WHICH Bible "version" Is Authorized By God?

[Lucy-Pevensie]

According to the sources I have read, their involvement in "The Ghostlie Guild" predated their conversion to Christianity. That means it is irrelevant.

The current textual base is not the same as that which W & H put together anyway.

I wouldn't agree with everything W&H did but this vile, unrelenting witch-hunt is loathsome.
The hatred of KJVO cultists needs a target so they fling ad hominem attacks on dead men who are not here to defend themselves.
They use the same type of ad hominem attacks against the manuscripts. Claiming the Alexandrian family come from false believers.
There isn't any evidence for that but they recycle the accusations anyway.

When smearing deceased believers doesn't work they resort to slandering all living believers reading modern Bibles.
The whole movement depends on character assassination.

 

[Truth7t7]

Of course not!! Where did you ask me this? It is not even that the OT condemns homosexuality, but that it is also repeated several times in the NT.

I think the Bible is point blank obvious that homosexuality is a terrible sin! But I do feel the church has been too negative, rather than condemning the sinners, rather than the sin. Mind you these days, sin and sinner are the same. Homosexuality will keep you out of heaven, but then, many other sins will. Providing that you never repent of your sin and turn to God. We are not condemned by our sins. We are condemned by not believing in Christ, and then not obeying God.

But as far as leadership roles, my denomination believes practising homosexuals should not even be allowed membership. We have a man in our church whose mannerisms seem to be gay! But he repented of his sin, walked away from the life style, and was married to a wonderful woman for 30 years. Strangely, although he is a church member, he has never been in the elder board.

I hope this clears things up for you.

Thanks for your response, In human error I missed this post and asked the question a 3rd time, I apologize for my oversight.

I fully agree!

 

[Lanolin]

I dont know if its actually intentional that some Bibles leave things out.
I think people just copy and copy and copy and sometimes miss things through omission errors. Sentences arent finished or things are skipped cos pages could be lost. Rememeber those manuscripts are ancient and paper doesnt last all that long. Those that were written on vellum (goat skins) had to last the distance and copies that had errors were probably binned just as galley proofs that have mistakes in them where not published as they are they were constantly reset.

If you publish a book you want everything to read nice and clear. This goes for any book. People think they can self publish these days but those that self publish are never as professional as a publishing house can make a book, nor do they have the means to mass publish and reach the widest readership possible.

with the Bible I do see a lot of version that seem to have errors that are like printing errors, oh they missed that verse out, or that word and if Im reading something like the KJV and then I read another version, the other version is never as clear overall as the KJV is. (my personal experience)

The olde englishe flavour of the KJV I really dont mind, it is after all an ancient book. Why should it not be old sounding. The langauge is beautiful. Reading it out loud is an spiritual experience in itself.

Many books have different editions even in english for example, when international publisher prepare books for different audiences, like for the USA, they have to change the words to suit the US audience, cos they dont use words like nappy, or lolly, or tap, they need to change them to diaper, candy and faucet.

 

[Lanolin]

I look at it this way, if you constantly photocopy something and then copy it again and again and again, you eventually lose resolution and things get all fuzzy.

Its like that with the Bible, you can read some versions and they just seem 'fuzzy' because they are maybe the second, third.... twentieth hand copy.

 

[Truth7t7]

I look at it this way, if you constantly photocopy something and then copy it again and again and again, you eventually lose resolution and things get all fuzzy.

Its like that with the Bible, you can read some versions and they just seem 'fuzzy' because they are maybe the second, third.... twentieth hand copy.

You mean fuzzy as in the NIV removing Matthew 17:21, 18:11, Acts 8:37, Roman's 16:24 just for starters?

There's a little more than fuzzy going on there

 

[Lanolin]

You mean fuzzy as in the NIV removing Matthew 17:21, 18:11, Acts 8:37, Roman's 16:24 just for starters?

There's a little more than fuzzy going on there

I wouldnt think that was intentional, I think something like the Jefferson Bible where he actually cut out all reference to Jesus miracles to make it read easier is a bit suss!

The NIV to me is more like a novelisation of the Bible to reach an international audience. Like you know how some books get turned into movies and then the movie gets turned into a book again lol. NIV reads like one of those. With bad dubbing.

 

[Nehemiah6]

I look at it this way, if you constantly photocopy something and then copy it again and again and again, you eventually lose resolution and things get all fuzzy.

And that is definitely NOT how one should regard the copying and re-copying of Scripture. Firstly the Jewish scribes since the time of Moses (the last ones being the Masoretes) were extremely meticulous and conscientious about making copies of the Hebrew Bible. Even one error was too much.

The same can be said of the monks who dedicated their lives to copying the New Testament. And that is why the mass of manuscripts are in general agreement with each other, and may be regarded as a uniform body of texts prior to printing, called the Traditional Text, or the Received Text, or the Majority Text.

At the same time the heretical Gnostics aggressively changed the Scriptures to suit their doctrines. And this is recognized by those who actually examined the manuscripts first hand. Thus a small group of extremely corrupt manuscripts came into existence. Aleph, A, B, C, D, and a few others belong to this group. But this is the group which was vigorously promoted by rationalistic scholars and critics. And that's where the modern bibles get their corruptions.

 

[Nehemiah6]

There isn't any evidence for that but they recycle the accusations anyway.

Since you haven't bothered to examine the evidence, that in itself is a false accusation. So kindly tell us if you actually invested in The Revision Revised and carefully read and studied it? Along with at least another half dozen books pertaining to this matter, by experts in this field, who exposed the fraud.

 

[Lucy-Pevensie]

Since you haven't bothered to examine the evidence, that in itself is a false accusation. So kindly tell us if you actually invested in The Revision Revised and carefully read and studied it? Along with at least another half dozen books pertaining to this matter, by experts in this field, who exposed the fraud.

I am familiar with that book which btw does argue that the TR needed revising.
But The Holy Spirit is not a liar that I should need to consult an industry of hate for advice.

You are simply irrational on this issue. Blind.

 

[SophieT]

take a little time to read and understand my point of view.

I totally understand what you said.

A point of view is not how you translate

 

[SophieT]

This is what is known as a red herring. "A red herring is something that misleads or distracts from a relevant or important question. It may be either a logical fallacy or a literary device that leads readers or audiences toward a false conclusion."

The issue has never been whether only KJ Bible readers are saved. The title is asking the question: "Which Bible version is authorized by God?" And God has given His stamp of approval and greatly blessed the Authorized Version for over 400 years. Even the Geneva Bible is now essentially obsolete, though it dates from the same time period. Which means that all English-speaking and English-reading people should be using the KJB EXCLUSIVELY. If we want to talk about Christian unity in the face of Satanic opposition, we could start right here.

But this makes the naysayers extremely uncomfortable, since they are faced with the issue of either continuing to support fraudulent versions, or throwing them all out and starting from scratch (so to speak).

It would be a red herring in many threads, but not this one

 

[Lanolin]

If its got an ISBN its a legit book and you can catalogue it. The point if ISBN is that every book has a unique ISBN number meaning that copy is exactly the same as another copy with the same number.
If its just a badly copied affair thats been cobbled together most libraries will not accept it as a book (called in library speak 'monograph')
It would be archived and placed in the archives as an artefact, if it is to be kept.

 

[Lanolin]

eg theres a book called 'The secret Garden' by Frances Hodgson Burnett. Most people who want to read this book want to read the original published words that Ms Burnett wrote.

Then a movie gets made based on the Secret Garden, and the publishers think ok a movie is made lets cash in on the movie by printing a movie novelisation of the book with pictures from the movie on the cover and inside. They dont use ms Burnetts original story, they get someone else to write it based on the screenplay of the film which they CHANGE the story to fit into under two hours of film.

Yet both books have the same title. And it might even purport to be by the same author. Confusing for the unsuspecting customer/reader?