Bible - Translation Accuracy

[Wildy]

I'm putting it here because it seems better to. If the mods disagree then put in in the literature section.

Ok some background. When I'm talking about the Bible I like to have a physical copy in front of me. I don't know why I just do. The bible translation that I use is the NRSV.

As far as I know the only real criticism of this version is that the translation loses the literary techniques that appear in the original versions of the OT.

I've been told that the KJV (or NKJV) is more accurate.

I was under the impression that this wasn't true.

Does anyone know whether this is right or not?

And of the two which is the more accurate?

 

[pchams]

I was under the impression that one should read Greek and Aramaic.

 

[Wildy]

Well since I can't read Greek and Aramaic a translation is the best that I can use.

 

[Giraffe107]

Heretic!

 

[triadboy]

As far as I know the only real criticism of this version is that the translation loses the literary techniques that appear in the original versions of the OT.

I didn't think we had original versions of the OT.

I've been told that the KJV (or NKJV) is more accurate.

By 'accurate' you mean - which one was more faithfully translated from the bad translation it used? :-D (Erasmus was a great guy - but in his haste, he used bad translations - he 'corrected' the Vulgate. KJV comes from his translations I believe)

The history of biblical translations is fascinating.

 

[Wildy]

I didn't think we had original versions of the OT.

Sorry. I probably should have said earliest copies of the OT.

By 'accurate' you mean - which one was more faithfully translated from the bad translation it used? :-D (Erasmus was a great guy - but in his haste, he used bad translations - he 'corrected' the Vulgate. KJV comes from his translations I believe)

The history of biblical translations is fascinating.

Well I mean which one is more accurate based on the earliest known versions of the books in the bible, and which one conveys the message the best.

 

[X]

The King James Version was based off of sources which are, to be polite, of questionable veracity. The KJV also uses "flowery" language, which can lead to problemativc interpretations. Its derivatives (NKJV, RSV, NRSV, ASV, etc) may reflect this to a greater or lesser degree.

The differences between tranlations reflect changes in knowledge of the original sources (and new sources), and language use.


If you really want a decent Bible to use as a reference, get a study bible. Harper Collins makes a very good one, from what I hear. And familiarize yourself with its translation history so you know what sections might be, if not in error, at least of non-standard interpretation.

The only translation I recommend avoiding is the "Good News" version, which was extensively edited to appear less vile and more Telletubby-friendly.

 

[Bikewer]

In his book Misquoting Jesus, author Bart Ehrman goes in some detail into the very many ways that our present idea of The Bible differs from the earliest texts, which in themselves are the product of long oral traditions....
Mistranslation, editing and redaction, deletion and addition...One can go on and on....

 

[Wildy]

If you really want a decent Bible to use as a reference, get a study bible.

It's not that I want a bible for a reference, it's that I already have one but I don't really know which one is better from the two mentioned already.

I will probably look into the study bible angle when I next go to a bookshop.

 

[Kopji]

You will find that if you are discussing with someone that really cares about the version, they will probably want the KJV.

 

[Mr Clingford]

You will find that if you are discussing with someone that really cares about the version, they will probably want the KJV.

Unfortunately, in my understanding, they will be wrong!

The NRSV makes use of the manuscript discoveries and scholarship of the last 400 years and is therefore more accurate.

 

[paximperium]

From an interview with Bob Price the bible scholar, he likes the New International Version(NIV) and New American Standard(NAS) for their close translation of the original manuscripts without the flowery language.

The NAS is translated by Evangelical Fundamentalists and they are very very anal about their literal reading of the original texts.

 

[leon_heller]

I didn't think we had original versions of the OT.




By 'accurate' you mean - which one was more faithfully translated from the bad translation it used? :-D (Erasmus was a great guy - but in his haste, he used bad translations - he 'corrected' the Vulgate. KJV comes from his translations I believe)

The history of biblical translations is fascinating.

Near where I used to live (Towcester) the church had a "Treacle" Bible on display:

http://www.paigntonparishchurch.co.uk/the-church/treacle-bible/

Leon

 

[Delvo]

Evangelical people, when talking about religion and not even quoting anything but just expressing themselves, often switch into talking like the KJV. In their minds, it seems to just be what religious speech is supposed to sound like. To them, religious speech is apparently supposed to sound different from the way we talk about other things, so a more direct translation would sound too plain and ordinary.

 

[paximperium]

Evangelical people, when talking about religion and not even quoting anything but just expressing themselves, often switch into talking like the KJV. In their minds, it seems to just be what religious speech is supposed to sound like. To them, religious speech is apparently supposed to sound different from the way we talk about other things, so a more direct translation would sound too plain and ordinary.

"O, therefore thou shalt cooketh the sirloin with salt and pepper. Thou art forbidden in pan frying but must cooketh under warm charcoals and only until medium rare thus commandeth the lord."

 

[boloboffin]

"O, therefore thou shalt cooketh the sirloin with salt and pepper. Thou art forbidden in pan frying but must cooketh under warm charcoals and only until medium rare thus commandeth the lord."

"And, yea, verily, the priest shalt receive the first sirloin from the charcoals, thus commandeth the lord."

 

[paximperium]

"And, yea, verily, the priest shalt receive the first sirloin from the charcoals children, thus commandeth the lord."

Fixed it...

 

[ddt]

Evangelical people, when talking about religion and not even quoting anything but just expressing themselves, often switch into talking like the KJV. In their minds, it seems to just be what religious speech is supposed to sound like. To them, religious speech is apparently supposed to sound different from the way we talk about other things, so a more direct translation would sound too plain and ordinary.

The same over here in the Netherlands with the orthodox protestants. Many of them still use the first official translation of around 1620. As I've heard, the language of that translation was already a bit outdated when they made it

 

[Cainkane1]

I'm of the opinion that even if the original manuscripts were available it would still be nothing more than superstitious nonsense. What difference would it make?

 

[Wildy]

I'm of the opinion that even if the original manuscripts were available it would still be nothing more than superstitious nonsense. What difference would it make?

True, but when it comes to fundies it seems to mean quite a bit. I would see that it would make quite a bit of difference if he is claiming a literal interpretation when his translation is wrong.