Dr. James White Reveals Which Bible Translation Is MOST Reliable 

The question 'Which Bible Translation is Most Reliable," wasn't answered here.

The niv translation is one of the most ridiculed, i never believed in God until I ended up in pit of depression from drink and drugs addictions, no-one witnessed to me, i got on my knees in wholehearted repentance and received through Gods grace alone forgiveness through Jesus's sacrifice on the cross and I am now reading the niv translation which God placed on the bedside locker in the clinic I was in from addictions. Glory to God.

James White was a big reason why I went KJV only.

A good translation is one that is read

I love the king James version I will gladly stick to the old version there’s something wonderful about it of course being totally blind from birth I love reading the Bible I don’t have a braille copy of the king James version but I do have it on CD for those that want to hear the king James Bible on audio cd for those that are new to it I highly recommend the holy Bible old and New Testament King James version by Alexander Scourby he does a marvelous job at reading the Bible I love how he reads it and it is good to get the 2017 remastered version and it’s great I love it.

Did he say which one was most accurate or did I miss that part?

@Wretched what is your opinion on the new LSB?

He is simply stating historical fact on where our current Bibles came from. When your reading Gods word you most definitely need to understand that context is of the utmost importance. Understanding the worldview of the original writers and how through translation from one language to another there has most definitely been ( by the writers own admittance) some slight mistakes. To discredit this to be honest would be foolish. God has preserved his word and will always do so but we are are to be wise in this and diligently seek His truth.

Very cool to see how social media has brought together some of these big names discussing Christ today.

I guess it depends what you mean by "reliable". Do you mean the most literal exact translation? The most readily understood? The most properly interpreted for modern readers?

I honestly think it hinges on what the individual reader prefers, as long as there are no issues of straight up changing the meaning of a passage. Me personally, I prefer the NKJV, seeing as I grew up with the KJV, it is easier for me to follow along.

I’ve read, cover to cover the new King James Version, the NIV84, NASB, and parts of about a dozen other translations. I also have a NASB version linked to Strongs on my iPad. For different reasons I liked all three of the Bible versions that I’ve completely read. With the Olive Tree Bible app, I usually have two versions open side by side when I study. I’ve gravitated to mostly using the NASB version as the easiest to understand but often refer to other version as I do and constantly look at the Strongs.

For best study it's recommended to use multiple translations when you study.

Interestingly, the TR is very close in most places to the majority text (what most of the extant NT manuscripts say). Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, where they differ from the TR, are often with the minority readings.

Todd, please do a topic on the "1599" Geneva Bible. And should it be read/studied?

White reminds me of Ahithophel, who David eventually discovered was his enemy disguised as his close friend.

My personal preference is KJV w Strongs next to the ESV, and interlinear bibles. When the ESV and KJV diverge, look deeper. KJV does have translation issues.

I am just now seeing this after it was produced nine years ago. To be fair, it would be great to also have someone from "the other side" of the debate, pro KJV, as opposed to James White who takes the opposite position. David Daniels would be great to have on Wretched. He is a trained linguist and well researched on the history and transmission of the English text.

Anyone notice he said KJV we have was based off translation of TR? That's a big deal. References 1 John 5:7

Can you do a video on which theologians' opinion of what is the best version of the Bible is the best?

Learned more from this than most utube vids I've watched on the same topic

I got a degree in Religion, learned Greek and Hebrew so I can judge for myself. My opinion is ESV is the best for Nestle-Aland 28, and KJV for the Textus Receptus. Merely my thoughts.

I missed what Bible Translation is the most reliable. Any one word answers?

what is the Johannine Comma all about ?

I read the Greek versions and Hebrew versions and compare between the KJV and NLV and well was horrified at the difference. To me from what I read KJV is so far the closest to the Greek and Hebrew

Did he ever even name the most reliable version in this video?

Love the "mission ball" on display at the beginning of the video!

What is it a 'flaw' but that which simply differs from another translation.

I love love love the 1901-1929 American Standard Version.

They never said which is the most accurate translation is….

WHo makes one man the authority on which is Best when it took many scholars to put them together in the first place?

i looked at the last 6 verses of revelation as mentioned by dr. white. reading the kjv, nkjv, esv, csb, net and even the web and there is essentially no difference between the kjv from the readings of these versions. nkjv (tr) csb, esv (critical), net, and the web (majority). where is the difference which would weaken the reliability of the kjv, as far as rev. 22: 16-21 is concerned?

Personally, I like the ESV best, but I also appreciate all other good translations (e.g. NASB/LSB, LEB, CSB, NIV, NET). But recently I also have appreciated the NLT! Please hear me out: 1. Reasons I like the NLT: a. Clarity and naturalness. Clarity refers to whether a text is comprehensible or understandable. For example, the sentence "I am one who is called John" is clear. However, this isn't how most people speak. Most people would simply say "My name is John". That's more natural. In fact, that's both clear and natural. And the NLT is both clear and natural. The NLT speaks to us in contemporary English. It's just like talking with a friend, not like talking with Yoda (e.g. ESV). I think this is the NLT's greatest strength. b. Audience appropriateness. The NLT is appropriate for multiple different audiences. It's appropriate for many children. It's appropriate for people whose first language isn't English but who are learning English. It's appropriate for the biblically illiterate inasmuch as it's becoming increasingly common in our culture that many people have little if any familiarity with the Bible and its contents (e.g. they wouldn't necessarily understand "churchy" words like "hallowed" or "propitiation" let alone "Biblish"). And the NLT is even appropriate for Christians in general who wish to have a smooth read-through of the entire Bible. 2. Some (mostly minor) gripes I have with the NLT, which again I generally like: a. Accuracy. On the one hand, the NLT is often (surprisingly) accurate in capturing nuances in the biblical Hebrew and Greek that some formal equivalence translations don't capture and perhaps can't capture due to their formal equivalence translation philosophy. For example, compare some of the historical narrative passages in the OT in a formal equivalent translation with the NLT. The NLT can often bring out a fuller true meaning that is in the text better than a formal equivalence translation. On the other hand, there are times when the NLT can be overly interpretive. It takes debatable exegetical interpretations which might go different ways and makes a concrete interpretation for the reader. Hence the reader doesn't have to decide what a verse or passage means since the NLT has decided for them. Moreover, the NLT sometimes even adds in more than what the text says. For instance, the Greek scholar Bill Mounce points out the NLT's translation of Acts 27:17: "the sandbars of Syrtis off the African coast". The phrase "off the African coast" is not in the Greek. It's been added by the NLT translators for clarification. However, it'd arguably be better to put "off the African coast" in the footnotes if it needs to be clarified or simply leave it out entirely and either research for oneself where Syrtis is, or let pastors, study Bibles, and/or commentaries explain. Given such issues, if we read the NLT alone (without reference to the biblical languages), it can be hard to know if one is reading the original Hebrew or Greek text or if one is reading text that's been added in by the translators. b. Historical distance. Ideally there should be historical distance in terms of the time and culture of the biblical text (i.e. so modern audiences can enter into the ancient world of the biblical text), but there should not be historical distance in terms of the language (i.e. the language should sound to us as it did to the original audience). At times the NLT does not have as much historical distance in terms of the time and culture of the biblical text as it should. It makes the ancient world seem a bit too much like our day and age. c. Register. Register refers to literary style. A higher register refers to a more formal literary style, whereas a lower register refers to a more informal literary style. Consider the NT. Most of the NT is in koine ("common") Greek, even though literary Greek existed at the time and was used by the best writers across the Roman empire. However, for various reason(s), the NT authors wrote in common every day Greek. C.S. Lewis may have put it best: "The New Testament in the original Greek is not a work of literary art: it is not written in a solemn, ecclesiastical language, it is written in the sort of Greek which was spoken over the eastern Mediterranean after Greek had become an international language and therefore lost its real beauty and subtlety. In it we see Greek used by people who have no real feeling for Greek words because Greek words are not the words they spoke when they were children. It is a sort of 'basic' Greek; a language without roots in the soil, a utilitarian, commercial and administrative language." The main exceptions to this are Hebrews and the prologue in Luke 1:1-4 which are written in a higher register than the rest of the NT. Likewise, there are other parts of the Bible that are set in a more poetic and arguably higher register (e.g. Psalms, Job, Ecclesiastes). I think an English translation should reflect the literary style of the original text. If the original text is in a higher register, then the translation should be in a similarly higher register as well. But the NLT tends to flatten out the literary style of the entire Bible such that the Bible as a whole sounds more or less the same across the board; that is, the NLT sounds like ordinary, conversational, colloquial English. Of course, the NLT's translation philosophy aims to sound ordinary or colloquial, so one can't fault them for this since they're faithful to their translation philosophy, but one does wish they had allowed for exceptions to the rule with regard to literary style.

At 3:00 how do we know that what James White is saying is true? This is the first I've heard of Erasmus taking stuff from Latin. I thought the TR was the majority text.

NET in my opinion, based on the largest cache of Hebrew manuscripts, add footnotes are by far the most detailed in giving explanations for why they choose the words they choose in each particular verse

QUESTION ?? I would like to know why some bibles don’t have the words of Christ in red . specifically JMAC , R.C. Sproul , ESV Study Bible ? Thank you ✝️

He compared a translation Latin Vulgate over the Greek original. This is unfair. He should compare Greek to Greek before and after Erasmus then his case is valid.

interesting that the question posed in this video's title was not answered.

Did I miss the answer?

King James was carrying on the "New" tradition of King Henry the viii as a seperate Church from Rome. England wanted complete autonomy from Rome this included them not using a Papal sanctioned translation. Thus the King James version was instituted as way to defect from completely from the Papacy.

I defend the newer versions but several things bother me. 1. why so many versions 2. why do these bibles not list the text not containing the verses omitted? 3. why do both Catholics and Jews endorse the KJV Bible. 4. why are there specific group Bibles. 5. why continual revisions to remove more and where's the reason? 6. why are archaic words still used in the new translations such as sheol replacing hell. I can see apologetics, Hebrew/Greek, pastor's versions, and archeological versions of it, but it sounds like Bible companies are looking to profit off this. the real reason -money and sells.

Now that we have a hundred translations and some with new pronouns. I think I'll stay with the older versions thank you.

The Spirit speaks to you as you read any word of God! Jesus is the Word…the only word we need to know!

How about the NWT translation ?

At least the NKJV has excellent footnotes so you can get all 3 textual traditions. I have gone (over years of study) from KJV only to the point I almost never use KJV at all.

I like the ESV quite a bit. I don’t really care all that much because I recently got so many bible commentaries that the translation isn’t that important anymore, because each word in its greek form is inspected

A TR based version for study and a version you’re comfortable with for general reading.

what the heck does he say at the end? 'Him....cackle cackle...if you disagree!!'

I will read the ESV and preach from it until Jesus Christ tells me otherwise, and be there for those that are in need of Jesus Christ.

The King James is not perfect but is a Word for Word rather than thought for thought translation: 'Every Word that proceeds from the mouth of God' Textus Receipts is reliable. Little is much if God is in it.

3:20 why did he say that the KJV has weird readings from the Latin when it's the same readings as any other bible? What's so weird about the king James in the last six verses of revelation?

The critical text of 1881 - toaday is an ecumenical text approved by the catholic church and has only given us doubt.

We don't have better manuscripts. We already translated what was handed down through the church. More is not better.

The KJV has got subtle revelations that no other version I've read has got. The KJV offers a lot of reading between the lines to the reader.

So what is the answer? What is the most accurate English version?

What do people know about the William Tyndale version? this is what brought me here

Yeah I thought the Geneva Bible had problems and the KJV sort of corrected those?

Dr. James White is actually pretty smart and explains it well.

Fortunately there isn't any major mistranslations that can cause doctrinal problems. In the KJV, or NASB

Have no idea why this was named "Which Bible Translation is the Most Reliable". This is called "clouds without rain."

the dumbing down of english language matches the dumbind down of bible versions. paraphrases should be completely rejected such as "the message" and "the passion"

He didn't answer the question to why God would do that. I guess he indirectly answered that God didn't do that, but man did. Kind of.

So what’s the verdict?????

Todd, I never realized how tall you are. Furthermore, it is difficult to believe it has been ten years since I last saw this video. Just, WOW.

People should use the oldest version that they can read and understand. Whenever someone writes a new version the insert their own beliefs.

I grew up on the KJV my favorite is NKJ all the other translations seem to be less "authoritative" I guess is the word I'm looking for, I mean no disrespect at all. It's really just preference. Now when I study I read the KJV, NKJ, CSB, ESV and NIV to get a good perspective on what I am reading.

The only litmus test is: Has any fundamental salvation text been reversed? Is it cosmetic change only?

SO...which translation IS most reliable???

Unless you have a greek bible you're all reading a diff translation than the original

Weird how everyone always relies on Catholic Church for manuscripts

I'm coming in late. I found what is called the King James Bible Comparison Page. I compared the Christian Standard Bible which came out in 2017 with the KJV. There are many verses that had been changed and some even omitted. The name Jesus has also been remove many times in the Gospels. Why would someone do that? I still use the KJV.

James Snapp Jr. Taking on 2 KJVO’s at once Saturday night live, April 20th, 8pm debating I John 5:7. Donny at Standing for Truth hosting. Should be a good one.

I'm a KJV person but refer other versions too, have these guys studied all 5700 manuscripts together, God uses any version for His glory, our faithfulness is most important to God .

There's much more to this than what Dr. White stated. I have researched this since the early 1980's. (I read and still have Dr. White's book refuting the KJV only brethren.) I have a doc file with some of my findings that show the errors in the so called "best manuscripts". I always smile when a study Bible foot note reads "the best manuscripts read". One good thing about the NKJV besides that it uses the TR, is that it shows the variant texts with the "NU". If anyone would like my notes, I will send them free for your information. I have concluded after my research since the early 1980's that the TR is the superior text. I was open to it going the other way, but there is no way that these modern texts are "the best manuscripts". I also see a great benefit in the KJV. It is so evident that the translators were very diligent and dedicated men of God. There are many books I could recommend on this subject too, just ask.

I consider myself a seeker of God's Truth, whatever form that may take, so I will go with whichever translation is the most accurate, regardless of tradition. If a contemporary translation is backed by and drawn from older texts from sources closer to the actual events than a traditional translation, then I will be far more willing to trust the accuracy of the contemporary translation. I won't go so far as to put down anyone who prefers the traditional translations or dismiss their opinions, even to the point of referring to their preferred translation during Bible studies that they lead, but I also won't be shy about my preferred translation and why I prefer that one.

The King James bible is NOT a translation, it is based in 6 other translations, which I will get to in a moment. Here is the first instruction given to the "translators." 1. The ordinary Bible read in the Church, commonly called the Bishops' Bible, to be followed, and as little altered as the original will permit. The base of the King James Bible is the Bishops' Bible, (Which was the main bible used in the USA until the Mid/Late 18th-> Early 19th Century when the KJV overtook the BB in the USA) Then we get near the end of the instructions, and we get instruction 14: 14. These translations to be used, when they agree better with the text than the Bishops' Bible: Tyndale's, Coverdale's, Matthew's [Rogers'], Whitchurch's [Cranmer's], Geneva." The King James Bible is a compilation of the best translated parts of 6 English Bibles used in that time period. It is not a word for word translation directly as claimed. Only the parts that did not agree between the other bibles used was then checked against the oldest manuscripts that they had at that time, then sent to other "translators" to ensure accuracy, then it was added to the new bible. The best English word for word translation is the NASB, and the ESV. Those two translations are based on the not only the manuscripts used during the time that the KJV was being put together, but on much older manuscripts that we have since found. The KJV is also an accurate bible to use for deep study as well. Those three are the best English versions of the bible. The issue with the KJV is the 17-18th century English that has not been spoken in quite a long time. Many who have English as a second language have a very difficult time trying to read the KJV and understand what they are reading. Lots of those folks find the ESV a much easier read and better to understand. That said, when I am doing a deep dive into Gods word, I use those three (NASB, ESV, KJV), along with the Amplified and NIV. (the NIV is a thought for thought translation). For those who prefer the KJV, I say, drive on. But understand how you got the bible you are using. Remember, at the Bema Seat judgment, I don't think one of the criteria for rewards is "what English version of the Bible did you use?"

Reason 2) Other Versions are more confusing by taking out Thee, Thy, You, etc thus ignoring the original languages and the plural and singular forms. The other translations take out the Thou, Thee, Ye, You and replace everything with you. It is important as in the Greek, Chaldean, Hebrew etc, there were plural forms of these words. So the King James translators put this into the translations. If you were teaching a class and said "you need to get the worksheet done." Are you speaking to one student, or all students? It could be one that you earlier told to get the worksheet done, or the whole group. We would need context. The ESV adds footnotes to supplement these things, the NIV takes the plural and singular out completely, the NASB tried to make it in 77 as if the Thee and Thou were reverent talking to God. Thee, Thou, Thy, Thine in the King James indicate Singular, Ye, You, Your indicate plural in the King James. That is the reason these are there. John 3:7 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again. Jesus is talking to Nicodemus and he says, marvel not that I say unto thee (singular talking to Nicoldemus), ye (plural) must be born again. So he states that everyone must be born again and Nicodemus shouldn't marvel at it. In Joshua 1 King James Version 1 Now after the death of Moses the servant of the Lord it came to pass, that the Lord spake unto Joshua the son of Nun, Moses' minister, saying, 2 Moses my servant is dead; now therefore arise, go over this Jordan, thou, and all this people, unto the land which I do give to them, even to the children of Israel. 3 Every place that the sole of your foot shall tread upon, that have I given unto you, as I said unto Moses. God addresses Joshua (thou) and all this people. He is supposed to lead them. v 2 Every place the sole of your foot v3. This means that any Israelites' foot will mark the land given to Israel, Not just Joshua's foot. 5 There shall not any man be able to stand before thee all the days of thy life: as I was with Moses, so I will be with thee: I will not fail thee, nor forsake thee. Verse 5 starts a group of many promises with T words. Joshua as the leader will not have anyone stand before him as a leader like Moses. In the King James Translation, the translators were men of prayer that spoke many languages (some well over FIFTEEN) and spent hours a day in prayer. So, they were humble men of God that would not promote their work for profit, no doubt as they knew that God's word warned of such things. So if your versions says you. Is it talking to one person

They found the newer manuscripts in someone's trash lol

1:30, "he wasn't trying to be snarky"; of course he wasn't trying, White is always snarky. It comes naturally to him!

The translations were mostly done by the Textus Receptus written and translated by Erasmus. The Textus Receptus was revised in mid 1800s and changed the meanings of his original work. The manuscripts he used were no longer available 3 hundred years later at this time. New versions like NIV used the revised version so that's why I like the original KJV more accurate using the original version. Some other versions of the original still exist like the Wycliffe and Geneva Bibles.

Its funny how everyone forgets about the Volgate or the Douay Rheims.

Well done Dr White!

You didn't address the errors found in the Latin Volgate

according historians & scholars Christ spoke Aramaic, remember? "..."Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani? which is, being interpreted, "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me"..--Mark 15:34. Therefore, it would be wise to translate from Aramaic to modern English. Many Christians traditionally use KJV, the problem it lacks clarity, confusing & even error most importantly we don't talk like that anymore. Romans-15; "For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I. 16; If then I do that which I would not, I consent unto the law that it is good"... sound clear? If Scholars & Authors translated directly from Aramaic to modern English, there would be so much simplicity & understanding. I've read a few Aramaic translations and believe me, the words are so refreshing & bring you a lot closer to God... i can't fully explain it but there's definitely a difference.

The King James Bible is the perfect word of God.

When a new translation omits scripture of power I for one still use KJV as my go to Bible. Mt. 17:21 21Howbeit this kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting

I hear the point he is making, but there is no answer to the question asked in the title of the video. This is Clickbait

KJV!!!!!!!!!!!!

I really enjoy the King James Bible, try praying to our Lord Jesus Christ for wisdom & understanding in reading his Word instead of turning to translations that either remove whole verses, important words or change the entire meaning of the verse all together.

I mostly read ESV and NLT, but if I want to trust year counts I look up an Eastern Orthodox version. I'm not Eastern Orthodox.

Why do you have to pick one version?

Which is the most reliable- KJV for sure.

Shakespearean English of the king James version is archaic and confusing.

Local "reformed church" uses NASB 1995, also ESV, also approved are KJV and NKJV. However sister Church next town used NIV 1984 til recently. As long as you avoid passion, messagd, amp etc. you're fine. But NASB pre 2000 and NKJV you should be ok

This is why I got out of reformation.. for the vast majority of questions, there’s only more questions and no solitary answer… what did we get out of this video other than, there is no definitive “most reliable” translation. My answer to this issue is, always use one as your basis (kjv) and cross reference between every other translation.. but the debate will still go on even by that measure.

With all that said the KJV is the most reliable

No translation is perfect. Being KJV Only is cultist.

Sad but true but Ken Ham of Answers in Genesis has fallen into trusting and promoting a "new translation" the LSB, Legacy Standard Bible. It's from reconstructed Greek and Hebrew. Has he fallen from God's grace?

Personally, I prefer three translations for my study: King James, NASB, and YLT. Each has its strengths. None are perfect. For those who think the KJV is perfect, please explain why the Greek word 'aion' is translated to 'world' instead of 'age', when in Greek it clearly means 'age'?This is no small error, as it has misled many to misunderstand and misinterpret important passages like Matthew 24. The majority of best study resources (concordances, Webster's 1828 Dictionary, etc.) are refer to the KJV, so it's most useful for that kind of study. The YLT is the most literal, so it's most useful for that, etc. I would say that the KJV is the most consistent in its translation of the Greek, which aids in using searchable online dictionaries. We are blessed in this generation to have good Bible resources, which are free to use. We should spend more time using them, and learn to use proper methods of exegesis.

Basically we can stick with the translation that has caused real moves of God, genuine revival, and multitudes of souls to be saved, OR we can piece together messages using four or five corrupted versions translated from garbage texts.