ANSWERS: 100
  • Young's Literal might have the most accurate word-for-word translation, but that is rarely the best way to translate. Often there is no simple translation of a word or phrase, and a lot of effort goes into picking the "best" way to communicate foreign content and intent. Honest scholars sometimes disagree on the best or most correct phrasing. Especially where there are multiple legitimate meanings in the original, a single translation is often inadequate. The Amplified often puts in multiple words to reflect these cases. There is evidence that the King James was written to be read aloud and the phrasing and word selection emphasized recitation and memorization. The New American Standard emphasized literal meaning over readability and the New International emphasized modern English readability over "literalness" but both insisted on accuracy and are very good. These three are widely respected, and employed for their translation known and recognized experts in the original languages. The Holman Christian Standard Bible is new and is supposed to be good, but I have not used it enough to recommend it. (It uses contractions: something I was taught indicates poor writing, but I believe the HCSB's goal is to translate to modern English speech vocabulary rather than textbook technical usage.) Those who prefer a paraphrase rather than a translation claim that the paraphrase is a "thought-for-thought" translation rather than word-for-word. This is a risky position - it assumes the paraphraser accurately captures the "thoughts" - something very hard to quantify. Accuracy will depend on how usage varies with location and with time. Because of the differences I have mentioned, it is not likely that any one translation will be best for every verse. Many different translations have different strengths. I decline to judge any one the "most accurate." The "New World Translation" is not known to have employed any experts in the original languages and is only accepted or recognized as a translation by one relatively small group (Watchtower society/Jehovah's Witnesses). According to the page referred by another poster <edit: the quote I previously cited has been pulled from the site referenced by another post.> I sometimes study with a person who has some training in ancient Hebrew and teaches New Testament Greek for a major university. He is appalled at the departure of the NWT from accepted translation practices.
  • My qualifications to answer: I have taught Greek for ten years and Hebrew for eight, while speaking English, Ukrainian, or Russian. I'm working on a Greek textbook and am full-time proofreading the newest Bible translation from the original languages into Ukrainian for the Ukrainian Bible Society. (I'm an American.) The best single English translation to use to get as close as possible to the exact sense of the original is "The Comparative Study Bible" by Zondervan publishing house in Grand Rapids, Michigan. The reason is that it has four of the best translations in parallel columns. These are the New International Version, New American Standard Bible, Amplified Bible and the King James Version. Other four-columns are good, but this is the best single volume--and it has both Testaments at an affordable price. When I look into this, I find out almost as much as when I consult the original languages. No single translation can give you all the nuances, but four good ones come as close as possible.
  • A claim has been made by TulsaDavid that the New World translation has been altered. The cl,aim is not backed up and should be regarded as simply a singular opinion. The New World has replaced the personal name of Almighty God, Jehovah, back to the 7000 places in the Bible where it belongs. Jesus is given full credit as God's son and now reigning king in heaven. It is Jesus who will judge us, not his Father. John 5;22 For the Father judges no one at all, but he has committed all the judging to the Son, The claim that the N.W.T. does not give full credit to Jesus is just another ploy to prove the Trinity concept. This argument will continue till ad infinitum in this system of things. But for those who have not yet made a decision...Look to the scriptures.
    • Gone!
      Not backed up?? It is altered. Over and again. Words added, words removed that both cannot be substantiated by original available texts, and is obviously biased toward a man-made doctrine. It is by NO mean a singular opinion. "back to 7000 place in the Bible"... not true. You may also think you give 'full credit' to Jesus, and you would be correct to do so; however, the JW Jesus is a created being, not the only God and Savior. Lord of Lords. King of Kings. "system of things" is a typical JW term. YES! Look to the Scriptures, please.
  • From my studies in Greek, I've found that the NASB is the most readily available most accurate translation.
  • For usefulness and overall accuracy (with clarity of thought) the NASB (New American Standard Bible) is the best commonly available Bible. The best of the not-commonly-available texts is the Aland 27 Greek/English New Testament. It is the result of comparisons of thousands of manuscripts, a deliberate approximation of what may have been in the original autographs.
  • On such a topic it is easy to be biased because if a person loves God's word our feelings and our likes and dislikes come into play. Here is an interesting point that was made on the Jeopardy game show that asks the very same question. Recently on Jeopardy, one of the questions was “What is the most accurate translation of the Holy Scriptures?” No one got the correct answer, so Alex Trebek said “New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures, printed by the Watchtower Bible & Tract Society.” Book: “TRUTH IN TRANSLATION: ACCURACY AND BIAS IN ENGLISH TRANSLATIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT” Author: Jason David BeDuhn is the Associate Professor of Religious Studies at Northern Arizona University in Flagstaff. He holds a B.A. in Religious Studies from the University of Illinois, Urbana, an M.T.S. in New Testament and Christian Origins form Harvard Divinity School, and a Ph.D. in Comparative Study of Religions form Indiana University, Bloomington The Nine English Translations Compared in BeDuhn’s book are: - The King James Version (KJV) - The Amplified Bible (AB) - The Living Bible (LB) - The New American Bible (NAB) - The New American Standard Bible (NASB) - The New International Version (NIV) - The New World Translation (NW) - The (New) Revised Standard Version (NRSV) - Today’s English Version (TEV) Excerpts from his book: Chapter Four: Examples of translation of the Greek word “proskuneo”, used 58 times in the New Testament. The word is translated various ways as worship, do obeisance, fall down on one’s knees, bow before. Scriptures discussed include Matt. 18:26; Rev. 3:9; Mark 15:18,19; Matt 2:1, 2, 8,11; Matt 14:33; Matt 28:9, “... in our exploration of this issue, we can see how theological bias has been the determining context for the choices made by all of the translations except the NAB and NW... translators seem to feel the need to add to the New Testament support for the idea that Jesus was recognized to be God.” Regarding Matt. 28:16, 17, where all versions except the NW use “worship” where the NW uses “did obeisance”: “Here all translations except the NW have recourse to “worship” -- a rendering which makes no sense in this context... This contradiction seems to be missed by all the translators except those who prepared the NW.” Chapter Five: A discussion of Philippians 2:5-1 1: “The NW translators... have understood “harpagmos” accurately as grasping at something one does not have, that is, a “seizure.” The literary context supports the NW translation (and refutes the KJV’s “thought it not robbery to be equal)...” Chapter Seven: A discussion on Col. 1: 15-20: “It is a tricky passage where every translation must add words.” “The LB translator is guilty of all the doctrinal importation discussed above with reference to the NIV, NRSV, and TEV, and even surpasses them in this respect. So it is the NIV, NRSV, TEV and LB -- the four Bibles that make no attempt to mark added words - that actually add the most significant tendentious material. Yet in many public forums on Bible translation, the practice of these four translations is rarely if ever pointed to or criticized, while the NW is attacked for adding the innocuous “other” in a way that clearly indicates its character as an addition of the translators... But the NW is correct. “Other” is implied in “all”, and the NW simply makes what is implicit explicit... It is ironic that the translation of Col. 1:15-20 that has received the most criticism is the one where the “added words” are fully justified by what is implied in the Greek.” Chapter Eight : A discussion on Titus 2:13; 2 Thess. 1:12; 2 Peter 1:1, 2: “... the position of those who insist “God” and “Savior” must refer to the same being... is decidedly weakened.” Chapter Nine: A discussion of Hebrews 8:1: “so we must conclude that the more probable translation is “God is your throne..., “the translation found in the NW... It seems likely that it is only because most translations were made by people who already believe that Jesus is God that the less probable way of translating this verse has been preferred.” Chapter Ten: A discussion on John 8:58: “Both the LB and the NW offer translations that coordinate the two verbs in John 8:58 according to proper English syntax, and that accurately reflect the meaning of the Greek idiom. The other translations fail to do this.” “There is absolutely nothing in the original Greek of John 8:58 to suggest that Jesus is quoting the Old Testament here, contrary to what the TEV tries to suggest by putting quotations marks around “I am.” “The majority of translations recognize these idiomatic uses of “I am”, and properly integrate the words into the context of the passages where they appear. Yet when it comes to 8:58, they suddenly forget how to translate.” “All the translations except the LB and NW also ignore the true relation between the verbs of the sentence and produce a sentence that makes no sense in English. These changes in the meaning of the Greek and in the normal procedure for translation point to a bias that has interfered with the work of the translators.” “No one listening to Jesus, and no one reading John in his own time would have picked up on a divine self-identification in the mere expression “I am,” which, if you think about, is just about the most common pronoun-verb combination in any language.” “The NW... understands the relation between the two verbs correctly... The average Bible reader might never guess that there was something wrong with the other translations, and might even assume that the error was to be found in the... NW.” Chapter Eleven: A discussion of John 1:1: “Surprisingly, only one, the NW, adheres to the literal meaning of the Greek, and translates “a god.” “Translators of the KJV, NRSV, NIV, NAB, NASB, AB, TEV and LB all approached the text at John 1:1 already believing certain things about the Word... and made sure that the translations came out in accordance with their beliefs. ... Ironically, some of these same scholars are quick to charge the NW translation with “doctrinal bias” for translating the verse literally, free of KJV influence, following the sense of the Greek. It may very well be that the NW translators came to the task of translating John 1:1 with as much bias as the other translators did. It just so happens that their bias corresponds in this case to a more accurate translation of the Greek” “Some early Christians maintained their monotheism by believing that the one God simply took on a human form and came to earth -- in effect, God the Father was born and crucified as Jesus. They are entitled to their belief, but it cannot be derived legitimately from the Gospel according to John.” “John himself has not formulated a Trinity concept in his Gospel.” “All that we can ask is that a translation be an accurate starting point for exposition and interpretation. Only the NW achieves that, as provocative as it sounds to the modern reader. The other translations cut off the exploration of the verse’s meaning before it has even begun.” Chapter Twelve: A discussion of holy spirit: “In Chapter Twelve, no translation emerged with a perfectly consistent and accurate handling of the many uses and nuances of “spirit” and “holy spirit.” The NW scored highest in using correct impersonal forms of the relative and demonstrative pronouns consistently with the neuter noun “holy spirit,” and in adhering to the indefinite expression “holy spirit” in those few instances when it was used by the Biblical authors.” Summary: “... it can be said that the NW emerges as the most accurate of the translations compared...the translators managed to produce works relatively more accurate and less biased than the translations produced by multi-denominational teams, as well as those produced by single individuals.” “Jehovah’s Witnesses... really sought to re­invent Christianity from scratch... building their system of belief and practice from the raw material of the Bible without predetermining what was to be found there. Some critics, of course, would say that the results of this practice can be naive. But for Bible translation, at least, it has meant a fresh approach to the text, with far less presumption than that found in may of the Protestant translations.” “...Most of the differences are due to the greater accuracy of the NW as a literal, conservative translation of the original expressions of the New Testament.” Commenting on bias in translation : “To me, it expresses a lack of courage, a fear that the Bible does not back up their “truth” enough. To let the Bible have its say, regardless of how well or poorly that say conforms to expectations or accepted forms of modern Christianity is an exercise in courage or, to use another word for it, faith.” For those that want to add this book to their library, it’s available on Amazon.com: http://www.amazon.com/Trutjr Translation-Accuracy-Translations-Testament/dp/0761 825568
  • I do not know, because I cannot read it in the original. Any translator would speak for his version... I like to use the following online Bible: http://www.biblegateway.com/ It contains already 20 English translations and also translations in many other languages. If I find an excerpt unclear, I look at another translation. (not only in english) I find nearly always something that I can understand. (even if it were not the most accurate) By the way, we do not have a single "original text" of the Bible, but many variantes. Another online Bible collection: http://bible.crosswalk.com/OnlineStudyBible/bible.cgi 2) "As Hebrew and Greek, the original languages of the Bible, have idioms and concepts not easily translated, there is an on going critical tension about whether it is better to give a word for word translation or to give a translation that gives a parallel idiom in the target language. For instance, in the English language Catholic translation, the New American Bible, as well as the Protestant translations of the Christian Bible, translations like the King James Version, the New Revised Standard Version and the New American Standard Bible are seen as fairly literal translations (or "word for word"), whereas translations like the New International Version and New Living Translation attempt to give relevant parallel idioms. The Living Bible and The Message are two paraphrases of the Bible that try to convey the original meaning in contemporary language. The further away one gets from word to word translation, the text becomes easier to read while relying more on the theological, linguistic or cultural understanding of the translator, which one would not normally expect a lay reader to require." Source and further information: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible#Bible_versions_and_translations Further information: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible#Differences_in_Bible_translations http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible_translations#Approaches 3) "First, we need to recognize that there is no one translation that is the best. Even the writers of the New Testament books quote from several Greek translations of the Old Testament. Today we have no perfect translation, but there are a number which are very good. The real question is: Which is best for our particular needs? About the King James So what is wrong with the good old King James Version? It probably is the most beautiful, elegant, literary English translation that will ever be produced. In fact, it contributed a great deal to the formation of the English language. Modern translations usually lack the poetry of the King James because modern biblical scholars are more scientists than artists. Nevertheless, there are two major problems with the King James Version. First of all, when it was translated in 1611, there were relatively few Hebrew and Greek manuscripts available and they tended to be recent and less accurate. In the nearly 400 years since then literally thousands more manuscripts have been discovered, ranging from small portions to complete copies of the Old or New Testaments. Many of these are very early and more accurate. Secondly, the English in the King James Version is not at all the same language spoken today. Both the vocabulary and grammar have changed considerably. As a result, a reader often must retranslate the King James into modern English in his or her mind. For many people, especially children, reading the King James Version is like reading a foreign language. So Which is for Me? Which brings us to the numerous modern translations. Most of these have been produced by fine scholars using the many thousands of manuscripts available today. Different translations are better for various purposes. If you are interested in serious study of the Bible, including grammar and vocabulary, you will want a more literal translation, such as the English Standard Version, New King James, or New American Standard. However, it is always good to compare several translations, especially for passages that are difficult to understand. If you are interested in reading the Bible in large blocks, you probably will prefer one of the freer translations (not necessarily less accurate), such as the New International, New Living Translation, or Contemporary English Version. The following is an annotated list of the most popular modern English translations." Source and further information: http://www.firstpresb.org/translations.htm
  • I use the NASB and also the NIV plus about 20 others. For non-Greek and Hebrew speakers a multiplicity of translations is best because translation can be viewed next to other translations. I also recommend, Moffatts & the 20thC New Testament.
  • The Reader's Digest version. The sermon on the mount takes place at a STarbucks
  • new world translation si without doubt the most accurate translation with Goodspeed coming second also the 21st century new testament is excellent. Of course for those who are biased -nothing can be said to convince them of the truth.
    • Gone!
      NWT is a biased Watchtower and Bible Tract Society work that not only add, but removes words and changes context to suit their doctrine. Be care. Be diligent. The Watchtower Jesus is a created being, not our only God and Savior. King of Kings. Lord of Lords.
  • There are a number of good translations around, most of which have been quoted above. The most important thing to look for in a translation is who translated it. The names of the translators should be at the front, so that anyone can contact them, should they have any questions about their work. Usually, in most translations, there are hundreds of people who work on a translation, being divided up into work groups on each book of the Bible. Then these are checked by others in the translation team, and the results hammered out, ironed out, agreed with and disagreed with until a decision is made. Even after that, because the names are known, people can, and do, make submissions for revisions. Some of the revisions are accepted, some are not, but the questioner will always be answered. If the names of the translators are not in the front of the translation, and you cannot find out who they are, do not accept that translation as trustworthy, because you cannot know what qualifications, if any, the translators have. One particular group, the translators of the New World Translation, said they wanted their names kept secret for humility. Not so. The names have been leaked, and NONE of the so-called translators had any qualifications to do a translation. In fact, when challenged with a simple Greek translation that a 1st year Bible student could do, one of them could not. Stick with a recognised translation, one that has been translated by people of training and repute, and which is respected throughout the Christian community. I know that, no matter which denomination I attend, whatever translation they prefer is well attested and accurate.
  • &quot;He that is taught against his will -is he that is of the same opinion still" It's easy to form a biased view of a person or group and especially that is the case when that person or group are doing or saying what you should be doing or saying (but are not)or maybe they are trying to help you correct things about yourself that you are not willing to correct.This is what happened to Jesus when he was on earth.His opposers were always trying to find fault with Him and they tried every trick in the book to discredit the master.They even used bullying tactics to humiliate those who wantwed to know more about the Christ.Please note John 7;47-49, here they were in effect saying "no reputable Biblical scholar...." so, who decides whether one is reputable or not?The Pharisees or God? Proverbs 18:13 says we should each of us learn first then speak,and verse 15 encourages us to "acquire knowledge" remember what happened to those who followed blind quides? both fell into the pit!So, keep your jaundiced view of the NWT,I take exception to those who try to ,without knowing me, try to place me into a category as one who mindlessly follows "leaders" did you not read Matthew 23:10 -we have no leader except the Christ.Millions of people are reading the NWT and they do it in many languages and it carries the power of God's word into their lives and produces righteous fruit.I am reminded of the words of Alexander Thomson, of Britain (outstanding Greek-Hebrew scholar,under appointment to the Queen for matters regarding the Bible) who said among other things (all positive about the NWT) "The New World Translation is not the work of Higher Critics, but of scholars who honour God and His Word" -the Differentiator june 1954 pp.131-136
  • It is always a good idea to consult a few various versions of "accurate" translations of the bible to understand the authors' correct meaning. However, that being said, one can come up with some very suspicious questions when examining current translations. First and foremost, why have virtually all translations, (except the NWT) eliminated God's name, YHWH,(or Jehovah in English) out of the bible, when it's plainly found in the original Hebrew text over 7,000 times? (sorry folks, no denying that fact, it's in the dead sea scrolls) Second, most current translations change their rules of grammer to fit their agendas. (example: compare John 1:1 and Acts 28:6- you'll notice that the NAS version adds an "a" in Acts 28 before "God" but does not in John 1:1 )If Bible translations have made these common errors, what other errors might be possible? I'm still trying to validate whether or not Jeopardy asked this question but regardless, I think that the New World Translation is the most honest attempt at a very accurate translation.
  • This is an addition to my answer above. Well, Madmat, that's why it's good to have four in the same place. (Most of the errors you cite are fairly trivial.) But they won't all have the same errors, so when there is a disagreement go with the majority. Your only alternative is to learn the original languages. Well, I know the original languages, but I still use an English translation most of the time. The Bible itself gives us reason to do this, because the New Testament quotes the Old Testament a lot. Instead of giving us a fresh and inspired translation from the Hebrew into the Greek, the New Testament usually quotes from the Septuagint, which was the popular Greek translation of the time. Even Jesus usually does this. So if a translation is generally very good, you can regard it as the word of God. It is possible to do a perfectly accurate word-for-word translation, but you wouldn't want to read it, and that's not how the New Testament translates the Old.
  • AMERICAN STANDARD VERSION.
  • Of course it's the NWT. Mr Singwell, perhaps you need to do some 'rigorous research'. Would it matter to say I'm a scholar? Not likely. You should ask some more Jewish, Christian and secular scholars - in noted universities in Athens and Israel. Ask what they use to teach Biblical text - you may be surprised.
    • Gone!
      I can't seem to find any references for your comment. I do however find many scholars that speak out against the translation.
  • With the question phrased as it is the answer has to be none. The original texts have not been found anywhere. You need to look at which translation is based on the MOST ANCIENT manuscripts available. Then you have to consider how authentic and reliable these manuscripts are and also how accurate is the translation and whether the translation leans towards conveying the meaning or just translating the text word for word.
  • One of my favorite translations of the Bible is the the American Standard Version (ASV 1901) of the Bible, from 1901. This serves as the precursor for the NASB (New American Standard Bible), which was written many years later (1974, edited in 1995). The ASV 1901 is the version where the authors, in the preface, stated: <quote> I. The change first recommended in the Appendix - that which substitutes "Jehovah" for "LORD" and "GOD" - is one which will be unwelcome to many, because of the frequency and familiarity of the terms displaced. But the American Revisers, after a careful consideration were brought to the unanimous conviction that a Jewish superstition, which regarded the Divine Name as too sacred to be uttered, ought no longer to dominate in the English or any other version of the Old Testament, as it fortunately does not in the numerous versions made by modern missionaries. This Memorial Name, explained in Ex. iii. 14, 15, and emphasized as such over and over in the original text of the Old Testament, designates God as the personal God, as the covenant God, the God of revelation, the Deliverer, the Friend of his people; -- not merely the abstractly "Eternal One" of many French translations, but the ever living Helper of those who are in trouble. This personal name, with its wealth of sacred associations, is now restored to the place in the sacred text to which it has an unquestionable claim. </quote> Yes, the original authors of the ASV, the source for the NASB, couldn't find justification for removing God's name. The NASB authors didn't even bother to offer an excuse for removing the name. In fact, one of the authors of the NASB said a big factor in the decision to remove God's name was that it wouldn't be marketable if they left it in. While any work of man is bound to be imperfect, the New World Translation (NWT) is a consistent Bible throughout both the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures. It also is correct in about 7000 places more than any other Bible published this century. That says a lot, and easily makes it the best translation available today.
  • If you ask me, I say the good old King James Bible is the most accurate (and if you ask me, the only truly accurate) translation of the Holy Bible. It's the only version of the Holy Scriptures that I believe in as the preserved, inerrant, infallible, inspired, and living Word of God for english-speaking people. Most newer versions attack the Trinity by tampering with or removing I John 5:7, or they attack Christ's blood atonement, virgin birth, Divinity, etc. I hope that this is helpful. -In the service of the Master. Thank you and God bless you!
  • none. they have all staretd out as hand written copies they have been subjected to revisions by kings and popes, then translated from an unknown language to other languages finally to english. not to mention that the bible didnt appear untill 500 years after the death of christ so it all written down from a giant game of "telephone"
  • What do you think of the book "Crisis of Conscience"?
  • Well, sinner saved by grace, in the Bible itself we see that you don't have to use the best translation, because about one tenth of the New Testament is quoted from the Old. The inspired writers and our Lord Himself did not make a new and inspired translation from the Hebrew every time they quoted; they usually used the Septuagint, which you can look up on Wikipedia. The Septuagint is pretty good in most places, but it's not perfect and it's not literal. This tells us that a pretty good translation is trustworthy. Since I seem to be the most qualified person on Answerbag to answer, I'll stick with my original answer--four good translations are better than ANY one translation. Especially if one of them is the King James. I tried to post this as a comment to my answer in answer to your comment, but there is a bug in AB and didn't allow it to post.
  • New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures edited by the Jehovah's Witness Watchtower Bible and Tract Society it the most accurate. It uses the name of Jehovah or Jeweh in Hebrew Aramaic over 7000 times. Psalms 83:18 for example says, "That people may know that you, whose name is Jehovah, You alone are the Most High over all the earth". Also think twice before judging the bible on accounts of John 1:1. Is that the only scripture that comes to mind? What about the things Jesus would say such as in Mathew 6: 9 and 10 “‘Our Father in the heavens, let your name be sanctified. 10 Let your kingdom come. Let your will take place, as in heaven, also upon earth". Whose name has to be sanctified? Jehovah's name, thank you and have a nice day. Remember to read the Holy Scriptures daily this way your faith can complement your knowledge and your knowledge your actions.
  • Dear "sinner", I feel certain that you are sincere ,however we must use the bible as our guide -2 Timothy 3:16 Trinity,is a doctrine and it does not occur in the Bible because it is man-made, and that goes for "rapture " also. You refer to John 1:1 (as do most trinitarians) as a proof text, if you read it in the original language (koine -greek) without prejudice, or use one of many careful translations that do not try to make it fit a doctrine, then you will see that it says that Jesus was not THE God but rather a god, godlike or divine -as are the angels.This agrees with Jesus own words at John 14:28 where He plainly states that the Father(Jehovah) is greater than He (Jesus)so they certainly could not be the same person.Hebrews ch.1 shows us that Jesus sat down -not on God's throne but to the right hand side of the "Majesty" and is better than the angels"to the extent that he has inherited a name better than theirs"- this was of course due to his obedience-phil.2:8 to whom was Jesus obedient? -Jehovah , his father of course! who is greater than Jesus and who "sent" Jesus to earth to die for "sinners".The reason some oppose the NWT and prefer the KJV is sometimes because the straightforward and clear modern language of the NWT does expose false doctrines and error more easily to the modern reader than the musty old language of 1611!imo.agape kimwally
  • Hmmm, let me ask you a question, have you ever heard of the 'comma Johanneum' found in the KJV at 1 John 5:7? Another, if I may,have you heard of or read the book "what Is the best New Testament" on page 87 there is published a test by a Professor E.C.Colwell who ,in 1947 -before the NWT existed- tested a number of translations as to accuracy. He used 64 problem texts in the book of John and gave them a score according to their accuracy. The most accurate was Goodspeed with a score of 64. Following was the Westminister (catholic)58, American Standard 58 ,Revised Standard 56, Moffatt's 56, Confraterity 35 ,Knox 33, Douay 25 and King James 0. Instead of making outrageous ,biased and unfounded claims about any translation of the Bible and those who appreciate it's value -may i suggest you obtain a copy of "Truth in Translation, accuracy and bias in English translations of the New Testament" Jason David BeDuhn - available at Amazon.This man is a well recognized Scholar who does not share your view of the NWT -so I am not sure where you get the 99.999+ with exception of two men in 50's and 70's from! kind regards kim
  • In 1947 (before the NWT was produced) there was a test made on various translations by Professor E.E.Colwell of 64 problem texts in the book of John. The results were published in a book "What is the best New Testament?" on page 87. Goodspeed was the most accurate with a perfect score of 64.Following was the westminister (Catholic) 58, American Standard 58, Revised Standard 56, Moffatt's 56, Confraternity 35, Knox 33, douay 25 and King James 0. So, those who really feel that the KJV is the most accurate translation lack support from the facts.Also,regarding adding words to a translation to support a doctrine -please research 1 john 5:7 the "comma Johanneum" trying to support the trinity doctrine! just one example.warm regards kimwally
  • Bug in the Answerbag program so that I can't answer a comment to my original post by AntigoneRising, so here it is: Antigone, textual criticism is a recognized scholarly discipline that has determined that we are so close to having the original wording that no important teaching of the Christian or Jewish religions is affected. In the case of the New Testament we're talking about five thousand copies spread all over the world--not all copies of the whole thing, of course, but of Bible books and chapters, quotations in other books, inscriptions, and translations into other languages. In the case of the Old Testament, it used to be fashionable to say that things were lost in transmission. Then the Dead Sea Scrolls showed up and proved that 1200 years of hand-copying hadn't changed anything significant. The Bible isn't the Koran, which asserts to be the literal word of Allah; it is mediated by the prophets, which means that if the message gets through substantially, even in translation, it's gotten through. For example, 10% of the New Testament and of the words of Jesus are direct quotes from the Old Testament--and 90% of those are from the Septuagint, rather than being an inspired re-translation. I have NEVER argued about variations in the old manuscripts, because the questions are only important to scholars.
  • I think it is always best to go directly to the source if you want to be informed truthfully.The Bible tells us that there would be those who would not be faithful, they would in fact beat their fellow slaves -Matt :24:48-51 they would shrink back Heb 10:26-39 they would return like a dog to the vomit,return to the things behind -we should not be surprised if some after many years of following the path, go astray.It is important for us though, to conduct our own investigation -like those 'noble minded' ones -acts 17:11 -why waste time with self serving books like "crisis of conscience" when there are nearly 7 million christians getting on with the job ordered by the Christ -matt 24:14; 28:19,20 Focus on the Christ -not on those who have spirit of complaint -and He will lead you to victory!
  • I feel the NWT is the most accurate as it is consistant in it's translation of words where as many substitute soul for the word spirit to try and prove the doctrine of the immortality of the soul which has no scriptural basis. Much research is done to verify their use of words and their true meaning.
  • I dont believe there is one
  • I don't think there is one.
  • (response to answer #21) Dear kim, This is an assuming statement; "The reason some oppose the NWT and prefer the KJV is sometimes because the straightforward and clear modern language of the NWT does expose false doctrines and error more easily to the modern reader than the musty old language of 1611!" The question originally posed at the beginning of this thread is a broad one, indeed. You are obviously partial to the NWT. It should be noted that in the above statement, you are comparing the NWT to only one of many available other trans-denominational interpretations; the KJV. However, it does not take a theological scholar, or a scholar of any type for that matter, to discern that all of these other versions; KJV, NASB, NIV, NET, etc, all concur regarding the most central themes of scripture. For example, you mention the trinity. Why is it that the NWT is the only version that attempts to refute this truth? And please, do not waste any more valuable time discussing bias. The NIV was interpreted by an international team of over 100 trans-denominational scholars to protect the translation from bias. The NET, as well, was interpreted by a team of over 25 scholars. The NET was created to be distributed free, not for profit. So there was no financial motivation to bend the text in any particular direction. In addition, it includes ALL of the 60,000+ notes that were used during translation so the reader can see how the text was converted. These are only two of many versions of the bible that agree with each other on all of the main points that the NWT solely attempts to refute. If 20 people tell me that 2+2=4 and they can show me the math to prove it, why would I trust the one individual telling me it equals 5, when they can’t show me how they reached that conclusion?
  • The first thing I notice is that the King James bible is a "version" and has no claims of being a translation. Many other bible are printed based on the King James "Version" as a reference. Can it really be called a translation if some of it is also interpertation?
  • Borasalama's comment is true, however, many imperfect humans look to find the closest translation that mirrors the intent of the orginal bible writers. Having said, I believe its worth looking at "2001 Translation - An American English Bible" This is a great online resource that is well documented and appears to be unbiased. Unfortunately, this Bible is available only online. Hopefully it will someday be available in hardcopy. Take a look it's a very informative source. I've compared it with other translations including the NWT and find it corrects a number of errors in those translations.
  • The answer of course, with out a doubt, is the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures. Those who want to hang on to their false beliefs of the Trinity and so forth, will not accept even though the KJV also shows Jesus to be the first born of all creation and in subjection to GOD the FATHER. KJV - Revelation 3:14 "the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of GOD" ....God is head over all including Christ Jesus (KJV) 1 Cronicles 29:11, 1 Corinthians 11:3. These and many other scriptures show them not to be the same or equal. For the person who said they pray to Jesus, Please read Matthew 6:9(KJV) where Jesus tells his followers "After this manner therefore pray ye; Our FATHER which art in heaven" In fact you should read verses 1-18 of chapter 6 and then read John 14:13&14 and 2 Corinthians 1:20 that we should pray in Jesus name
  • Whether "the question" was or was not on Jeopardy!... Isn't it interesting how adamant so many are to PROVE it was NOT. I wonder if the answer had been anything other than NWT...would this have even been worthy of a discussion?
  • None of them. The bible as we know it is a collection of stories, edited and translated throughout 100's of years. There is no 1 original text. The original stories were passed down through generations in the oral tradition and eventually interpreted and written down in ancient languages, like Aramaic. Translaters worked on various translations throughout the ages...some translaters were good and fairly accurate, others not so much. As always with oral stories, they change, are exaggerated, and embellished, parts forgotten and the blank filled in from imagination, and altered to suit the agenda of the story-teller. Many of the stories were heard as a 'news teller' would travel the countryside, telling what is going on...like a town crier. Many of the stories were originally based on a happening, a person, an event....many are metaphors and mythological stories meant to teach people rules of cultural behaviour or religious expectations. These, of course, are loaded with personal agendas of the people in charge....and especially of the male religious leaders.
  • There are many good translations, which have been worked on by panels of many qualified people. As the knowledge of Koine Greek and Biblical Hebrew increases (with the discovery of more and more manuscripts), we get better and better translations. As long as the panel is chosen from a wide selection of scholars, as long as their work is evaluated and re-evaluated before publication, and as long as the panel is open to questioning, the translation is bound to be a good one. I am a linguist myself, and know how difficult it can be to create a translation of a passage, let alone such an important work as the Bible, but, over the years, there have been some excellent translations including the RSV, the NIV, the NASB, the NKJV and of course, for its time, the KJV. I have worked with all of these, and several in other languages, and I find no contradictions between them in doctrine. Some translate the verbs a little better than others (tenses are very different in Hebrew and Greek than in English, but the meaning is still clear. As someone clever once wrote: it's not the 10% of the Bible I don't understand that worries me. It's the 90% I do.
  • Perhaps the most important question is, are we doing the will of God? No matter how much debate goes on about any biblical belief, in the end Jesus said,"Ye shall know them by their FRUITS" Matthew 7:16 (King James Version) He never mentioned 'by the most exact bible or by their unique belief system'. Jesus enfasized this by also saying,"Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that DOETH THE WILL of my Father which is in heaven." (Mathew 7:21 -King James Version) In other words, doing Gods will is of utmost importance above anyone's specific views on exactness or fully understanding God's nature. Lets "DOETH THE WILL of my Father" by following these words of Christ, "And this gospel of the KINGDOM shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come." Mathew 24:14 -King James Version) Jesus also "sent them TWO AND TWO before his face into every city and place." (Luke 10:1 -King James Version) The apostle Paul, as many others true christians of his day, many years after the death of Christ continued "FROM HOUSE TO HOUSE" baring the fruits of true christianity. (Acts 20:20 -King James Version) We ALL KNOW who are the only peoples that follow these exact steps of Christ. If you don't preach "in all the world" the "gospel of the KINGDOM", by "TWO AND TWO" and from "FROM HOUSE TO HOUSE" you belong to a fake copy of christianity known as christendom or babylon the great ! YET I'M SURE SOME WEAK EXCUSE WILL BE POSTED AFTER THIS ONE, THAT WILL MAKE BABYLON THE GREAT FEAL GOOD ABOUT THEMSELVES, WHEN THEY SHOULD SIMPLY "DOETH THE WILL of my Father"! YOU CAN READ THESE TEXTS IN ANY BIBLE AND GET THE SAME RESULTS, "DOETH THE WILL of my Father".
  • 1 Timothy 6:3,4 counsels us not be be preoccupied over "words" -and instead of fruitless debates we need to get the sense of the message of the Bible which I and millions of others on this planet accept as the word of God. If someone were to approach you and give you life saving information, would you be overly concerned with their grammar? So, too with the various Bible translations - they all have the basic message,firstly we need to get the sense of that -then worry about the smaller(but important)issues.Fortunately the Bible's main teachings are emphasized throughout -all we need is an honest heart. Mark 4:12
  • If I had to choose only one, I would say the King James Version.
  • geneva bible. king james did not have a good reason for another translation. king james did not like the geneva bible notes, like exodus 1:17 bible note that said hebrew midwives were right to disobey the egyptain kings command to kill all the male babies. king james did not want anyone to disobey him. the puritains and pilgrims used the geneva bible and did not join the church of england. king james did not like them. after the king james bible was printed in 1611 king james made ownership of the geneva bible a felony. the geneva bible was translated from the original hebrew and greek. i do not believe the king james version is a bad translation. tolle lege press, genevabible.com and joyful home resources has geneva bibles.
  • the reader's digest version. It only has 5 commandments.
  • Just a brief comment on Philippians 2:6 "anonymous" said that the king James is accurate here -not so, The KJ rendering "Let this mind be in you,.....thought it not robbery...." is incorrect as the pronoun "it" is not in the greek but was added or inserted.By omitting the unwarranted pronoun "it" there is no support for the trinity "who, being in the form of God,thought not robbery to be equal with God" The sense is that Jesus did not even contemplate such equality.Or "he did not grasp at equaliy with God" Goodspeed "did not regard equality with God as a prize"Byington unlike the devil-Jesus was humble and obedient to his God
  • Just a brief comment on Philippians 2:6 "anonymous" said that the king James is accurate here -not so, The KJ rendering "Let this mind be in you,.....thought it not robbery...." is incorrect as the pronoun "it" is not in the greek but was added or inserted.By omitting the unwarranted pronoun "it" there is no support for the trinity "who, being in the form of God,thought not robbery to be equal with God" The sense is that Jesus did not even contemplate such equality.Or "he did not grasp at equaliy with God" Goodspeed "did not regard equality with God as a prize"Byington unlike the devil-Jesus was humble and obedient to his God
  • The New World Translation is.
  • The Bible is a book, nothing more, even if inspired, it was still written by the hand of men (interesting how one will consider the bias of a translator, but not the hands who put quille to parchment or papyrus). The Bible is a record of a several traditions, cut and pasted together, both "OT" and "NT." You will not find the truth within a book, you will only find the truth within yourself (Deut.30:14), once you have found the truth engraved on your heart, then your eyes will be opened to the truth that exists everywhere (in the Bible or creation). Before this one translation is as good or muddled as the next. If you are serious to REALLY know what the the writers wanted to say, then you would learn Greek and Hebrew and read the texts in their original languages.
  • none is truely accurate, the bible is very inaccurate
  • I've been told the New American Standard Bible is the closest, but I don't really have any evidence of that. It is my preferred version.
  • The King James
  • I would not know how to define most accurate, but I like both the old Kings James version and the old Reina Valera Version. I am not too much into the new versions.
  • This reply is for answer 28 out of 53. I am JimmyO. In my younger years, I was a Lutheran Pastor. I have been around the spiritual block. Preached my brains out. All with right motives. My only concern is the truth. The very first question in Luther's Catechism is What is God's will concerning Man? Luther answered the question with a quote from 1 Timothy 2:3,4: "This is fine and acceptable in the sight of our Savior, God, whose will is that all men should be saved and come to an accurate knowledge of truth." And I will change my beliefs a hundred times a day, if the Bible tells me so. Glenn, you've put the cart, your beliefs, before the horse. Don't believe something without the Bible, the horse, dictating it. I have no agenda. I yield 100 per cent to the written Word of God. I am nobody in His presence. Wake up people. It's crunch time. I know a lot about other translations, studied them at the seminary where I received my training to be an ordained minister. I use all translations of the Bible for my research. I just found the New World translation to be the closet to the Greek intent. There is very little differnce between translations, so all doctrine is easily proven by any transalation. Or disproven. The name of the game is let God's Written Word take precedence over personal erroneous conclusions to support large influential religions with pre-determined doctrines. Don't be deceived by a large building that has been around for centuries. Remember, Satan appears as an "angel of light." And he wants us to go down with him. He has a one-way ticket to non-existence. And he wants us to join him. John 8:44 says he is the "Father of the lie." He told Eve the first lie: "Eat the fruit. You won't die." She died. Satan lied through his Devilish teeth. Read Delorean's book "God is Red." He is an American Indian. And he says Religion has gone way beyond simplicity. Big buildings. Big money. Glittering generalities. Be careful. Jesus said his followers would be "hated for no reason." Are people in your church hated for no reason, as Jesus was? If not, make a list, check it twice. Someone has been naughty and not nice. Stop paying preachers. Stop passing collection plates for money. Yes, there are bills to pay, heat, lights, etc. Read a monthly accounts report, put a contibution box in the back of the building. People will donate as needed. If the church is of God, He will motivate and provide the neccessities. His holy spirit is marvelous! Add to that, powerful! It's time to test the waters.
  • Not the NWT. By the way, the reference to Alex Trebek extoling the accuracy of the NWT on Jeopardy is an internet hoax.
  • It doesn't matter. This is JimmyO again. What we all need to do is study or read Alexander Hislop's "The Two Babylons." This guy has done his homework bigtime! You can get it on the internet. Talk about an eye-opener! And when you read his works, go to your own Bible translation and read and weep. So, it doesn't really matter which translation you have. The proof will be "in the pudding," as the old saying goes. In my younger years, I was a Lutheran minister, the seminary, study in Greek, the works, preached my brains out with a true-blue motive, subjected myself to the will of God the Father, died to myself, and supported only the written Word of God. Remember, as Jesus said, "If a blind man follows a blind man, both wll fall into the pit." So, do your own homework and don't trust anyone, even if they have a special garb on their bodies, and a special collar. Again, check out Alexader Hislop, an ordained clergyman. It's time to look into the mirror and spit. God comes first, not us! Let's not get too full of our intellectual selves. "Pride precedes a fall." And tell churches to stop depending on money so much. They've created monster buildings for themselves, large overhead. Huge salaries. And, "Jesus had nowhere to lay down his head." Are we greater than our Master, Christ? Wake up, people! Who has a better translation? Distracting puppy talk. "Trust in God with all your heart, and do not rely upon your own understanding." He inspired the book, let Him be in charge. Get out of the way, let Him do His stuff. He'll direct us, no matter which translation we have in our self-righteous hands. Stop defending religion, start defending the Holy written Word of God.
  • In my many years of teaching the truth, it never ceases to amaze me, how those of the Born-Again faiths stubbornly cling the doctrines that have been proven buy the most respected of scholars to be incorrect as to what the bible really teaches. It's like teaching a tone deaf person to sing correctly. They will never get it. They are full of nonsense that is all teachings of the demons. Don't you find yourself shaking your head in disbelief when you read some of this crap? I certainly do. This person who goes by "trust in the Lord Jesus Christ". Everything he says is obviously based on what his Pastor, or Priest, (or some other grandiose title that the lord said not to use) has told him and to him it is truth to him. He is just like all the other Born-Agains I know who will stubbornly refuse to see the truth, even though it's right under their noses. It just amazes me how many of them refuse to look into it. I was once a Catholic, then a Pentecostal and then a Baptist, and I really tried hard to learn as much as I could about God, but, I never had such a stubborn stiff-necked closed minded attitude that cause me to not listen to what others had to say, and I thank God for that! Because of my humble attitude, I now know the truth. I thought I knew much, but found I knew nothing correctly when it came to the bible. How can anyone be so stiff-necked that they do not think, even if for a moment, to themselves, "what if I am wrong?" Our very salvation hangs on what we believe. I am not so closed minded so as to not be willing to be taught new things, and that, my born-again friends, is what will save my life. Very soon now this world is going to experience the great tribulation starting with the destruction of false religion. You will find this in Revelation Chapters 17 & 18... If you care and even dare to face this truth. Know this... The governments ARE going to turn on all the false religion in this would, (and that's you) and you who are so haughty and closed minded and have to be right at any cost will finally have to admit that Jehovah's Witnesses did have the correct, most accurate translation and most of all, had the truth. The truth hurts, yes, but are you so sure that you are not willing to verify these things before you attack them? Are you that foolish? Makes me thing of Jesus word.. "blind guides who strain out the gnat but gulp down the Camel". For those of you who choose to worship Jesus as God, remember Jesus' words where he said, and I am paraphrasing... They said to me, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and expell demons in your name... and do many powerful works in your name? (note that this is saying these would be people who thought that they were worshipping correctly) but I said to them, get away from me you workers of lawlessness, I never knew you. That is what you Born-Again' are... Workers of lawlessness. I am thankful that I am humble so that I could be shown the truth. I know what you all believe, and I know why you believe it as well as the twisting of the scriptures you use to support it. I was there where you are. But I could see for myself that these Born-Again faiths did not have it all correct. My fainth was strong where I knew it was correct, but many other things are based on weak philosophy and pagan teachings. There was something not right and so I kept searching for the truth. Born-Agains are not willing to accept the proof and I will never get that. You will say that I just did not have strong faith, but let me asure you that that kind of faith was no more than blind faith. my faith is based on the "ASSURED expectation of the things hoped for". Your kind of faith is blind faith. I will never understand the hard-headedness that causes you to be so stuborn so that you will not open mindely listen to facts.I did listen, open mindedly, if for nothing else than to make sure there was not something that I had missed. It turned out that there was much I had missed. You should humble yourselves and pray to God, the creator, and ask him to help you to make sure that you have the truth. This of course will take more than reading what some religio-philosophic book. It will take reading the bible, and then looking into the text. Ask yourself, "what was the original word that this was translated from, and then find out, and then find out what that word meant to those in the time it was written. This my Born-Again friends is good advice. But as most of you always do, you will refuse to humbly look into it and you will continue to argue about it, and you will continue to try to stop those who are listening to us from doing so. But just as surely as you will refuse to be humble and make sure of your faith, you will just as surely, find yourselves having the true Lord say to you, "get away from me you workers of lawlessness. I never knew you." When the Great Tribulation begins, with the governments turning on and wiping out and destroying your false religions, remember that it was the worshippers of the true God Jehovah who told you about this and tried to get you to listen and you refused. Also, you need to know that this attack is from God. He will be using the governments to bring his judgment on all of these false religions for how you have misrepresented God and wipe you all out. Thanks for listening...
  • Every church supports a different translation. Here's a good test. Every church start paying taxes on their properties, church or otherwise, business included. It was never the intention of the Founding Fathers of our nation to exempt religion from taxation. Certain selfish self-serving men slipped in and foisted the law through to exempt churches from paying taxes, as they supported their own personal churches. So, start taxing religious properties and see what happens. If we have the faith, God will provide. After all, the Bible says God "owns all the gold and silver" in the ground. He will make it work. Stop passing a collectiion plate, stop paying people to preach, let them get part time jobs, like the Apostle Paul who made tents for a living so as not to burden the congregations. In otherwords, start obeying the translation in our hands, no matter what the transalation is. If we cannot do that, all this debate as to who has the best translation is a moot point. Wake up, People. The hypocrisy of religionists is starting to nauseate me. If we cannot stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. Jesus said he was personally "hated for no reason." He added, "You, too, will be hated for no reason." If we're not hated for no reason, our particular translation has failed us. No, correct that statement. WE have failed. The translation in our lily-white self-righteous hands is doing just fine. Our religious leaders have failed us, or they haven't, then we personally have failed to apply their counsel and the counsel of the translatiion in our hands. Worship of God is serious business. It has nothing to do with cutesy emotions while listening to beautiful music in church. Worship of God is an intellectual experience first. The emotions come later, as we appreciate what we have learned intellectually. Are you up for the test? I certainly am! Pretend you're on top of Mt. Carmel and Eljah is taunting the Baal worshippers to cause fire to consume the sacrifice. The Baal worshippers screamed and cut themselves and danced all over the place. Then Elijah prayed, fire sprayed down from heaven and consumed the sacrifice. To this very day, the soil on top of Mt. Carmel still has residues of atomic crystals in it. The Nutsy thing about all of this is that the Baal worshippers believed they were worshipping the Most High God. So much for their translation and misapplication of it. Let's all get with the program and look in the mirror and realize we are nothing but dust.
  • People need to be careful about listening to urban legends. I bet "Anonymous" is a Jehovah's Witness himself and loves to spread around this myth without looking at the accuracy of his statements. Also, you might find it interesting to look up this person David BeDunn. In all cases (that I've taken the time to research) of the Jehovah's Witnesses quoting scholars that supposably state their bibles accuracy, they have ALL been misquoted!! Even one of the scholars the JW's quote is a self proclaimed devil worshiper. Yet they are more than happy to quote him as testimony of their bibles accuracy. Again, I'm the second person to ask this: Provide a video of Alex Trabek on Jeopardy stating that the NWT is the most accurate. Then we'll talk. PS- The Jewish people usually do not mention the true name of God because of a superstition surrounding it. So the fact that the JW's put in the name Jehovah being spoken left and right by the Jewish people is a testament to the inaccuracy of their version. To this day the Jewish people are superstitious about YHWH! Not to mention the JW's even put the Hebrew name in the New Testament part of the bible- and they spoke Greek not Hebrew! The NWT is a joke written by uneducated biased cult members.
  • John Dough- is right. The New World Translation being on Jeopardy as the most accurate bible is a hoax and completely fabricated by JW gossip. As a side note, someone asked a good question, which is better left to debate on it's own thread.- They stated that the true religion will be known by it's fruits. Apparently, that person is only looking at door to door ministry as fruits. But think about this: The Catholics minister through not only door to door work, but also in missionary work, television networks, AA meetings, homeless shelters, hospitals, food banks, soup kitchens, grade schools, high schools, colleges, catechism, and RCIA classes (just to name a few). Hands down, the Catholics do the most charity work and have more charitable organizations than any other religion on earth. If it wasn't for them, who would feed the poor and witness to them while giving them bread? I'm not saying that other religions don't do some work, but the Catholics do it in grand mass proportions. The Jehovah's Witnesses millions of dollars, if not billions, aren't seen doing anything in the world. Only some individual JW's do, but the organization does not have any part of it. That's their fruits. Anyways, for another thread maybe.
  • I'm sure everyone thought how they served God was okay in Noah's day....unfortunately only Noah, his wife, and their 3 sons and son's wives were saved. Think about this....if MOST christians had the truth and were practicing according to God's word, then the majority of problems that we experience in this world would simply not exist... One of the Largest religious Organizations on Earth (Catholism) has historically been behind most of the Religious conflicts over the past 1000 years as well as the 20th century. It was the Roman Catholic Church that put Hitler into power. "Thou Shalt not Kill" one of God's most basic of basic commands. Read your history fokes..and Read your Bible.
  • I don't have an opinion on the most accurate, but I KNOW the NWT is not it. The NWT translation was obviously written to back Watchtower Tract Society doctrine. Research the translators of the NWT and you'll find that they had very little to no Hebrew or Greek training. Nathan Knorr was the only one with any education, and he had 2yrs Community College. If the NWT is accurate, why are the JW'S the only one's using it?????? Exactly!!!
  • Jimmy0 here again. I've read the answers of people to what I said, and what others have said. Let's start over. Forget what I said as to the Watchtower Society having the best translation. Go back to your translation and believe it. It doesn't matter what translation you have in your hands. Matthew 10:8 quotes Jesus' words: "You received free, give free." If you are passing a collection plate in church each Sunday and paying the preacherman, you have violated your own translation and cancelled out your argument as to who has the best transalation. Clean house first. Stop paying your preacher man and obey the words of Jesus. If you cannot do that, your whole argument is a moot point. When you get your act together, respond again. Otherwise, all this debating about who has the best translation is a joke. Emperor Constantine in the 4th century started passing collection plates to appease the pagans. If you can't obey what you deem is the best translation in your hands, get off the planet, or sit in a corner quietly
  • All translationa are basically the same, with small variations. In World War I, 27 nations fought each other. 24 of the 27 claimed to be Christian. Catholics, Protestants, Baptists, the works. People of the same religion killed each other, just because they lived in different countries. And the clergy blessed the weapons. History books and the webs have photos of religious leaders doing this. Didn't these religious leader read the translation in their hands? Whatever translation these religions were using must not have had any meaning at all. Read on the internet about the holocaust and the museum at Washington D.C. explaining it. In World War II Catholics killed Catholics, Lutherans killed Lutherans, Baptists killed Baptists. Yet, Jehovah's Witnesses refused to kill Catholics and Lutherans and Baptists just because they lived in other countries. German JW's refused to kill Catholics and Lutherans and Baptists in the war. Can anyone please explain this blatant rejection of the written Word of God by priests and ministers to me? Oh, one more thing, the site at Washington DC says the first person executed in a German concentration camp was a Jehovah's Witness, not a Jew, for refusing to fight in Hitler's army and kill Catholics and Lutherans and Baptists in America. Maybe the JW's have a lousy translation, that's OK. What they did do was obey the translations in the hands of Catholica and Lutherans and Baptists, all of whom did not obey their own translations when they killed each other in war. Could someone please explain that to me as well? I await your answers.
  • Great question. When looking at translations of Scripture, there are basically three schools of thought. Literal, Dynamic, and Free. The "Literal" translations of the Bible look to translate the text directly from the Greek or Hebrew and try to be as close as possible to the original text. The problem here is that much of the historical distance is kept (weights, measures, connotation, euphemisms, etc) and the english may be poor and hard to understand. (Examples: King James Version, New American Standard, etc.) The "Dynamic" translations try to eliminate some historical distance and clean up the English by looking at the Greek and Hebrew text and translating words, idioms, and ideas. The problem here is that things may be demphasized for the sake of understanding the passage. (Examples: New International Versiion, New American Bible, New English Bible, Good News Bible, etc.) The "Free" translations are the most subjective. It looks to eliminate all historical distance and speak soley the language of the reader. The problem here is that the Bible is wrapped up in a culture and much of that culture is used to teach lessons throughout scripture (i.e. the Jewish wedding/Coming of Christ) and with the Free translation much of that is translated into Western language that doesn't carry the same weight or pack the same puch as it did in the Greek or Hebrew. Hebrew is a very picturesque language using word pictures to describe the things of God. Greek is a highly inflective language and the placement of a word depends on how it ends. Much of those aspects are lost in translations. You would be VERY well off if you could read Greek or Hebrew and dig into the Scriptures that way, but thanks be to God that He speaks to us in our own language and we can be confident that the message of Christ in the Bibles we have is just as powerful today as it was when it was first penned. As far as tranlsational issues, I would encourage you to get a "Parallel Study Bible." It has 4 (maybe more) translations side by side that way if you are studying in the NIV for example, you can look over to the KJV and see what is emphasized or included that the NIV may have even left out. There is no perfect translation. My advice to all would be to read and study the Word of God as much as you can. Read all translations. Compare them. Read Biblical commentaries. Soak it all in. The best thing we can do as Children of God is to be a sponge to everything that He has to say to us. Hope this helps! God bless!
  • New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures of course! You can TRUST the bible for everything Read 2 Timothy 3:16 Question for anyone: also where in ANY bible does the WORD "trinity" apear ? Where ? ? ? ?
  • New American standard
  • I own an Interlinear Greek-English New Testament. It is by far the most accurate translation. It shows the Greek but under it, it has the English words. They make no sense at all because it is word for word with no regard for English grammatical structure. It also contains the Strong's numbers over the words as well as the KJV in the right margin and a literal translation in the left margin. My preferred Bible is the NASB. It is very accurate in the word for word sense but is still readable.
  • It's funny how all these JW's fail to mention that Jehovah, translated into plain English means "God of Israel". They forget that neighboring nations weren't instant Christians and prayed and worshiped other "gods". So as any nation would do, they lay faith and claim to the God of their land as others didn't believe. Despite the small bits of arrogance or pride that might resonate, that's why the name "Jehovah" appears 7,000+ times... Obviously God's Word and his Son's sacrifice grew and spread globally. He is the ruler of all things, not just Israel. Saying because Muslims refer to him a Allah and it is written, that Allah is his name, when it too, also translate to "God". No one knows God's name, we address our Heavenly Father by his titles and those alone. God, Allah, Father, The Alpha and the Omega, etc. The JW's are a satanist cult. Anything trying to lead you away from Jesus is evil.
  • I like NIV study bible. Easy to understand great footnotes
  • The Zondervan direct translation is the most accurate in my opinion. The Original text is just above the translated text. It is sweet reading. Of course with the direct translation the original sentence structure is different than English. For example in English we may say; He is here. In Hebrew it would say, He here. A lot of the, what I call fill in words, are not there. Still it is very sweet reading.
  • Your best bet is, get a copy of the reprint of the Geneva Bible 1599 edition. It came from the great reformers, Tyndale etc. It also corrects the errors found in the KJV.
  • hey i us the new world translation. hey iam a jehovah's witnesse to.
  • When looking at translations of Scripture, there are basically three schools of thought. Literal translations, Dynamic translations, and Free translations. The "Literal" translation of the Bible looks to translate the text directly from the Greek or Hebrew and tries to be as close as possible to the original text. The problem here is that much of the historical distance is kept (weights, measures, connotation, euphemisms, etc) and the english may be poor and hard to understand. (Examples: King James Version, New American Standard, etc.) The "Dynamic" translation tries to eliminate some historical distance and clean up the English by looking at the Greek and Hebrew text and translating words, idioms, and ideas. The problem here is that things may be demphasized for the sake of understanding the passage. (Examples: New International Version, New American Bible, New English Bible, Good News Bible, etc.) The "Free" translation is the most subjective. It looks to eliminate all historical distance and speak soley the language of the reader. The problem here is that the Bible is wrapped up in a culture and much of that culture is used to teach lessons throughout scripture (i.e. the Jewish wedding/Coming of Christ) and with the Free translation much of that is translated into Western language that doesn't carry the same weight or pack the same puch as it did in the Greek or Hebrew. Hebrew is a very picturesque language using word pictures to describe the things of God. Greek is a highly inflective language and the placement of a word depends on how it ends. Much of those aspects are lost in translations. You would be VERY well off if you could read Greek or Hebrew and dig into the Scriptures that way, but thanks be to God that He speaks to us in our own language and we can be confident that the message of Christ in the Bibles we have is just as powerful today as it was when it was first penned. As far as tranlsational issues, I would encourage you to get a "Parallel Study Bible." It has 4 (maybe more) translations side by side that way if you are studying in the NIV for example, you can look over to the KJV and see what is emphasized or included that the NIV may have even left out. There is no perfect translation. My advice to all would be to read and study the Word of God as much as you can. Read all translations. Compare them. Read Biblical commentaries. Soak it all in. The best thing we can do as Children of God is to be a sponge to everything that He has to say to us. Hope this helps! God bless!
  • The KJV is generally accepted as the most accurate and the most scholarly, or at least it is with independent fundamental Christians, though it must be said that we should be KJV preferenced and not KJV only. As to the interpretation thereof, there are two words I picked up in college that are of importance, and they are exegesis (ex-e-gee-sis) and eisegesis (eye-se-gee-sis), assuming I spelled both of them correctly. The first of which means taking what is said in the text and drawing from only what is said our doctrinal beliefs, compiling and comparing all individual passages with each other, thereby not contradicting any other verse or doctrine with our own interpretation, which could very well be askew. Eisegesis is basically what I just hinted at above, the forceful fusion of what is said in the text and what we want to get from it, tossing objectivity and fundamental doctrine out of the window, as do cults.
  • I was gonna say the TV guide, but I'll go with the New King James Bible which seems to have been accepted universally for the most prominent faces of Christianity, though there are some conflicts and some prefer other versions, due to the translation issues. But, more people accept it as a modern day translation where it was changed to fit our times while apparently still retaining the same messages, only without thou shalt and all, which some people also still prefer on the account that the transcription would mean otherwise than it originally did. :/
  • You may want to consider the New Oxford Revised Standard version of the Bible with the Apocrypha. It is considered one of the most comprehensive and complete translations from the original languages - comparing even the Dead Sea Scrolls with the many other historic scrolls preserved from 60 A.D back through the ancient days. There are still some scholars that say the King James version is a very accurate translation from the original languages, especially the last chapter of the Book of Mark in the New Testament (whereas many modern, politically correct translations do NOT include this controversial text found in the oldest scripts). The New Oxford Bible with the Apocrypha is a beautiful study Bible if you are a serious student and want your translation as close to the original languages as possible. There are a few errors I have noted in the old King James translation, one being that a reference to the "Passover" in the original language is translated in KJ to say, "Easter," which is totally incorrect. Otherwise, it is trustworthy if you enjoy the flowery, poetic King's English. Many people in the Christian world also like the "Amplified Bible" which expands the text throughout to give the reader a full understanding of all possible translations from the original languages. This Bible saves you the time of going to the Concordance or a Greek/Hebrew Translator as it attempts to explain as you read. It can be a bit distracting at times as compared to the readability of other translations. You probably should stay away from the International Version and especially the NEW International Version (NIV) of the Bible as the translators have taken way too much liberty with the original scripts and have also willfully changed what the inspired writings say in order to achieve a politically correct agenda. In some cases their translations and omissions are simply wrong. I hope this is helpful to you in your search for truth and the empowerment that comes from an earnest study of the inspired Word of God.
  • The 1599 reprint of the Geneva Bible would be your best translation. This was the first full printed edition into English by the great Bible scholars like Tyndale in Geneva Switzerland at the time. It was this Bible that was carried over to the new world by the Puritans. The Pilgrims had this edition. The Pilgrims would not have had the KJV, as they were fleeing religious prosecution in Europe. The KJV was more of a government controlled edition, from King James of England. In the King James 1611 edition, he told his translators to deliberately omit key foot notes from the Bible. You can find the history on this by looking up the Geneva Bible. Reading and comparing the Geneva translation to modern translations is like reading two different books. The NIV translation is one of the worst, omitting many original verses from the Bible entirely. The average person wouldn’t even notice this unless you were looking for the omissions
  • The one you are reading
  • There is an infuriating bug in the Answerbag program that I have been complaining about for two years that often doesn't allow me (and others) to reply to comments, so this is not a new answer it's a reply to the comments to my post. Antigone, there are thousands of ancient copies of parts of the the New Testament, and many scholars have spent their entire careers doing the detective work necessary to determine what the autographs (the originals) must have said. Greek New Testaments are printed with the variations in the footnotes. Most variants are trivial. Some aren't so trivial, but church bodies don't base any of their doctrines on manuscript variants. Every year while teaching John's Gospel my students would translate one particular sentence and I'd say "I know you're all planning to memorize that one for the next time Jehovah's Witnesses ring your chimes, but don't, because there's an alternate reading." To say that the KJV is the "only trustworthy translation" is to say that we haven't learned anything since 1611 and that only English-speakers can have the word of God. Please look at my answer again--a four-column's "mistakes" will cancel each other out.
  • I don't think any of you actualy understand why the bible was written. if you love god then you will understand that the message presented within the pages of his holy word are sacred no matter which translation you are using. "When thy heart spake these words doseth thou care to anounce them to his own soul and keep holding fast to his sanctification?" If i was to write in this style of language only a person from 17th centuary england could truly undestand me and even then he could inteperate in anyway he wishes. from greek to english the wescott and hort translation is most accurate taking into account modern use of language. anyone saying otherwise has not read the entire bible in this format. Ecclesiasties 12:13 Psalms 83:18 John 13:34,35 Mark 16:19 John 8:27-45 can you disern what the bible tells you?
  • Christians have been around for 2,000 years. Does it really make sense that about 100 years ago some men who didn't even know the Greek or Hebrew languages (as spoken in their own words under oath) would translate the most accurate bible, the NWT???? It's obvious that Jehovah's Witnesses have tried to overwhelm the answer to this question with their own bias views about their own bible- the NWT. Yet, not one Jehovah's Witness can provide me with the so-called "Jeopardy" episode that this urban legend came from. This should not be an OPINION question, but rather a SCHOLARLY one, answered by Doctors of Theology.
  • Have you actually Read through the entire bible....and made a word for word, grammerical comparision? An entire chapter?
  • Does it really matter? If you are truly reading YOUR COPY OF THE BIBLE to find answers to REAL questions about God, He will guide you to REAL answers.
  • Lets see. God had his name over 7,000 times in His inspired word recorded for our benefit. I think He wanted us to use it. A bible cannot be accurate when you start out with over 7,000 errors, can it? Advantage NWT. Big time.
  • The new world translation of the holy scriptures is the most acurate translation according to oxford, who wants to be a millionare, and jeopardy.
  • Stay with the Geneva Bible, it is the most accurate translation into the English language. Originally from the original work of the finest theologians in history, as well as from the Greek and Latin manuscripts at the time. From great men like; William Tyndale, Martin Luther, John Calvin, John Knox. The Pilgrims carried this Bible. New World translation? Give me a break! This is a perverted version of scripture produced by the Jehovah Witnesses.
  • Here's some food for thought for those of you who appreciate an objective viewpoint, who are willing to accept the truth no matter how unpopular it may be; for those of you who think with your God-given power of reason instead of merely accepting whatever you're taught as do the majority: As aforementioned by others in this forum, most modern translations of the Holy Scriptures have adhered to an erroneous practice of replacing the Tetragrammaton with impersonal pronouns such as "LORD." The New World Translation is one of the few minority that have esteemed accuracy to be more important than popularity or tradition. What do you personally want to believe? What the 'majority' of friends and family might believe, what the 'majority' of religious leaders may teach? Since when has what is right ever been popular? Throughout the entire history of God's people as recorded in the Bible, those who truly had God's favor and protection were always the minority, and almost invariably were treated with contempt or disdain by the rest. What true prophet ever existed that was not persecuted? The mere fact that a person, idea, religious belief or in this case, a Bible translation is not popular, or is discredited by many is not in itself a wise basis for judging that particular subject. If that approach were used in times of the prohets, who would have ever had any reason to believe a man such as Jeremiah? Isiah? Jesus Christ? In many cases, but not all, this is actually one of the indications of authenticity. Pause for but a moment and ponder over the Lord's Prayer, found at Matthew 6:9. What is the very FIRST thing that Jesus says that we should pray for? Salvation? Wisdom? Happiness?? No; his words were: "Our Father who art in heaven, hallowed be thy NAME." Or, in modern English, "Our Father in the heavens, let your NAME be sanctified." Would it seem logical to you that Jesus would tell us to pray for his father's name to be sanctified if it weren't important for us to even KNOW what that name is? What meaning does Joel 2:32 have when you take out the name "Jehovah"?? "And it must occur that everyone that calls on the name of the [LORD] will get away safe." What lord? As the Bible itself states at 1 Cor. 8:5, there are indeed many "lords." So how can anyone call on his name if they don't KNOW his name? Psalm 91:14 says, "I shall protect him because he has come to know my name." Time and again, the Bible emphasizes the importance of knowing and using God's name, Jehovah. Jesus rightly denounced the religious leaders of his day for making the Word of God invalid because of their traditions. Should it surprise us that we see the same thing happening today? Anybody can offer us their useless, malicious opinion, degrading the sincere hard work of tireless Bible students trying to bring us the most accurate rendition of God's Word possible. Anybody who does so is either seriously mis-informed, or has a mind full of hate and prejudice, which we know are qualities that do not befit a person claiming to reverence God. For those of you that question the accuracy of the New World Translation out sincerity, I commend you for the importance that you place upon the quality of accuracy. I do not expect you to just believe what I am trying to persuade you to believe for the mere fact that I sound reasonable or convincing. Many of the people who would contradict what I am trying to say might also sound reasonable and convincing. But as human beings, endowed with our own sense of right and wrong, with our own conscience to tell us whether what we believe is truthful or not, we should not allow popular opinion or briefly considered arguments that seem convincing to shape something so important as our very faith. Romans 14:12 warns: "Each of us will render an account for himself to God." We have to do our own research. 1 John 5:19 reveals that "the whole world is lying in the power of the wicked one." We must remember that a lot of the information we get fed each day by the media is going to reflect the attitude of "the god of this system of things" who is trying to 'blind our minds' with poisonous propaganda. Not everything we hear is false, but we definitely had better do our homework if we want to make wise decisions regarding our faith and beliefs. I urge you to investigate the matter for yourself, and see whether you don't agree with me that the New World Translation is a very accurate translation that allows us to get a very good sense of the meaning that the original writers were trying to convey, without flavoring it to suit some pre-conceived doctrine. Just find one or two scriptures that you have doubts over its rendition in NWT, compare them with other translations, and instead of dogmatically assuming that Jehovah's Witnesses have twisted the meaning by means of their translation, investigate the matter and see WHY they have rendered it that way. The grammatical rules of Hebrew and Greek are different than those of English, so a word-for-word translation is not pheasable with all verses. Critics will say, for example, that John 1:1 should say that the Word was "God." And an un-informed person might readily be convinced that since the Greek manuscripts from which this verse were taken did not have an indefinite article "a" preceding the word "god," therefore the text should be rendered "the Word was God." But hold on, not so fast! When you do a little research, you'll find out that the Koine Greek in which the book of John was written did not even HAVE an indefinite article! So ANYtime you see the indefinite article "a" in the Christian Greek Scriptures, it was inserted there by the translators in order to make the verse grammatically correct when the context demanded it. Additionally, in this particular verse of John 1:1, when saying that the Word was with God, it uses the definite article "the" in front of the word "God." So, literally then, "the Word was with THE god," making clear that he was talking about God Almighty. But when saying that the Word was god, there is no definite article "the" used in front of the word "god." So in this case, the word "god" is used because Jesus is a powerful spirit person. Indeed it can rightly be said that Jesus is a god. But if John had wanted to convey the idea that Jesus IS God, then he would have used the definite article "the" in front of the word "god," saying literally, that the Word was THE God. But he didn't do that. Why not? Because that's not what the Divine Author of the Holy Scriptures wanted him to write. Simple as that. So don't just look at one side of an argument and think that you've got all the information you need to make an informed decision; Get the facts. Your life depends on it.
  • your answer was inspiring , but you spelled feasible wrong. Otherwise you nailed it. Never heard a better arguement before for the most accurate bible.
  • None since none of them include some gospels that are not even in the bible.
  • The New World Translation is the official Jehovah Witness Watch-Tower Bible. The best translation? Give me a break! The following is what the J W’s believed compared to what the Bible teaches. JW: The doctrine of the Trinity is "a false, unbiblical doctrine" originated by Satan. (Let God Be True, page I 01). Bible: There is one God (Deuteronomy 6:4), but three distinctive Persons in the Godhead, the Father (Philippians 2:11), Jesus Christ the Son (John 5:18), and the Holy Spirit (Acts 5:3-4, 9). JW: Christ the Son was originally the first created being of Jehovah God. (Let God Be True, page 32). Bible: Christ the Son is eternal, uncreated God (John 8:58, Revelation 1: 1 7-18 and Isaiah 44:6). JW: Jesus Christ arose from the grave as a spirit being and was allowed to materialize a different body in which to appear to His disciples. (Your Will Be Done On Earth, page 143; Make Sure Of All Things, 1953 ed., page 314). Bible: Jesus Christ arose in the same body that was laid in the tomb, which explains the marks of crucifixion. (Luke 24:39; John 20:20, 25, 27; John 20:1-9). JW: The Holy Spirit is not a Person, but rather the impersonal, active force of God. (Let God Be True, 2nd ed., page 108; The Watchtower, June 1, 1952, page 24). Bible: The Holy Spirit is an eternal Person, possessing all the essence of God. (John 14:16-17, 26; Acts 5:3-4). Doctrine of Man JW: A person's soul is an inseparable part of the body, so that when a person dies there is no continued existence of the soul. (Make Sure Of All Things, 1953 ed., pages 349, 352). Bible: Christ taught that there is life after death (Luke 16:19-31). Christ promised continuing life the same day after death (Luke 23:39-43), and Paul taught an independent existence apart from the body after death. (2 Corinthians 5:5-8; Philippians 1:19-24). JW: The doctrine of the immortality of the soul finds its origin with Satan. (Let God Be True, 2nd ed., pages 74,75). Bible: The immortality of the soul is a God-inspired truth. (Ecclesiastes 12:7; 2Corinthians 5:1,6-8). Doctrine of Salvation JW: Christ's death only purchased for mankind the earthly life and earthly blessings lost when Adam sinned. (Studies in the Scriptures, V.5, page 145). Bible: Christ's death purchased present forgiveness of sins and blessings beyond this earthly existence. (Ephesions 1:3-14). JW: Christ's death only provides an opportunity for a person to attain eternal life through obeying God's laws. There is no assurance of eternal life. (Studies in the Scriptures, V.1, pages 150,152). Bible: Christ's death provides salvation from sin for all who accepts, by faith, His sacrifice on their behalf. (I Peter 3:18, Ephesians 2:8-9). God also preserves eternal life given by grace to believers. (I John 5:11-13; John 6:39, 10:28-29). JW: Christ's blood shed on Calvary applies only to 144,000 of the "anointed class" or the elite JW’s and not for the "great crowd," the remainder of JW’s. (Aid To Bible Understanding, page 389). Bible: Christ died on behalf of all men. (I Timothy 2:5-6; 1 John 2:2; 2Corinthians 5:15; Hebrews 2:9). JW: One can only live in God's paradise through (1) studying the Bible accompanied by the Watchtower, (2) associating with Jehovah's Witnesses, (3) changing living habits from the former way to God's way (requiring JW baptism), and (4) being a preacher and a witness of God's Kingdom. (From Paradise Lost To Paradise Regained, pages 242-249). Bible: Salvation is offered only through trusting Jesus Christ as Savior. (Acts 4:10-¬12, 10:42-43; Romans 3:21-24). JW: The doctrine of a burning hell where the wicked are tortured eternally after death is false. (Make Sure of All Things, 1953 ed., pages 154-155). Bible: Hell is a place of everlasting torment for the unrepentant wicked. (Revelation 20:11-15; Matthew 13:41-42, 49-50; Mark 9:47-48). Verses Deleted In Modern Bible Versions Most people believe the new versions are just "harmless" updating of words and made easier to understand. Nothing could be further from the Truth! Jesus Christ, in Luke 8:11-12, tells the parable of the sower and the seed: "Now the parable is this: The seed is the word of God . . . then cometh the devil, and TAKETH AWAY the word out of their hearts, lest they should believe and be saved.” Luke 8:11-12 The new versions "take away" complete verses from the words of God. And as with Eve (see Genesis 3:1), it s all done very subtly. The average reader would never know it happened! Stay away from the modern translations, particularly the NIV translation. The NIV, NASV, RSVN, RSV, NCV and LIV. translations have deleted verses The most accurate English translation is the newly printed forgotten Geneva Bible Translation. You'll find very quickly how the real words come alive.
  • Almost all the doctrines of Jehovah's Witnesses have been misinterpreted by the preceding answer. They read the material properly, but like anyone who does not know the truths inherent in the bible, have false logic based on lies and mistruths. The trinity?? Long before false Christians invented the triune God, which was never mentioned or even eluded to by God himself in the entire Old Testament when he spoke with prophets, there were triune gods in Rome, Egypt, Babylon, Greece, Assyria and many more. To appease these others and try to convert them Bishops came up with this compromise around the forth century. Funny how it was never believed to be true while Jesus himself walked the earth. This is merely one example of mistruths and lies.
  • No one really knows as we don't have the original texts. I think if memory serves the earliest fragment of the New Testament comes from about the early 2nd Century CE. Bart Ehrman has written some very good books, both technical and popular on this subject which I would really recommend. Amongst many others of course, but Ehrman is very readable. I am readin Lost Scriptures at the moment about the non-canonical gospels and i is very very interesting. There are of course discrepancies between various elements we do have, most of which, indeed the VAST majority, are completely trivial but it still makes for interesting reading to find out how some passages have been altered and in some cases added over time by various scribes. Some do have some significance and it is intriguing to try and piece it all together. Not my specialist subject but very interesting.
  • All of them!!! Whenever a translation of the Bible was made it was based on the original manuscripts. For example, when the New International Version of the Bible was made, it wasn't based on earlier translations, it came directly from the source, directly from the manuscripts. If you compare different Bibles you would see that they are all same except in the fact of what English is being used. The newer versions are there to help understand better.
  • Seriously, just cut it out with the Jehovah's Witnesses BULL. You love to point out Jehovah like it's the literal name when you fail to point out the historical accuracy of the name. Several neighboring nations all had their OWN GODS. The name Jehovah is derived from the original text that DIRECTLY translates as "GOD of Israel". That's no different from Islam calling God Allah. No one but perhaps Jesus Himself knows God's true name if He really has one or perhaps many? Furthermore, how does an organization that is barely 133 years old, and has issued national FALSE prophecy on the end of days TWICE in 1925 and 1975 claim they are God's chosen? That's ridiculous. I'm sure there maybe some good good people who have been confused and manipulated by these so called Witnesses, but don't be fooled people! Don't be naive! JW's ARE followers of SATAN. Not all religion is clean, and it's up to YOU to PERSONALLY accept the Lord Jesus Christ whom died for our sins as Savior. Don't be mislead by their lies! God Bless!
  • I will not disrespect anyone and their opinion. However I also refuse to argue with unarmed people who have not investigated the truth behind their statements. I have seen personally the tetragrammaton of Jehovahs name on the MOabite stone which is almost 3000 years old and of course it is all over the Dead Sea Scrolls. It is translated Yahweh in Hebrew and Jehovah in English. The name translated does not mean God Of Israel but it means "causes to become": He is the force which creates all, including Jesus as is declared in Collosians 1:15 Jesus was the first of all creation. Just a little truth for anyone who has the ear to listen and the right heart .
  • Gentlemen; you missed the whole point I printed. This issue is not about God’s eternal name, scripture has already given us the answer. My point was this; Look at what the JW’s believed, and then compare it to scripture. Scripture says; test all things against the word of God. The Word will reveal the truth. God did not leave us as orphans to be confused. He left us his word so that we may know. The only point here; is that you must be careful with the newer translations printed within the last 150 years. It is mankind that has come along and either changed or perverted the scripture, not God. We are warned about this in scripture. Rev Chap 22 Unfortunately the original founders of the JW’S did just that, twisted scriptures for their own purposes. Read Gal Chap 1. The KJV version is fair, but it was a manipulated translation by yours truly King James. The Geneva Bible 1599 edition or the 1556 edition is the best, it was produced by Tyndale, Calvin, Knox and others in Geneva, (hence the name) as they were pursued by the Catholic Church. Or you can get yourselves a copy of Tyndale’s New Testament; these are the best English versions for accuracy. You can find them on Amazon. You can study up on this, by Googling Geneva Bible and the history behind it. FACTS ARE STUBURN THINGS and the scriptures are a stumbling block for many. The only reason mankind runs around chasing stupid Satan lead religions in the word, is because the people do not read their scriptures. “For my people are destroyed for lack of knowledge.” Hosea Chap4, 6 Read your scriptures and you will know the truth and not be taken in by many of the false religions and doctrines.
  • Anonymous1: Let me try to converse with you intellectually. You’re reciting of Colossians Chap1, 15. Here you must be careful not to pull scripture out of context. This is common bad habit with present day public education. This is called violating the rule of context. You will find if you read what is before and after the sentence, you’ll find most of the time its meaning is something quite different. Violating the rule of context is a nasty habit taught in the public schools for two generations. It has created reading and comprehension problems. When you read scripture read the complete chapter in order to get the full meaning out of the text. Moreover; never take for granted what another human being is telling you about scripture. Instead, be wise, take what they have said and check it out for your self to see if they recite truth. In this way, you will always know God’s truth. When reading God’s word; before you open the scripture pray hard, and ask God through his Holy Spirit to open your eyes and give you understanding as you read his word, and he will grant it to you. It is the Holy Spirit that gives you the understanding to scripture. It does not come by flesh and blood nor man. This is the job of the Holy Spirit. Colossians Chap 1, 15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the first begotten of every creature. 16, For by him all things created which are in heaven, and which are in earth, things visible and invisible: whether they be Thrones, or Dominions, or principalities, or powers, all things were created by him, and for him. 17 He is before all things, and in him all things consist. Begotten means he always existed with God. No beginning, no end. Jesus is God. God cannot create himself. Taken from the Geneva Bible Page 1229 Get yourself a Good Bible and read. Don’t let any man manipulate you to some false doctrine. Rely on God’s word and his Word only.
  • Cannot argue intellectually with someone who does not know the meaning of "begotten". look it up in the dictionary. YOu will see, father of or cause to be, or produce. Jehovah did produce Jesus and as such is his father. He had no earthly father.
    • Gone!
      Research the word 'begotten' in context. The word ?begotten? has ?only? (mono-) prefixed to the Greek word ?monogeneis.? Meaning there is only one. Jesus has a unique relationship with the Father in that they, along with the Holy Spirit, make up the Godhead. If we are believers, we have been born into the family of God and are said to be begotten of God. However, we are not the ?only-begotten.? Jesus is very God of very God. To beget something means something of the same nature. God. Jesus is the only-begotten Son of God which means He is the very God of God.
  • The 1599 NEW REPRINT OF THE GENEVA BIBLE ALONG WITH STRONGS CONCORDANCE is an excellent start. A good addition would be, Tyndale’s New Testament. All can be found on Amazon. No one will be able to pull the wool over your eyes with these editions, can’t go wrong. The Pilgrims carry this edition to the New World.
  • Is it possible for a God to create the stars, planets, all matter in the universe, immutable and universal laws to govern the movement of these, to create living beings and to make all of this self sustaining and enduring for billions of years, but He can not make a book that says what He wants it to say? For those of you that say a translation is inaccurate, it is not. There may be a letter, word, a phrase or even a whole sentence even hundreds, which have been erroneously or even deliberately changed by translators, but are they more powerful than God? Can the will of man supersede that of the one who created him? The Bible is so long, it has so many cross references and explains things in so many different ways that it is impossible for a man, or even a group of dedicated men, to successfully alter or change the meaning of it. Every Bible contains the truth on every matter, even if it is covered over in one phrase or two. For example, the New King James version, in the book of Ezekiel; formerly the King James version consistently translated the word nephesh to mean soul. In Ezekiel it says "the soul that sinneth, it shall die" Due to the use of this in arguing against the immortality of the soul they thought it best to change the Bible to suit their own beleifs, and in the New King James Version write instead; "the living being that sinneth, it shall die" Most people, not knowing the original says nephesh, which is translated in other instances as soul, will never know that it has changed and some might surmise that the translators have successfully duped the audience, and overcome Gods will to make an accurate Bible. There are, however, cross references, picture stories, detailed explanations and symbolic representations which can be used to explain this matter further. Here is a cross reference on the subject, in Ecclesiastes 9:5; For the living know that they shall die; but the dead do not know anything, nor do they have any more a reward; for their memory is forgotten. Here and in the contextual verses it says the dead know nothing, or basically they can not think, feel or do anything, because they are dead. So despite the efforts of the "mis"translators the Bible still says what it was intended to say, if and only if you read and apply ALL of the Bible. There are, of course, other means of references, like the book of Genesis where God says "in the day that you eat of the fruit of the tree of Good and Evil, you shall positively die", and Satan says "you positively will not die", we could ask the audience, who is it that you believe, Satan, or God? We will find the same in all matters of doctrine, the Trinity, immortality, divinity of Christ, and every other subject. As for Roger Kovaciny and other who speak from arguments of authority, arguing over a single letter or word, saying this group or that one deliberately mistranslated, worst translation ever etc... the Word of God is accurate and not a single letter of it will pass away until all of the things written in it have come to pass. Do you not trust in Jehovah? Do you think His strength is so small that He can not say what He wants us to hear? Or is Bible translation merely a game? A trivial mind game like a word puzzle?
  • You might as well ask a mother which is her favorite child....

Copyright 2018, Wired Ivy, LLC

Answerbag | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy