The Umpteenth Biblical Accuracy Question

Great Debates
1

This is actually a General Questions question, but I know better . . .

The first and most basic question I have is this: Which version of the Holy Bible is the most accurate one, linguistically speaking? And then, if you could, tell me why.

The reason I’m posting this is that, although I’m no longer a Christian, I still read the Bible for various reasons and sometimes want to quote it. The trouble is, I never know which version most accurately translates the Bible’s various authors’ words. For example, in some (most?) Bibles Mary was a virgin, in others she was a young woman or maiden.

Going through the archives here*, I found a lot of preferences for one version of the Bible over the other for various reasons. A lot of people felt that their version was the most accurate, but nobody really backed their claim up. What I want to know is, what leads you to believe that one version of the Bible or another is particularly accurate or not. Why do you think the KJV sucks and the NIV rules? Or vice-versa? Why do you think that one translation of the Hebrew or Greek or Latin (or other languages, Aramaic perhaps?) are better or worse than others? Who translated your version, and what were their credentials?

After searching the net for some time, I found that there’s a lot of opinions of this subject, but few of them seem to me to be very objective. “Of course they say our version isn’t the best, they’re Catholics, they have their own agenda . . .” Or whatever. I’ve also got the problem that, not being a Biblical scholar myself, I lack the knowledge to evaluate those few rational-sounding arguments that I have found.

Keep in mind, I’m not really interested in the “truth” of the Bible’s messages here, or “fallacy” of them if you’re a non-Christian; rather, I’m interested in the authenticity of the Bible’s various versions from the point of view of a linguist or Biblical scholar.

Anyway, I know this is a contentious issue, and I know some of you have debated this in the past–and have gotten sick of debating this–so I appreciate any responses to this I do get. Unfortunately, my particular questions weren’t really answered in any of the threads I found by searching for the words “Bible, Version, and Accuracy.”

So anyway, thanks in advance, and please bear with me if I follow any of your answers up with dumb-sounding questions.

*Yes, I checked the archives, and I tried to post links, but when I tried them on Preview nothing worked.

2

I tried to reply earler but it didn’t post; now I have to try to reconstruct what I said from memory:

The most accurate versions of the bible are not going to be in the English language.

Another important consideration is that languages evolve and leave the translation behind; words like ‘Hope’, ‘Charity’, ‘Suffer’ and ‘Awful’ have shifted a great deal in meaning since the KJV was translated and are frequently misunderstood.

For my money, the NIV ought to be as accurate a translation as one can hope to get; much effort was made to eliminate denominational bias and a great deal of painstaking effort was taken in ensuring that differing sources were compared and so on.

It all depends on who you ask though; there are those that claim that ‘the NIV is satan’s bible’ or some such , I suspect we could translate this to mean ‘it does not support my views’.

3

Lest anyone misunderstand this, I suspect that what Mangetout meant was: The most accurate version would not be a translation into any other language. Other languages suffer the same problems that English does. If you really want total accuracy, your best bet is to learn the original languages yourself.

That’s usually not practical, of course. I’d suggest the second-best option would be to find a translation which has a running commentary. A translator is often forced to choose between several alternatives, none of which is his favorite. A commentary can explain the nuances of what the text was intended to mean.

The third option would be to deliberately avoid picking any one single translation. If you read the same passage in several different versions, that will tend to give you a better feeling for what is going on. (= It will either show you a consensus that you’ll have some confidence in, or you’ll see that they differ so widely that you’d better try for options #1 or #2.)

4

Keeve’s option 3 works for me… I like the King James version, it’s a work of art - but, if I need to know the precise meaning of a verse, I’m going to look it up in my old RSV and cross-check it with an up-to-date NIV. Biblical scholarship progresses, archaeology progresses, and translations improve accordingly (even before we take into account the changes in English since King James’ day).

(And, sometimes, I go to the original Greek for the NT. But not often, 'cause my Greek is very rusty these days…)

5

I have done some research on this and I think the best translation is the New American Standard. It has more up to date language than the KJV and leaves more of the original verbiage in than the NIV. At the Bible gateway website they have a version caled Young’s Literal which seems to be very accurate to the original language though a little hard to understand. I haveno idea who Young is or what his credentials are though.

6

When you say ‘Original’ do you mean the verbiage that is found in the KJV or in the original Hebrew/Greek?

In any case, one thing I didn’t mention before (and it’s a bit of a hijack to say it in this thread, but anyway) - doctrines or teachings based on a single verse in scripture in one particular translation should be treated as highly suspicious; almost any translation of the bible will tend to ‘average out’ to the same message as any other if you read enough of it (and try to understand the contexts). Accuracy is (or can be) achieved by multiple sampling (assuming for a moment that you subscribe to the view that the bible largely contains a single, self-consistent message).

7

For the New Testament, I have found the RSV to be a very close rendering of a literal translation of the Greek.

For the Old Testament/TANAKH, I suspect that a Jewish translation might get closer to the original. The RSV/NIV crossmatching generally works across most situations (since they are available both online and in most bookstores while a Jewish-sponsored translation of the TANAKH requires a specialty store to find–and I have not kept up with their internal discussions as to the preferred English translation).

8

Any translation is going to, willy-nilly, reflect some of the prejudices of the translators (whether accurate or not is another question). For example, in the OT lamedh-heth-mem is sometimes used as the plural of the noun el, with the meaning “gods” and sometimes (read usually) as the title/common form of address of the God Who revealed Himself to Abraham, Moses, et al. When to read one meaning and not the other is usually probably easily understood from context, but who’s to say? What did St. Paul mean by arsenokaites? (That one comes up regularly in the Christianity vs. gays debate.) What translation should one put on anamnesis, as in “Do this in anamnesis of me”? The usual “remembrance” is a very weak rendering of what the Greek appears to mean.

That said, some useful guidelines:

[ul][li] Any translation put out directly by a given faith community, ranging from the New American Bible of the RCC to the New World Translation of the Jehovah’s Witnesses, is immediately suspect – check the translators’ statements of what they tried to do, if any, to see how much credence one can put in their renderings.[/li]
[li] Translations prior to about 1900 are based on the Textus Receptus, the thing believed from medieval times to be the most accurate rendering of the original owing to a consensus reading of available texts. Since the majority of available texts at that time were later, copied from each other, the more modern policy of to referring back to the oldest manuscripts is preferable, as eliminating accretions of scribal errors. For this reason, the King James Version, beautiful as it is, is not a reliable source. (However, be sure to get one with footnotes – for example, the passage in I John about “witnesses” in the modern translations eliminates the only direct Scriptural reference to “the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit” grouped together that way as highly probably a later insertion. The version you use for accuracy should omit this from the text but include it in a footnote as “found in some ancient sources” – anything else is dishonest to the accurate reading of the text as we know it.[/li]
[li] You may find a translation that agrees or one that challenges your own theological preferences to be worthwhile reading. Recognizing that, the New Jerusalem Bible is strongly pro-Catholic in its style, the New Revised Standard Version is fairly liberal, though close to being the “best neutral version,” the New American Standard Version is fairly conservative, and the New International Version, though scrupulously accurate, is quite conservative. This is in reference to how one might render some verses that tend to support various sides in various longstanding arguments.[/li]
[li] Do not trust paraphrase versions such as The Living Bible and the J.B. Phillips translation; they are renderings of the text which do not preserve accuracy, giving preference to a sense of what the words or action implied to the OT or NT culture as rendered into the equivalent in modern culture.[/li]
[li] Some translations will use what is called “dynamic equivalency” – quite similar to what I said the paraphrase translations do, in giving one a feel for the sense of what was happening – what did it mean when X made gesture Y while taking an oath? They’ll try to answer that by giving the closest modern equivalent, give you a feel for the wordplay or sound symbolism the author made in the Hebrew, and so on. Use these versions cautiously – Paul did not advise to “greet one another with a hearty handshake” but with “the kiss of peace” although the symbolism implied is more the former than what the latter would imply to modern people.[/li][/ul]

None of this is to disparage any of the translations suggested, just to give a heads-up about what one might find in them, and why. For the record, I usually use the New Jerusalem as my study Bible, largely for the extensive footnoting and the attempt at total honesty, even when it tends to be unsupportive of Catholic doctrine. However, it’s wise to “get a second opinion” when doing so, as it takes a very independent view of some of the more disputed passages.

9

The King James 1611 is the only acurate, God-inspired version of the Bible. It was sponsored by the Godly King James I of England, and is the only accurate and infallible version of the Bible extant.

Neener neener.

10

Even more accurate and infallable than the Hebrew it was translated from? :stuck_out_tongue:

Zev Steinhardt

11

Well of course, silly. God doesn’t speak Hebrew anymore.

12

(Just kicking along with adros satire)

Yea Zeb, the pertinent theological issue is if god uses traditional english or the more correct american spelling.:smiley:

13

If the KJV was good enough for Jesus, then it’s good enough for me.

14

Precisely my point.

15

LOL @ the last five or six posts.

Seriously, though, some of the comments in this thread have been helpful to me. Thanks. :slight_smile:

Which of couse isn’t meant to close this thread if anybody else has anything to add.

16

Don’t forget that the NIV translation team was chaired by a pansy:

(from Chick Publications )

I mean, who here could possibly say that Jack Chick and his merry team of syncophants aren’t 100% trustworthy? And with the amazing power of “stylonomy”, the most important scientific breakthrough since homeopathy, you just know they gotta be right!

:rolleyes:

UnuMondo

17

tomndebb said:

Actually, it’s not true that a Jewish translation of the Tanakh/OT cannot be found outside a specialty Judaica store. You can find Artscroll’s Stone Edition Tanakh on Amazon.com, for example, and while I’m sure this varies depending on the demographics of where you live, quite possibly at the local Barnes & Noble or Borders as well.

18

Chaim, I’m sure you can order a Tanakh from any general bookstore; I know that none of the bookstores where I worked carried any (and none of my competitors did either). I never saw one at the Southfield, MI branch of our chain, either (although there may have been enough nearby Jewish bookstores that our buyers did not think it worthwhile trying to compete). Border’s probably does carry different versions. Barnes & Noble may, although I have not seen them.

Even if they carry them, the average Gentile would still face the issue of choosing an appropriate translation. I’m glad to see that you have put forth a title for consideration.

19

The mere fact that Chick disapproves of the NIV adds a great deal to it’s credibility IMHO.

20

In what? Textual accuracy? The NIV isn’t interested in textual accuracy as far as I can tell. Part of the preface says

With an agenda like this, how can this version be textually accurate?