Which version of the Bible is closest to exact translation?

I have always been raised with the King James Version, and I was talking with a friend a couple days back about different versions of the Bible. I began to wonder which version was most consistantly close to the exact translation of what the Bible said. I realize that when translating things can be said in many different ways, but I was just wondering if any one, or multiple versions, stood out above the rest.... Which versions are trying their best to literally translate what is being said rather than putting things in modern day terms?

Johnny,Stick with the King James, but don't be afraid to compare it with other versions. People get angry when the topic is brought up, but many have not done verse by verse comparison. If anyone uses another version and loves the Lord, God bless them.This is probably the third or fourth posting on this topic lately. If you want verse comparisons there are many in this forum, like myself, that are more than willing to post them in the forum or send them to you via email. The truth is out there. The Spirit will guide you rightly if you are willing to submit to Him.

Which version of the Bible is closest to exact translation?I favour the KJV too, although I most often read it in a version called the Newberry Bible. As so often with this question the real question is 'what do you mean by 'exact translation'? If by 'exact translation' you mean 'word for word' equivalence I would say the Youngs Literal Version (available in most Bible software packages) is the most 'literal' of the 'literal equivalence' translations but although it is a very valuable study aid it is not easy to 'meditate' or just 'read' this version; it almost compels you to 'study'.The most readable of the 'literal equivalents' and probably the most I would say would be the American Standard Version. You can't get them over here, other than in Bible software. The Old Testament of the ASV should always be consulted if you are doing any 'in depth' Bible study. If you can get a version which has the full marginal variants... even better. It has been said that the best translation of the OT ever is the 'ASV margin'.BUT, before the feeding frenzy begins... the ASV is not trustworthy in the New Testament due to its almost exclusive use of a different family of Greek manuscripts. However, its tenses and prepositions, which are one of the weaknesses of the KJV, are very good. The best of both worlds would be the ASV/RV Old Testament with a KJV NT with the tenses and prepositions corrected... and such a Bible exists! It is called The Interlinear Bible and it makes it possible to read devotionally and read for study from the same page. However, it is only currently available as a wide-margin edition which makes it a bit bulky. Occasionally, older printings (non wide-margin) appear in ebay but they are expensive to buy second hand as some folks have discovered its value!Most of the advantages (and more) of the Interlinear have been harvested in the Newberry Bible.

Stick w/ the KJV....until something better comes along. ;-) If any doubt my support for the KJV here are a couple of great quotes:The peculiar genius which breathes through the English Bible, the mingled tenderness and majesty, the Saxon simplicity, unapproached in the attempted improvements of modern scholars, all are here, and bear the impress of the mind of one man, and that man - William Tyndale. Thomas Newberry. Preface to the Newberry Bible.The Authorised Version (KJV) has this incalculable advantage, that is is a truly literal translation - the only form of translation that can properly and reverently be adopted in the case of the Holy Sciptures. Ellicott; Preface to Galatians.

Hear Ye All, Hear Ye All,'All the version of the King James Version from 1611 onward are still extant and have been examined minutely by F.H. Scrivener and other careful scholars. Aside from printers errors, the editions differ from each other only in regard to spelling, punctuation, and, in a few places, italics. Hence any one of them may be used by a Bible-believing Christian. The fact that some of them include the Apocrypha is beside the point, since this does not affect their accuracy in the Old and New Testaments.' Edward F. HillIn Jesus,Aeryck.ps. Personal experience with audio versions has led me to the firm conviction that the Holy Spirit favours this version. It seems from this thread to be how the Lord is still guiding us by 'common faith' Praise God. Anyone read:- 'In Awe Of Thy Word' by Prof. Gail Riplinger?

I agree with aeryck all versions say the same thing, just mordern english is used in some. The only difference I have noticed is that even though they say the same thing a few seem to be "watered down" for lack of a better term. The KJV seems to be more powerful as far as wording, but I personally find the NIV easier to understand and apply to life today. For example one of the other threads deals with discipling children, the KJV states "Withhold not correction from the child: for if thou beatest him with the rod, he shall not die", , the CEV states "Don't fail to correct your children. You won't kill them by being firm", , both are Proverbs 23:13 the only difference is one is firmer then the other. But everyone has their own views and this is mine.

'All the version of the King James Version from 1611 onward are still extant and have been examined minutely by F.H. Scrivener and other careful scholars. Aside from printers errors, the editions differ from each other only in regard to spelling, punctuation, and, in a few places, italics. Hence any one of them may be used by a Bible-believing Christian. The fact that some of them include the Apocrypha is beside the point, since this does not affect their accuracy in the Old and New Testaments.' Edward F. HillThis quotation is a little misleading. Scrivener died in 1891 so this quotation does not refer to any 20th Century Versions or 21st Century Versions. Scrivener was an strong supporter of the Byzantine text against the Westcott and Hort editions.

Hi...!While I do like to read the KJV (chiefly among others), I would recommend that those who research such matters to read the original KJV. It is found in many libraries and Christian book stores. However, you may notice quite a bit of difference between the original KJV and the later editions -- especially linguistic change and inclusion of many apocryphal books. Perhaps those researching this might also want to read the translator's preface (included in the original, and in some of the later versions of the King James Version). The preface display the original intent and reasoning behind the new version in 1611. It echoes some of the later translations (like the original 1978 NIV). Oddly, this preface stands in stark contrast with the some of the "prose" arguments of many KJV-only believers. Its unfortunate, but many of the KJV-only crowd tend to "research" using only KJV-only friendly books concerning Scripture translation. And many of the Scriptural "discrepencies" are in reality just Scriptural comparisons with the KJV. I have read several works in the KJV-only school of thought, but I have noticed that (even from the very beginning) they are quite partial. Like others said on this particular thread, I suggest that the sincere believer research the matter wholeheartedly and without prejudice. :-)

Further to my comments on Scrivener I thought this List of Revisers might be of interest. These are the people who actually created the English RV of 1881 (and consequently the ASV of 1901) and there are some surprising people among them; Scrivener being one of them.

Hi Krispy...!That's a great method of research. I have never really heard of an "anti" KJV school of thought, though. That is very surprising and disheartening. Please forgive any misunderstanding with my comment (as being painted with a "broad brush"). I have unfortunately found many who have used more of a "narrow brush" (pardon the borrowed colloquialism) when using references or "research material" in this matter. Because of overwhelming availability, many researchers tend to find books supporting a KJV-only mentality. While there is alot of great material contained in many of these books, it still offers only a biased or slanted view, rather than a truly investigative view. And some of these books offer a "conspiracy theory" approach to all other versions (as if the NIV translators were evil men vent on destroying the faith). Some books go so far to label those who use other translations as being "lost."Sadly, it seems that many people often accept an argument based upon the credibility of the informant, rather than on the weight behind the research or work. This is true with a multitude of topics of discussion within Christianity, as is evidenced in discussions in congregations and by even some visitors to this website. The KJV that we accept today is usually the version published in 1769 (sometimes known as the Benjamin Blayney text). This was actually the fifth edition. The original 1611 version, due to linguistic changes, is written in an older, non-standardized form of english (with many spelling differentiations). Here is a link to a page out of the original, from a KJV-only website:http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/kjplate1.jpgAs you can see, because of such spelling changes, it is quite difficult for many average readers to understand. It is widely available at libraries and bookstores (ISBN 0840700288 and ISBN 0840700288). I suggest that those who really want to study the KJV to begin by going to the original. Read the original 1611 version (rather than the 1769 KJV), including dedicatory and translators notes. It might be helpful to read the original preface to the 1611 version (often called "The Translators to the Reader"). Probably one of the most surprising elements when studying the KJV is the stringent instructions that were given to the translators by King James (and the catholic clergy). They were surprisingly quite the opposite of what some might believe. For instance, many of the old ecclesiastical words and terminology were not permitted to be "updated" during the translation process. Also, whenever possible, the translators were urged to not deviate from the commonly read Bishop's Bible, but when neccessary, to use much of the Tyndale wording. And again, if any word "hath divers signification" -- then the translators were to refer to what was accepted by the most "eminent" church "fathers." Ultimately, the King James Version was almost an 80% unaltered version of The Tyndale Version. Skeptics of modern translations often have a good reason to be skeptical. In fact, they should be. Alot of what is passed as a translation is nothing more than a modified version of a previous translation (such as the nKJV; NIrV, The Living Bible, etc...). Critics point to the obvious flaws in those versions, as well as the more subtle flaws in the more serious translations. But is the KJV without controversy? Of course not. People often point to the fact that the Original 1611 KJV is notably different in linguistic style and spelling from the later editions. There are also several oddly translated passages in the KJV (such as the KJV Acts 12:4 reference of Easter -- reference to the pagan diety and Roman holiday, when the greek translation is obviously Passover). Obviously, there are other versions available in other languages that even outdate the 1611 King James Version. Many of these are also based upon the same manuscripts available to the translators of the KJV. But in some of these languages, the pronouns have changed very little in 400 years (like Spanish). Thus, the "kingly" sounding "thees" and "thous" are not as present. The Word of God is, of course, inspired by God -- and it is infallible. The translation, regardless of how honorably someone tries to argue, can sometimes be flawed. There are slight differences in wording (and yes, in meaning) of text. But because a word is mistranslated does not change the fact that God is indeed the author of the Bible. Someone once said, "Some men like to read the Bible in Hebrew. Some like to read the Bible in Greek. I prefer to read it with the Holy Ghost." I suggest that this is the attitude to take. The Holy Spirit will lead us and guide us into all truth. Like I said before, I suggest that the sincere believer research the matter wholeheartedly and without prejudice. And, as with all matters of faith and belief, test everything (I Thessalonians 5:21). :-)

I have been looking at versions in different languages and it is hard to tell what is accurate or not in those translations if anybody say knows about the korean or the japanese or the portuges or hebrew translation or turkish I would be interested!!

I am not a bible scholar. Thus, anything I say should be taken with scrutiny. Recently, I visited an exhibit called "Ink and Blood" which goes into the history of the bible and how it has come to be what it is. You can see more about this exhibit at thier website: http://www.inkandblood.com/In addition, if you would like to read a good book on the history of bible translation, check out "The Bible in Translation" by Bruce M. Metzger. From what I understand, however, the KJV is not the best translation to read, if not for any reason than this: it is written in another language. We speak modern English whose form has so deviated from original English that if you do not know Old English as a language, you will misinterpret the text. The next reason is that over 80% of the King James Translation comes from one translator, Tyndale. Lastly, it was translated from Latin to English, rather than Greek and Hebrew. This means it has passed through two languages. That would be like an Arabian telling a Roman who then tells a German. How accurate could it be? (Then again, does not the Spirit work in us?)The debate could rage for which bible is the "best." The New American Standard Bible is a word for word translation that comes from the original Greek and Hebrew languages. (Many scholars will argue this is the most accurate.) The NIV gathered the top scholars of our day and age with teams of people translating each book. (This method offers a more democratic approach.) Other bibles, like the Message, offers a single translator putting things in his own words. The list goes on. I always think of what Jesus said: "My sheep will know my voice." (John 10:27) Whether it's a bible, preacher, or minister, God's people will know when the Holy Spirit is speaking. The bible was written by the Holy Spirit, and only the Spirit can understand things of the Spirit. (1 Corinthians 2:6-16)Humans are fallible. The bible cannot be authenticated. Our faith is not based upon a book, it is based upon Christ. And so, what is most important is putting our faith in Christ. When we do this, we trust in Him and by this we trust that when we read the bible, He will use it to speak to us through the Spirit. Obviously then, the "best" translation is the one Christ chooses to speak to you, whether it is the King James or New Century.

How do thoughs two bibles compare to Spiros Zodhiates Key Word Study Bible?

brother blake, Like you I'm only out to find the truth. And I also believe the Spirit will guide us in all truth.However, in defense of the King James, there are three things you stated that are incorrect. The KJV did not come from the Latin Vulgate, it came from greek texts:"Erasmus gathered together what Greek manuscripts he could locate in Basle. He was able to collect five, the majority of which were dated in the twelfth century."From website: http://www.solagroup.org/articles/faqs/faq_0032.htmlThere are some phrases that were said to be taken out the the Latin Vulgate, but the Textus Receptus were translated from Greek manuscripts. Erasmus did make a Latin copy as well as a Greek if this is what you meant.Also, when you tell me that I am reading the KJV in another language, that just is not true. There are some words that I look up on Webster's, but that doesn't make the version inferior, it shows the corruptive nature of man's languages. Corrupted English is still English.Lastly, the fact that you said the Bible cannot be authenticated is rather shocking. If it's not authentic, how can you trust what you read?I'm searching for truth regardless of where the evidence points.

My dear letsgetbusy, I could be wrong, as I said, I am not an authority on the bible. The new testament consists mostly of letters written by the apostles. None of the original letters are in existence today. If they were, imagine the impact it would have on religious community. The bible would have to be accepted as truth. However, it is not. Rather, it suffers under immense debate.The authenticity of the bible can be proved no more than any person can prove the existence of God. Rather, God has made it this way intentionally. If a person could prove the existence of God, humanity could not choose to love God. They would have to as their would be undenable proof. Rather, God has established a system whereby faith is key. We must choose to believe in Christ. We must live by faith. Likewise, we must also have faith in the bible. The bible is the word of God written by the Holy Spirit through people. As we know, people are corrupt. Many people stumble over knowing the bible has been written by humans. They discredit the bible as such. I know many Christians who discredit the bible. It is our choice to believe in the bible as God's word. We must bow down to our Lord Christ Jesus and accept His Spirit (His word) as truth. We must walk by faith even in this. Let me not confuse anyone. I was not discrediting the King James version by my last post. I was merely pointing out that the word of God is not the book, it is the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit can choose to speak through many translations across a variety of languages. One last thing about a search for truth: I too am in search of truth. I have come to realize that there is only one truth: Jesus Christ. Everything apart from Jesus has multiple truths. This is important. Many people want to believe that there is only one way for everything. If X is right, then Y is wrong. They try to make the world black and white when it is not. Only God is truth. For everything else which God has created, there is variety and multiple truths. God loves variety. There are no two things that God has created that are exactly the same. Think of snowflakes, fingerprints, and trees. Can you give me two that are exact copies? Both maples and pines are trees. If I asked if a pine was a tree, you would say yes. If I asked a maple was a tree, you would say yes. So which is a tree? They both are. Likewise, there are a variety of people. We speak different languages. We have different cultures and looks. The worst thing we can do is limit God by saying there is only one way to everything. There is only one God. He is Jesus Christ. He is truth. Everything else has multiples. God is the foundation. Therefore, to say there is only one true bible is ridiculous and blasphemous. There is only one true God. There is only one Holy Spirit. His Spirit is not a book. Rather, the Holy Spirit speaks through more books than the bible, and more preachers than just the apostles. "For no man can lay a foundation other than the one which is laid, which is Jesus Christ" (1 Cor 3:11)

beenblakeFrom what I understand, however, the KJV is not the best translation to read, if not for any reason than this: it is written in another language. We speak modern English whose form has so deviated from original English that if you do not know Old English as a language, you will misinterpret the text. The next reason is that over 80% of the King James Translation comes from one translator, Tyndale. Lastly, it was translated from Latin to English, rather than Greek and Hebrew. This means it has passed through two languages. That would be like an Arabian telling a Roman who then tells a German. How accurate could it be? (Then again, does not the Spirit work in us?)I'm taking up your invitation to 'scrutinize'. ;-) I think your information is a little off here but I think I can guess where it came from. It is true that Erasmus 'used' the Latin Vulgate but he did not 'base' his translation on it. He based his translation on his own text based on some ancient Greek manuscripts; this is important to remember. He created a Greek text using methods of what would now be called 'Textual Criticism'. We would not have our KJV without some textual critical foundations. He produced a 'version' which was his 'best fit/guess' at what the original 'autographs' (the handwritten originals) had actually said. But Erasmus was always a Catholic and never really willing to challenge the authorities of his day. (unlike the reformers) On occasion the Latin Vulgate had passages which were not in any of the manuscripts from which Erasmus had created his edited text. The Vulgate was highly regarded at that time and had itself been translated from the Greek. Erasmus took the line of least resistence and translated the missing verses from the Latin Vulgate into his own Greek text, although there was no manuscript evidence for them! He obviously concluded that although the verses were not in Greek manuscripts available to him they must have been in manuscripts which had been available to Jerome in his Vulgate translation. Not wanting to 'lose' anything he decided to 'take Jerome's word' for it.The consequence of this was that a passage of 1 John which was not in the Byzantine textform was then translated by Tyndale (using Erasmus' text) into English and remains still in our KJV even though there is no textual evidence to support it. As you point out in your letter the KJV preface makes it very clear that the intention of the translators was to make a good translation better, and that they regarded their translation as a work in process. It is important to remember that this was always Tyndale's attitude too. If I shall perceive either by myself or by the information of another, that ought be escaped me, or might be more plainly translated, I will shortly after, cause it to be mended. The precise figure of KJV dependence on Tyndale, btw, is 83%. The other thing that might lie behind your comments about Tyndale translating from the Latin may be to do with language itself. Tyndale learned his Greek through the medium of Latin. He was a brilliant linguist, but Greek has verb tenses which Latin does not have so all Greek scholars of this period struggled with Greek tenses. Their Greek was Greek understood by Latin. I can illustrate this simply.“Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.” (Rom. 6:6, KJV)“knowing this, that our old man was crucified with him, that the body of sin might be done away, that so we should no longer be in bondage to sin;” (Rom. 6:6, ASV)“knowing this, that our old man was crucified with Him, that the body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves of sin.” (Rom. 6:6, NKJV)You will see that the ASV and the NKJV have changed the tense of this 'crucifixion'. The KJV puts it into the present tense, the ASV and the NKJV put it into the past tense. There is a vital aspect of New Testament truth contained in this verse and the KJV loses it, simply because Tyndale translated the Greek Aorist tense as a simple present tense. The Aorist tense is best translated as a simple past tense, although it has the sense of the action having been completed in the past. So the KJV says that our 'old man' is in process of 'being crucified', the Greek and the ASV and the KJV says 'our old man was crucified'. The issue of whether the 'old man' is undergoing crucifixion or 'was crucified' with Christ is a vital element of New Testament truth.So Tyndale was limited in the tools that were available to him. Another aspect of Tyndale's work which often surprises people is that he did not try to create a 'word for word' translation. For him communication was always uppermost in his mind. I prefer word for word myself, but it is important to see Tyndale and hence the KJV in their historical context.