There are so many versions of the Bible out there, one has no clue as to which is the most accurate. One that is easy to understand as well.
Almost mutually exclusive, I am afraid.
The King James Version is one of the least. Scholars have learned much about Hebrew and Greek since 1611.
I used to read Koine Greek (language of the New Testament) and the Revised Standard Version is the best, in my non-scholarly opinion. But that version is copyrighted.
Several other versions are available online. Best course is usually to compare different versions, for an idea of the general meaning.
Strong’s Concordance is one of the most powerful tools for analysis for the non-Hebrew or Greek scholar.
The Lord be with you.
Regards,
Shodan
It might turn out to be less trouble to learn to read ancient Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic.
http://www.biblegateway.com can be useful for comparing a wide variety of translations side by side. That will help you compare readibility, if not accuracy of translation. Unfortunately they do not include some copywrited translations.
I’ve had the most luck with the New Revised Standard Version, but I don’t read the original languages.
Any known problems with this version?
From a Jewish perspective, I find that the best ones (Old Testament only, of course) are The Living Torah and Living Nach, and the Artscroll Stone Edition Tanach.
Purely amongst the Christian translations, I find that the King James Version reflects the hebrew meaning much more accurately (at least in many places that I have observed) than the newer versions (such as the New International Version). If you’d like some concrete examples, I can search some of my old posts here, where I know I’ve mentioned them.
Accurate is difficult to define here. Are you talking about word for word transliteration? Because then it would be unreadable.
One of the better translations I’ve come across is the translation by Nicholas King. There seems to be very little information on it on the internet or anywhere for that matter. But what it tries to do is capture the original style, idiosyncrasies etc of the original texts. Possibly an impossible task, and someone who knows more about it will probably tell me it’s a load of rubbish, but it is marvellous to read.
Parts of the gospel of Mark for example appear to be written in present tense (though I don’t know if Greek does that) and a lot of the phrasing is a little odd, which tends to get cleaned up in most translations.
I second use of the Bible Gateway site that Shodan and skammer ;inked to, and suggest taking a look at Young’s Literal Translation there. I find it awkward at times, but in general very useful for the purpose of piecing out difficult passages. Here’ for example, are the YLT Beatitudes:
I recently read according to new translations the number of the best is actually 616
I do most of my reading in NIV, but compare it frequently to New King James and American Standard. Comparison between editions is important, in my opinion, because it’s too easy to get excited about the nuance or alternate definition of a particular English word only to find out that this is a quirk of English, not an intent of the original text.
It’s probably difficult to translate accurately in some sense. For one example, the word “Samaritan” in English now means essentially one who does good deeds. We have hospitals named “Good Samaritan Hospital” and we have “Good Samaritan Laws” designed to protect those who aid others who are injured or in trouble.
Because of this, the Parable of the Good Samaritan essentially loses it’s point. My understanding is that at the of Jesus, Samaritans and Jews felt bitterly towards each other. By NOT translating the word Samaritan, the parable loses force. It would be a bad translation, but more accurate in spirit if Samaritan had been translated as say Negro for white America in the 50s or perhaps Muslim now.
Then there are pretty important doctrine issues. It is my understanding that the word describing Mary meant young woman and not necessarily virgin. I’ve heard some Bibles translate it as maiden rather than virgin, but I don’t think this would sit well with many Christians. So do you want an accurate translation, or one in keeping with doctrine.
I think it’s important to consult a good annotated version or commentary to help figure out what something meant in the cultural context of the time. My classic example is the oaths taken in the OT, where the oathtaker places his hand on the oath-receiver’s thigh. This was a custom that reinforced the solemnity of the particular oath, similar to placing one’s hand on a Bible 50 or 100 years ago. But the text, obviously, doesn’t explain why he’s putting his hand on the other guy’s thigh.
I find the New Jerusalem Bible, with notes, to be particularly useful because of its profuse annotation and giving of alternate renderings.
As the OP is substantially answered and if I may ask here. Is any particular version preferred or rejected by different christian branches or sects? Is there for example a catholic bible or protestant bible or fundie bible? Also do these bibles differ in content or just translation?
This begs the question; if this is the “Word of God,” why is God making it so difficult for you?
My experience is the more fundamentalist sects prefer the King James version.
Roman Catholics include the Apocrypha (Ecclesiasticus, Tobit, Maccabees, some other material in Daniel), while Protestants do not.
What is so difficult about it? This is a book aimed at a wide audience. It is not hard to see why some things would require translation.
Regards,
Shodan
Likely the Anchor Bible is the most authoritative.
I see little evidence that the Lord intended to make things simple and easy to understand, Jack Chick tracts notwithstanding.
Actually, that is a censored version.
The oathtaker really put his hand on the genitals of the other person.
That’s why we have words like testify, testimony, and testicles – they all come from the same root word.
Why does Stephen Hawking have to make everything so complicated with all that math?
It’s the same principle. You either understand the language or you make do with the best interpretation that’s available.
If you do a little Googling, you can find very extensive arguments on all sides about which translations are better, which are wrong, which have changed the meaning, etc.
Many people are opposed to NIV, for example. One of their claims is that it leaves out adjectives that diminish Christ’s glory/supremacy. I think they’re splitting hairs over what can be left implied vs. what might bear repeating for the sake of clarity.
The Unity Church is notorious for a Bible translation in which the first chapter of John has the Word (Jesus) as “a god” rather than as “God” which clearly gives it a different meaning.
For many centuries the Catholic Church relied on the Vulgate Bible as their standard. This had been translated (into Latin), mostly by St. Jerome, in the 5th c. and as worship and scholarship was conducted in Latin there was no requirement to produce versions in other languages. Catholicism did not encourage personal study of the Bible, insisting that the Scriptures needed interpreting by a priest. It’s first English version was the Douai-Rheims translation, produced in the 16th c. (in exile) for English Catholics who needed to counter the arguments being made by their Protestant enemies. This has been criticised as not very readable, being too much influenced by Latin vocabulary, and was revised by Bishop Challoner in the 18th c. The Douai-Rheims-Challoner version, despite its deficiencies, remained the standard for English-speaking Catholics until quite recent years.