It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Holy Bible: The best English translation ever

page: 2
3
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 3 2016 @ 01:02 PM
link   
a reply to: Caligula

I like The Scriptures by the Institute for Scripture Research (ISR).

This is a literal translation of the Bible in English. This translation differs significantly from most common English translations in that it has restored the original book order of the Hebrew Scriptures, the Tanakh, and restored the Name of the Most High, (יהוה) throughout.

Here's a link to their website.

It's sources are:

For the Tanakh, the Biblia Hebraica 1937, which itself is based largely off Leningrad B, 19a, and is Massorete. Unlike the Massoret translation, where they replaced the teteragrammaton, YHWH, with either Adonai or Elohim (detailed in separate notes), these have been restored to the original text. The 1937 edition of Hebraica does not include Qumran updates, which were included as extra notes on the text in the 5th edition of Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia, the Quinta.

For the New Testament, they primarily used the Textus Receptus but realising that it was likely a translation from originals that may have been Semitic in origin, other sources such as the Pes'hitta, Shem Tob and Nestle-Alland text were considered to try and determine the most likely original wording. In this way it attempts to solve discrepancies between source texts (translational issues are noted in the footnotes).

edit on 3/3/2016 by chr0naut because: Had to add an extra hyphen to Pes'hitta because the ATS site filters it out!




posted on Mar, 3 2016 @ 01:40 PM
link   
You might consider the King James II - it is claimed that all Bible versions/translations/manuscripts were run through a supercomputer, and the KJV II is the result. The "Hell" overlay is still there, so I have my doubts. I was disappointed.

Then there is the Ferrar Fenton Version - his OT is from the Masoretic text, and the English, you might say, is robust and full-bodied. He translated the "Song of Solomon" in dramatic format, like a play, and that alone is worth the price of admission. His NT is based on Westcott & Hort, like many translations from the period around 1900, and I don't care so much for that part. All in all, it is a slightly flawed masterpiece.

There is the Christian Bible, put out by a group in Mammoth Springs, Arkansas, but just try to get a copy. Good luck...

After I finish my own tour through the KJV (not II), I am going to plough through Young's Literal Translation. I think it may prove to be very accurate.

The Concordant Version may be well worth a look as well.

Whatever you get, be assured that the translation you choose will not likely affect doctrine, creed, or foundational belief, except maybe the Hell overlay.



posted on Mar, 3 2016 @ 01:51 PM
link   
a reply to: Caligula

1st lesson: there is no "best version". Whomever you ask, they will have a suggestion based on opinion: theirs.

2nd lesson: Go to a bookstore and ask for the "Religious" section. Look to the left, look to the right, go down to the end of the aisle and turn around and repeat.
Pick one. Or several.

3rd and final lesson: By now and before you start a year of reflection and learning, you should be realizing here there is no "best-of". Not bibles, videos, music, software, websites, religions, churches, mosques or temples, cars, haircolors, neighborhoods, countries, sports etc, etc.

Everything in life is open to interpretation by each of us. Some like oranges, some cant stand them. There is no standing body of council deciding what denotes the "best of all things".

The "best" you should do...is pick out several of the most popular books and gain something from each as a whole, and not from one only.

Some prestigious universities have their students transcribe the bible from Latin to English. Greek to French. And why is that?

To understand the subtle differences languages provide to the same thing. Same with books. Many say the same thing, a different way, and even with more or less wording.

You'd learn more from a handful of different versions than just one. Good luck.

MS



posted on Mar, 3 2016 @ 01:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: MOMof3
I have a concordance and use all the translations. My favorite is the one translated by the jehovah witnesses. I am not one, I just like bibles since I was a kid.


I kind of like the way they translated it too. We have study with a couple of witnesses in their eighties almost every week. I like the cookies and coffee



posted on Mar, 3 2016 @ 02:09 PM
link   
a reply to: rickymouse

A little too cultish for me personally, but they know the scriptures.



posted on Mar, 3 2016 @ 02:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: Klassified

originally posted by: Caligula
a reply to: DISRAELI

Best ever exists, some are more accurate, some more honest to the most ancient texts. I am looking for what is the most truthful to the ancient Hebrew, preferably the Dead Sea Scrolls, as they are the most ancient period. I am leaning towards the NRSV I hear it used the DSS but I want more footnotes. I want the Catholic one because it has more books than the non Catholic.

There is no "best ever". And oldest isn't necessarily the best, when it comes to the original texts. Maybe you should read a few good books on texts and translations before spouting off about something you clearly have not done any research on. Do you even know the difference between the TR and Westcott-Hort? Do you understand the different methods of translating, such as word for word, literal, semantic, adaptive, and so on?

You might want to get with Disraeli and learn a few things.


After re-reading this, it sounds a bit condescending, which was not my intent. Sorry OP. But seriously, there is no best. There are way too many factors involved in manuscripts and translations. You'll find all kinds of debates over dynamic or formal equivalence, paraphrase, etc. Then debates on oldest vs majority manuscripts. Of course, debates over KJV only(which one) vs new translations. It's never ending.



posted on Mar, 3 2016 @ 04:44 PM
link   
I just want to say thanks to everyone for helping. I would have said so earlier but I fell asleep. Once again, thank you.



posted on Mar, 3 2016 @ 05:40 PM
link   
a reply to: Caligula
The AV has all the words in them all others have words and verse omitted.

BUT try the EVS



posted on Mar, 3 2016 @ 06:09 PM
link   
ChesterJohn the Sleuth. Lol.

Do you see what i see.

I think you do.




posted on Mar, 3 2016 @ 06:40 PM
link   
a reply to: ChesterJohn

Have you read every bible? Just curious because you would either have to have read every bible (which is doubtful) or be saying that without having read them and that means you don't actually know that. "All others" sounds like you are saying only 1or 2 bibles are accurate, and I disagree. There are many bibles superior to both of the ones you suggested, yours are the simple versions to be honest. I'm leaning towards the Catholic versions as they have extra books and they take the bible extremely seriously. They also use the Dead Sea Scrolls which are the oldest in existence. But thanks anyway.



posted on Mar, 3 2016 @ 06:43 PM
link   
a reply to: MOMof3

Cultish, no thanks. I'm not letting anyone help me in this humans are all corrupt.



posted on Mar, 3 2016 @ 06:45 PM
link   
a reply to: Lazarus Short

The nkjv is very bad, terribly altering verses so subtlety it's satanic. Stay away. I even saw a 666 triqueta on one.



posted on Mar, 3 2016 @ 07:26 PM
link   
a reply to: Caligula

I am not promoting religion. I have not been in a religious building for 40 years. I like to study bibles and I found the jw interpretation my favorite. And humans wrote everything you read so you must be corrupt too.



posted on Mar, 3 2016 @ 08:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: Caligula
a reply to: Lazarus Short

The nkjv is very bad, terribly altering verses so subtlety it's satanic. Stay away. I even saw a 666 triqueta on one.


What I mentioned is the KJV II (2), not the NKJV - they are not the same thing. As to subtly altering verses in a satanic way, I have heard the same charge leveled at the NIV.

What, WHAT, WHAT is a "666 triqueta"?



posted on Mar, 3 2016 @ 10:02 PM
link   
a reply to: Lazarus Short
Oh, I didn't know that. The triqueta was the logo for the tv show charmed, about witches. You can Google it, but it's 3 interlocking 6's. Agreed on the niv.



posted on Mar, 3 2016 @ 10:03 PM
link   
a reply to: MOMof3

We are all corrupt in our own way, yes even me.



posted on Mar, 3 2016 @ 10:08 PM
link   
Im going to take Disraeli's advice and get the Jerusalem bible. Every review on the internet says it's excellent. So thanks to Disraeli, you must know your ish because nobody else mentioned this bible that has lots of footnotes. It's worth the 70$



posted on Mar, 3 2016 @ 10:16 PM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut

The Masoretic is corrupt in one place in Deuteronomy changing Sons of God to sons of Israel, a fatal flaw that is unforgivable but all the English versions have fixed it except the Tanakh which has been downgraded in favour of the Talmud by most Jews.



posted on Mar, 4 2016 @ 09:10 AM
link   
I have heard that Ferrar Fenton bible is an excellent translation...probably worth looking into.



posted on Mar, 4 2016 @ 10:45 AM
link   
A very nice translation of the old testament is here:
www.scripture4all.org...

Can really recommend it. It takes a little while to get used to the hebrew grammar, but it's very different from non-interlinear translations and has more value I think.




top topics



 
3
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join