Has anyone found secret messages in the bible?

[Bible_Highlighter]

"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.

Proverbs 25:2
"It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out a matter.”

The meaning behind Christ’s parables were secret except for the disciples.

Jesus also did not openly declare to all in a direct way He was God and shown His power to them. It was secret and hidden from most.
Yes, Jesus did at times make statements of deity that the Jews wanted to kill him for, but this was not all the time.

The resurrection was hidden from the disciples even though Jesus alluded to it.

Jesus did not reveal His true identity while walking with the two disciples on the road to Emmaus.

 

[Magenta]

Jesus did not reveal His true identity while walking with the two disciples on the road to Emmaus.

Luke 24:27 + 31

 

[Cameron143]

Luke 24:27 + 31

Yep. Then He made like a banana, and split.

 

[NightTwister]

Yep. Then He made like a banana, and split.

 

[TheLearner]

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. "

https://digitalcommons.cedarville.e...translated,Septuagent text was used primarily.

 

[Cameron143]

Great show. Bingo was my favorite.

 

[Nehemiah6]

Great show. Bingo was my favorite.

What does this have to do with the current discussion?

 

[Nehemiah6]

https://digitalcommons.cedarville.edu/kjv_texts/#:~:text=The New Testament was translated, Septuagint text was used primarily.

By whom? Certainly not by the King James translators, who clearly understood the great DEFICIENCIES of the Septuagint or LXX ( made by 70 translators).

So their final comment on the LXX is present in their preface ("The Translators to the Reader"):
"Yet for all that, as the Egyptians are said of the Prophet to be men and not God, and their horses flesh and not spirit [Isa 31:3]; so it is evident, (and Saint Jerome affirmeth as much) that the Seventy were Interpreters, they were not Prophets; they did many things well, as learned men; but yet as men they stumbled and fell, one while through oversight, another while through ignorance, yea, sometimes they may be noted to add to the Original, and sometimes to take from it; which made the Apostles to leave them many times, when they left the Hebrew, and to deliver the sense thereof according to the truth of the word, as the spirit gave them utterance. This may suffice touching the Greek Translations of the Old Testament."

 

[Cameron143]

What does this have to do with the current discussion?

It's in reference to the previous post.

 

[Dino246]

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. "

I didn't say anything about "higher" or "lower" textual criticism. I am merely addressing the practice of examining the available source materials to determine what is most likely the correct original wording. That's what Erasmus did, that's what the KJV translators did, and that's what modern scholars do.

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

Luke 24:27 + 31

Yes, I know what the Bible says. I am aware of this passage. The point is that truth was not always revealed fully at all times. Jesus could have revealed who He was right away, but He didn’t. There is a reason for that. Jesus at times even said to tell no man about His miracles. Jesus went to a festival in secret. So there are times God does reveal things in their due time, and other times this is not the case. Not all disciples were present at the Transfiguration on the Mount.

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

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

So you do you believe it is wrong or unfair of Christians to say that King James Bible believers worship the KJV?

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

But God knows the end from the beginning and He would know of the right time the Bible needed to be revealed and the right time Jesus needed to be revealed.

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

You defended the VATICANus and Sinaiticus here.

Besides, age is not the determination of truth

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

This is not my primary reason like Originals Onlyists. Their primary argument as to why they think these texts are better is because they are older.

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?

I do also realize there are those who do not get into the originals manuscripts and they look to a sea of conflicting English Modern Bibles to let God speak to them. But these types of believers are not as common. So I don’t bring them up because they are more in a minority. But generally there two major positions on the Bible issue.

#1. KJB Bible believer (Who believes it is perfect).
#2. Textual Criticism or Originals Onlyism.

Yes, there are TROs, and Majority Text folk. There are KJV preferred believers. But again, they are not as common.

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.

So you believe that the vast majority of Textual Critics today do not believe that only the originals were inspired?
Also, most Textual Critics favor the VATICANus, and Sinaiticus manuscripts. So they will argue these are the best because they are older and they will fight against the Textus Receptus and the King James Bible using this as their default position.

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

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

It’s simply a label for the belief you described. You don’t have to agree with the label, but it does describe what you believe nonetheless.

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

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.

Labels exist to describe all kinds of believers today. The holder of the belief does not have to agree with the label in order for it to accurately describe them. I am sure you can find plenty of examples in history of this happening.

Anyway, if one does not use evidence in their argument, this would be circular reasoning. So far in debates, I have not seen any good case made for Modern Textual Criticism and I have watched lots of debates online, and have partaken of them on forums over the years myself, etcetera.

 

[Dino246]

So you do you believe it is wrong or unfair of Christians to say that King James Bible believers worship the KJV?

I'm not their judge, but generally I don't think it's warranted.

But God knows the end from the beginning and He would know of the right time the Bible needed to be revealed and the right time Jesus needed to be revealed.

Just admit you were wrong.

You defended the VATICANus and Sinaiticus here.

I haven't defended either.

This is not my primary reason like Originals Onlyists. Their primary argument as to why they think these texts are better is because they are older.

"Older" does mean less likelihood of copyist errors, but that is a general truth, not a specific reality in every case.

I do also realize there are those who do not get into the originals manuscripts and they look to a sea of conflicting English Modern Bibles to let God speak to them. But these types of believers are not as common. So I don’t bring them up because they are more in a minority. But generally there two major positions on the Bible issue.

#1. KJB Bible believer (Who believes it is perfect).
#2. Textual Criticism or Originals Onlyism.

Yes, there are TROs, and Majority Text folk. There are KJV preferred believers. But again, they are not as common.

Your categories are far too narrow, and you're overlooking the vast majority of Christians.

So you believe that the vast majority of Textual Critics today do not believe that only the originals were inspired?

Find a way to phrase a question that doesn't assume the worst possible interpretation.

Also, most Textual Critics favor the VATICANus, and Sinaiticus manuscripts. So they will argue these are the best because they are older and they will fight against the Textus Receptus and the King James Bible using this as their default position.

Not to my knowledge they don't.

 

[Dino246]

It’s simply a label for the belief you described. You don’t have to agree with the label, but it does describe what you believe nonetheless.

The label is misleading, because it is used in opposition to "KJV-onlyism" but does not correspond in belief structure. You may as well drop it as it isn't contributing anything to our conversation.

 

[Dino246]

Anyway, if one does not use evidence in their argument, this would be circular reasoning.

You would do well to do your homework before posting. What you describe is not circular reasoning.

 

[Dino246]

You defended the VATICANus and Sinaiticus here.

I checked the link you posted. You pulled a three-year-old post from another thread, from long before you were a member here.

What I wrote then was written in that context, not this. I have not defended any particular manuscript in this thread.

 

[JimmyTheLock]

So God cannot have faith in Himself. Jesus was almost stoned to death because He said He is one with the Father making Himself equal with God.

Again, God cannot have faith in Himself. Jesus could call down legions of angels that would defend Him if He desired. Jesus was worshiped as God. That’s not faith.

Philippians 2:7
he gave up his divine privileges; he took the humble position of a slave and was born as a human being. When he appeared in human form,

Hebrews 4:15
For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who was tempted in every way that we are, yet was without sin.

What you are failing to understand is... even though Jesus was the Son of God... in His early live and ministry He did not living as being All powerful and instead gave up His divine privileges and walked as a man that was filled wiht the Holy Ghost empowered by the Spirit for ministry (he did no miracles before the Holy Ghost came upon Him to empower Him for ministry)

In His everyday life as well as in His ministry He did actually have faith and walked in faith as well as all the other 8 fruit of the Spirit. If He did not, then that would have been sinful. Jesus was tempted as we are in all the same things we are tempted and tried with... and by faith He overcame the world without giving in to sin.

1 John 5:4
For whatsoever is born of God overcometh the world: and this is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith.

Walking in faith, submitting Himself unto the Father resisting the devil is HOW Jesus overcame the things of this world which is how was are supposed to be walking as well.

So, if you want to believe in error that Jesus lived in unbelief and that He used special strength and abilities we don't have access to thru God's Word and the Holy Ghost... that would be falling to more deception from 'ol slewfoot.

If one claims Jesus did not have faith... they must also claim he did not have the fruit of the spirit which are: love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, meekness, temperance: against such there is no law. (Galatians 5:22,23)

Jesus walk in ALL of these attributes... and since He has all theser attibutes, we have access to these as well IF we are walking in the leading and empowerment of the Holy Ghost like Jesus did in His earthly life.!

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

I'm not their judge, but generally I don't think it's warranted.

I am glad to hear it.

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!

But God knows the end from the beginning and He would know of the right time the Bible needed to be revealed and the right time Jesus needed to be revealed.

Just admit you were wrong.

Uh, I was referring in context to believers today obviously. But even still, we do not know either way whether they had Scripture or not back then. Many think that book of Job and the first five book of Moses were the first set of the Scriptures. But Romans 9:17 says, "For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth.” The Scripture saith unto Pharaoh. So some form of the Scriptures were either read to Pharaoh or something. But what were those Scriptures that saith unto Pharaoh what we read about in Romans 9:17? The Lord only knows.

You defended the VATICANus and Sinaiticus here.

I haven't defended either.

Well, according to the other post, you declared the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus to be the oldest manuscripts, and then in your very next sentence of this post you say “”Older”does mean less likelihood of copyist errors,“ etcetera.
So yes, you are defending them.

"Older" does mean less likelihood of copyist errors, but that is a general truth, not a specific reality in every case.

But Paul said that the Scriptures were being corrupted even during his time by many.

2 Corinthians 2:17
"For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God: but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ.”

156 AD. Irenaeus (says of the gnostics): “Wherefore they and their followers have betaken themselves to mutilating the Scriptures which they themselves have shortened.”

So there was a problem going on in that there were gnostics who shortened the Scriptures.
It’s odd that 2 Corinthians 2:17 is altered in Modern Bibles to hide the truth of this corruption.
Odd that the Westcott and Hort / Nestle and Aland text is shorter than the Received Text (Textus Receptus).

I do also realize there are those who do not get into the originals manuscripts and they look to a sea of conflicting English Modern Bibles to let God speak to them. But these types of believers are not as common. So I don’t bring them up because they are more in a minority. But generally there two major positions on the Bible issue.

#1. KJB Bible believer (Who believes it is perfect).
#2. Textual Criticism or Originals Onlyism.

Yes, there are TROs, and Majority Text folk. There are KJV preferred believers. But again, they are not as common.

Your categories are far too narrow, and you're overlooking the vast majority of Christians.

As I said, I do acknowledge other groups of believers, but they are not as common. As I said, I am mentioning the two most popular positions. Do you see another that is just as equally popular that I missed?

So you believe that the vast majority of Textual Critics today do not believe that only the originals were inspired?

Find a way to phrase a question that doesn't assume the worst possible interpretation.

Your reply is illogical, and evasive. To my knowledge, this is the view of Modern Textual Criticism. They believe only the originals are inspired and therefore they must reconstruct the text with new manuscript discoveries, new translations, etcetera. If you disagree, then please explain how you think things are different.

Not to my knowledge they don't.

Then you must be new to the Bible issue debate. What videos have you been watching that would lead you to think otherwise? What articles have you been reading that say so otherwise? Even ChatGPT confirms this truth.