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.
Chester

Chester

Senior Member
#121
May 23, 2016
4,320
1,449
113
#121
KJV1611 said:
Thanks I appreciate that... I do like this forum and would hate to get banned.
I know Dino's after me. :)
Click to expand...
Yeah, I agree, we need to be careful. It is great and OK to debate over beliefs, but I think the moderators are clamping down on name calling.

I don't think you have been doing that, though, KJV1611.

(Ah, just typing your name makes me wish I could shake you up good! LOL!)
 
Dino246

Dino246

Senior Member
#122
Jun 30, 2015
25,619
13,863
113
#122
KJV1611 said:
I can give you a typical example.

Some moron biblical scholar who hates the KJV said the word Easter is an obvious mistranslation to promote the pagan religion of King James.

(Act 12:4) And when he had apprehended him, he put him in prison, and delivered him to four quaternions of soldiers to keep him; intending after Easter to bring him forth to the people.


g3957
πάσχα πάσχα pascha

Yep the moron biblical scholar who hates the KJV was right, the correct translation should have been Passover. And this is where the typical armchair Greek expert dictionary reader leaves it. They will not go on to investigate why the KJV translators used the word Easter for Pascha in this ONE PLACE in the bible.

Then they will go on to belittle Christians who celebrate Easter under the name Easter, the name that God gave for the fulfillment of Passover by putting it in the KJV that the entire English speaking people read for over 400 years which established the word Easter as the fulfillment of Passover just as God intended when he INSPIRED the KJV translators to use the word Easter.
Click to expand...
It's sadly indicative of the state of your heart that you can't identify people who disagree with you without using derogative terms like "moron". It's also a sad reflection on your position that you can't distinguish between people who legitimately disagree with the wording of the KJV and people who "hate the KJV".

Though I disagree vigorously with you on this matter, I don't think you are stupid at all. However, I do think many of the arguments you present for your position are stupid. It is fine to call an idea stupid without implicating the holder of it.
 
KJV1611

KJV1611

Banned
#123
Nov 23, 2013
13,684
1,212
113
#123
Chester said:
Yeah, I agree, we need to be careful. It is great and OK to debate over beliefs, but I think the moderators are clamping down on name calling.

I don't think you have been doing that, though, KJV1611.

(Ah, just typing your name makes me wish I could shake you up good! LOL!)
Click to expand...
In my defense I was calling a fictitious person that I made up a moron.
 
Chester

Chester

Senior Member
#124
May 23, 2016
4,320
1,449
113
#124
KJV1611 said:
In my defense I was calling a fictitious person that I made up a moron.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I saw that - I personally took no offense by that comment - you weren't calling me that.
 
KJV1611

KJV1611

Banned
#125
Nov 23, 2013
13,684
1,212
113
#125
Dino246 said:
It's sadly indicative of the state of your heart that you can't identify people who disagree with you without using derogative terms like "moron". It's also a sad reflection on your position that you can't distinguish between people who legitimately disagree with the wording of the KJV and people who "hate the KJV".

Though I disagree vigorously with you on this matter, I don't think you are stupid at all. However, I do think many of the arguments you present for your position are stupid. It is fine to call an idea stupid without implicating the holder of it.
Click to expand...
What do you call a person who knows absolutely nothing about a matter but thinks he is an expert?
 
J

John146

Senior Member
#126
Jan 13, 2016
17,177
3,700
113
#126
Chester said:
KJV Ephesians 2:8 - "for by grace are ye saved through faith"

"are" is a present tense in Greek - which conveys the continuation of the action
"saved" is a perfect tense in Greek - which means the action was completed in past time completely with ongoing consequence

So we were saved in past time completely with the present result that we are in a state of salvation that persists through present time

Not that is enough to get me shouting and saying "Hallelujah, thank you Jesus"![/QUO

I can get excited about the word “ye.” Ye is plural...the saints in Christ.
Click to expand...
 
Lanolin

Lanolin

Well-known member
#128
Dec 15, 2018
23,460
7,188
113
#128
huh it seems like the OP has answered his own question....in English.

why not just read the Bible in Hebrew if you are worried about the translation.
Im pretty sure some parts of the KJV do have Hebrew words though, the really long psalm does, but thats about it.
 
L

lenna

Guest
#133
#133
Chester said:
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.
Click to expand...

Obviously as you say, there is NO English translation that is inspired. I will go farther and state that God uses people and the personalities of those people are seen in the old and new testaments. In fact, experts who are not agreed on certain authors will point to similar writings of the author they believe was 'inspired' to write what they did.

I doubt God used 'automatic' writing as a means to convey His thoughts by His Spirit.

Further, the same thing can be said different ways without changing the meaning. The best translations would not be word for word anyway, because that does not translate the thought from the original language. English is unlike Greek whether modern or koine.

For example, we are told in the New Testament to be filled with the Holy Spirit.(since there are those who think that version is inspired I'll use it)

The KJ renders it this way: 18 And be not drunk with wine, wherein is excess; but be filled with the Spirit Ephesians 5

However, in the Greek it would actually be to be continually filled; in other words not a one time thing.

Just one small example of what I am talking about. Surely God did not change His mind from Paul to the English King?

As an aside I have no desire to argue about it since it cannot actually be argued against. I can only imagine that it would take a 'revelation' to change the mind of a KJ onlyist anyway.

But it is not even logical to insist that one Bible, translated from the original, is inspired when the translation itself does not agree with that sentiment when comparing the meaning of original.
 
KJV1611

KJV1611

Banned
#134
Nov 23, 2013
13,684
1,212
113
#134
lenna said:
Obviously as you say, there is NO English translation that is inspired. I will go farther and state that God uses people and the personalities of those people are seen in the old and new testaments. In fact, experts who are not agreed on certain authors will point to similar writings of the author they believe was 'inspired' to write what they did.

I doubt God used 'automatic' writing as a means to convey His thoughts by His Spirit.

Further, the same thing can be said different ways without changing the meaning. The best translations would not be word for word anyway, because that does not translate the thought from the original language. English is unlike Greek whether modern or koine.

For example, we are told in the New Testament to be filled with the Holy Spirit.(since there are those who think that version is inspired I'll use it)

The KJ renders it this way: 18 And be not drunk with wine, wherein is excess; but be filled with the Spirit Ephesians 5

However, in the Greek it would actually be to be continually filled; in other words not a one time thing.

Just one small example of what I am talking about. Surely God did not change His mind from Paul to the English King?

As an aside I have no desire to argue about it since it cannot actually be argued against. I can only imagine that it would take a 'revelation' to change the mind of a KJ onlyist anyway.

But it is not even logical to insist that one Bible, translated from the original, is inspired when the translation itself does not agree with that sentiment when comparing the meaning of original.
Click to expand...
I don't follow you. Are you saying that you get full of the Holy Spirit once and then you're full of the Holy Spirit from that moment on?
 
L

lenna

Guest
#135
#135
KJV1611 said:
I don't follow you. Are you saying that you get full of the Holy Spirit once and then you're full of the Holy Spirit from that moment on?
Click to expand...
Don't follow me. Read the text in the KJV, Eph 5:18 and then check it out in the original. The meaning is changed in the KJV.

However, I will state the original states the opposite of what you understood.

And be not drunk with wine, wherein is excess; but be filled with the Spirit;

However Paul is using a 'continuing' tense, not indicating a one time occurrence of being filled as it indicates in the KJ.

So in English it should read be continually filled (with the Spirit) and not just be filled (stop). This is not salvation, but rather the infilling of the Holy Spirit and continuing therein. A person who objects to that will not necessarily agree with the actual meaning.

It is one thing to allow scripture to speak to us and another to force a meaning.
 
fredoheaven

fredoheaven

Senior Member
#136
Nov 17, 2015
4,114
965
113
#136
lenna said:
Don't follow me. Read the text in the KJV, Eph 5:18 and then check it out in the original. The meaning is changed in the KJV.

However, I will state the original states the opposite of what you understood.

And be not drunk with wine, wherein is excess; but be filled with the Spirit;

However Paul is using a 'continuing' tense, not indicating a one time occurrence of being filled as it indicates in the KJ.

So in English it should read be continually filled (with the Spirit) and not just be filled (stop). This is not salvation, but rather the infilling of the Holy Spirit and continuing therein. A person who objects to that will not necessarily agree with the actual meaning.

It is one thing to allow scripture to speak to us and another to force a meaning.
Click to expand...
Hi Lenna,
The English word "be" means to continue or remain.(The Shorter Oxford Dictionary Vol 1. p 167) so that the KJV is in not in error of what you are saying. You might be in error of knowing the facts. God bless
 
L

lenna

Guest
#137
#137
fredoheaven said:
Hi Lenna,
The English word "be" means to continue or remain.(The Shorter Oxford Dictionary Vol 1. p 167) so that the KJV is in not in error of what you are saying. You might be in error of knowing the facts. God bless
Click to expand...
The word 'be' is not standing alone here. We could ask 'be what?' the emphasis is on the continuation of the filling or being filled continually.

Understand that Paul was a spirit filled man, speaking and praying in tongues, and that was his emphasis. As he said to Timothy to work up the gift he had been given, meaning spiritual gift, to practice or used what God had given. It is OUR obligation to use what God has given to us.

I'm sorry, and I did not really want to get this complicated, but it does have to do with being filled with the Holy Spirit and cessationists will not agree even though it says what it says. That's ok. That is between God and you and your own desire to know the truth or allow God to introduce you to the truth.

I expect no agreement and have no fantasies of converting a KJ onlyist :giggle:
 
L

lenna

Guest
#138
#138
Detailed description of the verb

  1. to make full, to fill up, i.e., to fill to the full
    1. to cause to abound, to furnish or supply liberally
      1. I abound, I am liberally supplied
  3. to render full, i.e., to complete
    1. to fill to the top: so that nothing shall be wanting to full measure, fill to the brim
    2. to consummate: a number
      1. to make complete in every particular, to render perfect
      2. to carry through to the end, to accomplish, carry out, (some undertaking)
    4. to carry into effect, bring to realisation, realize
      1. of matters of duty: to perform, execute
      2. of sayings, promises, prophecies, to bring to pass, ratify, accomplish
      3. to fulfil, i.e., to cause God's will (as made known in the law) to be obeyed as it should be, and God's promises (given through the prophets) to receive fulfilment



However, as used in the KJ:

accomplish, X after, (be) complete, end, expire, fill (up), fulfil, (be, make) full (come), fully preach, perfect, supply

Clearly indicating an accomplishment as in 'it's done' or finished

The original does not indicate that. It indicates ONGOING filling

BIG difference.

Not going to argue about it. Certainly not going to be convinced the KJ is inspired. There is only one inspired version of scripture and that is the originals
 
fredoheaven

fredoheaven

Senior Member
#139
Nov 17, 2015
4,114
965
113
#139
lenna said:
The word 'be' is not standing alone here. We could ask 'be what?' the emphasis is on the continuation of the filling or being filled continually.

Understand that Paul was a spirit filled man, speaking and praying in tongues, and that was his emphasis. As he said to Timothy to work up the gift he had been given, meaning spiritual gift, to practice or used what God had given. It is OUR obligation to use what God has given to us.

I'm sorry, and I did not really want to get this complicated, but it does have to do with being filled with the Holy Spirit and cessationists will not agree even though it says what it says. That's ok. That is between God and you and your own desire to know the truth or allow God to introduce you to the truth.

I expect no agreement and have no fantasies of converting a KJ onlyist :giggle:
Click to expand...
What the word "be" means to continue and the idea of emphasis is nothing wrong and 'be" had already emphasized that, only if my dictionary is flat wrong but that is the meaning of the word 'be'. Still not quite correct as per context stating the 'praying in tongues' Paul says on the other hand "Speaking to yourselves in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and and making melody in your heart to the Lord".:love:
 
fredoheaven

fredoheaven

Senior Member
#140
Nov 17, 2015
4,114
965
113
#140
lenna said:
Detailed description of the verb

  1. to make full, to fill up, i.e., to fill to the full
    1. to cause to abound, to furnish or supply liberally
      1. I abound, I am liberally supplied
  3. to render full, i.e., to complete
    1. to fill to the top: so that nothing shall be wanting to full measure, fill to the brim
    2. to consummate: a number
      1. to make complete in every particular, to render perfect
      2. to carry through to the end, to accomplish, carry out, (some undertaking)
    4. to carry into effect, bring to realisation, realize
      1. of matters of duty: to perform, execute
      2. of sayings, promises, prophecies, to bring to pass, ratify, accomplish
      3. to fulfil, i.e., to cause God's will (as made known in the law) to be obeyed as it should be, and God's promises (given through the prophets) to receive fulfilment



However, as used in the KJ:

accomplish, X after, (be) complete, end, expire, fill (up), fulfil, (be, make) full (come), fully preach, perfect, supply

Clearly indicating an accomplishment as in 'it's done' or finished

The original does not indicate that. It indicates ONGOING filling

BIG difference.

Not going to argue about it. Certainly not going to be convinced the KJ is inspired. There is only one inspired version of scripture and that is the originals
Click to expand...
Not trying to convert you, just stating the fact. Your ongoing therefore fulfills the meaning of "be". You are in agreement with the what the KJV says.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.