KING JAMES VERSION BIBLE VS. MODERN ENGLISH BIBLES
- Thread starter KingJamesVersionBibleOnly
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Forensics... look at the forensic evidence of any bible and see who's fingerprints and signature are on the bible.
Here's the occult Christ:
A) A created being.
B) A son of the gods - a mix between the gods (Zeus, Hercules, fallen angels) and human women.
C) Works righteousness - ascend to perfection.
This is just a view of the more easily seen characteristics. I don't see this Jesus in the KJV. I don't see occult phraseology like "as above so below"... no matter what the meaning, it's occult terminology.
I've said many times that God's fingerprints are all over the KJV. The same is true in the other translations, "a son of the gods" fingerprints are all over them.
Here's the occult Christ:
A) A created being.
B) A son of the gods - a mix between the gods (Zeus, Hercules, fallen angels) and human women.
C) Works righteousness - ascend to perfection.
This is just a view of the more easily seen characteristics. I don't see this Jesus in the KJV. I don't see occult phraseology like "as above so below"... no matter what the meaning, it's occult terminology.
I've said many times that God's fingerprints are all over the KJV. The same is true in the other translations, "a son of the gods" fingerprints are all over them.
Again you're talking about things most people on this forum have no knowledge of... don't get me wrong, I think we should show people this stuff. But keep in mind this is like a shock to their system because their view of "scholarship" is that these guys are "good guys" just trying to do their best to help people. They can't fathom that there could be a concerted effort to change the Jesus of the bible into the Mythras, Horus etc that they serve and are trying to convert the whole world to.
That is a fact and wrong you are.
In other words everything that follows will contain zero facts.
This is a blanket statement that is not universally true. If I say all you modern bible version guys are fighting so sharply to defend all modern bible translations would that be a true statement? (Message Bible, New World Translation, etc.)
Maybe you are just uniformed. There is a lot I do not know but “whenever somebody” points out that “as above so below” is of the occult and has no business being in the Lord’s Prayer they are attacked. Surely those in the modern bible camp have to draw a line somewhere. Can anything be allowed to go just for the sake of argument?
Does the fact that the New World Translation agrees with most of the modern translations concerning 1 John 5:7 prove that they are all like it?
This is a true statement because they only exist in the King James Bible (and Hebrew and Greek manuscripts) but if I start posting examples in this thread I will get in trouble for spamming. I have and continue to post examples for anyone to examine so feel free to prove that they do not exist.
Should I be surprised that when I said you and the occult were in agreement you concurred? Maybe you should slow down and think before you post and pick your battles more wisely. You probably did not mean it but you were blindly defending the Message Bible just for the sake of argument and not the truth.
In other words everything that follows will contain zero facts.
This is a blanket statement that is not universally true. If I say all you modern bible version guys are fighting so sharply to defend all modern bible translations would that be a true statement? (Message Bible, New World Translation, etc.)
Maybe you are just uniformed. There is a lot I do not know but “whenever somebody” points out that “as above so below” is of the occult and has no business being in the Lord’s Prayer they are attacked. Surely those in the modern bible camp have to draw a line somewhere. Can anything be allowed to go just for the sake of argument?
Does the fact that the New World Translation agrees with most of the modern translations concerning 1 John 5:7 prove that they are all like it?
This is a true statement because they only exist in the King James Bible (and Hebrew and Greek manuscripts) but if I start posting examples in this thread I will get in trouble for spamming. I have and continue to post examples for anyone to examine so feel free to prove that they do not exist.
Should I be surprised that when I said you and the occult were in agreement you concurred? Maybe you should slow down and think before you post and pick your battles more wisely. You probably did not mean it but you were blindly defending the Message Bible just for the sake of argument and not the truth.
Last edited:
Seven times.—“Because seven was significant of the Divine covenant with Israel, and the cure depended on that covenant; or to stamp the cure as a Divine work, for seven is the signature of the works of God” (Keil). In the Assyrian monuments there is an almost exact parallel to the above method of seeking a cure. It occurs among the so-called exorcisms, and belongs to the age of Sargon of Agadê (Accad), before 2200 B.C. Merodach is represented as asking his father Hea how to cure a sick man. Hea replies that the sick man must go and bathe in the sacred waters at the mouth of the Euphrates. It thus appears that in bidding Naaman bathe seven times in the Jordan, Elisha acted in accordance with ancient Semitic belief as to the healing virtue of running streams.
Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers
Is your life more Christian like now?
The words of men do not make someone more christian like but let me help you get started. In the 7th chapter of the Bible we read:
"Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female." (Genesis 7:2)
Perhaps there is a connection between the number 7 and something that is considered clean. Was Naaman made clean from his leprosy?
"Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female." (Genesis 7:2)
Perhaps there is a connection between the number 7 and something that is considered clean. Was Naaman made clean from his leprosy?
Last edited:
And God did not command Noah to take clean beasts onto the ark by "sevens" which is the main point?
"For yet seven days, and I will cause it to rain upon the earth forty days and forty nights; and every living substance that I have made will I destroy from off the face of the earth." (Genesis 7:4)
Was not God preparing to cleanse the earth of wickedness?
"For yet seven days, and I will cause it to rain upon the earth forty days and forty nights; and every living substance that I have made will I destroy from off the face of the earth." (Genesis 7:4)
Was not God preparing to cleanse the earth of wickedness?
Last edited:
The number patterns you refer to... have you demonstrated that they exist only in the KJV and not in other translations? Have you demonstrated that the same patterns exist in the original languages? If not "yes" to both, you're overextending yourself and speaking non-truths.
Nobody needs to prove that the patterns don't exist; that is another attempt at a burden-of-proof reversal. I'm surprised you haven't learned this yet, given the number of times I've called you on it.
You have made the assertions; you step up with the evidence.
Nobody needs to prove that the patterns don't exist; that is another attempt at a burden-of-proof reversal. I'm surprised you haven't learned this yet, given the number of times I've called you on it.
You have made the assertions; you step up with the evidence.