The most accurate translations?

I'm interested in reading the religious texts of the main Abrahamic religions - Judaism, Christianity and Islam - and I was wondering if anyone had any opinions or advice on the most accurate translations into English of each of the Bible, Torah and Koran.

I'm interested in this from a purely historical and research point of view, I'm not interested at all in researching these texts for religious epiphany, I'm not searching for a faith - But I'm very interested in the origins of these closely related faiths.

I really wouldn't know where to start with the Torah or Koran, but I've read a little about the plethora of English biblical translations.

Whilst I know the King James Bible is often used and most cherished, I like the sound of both the New English Translation and the Amplified Bible.

Any more learned BTS members than I have any suggestions of the best, or most accurate translations of all 3 texts?

Thank you

Originally posted by VelvetSplash
.... .. .. . . . . I was wondering if anyone had any opinions or advice on the most accurate translations. .. . .. ..

Why do you need to seek for the answers to an omnipotent entity in the opinions and viewpoints of a world society that has a written and recorded history that proves they are to date incapable of choosing to go 7 consecutive days without war, killing, and destruction throughout 7,000+ years?

Are these people going to provide you the means of understanding the word of tolerance when they themselves demonstrate relentlessly their inability to tolerate how others choose to learn how to tolerate?

If a God does exist, then just read the text and listen to what it means to you personally. The book was written soley for you and you alone, and an omnipotent, omnipresent God would be there, if God exists.

Peace,
John

Favored by most scholars, the The New Oxford Annotated Bible With the Apocrypha is considered the most accurate of translations.





seekerof

On the so-called canon (the OT and NT bible) all I can offer is that the best thing I found, myself, was to wade on into Greek and Hebrew. Not to be facetious--but truly I don't feel any translation can be trusted as 'the' translation--and this I say from the POV of my own research.

the most popular and widely used Bible translation into english is the New International version, which has great language that fits with todays modern english.

I've used The Jeruselem Bible. This edition of the Bible was commissioned by the Roman Catholic Church in the 50's with a fairly explicit mandate to translate the Bible from the oldest available sources. In many cases, this meant that the Bible would be translated from Greek and even Aramaic sources. Another interesting aspect of this edition is the fact that when there are passages that were interpretive, in that the translation was disputed, all the most likely meanings were included. An example of this is in Exodus. When they referred to the parting of the Red Sea, they also include that this could have been the Sea of Reeds; a swampy area with great fluctuation in tides and suseptible to winds. Where a miracle of the parting of the Red Sea could seem impossible, it becomes more likely an event if one reads the local as this Sea of Reeds.

An interesting side note; J.R.R. Tolkein was one of the translators involved in this very ambitious and interesting project.

www.bible-researcher.com...

Originally posted by benevolent tyrant
When they referred to the parting of the Red Sea, they also include that this could have been the Sea of Reeds; a swampy area with great fluctuation in tides and suseptible to winds. Where a miracle of the parting of the Red Sea could seem impossible, it becomes more likely an event if one reads the local as this Sea of Reeds.

uh.. msot every bible makes a note of this translation of "yam suph" it was the KJV version that started using the "red sea". It really only matters if a southern or northern route was taken but evidance suggest it was a southern route, and the Hebrews were not interested in the geography of the land, but only where they came from, and the destination.

Don't become so arrogent that you think one translation is better because it includes a footnote, when many others do the same thing

Thank you for all your replies thus far, very interesting to see various versions of the Bible I hadn't really looked into before.



I just had to reply also to Esoteric Teacher, whom I think misunderstood my reasoning for enquiring about these texts:

Originally posted by Esoteric Teacher
Why do you need to seek for the answers to an omnipotent entity in the opinions and viewpoints of a world society that has a written and recorded history that proves they are to date incapable of choosing to go 7 consecutive days without war, killing, and destruction throughout 7,000+ years?

I'm not seeking answers to an "omnipotent entity" I'm actually more interested in cross-referencing these historical texts, first with each other, then with other historical records in order to ascertain the validity of theories such as the Abraham/Jacob/Joseph line being the Hyksos Pharoahs of Lower Egypt, and the theory that Christianity is the continuation of an allegorical two-toned work, used one hand to convey astroligical procession data as well as other information to high initiates of the cult, whilst simultaneously relaying the story of the allegory as actual events, as a tool for mass-social control and power over the common, uninitiated population.

Originally posted by Esoteric TeacherAre these people going to provide you the means of understanding the word of tolerance when they themselves demonstrate relentlessly their inability to tolerate how others choose to learn how to tolerate?

If a God does exist, then just read the text and listen to what it means to you personally. The book was written soley for you and you alone, and an omnipotent, omnipresent God would be there, if God exists.

I'm not looking for God, and I don't believe the Bible is his word, I'm coming from purely a point of interest in the history and beginnings of Christianity, I do not wish to find spiritual comfort or answers in these books.

Originally posted by VelvetSplash
I do not wish to find spiritual comfort or answers in these books.

Then the historical viewpoint from which they were written will elude you, the historical viewpoint is a viewpoint from a spiritual comfort with answers. (remember as you are reading you are inside the mind of someone). If spirituality is an intangible aspect of what you are reading, and you are not looking at the words with a spiritual aspect in mind, then the history may very well elude you.