Has anyone found secret messages in the bible?

Modern Textual Critics like James White try to explain away Psalms 12:6-7

Also, the Modern Translation rendering on Psalms 12:7 does not make any sense by referring exclusively to the people alone and not also God’s words. Modern Bibles are making verse 6 like some kind of mysterious floater verse that does not connect in with the rest of the chapter. What do the pure words of the Lord have to do with the rest of chapter.? Only if the proper KJV rendering of Psalms 12:7 on how God’s words being preserved can the people also be preserved for eternity (or for ever), too. The KJV rendering is superior.

No it does not, and you being stubborn about it isn't helping your case.


All irrelevant to your misinterpretation of Psalm 12.


Quote any modern textual critic who has said or written that.


Silly hypocrisy. You think that the KJV translators were doing something fundamentally different than what modern scholars do... with no evidence to support your bias.


Only if they stubbornly refuse to read and believe those three critical words: "from this generation".

That is irrelevant. Pharisees were just as corrupt if not worse, and yet in Mathew 23:3 Jesus told everyone to be subjects under them.

Jesus doesn't tell people to submit to people who claim to have authority, but to people who actually have authority. Just as the King of Sweden has no authority over me because I don't live in Sweden, so the Catholic entity has no authority over anyone who is not a member thereof.

Lets understand something here. First, the translators of the KJV knew the original languages far better than the average person today. Many of the translators could speak, write, and read Hebrew and Greek fluently. 47 of the top scholars worked on the KJV and they had the best manuscripts.

Second, this person in this video most likely does not even speak, read, and write Hebrew fluently as their native tongue. Even if they did, the Hebrew language died out for a while and came back. So folks would only be guessing as to what Hebrew is saying. The only thing to have is trusting in God’s Word in the language God chose for today, which I believe is English (The world language). To put it to you another way, I do not entertain original language interpretations because they really do not know these languages. They may have went to some college but if they cannot live in that culture and speak to the locals and write a book that they would be impressed with, they are simply not qualified and they are merely toying with a dead language.

Three, when a person explains away the English meaning in the Bible, what they are really saying is that the translators of the KJV were wrong or stupid and they know better. But I don’t imagine they even bothered to check their credentials. Compared to their own credentials it is a joke for sure. They are one person who is toying with a language and trying to be on the same level of the top scholars who actually knew the languages very well.

I put forth some really great points that would convince even me if I was skeptical. If you disagree, there is no point to continue this discourse on this particular point. All I can do is encourage you to keep an open mind and look at the patterns of evidence that weigh heavily in the KJV’s favor. Besides, your points are not any kind of rebuttals to what I said, either. You are just basically disagreeing. That’s not really a rebuttal of any kind, my friend.

But we can agree to disagree in love and respect (Of course).

May God’s good ways shine upon you today.

Jesus doesn't tell people to submit to people who claim to have authority, but to people who actually have authority. Just as the King of Sweden has no authority over me because I don't live in Sweden, so the Catholic entity has no authority over anyone who is not a member thereof.

I provided PLENTY of evidence for their authority, and you haven't provided ANY rebuttal against the points I made. Just saying you disagree therefore you're correct is a very immature and childish way to communicate. You can put fingers in your ears and scream LA LA LA, but you're just rebelling against God.

Peter was listed first among disciples (Matt. 10:1-4, Mark 3:16-19, Luke 6:14-16, Acts 1:13).
Peter was the one who generally spoke for the apostles (Matt. 18:21, Mark 8:29, Luke 12:41, John 6:68-69), and he figured in many of the most dramatic scenes (Matt. 14:28-32, 17:24-27; Mark 10:23-28).
On Pentecost it was Peter who first preached to the crowds (Acts 2:14-40), and he worked the first healing in the Church age (Acts 3:6-7).
It is Peter’s faith that will strengthen his brethren (Luke 22:32) and Peter is given Christ’s flock to shepherd (John 21:17).
An angel was sent to announce the resurrection to Peter (Mark 16:7), and the risen Christ appeared first to Peter (Luke 24:34).
He headed the meeting that elected Matthias to replace Judas (Acts 1:13-26), and he received the first converts (Acts 2:41).
He inflicted the first punishment (Acts 5:1-11) and excommunicated the first heretic (Acts 8:18-23).
He led the first council in Jerusalem (Acts 15) and announced the first dogmatic decision (Acts 15:7-11).
It was to Peter that the revelation came that Gentiles were to be baptized and accepted as Christians (Acts 10:46-48).
Jesus gave Peter the keys to heaven in Mathew 16:19 because he was the first one to acknowledge him as the Messiah.
After the Resurrection, Jesus appeared to his disciples and asked Peter three times, “Do you love me?” (John 21:15-17). In repentance for his threefold denial, Peter gave a threefold affirmation of love. Then Christ, the Good Shepherd (John 10:11, 14), gave Peter the authority he earlier had promised: “Feed my sheep” (John 21:17). This specifically included the other apostles, since Jesus asked Peter, “Do you love me more than these?” (John 21:15), the word “these” referring to the other apostles who were present (John 21:2).

It doesn't matter if they are apostate, just like it doesn't matter if the government is corrupt, you still have to obey the law. Romans 13:1 tells us to obey ALL authority, and there is plenty of evidence of the authority held by the Catholic church.

When the candlestick and light are removed, so too is the authority

Jesus began to DO and to teach. When you can only do as they say and not also as they so, they no longer speak with authority.

That is an argument from authority and it's a logical fallacy. Address the argument, not the credentials.

I'm disagreeing because you're wrong. It's really that simple.

Here's how we can "disagree in love and respect": you stop promoting the error and I will stop calling it error.

I provided PLENTY of evidence for their authority, and you haven't provided ANY rebuttal against the points I made. Just saying you disagree therefore you're correct is a very immature and childish way to communicate. You can put fingers in your ears and scream LA LA LA, but you're just rebelling against God.

Peter was listed first among disciples (Matt. 10:1-4, Mark 3:16-19, Luke 6:14-16, Acts 1:13).
Peter was the one who generally spoke for the apostles (Matt. 18:21, Mark 8:29, Luke 12:41, John 6:68-69), and he figured in many of the most dramatic scenes (Matt. 14:28-32, 17:24-27; Mark 10:23-28).
On Pentecost it was Peter who first preached to the crowds (Acts 2:14-40), and he worked the first healing in the Church age (Acts 3:6-7).
It is Peter’s faith that will strengthen his brethren (Luke 22:32) and Peter is given Christ’s flock to shepherd (John 21:17).
An angel was sent to announce the resurrection to Peter (Mark 16:7), and the risen Christ appeared first to Peter (Luke 24:34).
He headed the meeting that elected Matthias to replace Judas (Acts 1:13-26), and he received the first converts (Acts 2:41).
He inflicted the first punishment (Acts 5:1-11) and excommunicated the first heretic (Acts 8:18-23).
He led the first council in Jerusalem (Acts 15) and announced the first dogmatic decision (Acts 15:7-11).
It was to Peter that the revelation came that Gentiles were to be baptized and accepted as Christians (Acts 10:46-48).
Jesus gave Peter the keys to heaven in Mathew 16:19 because he was the first one to acknowledge him as the Messiah.
After the Resurrection, Jesus appeared to his disciples and asked Peter three times, “Do you love me?” (John 21:15-17). In repentance for his threefold denial, Peter gave a threefold affirmation of love. Then Christ, the Good Shepherd (John 10:11, 14), gave Peter the authority he earlier had promised: “Feed my sheep” (John 21:17). This specifically included the other apostles, since Jesus asked Peter, “Do you love me more than these?” (John 21:15), the word “these” referring to the other apostles who were present (John 21:2).

It doesn't matter if they are apostate, just like it doesn't matter if the government is corrupt, you still have to obey the law. Romans 13:1 tells us to obey ALL authority, and there is plenty of evidence of the authority held by the Catholic church.

What does that have to do with anything? That's from the 7 churches that don't exist anymore. Obviously the Catholic church still has it's candlestick.


Pharisees had authority according to Jesus in Mathew 23:3. They spoke with authority and Jesus told everyone to be subjects under them whether you like it or not.

So you would let a bum off the side of the street do open heart surgery on you? This kind of the comparison here. If this person does not know how to converse in Hebrew with locals, they are not qualified. But even if they did, like I said before, the Hebrew language died out for a while and came back. It’s not the same Hebrew that the KJV translators would have been familiar with. So again this person is like a person who has wandered into the middle of a movie and who makes false assumptions about the film because they did not see the beginning (if they are correcting the KJV).

The door swings both ways on that. I believe Modern Textual Criticism is error and it is why Europe and America are in such bad shape spiritually as a nation. Surely it is not a coincidence that when the Modern Bibles started to become popular in the early 60’s in the US, you also had the KJV being taken out of schools to be read. They strayed away from the true Word of God. But we can agree to disagree of course.

You can also tell me all about the authority that the king of Sweden has, and it wouldn't convince me that I need to submit to him.

The reality is that no Christian is under the Catholic entity at all (unless they put themselves under it or refuse to leave it), regardless of what you claim. Peter never held authority over the other apostles, and "apostolic succession" is a farce at best.

Please, stop shining a spotlight on your own folly and drop this matter before it gets you banned.

They haven't had a candlestick for a long time. Just a series of men chosen by other men. The proof is their apostasy. So, it isn't obvious at all that a candlestick remains. The opposite is what is obvious.
And the Pharisees and scribes spoke without authority...Matthew 7:28-29. The reason Jesus told them to do as they say and not as they do is because the Jews were still subject to the old covenant. But in telling them this, He only acknowledges their positional authority and not their spiritual authority. The presence of God was absent them. Otherwise, they would have received Jesus gladly.

You are misinterpreting the candlestick analogy - once the candlesticks got removed, the 7 churches were no more. The Catholic church obviously still has it's candlestick. The same way Jews, who were under the old covenant had to be under the authority of Pharisees (those who are in the seat of Moses), we as Christians under the new covenant are under the authority of those who sit in the seat of Peter. Your argument against them being corrupt is irrelevant. I agree they are not spiritual authority, but we still have to recognize their authority as the one true Church, and we have to do everything they say as long as it doesn't contradict the word of God.

Nice try, but it doesn't explain why Germany, France, and the rest of Europe are predominantly secular. The KJV was never the most-used translation there.