Has anyone found secret messages in the bible?

How could the God-Man -- Jesus of Nazareth -- live like a "normal man"? Even when He was twelve years old He showed that He was clearly not a "normal" boy. And all that heard him were astonished at his understanding and answers. (Luke 2:47). No Christ was definitely different even from conception. And He did not need to produce "the fruit of the Spirit" since He is God. He had the perfection and righteousness of God from the very beginning. So how did you arrive at your very deficient view of Christ?

Well, nowhere is Jesus listed among the heroes of faith chapter in Hebrews 11. As I said before, God the Father said He was pleased with the Son before He even started His earthly ministry. Jesus is God and He is one with the Father because He is the second person of the triune Godhead or Trinity. We are not. So this is why He did not have faith because He is God.

So you are saying that faith is not the substance of things not seen according to Hebrews 11:1?
Are you saying Jesus did not see God the Father according to John 1:18, and John 5:19? Are you saying Jesus did not say He came down from Heaven according to John 6:38?

Not at all. The Bible colleges actually endorse the Modern Translations renderings in that Jesus had faith. I actually strongly disagree with Bible College because they have destroyed the faith of many because of Textual Criticism. Your Modern Bibles falsely teach Jesus had faith. This teaching is not found in the King James Bible.

Jesus did operate by the Holy Spirit and God the Father. I am not in disagreement with those truths.

Colossians 2:9 says,
”For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.“

The word “Godhead” means Trinity.

So the fulness of the Word (which was made flesh) dwelt within the man we know as Christ Jesus.
Meaning, the second person of the Trinity dwelled in fulness. This is the Word made flesh.

Also, stop and think a second. How can Jesus say He is the “I AM“ from Exodus 3 to the Jews in John chapter 8?
If Jesus was a newly created being by taking on a human nature or human mind, then how could He be the same being in Exodus 3?
It makes no sense. Jesus said in John 6 that He came down from Heaven. How can He come down from Heaven if He was created as an entirely new being that was a human only that was stripped of His deity? Why did people worship Jesus?


Can God have faith in Himself? Obviously not. Jesus said He is one with the Father.

If I say I printed a document from my computer it means I got the document from the software that exists on my computer. If I said I printed a document that is of my computer it would imply today that it means that the document was already existing inside the hardware or something. Words change with the passage of time, and if you studied the KJV Bible for any length of time, you would know that it has archaic words within it. This is why I do use Modern Bibles but they cannot be my authority because they teach false doctrines.

According to the KNOWLEDGE of Him. How do we get the knowledge of Him (Jesus)? By the Bible, right?
We are not like the Charismatics who lay hold to some new vision or dream of the week type thing.
We have a more sure word of prophecy and this is the Bible.
The Bible is how we get our faith. Jesus did not need to have faith because He is God and He is one with the Father.

Again, Jesus is not like us.

Consider Hebrews 7:26 that says,
”For such an high priest became us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens;”

I am not asking you to follow the guy. Well, Mr. Waite has passed away. So that would not be possible even if you wanted to. In fact, most KJV believers believe in Eternal Security, which is false. Safeguardyoursoul.com is one website that is for the KJB as being the Word of God and yet they fight also against Eternal Security like me. Well, they could be more loving in their approach or words. Anyway, the point I am getting at is that he merely points out words that are archaic words in the KJB and he was not the only one to figure this out. Laurence M. Vance also has a book on the archaic wording from the KJB. Granted, Vance is illogical to suggest that the archaic words are not archaic. But everyone has their blind spots in life.

Also, I believe non KJB scholars are even more mislead because they trust in Textual Criticism, which means that no Bible is their standard or authority. Jesus warned of scholars when He said beware of the scribes. Scribes are those who TRAN-scribe the Scriptures. Those who make Bibles today cannot be trusted. They don’t believe God perfectly preserved His words for today. So I am not asking you to follow any Modern scholar today by any means. Follow the Lord Jesus and His Word alone (The Bible). I also do not agree with every single definition in the Define King James Bible. But it is a helpful resource nontheless. I could have simply looked up the words in a dictionary but it saves some time. He also does not define certain archaic words that I would have defined and he defines some words that I don’t believe need to be defined. No Christian resource is going to be perfect or infallible. The Bible is our real guide.

Also, changes in Modern Bibles are for the worse and not for the better.
So to claim that the KJB translators were simply following texts that added words to the Bible is silly.
Again, look at the history. Two of the Textus Receptus Bible translators leading up to the KJB were martyred by the Catholic Church.
The KJB was almost stopped by a super bomb by the Catholic Church (i.e., the Gunpowder Plot).
The KJB was the Bible that went out to the ends of the Earth and caused great revivals.
The KJB is the most printed book in the world.
The KJB was the Bible in public schools until the early 1960s.
But, look at the Westcott and Hort movement. They were into Catholic practices, Evolution, Unitarianism, and they worked in secrecy to dethrone the Textus Receptus. Before Westcott and Hort, Modern bibles were not popular and they were associated with liberals.
When Modern Bibles finally took off, you got your Nestle and Aland text. This Greek Critical Text is supervised by the Vatican. 14 changes can be found in the NIV that favors the Catholic Church. You can check out these changes in this PDF here on page 21 or 22.
So when we see changes in doctrine for the worse, it is not circular reasoning but a systematic logical deduction.

Most do not know that all Modern Bibles are influenced by the Vatican.

Here it is straight out of the Nestle and Aland Critical Text 27th Edition (New Testament Greek text). Note: The Nestle and Aland Critical Text is in it’s 28th edition now and it is the basis for most of the Modern English Bibles printed today. But the 27th edition below says this…


Source:
The KJB Only versus the Latin Vulgate Only Argument by: Another King James Bible Believer

I am going to repeat the text and highlight the key points.

“The text shared by these two editions was adopted internationally by Bible Societies, and following an agreement between the Vatican and United Bible Societies it has served as the basis for new translations and for revisions made under their supervision. This marks a significant step with regard to inter confessionals relationships.”

So…

#1. The text shared by these two editions was adopted internationally by Bible Societies.
#2. Following an agreement between the Vatican and United Bible Societies
#3. It has served as the basis for new translations and for revisions made under their supervision. (Note: What is the word “it” referring to in this sentence? This could be referring to the text and it is the basis (foundation) for new translations and revisions (Modern Bibles)).
#4. The text is the basis for new bible translations made under their supervision (the Vatican) which marks a significant step in regards to inter confessional relationships. Why does it mark a significant step? Because Carlo Martini (A Catholic cardinal) is an editor on the Nestle and Aland Critical Text.

In fact, let's check out the Nestle and Aland Critical Text page at Wikipedia called:

“Novum Testamentum Graece”


Novum Testamentum Graece - Wikipedia

Scroll down the page, and you will see pictures of Nestle, and Aland.
Note: Nestle worked on the Critical Text years before Aland.
Kurt Aland is the one who worked on the Critical Text involving the Vatican. How so?

Notice the highlighted words in the pic below.

Carlo Maria Martini.



If you were to zoom in and look at the picture below Kurt Aland:



Again, who is Carlo Maria Martini?

As I said before, he is a Catholic cardinal.


Source:
Carlo Maria Martini - Wikipedia

Important Note: JUST CLICK ON THE LINK FOR CARLO MARIA MARTINI MENTIONED IN THE ARTICLE).

But wait. There’s more. Let’s look at Kurt Aland again. I circled his picture below for you to see him. You can see his name next to his picture.



Now in this photo, you can see Kurt Aland with the pope:



Why?

Because of this:



“The text shared by these two editions was adopted internationally by Bible Societies, and following an agreement between the Vatican and United Bible Societies it has served as the basis for new translations and for revisions made under their supervision. This marks a significant step with regard to inter confessionals relationships.”

Source:
Nestle and Aland Critical Text - 27the Edition.

Not too long ago in history, we learn that the Catholic Church did not want you to read the KJB.



Yes, I am aware that this is from an older dictionary by the Catholic Church (Which can be found in one of their Catholic Bibles). But it is still pretty recent in history.

I am also aware there is 2020 KJV created for Catholics.

But why bring this up?

Well, as I said before, there are 14 changes that can be found in the NIV that favors the Catholic Church. You can check out these changes in this PDF here on page 21 or 22. Do you want to trust a Bible that is influenced by the Catholic Church? I sure don’t.

My comment has nothing to do with that.

Your reasoning is circular. Nothing you said here changes that.

Yes. But do you believe Jesus had faith or not? This is important because if you defend that Jesus did not have faith, then you must concede that your stream of Bibles is corrupted and up to no good.

No. It’s called looking at patterns of evidence to determine the truth. People use patterns of evidence to solve crimes and stuff.

False dichotomy fallacy.

You use the KJV to prove others are deficient, thereby claiming it is superior. That's circular reasoning.

One can say the same of Textual Criticism. But there are many evidences that back up the King James Bible.

There are Ten Major Categories that defend the King James Bible. See my post #1475.

I have also come up with 101 Reasons for the King James Bible, as well. This will be released in a future free PDF write up. Hopefully I will be done with it by the Spring of next year.

You aren't the first, and you won't be the last.

Also, you must have spiritual discernment. Obviously the devil is out to corrupt God’s Word. We see this practice even in Scripture. So if we see changes that are for the worse, and not for the better it is not circular reasoning. It is merely the truth. For example: Fornication being removed in Modern Bibles is not circular reasoning but it is a change that coincidentally fits the New Christian mindset that says fornication (sex before marriage) is not a sin. You have Modern Bibles that attack the deity of Jesus Christ, as well. Again, this is not circular reasoning but truth if you want to see such truth.

Again, we can lay this claim for your faith in Textual Criticism. It is circular reasoning. Its actually far worse because you cannot demonstrate Textual Criticism as being taught by Jesus and the apostles. You cannot see any good history attached to it Unlike the KJB. You cannot explain away all the false doctrines attached to these lines of Bibles associated with the Textual Critical Movement.

There are two major positions.

#1. Believe the Bible (KJB) and don’t mess with God’s book.
#2. Pick and choose your own type Bible that fits your preferences. Don’t like what you see in the Bible? Find another translation or make your own. There is no standard in this viewpoint.

You can't start with the premise that the KJV is the standard and then show differences in others to prove it's the standard. This is circular reasoning. I get that you don't get that. Have a great day.

Not at all. See my post #1484.

No. I have and had nothing to do with that conversation, and won't be dragged into it. That still doesn't change that your statement is a false dichotomy. I'm not even certain you know what that means, so I'll leave it at that.

Atheists can say the same by our laying claim that the Bible is the Word of God.
How would you convince them it is not just some ordinary book? You would put forth evidences that show it is not just some ordinary book but special, right? So if you are not for the Bible that existed before Westcott and Hort showed up, then you are most likely in favor of Textual Criticism. If this is the case, you also must employ circular reasoning by Textual Criticism as your default position over simply trusting the Bible that existed for hundreds of years and caused great revivals. In other words, if you believe not, believe because of the works sake (See: John 10:38). Meaning, look at all the good done by the KJB in history. Now, look at the fruit of Modern Bibles. By being honest on looking at both of these historical lines, you will be able to see the difference.

If you had properly studied this matter, you would know why many Christians believe that the King James Bible is still the most faithful and accurate translation in English. It has been for over 400 years and the majority of conservative commentators have used it exclusively.

As a matter of fact the Trinitarian Bible Society publishes and distributes the KJB exclusively. And all its translations in other languages are based upon the traditional Hebrew and Greek texts. They have also published many papers to support their position.

"It should also be stated that the Society’s aim is to prepare faithful editions of the Scriptures for circulation. Therefore in all our revision projects we are not merely updating the language but bringing the text into closer conformity to the Hebrew Masoretic Text of the Old Testament and the Greek Received Text of the New Testament. For example, in both our Persian Bible and Spanish Bible revision projects we discovered dozens of instances in the older editions we were revising where the Greek Critical Text had been used and these places thus needed to be thoroughly revised to conform to the Received Text."

Then why keep discussing this issue if you don’t want to be dragged into such a discussion?