Which Bible Translation is Currently the MOST Accurate in Your Opinion?

by Frannie Banannie 90 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  LittleToe

  Thanks SpecialK, though did you intend a triple cut'n'paste?
  Three times for emphasis, or a Trinitarian bias?
• 

  Frannie Banannie

  Thanks, Special K, Little Toe and all you other special ppl that posted replies to this thread...I'm tallying the "votes" this evening.....however....let it be known that "scholar" doesn't fool me with his blarney about the NWT....I *already* discounted the NWT when I DF'd myself because I found blatant deletions and additions to the "scrolls" via their Interlinear and the Society's own admissions. BTW, the guy who is responsible for the NWT "finished product" is named Richard Cranium, obviously

  Frannie B
• 

  pc

  I too have been trying to find out what translation is best. In my travels I have found two good sites. One is www.ntgreek.org/ This can help you translate the verses correctly. Another site is about bibles. www.netbible.org/docs/soapbox/versions.htm

  Scholar you should check out the NETBIBLE SITE. The only one they say is horribly translated is yours truly, NEW WORLD TRANSLATION!!! A completely unbiased site. I'm surprised Knorr didn't call it "The Bible According To Me"!

  pc
• 

  searcher

  BTW, the guy who is responsible for the NWT "finished product" is named Richard Cranium, obviously

  Frannie B

  Damnit, I spit tea all over, laughing
• 

  Earnest

  Scholar you should check out the NETBIBLE SITE. The only one they say is horribly translated is yours truly, NEW WORLD TRANSLATION!!! - pc, 11-Jan-04 03:29 GMT

  In his book Truth in Translation (2003, University Press of America) Jason BeDuhn concludes (pp.163,165):

  While it is difficult to quantify this sort of analysis, it can be said that the NW emerges as the most accurate of the translations compared [i.e. King James Version, New Revised Standard Version, New International Version, New American Bible, New American Standard Bible, Amplified Bible, Living Bible, Today's English Version, New World Translation]. Holding a close second to the NW in its accuracy, judging by the passages we have looked at, is the NAB...The NW and NAB are not bias free, and they are not perfect translations. But they are remarkably good translations, better by far than the deeply flawed TEV, certainly better as a translation than the LB and AB, which are not really translations at all, consistently better than the heavily biased NIV, often better than the compromised NRSV.

  In his introduction he says (p.xix): "I am a committed historian dedicated to discovering what Christians said and did two thousand years ago. I have no stake in proving that those Christians are most like a particular modern denomination of Christianity, or that they adhered to particular doctrines that match those of modern Christians." So I think it is fair to say he has no particular bias. I suggest the NETBIBLE site is not without bias although the information it provides on why there are so many versions is very helpful.

  "scholar"s views are his own and does not represent anyone other than himself in this current controversy, least of all the NW Translation Committee. However, there may be some truth in what he originally said, namely that the NWT was "produced by an unknown group of competent biblical scholars". What do I mean ? From what Herk and many other have said, it is clear that the members of the NW Translation Committee are known. However, they may have commissioned others to do the translation work itself. I do not know and may be wrong. But the accuracy of the translation does not reflect the qualifications of those men we are told make up the Translation Committee. If this surmise is correct then it is true that the translators remain unknown.

  For what it is worth, I do endorse the statement on the NETBIBLE site that :

  ...to the question 'Which translation is best?', there can be no singular answer. I suggest that every Christian who is serious about studying the Bible own at least two translations. He should have at least one dynamic equivalence translation (or phrase-for-phrase) and one formal equivalence translation (that is, word-for-word translation).

  My vote is for the New English Bible and the New World Translation respectively.

  Earnest
• 

  herk

  Earnest,
  

  However, they may have commissioned others to do the translation work itself.

  I really don't think so.

  My family and congregation were located near one of the Society's farms when the NWT idea was conceived by Knorr and F Franz. We often entertained some of the directors and other old timers (Riemer, Woodworth, Sullivan, etc.) at Brooklyn who visited us for a weekend of rest as well as for backyard Bible meetings. Sometimes I picked them up at Bethel and brought them to the farm or to our home. I became convinced from conversations with them that this project was accomplished entirely by "anointed" men at Brooklyn. However, they also mentioned that New York City offered the finest facilities and sources in the world for translating the Bible due to the existence of New York Public Library and the large libraries at City, Columbia, Fordham, and Yeshiva. I heard that a few select members of the Writing Dept. and President's Office assisted the translators by doing their footwork, going to the libraries to borrow books that the translators would consult. I also gathered from those conversations that the Society had become aware of a small number of excellent translations, and these served to some extent as a guide or pattern for the work of the NWT Committee.

  While I know for a fact that "scholar" is way off the mark with his absurd remarks, I agree that the NWT is in many respects a superior Bible translation.

  herk
• 

  pc

  Herk, I am a little confused by your statement. If you go to www.ntgreek.org/answers/answer-frame-john1_1.htm ,t shows the correct greek translation. When you read the entire article it appears to me the NWT is the only bible that does not translate is correctly. If that is true why would you suggest using it? PC
• 

  herk

  pc,
  

  I don't feel that the NWT has it right at John 1:1. But, in fairness, I believe most translations are wrong there. There are several translations that agree with the NWT and say "a god." There are about 30 of them, if I remember correctly from a list I saw. Though most of them have never enjoyed the popularity of more common translations, some were produced by trinitarians who believed that using the term "God" with a capital "G" is simply not the best way to render the verse. Doubtless this is why An American Translation and Moffatt's and Schonfield's translations say "the word was divine." It is also probably the reason that all English translations before the KJV, with the exception of the Douay-Rheims Version, said "it" instead of "he" or "him" in verses 2 to 5.

  I've read several articles over the years that claim it is almost impossible to convey in English what this verse meant to first century readers of Greek.

  I'm not a JW anymore, and I'd be among the last to defend all that they teach. But I'm not convinced that John 1:1 teaches the Trinity. The Gospel of John for the most part is quite plain and easy to read. I believe that if John's intention was to teach the Trinity in that verse, he would have plainly said "In the beginning Jesus existed, and Jesus was with God, and Jesus was God." His words are far from being as clear as that with respect to the teaching of the Trinity.

  herk
• 

  minimus

  My favorite is Rappin' With Jesus.
• 

  Gozz

  But is it true that CoC provides no 'evidence', other than the words of Ray Franz, about the members of the committee?