Which Bible Translation is the Most Accurate? (Romans
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 6 фев 2025
- Different translation philosophies lead to different translations. Oftentimes, it is a bit misleading to call one of these translations more "accurate" than another. However, if you understand the different translation philosophies, you can study the Bible more deeply. You can use principles to evaluate each passage for yourself, and you don't need to know the biblical languages at all to see how the different translations work.
However, if you no longer want to be dependent upon English translations, you could just learn to read the Bible in the original languages. This may seem like an unattainable goal, but it isn't. Greek and Hebrew are languages that can be learned just like any other language. Biblingo gives you the tools to go from learning the Greek or Hebrew alphabet to becoming a fluent reader, and even speaker, of the languages, all while being immersed in the language and culture of the Bible. You can learn more and sign up for a free 10-day trial at biblingo.org.
12:41 "I personally think the best translation is no translation." +1
1:18 "If you no longer want to be dependent on English translations, you could just learn to read the Bible in the original. This may seem to be an unattainable goal, but it is not. Greek and Hebrew are languages that can be learned just like any other language. And Biblingo now gives you the tools to go from learning the Greek or Hebrew alphabet to becoming a fluent reader." Yes, becoming a fluent reader is an attainable goal if one looks at it as a long term commitment. If a person commits daily time to vocab and reading in the original, reading 1 John is possible within about 1 year. And Biblingo is a good tool to use to accomplish this goal.
if your god can't make itself understood in any language, then it isn't as advertised.
@@velkyn1 The Bible has been translated into hundreds of different languages. The limit is the fact that translating between languages loses some nuance and emphasis.
This is so helpful! Thank you.
Glad it was helpful!
Thank you! I have a very hard time to understand KJ translation also because English is my second language and it has shocking to learn that some versions add stuff according to their own theology like Matthew 17:21. 🤔 so I’m searching for the most accurate one and I’m looking to read the interlineal Fransico Lacueva in Spanish my mother tongue 😊
Pause at 0:41. Yeah, I know a certain verse in Ps. 145 VERY WELL in the HEBREW- and I only know of 3 English translations that have the "guts" to get this verse right.
Pause 2:07. This is true. There are times where a literal translation SHOULD be used. And there are times when it helps to SOME-TIMES re-word a word/term- so that people do not get the wrong idea.
Concerning Romans 7:25. Pause at 4:42. The NIV reading should be in a footnote. The hard issue is that blaming one's flesh/body for sin ......gave rise to Gnosticism.
It is a fact that much could be said and that MANY verses could be mentioned.
How can I e-mail someone who truly knows New Testament Greek? ( I do not seek perfection. It would just be nice to go through a few verses and have someone tell me how my mind works when it comes to translation of the NEWer TESTAMENT.)
Romans 7:25. I thank God for His salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ. Because of this, on the one hand, I myself serve the law of God with my mind; but on the other hand, with the flesh, I serve the law of sin. (A Faithful Version)
So what is the 'bench mark' for estimating a 'good' or a bad' translation of the bible? To be honest 'we dont have one'! The best we can do is; 1. Approach reading it with an OPEN, not precconceived mind. 2. Be prayerful, seeking God,s help. 3. Use a tranlation that uses earlier MSS, not one that is based on a handful of 10th century MSS'as ( Like the KJV & Douay). 3. obtain as many translations as you can & compare verses & words. Use a helpful diaglott. Dont rely on Google!.
After 30+ years of studying God's word I have found the NASB translation to be the most accurate to the original Ancient Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic texts. Yet, there are still shortcomings and out-right errors to this translation as well! As is the case with all English translations. I have taught English as a second language to many foreign nationals over the years. The English language is wholely inadequate to fully translate all other languages on our planet. Become a student of the original languages of God's word in your studies of it.
Just one example: John 3:22 holds within It's text the genius of Christ's strategy of making disciples. Yet one will never see that truth until you un pack the Greek from the verse. John 3:22 says this: After these things Jesus and His disciples came into the land of Judea and there He was spending time with them and baptizing. Looks to be nothing more than a transition verse. Yet when you look at this phrase " spending time with " and learn that the Greek word used here in this truth is the word ( Diatribo) - we get our modern day word diatribe from this Greek word. Yet, it's full meaning is " to rub into thouroughly " So Jesus was going about in ministry to the masses as He was baptizing converts. Yet, Christ concentrated the vast majority of His time rubbing Himself into these men thoroughly. This marked the entirety of His ministry here on earth. He then prayed to His Father in John 17: 4 - " I have glorified You on the earth, " having finished the work which You have given Me to do." - NASB says accomplished instead of finished. Which is more accurate. For on the cross, Christ used a Greek-Aramaic word - ( Tetelestai) to say " it is finished " . However that really doesn't do this justice here! " Tetelestai " was a word most often used in the international market place of Jerusalem. If someone bought an exspensive item and payed over time, upon that last payment they would receive a bill of sale listing the payments and written across those payments was this word TETELESTAI. " Paid In Full "
if i can get one that properly translates "eat" in John 6:51 & 6:54, I will be happy....John has phago for the first one and trogo for the 2nd....a very graphic term...
how about other translations?such as nkjv and kjv? i think we should consider them,most especially kjv which translate this greek word more accurately than the modern translation,that translation was in 1600 so at that time they know whats the real meaning of a greek word.not just like today we just relying on research and opinion of others or there's a lexicon for it.
Wowww- it’s almost like you’re supposed to be a part of a continuous ancient Christian culture in which you enculture yourself into all of these contextual understandings and traditions that will illuminate the scripture for you instead of stomping around insisting sola scriptura and yet having no idea what the scritpura is actually saying because you’re literally taking it out of it’s cultural context which is the church.
Wowww- it’s almost like you’re supposed to be a part of a continuous ancient Christian culture in which you enculture yourself into all of these contextual understandings and traditions that will illuminate the scripture for you instead of stomping around insisting sola scriptura and yet having no idea what the scritpura is actually saying because you’re literally taking it out of context.
Translating sarx as "sinful nature" isn't dynamic equivalent but a theological interpretation, constitutional sinfulness. Its not a good example and wouldn't be accepted by Greek Orthodox traditions. Earlier NIVs consistently translated it as sinful nature in many passages and is one reason 1978 or 1984 shouldn't be recommended
I am fluent in italian semi-fluent in Spanish, translateion ALWAYS depends on the person doing it....there are many choices...
I have studied Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek for 42 years. The formal equivalent (or modified-literal) translations are the "best" for detailed study. In my judgment the "best" modified-literal translation is the ASV-1901. It is not a perfect translation, but it is more consistent in the translation process, and the translators determined to remain as close to the original texts as possible, and in doing so, they used words and phrases that are awkward in many passages. In my judgment, the "best" modern modified-literal translation is the Legacy Standard Bible. There are several good translations in the modified-literal and dynamic equivalent categories. Each category has the responsibility to tell the English readers what the sacred writings say even when doing so is a difficult accomplishment.
Yes yes yes!! My favorite translation is the 1901ASV!! I've currently got one at the Norris bookbinder in Greenwood, MS.
@royal priest I am aware that many professors, students, and lexicographers have a variety of opinions about textual bases (Textus Receptus, Wescott-Hort, Nestle Aland, etc.). During the years I have been blessed to do research in the oldest manuscripts , versions, and other sources, I have not found any translation from any of the text-base sources, that has in every passage faithfully "translated" it's text base. A perfect example that demonstrates the point is (Acts 2:47) in the Textus Receptus tradition. Does the KJV correctly "translate" the passage as it is in its text base?
@royal priest you are absolutely correct. I studied (and continue to study) the biblical languages in order to make necessary decisions in places where all translations have inaccuracies. The most significant choices I make in translation issues are distinct from human traditions and denominational teachings. God's sacred word is the standard, and our duty is to "think through the text" and decide how to accurately convey what it says into clear English.
Translating sinful nature into the text which clearly says flesh is translating into scripture the later Christian doctrine of original sin which is not found in consensus in the church fathers- instead they had a belief that the flesh was made weak by its mortality (death) and by this weakness was subject to sin. There is then no need for some concept of original sin or a sinful nature, the nature of man is and has always been divine, made in the image of God, but we love our flesh, as a head loves the body, as Christ loves the church, but we do not rule over our body in its weakness as well as Christ rules over His body and so we succumb to the weakness of the flesh caused by its mortality. It is not until our body be resurrected through Christ that our divine nature made in the image of God is able to head the body not of bondage to sin through death but of life everlasting through Christ Jesus. Glory be to God!
I agree with you!!…go watch Michael Pearl’s series on “Do democrats have a sinful nature?”….he looks at every time the word sarx is used and debunks Calvinism while doing it. You will love it. Then watch his Eight Kingdoms series along with the book! God Bless!!
Have you seen the Cepher, New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures, the Book of Yahweh, Ethiopian Bible, Catholic Bible
LOL. The "Cepher" Translation MIGHT or might not be a good translation. What is odd is that they cannot even spell the Hebrew word for "book" correctly. It's SEFER, NOT "Cepher".
I wouldn't trust any of those. The new world translation is just the king james bible but deleting the deity of Jesus. Charles Russell once claimed that it was the best translation, but when they took him to court they found out he didn't know any Greek, proving he didn't know what he was talking about.
The problem with the catholic Bible is that its not very transparent about which manuscripts they used. NASB, ESV, NKJV are all far more transparent. Also the NAB was translated by athiest critical scholars so I especially don't recommend that catholic Bible.
I've read many versions for years and KJV is the only one that I don't have any problems with, all others I don't like certain things from a little to a lot
You either do not know the BASICS of English, Hebrew, or Greek if you think the KJV of the Bible has no errors in it.
Are you happy nor knowing?
Do you really think that "conversation" means conversation?
Should the Hebrew be CHANGED to agree with the English?
most bible translators claim that it was the good ol' Holy spirit that tells them they are right. So which ones are lying and which aren't, if any? and how can you tell?
The Greek text and the translation are both available, so anyone can see what translation method was used. (formal equivalence/word for word or dynamic Equivalence/thought for thought). Differences do not indicate a committee was lying, but using a different method to convey the meaning. Many committees even publish notes on their translation decisions, and offer footnotes on alternate translations of difficult words.
@@veritas399 and yet again, all you have is that your god is incompetent in getting its message across, Jeremy. If there is one "truth", your god is hilariously terrible at conveying it.
"The Greek text and the translation are both available, so anyone can see what translation method was used. (formal equivalence/word for word or dynamic Equivalence/thought for thought). Differences do not indicate a committee was lying, but using a different method to convey the meaning. Many committees even publish notes on their translation decisions, and offer footnotes on alternate translations of difficult words"
@@velkyn1 The good news from God to every person is not hard to understand. Often the biggest obstacle to understanding is pride. Since the time of the apostles, multitudes have humbled themselves, turned from rebellion against God, and instead have put their trust and faith in God and his Son Jesus to be transformed into a new person. The New Testament is full of examples of every kind of person going thru this transformation, and others who remained as they were.
@@veritas399 Considering the dozens, if not far more, sects of Christianity that contradict each other, it does indeed seem rather hard to understand. You all point fingers at each other and claim each other are wrong. And not one of you can show you are right. You all want pretend you are the only ones that "multitudes have humbled themselves, turned from rebellion against God, and instead have put their trust and faith in God and his Son Jesus to be transformed into a new person"
The new testament is full of baseless stories, nothing else. And every religion makes the same tedious claims about ''ooooh, look at how many joined our team". Alas, number of believers doesn't make nonsense true.
I do also have to wonder that if the NT isn't hard to understand, then why do you guys claim that one must read it in some certain language?
"The good news from God to every person is not hard to understand. Often the biggest obstacle to understanding is pride. Since the time of the apostles, multitudes have humbled themselves, turned from rebellion against God, and instead have put their trust and faith in God and his Son Jesus to be transformed into a new person. The New Testament is full of examples of every kind of person going thru this transformation, and others who remained as they were."
@velkyn1 Nobody is saying that one must read the NT in a specific language. Some have compared reading a translation with seeing a video in standard definition and reading in the original as seeing a video in 4k high definition. Some nuance and emphasis is lost in translation, as happens in any translation.
it's complicated
Islam does not accept ANY translation as accurate. That is probably the best approach. All scripture is fiction, so one translation is as good as another.