Has anyone found secret messages in the bible?

[CS1]

Which translation? Because they contradict each other.

You can find it in the KJVNKJVNIVNLT1600 bible

 

[Bob-Carabbio]

Here's a secret that many do not see...

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.

BINGO!!! That's the "Hidden message" that the HOLY SPIRIT has to reveal!!!!!

 

[maxwel]

Scripture also tells us to avoid having any appearance of evil. So making what can look to be like personal insults (even when you say that they are not) would be having an appearance of evil. Then again, this verse in Scripture is altered in Modern bibles.

That's a common but less than adequate interpretation of 1 Thessalonians 5:22.

It doesn't use the word "appearance" in the sense "to look like a thing even though it may not be the thing."
That is not the sense of the passage... and other translations translate it differently.
Even if we stick to the KJV, and translate the Greek word as "appearance", we are still left with two possible understandings of the word "appearance"... a choice of two completely different semantic definitions, right in the English.
So even in the KJV, there are interpretative choices that need to be analyzed.

We cannot possibly use this subjective and relativistic definition of the word "appearance", because the preceding adjective "all" would magnify it to the level of absurdity, and to logical impossibility.

(I won't go into more detail on the semantics unless someone wants to talk about it more. It's all kind of boring.)


CONCLUSION:
To simplify things: it's fine to dislike something Dino says - but we can't use that particular verse to discredit him, because that isn't what the verse means.


(In all fairness, I used to interpret this verse in the same way, and I don't think this semantic misunderstanding makes anyone a bad person, or open to ridicule. There is just a more precise and logical way to interpret the verse, which fits better in the context and within Biblical principles.)

.

 

[NTNT58]

I see you share your fellow KJV-only proponent’s penchant for stupid and insulting questions.

Not really, since there are actually self-proclaimed Christians who believe in abortion. So you are either one of them or you just missed the point of that entire comment. Stupid statements like that demand stupidity to be questioned accordingly.

 

[NTNT58]

The ‘pope’ has no connection to Peter, and any ‘authority’ the Peter held certainly would not transfer to an apostate institution.

Papal succession is a thing. Also, Peter was given the keys to heaven by Jesus, which was a type of king who gave the keys to his stewart in Isiah 22. The keys are to be passed down to his successors.

 

[NTNT58]

The points in Scripture you showed are just assumptions. They can be equally be read as Peter not being a pope. In fact, Peter wouldn’t be a pope because Peter was rebuked by the apostle Paul. Peter was called a fellow elder. In Acts 15, after Peter speaks, you would think that his words would be final on the matter because he is a pope. But others speak with authority like Paul, and Barnabas. There is no proof he was a pope or head leader by any stretch of the means. When Cornelius met Peter, he worshiped (bowed down) to him, and Peter told him to get up because he was just a man. People uplift the pope today as if he was some kind of god-like figure where people kiss his hand. So you are ignoring Scripture to make Peter something that he was not.

Here is another article that may be more helpful (hopefully):

https://www.blueletterbible.org/Com...5-did-jesus-give-peter-authority-to-speak.cfm

I never claimed Peter (or the current Pope) is infallible. As a matter of fact I claimed that the Catholic church is full of corruption and lies, but that doesn't mean they don't have authority according to the Bible. You are using the same faulty logic to try and discredit their authority, but goodness or evil have no bearing on how legitimate the authority is. Obviously Peter was a lot more humble than his corrupt successors, but that doesn't change the fact they are his lawful successors.

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

That's a common but less than adequate interpretation of 1 Thessalonians 5:22.

It doesn't use the word "appearance" in the sense "to look like a thing even though it may not be the thing."
That is not the sense of the passage... and other translations translate it differently.
Even if we stick to the KJV, and translate the Greek word as "appearance", we are still left with two possible understandings of the word "appearance"... a choice of two completely different semantic definitions, right in the English.
So even in the KJV, there are interpretative choices that need to be analyzed.

We cannot possibly use this subjective and relativistic definition of the word "appearance", because the preceding adjective "all" would magnify it to the level of absurdity, and to logical impossibility.

(I won't go into more detail on the semantics unless someone wants to talk about it more. It's all kind of boring.)


CONCLUSION:
To simplify things: it's fine to dislike something Dino says - but we can't use that particular verse to discredit him, because that isn't what the verse means.


(In all fairness, I used to interpret this verse in the same way, and I don't think this semantic misunderstanding makes anyone a bad person, or open to ridicule. There is just a more precise and logical way to interpret the verse, which fits better in the context and within Biblical principles.)

.

So if the King James Bible is not the final word of authority or the perfect Word of God, then which one is it? How do you know you are right? Do speak, read, write Modern Greek and Koine Greek fluently? Can you converse with local Greek people like you do your native tongue? Do you favor the Nestle and Aland Greek NT? Not all Greek manuscripts say the same thing. Have you studied them all?

 

[Sipsey]

I never claimed Peter (or the current Pope) is infallible. As a matter of fact I claimed that the Catholic church is full of corruption and lies, but that doesn't mean they don't have authority according to the Bible. You are using the same faulty logic to try and discredit their authority, but goodness or evil have no bearing on how legitimate the authority is. Obviously Peter was a lot more humble than his corrupt successors, but that doesn't change the fact they are his lawful successors.

Using your logic, it would appear that you would also have us submit to the god of this world. He seems to have a great deal of authority.

It was God's command that we submit ourselves to authorities. His authority is higher than any other, and therefore it is His authority that we should be honouring and obeying. No matter what a human leader says, it's God we must obey.

 

[maxwel]

So if the King James Bible is not the final word of authority or the perfect Word of God, then which one is it? How do you know you are right? Do speak, read, write Modern Greek and Koine Greek fluently? Can you converse with local Greek people like you do your native tongue? Do you favor the Nestle and Aland Greek NT? Not all Greek manuscripts say the same thing. Have you studied them all?

Now I think we're just changing the subject... I was never arguing for or against the KJV.

Even if we use the KJV, there are at least 2 different semantic definitions for the word "appearance", in English, in 1 Thessalonians 5:22... and one definition makes more biblical and logical sense than the other.



God Bless, and have a great day.

.

 

[DJT_47]

A lot of the lost want to know which Bible version is correct. Can you prove which one is correct? This sort of division and confusion is the number one excuse people are becoming Muslim. You can preach the Gospel, but if you can't answer basic questions, your preaching will have very little effect.

You shouldn't rely solely on one translation. I personally like and use the kjv, but recognize there are some flaws in it. I also go back to the original language text for clarity such as found in the interlinear.

 

[maxwel]

So if the King James Bible is not the final word of authority or the perfect Word of God, then which one is it? How do you know you are right? Do speak, read, write Modern Greek and Koine Greek fluently? Can you converse with local Greek people like you do your native tongue? Do you favor the Nestle and Aland Greek NT? Not all Greek manuscripts say the same thing. Have you studied them all?

BTW, if you want to argue for the KJV, this probably isn't the best form of argument.
Why?
1.) Because if I don't meet whatever level of scholarship you demand of me, I can simply demand the same level of scholarship from you... and when you can't meet the same level of scholarship, I can claim YOU have no ability to judge the veracity of translations or manuscripts either. I create an impasse.
2.) Then when you list other scholars to support your view; I can list scholars to support some other view.
3.) Overall, this sort of "argument from authority" is a logical fallacy, and it's not going to win a debate. I'd use some other argument.


Take care.

.

 

[NTNT58]

nowhere is loving God with all your heart, mind, soul, and strength mentioned in the 10.

That is literally commandment number one. What are you talking about?

Thais why they are not t the sole commands. You had to also be circumcised in the OT or according to Genesis 17:14, otherwise, you would be cut off from God’s people. But if you know the New Testament, Paul says that if you seek to be circumcised, Christ will profit you nothing (Galatians 5:2). So things are different.

Yes they are different things. You are confusing the old ritualistic commandments, which Paul clearly said we don't have to obey with the 10 moral commandments that we still do. Jesus said not one letter will pass away from the law until all is accomplished. Obviously, the 10 commandments have not passed away, because he emphasized several of them. And he obviously wasn't talking about the old ritual commandments remaining, because Paul spoke against them. Mathew 5:18 says that either all of the law is still in effect or none of it is, and because we know at least some of the 10 commandments were emphasized in the new testament, we can conclude that not one letter has passed away from them.

Second, nowhere in the New Covenant are there any Sabbath commands repeated.
Nowhere are there any sins listed as Sabbath day breaking sins listed among the other sins like murder, coveting, theft, etcetera.
Colossians 2 makes it clear that we are not to let anyone judge us according to Sabbaths, and holy days (See: Colossians 2:14-17).
Paul says he is afraid for the Gentiles in that they keep days, months, and years (Galatians 4:10-11).
Acts 15 makes it clear that Gentiles do not have to keep the Laws of Moses. Just read Acts 15:1, Acts 15:5, and Acts 15:24.
No stop right now and those verses really slowly in the KJV. Hebrews 7:12 says the law has changed. Acts 13:39 says you cannot be justified by the Laws of Moses. Romans 6:15 says we are not under the Law (i.e., the Old Law).

Just because Sabbath commandment wasn't emphasized doesn't mean it's no longer part of the moral law. God commanded everyone to remember his Sabbath right after commanding not taking his name in vain.

Colossians 2:14 is talking about yearly festivals. There were 2 kinds of Sabbaths, one is the weekly rest that's part of the 10 commandments, the other is yearly festivals that are part of the ceremonial law that we don't have to follow anymore.

We are not under condemnation of the law, but you admitted yourself that there are still laws that we need to follow. "not under the law" does not mean we don't have to follow the law.

Right, like the Catholic Church because they are rebelling against God by their idolatry, and praying to dead people as if they were God.
Only God can receive prayer and not dead people.

Again you are using the same failing logic to justify your rebellion against God. It doesn't matter how corrupt they are, you still have to obey the authority and do everything they say as long as they don't say anything that contradicts the word of God.

 

[NTNT58]

Uh, no, ”not under the Law“ in Romans 6:15 is in reference to the Old sets of Laws in the Old Covenant (i.e., the 613 Laws of Moses).
I believe we are under the New Testament (New Covenant) Laws.
I believe the Bible teaches two aspects of salvation.

Aspect Salvation #1. We are first saved by God’s grace through faith without works in our Initial Salvation (Ephesians 2:8-9) (Romans 4:3-5) (Romans 11:6) (Titus 3:5).

Aspect Salvation #2. God has chosen us to salvation through the Sanctification of the Spirit and a belief of the truth (2 Thessalonians 2:13) (See also Romans 8:13, Galatians 6:8-9). This is living holy by the power of the Spirit to overcome sin in this life and it includes keeping the New Testament commands that come from Jesus and His followers. This Sanctification also includes works of faith.

Grace is still how we are ultimately saved because if a believer stumbles into sin on rare occasion, they confess of their sins directly to Jesus and not to a priest. Granted, believers must seek to cleanse themselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit perfecting holiness in the fear of God (See: 2 Corinthians 7:1).

Jesus said not one letter will disappear from the law, and yet he stated several of the 10 commandments and told everyone to keep them. Obviously, either all those laws have disappeared or none of them have, you can't have it both ways.

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

I never claimed Peter (or the current Pope) is infallible. As a matter of fact I claimed that the Catholic church is full of corruption and lies, but that doesn't mean they don't have authority according to the Bible. You are using the same faulty logic to try and discredit their authority, but goodness or evil have no bearing on how legitimate the authority is. Obviously Peter was a lot more humble than his corrupt successors, but that doesn't change the fact they are his lawful successors.

This is really not thread topic and it is not something that even interests me is discussing forever. To me, it is obvious the Catholic Church is false and has zero authority. You can believe what you like, but I gave you sufficient Scripture that rejects your current belief. If you disagree, start another thread and repost all your verses there. I will not indulge you here.

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

That is literally commandment number one. What are you talking about?



Yes they are different things. You are confusing the old ritualistic commandments, which Paul clearly said we don't have to obey with the 10 moral commandments that we still do. Jesus said not one letter will pass away from the law until all is accomplished. Obviously, the 10 commandments have not passed away, because he emphasized several of them. And he obviously wasn't talking about the old ritual commandments remaining, because Paul spoke against them. Mathew 5:18 says that either all of the law is still in effect or none of it is, and because we know at least some of the 10 commandments were emphasized in the new testament, we can conclude that not one letter has passed away from them.


Just because Sabbath commandment wasn't emphasized doesn't mean it's no longer part of the moral law. God commanded everyone to remember his Sabbath right after commanding not taking his name in vain.

Colossians 2:14 is talking about yearly festivals. There were 2 kinds of Sabbaths, one is the weekly rest that's part of the 10 commandments, the other is yearly festivals that are part of the ceremonial law that we don't have to follow anymore.

We are not under condemnation of the law, but you admitted yourself that there are still laws that we need to follow. "not under the law" does not mean we don't have to follow the law.



Again you are using the same failing logic to justify your rebellion against God. It doesn't matter how corrupt they are, you still have to obey the authority and do everything they say as long as they don't say anything that contradicts the word of God.

This is not something I am going to debate with you endlessly here. If you don’t accept my explanations by God’s Word, I cannot help that. Please start another thread. This is not the thread topic even.

 

[NTNT58]

We do live in the internet age where we can search such things, my friend.



In your worldview, you see anyone believing in Christ to be a Christian. But if you were to read Matthew 7:22-23, and Matthew 13:41-42, there were Christians who didn’t make it into God’s Kingdom. The reason is that they justified sin or iniquity.

So division amongst those who are false brethren is not division. Division would be creating man made rules of division amongst true faithful followers. Seeing we are living in the last days and there are FEW who are in seeking to serve God according to the Bible, this is not really an issue so much (Like it was in the early church).

Anyone who truly belives in God will have works correlating with their belief and they will be saved. Those who justify sin do not truly believe.

There is far more division among the hundreds it not thousands of protestant denominations than there are among the Catholic church. I'm seeking to unite Christians under one church, while you are seeking to divide and abandon the one universal church that was originally started by Jesus.

 

[NTNT58]

And they were cut off because they rejected their Messiah. We Gentile believers are told to continue in his goodness otherwise we will be cut off like the Jews, too. Cut off means one will not be saved. See Romans 11:22.

And yet he still told everyone to obey the Pharasees even though they were not saved (Mathew 23:3). Why are you still rebelling against authority established by God?

 

[Dino246]

Not really, since there are actually self-proclaimed Christians who believe in abortion. So you are either one of them or you just missed the point of that entire comment. Stupid statements like that demand stupidity to be questioned accordingly.

Since you didn’t read my post carefully, you continue to make stupid assumptions. You’re earning all the ire you receive.

 

[NTNT58]

Using your logic, it would appear that you would also have us submit to the god of this world. He seems to have a great deal of authority.

It was God's command that we submit ourselves to authorities. His authority is higher than any other, and therefore it is His authority that we should be honouring and obeying. No matter what a human leader says, it's God we must obey.

Romans 13:1 commands you to obey all authority because all authority is ultimately from God. Obviously, it's within the context of God's authority, so if human government tells us to do something ungodly, that's where we disobey them, otherwise we continue to obey. What don't you understand about Romans 13:1 and other similar verses? Do you not obey the laws of your country?

 

[NTNT58]

You shouldn't rely solely on one translation. I personally like and use the kjv, but recognize there are some flaws in it. I also go back to the original language text for clarity such as found in the interlinear.

Well that's the problem... do you know which one of the thousands of original manuscripts is correct? They contradict each other!