WHICH Bible "version" Is Authorized By God?

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Mar 9, 2021
61
23
8
How likely is it that the EARLIEST manuscripts have verses REMOVED? That's simply illogical. It is far more likely that the contested verses were ADDED in the Byzantine manuscripts.

Even without other evidence, which is substantial, the consistent folly of KJV-only arguments is enough to convince me that it is false.
I'm going to make this as simple as possible.

Last Time I checked you were'nt authorized to question Scripture, or, The Legitimacy of a Version, or dictate concept's like valid Evidence.

I Find it odd that you refer to people who are reading a "BIBLE" Version, The Word Of God as a "cult." It's a Conceptual Problem Considering It's " THE BIBLE." With the least ommission's.

You also seem extremely dedictated to talking about things that particularly are off topic.

All "Evidence" is either associated with what Specifically Relates to people's Realization of what make's for an Authoritative version.

Explain How a Bible, and those who read it and apply it to their life are "cult" follower's when you read a Bible by any version and " supposedly" follow it. your statements are Conceptually illogical, and have no basis for disregard of A Bible Translation, or not caring about "translations" while targeting the Realization The KJV is accurate, as wrongly, if a cult.

My Writing may lack English fundamental's but your argumentative stance lack's logic. what your saying isn't even an argument, it's personal feeling's.
 

Truth7t7

Well-known member
May 19, 2020
7,685
2,492
113
Your Apology Below, As Per Biblegateway.

Acts 8:37 has been "removed" from the main body of text in the (NASB), and given a footnote as I stated.

You claim the footnote covers it being in the text is false, the claim by the Lockman foundation that later Manuscripts (Added) the verse is a lie. The Novum Testamentum Graece, And its creators, Adulterers Kurt and Barbara Aland, homosexual union supporter (Carlo Maria Martini) chose to (Remove It)

Biblegateway:

Acts 8:37NASB
36 As they went along the road they came to some water; and the eunuch *said, “Look! Water! What prevents me from being baptized?”[r] 38 And he ordered that the [s]chariot stop; and they both went down into the water, Philip as well as the eunuch, and he baptized him.
 
Mar 9, 2021
61
23
8
Y'all need to get your stories straight. Either God uses "ungodly" people or He doesn't. You can't have it both ways.
I think it's about conceptually understanding nothing work's outside of Jesus Christ'S Control.

The Bible isn't about logically trying to assume an author's intended meaning, that's why it's imperative to translate meaning literally, by making a literal translation from one language to another without supplying what you assume you undrrstand. even if it doesn't seemingly make sense into as a translation from one language to another.

by making literal translations it's much more easy when Studying a culture to understand what was meant when reading a literal translation.

When you try to apply meaning based on what you assume is equal both culturally and linguistically, it has to be based on an understanding between the two culture, if it's a cultural concept. Anthropology has as much to do with Linguistic's, as Linguistic's has to do with translation, so it's nescesarry to take those thing's into account.


That's a difference between the anthropology of a culture and language and whatever is being considered during translation.

as far as what people assume is True of God is irrelevant. it does
 

Lafftur

Senior Member
Apr 18, 2017
6,741
3,561
113
If you were on a deserted, remote island with the NIV as your only known source, you would never know Matthew 17:21, Matthew 18:11, Acts 8:37, Romans 16:24 because they don't exist, removed.

John was on a deserted island called Patmos and he had NO BIBLE yet, he was able to write the very last book of the Bible.....he was in the Spirit on the Lord’s day....so, I’m thinking the Holy Spirit is the ONE that gives understanding and even soooooo much more! :love:(y)
 
Mar 9, 2021
61
23
8
Y'all need to get your stories straight. Either God uses "ungodly" people or He doesn't. You can't have it both ways.
I think it's about conceptually understanding nothing work's outside of Jesus Christ'S Control.

The Bible isn't about logically trying to assume an author's intended meaning, that's why it's imperative to translate meaning literally, by making a literal translation from one language to another without supplying what you assume you undrrstand. even if it doesn't seemingly make sense into another language as a translation from one language to another.

by making literal translations it's much more easy when Studying a culture to understand what was meant when reading a literal translation.

When you try to apply meaning based on what you assume is equal both culturally and linguistically, it has to be based on an understanding between the two culture's and the way in which language is used to communicate, (because there are differences between languages such as declensive mark's, etc) if it's a cultural concept applied to a language. Anthropology has as much to do with Linguistic's, as Linguistic's has to do with translation, so it's nescesarry to take those thing's into account.


That's a difference between the anthropology of a culture and language and whatever is being considered during translation.

as far as what people assume is True of God is irrelevant.

It's Important to focus on whether or not meaning, or the intended meaning is translated, rather than trying to make it sound appealing or logical, or sensical.

When it come's to aspects involved in making a proper translation, there is alway's a context that need's to be added also, for instance.

lucifer" is the rendering of the hebrew word הֵילֵל‎ (transliteration: hêylêl; pronunciation: hay-lale) given in the King Jane's Version of the Bible.
In (Isaiah 14:12) as, it's rendered in English as "morning star" or "shining one" rather than as a proper name, "lucifer".

The problem with this can become conflated because Jesus is reffered to as the morning star in English Translations which would require the same rendering of the hebrew word for satan.

now would The Apostle's much less the prophet's render the same word for two people who are opposed to each other. Conceptually no, and In fact, in the Greek, Jesus is not reffered to as the morning star, rather, by a different name charecteristics of different association's.

there are many problems with many translations.
 

presidente

Senior Member
May 29, 2013
9,082
1,749
113
Grace And Peace, Precious friend(s). I believe it is a very serious matter
to determine Which version of “the Bible” Is “The Correct Word Of God!”

I am sure we All agree, do we not, that we are All going to each give an "account To HIM,"
(2 Corinthians 5:10), According to His Gospel of Grace, To Paul (Romans 2:16), correct?
Thus, in Light of Paul's "...knowing therefore The Terror Of The LORD..." {v. 11}, to me,
I humbly present why I personally believe KJV Is “The Best Bible” to read/study:

(1) Q: Is IT not God’s Pure And PRESERVED WORD!?:

The WORDS Of The LORD Are Pure WORDS: as silver tried
in a furnace of earth, Purified Seven Times. Thou Shalt Keep THEM,
O LORD, Thou Shalt PRESERVE THEM from this generation for ever.”

(Psalms 12:6-7 KJB!)

Now, Comparing This, with a couple of newer versions, what do we find?

NASB: “The words of the Lord are pure words…You, Lord, will keep them;
You will protect him from this generation forever.

NIV: “The words of the Lord are flawless…You, Lord, will keep the needy
safe
and will protect us forever from the wicked,...

Do these Also claim God’s “Purity And Preservation for ALL generations”?

They both claim “pure/flawless” words, but, then they both
Omit Some Of: “Preserve THEM from this generation for ever” and
Change words TO the noted “Different” words above. How is that Purity?

Q: Will The Holy Spirit, our Blessed Teacher, Help us understand
The Purity of These Words,” considering these newer versions
have Changed Them? How, then, do we “study AND agree”?

{Diligent/Noble Berean students can find MANY of These Changes
{And, Also “omissions”}, and Prayerfully/Carefully decide for themselves
about the “Purity of God’s Words,” and which version is best, for them,
correct?}

(2) I personally have decided on Both “The Purity And The
Preservation Of The Authorized Version/underlying manuscripts,”

for the following reasons:

Q2: Is The Following the “Reason” why the newer versions Cannot claim:

God’s Promise To “Preserve HIS Pure Word for ALL generations”?

Since the newer versions did not appear until about 1880,
would not that be a “Lack Of Preservation,” due to the fact
that the underlying {older/better?} manuscripts had to be
“Re-discovered/translated,” Skipping the generations since 1611?

Can that be God’s Purpose For HIS Pure/Preserved Word?

+

(3) God's Pure/Preserved Word Is ABOVE All Else! Is IT not?:

"I will worship toward Thy holy temple, and praise Thy HOLY
Name for Thy LovingKindness and for Thy TRUTH: for Thou
Hast MAGNIFIED Thy WORD Above All Thy Name!
"
( Psalms 138:2 KJB! )

imho, unless I am mistaken, on Judgment Day, I would Not want
one of the "good deeds done in my body," to be “Bad, by my claiming”
that corrupt/Changed/Missing words {translated from older/hidden
{UNpreserved} manuscripts into “newer easier-to-read/understand
versions,” are to be:

God's Pure Word, Which Is Magnified Above All Of God’s Pure/Holy Name,”

would you, Precious friend(s)?
Finally:

IF it is true that “Many {~~ 64,000?} Of “God’s PURE Words”
are missing {ie: Acts 8:37 NASB et al?} from newer versions, then,
IF the “version user” Cannot read Them {because They are missing},
how is it possible then, for that one to obey God’s Exhortation:

“man Shall Not live by bread alone, But By EVERY Word
That Proceedeth Out Of The Mouth Of God!
(Matthew 4:4 cp Luke 4:4; Deuteronomy 8:3 KJB!)?

Just wondering: How can God's "children of light" be in agreement
when each uses a Different Problematic version?: Are we not all,
By A Faithful God:

"...Called Into Fellowship With God's SON, The LORD JESUS CHRIST"
(
1 Corinthians 1:9 KJB!), And, should we not all be:

"Endeavouring to keep The Unity Of God's Spirit In The Bond Of
PEACE!..." (
Ephesians 4:3 KJB!), obeying God's Exhortations!:

...speak...the things which become Sound Doctrine!”
(
Titus 2:1 cp "SAME mind And judgment!" 1 Corinthians 1:10 KJB!)?

Being faithful And Pleasing to our LORD and Saviour, JESUS CHRIST, Correct?

--------------------------------------------

Addendum: Some do Not like archaic words in God’s Preserved Word,
but isn’t that Why God Commands us to “study”? I.e.:

“...we which are alive and remain unto the coming of The LORD shall not
prevent [precede] them which are asleep…” (1 Thessalonians 4:15 KJB!)

Once I “studied & found the meaning,” have never had any problem since. Amen?
+
I would also, when Prayerfully/Carefully “studying, like to know," When "God Is
Addressing"
one person {singular: thee, thine, & thou}, or More than one person
{plural: ye/you/your}. Could make a Huge Difference in His Pure Words, correct?

Since newer versions have Totally Lost these distinctions, considering
“you/your” Could be Either singular OR plural, causing Confusion, of
which
God Is Not the author of,” (1 Corinthians 14:33 KJB!), correct,
Precious friend(s)?

Conclusion: Besides changing God’s PURE Words, is there not Also
HIS “Command NOT
to Add, Nor To Take Away From HIS Word!”?
(
Deuteronomy 4:2, 12:32; Proverbs 30:5-6; Revelation 22:18-19 KJB!)

So, yes, I sincerely believe This Is “A Very Serious And Important”
decision Of faith to be made! After all, "a corrupt {#} version Will
Cause a corrupt faith,” correct? Since God’s PURE Word Teaches:

...faith cometh by hearing, and hearing By The WORD Of God!”
(
Romans 10:17 KJB!)

Be Blessed!

{#} Corruption had Already Begun in "Paul's day," thus it should not
surprise us, that it very well Could be in our midst, today, correct?:

"For we are not as many, which corrupt The Word Of God: but as
of sincerity, but as of God, in The Sight Of God speak we in CHRIST."
(2 Corinthians 2:17 KJB!)

Precious friend(s), instead of All of the Mass Confusion, is not
God's Simple Will Much Better?
My comment on this is that I am not going to read your post because it is too hard to read without all the underlines and bolds and text that is nearly invisible when I use invert lightness to prevent eye strain, not to mention long.

But I will say this. if God told someone to write something on a scroll, He specifically authorized that. When John heard in Revelation 'Write these words', then he was very clearly authorized to do so. He wrote in Greek, not KJV English or NIV English.

That is not to say prophets were not authorized to write in other cases. But the ones in scripture wrote in Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek.
 
Mar 9, 2021
61
23
8
I guess I'll just say, no american is a scribe, and there is no justification for feeling's when making a translation, such as in dino's case, the King Jame's Version would'nt exist.

I also Realize That Those Who are filled with God's Spirit, The Holy Spirit, would notice intentional Alteration'S Because The Bible is Authoritatively Inspired by The Spirit of Testimony, Jesus Christ, The Word, Who Authored it.
 
Mar 9, 2021
61
23
8
The supposed Contradictions in The Bible are also the Result of intentional mistranslations.
 

presidente

Senior Member
May 29, 2013
9,082
1,749
113
Do you have any sources as for Watchman Nee's credentials in Greek and Hebrew.?
That is an interesting question. I remember reading about his burning his education credentials after returning from the UK, maybe thinking of them as a stumbling block over pride or something like that. But I am not sure what he studied. I can't find references to his UK studies in Wikipedia or other sites I checked.

The man did plant a lot of churches in China, or lead a movement that planted a lot of churches.
 

tribesman

Senior Member
Oct 13, 2011
4,612
274
83
That is an interesting question. I remember reading about his burning his education credentials after returning from the UK, maybe thinking of them as a stumbling block over pride or something like that. But I am not sure what he studied. I can't find references to his UK studies in Wikipedia or other sites I checked.

The man did plant a lot of churches in China, or lead a movement that planted a lot of churches.
Thanks for the reply. I am unsure whether Nee actually had any formal credentials or finished courses in hebrew/aramaic or greek at all.

Had quiet a few of his books once (also books of Witness Lee) and sometimes visited the LSM book café that they had in my hometown. What can I say? There are some really deep things in Nee's writings which makes them interesting and there's this teaching about the believer and the church which has many virtues.

However, when it comes to dogmatic theology and his unorthodox views on such matters is where I just...differ from what he taught. Some other things are even bordering on the...occult, me thinks. My take.
 

Truth7t7

Well-known member
May 19, 2020
7,685
2,492
113
However, the NTG is not the Alexandrian text type. It just draws from it as well as from the Byzantine. Your black-and-white assertions are quite easy to refute; it's far better to try to understand the gray, for the truth is often found there.
Grey?
The Novum Testamentum Graece, created by Adulterers Kurt And Barbara Aland, that supports modern bible versions NIV, NASB, ESV, JW's NWT, Etc, follows the (Alexandrian Text Type) That Removes Matthew 7:21, Matthew 18:11, Acts 8:37, Roman's 16:24

The KJV Follws The (ByzantineText Type) That Maintains Matthew 7:21, Matthew 18:11, Acts 8:37, Roman's 16:24
 

Truth7t7

Well-known member
May 19, 2020
7,685
2,492
113
That is an interesting question. I remember reading about his burning his education credentials after returning from the UK, maybe thinking of them as a stumbling block over pride or something like that. But I am not sure what he studied. I can't find references to his UK studies in Wikipedia or other sites I checked.

The man did plant a lot of churches in China, or lead a movement that planted a lot of churches.
Watchman Nee and his (Local Church) movement, followed the teachings of John, N. Darby in the Plymouth Brethren, the father of the false teachings known as dispensationalism.

Watchman Nee denied Church order in the Bishop, Pastor, Deacon, Laity

Nee Falsely Taught And Believed, all believers were (Equal) no Church structure in authority, Bishop/Pastor, Deacon, Laity
 

Truth7t7

Well-known member
May 19, 2020
7,685
2,492
113
However, the NTG is not the Alexandrian text type. It just draws from it as well as from the Byzantine. Your black-and-white assertions are quite easy to refute; it's far better to try to understand the gray, for the truth is often found there.
The Truth Is Often Found In The Grey?

Sorta like a little darkness and light that arrives at truth :)

I see horns and a pitchfork in that statement and reasoning
 

tribesman

Senior Member
Oct 13, 2011
4,612
274
83
However, the NTG is not the Alexandrian text type. It just draws from it as well as from the Byzantine. Your black-and-white assertions are quite easy to refute; it's far better to try to understand the gray, for the truth is often found there.
Whistling in the dark? Textus Receptus is the superior text.
 

Lucy-Pevensie

Senior Member
Dec 20, 2017
9,261
5,618
113
Very subtle attack on God's Word Of Truth, eh?

I asked for evidence. See below.
None was produced but you wallow in defamation anyway.



"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son that whosoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life" just reads differently to somebody who holds the doctrines of the reformation and to somebody who holds the modern doctrines of human freewill. Which is why some modern translators slip in little words like "whoever chooses to believe"

This word "chooses" is a commentary and a paraphrase.
Which translation has "chooses to believe" in John 3:16?

I've just looked at over 20 versions not one had "chooses to believe"
 

Evmur

Well-known member
Feb 28, 2021
4,902
2,530
113
London
christianchat.com
I asked for evidence. See below.
None was produced but you wallow in defamation anyway.
I haven't read a new translation for 30 years what I gave was a type of the subtlety which was the reason I shun them not an exact example.

It is the kind of thing we see.
 
Mar 23, 2021
41
26
18
My comment on this is that I am not going to read your post because it is too hard to read without all the underlines and bolds and text that is nearly invisible when I use invert lightness to prevent eye strain, not to mention long.

But I will say this. if God told someone to write something on a scroll, He specifically authorized that. When John heard in Revelation 'Write these words', then he was very clearly authorized to do so. He wrote in Greek, not KJV English or NIV English.

That is not to say prophets were not authorized to write in other cases. But the ones in scripture wrote in Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek.
I have to say that I too cannot read your posts, GRACE. You use too many different types of emphasis, and as a result your posts are confusing. I hope this is helpful.
 

Dino246

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2015
24,672
13,364
113
I see you've been banned. Oh well.

Last Time I checked you were'nt authorized to question Scripture, or, The Legitimacy of a Version, or dictate concept's like valid Evidence.
Last time I checked, you weren't authorized to assess these matters.

I Find it odd that you refer to people who are reading a "BIBLE" Version, The Word Of God as a "cult." It's a Conceptual Problem Considering It's " THE BIBLE." With the least ommission's.
I'm not referring to people who are READING only the KJV as a cult. Many people prefer the KJV and read the KJV without being "KJV-onlyists". It is the latter to which I refer as a cult. As to omissions, you're assuming the verses in question belong in Scripture, which is one of the things on which we differ.

You also seem extremely dedictated to talking about things that particularly are off topic.
You don't have any authority whatsoever regarding what is on or off topic on someone else's thread.

All "Evidence" is either associated with what Specifically Relates to people's Realization of what make's for an Authoritative version.
Since when were you "authorized" to dictate what constitutes proper evidence?

Explain How a Bible, and those who read it and apply it to their life are "cult" follower's when you read a Bible by any version and " supposedly" follow it.
Already addressed.

your statements are Conceptually illogical, and have no basis for disregard of A Bible Translation, or not caring about "translations" while targeting the Realization The KJV is accurate, as wrongly, if a cult.
Your charge of "conceptually illogical" doesn't make sense, so I invite you to make sense of it. I'm not "disregarding" a translation of the Bible; I'm addressing the bad arguments that people make to support their claims that it is the best translation, the only right translation, the only proper translation, "God's authorized translation", or some similar codswollop.

My Writing may lack English fundamental's but your argumentative stance lack's logic. what your saying isn't even an argument, it's personal feeling's.
I tell people who present bad arguments that their arguments are bad, and explain why they are bad; that is sound logic.
 

Dino246

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2015
24,672
13,364
113
Your Apology Below, As Per Biblegateway.

Acts 8:37 has been "removed" from the main body of text in the (NASB), and given a footnote as I stated.

You claim the footnote covers it being in the text is false, the claim by the Lockman foundation that later Manuscripts (Added) the verse is a lie.
Given that I posted a photograph of the page of my Bible with the contested verse in the main text, your post is the most blatant example of mulish stubbornness, closed-minded obstinacy, and utter stupidity that I have seen.

However, the day is young, and I'm sure you will make more posts.