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

  • 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.
KJV1611 said:
How does the KJV giving better understanding of the bible to English speakers denigrate the work of the KJV translators?
Click to expand...
You twisted Chester's words. He stated one thing, you questioned a different thing.

His words: "To elevate the masterful and good work done by the KJV translators to an equality with the original manuscripts denigrates their work."

Did you intentionally change the subject, or did you just badly misread his statement?
 
Chester said:
The KJV definitely did give English speakers in 1611 and following an excellent understanding of the meaning of the original texts.

But the KJV only emphasis that makes the actual English words of the KJV "inspired" like the originals denigrates the work of the translators of the KJV. Why? Because even they never claimed divine inspiration for their translation - they did a masterful job and work, but they did not get a new revelation of new words that replaced or was equivalent to the original words revealed by Jesus to the apostles and writers of the New Testament. (Read the preface to the 1611 KJV - no such claim is ever made)
Click to expand...
They got many new words from some where, Holy Ghost, Holy Spirit, Lucifer, Giants, hell, Easter. Something drove their decisions to do that, luck? I mean they translate the same orginal words as Holy Ghost 90 times and 7 times as Holy Spirit, something made them do that. I don't believe in luck nor coincidences especially when it comes to the word of God.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Grandpa
Dino246 said:
You twisted Chester's words. He stated one thing, you questioned a different thing.

His words: "To elevate the masterful and good work done by the KJV translators to an equality with the original manuscripts denigrates their work."

Did you intentionally change the subject, or did you just badly misread his statement?
Click to expand...
I didn't twist or misread anything. The masterful and good work done by the KJV translators brings better understanding to English speakers than the "original manuscripts" do. How does that denigrate the KJV translators?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Grandpa
KJV1611 said:
They got many new words from some where, Holy Ghost, Holy Spirit, Lucifer, Giants, hell, Easter. Something drove their decisions to do that, luck? I mean they translate the same orginal words as Holy Ghost 90 times and 7 times as Holy Spirit, something made them do that. I don't believe in luck nor coincidences especially when it comes to the word of God.
Click to expand...
How about "process"? They divided themselves into sub-committees to tackle chunks of the Bible rather than having all 54-odd work together on the whole thing. Some groups used one term, some used another. It's the same reason that "Thou shalt not murder" is also rendered "Thou shalt not kill".
 
  • Like
Reactions: Grandpa
KJV1611 said:
I didn't twist or misread anything. The masterful and good work done by the KJV translators brings better understanding to English speakers than the "original manuscripts" do. How does that denigrate the KJV translators?
Click to expand...
Yes, you did. Read his statement again... carefully:

"To elevate the masterful and good work done by the KJV translators to an equality with the original manuscripts denigrates their work."

There's nothing about "better understanding to English speakers" in there.
 
Dino246 said:
How about "process"? They divided themselves into sub-committees to tackle chunks of the Bible rather than having all 54-odd work together on the whole thing. Some groups used one term, some used another. It's the same reason that "Thou shalt not murder" is also rendered "Thou shalt not kill".
Click to expand...
Pure chance in your opinion.... I don't believe in chance.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Grandpa
Dino246 said:
Yes, you did. Read his statement again... carefully:

"To elevate the masterful and good work done by the KJV translators to an equality with the original manuscripts denigrates their work."

There's nothing about "better understanding to English speakers" in there.
Click to expand...
I"m not playing childish games with you Dino. If you think I misread him fine, if you think I twisted his words fine.
 
KJV1611 said:
I"m playing childish games with you Dino. If you think I misread him fine, if you think I twisted his words fine.
Click to expand...
You're dodging. You are saying "X" in response to his "Q". You're comparing apples with pebbles.

Call it "childish" if you like; I'm telling you straight that you have not addressed his statement, but rather have changed it to suit yourself.

I have to wonder at your integrity here. Either you just won't see the truth, or you are so blinded that you can't see it.
 
Dino246 said:
You're dodging. You are saying "X" in response to his "Q". You're comparing apples with pebbles.

Call it "childish" if you like; I'm telling you straight that you have not addressed his statement, but rather have changed it to suit yourself.

I have to wonder at your integrity here. Either you just won't see the truth, or you are so blinded that you can't see it.
Click to expand...
Ok you win. I didn't read what he said the way you read it so can we stop now?
 
Dino246 said:
No; you're still dodging.
Click to expand...
Exactly what do you want me to say, I read his statement the way I read it and I still see it the same way. Why would I dodge anything.... I don't even know what you're trying to say I dodged.
 
KJV1611 said:
Exactly what do you want me to say, I read his statement the way I read it and I still see it the same way. Why would I dodge anything.... I don't even know what you're trying to say I dodged.
Click to expand...

LOL! You guys are funny! :LOL: :coffee: :unsure:

Here is KJV1611's original statement: (response to a statement of mine)
"How does the KJV giving better understanding of the bible to English speakers denigrate the work of the KJV translators? "

I did not necessarily see it as twisting my words - but it was loaded with KJV-only preconceived notions! I expect that from KJV1611 (sadly! :cry:) And it didn't make me feel bad -- more it just made me sad . . . I still 100% respect you, KJV 1611, for your character and demeanor, but I am just more and more amazed that you are so blinded to the incongruency of what you claim for the KJV: and the harm that your view actually gives to the legitimacy and strengths of the KJV.

That is what I was trying to say: Claiming what is not true for the KJV actually denigrates your view - and by what you say about the KJV you denigrate it to a later revelation (exact words supposedly given by God) in a similar way to what groups like the Mormons claim (that is - the book of Mormon).

I hold the KJV as one of the best English translations ever done (and maybe arguably the best). Your view of the KJV makes it eerily similar to how the Mormons view the Book of Mormon.
 
KJV1611 said:
They got many new words from some where, Holy Ghost, Holy Spirit, Lucifer, Giants, hell, Easter. Something drove their decisions to do that, luck? I mean they translate the same orginal words as Holy Ghost 90 times and 7 times as Holy Spirit, something made them do that. I don't believe in luck nor coincidences especially when it comes to the word of God.
Click to expand...

Of course they used many new words: the English language was developing in 1611 and so they would have used some words previous translations did not. For the same reason, more modern translations use some "new" English words that the KJV did not.

You seem to view it as only one of two options:
(1) The Holy Spirit inspired and gave exact English words that are equivalent to the original words
(2) or, Someone or something other than the Holy Spirit guided the translators

It is neither one of those options, but here is what happened:
Some great men and scholars under the guidance of the Holy Spirit did a great and masterful translation of the original inspired texts into the English of 1611.
 
  • Like
Reactions: KJV1611
Chester said:
Of course they used many new words: the English language was developing in 1611 and so they would have used some words previous translations did not. For the same reason, more modern translations use some "new" English words that the KJV did not.

You seem to view it as only one of two options:
(1) The Holy Spirit inspired and gave exact English words that are equivalent to the original words
(2) or, Someone or something other than the Holy Spirit guided the translators

It is neither one of those options, but here is what happened:
Some great men and scholars under the guidance of the Holy Spirit did a great and masterful translation of the original inspired texts into the English of 1611.
Click to expand...
The word of God is the spirit of Christ, we are the body of Christ because his word dwells within us, the word of God has to be perfect and without errors or else we don't have the spirit of Christ and we are not the body of Christ that the spirit of Christ dwells in.
 
KJV1611 said:
The word of God is the spirit of Christ, we are the body of Christ because his word dwells within us, the word of God has to be perfect and without errors or else we don't have the spirit of Christ and we are not the body of Christ that the spirit of Christ dwells in.
Click to expand...

It seems like your KJV views come as a result of other verses and concepts that you have strung together evidently from some miscellaneous texts.

The Word of God is perfect. Believers have the Spirit of Christ. The church (believers) are the body of Christ. Christ dwells in the believer and in the church. I believe all that without having any inclination to make the KJV into something it is not!
 
Chester said:
It seems like your KJV views come as a result of other verses and concepts that you have strung together evidently from some miscellaneous texts.

The Word of God is perfect. Believers have the Spirit of Christ. The church (believers) are the body of Christ. Christ dwells in the believer and in the church. I believe all that without having any inclination to make the KJV into something it is not!
Click to expand...
The Bible says to work out our own salvation with fear and trembling and that’s exactly what I did and this is where I’m at.
 
1 Cor. 3: 18 Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you seemeth to be wise in this world, let him become a fool, that he may be wise.

19 For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness.

20 And again, The Lord knoweth the thoughts of the wise, that they are vain.

21 Therefore let no man glory in men.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Chester and John146
Didn't read the thread, but language is fallible.

When I use the word continent you could think I'm talking about a geographical land mass or something else.
Context matters, but since puns, nuances, sarcasm also exist and the mind of God cannot be "known" by our own minds in our own intellect or even power (referring to many avenues) it stands to reason that a lot of the Bible is arbitrary until you know the arbiter and specifics.

Each of us speaks our own language even within the context of a mother tongue. The Father knows our tongue but I think we can get lost when we focus too much on "mother tongues" and less on the Father's WORD (John 1:1 starting point).

Obviously we should have consensus but I think that since this is an English discussion largely it should rather be a lingual discussion and the limitations of language itself.

Alas, then, we are liable to have a thread about "what interpretation of scripture is best" and you can see people that read different translations arriving at the same "interpretation" and my question is...how does one integrate that?

Carry on...I appreciate the KJV because it's open source and easy to obtain in large quantities. The language of that era is not completely unknown to me and can be better in a way because I have to stretch myself to understand what is being said and I have to translate it myself when reading. Occasionally I read the NASB but that is getting less and less. I am starting to dislike footnotes and annotations more than usual of late for whatever reason ha.


Edit: oh and "exact" words in a changing world? What is exactitude and how does that fit in with being human? It's there certainly, but in the Lord and not us. Were we to have "legitimately" scripture written in pre-babel language still it would be filtered and understood through our own minds. Who opens our understanding? Who darkens it? Choose ye this day...
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dino246
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back