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

[Chester]

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.

 

[fredoheaven]

To demonstrate that translation makes inspiration then we go to the Bible as the Final written authority. When Paul quoted partially the Book of Psalms 2:7 as recorded in Acts 13:33 which was written originally written in Hebrew and possibly spoke that in Koine Greek when Paul went to Antioch of Pisidia before the Jews. While I may have assumed he quoted those Hebrew text and spoken into a Greek (translation) but the undeniable thing is that St. Luke wrote the original Hebrew into a Koine Greek is really a translation and the Heb translated in the Gk gets its inspiration. So that was a very basic example why translation preserves the inspiration.

Another, is the copies of the scriptures constitute inspiration. Paul to Timothy is explaining that the copy of scriptures (not the original one) held by Timothy “is given by inspiration” so copies preserves the inspiration.

Translators are not inspired; the scripture is. The so called “originals” either written in parchment (vellum) or in papyrus (scroll) where Paul, Tertius, and other Apostles originally wrote them were no longer with us. This without a doubt were inspired scriptures. Soon these autographs were copied and copied and faithful copies does preserves the inspiration while there are other forces that are work behind the scriptures and wanted to mutilate, change or corrupt the word of God as Paul and other Apostles had warned of these things does not preserves the inspiration. Now, we have to take note that these copies either faithfully done or not were both came from the same origin and these were translated we called Versions.

No it was not in anyone’s decision that translations preserve inspiration but that is what the Bible says. God demonstrated preservation either by copies or by translation. The Holy Spirit the author of the scripture confuses no one. I think it is proper to say that it’s about accurate translation without losing the purity, hence, it is not mixed or corrupted. Once the translation lacks accuracy, then loses it purity.

The paraphrase or free translation, the dynamic equivalency/ impact translation, the literal does not carry the words, the sense, the style and the emphasis of the Heb-Ara-Gk and may not set in a proper of the English language. The need of Formal Translation is the best way of translation as in the KJV text. What about the other Modern English translation? Since inspiration refers to the whole not in parts then it is not considered ‘given by inspiration’ though we have some theories of inspirations, either partial, thought or dynamic. What I believe is what the scripture teaches “All scripture is given by inspiration of God” and I take the KJV English text as scripture. If other translations say they are the same as the KJV, then it must be proven “Prove all things, hold fast to that which is good”.

Of course my belief about the KJV is to be accepted or not but I wouldn't enforce it to anyone in here, rather let God speaks.

 

[Chester]

To demonstrate that translation makes inspiration then we go to the Bible as the Final written authority. When Paul quoted partially the Book of Psalms 2:7 as recorded in Acts 13:33 which was written originally written in Hebrew and possibly spoke that in Koine Greek when Paul went to Antioch of Pisidia before the Jews. While I may have assumed he quoted those Hebrew text and spoken into a Greek (translation) but the undeniable thing is that St. Luke wrote the original Hebrew into a Koine Greek is really a translation and the Heb translated in the Gk gets its inspiration. So that was a very basic example why translation preserves the inspiration.

Another, is the copies of the scriptures constitute inspiration. Paul to Timothy is explaining that the copy of scriptures (not the original one) held by Timothy “is given by inspiration” so copies preserves the inspiration.

Translators are not inspired; the scripture is. The so called “originals” either written in parchment (vellum) or in papyrus (scroll) where Paul, Tertius, and other Apostles originally wrote them were no longer with us. This without a doubt were inspired scriptures. Soon these autographs were copied and copied and faithful copies does preserves the inspiration while there are other forces that are work behind the scriptures and wanted to mutilate, change or corrupt the word of God as Paul and other Apostles had warned of these things does not preserves the inspiration. Now, we have to take note that these copies either faithfully done or not were both came from the same origin and these were translated we called Versions.

No it was not in anyone’s decision that translations preserve inspiration but that is what the Bible says. God demonstrated preservation either by copies or by translation. The Holy Spirit the author of the scripture confuses no one. I think it is proper to say that it’s about accurate translation without losing the purity, hence, it is not mixed or corrupted. Once the translation lacks accuracy, then loses it purity.

The paraphrase or free translation, the dynamic equivalency/ impact translation, the literal does not carry the words, the sense, the style and the emphasis of the Heb-Ara-Gk and may not set in a proper of the English language. The need of Formal Translation is the best way of translation as in the KJV text. What about the other Modern English translation? Since inspiration refers to the whole not in parts then it is not considered ‘given by inspiration’ though we have some theories of inspirations, either partial, thought or dynamic. What I believe is what the scripture teaches “All scripture is given by inspiration of God” and I take the KJV English text as scripture. If other translations say they are the same as the KJV, then it must be proven “Prove all things, hold fast to that which is good”.

Of course my belief about the KJV is to be accepted or not but I wouldn't enforce it to anyone in here, rather let God speaks.

I will answer several points you make here:

(1) You give Acts 13:33 which comes from Psalms 2:7 - And the writer of Acts uses the Greek words and not the original Hebrew wording. You say this gives proof that inspiration applies beyond the original texts. Actually nothing says that at all. What this actually shows is that the translation into Greek of Psalms 2:7 is completely trustworthy. Luke uses the words of a translation into another language as authoritative. Just as the words today of any good English translation are authoritative.

Jesus himself quoted quite often from the Septuagint, a Greek translation of the Old Testament. By modern standards, the Septuagint was actually not a very good translation. Even so, Jesus quoted from it and used it as authoritative Scripture. But the Septuagint was not "inspired" - far from it - and Jesus never said the Septuagint was inspired. If Jesus was here today, He might surprise some of us and quote from some of the modern translations we think are not very well done!

(2) II Tim 3:16 says: “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:” You said, "Paul to Timothy is explaining that the copy of scriptures (not the original one) held by Timothy “is given by inspiration” so copies preserves the inspiration." I noticed that the text itself does not insert "the copy of scriptures (not the original one)" like you did!

(3) I maintain that if translations are inspired, then we are going to have to also call the translators "inspired" when they were doing the translating. When the writers of Scriptures wrote inspired books, they were inspired of God. So if translators do "inspired" translations where the very words they write in English are inspired, then they must be inspired while they are translators. And to me, this is adding to God's Word and claiming authority to change the original message given by God in the original manuscripts.


A further thought, if the KJV is inspired, then there is no need to go back to the Greek and Hebrew when doing a translation into a tribal language. But that is preposterous! (But sadly, that is what is being taught and sometimes actually practiced)

But each to his own opinion - But here is my opinion - but we do all need to carefully listen to God's Word!

 

[Dino246]

To demonstrate that translation makes inspiration then we go to the Bible as the Final written authority. When Paul quoted partially the Book of Psalms 2:7 as recorded in Acts 13:33 which was written originally written in Hebrew and possibly spoke that in Koine Greek when Paul went to Antioch of Pisidia before the Jews. While I may have assumed he quoted those Hebrew text and spoken into a Greek (translation) but the undeniable thing is that St. Luke wrote the original Hebrew into a Koine Greek is really a translation and the Heb translated in the Gk gets its inspiration. So that was a very basic example why translation preserves the inspiration.

Another, is the copies of the scriptures constitute inspiration. Paul to Timothy is explaining that the copy of scriptures (not the original one) held by Timothy “is given by inspiration” so copies preserves the inspiration.

Translators are not inspired; the scripture is. The so called “originals” either written in parchment (vellum) or in papyrus (scroll) where Paul, Tertius, and other Apostles originally wrote them were no longer with us. This without a doubt were inspired scriptures. Soon these autographs were copied and copied and faithful copies does preserves the inspiration while there are other forces that are work behind the scriptures and wanted to mutilate, change or corrupt the word of God as Paul and other Apostles had warned of these things does not preserves the inspiration. Now, we have to take note that these copies either faithfully done or not were both came from the same origin and these were translated we called Versions.

No it was not in anyone’s decision that translations preserve inspiration but that is what the Bible says. God demonstrated preservation either by copies or by translation. The Holy Spirit the author of the scripture confuses no one. I think it is proper to say that it’s about accurate translation without losing the purity, hence, it is not mixed or corrupted. Once the translation lacks accuracy, then loses it purity.

You got close to being right in this post.

The original-language autographs were "inspired" in the sense that the Holy Spirit moved the writers to pen the message He wanted written. Let's call this "original inspiration". The Greek word is theopneustos, used in 2 Timothy 3:16, but for the sake of this discussion, I'm going to distinguish the two.

The inspired nature of the word of God is maintained/preserved in same-language copies of the autographs, and also in translations of the original-language texts. It is this theopneustos that is preserved, and why we can state confidently that the word of God in English translations of Scripture is "inspired".

Outside of the translations actually recorded in Scripture, like the one you noted, there is no biblical evidence that the Holy Spirit inspired translators of Scripture in the same way that He inspired writers of Scripture. There is no evidence that Jerome, John Wycliffe, William Tyndale, Erasmus, Martin Luther, or any of the other translators of Scripture were "moved along by the Holy Spirit". That's where the equivocation comes in. People who are translating Scripture might pray for God's guidance, but that is simply something fundamentally different than original inspiration.

When, for example, KJV-onlyists insist that the KJV is "inspired", and imply or state that other English translations aren't, they are claiming "original inspiration", which is patently indefensible. When they are claiming "theopneustos" of the word of God, they are correct and remain on safe ground.

Nobody I have encountered claims that the KJV is not "theopneustos". Most people other than KJVo's believe that every other translation is "theopneustos" as well (and I would exclude intentional corruptions such as the JW and Mormon versions).

I'd like to see the KJV-onlyists grasp and embrace this truth. I'm not holding my breath; brainwashing is difficult to undo.

The paraphrase or free translation, the dynamic equivalency/ impact translation, the literal does not carry the words, the sense, the style and the emphasis of the Heb-Ara-Gk and may not set in a proper of the English language. The need of Formal Translation is the best way of translation as in the KJV text. What about the other Modern English translation? Since inspiration refers to the whole not in parts then it is not considered ‘given by inspiration’ though we have some theories of inspirations, either partial, thought or dynamic. What I believe is what the scripture teaches “All scripture is given by inspiration of God” and I take the KJV English text as scripture. If other translations say they are the same as the KJV, then it must be proven “Prove all things, hold fast to that which is good”.

Of course my belief about the KJV is to be accepted or not but I wouldn't enforce it to anyone in here, rather let God speaks.

Formal equivalency is one way to translate; it is not objectively the "best" way. Some things truly are better with a dynamic equivalency.

The English clause, "the red dog" is grammatically correct. In English, adjectives normally precede the nouns they describe. That isn't the case in French. The grammatically correct French clause is, "le chien rouge", not "le rouge chien". While that's a very simple example, it illustrates the problem with holding to a particular model of translation and insisting that it is "best".

Simply put, there are several ways in which the original language of Scripture can be validly and defensibly translated into English. Only God Himself could say authoritatively that any particular translation is "the one" and He has not done so.

Therefore, you are welcome to your preference of the KJV, but please stop trying to use logical arguments to support what in the end is only your opinion.

 

[Chester]

You got close to being right in this post.

The original-language autographs were "inspired" in the sense that the Holy Spirit moved the writers to pen the message He wanted written. Let's call this "original inspiration". The Greek word is theopneustos, used in 2 Timothy 3:16, but for the sake of this discussion, I'm going to distinguish the two.

The inspired nature of the word of God is maintained/preserved in same-language copies of the autographs, and also in translations of the original-language texts. It is this theopneustos that is preserved, and why we can state confidently that the word of God in English translations of Scripture is "inspired".

Outside of the translations actually recorded in Scripture, like the one you noted, there is no biblical evidence that the Holy Spirit inspired translators of Scripture in the same way that He inspired writers of Scripture. There is no evidence that Jerome, John Wycliffe, William Tyndale, Erasmus, Martin Luther, or any of the other translators of Scripture were "moved along by the Holy Spirit". That's where the equivocation comes in. People who are translating Scripture might pray for God's guidance, but that is simply something fundamentally different than original inspiration.

When, for example, KJV-onlyists insist that the KJV is "inspired", and imply or state that other English translations aren't, they are claiming "original inspiration", which is patently indefensible. When they are claiming "theopneustos" of the word of God, they are correct and remain on safe ground.

Nobody I have encountered claims that the KJV is not "theopneustos". Most people other than KJVo's believe that every other translation is "theopneustos" as well (and I would exclude intentional corruptions such as the JW and Mormon versions).

I'd like to see the KJV-onlyists grasp and embrace this truth. I'm not holding my breath; brainwashing is difficult to undo.



Formal equivalency is one way to translate; it is not objectively the "best" way. Some things truly are better with a dynamic equivalency.

The English clause, "the red dog" is grammatically correct. In English, adjectives normally precede the nouns they describe. That isn't the case in French. The grammatically correct French clause is, "le chien rouge", not "le rouge chien". While that's a very simple example, it illustrates the problem with holding to a particular model of translation and insisting that it is "best".

Simply put, there are several ways in which the original language of Scripture can be validly and defensibly translated into English. Only God Himself could say authoritatively that any particular translation is "the one" and He has not done so.

Therefore, you are welcome to your preference of the KJV, but please stop trying to use logical arguments to support what in the end is only your opinion.

Dino,
Thanks for the informative, deep, and well written post. I think I basically agree with you, though I may say it in different words.
A lot of times how we use terms is important to understand.

 

[Nehemiah6]

Giving the KJV of 1611 the title of "inspired," in my opinion, is violating Revelation 22:18,19...

No one who understand this subject calls the KJV "inspired". But there is a lunatic fringe which makes this claim foolishly, and thereby undermines the authority of the Authorized Version.

The original inspired writings of the prophets, evangelists, and apostles do not exist for the simple reason that constant usage or other reasons eventually caused their disappearance. But even during the lifetime of Moses, the Torah was being faithfully copied by meticulous Hebrew scribes. That practice continued for hundreds of years, which meant that faithful copies of copies of copies did indeed contain the Word of God. That is called "the divine preservation of Scripture". And the same principles applied to the New Testament writings.

By the time printing was invented, the traditional Hebrew text of the Old Testament and the traditional Greek text of the New Testament were faithfully produced in printed form. All the Reformation Bibles used these texts.

By the 19th century -- when textual scholars began collating the manuscripts (which existed in the thousands) -- and began comparing them to the existing Reformation translations, they found that the true text of the Bible was found within THE MAJORITY OF MANUSCRIPTS, and that the Reformation Bibles (which include the King James Bible) had indeed presented the Word of God to readers in English, German, Spanish, French, etc.

 

[Nehemiah6]

What translation has the exact words of God preserved for English speakers? Answer: None

The way this has been worded is designed TO CREATE DOUBT as to whether translated bibles are indeed the Word of God. And Satan loves to have people believe that the Word of God does not exist in any translation, because the Sword of the Spirit is the Word of God. He has been attacking the Bible ever since it was written down, but God has indeed preserved His Word.

Christians should understand -- before they post anything -- that they are either aiding or abetting the Enemy of God and Christ, or they are opposing Satan's lies.

Christians should also be TOTALLY CONFIDENT that the King James Bible -- which has served faithful Christians for over 400 years -- is for all intents and purposes the Word of God. While it is not "inspired* , it faithfully presents the inspired Scriptures. Therefore those who attack it are enemies of the truth. And the equivalent of the KJV has been -- and is being -- printed, published, and distributed in all the major languages of the world by the Trinitarian Bible Society.

 

[Chester]

The way this has been worded is designed TO CREATE DOUBT as to whether translated bibles are indeed the Word of God. And Satan loves to have people believe that the Word of God does not exist in any translation, because the Sword of the Spirit is the Word of God. He has been attacking the Bible ever since it was written down, but God has indeed preserved His Word.

Christians should understand -- before they post anything -- that they are either aiding or abetting the Enemy of God and Christ, or they are opposing Satan's lies.

Christians should also be TOTALLY CONFIDENT that the King James Bible -- which has served faithful Christians for over 400 years -- is for all intents and purposes the Word of God. While it not "inspired* , it faithfully presents the inspired Scriptures. Therefore those who attack it are enemies of the truth. And the equivalent of the KJV has been -- and is being -- printed, published, and distributed in all the major languages of the world by the Trinitarian Bible Society.

I respect your opinion- you speak honorably, wisely, and with grace.

I agree wholeheartedly that the KJV faithfully presents the inspired Scriptures. I would say the same of the NASB and ESV and some of the other good translations.

But to me it is not laudatory to rejoice over the Bible being translated from a KJV basis into other languages.

My statement: "What translation has the exact words of God preserved for English speakers? Answer: None" is not designed to create doubt. It is designed to give a truthful, academic, clear answer and thus to affirm Biblical inspiration of the original texts.

The "exact words of God" were not given in English: they were given in Hebrew and Greek. But Biblical scholars have done a great job of translating those texts into English. Is the KJV the "Word of God"? - absolutely! And so is any translation in any language that is without major and consistent errors.

 

[Dino246]

No one who understand this subject calls the KJV "inspired". But there is a lunatic fringe which makes this claim foolishly,

Thank you for stating this. Now, perhaps you could educate your fellow KJV fans on this matter.

and thereby undermines the authority of the Authorized Version.

Bear in mind though that the KJV has no authority which is not also inherent in other translations.

Christians should also be TOTALLY CONFIDENT that the King James Bible -- which has served faithful Christians for over 400 years -- is for all intents and purposes the Word of God.

However, it is not the word of God exclusively, which is what many KJVo's claim.

While it is not "inspired* , it faithfully presents the inspired Scriptures. Therefore those who attack it are enemies of the truth.

People who criticize the KJV aren't "enemies of the truth", nor are people who shoot down stupid, fallacious, and patently false arguments made by people who are exalting the KJV. However, the distinction is probably lost on most KJVo's.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

The English language in itself is an inept language. And is not possible to really interpret the Greek or Hebrew languages, as both of them are deep languages for more precise than the English.
Plus the English may only have one word to translate 4 or 5 Greek words which means the reader is left to possible mist interpreting a word because if a virus defenition.

 

[fredoheaven]

I will answer several points you make here:

(1) You give Acts 13:33 which comes from Psalms 2:7 - And the writer of Acts uses the Greek words and not the original Hebrew wording. You say this gives proof that inspiration applies beyond the original texts. Actually nothing says that at all. What this actually shows is that the translation into Greek of Psalms 2:7 is completely trustworthy. Luke uses the words of a translation into another language as authoritative. Just as the words today of any good English translation are authoritative.

Jesus himself quoted quite often from the Septuagint, a Greek translation of the Old Testament. By modern standards, the Septuagint was actually not a very good translation. Even so, Jesus quoted from it and used it as authoritative Scripture. But the Septuagint was not "inspired" - far from it - and Jesus never said the Septuagint was inspired. If Jesus was here today, He might surprise some of us and quote from some of the modern translations we think are not very well done!

(2) II Tim 3:16 says: “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:” You said, "Paul to Timothy is explaining that the copy of scriptures (not the original one) held by Timothy “is given by inspiration” so copies preserves the inspiration." I noticed that the text itself does not insert "the copy of scriptures (not the original one)" like you did!

(3) I maintain that if translations are inspired, then we are going to have to also call the translators "inspired" when they were doing the translating. When the writers of Scriptures wrote inspired books, they were inspired of God. So if translators do "inspired" translations where the very words they write in English are inspired, then they must be inspired while they are translators. And to me, this is adding to God's Word and claiming authority to change the original message given by God in the original manuscripts.


A further thought, if the KJV is inspired, then there is no need to go back to the Greek and Hebrew when doing a translation into a tribal language. But that is preposterous! (But sadly, that is what is being taught and sometimes actually practiced)

But each to his own opinion - But here is my opinion - but we do all need to carefully listen to God's Word!

Hi Chester,
Thank you for responding and I like discussing scriptures in the first place or discussion not necessarily a debate and we could simply agree or disagree on any matter with civility. The foundation must be based on the words of God. Here is another Biblical basis as to why Translation gets inspiration. In Acts 21:40 – Acts 22:1-2, Paul spoke in Hebrew tongue but it was penned by Luke in his ‘original Greek’ hence translation. All of the written records by Luke in his ‘original Greek’, a translation from the Hebrew language spoken the very mouth of Paul, is inspired word of God. The preservation through translation is present when Luke wrote it.

Now going back to my previous example where Paul quoted the O.T. Psalm is first of all has nothing to do with Septuagint and never will. Reason: Paul appeals of “the wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ” (1 Tim. 6:3) and even Jude to remember the words spoken by our Lord Jesus (Jude 1:17) hence, we are to appeal what the Lord Jesus said in regards to the division of the Old Testament and what is that? Jesus said in Luke 24:44 speaks of the “The Law, the Prophets and the Psalms” so when Paul quoted second Psalms it is evident is quoting the original Hebrew but when it is was penned by Luke as he recorded Pauls’ quotation of the Old testament Psalms that makes translation and the translation in the written in original Greek is inspired. Even Paul quoted literally or spoke them in Greek still that constitute translation. Well I have to agree that upon Paul’s quotation of what written in the Old testament is authoritative, we cannot deny the original Greek penned by Luke as inspired, otherwise Luke has written book that is uninspired.

Obviously, when I said Paul to Timothy is my explanation and I am qualifying what those scriptures, called Holy Scriptures, the All scripture what Timothy holds, this whether they be are ‘copies of the scriptures’ or the original one. I believe they are copies and that is my second point hence copies “is given by inspiration”

Well, I am not claiming writers of the bible, scribes or the translators were inspired. Only the scriptures is given by inspiration. If you could look your proof text that writers of the bible is/are inspired then we will be discussed that, but I maintain, only the scriptures, the All scriptures and not the writers or translators were inspired or as properly said it is given by the inspiration of God.

Btw, there were many translation from many dialects, in Philippine alone has 80 dialects but major dialects that has been translated is by far not a direct translation from the Hebrew, Greek or Aramaic but rather from various English Bibles. I know 6 of them, we have Tagalog bibles comes from varying English Bibles, Cebuano bible, Ilonggo bible, Hilogaynon, Pangasinense, Ilocano. These Bibles are by product of the English bibles and I don't know any of new/modern vernacular Bibles that were translated from the Greek, Heb or aramaic. If you could name one of these tribal language then that could be very laborious.

 

[Chester]

Hi Chester,
Thank you for responding and I like discussing scriptures in the first place or discussion not necessarily a debate and we could simply agree or disagree on any matter with civility. The foundation must be based on the words of God. Here is another Biblical basis as to why Translation gets inspiration. In Acts 21:40 – Acts 22:1-2, Paul spoke in Hebrew tongue but it was penned by Luke in his ‘original Greek’ hence translation. All of the written records by Luke in his ‘original Greek’, a translation from the Hebrew language spoken the very mouth of Paul, is inspired word of God. The preservation through translation is present when Luke wrote it.

Now going back to my previous example where Paul quoted the O.T. Psalm is first of all has nothing to do with Septuagint and never will. Reason: Paul appeals of “the wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ” (1 Tim. 6:3) and even Jude to remember the words spoken by our Lord Jesus (Jude 1:17) hence, we are to appeal what the Lord Jesus said in regards to the division of the Old Testament and what is that? Jesus said in Luke 24:44 speaks of the “The Law, the Prophets and the Psalms” so when Paul quoted second Psalms it is evident is quoting the original Hebrew but when it is was penned by Luke as he recorded Pauls’ quotation of the Old testament Psalms that makes translation and the translation in the written in original Greek is inspired. Even Paul quoted literally or spoke them in Greek still that constitute translation. Well I have to agree that upon Paul’s quotation of what written in the Old testament is authoritative, we cannot deny the original Greek penned by Luke as inspired, otherwise Luke has written book that is uninspired.

Obviously, when I said Paul to Timothy is my explanation and I am qualifying what those scriptures, called Holy Scriptures, the All scripture what Timothy holds, this whether they be are ‘copies of the scriptures’ or the original one. I believe they are copies and that is my second point hence copies “is given by inspiration”

Well, I am not claiming writers of the bible, scribes or the translators were inspired. Only the scriptures is given by inspiration. If you could look your proof text that writers of the bible is/are inspired then we will be discussed that, but I maintain, only the scriptures, the All scriptures and not the writers or translators were inspired or as properly said it is given by the inspiration of God.

Btw, there were many translation from many dialects, in Philippine alone has 80 dialects but major dialects that has been translated is by far not a direct translation from the Hebrew, Greek or Aramaic but rather from various English Bibles. I know 6 of them, we have Tagalog bibles comes from varying English Bibles, Cebuano bible, Ilonggo bible, Hilogaynon, Pangasinense, Ilocano. These Bibles are by product of the English bibles and I don't know any of new/modern vernacular Bibles that were translated from the Greek, Heb or aramaic. If you could name one of these tribal language then that could be very laborious.

Wycliffe Bible translators does all their work from the original texts.

 

[Chester]

Hi Chester,
Thank you for responding and I like discussing scriptures in the first place or discussion not necessarily a debate and we could simply agree or disagree on any matter with civility. The foundation must be based on the words of God. Here is another Biblical basis as to why Translation gets inspiration. In Acts 21:40 – Acts 22:1-2, Paul spoke in Hebrew tongue but it was penned by Luke in his ‘original Greek’ hence translation. All of the written records by Luke in his ‘original Greek’, a translation from the Hebrew language spoken the very mouth of Paul, is inspired word of God. The preservation through translation is present when Luke wrote it.

Now going back to my previous example where Paul quoted the O.T. Psalm is first of all has nothing to do with Septuagint and never will. Reason: Paul appeals of “the wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ” (1 Tim. 6:3) and even Jude to remember the words spoken by our Lord Jesus (Jude 1:17) hence, we are to appeal what the Lord Jesus said in regards to the division of the Old Testament and what is that? Jesus said in Luke 24:44 speaks of the “The Law, the Prophets and the Psalms” so when Paul quoted second Psalms it is evident is quoting the original Hebrew but when it is was penned by Luke as he recorded Pauls’ quotation of the Old testament Psalms that makes translation and the translation in the written in original Greek is inspired. Even Paul quoted literally or spoke them in Greek still that constitute translation. Well I have to agree that upon Paul’s quotation of what written in the Old testament is authoritative, we cannot deny the original Greek penned by Luke as inspired, otherwise Luke has written book that is uninspired.

Obviously, when I said Paul to Timothy is my explanation and I am qualifying what those scriptures, called Holy Scriptures, the All scripture what Timothy holds, this whether they be are ‘copies of the scriptures’ or the original one. I believe they are copies and that is my second point hence copies “is given by inspiration”

Well, I am not claiming writers of the bible, scribes or the translators were inspired. Only the scriptures is given by inspiration. If you could look your proof text that writers of the bible is/are inspired then we will be discussed that, but I maintain, only the scriptures, the All scriptures and not the writers or translators were inspired or as properly said it is given by the inspiration of God.

Btw, there were many translation from many dialects, in Philippine alone has 80 dialects but major dialects that has been translated is by far not a direct translation from the Hebrew, Greek or Aramaic but rather from various English Bibles. I know 6 of them, we have Tagalog bibles comes from varying English Bibles, Cebuano bible, Ilonggo bible, Hilogaynon, Pangasinense, Ilocano. These Bibles are by product of the English bibles and I don't know any of new/modern vernacular Bibles that were translated from the Greek, Heb or aramaic. If you could name one of these tribal language then that could be very laborious.

You are right that when Luke wrote down in Greek the quotation from the Psalms that what was written was inspired. But that is quite obvious because it is a part of the inspired book of Acts. That is not a proof text that the KJV is also now the inspired Word of God. Only the exact words given in the 66 books of the Old and New Testaments (original manuscripts) are inspired. Where those words include a translation from another text then those words are inspired. But this is not proof that a translation 1600 years later is "inspired" by God and the "exact words of God in English".

I believe that good translation completely preserves the Word of God - but 'inspiration" is a word I use only for the inspired original manuscripts. "Exact wording" is only in the original.

So when Paul spoke in Hebrew and Luke penned in Greek - what was inspired was what was written in Greek by Luke. Very simple. Has nothing to do with proof that translation preserves inspiration.

 

[Micaiah-imla]

It’s a KJV thing.

You wouldn’t understand.

 

[fredoheaven]

Wycliffe Bible translators does all their work from the original texts.

Umm, Wycliffe didn't have 'the original text' of Hebrew , Aramaic and Greek and never will. The New testament was translated in 1380AD while the Old Testament in 1382AD. Both Testaments were translated from the Latin Vulgate into ME.

Well, I think I would not go further in but thanks to your response.

 

[fredoheaven]

Wycliffe Bible translators does all their work from the original texts.

O yea, your are in reference to Wycliffe Bible Translators, they don't have 'the original texts" written by the Apostles themselves but extant copies of copies of the originals. Thanks and bye.

 

[Chester]

Umm, Wycliffe didn't have 'the original text' of Hebrew , Aramaic and Greek and never will. The New testament was translated in 1380AD while the Old Testament in 1382AD. Both Testaments were translated from the Latin Vulgate into ME.

Well, I think I would not go further in but thanks to your response.

I did not say Wycliffe - I said Wycliffe Bible Translators! LOL!

 

[Chester]

O yea, your are in reference to Wycliffe Bible Translators, they don't have 'the original texts" written by the Apostles themselves but extant copies of copies of the originals. Thanks and bye.

Yes, bye if you will - it was nice conversing with you in a congenial manner versus some others sometimes!

 

[Blik]

There is a difference that we should note between most scripture and scripture that states that "God says".

 

[EleventhHour]

Thank you for stating this. Now, perhaps you could educate your fellow KJV fans on this matter.


Bear in mind though that the KJV has no authority which is not also inherent in other translations.


However, it is not the word of God exclusively, which is what many KJVo's claim.


People who criticize the KJV aren't "enemies of the truth", nor are people who shoot down stupid, fallacious, and patently false arguments made by people who are exalting the KJV. However, the distinction is probably lost on most KJVo's.

Funny .....KJVo's.....good short cut to use...although I have yet enter such a debate... buy if I should I won't be wasting quite as much time.