The word of God is not a secret code that needs unlocked.

  • 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.

Nehemiah6

Senior Member
Jul 18, 2017
26,074
13,774
113
They say on one hand that the few archaic words in our Bible are too difficult, so read a dumbed down version. On the other hand they say that you must learn ancient foreign languages in order to really understand the Bible.
Dumbed down and also corrupted. No one needs to learn Hebrew and Greek. And no one needs to go to a seminary to be more proficient in understanding God's truth.

Where there are some difficult words in the KJB there are plenty of Bible study tools. Other than that the KJB is fine. And you are right about how well the Founding Fathers used English. They too had been brought up on the KJB.
 

JohnDB

Well-known member
Jan 16, 2021
6,215
2,522
113
Hi,

You might be interested, please see the link below to learn about the Revisers Committee of 1881.
Thanks
https://www.npg.org.uk/collections/search/portrait/mw148802/The-Revisers-of-the-New-Testament-1881
The Revisers of the New Testament in 1881 were scholars from Great Britain and America who worked on the Revised Version of the Bible, a revision of the King James Version. Some of the most well-known members of the revision committee were Brooke Foss Westcott and Fenton John Anthony Hort

it's the RSV....the translation was done already for the most part. There were some new manuscripts used for some editing.

Again....the RSV is a revision of the Oxford/Cambridge Translation dubbed the KJV. (It never was accepted after publication)
The RSV was never really accepted in the UK either....however it was brought over to America during and after WW1 by the English and German immigrants....of which 1 was my family.

The RSV is not a translation....it's a revision due to new manuscript evidence and coupled with Wetcott's knowledge of extra-Biblical texts which are referenced heavily by the book of Hebrews. Hort? More of a financier of Westcott than a true theologian himself....he definitely pushed for Westcott to make a translation and Westcott had the skills to do so but Westcott was already at his limit with the threats from the Catholic Church. He was NOT going to face anymore political danger and persecution because of a translation he created. And FYI....this was still a time period when being of the wrong denomination would get you killed in Europe.
 

Magenta

Senior Member
Jul 3, 2015
60,149
29,458
113
Jesus spoke in parables for His reasons.

Matthew13-13-15 Then the disciples came to Jesus and asked, “Why do You speak to the people in parables?” He replied, “The knowledge of the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven has been given to you, but not to them. Whoever has will be given more, and he will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken away from him. This is why I speak to them in parables: ‘Though seeing, they do not see; though hearing, they do not hear or understand.’ In them the prophecy of Isaiah is fulfilled: ‘You will be ever hearing but never understanding; you will be ever seeing but never perceiving. For this people’s heart has grown callous; they hardly hear with their ears and they have closed their eyes. Otherwise they might see with their eyes, hear with their ears, understand with their hearts, and turn, and I would heal them.’”
 

Genez

Junior Member
Oct 12, 2017
2,931
419
83
The Westcott and Hort text is corrupt. Any bible version translated from it is corrupt. This covers most modern bible versions.

Just because a manuscript [fragment] is older does not necessarily mean it is better, more accurate or correct, etc.

The Textus Receptus (received text) is the most accurate and correct.
Can you very the integrity of the source of your conclusion?

Keep in mind, Satan has always had his fake news media within Christian circles.
And, many do believe what they are told, after being sold on an idea that sits well with their current state of confusion.
 

Genez

Junior Member
Oct 12, 2017
2,931
419
83
The irony of all this KJV preference?

Because of its accurate translation of certain passages?
Which it does.

Opens the door for a reason why someone under certain circumstances, would objectively be allowed for some abortions.
 

fredoheaven

Senior Member
Nov 17, 2015
4,110
960
113
The Revisers of the New Testament in 1881 were scholars from Great Britain and America who worked on the Revised Version of the Bible, a revision of the King James Version. Some of the most well-known members of the revision committee were Brooke Foss Westcott and Fenton John Anthony Hort

it's the RSV....the translation was done already for the most part. There were some new manuscripts used for some editing.

Again....the RSV is a revision of the Oxford/Cambridge Translation dubbed the KJV. (It never was accepted after publication)
The RSV was never really accepted in the UK either....however it was brought over to America during and after WW1 by the English and German immigrants....of which 1 was my family.

The RSV is not a translation....it's a revision due to new manuscript evidence and coupled with Wetcott's knowledge of extra-Biblical texts which are referenced heavily by the book of Hebrews. Hort? More of a financier of Westcott than a true theologian himself....he definitely pushed for Westcott to make a translation and Westcott had the skills to do so but Westcott was already at his limit with the threats from the Catholic Church. He was NOT going to face anymore political danger and persecution because of a translation he created. And FYI....this was still a time period when being of the wrong denomination would get you killed in Europe.
Here is the fact of the RSV, note the RSV is a revision mainly of ASV published in 1952 ‘and has met with wide acceptance.’ Your report is somewhat not in line with the facts.

The Revised Standard Version of the Bible, containing the Old and New Testaments, was published on September 30, 1952, and has met with wide acceptance. This preface does not undertake to set forth in detail the lines along which the revision proceeded. That is done in pamphlets entitled An Introduction to the Revised Standard Version of the Old Testament and An Introduction to the Revised Standard Version of the New Testament, written by members of the Committee and designed to help the general public to understand the main principles which have guided this comprehensive revision of the King James and American Standard versions.
https://web.archive.org/web/20160518063139/http://www.ncccusa.org/newbtu/aboutrsv.html
 

JohnDB

Well-known member
Jan 16, 2021
6,215
2,522
113
Here is the fact of the RSV, note the RSV is a revision mainly of ASV published in 1952 ‘and has met with wide acceptance.’ Your report is somewhat not in line with the facts.

The Revised Standard Version of the Bible, containing the Old and New Testaments, was published on September 30, 1952, and has met with wide acceptance. This preface does not undertake to set forth in detail the lines along which the revision proceeded. That is done in pamphlets entitled An Introduction to the Revised Standard Version of the Old Testament and An Introduction to the Revised Standard Version of the New Testament, written by members of the Committee and designed to help the general public to understand the main principles which have guided this comprehensive revision of the King James and American Standard versions.
https://web.archive.org/web/20160518063139/http://www.ncccusa.org/newbtu/aboutrsv.html
I have no idea what you are talking about anymore. You change subjects when proven WRONG to claim its another subject altogether when I even use YOUR websites.

I'm not going to agree with you. Not going to argue either.
Make whatever ridiculous claim you want and move on.

It's not ever going to change history no matter how much you wish. It's also not going to change what people will use. And the NIV is the most popular Bible in the English speaking world. Just like the Portugese is popular in Brazil and Spanish is popular in Spain.

The WHOLE WORLD uses UBS v4 and BHS for translations....only in America do we have idiots who claim that the KJV is the only copy of God's word usable.
 

Bible_Highlighter

Well-known member
Nov 28, 2023
2,070
335
83
Brother, I am with you in that the King James Bible is the perfect and inerrant words of God for today. But Steve Anderson has a lot of problems. Just seen a bit of this video today by Revolution Debates. In this video at the 1 hour and 8 minute mark, Steve Anderson's daughter testifies about the physical beatings by her father (Steve) done upon his own family growing up.

Here is the video:

Side Note:

Keep in mind that Nick Sayers (at Revolution Debates) is a strong defender of the King James Bible, and the Textus Receptus.

....
 

Bible_Highlighter

Well-known member
Nov 28, 2023
2,070
335
83
I have no idea what you are talking about anymore. You change subjects when proven WRONG to claim its another subject altogether when I even use YOUR websites.
The RV (Revised Version) also known as the ERV (English Revised Version) was spear headed by Westcott and Hort and released in 1881. A Unitarian named George Vance Smith was on the committee and he wrote a book called Texts and Margins of the Revised New Testament. In this book, which you can check out for free online shows Vance celebrating how the RV supports Unitarian doctrine. Also, if you were to go to Archive.org and check out the Revised Version (Which only exists in New Testament form), and look at the half title page at the beginning, it says that the RV was the version set forth in 1611AD. So Westcott and Hort were only supposed to do an update of the KJV. But this was a lie. The RV did not even have the Comma in it (1 John 5:7 as it exists in the KJV). This is because the RV was based upon an artificial text created by Westcott and Hort based upon unnaturally smashing together the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus New Testament Greek texts (Which were supposedly older and better when this was not the case).

The Revised Standard Version came later and was based on the ASV (American Standard Version). These facts and they can easily documented by doing either doing a basic internet search or checking it with ChatGPT, Perplexity, etc.

You said:
I'm not going to agree with you. Not going to argue either.
Make whatever ridiculous claim you want and move on.
Please take no offense, but the lack of fact-checking and the unwillingness to admit mistakes are common issues in popular Christianity, particularly within the Modern Bible Movement. This is also a problem I noticed when it comes to the liberal left involving politics here in the United States, too. They don't fact check anything or make decisions based on reality. Their decisions are emotional. Some are even blinded into thinking Socialism (Communism) is good.

You said:
It's not ever going to change history no matter how much you wish.
Actually, in reality, for 400 years in English speaking countries the King James Bible was preached and believed upon.
The Modern Bible Movement started by Westcott and Hort with the Revised Version are the new kids on the block.
The whole movement is based on an artificial text that was never seen before until 1881, and even then it shape shifted.
Westcott and Hort smashed together these two texts when it did not flow naturally to do that.
There are more places where Vaticanus and Sinaiticus disagree than they agree.

Matthew 27:49 (Vaticanus and Sinaiticus)
  • Both manuscripts' reading: These manuscripts contain an additional sentence after the piercing of Jesus: "And another took a spear and pierced His side, and there came out water and blood," before Jesus dies.
  • This creates a chronological problem, implying Jesus was pierced while still alive. Modern Bibles omit this addition, as it is considered an interpolation not found in most other manuscripts.
Mark 1:2 (Vaticanus and Sinaiticus)
  • Both manuscripts' reading: "As it is written in Isaiah the prophet," but the following quote is from both Malachi and Isaiah. Modern Bibles often correct this by saying "As it is written in the prophets" to avoid this attribution error.
  • This reading is generally regarded as a mistake, since the first part of the quotation comes from Malachi 3:1, not Isaiah.
Matthew 5:22 (Vaticanus)
  • Vaticanus reading: Omits the phrase "without a cause" ("anyone who is angry with his brother without a cause"), making it seem as though any anger is condemned. The phrase "without a cause" is included in most Traditional Text (Byzantine) manuscripts and thus found in many English translations, such as the KJV.
  • Modern translations, however, often omit "without a cause" but don't follow Vaticanus verbatim for theological reasons, as it creates difficulty with interpreting righteous anger.
1 Timothy 3:16 (Sinaiticus and Vaticanus)
  • Both manuscripts' reading: "Who was manifested in the flesh" instead of "God was manifested in the flesh."
  • This reading, which removes the reference to "God," weakens the explicit reference to Christ's divinity. Most modern Bibles prefer "He was manifested in the flesh" or "God was manifested in the flesh," depending on the manuscript tradition they follow, with "God" being in the Traditional Text.

This is one of the biggest grammatically Greek blunders in history. They are start it off saying "Who" without a subject. Westcott and Hort noticed this problem and so they invented the imaginary theory that the apostle Paul was singing a song at this point. It's absolute rubbish, and yet I imagine some just eat it up because they like the idea of shape shifter Bible and not a settled text as God's Word teaches plainly.

You said:
It's also not going to change what people will use. And the NIV is the most popular Bible in the English speaking world. Just like the Portugese is popular in Brazil and Spanish is popular in Spain.
I have come up with 150 Reasons for the King James Bible being the perfect Word of God for today.
Versions like the NIV are massively corrupt beyond all reason. I have a list of 50 big serious changed doctrines in Modern Bibles and this sometimes includes the NIV. This does not include verses that teach the new age, Catholic ideas, a watering-down of the deity of Jesus Christ, the blood atonement, and the substitutionary atonement. So there is a lot you have to bury your head in the sand over.

You said:
The WHOLE WORLD uses UBS v4 and BHS for translations....
Actually, it is the USB5 now. But popularity does not mean one is right.

You said:
only in America do we have idiots who claim that the KJV is the only copy of God's word usable.
Ah, thank you. I will take the verbal persecution. Jesus said, "Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake." (Matthew 5:11) (KJV).

....
 

Bible_Highlighter

Well-known member
Nov 28, 2023
2,070
335
83
Reading levels of the General population is on a 5th grade reading level.

Shakespeare is no longer a High School level of reading....it's post-secondary.

So we have a group of elitists snobs that claim only one translation is acceptable?
No different than the Pharisees in any respects. The Pharisees claimed that the Aramaic translation was the ONLY viable translation and that the Greek Septuagint was a heathen translation. The Aramaic translation also included "Targums" which was explanatory commentaries on the scriptures in the margins. (On the left side of the collums on the scrolls as Hebrew and Aramaic is read right to left)

Stephan was stoned to death in part because he quoted the Septuagint instead of Hebrew or Aramaic translations. The Greek translation was deemed to be the wicked language of Goyim and not allowed in the Sanhidrin. So it infuriated them more for a predetermined outcome.

So....where this notion of "not needing anyone" to help you understand the scriptures is absolutely against what scriptures relate starting with Adam and Eve in the Garden. Adam had the responsibility of teaching Eve and their children what God had said and we see Eve failing completely in her conversation with the serpent.

It also fails in that Levites were responsible for all handling of scriptures to teach the people God's Word.
However, this Caste-based lifestyle has been destroyed by John's Baptism. (Why Jesus said, " of those born among women there is none greater than John")

But the principle remains that the Gospel is not such that you discover it for yourself you must hear it from someone else. Meaning you need to be prepared to give an answer for the faith you hold. And if you are average you only read on a 5th grade level. If divergent, then you have a 50/50 of lower or higher. Meaning that the Gospel Scriptures are now closed to 85%+ of the entire population.

Totally NOT what God wanted or intended.

The scriptures themselves are 5,700 to 2,000 years old from another culture and manner of writing. Completely foreign to the current population. Of course a hermeneutics guide is 100% necessary. God doesn't supernaturally hand out knowledge to the majority of people despite the Bible itself being supernaturally preserved over the thousands of years. (And it's destruction and deliberate neglect has seen very profound determination over the millennia. )

It's prejudice in its most profound form with a fig leaf of religiosity for clothing....and insufficient. It is also hateful, spiteful, and murder of an eternal nature....the worst kind of murder.
Actually, the Elitists are those into Modern Scholarship, or those who make big money in the Modern Bible Movement. The KJV is copyright free outside of England. Unitarians, Catholics, liberals, woke individuals, men who are into Spiritism fill the halls of Academia. Even Bart Ehrman's views on textual variants carries weight in the Academy even though he is an unbeliever. You don't have a settled text. It is constantly shape shifting. Not all Modern Bibles even agree with each other. Not even the same editions of Modern Bibles agree with one another (and these are not the fixing of printing errors like with the KJV).


....
 

Bible_Highlighter

Well-known member
Nov 28, 2023
2,070
335
83
I do not belive the word of God is a secret code that has to be figured out, unlocked or decoded.
God is not a god of mystery, he is not a god of confusion.
He does not hide from us, but shows himself openly. He is like the morning star.
He's word is ment to be easy to understand.

I know Jesus talked in parables to people, but Jesus said this was done to fullfill prophecy.

I do not beleive you have to attend a University to learn the meaning behind God's word. I believe you just have to reach out and take the KJV, and read it.
Proverbs 25:2
"It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out a matter."

Ever watch any of Brandon Peterson's videos on YouTube? His channel is called "Truth is Christ." Not sure how any sane person can deny many of the discoveries he has found (Although I do not agree with everything he states). Then again, most do not understand Revelation 13:18 in that it is talking to the person who has wisdom (knowledge + experience) in the fact that they have experience in counting already to count the number of the beast. The person who already has wisdom in counting knows that man's number is 6 or in this case in Revelation 13:18, it would be man's number 6 in a multiple of three (i.e., the number of the beast). In fact, is not all Scripture profitable for doctrine and instruction in righteousness according to 2 Timothy 3:16? If so, would that not include the numbers in your Bible? In other words, I don't believe God just gave us random static information in His Word. Every word and letter has meaning for us. Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God. Then again, Biblical Numerics is not a hill I am willing to die upon. There are many of my fellow KJV advocates who still do not get it, and are strongly against it. In this case, I will not debate with them. It is a truth they have to discover for themselves by the Word of God and the Holy Spirit.

Biblical Numerics is also used as a part of a smear campaign against trusting that the King James Bible is the perfect and inerrant Word of God for today. However, there are many KJV advocates who are not into Biblical Numerics.

...
 

Bible_Highlighter

Well-known member
Nov 28, 2023
2,070
335
83
I do not belive the word of God is a secret code that has to be figured out, unlocked or decoded.
God is not a god of mystery, he is not a god of confusion.
He does not hide from us, but shows himself openly. He is like the morning star.
He's word is ment to be easy to understand.

I know Jesus talked in parables to people, but Jesus said this was done to fullfill prophecy.

I do not beleive you have to attend a University to learn the meaning behind God's word. I believe you just have to reach out and take the KJV, and read it.
Here are some quick examples.

Jesus tells us to forgive 70 x 7 times in Matthew 18:22 in the King James Bible.
What are the odds of the name "Jesus" (when it only refers to Jesus who is God) appearing 70 x 7 times each in both the even books of the New Testament and the odd books of the New Testament?



There are more words in the odd books than in the even books.
Oh, and this is not the only discovery. There are tons of other things like this.
777 appears in the many different variations of the Trinity.



Then there is Genesis 1:





This would be impossible for all these things like this to be just random chance.


...
 

Bible_Highlighter

Well-known member
Nov 28, 2023
2,070
335
83
One of the main issues with the KJV by many is the archaic wording. But if God preserved His words in archaic 1600s English that is difficult to understand (Which I believe He has done), the issue is not readability. It has to do with our having to study. Modern Bibles teach false doctrines. So the point here is accuracy in following the truth and not readability. There is no excuse to not learn something and so playing the dumb card is not really a strong argument. A Christian can use dictionaries and or even a Modern Translation to help flesh out the meaning in the KJV (as long as they do not intend to explain away the English in the KJV because they do not like what it says).

....
 

fredoheaven

Senior Member
Nov 17, 2015
4,110
960
113
I have no idea what you are talking about anymore. You change subjects when proven WRONG to claim its another subject altogether when I even use YOUR websites.

I'm not going to agree with you. Not going to argue either.
Make whatever ridiculous claim you want and move on.

It's not ever going to change history no matter how much you wish. It's also not going to change what people will use. And the NIV is the most popular Bible in the English speaking world. Just like the Portugese is popular in Brazil and Spanish is popular in Spain.

The WHOLE WORLD uses UBS v4 and BHS for translations....only in America do we have idiots who claim that the KJV is the only copy of God's word usable.
I concur that you have no idea what I am saying. Perhaps you're new to this topic. You seem to be confused, but I do understand you. I am not claiming KJB is the top bestseller but spotting 2nd bestsellers despite being ‘outdated, archaic’. So the issue of Archaism holds no truth.
Another, I have posted links to those behind the 1881 Revisers Committee spearheaded by Westcott and Hort, which you claimed were ‘never translators’ which is false according to the link I gave.
Lastly, you think, I am talking of RSV which is not at all and that RSV is widely accepted according to the link I gave whereas you claimed ‘RSV’ is not received in the UK. I bet I am confused. Fair enough though.
 

Genez

Junior Member
Oct 12, 2017
2,931
419
83
I believe if there were to be a translation that did communicate perfectly the exact intent of the original languages
it would anger and frighten all the KJV Only advocates.