Has anyone found secret messages in the bible?

[Dino246]

But many in your camp have made that claim and you don’t appear to not have any problem with it.

Do you challenge every KJV-only proponent on every point they make? No. I'll address what I choose to address, same as you.

No. You are the one who is not getting it. While one does need the Spirit, they also need God’s Word to be saved, too. You cannot have faith without the Bible.

Perhaps you have overlooked Noah and Abraham (and many others). What Bible did they have? I assure you, it wasn't a KJV!

My point is that the manuscripts you mention are corruptions and therefore they are not even worthy of consideration of age.

I haven't mentioned any specific manuscripts, so your point is empty.

Besides, age is not the determination of truth

So stop pointing to it as any kind of validation for the KJV.

as Original Onyists believe.

And stop broadbrushing everyone who disagrees with you as an "Originals Onlyist". If you don't accept the term "KJV-only" for yourself, what makes you think your invented term is appropriate for anyone else?

Their argument for Originals Onlyism is circular reasoning

Quote any "Originals Onlyist" making an argument that is circular. You'll have to start by finding someone who claims that title for themselves first.

 

[Dino246]

If one believes in Textual Criticism, then they are going to buy into claims by Textual Critics and their assumptions. I don’t. I believe the Bible over the wisdom of men.

Yet you hold to a translation that is the direct product of textual criticism and can't see your hypocrisy!

 

[Dino246]

Nothing is impossible for God. What some people see is all things done on a carnal or outward level, looking only for imperfections or error. But they are not taking a step back and looking at the bigger picture on how God is operating to preserve His words. They are not looking at the good fruit that the KJB produced and its great and positive influence throughout history. They do not recognize the dark origins of the Modern Bible movement. They are not looking for answers on this topic with the Bible, either. They are just trying to discern things with what they believe is Science.

More silly broadbrushing and claims without evidence.

Get some integrity.

 

[Dino246]

You have given no evidence historically, biblically, textually, doctrinally, etcetera that your position on Originals Onlyism is better.

I haven't claimed that "Originals Onlyism" is better. I have made no claim whatsoever about "Originals Onlyism", and I feel no obligation whatsoever to defend claims I have not made.

Perhaps you should stop asserting things that have no basis and start addressing things that people actually say.

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

More silly broadbrushing and claims without evidence.

Get some integrity.

You have not brought forth any significant evidence to support your Originals Onlyism or Modern Textual Criticism.

 

[Dino246]

You have not brought forth any significant evidence to support your Originals Onlyism or Modern Textual Criticism.

See my post 1564... then read it another ten or fifteen times until it sinks into your head.

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

More silly broadbrushing and claims without evidence.

Get some integrity.

Not at all. See my post here.

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

I haven't claimed that "Originals Onlyism" is better. I have made no claim whatsoever about "Originals Onlyism", and I feel no obligation whatsoever to defend claims I have not made.

Perhaps you should stop asserting things that have no basis and start addressing things that people actually say.

Uh, that’s not true. You said only the originals were inspired here.

 

[NightTwister]

How do you see my quote of 2 Timothy 3:16 and Luke 4:4 as veering off track...

Because you're conflating numbers clearly in the text with numbers only you can see by forcing things together.

 

[Dino246]

Uh, that’s not true. You said only the originals were inspired here.

Like I said, I have made no claim whatsoever about "Originals Onlyism".

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

Yet you hold to a translation that is the direct product of textual criticism and can't see your hypocrisy!

Again, you are confusing Textual Criticism with Modern Textual Criticism.

Modern textual criticism is the heretical theory behind the modern Bible versions. It assumes that God has not precisely preserved the Scripture, but that it had to be recovered in modern times by textual critics. It produces uncertainty concerning the details of Scripture. A confident “thus saith the Lord” is replaced with “this reading has more support than that reading.” The congregation’s one Bible standard is replaced with a multiplicity of conflicting Bibles.

Source:
https://www.wayoflife.org/reports/a_testimony_against_modern_textual_criticism.php

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

Because you're conflating numbers clearly in the text with numbers only you can see by forcing things together.

There is nothing to force. It’s revealed in the text itself. If what you say is true, then there would be no patterns. Again, how would you explain the name of Jesus (excluding anti-mentions) appearing 70 x 7 in the even books of the New Testament and also in the odd books of the New Testament? 70 x 7 is the amount of times Jesus told Peter to forgive. What are the odds of this even happening? If you know anything about statistical probabilities, you would be amazed by such a truth. But you think these numbers are in all books for some crazy reason. Well, if that is the case, you need to prove your case that the same amazing discoveries in the Bible are found exactly in the same equal fashion in other books. This is something I know you cannot do. But your fear of occult numerology is a convenient way of not dealing with this topic.

 

[John146]

I guess you should go back to Wycliffe and stop being a blatant hypocrite.

Wycliffe was not the completed work.

 

[NightTwister]

There is nothing to force. It’s revealed in the text itself. If what you say is true, then there would be no patterns. Again, how would you explain the name of Jesus (excluding anti-mentions) appearing 70 x 7 in the even books of the New Testament and also in the odd books of the New Testament? 70 x 7 is the amount of times Jesus told Peter to forgive. What are the odds of this even happening? If you know anything about statistical probabilities, you would be amazed by such a truth. But you think these numbers are in all books for some crazy reason. Well, if that is the case, you need to prove your case that the same amazing discoveries in the Bible are found exactly in the same equal fashion in other books. This is something I know you cannot do. But your fear of occult numerology is a convenient way of not dealing with this topic.

No, I don't have any fear of that. I just don't agree with your gnosticism.

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

No, I don't have any fear of that. I just don't agree with your gnosticism.

And what Gnosticism may that be?
Please be detailed as possible.

 

[NightTwister]

And what Gnosticism may that be?
Please be detailed as possible.

"Secret messages in the Bible" -- The thread title. Just like 2nd Century Christians and almost all afterwards, I'm done with it. You should be too.

 

[TheLearner]

What are you asking me? Do you have specific verses in the book of Jeremaya that prove your case?

oh you meant the Book of Jeremiah . Opps my bad

 

[TheLearner]

"Gematria" has NOTHING to do with "this stuff"

No, it's not. Gematria is assigning value to letters, this stuff is counting words.

Oh Yes Gematria has everything to do with it all.

 

[TheLearner]

I see I am not going to keep up. Is there an summary?

 

[Nehemiah6]

Yet you hold to a translation that is the direct product of textual criticism and can't see your hypocrisy!

Dino, if you are saying that the King James Bible is the product of textual criticism" that is incorrect.

As noted in Britannica, higher and lower (textual) criticism began in the 19th century: "Textual criticism, properly speaking, is an ancillary academic discipline designed to lay the foundations for the so-called higher criticism, which deals with questions of authenticity and attribution, of interpretation, and of literary and historical evaluation. This distinction between the lower and the higher branches of criticism was first made explicitly by the German biblical scholar J.G. Eichhorn; the first use of the term “textual criticism” in English dates from the middle of the 19th century. In practice the operations of textual and “higher” criticism cannot be rigidly differentiated: at the very outset of his work a critic, faced with variant forms of a text, inevitably employs stylistic and other criteria belonging to the “higher” branch. "