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

Fredo, generally I respect you for being level-headed, even though I disagree with you. Sadly, this post of yours undermines my perception, as it is the silliest wagonload of ignorant, avoidant circularity I have come across.

Please do some research on the Greek word "theopneustos" and how it may be translated.

silent scream

@John146

In your opinion, since you believe MV's are of Satan, do you believe those who reject or do not believe your KJVO position and use these versions are on their way to hell?

Absolutely not! I pray their eyes would be opened to the truth. How freeing it is to believe and trust every word. I have some good friends who use modern versions. That’s not enough to break relationships.

What is the fundamental difference between Angela's education and that of her professors, on the one hand, and the education of the KJV translators on the other?

(Aside from the obvious fact that the modern professors have access to far more vast resources and tools)

Instead of asking rhetorical questions, let's just look at what God has done.

He gave us His inspired word to the authors in Greek and Hebrew in the original manuscripts. From many manuscripts we have found today we have many completely trustworthy translations in many languages that very accurately give us the message of God's Word. God did preserve His Word, but He did not need to reinspire it 1500 years later into "exact words in the English language". How do we know that? Because He said that we are not to add to the "words of this prophecy" (Rev. 22: 18,19).

I have a half dozen or more good versions in English that I trust - plus I can read the koine Greek and understand some of it. And I even can get a little bit out of the German Luther translation. The Word of God is quick and powerful and sharper than any two edged sword . . . . PTL!

OK, yet I see no such prayer or standard in Scripture as one arriving to your position being classified as persons having their eyes opened.

NT and OT theology uses that description for true conversion, not a description of others buying into the KJVO doctrine.

I see your position as literally adding to the Gospel message, most likely not being aware that is what you are doing.

We are compete in Him, and Him alone, not complete in Him and if we accept KJVOnlyism. You're making belief in this system something lacking in those who aren't hoodwinked by it. These are the teachings of man being added to the Gospel. Note Colossians 2:10, 2:20-23.

That said, what I do see is supplanting the Gospel with KJVOnlyism at the extreme, and at the least making it some sort of requirement.

Paul's NT prayer in Ephesians 1:15ff about having our understanding opened doesn't include embracing KJVOnlyism. That is man made doctrine being added, alleging a believer is lacking full gospel maturity, and is found nowhere in Scripture.

Respect you too, Dino, I just hope you made it explain before you complain (classified being as circular reasoning). Well, would you do me a favor why is theopnueustos should be translated as a. is inspired by God b. a literal God-breathed C. others. Would you do it for me? Thanks

Hi Sir,

Are you saying that those manuscripts we have found today are the a. original manuscripts b. copies of copies of the originals (faithful) c. copies of copies from the originals (corrupted). Please clarify your position and I have to believe that we are not talking of re-inspiration and if indeed He did not need to reinspire then what is the proper way to translate "theopnuestous". thank you sir.

One of the biggest issues with the KJV is not so much the accuracy of the translation when it was translated, but how words change meaning over time. For example, the word "conversation" today has a much different meaning today than when the KJV was translated and it gives a very different impression to 1 Peter such as when Peter says "But as he which hath called you is holy, so be ye holy in all manner of conversation; "(1 Peter 1:15) Now, this is an obvious case where the KJV is stating the opposite of what is actually meant, yet how many words have changed in a more subtle manner giving a much different impression than the Greek/Hebrew imply?

We have not far found any of the original manuscripts, so what we have are copies of the originals.

The proper way to translate theopnuestuos (in any language) is to find the best word(s) possible to convey the meaning of this Greek word. The goal of translation is always to find the best word(s) in the heart language of the people that conveys to them the meaning of the inspired word.

You are missing the point of translation, LOL! You are stuck in the trap that the goal of translation is to find "the exact word." The exact word is the inspired Greek word - in this case - theopnueustos. So it is not a case of (a) or (b) being the "right" answer! It is the question of - for the reader in English in 2020 in this culture in this setting - which word(s) will best convey the meaning of theopnueustos?

Which one do you trust when they differ and contradict each other? At that point do you become the authority?

LOL! You just do not get the principle! The translations I am using do not "differ and contradict" one another. They may use different word(s) but that is complementing one another to help understand the meaning of the original Greek/Hebrew word.

The authority is not me or any one translation: the authority is God who inspired the original Greek/Hebrew words in the original manuscripts.

I am not looking for the "exact word" in the English language. God already gave the exact words in Greek and Hebrew.

Chester already addressed this, but I'll add a few comments...

The Greek word, "theopneustos" may be broken down into its components: "theo" - God, and "pneustos" - breathed. It's not quite that simple though. "Pneu" is the Greek root from which English gets "pneumatic" - air-filled, and "pneumatology" - the study of the Holy Spirit. The word "inspired" is essentially a contraction of "in-spirited", but in biblical terms, it means exactly the same thing as God-breathed.

In some cases, compound terms mean something different than their components would suggest; and example is "circular reasoning" where you cannot get to the actual meaning of the term just by knowing the meaning of "circular" and "reasoning" separately. However, with theopneustos, you do get the meaning. "God-breathed" and "inspired" are both legitimate translations. For most people the distinction doesn't matter, because whether or not God breathed into, through, or merely on the writers, the result is the same.

Then you have KJV-only adherents who apparently believe that "inspiration" means something specific and special, but other translations of the same Greek word don't mean the same thing. Some even think that God "inspired" the KJV translators to use "inspiration" in this passage, with no other evidence than the wording of this verse!

You argue this point repeatedly, but all you are doing is deferring authority to the KJV translators.

Here’s an example. There’s truth to be had in this verse. Did Jesus send out seventy or seventy two In Luke 10:1? Which ones are telling the truth and which ones are lying?

New International Version
After this the Lord appointed seventy-two others and sent them two by two ahead of him to every town and place where he was about to go.

English Standard Version
After this the Lord appointed seventy-two others and sent them on ahead of him, two by two, into every town and place where he himself was about to go.

New American Standard Bible
Now after this the Lord appointed seventy others, and sent them in pairs ahead of Him to every city and place where He Himself was going to come.

New King James Version
After these things the Lord appointed seventy others also, and sent them two by two before His face into every city and place where He Himself was about to go.

Holman Christian Standard Bible
After this, the Lord appointed 70 others, and He sent them ahead of Him in pairs to every town and place where He Himself was about to go.

Simple answer: The original manuscript will tell you which it was: either 70 or 72!!

It seems that the manuscripts that have been found are about equally divided between the two numbers. So Biblical scholars are divided between which one was the original number in the Greek manuscript.

Now, you can do like I do and simply be honest about what we know and don't know. Above is the honesty.
Or, you can decide to add to the words that God inspired in the original manuscripts and declare that the English words of the KJV written 1500 plus years later were just as inspired by God as the original inspired words in the original manuscripts.

I know that I am choosing the option of honesty: I will not choose the option of adding to inspiration and adding to God's
finished revelation.

Funny question you ask?! Which ones are lying or telling the truth? Most (I did not check all of them) of these versions have a footnote that clearly gives the textual difference here. So they are telling the truth and are not lying. To arbitrarily decide that the KJV is inspired (like the original texts are) - well - that I will not do - because that would be a lie.

So, sorry, your attempt to make all these translations "disagree" is just not so: they all agree that there is a textual question we are not yet sure about.

In other words, we don’t know the truth....creates doubt about the validity of the version they are reading. Do I trust the text or the footnote? What else in the text may be uncertain? Confusion abounds!