see post No. 2 on this thread, I view KJV "is given by the inspiration of God".
What translation has the exact words of God preserved for English speakers?
- Thread starter Chester
- Start date
-
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.
Psalm 19:7-8 KJVS
[7] The law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise the simple. [8] The statutes of the Lord are right, rejoicing the heart: the commandment of the Lord is pure, enlightening the eyes.
So have we lost the perfectness, sureness, and purity of scripture through translation?
L
lenna
Guest
L
lenna
Guest
Hi Chester,
KJV Preface and the perfection of their work. Could you comment on this. Thanks.
Yet for all that, as nothing is begun and perfited at the same time, and the later thoughts are thought to be the wiser: so, if we building upon their foundation that went before us, and being holpen by their labours, do endeavor to make that better which they left so good; no man, we are sure, hath cause to mislike us; they, we persuade ourselves, if they were alive, would thank us…the same will shine as gold more brightly, being rubbed and polished…”
http://www.togetherweteach.com/TCB/kjvpreface.htm
L
lenna
Guest
I did answer you and Dino gave you an answer on the same thing, from his post 201
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".
Again, it is your understanding that is off.
Now it sounds like you are getting better what we are trying to say here:
Yes, indeed, translators can be guided by the Holy Spirit just as believers can be guided by the Holy Spirit. And I believe that most likely the translators of the KJV were Spirit- filled believers. And that resulted in an excellent translation: the KJV!
When you say "not that God spoke directly to them during translation": I am not sure what you mean here - that can be taken different ways. ????
KJV only emphasis says that God spoke through and to the KJV translators in an equal way as the original New Testament writers. That is, the actual literal words that are in the KJV today, are what is inspired for English speakers. So those actual literal exact English words are God's inspired exact words. Thus there is absolutely no need to study the meaning of words or tenses in the original Greek.
I believe this teaching directly violates the Scripture because it is adding words to God's already finished revelation.
L
lenna
Guest
When I was cute kiddie in Brownies, we used to play a game called 'broken telephone'. You sat in a circle and one kid started a simple sentence that was passed around from player to player by whispering it in the ear of the person sitting next to you. The results, which the last person spoke out loud, were often hilarious.
This thread is starting to remind me of that game but without the hilarity.
This thread is starting to remind me of that game but without the hilarity.
The translators didn’t write what God spoke to them in English; but the translators could have been guided by the Holy Spirit to translate the inspired word into English. Why can’t that be considered “inspired” if it’s possible that this happened?
With all due respect, you are not displaying a humble spirit.
Ouch, KJV1611 - now that does feel like a real insult to me!
Calling me a worshiper of original languages! I have tried to be respectful of you, though I disagree vehemently! I really do not want to get this thread into namecalling and frustrated anger!
Several needs to be clarified here in your post for the sake of discussion.
1. Do you have any backing from the scripture that says the 'authors' of the scripture were inspired? (authors? you meant writers?).
2. What is given by inspiration, Original language or original autographs?
3. What is given by inspiration words or message?
Thanks,
I understand that part of this is how a person uses "inspired". I use inspired as "God-breathed" - which means exact, flawless, word perfect. To me, that is true only of the originals.
But I do believe the translators of the KJV were guided by the Holy Spirit and chose the best words in the English of their day that they could find to express the richness of the original texts. So I would say that the KJV is a completely trustworthy and excellent translation, but if I can gain a deeper understanding or meaning from study of Greek, or of wording other translations use, then I will do that and I will praise the Lord!
I'm sorry I'll rephrase it. Those of you who put the original writings in a place where they don't belong.
Here the preface of the KJV says several things:
(1) We are helped by the labors (of the translators) gone before us
(2) We are trying to make better what they had done good (well) - so they acknowledge that there were previous "good" translations
(3) That if the previous translators were alive they would thank us for the work we are doing - because we are making shine more brightly their gold by rubbing and polishing it (by making this new translation)
And so, yes, absolutely, I believe that the 1611 KJV translation did exactly that: it took the work of previous translators and built on it to make a new and better translation for the English people of 1611. Much of the preface of the 1611 KJV is endeavoring to convince the critics that this new translation is needed.
Now we are 400 plus years later and we are in the same situation with the new translations of our day. The translators of our day are doing the same thing as the translators of 1611: They are endeavoring to build on the labors of those gone before them and take what they did well for their day and build on it to make something better for 2020. If you rub and polish the gold, it will shine more clearly.
The irony of the modern KJV only movement is that they deny exactly what the preface of the 1611 KJV states. The KJV only movement today finds itself saying that there be no new translations in the everyday language of the masses. Nowhere in the entire preface of the KJV does it claim that it will be the final and perfect translation that dare never be changed because these words will be the "exact words of God". Nothing even close to that!