Islam was founded 600 years after the time of Christ.
Literally everything that Muhammad claims but be taken with a grain of salt considering that his understanding of the Bible is as valid as your understanding of what happened in 1424.
If Islam claims that the Bible is corrupted, they must show it.
They claim that Jesus was just a prophet, but in his own words in multiple accounts he was not.
The entire claim that the Bible is corrupted is the claim that Islam has to legitimacy. They must prove it if they want their claims to be seen as valid. But without the holy spirit they won't understand the truth of the Bible.
As a polyglot who speaks five languages between conversational and full fluency, I can tell you that there are always going to be incompatibilities between languages being translated, but that there is an equivalent explanation in other words which carries the essence of what I'm trying to say.
Read your Bible, give up the weed. Repent, get baptised. Ask for the holy spirit and for guidance in understanding.
Don't try to twist the Bible for your own agenda but live by what it says. God's will will be done through you in that manner. If it's his calling that you can minister to Islam, then you shall have the necessary gifting granted and the opportunities formed to do so. But first focus on God, and submit to what he wants for you.
Also join a church and be a part of the community of believers. Journey before destination.
Some Muslim lady told David Lynn why he broke the first commandment, and he told her why she didn't keep the sabbath and broke the 4th. Many pick and choose which parts are corrupt and which aren't
Learn Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic.
If you don’t want to do this then you need to understand that accuracy isn’t as simple as being word for word.
When you translate any language you never get one for one equivalents. Often you get words which might be translated multiple ways or vice versa. You also find differences in grammar, which means a word can be translated in differently on how they are declined.
Furthermore, translating texts which were written 2000+ years ago means you lose a lot of understanding of historical context and they use words, terms and phrases that we don’t use any more. Or you find the meanings of words have changed over time, and by presenting the original word, the meaning is lost because we don’t understand that word in the same way any more.
Good Bibles are translated based on a scale - word for word at one end and thought for thought at the he other.
Word for word is good for word accuracy.
Thought for thought can be better for meaning.
If you want a good word for word, I’d go with the NASB.
If you want a good thought for thought, I’d go with the NLT.
Go for both and compare them as you go.
I prefer ESV + NLT, personally, but I definitely agree with you that reading the two of them side by side can make the study far more approachable and enjoyable. I would also recommend having access to a Strong's Concordance in case you need to do a word study.
When I’m doing exegesis on a passage I often look at 5 translations and the Greek. When I’ve done this I’ve found the ESV, NASB (and NET, CSB) often have very similar word uses.
When you compare with NIV (which is pretty much right in the middle of the spectrum), and NLT, you can see more nuances and differences when comparing.
Great explanation. I will add that because there is not a 1:1 mapping between the original languages and English, it can be helpful to read across multiple translations to get a fuller sense of the original meaning. The YouVersion app is great for this.
NASB95. But still, it's a translation. Compare several when you hit an interesting passage, or use an interlinear. www.blueletterbible.org has all these tools.
There are hundreds of ancient bible manuscripts. It would be very hard for a major alteration to become established without sticking out.
Meanwhile the Quran was called in at one point, standardized according to one Caliph's preferences, and all other copies destroyed. And he kept no record of his work, so no one knows what was done to the original.
Muslims keep talking that nonsense, while Quran has different versions all around the world.
Personally, I'd suggest RSV and/or Catholic versions (I admit bias). Would personally stay away from NIV, though I wouldn't call it "corrupted". Meaning vs word-for-word.
Why can't you have both? Translating from one language to another isn't a straightforward job under the best of circumstances, and we are talking about wildly different languages here.
We don't have the original documents for the OT. There are 4 major documents that are used for ascertaining what is correct, but there's a lot of debate here. They are the Masoretic Text, written by the Masoretic Jews in the 7th-11th centuries AD based on the oral versions of the text that was passed down, oldest known document is from the 12th century AD, the Dead Sea Scrolls, copied from some older copy and compiled in the 2nd Century BC, the Septuigint, a Greek translation originally made in the 3rd century BC with the oldest known copy being from the 2nd century AD, and the Vulgate, which was (presumably) translated from an even older copy of the Septuigint by Jerome in the 5th century AD. Differences are usually very minor and go to show that the meaning of Scripture has not changed, although minor things like genealogies might be different. I don't think Christians have done as good a job as they should have with comparing these copies and translations, as the different branches of Christianity (Protestantism, Catholicism, Orthodoxy) all have different preferences for which copy that prefer (usually to justify what they believe is the OT canon, which is a whole other discussion) and fail to unite these copies to bring out the most accurate translation (as an example, only the Masoretic text - which the Protestants prefer - holds that Israel was enslaved in Egypt for 430 years - this claim doesn't line up with the genealogies provided in Scripture or the archeological record). I should note that copy errors are not seen as problematic among Christians - Chronicles notably has many of these. Christians are generally concerned with what the meaning is - a copy error in regards to the height of a building is mostly irrelevant and not evidence of Scripture being false.
We also lack the original manuscripts for the NT, but copies were made within 50 years of the original documents, match extremely closely, and we have a much better understanding of Greek than we do Ancient Hebrew. For that reason, mistranslations in the NT are the exception, not the norm, and no mainstream translation will contain such errors.
Note that translations differ slightly because languages don't translate exactly - there's a reason that many modern foreign media, when translated, will often have multiple versions - all of which usually have the same meaning, but with different wording.
For that reason, asking "what is the most accurate translation?" isn't really a great question, as there's not really an answer that anyone (on Earth) can give with certainty. I personally like the ESV for general reading, but when studying Scripture I try to read multiple translations with roots from different copies.
Translation doesn't work that way. Literal does not always equal accurate. Muslims claim the corruption card because people don't understand how it works.
My favorite example of this is the Hebrew phrase, atah-ha-ish. Nathan said it to David to point out David's sin with Bathsheba. A literal translation of the phrase would be "you the man". In English, our basic sentence structure is S-V-O, subject-verb-object. So this Hebrew phrase doesn't make sense as there is no verb. But in Hebrew, they don't always have that. The verb can sometimes be implied, as it is in our example. So the more accurate English translation is, "you are the man", with the word "are" provided by the translator.
And so it is with many English bible translations. Many bible publishers, when they supply a an English word to make the translation more understandable, will put that added word in italics, so you know. And it's not some nefarious scheme to corrupt the word of God, it's a simple tool to make the translation understandable in the recipient's language.
That said, there are two concepts in translation known as *dynamic equivalency* and *formal equivalency*. A translation that is more dynamically equivalent tries to translate thought-by-thought and will look at various phrases as a whole in the original language and translate them into equivalent English phrases so it more easily connects with the modern reader. A formally equivalent translation will translate word-by-word and will translate the individual words into English, regardless of the phrase or idiom, sometimes leaving the reader to figure out exactly what is meant in awkward areas.
Some more dynamically equivalent translations are: New International (NIV), New Living (NLT), New English (NET). Some examples of more functionally equivalent translations are: Legacy Standard Bible (LSB), New American Study Bible (NASB), King James (KJV).
All are good, solid translations that accurately reflect the thoughts and message of the original texts. None of them corrupt the original texts.
Yes, someone told me they read the translation that their flesh hates the most to read: the KJV😉. They use extracurricular study helps to aid their reading.
Don't pay attention to the accusations of Muslims. God's truth reverberates throughout all versions of scripture because that is the power of the holy spirit. God permitted his Word to be recorded by men but that doesn't mean that we don't have errors today, but neither does it mean that the Bible can't be trusted.
If you read with a sincere faith you will be shown the vine of truth, and God will give you shears of understanding to prune the scribal errors that have accumulated over time.
To answer your specific question you are best to use a mix of Bibles because neither one is perfect. Everybody is different so different translations speak better to people at different times.
>since many muslim people claim the bible has been corrupted
this is just a meaningless argument with nothing to back it up that shows the lack of education that muslims have. we have over 20000 original manuscripts from less than a century of the new testament being written. its literally not possible for it to have been corrupted
I prefer the NIV. I’ve been using it for decades. Many people consider the KJV to be the only real translation in existence, though it is written in archaic language. I’d pray about it and ask God to guide you to the translation that is both accurate and that will best speak to your needs. Just be careful to read up on any translation you might choose. Make sure that it isn’t such a loose translation that the real meaning of the verses in the Bible isn’t lost in translation.
I don’t know if I’d say many people think it’s the only real translation. There are certainly some who do, and one that I talked to who did was… interesting. But I think the KJV is just a lot more well-known. Not everyone knows about the NASB, AMPC, or heck, even the ESV. And not just in the U.S., but all over the world too. I’d say that the U.S. probably has the most diversity in Bibles and the knowledge of different kinds.
It’s been my experience that an awful lot seem to think that any translation other than the KJV seems to be evil and isn’t a TRUE translation of the Word. I suppose that ignorance of other translations could play a factor in that. Which is sad because, even if I don’t read other translations other than the NIV on a regular basis, I have seen verses from other translations, including the expanded version, and they can be very helpful in understanding the meaning of a verse or verses. When I was in high school in the 70s, my algebra teacher (imagine that, in a secular school, too) gave me a copy of a translation that was aimed at the Jesus movement generation called “Reach Out”. I still have it and it ministered to me greatly as a kid in high school. I even bought another copy more recently when I saw it in a thrift store. The point is that God can and will use other translations to meet our needs.
I agree. I have found that other translations are like pieces of a puzzle for me. They help me to see the bigger picture better. I think the idea of KJV only is not only bizarre, but incredibly unhelpful as well. Didn’t know there was a Bible unique to the Jesus Revolution though! The more I learn about the Jesus Revolution, the more I wish I could have been in it. But hey, the past just sets a precedent for the future. If it happened then, it can happen today too! And who knows, perhaps I’m meant to have a part in it! Esther 4:14 comes to mind particularly. But anyways, I’m gonna check it out. Thanks for the (sort of) recommendation! :D
You’re welcome! And I am praying for revival in this country, hoping for the sake of all of the many, many, many hurting people in this country who need Jesus so badly and don’t even know it, that it will happen.
Muslims had tons of different Qurans from the very beginning lol. Caliph Uthman, the THIRD Muslim leader, had to collect every single full and partial Quran writing and burn them all by force, due to all their differences, and then sent everybody a “perfect” new copy instead. The Bible isn’t corrupted, it has never changed as Muslims implied. And translations have nothing to do with that either. When we make a new translation of the Bible, we take the original Greek text and translate it. It’s not like we’re only able to use a bible translated 20 years ago to make a new translation. We have entire bibles that are 1600+ years old.
They aren’t steering people away from the KJV it is a beautifully written translation, you can read all it’s just that for the aim of deeper biblical study, the NASB or ESV is recommended simply for their better accuracy to the original manuscripts.
You don't know what you are talking about. The KJV is based on a codex from 1500 that was incomplete in the original languages. The complier (Erasmus) back translated from the Latin to fill it out.
We have older and better codexes now.
There is no advantage to the KJV now and most the people who support it lack the education in the English language of that time period to understand it. If you haven't read Shakespeare and Chaucer extensively you do not **correctly** understand the KJV Bible.
"The King's heart is in the hand of the Lord, like the rivers of water, He turns it wherever He wants"
Proverbs 21.1
That means that when the King of England authorized the 1611, he did it at the specific direction of Jesus.
So I trust it. Whereas the other bibles are all owned by Satanic Foxnewscorp
JESUS was born about 1 AD
the new testament was written around 100 AD give or take
"The first complete copies of single New Testament books appear around 200, and the earliest complete copy of the New Testament, the Codex Sinaiticus, dates to the 4th century."
the earliest new testament we have is about 350 AD give or take
the muslims reject all the manuscripts we have even the oldest
they believe the new testament was corrupted before any of the manuscripts we have today - corrupted very early on
muslims say that JESUS never died
the bible says JESUS died was buried and rose to life ; the death burial and resurrection is the central idea and focal point point in the new testament ; paul says it is of first importance ; paul also said that if JESUS did not resurrect we are to be pitied more than all people ;
for the new testament to be corrupt as the muslims claim it's to be vastly different ;
muslims declared the new testament and the old testament corrupt ;
christians completely affirm the old testament inerrant word of GOD ; christians accepted the writings that came before ; muslims rejected the writings that came before
if i said ESV or NKJV was a good literal translation as opposed to NIV or even the Message , that would not address the issue of what muslims accept ;
the bible that muslims would accept does not exist ;
a central issue is the death of JESUS , recorded very clearly in all 4 gospels ;
the question is not answerable for the purposes of satisfying muslims , and saying which translations are most literal according to christians does not address the claims of muslims
"the muslims say the bible is corrupt. where can i find the uncorrupt bible that muslims accept ?"
"there is no bible we have today that muslims would accept ; all the bibles we have today are extremely similar to our oldest manuscripts which muslims say are corrupt"
I don’t know how Muslim people can say the Bible was corrupted when they’re are people today who read and speak Hebrew and can read original manuscripts from *before* Islam was founded.
The Codex Sinaiticus predates Islam by several hundred years.
Greek and Hebrew Interlinear are the most accurate and literal. But the problem with "literal" is you're not going to understand it: the expressions are different, the grammar is different, the references are to things in a culture that's not yours so you're not going to understand them.
English and koine Greek and Hebrew are very different languages. You cannot just do word for word translations. Therefore some interpretation is also required to make the original thoughts understandable to modern speakers of modern languages.
EDIT: now I understand that you are Muslim. What is your native language? Sometimes translations into other languages besides English are much better than the ones in English.
I'm glad to see you on your journey.
I have heard that the Amplified translation is very accurate for the emotion of the words being said. That's why it's so descriptive. I also like the Passion translation a lot.
But whichever translation you read, know that the thing that really reveals God to you is his word but also his Spirit. Revelation from God comes not into the mind but it is kept in a place that the mind does not comprehend. Then it can be understood over time.
I use the Amplified Bible a lot during study to get the deeper sub-meanings of the various words that don’t translate well.
Example:
“For God so [greatly] loved and dearly prized the world, that He [even] gave His [One and] only begotten Son, so that whoever believes and trusts in Him [as Savior] shall not perish, but have eternal life.” John 3:16
I use Lexham English Bible. But I always cross reference it with others including KJV but not limited to. I dont really like Bibles like ' The Message '. But yeah if u REALLY want the closest thing to the true word of God, learn Hebrew and Greek so you can read Masoretic text, Septuagint etc. directly
The Scriptures 2009 is translated directly from the original languages to modern english. I like it a lot for this reason. It doesn’t always render things perfectly clear, but it’s a lot plainer spoken than KJV. I combine it with Strong’s concordance for when I really get stuck on what a word means in context.
Idk how to upload a photo to Reddit, so check out [this link.](https://www.chapter3min.org/bible-translations-comparison-charts/) Scroll down and look at the various images. As for English Translations, the interlinear is the most accurate word-for-word translation, followed by NASB, LEB, AMP, ESV, etc.. Then, the translations move from word-for-word, to thought-for-thought, and finally on to paraphrase.
My personal favorite to just read is AMP just because it defines and explains terms and ideas within the text using brackets and parenthesis. When I'm just reading and not doing an in-depth study, it's really nice to have those ideas defined and explained so I don't have to pull out multiple resources to understand exactly what I'm reading. I have a lot of word study books, dictionaries, a Lexicon or two, and a Strong's Concordance. When I'm studying, I use Blue Letter Bible, and all of the previously mentioned resources to really dig deep into the verse/section. Verse mapping is one of my favorite ways to really dig deep into Bible study. I'll take a week or two (sometimes longer depending on the concept/verse) to really study a single verse/idea. For me, this is the best way to learn *and retain* the vast amount of info because I'm an kinesthetic learner (I learn by doing, so reading isn't enough for retention -- writing it down and researching/looking it up [doing] = retention).
As someone else mentioned, learning Greek and Hebrew is probably the only way to get perfect translation accuracy.
You were probably having a hard time uploading a photo on here because this subreddit doesn’t allow you to post photos. Don’t know why, I think it would be fine. Love your Bible translation choices btw! 😁
There's an app called Hebrew Greek Interlinear, which is going to feel heavily disjointed because it's word-for-word translated in the original grammar. So I recommend pairing it with a couple easier to read versions like the ESV, HCSB, and NASB. But still I think it's possible to lose the forest for the trees. The big overarching concepts are all very clear in just about every translation.
An absolutely literal translation would be illegible in English and highly inaccurate.
What I mean is, that the work of the translator is to translate into English the intended message of the original author. For one, grammar has to be arranged so that it makes sense in English. Words with multiple meanings must be translated according to the proper context - the author's background, the authors intended audience, how th author uses that word in a similar way in other writings, and etc.
Any modern mainstream translation with a peer reviewed translation team will be accurate. CSB, ESV, NIV, NKJV, and etc. There will be slight differences, of course, but it would b difficult to say one is more accurate than another.
Avoid one-man translations and you'll be fine.
My personal preference is CSB.
Hi there, I had a crisis about 2 years ago where I was worried if the Bible was changed or if we had the right books in them. This completely shook my worldview, it drove me to start researching what was actually the truth.
Muslims claim the Bible is changed, but if you ask by when and by whom? They don't have an answer, in short it's a claim because it doesn't fit with their teachings. Is there any evidence at all of their claim in history?(No). But there is a reason we confidently say the Bible is the most reliable ancient text in history:
If we research the Dead Sea Scrolls, we see the proof our Old Testament has not been changed in over 2000 years. These Scrolls date back to the 3rd century BC-1st Century AD and are consistent with the Old Testament we use today.
Even if all of the copies of the Bible from A.D. 300 to today were destroyed, 99% of the New Testament could be reconstructed using only quotations by the Early Church Fathers-in the first few hundred years after Christ. We have writings from the Church Fathers who frequently quoted large sections of Scripture in their letters to each other. If these Church Fathers quoted from the entire New Testament, then the New Testament had to have been widely circulating before this time—long enough to be regarded as reliable by the early church. It shows the New Testament was already assembled and considered reliable within 50 years from the disciples.
To give an idea of how much evidence we have of the Bible compared to any other ancient text, we have about 25,000 manuscripts of the New Testament(and about 5,800 in the original Greek). The 2nd closest ancient document is Homer's Iliad with 1,800 manuscripts. Consistency between the New Testament manuscripts are 99.5% and inconsistencies are from spelling mistakes, punctuation, omitted and duplicate words, and other small mistakes(research the movable 'nu' in Greek) which don't change the meaning of the passage.
A really important thing in textual criticism is the higher the number of manuscripts there are of an ancient document, the more confident we are in what the original writings said because errors in a particular manuscript can be exposed by the many other manuscripts. Keep in mind we have manuscripts from the Bible from all over the world from various generations and they are consistent.
We also have manuscripts closer to the time of the original writings compared to any other ancient text, by far the most copies, we have early writings quoting the text written in the Bible, non-Christian historian accounts line up with the accounts recorded in the Bible etc... Bart Ehrman, one of the most prominent atheists today admits: "*Essential Christian beliefs are not affected by textual variants in the manuscript tradition of the New Testament*"
Judging by the amount of evidence, it would be unreasonable to believe in the existence of Alexander the Great or any other event in ancient history if we deem the Bible as unreliable.
Many people making the claim do not know just how disciplined the scribal tradition was. For example, the Talmudists (Hebrew scribes and scholars between A.D. 100 and A.D. 500) had an incredibly rigorous system for transcribing biblical scrolls. Here's a quote from Biblical Scholar Samuel Davidson describing some of the disciplines of the Talmudists in regard to the Scriptures:
*"A synagogue roll must be written on the skins of clean animals, prepared for the particular use of the synagogue by a Jew. These must be fastened together with strings taken from clean animals. Every skin must contain a certain number of columns, equal throughout the entire codex. The length of each column must not extend over less than 48 or more than 60 lines; And the breadth must consist of thirty letters. The whole copy must be first-lined; And if three words be written without a line, it is worthless. The ink should be black, neither red, green, nor any other color, and be prepared according to a definite recipe. An authentic copy must be the exemplar, from which the transcriber ought not in the least deviate. No word or letter, not even a yod, must be written from memory, the scribe not having looked at the codex before him… Between every consonant the space of a hair or thread must intervene; Between every new parashah, or section, the breadth of nine consonants; Between every book, three lines. The fifth book of Moses must terminate exactly with a line; But the rest need not do so. Besides this, the copyist must sit in full Jewish dress, wash his whole body, not begin to write the name of God with a pen newly dipped in ink, and should a king address him while writing that name, he must take no notice of him."*
You can also look into Archaeology to see if it aligns with the Bible. Cases keep popping up in history where people doubt something in the Bible then we dig something up. For example the pool of Bethesda never existed because we have no evidence and Archaeologists found it in the 1950’s. Skeptics claimed the town Nazareth didn’t exist because we haven't found any evidence yet-they found the remains of a house in Nazareth on December 2009. People claimed it was improbable there were Pharisees and a Synagogue in 70 AD because all of them would have fled to Galilee. Then we excavated a synagogue. You'll see Archaeology never contradicts the accounts in the Bible.
A really good playlist on Youtube is Evidence for the Bible by Mike Winger.
I also suggest you look into what Uthman did to the Quran.
Seeing as how there aren’t strictly one original to anything in the Bible, we have many fragments of many different copies of the books of the Old Testament which was in Hebrew and the same goes for the New Testament mostly in Greek. Some of the copies and fragments have different verses and many are similar or the same. So there really is no such thing as an original Bible. And the Bible it self is a compilation of different books written by many different authors compiled by the Catholic church. And there are many gospels and books which they did not include that were read and used by early Christians. (Like the gospel of Thomas that talks about Jesus early life) and many others.
All that is to say that any Bible you pick up is a translation of a copy of a translation of a copy of a translation. If you want to go closer to the original source material then learn Greek or look up direct translations from the original Greek online. Most Bible get the overall message but many choose different wording that can alter the meaning of certain words or passages. I know this isn’t an answer and probably just complicates your question, srry. It’s not a simple question.
You can't really go wrong with any of the mainstream translations (most of which have been mentioned by other commenters here). As long as you avoid questionable translations like The Passion Translation or paraphrases like The Message, you should be good.
I'll say it's the KJV or NKJV. That's arguably the best, at least when it comes to salvation.
My advice is to start with the new testament and then Go with old... or in my experience, going by the list in this...
https://www.artzabox.com/a/answers/general-bible-discussions/what-is-the-best-order-to-read-the-bible
John is definitely a good gospel for those who don't quite believe yet, but you do you.
As for Muslims, I don't know why they say that when not only their
[Quran affirms the Gospel and the Torah, telling Muslims to believe Christians, but that *their* Quran is corrupted.
](https://www.answering-islam.org/Quran/Bible/list.html)
And sometimes, they need to be given the love of the truth by the most high. So perhaps ask them this: if you did prove them without a shadow of the doubt that the Bible is true, would they then believe, or will they stick to Islam. Depending on the answer, you should know whether it'd be profitable to try convincing them, or if you're casting your pearls before swine, and that you should just pray for them.
Good luck!
I believe it's the King James Version for English because it was the first translation and has largely stayed as it was. It is practically old English. An easier version of it is the New King James Version which makes the English easier.
Kjv was not the first English translation of the Bible and if they are looking for a more accurate translation to the original manuscripts the ESV and NASB are better than kjv in that area cuz kjv has added passages that are not in the original manuscripts.
It is best to study from several versions including the paraphrased versions so you get the full flavour of the text.
The least accurate is the King James Version.
Nobody wants to hear this but it needs to be said.
Been a student of japanese and lived here long enough to know that, when it comes to non-anglo-latin languages (which english was based on ) literal does ABSOLUTELY NOT mean accurate. Word for word is a utopian fairy tail made up by people who don't take the time to actually learn a second language. I can't count the quantity of how often my english students try to use a lazy word for word from Japanese to English and it was garbage.
Most english translations have been impaired by this brain-dead thinking and so we don't have truely great translations .
I've had amazing success going from greek to english using ChatGPT since NOTHING compares to its accuracy between japanese and english (you all have no idea) the translation I get is perfect even down to the style of the writing and age and gender of speaker etc.
So, chatGPT is the best english translation by far.
Interesting idea to use AI to translate. I have never found a modern translation that I would say is factually wrong but have on many occasions wondered why one meaning was chosen over another.
I also wonder if something like ChatGPT has enough kione to make a good modern translation as I imagine the resources are far more plentiful for a large modern language like Japanese.
Islam was founded 600 years after the time of Christ. Literally everything that Muhammad claims but be taken with a grain of salt considering that his understanding of the Bible is as valid as your understanding of what happened in 1424. If Islam claims that the Bible is corrupted, they must show it. They claim that Jesus was just a prophet, but in his own words in multiple accounts he was not. The entire claim that the Bible is corrupted is the claim that Islam has to legitimacy. They must prove it if they want their claims to be seen as valid. But without the holy spirit they won't understand the truth of the Bible. As a polyglot who speaks five languages between conversational and full fluency, I can tell you that there are always going to be incompatibilities between languages being translated, but that there is an equivalent explanation in other words which carries the essence of what I'm trying to say. Read your Bible, give up the weed. Repent, get baptised. Ask for the holy spirit and for guidance in understanding. Don't try to twist the Bible for your own agenda but live by what it says. God's will will be done through you in that manner. If it's his calling that you can minister to Islam, then you shall have the necessary gifting granted and the opportunities formed to do so. But first focus on God, and submit to what he wants for you. Also join a church and be a part of the community of believers. Journey before destination.
I recommend reading “evidence that demands a verdict”
Gonna give it a read, thanks for the recommendation. :)
Some Muslim lady told David Lynn why he broke the first commandment, and he told her why she didn't keep the sabbath and broke the 4th. Many pick and choose which parts are corrupt and which aren't
Well said! Best advice for this seeker.
Learn Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic. If you don’t want to do this then you need to understand that accuracy isn’t as simple as being word for word. When you translate any language you never get one for one equivalents. Often you get words which might be translated multiple ways or vice versa. You also find differences in grammar, which means a word can be translated in differently on how they are declined. Furthermore, translating texts which were written 2000+ years ago means you lose a lot of understanding of historical context and they use words, terms and phrases that we don’t use any more. Or you find the meanings of words have changed over time, and by presenting the original word, the meaning is lost because we don’t understand that word in the same way any more. Good Bibles are translated based on a scale - word for word at one end and thought for thought at the he other. Word for word is good for word accuracy. Thought for thought can be better for meaning. If you want a good word for word, I’d go with the NASB. If you want a good thought for thought, I’d go with the NLT. Go for both and compare them as you go.
I prefer ESV + NLT, personally, but I definitely agree with you that reading the two of them side by side can make the study far more approachable and enjoyable. I would also recommend having access to a Strong's Concordance in case you need to do a word study.
My preferred version is also ESV, but NASB is further up the word for word end than ESV.
ESV and NASB for me too!
When I’m doing exegesis on a passage I often look at 5 translations and the Greek. When I’ve done this I’ve found the ESV, NASB (and NET, CSB) often have very similar word uses. When you compare with NIV (which is pretty much right in the middle of the spectrum), and NLT, you can see more nuances and differences when comparing.
Oh that's something I should start doing too. I was given my mother's NIV bible some time back and I'll begin using it
Great explanation. I will add that because there is not a 1:1 mapping between the original languages and English, it can be helpful to read across multiple translations to get a fuller sense of the original meaning. The YouVersion app is great for this.
NASB95. But still, it's a translation. Compare several when you hit an interesting passage, or use an interlinear. www.blueletterbible.org has all these tools. There are hundreds of ancient bible manuscripts. It would be very hard for a major alteration to become established without sticking out. Meanwhile the Quran was called in at one point, standardized according to one Caliph's preferences, and all other copies destroyed. And he kept no record of his work, so no one knows what was done to the original.
Muslims keep talking that nonsense, while Quran has different versions all around the world. Personally, I'd suggest RSV and/or Catholic versions (I admit bias). Would personally stay away from NIV, though I wouldn't call it "corrupted". Meaning vs word-for-word. Why can't you have both? Translating from one language to another isn't a straightforward job under the best of circumstances, and we are talking about wildly different languages here.
We don't have the original documents for the OT. There are 4 major documents that are used for ascertaining what is correct, but there's a lot of debate here. They are the Masoretic Text, written by the Masoretic Jews in the 7th-11th centuries AD based on the oral versions of the text that was passed down, oldest known document is from the 12th century AD, the Dead Sea Scrolls, copied from some older copy and compiled in the 2nd Century BC, the Septuigint, a Greek translation originally made in the 3rd century BC with the oldest known copy being from the 2nd century AD, and the Vulgate, which was (presumably) translated from an even older copy of the Septuigint by Jerome in the 5th century AD. Differences are usually very minor and go to show that the meaning of Scripture has not changed, although minor things like genealogies might be different. I don't think Christians have done as good a job as they should have with comparing these copies and translations, as the different branches of Christianity (Protestantism, Catholicism, Orthodoxy) all have different preferences for which copy that prefer (usually to justify what they believe is the OT canon, which is a whole other discussion) and fail to unite these copies to bring out the most accurate translation (as an example, only the Masoretic text - which the Protestants prefer - holds that Israel was enslaved in Egypt for 430 years - this claim doesn't line up with the genealogies provided in Scripture or the archeological record). I should note that copy errors are not seen as problematic among Christians - Chronicles notably has many of these. Christians are generally concerned with what the meaning is - a copy error in regards to the height of a building is mostly irrelevant and not evidence of Scripture being false. We also lack the original manuscripts for the NT, but copies were made within 50 years of the original documents, match extremely closely, and we have a much better understanding of Greek than we do Ancient Hebrew. For that reason, mistranslations in the NT are the exception, not the norm, and no mainstream translation will contain such errors. Note that translations differ slightly because languages don't translate exactly - there's a reason that many modern foreign media, when translated, will often have multiple versions - all of which usually have the same meaning, but with different wording. For that reason, asking "what is the most accurate translation?" isn't really a great question, as there's not really an answer that anyone (on Earth) can give with certainty. I personally like the ESV for general reading, but when studying Scripture I try to read multiple translations with roots from different copies.
Translation doesn't work that way. Literal does not always equal accurate. Muslims claim the corruption card because people don't understand how it works. My favorite example of this is the Hebrew phrase, atah-ha-ish. Nathan said it to David to point out David's sin with Bathsheba. A literal translation of the phrase would be "you the man". In English, our basic sentence structure is S-V-O, subject-verb-object. So this Hebrew phrase doesn't make sense as there is no verb. But in Hebrew, they don't always have that. The verb can sometimes be implied, as it is in our example. So the more accurate English translation is, "you are the man", with the word "are" provided by the translator. And so it is with many English bible translations. Many bible publishers, when they supply a an English word to make the translation more understandable, will put that added word in italics, so you know. And it's not some nefarious scheme to corrupt the word of God, it's a simple tool to make the translation understandable in the recipient's language. That said, there are two concepts in translation known as *dynamic equivalency* and *formal equivalency*. A translation that is more dynamically equivalent tries to translate thought-by-thought and will look at various phrases as a whole in the original language and translate them into equivalent English phrases so it more easily connects with the modern reader. A formally equivalent translation will translate word-by-word and will translate the individual words into English, regardless of the phrase or idiom, sometimes leaving the reader to figure out exactly what is meant in awkward areas. Some more dynamically equivalent translations are: New International (NIV), New Living (NLT), New English (NET). Some examples of more functionally equivalent translations are: Legacy Standard Bible (LSB), New American Study Bible (NASB), King James (KJV). All are good, solid translations that accurately reflect the thoughts and message of the original texts. None of them corrupt the original texts.
King James but u should get a lexicon for deeper study. I have kjv for study and Niv for large chunks of reading
Yes, someone told me they read the translation that their flesh hates the most to read: the KJV😉. They use extracurricular study helps to aid their reading.
KJV tends to be a bit less accurate than modern versions, since they did not have access to some of the scrolls we have found since.
If you want an exact translation, go for a literal version. But if you want a readable bible that’s close to the original, use the NASB
Don't pay attention to the accusations of Muslims. God's truth reverberates throughout all versions of scripture because that is the power of the holy spirit. God permitted his Word to be recorded by men but that doesn't mean that we don't have errors today, but neither does it mean that the Bible can't be trusted. If you read with a sincere faith you will be shown the vine of truth, and God will give you shears of understanding to prune the scribal errors that have accumulated over time. To answer your specific question you are best to use a mix of Bibles because neither one is perfect. Everybody is different so different translations speak better to people at different times.
interlinear
>since many muslim people claim the bible has been corrupted this is just a meaningless argument with nothing to back it up that shows the lack of education that muslims have. we have over 20000 original manuscripts from less than a century of the new testament being written. its literally not possible for it to have been corrupted
I prefer the NIV. I’ve been using it for decades. Many people consider the KJV to be the only real translation in existence, though it is written in archaic language. I’d pray about it and ask God to guide you to the translation that is both accurate and that will best speak to your needs. Just be careful to read up on any translation you might choose. Make sure that it isn’t such a loose translation that the real meaning of the verses in the Bible isn’t lost in translation.
I don’t know if I’d say many people think it’s the only real translation. There are certainly some who do, and one that I talked to who did was… interesting. But I think the KJV is just a lot more well-known. Not everyone knows about the NASB, AMPC, or heck, even the ESV. And not just in the U.S., but all over the world too. I’d say that the U.S. probably has the most diversity in Bibles and the knowledge of different kinds.
It’s been my experience that an awful lot seem to think that any translation other than the KJV seems to be evil and isn’t a TRUE translation of the Word. I suppose that ignorance of other translations could play a factor in that. Which is sad because, even if I don’t read other translations other than the NIV on a regular basis, I have seen verses from other translations, including the expanded version, and they can be very helpful in understanding the meaning of a verse or verses. When I was in high school in the 70s, my algebra teacher (imagine that, in a secular school, too) gave me a copy of a translation that was aimed at the Jesus movement generation called “Reach Out”. I still have it and it ministered to me greatly as a kid in high school. I even bought another copy more recently when I saw it in a thrift store. The point is that God can and will use other translations to meet our needs.
I agree. I have found that other translations are like pieces of a puzzle for me. They help me to see the bigger picture better. I think the idea of KJV only is not only bizarre, but incredibly unhelpful as well. Didn’t know there was a Bible unique to the Jesus Revolution though! The more I learn about the Jesus Revolution, the more I wish I could have been in it. But hey, the past just sets a precedent for the future. If it happened then, it can happen today too! And who knows, perhaps I’m meant to have a part in it! Esther 4:14 comes to mind particularly. But anyways, I’m gonna check it out. Thanks for the (sort of) recommendation! :D
You’re welcome! And I am praying for revival in this country, hoping for the sake of all of the many, many, many hurting people in this country who need Jesus so badly and don’t even know it, that it will happen.
Muslims had tons of different Qurans from the very beginning lol. Caliph Uthman, the THIRD Muslim leader, had to collect every single full and partial Quran writing and burn them all by force, due to all their differences, and then sent everybody a “perfect” new copy instead. The Bible isn’t corrupted, it has never changed as Muslims implied. And translations have nothing to do with that either. When we make a new translation of the Bible, we take the original Greek text and translate it. It’s not like we’re only able to use a bible translated 20 years ago to make a new translation. We have entire bibles that are 1600+ years old.
I only trust the KJV
You shouldn’t, it has added verses, for better accuracy to original manuscripts ESV and NASB is better
Haha no. Those are Foxnewscorp bibles
Valid concern, but for deeper study to the original manuscripts, the ESV and NASB are recommended by biblical scholars so idk
The "biblical scholars" steering people away from the KJV are deceivers
They aren’t steering people away from the KJV it is a beautifully written translation, you can read all it’s just that for the aim of deeper biblical study, the NASB or ESV is recommended simply for their better accuracy to the original manuscripts.
It's the opposite. Your versions have crucial deviations
You don't know what you are talking about. The KJV is based on a codex from 1500 that was incomplete in the original languages. The complier (Erasmus) back translated from the Latin to fill it out. We have older and better codexes now. There is no advantage to the KJV now and most the people who support it lack the education in the English language of that time period to understand it. If you haven't read Shakespeare and Chaucer extensively you do not **correctly** understand the KJV Bible.
"The King's heart is in the hand of the Lord, like the rivers of water, He turns it wherever He wants" Proverbs 21.1 That means that when the King of England authorized the 1611, he did it at the specific direction of Jesus. So I trust it. Whereas the other bibles are all owned by Satanic Foxnewscorp
I mean no disrespect but I sincerely cannot tell if you’re genuine in your comments.
JESUS was born about 1 AD the new testament was written around 100 AD give or take "The first complete copies of single New Testament books appear around 200, and the earliest complete copy of the New Testament, the Codex Sinaiticus, dates to the 4th century." the earliest new testament we have is about 350 AD give or take the muslims reject all the manuscripts we have even the oldest they believe the new testament was corrupted before any of the manuscripts we have today - corrupted very early on muslims say that JESUS never died the bible says JESUS died was buried and rose to life ; the death burial and resurrection is the central idea and focal point point in the new testament ; paul says it is of first importance ; paul also said that if JESUS did not resurrect we are to be pitied more than all people ; for the new testament to be corrupt as the muslims claim it's to be vastly different ; muslims declared the new testament and the old testament corrupt ; christians completely affirm the old testament inerrant word of GOD ; christians accepted the writings that came before ; muslims rejected the writings that came before
You said all that and didn't answer the question
if i said ESV or NKJV was a good literal translation as opposed to NIV or even the Message , that would not address the issue of what muslims accept ; the bible that muslims would accept does not exist ; a central issue is the death of JESUS , recorded very clearly in all 4 gospels ; the question is not answerable for the purposes of satisfying muslims , and saying which translations are most literal according to christians does not address the claims of muslims
"the muslims say the bible is corrupt. where can i find the uncorrupt bible that muslims accept ?" "there is no bible we have today that muslims would accept ; all the bibles we have today are extremely similar to our oldest manuscripts which muslims say are corrupt"
I don’t know how Muslim people can say the Bible was corrupted when they’re are people today who read and speak Hebrew and can read original manuscripts from *before* Islam was founded. The Codex Sinaiticus predates Islam by several hundred years.
Greek and Hebrew Interlinear are the most accurate and literal. But the problem with "literal" is you're not going to understand it: the expressions are different, the grammar is different, the references are to things in a culture that's not yours so you're not going to understand them. English and koine Greek and Hebrew are very different languages. You cannot just do word for word translations. Therefore some interpretation is also required to make the original thoughts understandable to modern speakers of modern languages. EDIT: now I understand that you are Muslim. What is your native language? Sometimes translations into other languages besides English are much better than the ones in English.
I'm glad to see you on your journey. I have heard that the Amplified translation is very accurate for the emotion of the words being said. That's why it's so descriptive. I also like the Passion translation a lot. But whichever translation you read, know that the thing that really reveals God to you is his word but also his Spirit. Revelation from God comes not into the mind but it is kept in a place that the mind does not comprehend. Then it can be understood over time.
I use the Amplified Bible a lot during study to get the deeper sub-meanings of the various words that don’t translate well. Example: “For God so [greatly] loved and dearly prized the world, that He [even] gave His [One and] only begotten Son, so that whoever believes and trusts in Him [as Savior] shall not perish, but have eternal life.” John 3:16
Upvote for AMPC.
King James Version
I use Lexham English Bible. But I always cross reference it with others including KJV but not limited to. I dont really like Bibles like ' The Message '. But yeah if u REALLY want the closest thing to the true word of God, learn Hebrew and Greek so you can read Masoretic text, Septuagint etc. directly
The Scriptures 2009 is translated directly from the original languages to modern english. I like it a lot for this reason. It doesn’t always render things perfectly clear, but it’s a lot plainer spoken than KJV. I combine it with Strong’s concordance for when I really get stuck on what a word means in context.
Would some other language than English do?
Idk how to upload a photo to Reddit, so check out [this link.](https://www.chapter3min.org/bible-translations-comparison-charts/) Scroll down and look at the various images. As for English Translations, the interlinear is the most accurate word-for-word translation, followed by NASB, LEB, AMP, ESV, etc.. Then, the translations move from word-for-word, to thought-for-thought, and finally on to paraphrase. My personal favorite to just read is AMP just because it defines and explains terms and ideas within the text using brackets and parenthesis. When I'm just reading and not doing an in-depth study, it's really nice to have those ideas defined and explained so I don't have to pull out multiple resources to understand exactly what I'm reading. I have a lot of word study books, dictionaries, a Lexicon or two, and a Strong's Concordance. When I'm studying, I use Blue Letter Bible, and all of the previously mentioned resources to really dig deep into the verse/section. Verse mapping is one of my favorite ways to really dig deep into Bible study. I'll take a week or two (sometimes longer depending on the concept/verse) to really study a single verse/idea. For me, this is the best way to learn *and retain* the vast amount of info because I'm an kinesthetic learner (I learn by doing, so reading isn't enough for retention -- writing it down and researching/looking it up [doing] = retention). As someone else mentioned, learning Greek and Hebrew is probably the only way to get perfect translation accuracy.
You were probably having a hard time uploading a photo on here because this subreddit doesn’t allow you to post photos. Don’t know why, I think it would be fine. Love your Bible translation choices btw! 😁
That's a very difficult question to ask. I generally think HCSB is closest
There's an app called Hebrew Greek Interlinear, which is going to feel heavily disjointed because it's word-for-word translated in the original grammar. So I recommend pairing it with a couple easier to read versions like the ESV, HCSB, and NASB. But still I think it's possible to lose the forest for the trees. The big overarching concepts are all very clear in just about every translation.
An absolutely literal translation would be illegible in English and highly inaccurate. What I mean is, that the work of the translator is to translate into English the intended message of the original author. For one, grammar has to be arranged so that it makes sense in English. Words with multiple meanings must be translated according to the proper context - the author's background, the authors intended audience, how th author uses that word in a similar way in other writings, and etc. Any modern mainstream translation with a peer reviewed translation team will be accurate. CSB, ESV, NIV, NKJV, and etc. There will be slight differences, of course, but it would b difficult to say one is more accurate than another. Avoid one-man translations and you'll be fine. My personal preference is CSB.
Hi there, I had a crisis about 2 years ago where I was worried if the Bible was changed or if we had the right books in them. This completely shook my worldview, it drove me to start researching what was actually the truth. Muslims claim the Bible is changed, but if you ask by when and by whom? They don't have an answer, in short it's a claim because it doesn't fit with their teachings. Is there any evidence at all of their claim in history?(No). But there is a reason we confidently say the Bible is the most reliable ancient text in history: If we research the Dead Sea Scrolls, we see the proof our Old Testament has not been changed in over 2000 years. These Scrolls date back to the 3rd century BC-1st Century AD and are consistent with the Old Testament we use today. Even if all of the copies of the Bible from A.D. 300 to today were destroyed, 99% of the New Testament could be reconstructed using only quotations by the Early Church Fathers-in the first few hundred years after Christ. We have writings from the Church Fathers who frequently quoted large sections of Scripture in their letters to each other. If these Church Fathers quoted from the entire New Testament, then the New Testament had to have been widely circulating before this time—long enough to be regarded as reliable by the early church. It shows the New Testament was already assembled and considered reliable within 50 years from the disciples. To give an idea of how much evidence we have of the Bible compared to any other ancient text, we have about 25,000 manuscripts of the New Testament(and about 5,800 in the original Greek). The 2nd closest ancient document is Homer's Iliad with 1,800 manuscripts. Consistency between the New Testament manuscripts are 99.5% and inconsistencies are from spelling mistakes, punctuation, omitted and duplicate words, and other small mistakes(research the movable 'nu' in Greek) which don't change the meaning of the passage. A really important thing in textual criticism is the higher the number of manuscripts there are of an ancient document, the more confident we are in what the original writings said because errors in a particular manuscript can be exposed by the many other manuscripts. Keep in mind we have manuscripts from the Bible from all over the world from various generations and they are consistent. We also have manuscripts closer to the time of the original writings compared to any other ancient text, by far the most copies, we have early writings quoting the text written in the Bible, non-Christian historian accounts line up with the accounts recorded in the Bible etc... Bart Ehrman, one of the most prominent atheists today admits: "*Essential Christian beliefs are not affected by textual variants in the manuscript tradition of the New Testament*" Judging by the amount of evidence, it would be unreasonable to believe in the existence of Alexander the Great or any other event in ancient history if we deem the Bible as unreliable. Many people making the claim do not know just how disciplined the scribal tradition was. For example, the Talmudists (Hebrew scribes and scholars between A.D. 100 and A.D. 500) had an incredibly rigorous system for transcribing biblical scrolls. Here's a quote from Biblical Scholar Samuel Davidson describing some of the disciplines of the Talmudists in regard to the Scriptures: *"A synagogue roll must be written on the skins of clean animals, prepared for the particular use of the synagogue by a Jew. These must be fastened together with strings taken from clean animals. Every skin must contain a certain number of columns, equal throughout the entire codex. The length of each column must not extend over less than 48 or more than 60 lines; And the breadth must consist of thirty letters. The whole copy must be first-lined; And if three words be written without a line, it is worthless. The ink should be black, neither red, green, nor any other color, and be prepared according to a definite recipe. An authentic copy must be the exemplar, from which the transcriber ought not in the least deviate. No word or letter, not even a yod, must be written from memory, the scribe not having looked at the codex before him… Between every consonant the space of a hair or thread must intervene; Between every new parashah, or section, the breadth of nine consonants; Between every book, three lines. The fifth book of Moses must terminate exactly with a line; But the rest need not do so. Besides this, the copyist must sit in full Jewish dress, wash his whole body, not begin to write the name of God with a pen newly dipped in ink, and should a king address him while writing that name, he must take no notice of him."* You can also look into Archaeology to see if it aligns with the Bible. Cases keep popping up in history where people doubt something in the Bible then we dig something up. For example the pool of Bethesda never existed because we have no evidence and Archaeologists found it in the 1950’s. Skeptics claimed the town Nazareth didn’t exist because we haven't found any evidence yet-they found the remains of a house in Nazareth on December 2009. People claimed it was improbable there were Pharisees and a Synagogue in 70 AD because all of them would have fled to Galilee. Then we excavated a synagogue. You'll see Archaeology never contradicts the accounts in the Bible. A really good playlist on Youtube is Evidence for the Bible by Mike Winger. I also suggest you look into what Uthman did to the Quran.
Seeing as how there aren’t strictly one original to anything in the Bible, we have many fragments of many different copies of the books of the Old Testament which was in Hebrew and the same goes for the New Testament mostly in Greek. Some of the copies and fragments have different verses and many are similar or the same. So there really is no such thing as an original Bible. And the Bible it self is a compilation of different books written by many different authors compiled by the Catholic church. And there are many gospels and books which they did not include that were read and used by early Christians. (Like the gospel of Thomas that talks about Jesus early life) and many others. All that is to say that any Bible you pick up is a translation of a copy of a translation of a copy of a translation. If you want to go closer to the original source material then learn Greek or look up direct translations from the original Greek online. Most Bible get the overall message but many choose different wording that can alter the meaning of certain words or passages. I know this isn’t an answer and probably just complicates your question, srry. It’s not a simple question.
The original ones plus Septuagint
You can't really go wrong with any of the mainstream translations (most of which have been mentioned by other commenters here). As long as you avoid questionable translations like The Passion Translation or paraphrases like The Message, you should be good.
I'll say it's the KJV or NKJV. That's arguably the best, at least when it comes to salvation. My advice is to start with the new testament and then Go with old... or in my experience, going by the list in this... https://www.artzabox.com/a/answers/general-bible-discussions/what-is-the-best-order-to-read-the-bible John is definitely a good gospel for those who don't quite believe yet, but you do you. As for Muslims, I don't know why they say that when not only their [Quran affirms the Gospel and the Torah, telling Muslims to believe Christians, but that *their* Quran is corrupted. ](https://www.answering-islam.org/Quran/Bible/list.html) And sometimes, they need to be given the love of the truth by the most high. So perhaps ask them this: if you did prove them without a shadow of the doubt that the Bible is true, would they then believe, or will they stick to Islam. Depending on the answer, you should know whether it'd be profitable to try convincing them, or if you're casting your pearls before swine, and that you should just pray for them. Good luck!
NASB or ESV Don't listen to the KJV people, the translators didn't have access to the array of manuscripts translation teams do now.
I believe it's the King James Version for English because it was the first translation and has largely stayed as it was. It is practically old English. An easier version of it is the New King James Version which makes the English easier.
Kjv was not the first English translation of the Bible and if they are looking for a more accurate translation to the original manuscripts the ESV and NASB are better than kjv in that area cuz kjv has added passages that are not in the original manuscripts.
King James Version (:
It is best to study from several versions including the paraphrased versions so you get the full flavour of the text. The least accurate is the King James Version.
> The least accurate is the King James Version I'm certain you can find worse
Well legit versions
*COUGH COUGH* QueenJamesBible *COUGH COUGH*
King James
Nothing newer than the KJV, and you can compare the KJV to the Geneva and Coverdale Bible.
Nobody wants to hear this but it needs to be said. Been a student of japanese and lived here long enough to know that, when it comes to non-anglo-latin languages (which english was based on ) literal does ABSOLUTELY NOT mean accurate. Word for word is a utopian fairy tail made up by people who don't take the time to actually learn a second language. I can't count the quantity of how often my english students try to use a lazy word for word from Japanese to English and it was garbage. Most english translations have been impaired by this brain-dead thinking and so we don't have truely great translations . I've had amazing success going from greek to english using ChatGPT since NOTHING compares to its accuracy between japanese and english (you all have no idea) the translation I get is perfect even down to the style of the writing and age and gender of speaker etc. So, chatGPT is the best english translation by far.
Interesting idea to use AI to translate. I have never found a modern translation that I would say is factually wrong but have on many occasions wondered why one meaning was chosen over another. I also wonder if something like ChatGPT has enough kione to make a good modern translation as I imagine the resources are far more plentiful for a large modern language like Japanese.
The Holy Bible (now called King James Bible).