whats the overall most accurate english translation of the bible today?

It all depends on whether you prefer the Textus Receptus (based on the Antiochan text) or the Alexandrian text. Hopefully The Parson will chime in here, because he is the Forums' expert on the subject!

As far as scholarly translations go, the ESV is generally regarded as the most "essentially literal" - but it's based on the Alexandrian text, which (to my mind) is its greatest weakness.

My own view is that the NKJV is the best we have (but even it could be improved on, especially by the improvements contained in the ESV - there is still considerable overlap between the two sources). But some folk will still say that you can't beat the old KJV (coming up for its 400th anniversary in 3 years' time!).

My own advice? NKJV and ESV - but don't throw out the KJV and maybe keep the NASB to hand too.

It all depends on whether you prefer the Textus Receptus (based on the Antiochan text) or the Alexandrian text.I'll second that.




As far as scholarly translations go, the ESV is generally regarded as the most "essentially literal" - but it's based on the Alexandrian text, which (to my mind) is its greatest weakness.From my studies and a friend who is a translator, the NASB is the most literal. I agree with you on the weakness of the ESV.



My own view is that the NKJV is the best we have (but even it could be improved on, especially by the improvements contained in the ESV - there is still considerable overlap between the two sources). But some folk will still say that you can't beat the old KJV (coming up for its 400th anniversary in 3 years' time!).

My own advice? NKJV and ESV - but don't throw out the KJV and maybe keep the NASB to hand too.Me?

TR= KJV
AX= ESV

I suppose it would also depend on what you mean by "accurate".

I tend to favor the Alexandrian texts over the Majority Text (and definitely over the Textus Receptus).

I suppose that if having as much as possible a direct word-for-word correspondence to the original text is the definition of "accurate", the NASB would be the most accurate, probably followed by the ESV (which sacrifices a little word-for-word'ness for style points). I think that, although it doesn't have the same "feel" as versions such as the ESV, the HCSB is pretty accurate.

There is also a Strong's Concordance for the NASB, so one is no longer limited to the KJV for using the Strong's.

Psalms fan asked the correct question . . . what do you mean by "accurate"?

When translating, there are two basic approaches:


formal equivalency - this is basically attempting to do word-for-word more or less
functional equivalency - this is the attempt to go phrase by phrase capturing what is being said even if some word-for-word is sacrificed to get the meaning across.

Many, many Christians think formal translating is always the best. If we translate a verse or paragraph formally, but it doesn't make sense in the language it's translated into, then is that really a good translation? I don't know how one could call it a good translation if it is misunderstood.

If formal equivalency is your standard for accurate, then nothing is better than an interlinear. But interlinears can be awkward so the NASB is the next best choice.

Frankly, when asking "which translation is the best" I must ask "which verse are you wanting to study?" I shall explain.

No single translation is the best in every single verse of the Bible. For example, I mentioned that the NASB is generally the most accurate if you are looking for a formal translation, i.e. word-for-word. But occasionally (not often), the NIV is more formal. For example, in 2 Timothy 3:16, the NASB translates theopneustos as "inspired", but the NIV has "God-breathed". The NIV is more accurate in a formal sense than the NASB at this point.

The KJV is more formal than functional, but there certain verses where you can pick up almost any other Bible on the market and they are more formal in their translation than the KJV is. For example, in Romans the KJV often has "God forbid" (also once in 1 Corinthians and three times in Galatians). That isn't accurate at all if we are talking formal, word-for-word type translating. Just about any other Bible you can pick up is better at that point.

People will talk about the accuracy of the Textus Receptus and Criitical texts of today. They will talk about, as 9Marksfan did, of the Antiochian text and the Alexandrian text. This applies only to the New Testament.

I would ask "what is the Antiochian text? Show it to me." Same with the "Alexandrian". There is no single Antiochian text or Alexandrian text. These are at best "families" or a group of texts that are similar but no two manuscripts of any of them are identical.

When we are told the Textus Receptus is the most accurate, I must ask "which Textus Receptus?" There are dozens of different them. Off the top of my head, I own at least four different versions of the Textus Receptus and they all have differences from each other. So which one is the most accurate, and how does one conclude which Textus Receptus is the most accurate?

Having said all that, I'd like to point out very clearly that in all those differences there is 85% unanimous agreement. 85% of the text in all manuscripts are in absolute agreement letter-by-letter!

Of that remaining 15%, 90% of the 15% is easily recognized mistakes, flip-flopping of letters, mis-spelling of names and words. That leaves only 1.5% (notice the decimal) of the New Testament text. So there is doubt about what was actually written in less than 2% of the New Testament. None of it affects doctrine unless you belong to a snake-handling church.

No book of antiquity has this kind of preservation. Even something as recent as Shakespeare doesn't share this kind of accurate preservation.

So what's the most accurate? What verse are you asking about? Bottom line . . . pick a version you understand and read your Bible every single day for the rest of your life. Read through the Bible every year and read it every day for the rest of your life and watch what God will do. Just let 6 months go by or a year and look back. I'm amazed at each year how I can look back and see where Jesus has taken me. And he has done that in years I read the KJV. He has done that in years I've read the NKJV or the NIV or the ESV or the TNIV or even The Message. No matter what version I read, the triune God works in my life through the Word of God.

Grace & peace to you,

Joe

whats the overall most accurate english translation of the bible today?

That is a question only YOU can answer. What version speaks to you, when are you enlightened, which brings you edification? While I believe the KJV and NKJV are still at the top of the list, and some of the modern versions take leaps of faith in some areas when translating, they too are clearer in certain areas where the KJV might not be. My suggestion, get yourself a bible program containing many versions (like e-sword or Bible Works) and this will allow you to cruise through the translations of many while having the tools to see the original words and their definitions. This will greatly aid your own study.

Bosco

OH no here we go again!!!!!!
well if you ask me, which you did I would say the good ole King James Bible. yep that's the one for me.

The most accurate translation is no translation at all: read it in the original Greek or Hebrew. If you can't do that (and I can't yet, though I'm working on it), it helps to compare several different translations. The translation notes in the NET are so awesome, it'd be worth having just for that alone.

For normal purposes, I rely on the ESV. But I have several others handy for comparison, including HCSB, NASB, NRSV, NIV, TNIV, NAB, NKJV and KJV. Also the NET in electronic form, and many others via e-Sword and sites like BibleGateway.com.

The best is the one you will actually study on and use,I think people can own every version ever printed or dreamed up and if they don't pick any of them up and study it and put to use what they have learned it will profit neither them or Gods Kingdom,I'm climbing off my soap box now.

The best is the one you will actually study on and use,I think people can own every version ever printed or dreamed up and if they don't pick any of them up and study it and put to use what they have learned it will profit neither them or Gods Kingdom,I'm climbing off my soap box now.
That's so true! I have a pretty big collection, but when I don't use them, they don't help me at all! :agree:

OH no here we go again!!!!!!
well if you ask me, which you did I would say the good ole King James Bible. yep that's the one for me.
I agree. I'm satisfied with what's worked well for almost 400 years.

As I study, if there's something I don't understand, I pray about it. If I still don't understand it (1 John 2:27), then I wait on the Lord to explain it to me, in His time.

He'll make sure I 'get it' when it's needful for me to do so. :idea:

The biggest proof that the first century church used the KJV is that they spoke in Olde English.

I have often been told to stay away from modern translations. There was much said against the NIV. But I have to say, that I have seen many come to Christ through the preaching from the NIV, and I have seen many grow and bare fruit, through the reading of the NIV.

Personally, In the main I use the KJV, but I often cross reference with other versions.

My husband loves his ESV study bible, I have an NIV study bible that I like, my dad prefers the KJV. I have a hard time with the KJV myself, but I am but a simple mind:D

whats the overall most accurate english translation of the bible today?
That would be mine - that is, the Bible that forms in my English peculiarities as guided by the Holy Spirit within me. All else pales by comparison. :)

My husband loves his ESV study bible, I have an NIV study bible that I like, my dad prefers the KJV. I have a hard time with the KJV myself, but I am but a simple mind:D

Me eth too eth!:lol:

whats the overall most accurate english translation of the bible today?Just some general thoughts. Remember, translations referred to as "literal" more "word-for-word" type translation are not more accurate simply because they try to follow the form of the source languages.

There are at least four basic reasons for differences between translations:


Different underlying text (Alexandrian vs. Byzantine text families).

Differing exegesis (interpretation by the translators) of the same underlying text, which may be linked to different theological approaches.

Different ways of presenting the same meaning in the target language, for different target audiences, i.e. genuine translational issues.

Occasionally, deliberate adjustments of the meaning.


For example, one translation might say, "Christ, who is God over all," while another says "Christ, who is over all, God blessed forever'" seems to be an example of either 1) or 2), so not true translational issues. IMO most translation issues relate to different ways of expressing essentially the same meaning, or at least a genuine attempt to do so by the translation team.

But is the problem really that readers perceive a real difference between the translations where none was intended? For example, do they understand "soul" to mean something different from "'life"'? Such a case is not likely to be because the translators' exegesis is really different; it is most likely that the readers have misunderstood one or both translations, e.g. taking "soul" to mean some sort of disembodied human spirit rather than what it means... an essential synonym of :life."

Another example might be translating σαρκικός as "flesh" or "body," both of which work. The NIV translates it often as "sin nature," which IMO is just not accurate.

One thing it's good to do is to read the preface of the Bible you're using so as to better understand their translation philosophy.

Take care,

BD