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

I'm arguing that translation REQUIRES interpretation of the original language in order to translate it into another language properly.

Gen 40:8 (KJV) And they said unto him, We have dreamed a dream, and there is no interpreter of it. And Joseph said unto them, Do not interpretations belong to God? tell me them, I pray you.

Interesting. I usually pay attention mostly at ESV, or NASB when comparing with KJV. Thanks for pointing it out I will be looking out for it

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 _____________________________________________________.

The rule of engagement is so clear, "scripture is preserved in various languages' so i compred those English translation, just so happen world reknown greek expert Wallace had to compare Esv with Kjv and that is his opinion. Reality check, they are not the same. You discount their opinion, when your opinion needs to be check and balance in the scripture. No of course, i am not doing anything wrong when i compare. The fact is that mainstream English bible versions have compared them to the Kjv. Another thing, they are to be compared with what original language text. This is to challenge your assertion of original language text to lay down that text you are referring to? Thanks

When someone has a character issue, would you say that person has a mar IN their character or would you say that person has a mar ON their character?

Absolutely - and that is why translation is not inspiration - because in translation man interprets the original inspired writings

What does that verse have to do with anything? That verse has nothing to do with the translation of Scripture and the inspiration of Scripture! Unless I missed something?? . . . . !!!!!!

The exact opposite is true. If God doesn’t inspire the translation then it isn’t the word of God.

I am just honest about the original texts and say clearly that at this point we do not have any of the original texts. And then I say that God has used mankind to preserve and to translate those originals into many good translations in many different languages. In English we have the KJV, the ESV, the NASB, the NIV (has some issues in my opinion), and I know Luther's German translation is a good one. Besides that there are other good English translations and others in languages that I am not qualified to judge!

You refuse to admit the truth. Instead you add to inspiration and add to what God revealed by making the KJV equal to the original inspired text.

Absolutely - and that is why translation is not inspiration - because in translation man interprets the original inspired writings

God guides the translation by His Spirit in man. But that is not equal to original inspiration.

Gen 40:8 (KJV) And they said unto him, We have dreamed a dream, and there is no interpreter of it. And Joseph said unto them, Do not interpretations belong to God? tell me them, I pray you.

Hebrews 11:5

“By faith Enoch was translated that he should not see death; and was not found, because God had translated him: for before his translation he had this testimony, that he pleased God.”

God preserve Enoch and did not see death, decay. He used translation. This kind of translation pleases God. Likewise, the value of translation is not to lose death or decay of the 'inspired' words of God. No to adding of what has already been revealed. Translation is not really adding bur rather to turn from one language into another retaining the sense. it is transporting the same. So what basically what you know of the KJV added to the original language? Do we have that in the KJV? Thanks

It is absolute equivocation to claim that the translation of Enoch has anything at all to do with the translation of texts between language.

smh...

Interpretations of dreams, yes. Interpretations of Scripture, ideally but not necessarily.

Just because God used dreams to establish that interpretations belong to God, doesn’t limit “interpretations belong to God” to only dreams.

Where the context is clearly and unequivocally 'dreams', it is reasonable to conclude that the statement, "Interpretations belong to God" means specifically, 'interpretations of dreams'.

A simple illustration will trump your view: the JW's have one interpretation of the nature of Jesus; Christians have another, and Mormons have a third. If "all interpretations belong to God" then how can you account for the contradictory interpretations among Bible readers?

Is it possible that a translation (by mankind) be inspired (meaning the men be inspired who are translating, thus what is translated by them)?