|
Which Bible version is the most accurate?
The above question is of great importance as certain versions can vary to such an extent that the meaning is altered. Ideally we would all be able to read Hebrew, Greek and a little Aramaic. On the one hand we have the Interlinear Bible which is
at one end of the scale as a word for word translation whilst on the other scale we have the Living Bible or the Message which is a phrase for phrase or paraphrased version.
So where do the respective versions fit on the scale? Well the King James, New King James, American Standard and Revised version fit on the more literal word for word side of the spectrum and the New International Version fits somewhere in the middle. The Good News Bible sits slightly more so in favour of the phrase for phrase version.
So what is the big issue and why am I bothering to write this? The big issue is that there is such a discrepancy between the two sides that if you compared say the New King James with the Message it would be hard sometimes to tell if you are reading from the same verse let alone the same page! What is more disturbing though is that there are FIVE PLACES IN SCRIPTURE WHERE WE ARE WARNED NOT TO ADD OR TAKE AWAY FROM THE WORD OF GOD (Deut 4:2, 12:32, Prov 30:6-7, Matt 5:17-18 & Rev 22:18) Some of the phrase for phrase translations are so inaccurate in their attempt to be readable that they omit verses, key words and in doing that also omit or change the meaning of prophecies.
Just a few examples. In Isaiah 14:12, many of the new versions say 'How you have fallen from heaven, o morning star' whereas it should read 'how you are fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning.' So what is the problem? The problem is that Jesus is the Bright Morning Star (see Rev 22:16) The problem is that because of these statements the Mormon church teaches that Lucifer and Jesus are brothers and the Freemasons also teach the same when the candidate reaches the higher degrees.
In John 3:16 Jesus should be described as the 'only begotten Son' instead of 'one and only son'. Jesus was begotten not created!
Some versions try to argue that the last verses of Mark should not be included as they were apparently not included in the codex vaticanus or sinaticus. Interestingly they seem to be included in other manuscripts!
These are just a few of many errors prevalent with the majority of the more recently published versions!
Furthermore Bible study can be confusing with such a range of versions being read within a small group.We are priveledged that William Tyndale and others were involved in translating the textus receptus (received text) into English from which we have the Authorised Version (King James Version) Tyndale was a gifted linguist and scholar and also produced the Tyndale version which is extremely accurate, readable and uses slightly less difficult language than the King James. At the time the scriptures were pretty much only available in Latin and of course only a minority read Latin and they would not be able to discern whether the clergy where twisting the meaning of scripture to suite their purposes. Tyndales desire was that the ploughman should know more of the scriptures than the priest!
Although there are many fragments and texts that contribute towards Biblical scholarship the three main ones in question here are the Textus Receptus, Codex Sinaticus and the Codex Vaticanus. Most of the word for word translations are derived from the Textus Receptus. Those from the phrase for phrase translations are derived from the latter two the c.v and c.s. The further problem is that those two documents don't always agree with each other and according to Barry Burton the Vaticanus 'leaves out 237 words, 452 clauses and 748 whole sentences, which hundreds of later copies agree together as having the same words in the places. ' Therefore I can believe you can now see why I have an issue with many of the more modern supposedly user friendly editions!
Furthermore before purchasing a Bible it is certainly worth checking the panel of scholars who contributed towards it. Many versions are the product of Protestant and Catholic scholarship combined or from ecumenical backgrounds. It is imperative that those who are involved in interprative work actually believe in the inerrancy of scripture - many don't!
For accuracy I would reccomend the King James, the New King James or the Amplified Bible. Failing that the New American Standard or the Revised version are not quite as accurate word for word but significantly more accurate than the Good News or Living Bible.
Finally two books I would recommend reading are
'New Age Bible Versions' by Dr Gail Riplinger and
'Lets Weigh the Evidence' by Barry Burton
Please note whilst I do not agree with every comment in the above two books, however I do support their overall stance and they provide some interesting information particularly about Westcott and Hort and Dr Riplinger's book provides extensive examples where scriptures have been changed, altered or omitted!
What is the Message then. I know the Message is supposed to be a paraphrase but is often quoted extensively and even preached from in the pulpit - ask yourself is it adding or taking away from the Word of God?
Take heed-be careful what you read! |
