which translation is the best?
- Thread starter DanishDenmark
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
The translations do not differ in doctrine! Except if a cult like the Jehovahs' Witnesses have re-written it and wrongly translated it to fit their doctrines.
The differences start with different word usage, depending upon when the Bibles were translated. So the KJV has 16th century Engish. If you like Shakespeare that would be a good choice! I never liked Shakespeare, and the different words and grammar make it so hard for me to read. I was raised with the KJV but I had to read a modern version to really understand the message of the Bible. To me, the words are just too archaic to read, although many people love the KJV.
The NASB is a translation from earlier in the 20th century and is dated in some places. I read it for 20 years, till the Bible wore out. The NIV and ESV are more modern, plus the newer versions have been revised as scholarship improves.
Another difference is that different manuscripts were used to translate. KJV used later manuscripts which had a lot of additions and mistakes when compared to to the earlier manuscripts which were closer to when the original autographs were written. In 400 years, a lot of ancient and early manuscripts were discovered, which shed light on many textual issues in the KJV. But although there are differences, with the exception of the longer ending of Mark, these differences are more about a letter that was missed or added or changed in a word. Lower textual criticism of the Bible has tracked ALL of the extant manuscripts, and each copyist mistake can be followed in a chain. The Dead Sea Scrolls are also an amazing example of the preservation of God's Word. Hebrew texts, including an almost identical copy of Isaiah are among the scrolls. They date from before the time of Christ, and show that God has preserved his Word.
Further, there are choices to be made about how to translate. Are you going to translate "word for word?" As my Greek prof has pointed out on many occasions, Greek is very different than English, and a true word for word translation is not possible. However, the translators try to follow the words as closely as possible, without making the English into bad English. Plus Greek has many different verb tenses and noun cases than English, so that needs somehow be conveyed. That becomes the choice of the translator. Hebrew has very different grammar than English, being a Semitic language, but it does follow. Word for word translations are known as Formal Equivalence, and includes KJV, NKJV, NASB, RSV, and ESV
Or the translator or translation committee can choose to go "thought for thought." In other words, rather than just try to woodenly translate, they put the thought the Biblical writer was trying to convey. It makes for much smoother English. This is known as Functional Equivalence, or dynamic. It includes Bibles like the NIV, NAB, TNIV, GNB, JB, HCSB and NLT. (New Living Translation NLT, might be a good choice. Go to Biblegateway.com to read some passages in it.)
The last category of Bible translations is Free translations. They are basically a paraphrase and not a good choice for beginners. The Living Bible is one example. I remember reading it one year. I got to a place where something was not ringing a bell, but it sounded very appealing. I compared it to my other bibles, and it literally was off beyond left field. It was quite simply wrong. The NEB and the Message are two other examples of Free translation.
The best theory of translation is one that remains as faithful as possible to both the original and receptor language (English for example) But when something has to "give" it should be in favour of the receptor language -without owing the meaning of the original language, since the very reason for translations is to make these ancient texts accessible to the English speaking person who does not know the original languages.
Finally, as a speaker of a foreign language, you must be aware that you cannot exactly translate a word on many occasions. Or there are several alternatives to a word, so different versions might choose a different word. Every word of the Bible has been tracked for centuries, and tools like Strong's concordance and Bauer's Lexicon are available to check word choices.
I hope you will let us know which translation you choose to go with!
The differences start with different word usage, depending upon when the Bibles were translated. So the KJV has 16th century Engish. If you like Shakespeare that would be a good choice! I never liked Shakespeare, and the different words and grammar make it so hard for me to read. I was raised with the KJV but I had to read a modern version to really understand the message of the Bible. To me, the words are just too archaic to read, although many people love the KJV.
The NASB is a translation from earlier in the 20th century and is dated in some places. I read it for 20 years, till the Bible wore out. The NIV and ESV are more modern, plus the newer versions have been revised as scholarship improves.
Another difference is that different manuscripts were used to translate. KJV used later manuscripts which had a lot of additions and mistakes when compared to to the earlier manuscripts which were closer to when the original autographs were written. In 400 years, a lot of ancient and early manuscripts were discovered, which shed light on many textual issues in the KJV. But although there are differences, with the exception of the longer ending of Mark, these differences are more about a letter that was missed or added or changed in a word. Lower textual criticism of the Bible has tracked ALL of the extant manuscripts, and each copyist mistake can be followed in a chain. The Dead Sea Scrolls are also an amazing example of the preservation of God's Word. Hebrew texts, including an almost identical copy of Isaiah are among the scrolls. They date from before the time of Christ, and show that God has preserved his Word.
Further, there are choices to be made about how to translate. Are you going to translate "word for word?" As my Greek prof has pointed out on many occasions, Greek is very different than English, and a true word for word translation is not possible. However, the translators try to follow the words as closely as possible, without making the English into bad English. Plus Greek has many different verb tenses and noun cases than English, so that needs somehow be conveyed. That becomes the choice of the translator. Hebrew has very different grammar than English, being a Semitic language, but it does follow. Word for word translations are known as Formal Equivalence, and includes KJV, NKJV, NASB, RSV, and ESV
Or the translator or translation committee can choose to go "thought for thought." In other words, rather than just try to woodenly translate, they put the thought the Biblical writer was trying to convey. It makes for much smoother English. This is known as Functional Equivalence, or dynamic. It includes Bibles like the NIV, NAB, TNIV, GNB, JB, HCSB and NLT. (New Living Translation NLT, might be a good choice. Go to Biblegateway.com to read some passages in it.)
The last category of Bible translations is Free translations. They are basically a paraphrase and not a good choice for beginners. The Living Bible is one example. I remember reading it one year. I got to a place where something was not ringing a bell, but it sounded very appealing. I compared it to my other bibles, and it literally was off beyond left field. It was quite simply wrong. The NEB and the Message are two other examples of Free translation.
The best theory of translation is one that remains as faithful as possible to both the original and receptor language (English for example) But when something has to "give" it should be in favour of the receptor language -without owing the meaning of the original language, since the very reason for translations is to make these ancient texts accessible to the English speaking person who does not know the original languages.
Finally, as a speaker of a foreign language, you must be aware that you cannot exactly translate a word on many occasions. Or there are several alternatives to a word, so different versions might choose a different word. Every word of the Bible has been tracked for centuries, and tools like Strong's concordance and Bauer's Lexicon are available to check word choices.
I hope you will let us know which translation you choose to go with!
Hello DanishDenmark,
Your original post in this thread raises several issues, as does this addition to it. Allow me to give you a brief summary for a response:
The Bible in English is available in dozens if not hundreds of versions, of varying quality. The original languages in which the Bible was written (Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek) do not translate directly into English, so every translation is imperfect in some way. Greek is a very precise language; for example, there are four Greek words which are legitimately translated into a single English word, 'love'. Also there are verb tenses in Greek which simply don't exist in English. There are comparable though different issues translating Hebrew. Aramaic was only used for a few passages, and is similar to Hebrew. As some previous posts have noted, there is much debate about which English Bible is the "best"; this is why you might be accused of stirring the pot.
There are two major ways to translate: word-for-word, such that the individual words are translated as much as possible. This often results in a translation which is awkward in places; the New American Standard (NASB) is in this category. There are also thought-for-thought translations, which normally utilize the sentence structure of the destination language a little better. The New International Version (NIV) is in this group. There are also paraphrases, which are a much looser form of thought-for-thought translation. The Message (MSG) is one of these. Generally, if you are seeking accuracy of translation, the first category is best. For a reader new to the Bible, something in the second category is good.
As you note in this post, you are not quite fluent in English. Therefore I would recommend that you find a Bible in your native language first; I'm guessing it is Danish. The web site linked below has many bible versions in many languages. Two Danish Bible versions, and many English versions, are available there in their entirety.
https://www.biblegateway.com/
One side note, there are "Bible" versions in English which were put together by people whose intent was to change some important doctrines. Don't bother with these. The "New World Translation" (NWT) of the Jehovah's Witnesses (also knows as the Watchtower Society) is one such.
Your original post in this thread raises several issues, as does this addition to it. Allow me to give you a brief summary for a response:
The Bible in English is available in dozens if not hundreds of versions, of varying quality. The original languages in which the Bible was written (Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek) do not translate directly into English, so every translation is imperfect in some way. Greek is a very precise language; for example, there are four Greek words which are legitimately translated into a single English word, 'love'. Also there are verb tenses in Greek which simply don't exist in English. There are comparable though different issues translating Hebrew. Aramaic was only used for a few passages, and is similar to Hebrew. As some previous posts have noted, there is much debate about which English Bible is the "best"; this is why you might be accused of stirring the pot.
There are two major ways to translate: word-for-word, such that the individual words are translated as much as possible. This often results in a translation which is awkward in places; the New American Standard (NASB) is in this category. There are also thought-for-thought translations, which normally utilize the sentence structure of the destination language a little better. The New International Version (NIV) is in this group. There are also paraphrases, which are a much looser form of thought-for-thought translation. The Message (MSG) is one of these. Generally, if you are seeking accuracy of translation, the first category is best. For a reader new to the Bible, something in the second category is good.
As you note in this post, you are not quite fluent in English. Therefore I would recommend that you find a Bible in your native language first; I'm guessing it is Danish. The web site linked below has many bible versions in many languages. Two Danish Bible versions, and many English versions, are available there in their entirety.
https://www.biblegateway.com/
One side note, there are "Bible" versions in English which were put together by people whose intent was to change some important doctrines. Don't bother with these. The "New World Translation" (NWT) of the Jehovah's Witnesses (also knows as the Watchtower Society) is one such.
You asked so here it is. It's not just how they were translated, but what they were translated from. When it comes down to it, you have two choices. The KJV translated from the Textus Receptus(Majority Text) and all others that were translated from the Alexandrian Texts(Minority Text). The KJV or all the rest.
The early churches of the 2nd and 3rd centuries and all the Protestant Reformers of the 15th, 16th and 17th centuries chose the Textus Receptus in preference to the Minority Text? The answer is because:
There are other Greek texts which are referred to as the 'Minority Texts' simply because they represent only about 5% of existing manuscripts. Another 5% are Neutral Texts: sometimes agreeing with the majority and at others with the minority. The 'Minority Texts' are also known as the Alexandrian Texts because they were produced in Alexandria in Egypt. The Minority Texts were rejected by the early Christians and also by all the Protestant Reformers of the 16[SUP]th[/SUP] and 17[SUP]th[/SUP] centuries. The Reformers, who were well aware of the existence of the Minority Texts, considered them unfit for translation purposes. These are very important points to bear in mind. Why did the early Christians and the Protestant Reformers reject the Minority Texts?
The answer is:
The early churches of the 2nd and 3rd centuries and all the Protestant Reformers of the 15th, 16th and 17th centuries chose the Textus Receptus in preference to the Minority Text? The answer is because:
- Textus Receptus is based on the vast majority (90%) of the 5000+ Greek manuscripts in existence. That is why it is also called the Majority Text.
- Textus Receptus is not mutilated with deletions, additions and amendments, as is the Minority Text.
- Textus Receptus agrees with the earliest versions of the Bible: Peshitta (AD150) Old Latin Vulgate (AD157), the Italic Bible (AD157) etc. These Bibles were produced some 200 years before the minority Egyptian codices favoured by the Roman Church. Remember this vital point.
- Textus Receptus agrees with the vast majority of the 86,000+ citations from scripture by the early church fathers.
- Textus Receptus is untainted with Egyptian philosophy and unbelief.
- Textus Receptus strongly upholds the fundamental doctrines of the Christian faith: the creation account in Genesis, the divinity of Jesus Christ, the virgin birth, his miracles, his bodily resurrection and literal return.
- Textus Receptus was - and still is - the enemy of the Roman Church. This is an important fact to bear in mind.
There are other Greek texts which are referred to as the 'Minority Texts' simply because they represent only about 5% of existing manuscripts. Another 5% are Neutral Texts: sometimes agreeing with the majority and at others with the minority. The 'Minority Texts' are also known as the Alexandrian Texts because they were produced in Alexandria in Egypt. The Minority Texts were rejected by the early Christians and also by all the Protestant Reformers of the 16[SUP]th[/SUP] and 17[SUP]th[/SUP] centuries. The Reformers, who were well aware of the existence of the Minority Texts, considered them unfit for translation purposes. These are very important points to bear in mind. Why did the early Christians and the Protestant Reformers reject the Minority Texts?
The answer is:
- The Minority Texts were the work of unbelieving Egyptian scribes who did not accept the Bible as the Word of God or JESUS as the SON of GOD!
- The Minority Texts abound with alterations, often a single manuscript being amended by several different scribes over a period of many years: something the Aaronic priests and Masorites would never have tolerated when making copies of the Scriptures.
- The Minority Texts omit approximately 200 verses from the Scriptures. This is equivalent to 1st and 2nd Peter.
- The Minority Texts contradict themselves in hundreds of places.
- The Minority Texts are doctrinally weak and often dangerously incorrect.
Last edited:
I use the NLT most of the time, because it is most similar to the language I hear every day.
I use others to compare/contrast, to get different takes on a particular verse, or thought.
Translations differ in the way they were translated, and which old texts were used for the basis of the translation. Some, like the NLT are translated more as a "thought for thought", which makes for easier reading, but is not, perhaps as accurate as a word for word translation, such as the ASB.
I strongly suggest you get an "easy to read" version such as the NLT or NIV for daily reading, then if you have questions, or are doing a specific, deeper study, go to one of the word for word, like the ASB or the NKJV. The original KJV is fine, if you enjoy reading old English prose, but it's difficult to understand some of the phraseology, or terminology... as the English language has evolved over time, and words have different connotations today.
I use others to compare/contrast, to get different takes on a particular verse, or thought.
Translations differ in the way they were translated, and which old texts were used for the basis of the translation. Some, like the NLT are translated more as a "thought for thought", which makes for easier reading, but is not, perhaps as accurate as a word for word translation, such as the ASB.
I strongly suggest you get an "easy to read" version such as the NLT or NIV for daily reading, then if you have questions, or are doing a specific, deeper study, go to one of the word for word, like the ASB or the NKJV. The original KJV is fine, if you enjoy reading old English prose, but it's difficult to understand some of the phraseology, or terminology... as the English language has evolved over time, and words have different connotations today.
DanishDenmark, I had sincerely hoped that I would not have to add this, but I must. As I noted in my previous post, there is much debate about which Bible in English is the best. The response from John14:6 which followed highlights this debate. I will choose not to refute his position here; I will only state clearly that his position is NOT accepted by all Christians, nor even by all English-speaking Christians. The King James version of the Bible is a good English version, but it is not the only good English version.
Last edited:
C
Yes, they do differ.
I have used and read a lot of different versions, been a Christian for about 16 yrs. I came to faith using/learning from a king james bible. When I was a churched person, the church used NIV, then changed to ESV, but you ask the pastors and they prefer KJV, NKJV, RSV.
For about 5 yrs, I have used one bible for my reading enjoyment and my study, which are two entirely separate things. Why do you ask or have interest if you are not a Christian? I find it interesting how many non-Christians actually own and read kjbible, what bible(s) do you have?
Oh, to answer your question, how they differ is in the doctrine, they don't speak the same things doctrinally... kind of like the churches of Christendom.
I have used and read a lot of different versions, been a Christian for about 16 yrs. I came to faith using/learning from a king james bible. When I was a churched person, the church used NIV, then changed to ESV, but you ask the pastors and they prefer KJV, NKJV, RSV.
For about 5 yrs, I have used one bible for my reading enjoyment and my study, which are two entirely separate things. Why do you ask or have interest if you are not a Christian? I find it interesting how many non-Christians actually own and read kjbible, what bible(s) do you have?
Oh, to answer your question, how they differ is in the doctrine, they don't speak the same things doctrinally... kind of like the churches of Christendom.
C
Sure they do, there are many many many examples, I'll share one. This doctrine, from our apostle is about the church the body of Christ, the one new man, the saints who are the temple in the dispensation of grace. We are not the bride, we are not feminine, we are not a "her", we are not lost sheep, there are no goats, wheat or tares in the doctrine of our house.
Scripture is for Instruction in righteousness, doctrine is for preparation of the saints.
Compare this,
[SUP]24 [/SUP]Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.
[SUP]25 [/SUP]Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;
[SUP]26 [/SUP]That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word,
[SUP]27 [/SUP]That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.
Scripture is for Instruction in righteousness, doctrine is for preparation of the saints.
Compare this,
[SUP]24 [/SUP]Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.
[SUP]25 [/SUP]Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;
[SUP]26 [/SUP]That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word,
[SUP]27 [/SUP]That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.
Wouldn't you say that an important Bible doctrine is that God's word is truth? Wouldn't you say when God speaks, every word is powerful and true? Every factual account is truth. If one fact is wrong, then the Bible doctrine of God's truth is broken.
When God speaks, He wants people to hear all His message, not a revised, altered, edited, abbreviated, watered down version. God told Jeremiah to "stand in the court of the Lord's house, and speak unto all the cities of Judah, which come to worship in the LORD'S house, all the words that I command thee to speak unto them; diminish not a word:" Jeremiah 26:2.
Most people did not want to hear what God said, but God wanted them to hear it anyway. If Jeremiah toned down the message to make it easier and more acceptable to men, it would not have been acceptable to God.
When God speaks, He wants people to hear all His message, not a revised, altered, edited, abbreviated, watered down version. God told Jeremiah to "stand in the court of the Lord's house, and speak unto all the cities of Judah, which come to worship in the LORD'S house, all the words that I command thee to speak unto them; diminish not a word:" Jeremiah 26:2.
Most people did not want to hear what God said, but God wanted them to hear it anyway. If Jeremiah toned down the message to make it easier and more acceptable to men, it would not have been acceptable to God.
E
Well then God does not want us to read the KJV either. Because it fits that bill. by the basic fact it uses a flawed language to try to reproduce Gods word in a word for word fashion, when the language can not do that
This is not the way we should be trying to talk to a nonbeliever, or even a new christian, you should know better than that.
This is not the way we should be trying to talk to a nonbeliever, or even a new christian, you should know better than that.
J
Point of order, and not to disparage the Textus Receptus, it isn't the same as the Majority Text, though these two in more agreement than Textus Receptus with others. A blurb on this from gotquestions:
Most assume that the King James Version and New King James Version are based on the Majority Text. This is not correct. The King James Version and New King James Version are based on the Textus Receptus. The Textus Receptus is very similar to the Majority Text, but there are in fact hundreds of differences between the Majority Text and the Textus Receptus. The Textus Receptus was compiled and edited by Erasmus in the 16th century. Erasmus used several Greek manuscripts, which were eastern / Byzantine in nature. This explains why the Textus Receptus is very similar to the Majority Text. However, Erasmus by no means had access to all of the Greek manuscripts, so there was no way he could develop a true Majority Text. The Textus Receptus is based on a very limited number of manuscripts, all of them eastern, and all of them dating to around the 12th century. As a result, compared to the Eclectic Text and the Majority Text, the Textus Receptus is far less likely to have the most accurate reading. To summarize, the Majority Text is a method within textual criticism that uses the “majority rules” to determine which variant is most likely to be original. While the Majority Text method does result in the most likely original reading in most instances, it should not be employed universally or exclusively. There are many other important factors in determining which variant is most likely to be original.
Most assume that the King James Version and New King James Version are based on the Majority Text. This is not correct. The King James Version and New King James Version are based on the Textus Receptus. The Textus Receptus is very similar to the Majority Text, but there are in fact hundreds of differences between the Majority Text and the Textus Receptus. The Textus Receptus was compiled and edited by Erasmus in the 16th century. Erasmus used several Greek manuscripts, which were eastern / Byzantine in nature. This explains why the Textus Receptus is very similar to the Majority Text. However, Erasmus by no means had access to all of the Greek manuscripts, so there was no way he could develop a true Majority Text. The Textus Receptus is based on a very limited number of manuscripts, all of them eastern, and all of them dating to around the 12th century. As a result, compared to the Eclectic Text and the Majority Text, the Textus Receptus is far less likely to have the most accurate reading. To summarize, the Majority Text is a method within textual criticism that uses the “majority rules” to determine which variant is most likely to be original. While the Majority Text method does result in the most likely original reading in most instances, it should not be employed universally or exclusively. There are many other important factors in determining which variant is most likely to be original.