Authority to call one version superior?

John 14

13 And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son.
14 If ye shall ask any thing in my name, I will do it.

​

James 1

5 If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.
6 But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering. For he that wavereth is like a wave of the sea driven with the wind and tossed.
7 For let not that man think that he shall receive any thing of the Lord.
8 A double minded man is unstable in all his ways.​

HankD​

 

In a nutshell, I would say no.

John 4:24- God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.

John 14:26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

1Co 14:32 And the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets. 33 For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.

 

How do you know which church is the right church for you to attend?
How do you know which doctrine is the right doctrine for you to believe?
How do you know if you are saved?
How do you know if you have married the right person God has for you?
How do you know if you are in the right ministry God wants you in?
How do you know if ...........

Get the picture?

"God leads his dear children along. Some through the waters, some through the flood. Some through the fire but all through the blood. Some through great sorrow but God gives a song. In the night season and all the day long."

You will know. Just as surely as you KNOW you are in His will.

 

Disagree with your statement above. The source of the inspiration is God, not men. The product of inspiration is the autographs, not apographs nor translations.

2 Timothy 3:16 (KJV)

All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:


The Greek NT on 2 Timothy 3:16

πασα γραφη θεοπνευστος και ωφελιμος προς διδασκαλιαν προς ελεγχον προς επανορθωσιν προς παιδειαν την εν δικαιοσυνη

This verse refers to the autographs, not apographs nor translations.

Look at a bold word in Greek above. It is "graphE" that means to "write down."

The autographs were writing down by OT authors and NT authors through the work by the Holy Spirit through God-breathed. The apographs were NOT writing down by next authors, but they were copied by them. To copy the scriptures is to derive from the autographs. “Apographs” means “from the Scriptures.” “Autographs” means "Scripture itself" referring to the original writings of OT and NT that God inspired.

“GraphE” is to write down: RECORD. The definition of inspiration is "the process whereby the Holy Spirit influenced the writers of Scripture to record accurately His Words, the product being the inspired the Word of God.”

Therefore all scripture (graphE – written down) is given by inspiration of God. This means His breathed Words in the autographs only, not apographs nor translations.

 

Askjo;
Pardon me but if the Scribes who COPIED the Scriptures did NOT "write down" then what pray tell did they do?

Use a Xerox?


ha ha ha ha

 

2 Timothy 3:15-16 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

Tell me.
Did Timothy know the original autographs or did he only know the copies of said autographs?

Rhetorical question isn't it?

The Scriptures is that which God ordained to be COPIED. Therefore; COPIES of Scripture are just as much Scriptures as the Autographs.

 

Acts 8:28 Was returning, and sitting in his chariot read Esaias the prophet.
Acts 8:32 The place of the scripture which he read was this, He was led as a sheep to the slaughter; and like a lamb dumb before his shearer, so opened he not his mouth:


Acts 17:2 And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures,

Acts 17:11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

They musta had autographs ever-where!!!:wavey:

LAcy

 

CA, you certainly deserve as complete an answer as I can muster. Ask yourself first, "What is your past religious/theological background (atheist, Baptist/Protestant, Catholic, other)"? How well do you understand the Bible already? Some translations are more conservative than others.

Next, "What do you want to do with your Bible (casual personal reading, deep study, read aloud to children)?" Some translations are easier to read straight through (format also plays a part); some versions offer better study helps; some sound better read aloud, etc.

Also, "Do you have any disability that affects you reading comprehension?" Some versions may be difficult for those with a limited vocabulary (deaf, English-as-second-language folks, children, etc).

The answers to these factors will help determine the best Bible for you.

 

I like you. You are straight up and honest. Even a bit humourous. Cool.:thumbs:

BTW: You pretty much hit the nail on the head with your three statements.
1. Scripture
2. Godly counsel
3. background

Hopefully your background will not influence your acceptance or rejection of 1 & 2. Of course, many times it does, but ideally it should not.

 

In 1647 there were several English Bibles in circulation, including the AV/KJV.

 

From Chapter I of the Westminster Confession of Faith:

Certainly not the promotion of any particular version, is it?

 

Did the Scribes use a Xerox in 2nd century?

 

Certainly isn't. But then again they didn't have 200 versions from which to discern the truth either now did they?

At that time in history they were more concerned with just being able to survive if caught with a Bible of their own.

So, we really can't look to that time nor to those people for a settlement of this issue now can we?

Just doesn't make sense to this Bible Believer.

 

While that was true at earlier times in England, I think that it was well over before 1647. The politically motivated (or class motivated) English civil wars began in 1642 (thrust on the country by the son of King James, Charles was eventually beheaded for treason). Can any one offer some credible evidence regarding restrictive laws of Bible possession during the middle 17th century?

Moving away from this period and the Westminster Confession to settle the issue, there have other Creeds or Confessions since (and before). From the Revised 1689 Baptist Confession--

 

Creeds/Confessions surely won't do. No they surely won't do. I could give you dozens of Covenants which say that there is ONE translation by which all others are to be judged. So creeds etc... of men surely won't do now will it? Whether they be of 1611, 1647, 1689, 1769, 1879 or 1901, 1989, or 2007, they surely won't do.

 

They can certainly set a Christian example for us, though. If they did not deem one particulare version superior to all the rest and condemn all other versions, then neither should we do so. Pretty simple, really!

There are lots of things that don't make sense to those of us who are Bible believers, Jim. I think it is safe to say we all believe in the Bible and in the infallibility of God's word. The main difference is that some of us accept the infallibility of God's word in its various English translations while others don't.

 

The "scribe" in the commercial used a copier, if I recall! It was a 'miracle'.

Ed