Kevin's Watch

I was just wondering that. I've got the King James version (of course), but what I'm looking for is the English translation that is closest to the original Hebrew. Any help would be much appreciated! Thanks!

I may be wrong, (first for everything, eh?)

But I always thought that KJV was as direct a version from the Latin and Greek and Hebrew as it got.

If you want the new testament, it was originally in Latin and Greek.

The old testament should be easy enough to find in a Jewish bible.
Pretty much Hebrew to English, I guess.

Dromond wrote:But I always thought that KJV was as direct a version from the Latin and Greek and Hebrew as it got.

I hope you're right. That way I won't have to buy anything !

All you need is Old Latin, Greek, And Hebrew reading courses!!

The answer is so simple sometimes.

The KJV is a direct translation as far as it goes, but you probably don't speak Jacobean english, and neither did anyone in the bible.

You can always try the New King James, although I suspect that it is paraphrase of the KJV, not a direct translation. The New International Version is the most common in New Zealand, and it claims to be a direct translation, but I think it's crap.

What you could also do is have the KJV and then also use the NKJV or even something like The Message at the same time. That way you have the direct translation and also something in modern english to help unscramble it all.

Sum sui generis
Vs

I use the New American, which is a dynamic equivalent translation. ie choosing an equivalent word that best approximates the original. The KJB is a literal translation. The other major translation type is the free translation (translator "takes liberties" with the text), example is the Good News Bible.

Any translation is going to be suspect. I've got four or five version, (although I usually check the King James first) and the differences often amuse me. As was said, the KJ is more literal, so you get verses referring to unicorns etc. that have been changed in later versions.

--A

The professors in my Bible College had three favorites:
1. NASB (New American Standard Bible)
2. NIV (New International Version)
3. NLT (New Living Translation)

I'm pretty sure that's in order of accuracy, too...though I could be wrong. My memory's a little fuzzy on that. Anyway, most of them agreed that the King James is pretty inaccurate, but that the New King James has made improvements. I have not attended a church that has not read from the NIV in years, and that translation is my personal favorite.
Happy reading!

None of these translations are going to be "accurate". The dead sea scrolls prove that even the original text that was translated into the KJV were wildly edited, cut n' pasted, and flat out added to by later writers. If you're looking to resolve a conflict between two Gospels, Mark is the earliest manuscript, and has had relatively little creative editing. Still, your best bet is to learn Greek and Aramaic, and get the dead sea scrolls on CD if you're actually trying to be "accurate".

Good to see you around Iryssa, been busy lately?

I agree with Plissken. There's probably no such thing as an accurate translation. Don't foget there are whole books which have been removed from the bible for a variety of reasons.

--A

Plissken wrote:None of these translations are going to be "accurate". The dead sea scrolls prove that even the original text that was translated into the KJV were wildly edited, cut n' pasted, and flat out added to by later writers. If you're looking to resolve a conflict between two Gospels, Mark is the earliest manuscript, and has had relatively little creative editing. Still, your best bet is to learn Greek and Aramaic, and get the dead sea scrolls on CD if you're actually trying to be "accurate".

Plissken:

Good post... but you and I know that accuracy has not been important for a long, long, time...

Plissken wrote:None of these translations are going to be "accurate". The dead sea scrolls prove that even the original text that was translated into the KJV were wildly edited, cut n' pasted, and flat out added to by later writers. If you're looking to resolve a conflict between two Gospels, Mark is the earliest manuscript, and has had relatively little creative editing. Still, your best bet is to learn Greek and Aramaic, and get the dead sea scrolls on CD if you're actually trying to be "accurate".

Avatar wrote:Good to see you around Iryssa, been busy lately?

I agree with Plissken. There's probably no such thing as an accurate translation. Don't foget there are whole books which have been removed from the bible for a variety of reasons.

--A

I suppose I should have said "As accurate as the average person can get these days in the English language."

Thanks, Av I've missed being here, very much!
I've been insanely busy over the last little while...working, going to school full time, moving into and renovating my house (which turned out to need more work than I thought, go figure), and still managing to get away to see my boyfriend on weekends (which is probably the only thing keeping me sane)...*sigh* never rains, but it pours! Ah, well, my last day at school is tomorrow, so I should be around a little more often thereafter

Throw all said books away, go to the library and request a 1950's version of a catholic Bible. Read it. Ignore everything in the footnotes (yes it has footnotes written in by the Catholic Church) and you have the most plausibly accurrate english translation. Some of the footnotes are in fact humorous, such as when the Church admits that the water that poured from Christ's side was more than likely a physiological reaction than a miracle, but still manages, through simple convolution of language to staunchly stand behind its miraculous origins. I was rolling for hours with unsuppressed mirth. (- ok, I know... BORING)

B

This lady's opinion is usually dead on with my own, and this article nails it,. imo:

www.thehappyheretic.com/current.htm

Baradakas! Good to see you around. (Hey, that's two in one day: You and Sindatur.)

You been busy or what?

--Avatar

I like the King Jame's version of the Bible the best. I find it to be very poetic, I've browsed through other Bibles but the wording tends to throw me off because I'm so used to the King Jame's version.

I too like the King James version, simply for the rolling grandeur of the phrasing.

I mean, compare the Good News Bible:

In the beginning, when God created the universe, the earth was formless and desolate. The raging ocean that covered everything was engulfed in total darkness, and the Spirit of God was moving over the water.

Then God commanded, "Let there be light"—and light appeared. God was pleased with what he saw. Then he separated the light from the darkness, and he named the light "Day" and the darkness "Night." Evening passed and morning came—that was the first day.

To the King James Bible

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

No contest. But the KJV does make me laugh when it mentions unicorns and the like.

--Avatar