Has anyone found secret messages in the bible?

[NTNT58]

actually, they ALL can be God's Word.

remember, the Holy Spirit Inspired the Bible to be written. and unfortunately, it [[was NOT]] God, Who translated it.

it was regular human beings like You and myself.

so, even though, many mistakes have been made, the "general body of work" of the Bible can be completely understood. it's ALL about the Gospel of Jesus, the Good News, the Kingdom of God has Arrived [Message].

but between the "Translated Versions of the Bible," there are clearly some better than others. overall, for the [most part], they ALL, generally promote the Gospel of Christ, and His Shed Blood upon the Cross. so, it's a toss up.


but for me, it's the Language it was ""originally"" written in [[BEFORE]] being translated.
OT = Tanakh (Hebrew)
NT = Aramaic (Aramaic/Hebrew)
Paul's Letter's = Koine Greek (Koine Greek)

So back to the original question - which ones of the thousands of original Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek manuscripts are correct? Where could one find a copy?

I understand the overall message of the Bible is the same across all of the 400,000+ contradicting manuscripts, but should we just discard the doctrine of inerrancy?

 

[NTNT58]

I'm certainly not trying to help you in your delusion.... you keep harping about the billions of people asking you which version is 100% correct.... if you don't know which one is, you might as well give up....

Plus, I already told you which ones I thought were correct....

You've said your opinion, but you've proven nothing so far. You've done nothing except spew insults, use straw-man arguments and try to put words in my mouth. And now you've admitted you're not trying to help, so essentially you're just trolling.. Your behavior is horribly unchristian. You need Jesus. Goodbye.

 

[The_Watchers_2017]

So back to the original question - which ones of the thousands of original Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek manuscripts are correct? Where could one find a copy?

I understand the overall message of the Bible is the same across all of the 400,000+ contradicting manuscripts, but should we just discard the doctrine of inerrancy?

if someone, new to God, found a Bible, i would never say, don't read that Version.
i would encourage them to read and learn.
it's when they come back and have questions or notice things, that i would suggest, there's better Versions out there.

but honestly, if it's possible to meet someone who does not have internet, not to be able to search the WEB for the Versions i would say are better, i would just tell them be happy with the Word of God that You have.


but if the Tanakh, in whatever Search Engine one uses, does not claim to be the same Version as the Temple. that's not the Version you would want anyways.

and the Aramaic, literally only has a couple options and only one has Jesus making this claim: I AM THE LIVING GOD

 

[Dino246]

That's not how logic works! The burden of proof is on you. You said there are errors in KJV, so you're the one who was to prove that the KJV is the one with errors.

Huh? Where have you been? I already demonstrated the existence of error.

 

[hornetguy]

Well, I guess you told me, Junior. I'm done with your silliness...

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

I’m well aware of the issues, but thanks. I point out the facts simply to demonstrate that the KJV contains a clear contradiction; an error. The origin of the error is irrelevant to the point. That it is still present belies the idea that God were as involved in the development of the KJV as the OP proposes.

My bad. I thought you were one of the posters who was saying something about, whether or not something was existing or not existing "in the original languages".





So in 2Chron22:2, both the BLB and B-Hub [reflecting differing manuscripts] show the word in the original language to be "H705" 'arbāʿîm ('forty'),


--but which the NASB [95] changes to say "twenty"... even though the word we see in the Hebrew language is "H705" 'arbāʿîm ('forty') -

https://www.blueletterbible.org/nasb95/2ch/22/2/t_conc_389002



--whereas the KJV reflects the "original Hebrew language" by its using the word for H705 'arbāʿîm ('forty') -

https://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/2ch/22/2/ss1/t_conc_389002







Now, I am not "kjv only," but it seems to me that one of these versions was more faithful to what we see in the Hebrew text, than the other version (in this verse). I thought that was what you were trumpeting. No?



(...unless I'm thinking of a different poster / member)

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

^ Apparently, Gill in his Commentary lists 8 "different ways are taken to solve this difficulty" (as to why this verse says "forty" [forty-two] instead of "twenty" [twenty-two] like 2Ki8:26 does):

-- under verse 2 - 2 Chronicles 22 Gill's Exposition (biblehub.com)

 

[NTNT58]

Huh? Where have you been? I already demonstrated the existence of error.

You've demonstrated the existence of contradiction between 2 different sets of manuscripts, now you just have to prove which ones are correct...

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

ETA (to my previous posts):

Here is what the Treasury of Scripture Knowledge says about the word in 2Chron22:2 -

"Forty and two In the parallel passage, (on which see the Note) he is said to be only twenty-two; and this is doubtless the true reading, as it is supported here by several MSS. and Versions."

[bold and underline mine]



[doesn't say which mss]




And for 2Kings8:26 says this -

"Two and twenty In the parallel passage of Chronicles, it is said, 'forty and two years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign;' but this is evidently a mistake, as it makes the son two years older than his own father! For his father began to reign when he was thirty-two years old, and reigned eight years, and so died, being forty years old."


[at BLB under "Tools"]

 

[Sipsey]

Yes, I've read about it, he was just using randomly selected letters throughout the Bible, this has nothing to do with it. The formulas in the video use specific words, not random letters.

I really don't see any difference-it’s a random sequencing till something seems to make sense.

 

[Dino246]

You've demonstrated the existence of contradiction between 2 different sets of manuscripts, now you just have to prove which ones are correct...

Look again. Both are in the KJV.

 

[NTNT58]

I really don't see any difference-it’s a random sequencing till something seems to make sense.

No, It's not random letters or even random words - it's specific words, and they're not sequenced, they are taken from ALL of the Bible, not just arbitrarily selected places. Those specific words make numbers and formulas that only God could have came up with, because they are found in a *translated* version of the Bible, in a *future* language, not known at the time the Bible was written. Only God can do that, unless Satan knows the future too.

 

[NTNT58]

Look again. Both are in the KJV.

KJV did not write history, it merely translated from original Hebrew, so your problem is with the original manuscripts. There are hundreds of contradictions like this in the original languages and there is a plausible explanation (as the other user already posted) for each one.

 

[Sipsey]

No, It's not random letters or even random words - it's specific words, and they're not sequenced, they are taken from ALL of the Bible, not just arbitrarily selected places. Those specific words make numbers and formulas that only God could have came up with, because they are found in a *translated* version of the Bible, in a *future* language, not known at the time the Bible was written. Only God can do that, unless Satan knows the future too.

Sorry, But I can’t think of anything besides what is already written that we really need. Have you ever studied Gnosticism? It relied on secret knowledge, and was a Bain to early Christianity.

 

[NTNT58]

Sorry, But I can’t think of anything besides what is already written that we really need. Have you ever studied Gnosticism? It relied on secret knowledge, and was a Bain to early Christianity.

gnos·ti·cism ˈnä-stə-ˌsi-zəm. often capitalized. : the thought and practice especially of various cults of late pre-Christian and early Christian centuries distinguished by the conviction that matter is evil and that emancipation comes through gnosis.

I don't see what studying the Bible in depth have ANYTHING to do with the above definition of Gnosticism. And emancipation comes from faith and holy spirit, not secret knowledge. None of what we are discussing here is secret, it's been right there in the Bible the whole time, so when I made the title, I clearly made a mistake, and inadvertently made it sound like numerology or gnosticism of some sort.

 

[Underwhosewings]

I understand faith comes by hearing and that it's the holy spirit that saves, but you haven't answered the question - how should one respond when people ask about inerrancy of the Bible? Do you know which Bible is the true word of God, without errors, because they can't all be, they contradict each other.

An unregenerate heart and mind cannot understand the Holy Bible.

1 John 2:27 KJV
But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.

 

[NTNT58]

An unregenerate heart and mind cannot understand the Holy Bible.

1 John 2:27 KJV
But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.

Many people come from being unregenerate hearts - atheists, Muslims, etc, but they eventually become Christian - NOBODY IS BORN CHRISTIAN.

 

[FRB72]

Many people come from being unregenerate hearts - atheists, Muslims, etc, but they eventually become Christian - NOBODY IS BORN CHRISTIAN.

You might like this one. It’s one of my favourite essays by C.S. Lewis and concerns itself with “looking at” and “looking along” as distinct ideas. I would be interested in your perspective as it relates to the discussion…

 

[Underwhosewings]

Many people come from being unregenerate hearts - atheists, Muslims, etc, but they eventually become Christian - NOBODY IS BORN CHRISTIAN.

Amen!

That’s why…..

John 3:7 KJV
Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.

Matthew 4:17 KJV
From that time Jesus began to preach, and to say, Repent: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.

Then they will love and understand God’s word.

Ephesians 4:7-8 KJV
But unto every one of us is given grace according to the measure of the gift of Christ.
[8] Wherefore he saith, When he ascended up on high, he led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men.

 

[Dino246]

KJV did not write history, it merely translated from original Hebrew, so your problem is with the original manuscripts. There are hundreds of contradictions like this in the original languages and there is a plausible explanation (as the other user already posted) for each one.

You’re sidestepping.