Evidence for God from Science

Hi, I've been reading alot about how certain words in some bible versions could've been translated better. And when using the real words, it looks much different. like the Genesis creation, flood etc. I just wanted to ask, which one is most accurate? I have the NKV right now. Oh and i dont know many of the abbreviations of versions, so please write them out lol. Thx alot!

They all have their quirks and biases, but I consider the New English Translation to be the most accurate and transparent.

Thanks

These links are interesting

http://www.orthodoxphotos.com/readings/ ... ions.shtml

http://users.binary.net/polycarp/burning.html

Hmm, maybe i should have 2 bibles, one for spiritual meaning, and one for accuracy lol.

Thx

i would recamend that you get multiple (i prefer the NKJV), i have a few; the NKJV, NAS, NIV, and AMP. i like the amplified version because it gives all the possible translations there are. i have these many to compare to each other whenever i do my studies to get the best translation.

fortigurn wrote:They all have their quirks and biases, but I consider the New English Translation to be the most accurate and transparent.

i agree, that is why it is best to get more than one or two, that way you can compare them to each other to get the best one.

Learn Greek and Hebrew. Problem solved

I do like the English Standard Version myself, although I also refer to the New American Standard and the Holman Christian Standard Bible as well.

Seriously, though, Greek isn't as hard as you might think, and I've been told the same is true regarding Hebrew . . .

God bless

Some of the Moderators in this forum use verses from the New International Version. They should know that the new bible versions remove some words or some verses mean something completely different. The only Bible I trust Is The 1611 King James Version. It isn't so hard to understand the KJV, you all should stick with this Bible.

Here are some links:

http://www.chick.com/information/biblev ... ervant.asp

http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Bible/ki ... proofs.htm

I really hope that you are kidding, Hal. I can give you one simple reason not to trust the 1611 KJV: it isn't translated out of the best Greek and Hebrew manuscripts.

I'm not sure what the primary Hebrew texts are being used today, but I know if you want to see the Greek manuscripts, go pick up a copy of either the Nestle-Aland 27th ed. or the UBS 4th ed. Each one can be found for less than $20. Both are completely independent of one another and have exactly the same wording. Why? Because it's the most accurate in terms of scholarship.

Just ONE small scriptural example . . . your 1611 reads roughly "peace on earth and good will towards men." "Good will" here is in what is called the nominative case in your texts, whereas we know the original autographs had it in what is called the genitive case. The accurate translation would be "peace on earth and good will towards those whom God favors." (see William Mounce's Basics of Biblical Greek for more, or http://www.nbseminary.com/Moments/Moment_26.htm for a simple online discussion of the issue . . . it was the first one I came across when I googled it).

If you want to really get into a good translation, get a couple of good modern formal equivalents (the NASB, NKJV, ESV, and NET are the best), learn some basic Greek, and get a couple of lexicons such as the TNDT or Louw and Nida's lexicon based on Semantic Domains.

Oh, and just for fun, I suggest you write ANY Greek professor (much less any greek scholar) and any of your seminaries and ask them what they think of the "king james only" debate.

Thanks for the info. I'm only 17. I still think the new versions are not the best choice and KJV is at least better than other versions, but, I will do more research. Thanks again, thank you very much

Check this out: http://www.av1611.org/niv.html
People whom are new to christianity can get confused if they read from the NIV. Thats the reason I want to know which Bible is trustworthy.

I say An Independent Hebrew or Greek Scholar that knows english should publish a new Bible Version, but this time without removing words etc.

I went back and reread my reply, and it may have come across a bit strong. If it did, my apologies.

I will check out those links you posted, but before I do, let me say that I do agree that the NIV has some issues with it that I have problems with. So you know, there are two different ways you can go about translation (and this is true with any language). First, you can try to translate word-for-word, or the other way is to translate thought-for-thought. The problem with a W4W translation is that the grammar from one language to another isn't usually the same, and also, words have ranges of meaning, so the context depends on how to interpret it. Suppose, for example, you see the english word "plug" and want to translate into another language. Do you find their word for plug as a stopper, or as a verb meaning "to stop up", or find a word that defines the part of an electronic piece of equipment that attaches to a wall to give it power, or do you ignore all those and use the word that refers to a patch of something (i.e., "It bit a plug out of my finger!")? Clearly, words mean what they mean in context. So, again, words have ranges of meaning, and in languages, no two words mean exactly the same thing (that is, they don't have the same range).

In a T4T translation, you have the problem you get with the NIV, which is that you are trying to interpret more than just translate. Some words and phrases get left out and others get added . . .

In the end, I suggest that serious Bible students get one of both. The NASB is the most "literal" W4W translation, while, in my opinion, the Christian Standard Bible is the best T4T.

Again, thanks for the links. I hope that little bit helps you see that most translations--even the NIV--aren't "bad" . . . it's just a matter of what you happen to believe is the best way to go about it!

God bless

Yea no problem and thanks for helping!

God Bless

Thx everyone!

Halcyon Dude, is that avatar Rurouni Kenshin...i think it is. i love that anime.

Brigham thanks for bringing up this question. I too learned something.

Ryo, looks like you're Japanese. And yes, I drew kenshin then photoshop