Disliking the bible.

[GRACE_ambassador]

No one has created a new KJV that is not "twisted" with alterations in as said "twisted ways".

God just may "give you hope" after all - there is a small group working to publish
a KJV with the archaic words updated. You can pray about it and see:

https://www.kjvupdate.com

Be Blessed!

 

[dave44]

God just may "give you hope" after all - there is a small group working to publish
a KJV with the archaic words updated. You can pray about it and see:

https://www.kjvupdate.com

Be Blessed!

Some have said this is very unlikely as the patreon donation is only $50 so far or $500, as far as I remember. They probably need at least $250,000.000 or a lot more. But if God wants it, it will be done, etc.

 

[JohnDB]

I understand your point but have little options to study greek and hebrew and feel like killing myself than taking ten years to do that in order to be only half competent at reading and understanding to old languages.

And in regards to the King James, it may have issues, but the modern bibles all stem from one, a nazi war criminal, two westcott and horts new testament who were the creators of an supernatural group and who spoke to the dead, a known forger Tischendorff and more. Not even mentioning the only two opposing texts of the sinaiticus against the vaticainus that do not line up to each other compared to thousands of texts for the "KJV lineage" bibles and texts.

If God would bless me to have the skill / options / and other for hebrew and greek, and it was of benefit and not a waste of time staying indoors reading going ever worse in sight from short range activities etc, I assume God would give me the blessings. But I do not have many options except online websites and guessing.

Also it seems God has basically banned "memory palaces" and their use and training of in my circumstance, even leading me to a museum of "his dark materials" that hinted at "lots of knowledge is dark" etc. It seemed very directed, therefore I have little time saving options for memorising also.

So it seems I will have to wait to be blessed with guidance, or suffer with a "poor, but best of the most trusted lineage translations" in english, that are not of the "shady peoples" creations etc, potentially. No one has created a new KJV that is not "twisted" with alterations in as said "twisted ways". So they are no use either.

Thanks for reply though.

Your "history" of Westcott and Hort is nothing more than lies. Do you know which was nothing more than a financier and which one translated NO SCRIPTURES but actually just gave them context? He didn't want translate because of the politics involved. And neither Westcott or Hort were responsible for the Geneva Bible which was THE Bible used for centuries before the Oxford/Cambridge COE translation used today. Do you even know who the leader/Pope of the Church of England when this translation was created?

Did you know that Westcott and Hort had to leave Geneva because the Calvinists there wished to kill them.? Do you know the real reason why they were going to be killed?

Do you know which of those two guys was an expert on Ancient Near East Jewish extrabiblical literature that is referenced regularly in scriptures?

If you are going to hand out slander then you need definitive proof of your allegations and have an understanding of the history.

 

[dave44]

Your "history" of Westcott and Hort is nothing more than lies. Do you know which was nothing more than a financier and which one translated NO SCRIPTURES but actually just gave them context? He didn't want translate because of the politics involved. And neither Westcott or Hort were responsible for the Geneva Bible which was THE Bible used for centuries before the Oxford/Cambridge COE translation used today. Do you even know who the leader/Pope of the Church of England when this translation was created?

Did you know that Westcott and Hort had to leave Geneva because the Calvinists there wished to kill them.? Do you know the real reason why they were going to be killed?

Do you know which of those two guys was an expert on Ancient Near East Jewish extrabiblical literature that is referenced regularly in scriptures?

If you are going to hand out slander then you need definitive proof of your allegations and have an understanding of the history.

I'm not trying to be slanderous, but westcott and hort, even one of their sons wrote that their father comuned with a church full of "the saints", meaning the dead, and the nazi war criminal is if I remember "vine" or "thayer" or "kittle" (forgot which)?, that the new versions base their text on using their dictionaries etc. Westcott and hort openly hated the KJV in written text online. And the tishendorf issue is an issue of trust. He was a forger, and the two sections of text do not match in color as videos show, one is like new, the other old, and "David Daniels" a translator, covered this in many videos. He changed to KJV because of the historical issues etc.

The KJV seems the best of a bad bunch, for English content, not modern clarity etc. The text sources, seem more reliable due to number of "same text copy sources", rather than 2 that oppose eachother, and are likely included because one includes the apochrypha (for the catholic church?) or maybe it is coincidence, who knows. The point is, reliability, not hoping or guesswork. The nestles text has a bad rap as being "westcott and hort / others etc", and the KJV has a bad rap for a "cobbled together text group". But at least the texts of the KJV were not entirely re-written potentially, by westcott / hort / others etc.

So, for me, it is to do with trust.

Do I think the whole of the new version bible constructions used today are entirely corrupted? It is obviously not the case due to much of the text being the same, but, the issue is that all modern bibles are mainly created and supported by the united bibles society, that is against the KJV because the catholic church will not allow bibles from the ubs to be created in support of KJV bibles etc. As far as I know from others.

But even if this were not the case, the Geveva bible chooses to translate "repent", to "amend your ways", which cannot be accurate due to the verses saying / suggesting, mans ways are false and Gods ways are true and perfect. Therefore, to "amend your ways", to another way of your own "amending" is seemingly false. Turning to God's ways from your own ways, makes more sense, but this is only a single word issue on the Geneva bible.

 

[JohnDB]

I'm not trying to be slanderous, but westcott and hort, even one of their sons wrote that their father comuned with a church full of "the saints", meaning the dead, and the nazi war criminal is if I remember "vine" or "thayer" or "kittle" (forgot which)?, that the new versions base their text on using their dictionaries etc. Westcott and hort openly hated the KJV in written text online. And the tishendorf issue is an issue of trust. He was a forger, and the two sections of text do not match in color as videos show, one is like new, the other old, and "David Daniels" a translator, covered this in many videos. He changed to KJV because of the historical issues etc.

The KJV seems the best of a bad bunch, for English content, not modern clarity etc. The text sources, seem more reliable due to number of "same text copy sources", rather than 2 that oppose eachother, and are likely included because one includes the apochrypha (for the catholic church?) or maybe it is coincidence, who knows. The point is, reliability, not hoping or guesswork. The nestles text has a bad rap as being "westcott and hort / others etc", and the KJV has a bad rap for a "cobbled together text group". But at least the texts of the KJV were not entirely re-written potentially, by westcott / hort / others etc.

So, for me, it is to do with trust.

Do I think the whole of the new version bible constructions used today are entirely corrupted? It is obviously not the case due to much of the text being the same, but, the issue is that all modern bibles are mainly created and supported by the united bibles society, that is against the KJV because the catholic church will not allow bibles from the ubs to be created in support of KJV bibles etc. As far as I know from others.

But even if this were not the case, the Geveva bible chooses to translate "repent", to "amend your ways", which cannot be accurate due to the verses saying / suggesting, mans ways are false and Gods ways are true and perfect. Therefore, to "amend your ways", to another way of your own "amending" is seemingly false. Turning to God's ways from your own ways, makes more sense, but this is only a single word issue on the Geneva bible.

Well you need to provide REPUTABLE (academically accepted and peer reviwed with endorsements) links to this biography about how these guys who I know didn't translate the scriptures really did translate the scriptures. This is the second time I've asked.
Otherwise you are trolling and slandering.
And the likely story is you have fallen prey to liars and studied materials built on heresy and lies claiming to be knowledgeable.

 

[JohnDB]

Also....I got the 'Rona....so I got so many steroids in me at the moment my abilities to extend massive amounts of grace are somewhat reduced.

 

[JohnDB]

But for the record....I LOVE THE SCRIPTURES. Every jot and tittle...every single word that we have today was paid for in gallons of blood by God's favorite people.
Every single word is precious to me....even the "skip over begats" sections tell a wonderful story to me. They may not tell you anything because the translation in those sections sucks.

So why are you teaching "us schmucks" about how holy you are and how unrighteous we are for reading the "wrong Bible" when you have admitted that you really don't have standing to judge the translation work to begin with?

I do....

And I know some of the details about how some of the translations were done. ALL translations are "bent" so as not to bruise favorite doctrines...except for the NIV which avoids Christian Politics....so in the end its the most commonly disparaged.

And I tend to prefer the original and not so much the updates.

 

[dave44]

Well you need to provide REPUTABLE (academically accepted and peer reviwed with endorsements) links to this biography about how these guys who I know didn't translate the scriptures really did translate the scriptures. This is the second time I've asked.
Otherwise you are trolling and slandering.
And the likely story is you have fallen prey to liars and studied materials built on heresy and lies claiming to be knowledgeable.

You want me to provide "ACADEMICALLY - ACCEPTED" peer reviewed information and not the history of the world? I did not start a debate on this thread, read the first post.

I cannot trust a bible is my issue, not a proof text issue. If you don't want to spend hours and days looking at videos and texts and websites trying to find people with evidence, that is your choice. But don't expect me to do your work for you. But a few pointers I will see if I can add.

This is the general "basic" historical and academic understanding with regard to westcott and hort:
https://www.gotquestions.org/Westcott-and-Hort.html

This is the evidence that the nestles text matches in most cases, westcott and hort, but renames its text to "nestles text". Note the previous site mentions that it was based on Sinaiticus and Vaticainus as I mentioned. Can you mention a bible that is aligned with the sinaiticus and vaticainus that is old? like the Geneva bible or others? If not, why were these texts not used seemingly until modern bibles were created around the time of westcott and hort? E,G ASV 1901 onwards etc. Where are the thousands of bibles in rome, greece, ethiopia or uk or other that match these texts? Why do the known bibles match the thousands of "KJV / Geneva / Bishops / Masoretic", and not the "minor texts" used for new versions? I don't need you to answer, it is a point being made. That all bibles would be of the "minor texts" of new versions if they were the original choices etc, but they are "minor" in number = 1 of each, with a few newer texts thrown in to fill the gaps.

A quote from another site:
http://deanburgonsociety.org/CriticalTexts/dbs2695.htm

"The Conclusion and Importance to be Drawn from these Seven Testimonies. Have you ever wondered just WHY the basic Greek text of Westcott and Hort dated in 1881 is virtually identical with the basic Greek text of the present critical editions? The simple reason is that they are derived from the same basic, corrupt Greek manuscripts, namely "B" (Vatican) and "Aleph" (Sinai) and a few others that followed them."

The quote is about testimonies of scholars and investigators over the years who have compared the new versions as stated.

Believe what you want. As I said, it is about trust.


David Daniels video's 2 parts.

I hope this is of use. But I admit and do not presume to know everything, and therefore will allow God to guide and correct me with new information if God so wishes to clarify this with new information. Remember, there is also much money to be made in different bible versions, and there are schisms between churches / catholic / protestant / JW's / Mormons etc, who all have different bibles in general, with altered texts between all of them. Thats largely why I stick with KJV before the "new version changes". God bless all and I hope all is made clear by God in Jesus name, to all, amen.

 

[JohnDB]

You want me to provide "ACADEMICALLY - ACCEPTED" peer reviewed information and not the history of the world? I did not start a debate on this thread, read the first post.

I cannot trust a bible is my issue, not a proof text issue. If you don't want to spend hours and days looking at videos and texts and websites trying to find people with evidence, that is your choice. But don't expect me to do your work for you. But a few pointers I will see if I can add.

This is the general "basic" historical and academic understanding with regard to westcott and hort:
https://www.gotquestions.org/Westcott-and-Hort.html

This is the evidence that the nestles text matches in most cases, westcott and hort, but renames its text to "nestles text". Note the previous site mentions that it was based on Sinaiticus and Vaticainus as I mentioned. Can you mention a bible that is aligned with the sinaiticus and vaticainus that is old? like the Geneva bible or others? If not, why were these texts not used seemingly until modern bibles were created around the time of westcott and hort? E,G ASV 1901 onwards etc. Where are the thousands of bibles in rome, greece, ethiopia or uk or other that match these texts? Why do the known bibles match the thousands of "KJV / Geneva / Bishops / Masoretic", and not the "minor texts" used for new versions? I don't need you to answer, it is a point being made. That all bibles would be of the "minor texts" of new versions if they were the original choices etc, but they are "minor" in number = 1 of each, with a few newer texts thrown in to fill the gaps.

A quote from another site:
http://deanburgonsociety.org/CriticalTexts/dbs2695.htm

"The Conclusion and Importance to be Drawn from these Seven Testimonies. Have you ever wondered just WHY the basic Greek text of Westcott and Hort dated in 1881 is virtually identical with the basic Greek text of the present critical editions? The simple reason is that they are derived from the same basic, corrupt Greek manuscripts, namely "B" (Vatican) and "Aleph" (Sinai) and a few others that followed them."

The quote is about testimonies of scholars and investigators over the years who have compared the new versions as stated.

Believe what you want. As I said, it is about trust.


David Daniels video's 2 parts.

I hope this is of use. But I admit and do not presume to know everything, and therefore will allow God to guide and correct me with new information if God so wishes to clarify this with new information. Remember, there is also much money to be made in different bible versions, and there are schisms between churches / catholic / protestant / JW's / Mormons etc, who all have different bibles in general, with altered texts between all of them. Thats largely why I stick with KJV before the "new version changes". God bless all and I hope all is made clear by God in Jesus name, to all, amen.

I have done the research....
Some of the same as you have done here except I didn't botch it by making wild conclusions and leaps of conspiracy nonsense fantasy.

There are NO two latin Vaticanus texts that are anything like each other. Each one varies with additions, deletions or substitutions.

Codex sainiticus is the Oldest manuscripts to date that is roughly the same age as the Dead Sea Scrolls. And it wasn't discovered until AFTER the discovery of the dead sea scrolls (during WW2) discovery....completely unavailable for The Great Bible which was the first English Bible used by King Henry the 8th. It was published by Miles Coverdale but It largely was the work of Wycliffe and Erasmus.

Wescott and Hort were and had been focused on things other than scriptures and even though begged and pleaded with refused to translate scriptures into English. However, what they did do was explain that central control vs local control of churches wasn't a focus for the scriptures and where it was popular to make them do so that wasn't even discussed in scriptures.

As such many of the notions of Calvinism were also not correct and had been refuted thoroughly in John's Gospel primarily.

These sorts of things got these gentlemen in a lot of hot water especially in Geneva. Wild accusations of witchcraft and heresy followed them everywhere.

Westcott's commentary on the Book of Hebrews is foundational and extremely pertinent. Every study guide to this day copies his work on Hebrews and Jude because these books refer to the extra Biblical literature that Westcott was an expert in. Hort was just a financier.....he had the clout and money that got Westcott listened to as he demonstrated how certain passages of scriptures were direct references to Jewish literature.

 

[RaceRunner]

 

[HealthAndHappiness]

You want me to provide "ACADEMICALLY - ACCEPTED" peer reviewed information and not the history of the world? I did not start a debate on this thread, read the first post.

I cannot trust a bible is my issue, not a proof text issue. If you don't want to spend hours and days looking at videos and texts and websites trying to find people with evidence, that is your choice. But don't expect me to do your work for you. But a few pointers I will see if I can add.

This is the general "basic" historical and academic understanding with regard to westcott and hort:
https://www.gotquestions.org/Westcott-and-Hort.html

This is the evidence that the nestles text matches in most cases, westcott and hort, but renames its text to "nestles text". Note the previous site mentions that it was based on Sinaiticus and Vaticainus as I mentioned. Can you mention a bible that is aligned with the sinaiticus and vaticainus that is old? like the Geneva bible or others? If not, why were these texts not used seemingly until modern bibles were created around the time of westcott and hort? E,G ASV 1901 onwards etc. Where are the thousands of bibles in rome, greece, ethiopia or uk or other that match these texts? Why do the known bibles match the thousands of "KJV / Geneva / Bishops / Masoretic", and not the "minor texts" used for new versions? I don't need you to answer, it is a point being made. That all bibles would be of the "minor texts" of new versions if they were the original choices etc, but they are "minor" in number = 1 of each, with a few newer texts thrown in to fill the gaps.

A quote from another site:
http://deanburgonsociety.org/CriticalTexts/dbs2695.htm

"The Conclusion and Importance to be Drawn from these Seven Testimonies. Have you ever wondered just WHY the basic Greek text of Westcott and Hort dated in 1881 is virtually identical with the basic Greek text of the present critical editions? The simple reason is that they are derived from the same basic, corrupt Greek manuscripts, namely "B" (Vatican) and "Aleph" (Sinai) and a few others that followed them."

The quote is about testimonies of scholars and investigators over the years who have compared the new versions as stated.

Believe what you want. As I said, it is about trust.


David Daniels video's 2 parts.

I hope this is of use. But I admit and do not presume to know everything, and therefore will allow God to guide and correct me with new information if God so wishes to clarify this with new information. Remember, there is also much money to be made in different bible versions, and there are schisms between churches / catholic / protestant / JW's / Mormons etc, who all have different bibles in general, with altered texts between all of them. Thats largely why I stick with KJV before the "new version changes". God bless all and I hope all is made clear by God in Jesus name, to all, amen.

David Daniels proved that obvious discovery that had to be swept under the rug by the higher critics for generations. A child can see that. An ancient text would be uniformly oxidized. It wouldn't be part bleached white and part dark. The additional witness of it being painted with tea or some similar stain is clear evidence that the manuscripts are not the "oldest and most reliable" as the critical mantra repeats.

 

[HealthAndHappiness]

I'm not trying to be slanderous, but westcott and hort, even one of their sons wrote that their father comuned with a church full of "the saints", meaning the dead, and the nazi war criminal is if I remember "vine" or "thayer" or "kittle" (forgot which)?, that the new versions base their text on using their dictionaries etc. Westcott and hort openly hated the KJV in written text online. And the tishendorf issue is an issue of trust. He was a forger, and the two sections of text do not match in color as videos show, one is like new, the other old, and "David Daniels" a translator, covered this in many videos. He changed to KJV because of the historical issues etc.

The KJV seems the best of a bad bunch, for English content, not modern clarity etc. The text sources, seem more reliable due to number of "same text copy sources", rather than 2 that oppose eachother, and are likely included because one includes the apochrypha (for the catholic church?) or maybe it is coincidence, who knows. The point is, reliability, not hoping or guesswork. The nestles text has a bad rap as being "westcott and hort / others etc", and the KJV has a bad rap for a "cobbled together text group". But at least the texts of the KJV were not entirely re-written potentially, by westcott / hort / others etc.

So, for me, it is to do with trust.

Do I think the whole of the new version bible constructions used today are entirely corrupted? It is obviously not the case due to much of the text being the same, but, the issue is that all modern bibles are mainly created and supported by the united bibles society, that is against the KJV because the catholic church will not allow bibles from the ubs to be created in support of KJV bibles etc. As far as I know from others.

But even if this were not the case, the Geveva bible chooses to translate "repent", to "amend your ways", which cannot be accurate due to the verses saying / suggesting, mans ways are false and Gods ways are true and perfect. Therefore, to "amend your ways", to another way of your own "amending" is seemingly false. Turning to God's ways from your own ways, makes more sense, but this is only a single word issue on the Geneva bible.

Here's a documentary worth watching that will answer the question others have not.
Bookmark it for future reference when you start to doubt God's Word

 

[dave44]

To point to a KJV as being supported by God, and new versions not being so, these 2 videos must have the question answered; How can this be so, without time travel and a supercomputer AI, or "God"? Because verses did not exist, or English in the earliest texts? Oh and the website has more videos https://www.truthischrist.org/

 

[AmazingGrace]

Hey there. I understand what you struggle with [I too, have struggled]. I now, encourage all uses of modern bible versions due to brain injuries, learning disabilities and people who cannot learn from the NKJV, KJV version etc. Nothing is worse than not having God's Word fully accessible to you.

The one thing I will encourage is getting ahold of D. Arnold Fruchtenbaum. He recommends NASB verison by Lockwood. The series that would definitely encourage and help you with this is Come and See series. The link is below:

https://www.ariel.org/resources/come-and-see/studies

There are free MP3 and PDF [about the Bible] they are about 11 minutes long MP3 and the PDF is the same as the MP3 only in written version. I have learned SO much with his teaching. [Scroll down on that page to see what I have screenshot for you]. He is great at breaking everything down and simplifying things. He also repeats which I appreciate so much.

I truly pray this will encourage you, give you peace and bring the joy back you receiving God's Word. God's Word is so important and is the authority in our lives as Christians.

My heart is touched and I have such compassion on you. I pray God will contiunes to be gracious to you. AG

 

[timemeddler]

got news for you the King James is corrupted as well.
https://www.ucg.org/bible-study-too...stakes-in-the-king-james-version-of-the-bible
https://www.angelfire.com/hi2/graphic1designer/errors.html
Honestly why do people cling to this version? only the original text are spiritually inspired, everything else is just a translation, and a fair portion of the king james is a translation of a translation, We have more original text to reference back to now that have been discovered, than they did in the 17th century. Why not just get a Latin bible at that point? Because it's a dead language of no use to most people.

 

[dave44]

got news for you the King James is corrupted as well.
https://www.ucg.org/bible-study-too...stakes-in-the-king-james-version-of-the-bible
https://www.angelfire.com/hi2/graphic1designer/errors.html
Honestly why do people cling to this version? only the original text are spiritually inspired, everything else is just a translation, and a fair portion of the king james is a translation of a translation, We have more original text to reference back to now that have been discovered, than they did in the 17th century. Why not just get a Latin bible at that point? Because it's a dead language of no use to most people.

You did NOT watch the videos above, so you will NOT understand unless you do so. It is not possible to do what the videos say without being organised by either God who knows the future and has planned accordingly etc, or a time travelling mind controlling alien who knows all time who made Jesus and the apostles and the verse number creators and the prophets and the King James Bible makers, say and do what this so called "super alien" wanted (or simply the KJV is the only english version to follow as the videos prove, the David daniels ones add to this but the 666 and 777 videos from "christistruth.org" and youtube, show this is obviously not possible by accident or peoples design or they would have to live for thousands of years.)

 

[timemeddler]

i saw

You did NOT watch the videos above, so you will NOT understand unless you do so. It is not possible to do what the videos say without being organised by either God who knows the future and has planned accordingly etc, or a time travelling mind controlling alien who knows all time who made Jesus and the apostles and the verse number creators and the prophets and the King James Bible makers, say and do what this so called "super alien" wanted (or simply the KJV is the only english version to follow as the videos prove, the David daniels ones add to this but the 666 and 777 videos from "christistruth.org" and youtube, show this is obviously not possible by accident or peoples design or they would have to live for thousands of years.)

I saw enough to know it hogwash, what do you expect non-english readers to use? I've literally seen a church destroyed by KJV only fanatics, in a church that wasn't king james only to begin with. KJV wasn't even the first english bible, it just had the biggest backing when it came out. Honestly, this is lunacy.

 

[dave44]

i saw

I saw enough to know it hogwash, what do you expect non-english readers to use? I've literally seen a church destroyed by KJV only fanatics, in a church that wasn't king james only to begin with. KJV wasn't even the first english bible, it just had the biggest backing when it came out. Honestly, this is lunacy.

You really should watch and not make assumptions. It is not about the English, it is about the source texts and it is proven in theses videos especially the https://truthischrist.com videos. It is about translation source, not English, as some of these videos also prove that the greek and hebrew line of text sources is also supported with evidence that is mathematical and not "guesswork". Some of these videos also prove the appocrypha is not supported because it alters the math / verses / names etc like the "new versions" / meaning the different source text versions (NIV-ESV-NKJV-NASB etc) that are also in English.

 

[dave44]

Also, there are many translations in other languages that are from the same text source.