Which translation is the best?

Big words relating to interpreting the Bible and the study of *how* we determine what God wants us to do.

Moderator: grand_puba

Post Reply
JSM17
Posts: 275
Joined: Sat May 13, 2006 5:16 pm
Location: Hoffman Estates, Illinois

Which translation is the best?

Post by JSM17 » Sat Jan 13, 2007 6:16 am

There are so many translations, many are written because of a groups beliefs. You have certain groups from times past that have not been able to prove their doctrine through the standard versions so they will create one for themselves.

So the question today is which one is the best? Assuming that we can agree that there are no inspired translators that man is fallable and will find a way to force his bias into the work of translating scripture. After all of that which one is the best?
...in flaming fire taking vengeance on those who do not know God, and on those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ.9 These shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His power...

sledford
Posts: 114
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2005 10:06 pm
Contact:

Post by sledford » Tue Jan 16, 2007 3:40 pm

You raise a topic that is very near to my heart. I will preface my remarks that I don't think there is a "best" translation that folks should use. But, I do think there are some "better" ones than others which gets to the real heart of the matter: to be a Bible student requires one be also committed to seeking the clarity that God's Word guarantees:
Heb 4:12 wrote:Heb 4:12 For the Word of God is living and powerful and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing apart of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.
Please note that I used the word "clarity" and not "easy". The principles exercised in many "modern" translations of the past 20 years have started from making the Bible easier to read and in the process making it much less clear what it really means. This is done with translating philosophies such as Dynamic Equivalence in versions such as the NIV where the authors instead of translating the words instead interpret the "thought", a very scary prospect to my thinking! How can any man stand in judgment of the original words penned to seek to clarify the "true meaning" and translate that!

Also, many modern translations are in what I call a "race to the bottom" in seeking to make a version that is readable by everyone (least common denominator as called in some circles) and in the process adopting newspaper-esque techniques which sensationalize parts or reduce the words and thoughts into sound bites. Bear in mind that the Word is revealed by God and written as it is for a reason:
Matt 13:10-13 wrote:Mat 13:10 And the disciples said to Him, Why do You speak to them in parables?
Mat 13:11 He answered and said to them, Because it is given to you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of Heaven, but it is not given to them.
Mat 13:12 For whoever has, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance. But whoever does not have, from him shall be taken away even that which he has.
Mat 13:13 Therefore I speak to them in parables, because seeing they see not, and hearing they hear not; nor do they understand.
Referring back to the original quote in Hebrews, the purpose of Gods Word is to be "a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart." That's no simple or small task! Which leads me to a question I ask myself and sometimes ask others: is your translation a "dulled sword" blunted by interpretation and assumption by others? Has it been "reduced" in an effort to make it easy to read and in the process removing the REAL thoughts expressed only in the original way it was said, and thereby no longer discerning a person's thoughts and intents?

This is not to say it requires a theological degree to understand the Bible. Every person can read and understand the Truth revealed in the Bible IF that's what they want to get out of it. But, recall again why Jesus said he taught in parables, not everyone is really seeking the Truth but some seek to stand hypocritically self-justified. To understand the Bible is a life-long journey that requires dedication in LIVING and LEARNING it. To learn it requires improving skills in reading and understanding it. Rather than "simplify" and make it "easy" through translation, the committed follower of Jesus should roll up their sleeves and seek to learn the pure Truth of the Word by whatever means possible.

childofgod93
Posts: 1
Joined: Mon Jun 02, 2008 8:45 pm
Location: Rector
Contact:

Post by childofgod93 » Fri Jun 06, 2008 11:25 am

I would say the King James Version, the New King James Version.

If you can stand all the ye's,thou's, and thee's, the King James is what you need.

But the New King James is almost exactly equal.
Justin

Lucym11
Posts: 1
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 10:57 pm

Re: Which translation is the best?

Post by Lucym11 » Wed Feb 25, 2009 1:23 pm

When you say "translation" are you meaning "interpretation"?
The truth is simple, only we make it complicated.

User avatar
churchmouse
Posts: 21
Joined: Mon May 27, 2013 12:12 pm

Re: Which translation is the best?

Post by churchmouse » Thu Oct 03, 2013 10:54 pm

I'm sorry to see this discussion ended so abruptly. It is a subject of great interest to me.

Soon after I began reading the Bible on my own as a college student, I gravitated toward the KJV. I used it almost exclusively for 30 years or more. I began looking into some other translations - from the original texts, not interpretations of translations - in recent years because some people in the church I attended took words out of context and misinterpreted them.

For instance, a man who sinned claimed scriptural support for insistence that he was automatically restored to a relationship with God, without repenting, in Proverbs 24:16:
For a just man falleth seven times, and riseth up again...
I found the NET Bible, which clarified the meaning for me by showing and explaining original words in the study notes. The words translated as "fall" mean to "fall into calamity" and not to fall (spiritually) from God's favor. The same phrase is used to denote the former idea in Job 5:19.

Another church I started attending used various translations and compared them. After carefully investigating the different translations, I ordered an NASB because it is translated from the original manuscripts using the same standards as the KJV. When I began attending the congregation I'm currently a member of, a woman in the congregation was taken aback because I quoted from the NASB and she obviously expressed concern to the teachers in the church. They acted as though my mind had been corrupted and so I needed to be taught from scratch.

Is there anything wrong with consulting several word-for-word translations to study a biblical passage? I only have a desire to delve into the truth and not to pick and choose at will. A visiting preacher once cited the NASB as comparable to the KJV. But, the woman in the congregation claims she's confident that the KJV is the only correct translation (she doesn't even trust the original manuscripts) because she knows God made provision for us to have the correct translation. If that is so, did God not care about the generations of Anglo-Saxons before the publication and distribution of the KJV? Or the natives of other countries who were without Bibles for centuries? Why would God only approve of a translation authorized by an English monarch? Couldn't we assume by the same logic that the church of England is the one true church? If we should trust a British monarch to give us an infallible Bible translation and to consecrate for all a righteous church, then why does John exhort us to "believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world" (1 John 4:1)?

I am not condemning the KJV, but am just wondering why I'm considered a heretic for wanting to fully understand the scriptures as they were intended? When people try to restrict me from searching the scriptures, or belittle me for doing so, I feel suspicious of them. I'm led to believe those people are hiding something they're afraid I will unearth, and it's certainly looking like it's the case - judging by some of the false doctrines being promoted. In the end, we will all be judged by the same pure, unadulterated word of God.
Be diligent to present yourself approved to God, a worker who does not need to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. (2 Timothy 2:15)

User avatar
m273p15c
Posts: 2788
Joined: Tue Sep 28, 1999 10:45 am

Re: Which translation is the best?

Post by m273p15c » Sat Oct 19, 2013 11:30 pm

Hi churchmouse,

Thanks again for the good questions. May I offer a few comments in response to your own? :)
churchmouse wrote:For instance, a man who sinned claimed scriptural support for insistence that he was automatically restored to a relationship with God, without repenting, in Proverbs 24:16:
For a just man falleth seven times, and riseth up again...
I found the NET Bible, which clarified the meaning for me by showing and explaining original words in the study notes. The words translated as "fall" mean to "fall into calamity" and not to fall (spiritually) from God's favor. The same phrase is used to denote the former idea in Job 5:19.
Your usage of clearer translations is very helpful on this point. May I offer a corroborative thought?

One must assume that the falling and rising of Proverbs 24:16 pertains to spiritual approval and salvation to prove this man's conclusion. However the text does not specify what kind of rising and falling is in view. Once one opens his mind to accepting the ambiguity of this text and looking for clarity from other texts, the error and truth can be easily ascertained from other passages that speak clearly on the question at hand. (Forgiveness requires repentance, I John 1:9; Luke 17:3-5.) ... FWIW, I think the context also points to providential, circumstantial, or earthly tribulations - not a process of justification (Proverbs 24:12-18).
churchmouse wrote:Another church I started attending used various translations and compared them. After carefully investigating the different translations, I ordered an NASB because it is translated from the original manuscripts using the same standards as the KJV. When I began attending the congregation I'm currently a member of, a woman in the congregation was taken aback because I quoted from the NASB and she obviously expressed concern to the teachers in the church. They acted as though my mind had been corrupted and so I needed to be taught from scratch. ... the woman in the congregation claims she's confident that the KJV is the only correct translation (she doesn't even trust the original manuscripts) because she knows God made provision for us to have the correct translation. If that is so, did God not care about the generations of Anglo-Saxons before the publication and distribution of the KJV? Or the natives of other countries who were without Bibles for centuries? Why would God only approve of a translation authorized by an English monarch? Couldn't we assume by the same logic that the church of England is the one true church? If we should trust a British monarch to give us an infallible Bible translation and to consecrate for all a righteous church, then why does John exhort us to "believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world" (1 John 4:1)? ... I am not condemning the KJV, but am just wondering why I'm considered a heretic for wanting to fully understand the scriptures as they were intended? When people try to restrict me from searching the scriptures, or belittle me for doing so, I feel suspicious of them. I'm led to believe those people are hiding something they're afraid I will unearth, and it's certainly looking like it's the case - judging by some of the false doctrines being promoted. In the end, we will all be judged by the same pure, unadulterated word of God.
The KJV-Only position - for lack of a better term - is very short-sighted and presumptuous. The undeniable alterations, marginal readings, and errors make it impossible to sustain that the translation is uniquely inspired or authoritative. The necessary lack of providential care for all people preceding 1611 and outside of the English speaking world is brash at best. I think your questions point well to these ends. Here are a few other articles I found on the internet, which present more organized and better documented arguments than I can offer at this time:
(Please note that I do not support everything said elsewhere on these web-sites, but I thought they did a good job of establishing the failings of the KJV-Only position.)
churchmouse wrote:Is there anything wrong with consulting several word-for-word translations to study a biblical passage? I only have a desire to delve into the truth and not to pick and choose at will.
I will echo what Steve (sledford) said earlier. We must be careful that we do not seek only for the Bible that is the easiest to read. We should seek for a translation that most accurately translates the original Greek and Hebrew into our modern vernacular. Translations that use "thought for thought" or "dynamic equivalence" philosophies are little better than commentaries, because they are merely telling us what they think God was really telling us. This opens the door to too much prejudice, bias, and opinion to be injected. Consequently, I much prefer translations that maintain "formal equivalence" or more literal translations. Based on this second philosphy, I think there are 2 "families" of reputable translations:

Textus Receptus / Majority Text Based Translations:
  • King James Version, aka Authorized Version
  • New King James Version
Oldest Available Manuscripts Based Translations:
  • American Standard Version
  • New American Standard Bible
  • Revised Standard Version Bible
Obviously, the "new" versions are written in more modern, readable English, but ignoring this difference for a moment, the primary difference is the preference for authority when there is a discrepancy in textual sources. One family prefers the majority text available around 1611, while the other defers to a few far older manuscripts found after the KJV was translated. There are very few substantial differences produced by this decision (I John 5:7-8; John 7:53-8:11; Mark 16:9-20 and maybe a few others are the most notable). I think they are well documented, understood, and largely unimportant points of disagreement, since they are not essential to any point of Christianity. In other words, they don't affect the universal teaching of Scripture, because there are other proof texts for any doctrine impacted by these verses. I don't want to diminish the significance of a single word of God, but I think these verses can be added or subtracted and not violate John 10:35. There are other minor variations, and all of which are generally mentioned in the footnotes or margin of the more modern translations.

The NIV uses too much "dynamic equivalence" for me to trust it as my primary "working" Bible, plus I have stumbled over a few passages that have a strong, unjustified Calvinistic rendering that further deepens my distrust for it (see, Psalm 51:5 in NIV versus most other reputable translations). However, the NIV does an excellent job of clarifying the Greek on some otherwise difficult to understand passages (see, I John 3:6, 9 in NIV versus NKJV and NASB).

The ESV is newer, and although it rejects "dynamic equivalence", it still reorders the words and "simplifies" a few verses unnecessarily in my opinion. However, I do consult it regularly.

So, to summarize, I think it is beneficial to learn from the folly of KJV-Only people. No translation is inspired. Even the better translations are guilty of injecting their prejudice on rare occasion or just choosing a more difficult wording. Therefore, although I work from the NKJV as a compromise between preserving my childhood memory verses and modern vernacular, I regularly consult the NASB, ASV, NIV, ESV, and Young's Literal Translation (YLT). Consulting these works as a whole is one of the best "commentaries" I could ever recommend. Plus, I use some Bible software to compare the underlying Greek, where necessary or helpful. My wife uses a NASB, and we regularly compare the translations during Bible study. I all together avoid the "commentary translations". I don't think I have ever found them to be more helpful than these more literal translations on any verse.

I pray this will be helpful and encouraging to you and others. :)
May God help us to love truth sincerely and supremely (II Thessalonians 2:11-12)

User avatar
churchmouse
Posts: 21
Joined: Mon May 27, 2013 12:12 pm

Re: Which translation is the best?

Post by churchmouse » Wed Dec 11, 2013 2:46 am

I pray this will be helpful and encouraging to you and others. :)
It is helpful and encouraging to me, m273p15c. I'm glad someone else understands how I feel. I have become very skittish of people in a church who dictate what I should believe while it appears their beliefs contradict the Word of God. That was my experience in the church I attended for nearly 20 years. I wept and prayed and studied and struggled most of those 20 years because we were taught that the ministry were divinely inspired and represented God, so any beliefs contrary to their views were considered heretical. It became clearer and clearer that they were conveniently twisting scriptures but it was taboo to mention any scriptures that contradicted their beliefs. :-# After I realized that obeying the ministry in that church was actually defiance toward God, I left and now am very cautious about where I place my loyalties. I do not want to place my loyalties in people, whether they are in the ministry, teachers in the church, Bible translators, or perceived as biblical authorities. I just want to be certain that my loyalties are with God. :wink: I greatly appreciate others who feel the same way. :love5:
Be diligent to present yourself approved to God, a worker who does not need to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. (2 Timothy 2:15)

User avatar
m273p15c
Posts: 2788
Joined: Tue Sep 28, 1999 10:45 am

Re: Which translation is the best?

Post by m273p15c » Wed Dec 11, 2013 8:23 am

I'm sorry for the difficulties you have faced, but I am thankful and encouraged that you are overcoming. :) It's always good to know a fellow truthseeker, who puts God and His truth above all else. I know it's not always easy, but you are doing great. Please keep "fighting the good fight". :)
May God help us to love truth sincerely and supremely (II Thessalonians 2:11-12)

Post Reply