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.
Dino246 said:
It's in the realm of logic, not mathematics. "Chuckle" is a good choice of words, because you have employed a fallacy of conflation, making your syllogism invalid. As I have stated several times in this thread, the inspiration is of the original writings, and the word of God is inspired. However, the KJV is a translation of the word of God, not "the word of God" without caveat.

The problem is that you and other KJV-onlyists hold the KJV to be the word of God to the exclusion of all others. That is patently indefensible, so you recycle component arguments such as the syllogism here. The syllogism can be written exactly the same way for any of the other translations I cited. You don't know about them, so you reject the equality of other translations without any hesitation. I just wish you and the others had the integrity to own the full implications of your position.
Click to expand...
Don't talk about the integrity, we are just proving something, the mere fact you don't own any copy of the Bible today (at present) as given to us by inspiration of God is futile and built on a sinking sand. I further noticed that we are in Bible Discussion Forum and not some kind of Logic Discussion Forum.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MendedSoul
Nehemiah6 said:
1. I have consistently maintained that the King James Bible (a.k.a. the Authorized Version of 1611) is THE ONLY translation in English which is a faithful, reliable, and trustworthy English translation for general use to this day. It had established itself as the leading English translation for over 400 years (which speaks for itself). The Geneva Bible is parallel to it, but because it promotes Reformed Theology, it has been set aside.

2. Even though a large number of the KJV translators were Puritans and Anglicans, they did not allow their Reformed Theology to distort their translation. And since there were about 50 translators involved (all outstanding scholars who were devout Christians) there were already checks and balances in place. (They did add words in italics to help the reader, but they also made it clear through that that those words were not in the Hebrew and Greek).

3. The objection to the archaic language of the KJV is no longer valid, since the King James 2000 Bible has already addressed that issue. There are also a couple of other updated forms of the KJV (but the NKJV is untrustworthy).

4. Only the original writings of the prophets, evangelists, and apostles can be regarded as "inspired", since the writer was under the total control of the Holy Spirit, and the words recorded are indeed the words of the Spirit or the words of God. This is clear from several passages in Scripture. Inspiration (Greek theopneustos) means "God-breathed" and refers to the original autographs (manuscripts).

5. The King James translators used the traditional (or received) Hebrew and Greek texts of the Bible in printed form, but had access to all existing translations and versions, as well as a limited number of manuscripts. Their primary goal was to make out of many good translations one to which no one could take exception. And for over 300 years conservative theologians, commentators, pastors, evangelists and ordinary Christians treated the King James Bible as the very Word of God. And textual scholars in the 19th century confirmed that the Hebrew and Greek were supported by the majority of manuscripts. IOW the King James Bible represented the true texts.

6. It is only since the late 19th century that rationalistic textual scholars began promoting a handful of corrupt Greek manuscripts (primarily TWO), and as a result all modern English translations since 1881 have been corrupted, and are therefore TOTALLY UNRELIABLE. Therefore there are absolutely no trustworthy modern translations (in spite of all the bogus claims made for this).

7. None of the above is mere opinion, but is based on the facts of the case. Anyone who honestly and objectively wishes to check this out may do so and discover the truth about modern translations. The sad fact is that the majority of prominent and well-know Christian personalities today have swallowed the Great Bible Version Hoax hook, line, and sinker. And even after you draw their attention to the issue, they refuse to give up their false bibles. A good examples of false bibles is the absence of Acts 8:37 -- a key verse which cannot be removed from the passage without making it sound nonsensical.
Click to expand...

Hey, here is someone who likes the "KJV only", but at least makes sense! You don't argue that the KJV is "inspired" like the originals! (That is the main objection I am trying to get across on this thread)

I could mostly agree with your point 1-5, but I do not agree with 6-7. You argue that there are a "handful of corrupt Greek manuscripts" which corrupt modern translations. I just frankly do not agree with you, and I have been researching this stuff for 20 years! I would say that "anyone who honestly and objectively wishes to check this out" will completely disagree with your points 6,7.
Have you read the opposite side's views or only the side you agree with? I have a shelf of "KJV only' and textual arguments for both sides. I find the "KJV only" textual argument so weak and appalling it is pitiful!

Hey, but I am OK with arguing about texts and translations and which are the best. But I am not OK with saying God "inspired" the exact English words of the KJV.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Angela53510
Dino246 said:
Here are the various versions. I'll respond to the rest of your post later.

NASB All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;

NIV All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,

CSB All Scripture is inspired by God and is profitable for teaching, for rebuking, for correcting, for training in righteousness,

RSV All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,

WYC For all scripture inspired of God is profitable to teach, to reprove, to chastise, [for] to learn in rightwiseness,
Click to expand...
Further, you just quoted and you haven't discussed. If you'll discussed those above from different translation then we can start over but I know you won't because you do not believe them either as given by inspiration or is inspired and even God-breathed useful and profitable... as their wording says it. If anything we can't agree then we move on.
 
fredoheaven said:
Don't talk about the integrity, we are just proving something, the mere fact you don't own any copy of the Bible today (at present) as given to us by inspiration of God is futile and built on a sinking sand.
Click to expand...
Your continual equivocation is getting tiresome. Are you really unable to distinguish between original inspiration and translation? The first is the work of the Holy Spirit; the second is the work of humans. It's really that simple.

fredoheaven said:
I further noticed that we are in Bible Discussion Forum and not some kind of Logic Discussion Forum.
Click to expand...
You posted the syllogism, so it's disingenuous to tell me that this isn't a Logic Discussion forum. I merely pointed out the invalidity of it.
 
fredoheaven said:
Don't talk about the integrity, we are just proving something, the mere fact you don't own any copy of the Bible today (at present) as given to us by inspiration of God is futile and built on a sinking sand. I further noticed that we are in Bible Discussion Forum and not some kind of Logic Discussion Forum.
Click to expand...


Right. May emotions prevail and lets throw logic out the window. In fact, let's not stop there. Burden of proof? Gone! Integrity? Ha! Who needs that! Logic makes too much sense anyway and we know the Bible frowns on it.

I hope whatever it is you are taking for that brain stress is not illegal.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Angela53510
fredoheaven said:
Further, you just quoted and you haven't discussed. If you'll discussed those above from different translation then we can start over but I know you won't because you do not believe them either as given by inspiration or is inspired and even God-breathed useful and profitable... as their wording says it. If anything we can't agree then we move on.
Click to expand...
I don't see what there is to discuss. Here is your statement to which I responded with the above quotations:

"My claim is KJV is an English scripture because KJV says, All scripture is given by inspiration of God 2 Tim. 3:16. ... Did the NIV and others on your data really says of itself “is given by inspiration of God”? My suggestion you need to check that first in the Bible hub and show to me first if they are ‘given by inspiration of God’. Then will discuss further."

I have demonstrated that they do say that of themselves. Therefore, based on the syllogism you posted for the KJV, each of the versions I posted (and most of the others in English, by the way) are also "an English scripture" equivalent to the KJV.

Logically, your KJV-only position has just been destroyed. I look forward to seeing how you're going to dodge out of that conclusion.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mission21, Angela53510 and lenna
John146 said:
One more time...

Inspiration without preservation is useless.
Click to expand...

One more time: We have inspiration with preservation: in many good translations in many different languages.

What we don't have is inspiration 1500 plus years after the canon was completed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: lenna
Chester said:
Actually, I completely agree with you on that one! (but probably not how you mean it! :cautious:)
Click to expand...

If God inspired His words, commanded man to live by every word, but did not preserve every word perfectly, then how can God hold man accountable?
 
John146 said:
Lol, the Septuagint is a waste of time. There was no such a thing in Jesus’ day? The Septuagint contradicts itself every other verse.
Click to expand...


This is where you totally lose all your credibility. In fact, Jesus and his disciples used the Septuagint 80% of the time, and Hebrew only 20% when they quoted the Old Testament.

They know this because the Masoretic Hebrew Bible IS different than the LXX. As for the Masoretic Hebrew, it dates to the 8th to 10th century AD. No extant copies of the LXX exist, except the ones found at Qumran in 1949.

Please do some research, before you tell blatant lies. You probably learned it at some KJV Only conference, and never looked to see if it was true, which it is NOT!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kolistus, Chester and lenna
fredoheaven said:
My claim is KJV is an English scripture because KJV says, All scripture is given by inspiration of God 2 Tim. 3:16. Here’s a simple math to chuckle on.

If A=B

and B= C

then A = C

Application:

If the KJV (A) =( B ) Scripture

And Scripture (B) = (C) is given by inspiration of God.

Then KJV (A) = (C) is given by inspiration of God.

I amhere to defend KJV and I don’t know with the others, it is you who said that ‘no translation’ isn’t inspired. So, everything I allude is absolutely nothing. What else I gonna say, I cannot even answer your given data since it is incomplete, needs to be check first if they are same thing as KJV says and that is one reason we need comparison in which thing you also abhor. This are only but a tricky game you want to employ. Did the NIV and others on your data really says of itself “is given by inspiration of God”? My suggestion you need to check that first in the Bible hub and show to me first if they are ‘given by inspiration of God’. Then will discuss further. Thanks.
Click to expand...


Here is my answer:

If A=B

and B= C

then A = C

Application:

If the NIV (A) =( B ) Scripture

And Scripture (B) = (C) is given by inspiration of God.

Then NIV (A) = (C) is given by inspiration of God.

If A=B

and B= C

then A = C

Application:

If the ESV (A) =( B ) Scripture

And Scripture (B) = (C) is given by inspiration of God.

Then ESV (A) = (C) is given by inspiration of God.


If A=B

and B= C

then A = C

Application:

If the NASB (A) =( B ) Scripture

And Scripture (B) = (C) is given by inspiration of God.

Then NASB (A) = (C) is given by inspiration of God.


If A=B

and B= C

then A = C

Application:

If the NET (A) =( B ) Scripture

And Scripture (B) = (C) is given by inspiration of God.

Then NET (A) = (C) is given by inspiration of God.

I could do this with every English version that exists. Do me a favour and read some James White. He will explain your crazy circular logic in a simple way, so maybe you will finally understand that the KJV has errors, is not perfect, and has many additions. But read it, by all means. If you like the KJV and read it, that is great. Just don't try and convince us that you have the only perfect, inspired version, because the KJV is simply a translation, which men translated to the best of their abilities, at the turn of the 16th century, using the limited, corrupted Greek manuscripts that were available then. Hence, lots of errors...
 
  • Like
Reactions: lenna
Angela53510 said:
This is where you totally lose all your credibility. In fact, Jesus and his disciples used the Septuagint 80% of the time, and Hebrew only 20% when they quoted the Old Testament.

They know this because the Masoretic Hebrew Bible IS different than the LXX. As for the Masoretic Hebrew, it dates to the 8th to 10th century AD. No extant copies of the LXX exist, except the ones found at Qumran in 1949.

Please do some research, before you tell blatant lies. You probably learned it at some KJV Only conference, and never looked to see if it was true, which it is NOT!
Click to expand...

And you’re education comes from a professor. I bet your professor do not believe they have a Bible they can trust, only their education and ability to correct it. Could you ask your professors to correct all the mistakes and give us a Bible we can trust? Thanks.🤦‍♂️
 
  • Like
Reactions: fredoheaven and MendedSoul
Angela53510 said:
Here is my answer:

If A=B

and B= C

then A = C

Application:

If the NIV (A) =( B ) Scripture

And Scripture (B) = (C) is given by inspiration of God.

Then NIV (A) = (C) is given by inspiration of God.

If A=B

and B= C

then A = C

Application:

If the ESV (A) =( B ) Scripture

And Scripture (B) = (C) is given by inspiration of God.

Then ESV (A) = (C) is given by inspiration of God.


If A=B

and B= C

then A = C

Application:

If the NASB (A) =( B ) Scripture

And Scripture (B) = (C) is given by inspiration of God.

Then NASB (A) = (C) is given by inspiration of God.


If A=B

and B= C

then A = C

Application:

If the NET (A) =( B ) Scripture

And Scripture (B) = (C) is given by inspiration of God.

Then NET (A) = (C) is given by inspiration of God.

I could do this with every English version that exists. Do me a favour and read some James White. He will explain your crazy circular logic in a simple way, so maybe you will finally understand that the KJV has errors, is not perfect, and has many additions. But read it, by all means. If you like the KJV and read it, that is great. Just don't try and convince us that you have the only perfect, inspired version, because the KJV is simply a translation, which men translated to the best of their abilities, at the turn of the 16th century, using the limited, corrupted Greek manuscripts that were available then. Hence, lots of errors...
Click to expand...
Good suggestion on James White. I suggested his "The King James Controversy" in the past and was met with a suggestion for a book that counters Whites. The person claimed victory, but never read the book by White. :unsure::whistle:
 
  • Like
Reactions: Angela53510 and Dino246
John146 said:
And you’re education comes from a professor. I bet your professor do not believe they have a Bible they can trust, only their education and ability to correct it. Could you ask your professors to correct all the mistakes and give us a Bible we can trust? Thanks.🤦‍♂️
Click to expand...
Yep, I can best describe those who ascribes to high degree of education to impress if not bluff bible believers. O I like the word 'bunkum' or 'buncumbe' 2. chiefly US empty or insincere speechmaking by a politician to please voters or gain publicity
[C19: after Buncombe, a county in North Carolina, alluded to in an inane speech by its Congressional representative Felix Walker (about 1820)] https://www.thefreedictionary.com/bunkum
 
Angela53510 said:
Here is my answer:

If A=B

and B= C

then A = C

Application:

If the NIV (A) =( B ) Scripture

And Scripture (B) = (C) is given by inspiration of God.

Then NIV (A) = (C) is given by inspiration of God.

If A=B

and B= C

then A = C

Application:

If the ESV (A) =( B ) Scripture

And Scripture (B) = (C) is given by inspiration of God.

Then ESV (A) = (C) is given by inspiration of God.


If A=B

and B= C

then A = C

Application:

If the NASB (A) =( B ) Scripture

And Scripture (B) = (C) is given by inspiration of God.

Then NASB (A) = (C) is given by inspiration of God.


If A=B

and B= C

then A = C

Application:

If the NET (A) =( B ) Scripture

And Scripture (B) = (C) is given by inspiration of God.

Then NET (A) = (C) is given by inspiration of God.

I could do this with every English version that exists. Do me a favour and read some James White. He will explain your crazy circular logic in a simple way, so maybe you will finally understand that the KJV has errors, is not perfect, and has many additions. But read it, by all means. If you like the KJV and read it, that is great. Just don't try and convince us that you have the only perfect, inspired version, because the KJV is simply a translation, which men translated to the best of their abilities, at the turn of the 16th century, using the limited, corrupted Greek manuscripts that were available then. Hence, lots of errors...
Click to expand...
Umm, your close to see finding things and good one telling this to someone who reject every translation cannot be given by inspiration of God. Every demonstration of translation is founded in the scripture of truth. NASB says of 2 Tim 3:16
2 Timothy 3:16 New American Standard Bible (NASB)
16 All Scripture is [a]inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for [b]training in righteousness;
Footnote:
a. 2 Timothy 3:16 Lit God-breathed

Whether you like it or not the NASB does not say the same thing as KJV here as a test. NASB says All scripture is inspired by God, this follows re-inspiration or double-inspiration which I do not believe as even you and others here because if one have the original then NASB as English text is also inspired. That makes two to tango. On the other hand following it's footnote that says lit. God-breathed, do not renders inspiration at all. God did not breath literally on the scrolls, papyrus, tablets or vellums as Moses had and many prophets and the apostles as they wrote down the words of God.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back