disposal in this age. We have to use common sense and have integrity when we are looking to understand the bible. Jeff's advice is good... get your hands on a few translations like the NKJV, ESV, NASB, NIV, etc. and compare them. As you build your study skills acumen you'll feel more comfortable with bible language and less concernced with which version is the most accurate. In other words, the more you familiarize yourself with the gospels, letters, and Old Testament, the more you'll be able to discern whether the version you are reading is helpful or not.

That's my opinion and how I have approached my bible study in life.

Thanks folks for the suggestions.

After posting this questions, I did some research and found that KJV of 1611 is the nearest to the original Bible version in spite of it's some faults in translations and those faults are obvious. There are words in Hebrew and Latin which could not be translated

New and contemporary versions have changed few words with new words that has different meanings, removed and truncated some verses. The reason behind this is a hidden agenda of Satan to misguide the followers of the Word. And we very well know that this is bound to happen during the End Times. Satan has his people working for him round the clock. During these End Times, we have to be very vigilants and should not be enticed by bright and charming looks of Satan.

I've found the NKJV to be an excellent translation with respect to accuracy.

TJ, thanks for the posting, however, I am sorry that I would differ with you on this. NKJV has not done a good job. Check this website The NKJV Examined (http://av1611.com/kjbp/articles/reynolds-nkjv.html) when you have some time. And please be honest to let me know your say on this.

Which version of the Bible is nearest to accuracy to the very original Bible?
We don't know. We don't have the original Bible.

TJ, thanks for the posting, however, I am sorry that I would differ with you on this. NKJV has not done a good job. Check this website The NKJV Examined (http://av1611.com/kjbp/articles/reynolds-nkjv.html) when you have some time. And please be honest to let me know your say on this.

Don't be fooled by the KJV only arguments. Keep in mind that the reason that many words have changed is because of the fact that the language has changed. I have read a great deal of claims by the KJV only crowd, including the mis-leading information by Gail Riplinger and others, and have debated Ruckmanites. It just does not hold water.

You might want to check out these sites for more information:

</title> </head> <body link="#003399"> <html> <head> <meta name="description" content="Christian Apologetics, Theology, Information on Mormonism, Roman Catholicism, Jehovah's Witnesses, etc. A reformed ministry dedicated to sharing the Gospel of God' (http://vintage.aomin.org/Witnesses.html)

religious cults and sects - Kansas City Prophets, Kingdom Now, Kuhlman, King James Version, Etc. (http://www.apologeticsindex.org/k00.html#kjvonly)

Thanks folks for the suggestions.

After posting this questions, I did some research and found that KJV of 1611 is the nearest to the original Bible version inspite of it's some faults in translations and those faults are obvious. There are words in Hebrew and Latin which could not be translated

New and contemporary versions have changed few words with new words that has different meanings, removed and truncated some verses. The reason behind this is a hidden agenda of Satan to misguide the followers of the Word. And we very well know that this is bound to happen during the End Times. Satan has his people working for him round the clock. During these End Times, we have to be very vigilants and should not be enticed by bright and charming looks of Satan.

Triund - you've been on this site for some time now and have exchanged ideas with many of us. You seem to be in agreement with many people in the Christian forum on a host of issues regarding Christianity. If your idea about the KJV is true, then people like me and the countless others who are on this site (I presume) and read other translations are misguided followers of the Word. And because you have agreed with many of us, that makes you a misguided follower as well, right? Think about the logic of it. You have to start wondering if any of what you have read on this site and agreed with is a lie, since many of the people here read others translations than the KJV (I presume so, anyway). Although it is possible to be misguided with a bad translation, I think it is just as possible for someone with the KJV to be misguided. And that is possible because haven't something in its purest form doesn't help me if my heart is not right with God.

Triund, think about it, my friend. What you are saying is that any of us who do not read the KJV are misguided followers of the Word... people that you have agreed with before and have benefited from in terms of shared ideas, etc. Do you think your perspective of the KJV is rational given your experience here on AskMe? What I mean is, do you now discredit all of the ideas and arguments you've encountered here because people have not argued from the KJV?

I hope you are really able to step back for a second and really consider what the implications of your view are... to me it would seem that you would need to close your AskMe account and find a group of Christians who only read the KJV since they are the only followers of the word who are not misguided.

Sincerely.

We don't know. We don't have the original Bible.

I knew that and appreciate your response. Thank you Wondergirl.

Being a modern man, I simply cannot comprehend the archaic language of the King James version especially since I was not brought up in the church. One other thing that the KJV only people miss besides "no one having the true word" before 1611 as either Tj3 or jakester pointed out, but it means germans, french spanish, chinese and all other non-english speaking peoples have been, and always will be, doomed to doctrinal error. Even the Greek spoken today is very different than the Greek spopken in Jesus' day.

Even the Greek spoken today is very different than the Greek spopken in Jesus' day.
And Jesus and His disciples spoke Aramaic most of the time, so translating from that language into Greek was already a problem.

And Jesus and His disciples spoke Aramaic most of the time, so translating from that language into Greek was already a problem.

Greek was the language commonly used at that time. There is no evidence that the original text was Aramaic.

Triund - you've been on this site for some time now and have exchanged ideas with many of us. You seem to be in agreement with many people in the Christian forum on a host of issues regarding Christianity. If your idea about the KJV is true, then people like me and the countless others who are on this site (I presume) and read other translations are misguided followers of the Word. And because you have agreed with many of us, that makes you a misguided follower as well, right? Think about the logic of it. You have to start wondering if any of what you have read on this site and agreed with is a lie, since many of the people here read others translations than the KJV (I presume so, anyway). Although it is possible to be misguided with a bad translation, I think it is just as possible for someone with the KJV to be misguided. And that is possible because haven't something in its purest form doesn't help me if my heart is not right with God.

Triund, think about it, my friend. What you are saying is that any of us who do not read the KJV are misguided followers of the Word...people that you have agreed with before and have benefited from in terms of shared ideas, etc. Do you think your perspective of the KJV is rational given your experience here on AskMe? What I mean is, do you now discredit all of the ideas and arguments you've encountered here because people have not argued from the KJV?

I hope you are really able to step back for a second and really consider what the implications of your view are...to me it would seem that you would need to close your AskMe account and find a group of Christians who only read the KJV since they are the only followers of the word who are not misguided.

Sincerely.

First of all let me apologies to all who felt hurt with what I wrote.

Jake, I appreciate your post and believe me I have always enjoyed reading your writings and this one too.

Since the day, I was welcomed on this site, I feel that I have found what I was looking for, for a long time. Whenever I have any question about God, Christ, Christianity, I immediately post the question, doesn't matter it is an intelligent question or goofy of the first order. Many questions and doubts, which I had for a long time, got answered and cleared, but I am not done yet. So many people answer the questions with different perspectives. And that's the beauty of this site that we all do not look through the same lens, yet we all look towards one thing and that's the Christ. This diversity help us to think deeper, reflect and grow spiritually. We always respect what other person is saying and then respectfully agree or disagree with that person. I use this site as a platform where I think I can bring in something which I come across and share that with friends here. Those who like that, keep that and those who don`t , they toss that out of the window.

Folks, I am not throwing out baby with the bath water. I am still reading a version of NIV, which was given to me by my professor who was also my spiritual leader in university. I have been reading this Bible since, I guess, 1985 or 86. When I went to University, my Mom gave me her Bible, which is a KJV and I struggled with KJV language. When I was given NIV, I would read the Word comfortably. However, would reading KJV earn me salvation, NO.

I got into versions of the Bible, when I was checking a video on Youtube, and speaker talked of a prophesy from Daniel 12:4. He put the verse on the screen. I wanted to read a verse prior and after that to see what is the context of that verse. When I opened my Bible, the words were totally different in that verse. Even the meaning of the verse did not match. That`s the time when I realised the difference.

My this sharing is my regular thing. I did not ask anyone to read KJV only. When I found out what is going on with other versions, I thought, I should share that with my friends. Second reason is when we share our thoughts on this site and people start arguing about words rather than focusing on the essence of the writing because there is difference when Christ is called `God`s servant` rather than `God`s Son`.

I am again sorry if I hurt anyone. I do not discredit or reject all what I have learnt on this site or what I have posted on this site. I have no intention to walk away from here because people do not quote from KJV.

Greek was the language commonly used at that time. There is no evidence that the original text was Aramaic.

Help me here.

Jesus spoke Aramaic. Aramaic has a script and dialect. And HIS disciples used the same language. Why were the scriptures written in Hebrew or Greek.

Help me here.

Jesus spoke Aramaic. Aramaic has a script and dialect. And HIS disciples used the same language. Why were the scriptures written in Hebrew or Greek.
The OT was written in Hebrew. Jesus taught in Aramaic, a Hebrew dialect, and his (illiterate) disciples and other followers passed down His words orally. Years later, scholars wrote down the stories, possibly first in Aramaic, and then translated them into spoken, everyday (not literary) "koine" Greek that was spoken throughout the Roman Empire.

The OT was written in Hebrew. Jesus taught in Aramaic, a Hebrew dialect, and his (illiterate) disciples and other followers passed down His words orally. Years later, scholars wrote down the stories, possibly first in Aramaic, and then translated them into spoken, everyday (not literary) "koine" Greek that was spoken throughout the Roman Empire.

Do you mean to say Aramaic has no script of its own

Which version of the Bible is nearest to accuracy to the very original Bible?


I posted this in another thread, but I recently read a column by a Rabbi who contributes to the religious column in Newsday. In answer to a reader who quoted scriptures in english, he responded that the problem with english versions of the Bible is that they are a translation, worse they are an interpretation masquerading as a translation.

There are many examples of such interprative translations, especially by Christians, to support the doctrines of the church.

That's why, In my opinion, one cannot take the Bible literally period.

Do you mean to say Aramaic has no script of its own
No, I didn't say that. The disciples were illiterate, and the oral tradition of passing down story after story was how it was done until such time scholars (educated men) wrote down the stories, probably first in Aramaic, and then they were translated into Greek that was spoken throughout the Roman Empire.

worse they are an interpretation masquerading as a translation.

And how many language changes/translations did the NT writings go through before they ended up in English? If you've studied a language other than English, you know about the slang, idioms, double meanings, et al. that make it so difficult to translate from one language into another. And we don't even have the original writings!

No, I didn't say that. The disciples were illiterate, and the oral tradition of passing down story after story was how it was done until such time scholars (educated men) wrote down the stories, probably first in Aramaic, and then they were translated into Greek that was spoken throughout the Roman Empire.

Ohh... ok... Thanks.

Help me here.

Jesus spoke Aramaic. Aramaic has a script and dialect. And HIS disciples used the same language. Why were the scriptures written in Hebrew or Greek.

Aramaic was a regional language. Historically, because of the spread of the Greek, and subsequently Roman Empires, Greek (Koine Greek) became the defacto language of everyday life. It is also well established historically that the NT was written in Koine Greek, which is no doubt a part of God's plan, because it allowed to rapid spread of the gospel across the Roman Empire. Sources are readily available regarding this topic. Here is a link which may help you:

Koine Greek - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koine_Greek)

Also:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since non-literary, simple Greek knowledge or competency in multiple languages was relatively widespread in Jewish Palestine including Galilee, and a Greek-speaking community had already developed in Jerusalem shortly after Easter, one can assume that this linguistic transformation [from "the Aramaic native language of Jesus" to "the Greek Gospels"] began very early.. . [M]issionaries, above all 'Hellenists' driven out of Jerusalem, soon preached their message in the Greek language. We find them in Damascus as early as AD 32 or 33. A certain percentage of Jesus' earliest followers were presumably bilingual and could therefore report, at least in simple Greek, what had been heard and seen. This probably applies to Cephas/Peter, Andrew, Philip or John. Mark, too, who was better educated in Jerusalem than the Galilean fishermen, belonged to this milieu. The great number of phonetically correct Aramaisms and his knowledge of the conditions in Jewish Palestine compel us to assume a Palestinian Jewish-Christian author. Also, the author's Aramaic native language is still discernible in the Marcan style.
(Source: Martin Hengel. 2005. "Eye-witness memory and the writing of the Gospels: Form criticism, community tradition and the authority of the authors." In The Written Gospel, ed. by Markus Bockmuehl and Donald A. Hagner. Cambridge University Press. Pp. 89f.)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

People in that day were usually multi lingual(could speak more than one language) Being occupied by Rome, Greek was the main language. The Jews had their home language of Hebrew and Aramaic was commonly spoken. The Jews in that day were very well educated and the contention that the apostles were all illiterate is totally unsubstantiated. Even if they were, which is highly doubtful, they wouldn't have just hoped oral tradition would keep the stories straight until scholars wrote them down. They would have persons write down exactly what they told them. (As Paul- the most highly educated man in that day, probably did due to his poor eyesight.)
And the truth is, many of us would like the Bible to say more what we believe. We want the Bible to fit our pre-concieved ideas rather than read, study, and let the word change our way of thinking.
Mark Twain said, "The parts of the Bible that I don't understand don't bother me at all. What bothers me is the parts that I do understand."

People in that day were usually multi lingual(could speak more than one language) Being occupied by Rome, Greek was the main language. The Jews had their home language of Hebrew and Aramaic was commonly spoken. The Jews in that day were very well educated and the contention that the apostles were all illiterate is totally unsubstantiated.

From what I know of history, literacy was the exception, not the rule until after Gutenberg. Until that time, it was mostly priests and high nobility could read and write. So while, I agree that the contention that apostles were illiterate may be unsuibstantiated, the odds were that at least most of them were.

The fact that their literacy was unsubstantiated is because a great deal of what we know of that time is unsubstantiated. Much of it is guesswork and conjecture. So we can discuss and debate this for another couple of millennia. There is little here that is not opinion because of that. Until someone invents a device that will allow us to travel back in time or even to just view past events, to each his own!

...........And the truth is, many of us would like the Bible to say more what we believe. We want the Bible to fit our pre-concieved ideas rather than read, study, and let the word change our way of thinking.
Mark Twain said, "The parts of the Bible that I don't understand don't bother me at all. What bothers me is the parts that I do understand."

I agree with you, Jeff.

Scottgem,
You're right. At that time illiteracy was the rule rather than the exception. The hebrews WERE that exception. The first things taught to young hebrews was to read and write(according to historians and hebrew culture experts)
Even to this day education is stressed in the hebrew family. (I grew up in the Miami Beach area and Jews were about 50&#37; of my neighborhood including both side and back as neighbors.) The kids would go to Hebrew school after regular school to learn the Hebrew reading and writing and it's almost repeating yourself if you say a Jewish Doctor or Jewish Lawyer.

Reading the above posts reminds me what I said few days ago to my friend and that goes like this.

We have another proof to tell people about it that the Bible is the Word of God. If people say that, Constantine asked few guys to sit down and read the scriptures and write books and later brought those books together and made The Bible out of that, agreed, though this is not the truth. Now my question is, how did a person know what is going to happen after 1700 years? (I am talking about the prophecies regarding End Times.)

For ejoyment of reading I like the New Jerusalem Bible

First of all let me apologies to all who felt hurt with what I wrote.

Jake, I appreciate your post and believe me I have always enjoyed reading your writings and this one too.

Since the day, I was welcomed on this site, I feel that I have found what I was looking for, for a long time. Whenever I have any question about God, Christ, Christianity, I immediately post the question, doesn’t matter it is an intelligent question or goofy of the first order. Many questions and doubts, which I had for a long time, got answered and cleared, but I am not done yet. So many people answer the questions with different perspectives. And that’s the beauty of this site that we all do not look through the same lens, yet we all look towards one thing and that’s the Christ. This diversity help us to think deeper, reflect and grow spiritually. We always respect what other person is saying and then respectfully agree or disagree with that person. I use this site as a platform where I think I can bring in some thing which I come across and share that with friends here. Those who like that, keep that and those who don`t , they toss that out of the window.

Folks, I am not throwing out baby with the bath water. I am still reading a version of NIV, which was given to me by my professor who was also my spiritual leader in university. I have been reading this Bible since, I guess, 1985 or 86. When I went to University, my Mom gave me her Bible, which is a KJV and I struggled with KJV language. When I was given NIV, I would read the Word comfortably. However, would reading KJV earn me salvation, NO.

I got into versions of the Bible, when I was checking a video on Youtube, and speaker talked of a prophesy from Daniel 12:4. He put the verse on the screen. I wanted to read a verse prior and after that to see what is the context of that verse. When I opened my Bible, the words were totally different in that verse. Even the meaning of the verse did not match. That`s the time when I realised the difference.

My this sharing is my regular thing. I did not ask anyone to read KJV only. When I found out what is going on with other versions, I thought, I should share that with my friends. Second reason is when we share our thoughts on this site and people start arguing about words rather than focussing on the essence of the writing because there is difference when Christ is called `God`s servant` rather than `God`s Son`.

I am again sorry if I hurt anyone. I do not discredit or reject all what I have learnt on this site or what I have posted on this site. I have no intention to walk away from here because people do not quote from KJV.

Triund - thanks for taking the time to share some of your thoughts. I'll be very brief and to the point (I hope). First, you did not personally hurt me nor do I think you hurt anyone else (I don't want to speak for anyone). What I was responding to were your words, which I will quote here:

"New and contemporary versions have changed few words with new words that has different meanings, removed and truncated some verses. The reason behind this is a hidden agenda of Satan to misguide the followers of the Word."

I am responding to the implications of your statement. You are implying that everyone who reads a contemporary version of the bible (not KJV 1611) is being potentially misled. Triund, think about the logic of what you are saying. Moreover, if you compile these differences that you pointed out, the question I have is does the bible seize to be the bible anymore? Can I still function as a believer with a version like the NIV? If all of the bibles in the world but one NIV were to be destroyed, would I be in jeopardy?

Personally, I was so strong with my words because I have seen Christians destroy friendships, whole churches divided, and utter foolishness creep into the lives of people over this very issue: KJV 1611. To me, the more obvious and eggregious error I have found in this whole issue is that SOME of the people who cling so tightly to the KJV only are some of the most ungodly and hateful people I have ever met... Triund, no matter what bible you choose to read, let it be the words of God that actually guide your life and not the version of the bible itself.

Well said Jakester. In addition, let me add that if you read the introduction written by the original translators of the KJV, they were promoting use of the Bible in the contemporary language. Something opposed by the very people who hold most strongly to the KJV 1611.

Christian cults are my specialty and I can tell you from firsthand experience that almost all "christian" cults either write their own Bible(Like the New World translation) or they pick different translations, plucking obscure verses out of context to support their pre-conceived doctrines. One group, trying to support that Jesus was not God in the flesh, went so far as to use a translation from a man that claimed the spirit world gave him the translation while in a séance. Another group used a German translation for one verse that supposedly, when translated to English, said that Jesus was only a God rather than the God. Polytheism.
Watch out for any group that uses a translation that is NOT widely accepted. My only beef with kjv is the difficulty with the readability of the language and the fact that language changes over the course of time to have different if not opposite meanings. Some examples, 60 years ago a gay person was someone happy and cheerful. When something was bad, it really was bad. Some things are "cool" and "hot" depending on the generation using the word. If a person got an actual copy straight off the press of the original 1611 version(I've seen one) that person would not be able to read it with much comprehension. The Language has changed that much from that to the current KJV. I, really like the New KJV. To me, the same beauty and easy to understand.

Triund - thanks for taking the time to share some of your thoughts. I'll be very brief and to the point (I hope). First, you did not personally hurt me nor do I think you hurt anyone else (I don't want to speak for anyone). What I was responding to were your words, which I will quote here:

"New and contemporary versions have changed few words with new words that has different meanings, removed and truncated some verses. The reason behind this is a hidden agenda of Satan to misguide the followers of the Word."

I am responding to the implications of your statement. You are implying that everyone who reads a contemporary version of the bible (not KJV 1611) is being potentially misled. Triund, think about the logic of what you are saying. Moreover, if you compile these differences that you pointed out, the question I have is does the bible seize to be the bible anymore? Can I still function as a believer with a version like the NIV? If all of the bibles in the world but one NIV were to be destroyed, would I be in jeopardy?

Personally, I was so strong with my words because I have seen Christians destroy friendships, whole churches divided, and utter foolishness creep into the lives of people over this very issue: KJV 1611. To me, the more obvious and eggregious error I have found in this whole issue is that SOME of the people who cling so tightly to the KJV only are some of the most ungodly and hateful people I have ever met...Triund, no matter what bible you choose to read, let it be the words of God that actually guide your life and not the version of the bible itself.

Dear Friend, I fully understand what you are saying. Thank you for your advice and I agree with you. Also, I thank you for showing me what had happened in the pass. What I came to know about the newer version, I shared with people. I did not and am not forcing any one to switch to KJV. I am not asking to burn new versions, I am not trying to shake up non-KJV readers' faith, I am not saying that reading KJV will send you to Heaven for sure. Having faith and salvation, going to Heaven or Hell is all by HIS grace. Earning salvation or going to Heaven has much more to do other than reading Bible only. And we already had lots of discussion on salvation.

I appreciate your feedback, Jake. God bless you!!

Hey, don't sweat it! The truth of truths is that the Holy Spirit of the Living God is the only one responsible for Interpretation of all scriptures in the heart of man. We know concretely that it is his influence on our hearts which causes us to know him and to do that which pleases God. I am firmly convinced that he could use any literature to convey his logic to man,however he chose the words of Christ as written in the testimony of his original apostles. Men throughout the ages have have attempted to form a cannon which to considered as a general standard for instruction and worship,but the wisdom of man doesn't work the love of God. Today there are writings attributed to the apostles which are not in the canonized works. I believe that the caves at the dead sea being opened during the time of the rebuilding of the nation of Israel is no coincidence. Christ promised that before the time of the end knowledge would increase. The Bible ,as it were, is still being written in the Kingdom of Heaven,in our hearts as well as on paper. Truth to remember is that Jesus of Nazareth is the only complete and infallible "Word" of God,and If we as believers still contend that a written work by man's hand should be labeled as the word of god we at least may fall into the same derision as the pharisees and give respect to the syntax of the letter over the principle of the message,or at worst, become guilty or ignorant idolatry.