NeilUnreal

I don't know how accurate the translations are, but the Oxford NRSV and the JPS Tanakh have the best use of English (IMHO).

-Neil

lpetrich

Why should there be so much trouble in doing translations? Why isn't the text unambiguously translatable, or failing that, why aren't there detailed notes explaining subtleties in vocabulary and grammar for the benefit of translators?

An omnipotent being can certainly do better.

Mojaz

The original KJV is the oldest and most accurate English language version.

lpetrich

Says who?

And for my part, I prefer a translation into the English of 2002, not the English of 1611. Does the Biblical God only speak King James English?

Pantera

Hooray! A real live KJVer.

FYI the KJV is certainly not the oldest English version. King Alfred had some books translated into English (or Anglo Saxon anyway) around 800. Other notable English translations were by Wycliffe in 1382 and Tyndale in 1525, along with numerous others between than and 1611. However, it seems that God didn't think anyone would need a perfect English Bible before then, so he didn't bother inspiring any translators before the KJV lot.

[ February 03, 2002: Message edited by: Pantera ]</p>

Polycarp

Quote:

Originally posted by Mojaz: The original KJV is the oldest and most accurate English language version.

I’ve had discussions with many people who believe the same thing as Mojaz. Unfortunately, they rarely provide support for their claims. I’d be shocked if Mojaz sticks around to back up his/her assertions with some evidence.

Pantera already pointed out the fact that there were several English translations of the Bible prior to the KJV. This eliminates one of Mojaz’s two claims, so we’re left with the claim that the KJV is the most accurate translation. On what do you base this claim?

[ February 04, 2002: Message edited by: Polycarp ]</p>

Polycarp

Quote:

Originally posted by lpetrich: Why should there be so much trouble in doing translations? Why isn't the text unambiguously translatable, or failing that, why aren't there detailed notes explaining subtleties in vocabulary and grammar for the benefit of translators? An omnipotent being can certainly do better.

I'm not really sure what your point is here. Perhaps if you gave a specific example of an ambiguous passage that is detrimental to a specific Christian doctrine we could discuss it further.

PJPSYCO

I'm amazed no one likes the !!!!!EXTREME TEEN BIBLE!!!!!(camera zooms in and out) the best. I've found it to be one of the best versions myself. Who cares about intillectual integrity when you GO TO THE EXTREME!!!!!.
And with studying why not KJV:Catholic Study edition, they have removed all the sex, and violence and replaced it with something completely different, and no more contradictions they just rewrote those passages.
And for the really young people the Baby Bible, in side stories like noas ark are changed so nobody is said to die. Don't want to put to much strain on the little ones brains, might make them atheists.

GunnerJ

ROTFLMAO!!! I've seen one of those! They have all these little insets with titles like "XTREME FAITH" and crap to explain verses. They even had a mobster-type roundup of all the members of "Satan's Gang" (Wassup, boyEEZE?) in Revelation. Sadly, I never got a chance to see the insets in Leviticus, or how they explain the genocide in other books.

Jayhawker Soule

For what it's worth, The King James Only Controversy -- Can you Trust the Modern Translations -by James R. White is an interesting and inexpensive polemic against the oft rabid KJV-Only crowd.