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

[Chester]

Why do I get the feeling that the KJV critics have a problem with the word itself?

Maybe you are missing something, then, because we are not critical of the KJV. I have said repeatedly on this thread that I think the KJV is still one of the best of the English translations.

Where the problem is is when the KJV is made equal to the original inspired manuscripts.

 

[Micaiah-imla]

Where the problem is is when the KJV is made equal to the original inspired manu

What’s the problem with that?

If the original was the word of God, why is a translation of it not the word of God?

That’s a foolish conclusion to make in my estimation.

 

[Chester]

What’s the problem with that?

If the original was the word of God, why is a translation of it not the word of God?

That’s a foolish conclusion to make in my estimation.

See post # 176 for my answer.

You do not have to agree - but that is where I clearly stand on the issue.

 

[Dino246]

They did not have the letter to the Romans. Nor the revelation of Jesus Christ yet.

They had Jesus Christ Himself, standing in front of them. How much more "revealed" could He possibly be?

But they had verses like this:

Psalm 119:9
Wherewithal shall a young man cleanse his way? by taking heed thereto according to thy word.

Why do I get the feeling that the KJV critics have a problem with the word itself?

Ask them; I'm not a KJV critic. I am, however, a vocal critic of the stupid arguments presented by KJV-only proponents in the promotion of their ridiculous agenda.

 

[Micaiah-imla]

Scripture very clearly says that inspiration was closed after the last NT book was written and to add to or take away from God's Word is clearly condemned: Revelation 22: 18,19:

I do not think that a translation adds new revelation; just that it converts it to another language keeping the original inspired words intact.

Thanks for pointing me to your last post.

 

[Dino246]

What’s the problem with that?

If the original was the word of God, why is a translation of it not the word of God?

That’s a foolish conclusion to make in my estimation.

What's foolish is your blatant equivocation of "inspired" with "word of God". Nobody (that I have encountered) argues that the KJV is not the "word of God". However, that is a far cry from the KJV being "inspired" in the same way that the originals were "inspired".

 

[Micaiah-imla]

I am, however, a vocal critic of the stupid arguments presented by KJV-only proponents in the promotion of their ridiculous agenda.

I’ll praise his word in stupidity.

Psalm 56:4
[4] In God I will praise his word, in God I have put my trust; I will not fear what flesh can do unto me.

 

[Micaiah-imla]

What's foolish is your blatant equivocation of "inspired" with "word of God". Nobody (that I have encountered) argues that the KJV is not the "word of God". However, that is a far cry from the KJV being "inspired" in the same way that the originals were "inspired".

A translation of an inspired work brings those inspired words into a new language.

What’s the problem with that?

 

[KJV1611]

I agree that "people aren't full of the Holy Spirit at all times during their walk with God." And that is exactly where knowing that the command to "be filled with the Spirit" is in the present tense in Greek is so meaningful and important. It is a daily and ongoing reality that we need to keep yielding ourselves to God so that His Spirit can each day fill our hearts and lives.

Lenna horn was trying use "original language" to change the meaning of the KJV to fit her doctrine.... complete and utter confusion is all the "original language" stuff brings.

 

[Chester]

I do not think that a translation adds new revelation; just that it converts it to another language keeping the original inspired words intact.

Thanks for pointing me to your last post.

But saying that the "exact words" are inspired as the original is adding new words to God's revelation. It does not just "keep the original inspired words intact", but it adds new words in a different language to inspiration. It "adds" to God's revealed Word.

 

[KJV1611]

Quit trying to twist words of others. It's a good thing you are not translating.
God inspired the original writers perfectly. What we have today are translations, not the originals.

Did you not say "some translations are more inspired than other"? What do you mean by this?

 

[Chester]

Lenna horn was trying use "original language" to change the meaning of the KJV to fit her doctrine.... complete and utter confusion is all the "original language" stuff brings.

No, actually she was using the original language to deepen the already beautiful language of the KJV to give deeper insights to help her live a richer Christian life! My opinion . . .

 

[KJV1611]

You are allowed your opinion - and you are allowed to say it - at least you say it clearly and don't beat around the bush!

You may have hundreds of reasons you believe the KJV is inspired.

I have only one reason I know it is not "inspired." That reason is this:

Scripture very clearly says that inspiration was closed after the last NT book was written and to add to or take away from God's Word is clearly condemned: 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."

To say that the "exact words" in the English KJV are inspired as the original manuscript of Revelation is = to add to the words God gave in Revelation. My opinion at least! . . . . . .

Where did the KJV add to the word of God?

 

[Chester]

A translation of an inspired work brings those inspired words into a new language.

What’s the problem with that?

No problem with bringing inspired words of God into another language by translation. Just realize that they are just that: translated words of the original inspired words.

 

[Micaiah-imla]

. It does not just "keep the original inspired words intact", but it adds new words in a different language to inspiration.

I guess we are not going to be united in this particular.

But God bless you!

Let us continue in our faith brother.

 

[Chester]

Where did the KJV add to the word of God?

The KJV itself did not add to the Word of God because the KJV editors themselves who wrote the preface of the original 1611 KJV never claimed "inspiration" for the KJV - in fact - far from it. I read the original version of the preface yesterday from start to finish - and it is quite a document to wade through. The editors clearly never intended or foresaw anything like the current KJV only movement.

KJV only emphasis adds to the Word of God when it claims that there are inspired words given by God since inspiration was closed by God with the completement of the New Testament canon.

 

[fredoheaven]

Can you be honest? The discussion centers around the KJV of the Bible and you and a few others here believe that Bible is inspired.

So should I single out the NSV? or maybe the English Standard? or the NJJV?

Now hit on being filled with the spirit and praying in tongues and the rest of the spiritual gifts. Typical typical typical and I am past caring at this point. Your Bible will not save you no matter how hard you cling to it and it will not give you life. Only the Holy Spirit sent by God after Jesus ascended will give life to our dry bones.

Wait my friend, let me figure this out for you, I just responding to your post

The meaning is changed in the KJV.

Paul is using a 'continuing' tense, not indicating a one time occurrence of being filled as it indicates in the KJ.

So in English it should read be continually filled (with the Spirit) and not just be filled (stop).

It is one thing to allow scripture to speak to us and another to force a meaning.

This is what you said. But the KJV does not changed the very meaning of 'Being filled with the Spirit as it indicates in the KJ. As stated, the word "be" in the phrase is actually meant to continue which I provided with an English Dictionary., hence, in translation of the Greek πληρόω plēróō, is "be filled" indicating "to continue or remain" not a "one time" you are implying of the KJV. You are forcing your own when the very meaning is clear. There's not even an issue of what you are pointing because the KJV along with other multiple English versions says the same thing on the phrase being discussed. I gave you the opportunity to look at biblehub, perhaps, you haven't done that and you think KJV alone is in error here. Another thing, I know the thread is all about but I am not the one who first talked about "speaking in tongue" it's you, yet I have to agree, the Bible version issue is not about salvation. if you're truly been born again then i say amen! But for the sake of discussion, I will list to you those bible versions that says the same thing on the phrase "be filled with the Spirit" so I will not be accused of circular reasoning and dishonest and hope this suffice.

New International Version
Do not get drunk on wine, which leads to debauchery. Instead, be filled with the Spirit,

New Living Translation
Don’t be drunk with wine, because that will ruin your life. Instead, be filled with the Holy Spirit,

English Standard Version
And do not get drunk with wine, for that is debauchery, but be filled with the Spirit,

Berean Study Bible
Do not get drunk on wine, which leads to reckless indiscretion. Instead, be filled with the Spirit.

Berean Literal Bible
and not to be drunk with wine in which is debauchery. Instead be filled with the Spirit,

New American Standard Bible
And do not get drunk with wine, for that is dissipation, but be filled with the Spirit,

New King James Version
And do not be drunk with wine, in which is dissipation; but be filled with the Spirit,

King James Bible
And be not drunk with wine, wherein is excess; but be filled with the Spirit;

Christian Standard Bible
And don't get drunk with wine, which leads to reckless living, but be filled by the Spirit:

Good News Translation
Do not get drunk with wine, which will only ruin you; instead, be filled with the Spirit.

Holman Christian Standard Bible
And don't get drunk with wine, which leads to reckless actions, but be filled by the Spirit:

NET Bible
And do not get drunk with wine, which is debauchery, but be filled by the Spirit,

New Heart English Bible
Do not get drunk with wine, which is debauchery, but be filled with the Spirit,

Aramaic Bible in Plain English
Neither be drunk with wine in which is debauchery, but be filled with The Spirit.

GOD'S WORD® Translation
Don't get drunk on wine, which leads to wild living. Instead, be filled with the Spirit?your[ spirit.">]

New American Standard 1977
And do not get drunk with wine, for that is dissipation, but be filled with the Spirit,

American Standard Version
And be not drunken with wine, wherein is riot, but be filled with the Spirit;

Douay-Rheims Bible
And be not drunk with wine, wherein is luxury; but be ye filled with the holy Spirit,

Darby Bible Translation
And be not drunk with wine, in which is debauchery; but be filled with the Spirit,

English Revised Version
And be not drunken with wine, wherein is riot, but be filled with the Spirit;

Webster's Bible Translation
And be not drunk with wine, in which is excess; but be filled with the Spirit;

World English Bible
Don't be drunken with wine, in which is dissipation, but be filled with the Spirit,

Young's Literal Translation
and be not drunk with wine, in which is dissoluteness, but be filled in the Spirit,

 

[Chester]

I guess we are not going to be united in this particular.

But God bless you!

Let us continue in our faith brother.

No, we will probably not be united unless you give up the KJV being inspired. Because I cannot back down from my position that God's Word is complete and dare not be added to.

But God bless you to and I count you as a brother in the faith - you have a good spirit to your writing and I respect you for that!

But, Oh how I wish I could shake up your heart and mind a little to get to see you the truth! (My opinion - )

 

[KJV1611]

The KJV itself did not add to the Word of God because the KJV editors themselves who wrote the preface of the original 1611 KJV never claimed "inspiration" for the KJV - in fact - far from it. I read the original version of the preface yesterday from start to finish - and it is quite a document to wade through. The editors clearly never intended or foresaw anything like the current KJV only movement.

KJV only emphasis adds to the Word of God when it claims that there are inspired words given by God since inspiration was closed by God with the completement of the New Testament canon.

So in your opinion the completely inerrant perfect word of God does not exist today?

 

[lenna]

Wait my friend, let me figure this out for you, I just responding to your post

It appears you simply want to defend your belief the KJ Bible is inspired. It isn't.