What translation has the exact words of God preserved for English speakers?

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.

John146

Senior Member
Jan 13, 2016
11,219
1,919
113
That is your view. But modern evangelical Bible users believe in the complete inspiration of the original manuscripts and believe there are many good and completely trustworthy translations in many languages.

KJV only believers believe that God added to his Word by inspiring new words into the English language over 1500 years after revelation was complete and the canon closed.
The original autographs were the preservation of God’s word. God spoke and men preserved God’s words by writing them down. For example, the book of Romans.

1. Who wrote Romans?
2. Who was given the words from God?

The original epistle of Romans was the preservation of the inspired words, therefore a copy.
 

KJV1611

Senior Member
Nov 23, 2013
12,669
1,042
113
The Greek answers it exactly as God inspired it. Period. I am not looking for God to give a later revelation to correct an insufficient inspiration.

I could do a discussion of the meaning of "epi", but that would not help anything here! :rolleyes::);)
As long as the Greek leads to you understand that the mark is on the figurtative right and on the figurative forehead then you're ok.
 

Chester

Senior Member
May 23, 2016
3,717
1,052
113
As long as the Greek leads to you understand that the mark is on the figurtative right and on the figurative forehead then you're ok.
There is no way way you will be able to prove that from "epi," which is God's inspired word here. If you have a subsequent revelation from God that adds to His Word I do not trust it at all . . . :eek::rolleyes:;):)
 

KJV1611

Senior Member
Nov 23, 2013
12,669
1,042
113
There is no way way you will be able to prove that from "epi," which is God's inspired word here. If you have a subsequent revelation from God that adds to His Word I do not trust it at all . . . :eek::rolleyes:;):)
ἐπί epí, ep-ee'; a primary preposition; properly, meaning superimposition (of time, place, order, etc.), as a relation of distribution (with the genitive case), i.e. over, upon, etc.; of rest (with the dative case) at, on, etc.; of direction (with the accusative case) towards, upon, etc.:—about (the times), above, after, against, among, as long as (touching), at, beside, × have charge of, (be-, (where-))fore, in (a place, as much as, the time of, -to), (because) of, (up-)on (behalf of), over, (by, for) the space of, through(-out), (un-)to(-ward), with.

Epi means a superimposition of one thing on top of another. If it's a literal hand then the correct translation would be ON the right hand.

A figurative right hand does not have an ON... where is the "chip off the old block" physically located? It doesn't have a location any more than a figurative right hand has an ON.

You CAN NOT accurately translate languages without INTERPRETING the original language FIRST. You have to understand what TYPE OF HAND it is before you can know which one of those meanings of Epi I posted above applies.

I really don't understand why this is so hard for you guys to understand.
 

Chester

Senior Member
May 23, 2016
3,717
1,052
113
ἐπί epí, ep-ee'; a primary preposition; properly, meaning superimposition (of time, place, order, etc.), as a relation of distribution (with the genitive case), i.e. over, upon, etc.; of rest (with the dative case) at, on, etc.; of direction (with the accusative case) towards, upon, etc.:—about (the times), above, after, against, among, as long as (touching), at, beside, × have charge of, (be-, (where-))fore, in (a place, as much as, the time of, -to), (because) of, (up-)on (behalf of), over, (by, for) the space of, through(-out), (un-)to(-ward), with.

Epi means a superimposition of one thing on top of another. If it's a literal hand then the correct translation would be ON the right hand.

A figurative right hand does not have an ON... where is the "chip off the old block" physically located? It doesn't have a location any more than a figurative right hand has an ON.

You CAN NOT accurately translate languages without INTERPRETING the original language FIRST. You have to understand what TYPE OF HAND it is before you can know which one of those meanings of Epi I posted above applies.

I really don't understand why this is so hard for you guys to understand.
LOL! It is actually quite easy to understand -- it is just we refuse to understand it by a later revelation . . . :rolleyes:
 

KJV1611

Senior Member
Nov 23, 2013
12,669
1,042
113
LOL! It is actually quite easy to understand -- it is just we refuse to understand it by a later revelation . . . :rolleyes:
Actually you're wrong, one bible translated it right and the others translated it wrong. By the way do you understand that there is a figurative right hand in the bible?
 

fredoheaven

Senior Member
Nov 17, 2015
2,986
679
113
That is your view. But modern evangelical Bible users believe in the complete inspiration of the original manuscripts and believe there are many good and completely trustworthy translations in many languages.

KJV only believers believe that God added to his Word by inspiring new words into the English language over 1500 years after revelation was complete and the canon closed.
Yea, speaking of the neo-evagelicals now tied up to the Romish view. The issue is not of the “complete inspiration of the original manuscripts” which I believe there were once but we no longer have them today as you also believe it. What you don’t like is that there is a copy of scripture that resembles the faithful copies of the originals in the form of translation. As I observed, you have it interchanged of the many theological terminologies. Sometimes, you equate, inspiration to transmission, revelation to an inspiration and speaks of preservation thru translation and sometimes revert to it when original language text (not original autographs) is vague. I also see some vain jangling, trying to tie up KJV believers ‘that God added to his Word’ by inspiring new words into the English language…after revelation was complete and the canon closed. The vital issue is not Revelation, we know that, but it is having the preserved, pure, inerrant words of God today in the English word (aka Translation) as you believe it preserved in the ‘many good and completely trustworthy translations in many languages.’(multiple Bible versions) which you have not name or mention even just one. Assuming you have that in English versions then, let’s test them according to your argument of “many good and completely trustworthy translations” if they really will stand. For an eye-opener I quote two(2) experts, one favoring the NASB and the other ESV

“Better than any other English translation, the NASB represents the writings of the original Hebrew and Greek authors. For private study and public reading, it’s unsurpassed!”

Bruce A. Ware Ph.D
Professor of Christian Theology
Southern Baptist Theological Seminary
Louisville, KY

“With the myriad of new Bible translations on the market today, few stand out. The ESV is one of the few, and surpasses the others in its simple yet elegant style. In many respects the ESV has accomplished in the 21st century what the KJV accomplished in the 17th: a trustworthy, literary Bible that is suitable for daily reading, memorizing, and preaching.”

Daniel B. Wallace, Ph.D., Executive Director, Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts

What? the ESV have surpassed the unsurpassable NASB, yet DB Wallace assumed ESV to equate it to the KJV accomplishment in the 17th ce. What the experts are saying aren’t true, and what they endorsed differ to each other. In Matthew 23:14 the NASB in an uncertainty as it put the brackets may have the same reading with the KJV while ESV had entirely omitted it. So we see conflicting Bibles and God is not the author of it, hence, ESV did not preserved what Jesus said in this particular verse while NASB which is entitled to represent the original writings of the Greek authors are in actuality doubting what Jesus said by placing the brackets.

KJV Mat 23:14 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widows' houses, and for a pretence make long prayer: therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation.

NASB [“Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, because you devour widows’ houses, and for a pretense you make long prayers; therefore you will receive greater condemnation.]

ESV _____________________________________________________.
 

posthuman

Senior Member
Jul 31, 2013
28,568
8,912
113
The original autographs were the preservation of God’s word. God spoke and men preserved God’s words by writing them down. For example, the book of Romans.

1. Who wrote Romans?
2. Who was given the words from God?

The original epistle of Romans was the preservation of the inspired words, therefore a copy.
considering the tower of Babel happened, what does it mean that the language the autographs were recorded in was not the language of Adam? is language/dialect important, and if so how important is it?
 

John146

Senior Member
Jan 13, 2016
11,219
1,919
113
considering the tower of Babel happened, what does it mean that the language the autographs were recorded in was not the language of Adam? is language/dialect important, and if so how important is it?
It may have been, but my post was about how even the original writings were the copy of the inspired words that God gave man. Scripture is preserving God’s word by writing it down.
 

posthuman

Senior Member
Jul 31, 2013
28,568
8,912
113
It may have been, but my post was about how even the original writings were the copy of the inspired words that God gave man. Scripture is preserving God’s word by writing it down.
i saw what you had said, and was thinking, when God speaks, no matter what your tongue is, if He opens your understanding you hear Him as though it is your own language. God's Word, in other words, transcends the tower of Babel ;) - as the miracle of tongues, and the 'thundering' at Sinai, as KJV puts it. i am told the Hebrew word there alternately means 'languages'
 

Dino246

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2015
15,152
8,232
113
The original autographs were the preservation of God’s word. God spoke and men preserved God’s words by writing them down. For example, the book of Romans.

1. Who wrote Romans?
2. Who was given the words from God?

The original epistle of Romans was the preservation of the inspired words, therefore a copy.
Um, no. The original recording of a message is not a copy of the message; it is exactly that: the original record.

You're attempting to play with the meanings of words to support your erroneous position. That boat won't float.
 

Dino246

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2015
15,152
8,232
113
A figurative right hand does not have an ON... where is the "chip off the old block" physically located? It doesn't have a location any more than a figurative right hand has an ON.
If a figurative hand does not have an "on" then it also does not have an "in". Both are positional prepositions. If the hand is figurative as you claim, that means the KJV is equally incorrect!

It would serve you well to think through the implications of your arguments before you post them. :)
 

Dino246

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2015
15,152
8,232
113
Yea, speaking of the neo-evagelicals now tied up to the Romish view. The issue is not of the “complete inspiration of the original manuscripts” which I believe there were once but we no longer have them today as you also believe it. What you don’t like is that there is a copy of scripture that resembles the faithful copies of the originals in the form of translation. As I observed, you have it interchanged of the many theological terminologies. Sometimes, you equate, inspiration to transmission, revelation to an inspiration and speaks of preservation thru translation and sometimes revert to it when original language text (not original autographs) is vague. I also see some vain jangling, trying to tie up KJV believers ‘that God added to his Word’ by inspiring new words into the English language…after revelation was complete and the canon closed. The vital issue is not Revelation, we know that, but it is having the preserved, pure, inerrant words of God today in the English word (aka Translation) as you believe it preserved in the ‘many good and completely trustworthy translations in many languages.’(multiple Bible versions) which you have not name or mention even just one. Assuming you have that in English versions then, let’s test them according to your argument of “many good and completely trustworthy translations” if they really will stand. For an eye-opener I quote two(2) experts, one favoring the NASB and the other ESV

“Better than any other English translation, the NASB represents the writings of the original Hebrew and Greek authors. For private study and public reading, it’s unsurpassed!”

Bruce A. Ware Ph.D
Professor of Christian Theology
Southern Baptist Theological Seminary
Louisville, KY

“With the myriad of new Bible translations on the market today, few stand out. The ESV is one of the few, and surpasses the others in its simple yet elegant style. In many respects the ESV has accomplished in the 21st century what the KJV accomplished in the 17th: a trustworthy, literary Bible that is suitable for daily reading, memorizing, and preaching.”

Daniel B. Wallace, Ph.D., Executive Director, Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts

What? the ESV have surpassed the unsurpassable NASB, yet DB Wallace assumed ESV to equate it to the KJV accomplishment in the 17th ce. What the experts are saying aren’t true, and what they endorsed differ to each other. In Matthew 23:14 the NASB in an uncertainty as it put the brackets may have the same reading with the KJV while ESV had entirely omitted it. So we see conflicting Bibles and God is not the author of it, hence, ESV did not preserved what Jesus said in this particular verse while NASB which is entitled to represent the original writings of the Greek authors are in actuality doubting what Jesus said by placing the brackets.

KJV Mat 23:14 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widows' houses, and for a pretence make long prayer: therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation.

NASB [“Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, because you devour widows’ houses, and for a pretense you make long prayers; therefore you will receive greater condemnation.]

ESV _____________________________________________________.
Why are you making the opinions of men the issue? One prefers the NASB, and one prefers the ESV. Their opinions are no different, fundamentally, than those of people who make grand claims about the KJV. None of them have any official weight, and none have any value with regard to answering the thread's title question.

As for the allegedly-missing verse in the ESV (which is probably included in the footnotes), if you're comparing to the KJV, you're doing it wrong! The KJV simply is NOT the standard against which others are to be measured. All are to be measured against the original-language texts.
 

WithinReason

Active member
Feb 21, 2020
933
136
43

Dino246

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2015
15,152
8,232
113
The KJB. Feel free to start here:

Bahahahahaha! That video is closed-minded, biased brainwashing. Sam Gipp is good for demonstrating logical fallacies, but his opinion on the matter of Bible translations is not worth the time to listen to it.
 

fredoheaven

Senior Member
Nov 17, 2015
2,986
679
113
Why are you making the opinions of men the issue? One prefers the NASB, and one prefers the ESV. Their opinions are no different, fundamentally, than those of people who make grand claims about the KJV. None of them have any official weight, and none have any value with regard to answering the thread's title question.

As for the allegedly-missing verse in the ESV (which is probably included in the footnotes), if you're comparing to the KJV, you're doing it wrong! The KJV simply is NOT the standard against which others are to be measured. All are to be measured against the original-language texts.
The rule of engagement is so clear, "scripture is preserved in various languages' so i compred those English translation, just so happen world reknown greek expert Wallace had to compare Esv with Kjv and that is his opinion. Reality check, they are not the same. You discount their opinion, when your opinion needs to be check and balance in the scripture. No of course, i am not doing anything wrong when i compare. The fact is that mainstream English bible versions have compared them to the Kjv. Another thing, they are to be compared with what original language text. This is to challenge your assertion of original language text to lay down that text you are referring to? Thanks
 

fredoheaven

Senior Member
Nov 17, 2015
2,986
679
113
Matthew 1:10 English Standard Version (ESV)
10 and Hezekiah the father of Manasseh, and Manasseh the father of Amos,[a] and Amos the father of Josiah,

Footnotes:
  1. Matthew 1:10 Amos is probably an alternate spelling of Amon; some manuscripts Amon; twice in this verse
Dino,

Would you figure this out for me what the footnote says, since you indulge yourself over the footnotes and not the text. Would you mind in your original language text if Amos is the correct one? What original language text is base from? Thanks
 

John146

Senior Member
Jan 13, 2016
11,219
1,919
113
Um, no. The original recording of a message is not a copy of the message; it is exactly that: the original record.

You're attempting to play with the meanings of words to support your erroneous position. That boat won't float.
The words given by God to men were inspired. Man preserved God’s words by writing them down.

Who wrote the book of Romans? Tertius wrote Romans but the inspired words were given to Paul. Tertius preserved those words by writing them down.
 

KJV1611

Senior Member
Nov 23, 2013
12,669
1,042
113
If a figurative hand does not have an "on" then it also does not have an "in". Both are positional prepositions. If the hand is figurative as you claim, that means the KJV is equally incorrect!

It would serve you well to think through the implications of your arguments before you post them. :)
When someone has a character issue, would you say that person has a mar IN their character or would you say that person has a mar ON their character?
 

fredoheaven

Senior Member
Nov 17, 2015
2,986
679
113
ESV Psalms 10:4 In the pride of his face2 the wicked does not qseek him;3

all his thoughts are, r“There is no God.”

5 His ways prosper at all times;

your judgments are on high, sout of his sight;

as for all his foes, he tpuffs at them.

Nop, The wicked ways does not prosper at all times. That could be an error 101.