Which Version of the Bible is the Word of God?

How would this give us a 'more accurate understanding' of the autographs?Which criteria would you use?

BUMPEdited by Black, : editEdited by Black, : editEdited by Black, : restateEdited by Black, : editEdited by Black, : editEdited by Black, : editEdited by Black, : edit

I think the "reality" is that if you expect the "Truth" to be found in the different versions of scripture, you will see it. If you are looking for "problems" in the different versions, you will find those as well. The important difference between the two is that those looking for problems will find maybe 5 or 6 that seem significant and use those as a way to discredit the
Single-column, 1888 pages
in the Bible.I have a 6 version bible, around here somewhere, with 6 columns accross 2 pages. It never caused me any confusion.

quote:

---

Which Version of the Bible is the Word of God?

---

I believe the "Textus Receptus" NT Koin Greek with Masoretic OT Hebrew was the inspired word of God. Therefore in vulgar English I prefer the 1599 Geneva Bible and the King Jimmy Version.Edited by Separatist Puritan, : No reason given.Edited by Separatist Puritan, : No reason given.

---

-Separatist Puritan-"If ever there should come a wretched day when all our pulpits be full of modern thought, and the old doctrine of substitutionary sacrifice shall be exploded, then there will remain no word of comfort for the guilty or hope for the despairing." - C. H. SPURGEON

I'd like to bring some of this discussion back to the table. Mainly, posters identifying which version they are quoting from.The first thing that brought this topic to my mind was the KJV usage of unicorn in Numbers 23:22, 24:8, Deuteronomy 33:17, Job 39:9-12, Psalms 22:21, Psalms 29:6, Psalms 92:10, Isaiah 34:7, and every other version using ox or wild ox. Sure, it is a very minor difference, but it does tend to highlight some of the discrepancies in the many English versions of the bible. No, I do not mean how utterly wrong the bible itself is, just how it can be translated so differently in the same language.Member jaywill in Condemn gay marriage, or just gay rape? also made me think of this with his continual referral of MANY different versions of the bible, sometimes even finding a word in a verse that is only in some obscure version.So, while it may lead to "which version is the inspired word of god?", that isn't so much my rub as is the question "why do you choose one version over the other in a particular instance to suit your argument, then a different version for a different argument?".

---

"What can be asserted without proof, can be dismissed without proof."-Hitch.

Most of those are metaphors anyway, so "unicorn" or "ox" doesn't make much difference. If they are choosing the version which best suits that particular argument, then it looks a little sneaky. However, if they are just choosing the version that seems to be the easiest to read presentation of that particular part, then maybe it isn't sneaky.You know, and I know, that if we suspect the former they will say that it is the latter. And they probably even believe that.

There are several reasons I choose a particular version. For personal use it is really simple, I grew up using the KJV and love the poetic language and feel. Then as I learned more about its history I began to see the attempts in the KJV to avoid conflict and promote a peaceful society.During discussions and debates though I usually try to select a version that will help me communicate with the person I'm replying to while not obscuring the larger goal of reaching the whole audience. It sometimes means looking through several versions to find the one that uses language that I hope will resonate with the particular person I'm debating.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

I am beginning to wonder how it is even possible to discuss/debate the bible (or possibly ANY religious text) when the verbiage can be changed willy nilly and can be read just about any way imaginable. Not only that, but someone can interpret the bible in an obscure manner and who is to tell them they are actually wrong (sans a major change to what is written)?

---

"What can be asserted without proof, can be dismissed without proof."-Hitch.

Discussion is really only possible with people who are willing to discuss it as written. And that rules out most fundies.

---

Jesus was a liberal hippie

I dont think theres just one version of the Bible that is the word of God. God made the Bible for people of all nations, cultures and languages to read.

quote:

---

And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. Mark 16:15

---

quote:

---

Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Matthew 28:19

---

quote:

---

After this I beheld, and lo, a great multitude, which no man could number, of all nations, and kindreds, and people, and tongues, stood before the throne, and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, and palms in their hands. Revelation 7:9

---

As far as the English version is concerned, that there are many different unneccesary versions. I use a King James. Edited by Portillo, : No reason given.

quote:

---

I dont think theres just one version of the Bible that is the word of God. God made the Bible for people of all nations, cultures and languages to read.

---

So the early manuscripts of Mark that did not contain 16:9-20 was God's will?
Those readers did not need to know that the disciples were told to go into the known inhabited world to preach the gospel?The issue isn't really about which language, but about content. All Bibles don't carry the same number of books. What you seem to be saying is that God didn't need everyone to have the same information.

So you like the politically correct version created so that it would not overly offend Church of England members or the Roman Catholic Church and which was meant to support the Divine Right of Kings?

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

The King James translators were godly men and scholars who believed in the inerrancy and authority of Scripture. I dont care what the Catholic Church aka the whore of Babylon believes in.

You do realize that the King James translators were using faulty greek translations don't you.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

Which Version of the Bible is the Word of God?I say the most vindicated one is the most credible. Humanity has a big problem with Christianity and Islam: both are contradictory, in their most core doctrines as well as the same space-time in history they refer to. Both these non-original replacement theologies cannot possibly be equally right. One is 100% wrong, false and bad. It matters not which one: if the Gospels is seen as wrong, then Islam falls in the same stroke - because the Quran condones part of the Gospels.The next criteria would have to be whose laws are accepted and active today. Here, the Hebrew bible triumphs hands down: all its 613 laws are active and accepted by most of the world's institutions, while we find no laws accepted from the Gospels and Quran in any bona fide world institutions. In fact, those scriptures contain no laws whatsoever, and rely only on names.The other criterias of science, math, history also favour the Hebrew bible - its positations have never been overturned successfully; it has great maths with millions of numbers within its verses, without a single error. Its geopgraphy is also amazing, listing the first recording of mount Ararat and mount Nebo in their correct locations. Philosophically, there is no greater premise than Monotheism. Its laws turn the world today. Not bad!