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

[oyster67]

That I can understand and gain insight from my KJV is not a complement to KJ, but to the Holy Spirit which is the true Revealer of Truth to all who seek humbly and diligently.

 

[oyster67]

Bingo! I wish people would just be truthful and admit they do not have access to the word of God. I wish preachers would be honest to their congregation.

If they don't, then they should not be preaching.

 

[Kolistus]

I trust the copy in hand that was masterfully translated.

Same here!

 

[Chester]

It leads one to be their own final authority on what God has said.

That quote fits the KJV only movement exactly.

I believe God has carefully preserved His Word in many good translations in many languages throughout the world. He is the authority, not me. KJV sets a group of translators up as "inspired by God" 1500 years after the New Testament was already written.

 

[Chester]

I trust the copy in hand that was masterfully translated.

Which is many good translations in many languages

 

[Chester]

Same here!

So you use only the KJV English translation?

 

[Chester]

Bingo! I wish people would just be truthful and admit they do not have access to the word of God. I wish preachers would be honest to their congregation.

Many good translations in many languages are the Word of God.

 

[fredoheaven]

This is utter nonsense. Paul did not write in Hebrew. Hebrew was a dead language in the first century, it was only read in the synagogue. Yes, Paul studied Hebrew, but Greek and Aramaic were the common languages. In fact, the Septuagint was translated in the 3rd century BC, because once Alexander conquered the world, he replaced all languages with Greek. People could no longer understand Hebrew, so it was translated into Greek, so it was accessible again. That's 300 years BEFORE Christ.

Hebrew tongue is a dead language! And you are right! But I still remember you those when I made respond on the other long thread on the Bible issue which I no longer know when was that, and I have no time to return to it and you responded boldly that I am ‘joking’ but now you’ve realized that I was right and you are now agreeing.

 

[fredoheaven]

There are NO extant manuscripts of the NT books in Hebrew found anywhere. There are 4 schools of Greek manuscripts, and we have over 6000 parts or whole texts dating from the 2nd century to about the 15th century. Luke was a Greek physician. He wrote to another Greek - Theophilus for Acts and Luke. Why on earth would he have used Hebrew? The only possible book in the NT that could possibly have been written in Hebrew was Matthew, who wrote to the Jews. Yet, no copies have ever been found in Hebrew, because they didn't exist. As I said earlier, the Hellenization of the world worked - and everyone spoke Greek.

As I thought there’s no complete original Hebrew Bible (66 books)/ Aramaic or Greek. The English have 66 books.

 

[fredoheaven]

A single language spoken in the world, was also a sign of the coming of the time of Christ. It made the spread of the gospel much easier. Everyone spoke Greek, including the Romans. It was the best time in history for the gospel to be shared in the known world!

I certainly agree with this too though some suggested that Christ spoke in Syriac/ Aramaic language with a little evidence in the gospels like “Talitha Cumi” Mark 5;41, “Ephphata” Mark 7:34, Abba Mark 14:36, Eloi, Eloi, lama sabacthani Matthew 27:46, Mark 15:34. Instead these are realties that translation is the word of God. Now I would go to what I underlined because a single language spoken now in the world is no longer the Hebrew/Aramaic, Greek, Latin but rather English which is now known all throughout the world. We know it we are on the last days before the 2nd coming of Christ whether you are pre, mid or post trib, the common language of today is none other than English. Ever notice that in the latter days the “beast” speaks as the mouth of the lion (Revelation 13:2). Lion, in the popular mind in England have come to symbolize the nation of England, the progenerator of the English language, the arms of Richard I, the arms of Richard II etc represent the beast, the Royal banner of Scotland too, even the Canadian Sovereign Standard depicts the beast.

 

[fredoheaven]

So your whole theory that translations are inspired is also nonsense. Certainly, the KJV, with all its mistakes and additions could never be considered as inspired in the way the original autographs in their languages were.

There’s no theory of what I said they were based solidly in the scripture of truth. However, I do think not even one instance you cite a passage from the scripture.

 

[fredoheaven]

So, no, Luke did not write in Hebrew, and it is doubtful any of the NT writers did, or surely there would be copies? Even the Jews were losing their Hebrew totally later on. So, the Masoretic OT was not written until the 8th-10th century AD. Because the Hebrew pronunciations were getting lost, they figured out the Nicky dot vowels to put above, below and beside the consonants, so the sounds and the various verb forms would not be lost.

Agreed, certainly Luke didn’t write in Hebrew. He wrote the spoken Hebrew language of Paul into koine Greek.

 

[luigi]

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

Answer: None

No English translation is "inspired". Many English translations are reputable and do an excellent job at conveying well the original meaning of the original inspired manuscripts. There is no perfect English translation. I think we need ongoing and open discussion about what are the best English translations; and in my opinion the KJV still ranks as one of the best English translations. Other good ones are the NASB and the ESV. But there are other good ones also.

Giving the KJV of 1611 the title of "inspired," in my opinion, is violating 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."

"Preservation" is not the equivalent of "inspiration." The original manuscripts in Greek and Hebrew are inspired, and God's Word is preserved in many good translations in many different languages.

Where are the "exact English words preserved for English speakers"? I can't answer that because I am not looking for "exact" words in English. God already gave his "exact" words in the original manuscripts in Greek and Hebrew. The job of translators is to do the very best job possible to make the meaning of those exact words clear, concise, and natural in the words of the language they are translating into. The job of the translators is not to try to duplicate original inspiration.

There is this documentary on King James which shows that during his reign King James spent a fortune to attain the most accurate translation of God's Word. He hired the best Greek and Hebrew translators who over the course of several years produced what is today the King James Version of the Bible. Many bible versions today are derived using the KJV as their source.

 

[fredoheaven]

Agreed, certainly Luke didn’t write in Hebrew. He wrote the spoken Hebrew language of Paul into koine Greek.

Angella, if you still mind to see Acts 14:11 where Paul have preached the word of God in the "speech of Lycaonia" fulfilling the Acts 12:24 that the word of God grew and multiply seems to refer to written translation into Greek koine. Remember, the gospel is to the nation, to every creature, to the lost dying world and Greek koine would not fill that as of today.

 

[lenna]

This is utter nonsense. Paul did not write in Hebrew. Hebrew was a dead language in the first century, it was only read in the synagogue. Yes, Paul studied Hebrew, but Greek and Aramaic were the common languages. In fact, the Septuagint was translated in the 3rd century BC, because once Alexander conquered the world, he replaced all languages with Greek. People could no longer understand Hebrew, so it was translated into Greek, so it was accessible again. That's 300 years BEFORE Christ.

There are NO extant manuscripts of the NT books in Hebrew found anywhere. There are 4 schools of Greek manuscripts, and we have over 6000 parts or whole texts dating from the 2nd century to about the 15th century. Luke was a Greek physician. He wrote to another Greek - Theophilus for Acts and Luke. Why on earth would he have used Hebrew? The only possible book in the NT that could possibly have been written in Hebrew was Matthew, who wrote to the Jews. Yet, no copies have ever been found in Hebrew, because they didn't exist. As I said earlier, the Hellenization of the world worked - and everyone spoke Greek.

A single language spoken in the world, was also a sign of the coming of the time of Christ. It made the spread of the gospel much easier. Everyone spoke Greek, including the Romans. It was the best time in history for the gospel to be shared in the known world!

So, no, Luke did not write in Hebrew, and it is doubtful any of the NT writers did, or surely there would be copies? Even the Jews were losing their Hebrew totally later on. So, the Masoretic OT was not written until the 8th-10th century AD. Because the Hebrew pronunciations were getting lost, they figured out the Nicky dot vowels to put above, below and beside the consonants, so the sounds and the various verb forms would not be lost.

So your whole theory that translations are inspired is also nonsense. Certainly, the KJV, with all its mistakes and additions could never be considered as inspired in the way the original autographs in their languages were.

That makes too much sense

 

[lenna]

Agreed, certainly Luke didn’t write in Hebrew. He wrote the spoken Hebrew language of Paul into koine Greek.

Proof that 'there ain't no mountain high enough, ain't no river wide enough', that can stop a KJ onlyist from or dissuade them from, their error

 

[JohnR7]

I dont speak greek or hebrew. Odds are neither do you.

Most people think that the Bible is summed up in one word: "Love". Perhaps that is true but the MOST important word in the Bible is the first word in the Bible: "Beginning". Everything in the Bible explains what the word beginning means.

The Hebrew letters are symbols, so we need to understand what the symbol means. The first letter in the Bible is the letter B. This represents a tent or a dwelling. The second letter represents Ben or Son. John tells us that all the books in the world would not be enough to tell us about Jesus, the Son of God. "Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written." We are finite and God is infinite. That is why true understanding is infinite and goes on forever. There simply is no end to it. Even all the books in the world could not contain infinity. All the books in the world could not explain the first letter in the Bible. Because that sets the pace for the whole bible, the incarnation.

Rabbi Trubman has some very nice, brief, short lesson on YouTube about the Hebrew letters. We can learn a lot from that. Of course the language was confused at the Tower of Babel so that is why we have to go back to the original language that the Bible was written in. Still this is very simple and we are told a child that we presume is of kindergarten age should be able to understand all of this.

 

[JohnR7]

This is utter nonsense. Paul did not write in Hebrew. Hebrew was a dead language

The word of God is anything but dead, so your talk is serpent talk. We have the Torah the first five books of Moses and we have the Red Letters or the word of Jesus. No one adds anything to what we receive from them. Paul is just helping us to understand the teachings of Jesus and Moses. Also Paul talks about the love that David has for God. Paul has authority but he does not give us anything new. We always need to go back to Moses or Jesus to see the original teaching.

 

[JohnR7]

Proof that 'there ain't no mountain high enough, ain't no river wide enough', that can stop a KJ onlyist from or dissuade them from, their error

Then show us an error. There is no error in the KJV it is just far from complete. Let me give you an example. In the story of Adam and Eve they talk about Fig Leaves. What this means is the fiber from the Fig tree that they use to make clothing. Science actually gives us lot of information about this. In some cases we do have some of the clothing that people wore 6,000 years ago. This is rare though because clothing does not usually last that long. This is what they mean when they talk about fig leaf religion. It does not endure or last and it does not offer sufficient protection from the elements.

 

[JohnR7]

I trust the copy in hand that was masterfully translated.

Translation is ongoing as we learn and grow. I am related to a Bible translator that was Bloody Mary's first victim. Actually he rejoiced that he was counted worthy to be martyred from Christ. So the ability to understand and translate the Bible just runs in my family.