Check out some similar questions!

Triund · May 7, 2009, 07:05 AM

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?

homesell · May 7, 2009, 07:18 AM

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.

belovedgift · May 23, 2009, 02:21 PM

Youngs literal translation.

Tj3 · May 23, 2009, 03:35 PM

Originally Posted by Triund

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.

jakester · May 23, 2009, 06:12 PM

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.

Triund · May 23, 2009, 10:40 PM

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.

Triund · May 23, 2009, 10:47 PM

Originally Posted by Tj3

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 when you have some time. And please be honest to let me know your say on this.

Wondergirl · May 23, 2009, 10:57 PM

Originally Posted by Triund

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.

Tj3 · May 23, 2009, 11:05 PM

Originally Posted by Triund

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 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'

religious cults and sects - Kansas City Prophets, Kingdom Now, Kuhlman, King James Version, Etc.

jakester · May 24, 2009, 05:41 AM

Originally Posted by Triund

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.

Triund · May 24, 2009, 03:19 PM

Originally Posted by Wondergirl

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

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

homesell · May 24, 2009, 04:31 PM

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.

Wondergirl · May 24, 2009, 05:06 PM

Originally Posted by homesell

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.

Tj3 · May 24, 2009, 05:19 PM

Originally Posted by Wondergirl

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 · May 24, 2009, 05:39 PM

Originally Posted by jakester

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.

Triund · May 24, 2009, 05:56 PM

Originally Posted by Tj3

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.

Wondergirl · May 24, 2009, 06:44 PM

Originally Posted by Triund

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.

Triund · May 24, 2009, 06:48 PM

Originally Posted by Wondergirl

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

ScottGem · May 24, 2009, 06:55 PM

Originally Posted by Triund

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.

Wondergirl · May 24, 2009, 06:58 PM

Originally Posted by Triund

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.