by jaffacake 17 Replies latest jw friends
since the only ones who would know which is best would be the authors....no such luck
www.blueletterbible.org has many translations on line with the orignial greek and hebrew and their strong's concordance data plus comentaries
all in all, if you cant find it there, you probably wont be satisfied anywhere else.
The Watchtower accepts the accuracy of the most ancient Christian Greek manuscripts that exist, which they believe are God-breathed. All except for 237 instances where in those ancient manuscript include the word Kyrios (Lord) is found.
The NWT footnotes tell us the sources of their preferred translation to justify these 237 alterations. These are relatively modern translations into Hebrew, by Trinitarians mongst others, between 14th and 20th centuries. But some they are translations from those ancient Greek manuscripts that just do not contain the Divine name. The tetragrammaton simply does not exist in any of the 5,000 extant ancient Christian Greek manuscripts.
Did the WTS really consider modern Hebrew translations, translated with the Tetragrammaton systematically inserted into them for no other purpose than to prove Jesus is God, are more reliable than the ancient manuscripts they were translated from? There preference for modern translations from Greek to Hebrew elevates those modern translations above the otherwise "inspired" ancient manuscripts. But they only select one word "Jehovah" from these versions and would not touch the rest with a barge pole.
For this reason, the least trusted New Testament for me is the NWT, although the Kingdom Interlinear Greek & English shown alngside the NWT wording appears sound. Likewise, the Hebrew OT appears sound. I just wish someone would put together the best versions of Old and New Testamants in one book, without the added falsehoods.
The only thing putting me off the New Jerusalem Bible is that JW stalwarts are recommending it!? I'll read up on it though.
Jaffacake,
As for NWT Old Testament, it seems better than most. I am aware of a very serious flaw in the King James, where a line was fraudulently added to support a theological position.
What are you referring to?
Due to the considerable development of Biblical studies in the last century, any recent translation (esp. with scholarly footnotes) will certainly be better than the KJV. I'm not familiar with many English translations, but I often use the French 1998 edition of the Jerusalem Bible (which might be available in English as a New New Jerusalem Bible someday?) and it is excellent. When I quote on this forum I generally use the NRSV (because I happen to have it on my computer) and found it pretty good thus far.
My belief is that the King James is the most accurate, however, hard to read. So I have that one and a New Living Translation, and a American Standard.
Not to be nit-picky; but, THE KING JAMES VERSION is not a translation at all. For it to be a translation it must look to the original language as the source. Instead, the group of men who produced this historic version looked to previous translations. A one-step removal at a distance. Their accomplishment has more to do with use of language than of analysis of language for accuracy of transliteration.
I know, I know; I hate pedantic people too.
T.
Narkissos
I'm referring to 1 John 5:7b which says
the Father, the Word and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
The words : and these three are one are not in the ancient Greek texts, but were added as a deliberate fraud when someone copied the whole Bible just to add these five words. Don't get me wrong, I'm closer to trinitarian in belief than anti-trinitarian. The KJV was therefore prone to errors due to relying on unsafe sources.
The most authentic translations from the oldest Greek manuscripts still have the trinitarians ahead on points that they don't have to cheat. Personally, I don't like the T word. I do wonder though why the inspired gospel authors clearly and deliberately blurred the edges between Jehovah and Christ.
I'll probably try to get a New Jerusalem Bible, thanks all.
Of course the KJV follows the Textus receptus in the NT. From the context of your statement I thought you were alluding to something in the OT. Never mind.
THE KING JAMES VERSION is not a translation at all.
An indesputable fact. Which is why, even tho I do like the flow and the traditional beauty of the KJV, I do not believe it to be the most accurate.
Ever play the game where one person wispers a phrase into one person's ear, and then that person passes whatever he heard on to the next and so on? The KJV is the third guy down the line...
J
Not to be nit-picky; but, THE KING JAMES VERSION is not a translation at all. For it to be a translation it must look to the original language as the source. Instead, the group of men who produced this historic version looked to previous translations. A one-step removal at a distance. Their accomplishment has more to do with use of language than of analysis of language for accuracy of transliteration.
I know, I know; I hate pedantic people too.
It's ok,,,, I don't think it's the word of God anyway.... it's funny either way in my opinion.
