Which is the real bible

Now in days we have a whole lot of bibles running around. I want to know from the ATS and BTS Christian which bible is closer to Hebrew and Greek texts.

I did a search and found this site

www.dtl.org...

www.dtl.org...

I also notice things that in the site that I think are important like
Textus Receptus (TR)
Critical Text” (CT)
“Majority Text” (MT)
Can someone give me a description on what this means and which bible holds one of these translations ideas???

But this is just one source telling me what bible to read. Personally I memorize the KJV which I am thinking to change to a more accurate bible maybe the NKJV.

Please keep in mine I am not asking what bible does our church read! Nor am I asking what bible you read! I am asking what bible is the more a literal translations from Hebrew and Greek texts! I also was hoping people can put sites with info about thank god bless

[edit on 5-12-2008 by slymattb]

It looks like alot of sites I a check out yes that NKJV and web is great for accuracy and readability but for a more in depth read LITV and ALT

Thoughts????

reply to post by slymattb


Matt, I've never been let down by the KJV.

I agree there are some passages that are difficult to read through and it is often helpful to look at another translation to help understand what is being said. I often use the Amplified Bible or the Darby translation or Young's literal.

I find these translations help me understand what is being said in the KJV a bit better and it makes perfect sense after reading the other translations.

Another reason why I like the KJV is because it makes searching Google for a passage so much easier. The "thee's" and "thou's" and words common to the KJV make the passages so much easier to find.

I despise "The Message" and I (sorta) wish it had never been printed, but I have to allow that I don't think it is possible to "mangle" the Bible bad enough to lose what God wants to say:

Psalm 12:6-7 The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
7 Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.

I don't think one can learn anything "new" from another translation that isn't already there in the KJV.

I suppose any Bible will do in a pinch.

reply to post by slymattb


I personally use the NIV due to ease and readability but I have heard the English Standard Version is the most accurate in terms of translation and the truest to the original Hebrew and Greek.

I also own a split columned English/Greek/Hebrew/Aramaic Bible for in depth scholarship and research. Highly recommended if you can get a hold of one of those.

reply to post by slymattb


I recommend one of these:

Originally posted by AshleyD
I also own a split columned English/Greek/Hebrew/Aramaic Bible for in depth scholarship and research. Highly recommended if you can get a hold of one of those.

Originally posted by AshleyD

I personally use the NIV due to ease and readability

I would be worried about 'ease of readability' leading to 'ease of mistranslations' though.

reply to post by Lucid Lunacy

I would be worried about 'ease of readability' leading to 'ease of mistranslations' though.

Yes, the NIV is not on my list of "go-to-THAT-translation-for-clarification-of-the-KJV".

The NIV and some other translations imply that the end of Mark 16 (from verses 9 to the end of the chapter) in the earliest known Gospel to be distributed weren't there.

In other words:
The NIV leaves one with the impression that the earliest commonly distributed Gospel (Mark) didn't have verses 9-20 (of chapter 16) in them.

This means the earliest Gospel distributed among people (Mark) ended like this:
Mark 16:8 And they went out quickly, and fled from the sepulchre; for they trembled and were amazed: neither said they any thing to any man; for they were afraid.

The NIV offers an alternative ending to Mark: Scared women.

Another dislike of the NIV (for me):

Remember how many of us were taught the "Lord's Prayer"? Can you recite it ALL? Does it end with, "...for thine is the kingdom, the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen"?

The NIV questions the legitimacy of that ending by suggesting that some of the earliest manuscripts didn't have this verse.

Matt 6:13 And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen.

NIV version here:
www.biblegateway.com...-NIV-23296

Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy
[I would be worried about 'ease of readability' leading to 'ease of mistranslations' though.

You're trying to pull me into a NIV vs. KJV tumble match- I just know it!

Seriously though, statistically, the KJV has more translation errors than the NIV- which is by no means perfect either. English translations are great to understand God's plan of salvation for mankind but of course none of them are perfect. But I'm smart enough to stay away from version debates. They're brutal. I say to each their own in terms of preference but to resort to the original texts, lexicons, and split translation versions for in depth investigation. That's a fair thing to say. Much better than to make others feel bad for the translation they use, IMHO.

[edit on 12/5/2008 by AshleyD]

reply to post by AshleyD


I figured you would think that hehe. I wasn't

I know the KJV has lots of mistranslations. If I have come off as a supporter of the KJV as the end all for accuracy, then I misrepresented myself. I try to make a point to say studying the biblical languages themselves is the best route.

That said, the 'kinds' of mistranslations in the NIV versus the 'kinds' in the KJV, is another angle altogether. One i'd like to explore further too

Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy
I figured you would think that hehe. I wasn't

Aw, I know. Just playing with ya.

Originally posted by PreTribGuy

The NIV and some other translations imply that the end of Mark 16 (from verses 9 to the end of the chapter) in the earliest known Gospel to be distributed weren't there.

In other words:
The NIV leaves one with the impression that the earliest commonly distributed Gospel (Mark) didn't have verses 9-20 (of chapter 16) in them.
*snip*
The NIV questions the legitimacy of that ending by suggesting that some of the earliest manuscripts didn't have this verse.

I don't mean just to be disagreeable here, but is this not true? The NIV is certainly not the only translation to state explicitly that both the end of Mark and the traditional for of the Lord's Prayer did not exist in the earliest known manuscripts. My information is a decade or more out of date, so that could have changed, but it was my impression.

Aside from Ashley's recommendation, I would look for an edition of whatever translation you choose that has extensive notes on which manuscripts were used in the translations, and what the optional translations are.

If, that is, you're looking at it from a scholarly point of view rather than in terms of the approved version.

And since it can't hurt to compare translations either, you might check out the New American Bible, which is th United States Conference of Catholic Bishops-approved version. It's clunky, but I like its footnotes.

Also the Revised Standard Version which is disapproved of by most churches but will give some alternative variations.

reply to post by americandingbat

I don't mean just to be disagreeable here, but is this not true? The NIV is certainly not the only translation to state explicitly that both the end of Mark and the traditional for of the Lord's Prayer did not exist in the earliest known manuscripts. My information is a decade or more out of date, so that could have changed, but it was my impression.

You aren't being disagreeable. I stated that "other versions" do the same in your quote of mine. I only mentioned the NIV because it seems to be the "prevalent" (most conspicuous) version in most pews in 2008. I just don't like it as a Bible translation, but I think I've used it here and there for even a better understanding of the KJV.

Another thing I don't "like" about the NIV is that it has a COPYRIGHT as a BOOK. The KJV has no such copyright. (In fact, all of the newer translations have a copyright...)

Under current law (in the USA), I could not publish the NIV without getting sued. It is not the same with the KJV.

reply to post by americandingbat

And since it can't hurt to compare translations either,

Yes, I agree.
Another translation that I like and is quite faithful to the KJV is the "New English Bible" (Oxford Cambridge). It is not available for free (online) and it is "out of print" but you can usually pick one up on eBay for about $20.00 or so. My wife likes this version. Especially the New Testament.

The "thing" about the "New English Bible" is that it ALSO includes the books of the Apocrypha. I don't think this is a "bad thing", but I want to point it out.

As for translations, I prefer the more "literal" approach over the "dynamic equivalent" approach to translations.

Has anyone read the LTV or the ATV. I hope some of you acually check out the sites I put down. How about some of us do a little study on the enternet and see where we get. Please. I think this is important!!!!

and I still am not share what these mean Textus Receptus (TR)
Critical Text” (CT)
“Majority Text” (MT). Has anyone here read most of the greek and hebrew texts and compared it with the english version?????

The reason I ask is I am looking for a bible that is more closest to the greek and hebrew texts. Someone said that the KJV has errors, and I heard all over that the NIV has major errors. I just dont know the truth. I study and memorize KJV but I do have a NIV

Some mention the New America standard Version which I believe has great introductions to all books of the bible. And what about the NKJV whats up with this one????

God bless and thank you for all you guyes times!!

The real Bible is the one in my head, and anyone that doesn't agree is going to hell.

(Plus I get your Daughters. Sorry, it's in there.)

Originally posted by PreTribGuy

The "thing" about the "New English Bible" is that it ALSO includes the books of the Apocrypha. I don't think this is a "bad thing", but I want to point it out.

As for translations, I prefer the more "literal" approach over the "dynamic equivalent" approach to translations.

*grin*

My "background" in the comparison of Bible translations is somewhat different than most – it's from studying medieval history. So the Apocrypha are crucial.

Given what the OP has said, the literal approach is probably what he's looking for. My real preference, since I don't read any Greek or Hebrew, is to have at least two translations, one more "literal" and one more "dynamic" to compare.

OP: if you're interested in the different translations and want to decide for yourself, the Wikipedia articles actually seem to be pretty good on the subject, without delving too far into details of manuscripts. They'll tell you, for instance, wheither the translation takes into account the Dead Sea Scrolls manuscripts, whether it's more literal or more dynamic, what it's position on gender neutrality is, where it comes down on the Isaiah "virgin" vs. "young woman" question …

Here's the Modern English Bible Translations article.

But it looks to me like Ashley's right that general consensus prefers the English Standard Version as the most "accurate".

Originally posted by slymattb
Now in days we have a whole lot of bibles running around. I want to know from the ATS and BTS Christian which bible is closer to Hebrew and Greek texts.

I did a search and found this site

www.dtl.org...

www.dtl.org...

I also notice things that in the site that I think are important like
Textus Receptus (TR)
Critical Text” (CT)
“Majority Text” (MT)
Can someone give me a description on what this means and which bible holds one of these translations ideas???

But this is just one source telling me what bible to read. Personally I memorize the KJV which I am thinking to change to a more accurate bible maybe the NKJV.

Please keep in mine I am not asking what bible does our church read! Nor am I asking what bible you read! I am asking what bible is the more a literal translations from Hebrew and Greek texts! I also was hoping people can put sites with info about thank god bless

[edit on 5-12-2008 by slymattb]

i always thought it was the necranomicon

hello There

My personal choice would always be the KJV. I would recommend an old decent one (oxford press??) and the translations should have alternative words in the margins and this usually puts paid to the "bad words" argument.

I wouldn't touch the NIV if i was on fire. That is my own opinion. i wouldnt touch anything from the minority texts. I include the NKJV for this reason also. However when i first became a Christian i did use it until i got used tho the language of the KJV.

The trouble with so many "versions" is that they can have an agenda, as long as you know the beliefs of the translators you are not working blindly

people will say that all the Bibles are the same and clearly they are not a quick comparison will show you this. Modern translations seem, IMHO, to go hand in hand with the watering down of faith in the church and this allows for the wolves to move in closer and around and around it goes

I would take this to the Lord in Pray and keep praying about it and pray some more. Dont let us be fooled, if we took up a corrupt Bible in innocence the Lord, if it is his will, would not be slow in his correcting us.

1) check the text background, where it is from
2) check out the translators of both book and texts (if applicable)
3) check out what the translators belived in and did it have an impact on the words, verses, chapters and margin/study notes.

remember Satan distorted the word of God with Eve, he did it with Jesus so he will do this to the written word today

the following is an extreme example but this example clearly shows that people will and can by design or error pick up a bible that gives them a reason not to change

link

God Bless

david

It doesn't really matter as not one of these bibles can be checked against the original written word - because it doesn't exist or is hoarded away in some vault somewhere.

People will use whichever bible suits their agenda and will criticize the use of other bibles.

However, I normally use the KJV as it is possibly the most widely used and is the one I'm used to using.


G