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.
You "need" something that doesn't exist.
Here's another quote from the 1611 Preface that destroys your position:
"For is the kingdom of God become words or syllables? Why should we be in bondage to them, if we may be free?"
Once again, what God could do is not the subject of this discussion.
Here's another quote from the 1611 Preface that destroys your position:
"For is the kingdom of God become words or syllables? Why should we be in bondage to them, if we may be free?"
Once again, what God could do is not the subject of this discussion.
-
1
-
1
- Show all
LOL - Seems, John 14:6 that you should know this verse . . . !!!! 
Btw, the "originals" were God's way of preserving His inspired words.
Questions:
Who wrote the book of Romans?
Who were given the inspired words of Romans?
The "original" book of Romans was the preservation of the inspired words God gave Paul.
What's God's view on the originals?
I see this is an honest answer. No one has the originals or original manuscripts and that no one have seen it today. Faithful copies of the originals must be brought into hence copies of the original scriptures is given by inspiration of God as demonstrated biblically, otherwise copies of Timothy is already makes it a double inspiration because he possessed one copy of Scripture and on another instance a copy of scripture was on the hand of Apollos as in Acts 18:24, 28. Yet other copies were also in the hands of the Berean believers as they search it daily Acts 17:11 or those that are in the Antioch in Pisidia where the Jews at synagogue read of the Law and prophets. (another set of copy). These and others refer to the copies and not originals which are given by inspiration of God.
I have to agree that there is possible fitted word/s to convey it in English language on the given inspired word/s. This make the words of God pure (Proverbs 30:5) so that translation too “is given by inspiration of God” without mixture of error. I am not saying the English text is inspired just like what the NASB did. S. NASB could not be considered the inspired words of God by virtue of the argument that translation is just a translation per se. But if it is ‘given by inspiration of God’ as Angela assumed, then why it was translated 2 Tim. 3:16 incorrectly, hence, it cannot be the inspired word of God and it cannot be given by inspiration of God as also assumed.
First, translation is the giving of words in another language. Your Greek inspiration only is not supported in the Bible. As said it is some that says that the spoken language of Christ is not Greek but Aramaic but only written mostly in Greek by the writers of the New Testament which constitute translation. Secondly, you said nothing about Abba, Talitha Cumi and others which are in the language of Syriac and left untranslated, hence, your Greek inspiration only is incomplete. Moreover, the scripture itself as per analysis is that translation in another language is given by inspiration of God. Another demonstration if you may be found in these verses/passages (Matthew 1:23, Mark 15:22, John 1:38) and I believe no one can have debunked this. Attempts are sure but futile and reasoning with logic not base on the words of God is but a circular reasoning. Yes, logic must appeal to the absolute Authority where written authority is none other than the scripture of truth. If not base on the written words of God and is based upon only in humanistic effort, then it is fruitless. Paul used pure logic for he reasoned out/from the scripture. God says, let us reason together (Isa. 1:18) employing pure logic not a humanistic logic. So what I am saying and become repetitive, being said on many times of having circular reasoning yet the fact is that I am employing pure logic as it stands on the solid rock not base in humanistic logical thoughts/approach which stand in quicksand.
Translations in the cultural setting? So that they will be modified as it fits to what people say and not what God says? Are we conveying the meaning of the given by inspiration of God or try to please men? Are you not the one says it, it needs to be understood at the setting of what the original writers says? Please enlighten me with this because you are going into somewhat changes. Umm…some things differ, I guess. Thanks
Translations in the cultural setting? So that they will be modified as it fits to what people say and not what God says? Are we conveying the meaning of the given by inspiration of God or try to please men? Are you not the one says it, it needs to be understood at the setting of what the original writers says? Please enlighten me with this because you are going into somewhat changes. Umm…some things differ, I guess. Thanks
This needs worth answering but there could be one that suits the context. There could not be two truths in the very example otherwise, we contradict what it really says in the ‘original language’ meaning as we have an example on the case of NASB. In actuality the Greek ‘pnuestos’ cannot be found as Greek word though it is understandable you are in reference to the Greek ‘Pnuema’ that can be translated in many ways in the English language but you have given only one i.e. ‘breath’. But why not give the other meaning. The other meaning being used as “wind, life, Spirit” Are you not then trying hide something?
You said it doesn’t matter the differences but it does really matter as far as the translation is concerned otherwise it is no longer a pure. It is corrupt. It is a mixture. If it’ doesn’t matter, then not even knowing you already led to some error/s. Geek Greek translated it to English word “inspired” makes a ‘double inspiration’ which we do not want to go there.
The NASB scholars in their footnotes is somewhat differed from what you are saying. You just modified their footnotes but you are entitled to it. The scholars have put it literaly(lit.) God-breathed, in others words a literal breath of God on the original manuscripts or All scripture (copies), every copies were blown by an air to make it inspired but this thing is unfounded and had no scriptural backing, and is good only for an opinion. However, what the KJV says that ‘All scripture” including KJV text does not constitute or being guilty of double-inspiration and KJV is not saying that literally God breathed on the scrolls, vellum, parchment etc. where the ‘original’ were written to and even copies of the originals as they were ‘lit.’ copied. Inspiration is by the way means in English according to Webster and Oxford can be defined yes literally and figuratively but as I believe the literal has no implication in the Bible. If there are other word/s that you think of the translation of theopnuestos other than what the KJV says relative to the discussion, then we can again have refreshed the meaning. Are you and even the scholars of NASB legit? Yes, but are not pure. It makes upfront as an error bible.
You said it doesn’t matter the differences but it does really matter as far as the translation is concerned otherwise it is no longer a pure. It is corrupt. It is a mixture. If it’ doesn’t matter, then not even knowing you already led to some error/s. Geek Greek translated it to English word “inspired” makes a ‘double inspiration’ which we do not want to go there.
The NASB scholars in their footnotes is somewhat differed from what you are saying. You just modified their footnotes but you are entitled to it. The scholars have put it literaly(lit.) God-breathed, in others words a literal breath of God on the original manuscripts or All scripture (copies), every copies were blown by an air to make it inspired but this thing is unfounded and had no scriptural backing, and is good only for an opinion. However, what the KJV says that ‘All scripture” including KJV text does not constitute or being guilty of double-inspiration and KJV is not saying that literally God breathed on the scrolls, vellum, parchment etc. where the ‘original’ were written to and even copies of the originals as they were ‘lit.’ copied. Inspiration is by the way means in English according to Webster and Oxford can be defined yes literally and figuratively but as I believe the literal has no implication in the Bible. If there are other word/s that you think of the translation of theopnuestos other than what the KJV says relative to the discussion, then we can again have refreshed the meaning. Are you and even the scholars of NASB legit? Yes, but are not pure. It makes upfront as an error bible.
English is clearly not your first language, and it is with difficulty that I discern your meaning.
It seems that you are accusing me of trying to hide something. Do I need to spell everything out in exhaustive detail for you to understand?
The quality of being "God-breathed" applies to "all Scripture" not "all translations". In other words, everything from Genesis to Revelation. I see no evidence that the NASB wording implies double inspiration, nor do I see anything better in the KJV rendering.
As to "inspired" making it erroneous, frankly, I think you're grasping at straws.
It seems that you are accusing me of trying to hide something. Do I need to spell everything out in exhaustive detail for you to understand?
The quality of being "God-breathed" applies to "all Scripture" not "all translations". In other words, everything from Genesis to Revelation. I see no evidence that the NASB wording implies double inspiration, nor do I see anything better in the KJV rendering.
As to "inspired" making it erroneous, frankly, I think you're grasping at straws.
-
1
- Show all
Alright then. When God breath into the man, he become a living soul the in-breathing of God to human is life but when it comes to the scripture God didn't breath on the scripture it is given by inspiration. Yes, you are talking more of the literal senses and of course "not all translations" out there is given by inspiration not even God puff on it- "God-breathed"
Alright then. When God breath into the man, he become a living soul the in-breathing of God to human is life but when it comes to the scripture God didn't breath on the scripture it is given by inspiration. Yes, you are talking more of the literal senses and of course "not all translations" out there is given by inspiration not even God puff on it- "God-breathed"
Your trying to make a big issue over "inspired" or "God-breathed" makes absolutely no sense to someone who has studied the Greek here and also knows the word usage in English.
For example you say: "God didn't breath on the scripture it is given by inspiration." -- You are making a big deal of the English word "on" here perhaps. It is true that with your word "on" in the sentence it is not really true because it seems to be supposing some sort of a literal magical blowing on . . .? But the the text does clearly say that God breathed the Scriptures, which means they were given by inspiration. That is what the text says: can't be argued with . . . !
-
1
- Show all
Alright then. When God breath into the man, he become a living soul the in-breathing of God to human is life but when it comes to the scripture God didn't breath on the scripture it is given by inspiration. Yes, you are talking more of the literal senses and of course "not all translations" out there is given by inspiration not even God puff on it- "God-breathed"
God didn't "puff on" the KJV any more than He did the ESV. It's time to stop playing silly games.
-
1
-
1
- Show all
Umm, first I am not saying the same thing as the NASB says. For the sake of discussion, I pointed out the NASB as test subject only since Angela said she can do fit on any English Translation with the ABC’s I’ve presented.
Now what NASB expert says regards to the word “inspire” in its footnote is “Literally God -breathe” and you’re saying it differently as you and Dino also an English expert, a native English speaker. Obviously, we are heavens apart, but my contention is that if NASB expert says that “inspire” is “lit. God-breathe” and you are saying it’s not, then to whom will I believe? I think It would be good enough to insert another English Authority if you mind. Here is what Mr. Webster defines “breathe”.
BREATHE, verb intransitive To respire; to inspire and expire air. Hence, to live.
1. To take breath; to rest from action; as, let them have time to breathe
2. To pass as air.
To whose foul mouth no wholesome air breathes in.
BREATHE, verb transitive To inhale as air into the lungs and expel it; as, to breathe vital air.
1. To inject by breathing; to infuse; followed by into.
And the Lord God breathed into his nostrils the breath of life. Genesis 2:7.
2. To expire; to eject by breathing; followed by out; as, to breathe out threatening and slaughter.
3. To exercise; to keep in breath.
The greyhounds are as swift as brethed stage.
4. To inspire or blow into; to cause to sound by breathing; as, to breathe the flute.
5. To exhale; to emit as breath; as, the flowers breathe odors or perfume.
6. To utter softly or in private; as, to breathe a vow.
7. To give air or vent to; to open; as, to breathe a vein.
8. To express; to manifest.
No. 4 definition fits the NASB as again clearing your objection of a literal rendering. But that will be fine since that is your view, the difference as per NASB expert and per English Dictionary is concerned is that you viewed it differently.
Now what NASB expert says regards to the word “inspire” in its footnote is “Literally God -breathe” and you’re saying it differently as you and Dino also an English expert, a native English speaker. Obviously, we are heavens apart, but my contention is that if NASB expert says that “inspire” is “lit. God-breathe” and you are saying it’s not, then to whom will I believe? I think It would be good enough to insert another English Authority if you mind. Here is what Mr. Webster defines “breathe”.
BREATHE, verb intransitive To respire; to inspire and expire air. Hence, to live.
1. To take breath; to rest from action; as, let them have time to breathe
2. To pass as air.
To whose foul mouth no wholesome air breathes in.
BREATHE, verb transitive To inhale as air into the lungs and expel it; as, to breathe vital air.
1. To inject by breathing; to infuse; followed by into.
And the Lord God breathed into his nostrils the breath of life. Genesis 2:7.
2. To expire; to eject by breathing; followed by out; as, to breathe out threatening and slaughter.
3. To exercise; to keep in breath.
The greyhounds are as swift as brethed stage.
4. To inspire or blow into; to cause to sound by breathing; as, to breathe the flute.
5. To exhale; to emit as breath; as, the flowers breathe odors or perfume.
6. To utter softly or in private; as, to breathe a vow.
7. To give air or vent to; to open; as, to breathe a vein.
8. To express; to manifest.
No. 4 definition fits the NASB as again clearing your objection of a literal rendering. But that will be fine since that is your view, the difference as per NASB expert and per English Dictionary is concerned is that you viewed it differently.
I understand you studied Greek, I myself just do a research aka Bereans, but it is alright with me to take few more examples if you wish to and leave this with no problem. I just did it because it is related to what you posted that might be in response to other thread I posted and I am clearing things up plus we can agree or disagree in a gracious manner. Therefore we move on.
LOL! I wish I could explain to you that a lot of all the trouble is your not understanding what we mean by the literal meaning.
When we way the Greek word "literally" means "God-breathed" -- that is what the rood meaning of the word is when you take it apart. But then when we are interpreting the meaning for understanding of the passage all of us understand that when we say "God-breathed" is is just a deeper way of understanding what "inspired" means.
Another example: the Greek word pneuma means literally "wind" - but that word is also translated "spirit" most of the time. We know that the Holy Spirit is not literally a "wind", but understanding the literal meaning does help understand what pneuma means.
When we way the Greek word "literally" means "God-breathed" -- that is what the rood meaning of the word is when you take it apart. But then when we are interpreting the meaning for understanding of the passage all of us understand that when we say "God-breathed" is is just a deeper way of understanding what "inspired" means.
Another example: the Greek word pneuma means literally "wind" - but that word is also translated "spirit" most of the time. We know that the Holy Spirit is not literally a "wind", but understanding the literal meaning does help understand what pneuma means.