1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Most accurate modern English translation

Discussion in 'Bible Versions & Translations' started by Ivon Denosovich, Sep 17, 2007.

  1. Ivon Denosovich

    Ivon Denosovich New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2007
    Messages:
    1,276
    Ratings:
    +0
    Forgive my newness. I'm sure this has been hashed and rehashed. Assuming that there is no perfect translation, which comes closest? If there is a link to a prior discussion, that will suffice.
     
  2. robycop3

    robycop3 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,579
    Ratings:
    +22
    Faith:
    Baptist
    IMHO, it's between the NKJV and NASB. Others will have different opinions.
     
  3. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K) Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Ratings:
    +127
    I am very impressed with the NKJV
     
  4. Psalm 95

    Psalm 95 New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2006
    Messages:
    243
    Ratings:
    +0
    I would vote for the NASB.
     
  5. Keith M

    Keith M New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2002
    Messages:
    2,024
    Ratings:
    +0
    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.
     
  6. Rippon

    Rippon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    17,696
    Ratings:
    +771
    Faith:
    Baptist
    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 .
     
  7. rbell

    rbell Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2006
    Messages:
    11,103
    Ratings:
    +0
    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.
     
  8. Salamander

    Salamander New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2005
    Messages:
    3,965
    Ratings:
    +0
    Not me, I don't believe God has ever been deceived.
     
  9. Salamander

    Salamander New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2005
    Messages:
    3,965
    Ratings:
    +0
    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:
     
  10. rbell

    rbell Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2006
    Messages:
    11,103
    Ratings:
    +0
    Oh, good grief.
     
  11. Ivon Denosovich

    Ivon Denosovich New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2007
    Messages:
    1,276
    Ratings:
    +0

    Actually, being new and all, I'm completely ignorant as to what you're referring to. But I like the thought that you're smiley guy is waving to me: it's eerily welcoming. :)

    Rippon, what is the ISV? Also, if English is optional, what do you take for the most accurate?
     
  12. Chessic

    Chessic New Member

    Joined:
    May 2, 2007
    Messages:
    426
    Ratings:
    +0

    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.
     
    #12 Chessic, Sep 17, 2007
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 17, 2007
  13. tinytim

    tinytim <img src =/tim2.jpg>

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2003
    Messages:
    11,250
    Ratings:
    +0
    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"
     
  14. tinytim

    tinytim <img src =/tim2.jpg>

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2003
    Messages:
    11,250
    Ratings:
    +0
    God has never been, but man has... many times.
     
  15. Mexdeaf

    Mexdeaf New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2005
    Messages:
    7,051
    Ratings:
    +0
    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.
     
  16. Rippon

    Rippon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    17,696
    Ratings:
    +771
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Teaching teens with no background in the Bible would call for the NLTse -- the ESV would not be appropriate for that occasion .
     
  17. AntennaFarmer

    AntennaFarmer Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2005
    Messages:
    606
    Ratings:
    +0
    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.
     
  18. Magnetic Poles

    Magnetic Poles New Member

    Joined:
    May 16, 2005
    Messages:
    10,407
    Ratings:
    +0
    It is by no means perfect, but I still favor the RSV along with the NASB.
     
  19. JFox1

    JFox1 New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2005
    Messages:
    737
    Ratings:
    +0
    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:
     
  20. kubel

    kubel New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2005
    Messages:
    526
    Ratings:
    +0
    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.
     
Loading...