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.

Lucy-Pevensie

Senior Member
Dec 20, 2017
5,267
3,419
113
Apocrypha, what does this mean to you? For marginal notes of 1611 were to show that the KJV translators were in full awareness of the other reading aside from the TR, however, they used it what they did knew were the best text that agrees with the majority text. The rule is to keep not any notes as much as possible and they were there only to clarify Heb or Greek for the other reading.
You don't have to make excuses to me for the KJV. I'm not complaining about it.

I was highlighting these changes to John due to the smears he and some others make repeatedly about all the modern translations.
"corrupt Bibles" Blah Blah Blah. :devilish:


We are not entitled to any revisions or language updates.
My point is simply that the same standards must be met in the version they claim is perfect.
Or they are hypocrites.
And it fails to meet those standards.
 
Mar 14, 2011
75,590
17,288
113
Why do you continually assert negative characteristics to modern translators? Are you even certain that the same individuals were involved? If not, why do you call it "confusion" instead of accepting it as a revision?
i assume you are talking to Johnny? He will any excuse he can think of to continue in his king jimmy only cult
 
Mar 14, 2011
75,590
17,288
113
Revelation 1:12 And I turned to see the voice that spake with me. And being turned, I saw seven golden candlesticks;

The NIV has Lampstands, the KJV has candlesticks. Which one is telling the truth the NIV or the KJV?
If one truly looks at it, the English language alone is a flawed language, attempting to create a word for word translation is actually impossible from the greek to English, because of the differences in language and available words.

the Greek is mor complex, example multiple words for love, all with different meaning

the English is more open, ie only 1 word for love. Hence it is the only word which can be used to translate 4 different words, which in itself makes a translational issue,

in order to properly translate you need an expanded translation. But every time someone tries, they are mocked.
 

Lucy-Pevensie

Senior Member
Dec 20, 2017
5,267
3,419
113
We should note that until the coming of Christ there was only one Tanakh (Hebrew Bible). And since 1611 AD, the primary English translation was the Authorized Version, which was specifically designed to supersede all other English translations (which is exactly what happened).

As to modern versions, if you start with a corrupted root, you end up with corrupted fruit. But some people hoard the rotten apples, and throw away the good ones.
Very interesting, and ironic, is it not?:

NIV: Unlike so many, we do not peddle the word of God for profit. On the contrary, in Christ we speak before God with sincerity, as those sent from God.

My understanding is that this version is the most popular in denominations today. Plus,
Rupert Murdoch is the owner of Zondervan Publishing who prints the NIV. He then receives
$1 from every sale, And he also owns a pornography Publishing establishment.

Should not these denominations be fighting this, instead of supporting it?

Just wondering...
Has anyone ever been saved because people like you worked to tarnish the reputation of the Bible?
How many new believers might you have caused to stumble with these divisive smear tactics?
How much confusion and doubt have you caused?

I thank The Lord Jesus Christ that 35 years ago when I was a new Christian and I began read my NIV
that I neither heard of nor encountered a member of your strange, Onlyist movement.
I thank The Lord Jesus Christ that I was not deceived like you.
 

fredoheaven

Senior Member
Nov 17, 2015
3,270
751
113
You don't have to make excuses to me for the KJV. I'm not complaining about it.

I was highlighting these changes to John due to the smears he and some others make repeatedly about all the modern translations.
"corrupt Bibles" Blah Blah Blah. :devilish:


We are not entitled to any revisions or language updates.
My point is simply that the same standards must be met in the version they claim is perfect.
Or they are hypocrites.
And it fails to meet those standards.
Umm, texts are the same, only printing errors were corrected, a font change, and standardization of spelling, hence no revisions.
 

Truth7t7

Well-known member
May 19, 2020
7,708
2,495
113
The very idea that there is one special God authorized translation of the Bible is a distraction. The more time we spend arguing about the specific translation or word choice is wasted time that could be used to inspire non-believers toward God. When those who do not know God see Christians so animated on something that is such a non-issue as this just confirms what many think about us. Here is the plain and simple truth. EVERY translation is just that - a translation. EVERY mainstream group that translates the Bible try to do so with integrity and honesty. If you pick up ANY translation of the Bible you will be able to understand the message of salvation and God's plan for His people. You do notice I used the term 'mainstream' as there are fringe groups who create translations that remove whole sections of scripture. Folks that do that are apostates and those versions are flawed but for the mainstream versions - NIV, RSV, The Message, KJV, whatever - the message is consistent and each can be legitimately used to understand God and the way to salvation. Please spend your energy on something that is actually beneficial to the kingdom.
I disagree, the new bible versions are supported by the (Alexandrian Text Type) in the (Novum Testamentum Graece) created by (Adulters) Kurt Aland, Barbara Ehlers, and Homosexual Union Supporter and Roman Catholic Jesuit Cardinal (Carlo Maria Martini)

I'll stick with the KJV, and the 60 scholarly Christian men that translated it, take a look at their confession of faith, and qualifications uncompared in the link below.

KJV Director: Lancelot Andrewes

King James Bible Translators
 
Mar 14, 2011
75,590
17,288
113
I disagree, the new bible versions are supported by the (Alexandrian Text Type) in the (Novum Testamentum Graece) created by (Adulters) Kurt Aland, Barbara Ehlers, and Homosexual Union Supporter and Roman Catholic Jesuit Cardinal (Carlo Maria Martini)

I'll stick with the KJV, and the 60 scholarly Christian men that translated it, take a look at their confession of faith, and qualifications uncompared in the link below.

KJV Director: Lancelot Andrewes

King James Bible Translators
They are still men, Who had to make interpretational decisions based on what they had, And what they could use And also. As with any "man" had doctrinal biases.
 

Lucy-Pevensie

Senior Member
Dec 20, 2017
5,267
3,419
113
Umm, texts are the same, only printing errors were corrected, a font change, and standardization of spelling, hence no revisions.
This is the KJV 1611
Hardly anyone reads this version today. Least of all the indoctrinated Onlyists.


 

Truth7t7

Well-known member
May 19, 2020
7,708
2,495
113
They are still men, Who had to make interpretational decisions based on what they had, And what they could use And also. As with any "man" had doctrinal biases.
1. The KJV translators all signed confessions of faith in Jesus Christ

2. The KJV translators werent Adulterers, and homosexual union supporters

3. The KJV translators didnt use the corrupt 1% minority (Alexandrian Text) from the philosophical schools in Egypt, that were never historically used or received by the Church

4. The 54-60 KJV Translators were christian scholars, with uncomparable skills in the original languages

I'll stick with the KJV, and the 60 scholarly Christian men that translated it, take a look at their confession of faith, and qualifications uncompared in the link below.

KJV Translation Director: Lancelot Andrewes

King James Bible Translators
 
Mar 14, 2011
75,590
17,288
113
1. The KJV translators all signed confessions of faith in Jesus Christ

2. The KJV translators werent Adulterers, and homosexual union supporters

3. The KJV translators didnt use the corrupt 1% minority (Alexandrian Text) from the philosophical schools in Egypt, that were never historically used or received by the Church

4. The 54-60 KJV Translators were christian scholars, with incomparable skills in the original languages
Non of this proves that the KJV is a perfect text.

They are still human, With human biases, Trying to interpret a text from greek/latin and other sources into a text. This in itself would leave the possibility of errors. Of wherein we know there are quite a few.

The KJV is not inspired by God. It is an interpretation. Period.

To hold it above others is to worship the book. not the word
 

Truth7t7

Well-known member
May 19, 2020
7,708
2,495
113
This is the KJV 1611
Hardly anyone reads this version today. Least of all the indoctrinated Onlyists.


Get caught up, the 1611 was middle english, the 1769 revision is settled english

In 1611 the english language was still finding its form, try comparing William Tyndales work in the old english 1536, unreadable
 

Truth7t7

Well-known member
May 19, 2020
7,708
2,495
113
The KJV is not inspired by God. It is an interpretation. Period.

To hold it above others is to worship the book. not the word
Yes I hold confessing Christian men in the KJV translators, above Adulterers and homosexual union supporters that created the (Novum Testamentum Graece) that supports all modern translations

Your claim of worshipping the KJV translation is unfounded, a distraction from the presented truth.

God didnt use Adulterers and Homosexual Union Supporters to preserve his word, it's that simple
 
Mar 14, 2011
75,590
17,288
113
Yes I hold confessing Christian men in the KJV translators, above Adulterers and homosexual union supporters that created the (Novum Testamentum Graece) that supports all modern translations

Your claim of worshipping the KJV translation is unfounded, a distraction from the presented truth.

God didnt use Adulterers and Homosexual Union Supporters to preserve his word, it's that simple
It does not matter

The KJV is Still not perfect.

And yes, You are worshiping a bible. Deny it all you want. You saying one is perfect while the others are flawed. When your iown version, by the english language itself Is flawed in places.
 

John146

Senior Member
Jan 13, 2016
12,476
2,457
113
It does not matter

The KJV is Still not perfect.

And yes, You are worshiping a bible. Deny it all you want. You saying one is perfect while the others are flawed. When your iown version, by the english language itself Is flawed in places.
Did you accuse David of Bible worship? Did David believe the words of God were pure and perfect? God exalts His words above His name.
 

Roughsoul1991

Senior Member
Sep 17, 2016
6,695
3,288
113
Is what matters is not using the corrupt texts from the philosophical schools in (Alexandrian Egypt), where they changed Gods words

The new translations are supported by these corrupt Alexandrian texts, and people dont have clue
This is an assumption. Alexandrian txts are simply named due to location, not a certain philosophical school. Christians have been scattered far and wide.

The KJV translators used different Greek manuscripts as well that we're not perfect. Textual diversity. No manuscript before the KJV was written like the KJV, meaning they had to interpret and word it they saw necessary.
 

Dino246

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2015
18,571
10,318
113
3. The KJV translators didnt use the corrupt 1% minority (Alexandrian Text)
This shows your ignorance. For the NT, the KJV translators didn't use manuscripts at all; they used primarily Tyndale's translation, supplemented with the five Greek editions of the Catholic Erasmus, plus those of Stephanus and Beza.

Nobody has established that the Alexandrian text is "corrupt". You and other just keep repeating the bleating with no evidence... as though you've been brainwashed.

(Alexandrian Text) from the philosophical schools in Egypt, that were never historically used or received by the Church
Never? That's a silly claim, considering that the manuscripts exist in the first place.

Maybe you're playing on the term "textus receptus" which was an advertising slogan from 1632... 21 years AFTER the publication of the KJV.
 

fredoheaven

Senior Member
Nov 17, 2015
3,270
751
113
This is the KJV 1611
Hardly anyone reads this version today. Least of all the indoctrinated Onlyists.


Yes Ma'am, and this still not prove that KJV is revised. The fact is 'Apocrypha' were no longer available of today because it was not really a part of it. The KJV in its title page does not have this.

1616598100990.png

As a Summary:
1616598210187.png
 

Evmur

Well-known member
Feb 28, 2021
1,324
802
113
London
The KJV proves consistent and trustworthy, every time.
That is a fair statement

What I dislike intensely is the the new "dynamic interpretation" method interpreting what the translator was the thought in the original writer's mind instead of the KJV method of word for word.

This makes the new translations paraphrases rather than translations and I thoroughly disagree with some of what they think the writer meant.

I have found the Living bible to be an excellent [if sometimes crass] paraphrase.
 

Dino246

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2015
18,571
10,318
113
That is a fair statement

What I dislike intensely is the the new "dynamic interpretation" method interpreting what the translator was the thought in the original writer's mind instead of the KJV method of word for word.

This makes the new translations paraphrases rather than translations and I thoroughly disagree with some of what they think the writer meant.

I have found the Living bible to be an excellent [if sometimes crass] paraphrase.
It's fine to have an opinion regarding the approach to translation, but it's best when that opinion is informed by truth. The KJV is not a "word for word" translation; such is impossible when translating from Greek to English. The word order is very different, and there simply is not one English word for every Greek word in the NT. Take the English word, "love"; four Greek words are translated "love" (agapao, eros, phileo, and storge). Similarly, several Greek words are rendered "hell" in the KJV.

Idioms are another problematic example: try translating the English phrase, "it's raining cats and dogs" into any other language... especially one that is 1500-2000 years removed! A word-for-word translation would be almost incomprehensible.

I would encourage you to do some more homework on the subject.