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.

fredoheaven

Senior Member
Nov 17, 2015
3,395
770
113
It is a matter of history. The modern nation of Israel has worked very hard to restore Hebrew as their national language but even that is a much more contemporary Hebrew than was originally spoken.

God saw to it that the Hebrew was translated into common Greek so the people could understand the bible. The Septuagint is what most first century Jews would have been familiar hearing.

For the cause of Christ
Roger
Ok, thank you but that's really a big difference from what the Bible is saying or what Christ says of "every Jot and tittle...


Matthew 5:18

King James Version



18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
 

John146

Senior Member
Jan 13, 2016
12,917
2,660
113
No sound doctrine is based on a single verse.
How many times does God need to say something before we can determine if it’s sound doctrine or not?
 

fredoheaven

Senior Member
Nov 17, 2015
3,395
770
113
In the 1600's spirit and ghost were used differently that we use them today. When modern English hearers think of ghost we think of Casper the friendly ghost or ghost busters in the movies. We think of spirit as a supernatural entity a soul. It would have been the opposite back in the 1600's.

For the cause of Christ
Roger
Well, thanks again but the bible speaks as the same base on your example. The spirit is perhaps thought as of today's 'Casper' Matthew 14:26 - And when the disciples saw him walking on the sea, they were troubled, saying, It is a spirit; and they cried out for fear.
 

notuptome

Senior Member
May 17, 2013
15,050
2,527
113
Ok, thank you but that's really a big difference from what the Bible is saying or what Christ says of "every Jot and tittle...


Matthew 5:18

King James Version



18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
The KJV is only a translation. The translations are revised and changed as language evolves around the planet. The Jews took Gods ten laws and made them into 613 laws.

Mat 5:18 opens a whole discussion in and of itself. How does God preserve His word for us? Surely it is not the KJV.

For the cause of Christ
Roger
 

fredoheaven

Senior Member
Nov 17, 2015
3,395
770
113
I know for a fact they don't. You are tipping the scale of absurdity.
Well here's an example that multiple versions may bring confusion:

Ecclesiastes 8:10 (see what happen next to the wicked after death)

New International Version
Then too, I saw the wicked buried--those who used to come and go from the holy place and receive praise in the city where they did this. This too is meaningless.

New American Standard Bible
So then, I have seen the wicked buried, those who used to go in and out of the holy place, and they are soon forgotten in the city where they did such things. This too is futility.

Not only that, but I have seen the wicked approaching and entering the temple, and as they left the holy temple, they boasted in the city that they had done so. This also is an enigma.
 

fredoheaven

Senior Member
Nov 17, 2015
3,395
770
113
The KJV is only a translation. The translations are revised and changed as language evolves around the planet. The Jews took Gods ten laws and made them into 613 laws.

Mat 5:18 opens a whole discussion in and of itself. How does God preserve His word for us? Surely it is not the KJV.

For the cause of Christ
Roger
Ok, your argument now turns into translation into English. Hope we're through with your legendary Septuagint. The question is why not God preserve his words in the KJV? Any compelling reasons? Thanks
 

fredoheaven

Senior Member
Nov 17, 2015
3,395
770
113
When faced with an actual simple example of how different versions do in fact contain different truths, you still cannot admit it. Instead, you insult? That’s not like you.
Yea sir John nailed it. The facts is, their fact is fiction...
 

Nehemiah6

Senior Member
Jul 18, 2017
16,093
7,929
113
The Jews took Gods ten laws and made them into 613 laws.
A careful reading of the Law of Moses will confirm that the Jews had nothing to do with establishing those laws. It is God Himself (Christ) who gave Moses absolutely every law in Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. However, the Jews were unable to obey those laws in full and as written. Later on they violated the Law.
 

Dino246

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2015
19,310
10,610
113
Ok, your argument now turns into translation into English. Hope we're through with your legendary Septuagint. The question is why not God preserve his words in the KJV? Any compelling reasons? Thanks
The Septuagint is legendary? Wow. What other lies have your cult leaders told you about the real world outside the bubble?
 

John146

Senior Member
Jan 13, 2016
12,917
2,660
113
The Septuagint is legendary? Wow. What other lies have your cult leaders told you about the real world outside the bubble?
No such thing of a pre-Christian LXX that Jesus and the Apostles used.
 

Dino246

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2015
19,310
10,610
113
No such thing of a pre-Christian LXX that Jesus and the Apostles used.
Do your cult leaders ever let you outside to to breathe fresh air or see the sky?
 

notuptome

Senior Member
May 17, 2013
15,050
2,527
113
Ok, your argument now turns into translation into English. Hope we're through with your legendary Septuagint. The question is why not God preserve his words in the KJV? Any compelling reasons? Thanks
I never said Gods word was not preserved in the KJV. I only said it is not exclusive to the KJV.

Do you really suggest that cannot make Himself know in most English translations? What kind of scholarship would that entail?

For the cause of Christ
Roger
 

Evmur

Well-known member
Feb 28, 2021
1,654
1,021
113
London
Your point of view is wrong! You don't know any other language besides English. That means you haven't got a clue of the intricacies of translation. I speak French fluently. If I watch a French movie with English subtitles, I end up yelling at the screen because the translations are often miles from what was being said. I speak moderate German, not yet fluent, and the translational errors abound in the subtitles, too!

I also read Koine Greek and Biblical Hebrew. I can put the original languages next to any translation and point out the errors in the translations, including French. I subscribe to Bill Mounce's weekly program who features a different translation error every week being translated into English from Greek.

Until you learn another language, esp. the original ones, you have an opinion which is worth nothing. You have no experience, scholarship or understanding of other languages. So no, not even going to try to fathom how someone with no background or training in any language or translation could possibly add to this discussion.

Before God saved my father, my Dad would often talk about how word to word was impossible. He spoke Ukrainian, Russian and French. It took me a long time to make him understand why I trusted the Bible, when it could never be translated into any language word for word. And it was not KJV I trust. But any good functional equivalent or slightly dynamic modern Bible can be trusted, because the Holy Spirit ultimately is the guide. Not some Bible I don't understand the words or grammar!! I've read many modern translations, and they have all made me dig deep, trusting that the Holy Spirit is leading me.

If you take this view to it's logical [humanly speaking] position nobody could be saved if they were not expert in Arabic and greek.
Why must I accept your scholarship over the scholarship of those who translated the KJV?

Why [and I keep repeating myself over and again] do I prefer the translators of the KJV over the translators of the RSV, ASV and later translations? I prefer the translators of the KJV because I trust their theology. I do not trust the theology of Westcott and Hort and there is very good reason for not doing so.

I am not a KJV only ist. I actually read the ARV but only because I know the KJV well enough to spot the weakneses of the RVs. I LOVE the Living bible because it is in the Tynedale/KJV tradition theologically.

The International I shun.

I would read any bible if there was no KJV or ARV or Living bibles available and I do not blame anybody for a. finding the KJV difficult to understand [although I wish they would make the effort] b. if their understanding and devotion to God is bettered for reading modern translations.
 

Nehemiah6

Senior Member
Jul 18, 2017
16,093
7,929
113
I never said Gods word was not preserved in the KJV. I only said it is not exclusive to the KJV.
Yes. God's Word is presented in CORRUPTED form in the modern versions, but that does not make them acceptable.

Had Westcott & Hort done what they had been commissioned to do (and had a moral and legal obligation to do), they would not have corrupted the Bible and defrauded Christians. Today most of the scholars and critics are ADDICTED to Westcott & Hort (please see below). So you should study the history of modern Bible corruption to understand what has been going on.

The acceptance of the newer critical editions of the New Testament does not rest on factual data which can be objectively verified, but rather upon a prevailing consensus of critical thought. IT WILL BE THE PURPOSE OF THIS DISCUSSION TO SHOW THAT CONTEMPORARY CRITICAL TEXTS ARE, IN FACT, THE FRUIT OF A RATIONALISTIC APPROACH TO NEW TESTAMENT TEXTUAL CRITICISM. ... Modern textual criticism is psychologically ‘addicted’ to Westcott and Hort. Westcott and Hort, in turn, were rationalists in their approach to the textual problem in the New Testament and employed techniques within which rationalism and every other kind of bias are free to operate.

The result of it all is a methodological quagmire where objective controls on the conclusions of critics are nearly nonexistent. It goes without saying that no Bible-believing Christian who is willing to extend the implications of his faith to textual matters can have the slightest grounds for confidence in contemporary critical texts (Zane C. Hodges, “Rationalism and Contemporary New Testament Textual Criticism,” Bibliotheca Sacra, January 1971, pp. 27-35

What this means in plain English is that not a single modern bible translation (version) is acceptable to Bible-believing Christians.
 

Angela53510

Senior Member
Jan 24, 2011
11,457
2,638
113
I'll Ask Again?

Do you believe "practicing homosexuals" should be allowed membership in denominational churches, having equal access to leadership roles?

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.
 

Lucy-Pevensie

Senior Member
Dec 20, 2017
5,611
3,885
113
Well here's an example that multiple versions may bring confusion:

Ecclesiastes 8:10 (see what happen next to the wicked after death)

New International Version
Then too, I saw the wicked buried--those who used to come and go from the holy place and receive praise in the city where they did this. This too is meaningless.

New American Standard Bible
So then, I have seen the wicked buried, those who used to go in and out of the holy place, and they are soon forgotten in the city where they did such things. This too is futility.

Not only that, but I have seen the wicked approaching and entering the temple, and as they left the holy temple, they boasted in the city that they had done so. This also is an enigma.
The only reason to be confused is if your faith is weak.
Each example as always, has an explanation about variance in manuscripts. Which you have failed to read or acknowledge.


If your whole faith in the Bible wavers because you don't find absolute perfection in ancient manuscripts reading the KJV won't change that.
 

John146

Senior Member
Jan 13, 2016
12,917
2,660
113
Do your cult leaders ever let you outside to to breathe fresh air or see the sky?
Of course, the Lord Jesus Christ gives me air to breathe everyday.😀
 

John146

Senior Member
Jan 13, 2016
12,917
2,660
113
We are condemned by not believing in Christ, and then not obeying God.
Just curious, what do you mean by and...are you alluding to salvation is based upon faith plus works?
 

Evmur

Well-known member
Feb 28, 2021
1,654
1,021
113
London
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.
I would add this Westcott and Hort were high Anglican churchmen, that is they leaned to Roman Catholicism, they quite openly despised the evangelical wing of the Anglican church and they openly despised the KJV and they went about their work of revision with focussed passion ... but they knew they were treading on thin ice.

They knew the reverence with which the KJV was held [and rightly so] they knew they could not stray too far, what they did was in the old fashioned English way [I'm English I know what I'm talking] balancing words, weakening sentences and statements. They seem to be saying a certain thing until you look a little closer.

I'll gi' you an example
Hebrews 1. 3. KJV
Who [Christ] being the brightness of His glory and the express image of His Person ....
The RSV, ARV
He [Christ] reflects the glory of God and bears the very stamp of His nature ....

They seem to say the same thing, but being, BEING the brightness of God's glory is not the same as reflecting God's glory.

Christ glory in the KJV is His own glory and has the sense of radiating that glory, the glory of God. In the RSV Christ merely reflects Gods glory.

Being the express image of God also means something different to bearing the imprint or stamp of God's Person.

The express image of God means He is the visibility of the invisible God.

All you fine linguists and scholars out there .... you have to be English like ME to understand how you can say things while seeming to say the opposite.

Westcott and Hort were highly paid churchmen with massive reputation, if some of what they believed or what they did not believe were known they would have been shot down in flames. They believed in spiritualism and actually started what they called the Ghostly club. They were also firm advocates of Darwin and his evolutionary theory.

They thought the substitutionary sacrifice of Christ was Barbaric.
 

Dino246

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2015
19,310
10,610
113
Westcott and Hort ... believed in spiritualism and actually started what they called the Ghostly club.
According to the sources I have read, their involvement in "The Ghostlie Guild" predated their conversion to Christianity. That means it is irrelevant.