Books

I seriously doubt that you can call any translation "accurate." It's a collection of mythology, that had as many interpretations as there were people telling the stories. We can't really know what Homer originally wrote either; it was all just too long ago.

Enjoy the stories as fiction, and don't fuss about accuracy too much.

There is no original to reference. Even when the first version was compiled, it was an interpretation of existing stories. It's basically a collection of mythologies that have been reinterpreted by dozens or more different cultures over millennia.

It's like how, in Jurassic Park, scientists tried to recreate dinosaur genomes. They couldn't - bits and pieces existed, but not in their original order or configuration. The modern dinosaur genetics were amalgams of old DNA and borrowed sequences from other animals.

That's right, I just equivocated the bible to the dinosaurs in Jurassic Park.

First, there is no such thing as an accurate translation. As Walter Benjamin said, translation is treason.

Second, there is no consensus about what is the Bible. What are the books to be included, and what is the earlier version of these books. When you start to look close, you have entirely made up books, like leviticus, a lot of editing and changing before Christianity, apocryphal books, and so on.

Third, this would be an enormous task needing a ton of funding and a very long time. I doubt we will have something like this anytime.

Translation from what or rather from which? It’s not like there’s one “canonical” old testament from which to translate to English. The various new testament(s) are also various collections of texts from various sources; there’s no “canonical” or “original” from which to work.

The question is, what are you actually looking for? A bible that confirns what you want to believe or a bible that keeps the original message intact?

I can give you an answer but you may not accept it.

There are a lot of different versions, just like with any mythology, and things lost in translation. I think it's honestly down to your preference. I prefer NIV, but that's just me. I cannot stand the King James.

I'm a big fan of the poly-glot or diaglot versions. For whatever reason, what popularity they had faded quickly in the '90s, as in, one week I'm introduced to the concept by several people in my Congregation, even lent a copy, and the next I'm getting pushback against the idea of ordering my own; "they've just announced they aren't publishing that any more, so why should you need one?"

In the one I've seen, IIRC, each original word, in the orignal language/script on one column, gets a list of possible translations in brackets, or footnotes with historical definitions, if there's any ambiguity to be had.

The best one I've found is the New Jerusalem translation:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Jerusalem_Bible#%3A%7E%3Atext=Substantially+revising+the+JB+and%2Cintroductions%2C+written+by+Henry+Wansbrough.

Here's a comparison:

New Jerusalem Ezekiel 20:23-26

23 Once again, however, I pledged them my word that I would scatter them throughout the nations and disperse them in foreign countries,

24 because they had not followed my judgements but had rejected my laws and profaned my Sabbaths, their eyes being fastened on the foul idols of their ancestors.

25 And for this reason I gave them laws that were not good and judgements by which they could never live;

26 and I polluted them with their own offerings, making them sacrifice every first-born son in order to fill them with revulsion, so that they would know that I am Yahweh."

King James:

23 I lifted up mine hand unto them also in the wilderness, that I would scatter them among the heathen, and disperse them through the countries;

24 Because they had not executed my judgments, but had despised my statutes, and had polluted my sabbaths, and their eyes were after their fathers' idols.

25 Wherefore I gave them also statutes that were not good, and judgments whereby they should not live;

26 And I polluted them in their own gifts, in that they caused to pass through the fire all that openeth the womb, that I might make them desolate, to the end that they might know that I am the Lord.

NIV:

23 Also with uplifted hand I swore to them in the wilderness that I would disperse them among the nations and scatter them through the countries, 

24 because they had not obeyed my laws but had rejected my decrees and desecrated my Sabbaths, and their eyes lusted after their parents’ idols. 

25 So I gave them other statutes that were not good and laws through which they could not live; 

26 I defiled them through their gifts—the sacrifice of every firstborn—that I might fill them with horror so they would know that I am the Lord.’

This is the earliest fairly complete bible that has been found was 400 years after Christ.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Sinaiticus

You can read it here https://www.codexsinaiticus.org/en/manuscript.aspx?__VIEWSTATEGENERATOR=01FB804F&dir=next&folioNo=4&lid=en&quireNo=3&side=v&zoomSlider=0

No.

We have some sources in Hebrew and some in Greek, but they are all compilations of questionable provenance. That’s before you get to english.

Translation is tricky in the best circumstances, but the “Bible” is especially difficult. It’s a collection of documents from different times, cultures, authors, contexts, and purposes. If you already know the context for a document and can read Koine and Hebrew, those documents are dripping with meaning that cannot be easily translated for a modern english audience without a huge amount of additional exposition.

For example, 1 Timothy is often used as a cudgel to oppress women, but it is addressing a specific cultural conflict resulting from expanding into the very seat of power for the matriarchal cult of Artemis. Without that background, there is no translation that will make the clear and obvious intent behind the letter understandable to a modern audience. This is why the phrase “lost in translation” exists. The english translation might be “accurate” linguistically and still fundamentally incorrect because what it communicates to a reader of the new language is not even close to what was meant by the original.

Here are some fun facts about common Bible mistranslations.

The word “hell” does not exist in the Bible. The very concept does not exist.

It never claims that anyone goes to heaven when they die. Instead, they are resurrected at the end of all things and judged. Those judged righteous, based almost entirely on how they treated others — because god takes that personally — remain resurrected. The rest are permanently and finally destroyed in the same way ancients dealt with unclean garbage. Burning.

Homosexuality is never addressed. Not even once. What is addressed is abuse of power and position, putting the community at risk, and rebellion against Yahweh’s leadership. Particularly for members of the tribe of Israel during their nomadic post-Egypt years. If you are a gentile and not living among ancient Jews, then much of it — like Levitical law — is not for or about you, and does not concern you or care about you at all.

In summary, I have never encountered an english translation that was not awful to the point of being worse than trash. They are not merely bad translations, they are not merely wrong, they are nearly all deliberately and intentionally deceptive.