Most "Accurate" Bible

[Bestbank Tiger]

Best Bible would be the New American Bible. Heavily footnoted and has very good background information.

Actually, it pains me a little to say so as a Catholic, but the Eastern Orthodox would ahve the best Bible, as their version has the most books (77). They have a 3rd and 4th Maccabees and two others I don't remember.

 

[Legal_My_Deagle]

If you want an accurate bible, an old philosophy teacher I once had would tell you to read the version based on the Dead Sea Scrolls, as probably less of the original meaning is lost in multiple translations and through the ravages of time.

In fact the KJV is highly suspect from what I understand, because it was basically tailored (from an already unoriginal version of the Bible) to be accepted by the people King James was aiming it at, and possibly had some of the original wordings changed or thrown out all together to support views that King James himself had...or possibly whole sections added in, for all we know. For flavor, of course. Just make sure to add salt if you read it.

 

[Elrohir]

If you want an accurate bible, an old philosophy teacher I once had would tell you to read the version based on the Dead Sea Scrolls, as probably less of the original meaning is lost in multiple translations and through the ravages of time.

Actually, from what I can tell, there is very little difference between the text written on the Dead Sea Scrolls and the texts found in other parchments used more extensively to translate the versions of the Bible that we use. (KJ, NIV, etc) I'm not aware of any doctrinal issue whatsoever that hinges upon different wording found in the most ancient documents like the Dead Sea Scrolls and the later writings. It seems to me that if the original meaning was "lost in multiple translations and through the ravages of time" there would be at least a few pretty obvious differences.

I just think it is kind of weird that people (Not just talking about you Deagle) who say that the Bible has been mistranslated so much over the years, but they never give any real examples of differences between the Scriptures we know of from, say, 15th century Germany and the 2nd Century AD. It seems to me that there should be evidence of some kind of that is so true....

 

[Legal_My_Deagle]

That is sort of the worry though, is that it is kind of impossible to know how much the Bible is potentially changed...as although it is highly likely it was changed at some point due to the people and the times it survived through...any of the original texts would have been destroyed.

I did know of some distinct differences between the Dead Sea Scrolls version of the Bible and the more modern one, but I have forgotton most of them as I learned about it a couple years ago...however I do remember possibly the most important difference.

And that is that one of the books of the bible was not included in the Dead Sea Scrolls. I am 75% sure this was the Book of Ruth...but I don't know my memory sucks right now. (man I wish I could recall this better) But anyway apparently even before the Dead Sea Scrolls were found, it's authenticity had been brought in to question, and this is just more convincing hard evidence.

Supposedly, somehow when the Jews had been taken to Babylonia, the idea goes that they brought back this book which was probably written by the Babylonians. The book I am thinking of, is about dealing with incredible hardship and surviving through it etc...so it makes sense that the Babylonians would want to manipulate their religion to make them more easy to control. So goes the theory anyway, which I thought was always kind of convincing. I remember reading that particular book of the Bible and thinking that something about the way it was written, and the kind of messages involved seemed kind of...off.

MAN I would sound so much more knowledgable if I could just remember the name of the book...but it escapes me, sorry.

Mistranslations actually make up a huge difference though, actually. Now that I am thinking about this more as I am writing this, I remember another example. Somewhere in the old testament it says something like "It is an abomination for a man to lie in bed with another man" or something to that effect. Unfortunetely, this is often used as a justification for saying that homosexuals are "evil". In fact, some scholars think now that it may have not been translated correctly. I think it was when it was translated from Greek, something about the possible meaning could have been translated as "It is an abomination for a man to lie in bed with a boy/child." That obviously changes the meaning of the whole passage a LOT.

Anyway, little things like that just emphasize the point I make when reading the Bible (any version), which is that you really, really, really have to try and look at the book as a whole before trying to interpret any of the messages. It is way too easy to cherry pick the Bible, unfortunetely.

 

[Japanrocks12]

Well I stand corrected about the Nicaea thing but I will tell you with 100% certainty that my views had nothing to do with the Da Vinci Code

 

[jeps]

Try one in hebrew with english translations, and read those.

I recommend ArtScroll.

Then compare to an english version of the BIBLE (not torah), and see the differences. there are many, which is why the Torah and Old Testament are two different things in my view, not one and the same.

 

[Integral]

That is sort of the worry though, is that it is kind of impossible to know how much the Bible is potentially changed...as although it is highly likely it was changed at some point due to the people and the times it survived through...any of the original texts would have been destroyed.

Remember that many of the Dead Sea scrolls are partial fragments. This little gem is the best: [wiki]7Q5[/wiki] is so small that only one word is fully distinguishable, though the passage is supposed to come from Mark 6:53-53. That claim is disputed, but it shows the state of some of these fragments.

As to copyist errors over time, I'd like to see some examples before I make any judgement. I've heard that the copyist errors can be reasonably placed at 3% of the Bible (as in, about 97% is true to the original), but I have nothing to back up that claim and will not attempt to defend it. Just something to throw out there.

I did know of some distinct differences between the Dead Sea Scrolls version of the Bible and the more modern one, but I have forgotton most of them as I learned about it a couple years ago...however I do remember possibly the most important difference.

And that is that one of the books of the bible was not included in the Dead Sea Scrolls. I am 75% sure this was the Book of Ruth...but I don't know my memory sucks right now. (man I wish I could recall this better) But anyway apparently even before the Dead Sea Scrolls were found, it's authenticity had been brought in to question, and this is just more convincing hard evidence.

Supposedly, somehow when the Jews had been taken to Babylonia, the idea goes that they brought back this book which was probably written by the Babylonians. The book I am thinking of, is about dealing with incredible hardship and surviving through it etc...so it makes sense that the Babylonians would want to manipulate their religion to make them more easy to control. So goes the theory anyway, which I thought was always kind of convincing. I remember reading that particular book of the Bible and thinking that something about the way it was written, and the kind of messages involved seemed kind of...off.

MAN I would sound so much more knowledgable if I could just remember the name of the book...but it escapes me, sorry.

The Dead Sea Scrolls have fragments of all OT books except Nehemiah and Ruth. (Source: Wiki. Will update when I find a better one.)

Mistranslations actually make up a huge difference though, actually. Now that I am thinking about this more as I am writing this, I remember another example. Somewhere in the old testament it says something like "It is an abomination for a man to lie in bed with another man" or something to that effect. Unfortunetely, this is often used as a justification for saying that homosexuals are "evil". In fact, some scholars think now that it may have not been translated correctly. I think it was when it was translated from Greek, something about the possible meaning could have been translated as "It is an abomination for a man to lie in bed with a boy/child." That obviously changes the meaning of the whole passage a LOT.

There are some pretty major translation controversies. The most famous is the passage in Isaiah 7:14, translated in the NIV as "The virgin will be with child", may also be renderd "The young woman will be with child" (RSV) or even "the young woman is with child" (NRSV). This has some major implications for OT-NT prophecy, although I don't know the strength of the claim. Plotinus?

Anyway, little things like that just emphasize the point I make when reading the Bible (any version), which is that you really, really, really have to try and look at the book as a whole before trying to interpret any of the messages. It is way too easy to cherry pick the Bible, unfortunetely.

The chapter-verse distinctions were added much later, as you probably know. I agree that using a single verse to justify an argument is foolish; passages are much better. The verse distinctions are completely arbitrary.

On the whole, solid post.


-Integral

 

[The Strategos]

Generally, for an English version, I like to look at the NET Bible. It has, by far, the most translator notes of any English version, so you can see your translation options as well as the translator's arguments for their choice. It also deals with the major textual critical problems (which means discussion whether a word or passage was original or added later). There are two main downsides, 1) occasionally their theology shines through in the footnotes, and 2) some of their footnotes are overly technical, as they are writing them for a technical audience, not the uninformed masses.

KJV and NKJV are generally sub-par as they base their “New Testament” translations from the Byzantine Majority Text, which is relatively very late, rather than basing it from an eclectic text which gives weight to older and more reliable texts. For the “Old Testament” the KJV, at least, is also sub-par, just because of the amount of ancient near east literature uncovered even since the turn of the century has revolutionized scholar’s understanding of certain words. For example, Psalm 23:4, “valley of the shadow of death” translation is based off a later Greek translation, because no one knew what the ancient Hebrew word meant (it’s a little more complicated than that, but that’s basically the reason). Now, we know it is highly likely that it means “a really dark place.”

There are some pretty major translation controversies. The most famous is the passage in Isaiah 7:14, translated in the NIV as "The virgin will be with child", may also be renderd "The young woman will be with child" (RSV) or even "the young woman is with child" (NRSV). This has some major implications for OT-NT prophecy, although I don't know the strength of the claim. Plotinus?

The author of Matthew quotes from the LXX (Egyptian Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible translated shortly after Alexander the Great). When the LXX was translated, the Greek word could either mean “young woman” or “virgin.” So, for example, in Genesis 34:3, it refers to Dinah after she had been raped by Shechem. By the 1st century, it could only mean “virgin,” so when the author of Matthew wrote his gospel, he would have read it as “virgin.” However, the Hebrew word that the LXX translates from most likely means in its context, “woman who hasn’t conceived before.”