Which translation of the Bible is most accurate?

Somebody asked me this question, so I thought I'd pass it on. It's a toughie, because there are different ideas of what "accurate" means--word for word literalism or trying to capture the meaning behind the words. For word to word literalism, I think the New American Standard Bible (NASB) is probably most accurate, but a case can be made for the New International Version (NIV) in which translators focus on the thoughts rather than words (but obviously open the door to subjectivity). I like the New Revised Standard Version, approved by the National Council of Churches and some Catholic bishops, because it's most in line with my liberal understanding, but I can understand conservative objections to the efforts at gender neutrality and political correctness. The Good News Bible (formerly Today's English Version, TEV) is easy to read, but I think the translators take liberties--for example, translating "malakoi" 1 Corinthians 6 as "homosexual perverts" is unacceptable. For a reasonably accurate version that also has inspiring literary quality, I'd say the New King James Version can't be topped, and the New American Bible is the best Catholic version. Anybody have other views?

 

Is the NASB the one that is commonly used by the Gideon's people? If then I've only read the NT and not very recently or intensely.
I cannot attest to the NAB either, other than what I can see online. As someone who also is in Religious Studies as well as some theology I don't particularly like gender neutral language. While it is safe to assume as much that if they were written now they would be gender neutral, it is hard to make some arguments if it is unclear what it was in the original text.
Personally, I like the RSV-CE (Revised 2006 by Ignatius Press). Partially because of the lack of gender neutral language, my own personal tastes, and its endorsement within the Church.
The only interesting stories I have about the NIV is that one of my theology profs (PhD Theology, PhD Dentistry) and flaming evangelical said that conservatives will call it the "Not Inspired Version", and in recent publications of the TNIV (I forget by whom) in the Biblical timeline it has question marks for the dates of Genesis 1-11 events.
I am wondering what you think of the Douay-Rheims (Challoner) translation.

 

check out the Darby Bible, which is a translation directly from the original manuscripts into modern English by scholars who were experts in the old Hebrew, Aramaic & Greek languages of the original manuscripts.

 

Grimm's

 

Where did these "original manuscripts" exist?


To put it simply, we have thousands of different manuscripts from various NT books and letters.

 

manuscript = handwritten document. where's the problem?

 

When you say "original manuscripts" as you did, it implies the original texts written by the apostles, disciples, and others. We do not have any of those. We have a number of copied manuscripts though.

The Darby translation, then, is done from the original languages (Hebrew and koine Greek) not the original manuscripts.

 

the point is that darby went back to the oldest available text and did a scholarly translation from there. it isn't a translation of a translation of a translation with a little poetic license and political maneuvering thrown in like some. many if not most of the stories in the bible obviously precede written language, and were passed down word of mouth for generations before ever being written down. when it comes to the bible, you either believe there's divine inspiration there or you don't pretty much.

here's a guy who is translating directly from the aramaic to modern american english. very interesting to read the subtle shades of meaning that don't appear in translations like the king james due to idiomatic meaning being lost.

http://www.v-a.com/bible/aramaic-bible-index.html

it's also interesting to read what got left out of the bible. i'm reading the sophia of christ right now...now that is a trip.

 

The gospel of Judah is pretty interesting, especially where Jesus is described as being like a child.

 

in the sophia of christ it says that christ was androgynous

 

http://savingparadise.net/wp-content/uploads/2008/08/fig_06-arian_baptism.jpg

Arian baptistry with a hermaphrodite Jesus. I think its intresting.

 

Young's Literal