SermonIndex Audio Sermons
Image Map
Discussion Forum : General Topics : Which version of the Bible is closest to exact translation?

Print Thread (PDF)

Goto page ( 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 Next Page )
PosterThread
JohnnyAnt
Member



Joined: 2005/8/9
Posts: 7
Calhoun, Missouri

 Which version of the Bible is closest to exact translation?

I have always been raised with the King James Version, and I was talking with a friend a couple days back about different versions of the Bible. I began to wonder which version was most consistantly close to the exact translation of what the Bible said. I realize that when translating things can be said in many different ways, but I was just wondering if any one, or multiple versions, stood out above the rest.... Which versions are trying their best to literally translate what is being said rather than putting things in modern day terms?


_________________
Johnny Antwiler II

 2005/8/10 0:09Profile
letsgetbusy
Member



Joined: 2004/9/28
Posts: 957
Cleveland, Georgia

 Re: Which version of the Bible is closest to exact translation?

Johnny,

Stick with the King James, but don't be afraid to compare it with other versions. People get angry when the topic is brought up, but many have not done verse by verse comparison. If anyone uses another version and loves the Lord, God bless them.

This is probably the third or fourth posting on this topic lately. If you want verse comparisons there are many in this forum, like myself, that are more than willing to post them in the forum or send them to you via email.

The truth is out there. The Spirit will guide you rightly if you are willing to submit to Him.


_________________
Hal Bachman

 2005/8/10 0:15Profile
philologos
Member



Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK

 Re: Which version of the Bible is closest to exact translation?

Quote:
Which version of the Bible is closest to exact translation?


I favour the KJV too, although I most often read it in a version called the Newberry Bible. As so often with this question the real question is 'what do you mean by 'exact translation'? If by 'exact translation' you mean 'word for word' equivalence I would say the Youngs Literal Version (available in most Bible software packages) is the most 'literal' of the 'literal equivalence' translations but although it is a very valuable study aid it is not easy to 'meditate' or just 'read' this version; it almost compels you to 'study'.

The most readable of the 'literal equivalents' and probably the most I would say would be the American Standard Version. You can't get them over here, other than in Bible software. The Old Testament of the ASV should always be consulted if you are doing any 'in depth' Bible study. If you can get a version which has the full marginal variants... even better. It has been said that the best translation of the OT ever is the 'ASV margin'.

BUT, before the feeding frenzy begins... the ASV is not trustworthy in the New Testament due to its almost exclusive use of a different family of Greek manuscripts. However, its tenses and prepositions, which are one of the weaknesses of the KJV, are very good. The best of both worlds would be the ASV/RV Old Testament with a KJV NT with the tenses and prepositions corrected... and such a Bible exists! It is called [url=http://www.cambridge.org/uk/bibles/rv/interlinear.htm]The Interlinear Bible[/url] and it makes it possible to read devotionally and read for study from the same page. However, it is only currently available as a wide-margin edition which makes it a bit bulky. Occasionally, older printings (non wide-margin) appear in ebay but they are expensive to buy second hand as some folks have discovered its value!

Most of the advantages (and more) of the Interlinear have been harvested in [url=https://www.sermonindex.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?viewmode=flat&order=0&topic_id=175&forum=36&post_id=&refresh=Go]the Newberry Bible.[/url]


_________________
Ron Bailey

 2005/8/10 4:16Profile









 Re:

The real question should be... a more literal translation of what? The underlying stream of text is different between the KJV and the modern versions. They are not translations of the same thing... they are different.

Stick w/ the KJV.

This will be my only post on this thread. Dont care to be involved in the "feeding frenzy".

Krispy

 2005/8/10 5:49
philologos
Member



Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK

 Re:

Quote:
Stick w/ the KJV.


...until something better comes along. ;-)

If any doubt my support for the KJV here are a couple of great quotes:

The peculiar genius which breathes through the English Bible, the mingled tenderness and majesty, the Saxon simplicity, unapproached in the attempted improvements of modern scholars, all are here, and bear the impress of the mind of one man, and that man - William Tyndale.
Thomas Newberry. Preface to the Newberry Bible.

The Authorised Version (KJV) has this incalculable advantage, that is is a truly [i]literal[/i] translation - the only form of translation that can properly and reverently be adopted in the case of the Holy Sciptures.
Ellicott; Preface to Galatians.


_________________
Ron Bailey

 2005/8/10 6:28Profile
aeryck
Member



Joined: 2005/1/11
Posts: 234
United Kingdom

 Re: Which version of the Bible is closest to exact translation?

Hear Ye All, Hear Ye All,

'All the version of the King James Version from 1611 onward are still extant and have been examined minutely by F.H. Scrivener and other careful scholars. Aside from printers errors, the editions differ from each other only in regard to spelling, punctuation, and, in a few places, italics. Hence any one of them may be used by a Bible-believing Christian. The fact that some of them include the Apocrypha is beside the point, since this does not affect their accuracy in the Old and New Testaments.' Edward F. Hill

In Jesus,
Aeryck.

ps. Personal experience with audio versions has led me to the firm conviction that the Holy Spirit favours this version. It seems from this thread to be how the Lord is still guiding us by 'common faith' Praise God.

Anyone read:- 'In Awe Of Thy Word' by Prof. Gail Riplinger?


_________________
Eric John Sawyer

 2005/8/10 8:43Profile
AgapeLove81
Member



Joined: 2005/8/4
Posts: 47
Albany, GA

 Re:

I agree with aeryck all versions say the same thing, just mordern english is used in some. The only difference I have noticed is that even though they say the same thing a few seem to be "watered down" for lack of a better term. The KJV seems to be more powerful as far as wording, but I personally find the NIV easier to understand and apply to life today.

For example one of the other threads deals with discipling children, the KJV states [i][b]"Withhold not correction from the child: for if thou beatest him with the rod, he shall not die", [/b][/i], the CEV states [i][b]"Don't fail to correct your children. You won't kill them by being firm", [/b][/i], both are Proverbs 23:13 the only difference is one is firmer then the other. But everyone has their own views and this is mine.


_________________
Chrissy

 2005/8/10 10:17Profile









 Re:

Quote:
all versions say the same thing, just mordern english is used in some. The only difference I have noticed is that even though they say the same thing a few seem to be "watered down" for lack of a better term.



This is not true... "just modern english" is a myth. It goes much much deeper than that. I recommend you research this topic further. It's a real eye opener.

Krispy

 2005/8/10 11:14
philologos
Member



Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK

 Re:

Quote:
'All the version of the King James Version from 1611 onward are still extant and have been examined minutely by F.H. Scrivener and other careful scholars. Aside from printers errors, the editions differ from each other only in regard to spelling, punctuation, and, in a few places, italics. Hence any one of them may be used by a Bible-believing Christian. The fact that some of them include the Apocrypha is beside the point, since this does not affect their accuracy in the Old and New Testaments.' Edward F. Hill


This quotation is a little misleading. Scrivener died in 1891 so this quotation does not refer to any [url=http://www.bible-researcher.com/versbib10.html]20th Century Versions[/url] or [url=http://www.bible-researcher.com/versbib13.html]21st Century Versions.[/url] Scrivener was an strong supporter of the Byzantine text against the Westcott and Hort editions.


_________________
Ron Bailey

 2005/8/10 11:25Profile
ccchhhrrriiisss
Member



Joined: 2003/11/23
Posts: 4529


 Re:

Hi...!

While I do like to read the KJV (chiefly among others), I would recommend that those who research such matters to read the original KJV. It is found in many libraries and Christian book stores. However, you may notice quite a bit of difference between the original KJV and the later editions -- especially linguistic change and inclusion of many apocryphal books. Perhaps those researching this might also want to read the translator's preface (included in the original, and in some of the later versions of the King James Version). The preface display the original intent and reasoning behind the new version in 1611. It echoes some of the later translations (like the original 1978 NIV). Oddly, this preface stands in stark contrast with the some of the "prose" arguments of many [i]KJV-only[/i] believers.

Its unfortunate, but many of the [i]KJV-only[/i] crowd tend to "research" using only [i]KJV-only[/i] friendly books concerning Scripture translation. And many of the Scriptural "discrepencies" are in reality just Scriptural [i]comparisons[/i] with the KJV. I have read several works in the [i]KJV-only[/i] school of thought, but I have noticed that (even from the very beginning) they are quite partial.

Like others said on this particular thread, I suggest that the sincere believer research the matter wholeheartedly and without prejudice.

:-)


_________________
Christopher

 2005/8/10 14:32Profile





©2002-2020 SermonIndex.net
Promoting Genuine Biblical Revival.
Affiliate Disclosure | Privacy Policy