Most accurate modern English translation

IMHO, it's between the NKJV and NASB. Others will have different opinions.

 

I am very impressed with the NKJV

 

I would vote for the NASB.

 

Like robycop3, I gravitate toward the NKJV and the NASB. To the best of my knowledge, the translators of no English version have ever claimed perfection in their particular version.

 

The TNIV/HCSB would be my current choices . I'm waiting on the complete ISV . It might supplant the aforementioned upon my personal evaluation .

The OP took it for granted that English would be the language of the most accurate translation . Mexdeaf and others would have another take on the OP .

 

if by "perfect" you mean closest to the originals in structure and word order, I'd take the ASV.

Otherwise....as others have said, the NAS & NKJV are in a close heat.

 

Not me, I don't believe God has ever been deceived.

 

Also, by which group of MSS are yall making your assumptions?

Those which are diligently compared and received or those which offer discrepencies and modern rationalizations?

(And don't act ignorant to what I am referring to, ok?):wavey:

 

Oh, good grief.

 

Are those two mutually exclusive?

I have to say, honestly, I don't know which verse you are referring to about God being deceived. And if there is another issue on your mind, please give a brief catch-up to those of us who don't follow all the threads on this forum.

And to the OP: I guess I'd go with NAS and NKJV (mostly because of the many references and alternate translations in the latter). I constantly complain about their stilted English, though, I admit.

 

Diligently compared to what? The originals or to each other?

The TR's underlying texts had discrepencies in them, didn't they?
And why wasn't the TR published until after the KJV was published.. reverse text building?

And of course we would not want people to rationalize the Bible.. after all they may learn how to have a relationship with Christ..

I echo.. a previous poster... "Good grief"

 

God has never been, but man has... many times.

 

IMHO 'perfection' (humanly speaking and translation-wise) lies in the eye of the user and the purpose it is being used for.

If I were to go to teach a crowd of teenagers who I knew had no church background, I would take my ESV. If I go to a church of mostly older saints I would use the KJV or NKJV. In a seminary class, the NASV. To the Spanish folks, the RV1960.

Those are just the versions I have read cover-to-cover for the most part. I have not yet read the HCSB or TNIV, but I must confess to being a fan of the more literal (word-for-word) translations. The NIV is just a little too dynamic for my tastes.

 

Teaching teens with no background in the Bible would call for the NLTse -- the ESV would not be appropriate for that occasion .

 

Better check your facts TT.

First edition of Greek text by Erasmus was in 1516. The first edition of the KJV Holy Bible was in 1611.

A.F.

 

It is by no means perfect, but I still favor the RSV along with the NASB.

 

I believe the most accurate version in English is the ASV of 1901. It also has good footnotes. The NASB is also very good. My personal favorite is the Modern Language Bible aka New Berkeley Version. :thumbs: :godisgood:

 

I think he meant to say that the edition that included 'text now received by all' in the preface was published in 1633 (which is where the title 'received text' came about).

The "Textus Receptus" printed now and used by KJVOs actually draws from post-1611 editions. So not necessarily "reverse text building" by the translators, more like "reverse text support" by the supporters.