What is the most accurate Bible translation?

It may surprise you, but this subject is actually top two on searches that yielded my blog as a result. Google loves me. Anyway, you should know, it is a very distant second to subjects relating to to "The Shack" by Paul Young.

Well, I always like to serve my readers some of what they're actually looking for so I decided to delve into this issue once again in a flagrant effort to spread my own beliefs and add some hits to the old ticker. These posts also get some discussion going which I love too. Please don't criticize this paragraph, if you do, you'll see the term "knuckle-dragger" in my reply because this paragraph is said in jest. Remember, that's "knuckle-dragger." If you see it in reply to your post, you done messed up and made your self look foolish. This paragraph is to weed out trolls.

So what is the most accurate Bible translation. Let's start with the easy ones. First, the most accurate is the original. I'd say it has the fewest errors. Unfortunately we don't have the originals. What we have, and what all modern translations are based upon are early copies of the originals, or copies of copies of the originals, or copies of copies of copies of the originals, some translated to other languages, some not, some modified from the originals, some not. We really have to be realistic about this. If God wanted the exact words of the originals passed down, then we wouldn't have things like grammatical, spelling, and copyist errors. But we do have these things. However, we have a backup plan.

You see, there are many many many copies of the very early manuscripts. The more copies there are, the better we can piece together what the originals looked like. They don't each have the same errors. They were copied by different people at different times. If for instance I printed this post out and had 100 people copy it by hand, there would be quite a few errors all summed up. If 100 people copied each of those, there in total would be a whole lot of errors. But not each copy would have the same errors. Some errors would be copied from the first copyists, some obvious ones would be corrected, and some new ones would be introduced in each iteration. But when you gather up a sample of all the copies, it would be quite easy to figure out what the original text was, with perhaps a few questionable wordings that you'd leave a note about and that wouldn't change the meaning of the text.

So that's the Bible we have, but the real question you came here asking was what (brand name) Bible that I can buy off the shelves is the one I should buy because someone came to my door and said theirs was better than mine.

Let me give you a simple test for determining how good a Bible is. First, who translated it? I suggest a group of twenty people or more from diverse backgrounds so that any bias will be filtered out, the bigger the group the better, there's more likely to be people who disagree with a rendering of a verse if there are more people who don't see it from the same perspective. We don't want group think. Secondly, I suggest the translators be experts in their fields, both of translation of the languages in question and of history because we need to understand the meanings of figures of speech, hyperbole, poetry, simile and metaphor of the times in which the texts were written. The translation should be based on the oldest manuscripts available so as to be the most accurate. It should be in a language the reader understands so as to convey the most meaning. And finally, look at what others in the field think about it. Does it stand with little criticism or much? Remember the Bible itself says that wisdom is found in the company of many counselors.

As I've said before, most Bible translations are good ones, however, there are a few that are not, and those are the ones that turn from the suggestions I listed above. I'll delve into two of these today. The first is the King James Version. There are three main problems with the King James Version or KJV. Firstly, though it was translated by nearly fifty scholars, they were nearly all Anglicans. Secondly, the translation was done so long ago that the language is archaic and hard to understand to today's reader, and thirdly because it was translated so long ago, the oldest and best manuscripts were not available which leaves not a small number of inaccuracies in the text, though nothing that really changes doctrine. It is my firm belief that the KJV was actually a step backward in progression of Bible text, and the existence of a more modern language but older Bible, the Geneva Bible offers evidence for this.

A second and I'll go ahead and say worse translation is the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures or NWT. The translation committee of this version was very small, well less than ten people, and they all belonged to the same sect, and were close, and in essence, one employed the others, so right away, there is some question. Secondly, none of the so called scholars was an expert in the field, and at least one testified under oath that he couldn't actually translate much of anything. Third, the translation is often times strangely worded, and I understand that sometimes it's hard to translate and get a good equivalent, but that's no reason to confuse people. Fourth, the document is not based on the oldest manuscripts, it's based on the Wescott and Hort text published in 1881 before many of the manuscripts we have today were discovered. Fifth, it's not really accurate to the original text in several glaring ways. Too vague you say? I'll give you 237 examples. The NT of the NWT inserts the word Jehovah into the text 237 times, and there is not a single piece of evidence that it appeared even once in the original texts. These are 237 errors that a thousand years from now, translators would consider scribal insertions just like translators now consider the Comma Johanneum a scribal insertion from a thousand years ago or more. They both prove a point, but not a point that needs to be proved enough to change the text.

Many good translations are available. The following are good translations though none without at least some criticism. ESV, NIV, NKJV, NASB, and there are some that are much less word for word, and more thought for thought with varying degrees of modernity in the language, you'll have to decide which you are looking for. You should know that each Bible is translated by a group of people that ostensibly agree on a few things and you can read about the translation philosophy usually on the inner cover of the book. For instance, the NIV is an Evangelical Bible because of certain phraseology and because the Apocrypha is not included, but such is the same with most Bibles because most scholars don't consider the Apocrypha to be as well supported as the other books. The ESV might be considered to lean slightly toward Calvinism because of the word propitiation, but I'm not a Calvinist, and I like it, and the word use is not without merit.

So that's about it, I'd love to hear some comments about this, I know there will be a certain group on here complaining and offering all sorts of evidence to bolster their opinion, but you'll notice I didn't mention who that group is. See if you can pick them out.

WiredForStereo

What's the most accurate bible translation, who is Dr. Jason BeDuhn, and why Alex Trebek?

Good day,

Well, the old blog gets more hits than this one still, and it is simply because of Alex Trebek and Jason BeDuhn.

Let me explain.

A half of a year back I had posted on the Jeopardy question involving which bible translation was the best, why the supposed best translation is not the best, and what Jason BeDuhn said in his book "Truth in Translation." So, I've decided to rehash this subject for those of you out there still trying to find answers to these questions. The reason being is this, I believe that if the truth is found in more places, more people will find it.

Did Alex Trebek really ask “What is the most accurate bible translation?” on Jeopardy?

No, he did not. I can find no evidence anywhere that this ever happened, and anyone who stops to think about it for a few minutes would conclude that long before seeking any evidence. There is no YouTube evidence, there is little anecdotal aside from Jehovah’s Witnesses, and I cannot be sure about this, but I have found hints of some sort of message from the people at Jeopardy that this question never was asked. The assertion is simply ridiculous. Why would a secular game show tackle such a hotly debated religious issue? Simply mind boggling how anyone could come up with such a ludicrous idea.

Did Dr. Jason BeDuhn really write that the New World Translation was the best translation?

There is some truth to this one. However, as is usual in Jehovah’s Witnesses publications, selective quoting and misquoting are employed here (I have read the magazine this was published in) to make the NWT receive a more glowing review than it actually received. You see, it turns out that BeDuhn actually liked two versions of the Bible, one being the Jehovah’s Witness version, much debated, and the other being a Catholic version, which is also somewhat debated. So did he do this to sell books? Perhaps, but I will not make that accusation at this time. If you know Jehovah’s Witnesses, they don’t like Catholics a lot, so they conveniently leave that detail out of the magazine. What they also leave out is that BeDuhn has some pretty harsh criticism toward their use of the name “Jehovah” in the New Testament, something they are particularly proud of.

This is from Wikipedia:

“Dr. BeDuhn (Truth in Translation pg. 170) wrote of the mainstream practice of making the Old Testament conform to the New in its use of "Lord" and of the NWT practice of making the New Testament conform to the Old in it use of "Jehovah": "Both practices violate accuracy in favor of denominationally preferred expressions for God."”

The big question to me is why anyone would listen to Jason BeDuhn anyway. His Masters degree requires only an intermediate level of competence in Greek. His PhD from the University of Indiana is in Comparative Religious Studies, not in any Biblical languages. He is not recognized in the scholarly community as an expert in Biblical Greek. His other book is an analysis of religions as goal-oriented systems of practice rationalized within particular models of reality. I stress here GOAL ORIENTATED systems. Is your faith a “goal orientated system”? This guy has no business commenting on religious issues whatsoever, much less bible translations.

Finally, is the New World Translation the best translation? Or, for those search engines out there: What is the best bible translation?

Absofreakinglutely not. The guys who wrote the book are the following: Frederick William Franz, George Gangas, Karl Klein, Nathan Knorr, Albert Schroeder, and Milton Henschel. Each and every one of these guys was a Jehovah’s Witness, and all high up Witnesses as well. How is it possible that a group of human beings, who all substantially agree on a particular position not publish a book agreeing with that position and not be biased as the Witnesses claim they were not. I would expect a group of hippies to be in favor of legalizing marijuana and a group of oil tycoons to be in favor of refinery subsidies, wouldn’t you? Therefore, I expect a group of Jehovah’s Witnesses to be for their own translation no matter what kind of bias there was or wasn’t, because they wouldn’t be able to tell the difference.

From Wikipedia.

“It has been argued that the NWT translators were insufficiently qualified to translate the Bible, with only Franz having formal education in Biblical languages. It has also been argued that the size of the translation committee was very small compared to the number of translators involved in producing most other English translations. These criticisms are disputed by Witnesses, who state that the translation should be examined on its own merits, not on the speculated credentials of its translators.”

Let me ask you this. If I hired Ed and his buddies, all teenage McDonalds employees to build me a house, should I be happy with the end result because it is the right color, or should I take a closer look to make sure they actually did all the framing, electrical, and plumbing to code? Chances are, people who have little experience or education in what they are doing will do a poor job, regardless of what the end result *looks like*. So it is no surprise that when one examines the NWT on its own merits, we find that the hot water valve is on the right side of the sink and when you flip the light switch in the living room, the dish washer comes on.

The NIV I hear, was written by a group of several dozens of people, all whose credentials we know. It contained men and women, from a variety of backgrounds, and I’ve even heard there were one or two atheists and homosexuals among them. It was revised over a period of years by many people of similarly varying backgrounds. It would seem to me that people who disagree would, in the end, come to a more unbiased conclusion than people who agree. Don’t you agree?

Thinking people would agree ;-)

WiredForStereo

Most Accurate Bible Translation Question on Jeopardy with Alex Trebek and Jehovah's Witnesses Apparent Continual Spreading of this Myth, +Jason BeDuhn

WOW, I have gotten so many, I repeat MANY searches directed to this blog on this question. I did a quick search myself and discovered that my blog is the second in line on GOOGLE on this subject.

You can check the archives for this blog for the email forward I received from my cousin. He is a Jehovah's Witness, and apparently received this email from someone else, likely a JW also. Seeing all of you here leads me to believe you either got the same email or one similar.

Now, I'd love to go into just how many issues I have with the New World Translation of the Bible, however, there are just so many questionable verses, it would be exhausting to explore them all. This is a quick and simple post, so please don't leave a bunch of comments about how I've not done my research.

Many well educated scholars have called the NWT a poor translation, a woeful mistranslation, and a few other choice words I'll not mention here. Some others, very minor controversial scholars have praised it kinda. For instance, an Arizonan professor, Dr. Jason BeDuhn recently wrote a book in which he praised the NWT as the best translation. This is what you might have heard about in those annoying email forwards. This would be a compelling case, however Dr. BeDuhn also had some sharp criticism toward the NWT for it's insertion of Jehovah into the text where it otherwise does not exist. You would not know this however because Jehovah's Witnesses don't point that out for obvious reasons. I could provide a list, but facts are, BeDuhn is in the minority opinion, extreme minority.

Anyway, on to the issue of the Jeopardy Question.

I cannot find any evidence that the question about whether the most accurate version of the Bible is on Jeopardy ever occurred. Honestly, I don't expect to. I seriously doubt a secular game show would ever touch the question. Surely, if such a question ever existed, (I recieved the email months ago) it would have appeared on YouTube by now, which it hasn't, and you can do your own search, but I didn't find it.

So, is the NWT the most accurate "translation" of the Bible? In a word, no.

Why? Very simple. It is not true to the words in the original text. You see, I'd have much less discomfort with Witnesses and their bible if they simply translated the text true to the words and then took their own meaning from it. This however, is not what they do, they translate a meaning into the text when that is not the role of translation. Here's an example: John 8:58. Jesus says "Before Abraham was, I am." Look at the "I am" part. That's the key. You see, that is a direct allusion to Exodus 3:14 where Moses asks God what his name is and he says "I am." The NWT changes both of these, John to "I have been" and Exodus to "I shall prove to be." The problem is that the very same I am that Jesus uses in this case is the very same I am that he uses when he says I am the way, I am the truth, I am the life, and I am the good Shepherd among others, even in the same chapter. You see, the pharisees and such knew that Jesus was claiming to be God when he said that, that's why they tried to kill him. And that single verse represents everything that I dislike about the NWT. It's not simple prejudice or some misguided religious fanaticism, the NWT is simply not true to the words of the text, forget what the text means, it's not true to the words of the text. There are 237 examples specifically. The divine name never appears in any manuscript of the New Testament, but it appears in the NWT 237 times. It's not in the originals, therefore it should not be there. It's as simple as that.

So what is a good version of the Bible to read? Just about any one that suits you except the NWT. I myself prefer the English Standard Version, because it tries to follow the subtle nuances of the original text even following some grammatical errors. There are a few places where I disagree with the translation because of the use of specific words or phrases which I think are significant, but even in those places, it still has the notes at the bottom that says what the word for word translation or alternate translations are. Otherwise, if you'd like to get a good idea of the original text, or just a good read, get a parallel edition that has two to four versions side by side. But honestly, any version that does not confuse the reader with ancient language (KJV) or obscure the truth (NWT) is a good version. It used to be that people complained about the KJV because you couldn't understand it, but that is no longer an excuse.

So that's all I got to say about that, for now. Keep studying, keep checking. Email forwards are almost invariably dishonest. No Jeopardy question by Alex Trebek, Jason BeDuhn is in the minority opinion, and the New World Translation is NOT the most accurate "translation" of the Bible. Much more to be said, but this is just a quick post that explores a single verse, and points out the obviousness of the Jeopardy! question. Please do read other posts on the subject, there are several.

WiredForStereo

I Am Challenged Once Again by Jehovah's Witnesses' Deceptive Quoting

If you check a few posts back, the one before the "Why I am not a Jehovah's Witness" one, you can see the email I was forwarded by a JW relative.

Upon further research, I have discovered that the book "Truth in Translation: Accuracy and Bias in English Translations of the New Testament" does exist, authored by Jason David BeDuhn. After I gave a scathing reply to my relative about how disgusted I was with the supposed (entirely fabricated) Jeopardy question, and the quoting of this book, my relative replied in a very long, probably quoted from somewhere else, email. In it, my relative claimed that he had found the book, and that it existed and that it said what his former email said.

This is true.

However, it is yet another example of Jehovah's Witnesses selective and deceptive quoting. The very same book that they claim backs up the NWT as the best translation, also sharply criticizes the NWT for it's use of the word "Jehovah" in the New Testament, when it clearly does not exist in the original manuscripts. I tried to point this out to other JW's, but they would not listen.

I ran into this peculiar habit when some proselytizing JW's gave me a copy of the [edit] booklet "Should you Believe in the Trinity?" I did a bit (a surprisingly small bit, I didn't have to look far) of research and found hugely glaring examples of selective and deceptive quoting on the part of the Watchtower Society. Specifically, they quote a book that says that the use of the Cross for the crucifixion of Jesus instead of their "torture stake" was due to influence of pagan religions. It is true that this particular book says this. The book also says however that the following elements of Christianity were also derived from paganism: Virgin birth, son of God, dove, baptism, 12 disciples, resurrection, miracles, and others. All these things JW's believe in, but they quote from a book that supports a single point while ignoring the very same book that attempts to discredit their entire religion.

The Truth, the Whole Truth, and nothing but the HardCoreTruth.
WiredForStereo

A recent email forward:

See if you can spot the errors in the following email. The first one is this: Why would a secular game show be speculating on what version of the Bible was most accurate? An of all they could have chosen, why would they have chosen the NWT, the most controversial Bible "translation" ever. Surely the KJV only people would have jumped on this like John Goodman on a doughnut.

Hello folks,
A friend forwarded this to me and I thought it was interesting. Apparently a non-witness, secular scholar of ancient greek did a comparison of 9 different popular Bible translations to see which was most true to the original text and the least flavored by existing beliefs. It seems a book was written comparing these in depth. What I find surprising is that the results of the test became an answer on the TV quiz show Jeopardy. I would have loved to see that episode. What do you think about this? Would you like a copy of the The New World Translation?
(Name Withheld)

Recently on Jeopardy on TV....One of the questions was.....What is the most accurate translation of the Holy Scriptures?? No one got the correct answer, so Alex Trebek said " New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures, printed by Watchtower Bible Tract Society...

Book: "TRUTH IN TRANSLATION: ACCURACY AND BIAS IN ENGLISH TRANSLATIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT"

Author: Jason David BeDuhn is the Associate Professor of Religious Studies at Northern Arizona University in Flagstaff . He holds a B.A. in Religious Studies from the University of Illinois, Urbana, an M.T.S. in New Testament and Christian Origins form Harvard Divinity School, and a Ph.D. in Comparative Study of Religions form Indiana University, Bloomington.

The Nine English Translations Compared in BeDuhn's book are :

- The King James Version (KJV)
- The Amplified Bible (AB)
- The Living Bible (LB)

- The New American Bible (NAB)
- The New American Standard Bible (NASB)

- The New International Version (NIV)

- The New World Translation (NW)

- The (New) Revised Standard Version (NRSV)

- Today's English Version (TEV)

Excerpts from his book :

Chapter Four : Examples of translation of the Greek word "proskuneo", used 58 times in the New Testament. The word is translated various ways as worship, do obeisance, fall down on one's knees, bow before. Scriptures discussed include Matt. 18:26; Rev. 3:9; Mark 15:18,19; Matt 2:1, 2, 8,11; Matt 14:33; Matt 28:9, "... in our exploration of this issue, we can see how theological bias has been the determining context for the choices made by all of the translations except the NAB and NW... translators seem to feel the need to add to the New Testament support for the idea that Jesus was recognized to be God." Regarding Matt. 28:16, 17, where all versions except the NW use "worship" where the NW uses "did obeisance": "Here all translations except the NW have recourse to "worship" -- a rendering which makes no sense in this context... This contradiction seems to be missed by all the translators except those who prepared the NW."

Chapter Five : A discussion of Philippians 2:5-11: "The NW translators... have understood "harpagmos" accurately as grasping at something one does not have, that is, a "seizure." The literary context supports the NW translation (and refutes the KJV's "thought it not robbery to be equal)..."

Chapter Seven : A discussion on Col. 1: 15-20: "It is a tricky passage where every translation must add words." "The LB translator is guilty of all the doctrinal importation discussed above with reference to the NIV, NRSV, and TEV, and even surpasses them in this respect. So it is the NIV, NRSV, TEV and LB -- the four Bibles that make no attempt to mark added words - that actually add the most significant tendentious material. Yet in many public forums on Bible translation, the practice of these four translations is rarely if ever pointed to or criticized, while the NW is attacked for adding the innocuous "other" in a way that clearly indicates its character as an addition of the translators... But the NW is correct. "Other" is implied in "all", and the NW simply makes what is implicit explicit... It is ironic that the translation of Col. 1:15-20 that has received the most criticism is the one where the "added words" are fully justified by what is implied in the Greek."

Chapter Eight : A discussion on Titus 2:13; 2 Thess. 1:12; 2 Peter 1:1, 2: "... the position of those who insist "God" and "Savior" must refer to the same being... is decidedly weakened."

Chapter Nine : A discussion of Hebrews 8:1: "so we must conclude that the more probable translation is "God is your throne..., " the translation found in the NW... It seems likely that it is only because most translations were made by people who already believe that Jesus is God that the less probable way of translating this verse has been preferred."

Chapter Ten : A discussion on John 8:58: "Both the LB and the NW offer translations that coordinate the two verbs in John 8:58 according to proper English syntax, and that accurately reflect the meaning of the Greek idiom. The other translations fail to do this." "There is absolutely nothing in the original Greek of John 8:58 to suggest that Jesus is quoting the Old Testament here, contrary to what the TEV tries to suggest by putting quotations marks around "I am.""

"The majority of translations recognize these idiomatic uses of "I am", and properly integrate the words into the context of the passages where they appear. Yet when it comes to 8:58, they suddenly forget how to translate." "All the translations except the LB and NW also ignore the true relation between the verbs of the sentence and produce a sentence that makes no sense in English. These changes in the meaning of the Greek and in the normal procedure for translation point to a bias that has interfered with the work of the translators." "No one listening to Jesus, and no one reading John in his own time would have picked up on a divine self-identification in the mere expression "I am," which, if you think about, is just about the most common pronoun-verb combination in any language." "The NW...understands the relation between the two verbs correctly... The average Bible reader might never guess that there was something wrong with the other translations, and might even assume that the error was to be found in the... NW."

Chapter Eleven : A discussion of John 1:1: "Surprisingly, only one, the NW, adheres to the literal meaning of the Greek, and translates "a god." "Translators of the KJV, NRSV, NIV, NAB, NASB , AB , TEV and LB all approached the text at John 1:1 already believing certain things about the Word... and made sure that the translations came out in accordance with their beliefs. .. Ironically, some of these same scholars are quick to charge the NW translation with "doctrinal bias" for translating the verse literally, free of KJV influence, following the sense of the Greek. It may very well be that the NW translators came to the task of translating John 1:1 with as much bias as the other translators did. It just so happens that their bias corresponds in this case to a more accurate translation of the Greek" "Some early Christians maintained their monotheism by believing that the one God simply took on a human form and came to earth -- in effect, God the Father was born and crucified as Jesus. They are entitled to their belief, but it cannot be derived legitimately from the Gospel according to John."

"John himself has not formulated a Trinity concept in his Gospel." "All that we can ask is that a translation be an accurate starting point for exposition and interpretation. Only the NW achieves that, as provocative as it sounds to the modern reader. The other translations cut off the exploration of the verse's meaning before it has even begun."

Chapter Twelve : A discussion of holy spirit: "In Chapter Twelve, no translation emerged with a perfectly consistent and accurate handling of the many uses and nuances of "spirit" and "holy spirit." The NW scored highest in using correct impersonal forms of the relative and demonstrative pronouns consistently with the neuter noun "holy spirit," and in adhering to the indefinite expression "holy spirit" in those few instances when it was used by the Biblical authors."

Summary : "... it can be said that the NW emerges as the most accurate of the translations compared...the translators managed to produce works relatively more accurate and less biased than the translations produced by multi-denominational teams, as well as those produced by single individuals." "Jehovah's Witnesses... really sought to re-invent Christianity from scratch... building their system of belief and practice from the raw material of the Bible without predetermining what was to be found there. Some critics, of course, would say that the results of this practice can be naive. But for Bible translation, at least, it has meant a fresh approach to the text, with far less presumption than that found in may of the Protestant translations."

"...Most of the differences are due to the greater accuracy of the NW as a literal, conservative translation of the original expressions of the New Testament."

Commenting on bias in translation : "To me, it expresses a lack of courage, a fear that the Bible does not back up their "truth" enough. To let the Bible have its say, regardless of how well or poorly that say conforms to expectations or accepted forms of modern Christianity is an exercise in courage or, to use another word for it, faith."

(Note: For those that want to add this book to their library, it's available on Amazon.com: http://www.amazon.com/Truth-Translation-Accuracy-Translations-Testament/dp/0761825568 )