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.

Truth7t7

Well-known member
May 19, 2020
7,708
2,496
113
What if he's 'practicing' being attracted to men, unintentionally, or she is 'practicing' being attracted to women unintentionally, but not acting on it?

In it's original meaning, in academia, and for much of the populace 'homosexual' is about attraction... or now they say 'orientation'-- a concept based on some false assumptions, IMO. Some older folks and probably most American evangelicals use 'homosexual' to mean those who do certain acts.

As far as what you intend to ask goes, if someone engages in fornication, whether they are whoring with men or women, I Corinthians 5 applies. But the issue is not about filling out a form and having some kind of 'church membership' ceremony. That type of 'church membership' is not in the Bible. The fornicator of I Corinthians 5, after the church delivered him over to Satan, would not have been allowed to join in the assembly or break bread with the brethren. But II Corinthians implies it is possible to repent from fornication. Those who repent may be restored to fellowship.
(NO) a practicing homosexuals should not be allowed "membership" in a Church, or participate in leadership roles.

Definition: “practicing homosexual” means a person who is openly approving of homosexuality and is engaged in it.

Question?

Do you believe a practicing homosexual should be allowed membership in the Church, whatever denomination it may be?
 

presidente

Senior Member
May 29, 2013
6,807
1,043
113
(NO) a practicing homosexuals should not be allowed "membership" in a Church, or participate in leadership roles.

Definition: “practicing homosexual” means a person who is openly approving of homosexuality and is engaged in it.

Question?

Do you believe a practicing homosexual should be allowed membership in the Church, whatever denomination it may be?
If someone is engaged in acting out as an arsenokoites or malakos-- engaging in same sex sexual behavior, and will not repent, the church should not keep company with him.

As far as whether that individual is a member of 'the church universal' or 'the church throughout time and space' is a decision for the Lord to determine. Someone delivered over to Satan for sin, such as sexual immorality, may have his spirit saved at the day of the Lord Jesus. He should not be a part of the local assembly meetings until he repents.

Your questions are fuzzy and theologically questionable. My answers have been specific and address underlying problems with your questions, and yet you ask again. What do you mean by 'church membership' and does it have anything to do with the teaching of scripture.

Denominational church membership corresponds with basically nothing in scripture. Let us speak about this in line with Biblical doctrine, not the traditions of men.
 

Dino246

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2015
19,316
10,612
113
Critic: "Y'all need to get your stories straight. Either God uses "ungodly" people or He doesn't. You can't have it both ways."

Only ONE Way = The BIBLE Way!:

2Ch 18:21 "And he said, I will go out, and be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets. And the LORD said, Thou shalt entice him, and thou shalt also prevail: go out, and do even so."
Fool: Ignore the gist of the statement and instead make up some irrelevant blather to misdirect the readers.
 

tanakh

Senior Member
Dec 1, 2015
4,570
1,002
113
74
The Old Testament in whatever Protestant Bible you care to mention is based on the deliberations of
70 Pharisees that comprised of the Sanhedrin in exile after the Jewish war. Their main objectives were to prevent 'heretical' writings from being added to the body of scripture they already approved of and to ensure that their interpretation of those scriptures were preserved and carried forward now that Jerusalem and the Temple were destroyed.

The heretical scriptures they had in mind included those found in our New Testament. They also had a problem with the book of Esther which has no direct mention of God. They included it only
because it was the centre of the hugely popular Jewish festival of Purim.

Up until that time there was no enforced recognition of which Hebrew writing was 'the word of God'
and which wasn't. The only exception being that of the Sadducees who only accepted the books of
Moses as inspired. The Sadducees were believed to have disappeared along with the Temple but when I read some posts here I have my doubts. Because there was no accepted cannon of scripture
among most of the Jewish population people read many books and were taught by various
Rabbi's. That's why for example we have a quotation from the book of Enoch in Jude.

God is not restricted as to what body of text He decides to use for reaching people so why try to
follow the Pharisees and Sadducees in 2021?
 

awelight

Active member
Aug 10, 2020
850
242
43
66
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?


Precious friend(s), instead of All of the Mass Confusion, is not
God's Simple Will Much Better?
How do we get into this kind of question? If it comes from a "babe in Christ", then it would be legitimate - much still to learn BUT when it comes from someone trying to defend the KJV - as if it were a "God breathed" translation - what then can you say?

ONLY the ORIGINAL Autographs were inspired by God. None of the copies and certainly no translation. Each translation has something to offer. Good and bad.

However having said that, most of the translations that have come after the time of the NIV are more commentary than they are translation. Let's take a look at the "One New Man Bible" as an example:

1 Cor. 12:27 And you are the body of Messiah and members individually. What's wrong with this translation? Primarily the use of the word "Messiah", when the Greek text clearly has the word for "Christ". Why did the translator change it? Not just in this verse but throughout the translation. One might argue that in the study of Christology, the use of the name Messiah and Christ are the same person. However the job of a translator is to translate and not give personal interpretations.

Let's look at an even more horrible example of translation in this so-called bible.

1 Cor. 13:10 but when the perfect state that is to be ushered in by the return of Messiah, would come, what is in part will be set aside.

The actual Greek text should be translated as such:

1 Cor. 13:10 But when that which is complete has come, that which is in part shall be abolished.

There are no Greek words for things like state or to be ushered in by the return of Messiah. This is no translation. It is an interpretation masquerading as a translation.

The best thing students of Scripture can do for themselves is learn the original languages and then check out the translations for themselves.
 

Evmur

Well-known member
Feb 28, 2021
1,698
1,027
113
London
I haven't read all of this thread, but I wonder if the language used by Jesus when teaching the folks of His day has been mentioned.

Did He not speak in the language of the ordinary person (as opposed to the language of 17th Century England?
If I had no other bible to read but NIV I would read it daily as I have for many years ... with many a tut no doubt. Yes if the KJ is really too hard for folks to understand they must find a bible they can .
 

Truth7t7

Well-known member
May 19, 2020
7,708
2,496
113
The Old Testament in whatever Protestant Bible you care to mention is based on the deliberations of
70 Pharisees that comprised of the Sanhedrin in exile after the Jewish war. Their main objectives were to prevent 'heretical' writings from being added to the body of scripture they already approved of and to ensure that their interpretation of those scriptures were preserved and carried forward now that Jerusalem and the Temple were destroyed.

The heretical scriptures they had in mind included those found in our New Testament. They also had a problem with the book of Esther which has no direct mention of God. They included it only
because it was the centre of the hugely popular Jewish festival of Purim.

Up until that time there was no enforced recognition of which Hebrew writing was 'the word of God'
and which wasn't. The only exception being that of the Sadducees who only accepted the books of
Moses as inspired. The Sadducees were believed to have disappeared along with the Temple but when I read some posts here I have my doubts. Because there was no accepted cannon of scripture
among most of the Jewish population people read many books and were taught by various
Rabbi's. That's why for example we have a quotation from the book of Enoch in Jude.

God is not restricted as to what body of text He decides to use for reaching people so why try to
follow the Pharisees and Sadducees in 2021?
No problem,Judaism hassett aside theTorah for the for the (Talmud) and (Kabbalah) both evil books per my study.
 
Mar 23, 2021
41
26
18
If I had no other bible to read but NIV I would read it daily as I have for many years ... with many a tut no doubt. Yes if the KJ is really too hard for folks to understand they must find a bible they can .
It's not so much that it is hard to understand; it's just not the way people speak today. The Word of God is for all ages, both sexes, all positions in society, all kinds of intellect etc.

I work with the young and the deprived and I can assure you that the KJV just doesn't get the Word (or the word) across at all.

Jesus spoke the language of the people. Let's follow Jesus.
 

John146

Senior Member
Jan 13, 2016
12,918
2,660
113
It's not so much that it is hard to understand; it's just not the way people speak today. The Word of God is for all ages, both sexes, all positions in society, all kinds of intellect etc.

I work with the young and the deprived and I can assure you that the KJV just doesn't get the Word (or the word) across at all.

Jesus spoke the language of the people. Let's follow Jesus.
Did Jesus speak truth? The issue is far deeper than language.
 

John146

Senior Member
Jan 13, 2016
12,918
2,660
113
ONLY the ORIGINAL Autographs were inspired by God.
The “original” Ten Commandments were shattered by Moses. A copy was made. That copy was inspired by God.

The ”original” book of Jeremiah was cut and burned. Jeremiah wrote another copy and added to it. The copy was inspired by God.
 

Evmur

Well-known member
Feb 28, 2021
1,698
1,027
113
London
Did Jesus speak truth? The issue is far deeper than language.
Yes that's what we try to explain, one little word here or changed there can completely alter the meaning of a sentence.
 

Truth7t7

Well-known member
May 19, 2020
7,708
2,496
113
If I had no other bible to read but NIV I would read it daily as I have for many years ... with many a tut no doubt. Yes if the KJ is really too hard for folks to understand they must find a bible they can .
Truth is, the NIV isnt the Holy Bible, but a Counterfeit of Gods truth

If a US dollar bill is printed in orange ink, is it original or counterfeit :giggle:

Try finding Matthew 17:21, Matthew 18:11, Acts 8:37, Romans 16:24 in the NIV, the verses are (Removed)

The NIV is a counterfeit of Gods Truth
 

Dino246

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2015
19,316
10,612
113
The “original” Ten Commandments were shattered by Moses. A copy was made. That copy was inspired by God.

The ”original” book of Jeremiah was cut and burned. Jeremiah wrote another copy and added to it. The copy was inspired by God.
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.
 

Dino246

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2015
19,316
10,612
113
Truth is,the NIV isnt the Holy Bible, but a Counterfeit if Gods truth

If a US dollar bill is printed in orange ink, is it original or counterfeit :giggle:

Try finding Matthew 17:21, Matthew 18:11, Acts 8:37, Romans 16:24 in the NIV, the verses are (Removed)

The NIV is a counterfeit of Gods Truth
False.

One does not rightly determine which verses belong in Scripture by assuming that one translation is correct and comparing others to it.
 

Evmur

Well-known member
Feb 28, 2021
1,698
1,027
113
London
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.
Why do you believe the originals were not scrupulously copied or that the Holy Spirit did not have complete oversight of the work?
 

Truth7t7

Well-known member
May 19, 2020
7,708
2,496
113
It's not so much that it is hard to understand; it's just not the way people speak today. The Word of God is for all ages, both sexes, all positions in society, all kinds of intellect etc.

I work with the young and the deprived and I can assure you that the KJV just doesn't get the Word (or the word) across at all.

Jesus spoke the language of the people. Let's follow Jesus.
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.
 

Truth7t7

Well-known member
May 19, 2020
7,708
2,496
113
Why do you believe the originals were not scrupulously copied or that the Holy Spirit did not have complete oversight of the work?
Divine Preservation.

Try finding Matthew 17:21, Matthew 18:11, Acts 8:37, Romans 16:24 in the NIV, the verses are (Removed)

The NIV is a counterfeit of Gods Truth

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.
 

Truth7t7

Well-known member
May 19, 2020
7,708
2,496
113
False.

One does not rightly determine which verses belong in Scripture by assuming that one translation is correct and comparing others to it.
You must be ignorant to think the verses below were added to the Uncial-Byzantine Text Type, and used for 1,000 years+,only to find out that Tischendorff in 1844 discovered Sinaticus that proved Gods words were wrong all along

Leave it to the (Alexandrian Text) Sinaticus from the philosophical schools of heretics Origen and Arius in Alexandria Egypt, the 1% minority of manuscript evidence

Try finding Matthew 17:21, Matthew 18:11, Acts 8:37, Romans 16:24 in the NIV, the verses are (Removed)

The NIV is a counterfeit of Gods Truth