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

KJV1611 · Jul 10, 2020

Why you would make a language that you can’t even speak and barely understand your primary focal point? You are putting primary focus on what James Strong or some other scholar thinks God meant.

It is IMPOSSIBLE to translate a bible without first interpreting what a passage means because words have multiple meanings in all languages. That means that you either study Gods word that God interpreted through a human being that God inspired to write exactly what God intended to be written or you study a bible that some man interpreted on his own and has his beliefs and biases all over. That’s just common sense Chester.

As far as which words are inspired, both the originals, ORIGINALS that don’t exist any more, and the KJV are both inspired. And I’m sure there are bibles in other languages that are inspired by God.

Dino246 · Jul 10, 2020

KJV1611 said:

Actually, it's a fallacy called a false dichotomy. You think these are the only two options, but that is not the case.

KJV1611 said:

Sorry, that's just your belief, and so far you have provided nothing in the way of evidence that it is any more than your belief. Further, as my previous response to Fredo shows, there are significant logical problems with your position. On top of all that, others have demonstrated that there are certain words in the KJV that are simply wrong; wrong in 1611 and still wrong in 2020.

KJV1611 · Jul 10, 2020

Dino246 said:

Actually, it's a fallacy called a false dichotomy. You think these are the only two options, but that is not the case.

Sorry, that's just your belief, and so far you have provided nothing in the way of evidence that it is any more than your belief. Further, as my previous response to Fredo shows, there are significant logical problems with your position. On top of all that, others have demonstrated that there are certain words in the KJV that are simply wrong; wrong in 1611 and still wrong in 2020.

I’m tied up right now but I’ll be back later.

Dino246 · Jul 10, 2020

KJV1611 said:

No worries. We get back to this when we get back.

Relic · Jul 10, 2020

Whatever translation brings you to the heart of God is the right one.
Without a meditation prayer regimen, none of them will get you there.

Just_Jo · Jul 10, 2020

Let us not forget the WHO of the perfect One that did the " inspiring" of the message.

That being,God is the creator of all things and by Him was NOT anything done.

His inspiration is through the Holy Ghost,whether by word,visible or invisible things .

The message is His great LOVE to mankind displayed in making a way that we may have a relationship with Him without sin covering us. Knowing Jesus under the leadership of the Holy Ghost needs only a humble,contrite,open and willing heart to receive.

fredoheaven · Jul 10, 2020

Dino246 said:

Alright, but that doesn’t answer my clarification if authors were inspired or given by inspiration.

Gen 1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

Judges 13:25 And the Spirit of the LORD began to move him at times in the camp of Dan between Zorah and Eshtaol.

2 Sam 24:1 And again the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel, and he moved David against them to say, Go, number Israel and Judah.

Heb 11:7 By faith Noah, being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house . . .

The demand that only the writers of the Original Autographs were MOVED (inspired) by the Holy Ghost because the prophecy of old time came by God. Yet only the scriptures are said to be inspired and never the authors. Nevertheless, it says that the men, who were so MOVED by God (not inspired) in this prophecy of Scripture, and they “SPAKE” the prophecy of scripture; so, this is about speaking and not writing in 2 Peter 1:21. Was either of the Authors, the Writers, the donkey, and the false prophet Balaam MOVED by the Holy Ghost? Was Tertius moved by the Holy Ghost? I say yes but they were not inspired.

fredoheaven · Jul 10, 2020

fredoheaven said:

Umm, this could be another mistaken identity of giving me my authority to rest on the KJ team (qualified as ad hominem attack) but anyway you would not answer the two that by your opinion were not qualified. I only asked for clarification in response to your post, to rehash, “is there any backing from the scriptures that authors (writers) were inspired?” And you have given the two to start with as you have other verses to prove that authors were inspired. So let’s stick to the scriptures you brought in and by the way if honesty is concerned, it seems your scriptural quotes on II Peter 1:21 is not the exact wording of the KJV (qualified as I don’t know) but rather you have quoted the ESV, hence, I assumed that your Bible preference is ESV. Yet, we will discuss them comparing scripture with scripture.

Let’s discuss if your statement that writers were given by inspiration/ were inspired.

1. In the KJV had translated 2 Timothy 3:16 the “pasa graphe” says All scripture is given by the inspiration of God…and as far as the scripture is concerned, the All scripture and not the writers gets inspiration.

2. 2 Peter 1;21 could be sticky. In the KJV, says:

2 Peter 1:21, KJV: "For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost."

Your suppose reference here that ‘authors/writers’ were inspired is the phrase ‘ moved by the Holy Ghost’ which is given a meaning by the ESV as ‘carried along by the Holy Spirit’ which is quite correct. But moving or being carried along is equivalent to inspiration? The Greek used here is pherō is never translated as inspiration even in the modern English bibles are saying. You are again caught of not doing well in a given assignment (no offence made). That means tons of scholars says the same thing as KJV is saying, they only defined “moved” but in anyway refers to the authors or writer as inspired rather they were moved by the Spirit of God to penned the scripture given by inspiration. Here is the list so that I will not be again accused of circular reasoning:

New International Version
For prophecy never had its origin in the human will, but prophets, though human, spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.

New Living Translation
or from human initiative. No, those prophets were moved by the Holy Spirit, and they spoke from God.

English Standard Version
For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.

Berean Study Bible
For no prophecy was ever brought forth by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.

Berean Literal Bible
For no prophecy at any time was brought by the will of man, but men spoke from God, being carried by the Holy Spirit.

New American Standard Bible
for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.

New King James Version
for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.

King James Bible
For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

Christian Standard Bible
because no prophecy ever came by the will of man; instead, men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.

Contemporary English Version
The prophets did not think these things up on their own, but they were guided by the Spirit of God.

Good News Translation
For no prophetic message ever came just from the human will, but people were under the control of the Holy Spirit as they spoke the message that came from God.

Holman Christian Standard Bible
because no prophecy ever came by the will of man; instead, men spoke from God as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.

International Standard Version
because no prophecy ever originated through a human decision. Instead, men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.

NET Bible
for no prophecy was ever borne of human impulse; rather, men carried along by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.

New Heart English Bible
For no prophecy ever came by human will, but people spoke from God, being moved by the Holy Spirit.

Aramaic Bible in Plain English
The prophecy came not by the will of man in the ancient times, but when holy men of God spoke, being compelled by the Holy Spirit.

GOD'S WORD® Translation
No prophecy ever originated from humans. Instead, it was given by the Holy Spirit as humans spoke under God's direction.

New American Standard 1977
for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.

King James 2000 Bible
For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.

American King James Version
For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

Umm, Llena, I just saw your reaction via emoji, well do you still have something for me to offer in my clarification? Hope my post is not a bias one as i tried to see from all angles as much as possible. But if you have nothing to offer then let's move on.

Dino246 · Jul 10, 2020

fredoheaven said:

Fine. I think you've made your point adequately, but I think it is irrelevant to the question at hand here. There still is no evidence that the KJV or any other translation is "inspired".

Here's the rub: either the KJV and every other translation is "inspired" in exactly the same way...

or NO translation is inspired (which is the position I hold). The word of God is, but the wording of the translation isn't.

Further, if you want to continue arguing that the KJV is inspired, you must necessarily hold that Tyndale is also inspired, as the KJV copies Tyndale verbatim in many places. Further yet, you must hold that Erasmus is inspired where it contains the back-translation from Latin because Erasmus's Greek sources were missing pieces, and his version was the source material.

You simply cannot make a rational case for KJV only on this matter. Frankly it amazes me that you and others even argue the point.

fredoheaven · Jul 10, 2020

Dino246 said:

Umm, this may be a bit personal. That would be a big difference, since I knew it that you don’t believe that ‘NO translation is inspired’. I have made this demonstration that this is fundamentally in error, your No actually is not a No when pinned down using scripture. That’s why sometime I just only passed by your comment. The Bereans used the scriptures when Paul preached the words of God to see if it’s true. I used scripture but most of your post you didn’t. You are just trying to catch word and I see that also in the scripture. In actuality, I didn’t even use KJV only in the many of my post. My view is KJV Finally. Your accusation of ‘KJV only’ is accepted by those who defend the KJV in attempting that KJV is not given by inspiration. These tactics used by the anti-KJV group is now accepted nickname. Frankly, you hold no words of God, the scripture of truth. You ask me evidence of inspiration of the KJV, simple, for one thing it’s life giving power of changing the lives of many people is already a powerful evidence of its inspiration because the KJV says and it may hold true to others but I didn’t hear it in my case (applicable to me)that life changing words of God in Greek.

John 3:16 King James Version (KJV)

16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

Frankly, since you hold no English translation as the word of God then, it will be useless for me to discuss to you in this matter. I don’t know your heart, only God knows and his words as it purposely knows every intent of our heart. It’s either we have the word of God TODAY or nothing.

Kolistus · Jul 11, 2020

JohnR7 said:

I dont speak greek or hebrew. Odds are neither do you. I would be surprised if I ran across a person here who can go and conversate with people in the streets of Jerusalem in hebrew, or with greeks in Athens.

I realize koine greek is different than modern greek, but in my opinion using a lexicon and looking up words isnt knowing the language, knowing the language is being able to hold a conversation in that language

lenna · Jul 11, 2020

Micaiah-imla said:

Maybe you should not assume you know what other people are thinking.

I think you are offering silly excuses so you do not have to deal with my posts.

Chester · Jul 11, 2020

Kolistus said:

In actuality koine Greek is not that different from modern Greek. It is a little bit like reading Shakespeare in the old English.

I cannot converse in Greek, but I do know enough that in the easy parts of the NT I can pick up the Greek New Testament and read it and understand it! It is an amazingly refreshing and inspiring exercise. But Paul is pretty difficult for me!!

Dino246 · Jul 11, 2020

fredoheaven said:

Wrong.

Fallacy of equivocation AGAIN.

You just don't get it.

Kolistus · Jul 11, 2020

Dino246 said:

Im not a KJVOnlyist because im not from an english speaking country, but I do find this philosophy to be confusing.

1. No translation is inspired.
2. Only the original autographs are inspired
3. We dont have the original autographs.

The reply is we dont have originals but we got copies, in the original languages.
But even that isnt really authoritative, since ive seen people talk about "copyist errors"

So what can we trust?

Micaiah-imla · Jul 11, 2020

Kolistus said:

Im not a KJVOnlyist because im not from an english speaking country, but I do find this philosophy to be confusing.

1. No translation is inspired.
2. Only the original autographs are inspired
3. We dont have the original autographs.

The reply is we dont have originals but we got copies, in the original languages.
But even that isnt really authoritative, since ive seen people talk about "copyist errors"

So what can we trust?

I trust the copy in hand that was masterfully translated.

John146 · Jul 11, 2020

Kolistus said:

Im not a KJVOnlyist because im not from an english speaking country, but I do find this philosophy to be confusing.

1. No translation is inspired.
2. Only the original autographs are inspired
3. We dont have the original autographs.

The reply is we dont have originals but we got copies, in the original languages.
But even that isnt really authoritative, since ive seen people talk about "copyist errors"

So what can we trust?

It leads one to be their own final authority on what God has said.

John146 · Jul 11, 2020

fredoheaven said:

Bingo! I wish people would just be truthful and admit they do not have access to the word of God. I wish preachers would be honest to their congregation.

Angela53510 · Jul 11, 2020

fredoheaven said:

This is utter nonsense. Paul did not write in Hebrew. Hebrew was a dead language in the first century, it was only read in the synagogue. Yes, Paul studied Hebrew, but Greek and Aramaic were the common languages. In fact, the Septuagint was translated in the 3rd century BC, because once Alexander conquered the world, he replaced all languages with Greek. People could no longer understand Hebrew, so it was translated into Greek, so it was accessible again. That's 300 years BEFORE Christ.

There are NO extant manuscripts of the NT books in Hebrew found anywhere. There are 4 schools of Greek manuscripts, and we have over 6000 parts or whole texts dating from the 2nd century to about the 15th century. Luke was a Greek physician. He wrote to another Greek - Theophilus for Acts and Luke. Why on earth would he have used Hebrew? The only possible book in the NT that could possibly have been written in Hebrew was Matthew, who wrote to the Jews. Yet, no copies have ever been found in Hebrew, because they didn't exist. As I said earlier, the Hellenization of the world worked - and everyone spoke Greek.

A single language spoken in the world, was also a sign of the coming of the time of Christ. It made the spread of the gospel much easier. Everyone spoke Greek, including the Romans. It was the best time in history for the gospel to be shared in the known world!

So, no, Luke did not write in Hebrew, and it is doubtful any of the NT writers did, or surely there would be copies? Even the Jews were losing their Hebrew totally later on. So, the Masoretic OT was not written until the 8th-10th century AD. Because the Hebrew pronunciations were getting lost, they figured out the Nicky dot vowels to put above, below and beside the consonants, so the sounds and the various verb forms would not be lost.

So your whole theory that translations are inspired is also nonsense. Certainly, the KJV, with all its mistakes and additions could never be considered as inspired in the way the original autographs in their languages were.

Dino246 · Jul 11, 2020

John146 said:

It would be dishonest for me to admit that, because it is not the truth.

I wish KJVo's would stop imposing the opposite of their own beliefs on others who don't hold the KJVo position.

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

Banned

Senior Member

Banned

Senior Member

Active member

Well-known member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Well-known member

lenna

Guest

Senior Member

Senior Member

Well-known member

Banned

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member