Which Bible Version is closest to the original Hebrew and Greek Texts?

[BABerean2]

 

[ewq1938]

The KJV is best IMO because there are so many tools that work with it to help one get back to the original languages like the Strong's and Thayer's concordances and dictionaries. However, I use as many translations as I can because that can also be helpful. E-sword.com has a free one with lots of add-ons. Biblesoft is also good but it is not free unless someone gives it to you.

 

[thesunisout]

I like the NKJV..it is closest to the KJV, which is probably the most accurate version, and doesn't require you to learn middle english. I love the KJV but I have a hard time studying it deeply

 

[High Fidelity]

Most Scholars I know of claim either the NASB or the ESV.

The problem we have nowadays, though, is many people using the KJV as the standard, not the original texts. So it creates a lot of confusion.

 

[thesunisout]

Most Scholars I know of claim either the NASB or the ESV.

The problem we have nowadays, though, is many people using the KJV as the standard, not the original texts. So it creates a lot of confusion.

I think one should study the differences between formal-equivalence and dynamic-equivalence translations before they render a verdict on what is most accurate concerning the original texts. They should also study the differences between the Textus Receptus and Alexandrian Codices.

 

[Grafted In]

Doesn't matter

 

[Inkfingers]

There is no perfect translation that I am aware of, and I've compared a few. So its a matter of choosing one containing questionable dynamic translations that you can work around combined with language that you can understand.

A mixture of the KJV, the ESV, and the 1901 ASV, read with awareness of the Greek, Aramaic, and Hebrew origins is the best that I have found...but its hardly straight forward.

 

[BroIgnatius]

The two best translations into English are the Douay Rheims, which was published before the KJV, and the Revised Standard Version-2nd Catholic Edition. These two are the most used by scholars and theologians in terms of English editions.

The official version of the Bible for the Catholic Church is the Latin Vulgate, 2nd Edition. All translations into any vernacular language must be as close as possible to the Latin Vulgate translated according to the principles of translation. One always loses some meaning when translating into any language. Thus, study of the Latin Vulgate and the Original Languages is necessary.

A good summary is found in the article, "Bible Translations Guide."

Also see a list and comments in the article, "Bible Versions and Commentaries."

Here are the official principles of translation set by the Vatican, "Liturgiam Authenticam" and a summary of that long document.

 

[Grafted In]

There is no perfect translation that I am aware of, and I've compared a few. So its a matter of choosing one containing questionable dynamic translations that you can work around combined with language that you can understand.

A mixture of the KJV, the ESV, and the 1901 ASV, read with awareness of the Greek, Aramaic, and Hebrew origins is the best that I have found...but its hardly straight forward.

It's The Holy Spirit who gives the understanding and He speaks every language fluently. There's no need to learn other languages or sit with 10 or 12 translations, a concordance and a language cross reference before you for Him to teach you.

 

[Inkfingers]

It's The Holy Spirit who gives the understanding and He speaks every language fluently. There's no need to learn other languages or sit with 10 or 12 translations, a concordance and a language cross reference before you for Him to teach you.

So sit with the Greek and see if you can read it...

 

[Grafted In]

My native language is English. I have an English KJV.
And I think you missed my point, but that's ok. Perhaps I was a bit blunt. It was not my intent to sow discord.
It does, however, seem as though there are quite a number of believers who think they must learn Greek and Hebrew in order for The Holy Spirit to speak to us. I consider the KJV to be my favorite because that's what I started out with and it is also easier to memorize, for me, anyway.
I don't have a problem with those who choose to learn Greek and Hebrew, but I don't think it's nessecary. I see no Scripture that tells me is it nonscriptural.
But He can give just as much understanding using one translation.
Nowhere in the NT have I seen Jesus help a person understand Spiritual teachings by repeating His words in Greek. He chose to speak to each person in his/her own language.

 

[BABerean2]

Doesn't matter

If you take the time to watch the video that was posted you will clearly see that it does matter.

Some versions have made changes to the original meaning. Many of these changes revolve around the deity of Christ.

The speaker in the video recommended the Young's Literal.
I need to do some research into this one, myself.

 

[BABerean2]

My native language is English. I have an English KJV.
And I think you missed my point, but that's ok. Perhaps I was a bit blunt. It was not my intent to sow discord.
It does, however, seem as though there are quite a number of believers who think they must learn Greek and Hebrew in order for The Holy Spirit to speak to us. I consider the KJV to be my favorite because that's what I started out with and it is also easier to memorize, for me, anyway.
I don't have a problem with those who choose to learn Greek and Hebrew, but I don't think it's nessecary. I see no Scripture that tells me is it nonscriptural.
But He can give just as much understanding using one translation.
Nowhere in the NT have I seen Jesus help a person understand Spiritual teachings by repeating His words in Greek. He chose to speak to each person in his/her own language.

The KJV has always been my primary source.

However, there is a Greek word that can be translated as either "covenant" or "testament". Hebrews 12:22-24 should be our guide to which English word should be used throughout most of the New Testament.

The NKJV is also based on the Textus Receptus, but has used the word "covenant" in most places. Neither version is right or wrong. However, the NKJV agrees better with Hebrews 12:22-24.

The following verses either show that there are two covenants or reveal that Christ brought in a New Covenant.
......................................
New Covenant in the New Testament: NKJV

Mat_26:28　 For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

Mar_14:24　 And He said to them, "This is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many.

Luk_22:20　 Likewise He also took the cup after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in My blood, which is shed for you.

Act_3:25　 You are sons of the prophets, and of the covenant which God made with our fathers, saying to Abraham, 'AND IN YOUR SEED ALL THE FAMILIES OF THE EARTH SHALL BE BLESSED.'

Rom_11:27　 FOR THIS IS MY COVENANT WITH THEM, WHEN I TAKE AWAY THEIR SINS."

1Co_11:25　 In the same manner He also took the cup after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in My blood. This do, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me."

2Co_3:6　 who also made us sufficient as ministers of the new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.

Gal_3:15　 Brethren, I speak in the manner of men: Though it is only a man's covenant, yet if it is confirmed, no one annuls or adds to it.

Gal_3:17　 And this I say, that the law, which was four hundred and thirty years later, cannot annul the covenant that was confirmed before by God in Christ, that it should make the promise of no effect.

Gal 4:24　 which things are symbolic. For these are the two covenants: the one from Mount Sinai which gives birth to bondage, which is Hagar—
　
Heb_7:22　 by so much more Jesus has become a surety of a better covenant.

Heb_8:6　 But now He has obtained a more excellent ministry, inasmuch as He is also Mediator of a better covenant, which was established on better promises.

Heb_8:7　 For if that first covenant had been faultless, then no place would have been sought for a second.

Heb_8:8　 Because finding fault with them, He says: "BEHOLD, THE DAYS ARE COMING, SAYS THE LORD, WHEN I WILL MAKE A NEW COVENANT WITH THE HOUSE OF ISRAEL AND WITH THE HOUSE OF JUDAH—

Heb_8:9　 NOT ACCORDING TO THE COVENANT THAT I MADE WITH THEIR FATHERS IN THE DAY WHEN I TOOK THEM BY THE HAND TO LEAD THEM OUT OF THE LAND OF EGYPT; BECAUSE THEY DID NOT CONTINUE IN MY COVENANT, AND I DISREGARDED THEM, SAYS THE LORD.

Heb_8:10　 FOR THIS IS THE COVENANT THAT I WILL MAKE WITH THE HOUSE OF ISRAEL AFTER THOSE DAYS, SAYS THE LORD: I WILL PUT MY LAWS IN THEIR MIND AND WRITE THEM ON THEIR HEARTS; AND I WILL BE THEIR GOD, AND THEY SHALL BE MY PEOPLE.

Heb_8:13　 In that He says, "A NEW COVENANT," He has made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.

Heb_9:1　 Then indeed, even the first covenant had ordinances of divine service and the earthly sanctuary.

Heb_9:4　 which had the golden censer and the ark of the covenant overlaid on all sides with gold, in which were the golden pot that had the manna, Aaron's rod that budded, and the tablets of the covenant;

Heb_9:15　 And for this reason He is the Mediator of the new covenant, by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions under the first covenant, that those who are called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance.

Heb_9:18　 Therefore not even the first covenant was dedicated without blood.

Heb_9:20　 saying, "THIS IS THE BLOOD OF THE COVENANT WHICH GOD HAS COMMANDED YOU."

Heb_10:16　 "THIS IS THE COVENANT THAT I WILL MAKE WITH THEM AFTER THOSE DAYS, SAYS THE LORD: I WILL PUT MY LAWS INTO THEIR HEARTS, AND IN THEIR MINDS I WILL WRITE THEM,"

Heb_12:24　 to Jesus the Mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling that speaks better things than that of Abel.

Heb_13:20　 Now may the God of peace who brought up our Lord Jesus from the dead, that great Shepherd of the sheep, through the blood of the everlasting covenant,

.

 

[Steve Petersen]

Which original texts? There are scores of Greek NT texts, and there are variations between the Masoretic texts of the OT and the Dead Sea Scrolls.

There there is the Greek OT, the Septuagint.

 

[BABerean2]

Which original texts? There are scores of Greek NT texts, and there are variations between the Masoretic texts of the OT and the Dead Sea Scrolls.

There there is the Greek OT, the Septuagint.

If you watch the video, you will know which of the texts you have just mentioned are being discussed.

This speaker has done his homework and discusses pretty much all of the above.

.

 

[Riberra]

Which Bible Version is closest to the original Hebrew and Greek Texts?

Hi BABerean2 !

The KJV used with
-Strong's Concordance with Hebrew and Greek Lexicon
http://www.eliyah.com/lexicon.html
and
- E.W. Bullinger's Companion Bible Notes .
https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/bul.html

**Note apparently some online version of Strong's Concordance may not be as accurate that the original Strong's Concordance book publication ....

The New KJV have lots of words changed as well as mostly all of the new bible versions....
http://www.av1611.org/nkjv.html

Table documenting over 300 verses changed in the new versions.
http://www.av1611.org/biblecom.html

Table documenting complete verses removed in the new versions.
http://www.av1611.org/biblevs.html

Table documenting 15 Major Bible words removed in the new versions.
http://www.av1611.org/biblewrd.html

 

[mmksparbud]

For the OT I prefer the Mechanical Translation, it's not finished yet, and only Genesis is free. It's a word for word transliteration. I use the KJV, and the Jewish Publication Society Bible. I go to translations from the Greek for the NT. I'll go to one or more of those sites that have several versions and do a parallel check also with many others, just to get an overall view of what others say.

 

[BABerean2]

Table documenting over 300 verses changed in the new versions.
http://www.av1611.org/biblecom.html

Good information overall.
However, the following quote is misleading and incorrect.


"The term "new testament" is NOT in the NKJV! (see Matt. 26:28, Mark 14:24, Luke 22:20, 1 Cor. 11:25, 2 Cor. 3:6, Heb. 9:15,) The NKJV replaces "new testament" with "new covenant" (ditto NIV, NRSV, RSV, NASV). An obvious assault at the written word!"

The Greek word for "testament" and "covenant" are the same Greek word.

2Co_3:14　 But their minds were blinded. For until this day the same veil remains unlifted in the reading of the Old Testament, because the veil is taken away in Christ.

Heb_9:16　 For where there is a testament, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator.

Heb_9:17　 For a testament is in force after men are dead, since it has no power at all while the testator lives.

.

The KJV also translates it as "covenant" in Hebrews 12:24, but not in other places. It is not consistent in the translation of the same word.

 

[Riberra]

The Greek word for "testament" and "covenant" are the same Greek word.


The KJV also translates it as "covenant" in Hebrews 12:24, but not in other places. It is not consistent in the translation of the same word.

Apparently there is a subtle difference in the usage of New Testament and New Covenant...
Here the explanation i find in the
E.W. Bullinger's Companion Bible Notes
https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/bul.html
Here:
Hebrew 12:24,
https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/bul/hebrews-12.html

Matth 26:28
https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/bul/matthew-26.html


it may explain why the KJV use the - new covenant - for Hebrews 12:24,

testament. Greek. diatheke. This is the first occurrence in the N.T. It is an O.T. word, and must always conform to O.T. usage and translation. It has nothing whatever to do with the later Greek usage.
--------
https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/bul/matthew-26.html

Matth 26:28
No covenant could be made without shedding of blood (Exodus 24:8. Hebrews 9:20); and no remission of sins without it (Leviticus 17:11).

the new testament = the New Covenant. This can be nothing else than that foretold in Jeremiah 31:31. If not made then, it can never now be made, for the Lord has no blood to shed (Luke 24:39). This is the ground of the proclamation of "them that heard Him" (Hebrews 2:3). See Acts 2:38, and Acts 3:19, &c. See also App-95.

new. Greek. kainos. New as to quality and character; not fresh made. Compare Matthew 27:60. Mark 1:27.

testament. Greek. diatheke. This is the first occurrence in the N.T. It is an O.T. word, and must always conform to O.T. usage and translation. It has nothing whatever to do with the later Greek usage. The rendering "testament" comes from the Vulgate "testamentum". See App-95. Diatheke occurs in N.T. thirty three times, and is rendered covenant twenty times (Luke 1:72. Acts 3:25; Acts 7:8. Romans 9:4; Romans 11:27. Galatians 1:3, Galatians 1:15, Galatians 1:17; Galatians 4:24. Ephesians 2:12. Hebrews 8:6, Hebrews 8:8, Hebrews 8:9, Hebrews 9:10; Hebrews 9:4, Hebrews 9:4; Hebrews 10:16, Hebrews 10:29; Hebrews 12:24; Hebrews 13:20); and testament thirteen times (here, Mark 14:24. Luke 22:20. 1 Corinthians 11:25. 2 Corinthians 3:6, 2 Corinthians 3:14. Hebrews 7:22; Hebrews 9:15, Hebrews 9:15, Hebrews 9:16, Hebrews 9:17, Hebrews 9:20. Revelation 11:19). It should be always rendered "covenant". See notes on Hebrews 9:15-22, and App-95.

is. Used by the Figure of speech Prolepsis. App-6.

for the remission of sins. See Acts 2:38; Acts 3:19.

 

[BABerean2]

Apparently there is a subtle difference in the usage of New Testament and New Covenant...
Here the explanation i find in the
E.W. Bullinger's Companion Bible Notes
https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/bul.html
Here:
Hebrew 12:24,
https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/bul/hebrews-12.html

Matth 26:28
https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/bul/matthew-26.html


it may explain why the KJV use the - new covenant - only for Hebrews 12:24,

testament. Greek. diatheke. This is the first occurrence in the N.T. It is an O.T. word, and must always conform to O.T. usage and translation. It has nothing whatever to do with the later Greek usage.
--------
https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/bul/matthew-26.html

Matth 26:28
No covenant could be made without shedding of blood (Exodus 24:8. Hebrews 9:20); and no remission of sins without it (Leviticus 17:11).

the new testament = the New Covenant. This can be nothing else than that foretold in Jeremiah 31:31. If not made then, it can never now be made, for the Lord has no blood to shed (Luke 24:39). This is the ground of the proclamation of "them that heard Him" (Hebrews 2:3). See Acts 2:38, and Acts 3:19, &c. See also App-95.

new. Greek. kainos. New as to quality and character; not fresh made. Compare Matthew 27:60. Mark 1:27.

testament. Greek. diatheke. This is the first occurrence in the N.T. It is an O.T. word, and must always conform to O.T. usage and translation. It has nothing whatever to do with the later Greek usage. The rendering "testament" comes from the Vulgate "testamentum". See App-95. Diatheke occurs in N.T. thirty three times, and is rendered covenant twenty times (Luke 1:72. Acts 3:25; Acts 7:8. Romans 9:4; Romans 11:27. Galatians 1:3, Galatians 1:15, Galatians 1:17; Galatians 4:24. Ephesians 2:12. Hebrews 8:6, Hebrews 8:8, Hebrews 8:9, Hebrews 9:10; Hebrews 9:4, Hebrews 9:4; Hebrews 10:16, Hebrews 10:29; Hebrews 12:24; Hebrews 13:20); and testament thirteen times (here, Mark 14:24. Luke 22:20. 1 Corinthians 11:25. 2 Corinthians 3:6, 2 Corinthians 3:14. Hebrews 7:22; Hebrews 9:15, Hebrews 9:15, Hebrews 9:16, Hebrews 9:17, Hebrews 9:20. Revelation 11:19). It should be always rendered "covenant". See notes on Hebrews 9:15-22, and App-95.

is. Used by the Figure of speech Prolepsis. App-6.

for the remission of sins. See Acts 2:38; Acts 3:19.

In the quote below from your source above, Bullinger agrees with me.
He says "testament" comes from the Latin Vulgate.

He says the word in Matthew 26:28 comes from Jeremiah 31:31 which uses the word "covenant".

The Greek word is normally translated as "covenant".



"
Exodus 24:8. Hebrews 9:20); and no remission of sins without it (Leviticus 17:11).
the new testament = the New Covenant. This can be nothing else than that foretold in Jeremiah 31:31. If not made then, it can never now be made, for the Lord has no blood to shed (Luke 24:39). This is the ground of the proclamation of "them that heard Him" (Hebrews 2:3). See Acts 2:38, and Acts 3:19, &c. See also App-95.
new. Greek. kainos. New as to quality and character; not fresh made. Compare Matthew 27:60. Mark 1:27.
testament. Greek. diatheke. This is the first occurrence in the N.T. It is an O.T. word, and must always conform to O.T. usage and translation. It has nothing whatever to do with the later Greek usage. The rendering "testament" comes from the Vulgate "testamentum". See App-95. Diatheke occurs in N.T. thirty three times, and is rendered covenant twenty times (Luke 1:72. Acts 3:25; Acts 7:8. Romans 9:4; Romans 11:27. Galatians 1:3, Galatians 1:15, Galatians 1:17; Galatians 4:24. Ephesians 2:12. Hebrews 8:6, Hebrews 8:8, Hebrews 8:9, Hebrews 9:10; Hebrews 9:4, Hebrews 9:4; Hebrews 10:16, Hebrews 10:29; Hebrews 12:24; Hebrews 13:20); and testament thirteen times (here, Mark 14:24. Luke 22:20. 1 Corinthians 11:25. 2 Corinthians 3:6, 2 Corinthians 3:14. Hebrews 7:22; Hebrews 9:15, Hebrews 9:15, Hebrews 9:16, Hebrews 9:17, Hebrews 9:20. Revelation 11:19). It should be always rendered "covenant". See notes on Hebrews 9:15-22, and App-95.
is. Used by the Figure of speech Prolepsis. App-6.
for the remission of sins. See Acts 2:38; Acts 3:19. "

Reformed Covenant Theology was popular at the time the KJV was first produced. Those who hold to that system claim that the New Covenant is merely a "New Administration" of the Old Covenant. They also claim the Old Covenant was given to Adam in the Garden before the fall.

Their problem is that Exodus 34:28 and Deuteronomy 5:2-3 show that these claims are not based on scripture.

This may have had an effect on their decision to use the word "testament" instead of "covenant".
.



.