WHICH Bible "version" Is Authorized By God?

Yes. He's down to his usual silly tricks. I wonder if anyone (other than him) is convinced by such playground "logic".

Sadly there are a few who do I am sure

I like the word ' Charity ' .

Since you have asked for evidence, I will present the evidence from the textual scholar who actually collated all the Gospels and compared the difference between the Received Text (the standard basis of comparison) and the manuscripts promoted as “the best” by critics since the time of Westcott & Hort.

So I am quoting directly from The Revision Revised by John William Burgon, which spells out everything. It should be noted that the following symbols are used for the manuscripts in question: Aleph = Codex Sinaiticus, A = Codex Alexandrinus, B = Codex Vaticanus, C = Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus, D = Codex Bezae. It should also be noted that textual corruption means (1) omissions, (2) additions, (3) transpositions, (4) substitutions, and (5) modifications.

1. THE FOUNDATION OF SOUND TEXTUAL CRITICISM IS PRESENTED
In Textual Criticism then, “rough comparison” can seldom, if ever, be of any real use. On the other hand, the exact Collation of documents whether ancient or modern with the received Text, is the necessary foundation of all scientific Criticism. I employ that Text,—(as Mill, Bentley, Wetstein; Griesbach, Matthæi, Scholz; Tischendorf, Tregelles, Scrivener, employed it before me,)—not as a criterion of Excellence, but as a standard of Comparison. (page xxv)

We deem it even axiomatic, that, in every case of doubt or difficulty supposed or real—our critical method must be the same: namely, after patiently collecting all the available evidence, then, without partiality or prejudice, to adjudicate between the conflicting authorities, and loyally to accept that verdict for which there is clearly the preponderating evidence. The best supported Reading, in other words, must always be held to be the true Reading: and nothing may be rejected from the commonly received Text, except on evidence which shall clearly outweigh the evidence for retaining it. (pp 20,21)

2. THE COMBINED VERDICT OF ALL DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE IS REQUIRED
The method I persistently advocate in every case of a supposed doubtful Reading, (I say it for the last time, and request that I may be no more misrepresented,) is, that an appeal shall be unreservedly made to Catholic Antiquity; and that the combined verdict of Manuscripts [copies], Versions [translations], Fathers [patristic quotations], shall be regarded as decisive. (p xxviii)...[Also] To specify one single consideration, which has never yet attracted nearly the amount of attention it deserves,—“Lectionaries” abound, which establish the Text which has been publicly read in the churches of the East, from at least A.D. 400 until the time of the invention of printing. (p 37)

Happily, our MANUSCRIPTS are numerous: most of them are in the main trustworthy: all of them represent far older documents than themselves. Our VERSIONS (two of which are more ancient by a couple of centuries than any sacred codex extant) severally correct and check one another. Lastly, in the writings of a host of FATHERS,—the principal being Eusebius, Athanasius, Basil, the Gregories, Didymus, Epiphanius, Chrysostom, the Cyrils, Theodoret,—we are provided with contemporaneous evidence which, whenever it can be had, becomes an effectual safeguard against the unsupported decrees of our oldest codices, Aleph A B C D, as well as the occasional vagaries of the Versions. In the writings of Irenæus, Clemens Alex., Origen, Dionysius Alex., Hippolytus, we meet with older evidence still. No more precarious foundation for a reading, in fact, can be named, than the unsupported advocacy of a single Manuscript, or Version, or Father; or even of two or three of these combined. (p 19)

3. THE CORRUPTIONS OF THE MINORITY TEXT ARE MANY
We speak of codices B or Aleph or D; the IXth-century codex L, and such cursivesas 13 or 33; a few copies of the old Latin and one of the Egyptian versions (p 20). Yet do they stand asunder in every page; as well as differ widely from the commonly received Text, with which they have been carefully collated. On being referred to this standard, in the Gospels alone, B is found to omit at least 2877 words: to add, 536: to substitute, 935: to transpose, 2098: to modify, 1132 (in all 7578):—the corresponding figures for Aleph being severally 3455, 839, 1114, 2299, 1265 (in all 8972). And be it remembered that the omissions, additions, substitutions, transpositions, and modifications, are by no means the same in both. It is in fact easier to find two consecutive verses in which these two MSS. differ the one from the other, than two consecutive verses in which they entirely agree. But by far the most depraved text is that exhibited by codex D. “No known manuscript contains so many bold and extensive interpolations. Its variations from the sacred Text are beyond all other example.” (p 13)...the deflections from the Received Text thus amounting in all to 13,281 (p 14).

What we are just now insisting upon is only the depraved text of codices Aleph A B C D,—especially of Aleph B D. And because this is a matter which lies at the root of the whole controversy, and because we cannot afford that there shall exist in our reader's mind the slightest doubt on this part of the subject, we shall be constrained once and again to trouble him with detailed specimens of the contents of B, &c., in proof of the justice of what we have been alleging. We venture to assure him, without a particle of hesitation, that Aleph B D are three of the most scandalously corrupt copies extant:—exhibit the most shamefully mutilated texts which are anywhere to be met with:—have become, by whatever process (for their history is wholly unknown), the depositories of the largest amount of fabricated readings, ancient blunders, and intentional perversions of Truth,—which are discoverable in any known copies of the Word of GOD. (p 16)

4. CODEX SINAITICUS (ALEPH) IS THE MOST UNTRUSTWORTHY
—Next to D, the most untrustworthy codex is Aleph, which bears on its front a memorable note of the evil repute under which it has always laboured: viz. it is found that at least ten revisers between the IVth and the XIIth centuries busied themselves with the task of correcting its many and extraordinary perversions of the truth of Scripture. (p 14)

5. THE OLDEST MANUSCRIPTS ARE THE MOST CORRUPT NOT "THE BEST"
Quoting Scrivener: “It is no less true to fact than paradoxical in sound,” writes the most learned of the Revisionist body [Scrivener], “that the worst corruptions, to which the New Testament has ever been subjected, originated within a hundred years after it was composed: that Irenæus [A.D. 150] and the African Fathers, and the whole Western, with a portion of the Syrian Church, used far inferior manuscripts to those employed by Stunica, or Erasmus, or Stephens thirteen centuries later, when moulding the Textus Receptus.” (pp 30, 31)

6. WESTCOTT & HORT USED DECEPTION IN ALTERING THE BIBLE
But instead of all this, a Revision of the English Authorised Version having been sanctioned by the Convocation of the Southern Province in 1871, the opportunity was eagerly snatched at by two irresponsible scholars of the University of Cambridge for obtaining the general sanction of the Revising body, and thus indirectly of Convocation, for a private venture of their own,—their own privately devised Revision of the Greek Text. On that Greek Text of theirs, (which I hold to be the most depraved which has ever appeared in print), with some slight modifications, our Authorised English Version has been silently revised: silently, I say, for in the margin of the English no record is preserved of the underlying Textual changes which have been introduced by the Revisionists. (p. xxx)

So, basically, you use the term "corrupt" because that is what Burgon used.

I challenge both the validity of the term and the method used to determine where it is applied. Burgon (and apparently others) compared other texts to the Majority text, assuming without warrant that the Majority text is correct. Where there are differences, they are called, generally, "corruptions", implying nefarious intent rather than the far more likely simple error or other cause.

I'm sure that you and others will keep using the highly biased term, "corrupt", but I don't think for a second that it is achieving anything other than a poisoning of the well. I would rather examine the evidence... without prejudice.

There is that phrase "word for word" translation again. The interlinear is about the closest you can get to a "word for word" translation. Not the KJV.

The KJV used many different English words for the same Greek word. Why? They are trying to retain the Greek meaning and therefore it is necessary that they NOT translate word for word or it will not mean what the Greek means.

it seems as if we’re meant to hear what the scriptures said believe and then make that. Determination of what is meant by all Of the surrounding context

I notice the amplified does what you are saying and when you examine the scripture in a different Bible the amplified has it very wrong in my own opinion also , and this leads a person a bit on the wrong direction as to what’s actually being said it alters understanding when interpretation gets off course from other scripture

The question is (What Original Hebrew/Greek Manuscripts)?

The Greek Text Used By new bible versions is (Novum Testamentum Graece) created by Adulterers Kurt And Barbara Aland, and homosexual Union supporter (Carlo Maria Martini)

Kurt Aland divorced his wife Ingrid, and ran off with his college student (Barbara Nee Ehlers) 22 years older, both of who created the greek texts mentioned above.

The new bible versions are supported by the (Hebrew Text) created by Rudolph Kittel in Germany

Wikipedia: Biblia Hebraica refers primarily to the three editions of the Hebrew Bible edited by Rudolf Kittel. BH1: 1906, BH2: 1913, BH3: 1937

The New Testament new bible version are supported by the

Wikipedia: Novum Testamentum Graece (The New Testament in Greek) is a critical edition of the New Testament in its original Koine Greek, forming the basis of most modern Bible translations and biblical criticism. It is also known as the Nestle-Aland edition after its most influential editors, Eberhard Nestle and Kurt Aland. The text, edited by the Institute for New Testament Textual Research, is currently in its 28th edition, abbreviated

NA28 UBS5, 2014
Barbara Aland, Kurt Aland, Johannes Karavidopoulos, Carlo Maria Martini, Bruce Metzger in co-operation with the Institute for New Testament Textual Research, Münster

You think this is all subjective? Burgon has provided OBJECTIVE evidence. If you started messing around with the Bible, removing words and passages, adding words at will, substituting at will, that would not be corruption??? Would Christians commend you for your originality? Don't try to gaslight Burgon, since he actually examined THE EVIDENCE (which you were looking for).

This is just like the corrupt Supreme Court which simply ignored the evidence for election fraud because it did not suit them. You elect to ignore the evidence because the fraud of Westcott & Hort suits you.

Yep, the best example for your point is the difference between Testament and Covenant, which came from the same greek word.

The same greek word can have multiple different meanings depending on the context.

https://forwhatsaiththescriptures.org/2015/06/10/able-ministers-of-the-new-testament/

This is another reason why some people prefer not to use KJV, those that want the Body of Christ to be under the New Covenant too.

Objective? Since when is assuming the accuracy of the "received text" objective? Nobody is trying to "gaslight" (wrong term, but anyway) anyone. I simply called the prejudice what it is.

If people did intentionally "mess around" with the Bible, then yes, it would be "corruption". If, on the other hand, the differences are due to scribal error, which is likely in most cases, and we don't know with certainty which is the original, then "corruption" is a poor term because it prejudices the investigation. Given the extant evidence, it is just as likely (more so, in my opinon) that the "received text" is rife with additions than that the minority text suffers from deletions.

Modern translators do their (considerable) best to determine which are the original texts, by examining ALL the available evidence which, by the way, is a much larger set than what Burgon could access. Assuming from the outset that they are starting with evil motivations, or are giving inappropriate weight to questionable sources, is just being closed-minded.

I really don't care about the American Supreme Court, because I'm not an American. As for Westcott and Hort, I certainly wouldn't take biased information from you to make any judgment.

I think it is not so that one translation is the right one. The first language the Lord used to speak to His people was an ancient version of Hebrew. No language can be absolutely accurately translated into any other language, and this is especially true of ancient Hebrew.

In the New Testament, when many of the first writings were in Greek, they still were written by men whose first language and studies about the Lord were in Hebrew, first.

It was brought home to me how inadequate translations are when I was a preteen listening to my aunts laughing over things spoken in Norwegian. When they translated for me, it wasn't funny at all in English and the group's fun was gone.

Good point about Norwegian joke translated to English. I am not sure how many of the New Testament authors knew Hebrew. What I keep reading is that most Jews in the first century did not know Hebrew which is why they had translated the scriptures into Greek and the LXX was the translation used in the synagogues and quoted by Christ and his disciples.

The scholars at the time of Christ read scripture from the scrolls, they were almost all written in Hebrew. Paul graduated from the highest ranking school at that time.

By Conducting a Study and Evaluating the difference between the word count of version's, and When having Read The original Language The Bible Was Written in, you're looking for a translation into a language that emphasizes the literal meaning of the original compared to the translation.

The greek septuigent, and the latin original work'S are The Closest in English Translation To The Original King Jane's Version.

In Fact, All other version's have been intentionally mistranslated and do not serve as God's Word ommitting almost 30% of the Scripture, and altering the text in a manner that deliberately change's the meaning of The Original Septuigent.

For Instance, in the Original Septuigent, Jesus is NOT reffered to as the morning star, as the Greek and latin discuss and would NOT be the same word used in greek to refer to Jesus, as the morning star. Therefore, The English Translations that refer to Jesus As The morning star are false.


The King Jane's Version is The Only Actual Bible.

I heard the lawns are greener in the lower elevations.

Well, if going by your (cough cough) logic, then we can assume that the KJ is also not profitable because the scripture does not say the KJ is inspired of God

You are going in circles in your desperation to venerate the KJ and the ruts are getting pretty deep

I think you have reached a new silly low in this latest attempt however.

Freudian slip ?

I'm curious about something though Mr Anon.

Why do you say it is personal when you were saved? I have never heard anyone say or think that ever. Do explain if you might

King Jimmy was most likely a homosexual who eschewed his actual wife and had close (very close apparently) relationships with at least 3 men.