Which English Bible Translation is Most Accurate?

[Michaelrh1325]

My church really pushes the KJV. One reason is accuracy. Another reason is, according to them, with each bible translation a certain percentage of words must be different to get publishing rights, or whatever it is called that they need. Therefore, people are changing words of the bible for money. However, I cannot read the KJV and connect to it. It's too difficult for me to read. When I try to read it, I often go into a day dream as I read the words and when I snap out of it I have no clue what I just read. I need an English bible translation that is just as accurate as the KJV. No thought for thought stuff like the NLT, please. The NKJV would be an obvious choice, but I'm looking for something with King James not included in the name.

 

[The Dark Knight]

It's a great question, and one of major importance! I can assure you that word changes or verse changes from one Bible to another have nothing to do with rights or money. They generally occur because there are different texts (or textual traditions) that are used/emphasized in the various translations. It's a very interesting subject to study. For example, translations from the latter 20th Century will have access to the Dead Sea Scrolls. If their Old Testament texts differ from those of older translations, it is because new resources are at their disposal. The KJV is powerful - I especially like the Psalms - but there are great options today to have alongside it. Never fall for the KJV-onlyists' trap when they try to bash other translations as "New Age" or something like that. Their attacks are generally based on faulty reasoning or bad facts. Nothing wrong with only reading the KJV, of course; I'm referring to the wild accusations of people who almost idolize it.

So: if I were recommending a Bible to someone, their church background and intended use (personal study, reading aloud, etc) would impact my suggestion. Coming out of a KJV world, NKJV is a good move; but you said that you wanted something else. Thus, I'd probably look at the ESV, NASB, or NIV. The ESV is the Bible that I use the most, as it is recent and very literal. NASB is really literal (and especially good at capturing Greek verb tenses), but it isn't quite as readable as the ESV in my opinion. The NIV is slightly less literal but is very readable.

 

[ebia]

My church really pushes the KJV. One reason is accuracy. Another reason is, according to them, with each bible translation a certain percentage of words must be different to get publishing rights, or whatever it is called that they need. Therefore, people are changing words of the bible for money. However, I cannot read the KJV and connect to it. It's too difficult for me to read. When I try to read it, I often go into a day dream as I read the words and when I snap out of it I have no clue what I just read. I need an English bible translation that is just as accurate as the KJV. No thought for thought stuff like the NLT, please. The NKJV would be an obvious choice, but I'm looking for something with King James not included in the name.

NRSV or CEB would do you just fine.
But personally I wouldn't hang around any church that pushes inaccurate propaganda like that.

 

[mark46]

The King James lineage is indeed a fine translation into English. The NRSV is a fine translation, although my personal preference is NKJV. I would note that the Orthodox Churches uses the NKJV for their OT. The Roman Catholic Church accepts the RSV.

Another very accurate version is the New Jerusalem.

"Accuracy" is an interesting standard. No translation stands on its own. it must be seem through the lens of Tradition.

My church really pushes the KJV. One reason is accuracy. Another reason is, according to them, with each bible translation a certain percentage of words must be different to get publishing rights, or whatever it is called that they need. Therefore, people are changing words of the bible for money. However, I cannot read the KJV and connect to it. It's too difficult for me to read. When I try to read it, I often go into a day dream as I read the words and when I snap out of it I have no clue what I just read. I need an English bible translation that is just as accurate as the KJV. No thought for thought stuff like the NLT, please. The NKJV would be an obvious choice, but I'm looking for something with King James not included in the name.

 

[PaladinValer]

Avoid King James Version-Onlyism like the plague; it is a heretical theology.

I prefer the NRSV and the RSV, but so long as you read it, any translation or version will do. However, with perhaps one exception, I'd suggest you stay far away from paraphrases and I would also not encourage the use of the NIV.

 

[yanno the meek]

It is my understanding that there is only one translation recognized by Catholicism: The New American Bible. Don't bother looking for it on Crosswalk.

 

[Izdaari Eristikon]

It is my understanding that there is only one translation recognized by Catholicism: The New American Bible. Don't bother looking for it on Crosswalk.

Not quite. There are a few others, including the Douay-Rheims and the RSV-CE (RSV Catholic Edition).

 

[Izdaari Eristikon]

Avoid King James Version-Onlyism like the plague; it is a heretical theology.

I prefer the NRSV and the RSV, but so long as you read it, any translation or version will do. However, with perhaps one exception, I'd suggest you stay far away from paraphrases and I would also not encourage the use of the NIV.

I agree with this, except that I find paraphrases useful though not as a substitute for a real Bible but rather as a specialized type of commentary, being essentially one man's interpretation of the Bible. They can often bring to life difficult passages. And I think the NIV (particularly the 2011 revision) is a good translation, striking a good balance between formal and dynamic equivalence.

 

[yanno the meek]

I agree with all of you, there are better translations but there is nothing more inspiring than the KJV version of the 23rd Psalm and inspiration is the whole point of a psalm.

The LORD is my shepherd; I shall not want.
He maketh me to lie down in green pastures: he leadeth me beside the still waters.
He restoreth my soul: he leadeth me in the paths of righteousness for his name's sake.
Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil: for thou art with me; thy rod and thy staff they comfort me.
Thou preparest a table before me in the presence of mine enemies: thou anointest my head with oil; my cup runneth over.
Surely goodness and mercy shall follow me all the days of my life: and I will dwell in the house of the LORD for ever.

 

[Ann_of_Love]

We were required to use the NRSV in our religion department at college. Unless you had the Jewish professor, in which case you used the JPS translation of the Tanakh. Still, it was far more usual to see a religion major carrying around a copy of this, beat up and duct taped at the spine.

 

[ebia]

It is my understanding that there is only one translation recognized by Catholicism: The New American Bible. Don't bother looking for it on Crosswalk.

Um, no. The NAB is the bible used at mass in N America.. The rest of the English speaking Catholic world uses the Jerusalem Bible at mass. The NJB is common as a devotional bible in the UK. Catholic seminaries and high schools here use NRSV.

 

[LuxMundi]

I think the NLT is a good translation, but NRSV is my choice.

 

[PaladinValer]

Um, no. The NAB is the bible used at mass in N America.. The rest of the English speaking Catholic world uses the Jerusalem Bible at mass. The NJB is common as a devotional bible in the UK. Catholic seminaries and high schools here use NRSV.

The NRSV-C is also the book used in Canadian liturgies as well, if memory serves me right.

 

[ebia]

The NRSV-C is also the book used in Canadian liturgies as well, if memory serves me right.

I believe it was for a time, but isn't currently. From what I've read the bishops conference here would also like it to be the mass version. But the Vatican has issues with gender-neutral translations in the mass.

 

[PaladinValer]

I believe it was for a time, but isn't currently. From what I've read the bishops conference here would also like it to be the mass version. But the Vatican has issues with gender-neutral translations in the mass.

Hmmmm...the CCCB's official website still mentions the NRSV, although admittedly the page is dated Nov. 3rd, 2010. How recent was the change?

Still, it is unsurprising that they would...

While I don't agree with all of its use of gender neutrality, I think the NRSV deserves a lot of credit for breaking ground as it did. Much (most?) of the neutral language was done tastefully and accurately, which provided a more accurate translation IMO. It just needs some tweaking.

Furthermore, its use of neutrality I thought to be far superior over other translations since which use it.

 

[Michaelrh1325]

Thanks for the help, fellow Christians. With all the Catholic talk in this thread, I should mention that I'm absolutely not Catholic. Perhaps I'm in the wrong section. I do not know. I just found this forum last night.

I've been a Christian for about 2 months, after being an uneducated atheist for several years. Thank the Lord that something happened in my heart and I found Jesus.

Now, I do happen to have a beautiful ESV Study Bible. I enjoy it a lot. Perhaps that's what I should stick with for the time being, seeing as it was suggested in this thread. It does not contain Apocrypha. I know very little about Apocrypha; just the minimum I would say. I know that it's, according to many, not exactly the word of God and such, but I'm still interested in reading it to get an understanding of it. It seems I can't find Apocrypha in any Bibles, though. Maybe I'm asking for a little more info on this and which translations I can Apocrypha in.

 

[Izdaari Eristikon]

Thanks for the help, fellow Christians. With all the Catholic talk in this thread, I should mention that I'm absolutely not Catholic. Perhaps I'm in the wrong section. I do not know. I just found this forum last night.

I've been a Christian for about 2 months, after being an uneducated atheist for several years. Thank the Lord that something happened in my heart and I found Jesus.

Now, I do happen to have a beautiful ESV Study Bible. I enjoy it a lot. Perhaps that's what I should stick with for the time being, seeing as it was suggested in this thread. It does not contain Apocrypha. I know very little about Apocrypha; just the minimum I would say. I know that it's, according to many, not exactly the word of God and such, but I'm still interested in reading it to get an understanding of it. It seems I can't find Apocrypha in any Bibles, though. Maybe I'm asking for a little more info on this and which translations I can Apocrypha in.

If you have an ESV Study Bible, you already have one of the best translations and best study bibles there is. It's good to have some others to compare for serious study, but having a solid one as a base is a good start.

If you want to add a translation that contains the Apocrypha (aka the Deuterocanonical books), there are several that come in editions that have them. The NRSV is the one I mainly use for that. The New Jerusalem Bible is also good, but I don't have one yet.

 

[MichaelNZ]

If you're used to the KJV, then try the NKJV. It's easier to read but still seems familiar to someone using the KJV. I wouldn't recommend the NIV. If you have an NIV, look up Acts 8:37. It will either be missing entirely, or it will be relegated to a footnote.

With regards to the Catholic Bible translations, the Douay-Rheims was the main translation used in English until the Ronald Knox translation was completed in 1950. The Confraternity of Christian Doctrine also published a Bible translation, and these were also used by Roman Catholics before Vatican II. Since they are primarily a translation of the Vulgate, the Latin version of the Bible, the names of people and places can be different from the KJV and other Protestant translations (as well as modern Roman Catholic translations) because they are using the Latinised names. For example, in the Douay-Rheims, Zephaniah is called Sophonias, Haggai is called Aggeus, and Micah is called Micheas. 1 and 2 Chronicles are called 1 and 2 Paralipomenon, which is the Greek name for those books.

For those interested in the Knox version, the New Testament can be found here, and a revised version of the whole Bible (primarily changing 'thou' and 'thee' to 'you') can be found here.

 

[ebia]

If you're used to the KJV, then try the NKJV. It's easier to read but still seems familiar to someone using the KJV. I wouldn't recommend the NIV. If you have an NIV, look up Acts 8:37.

As it will also be omitted in the NRSV, ESV, NET, CEB, NLT, RSV, LEB, NJB,, and most other versions incorporating the best scholarship - for good reason.

 

[LuxMundi]

If you have an ESV Study Bible, you already have one of the best translations and best study bibles there is.

I must confess that I am not a fan of study Bibles; far better IMO to have a number of commentaries. But the best by far is The New Oxford Annotated Bible with Apocrypha