WHICH Bible "version" Is Authorized By God?

Psalm 12:6-7KJV
6 The words of the Lord are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
7 Thou shalt keep them, O Lord, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.

From the little I have read about Fee he is not in agreement with the Pentecostals on the matter of tongues.

I do not think there are any good denominations.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

Just curious here. Are you under the impression that A/G theology is 'Word of Faith'? When I was in the denomination, it seemed like an individual here or there held to that movements beliefs, but overall the denomination did not agree with certain aspects of Hagin or Copeland's teachings.

In many ways that is true. And we give God all the glory that we can breathe. But when it comes to determining which English translation does the best job of communication as if you had read it in the original, the answer is always "It depends on the verse in question" That's true whether someone is saved or not. It is a linguistics question. For example:

Consider also Matthew 5:2, where Jesus begins his Sermon on the Mount: “Then He opened His mouth and taught them, saying” (NKJV)
“And he opened his mouth and taught them, saying” (ESV)
“and he began to teach them saying” (NIV, NCV)
“and he began to teach them” (NCV) The Greek idiom uses two phrases, to stoma (“open the mouth”) + (“teach”), to express a single action. For the Greek reader opening the mouth and teaching were not two consecutive actions, but one act of speaking (see Acts 8:35; 10:34; Rev. 13:6). The functional equivalent versions (NIV, TNIV, NCV) recognize this idiom and so accurately render the Greek, “he began to teach them.” The more literal NKJV and the ESV are understandable, but they miss the Greek idiom and so introduce an unnatural English expression.
Fee, Gordon D.; Strauss, Mark L.. How to Choose a Translation for All Its Worth . Zondervan Academic. Kindle Edition.

We don't ever say "She opened her mouth and spoke" It is a literal translation like in Spanish "what do yourself call" instead of What is your name?

Why do you believe the originals were not scrupulously copied or that the Holy Spirit did not have complete oversight of the work?

Simple! Because every extant manuscript has been studied and catalogued. Look at the Byzantine copies, and they have traced every copyist mistake, when that mistake occurred, and how it was incorporated into the text.

Every single mistake has been found, and most of those mistakes were incorporated into the manuscript of the next generation of copies. That's because the KJV used the last manuscripts, and many mistakes had skipped in over the years.

I'm not making this up. There is a science behind manuscript copies. Here's a link to help you understand about mistakes and what is known about them.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_manuscript

https://www.blueletterbible.org/Com...hat-about-mistakes-in-copies-of-the-bible.cfm

https://zooniverseancientlives.wordpress.com/2013/05/06/scribal-error-in-biblical-manuscripts/amp/

No problem,Judaism hassett aside theTorah for the for the (Talmud) and (Kabbalah) both evil books per my study.

I cant think of a more tedious waste of time apart perhaps in reading the telephone Directory.

Simple! Because every extant manuscript has been studied and catalogued. Look at the Byzantine copies, and they have traced every copyist mistake, when that mistake occurred, and how it was incorporated into the text.

Every single mistake has been found, and most of those mistakes were incorporated into the manuscript of the next generation of copies. That's because the KJV used the last manuscripts, and many mistakes had skipped in over the years.

I'm not making this up. There is a science behind manuscript copies. Here's a link to help you understand about mistakes and what is known about them.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_manuscript

https://www.blueletterbible.org/Com...hat-about-mistakes-in-copies-of-the-bible.cfm

https://zooniverseancientlives.wordpress.com/2013/05/06/scribal-error-in-biblical-manuscripts/amp/

There are certain passages in the Talmud that are clearly anti Christian.

These "copies" are still originals, as they were written by the original authors. You're trying to make a sound argument by playing with semantics. That's silly.

Which is why clinging to 16th-century English is not necessary.

Try reading Matthew 17:21, Matthew 18:11, Acts 8:37, Romans 16:24 in the NIV to your young and deprived, its gonna be a quick lesson, because the verses are (Removed)

The NIV is a Counterfeit of Gods Holy Bible.

Either the KJV should be accursed because it added to the words of God or all other versions should be accursed because they took away from the words of God.

Which is it people?

Correct. A Christian reading the Talmud would indeed be a tedious waste of time. I have glanced at passages from time to time, and it is mostly nonsense.

They are copies, nice try. Copies can be inspired by God. Translations can be inspired by God.

Joseph spoke in Egyptian and yet, his words were translated into Hebrew and the Hebrew translation is the inspired word of God. I doubt the “word for word” discussion came up.

Neither.

Both are translations of collations of manuscripts.

Either the KJV should be accursed because it added to the words of God or all other versions should be accursed because they took away from the words of God.

Which is it people?