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

[Chester]

Literally the most disjointed and ridiculous posts I have read.,

First @Kolistus, I read Biblical Hebrew and Koine Greek well! I like languages, and even got the Outstanding a Greek Student award in seminary.

@JohnR7 - The first letter in the Hebrew alphabet is Aleph. Unless you need a letter with a sound, and then you would be partially right- the letter Bet. There is no letter B in Hebrew. It's really a mistake to call Hebrew letters with English names. Especially Bet! In order for it to be Bet it needs a dot in the Center (begad kepat letters). That gives it a hard sound, rather than the soft Vet sound.

I have studied Hebrew and have a lot of Hebrew tools, and never heard that Bet stands for a tent or dwelling or a gimel stands for ben. Bet does start ben, but you are not saying that!

Then you start talking about Jesus and books?? What does that have to do with Hebrew letters? I agree with what John says, about all the other things Jesus did have not been written And not enough books to contain them. But, God left us with the Bible for guidance. We don't need all those other deeds, because God has judged the Bible is what we need!! All we need!

My advice is to take a real course in Biblical Hebrew, instead of listening to rabbis from any tradition, including the Kabbalists!

Thanks, Angela, very helpful

 

[Chester]

Did you read the post I wrote about this? Paul used the word: "right" or righteous when he was quoting David in the Psalms. But David used the word Good. So I asked the question how could Paul change the word from good to right? As it turns out Paul explained this to me himself in person. Although I suppose you would call this a vision or perhaps just my imagination.

If a person has a vision - I can be OK with that, but when you use a vision of "what Paul told you" to give additional "revelation" beyond the inspired Word of God, then I will not believe it and will not count what you say as authoritative.

But this is essentially the same principle KJV only uses - it teaches that God gave additional revelation beyond the exact words He gave to the original writers of Scripture.

 

[lenna]

If a person has a vision - I can be OK with that, but when you use a vision of "what Paul told you" to give additional "revelation" beyond the inspired Word of God, then I will not believe it and will not count what you say as authoritative.

But this is essentially the same principle KJV only uses - it teaches that God gave additional revelation beyond the exact words He gave to the original writers of Scripture.

This is where the verse Fred tried to apply p. 18, comes in handy and this is what Paul meant.

"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." I Thessalonians 5:21

It follows Paul saying do not despise prophecies (don't discount it all) but chuck it if that is warranted.

Kabbalah? Talking to Paul? well, probably not going to hold that fast.

 

[John146]

Well, then the KJV is not the word of God according to your own definition! I believe that any good translation can be called the Word of God. Jesus quoted from the Septuagint and confirmed its validity. By today's standards it was not a very linguistically good translation, but Jesus still used it. If Jesus came today, he would not be a KJV-onlyist! (My opinion! )

Do you think Jesus would use another version with errors? Versions that down play His blood sacrifice? Versions that contradict themselves?

 

[lenna]

Do you think Jesus would use another version with errors? Versions that down play His blood sacrifice? Versions that contradict themselves?

That is known as a red herring. No one has indicated the use of inferior translations and no one has said the KJ is an inferior translation.

The KJ is not an inspired translation though and no translations are inspired. That, would be where you make your error.

As has been pointed out many times in other threads if not this one, do you suppose the entire world should learn KJ English to have the word of God? You might, but that is ridiculouas. When Jesus said to bring the gospel to the entire world, He was well aware that English was never going to be the only language spoken and certainly not archaic KJ English (thankfully they have taken out the olde spelling)

 

[John146]

That is known as a red herring. No one has indicated the use of inferior translations and no one has said the KJ is an inferior translation.

The KJ is not an inspired translation though and no translations are inspired. That, would be where you make your error.

As has been pointed out many times in other threads if not this one, do you suppose the entire world should learn KJ English to have the word of God? You might, but that is ridiculouas. When Jesus said to bring the gospel to the entire world, He was well aware that English was never going to be the only language spoken and certainly not archaic KJ English (thankfully they have taken out the olde spelling)

Question...can a translation be inspired? Careful how you answer...

 

[lenna]

Question...can a translation be inspired? Careful how you answer...

You avoid responding to the post above. Why should anyone answer you when you seem unable to hold up your end of the conversation?

And no, I am not avoiding answering you. You have asked that question and been answered so many times, I need 2 hands to count it

 

[fredoheaven]

But this is essentially the same principle KJV only uses - it teaches that God gave additional revelation beyond the exact words He gave to the original writers of Scripture.

I can say a No here sir, and certainly you are not referring to translation is what it meant to be. The scripture is given by inspiration of God. Since KJV is an English scripture, it is given by inspiration, not unless you think it is not an English scripture based primarily on Heb/Aramaic and Koine Greek along with the host of other translations being diligently compared including the witnesses of lectionaries and the church Fathers..

 

[lenna]

I can say a No here sir, and certainly you are not referring to translation is what it meant to be. The scripture is given by inspiration of God. Since KJV is an English scripture, it is given by inspiration, not unless you think it is not an English scripture based primarily on Heb/Aramaic and Koine Greek along with the host of other translations being diligently compared including the witnesses of lectionaries and the church Fathers..

Circular reasoning.

I was warned about that.

 

[fredoheaven]

Circular reasoning.

I was warned about that.

Anyway, you can't disproved, you haven't have any scripture to to prove that translation is not the word of God. I have to congratulate you, it's your lucky day! you just won the 5000.00 prize by spinning the wheel

 

[Dino246]

Do you think Jesus would use another version with errors? Versions that down play His blood sacrifice? Versions that contradict themselves?

Hypotheticals are a waste of time. Jesus quoted the Septuagint. Deal with it.

 

[Chester]

Do you think Jesus would use another version with errors? Versions that down play His blood sacrifice? Versions that contradict themselves?

Jesus used the Septuagint and it had errors! And I would guess if he were here today He would also use the KJV (and other versions) even though it has errors.

 

[Dino246]

Since KJV is an English scripture, it is given by inspiration

Given that you claim this, do you accept the following statements as equally true in every sense:

Since NIV is an English scripture, it is given by inspiration.
Since NASB is an English scripture, it is given by inspiration.
Since RSV is an English scripture, it is given by inspiration.
Since Wycliffe is an English scripture, it is given by inspiration.
Since CSV is an English scripture, it is given by inspiration.
Since TLB is an English scripture, it is given by inspiration.

???

 

[Dino246]

Question...can a translation be inspired? Careful how you answer...

You're playing games. Can an entire translation of Scripture be inspired? Yes. Is there an inspired translation of the entire Bible? No.

 

[John146]

You avoid responding to the post above. Why should anyone answer you when you seem unable to hold up your end of the conversation?

And no, I am not avoiding answering you. You have asked that question and been answered so many times, I need 2 hands to count it

Have I? Have you responded? Can a translation be inspired?

 

[Chester]

I can say a No here sir, and certainly you are not referring to translation is what it meant to be. The scripture is given by inspiration of God. Since KJV is an English scripture, it is given by inspiration, not unless you think it is not an English scripture based primarily on Heb/Aramaic and Koine Greek along with the host of other translations being diligently compared including the witnesses of lectionaries and the church Fathers..

Inspiration means God gave the exact words to the writers of Scripture. That was in the original manuscripts - in Greek and Hebrew. "KJV only" teaches that God over 1500 years later gave (inspired) some new "exact words" in a different language (English) that either supercede or equal the original words. (Thus there is no need to study the original words!?). Adding to God's inspired Word is heresy!

 

[John146]

Hypotheticals are a waste of time. Jesus quoted the Septuagint. Deal with it.

Lol, the Septuagint is a waste of time. There was no such a thing in Jesus’ day? The Septuagint contradicts itself every other verse.

 

[Dino246]

Lol, the Septuagint is a waste of time. There was no such a thing in Jesus’ day? The Septuagint contradicts itself every other verse.

Once again, your ignorance is your undoing. Do some real research for a change.

 

[John146]

Once again, your ignorance is your undoing. Do some real research for a change.

There was no pre-Christian, official and authoritative so called Greek Septuagint. What passes for the LXX today is nothing more than the Vaticanus, Sinaiticus and Alexandrinus manuscripts, all of which were written some 250 to 300 years AFTER the New Testament was already complete.

Furthermore, if there had been an authoritative pre-Christian LXX in wide use and circulation, there would not have been any need for people like Jerome, Aquila, Symmachus, Theodotian, Lucian and Hesychius to make their own translations years later.

There are several so called Septuagints out there and none of them agree with the others. There are only a few remaining scraps that could possibly be dated as B.C. writings, and even those sites that mention them tell us that they do not agree with other Septuagint copies. In all likelihood they are nothing more than the confused remnants of an independent individual's own attempt at a translation, just as several others did at a later date.

If a person knows anything about the so called Greek LXX, then they know it is a horrible translation, almost a total paraphrase and it differs by literally hundreds of whole verses either added to or omitted from what we have in the Hebrew Scriptures and it differs A LOT in many places from what the Hebrew O.T. says.

 

[Dino246]

There was no pre-Christian, official and authoritative so called Greek Septuagint. What passes for the LXX today is nothing more than the Vaticanus, Sinaiticus and Alexandrinus manuscripts, all of which were written some 250 to 300 years AFTER the New Testament was already complete.

Furthermore, if there had been an authoritative pre-Christian LXX in wide use and circulation, there would not have been any need for people like Jerome, Aquila, Symmachus, Theodotian, Lucian and Hesychius to make their own translations years later.

There are several so called Septuagints out there and none of them agree with the others. There are only a few remaining scraps that could possibly be dated as B.C. writings, and even those sites that mention them tell us that they do not agree with other Septuagint copies. In all likelihood they are nothing more than the confused remnants of an independent individual's own attempt at a translation, just as several others did at a later date.

If a person knows anything about the so called Greek LXX, then they know it is a horrible translation, almost a total paraphrase and it differs by literally hundreds of whole verses either added to or omitted from what we have in the Hebrew Scriptures and it differs A LOT in many places from what the Hebrew O.T. says.

I said nothing about "official and authoritative". However, Jesus quoted it, and that's about as "official and authoritative" as it can get.