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

[Dino246]

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?

What God "can" do has never been in question here. What He has done is.

 

[lenna]

With all due respect, you are not displaying a humble spirit.

That is not a believable response coming from you having twice accused me of not answering you when I plainly did. Now you are simple resorting to an ad hominim attack and no surprise there.

 

[KJV1611]

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.

That verse doesn't in any way, shape or form say that words can't be added this book. It says that if any man shall add UNTO THE PROPHECIES of this book.

You're doing exactly what the verses tell us NOT TO DO.... adding to the PROPHECIES written in this book. Where do see it written in scripture where God can not and would not speak to his people in another tongue through translators?

 

[lenna]

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,

Nice of you to fill in for Micaiah

Your question 1. You have no authority save the authority of the KJ team whereas scripture itself says that scripture is inspired by the Holy Spirit. Scripture quotes are in the KJ version

All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness,
II Timothy 3:16

For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit. II Peter 1:21

There are others, but it seems you are not aware of what the Bible testifies of itself so start with those 2. Note, this refers only to writing in which these verses are found and are not some kind of promise that any future translation can claim the same. A translation can only translate from the original and if a good translator, they will not translate word for word but will include the meaning (I already gave an example of that which made some peoples hair stand on end apparently )

Question 2 and 3 are not valid questions; they are attempting to resolve your own angst regarding your persuasion that the KJ is actually an inspired Bible when it clearly is not.

 

[KJV1611]

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!

You'll never get into the depths and riches of God's word by trying to find a deeper meaning of a word because the deeper meaning isn't found in understanding what a word means, the deeper meaning comes BY HEARING and HEARING comes from reading the word of God.

There's a whole hidden language being spoken in the KJV that you don't even know exists because you focus all your energy into trying to find a deeper meaning of "is" instead of reading and believing every word of God as a gospel FACT.

And here's what gets me... I see that hidden language and understand it and you guys will argue with me till you're blue in the face over something that you don't even know exists.

 

[KJV1611]

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

I take your word for it that's it's not in the Greek, but that's not what I asked you. I asked if the "unknown tongue" was a known language.

 

[Chester]

That verse doesn't in any way, shape or form say that words can't be added this book. It says that if any man shall add UNTO THE PROPHECIES of this book.

You're doing exactly what the verses tell us NOT TO DO.... adding to the PROPHECIES written in this book. Where do see it written in scripture where God can not and would not speak to his people in another tongue through translators?

The "KJV only" teaching adds words to God's finished revelation by saying that the English words of prophecy in the KJV book of Revelation are equal to or supercede the words of Revelation that God inspired in koine Greek. If you add words to the book of Revelation that God did not inspire (which I think KJV only does) and say they are inspired, then I say you violate Revelation 22:18,19.

John wrote the book of Revelation in koine Greek and I think we both agree that it was by the inspiration of God. And he said at the end of the book that we should not add to the prophecies. Translating into another language is not adding to the prophecies because it is simply putting the original revelation in a form accessible for all peoples to be able to understand. In my understanding, the original words in koine Greek are the beginning and focal point of all translations in any language.

But if you make the English translation of the KJV "inspired", then the focal point becomes the English words and not the Greek words. You have added "words" to inspiration that were not given to John. He said do not add to the revelation!

Our difference is clearly shown in the discussion of "glosse" in I Cor. 14:2 - the KJV translates it as "unknown tongue". You begin with the English words of the KJV. I begin with the Greek word "glosse" to determine the meaning.

Which words are inspired? I say the original Greek words given to the author.

 

[Chester]

I take your word for it that's it's not in the Greek, but that's not what I asked you. I asked if the "unknown tongue" was a known language.

Italics is often not understood in the KJV version. Sometimes the Greek wording will omit a verb because it is simply understood in the way the language is said. So in English a verb must be supplied. That does not mean it is "added" - it is really already there understood by the Greeks!

This might be a crude example, but maybe it will help. If a teacher says to his students: "Stand up" (in English) There is no subject in the English sentence, but the students understand very well it means them. In another language the same thing might be said as "All of you stand up!" (But the words "all of you" were not really added, but were understood)

So to say that the word "unknown" is not in the Greek text misses the point. If "glosse" means "unknown tongue' in the context then that is the best way to translate it.

I am not going to try to argue here how "glosse" should be translated in I Cor. 14:2: that is a deep and interesting question, but not the point here. I would just argue that the issue is that "glosse" is the inspired word and not "unknown tongue". But I would also say it is unfair to say that the KJV "adds" unknown.

 

[lenna]

You'll never get into the depths and riches of God's word by trying to find a deeper meaning of a word because the deeper meaning isn't found in understanding what a word means, the deeper meaning comes BY HEARING and HEARING comes from reading the word of God.

There's a whole hidden language being spoken in the KJV that you don't even know exists because you focus all your energy into trying to find a deeper meaning of "is" instead of reading and believing every word of God as a gospel FACT.

And here's what gets me... I see that hidden language and understand it and you guys will argue with me till you're blue in the face over something that you don't even know exists.

Look, unless a person is also a Preterist as are you, they will not be seeing what you think you see. Frankly, this is what gets me about you in this forum telling everyone how wrong they are and yet your views are what is wrong. Go ahead and tell us which of the following is not actually what you believe:

1. Nero was the Antichrist. There will be no future individual Antichrist.

2. The Tribulation Period is already over. It occurred when the Roman army besieged Jerusalem in AD 66-70.

3. Christ “returned” in the clouds in AD 70 to witness the destruction of Jerusalem by the Roman army.

4. God replaced Old Testament Israel with the Church. Therefore, all the biblical promises to Israel belong to the Church.

5. Armageddon already happened in AD 70. The fall of “Babylon” refers to the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans.

6. Satan is already bound in the abyss and cannot hinder the spread of the Gospel. Revelation 20 has already been fulfilled.

7. We are already in the Millennium, but it is not literal. Some preterists equate the entire Church Age as the Millennium. The 1,000 years are not literal but figurative, even though they are mentioned six times in Revelation 19-20.

You have the audacity to say you are in possession of the truth while those who do not believe the 2nd coming of Jesus was His resurrection or in 70AD (apparently there is division there) naturally disagree with you and you count them dull and unable to grasp your truth.

I wouldn't even bring up the fact you think the Bible is a closed book and we are living in the kingdom now, if you didn't seem to smirk about all that you understand and the rest of us are blind to it. But then you have said plenty in the thread about Preterism that is currently running

Be honest here because everything you believe is clouded by the fact you think there is no more prophecy to be fulfilled.

So yeah, no one is going to agree with you and no, we do not think that much of the Bible is metaphorical. Further, most scholars agree that Revelation was written in 95 AD and therefore could not have been fulfilled in 70 AD.

 

[Chester]

You'll never get into the depths and riches of God's word by trying to find a deeper meaning of a word because the deeper meaning isn't found in understanding what a word means, the deeper meaning comes BY HEARING and HEARING comes from reading the word of God.

That is your opinion, and you are entitled to it.

But I disagree! The Word of God has become deep and real and has spoken into my life in so many powerful ways that I cannot even begin to tell you: And, Oh, I agree that word meanings themselves will not get you anywhere by themselves - but that in the context of hearing the Spirit's voice as I read his Word (and I read from the KJV 90% of the time - LOL!) is powerful and real - And I love getting out my Greek New Testament and digging deeper. And in some cases I know just enough of the Greek words to enjoy the richness direct from the Greek - but often I have to use dictionaries and helps (man's work I know! ) But it was also men who translated the KJV - very reputable men, at that!

 

[Dino246]

I take your word for it that's it's not in the Greek, but that's not what I asked you. I asked if the "unknown tongue" was a known language.

You're assuming the "unknown" is supposed to be there, and implying that its absence means that the languages were known. I believe that the absence of the word simply implies nothing.

 

[KJV1611]

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".

Alright Dino I'm going to make this very very simple. There verse below is a microcosm of how the bible is written.

(Joh 8:43) Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word.

Jesus is standing there talking to people who understand his language PERFECTLY, they hear and understand every word coming out of his mouth. This is a microcosm of our King James bible. This is what an unbeliever can hear and understand.

The other part of the microcosm is "ye can not hear MY WORD". HIS WORD was hidden in the words he was speaking to the people that he was talking to. This is what a person born again of the INCORRUPTIBLE word of God can hear.

They couldn't hear HIS WORD because they didn't keep HIS WORDS, in fact, they didn't even know HIS WORD existed in the words he was speaking to them. And this is how the Lord is manifest unto us and hidden from the world.

(Joh 14:22) Judas saith unto him, not Iscariot, Lord, how is it that thou wilt manifest thyself unto us, and not unto the world?
(Joh 14:23) Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.

 

[Dino246]

Alright Dino I'm going to make this very very simple. There verse below is a microcosm of how the bible is written.

(Joh 8:43) Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word.

Jesus is standing there talking to people who understand his language PERFECTLY, they hear and understand every word coming out of his mouth. This is a microcosm of our King James bible. This is what an unbeliever can hear and understand.

I'll deal with the rest of your post separately, but this part needs its own response...

"Our King James bible". Actually, that's just English and there is nothing special about the KJ version of it. That's what you can't seem to grasp. You clearly imply that people who don't read the KJV are inferior (or at least that their faith and/or understanding is inferior) and that other translations are not merely inferior, but not of God at all. That's cultic thinking!

 

[Dino246]

The other part of the microcosm is "ye can not hear MY WORD". HIS WORD was hidden in the words he was speaking to the people that he was talking to. This is what a person born again of the INCORRUPTIBLE word of God can hear.

They couldn't hear HIS WORD because they didn't keep HIS WORDS, in fact, they didn't even know HIS WORD existed in the words he was speaking to them. And this is how the Lord is manifest unto us and hidden from the world.

(Joh 14:22) Judas saith unto him, not Iscariot, Lord, how is it that thou wilt manifest thyself unto us, and not unto the world?
(Joh 14:23) Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.

It's really simple, and it has nothing to do with "tongues" or the KJV specifically. Rather, it's the very simple fact that the Pharisees were so certain that they had all that they needed in the Law (or at least their corrupted understanding of it), that they did not combine the truth of Scripture with faith. That's the key, not some esoteric whizbangery allegedly only available in the KJV.

 

[fredoheaven]

Nice of you to fill in for Micaiah

Your question 1. You have no authority save the authority of the KJ team whereas scripture itself says that scripture is inspired by the Holy Spirit. Scripture quotes are in the KJ version

All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness,
II Timothy 3:16

For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit. II Peter 1:21

There are others, but it seems you are not aware of what the Bible testifies of itself so start with those 2. Note, this refers only to writing in which these verses are found and are not some kind of promise that any future translation can claim the same. A translation can only translate from the original and if a good translator, they will not translate word for word but will include the meaning (I already gave an example of that which made some peoples hair stand on end apparently )

Question 2 and 3 are not valid questions; they are attempting to resolve your own angst regarding your persuasion that the KJ is actually an inspired Bible when it clearly is not.

Umm, this could be another mistaken identity of giving me my authority to rest on the KJ team (qualified as ad hominem attack) but anyway you would not answer the two that by your opinion were not qualified. I only asked for clarification in response to your post, to rehash, “is there any backing from the scriptures that authors (writers) were inspired?” And you have given the two to start with as you have other verses to prove that authors were inspired. So let’s stick to the scriptures you brought in and by the way if honesty is concerned, it seems your scriptural quotes on II Peter 1:21 is not the exact wording of the KJV (qualified as I don’t know) but rather you have quoted the ESV, hence, I assumed that your Bible preference is ESV. Yet, we will discuss them comparing scripture with scripture.

Let’s discuss if your statement that writers were given by inspiration/ were inspired.

1. In the KJV had translated 2 Timothy 3:16 the “pasa graphe” says All scripture is given by the inspiration of God…and as far as the scripture is concerned, the All scripture and not the writers gets inspiration.

2. 2 Peter 1;21 could be sticky. In the KJV, says:

2 Peter 1:21, KJV: "For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost."

Your suppose reference here that ‘authors/writers’ were inspired is the phrase ‘ moved by the Holy Ghost’ which is given a meaning by the ESV as ‘carried along by the Holy Spirit’ which is quite correct. But moving or being carried along is equivalent to inspiration? The Greek used here is pherō is never translated as inspiration even in the modern English bibles are saying. You are again caught of not doing well in a given assignment (no offence made). That means tons of scholars says the same thing as KJV is saying, they only defined “moved” but in anyway refers to the authors or writer as inspired rather they were moved by the Spirit of God to penned the scripture given by inspiration. Here is the list so that I will not be again accused of circular reasoning:

New International Version
For prophecy never had its origin in the human will, but prophets, though human, spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.

New Living Translation
or from human initiative. No, those prophets were moved by the Holy Spirit, and they spoke from God.

English Standard Version
For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.

Berean Study Bible
For no prophecy was ever brought forth by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.

Berean Literal Bible
For no prophecy at any time was brought by the will of man, but men spoke from God, being carried by the Holy Spirit.

New American Standard Bible
for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.

New King James Version
for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.

King James Bible
For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

Christian Standard Bible
because no prophecy ever came by the will of man; instead, men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.

Contemporary English Version
The prophets did not think these things up on their own, but they were guided by the Spirit of God.

Good News Translation
For no prophetic message ever came just from the human will, but people were under the control of the Holy Spirit as they spoke the message that came from God.

Holman Christian Standard Bible
because no prophecy ever came by the will of man; instead, men spoke from God as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.

International Standard Version
because no prophecy ever originated through a human decision. Instead, men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.

NET Bible
for no prophecy was ever borne of human impulse; rather, men carried along by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.

New Heart English Bible
For no prophecy ever came by human will, but people spoke from God, being moved by the Holy Spirit.

Aramaic Bible in Plain English
The prophecy came not by the will of man in the ancient times, but when holy men of God spoke, being compelled by the Holy Spirit.

GOD'S WORD® Translation
No prophecy ever originated from humans. Instead, it was given by the Holy Spirit as humans spoke under God's direction.

New American Standard 1977
for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.

King James 2000 Bible
For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.

American King James Version
For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

 

[Dino246]

Umm, this could be another mistaken identity of giving me my authority to rest on the KJ team (qualified as ad hominem attack) but anyway you would not answer the two that by your opinion were not qualified. I only asked for clarification in response to your post, to rehash, “is there any backing from the scriptures that authors (writers) were inspired?” And you have given the two to start with as you have other verses to prove that authors were inspired. So let’s stick to the scriptures you brought in and by the way if honesty is concerned, it seems your scriptural quotes on II Peter 1:21 is not the exact wording of the KJV (qualified as I don’t know) but rather you have quoted the ESV, hence, I assumed that your Bible preference is ESV. Yet, we will discuss them comparing scripture with scripture.

Let’s discuss if your statement that writers were given by inspiration/ were inspired.

1. In the KJV had translated 2 Timothy 3:16 the “pasa graphe” says All scripture is given by the inspiration of God…and as far as the scripture is concerned, the All scripture and not the writers gets inspiration.

2. 2 Peter 1;21 could be sticky. In the KJV, says:

2 Peter 1:21, KJV: "For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost."

Your suppose reference here that ‘authors/writers’ were inspired is the phrase ‘ moved by the Holy Ghost’ which is given a meaning by the ESV as ‘carried along by the Holy Spirit’ which is quite correct. But moving or being carried along is equivalent to inspiration? The Greek used here is pherō is never translated as inspiration even in the modern English bibles are saying. You are again caught of not doing well in a given assignment (no offence made). That means tons of scholars says the same thing as KJV is saying, they only defined “moved” but in anyway refers to the authors or writer as inspired rather they were moved by the Spirit of God to penned the scripture given by inspiration. Here is the list so that I will not be again accused of circular reasoning:

New International Version
For prophecy never had its origin in the human will, but prophets, though human, spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.

New Living Translation
or from human initiative. No, those prophets were moved by the Holy Spirit, and they spoke from God.

English Standard Version
For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.

Berean Study Bible
For no prophecy was ever brought forth by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.

Berean Literal Bible
For no prophecy at any time was brought by the will of man, but men spoke from God, being carried by the Holy Spirit.

New American Standard Bible
for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.

New King James Version
for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.

King James Bible
For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

Christian Standard Bible
because no prophecy ever came by the will of man; instead, men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.

Contemporary English Version
The prophets did not think these things up on their own, but they were guided by the Spirit of God.

Good News Translation
For no prophetic message ever came just from the human will, but people were under the control of the Holy Spirit as they spoke the message that came from God.

Holman Christian Standard Bible
because no prophecy ever came by the will of man; instead, men spoke from God as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.

International Standard Version
because no prophecy ever originated through a human decision. Instead, men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.

NET Bible
for no prophecy was ever borne of human impulse; rather, men carried along by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.

New Heart English Bible
For no prophecy ever came by human will, but people spoke from God, being moved by the Holy Spirit.

Aramaic Bible in Plain English
The prophecy came not by the will of man in the ancient times, but when holy men of God spoke, being compelled by the Holy Spirit.

GOD'S WORD® Translation
No prophecy ever originated from humans. Instead, it was given by the Holy Spirit as humans spoke under God's direction.

New American Standard 1977
for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.

King James 2000 Bible
For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.

American King James Version
For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

You're focusing on "moved by the Holy Spirit" ("Ghost" in the KJV). Look closer at "spoke".

The combination of the two terms is what makes that verse supportive of the doctrine of inspiration. The prophets spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit. They did not speak of their own accord. Whether that means that the men were inspired or not is actually secondary; the words they spoke were inspired. The Holy Spirit gave them the message and they penned the words.

Translation is something completely different. You are welcome to clarify your belief of course, but you have stated that you believe that the KJV is inspired; to me, that means that you believe the Holy Spirit gave the translators the words He wanted written in the same way that He "moved" the prophets and they "spoke".

Your view makes the translators' education, experience, hard work, and the instructions from King James completely irrelevant. It also makes the process a complete sham. If indeed the Holy Spirit were essentially dictating the words of the KJV, there would be no need for separate subcommittees or review phases. It also means that the inconsistencies ("murder" in one place; "kill" in another) are the work of the Holy Spirit. Additionally, it means that the preface is fundamentally dishonest.

It's so much easier to apply Ockham's razor; to wit, the KJV is not "inspired".

 

[Micaiah-imla]

Now you are simple resorting to an ad hominim attack and no surprise there.

My apologies.

But noting your attitude as not being in a humble spirit is not an attack.

 

[lenna]

My apologies.

But noting your attitude as not being in a humble spirit is not an attack.

Great. Then I guess it's ok if I say you are devoid of common sense?

But of course I am not saying that in the same sense you are not using ad hominim replies.

Disagreeing does not mean I think you have no sense. Now can you bridge the gap?

Not holding my breath and really done with this exchange which has left you uncomfortable.

The onus is on the KJ onlyists to prove they are more enlightened than the rest of us. You might consider that belief to be the one that is not coming from a humble spirit. Just a suggestion.

 

[Dino246]

The onus is on the KJ onlyists to prove they are more enlightened than the rest of us.

Brace yourself; circular reasoning coming.

 

[Micaiah-imla]

The onus is on the KJ onlyists

I think you have a personal issue (vendetta?) with KJO people. At least it comes off that way (in the last couple posts).

I am not a KJVO.

I prefer it and I don't mind telling others of its qualities.

At the same time there really isn't a modern equivalent to the KJV. Even the modern Received Text based translations turn to a rendering in line with modern translations in many places (these are not language updates either). I do not believe the narrative that the KJV is filled with errors and based on late manuscripts with additions. I do believe the critical text is missing vital scripture passages.

Again, peace be to you in Jesus name.