COMPARE THESE BIBLES WITH YOUR FAVORITE BIBLE

COMPARE THESE BIBLES WITH YOUR FAVORITE BIBLE
Posted by in Facebook's Pentecostal Theology Group View the Original Post

You Can get help with Dates from the Publishers Open– BiblePublishers.htm—-For helpful suggestions on that.

Sbt—Compares all Bibles With the List in BestBiblesPlus.htm—They are there for You to

COMPARE THESE BIBLES WITH YOUR FAVORITE BIBLE !!!

Translation Agrees with the Critical Text Agrees with the later Textus Receptus Other
New World Translation 64 0 0
21st Century NT* 64 0 0
Goodspeed* 64 0 0
Rotherham 62 2 0
Byington/BLE 61 3 0
New Revised Standard 60 3 1
20th Century NT 59 4 1
Lattimore 59 5 0
New American Standard 59 5 0
Westminster 58 6 0
American Standard Ver. 58 6 0
Revised Version 1885 57 7 0
Beck’s An American Trans 56 8 0
New Jerusalem Bible 56 8 0
Revised Standard Version 56 8 0
New American Bible 56 7 1
Moffatt 56 7 1
New Berkeley Version 56 7 1
Riverside New Testament 55 9 0
Barclay’s New Testament 55 8 1
Kleist & Lilly New Test. 55 9 0
Wuest’s Expanded Trans. 54 10 0
New English Bible 53 9 2
Holman Christian Standard 53 11 0
God’s Word Translation 53 11 0
Weymouth‘s New Test. 53 11 0
Williams New Testament 52 12 0
English Standard Version 52 10 2
Spencer 51 13 0
New International Version 51 10 3
Basic English Bible 51 12 1
New Century Version 51 12 1
International Standard Ver 50 14 0
Ferrar Fenton 50 14 0
Good News Bible 50 12 2
Jerusalem Bible 49 15 0
Recovery NT 49 15 0
NET Bible 49 13 2
Jewish NT 49 13 2
The Message 48 13 3
Centenary Version 47 16 1
Contemporary English Ver 46 15 3
JB Phillips 45 17 2
New Simplified Bible 43 15 6
Living Bible 42 15 7
New Living Translation 41 19 4
Amplified Bible 37 27 0
Confraternity Version 35 27 2
Concordant Literal NT 25 28 1
Knox Version 33 29 2
Challoner 25 27 2
Hebrew Names Version 8 55 1
New King James Version 0 63 1
Revised Webster 0 64 0
King James Version 0 64 0

*The 21st Century NT has 64 points due to its being a dual Literal/Free Translation. Where one side (usually the Free side) had the weaker reading, it was usually corrected by the truer reading on the literal side. At the same time, each side held alone would have done remarkably well, especially the literal side. I think it is incumbent on any Free/Dynamic Equivalent/Paraphrased Bible to include a literal text, if nothing else, than for ease of mind and conscience. (See BibleTranslationsTypes.htm For How Translators Work)

*Colwell chose Goodspeed version as his top New Testament, but I disagree. While taking him at his word for the most part, I cannot agree when it comes to the reading at John 1:18. Colwell’s true reading of this verse has “the only begotten God,” a faithful rendering of MONOGENHS QEOS.(See. FirstBorn.htm }Goodspeed actually has “divine Only Son,” a weaker reading as it seeks to combine the reading of both theTextus Receptus (TR) and the Westcott and Hort (WH) text. I left it at the top out of respect for Colwell, but it really deserves a reading of 63, placing the New World Translation as the best stand alone version of the New Testament in English.

3 Comments

  • Troy Day
    Reply May 27, 2019

    Troy Day

    Philip Williams *The 21st Century NT has 64 points due to its being a dual Literal/Free Translation. Where one side (usually the Free side) had the weaker reading, it was usually corrected by the truer reading on the literal side. At the same time, each side held alone would have done remarkably well, especially the literal side. I think it is incumbent on any Free/Dynamic Equivalent/Paraphrased Bible to include a literal text, if nothing else, than for ease of mind and conscience.

    • Philip Williams
      Reply May 27, 2019

      Philip Williams

      Troy Day interesting, Might be a good solution so long as it avoids Origen’s modified (Alexandrian) text favored by liberals.

    • Troy Day
      Reply May 27, 2019

      Troy Day

      this is next level stuff by Colwell aparaturs – not sure why you bid it liberal by any means but any how Colwell chose Goodspeed version as his top New Testament, but I disagree. While taking him at his word for the most part, I cannot agree when it comes to the reading at John 1:18. Colwell’s true reading of this verse has “the only begotten God,” a faithful rendering of MONOGENHS QEOS.(See. FirstBorn.htm }Goodspeed actually has “divine Only Son,” a weaker reading as it seeks to combine the reading of both theTextus Receptus (TR) and the Westcott and Hort (WH) text. I left it at the top out of respect for Colwell, but it really deserves a reading of 63, placing the New World Translation as the best stand alone version of the New Testament in English. OF course MONOGENHS QEOS maybe something to obstruct Michael Hazlewood in the Greek text for days to come

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.