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

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.

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!

As long as the Greek leads to you understand that the mark is on the figurtative right and on the figurative forehead then you're ok.

There is no way way you will be able to prove that from "epi," which is God's inspired word here. If you have a subsequent revelation from God that adds to His Word I do not trust it at all . . .

ἐπί epí, ep-ee'; a primary preposition; properly, meaning superimposition (of time, place, order, etc.), as a relation of distribution (with the genitive case), i.e. over, upon, etc.; of rest (with the dative case) at, on, etc.; of direction (with the accusative case) towards, upon, etc.:—about (the times), above, after, against, among, as long as (touching), at, beside, × have charge of, (be-, (where-))fore, in (a place, as much as, the time of, -to), (because) of, (up-)on (behalf of), over, (by, for) the space of, through(-out), (un-)to(-ward), with.

Epi means a superimposition of one thing on top of another. If it's a literal hand then the correct translation would be ON the right hand.

A figurative right hand does not have an ON... where is the "chip off the old block" physically located? It doesn't have a location any more than a figurative right hand has an ON.

You CAN NOT accurately translate languages without INTERPRETING the original language FIRST. You have to understand what TYPE OF HAND it is before you can know which one of those meanings of Epi I posted above applies.

I really don't understand why this is so hard for you guys to understand.

LOL! It is actually quite easy to understand -- it is just we refuse to understand it by a later revelation . . .

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.

The original autographs were the preservation of God’s word. God spoke and men preserved God’s words by writing them down. For example, the book of Romans.

1. Who wrote Romans?
2. Who was given the words from God?

The original epistle of Romans was the preservation of the inspired words, therefore a copy.

considering the tower of Babel happened, what does it mean that the language the autographs were recorded in was not the language of Adam? is language/dialect important, and if so how important is it?

It may have been, but my post was about how even the original writings were the copy of the inspired words that God gave man. Scripture is preserving God’s word by writing it down.

The original autographs were the preservation of God’s word. God spoke and men preserved God’s words by writing them down. For example, the book of Romans.

1. Who wrote Romans?
2. Who was given the words from God?

The original epistle of Romans was the preservation of the inspired words, therefore a copy.

A figurative right hand does not have an ON... where is the "chip off the old block" physically located? It doesn't have a location any more than a figurative right hand has an ON.

Yea, speaking of the neo-evagelicals now tied up to the Romish view. The issue is not of the “complete inspiration of the original manuscripts” which I believe there were once but we no longer have them today as you also believe it. What you don’t like is that there is a copy of scripture that resembles the faithful copies of the originals in the form of translation. As I observed, you have it interchanged of the many theological terminologies. Sometimes, you equate, inspiration to transmission, revelation to an inspiration and speaks of preservation thru translation and sometimes revert to it when original language text (not original autographs) is vague. I also see some vain jangling, trying to tie up KJV believers ‘that God added to his Word’ by inspiring new words into the English language…after revelation was complete and the canon closed. The vital issue is not Revelation, we know that, but it is having the preserved, pure, inerrant words of God today in the English word (aka Translation) as you believe it preserved in the ‘many good and completely trustworthy translations in many languages.’(multiple Bible versions) which you have not name or mention even just one. Assuming you have that in English versions then, let’s test them according to your argument of “many good and completely trustworthy translations” if they really will stand. For an eye-opener I quote two(2) experts, one favoring the NASB and the other ESV

“Better than any other English translation, the NASB represents the writings of the original Hebrew and Greek authors. For private study and public reading, it’s unsurpassed!”

Bruce A. Ware Ph.D
Professor of Christian Theology
Southern Baptist Theological Seminary
Louisville, KY

“With the myriad of new Bible translations on the market today, few stand out. The ESV is one of the few, and surpasses the others in its simple yet elegant style. In many respects the ESV has accomplished in the 21st century what the KJV accomplished in the 17th: a trustworthy, literary Bible that is suitable for daily reading, memorizing, and preaching.”

Daniel B. Wallace, Ph.D., Executive Director, Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts

What? the ESV have surpassed the unsurpassable NASB, yet DB Wallace assumed ESV to equate it to the KJV accomplishment in the 17th ce. What the experts are saying aren’t true, and what they endorsed differ to each other. In Matthew 23:14 the NASB in an uncertainty as it put the brackets may have the same reading with the KJV while ESV had entirely omitted it. So we see conflicting Bibles and God is not the author of it, hence, ESV did not preserved what Jesus said in this particular verse while NASB which is entitled to represent the original writings of the Greek authors are in actuality doubting what Jesus said by placing the brackets.

KJV Mat 23:14 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widows' houses, and for a pretence make long prayer: therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation.

NASB [“Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, because you devour widows’ houses, and for a pretense you make long prayers; therefore you will receive greater condemnation.]

ESV _____________________________________________________.

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

The KJB. Feel free to start here:

Why are you making the opinions of men the issue? One prefers the NASB, and one prefers the ESV. Their opinions are no different, fundamentally, than those of people who make grand claims about the KJV. None of them have any official weight, and none have any value with regard to answering the thread's title question.

As for the allegedly-missing verse in the ESV (which is probably included in the footnotes), if you're comparing to the KJV, you're doing it wrong! The KJV simply is NOT the standard against which others are to be measured. All are to be measured against the original-language texts.

Um, no. The original recording of a message is not a copy of the message; it is exactly that: the original record.

You're attempting to play with the meanings of words to support your erroneous position. That boat won't float.

If a figurative hand does not have an "on" then it also does not have an "in". Both are positional prepositions. If the hand is figurative as you claim, that means the KJV is equally incorrect!

It would serve you well to think through the implications of your arguments before you post them.