WHICH Bible "version" Is Authorized By God?

It's your right to use the translation/s you like.

Where does this leave us though?

Should staunch KJVO believers be given a free hand (or mouth) to keep branding those of us who prefer other Bibles as "CORRUPT"?
Do we sit back and allow them to call our Bibles "Satanic"?

We can allow them their KJV exclusive churches were some like myself will never set foot.
If they consider every pastor who reads from an NIV as preaching from a "Satanic" bible they aren't likely to venture into a freer environment.

Where can all this lead other than another sect?
It's not healthy for the church.

A other dumb thing to say! Tyndall and the KJV committee all knew that you can't translate word for word from Greek to English. In some places, King James required a direct word for word, and you end up with things like "heap coals of burning fire," instead of "heap burning coals." Romans 12:20

Anyway, don't make stupid statements about things you have never studied and know nothing about. Anyone who says the KJV is "word for word" has never studied Greek!

Lol, hell gets a lot cooler in the modern versions...

Thankfully, we do not need a word for word translation into English for it to be the very words of God for us who speak English.

This is total nonsense. If you spoke any other language, you would know that you cannot translate word for word, ever! My Greek teacher, Bill Mounce, who has been on most of the modern Translation committees, and written many commentaries, used to scoff and people who say this.

Even translating modern languages m, you cant do word fir word. For example, in French (which I am fluent in!) la maison Blanche translates directly into English:

La maison blanche.
The house white.

That is bad English, because we say:

The white house. That is proper English. Further, the fact that maison is feminine in French is untranslatable to English. Same with genders in both Hebrew and Greek!

Hebrew has issues with verbs, plus it doesn't just have singular and plural, but dual verbs. There is no way dual verbs can ever be directly translated, without adding words. Plus their verb system is very different than in English. They start with a 3 letter root word, made of three consonants. The basic form is Qual, then Piel and a bunch of other forms we do not have. You can't directly translate a Hebrew verb to English.

Greek is much worse. They have noun and adjective cases.
Nominative
Genitive
Dative
Accusative
Vocative (rare, found 9 times in the NT.)

Plus, Greek nouns have three genders, masculine, feminine and neuter. Plus singular and plural. So, most words have 4 cases x 3 genders x 2 numbers. So that is 24 different spelling differences, which vary at the end of the word, and sometimes the consonant, although some words are repeated! The genitive plural for "the" uses " tone" for each plural gender. I believe there are 17 different forms of "the" in Greek, as some are used twice, too.

The position of the word in English in the sentence determines whether it is the nominative -subject, or predicate, (unless it is a predicate nominative). The direct object in English is the accusative in Greek, the Dative the indirect object, and Genitive is used for possession. Greek would translate "the friend of his". We would likely say, "his friend." Or "the boy's father", with the apostrophe showing possession

In Greek, the most important thing in the sentence is thrown forward. So, the direct object could be the first part of the sentence, with article and descriptive adjectives agreeing in gender, case and number. The subject might end the sentence in Greek, and it is determined by the endings on the words, like other cases. If a Greek sentence is in some kind of reversed or different word order, in English, you would have a sentence that made no sense in English if you didn't reorder the sentence, plus move around the adjectives adverbs etc. It simply is not possible to keep the same order from Greek to English. German is much better, because it has cases and 3 genders, too. But it is a bit watered down and less forms than Greek.

Anyway, don't make stupid statements about things you have never studied and know nothing about. Anyone who says the KJV is "word for word" has never studied Greek! And I didn't get into the huge differences in verbs. Verbs are about time in English, the are about aspect in Greek. And so much more!

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.

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

I am not sure what your point is here.

The Ten Commandments were replaced by the original author - God. Jeremiah replaced his own work.

Do you believe copies are inspired? If yes... then you believe each person, whoever copied a text of Scripture, was totally inerrant. Comparing copies side by side has proven this is not the case. These copies have been amazingly kept in the providence of God but they were not inspired.

Not one single original autograph of the New Testament exists today. All we have are copies.

When comparing copies - which is called variant reading - decisions have to be made, by men, on which verses are legitimate and which are not. This is primarily done on the basis of majority rule. That is to say, if the majority of the copies contain a particular sentence (verse) it is considered legitimate. If only a few copies contain this sentence, it is usually rejected. However, if the sentence is found again and again in older copies, though they maybe in the minority, the sentence maybe deemed legitimate. The process is more complicated than this but you get the idea.

There are over 5,800 complete copies are fragments of the New Testament, in the Greek language, in existence today. Comparing each sentence across all of the source material is a huge task.

The KJV, is a translation that comes from the source material called "The Textus Receptus" or "Received Text". In 1611, the amount of copies available were limited compared to the number that has been found more recently. Many of these more recent finds are much older copies than those in the Textus Receptus. Therefore, a few of the sentences included in the KJV have been dropped because the older copies did not include those sentences.

Many of the translations we have today - such as - the New American Standard Bible, the Revised Standard Version and the New International Version and many others, are based upon the variant readings of these older copies and extensive comparisons which culminated into what is called, "The Nestle Greek Text" This text is considered to be far more accurate than the "Received Text" because of the use of the far older copies.

It is possible to purchase Biblical works on variant readings, then you can check it out for yourself. The RSV Bible often times includes footnotes on controversial verses.

The bottom line is --- none of these variant readings, errors in the copies, do any real harm to the message of God for His people. The Word of God has been remarkably preserved throughout the centuries.

My point is, we should not put more emphasis on the originals than God. If God thought the "originals" were so valuable, God would have made sure they survived.

Not to belabor the point but I would have to disagree.

I would love to have access to the originals. Having that access would allow one to get even closer to the Truth. How grand it would be if we had access to the original Ten Commandments, Aaron's rod or the Ark of the Covenant. But this was not in God's plan. The originals are far more important than any copy but perhaps God did not want the originals to survive (are at least be known today) because it is a matter of faith.

Try finding Matthew 17:21, 18:11, Romans 16:24, Acts 8:37 in the NIV, they are removed, why?

Because the new translations are backed by the corrupt 1% minority of manuscript evidence in the (Alexandrian Text Type)

The KJV is supported by the (Textus Receptus)

NIV, NASB, ESV, RSV, On and On used the Nestle/Aland (Novum Testamentum Graece) Greek Text, created by Adulterers Kurt Aland And His College Student That he married after divorcing his wife (Barbara Nee Ehlers), dont forget Roman Catholic Jesuit Cardinal, homosexual union supporter (Carlo Maria Martini)

The New Versions Are A Work Of Adulterous Corruption, Kept Silent.

I haven't read all of your posts but you strike me as a KJV worshipper. Very dangerous to set any translation up to be worshiped. I have been translating the Greek New Testament for decades and believe you me the KJV is a good translation but not worthy of worship.

The KJV does a TERRIBLE job of handling the "Perfect" tense verbs of the Greek. I do mean TERRIBLE.
And what is with the word "Easter" being translated for the Greek word "pascha" in Acts 12:4? The Greek word "pascha" is always translated "Passover" throughout Scripture.

Not to belabor the point but I would have to disagree.

I would love to have access to the originals. Having that access would allow one to get even closer to the Truth. How grand it would be if we had access to the original Ten Commandments, Aaron's rod or the Ark of the Covenant. But this was not in God's plan. The originals are far more important than any copy but perhaps God did not want the originals to survive (are at least be known today) because it is a matter of faith.

That was in the denomination statement of beliefs, maybe 10 years ago. However I googled it and they produced a new statement of faith in 2014, and they left out the heretic part. Apparently they are writing a whole new statement, eschatology is finished, but they will release it all together.

I was always taught that there were 4 different end times scenarios, and they were all Biblical. In other words, don't put down another viewpoint, it could also end up being the truth.

I know what I believe, and I will discuss it. But in the end, I have to accept the other 3 end times views, as valid, even if I don't agree with them.

I find less and less discussion about WOF. Maybe many have abandoned it because it doesn't work? I don't much like Bethel, either. And they are very dogmatic about healing, if you have enough faith, including raising the dead, which has caused them real issues in the past. A 2 year old in the church died. The whole church was praying she would be resurrected, and the elders would not let the family bury her. In the end, they did give up. That smacks of WOF to me.

Kenneth Copeland has endorsed Bill Johnson.

Isn't Copeland the main "guardian" of the WOF movement now?

A other dumb thing to say! Tyndall and the KJV committee all knew that you can't translate word for word from Greek to English. In some places, King James required a direct word for word, and you end up with things like "heap coals of burning fire," instead of "heap burning coals." Romans 12:20