Which Bible is the most accurate translation?

Tim Robbins

Hi,
Out of the many different versions of English bibles, which one do you consider to be the most accurate translation and why?

I know many think NIV but doesn't that mis-translate Charity / Agape as Love in Corinthians?

Onesimus

Many today seem to think its the NRSV, but for me its the orginal greek, then latin and then from latin to the Douay Rheims, which is the first english translation of the Bible. As I'm sure many other Christians opinions may be various, why do you ask?

Tim Robbins

Onesimus wrote: »

Many today seem to think its the NRSV, but for me its the orginal greek, then latin and then from latin to the Douay Rheims, which is the first english translation of the Bible. As I'm sure many other Christians opinions may be various, why do you ask?

I was thinking of getting another one. I have KJV and NIV already.

Onesimus

Tim Robbins wrote: »

I was thinking of getting another one. I have KJV and NIV already.

Well although many think the NRSV ( and I bought it for a neighbour of mine) is the best translation specifically on ecumenical terms, my favourite is the 1966 Jerusalem Bible, and ( depending on your attitude towards the Catholic Church ) is widely used today in the Liturgy of the European Church.

My advice is to stay away from the NAB as its footnotes are deemed very heretical. The NJB is a more revised version of the Jerusalem Bible of 1966 but, they say its got too much additional language that isnt really needed. However I use both the NJB and the Jerusalem Bible of 1966 although my preference is always the Jerusalem Bibe of 1966.

santing

You can easily "test" out a translation at http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/
My own preference is the NASB, but I settle for the NIV for Church. Before choosing a translation you must ask yourself for what purpose you want it. The NIV is a very good translation to quickly get to know the Bible, but accuracy is not its ultimate goal. The NASB is a very accurate translation, but the "A" in its name is an obvious drawback. Can any good come out of the Americas?

Fanny Cradock

New Jerusalem Bible and NRSV are considered amongst the most accurate - the study version of the NJB is supposed to have excellent notes. I'm partial to the ESV, NIV and even The Message - though the last shouldn't be confused with a translation. I have heard that the NRSV an NJB are great for scholarly endeavour but they might be lacking somewhat in liveliness. So perhaps there isn't one "must have" translation. As has been suggested, check out some of the offerings on Bible Gateway.

The primary entries for agapē are: affection, good will, love, benevolence, brotherly love. While the word charity appears in the KJV most subsequent translations have replaced charity with love - this includes everything from NKJV to NIV.

alex73

I learned Latin and Greek and even those are translations. Its hard to give an accurate translation. Each Language has its own words that don't fit into English easily. Even English translations have different degrees of English (depending on the centuary) . St. Pauls letters we know were written in Greek of its day. A good English Bible is the new Jeruselum Bible. If you can read it the Vulgata is a good one.

Seaneh

I use the ESV currently as I find it's the easiest to read while staying as close to the original as possible, some more literal translations completely lose the writing styles of the authors because they are caught up on being word for word translations and anyone who has translated anything from one language to another will tell you, often when you literally translate word for word, it's hard to read and makes less sense.

georgieporgy

I found the Navarre bible to be the best. (University of Navarre Spain).

Tha english translation is very lively and clear(revised standard version). The english text is juxtaposed with latin (new vulgate), paragraph by paragraph. And there are copious notes and commentaries from ancient and modern sources.

When there is some doubt about the proper meaning/interpretation of a word they toss in greek and hebrew + the views of a variety of people.

The entire bible is broken up into manageable sections and sold in individual volumes. The volume of Gospel of St Luke for example is more than 250 pages. The following link will let you know more. You will see it would cost a few bucks to acquire the whole collection
http://www.fourcourtspress.ie/subcategory.php?intSubCategoryID=8

Full Disclosure: this is an RC product

PDN

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Hi,
Out of the many different versions of English bibles, which one do you consider to be the most accurate translation and why?

I actually don't know anyone that thinks the NIV is the most accurate translation!

For me, I find the New American Standard Bible provides the closest word-for-word translation. It's great if you want to study one or two verses in detail.

I like to use the NIV in worship services because it is much more readable and flows much better. It follows the principle of 'dynamic equivalence'. So, for example, instead of translating a Hebrew idiom word-for-word (such as saying someone was 'covering their feet' when they were having a crap) it will express the same thought in an equivalent way (saying they were 'relieving themself').

I know many think NIV but doesn't that mis-translate Charity / Agape as Love in Corinthians?

I think 'love' is a better translation of αγάπη than 'charity'. Most English readers think charity is something to do with putting money in a collection tin.

drakshug

For me the KGV has the most beautiful English though didn't have access to the sources that modern bibles have. Therefore it can't be called the best translation but it is beautiful.

Onesimus

I think 'love' is a better translation of αγάπη than 'charity'. Most English readers think charity is something to do with putting money in a collection tin.

PDN makes a good point here, and the importance of translations if at first being introduced to the Bible. Charity is indeed perceived in such a way today that the importance of the translation ''Love'' is ever needed.

Plowman

This post has been deleted.

georgieporgy

The three theological virtues, Faith, Hope and Charity spring to mind.

The modern use of "love", Jack luvs Jill,can be a bit empty.

PDN

drakshug wrote: »

For me the KGV has the most beautiful English though didn't have access to the sources that modern bibles have. Therefore it can't be called the best translation but it is beautiful.

And that is a very good point. The KJV is undoubtedly beautiful and lyrical in many places - but that is often an indication of its lack of accuracy. Koine Greek, the language in which the New Testament was written, was not a beautiful or elegant language. It was the language of the street or the market place, not of literature or poetry.

Onesimus

Plowman wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

the douay rheims is the closest english translation to the Latin, apart from the thees thys and thous, and the odd ''divers'' its the most simplest read ever that a child could read it, but of course children of today would need a more up to date version as not every child is a nephew or neice of Shakespeare :pac: and I'm afraid that unlike jaundice, the shakespearean language isnt is heriditory lol

lmaopml

OP, I'm not sure which translation is the best translation. I don't really use just 'one', actually I think the 'net' is marvelous because it allows us to use them all....

I don't think any of them are without their drawbacks and fortes...

Also, some are written in the 'olde' English which can be hard to get the proper jist of at times because language is constantly evolving, and others are so 'Plain English translations' that they seem too direct to convey everything...

I like mixing them up

Also, it's pretty cool that we still have the likes of the Codex Vaticanus and also the Codex Sinaiticus approx 1600 years old, which is currently being translated online for posterity and understanding, by many scholars of various persuasions...! It's all good, for everybody.

Here's a link to the 'Sinaiticus'..an exciting project...:)

http://codexsinaiticus.org/en/

Plowman

This post has been deleted.

Tim Robbins

PDN wrote: »

I think 'love' is a better translation of αγάπη than 'charity'. Most English readers think charity is something to do with putting money in a collection tin.

Maybe. But I think charity is a better word. Agape in Greek philosophy was a special type of love, rather than love in general. This is quite important. I think you'd agree.

This section in Corinithians is read out at Weddings all the time, and I think in this context it's a complete misinterpretation.

PDN

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Maybe. But I think charity is a better word. Agape in Greek philosophy was a special type of love, rather than love in general. This is quite important. I think you'd agree.

This section in Corinithians is read out at Weddings all the time, and I think in this context it's a complete misinterpretation.

The problem with this, Tim, is that the New Testament writers wrote in koine Greek, whereas many of the philosophers (such as Plato) wrote in classical Greek.

So, if we really want to understand what the NT writers meant by a word, we need to look at how it was used in other examples of koine Greek.

We know that the verb (agapeo) was used in the Septuagint in passages such as the Song of Solomon (translation of the OT into koine Greek that was used by Paul) to translate the normal Hebrew word for 'love'. So, leaving theology aside, on purely linguistic and historical grounds, it seems fair to translate agape as 'love'.

However, I think that there is a very strong case, on studying Paul's theology and context, for arguing that he uses agape to refer to the sacrificial love of God rather than the affection of philia or of storge.

Fanny Cradock

I would also say that love can have several meanings in English, whereas charity is usually understood to mean a donation of time, money, etc. to others less fortunate.

Tim Robbins

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I would also say that love can have several meanings in English, whereas charity is usually understood to mean a donation of time, money, etc. to others less fortunate.

Yes, and there are different types of charity. Some people engage in charity to make themselves feel better. For example, those sponsored walks, runs etc. Or they donate to a friend who is doing the walk, run. This is almost a bit like reciporcal altruism in the sense, they sort of expect something in return.

Other types of charity for example giving blood are purer in the sense that its impossible to get anything in return or any sort of pay back for the charitable act.

That's what I'd see agape as.

Love is an even more abstract word than charity. In that, there are more types of love than there are more types of charity.

Fanny Cradock

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Yes, and there are different types of charity.

Are there? I think you are confusing type with motivation. I would be surprised if most people thought of charity as anything other than giving to the poor/ needy etc. Indeed, 6 of the 7 entries found in Dictionary.com are variations on helping the poor/ needy. I doubt many people would bother to read down to the 7th entry which defines charity as Christian love; agape.

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Love is an even more abstract word than charity. In that, there are more types of love than there are more types of charity.

I don't believe it is abstract. Rather, I think it has various meanings, and the text dictates the intended meaning. Perhaps you would enjoy The Four Loves by C.S. Lewis.

If you think that love is a mistranslation that is just fine. However, because of my ignorance of Greek, I think I'll be sticking with the experts who don't seem to be in agreement with you.

hivizman

A translation that is consciously not "accurate" in the sense of being a literal translation is the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV), Anglicized Edition. This translation deliberately set out to make sure that "masculine-oriented language should be eliminated as far as this can be done without altering passages that reflect the historical situation of ancient patriarchal culture" (quoted from preface to the translation). So, for example, in Paul's letters, where he addresses "brothers", the translation normally replaces this with "brothers and sisters". Is this an attempt to attain a more accurate rendering of the underlying meaning implied by a view of Christianity as an inclusive religion, or does it distort what Paul and other writers intended?

On the translation of "agape", I note that William Tyndale uses the word "love" rather than "charity". The translators of the King James Version often followed Tyndale, so they must have deliberately deviated here. Even at the time of the KJV, the word "charity" was beginning to move from meaning mainly "benevolence to others, particularly those in need", towards "organisation for the attainment of charitable objects" - the Statute of Charitable Uses of 1601 (roughly contemporary with the KJV) was until recently the foundational law of charity in England and Wales.

Possibly the translators of the KJV wanted to avoid the more "carnal" overtones of the word "love" in this passage, though they translated agape as "love" in 1 John 4:8 - the famous statement "God is love". Perhaps there was an echo of the Vulgate's use of "caritas" in the translation in 1 Corinthians 13, though this doesn't explain the different translation by the KJV in 1 John 4:8.

Incidentally, Pope Benedict XVI's first Encyclical was entitled in Latin "Deus Caritas Est" but translated into English as "God is Love".

Tim Robbins

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Are there? I think you are confusing type with motivation. I would be surprised if most people thought of charity as anything other than giving to the poor/ needy etc. Indeed, 6 of the 7 entries found in Dictionary.com are variations on helping the poor/ needy. I doubt many people would bother to read down to the 7th entry which defines charity as Christian love; agape.

The are different types of "blue" and "christian" but that isn't covered very well in the dictionary either.

I don't believe it is abstract. Rather, I think it has various meanings, and the text dictates the intended meaning. Perhaps you would enjoy The Four Loves by C.S. Lewis.

That's what I meant by abstract. If you are a software engineer you can have abstract classes with different implementations. So if you were modelling love, you model it is an abstract class or interface and then have different implementations of it.

If you think that love is a mistranslation that is just fine. However, because of my ignorance of Greek, I think I'll be sticking with the experts who don't seem to be in agreement with you.

Well it looks like there isn't broad agreement on translations of the bible.

With the greatest of respect, I don't consider C. S. Lewis to be an expert in either Greek or logic. We'll just have to part ways there.

PDN

Tim Robbins wrote: »

With the greatest of respect, I don't consider C. S. Lewis to be an expert in either Greek or logic. We'll just have to part ways there.

With the greatest of respect, Tim, I think his Greek would be a heck of a lot better than yours (or mine). Lewis gained a triple First in Greek and Latin literature, Greats (Philosophy and Ancient History) and English at Oxford. So the examining boards of Oxford University did indeed consider him to be an expert.

Have you actually read The Four Loves? Or is your dismissal of it based on hearsay?

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

And that is a very good point. The KJV is undoubtedly beautiful and lyrical in many places - but that is often an indication of its lack of accuracy. Koine Greek, the language in which the New Testament was written, was not a beautiful or elegant language. It was the language of the street or the market place, not of literature or poetry.

Heaven help us if Jesus had arrived in modern times

At the start right there was the Word, word, and the Word it was God ini't. So like He was right at the begining and stuff with God right and all the stuff became stuff like through him, so like without him nothing would be made, right.

Fanny Cradock

Tim Robbins wrote: »

The are different types of "blue" and "christian" but that isn't covered very well in the dictionary either.

But you haven't defined the other types of charity - you have just told us they exist. For that matter you haven't even acknowledged (or rejected) that the general understanding of the word charity is limited to giving to the poor and needy.

Tim Robbins wrote: »

That's what I meant by abstract. If you are a software engineer you can have abstract classes with different implementations. So if you were modelling love, you model it is an abstract class or interface and then have different implementations of it.

I actually don't understand what you are saying. Why would you consider love in whatever form to be abstract but charity not be abstract? Perhaps I'm not understanding what you mean by abstract.

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Well it looks like there isn't broad agreement on translations of the bible.

I would have thought that there has been broad agreement on this thread. The NJB and the NRSV have featured in most posts.

Tim Robbins wrote: »

With the greatest of respect, I don't consider C. S. Lewis to be an expert in either Greek or logic. We'll just have to part ways there.

I forgot that there was a point that the merest mention of C.S. Lewis would send you into conniptions.

Tim Robbins

PDN wrote: »

With the greatest of respect, Tim, I think his Greek would be a heck of a lot better than yours (or mine). Lewis gained a triple First in Greek and Latin literature, Greats (Philosophy and Ancient History) and English at Oxford. So the examining boards of Oxford University did indeed consider him to be an expert.

Have you actually read The Four Loves? Or is your dismissal of it based on hearsay?

I have heard of the C. S. Lewis' four loves and I have read there are actually more than four loves in Greek philosophy. Also I have read several philsophers, thinkers etc who point out that a lot of Greek philosophy in this area is misunderstood.

My dismissal of Lewis is based on 'Mere Christianity' and the various quotes attributed to him.

David Shalyer was resonably bright, got a 2:1 in English but I wouldn't be too quick to accept any of his claims either.

Tim Robbins

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

But you haven't defined the other types of charity - you have just told us they exist.

A decent philosopher e.g. Peter Singer does a much better job. For example in his book: "The Life you can save".

For that matter you haven't even acknowledged (or rejected) that the general understanding of the word charity is limited to giving to the poor and needy.

Ok, I acknowledge it.

I actually don't understand what you are saying. Why would you consider love in whatever form to be abstract but charity not be abstract? Perhaps I'm not understanding what you mean by abstract.

I'd consider them both abstract. But I'd consider love more abstract.

I forgot that there was a point that the merest mention of C.S. Lewis would send you into conniptions.

Ha! We all have our triggers.

There's no way you could spend 50 hours a week in software engineering hang onto your job and not see flaws in C. S. Lewis. C. S. Lewis wants to sound logical, but he doesn't actually have to be logical. A software engineer has to be logical or else they loose their job (especially when you consider they are probably useless at everything else). If you took Mr Lewis's logic and put it on a compiler it would blow up.

Apologies.

The Bible is interesting from a literature and humanities point of view. It's not making any more attempt or claim to be logical than Patrick Kavanagh or Yeats did in any of their poems or Depeche Mode do in their music. So it's not actually annoying in the sense Christian apologetics are.

philologos

Tim Robbins wrote: »

There's no way you could spend 50 hours a week in software engineering hang onto your job and not see flaws in C. S. Lewis. C. S. Lewis wants to sound logical, but he doesn't actually have to be logical. A software engineer has to be logical or else they loose their job (especially when you consider they are probably useless at everything else). If you took Mr Lewis's logic and put it on a compiler it would blow up.

As you well know, I do computer science at university and I still admire the works of C.S Lewis. Indeed, I also study philosophy extensively enough.

At least, I hope I'll be able to hold on to such a job if I get one

Tim Robbins

Jakkass wrote: »

As you well know, I do computer science at university and I still admire the works of C.S Lewis. Indeed, I also study philosophy extensively enough.

At least, I hope I'll be able to hold on to such a job if I get one

Yeah I have noticed that and fair play to you. I have also noticed your posts getting a hell of a lot better over the years. You're thinking has way more substance to it than it did a few years back.
I am not perfect at logic by any stretch of the imagination all I am saying is if you design software engineering, it will never be perfect. You'll notice all the mistakes. Whereas if you write an essay you don't necessarily know any your mistakes. It's not as black and white and there is room for manoeuvre.