Which version is the correct one?

[kaziglu bey]

I am interested in answers from our believing members. Which version of Christianity is the correct one? There are a lot of different denominations and versions of the Bible. Many of these denominations (for the sake of example, the Catholic Church) claim that their version is the only correct version, and that anyone believing any other version shall be condemned. Those seem like some pretty high stakes, so on what basis does a believer determine which type of faith is the correct one, and much, much more importantly, why?

[kaziglu bey]

Well after a week and a half, without a single response, I am going to operate under the assumption that theists are not capable of determining a legitimate system of faith from a bogus one. Therefore I think it is also safe to conclude that since theists do not have a method of demonstrating what is the correct version of Christianity, that there is not one. Additionally, any theist who attempts to make the claim that their interpretation/version of Christianity is the right one should be invited here to answer the questions in the OP if they want to be taken seriously at all.

[Seppuku]

The response I get (when I've asked this before) is the King James Version, not the new King James one, but the original, the one written in an archaic form of English. I know this is the one WBC favours too. When challenged with, "how do you know it's the right one", I get "because God inspired the translation" as an answer, without back up to that point. This is the closest I've come to an answer. Generally when I try and pull out a quote I'll read multiple translations to get an understand of meaning and use the quote I think words what they're all saying best. It seems to be the best way for me to deal with them because I do not know which translation is the correct one and I admit I get kinda stuck when it seems 2 translations appear to be saying different things and that's why I leave those ones out, unless words are related to one and another, for example, translations of the quote saying it is easier for the heaven and earth to end than for even a part of a letter of the law to change has different phrases - I don't have the time to type them out right this minute, but essentially the differences were: it is easier for it happen than the law changes and all are appeased and it will happen before the law changes and all has ended. The former had a Christian argue to me that all has been appeased, so I've used the latter.

But I am interested in knowing which is correct and like you, I would like to know how a Christian is capable of suggesting one translation is true and the other is false.

[Jstwebbrowsing]

Well after a week and a half, without a single response, I am going to operate under the assumption that theists are not capable of determining a legitimate system of faith from a bogus one.

You could assume that there are no theists around to answer instead.

[kaziglu bey]

Well after a week and a half, without a single response, I am going to operate under the assumption that theists are not capable of determining a legitimate system of faith from a bogus one.

You could assume that there are no theists around to answer instead.

Hmm.... considering that you took the time to respond, and considering that you are not the only theist member on this forum, it would seem as though your explanation falls somewhat short.

[Jstwebbrowsing]

I might be willing to share my opinion but first I'd like to know why you would ask such a question.  Is it to hear an opinion or is it to start a debate?

[Quesi]

Hi Jst.  I'm really happy to see you back on the forum. 

Why don't you start a thread on a topic that interests you? 

[kaziglu bey]

I would in fact be quite interested in hearing an answer to this question. Personally, I would think that this would be a question of even greater importance to theists. As to whether or not the answer will lead to debate, not knowing what the answer is, I wouldn't know. It's not my intention however. I think that it is very important to determine the validity and authenticity of a text, and demonstrate how one can know that, before one accepts the claims made by that text, particularly when there are other similar texts making similar claims which that same person rejects. It is important to ask, on what basis does one reject texts A, B, and C, but go with D, in spite of the striking similarities and shared origins between them? Being able to demonstrate this would lend much more credibility to any argument that involves the claims made by that book.

Certainly, someone seeking to demonstrate this would, I think at any rate, expect those who are not aware of it have questions and need some things clarified (as might anyone being presented with anything they were not already familiar with). I don't know that I would consider that a debate, however. Perhaps you might, I couldn't say. That would have to be your call, I suppose.

[Jstwebbrowsing]

Now I am a little confused.  Are you asking which version of Christianity is the correct one or are you asking if the Christian scriptures are superior to other scriptures?

[kaziglu bey]

Now I am a little confused.  Are you asking which version of Christianity is the correct one or are you asking if the Christian scriptures are superior to other scriptures?

Both. It would seem to me necessary to provide justification for rejecting books of other faiths, and then provide justification for rejecting the books of inter-faith denominations. In other words, if one rejects Hinduism and Islam, yet accepts Christianity, and then rejects all other brands of Christianity but one, on what basis does a person do this?

[Jstwebbrowsing]

What convinces me that the Greek and Hebrew scriptures are the correct ones probably won't convince you just like the reasons you reject them probably won't convince me to reject them.

[Traveler]

I might be willing to share my opinion but first I'd like to know why you would ask such a question.  Is it to hear an opinion or is it to start a debate?

The cool thing about the Shelter area is that its not for hot-headed debate. It's an area where we can gather and discuss in a calmer, more relaxed atmosphere then that of the rest of the forum. I think its an interesting question, and those of us who frequent the shelter will, by the rules of this area, treat you much more gently than in the rest of the forum. I do hope you'll answer and discuss.

[Graybeard]

Which version of Christianity is the correct one?...and much, much more importantly, why?

This used to bother me. On US sites, I would often see that a Christian would move house and "go and look for" a church of their persuasion. They would explain their final choice by saying, "I went to <name of church> but I didn't feel comfortable there, so I tried a few others and ended up at <name2 of church>. The choice then is between a denomination which reflects the particular Christian's character and background and, after that, to a church that suits the particular Christian's character.

Having reached this point, he should find himself amongst people of similar opinions, financial and educational background - he then has a set of contacts within the community.

This is the true religion - gods are simply a fiction, a mcguffin, a red-herring. Any idea would do.

Re-read the above and instead of Church and Christian, put in stamp-collectors' club and stamp collector.

[Jstwebbrowsing]

Well at the end of the day all I can give is my opinion like anyone else.  Only time will tell if it is correct or how incorrect it may be.  Unfortunately, if I am incorrect I may never know but even if I am wrong, I don't think I will have lost anything by trying to live by the scriptures but will have gained much.  I'll not go into why I accept the Christian scriptures  because this will require a lot of work I am not willing to do.  I will, however, attempt to identify "True Christianity".  Even if Christianity is a lie, I can still do this.

Firstly I think that the scriptures alone must define Christianity.  I believe they must be the final authority.  If they are not then there is no objective basis for determining what is Christian and everyone is up a creek and this discussion is pointless.  I have found several identifying marks, from the scriptures, that I think one can use to identify a "True Christian".  I will post one at a time and see how many it takes you to come to the same conclusion as I, if you do at all.  I will start with the one that I think will narrow things the greatest.

First I want to ask you something.  Let's say your write a book.  In this book you place your name nearly 7000 times.  You then give this book to someone and tell them you don't want the book changed.  Let's say this person then proceeds to remove your name from everywhere it appears and replace it with a title.  Would you say they have changed your book?

 

[kaziglu bey]

Well at the end of the day all I can give is my opinion like anyone else.  Only time will tell if it is correct or how incorrect it may be.  Unfortunately, if I am incorrect I may never know but even if I am wrong, I don't think I will have lost anything by trying to live by the scriptures but will have gained much.

This sounds to me like it is mere acceptance of Pascal's wager, and is not, in my opinion, a very convincing argument.

I'll not go into why I accept the Christian scriptures  because this will require a lot of work I am not willing to do.  I will, however, attempt to identify "True Christianity".  Even if Christianity is a lie, I can still do this.

Firstly I think that the scriptures alone must define Christianity.  I believe they must be the final authority.  If they are not then there is no objective basis for determining what is Christian and everyone is up a creek and this discussion is pointless.  I have found several identifying marks, from the scriptures, that I think one can use to identify a "True Christian".

But would other Christians agree with you on these?

I will post one at a time and see how many it takes you to come to the same conclusion as I, if you do at all.  I will start with the one that I think will narrow things the greatest.

Ok, fair enough, it will be easier to focus on one topic per post in this area anyways.

First I want to ask you something.  Let's say your write a book.  In this book you place your name nearly 7000 times.  You then give this book to someone and tell them you don't want the book changed.  Let's say this person then proceeds to remove your name from everywhere it appears and replace it with a title.  Would you say they have changed your book?

By definition, yes, it has been changed. I might perhaps agree that it would not necessarily diminish much from the original meaning or intent of the work, although it could be confusing and misleading. For example, if instead of my name, Tom, the title "The Princess" or "The Dark Lord"[1] was used, it would lend each story to a different reading, and likely one different from the original Tom in the story. One might say that in this example, each of those would probably stir up vastly different images and contexts . But bottom line yes, it has by definition, since it has undergone a change (or 7,000), it is changed.

1.	Actually, that would be a pretty sweet title.

[Graybeard]

Firstly I think that the scriptures alone must define Christianity.  I believe they must be the final authority.

How could that ever be? Each Christian has their own opinion of what the Scriptures say.

First I want to ask you something.  Let's say your write a book.  In this book you place your name nearly 7000 times.  You then give this book to someone and tell them you don't want the book changed.  Let's say this person then proceeds to remove your name from everywhere it appears and replace it with a title.  Would you say they have changed your book?

That was, of course, not the point. I may not have been sufficiently clear. The Christian in my example is only showing normal group behaviour - like attracts like - and to an extent, this is why people join things - including churches. It has nothing to do with the absolute nature of the thing that binds them; they want to be with people like themselves.

However, given your "the scriptures alone must define Christianity", it would appear that there should only be one form and accepting of all and into which all would wish to be accepted. Clearly, this is not so.

[Jstwebbrowsing]

This sounds to me like it is mere acceptance of Pascal's wager, and is not, in my opinion, a very convincing argument?

No I have my own reasons for believing in Christianity.  In this thread I will not attempt to prove that Christianity is true.  I will only attempt to define what is Christianity and identify those that adhere most closly to it.

But would other Christians agree with you on these?

No.  Many most certainly would not agree with what I am about to say but this that does not make it false.  And some Christians don't even take the bible seriously.  However, if the Bible cannot be used as a reliable measuring stick for Christianity then what else can be?  So I will only attempt to present the Bible's view of Christianity.

So allow me to shift the goal post a bit.  I will try to demonstrate who follows the Bible.  If true Christianity cannot be derived from this then I do no know how else to do it.  I think a Christian by defintion must be like Christ.  Christ always referred to scripture as the final authority in all matters.  Christians are commanded to imitate Christ.  This is what I will do in this discussion to the best of my ability.

Ok, fair enough, it will be easier to focus on one topic per post in this area anyways.

Firstly, as you implied, I think removing God's name has caused confusion.  For this discussion I will place it where it belongs. and I think a better interpretation may be obtained.  What I am about to post might even get my lynched among certain groups of Christians but the scriptures say what they say, regardless of someone's opinion if it is true or not.  And in this case the old and new testaments are in agreement.

"Everyone who calls on the name of Jehovah will be saved." (Joel 2:32 Romans 10:13)

Many think the name of Jesus is the name that must be called on.  But this is not what the scriptures say.  So if we narrow down the possibilities to those that "call on the name of Jehovah", how many are left?  I only know of one group but I assume there are others.  If you can point some out then we can continue.

How could that ever be? Each Christian has their own opinion of what the Scriptures say.

This is true.  However I have also found it true that if pressed for answers many christians cannot support their beliefs with scriptures.  They just assume that what they were taught is actually in the scriptures.  The trinity doctrine is an example of this.  If pressed, many Christians cannot adequately defend this doctrine with scripture.  I even know some Christians that insist they believe in the trinity, but in fact they don't.  They only believe in their concept of the trinity which may be far removed from the official doctrine.

Even the Catholics and secular authorities say there is no such doctrine as the trinity in the Bible.  The Catholics adpoted it through some other means.  But millions others still insist it's a scriptural teaching.  At least the Catholics have an excuse for believing it.  Protestants do not.

That was, of course, not the point. I may not have been sufficiently clear. The Christian in my example is only showing normal group behaviour - like attracts like - and to an extent, this is why people join things - including churches. It has nothing to do with the absolute nature of the thing that binds them; they want to be with people like themselves.

Yes this is true.  But just because they are not all in agreement does not mean they are all wrong nor can it mean they are all right.  It only means that the some must be wrong if the Bible is to be accepted as the authority as Christ accepted it.  The Apostles also followed this pattern and certainly they were Christians.

Sadly the many things that divide Christianity are adopted Greek teachings and not scripture.  If they were scriptural teachings, such as the trinity, then it would be said the Greeks adopted this belief from Jews.  But this is not the case.

[kaziglu bey]

No I have my own reasons for believing in Christianity.  In this thread I will not attempt to prove that Christianity is true.  I will only attempt to define what is Christianity and identify those that adhere most closly to it.

But the point of the thread is to demonstrate which version of religion is the correct one.

No.  Many most certainly would not agree with what I am about to say but this that does not make it false.

Nor does it make it true, or anything true. Note that they are all as much convinced of the truth of their own religion. Again, the point is to show that one is correct and the others are not.

  And some Christians don't even take the bible seriously.

Most Christians chose not to take some parts of the Bible seriously.
 

However, if the Bible cannot be used as a reliable measuring stick for Christianity then what else can be?

Can you handle serpents without harm coming to you? Can you drink poison and yet live? Can you move mountains with an act of will? Can you perform deeds greater than resurrecting the dead, making the blind see, curing the lame, or turning water into wine? If you can do none of these things, then it seems that the Bible does not consider you a Christian, as it lists all of these things as being powers that true believers would have. If we use the Bible as a measuring stick for Christianity, it is not likely to turn out in the Christian's favor.

So I will only attempt to present the Bible's view of Christianity.

So allow me to shift the goal post a bit.

I don't see why this is necessary. Wouldn't it be better to address the actual question in the thread?

I will try to demonstrate who follows the Bible.<snip> Christians are commanded to imitate Christ.  This is what I will do in this discussion to the best of my ability.

Firstly, as you implied, I think removing God's name has caused confusion.  <snip>

"Everyone who calls on the name of Jehovah will be saved." (Joel 2:32 Romans 10:13)

Many think the name of Jesus is the name that must be called on.  But this is not what the scriptures say.  So if we narrow down the possibilities to those that "call on the name of Jehovah", how many are left?  I only know of one group but I assume there are others.  If you can point some out then we can continue.

So, you are going to base who is the correct type of believer based on two verses, of which there any many others which tell numerous other methods to be saved, and those two verses just happen to support your religion? You realize that, yet again, any other denomination of Christianity could do the exact same thing?

[Jstwebbrowsing]

Can you handle serpents without harm coming to you? Can you drink poison and yet live? Can you move mountains with an act of will? Can you perform deeds greater than resurrecting the dead, making the blind see, curing the lame, or turning water into wine? If you can do none of these things, then it seems that the Bible does not consider you a Christian, as it lists all of these things as being powers that true believers would have. If we use the Bible as a measuring stick for Christianity, it is not likely to turn out in the Christian's favor.

No, I can do none of those things.  You are right in that the Bible did say some of Jesus' disciples would do these things.  However, the Bible also says,

"Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away.  For we know in part and we prophesy in part,  but when perfection comes, the imperfect disappears.  When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me.  Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known."

Now my belief is that these miraculous gifts have passed away.  Others say they have not.  Which interpretation does the evidence support? 

I don't see why this is necessary. Wouldn't it be better to address the actual question in the thread?

Apparantly not.  It seems the teachings of the Bible and the teachings of Christianity are two different things.  It seems in much of Christianity that the Bible is a "tool" and not an authority.  I can only show you what the Bible says. 

So, you are going to base who is the correct type of believer based on two verses, of which there any many others which tell numerous other methods to be saved, and those two verses just happen to support your religion? You realize that, yet again, any other denomination of Christianity could do the exact same thing?

No, there are others.  Let's consider this one:

"A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.”  (John 13:35)

Here Jesus plainly said one way you could identify his disciples.  If Christendom took this command seriously would we see Christians killing Christians during wartime?  I think any true Christian would never kill another Christian.  What do you think? 

[Quesi]

Hi Jst-

It is great to see you.

Let me ask you a question about "love one another."

No, there are others.  Let's consider this one:

"A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.”  (John 13:35)

Here Jesus plainly said one way you could identify his disciples.  If Christendom took this command seriously would we see Christians killing Christians during wartime?  I think any true Christian would never kill another Christian.  What do you think? 

   

You said that if Christan's really embraced this, they would not kill other Christians during wartime.  Do you think that when God said "love one another, he was only talking about Christan's loving other Christan's?  Or do you think he was talking about loving all human beings, regardless of religion?

[screwtape]

It seems in much of Christianity that the Bible is a "tool" and not an authority.

This is certainly true of catholicism.  Traditionally, the Church is the authority.  This is based on Matt16 where JC tells Simon he is the Rock[1] on which the church is built.  The church predated the bible by about 300 years.  It had to.  They were the authority that decided what was and was not to be part of it.  there were many gospels floating around at the time and each promoted a particular theological perspective. 

At Nicea they decided what they believed.  After that, they selected the books which fit their beliefs.

1.	Do you smell what the Rock is cookin'?

[Jstwebbrowsing]

Hi Jst-

It is great to see you.

Thanks.  It's great to hear from you too. 

You said that if Christan's really embraced this, they would not kill other Christians during wartime.  Do you think that when God said "love one another, he was only talking about Christan's loving other Christan's?  Or do you think he was talking about loving all human beings, regardless of religion?

The Bible does teach that Christians are to love everyone, even their enemies.  But in this instance it seems Jesus is speaking specifically about Christians loving one another since it says, "by this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another."

If Christians are to love even their enemies then this is especially true about loving one another.  This thought is expressed in Galations 6:10.  "As we have therefore opportunity, let us do good unto all men, especially unto them who are of the household of faith."

Now it doesn't seem to me that this means you should love others outside your faith less.  I think the difference lies in the fact that loving your enemy probably is a one way street, while loving a fellow believer should be a two way street.  And this two way love should be such that it stands out.  And of course, truly loving their enemies should make them stand out also.

The Bible asks Christians what good is their love if they love only those that love them.  Even the wicked "tax collectors" do that, the Bible says.  So yes I think overall you are right.  But if someone is willing to kill their brothers and sisters in faith then what hope is there of such a person truly loving an outsider?  They don't even do as good as the wicked tax collectors because they don't even love those that love them back.  So if the tax collectors were wicked then what does that say about those that aren't even as good as the tax collectors?  And why should their interpretation be taken as the correct one?

I could go on about this for a long time because I feel very passionate about it.  I want to fully establish that war is very unchristian.  The Jews themselves were expecting a warlike messiah.  However, Jesus never instructed his followers to take up arms, not even against Rome.  Why?  "Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence."  Likewise Christians are commanded to be "no part of the world" and they are said to be "ambassadors for Christ", and by extension Christ's Kingdom.   While they live in this world like Jesus did, as ambassadors they should not take part in foreign wars, and they certainly shouldn't take up warring with each other.

In fact, during his arrest one of his disciples did draw his sword and struck one of the soldiers.  Jesus instructed the disciple to put his sword away, because, "he that lives by the sword shall die by the sword."

One more point on this.  The Bible says this.

In the last days
the mountain of Jehovah’s temple will be established
as the highest of the mountains;
it will be exalted above the hills,
    and all nations will stream to it.
3 Many peoples will come and say,
“Come, let us go up to the mountain of Jehovah,
    to the temple of the God of Jacob.
He will teach us his ways,
    so that we may walk in his paths.”
The law will go out from Zion,
    the word of Jehovah from Jerusalem.
4 He will judge between the nations
    and will settle disputes for many peoples.
They will beat their swords into plowshares
    and their spears into pruning hooks.
Nation will not take up sword against nation,
    nor will they train for war anymore.
 5 Come, descendants of Jacob,
    let us walk in the light of the Lord."

(Isaiah 2:2-5)

Now notice this takes place in the "last days".  Most Christians will confess to believing we are living in the last days and will point to the fulfillment of prophecy while doing so.  So if this is true then this prophecy must be undergoing fulfillment along with other prophecies of the last days.

Is there anywhere that people of all nations can stream and learn about Jehovah and have their disputes settled such that they have "beaten their swords into plowshares" and do not "train for war anymore"?

Furthermore, the Bible says that in the last days the "good news of the kingdom will be preached in all the inhabited earth for a witness to all nations."  So if we are living in the last days, as many Christians believe, we should be able to identify an international Christian brotherhood that calls upon Jehovah and that has beaten their swords into plow shares.

This is certainly true of catholicism.  Traditionally, the Church is the authority.  This is based on Matt16 where JC tells Simon he is the Rock[1] on which the church is built.  The church predated the bible by about 300 years.  It had to.  They were the authority that decided what was and was not to be part of it.  there were many gospels floating around at the time and each promoted a parcular theological perspective. 

No this is not actually the way it was done.  Scriptures had to fit certain historical criteria to be included in the canon.  And most Christian organizations today accept this criteria even if they do not believe the way of the Catholics.  Furthermore, the Bible doesn't actually agree with everything Catholic.  So if they did as you say then they did not do a very good job.  Also I find that Catholics are not unique in their belief the Bible is not the final authority.  And I find that many that do accept it's authority are unable to answer many questions about it's teachings.

[kaziglu bey]

JST, I appreciate your response, and I apologize that I have not yet responded. Life events plus migraines and spending a lot of time with my son has not left me much time for the forum recently, but I should be able to get you a response tomorrow.

[kaziglu bey]

No, I can do none of those things.  You are right in that the Bible did say some of Jesus' disciples would do these things.  However, the Bible also says,

"Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away.  For we know in part and we prophesy in part,  but when perfection comes, the imperfect disappears.  When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me.  Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known."

Now my belief is that these miraculous gifts have passed away.  Others say they have not.  Which interpretation does the evidence support? 

Well, although it would indeed seem more likely that such things no longer occur, or at the very least do not occur with much predictability or reliability, I would say that it seems much more likely still that such things never occurred anywhere, at any time, by anyone. This seems to be the answer demanded by Occam's Razor. It would also serve to explain all such miraculous events or amazing powers attributed to Alexander the great, or Ramses II, or Genghis Khan, or Muhammed, or the oracles at Delphi. It explains them all as fantasies concocted by the wild imaginations of people in order to make themselves look awesome.

Apparantly not.  It seems the teachings of the Bible and the teachings of Christianity are two different things.  It seems in much of Christianity that the Bible is a "tool" and not an authority.  I can only show you what the Bible says. 

I can see what it says, and it doesn't impress me much. I mean, even if you are showing me what it says, the text itself would still be subject to your interpretation vs. someone else's. Even with relatively similar texts between denominations, there are so many interpretations as to what is being said.

No, there are others.  Let's consider this one:

<snip> What do you think?

Perhaps in such a case one might say that, but a lot of people consider those of a different denomination to be not-Christians. Then they can justify killing them. This has happened a lot. Pretty big loop hole if you ask me. Plus, it doesn't give any non-Christians a guarantee of being shown love, and in fact Jesus said to bring them before him and slay him. So I'm afraid John 13:35 isn't much comfort to anyone else. A majority of the world is something other than Christian.

[SwayzesGhost]

The response I get (when I've asked this before) is the King James Version, not the new King James one, but the original, the one written in an archaic form of English. I know this is the one WBC favours too. When challenged with, "how do you know it's the right one", I get "because God inspired the translation" as an answer, without back up to that point. This is the closest I've come to an answer. Generally when I try and pull out a quote I'll read multiple translations to get an understand of meaning and use the quote I think words what they're all saying best. It seems to be the best way for me to deal with them because I do not know which translation is the correct one and I admit I get kinda stuck when it seems 2 translations appear to be saying different things and that's why I leave those ones out, unless words are related to one and another, for example, translations of the quote saying it is easier for the heaven and earth to end than for even a part of a letter of the law to change has different phrases - I don't have the time to type them out right this minute, but essentially the differences were: it is easier for it happen than the law changes and all are appeased and it will happen before the law changes and all has ended. The former had a Christian argue to me that all has been appeased, so I've used the latter.

But I am interested in knowing which is correct and like you, I would like to know how a Christian is capable of suggesting one translation is true and the other is false.

The KJV is one of the worst.

http://www.kjv-only.com/

[LoriPinkAngel]

Are you meaning denominations or Bibles?  I would have to answer that question with some more questions.  Which type of music is correct?  Which type of literature is correct?  Which type of fashion is correct?
Since it has already been established that no version of the bible can be proven accurate beyond a shadow of a doubt no denomination which uses any of them as doctrine can be identified as "correct."  That leaves one's choice of bible and denomination as subject to taste as one's choice of music, literature or fashion.   I know that none of the fiction I read is true, most of the movies and TV shows I watch have no basis in fact and most of the songs I listen to are not written about true events and yet I enjoy them.  My faith is not perfect, I can't provide pictures, recordings or reliable witnesses to prove the existence of god. Often I doubt.  But there are some decent lessons contained in the bible, some pleasant people in the churches, some beautiful art and music and architecture has been made because of peoples belief in god/gods.  Some horrible things have also been done.  At this point in my life I need peace and to focus on the positive.