What is the Worst Bible Translation?

i disagree but i think Kiffin's fair because he answered "worst ... for." n that's the key--whether a Bible's best or worst, we must ask for what?

when i voted the Amplified, it was for its confusing [n difficult-to-read, multiply sensed, smorgasbord-in-brackets], because cluttered, text.

 

Kiffin, I stick to the KJV, but recently picked up a copy of the NLT more our less out of curiosity. I have found it quite enjoyable to read. I am interested in your comment about it - what makes it so bad?

Thanks,
Michael

 

I voted for "The Message" as the worst I have ever run across. I am so amazed at the liberty that the author has taken with the text - many times putting more thoughts into the text than you can find in any other version. An example of this would be 1 Cor. 4:1

The Message: "Don't imagine us leaders to be something we aren't. We are servants of Christ, not his masters. We are guides into God's most sublime secrets, not security guards posted to protect them."

KJV: "1 Let a man so account of us, as of the ministers of Christ, and stewards of the mysteries of God."

Michael

 

Ah, so many choices, so little time ...

Although I agree that the CEV, TEV and other paraphrases are awful the winner hands-down is the Mess - er, I mean Message. I agree entirely with Michael's assessment

 

For one of the widest array of Bible translation lists available on the net, including sample passages, see Ronald Gordon's Comparing Translations

 

There are far too many Bible translations to choose the "worst" from. In addition to the NWT, there are plenty of heterodox "translations" to choose from. (The plethora of "Sacred Name" translations comes to mind, for example.) At least none of the ones in the poll are deliberately trying to promote heresy.

 

Technically, can the Message be considered here since it is a paraphrase (the mother of all of em), and not techincally a translation?

 

Tom, you are correct. Technically we cannot consider it a translation. I brought it up since it was included in the poll.

 

I see by the voting results (as of the time I am posting this message) that there are 2 votes for the KJV being the worst translation ever. This is surprising to me. Would one (or both) of the voters who voted this way care to respond as to their reasoning? I am curious to hear it.

 

KJV

 

Revolt, why?

 

Tom, you are correct. Technically we cannot consider it a translation. I brought it up since it was included in the poll.</font>[/QUOTE]But unfortunately, I have seen an increased use of the CEV, NLT and Message used as translations in the church. The church-at-large does not know the difference.

 

Revolt, why?</font>[/QUOTE]arcaic, outdated, says easter, to many people worship

 

Revolt, why?</font>[/QUOTE]arcaic, outdated, says easter, to many people worship</font>[/QUOTE]Besides the word "easter", is the rest of your points the result of the translation or what people have made it to be over the years?

 

I voted New Century Version even though I might be confusing it with the CEV. They seemed both pretty bad to me. My Greek skills still aren't quite up to par so I must qualify that last thought by saying that I am only comparing their readings with other versions that are trust.

I acutally like the NLT. I think it is a good reading if (and this is a big IF) one remembers what he is reading. It should not be used for studying or become someone's main Bible. Every time I run into something that leads me to believe something different then I previously thought, I check first with a more literal translation. That said, I read the NLT from cover to cover in the 5 months that I was engaged and found it very spiritually edifying and challenging and think it can helpful if used wisely.

I just plain can't read the Message. It is just too wordy. I tried to sit down once and just read the letter of James and I could hardly make it. I used to have James memorized (in the NIV) so it is difficult for me to read any other translation of this book (without my mind getting confused) but this was ridiculous. It is supposed to be "our language" but I think it was written in slang from the sixties!

 

Whoa, who dared vote the ESV as the worst? I mean, obviously this person hasn't read it

 

depends ... worst for what?

 

depends ... worst for what? </font>[/QUOTE]So YOU'RE THE ONE! Off with his head!!!!!