Which edition of the Holy Bible is God's preserved

KJV

>compile a bunch of things that followers of God said at some point
>claim that these are the direct words of God himself
How is this not blasphemous?

>>2009086
Why not The Great Bible?
Or the Geneva?
Coverdale?
Tyndale?
Matthew's?
Hell the Puritan pilgrims preferred the Geneva against James' forced endorsement of the Church of England.

Which KJV, the 1611 original or the 1769?

>>2009170
Because even though the Bible may not be the actual words of God, it couldn't have been written, compiled, and translated without the approval of the Holy Spirit at every turn

>>2009205
Oh really? What about the textual variants?

>John Mill's 1707 Greek New Testament was estimated to contain some 30,000 variants in its accompanying textual apparatus[1] which was based on "nearly 100 [Greek] manuscripts."[2] Eberhard Nestle estimated this number in 1897 as 150,000–200,000 variants.[3] Bart D. Ehrman has estimated that there are "between 200,000–400,000 variants [in] several million pages of manuscripts,"[4] and in 2014 Eldon J. Epp raised the estimate as high as 750,000.[5] The most recent estimate puts the number of non-spelling variants among New Testament manuscripts around 500,000.[6]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Textual_variants_in_the_New_Testament

Which manuscript is the inspired one?

>>2009170
I don't think the Bible is the *direct* word of God, in most cases, as you're right, these texts are compiled.

But I also see that there are *multiple* promises that God will preserve his message (through the teachings divine inspired authors) in the inspired texts.

Friendly reminder that there is no "bible".

There are thousands of manuscripts of varying lengths, containing hundreds of thousands of textual variants.

>>2009239
If they're not approved by the Catholic Church, they're not legitimate

>>2009258
>If they're not approved by the Mormon Church, they're not legitimate
Nice reliance on mortal authority, anon. Who needs God when the church can approve all of my decisions for Him.

File: Pope_John_II.jpg (156KB, 720x960px) Image search: [Google]

156KB, 720x960px

>>2009258
Oh, case solved then!

>>2009272
Well Mormonism isn't Christianity, so I don't see your point

File: Kiss.jpg (37KB, 448x319px)

37KB, 448x319px

>>2009282
Pic related Catholic-approved books.

>>2009282
Why should I trust the authority of a council of men, whether they call themselves catholic or mormon, above God?

>>2009298
God established the Catholic Church when He appointed Peter as the Pope. Since He knew everything Peter and all his successors would do, all the actions and councils of the Catholic church are approved by God.

>>2009031
The KJV as written by Jesus 6000 years ago on his dinosaur.

>>2009313
What, then, do we make of the appointment of James as Bishop of Jerusalem, arguably a much more spiritually significant position than Rome whose importance to Christian history was only established much later?

>>2009205
That's great but can you actually provide a valid answer instead of being a meming fuck?

>>2009313
>Since He knew everything
Yeah, that worked out well with the Garden Eden and all.

>>2009313
>He appointed Peter as the Pope.
why do people STILL think this is true?
Peters Church has
NOTHING
O
T
H
I
N
G
to do with post-Constantinian Roman Catholicism

File: 20161127_160550.jpg (431KB, 1600x1200px) Image search: [Google]

431KB, 1600x1200px

>>2009191
1611

I use this one.

>>2009496
How do you explain the forward to the readers implies that if the 1611 translators had new historical finds at their disposal, they'd engage in textual criticism just like the moderns?

>>2009741
There's a good video online about the history of the bible, does a far better job of deconstructing bible history than I ever will, or reasons why 1611 kjv is a good translation.

https://youtu.be/UJNKI_79VuM

>>2009776
Starting now.
inb4:
>Byzantine text types are somehow "purer" than the Alexandrian
>Denial of Erasmus' desire to consult Vaticanus
>Allegation that Codex Sinaiticus is a hoax

>>2009239
>Which manuscript is the inspired one?

The fact that our oldest biblical manuscript is from 125 AD and only contains a couple of words makes the question a work for literal sciences.

The biblical text we have now is a compilation of those manuscripts and is the Basis for the believers of modern times, thus it's the inspired one.

>>2009031
The KJV is the infallible Word of God.

>>2009801
>>2009776
So far this appears to be a polemic against Catholicism instead of a discourse on the history of Biblical text transmissions.

>>2009819
see
>>2009191
>>2009741

>>2009031
If god wants to speak to you, don't you think he'll do it without using some long-dead cultist as an intermediary? Don't you think the worship of the bible is pretty close to a commandment infringement?

>>2009880
>he'll do it without using some long-dead cultist as an intermediary?
You mean like Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John?
Yeah, fuck it, who needs 'em?

>>2009835
go back to '''''''venerating''''''' mary

>>2009891
I'm emphatically not a Catholic.

But I started watching on the endorsement that it's about textual history of Biblical manuscripts, but what I got was an earful of the Whore of Babylon.

So far I haven't even heard a mention of the main text type traditions, who wrote them, the relationship between old and new manuscripts, how the papyri fit into later text compilations, or anything resembling what I asked for or the endorsement on the vid.

>>2009031
>God
>Word
God is interestingly humanlike. I wonder why.

>>2010026
the incarnation?

>>2010042
God seems very concerned and/or tied with humanity. I wonder why.

>>2010050
Because we're His creation in His image?

>>2010050
Because He created man in His own image?

>>2010056
>>2010059
God made one species out of millions on Earth in his image and it jus so happened to be us. I wonder why.

>>2009817
Again which compilation?

>ITT
>"Yea, hath God said?"

>>2010062
NO WONDERING!
This is the designated bi-daily christian schism thread, where the only acceptable posts are the ones mocking the other side, until that one bloke shows up with all those images of annotated bible Pdfs, and everyone leaves.

>>2009086
fpbp

>>2010290
But nobody here has explained why, in terms of text criticism and historical matters, the KJV is the best, or why newly discovered papyri and other manuscripts have no bearing on God's Word, and why our understanding of Biblical text construction should stop be frozen in 1611.

If god made man in his image how come there's like millions of variations of man

>>2010308
Because God, in God's ultimate wisdom, chose to reveal His Word in it's completeness to mankind at a certain point in time.

There is one and only one legitimate Bible. The KJV.

>>2009031
None *tips*

>>2010347
see
>>2009741

>>2010368
God would not throw people into confusion with contradictory translations. Confusion is the work of the devil, not God.

the time was right for the unadulterated Word to be available to those predestined of God to share in life everlasting (the ones Jesus died to save, not merely redeem).

>>2010395
Your idolatry of the KJV does not change the fact that in the forward to the reader, the translators working on the KJV assert neither inspiration, nor completeness, but do argue in favor of continued textual criticism.

>>2010309
god is a programmer and he made the character creator

>>2009031
None

>>2010439
/thread

>>2010439
euphoric

>>2010456
*tips crucifix*

>>2010459
>crucifix
idolatry

*tips fedora*

/his/ is a christian board

>>2009031
I have become increasingly convinced that no doctrine, scripture, or holy text of any religion is an adequate or truthful prescription on how to live life in harmony with the divine. Personal revelation and observation is the most rewarding form of connecting with God and finding spiritual fulfillment, and it offers faith through a purer medium than the fractured lens that is human-composed scripture.

>>2009205
The Holy Spirit is a whore that basically approves everything that happens just because it happens.

It's a meaningless and lazy interpretation of God's cosmos and causality.

>>2010462
if you add up all the christian factions in our polls they're at most equal to the number of atheists, if not slightly less.

>>2010527
time to get saved anon

>>2010527
Nah, you don't get it.

according to catholics, protties aren't christian, and according to protestants, cathys aren't christian, so really, atheism is twice as big as christianity on /his/.

>>2009313
Why do Catholics worship a false god called "the pope" and his wife the godess "mary"

>>2009455
>post-Constantinian
That's a meme. You give Rome far too much credit to say it already existed that far back. Here, watch this documentary: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5bVEXZ38Vs8