Which bible is more accurate? The World English Bible or the American King James Version?
Which bible is more accurate? The World English Bible or the American King James Version?
I'm particularly looking for a public domain (uncopyrighted) text that doesn't contain 'thee', 'thou' and 'thy'.
I want to publish the entire text on a website (and in a book) without violating any copyright restrictions, so I'm looking for a public domain text. However, I don't want it to be in old english with 'thee', 'thou' and 'thy' which are hard for the reader to understand.
I've currently narrowed it down to the World English Bible and the American King James Version, unless maybe there is another version that would qualify that I don't know about.
- 1 decade agoFavourite answer
King James Version.
- Scott SLv 61 decade ago
The World English Bible is a work in progress, it is still being edited. I'm unable to find any scholarly or detailed reviews. There isn't even a list available of who is doing the translation work, so we might be confident with known scholars.
The WEB is an unknown quantity at this point. I wouldn't recommend any Bible that has not been reviewed and been in-use for a few years by other Christians so they could reflect on it.
The WEB is based on the Majority text which is essentially the same original texts that the KJV was based on. That is odd and getting pretty hard to defend intellectually. http://www.bible-researcher.com/majority.html
The New English Translation as known as the NET Bible was created for free distribution on the Internet, so ministries would not be hindered by typical copyright restrictions. See here for the explanation on the conditions for free use http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=3086
Excellent scholars were on the translation team and endorse this Bible. I know one of the translators and have read most of the NET Bible myself – it is a good solid translation. http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=3351 http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=1183
The NET Bible is based on the best original language texts, just like all the translations in the last 50 years or so. These were not available for the older translations, e.g. KJV, and not used in the NKJV.
The NET also benefits from the latest scholarship and uses modern English, so it more accurate and readable than the old KJV and other public domain Bibles.
The NET Bible is not based on any previous version. It is a fresh translation, so some passages have a unique approach that sounds different from the KJV/ASV/RSV/NASB/NKJV/NRSV/ESV line. But this is pretty much the same situation with the NIV and HSCB, which which have their own unique renderings, as they are also fresh translations.
The Preface is helpful http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=3537
The NET Bible notes are a unique and valuable resource. The translators explained their reasons for various translation choices made in many verses. They are a great study aid.
- Anonymous1 decade ago
Well, first, I think you should go with the Revised Version or, if you prefer a 66-book bible, the American Standard Version. I believe those are the most accurate in the public domain.
The WEB is not complete (NT complete, OT just a "draft"), so I would not want to rely on that yet.
The New English Translation
is a 66-book complete public domain bible. The Apocrypha are currently being translated.
Reviews - warning: Marlowe has an unfortunate penchant for insisting that the translation of the Old Testament be amended to agree with the New Testament, and gives negative reviews when a bible (like the NET) translates the Old Testament on the merits of the text being translated.
He has no review of the WEB yet.
One thing I liked about the NET: Gen 3:15 (one of my "test verses") correctly uses a gender-inclusive pronoun for "the woman's seed". Exo 3:15, unfortunately, uses "the LORD" (which you will find in most English bibles) instead of a transliteration of the tetragrammaton (which is a significant advantage).
The WEB, on the other hand, is gender-inclusive in Gen 3:15 AND uses a transliteration in Exo 3:15. Checking further (Isa 7:14)
WEB uses "virgin" - following Matthew
NET uses "young woman" - which, from what I have read, omits the important additional meaning "marriageable". However, "young woman" is widely accepted by scholars, while "virgin" is not.
There are many, many more verses important for an evaluation, but at this point I would favor the WEB because of its use of "Yahweh" for the tetragrammaton, despite the New Testamentization of Isaiah 7:14.
I took a look at the AKJV very briefly just for fun. There are problems. Exo 3:15 uses both "it" and "he" to refer to the woman's seed - which is not very consistent or precise. Exo 3:15 uses "the LORD". Isa 7:14 uses "virgin". I still favor the WEB.
- AmberPLv 71 decade ago
My honest opinion as a christian...NONE OF THE ABOVE.
The bible was put together by a council many many years ago, this council decided what books would go in and which ones would not! I say read what ever one you can but know that there is more there you don't know about... either way it's not our fault.
As a side note, some web sites will say stuff like this... "Again, it is crucial to remember that the church did not determine the canon. No early church council decided on the canon. It was God, and God alone, who determined which books belonged in the Bible."
This is complete BS, religious people trying to maintain that god did it! God didn't say yes that goes in, or no that doesn't go in...MAN DID!
Here is more information...I am not wrong here..
The first “canon” was the Muratorian Canon, which was compiled in (A.D. 170). The Muratorian Canon included all of the New Testament books except Hebrews, James, and 3 John. In A.D. 363, the Council of Laodicea stated that only the Old Testament (along with the Apocrypha) and the 27 books of the New Testament were to be read in the churches. The Council of Hippo (A.D. 393) and the Council of Carthage (A.D. 397) also affirmed the same 27 books as authoritative.
The councils followed something similar to the following principles to determine whether a New Testament book was truly inspired by the Holy Spirit: 1) Was the author an apostle or have a close connection with an apostle? 2) Is the book being accepted by the Body of Christ at large? 3) Did the book contain consistency of doctrine and orthodox teaching? 4) Did the book bear evidence of high moral and spiritual values that would reflect a work of the Holy Spirit?Source(s): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nica... This is another council that decided other things in christianity..
- What do you think of the answers? You can sign in to give your opinion on the answer.
- ?Lv 61 decade ago
First of all: You can use the >NEW< king James, which is a version as faithful as the original (the authorized) king James, but has not "thee", "thou art", "thy" and other very ancient words. You can get it in http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/index.php?act... or seach other site by the google.
WHAT EVERY CHRISTIAN SHOULD KNOW ABOUT TRANSLATIONS...
I advice you to never adopt modern versions like the NIV, neither advice them to others. These modern versions translates from a corrupted greek text called "critical text" which is a compiled text of two manuscripts: the sinaiticus and the vaticanus. These 2 manuscripts are contradictory between themselves and omit many words, half a verse a full verses of the new testament. One example: 1ºJohn 5:7. Besides, the modern versions, in many verses they simply don't translate; they just "interpret" the verse. I say that cause I read the new testament in the original greek and I've compared some passages in the original with the modern "translations". So, you can use the NEW king james version, which is based on the "textus receptus", which is a text compiled of the manuscripts called "byzantine". The manuscripts "byzantine" represent 95% of all greek manuscritps already found and they agree among themselves in +- 99,5% and they bring the words, half a verse and verses which the other manuscripts don't. In other words, the bibles based on the "textus receptus" are SUPERIOR than the "bibles" based on the "critical text".
Pd: Look what Amberwh wrote. That's just a nescience. Only a nescious who did never study the history of christianity would say that. What a horror!
- 1 decade ago
The bible was written down after at least 100 years, and was then altered by the religious leaders of the the 4th century to say what it is thoose leaders wanteds it to say. So no matter which version of the bible you want to read, they are all historically inaccurate.
Look it up, you will find what I said here to be true. They met in constantinople, nowadays known as istanbul.
- hasse_johnLv 71 decade ago
Neither is very good, and both use heathen names for the Almighty in direct defiance of Ex 23:13. (American Standard version)
- Jon in CanadaLv 41 decade ago
Neither. The original Hebrew and Aramaic texts are the most accurate.