Has anyone found secret messages in the bible?

[NTNT58]

just because gnosticism was present in the Eastern Roman empire does not make all copies of scripture from the Eastern churches 'gnostic' or 'gnostic influenced'

gnosticism was universally condemned by the church since the time. of the apostles.

Critical texts contradict majority text, but majority text is backed up by the teachings of the early church fathers, who came long before critical text.

https://truthwatchers.com/textus-receptus-in-the-early-church-fathers/

 

[NTNT58]

If Yoshua is supposed to be Jesus in tranaliteration to English not Joshua, then the kjv got it wrong 100 times and only got it right once.

Don't know how to make that more clear.

Not understanding the argument for why it's "OK to mistranslate the OT but not the NT"???

Both names are translations of the same name. Both names are the same, so both can be used INTERCHANGEABLY.

Why they chose to divide by testaments, I don't know, but probably because the name became special.

 

[posthuman]

Critical texts contradict majority text, but majority text is backed up by the teachings of the early church fathers, who came long before critical text.

https://truthwatchers.com/textus-receptus-in-the-early-church-fathers/

kjv does not use the majority text.

 

[posthuman]

Both names are translations of the same name. Both names are the same, so both can be used INTERCHANGEABLY.

Why they chose to divide by testaments, I don't know, but probably because the name became special.

probably because they got Hebrews 4:8 wrong.

 

[posthuman]

we don't need another kjv-only thread. these arguments only harm people's faith, and they've been gone over in detail an hundred times here

 

[seekingthemindofChrist]

probably because they got Hebrews 4:8 wrong.

Very wrong.

 

[Magenta]

All versions, including original Hebrew text compare strength of God to wild ox.

What original texts are those? .

 

[Cameron143]

What original texts are those? .

It's the TMIR texts.

 

[Magenta]

It's the TMIR texts.

And those are... ??? .

 

[Cameron143]

And those are... ??? .

The Trust Me I'm Right texts.

 

[The_Watchers_2017]

Critical texts contradict majority text, but majority text is backed up by the teachings of the early church fathers, who came long before critical text.

https://truthwatchers.com/textus-receptus-in-the-early-church-fathers/

this is hilarious.
the Majority Text has been around since first Century. 0 - 100 AD up to choosing the Canon Itself and beyond up to 1380s AD
Critical Text was created by Erasmus in 1516 AD
kjv comes out less than 100 hundred years later, using the Critical Text 1611 AD

you don't even know the true history and how the kjv and critical text are less than 100 years in age of each other and connected they are. and that they are barely 400 years old. only been around 400 years. but you're here debating as you do.

 

[seekingthemindofChrist]

That's a completely different person.

...and that is the point.

Consider this:

Num 26:65
For the LORD had said of them, They shall surely die in the wilderness. And there was not left a man of them, save Caleb the son of Jephunneh, and Joshua the son of Nun.

Who do you think "the LORD," or "Jehovah," or "Yahweh" is here?

It is the one we know as Jesus.

He is the Rock who was following the children of Israel in their wilderness journeys (1 Corinthians 10:4), and he is the one that the children of Israel were tempting (1 Corinthians 10:9).

In other words, Jesus spoke of Joshua because they are not the same person.

Seeing how they are two completely different people, the context determines which name should be used when translating from Greek to English, and the KJV translators completely blew it in the two passages of scripture which I previously cited from the New Testament.

This is reality...whether you will ever embrace it or not.

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

Consider this:

Num 26:65
For the LORD had said of them, They shall surely die in the wilderness. And there was not left a man of them, save Caleb the son of Jephunneh, and Joshua the son of Nun.

Consider:

In Numbers 26:65, the Strong's #H3901 ("Joshua") shows this at BlueLetterBible:


-- https://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/num/26/65/t_conc_143065 - וִיהוֹשֻׁעַ יְהוֹשׁוּעַyᵊhôšûaʿ

-- https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon/h3091/kjv/wlc/0-1/ - yᵊhôšûaʿ - Joshua or Jehoshua = "Jehovah is salvation"
[color and underline emphasis mine]

-- and where, under the heading Brown-Driver-Briggs Lexicon, it says this:

"STRONGS H3091: [...] יְהוֺשׁוּעַ, יְהוֺשֻׁעַ and (later) [H3442 יֵשׁוּעַ], proper name, masculine (& location, see 9 below) (י׳ is salvation, or י׳ is opulence, compare אֱלִישָׁע, אֱלִישׁוּעַ, אֲבִישׁוּעַ & NesSK 1892, 573 f.; in any case it came to be associated with ישׁע, compare Matthew 1:21 [...]"

[end quoting from BlueLetterBible]



So... Matthew 1:21 says, "And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.




-- H3901 - Joshua - https://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/num/26/65/ss1/s_143065 [from Numbers 26:65]

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

^ Forgot to add this link, from BlueLetterBible -

-- Strong's G2424 ("Jesus") Greek - https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon/g2424/kjv/tr/0-1/ [see top box at LINK], where it says, "Of Hebrew origin יְהוֹשׁוּעַ (H3091) "

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

In Numbers 26:65, the Strong's #H3901 ("Joshua")

-- H3901 - Joshua

TYPOS - should read "H3091" ... as elsewhere in my post

[ugh]

 

[NTNT58]

kjv does not use the majority text.

My mistake, I meant to say received text or textus receptus.

 

[NTNT58]

probably because they got Hebrews 4:8 wrong.

No, they chose to use Joshua for all of the old testament and Jesus for all of the new testament. Obviously on purpose, but either way the name is the same. KJV is very confusing at times, but that doesn't make it incorrect.

 

[NTNT58]

What original texts are those? .

https://biblehub.com/numbers/24-8.htm#lexicon

https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.or... who brought him,them through with his arrows

 

[NTNT58]

this is hilarious.
the Majority Text has been around since first Century. 0 - 100 AD up to choosing the Canon Itself and beyond up to 1380s AD
Critical Text was created by Erasmus in 1516 AD
kjv comes out less than 100 hundred years later, using the Critical Text 1611 AD

you don't even know the true history and how the kjv and critical text are less than 100 years in age of each other and connected they are. and that they are barely 400 years old. only been around 400 years. but you're here debating as you do.

KJV uses received text, or textus receptus. We are both wrong.

 

[NTNT58]

...and that is the point.

Consider this:

Num 26:65
For the LORD had said of them, They shall surely die in the wilderness. And there was not left a man of them, save Caleb the son of Jephunneh, and Joshua the son of Nun.

Who do you think "the LORD," or "Jehovah," or "Yahweh" is here?

It is the one we know as Jesus.

He is the Rock who was following the children of Israel in their wilderness journeys (1 Corinthians 10:4), and he is the one that the children of Israel were tempting (1 Corinthians 10:9).

In other words, Jesus spoke of Joshua because they are not the same person.

Seeing how they are two completely different people, the context determines which name should be used when translating from Greek to English, and the KJV translators completely blew it in the two passages of scripture which I previously cited from the New Testament.

This is reality...whether you will ever embrace it or not.

I agree it's confusing and they should not have divided those names by the testaments, however, the names are 2 translations of the same exact name, making it interchangeable. KJV is confusing, but that doesn't mean it's incorrect.