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

[Dino246]

Didn't read the thread, but language is fallible.

When I use the word continent you could think I'm talking about a geographical land mass or something else.
Context matters, but since puns, nuances, sarcasm also exist and the mind of God cannot be "known" by our own minds in our own intellect or even power (referring to many avenues) it stands to reason that a lot of the Bible is arbitrary until you know the arbiter and specifics.

Each of us speaks our own language even within the context of a mother tongue. The Father knows our tongue but I think we can get lost when we focus too much on "mother tongues" and less on the Father's WORD (John 1:1 starting point).

Obviously we should have consensus but I think that since this is an English discussion largely it should rather be a lingual discussion and the limitations of language itself.

Alas, then, we are liable to have a thread about "what interpretation of scripture is best" and you can see people that read different translations arriving at the same "interpretation" and my question is...how does one integrate that?

Carry on...I appreciate the KJV because it's open source and easy to obtain in large quantities. The language of that era is not completely unknown to me and can be better in a way because I have to stretch myself to understand what is being said and I have to translate it myself when reading. Occasionally I read the NASB but that is getting less and less. I am starting to dislike footnotes and annotations more than usual of late for whatever reason ha.


Edit: oh and "exact" words in a changing world? What is exactitude and how does that fit in with being human? It's there certainly, but in the Lord and not us. Were we to have "legitimately" scripture written in pre-babel language still it would be filtered and understood through our own minds. Who opens our understanding? Who darkens it? Choose ye this day...

Generally good thoughts... but FYI, the 1611 KJV was printed with marginal notes.

 

[Mii]

Generally good thoughts... but FYI, the 1611 KJV was printed with marginal notes.

Oh didn't realize that, I usually try and find the ones with nothing. I'm reading a book now that has something in the margins 2-3x/page and another where I had to flip on the back to see what that pesky * had to say. Maybe I'm just not a fan of the pacing, it's distracting because I "have" to know what it says for the sake of completion. Rarely if ever does it add to things except with name/place translations.

I talked to my brother and he apparently didn't ever notice the tiny a, b, c, d, etc. in his bible. Perhaps it doesn't bother most people.

 

[GyO]

I have KJV which is translated out of the original tongue.

 

[GyO]

Here it is

 

[peldom10]

I"m not playing childish games with you Dino. If you think I misread him fine, if you think I twisted his words fine.

He is a interloper of sorts but, without quality standing....I usually ignore him. He gets in a corner and then disappears for a time.

 

[Dino246]

He is a interloper of sorts but, without quality standing....I usually ignore him. He gets in a corner and then disappears for a time.

If you have an issue with me, address me directly. You seem to have me confused with someone else.

 

[Dino246]

I have KJV which is translated out of the original tongue.

As are all modern translations; from Hebrew and Aramaic (Old Testament) and Greek (New Testament).

Modern translations draw on nearly 6,000 manuscripts in Greek plus thousands in other languages. The KJV was translated from printed editions of collated Greek texts compiled from about seven manuscripts.

 

[throughfaith]

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

Answer: None

No English translation is "inspired". Many English translations are reputable and do an excellent job at conveying well the original meaning of the original inspired manuscripts. There is no perfect English translation. I think we need ongoing and open discussion about what are the best English translations; and in my opinion the KJV still ranks as one of the best English translations. Other good ones are the NASB and the ESV. But there are other good ones also.

Giving the KJV of 1611 the title of "inspired," in my opinion, is violating Revelation 22:18,19: "For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book."

"Preservation" is not the equivalent of "inspiration." The original manuscripts in Greek and Hebrew are inspired, and God's Word is preserved in many good translations in many different languages.

Where are the "exact English words preserved for English speakers"? I can't answer that because I am not looking for "exact" words in English. God already gave his "exact" words in the original manuscripts in Greek and Hebrew. The job of translators is to do the very best job possible to make the meaning of those exact words clear, concise, and natural in the words of the language they are translating into. The job of the translators is not to try to duplicate original inspiration.

I guess the debate is

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

Answer: None

No English translation is "inspired". Many English translations are reputable and do an excellent job at conveying well the original meaning of the original inspired manuscripts. There is no perfect English translation. I think we need ongoing and open discussion about what are the best English translations; and in my opinion the KJV still ranks as one of the best English translations. Other good ones are the NASB and the ESV. But there are other good ones also.

Giving the KJV of 1611 the title of "inspired," in my opinion, is violating Revelation 22:18,19: "For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book."

"Preservation" is not the equivalent of "inspiration." The original manuscripts in Greek and Hebrew are inspired, and God's Word is preserved in many good translations in many different languages.

Where are the "exact English words preserved for English speakers"? I can't answer that because I am not looking for "exact" words in English. God already gave his "exact" words in the original manuscripts in Greek and Hebrew. The job of translators is to do the very best job possible to make the meaning of those exact words clear, concise, and natural in the words of the language they are translating into. The job of the translators is not to try to duplicate original inspiration.

Does it depend on which 'original ' manuscripts our Bibles come from . For me I can see some major issues with the NIV compared with the Kjv for example. The latter coming from the TR .

 

[Chester]

I guess the debate is

Does it depend on which 'original ' manuscripts our Bibles come from . For me I can see some major issues with the NIV compared with the Kjv for example. The latter coming from the TR .

There was of course only one original manuscript for each Biblical book written. The Greek texts we have today (TR, Nestle-Aland, etc.) are scholars' best work at determining what the original manuscripts said. All of their work is based on manuscript evidence they have found.

I agree that the NIV does have some major issues. It is almost more of a paraphrase or commentary than a translation at times.