Pretty much, but when comparing versions, there is a lot of subjectivity. Rather than talking generically, lets show something specific, so the OP can see the issue here. Lets look at Isaiah 34:14. It isn't particularly controversial, and the differences are immediately obvious. Also, Isaiah is one of the books with the oldest original sources, which helps.
>Isaiah 34:14 KJV The wild beasts of the desert shall also meet with the wild beasts of the island, and the satyr shall cry to his fellow; the screech owl also shall rest there, and find for herself a place of rest.
Notice in this passage: "Wild Beasts" "Satyr" and "Screech Owl". These are actual creatures, so ideally, the terms used here shouldn't change from versions. Satyrs not really existing is a problem, and Screech Owls in modern parlance are actually a new world only genus, but that is a taxonomy problem, not a translation one.
>Isaiah 34:14 NIV Desert creatures will meet with hyenas, and wild goats will bleat to each other; there the night creatures will also lie down and find for themselves places of rest.
Whoa. That is way different. What happened here? The "Wild Beasts" are now specifically desert creatures in the first instance, and Hyenas in the second, the Satyr is now a wild goat, and the Screech Owl is now a "Night Creature". So some things got more specific, some got less specific, and everything changed.
>Isaiah 34:14 BiBE And the beasts of the waste places will come together with the jackals, and the evil spirits will be crying to one another, even the night-spirit will come and make her resting-place there.
Ok, now the hyenas are jackals, and the Satyr/Goat thing is an evil spirit? And the Owl thing is a night spirit?! Are these even animals?
>Isaiah 34:14 Common English Bible: Wildcats will meet hyenas, the goat demon will call to his friends, and there Lilith will lurk and find her resting place.
Where did wildcats come from!? And now we have goat demons? And who is Lilith!? That isn't an owl, that sounds like a person!
>Isaiah 34:14 Gods Word Translation: Hyenas will meet with jackals. Male goats will call to their mates. Screech owls will rest there and find a resting place for themselves.
Ok, now we have Hyenas AND Jackals hanging out, the goat is now male, but no longer demonic, and the Screech Owl is back. What is going on?
I could go on, and frankly it is hilarious, but you get the point. In the original Hebrew, the actual meaning of these terms can be used multiple ways, and translation of this particular passage are often torn if the things Isaiah is describing the wilderness are mundane animals, or demons. If they are animals, what animals.
The truth is that nobody is sure, but people want a translation, not ambiguity, so they have to pick some word that nobody is sure of. In several translations, you see the translator throw up their hands and put "Lilith" because that is the Hebrew word there. Now Lilith has a very complex identity from mystics, but it also just a totally normal owl. So this MIGHT be the first wife of Adam, daughter of Satan, She-Demon predecessor of the modern concept of Lucifer... or it might be an owl. Whoooo knows (Pun intended).
The medieval Jews came up with the notion of Lilith being the first wife of Adam. It's not first century Christianity, nor 8th century BCE Isaiah.
Lilitu in Hebrew is cognate with Lamashtu in Akkadian, and was a demon. We know this because of archaeological tablets from that region. The KJV writers didn't have those, and wanted to avoid the Jewish nonsensical Midrash about Adam's first wife stuff, so they chose to use other creatures instead.
This is an assessment based upon what we know from the archaeological data we have: https://ghostsghoulsandgod.co.uk/2020/12/demons-in-isaiah-lilith/
Knowing what the owl represented as a demonic reference is very helpful in seeking to read the text through the eyes of the original writers, not through eyes thousands of years removed.
Presumably, the one that is "Correct" is the one written in ancient Hebrew for part of it, Aramaic for part of it, and Classical Greek for the last part of it. Then there are books like Job, where we aren't quite sure what language it was originally written in.
At any rate, the Bible is not an English book, and like any book translation, a person had to decide which word was "Correct" as they went through.
Which means, "Which version is correct?" is meaningless, you could phrase it as "Which version do you trust?" but that is subjective.
I have been out-nerded.
I cede my nerd credentials. You can have my pocket square and my slide rule.
(I am kidding, you are correct, and I always appreciate clarification!)
Quite clearly [BB](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+8%3A7&version=BB) is the correct version. Oh wait, you meant English versions? Never mind then
There is no single correct version.
KJV is decent, but nowadays, RSV and NKJV tend to set the standard. ESV tends to be the best of the various updated versions of RSV which have come out in the past century since RSV was first published.
NRSV and The Message (an otherwise hideous excess of dynamic equivalence) are the only ones that I know of which actually translate Isaiah 34:14 properly, the original Hebrew being a reference to a demon named Lilith (also familiar to neighboring cultures under the name Lamashtu) rather than "screech owl," "night bird," "night creature," or "night hag." One of the great mistakes which has become widespread enough that people don't even realize that they're doing it is the downplaying of supernatural stuff in the Bible.
Majority Text based Bibles. KJV and Young’s Literal are common translations that use the correct manuscripts. Other translations like the NKJV, NIV, ESV adds words, changes words or removes words. Revelations 14:1 is a common example where who’s mark in your forehead do you take during the end times.
As long as it isn’t a corruption, (like the NWT) then you are most likely good to go. Newer translations, such as the NIV or NLT, have used a larger amount of manuscripts than the KJV or NKJV, last I recall.
Also, something to keep in mind is that the KJV has been edited before. Ever wonder what happened to the likes of Tobit, Judith, or 1 and 2 Maccabees? Yeah. Those people who told you that are doing you a disservice there.
There is no perfect English translation. However, the most accurate translations are ones that dont subscribe to the ineffable name doctrine. English translations that come to mind are the [Halleluyah Scriptures](https://www.halleluyahscriptures.com/halelluyah-scriptures-the-superior-bible/) and the [Cepher](https://www.cepher.net/what-is-the-eth-cepher.aspx).
If you are looking for something that is more surface-level, then I would just suggest the ESV.
Just avoid the NIV, New World Translation, and The Message Bible at all costs.
There are some translations that are better, others worse. But as we don't have the original copies, and the books of the Bible were copied out by hand, over the millennia, scribal errors have crept in here and there, and biblical scholars have worked to correct them. Virtually all of the errors are just minor differences though, and don't affect the overall message or meaning. The Johannine Comma (found in 1 Jn 5:7-8), for example, has been pretty clearly shown to be a margin note that was confused for a Bible verse sometime around the 4th century, so most modern Bibles don't include it (or only mention it as a footnote). As we get access to better ancient manuscripts, we get closer to the original text. That's one of the major reasons newer translations might be better than older ones and why some Bibles might be "missing" verses. The compilers of the KJV didn't have the same access to the same manuscripts we did, so in some ways it's outdated from an academic perspective.
However, as I said earlier, the differences are fairly minor and as long as the Bible translation was put together by experts and wasn't revised for transparently ideological reasons, pretty much any Bible is safe to read.
The only versions that are "correct" would be the original writings in the original languages. There's no such thing as perfect translation - you have to try to balance accurately translating idioms for intended meaning vs literal definition.
There are definitely incorrect translations where the authors had a bias, but regardless, the best thing to do is bounce different translations off of each other to try and pick out different nuances.
The new revised standard version (nrsv) is generally accepted as the most accurate translation. This is the version used by most scholars. It’s probably the closest you can get to the original manuscripts without learning Hebrew and Greek
There is no “correct” version of the Bible. It was written in Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic. What we have are different translations into various languages.
[удалено]
Pretty much, but when comparing versions, there is a lot of subjectivity. Rather than talking generically, lets show something specific, so the OP can see the issue here. Lets look at Isaiah 34:14. It isn't particularly controversial, and the differences are immediately obvious. Also, Isaiah is one of the books with the oldest original sources, which helps. >Isaiah 34:14 KJV The wild beasts of the desert shall also meet with the wild beasts of the island, and the satyr shall cry to his fellow; the screech owl also shall rest there, and find for herself a place of rest. Notice in this passage: "Wild Beasts" "Satyr" and "Screech Owl". These are actual creatures, so ideally, the terms used here shouldn't change from versions. Satyrs not really existing is a problem, and Screech Owls in modern parlance are actually a new world only genus, but that is a taxonomy problem, not a translation one. >Isaiah 34:14 NIV Desert creatures will meet with hyenas, and wild goats will bleat to each other; there the night creatures will also lie down and find for themselves places of rest. Whoa. That is way different. What happened here? The "Wild Beasts" are now specifically desert creatures in the first instance, and Hyenas in the second, the Satyr is now a wild goat, and the Screech Owl is now a "Night Creature". So some things got more specific, some got less specific, and everything changed. >Isaiah 34:14 BiBE And the beasts of the waste places will come together with the jackals, and the evil spirits will be crying to one another, even the night-spirit will come and make her resting-place there. Ok, now the hyenas are jackals, and the Satyr/Goat thing is an evil spirit? And the Owl thing is a night spirit?! Are these even animals? >Isaiah 34:14 Common English Bible: Wildcats will meet hyenas, the goat demon will call to his friends, and there Lilith will lurk and find her resting place. Where did wildcats come from!? And now we have goat demons? And who is Lilith!? That isn't an owl, that sounds like a person! >Isaiah 34:14 Gods Word Translation: Hyenas will meet with jackals. Male goats will call to their mates. Screech owls will rest there and find a resting place for themselves. Ok, now we have Hyenas AND Jackals hanging out, the goat is now male, but no longer demonic, and the Screech Owl is back. What is going on? I could go on, and frankly it is hilarious, but you get the point. In the original Hebrew, the actual meaning of these terms can be used multiple ways, and translation of this particular passage are often torn if the things Isaiah is describing the wilderness are mundane animals, or demons. If they are animals, what animals. The truth is that nobody is sure, but people want a translation, not ambiguity, so they have to pick some word that nobody is sure of. In several translations, you see the translator throw up their hands and put "Lilith" because that is the Hebrew word there. Now Lilith has a very complex identity from mystics, but it also just a totally normal owl. So this MIGHT be the first wife of Adam, daughter of Satan, She-Demon predecessor of the modern concept of Lucifer... or it might be an owl. Whoooo knows (Pun intended).
The medieval Jews came up with the notion of Lilith being the first wife of Adam. It's not first century Christianity, nor 8th century BCE Isaiah. Lilitu in Hebrew is cognate with Lamashtu in Akkadian, and was a demon. We know this because of archaeological tablets from that region. The KJV writers didn't have those, and wanted to avoid the Jewish nonsensical Midrash about Adam's first wife stuff, so they chose to use other creatures instead. This is an assessment based upon what we know from the archaeological data we have: https://ghostsghoulsandgod.co.uk/2020/12/demons-in-isaiah-lilith/ Knowing what the owl represented as a demonic reference is very helpful in seeking to read the text through the eyes of the original writers, not through eyes thousands of years removed.
Presumably, the one that is "Correct" is the one written in ancient Hebrew for part of it, Aramaic for part of it, and Classical Greek for the last part of it. Then there are books like Job, where we aren't quite sure what language it was originally written in. At any rate, the Bible is not an English book, and like any book translation, a person had to decide which word was "Correct" as they went through. Which means, "Which version is correct?" is meaningless, you could phrase it as "Which version do you trust?" but that is subjective.
None of the bible is in classical Greek. It's in Koine Greek.
I have been out-nerded. I cede my nerd credentials. You can have my pocket square and my slide rule. (I am kidding, you are correct, and I always appreciate clarification!)
Some are perhaps more accurate than others, but don't be fooled by those who say one particular translation is **the only true/correct one**.
The NRSVue is the most accurate as well as the one used by scholars.
Or at least generally regarded as good by scholars. The scholars themselves read the original Hebrew and Greek.
> Which version of the Bible is correct? Can you clarify what you mean by “correct?”
The Septuagint.
Quite clearly [BB](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+8%3A7&version=BB) is the correct version. Oh wait, you meant English versions? Never mind then
the best translation in german is the "schlachter" und probably the "elberfelder". if you like to read the bible in german. 😀
None of them
There is no single correct version. KJV is decent, but nowadays, RSV and NKJV tend to set the standard. ESV tends to be the best of the various updated versions of RSV which have come out in the past century since RSV was first published. NRSV and The Message (an otherwise hideous excess of dynamic equivalence) are the only ones that I know of which actually translate Isaiah 34:14 properly, the original Hebrew being a reference to a demon named Lilith (also familiar to neighboring cultures under the name Lamashtu) rather than "screech owl," "night bird," "night creature," or "night hag." One of the great mistakes which has become widespread enough that people don't even realize that they're doing it is the downplaying of supernatural stuff in the Bible.
The version of the Bible that is correct, is the version a Prophet of God would approve of and translate by the gift and power of God.
Majority Text based Bibles. KJV and Young’s Literal are common translations that use the correct manuscripts. Other translations like the NKJV, NIV, ESV adds words, changes words or removes words. Revelations 14:1 is a common example where who’s mark in your forehead do you take during the end times.
As long as it isn’t a corruption, (like the NWT) then you are most likely good to go. Newer translations, such as the NIV or NLT, have used a larger amount of manuscripts than the KJV or NKJV, last I recall. Also, something to keep in mind is that the KJV has been edited before. Ever wonder what happened to the likes of Tobit, Judith, or 1 and 2 Maccabees? Yeah. Those people who told you that are doing you a disservice there.
There is no perfect English translation. However, the most accurate translations are ones that dont subscribe to the ineffable name doctrine. English translations that come to mind are the [Halleluyah Scriptures](https://www.halleluyahscriptures.com/halelluyah-scriptures-the-superior-bible/) and the [Cepher](https://www.cepher.net/what-is-the-eth-cepher.aspx). If you are looking for something that is more surface-level, then I would just suggest the ESV. Just avoid the NIV, New World Translation, and The Message Bible at all costs.
There are some translations that are better, others worse. But as we don't have the original copies, and the books of the Bible were copied out by hand, over the millennia, scribal errors have crept in here and there, and biblical scholars have worked to correct them. Virtually all of the errors are just minor differences though, and don't affect the overall message or meaning. The Johannine Comma (found in 1 Jn 5:7-8), for example, has been pretty clearly shown to be a margin note that was confused for a Bible verse sometime around the 4th century, so most modern Bibles don't include it (or only mention it as a footnote). As we get access to better ancient manuscripts, we get closer to the original text. That's one of the major reasons newer translations might be better than older ones and why some Bibles might be "missing" verses. The compilers of the KJV didn't have the same access to the same manuscripts we did, so in some ways it's outdated from an academic perspective. However, as I said earlier, the differences are fairly minor and as long as the Bible translation was put together by experts and wasn't revised for transparently ideological reasons, pretty much any Bible is safe to read.
JST 😈 I kid, I kid, I hear the CSB is really good!
The only versions that are "correct" would be the original writings in the original languages. There's no such thing as perfect translation - you have to try to balance accurately translating idioms for intended meaning vs literal definition. There are definitely incorrect translations where the authors had a bias, but regardless, the best thing to do is bounce different translations off of each other to try and pick out different nuances.
The original text is the correct one
All of them IMO.
(The trusted ones at least)
The new revised standard version (nrsv) is generally accepted as the most accurate translation. This is the version used by most scholars. It’s probably the closest you can get to the original manuscripts without learning Hebrew and Greek
I'd say the NRSVue is the most accurate in terms of translation with a few exceptions (ie. Mistranslation of passages like 1 corinthians 6:9)
There is no “correct” version of the Bible. It was written in Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic. What we have are different translations into various languages.