by saying that he defined morality based on the different consequences of different actions, for him to make the decision on which consequences are good, once again there must have to have been a pre-existing standard for which consequences are good, for God to pose his definition. Your trying to pose a circular argument by disguising it in different terms.

there is no problem with the Euthyphro dilemma.
therefore your argument is invalid

Question:

What exactly is “All genuine Christian religions believe that the only true authority is the original?” Who decided this?

Thoughts:

Yes, there are different versions ( not translations) of the Bible.

“At the time the Christian Bible was being formed, a Greek translation of Jewish Scripture, the Septuagint, was in common use and Christians adopted it as the Old Testament of the Christian Bible. However, around 100 A.D., Jewish rabbis revised their Scripture and established an official canon of Judaism which excluded some portions of the Greek Septuagint. The material excluded was a group of 15 late Jewish books, written during the period 170 B.C. to 70 A.D., that were not found in Hebrew versions of the Jewish Scripture. Christians did not follow the revisions of Judaism and continued to use the text of the Septuagint.

Protestant reformers in the 1500s decided to follow the official canon of Judaism for the Old Testament rather than the Septuagint, and the excluded material was placed in a separate section of the Bible called the Apocrypha. Protestant Bibles included the Apocrypha until the mid 1800s, but it was eventually dropped from most Protestant editions.

The Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches continue to base their Old Testament on the Septuagint. The result is that these versions of the the Bible have more Old Testament books than Protestant versions. Catholic Old Testaments include 1st and 2nd Maccabees, Baruch, Tobit, Judith, The Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach (Ecclesiasticus), additions to Esther, and Susanna and Bel and the Dragon which are included in Daniel. Orthodox Old Testaments include these plus 1st and 2nd Esdras, Prayer of Manasseh, Psalm 151 and 3rd Maccabees.

The Protestant, Catholic and Orthodox New Testaments are identical.”
http://www.twopaths.com/faq_bibles.htm

“Council of Trent: on April 8, 1546, by vote (24 yea, 15 nay, 16 abstain) approved the present Roman Catholic Bible Canon including the Deuterocanonical Books. This is said to be the same list as produced at the Council of Florence in 1451, this list was defined as canonical in the profession of faith proposed for the Jacobite Orthodox Church. Because of its placement, the list was not considered binding for the Catholic church, and in light of Martin Luther’s demands, the Catholic Church examined the question of the Canon again at the Council of Trent, which reaffirmed the Canon of the Council of Florence. The Old Testament books that had been in doubt were termed deuterocanonical, not indicating a lesser degree of inspiration, but a later time of final approval. Beyond these books, some editions of the latin Vulgate include Psalm 151, the Prayer of Manasseh, 1 Esdras (called 3 Esdras), 2 Esdras (called 4 Esdras), and the Epistle to the Laodiceans in an appendix, styled “Apogryphi”.

Thirty-Nine Articles: in 1563, of the Church of England, article 6, recognized the Roman Catholic Canon including the Deuterocanonicals with the caveat “for example of life and instruction in manners … [but not] to establish any doctrine.”

King James Bible: of 1611, included deuterocanon and apocrypha from the Vulgate and Septuagint.”

Vatican I: on April 24, 1870, approved the additions to Mark (v.16:9-20), Luke, (22:19b-20,43-44) and John, (7:53-8:11) which are not present in early manuscripts.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_canon#Orthodox.2C_Catholic_and_Protestant

Before you make such sweeping generalizations against a post Ken, you might want to research your assertions.

Now you may object that what I have said leads into the second problem; i.e., I am basically saying that God knew the moral truth and simply stated a pre-existing truth. But notice that in the example I gave the consequences you weighed were completely devoid of moral consequence. It would be neither morally right nor wrong for you to choose one path over the other. The same could be true of the decision-making process for the origin of morality. Bear in mind that we are talking about how morality came into existence. Therefore, prior to that point there was no morality. Decisions did not have “moral” consequence because morality did not exist yet. All decisions were in essence of the same nature as our diverging sidewalks example. Using these non-moral considerations, God could have made a decision about morality and defined morality in accordance with potential consequences. So He is not simply restating a pre-existing moral truth. He is defining morality itself, but based upon non-moral considerations. I could go on a lot further explaining this, but that at least provides you with a brief introduction to the problem with the Euthyphro dilemma.

Also, you may consider modifying your paragraph dealing with the differences in Bibles, because it does show that you do not fully understand Christianity’s view of the Bible. First of all, there is no such thing as a “Baptist” Bible. All genuine Christian religions believe that the only true authority is the original. Errors have crept in over time due to copyists mistakes, translational differences, etc. But no denomination bases it’s theology upon one particular English translation. The authority for making theological decisions always lies in the original Hebrew or Greek. Ultimately, while the Catholics include a few more books in their Bible than protestants (the vast majority, including the entire New Testament, are the same), there are no textual differences between the common books because the “Bible” for both is the original text in the original languages, NOT the English translations. While there may be differences in translations (the Catholics do have their own English translation, although they do not go so far as to say other translations are incorrect), the translations are simply tools for us to use since most of us do not speak ancient Greek or Hebrew. The “Bible” is the same for all.

In regard to your comment about a “Baptist” Bible, you should know that among all protestant denominations, there is not even one authoritative translation. A protestant is free to use whatever translation they believe speaks best to them. Your statement that “different denominations accept different parts of the Bible” is incorrect. “Denomination” refers to protestants, and they all accept the same Bible and can use any translation. Finally, in answer to your question about “Whom should you believe?”, the answer is neither. You should believe the Bible (i.e., the original text). Of course humans are going to disagree as to what this all means, after all we are fallible creatures. But that can be said of any moral discussion, whether religious in nature or otherwise.

Ultimately, the conclusion may be that an infinite number of factors go into determining morality, and because humankind only has a finite mind, we will never be able to fully understand it. That certainly would explain why every moral theory attempted to date has failed to adequately explain all aspects of morality.