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

[fredoheaven]

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.

???

My claim is KJV is an English scripture because KJV says, All scripture is given by inspiration of God 2 Tim. 3:16. Here’s a simple math to chuckle on.

If A=B

and B= C

then A = C

Application:

If the KJV (A) =( B ) Scripture

And Scripture (B) = (C) is given by inspiration of God.

Then KJV (A) = (C) is given by inspiration of God.



Am here to defend KJV and I don’t know with the others, it is you who said that ‘no translation’ isn’t inspired. So, everything I allude is absolutely nothing. What else I gonna say, I cannot even answer your given data since it is incomplete, needs to be check first if they are same thing as KJV says and that is one reason we need comparison in which thing you also abhor. This are only but a tricky game you want to employ. Did the NIV and others on your data really says of itself “is given by inspiration of God”? My suggestion you need to check that first in the Bible hub and show to me first if they are ‘given by inspiration of God’. Then will discuss further. Thanks.

 

[John146]

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

More opinions without proof.

 

[fredoheaven]

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!

Ok thanks, if I may exactly what you are inferring, when you say Inspiration means God gave the exact words to the writers of Scripture.' is not the meaning of inspiration but rather Transmission, so I am now seeing your view. Seeing it "was in the original manuscript" employs were once inspired but now expired, but that was my understanding.

 

[fredoheaven]

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.

Amen!

 

[Kolistus]

If you deny Christ, He will deny you. "If we deny Him, He also will deny us" (2Timothy2:12) If people not see Christ in Kabbalah then they are blind. Even the "Jewish" see it, they just avoid talking about it. There is an article on Wiki if you want to do a study on Christian Kabbalah. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Kabbalah

Right now I am just doing a study on the Hebrew letters and Jesus is the word of God. There is a lot more "antichrist" in the Church then there is in Kabbalah. I am a little worried about you sense people are always guilty of what they accuse others of. Perhaps you are the one that need to get the victory over the devil.

Do you know Jesus as your personal saviour? Are you saved, born again and filled with the Holy Spirit. Are you attending a church that is alive for God or are you attending a dead church somewhere?

I'll pass. Christian Kabbalah is where I stop reading.

Christian witchcraft in other words. You cant just put the tag Christian on something and make it ok, Christian adultery.

 

[Dino246]

My claim is KJV is an English scripture because KJV says, All scripture is given by inspiration of God 2 Tim. 3:16. Here’s a simple math to chuckle on.

If A=B

and B= C

then A = C

Application:

If the KJV (A) =( B ) Scripture

And Scripture (B) = (C) is given by inspiration of God.

Then KJV (A) = (C) is given by inspiration of God.



Am here to defend KJV and I don’t know with the others, it is you who said that ‘no translation’ isn’t inspired. So, everything I allude is absolutely nothing. What else I gonna say, I cannot even answer your given data since it is incomplete, needs to be check first if they are same thing as KJV says and that is one reason we need comparison in which thing you also abhor. This are only but a tricky game you want to employ. Did the NIV and others on your data really says of itself “is given by inspiration of God”? My suggestion you need to check that first in the Bible hub and show to me first if they are ‘given by inspiration of God’. Then will discuss further. Thanks.

Here are the various versions. I'll respond to the rest of your post later.

NASB All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;

NIV All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,

CSB All Scripture is inspired by God and is profitable for teaching, for rebuking, for correcting, for training in righteousness,

RSV All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,

WYC For all scripture inspired of God is profitable to teach, to reprove, to chastise, [for] to learn in rightwiseness,

 

[Chester]

Ok thanks, if I may exactly what you are inferring, when you say Inspiration means God gave the exact words to the writers of Scripture.' is not the meaning of inspiration but rather Transmission, so I am now seeing your view. Seeing it "was in the original manuscript" employs were once inspired but now expired, but that was my understanding.

It was in the giving of the original manuscripts and it still is in the original manuscripts. The KJV is an excellent translation in English. But it is not equivalent to the original manuscripts given by God. The English words in the KJV do not replace the Greek and Hebrew words as equal to or superior to what God himself breathed to the original authors. Adding to what God gave to he original authors is heresy! Translating the original manuscripts into other languages so people can easily read and understand God's Word is a task for men who are guided by the Holy Spirit. And because of translation, there are now many good versions of the Word in many different heart languages of the peoples of the world.

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

[re: kjv] and they made it to update the language, just like we do today. They wanted to improve upon the previous translations, which most people who held to the Geneva Bible would probably look at the same way as you guys do ESV today.

Well, the reason I dislike the "esv" [i.e. less inclined to recommend it] is not related to its "more-up-to-date" language than that of any year in the past (re: any translation), but more because of the following reason:

[quoting old post]

Here's a verse I believe is inaccurate according to how the esv has it (compared with ylt, just for example):

esv - "and all who dwell on earth will worship it, everyone whose name has not been written before [pro - G4253] the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb who was slain"

ylt - "And bow before it shall all who are dwelling upon the land, whose names have not been written in the scroll of the life of the Lamb slain from [apo - G575] the foundation of the world"

https://biblehub.com/text/revelation/13-8.htm - Revelation 13:8

kjv [another comparison] - "And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from [apo - G575] the foundation of the world."




Huge difference between "slain from [apo - G575]" and "written before [pro - G4253]" ; ) (I believe "slain from [apo - G575]" is accurate [i.e. not how the esv has it])

For this reason, I tend to avoid the esv. I do think it's the trendy one to go with, these days, but this verse ^ is always flashing in my mind [think: neon lights] when I hear of it. :/

[and]

"apo - G575" [not "pro G4253"] is in both of these (which two sites usually show the differences when there are some):

-- https://biblehub.com/interlinear/revelation/13-8.htm

-- http://www.blbclassic.org/Bible.cfm?...13&v=8&t=KJV#8


[end quoting that post]

____________



Just my two cents. = )


[just to be clear to the readers: I am not "kjv only"... perhaps you may recall this ]

 

[lenna]

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

Are you OK? How can anyone provide scripture to show the KJ is not inspired? Well of course other than the Bible itself. As a whole.

The KJ is not an inspired Bible. It is a translation. Just that and no more. It is serviceable as long as someone can read the olde English without a dictionary.

 

[lenna]

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

Can you prove I haven't responded? Seriously! Give the post # where I did not respond. Figure that out.

 

[Dino246]

My suggestion you need to check that first in the Bible hub and show to me first if they are ‘given by inspiration of God’. Then will discuss further. Thanks.

... and

TLB The whole Bible was given to us by inspiration from God and is useful to teach us what is true and to make us realize what is wrong in our lives; it straightens us out and helps us do what is right.

 

[Chester]

Can you prove I haven't responded? Seriously! Give the post # where I did not respond. Figure that out.

Oh, Lenna, please, please - stop! stop! LOL! You made me laugh so hard I could not stop and about lost my breath! Best hilarious post I have seen for awhile!

 

[Dino246]

More opinions without proof.

"More"? You'd have to establish that I have previously posted "opinions without proof" and not identified them as opinions. I did not post an opinion here, but a statement of fact. Whether you accept that statement as true is secondary, but it is not my opinion. Finally, while I did not provide supporting evidence for my statement, if I had, you would not accept it as proof because it is not proof to you. I would not have claimed that it was proof, because evidence is not necessarily proof.

 

[Dino246]

My claim is KJV is an English scripture because KJV says, All scripture is given by inspiration of God 2 Tim. 3:16. Here’s a simple math to chuckle on.

It's in the realm of logic, not mathematics. "Chuckle" is a good choice of words, because you have employed a fallacy of conflation, making your syllogism invalid. As I have stated several times in this thread, the inspiration is of the original writings, and the word of God is inspired. However, the KJV is a translation of the word of God, not "the word of God" without caveat.

The problem is that you and other KJV-onlyists hold the KJV to be the word of God to the exclusion of all others. That is patently indefensible, so you recycle component arguments such as the syllogism here. The syllogism can be written exactly the same way for any of the other translations I cited. You don't know about them, so you reject the equality of other translations without any hesitation. I just wish you and the others had the integrity to own the full implications of your position.

 

[Nehemiah6]

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

1. I have consistently maintained that the King James Bible (a.k.a. the Authorized Version of 1611) is THE ONLY translation in English which is a faithful, reliable, and trustworthy English translation for general use to this day. It had established itself as the leading English translation for over 400 years (which speaks for itself). The Geneva Bible is parallel to it, but because it promotes Reformed Theology, it has been set aside.

2. Even though a large number of the KJV translators were Puritans and Anglicans, they did not allow their Reformed Theology to distort their translation. And since there were about 50 translators involved (all outstanding scholars who were devout Christians) there were already checks and balances in place. (They did add words in italics to help the reader, but they also made it clear through that that those words were not in the Hebrew and Greek).

3. The objection to the archaic language of the KJV is no longer valid, since the King James 2000 Bible has already addressed that issue. There are also a couple of other updated forms of the KJV (but the NKJV is untrustworthy).

4. Only the original writings of the prophets, evangelists, and apostles can be regarded as "inspired", since the writer was under the total control of the Holy Spirit, and the words recorded are indeed the words of the Spirit or the words of God. This is clear from several passages in Scripture. Inspiration (Greek theopneustos) means "God-breathed" and refers to the original autographs (manuscripts).

5. The King James translators used the traditional (or received) Hebrew and Greek texts of the Bible in printed form, but had access to all existing translations and versions, as well as a limited number of manuscripts. Their primary goal was to make out of many good translations one to which no one could take exception. And for over 300 years conservative theologians, commentators, pastors, evangelists and ordinary Christians treated the King James Bible as the very Word of God. And textual scholars in the 19th century confirmed that the Hebrew and Greek were supported by the majority of manuscripts. IOW the King James Bible represented the true texts.

6. It is only since the late 19th century that rationalistic textual scholars began promoting a handful of corrupt Greek manuscripts (primarily TWO), and as a result all modern English translations since 1881 have been corrupted, and are therefore TOTALLY UNRELIABLE. Therefore there are absolutely no trustworthy modern translations (in spite of all the bogus claims made for this).

7. None of the above is mere opinion, but is based on the facts of the case. Anyone who honestly and objectively wishes to check this out may do so and discover the truth about modern translations. The sad fact is that the majority of prominent and well-know Christian personalities today have swallowed the Great Bible Version Hoax hook, line, and sinker. And even after you draw their attention to the issue, they refuse to give up their false bibles. A good examples of false bibles is the absence of Acts 8:37 -- a key verse which cannot be removed from the passage without making it sound nonsensical.

 

[John146]

Can you prove I haven't responded? Seriously! Give the post # where I did not respond. Figure that out.

I am just asking, wasn’t sure or not if you have. I don’t ever remember discussing this topic with you that’s all. No big deal.

 

[John146]

1. I have consistently maintained that the King James Bible (a.k.a. the Authorized Version of 1611) is THE ONLY translation in English which is a faithful, reliable, and trustworthy English translation for general use to this day. It had established itself as the leading English translation for over 400 years (which speaks for itself). The Geneva Bible is parallel to it, but because it promotes Reformed Theology, it has been set aside.

2. Even though a large number of the KJV translators were Puritans and Anglicans, they did not allow their Reformed Theology to distort their translation. And since there were about 50 translators involved (all outstanding scholars who were devout Christians) there were already checks and balances in place. (They did add words in italics to help the reader, but they also made it clear through that that those words were not in the Hebrew and Greek).

3. The objection to the archaic language of the KJV is no longer valid, since the King James 2000 Bible has already addressed that issue. There are also a couple of other updated forms of the KJV (but the NKJV is untrustworthy).

4. Only the original writings of the prophets, evangelists, and apostles can be regarded as "inspired", since the writer was under the total control of the Holy Spirit, and the words recorded are indeed the words of the Spirit or the words of God. This is clear from several passages in Scripture. Inspiration (Greek theopneustos) means "God-breathed" and refers to the original autographs (manuscripts).

5. The King James translators used the traditional (or received) Hebrew and Greek texts of the Bible in printed form, but had access to all existing translations and versions, as well as a limited number of manuscripts. Their primary goal was to make out of many good translations one to which no one could take exception. And for over 300 years conservative theologians, commentators, pastors, evangelists and ordinary Christians treated the King James Bible as the very Word of God. And textual scholars in the 19th century confirmed that the Hebrew and Greek were supported by the majority of manuscripts. IOW the King James Bible represented the true texts.

6. It is only since the late 19th century that rationalistic textual scholars began promoting a handful of corrupt Greek manuscripts (primarily TWO), and as a result all modern English translations since 1881 have been corrupted, and are therefore TOTALLY UNRELIABLE. Therefore there are absolutely no trustworthy modern translations (in spite of all the bogus claims made for this).

7. None of the above is mere opinion, but is based on the facts of the case. Anyone who honestly and objectively wishes to check this out may do so and discover the truth about modern translations. The sad fact is that the majority of prominent and well-know Christian personalities today have swallowed the Great Bible Version Hoax hook, line, and sinker. And even after you draw their attention to the issue, they refuse to give up their false bibles. A good examples of false bibles is the absence of Acts 8:37 -- a key verse which cannot be removed from the passage without making it sound nonsensical.

Preaching to the choir brother.👍

 

[Dino246]

4. Only the original writings of the prophets, evangelists, and apostles can be regarded as "inspired", since the writer was under the total control of the Holy Spirit, and the words recorded are indeed the words of the Spirit or the words of God. This is clear from several passages in Scripture. Inspiration (Greek theopneustos) means "God-breathed" and refers to the original autographs (manuscripts).

I disagree on the "total control" statement, but otherwise, I agree with the quotation here. Now if only your fellow KJV-only folks would accept the portions in bold.

 

[fredoheaven]

Here are the various versions. I'll respond to the rest of your post later.

NASB All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;

NIV All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,

CSB All Scripture is inspired by God and is profitable for teaching, for rebuking, for correcting, for training in righteousness,

RSV All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,

WYC For all scripture inspired of God is profitable to teach, to reprove, to chastise, [for] to learn in rightwiseness,

Are those are of the same page with KJV? Thanks

 

[fredoheaven]

... and

TLB The whole Bible was given to us by inspiration from God and is useful to teach us what is true and to make us realize what is wrong in our lives; it straightens us out and helps us do what is right.

Is the TLB giving the same sense as of the KJV? What do think?