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

[KJV1611]

How would anyone reading the following Greek know that the tongue mentioned in the verse is an unknown tongue?

14:2 ὁ γὰρ λαλῶν γλώσσῃ οὐκ ἀνθρώποις λαλεῖ ἀλλὰ τῶ θεῷ· οὐδεὶς γὰρ ἀκούει πνεύματι δὲ λαλεῖ μυστήρια·

For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God: for no man understandeth him; howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries.

 

[Chester]

I'm sorry I'll rephrase it. Those of you who put the original writings in a place where they don't belong.

Apology accepted: Shows your character! Such clear statements of "I'm sorry" are not seen often enough here on CC. I have had to do it a few times myself.

 

[KJV1611]

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!

Do you think Caiaphus knew he was being inspired by the Holy Spirit to prophesy that Jesus should die for that nation? Do you think that's even remotely close to what Caiaphas had in mind when he said those words?

(Joh 11:49) And one of them, named Caiaphas, being the high priest that same year, said unto them, Ye know nothing at all,
(Joh 11:50) Nor consider that it is expedient for us, that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not.
(Joh 11:51) And this spake he not of himself: but being high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus should die for that nation;

 

[KJV1611]

Apology accepted: Shows your character! Such clear statements of "I'm sorry" are not seen often enough here on CC. I have had to do it a few times myself.

Sometimes I forget who I'm talking to. I usually give back what is tossed out at me.... I have been called an idol worshiper on this site many times. You have never done that to me so my apology was sincere.

 

[Chester]

How would anyone reading the following Greek know that the tongue mentioned in the verse is an unknown tongue?

14:2 ὁ γὰρ λαλῶν γλώσσῃ οὐκ ἀνθρώποις λαλεῖ ἀλλὰ τῶ θεῷ· οὐδεὶς γὰρ ἀκούει πνεύματι δὲ λαλεῖ μυστήρια·

For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God: for no man understandeth him; howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries.

LOL! So here is our difference. You start with the KJV English. I start with the inspired Greek wording.

I start with "glosse" (sorry my keyboard isn't Greek! ). I ask: What does "glosse" mean in English?

You start with "unknown tongue" as inspired: and thus "glosse" means "unknown tongue"! And you can be absolutely sure it means that because God spoke through the 1611 translators and gave them the exact English words. Thus the meaning of "glosse" is completely irrelevant to the discussion. You already know what it means!

 

[Chester]

Do you think Caiaphus knew he was being inspired by the Holy Spirit to prophesy that Jesus should die for that nation? Do you think that's even remotely close to what Caiaphas had in mind when he said those words?

(Joh 11:49) And one of them, named Caiaphas, being the high priest that same year, said unto them, Ye know nothing at all,
(Joh 11:50) Nor consider that it is expedient for us, that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not.
(Joh 11:51) And this spake he not of himself: but being high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus should die for that nation;

Oh, I doubt he knew that what he was saying was actually prophecy! God took an evil statement of devilry intended for evil, and turned it around and made it the gospel of salvation for all who believe. Beautiful!

 

[fredoheaven]

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!

Thank you for the comment, however, I think, the KJ translators have wrote of their final "perfected" work as I underlined gave sense to it. Yet the KJV Preface is not the words of God, they were the words of mortal men. God bless

"Yet for all that, as nothing is begun and perfited [perfected] at the same time, and the later thoughts are thought to be the wiser..

 

[Chester]

But why the Lord did not preserve the 'originals'.? Thanks

Good question - Why do you think he did not preserve the originals?

 

[Chester]

Thank you for the comment, however, I think, the KJ translators have wrote of their final "perfected" work as I underlined gave sense to it. Yet the KJV Preface is not the words of God, they were the words of mortal men. God bless

"Yet for all that, as nothing is begun and perfited [perfected] at the same time, and the later thoughts are thought to be the wiser..

They didn't say that theirs would be a "perfected" work. They just said that nothing is started and perfected at the same time.

 

[fredoheaven]

Good question - Why do you think he did not preserve the originals?

Good question but it seems I heard no answer, perhaps, that maybe the best answer

 

[KJV1611]

LOL! So here is our difference. You start with the KJV English. I start with the inspired Greek wording.

I start with "glosse" (sorry my keyboard isn't Greek! ). I ask: What does "glosse" mean in English?

You start with "unknown tongue" as inspired: and thus "glosse" means "unknown tongue"! And you can be absolutely sure it means that because God spoke through the 1611 translators and gave them the exact English words. Thus the meaning of "glosse" is completely irrelevant to the discussion. You already know what it means!

The Greek dictionary I looked at said it's just a tongue or language, not a native tongue. This doesn't help me at all because other scritpure tells me that the unknown tongue is the tongue of angels. No human knows the tongue of the angels because the tongue of angels isn't a spoken language.

γλῶσσα glōssa, gloce-sah'; of uncertain affinity; the tongue; by implication, a language (specially, one naturally unacquired):—tongue

The KJV adding "unknown" to tongues divides unknown tongues from the known tongues spoken in Acts 2 which by the way, Acts 2 is the "unknown tongue" of the bible saying that God translated the "wonderful works of God" (unknown tongue or code for The bible) into all languages.

Of course I can't even begin use things like that to prove the KJV was inspired by God because most people I encounter here don't understand the language of unknown tongues.

This is where I want to help people get to Chester... when people come to the point of understanding that the bible is written in tongues, that's when they get the real meaning that's hidden inside the written words.

 

[KJV1611]

Oh, I doubt he knew that what he was saying was actually prophecy! God took an evil statement of devilry intended for evil, and turned it around and made it the gospel of salvation for all who believe. Beautiful!

So you believe God can do that but you don't believe he can accomplish the same thing in a committee of translators who didn't know that they were writing the inspired inerrant word of God. I have to ask... why?

 

[fredoheaven]

They didn't say that theirs would be a "perfected" work. They just said that nothing is started and perfected at the same time.

Umm, I see you, rubbed and polished what the other translators did "out of many good ones one principal good one". Their goal is to make 'one principal good one". Perfited! God bless you sir.

 

[Chester]

So you believe God can do that but you don't believe he can accomplish the same thing in a committee of translators who didn't know that they were writing the inspired inerrant word of God. I have to ask... why?

It is not that God could not do that: it is that he said that He did not and would not. I already gave the verse from Revelation that says inspiration was closed.

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:
19 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.

And those verses specifically speak of "words". That is why I refuse to accept any other "words" as inspired besides what God gave in the original manuscripts of the New Testament.

 

[Chester]

Umm, I see you, rubbed and polished what the other translators did "out of many good ones one principal good one". Their goal is to make 'one principal good one". Perfited! God bless you sir.

And I agree that they did make "one principal good one" - the KJV is a very good translation. But they did not say it was "perfect".

 

[Chester]

The Greek dictionary I looked at said it's just a tongue or language, not a native tongue. This doesn't help me at all because other scritpure tells me that the unknown tongue is the tongue of angels. No human knows the tongue of the angels because the tongue of angels isn't a spoken language.

γλῶσσα glōssa, gloce-sah'; of uncertain affinity; the tongue; by implication, a language (specially, one naturally unacquired):—tongue

The KJV adding "unknown" to tongues divides unknown tongues from the known tongues spoken in Acts 2 which by the way, Acts 2 is the "unknown tongue" of the bible saying that God translated the "wonderful works of God" (unknown tongue or code for The bible) into all languages.

Of course I can't even begin use things like that to prove the KJV was inspired by God because most people I encounter here don't understand the language of unknown tongues.

This is where I want to help people get to Chester... when people come to the point of understanding that the bible is written in tongues, that's when they get the real meaning that's hidden inside the written words.

I am with you in wanting people to get the depth and riches of God's Word! PTL!

I just will not limit it to the wording of the KJV!

 

[Chester]

Good question but it seems I heard no answer, perhaps, that maybe the best answer

LOL! I am trying to figure out why you asked the question to begin with:

You asked: "But why the Lord did not preserve the 'originals'.? Thanks" But I think that you believe he did preserve the originals in the KJV version.

I believe that the originals were the inspired manuscripts given by God through various human authors. Though we have no copies currently of the originals, we do through Biblical scholarship have a very good idea to over 99% accuracy of what the originals said. And who knows? Maybe we will find one of the original copies sometime? (though I doubt it: it is possible!)

"Why did God not preserve the originals?" The question assumes He did not - and no one can prove the originals are not preserved somewhere. But the goal is not putting the original copies in some museum where everyone can stare at the "original copy"! The goal is for the Word of God to be real and active in the heart and life of the believer. And that is happening all over the world in many languages in many good translations of God's Word that are over 99% error free. And if God wants to bring back to us the original copies of His word he may do that: but if He does, it will be the original manuscripts and not an English translation of the original. (My opinion! )

 

[Dino246]

So are you saying that tongues is KNOWN tongue?

The word "unknown" is not in the Greek versions of that verse; it was added by the KJV translators. Period, end of story.

 

[Dino246]

But why the Lord did not preserve the 'originals'.? Thanks

He has not told us why, but it is reasonable to conclude, based on His wisdom and character, that He had very good reasons.

 

[Dino246]

The Greek dictionary I looked at said it's just a tongue or language, not a native tongue. This doesn't help me at all because other scritpure tells me that the unknown tongue is the tongue of angels. No human knows the tongue of the angels because the tongue of angels isn't a spoken language.

γλῶσσα glōssa, gloce-sah'; of uncertain affinity; the tongue; by implication, a language (specially, one naturally unacquired):—tongue

The KJV adding "unknown" to tongues divides unknown tongues from the known tongues spoken in Acts 2 which by the way, Acts 2 is the "unknown tongue" of the bible saying that God translated the "wonderful works of God" (unknown tongue or code for The bible) into all languages.

Of course I can't even begin use things like that to prove the KJV was inspired by God because most people I encounter here don't understand the language of unknown tongues.

This is where I want to help people get to Chester... when people come to the point of understanding that the bible is written in tongues, that's when they get the real meaning that's hidden inside the written words.

Fallacy: circular reasoning.

As Chester noted, you start with the KJV wording, "unknown tongues" and then build a theology around it, concluding that people don't understand what unknown tongues are anyway.

The Bible was not written in "tongues"; that's utter hogwash. It was written in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. Does it contain some things that are metaphorical or otherwise symbolic? Yes, but that has nothing to do with "tongues".