What is the best, least compromised, English translation of the Bible?

[Frogtutor]

Last night I was helping my niece write an essay for her Christian private school. I admit, I'm no scholar of the Bible. I really know nothing. But I have a New Living Translation Bible, and a King James Bible. We were using these two and the Internet to find the right phrasing for certain Bible verses she wanted to reference. I knew that King James is pretty hard to read, and I thought the New Living Translation simply made the language easier to understand. However, "You shall not kill" as referenced from a website, was "You shall not murder" in the New Living Translation Bible. Changing "kill" to "murder" is not just simplifying language; there is a clear difference in connotation, and actual meaning, between the two words. This really annoyed me. I would like to have a Bible that is as close as possible to the original wording, without being extremely difficult to read or understand.

I understand that something is always lost in translation, but "lost" isn't the same thing as deliberately changed to suit one's own purposes!

Does such a book exist?

[LDS Jock]

1. I like the New Revised Standard Version

Some have criticized it for pronoun use, but I find that extremely picky. Others have questioned it for translating passages too literally and not supportive of Christian traditions. The primary example of this is Isaiah 7:14 where a young girl conceives instead of a virgin. Those who know Hebrew have stated for years it should read young lady. Anyway, I find it a simple to read, very literal translation. Fundamentalist churches tend to not like it due to it not promoting Christian traditions. The Lutheran Church Missouri Synod uses the English Standard Version which is quite similar in most ways, but is more in line with Christian apologetics. I would encourage you to try both of those translations in your search. I have searched for accurate and unbiased information on the Internet and it is hard to come by. Good luck.

[Kat45]

2. I agree. I also use the NRSV

It's very readable English, and it seems to be a pretty good translation. We talked about that young girl/virgin argument in my Bible study class last year. I wish I had the time to seriously study scripture so I could learn things like that about different translations, different agendas, etc involved in the Bible.

[regnaD kciN]

8. The original RSV may be the most accurate translation...

...but its style, halfway between the King James Version and modern English, practically redefines "clunky."

The NRSV is much nicer to read, and almost as accurate. Where it falls short in that department is owing to a concern to be "gender-neutral," and thus rewriting the text to de-masculanize certain passages that equate "male" with "universal." A laudable intention, to be sure, but sometimes it seems to me that they "neuter" passages which are explicitly intended to refer to one gender. Not a big deal to me, but it does make it marginally less true to the original texts.

For reading aloud, without any need for scholarly use, I prefer the 1960s-era New English Bible.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

3. If you really wanted to make sure, the only way would be to

learn Hebrew and Greek (which I would love to do some day).

However, I have heard that the Living Bible and the Philips translation paraphrase the text in the direction of fundamentalist theology.

[RevCheesehead]

4. I use two: NRSV and The Message.

NRSV is the best translation available, IMO.

The Message is a modern-day paraphrase of the scripture by Eugene Peterson. I like to use it to stimulate new thoughts on overly-familiar passages. And it is wonderfully on the mark. I've noticed it lacks the homophobia and other isms of other versions. You can get a paperback copy of the NT for about $5.

[Frogtutor]

5. Thanks for your feedback, everyone!

Sounds like NSRV is the way to go! :)

[BlackVelvet04]

6. I believe most scholars

agree that the New American Standard is the most literal translation you can find.

[regnaD kciN]

7. Most fundie scholars, maybe...

...the NASB is a revision of an early fundie revision of a revision of the KJV, rather than a fresh translation from the latest versions of the source documents. Not too bad for what it is, but it is still relying on 17th century scholarship.

[BlackVelvet04]

12. Well,

according to my research is that it adheres as closely as possible to the original languages of the Scriptures...."the latest edition of Rudolf Kittel's Biblia Hebraica has been employed together with the most recent light from lexicography, cognate languages and the Dead Sea Scrolls.

[regnaD kciN]

14. I'm not sure...

...Kittel would be thought of as the most reliable source for the Hebrew Scriptures anymore (most would now consider the JBS text as the standard). And the NASB also uses the older "Textus Receptus" for the NT, whereas Nestle-Aland has been the scholarly choice for some time now.

[regnaD kciN]

9. By the way, as to your original issue...

However, "You shall not kill" as referenced from a website, was "You shall not murder" in the New Living Translation Bible. Changing "kill" to "murder" is not just simplifying language; there is a clear difference in connotation, and actual meaning, between the two words.

..."murder" is the correct translation.

[Frogtutor]

10. Really? I had no idea...

So in the original Hebrew text, or at least in the Greek translation, it is "murder"?

Interesting!

[Rabrrrrrr]

15. Yep, in Hebrew it is "murder". Killing, like in war, or in stoning for

punishment, was okay - but acceptable killing was always ritualized. But to just up and kill someone without sanction, that's wrong.

So if you kill a guy just "cuz he was there", that's murder.

If I and the rest of DU then stone you to death becuase you were found guilty of murdering that guy, that's just a plain old legal killing (though a ritualized one).

[elshiva]

11. NRSV and the New Oxford Annotated Version.

[pelagius]

13. I use the NRSV, but many evangelicals prefer the NIV

It is an excellent, scholarly translation that chooses to interpret dubious passages (and there are lots of them!) in a more conservative way. But it's not particularly biased toward one point of view.

A good commentary also is useful when reading the Bible. So I second the suggestion of using the Oxford Annotated Bible (OAB) in the NRSV. This is my personal study Bible and it has reams and reams of scholarly, yet accessible background essays and extensive notes within the text.

A very good one-volume Bible commentary is the Eerdmann's Bible Commentary (get the newer version published in ~2003/2004).

BTW -- these suggestions are definitely for adults. A kid would not benefit much from the high level of scholarship and may find it completely inaccessible.

[bobbieinok]

16. anyone use/read the Amplified translation??? lists in paretheses

various possible translations

if you read another language, it can be extremely enlightening to read one or more translations in that language along with your preferred English translation(s)

[merh]

17. I like this site - it gives me all of the translations

and it has easy search functions.

http://www.biblegateway.com/