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

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Micaiah-imla said:
A translation of an inspired work brings those inspired words into a new language.

What’s the problem with that?
Click to expand...
You're completely missing the point. What the OP and I are saying is that the original authors of Scripture were "inspired" but the translators were not. The "God-breathed-ness" of Scripture is intact whether in the original language or any translation, but the translated version is not the "perfectly exact God-selected words" that many KJVo's assert.

I and others believe that the message is inspired but the translation process was/is not. Therefore, the NASB that I usually read is equally the "inspired word of God" but the NASB wording itself is not inspired, nor is any other translation. Even if I were to switch to using the KJV exclusively (not gonna happen!), I still wouldn't believe the KJV wording is "inspired".
 
  • Like
Reactions: lenna
KJV1611 said:
So in your opinion the completely inerrant perfect word of God does not exist today?
Click to expand...

The original manuscripts given by the inspiration of God were completely inspired and inerrant and perfect. If those manuscripts exist today, no man has yet found or verified them.

But what we have in many different languages and translations are completely trustworthy versions of God's Word.

I will not take any old or modern translation and make it equivalently inspired as the originals for that is "adding" to God's Word.
 
Micaiah-imla said:
They did not have the letter to the Romans. Nor the revelation of Jesus Christ yet.

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? :unsure:
Click to expand...


It's YOUR feeling. You own it. It does not reflect what people are saying here.
 
Dino246 said:
You're completely missing the point. What the OP and I are saying is that the original authors of Scripture were "inspired" but the translators were not.
Click to expand...

Perhaps I have missed the original point (I have not followed this thread closely - just responding to the latest posts in isolation).

A believer can be guided by the Holy Spirit so translators can also be guided as well. Do you agree? (Not that God spoke directly to them during translation).
 
Micaiah-imla said:
Perhaps I have missed the original point (I have not followed this thread closely - just responding to the latest posts in isolation).

A believer can be guided by the Holy Spirit so translators can also be guided as well. Do you agree? (Not that God spoke directly to them during translation).
Click to expand...
Yes, but you're getting farther from the point of the thread.
 
Chester said:
The original manuscripts given by the inspiration of God were completely inspired and inerrant and perfect. If those manuscripts exist today, no man has yet found or verified them.

But what we have in many different languages and translations are completely trustworthy versions of God's Word.

I will not take any old or modern translation and make it equivalently inspired as the originals for that is "adding" to God's Word.
Click to expand...
You original language worshipers kill me.
 
KJV1611 said:
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.
Click to expand...

well that's not true. several people here have basically told you to stop spinning what they say and while you do that, it would be real good if you would grow up and stop the personal attacks and veiled insults and don't bother trying to say you were just joking.

you obviously have no conception of what 'original' means. the KJ is not an original. it is a translation with errors. like all translations.
 
KJV1611 said:
And the italics added to the word of God in what way?
Click to expand...
The translators added words to the translated text that are not in the original languages, like "unknown" in 1 Corinthians 14:2. Then the KJVo's come along and argue that God somehow told the translators to add those words. Balderdash!
 
Dino246 said:
Yes, but you're getting farther from the point of the thread.
Click to expand...

Please bear with me.

1 Corinthians 4:10
[10] We are fools for Christ's sake, but ye are wise in Christ; we are weak, but ye are strong; ye are honourable, but we are despised.

;)
 
crossnote said:
Some translations are done with an agenda such as the New World or the ones today pushing gender neutrality.
Click to expand...

You know, when people want to make over God in THEIR image, no telling what will show up. I once heard a homosexual state that the relationship between David and Jonathan was homosexual and they had a verse from which they formed that opinion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back