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

I respect your right to retreat, having said your peace. However, I do not think that you have made your case.

Do you mean "peace" or "piece" here? Using "peace" seems like an incredible piece of peaceful piecing together of an unpeaceful diatribe!

Merely trying to avoid strife.

Maybe you should answer the question I asked you first! See post #482 for the second post of my question.

The fundamental difference is the understanding that God has completed His preservation of His words for us today. Seminaries today start with the premise that God has not completed the preservation of His words for us today, rather, they educate their students to be their own authority on what God has said.

That is nothing but irrelevant opinion and no real evidence. Try again.

Umm, a "deeper way of understanding" a literal meaning? Sounds like Origen though i am not upholding NASB position. Origen who championed the method of Bible interpretation known as allegorizing, by which the literal meaning of Scripture is rejected for a “deeper meaning” discovered by the interpreter. It so happens I am not a believer either the literal rendering NASB or some kind of "deeper meaning" of yours. Also, Origen saw the "spiritual" interpretation as the deepest and most important meaning of the text[182] and taught that some passages held no literal meaning at all and that their meanings were purely allegorical.[182] Nonetheless, he stressed that "the passages which are historically true are far more numerous than those which are composed with purely spiritual meanings

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orige...exandria ( c. 184,of his career in Alexandria.


What my view in understanding scripture is by the context. So you could tell the very meaning if Greek 'pneuma' is said to be "wind, breathe or spirit" and when considering translation of what is right, of what is precise then you find it in the given context. Quoting Wycliffe as “In Holy Scripture is all truth; one part of Scripture explains another.” But I would have rather listen when you explain because I fail to see that in your case in the many post of yours and possibly in the light of scripture. Explain more then 2Timothy 3:16 relative to the topic at hand and used scripture as your base text, at least we can continue the discussion.. Thanks.

There is actually fundamental differences between a KJV believer and a modern Bible user, primarily, KJV believers believe in complete, inerrant words of God and believe in the Most Holy Book while Modern Bible users believe in an almost holy book.

Your view requires you to consider the faith and understanding of others to be inferior to your own. That tells me that it's cultic.

That is your view. But modern evangelical Bible users believe in the complete inspiration of the original manuscripts and believe there are many good and completely trustworthy translations in many languages.

KJV only believers believe that God added to his Word by inspiring new words into the English language over 1500 years after revelation was complete and the canon closed.

there is none!!!

On the other hand, I would say it like this . . . (my view)

The solid evangelical seminaries start with the premise that God completely inspired his Word in the original manuscripts and has preserved His Word today in many good translations in many different languages. Then they refuse to accept that God added onto his inspired words over 1500 years later.

Is the mark of the beast in the right hand or on the right hand?

LOL! I can smell a trap! Like the fox lured by the bait, that circles the trap and knows something is going to snap but still keep edging closer . . .

but sometimes the fox is smart enough to know how to grab hold of the bait and use it to fool the farmer . . . so am I, probably dumb enough to grab the bait . . . but . . . so here goes .... LOL

In actuality, yours is a very simple question: Is the mark of the beast on or in the right hand? I ask: what was given by inspiration of God? I assume your reference is to Revelation 13:16 where the Greek says "receive a mark epi tes cheiros". I found no disagreement among Greek mansuscripts here, so the critical word is the preposition "epi".

So the answer to your question is this: the mark will be "epi" the hand

It's not a trap, I was just wondering how you made decisions like this when different translations say different things and the Greek does nothing to help clarify what God intended.

Well now you see: the Greek preposition "epi" answers your question

Epi doesn't answer anything, it's extremely vague. Epi means a superimposition of one thing on top of another thing.

There's a literal right hand in the bible and there's a figurative right hand in the bible. If that verse is about the literal right hand (which it isn't) then it would be correct to say that the mark is superimposed ON the right hand.

If it's the figurative right hand then the mark is superimposed IN the right hand because there is no "on" in the figurative right hand.

The Greek did absolutely nothing to help understand which right hand God intended.

The Greek answers it exactly as God inspired it. Period. I am not looking for God to give a later revelation to correct an insufficient inspiration.

I could do a discussion of the meaning of "epi", but that would not help anything here!

Yup they always used the Septuagint in them days. Thats why the quote in our KJV in Hebrews doesnt match the OT it quotes from. "a body thou hast prepared for me" <- not in the OT, UNLESS you read the Septuagint!

I personally do trust the Septuagint because the Apostles quoted it, if its good enough for them, its goood enough for me.

Agreed, and I think you already know that the word of God while preserved for us as I k on paper is not ink on paper, but the power of (preserved) word is when those (translated) words (of ink on paper) are spoken and made effectual by the power of the Holy Spirit, it is the word of God in that translated language.


I hope that's clear. It's early and I'm trying to be brief