Accurate Bible Translation

[Guest Fondue]

Dear ex-Christians,

 

What are the best and most accurate translations of the Bible? I plan on getting several, in order to truly understand what was being said. I've heard that most of the translations used by Christians these days are highly innacurate.

 

Thank you.

[Callyn]

The only thing I know about translations is that the KJV sucks. Even for the time it was written, it sucked. I suggest the Cliff's Notes Translation.

[Japedo]

Dear ex-Christians,

 

What are the best and most accurate translations of the Bible? I plan on getting several, in order to truly understand what was being said. I've heard that most of the translations used by Christians these days are highly innacurate.

 

Thank you.

 

The more you read the more you'll be confused, it's done that way purposely, masters of illusions need distractions in order to keep up the illusion. Different interpretations in some cases give a completely different angle on things, There is no "Real" Version. It's like Santa, each part of the world has their own story of how he came to be, Same premise but still a lie never the less. The only thing you'll find that hasn't been altered thru time is the Torah (First 5 books of Moses) anything else is subject to change depending on dogma. *Most* buybulls pretty much stay true to the torah but there are slight variations in the Christian buybulls. You can buy a Torah at any bookstore.

 

There was never a bible Jesus used, it was written nearly 300 years after his alleged life/death. The only thing he was required to know as a Jew was the Torah, that's all any Jew is really required to know to the letter.

 

It helped me immensely studying the torah in lessons by rabbis. I learned a great deal and it also helped me shed the fear that was instilled in me for so many years. The NT is pretty much re-written sun/son worship aside from the book of revelations which appears to be written by someone tripping on acid, that is my opinion however and I have no evidence of it other then it's whacked out monsters and lack of substance.

 

Welcome to Ex-C!!

[Gnosisquest]

Dear ex-Christians,

 

What are the best and most accurate translations of the Bible? I plan on getting several, in order to truly understand what was being said. I've heard that most of the translations used by Christians these days are highly innacurate.

 

Thank you.

 

Purchase "The Dead SEa Scrolls Bible by Martin Abegg, Peter Flint and Eugene Ulrich, it is the only Bible close to what the Israelites believed.

 

As to what Jesus said my best guess would be that the Nag Hammadi Manuscripts are the most accurate.

 

Best Rasmus

[Mythra]

Go to biblegateway.com and you can check out practically all of the versions of the bible, and compare passages.

 

As I recall, the New American Standard and Young's Literal Translation were the most literal and word-for-word.

 

Versions such as the New English Version and the New International Version have quite a few passages where, in the interest of making it more readable, they make subtle wording changes. (sometimes possibly altering the meaning of the original greek or hebrew)

 

The Nag Hammadi texts were primarily gnostic christian works. They are, of course, every bit as inspired by God as the bible itself. (That is to say, they all are solely the works of human beings) IMNSHO, of course.

[Guest]

I have a Torah, the Stone Edition, that has been recently translated into modern english. It also has the hebrew written on one page and the english on another. It is more than just the first 5 books tho, it's the whole OT, just in the original order. ISBN# 0-88906-269-5

 

I also have a book called The Complete Gospels, which was translated into english by the jesus seminar people. Again, they attempted to translate from the orginal greek and coptic into modern english with the best accuracy. This book also contains "lost" gospels such as the gospel of Mary. The downside is that it does not contain any letters of Paul, it is only the gospels. It does, however, have notes and comentary about which verses were thought to have been added later, and they point out areas where the manuscripts we have differ from each other. This is quite vauable.

ISBN# 0-06-065587-9

 

I like both these books much better than the xtian bible itself, of which I own a revised standard version, and a 1611 KJV. You would be suprised how some verses can be quite different in the hebrew Torah compared to the RSV.

 

Hope this helps.

[Artur]

*

[mwc]

I agree with what others have said so far but I will add that you will be better off with a Jewish translation of the OT than a xian one. You can try a JPS version (something like this one http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0.htm to get you started) since it doesn't include all the "tricks" used to imply jesus where nothing was ever written in the text. I do switch to a different translation depending on if it's importantant to me to know what word is being used for god in any particular place since almost everyone translates it "lord" and that's useless in books like Genesis.

 

Also, as suggested BibleGateway.com is nice but they don't have some translations, so Crosswalk.com is a bit better in that department. In general I prefer the NRSV and Young's Literal Translation but when in doubt I go to the Strong's Concordance versions (for general reading the Bible in Basic English is easiest by far...and not too shabby of a translation). Nearly all of these beat your "perfect" KJV version (especially if you take the time to read the footnotes).

 

So unless you're willing to learn ancient Greek/Aramaic/Hebrew you're stuck with one of those good enough versions like most of us.

 

mwc

[Mr. XC]

I do prefer a Hebrew translation for the old testament stuff, as mwc suggests. I think it is closer to what was really recorded back then. For new testament stuff, I recommend the "The New Oxford Annotated Bible, New Revised Standard Version with the Apocrypha, Third Edition." I think it takes into account modern bible research in a way that is more neutral than other editions. A Jewish Hebrew translation shows why Jesus did not fulfill the requirements of being their messiah. Also, they were expecting a messiah, not a savior.

 

The only way that the new testament made sense to me was to think of it this way: When you read the undisputed Pauline Epistles (Romans, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians, and Philemon), you get the idea that Paul never refers to Jesus as a person who has been on earth at any given place. In other words, Paul's Jesus was a spiritual savior, not a savior who was on Earth doing stuff. The Gospels, beginning with Mark (which came later after Paul's first letters) added that stuff by mixing Paul's letters with midrash of old testament scripture and possibly a sayings gospel called Q.

 

In other words, it makes more sense to me to look at the new testament as coming from literary activity, not a recording of historical events.

[Dave]

There's one out there that has a concordance that the christians just hate. It explains much of what is going on. And example would be that it explains who the"good Samaritan" was. At that time the Isrealites despised the Samaritans. They were one of the 12 tribes, but not one of the good ones. So for a Samaritan to help someone would have been something that goes against the thinking of the day.

 

It also explained what the "grove" and "pillar" of the OT were and explains what the fig tree represents and why.

 

I wish I could find that one again.

[currentchristian]

I recommend the "The New Oxford Annotated Bible, New Revised Standard Version with the Apocrypha, Third Edition." I think it takes into account modern bible research in a way that is more neutral than other editions.

 

I agree with Mr. XC! This semester I'm taking a course called The English Bible. We use the New Oxford Annotated Bible, NRSV, 3rd edition. It's a great Bible for reading and for study. Sometimes the footnotes consume a third of the page. Very nice!

 

-currentchristian in massachusetts

[Gaura]

I don't think it is possible to find a truly accurate translation. The reason is simply that prior to Guttenburg, all Bibles had to be transcribed-- copied-- from time to time as the ink faded. transcription in the Medieval era was a tricky proposition.

 

Try this. Set yourself on a simple wooden chair at a simple wood table. Use your favorite pen, or a goose quill if you are learned in calligraphy. The room will need to be in dim light-- only what comes in through your window-- and cool, since no fires or lamps ever were allowed in the scriptoria. Then take a pad of paper and a book, and try to transribe exacly for a whole hour. I just about guarantee that if boredom or the tricks of the mind don't get you, the cramps in your hand will. I posit that it is completely impossible to perfectly transcribe such a large amount of text. Remember that the monks worked for many hours straight and often weren't too literate.

 

This is why finds like Nag Hamadi and the Dead Sea Scrolls are interesting-- they haven't been transcribed nearly so much. Has anyone done a good analysis of the discrepancies between the Scrolls and the relevant passages in the Bible.

[currentchristian]

I don't think it is possible to find a truly accurate translation. The reason is simply that prior to Guttenburg, all Bibles had to be transcribed-- copied-- from time to time as the ink faded. transcription in the Medieval era was a tricky proposition.

 

Try this. Set yourself on a simple wooden chair at a simple wood table. Use your favorite pen, or a goose quill if you are learned in calligraphy. The room will need to be in dim light-- only what comes in through your window-- and cool, since no fires or lamps ever were allowed in the scriptoria. Then take a pad of paper and a book, and try to transribe exacly for a whole hour. I just about guarantee that if boredom or the tricks of the mind don't get you, the cramps in your hand will. I posit that it is completely impossible to perfectly transcribe such a large amount of text. Remember that the monks worked for many hours straight and often weren't too literate.

 

This is why finds like Nag Hamadi and the Dead Sea Scrolls are interesting-- they haven't been transcribed nearly so much. Has anyone done a good analysis of the discrepancies between the Scrolls and the relevant passages in the Bible.

 

 

Interestingly, there are very few discrepencies between the Dead Sea Scrolls and our current Bibles. Take Isaiah for example. The Dead Sea Scrolls gave us an Isaiah scroll 1,000 years older than the Isaiah scroll extant in the 1940's. That's 1000 years. Yet there were very few, minor, changes, and none that was earth-shattering. It's amazing how well the transmission process did actually work. Not to say that there are no scribal errors; there are. But few, and minimal.

 

--currentchristian in massachusetts

[Gaura]

Take Isaiah for example. The Dead Sea Scrolls gave us an Isaiah scroll 1,000 years older than the Isaiah scroll extant in the 1940's. That's 1000 years. Yet there were very few, minor, changes, and none that was earth-shattering. It's amazing how well the transmission process did actually work. Not to say that there are no scribal errors; there are. But few, and minimal

 

Is there a link that shows the text for comparison?

[mwc]

Here's a link for the Isaiah scroll: http://www.ao.net/~fmoeller/qumdir.htm

 

However, as stated at the web site, the scroll is from 100BCE and all OT documents are only written from around 600BCE so I'm not sure where the 1000 year time frame is coming from (it would really only be a, roughly, less than a 500 year time frame from Babylon to this copy).

 

Still, the differences in this particular document are minor (as are most of the differences really). However, that being said, some of the differences can be quite serious even if quite minor. Deuteronomy (31?) holds such a hotly debated item if memory serves. It would be where YHWH inherits his people from El but in other versions it is Jacob who does the inheriting from YHWH. Minor? Yes. Important? Most certainly. So little differences can matter a lot.

 

Here's a link that has good info on the Dead Sea Scrolls: http://www.gnosis.org/library/scroll.htm

 

mwc

[currentchristian]

However, as stated at the web site, the scroll is from 100BCE and all OT documents are only written from around 600BCE so I'm not sure where the 1000 year time frame is coming from (it would really only be a, roughly, less than a 500 year time frame from Babylon to this copy).

 

Thanks for the link! What I meant to write was that at the time of the wonderful discovery of the DSS, the oldest Isaiah manuscript dated to about 1000 C.E. With the DSS find, the oldest manuscript was now an additional 1000 years older than that! (My years are estimates; don't quote me!)

 

-currentchristian in massachusetts