Most accurate modern English translation

Well, like I said, brother, I am a fan of more literal translations. I want to take a look at that version (NLTse) sometime in the future, though.

I use the ESV to teach the deaf in the USA and they seem to understand it fine.

 

I study, preach and teach from the NASB95, but I use other versions along the way. I'm taking a liking for the NLTse, thanks to Rippon.

 

True. It matters not how fine your hammer may be, if the work to be done requires a wrench.

 

The Berkeley is an often overlooked gem; the ASV is also underappreciated today.

 

I would say that the version most resembling the MLB is the NIV . Because of Divine providence the NIV became very popular . If the NIV had not appeared on the scene -- the MLB would have been well-received by the public for at least a decade after its last revision .

 

Yeah, that's what I meant... even though my thought processes were messed up this afternoon....
Thanks kubel... It is scary though that you can even understand me, when I can't!

 

Well TT, if that is what you intended to say then you are having a bad day indeed.

Both (corrected) statements are misleading.

God Bless you,
A.F.

 

Any source for this? Thanks!

 

I remember reading about it in The King James Only Controversy. I'll see if I can dig up the page number.

EDIT: Page: 63

 

I read it and found many false, misleading comments in this book. I do not recommend it.

 

Many modern translations? Do you think God provide too many accurate translations to readers for their mother tongue -- English?

 

I have checked both the The King James Only Controversy (Bethany House Publisher's, 1995) by James R. White and some of the sources of
the footnotes (ain't the internet wonnerful!). The King James
Only Controversy is a highly valid book and extremely accurate
and fairly delineating the details of The King James Only Controversy.

By contrast, Brother Askjo's words adequately
reflect the state pro-KJVO book: In Awe of Thy Word
(A.V.Publications, 2003) by Gail A. Riplinger. There are additionally:
falicies, errors, duplicity, oopses, mistakes, misquotes,
verbal murder of character, and other things which cannot
be discussed on the open forum.
Strangely, one of the misconseptions is one the spine:
the subtitle: Understanding the King James Bible.

Here are some things that one will never know by reading
this substandard book:

1. The currently favored KJVs are not like
the KJV produced by the Translatiors and first published
in 1611.

2. The original and many other KJVs
have the Translator's Footnotes which help one understand
the original sources available to the KJV Translators

3. /The third is left as an exercise for the student/.

 

oops - duplicate post

Jesus Saves

God is Love

 

On this page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Textus_Receptus

it says:

I guess I'll never found out if 'textus' and 'receptus' are
singular nominative or plural nominative
What I recall of the semester I flunked Latin, it
is singular.

 

Ed, Would you do me a favor and send me or post to the list the page (63) and references that Kubel refers to? I am in Mexico and don't have access to this book and I find this highly interesting. If you can I would appreciate it. I know you are a busy man. Thanks in advance for anything you can do.

 

See my post #34 in this topic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Textus_Receptus

The Wikipedia entry for Textus_Receptus is about the same
as that of James R. White.
(in fact, perchance James R. White wrote that entry?

 

I could probably post the small paragraph and notes that deal with this topic within Fair Use [errors are most likely my own, and I omitted emphasis]:

(If mods judge this as not qualifying as Fair Use, please feel free to snip.) :type:

 

Izzat one o' 'them thar'' "oopses" you spoke of in post #32?

Or is it just one o' 'them thar'' "mistakes"?? :laugh: :laugh:

Ed

 

Accurate Translations

I would have to say that the NKJV is my number one favorite. I am beginning to look into the ESV and the Message, although I am not real excited about the Message, I believe that it is a paraphrase. I like the NKJV because it is on a level of understanding that the average non Christian can understand. Which is ultimately the point, getting those who don't know the Word of God to read and understand it so they can know the God of the Word of God.

 

If the Bible is God breathed , regardless of translation no non-Christian should be able to understand it because it is spiritually discerned. I am not saying they cannot find salvation and other docrtines and truths of the Bible that can lead them to Christ, but they will never understand it in the spiritual sense that a Christian can regardless of version because it is taught by the Holy Spirit. They will only have limited ability to understand it no matter what is done to it if we look at it as a spiritually led book.

I John 2:27- But the annointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you:but as the same annointing teacheth you of all things, and it is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.

You may feel this way and did not elaborate or feel a different way as well. This is just IMO.