Disliking the bible.

No one has created a new KJV that is not "twisted" with alterations in as said "twisted ways".

God just may "give you hope" after all - there is a small group working to publish
a KJV with the archaic words updated. You can pray about it and see:

https://www.kjvupdate.com

Be Blessed!

I understand your point but have little options to study greek and hebrew and feel like killing myself than taking ten years to do that in order to be only half competent at reading and understanding to old languages.

And in regards to the King James, it may have issues, but the modern bibles all stem from one, a nazi war criminal, two westcott and horts new testament who were the creators of an supernatural group and who spoke to the dead, a known forger Tischendorff and more. Not even mentioning the only two opposing texts of the sinaiticus against the vaticainus that do not line up to each other compared to thousands of texts for the "KJV lineage" bibles and texts.

If God would bless me to have the skill / options / and other for hebrew and greek, and it was of benefit and not a waste of time staying indoors reading going ever worse in sight from short range activities etc, I assume God would give me the blessings. But I do not have many options except online websites and guessing.

Also it seems God has basically banned "memory palaces" and their use and training of in my circumstance, even leading me to a museum of "his dark materials" that hinted at "lots of knowledge is dark" etc. It seemed very directed, therefore I have little time saving options for memorising also.

So it seems I will have to wait to be blessed with guidance, or suffer with a "poor, but best of the most trusted lineage translations" in english, that are not of the "shady peoples" creations etc, potentially. No one has created a new KJV that is not "twisted" with alterations in as said "twisted ways". So they are no use either.

Thanks for reply though.

Your "history" of Westcott and Hort is nothing more than lies. Do you know which was nothing more than a financier and which one translated NO SCRIPTURES but actually just gave them context? He didn't want translate because of the politics involved. And neither Westcott or Hort were responsible for the Geneva Bible which was THE Bible used for centuries before the Oxford/Cambridge COE translation used today. Do you even know who the leader/Pope of the Church of England when this translation was created?

Did you know that Westcott and Hort had to leave Geneva because the Calvinists there wished to kill them.? Do you know the real reason why they were going to be killed?

Do you know which of those two guys was an expert on Ancient Near East Jewish extrabiblical literature that is referenced regularly in scriptures?

If you are going to hand out slander then you need definitive proof of your allegations and have an understanding of the history.

I'm not trying to be slanderous, but westcott and hort, even one of their sons wrote that their father comuned with a church full of "the saints", meaning the dead, and the nazi war criminal is if I remember "vine" or "thayer" or "kittle" (forgot which)?, that the new versions base their text on using their dictionaries etc. Westcott and hort openly hated the KJV in written text online. And the tishendorf issue is an issue of trust. He was a forger, and the two sections of text do not match in color as videos show, one is like new, the other old, and "David Daniels" a translator, covered this in many videos. He changed to KJV because of the historical issues etc.

The KJV seems the best of a bad bunch, for English content, not modern clarity etc. The text sources, seem more reliable due to number of "same text copy sources", rather than 2 that oppose eachother, and are likely included because one includes the apochrypha (for the catholic church?) or maybe it is coincidence, who knows. The point is, reliability, not hoping or guesswork. The nestles text has a bad rap as being "westcott and hort / others etc", and the KJV has a bad rap for a "cobbled together text group". But at least the texts of the KJV were not entirely re-written potentially, by westcott / hort / others etc.

So, for me, it is to do with trust.

Do I think the whole of the new version bible constructions used today are entirely corrupted? It is obviously not the case due to much of the text being the same, but, the issue is that all modern bibles are mainly created and supported by the united bibles society, that is against the KJV because the catholic church will not allow bibles from the ubs to be created in support of KJV bibles etc. As far as I know from others.

But even if this were not the case, the Geveva bible chooses to translate "repent", to "amend your ways", which cannot be accurate due to the verses saying / suggesting, mans ways are false and Gods ways are true and perfect. Therefore, to "amend your ways", to another way of your own "amending" is seemingly false. Turning to God's ways from your own ways, makes more sense, but this is only a single word issue on the Geneva bible.

Well you need to provide REPUTABLE (academically accepted and peer reviwed with endorsements) links to this biography about how these guys who I know didn't translate the scriptures really did translate the scriptures. This is the second time I've asked.
Otherwise you are trolling and slandering.
And the likely story is you have fallen prey to liars and studied materials built on heresy and lies claiming to be knowledgeable.

You want me to provide "ACADEMICALLY - ACCEPTED" peer reviewed information and not the history of the world? I did not start a debate on this thread, read the first post.

I cannot trust a bible is my issue, not a proof text issue. If you don't want to spend hours and days looking at videos and texts and websites trying to find people with evidence, that is your choice. But don't expect me to do your work for you. But a few pointers I will see if I can add.

This is the general "basic" historical and academic understanding with regard to westcott and hort:
https://www.gotquestions.org/Westcott-and-Hort.html

This is the evidence that the nestles text matches in most cases, westcott and hort, but renames its text to "nestles text". Note the previous site mentions that it was based on Sinaiticus and Vaticainus as I mentioned. Can you mention a bible that is aligned with the sinaiticus and vaticainus that is old? like the Geneva bible or others? If not, why were these texts not used seemingly until modern bibles were created around the time of westcott and hort? E,G ASV 1901 onwards etc. Where are the thousands of bibles in rome, greece, ethiopia or uk or other that match these texts? Why do the known bibles match the thousands of "KJV / Geneva / Bishops / Masoretic", and not the "minor texts" used for new versions? I don't need you to answer, it is a point being made. That all bibles would be of the "minor texts" of new versions if they were the original choices etc, but they are "minor" in number = 1 of each, with a few newer texts thrown in to fill the gaps.

A quote from another site:
http://deanburgonsociety.org/CriticalTexts/dbs2695.htm

"The Conclusion and Importance to be Drawn from these Seven Testimonies. Have you ever wondered just WHY the basic Greek text of Westcott and Hort dated in 1881 is virtually identical with the basic Greek text of the present critical editions? The simple reason is that they are derived from the same basic, corrupt Greek manuscripts, namely "B" (Vatican) and "Aleph" (Sinai) and a few others that followed them."

The quote is about testimonies of scholars and investigators over the years who have compared the new versions as stated.

Believe what you want. As I said, it is about trust.


David Daniels video's 2 parts.



I hope this is of use. But I admit and do not presume to know everything, and therefore will allow God to guide and correct me with new information if God so wishes to clarify this with new information. Remember, there is also much money to be made in different bible versions, and there are schisms between churches / catholic / protestant / JW's / Mormons etc, who all have different bibles in general, with altered texts between all of them. Thats largely why I stick with KJV before the "new version changes". God bless all and I hope all is made clear by God in Jesus name, to all, amen.

You want me to provide "ACADEMICALLY - ACCEPTED" peer reviewed information and not the history of the world? I did not start a debate on this thread, read the first post.

I cannot trust a bible is my issue, not a proof text issue. If you don't want to spend hours and days looking at videos and texts and websites trying to find people with evidence, that is your choice. But don't expect me to do your work for you. But a few pointers I will see if I can add.

This is the general "basic" historical and academic understanding with regard to westcott and hort:
https://www.gotquestions.org/Westcott-and-Hort.html

This is the evidence that the nestles text matches in most cases, westcott and hort, but renames its text to "nestles text". Note the previous site mentions that it was based on Sinaiticus and Vaticainus as I mentioned. Can you mention a bible that is aligned with the sinaiticus and vaticainus that is old? like the Geneva bible or others? If not, why were these texts not used seemingly until modern bibles were created around the time of westcott and hort? E,G ASV 1901 onwards etc. Where are the thousands of bibles in rome, greece, ethiopia or uk or other that match these texts? Why do the known bibles match the thousands of "KJV / Geneva / Bishops / Masoretic", and not the "minor texts" used for new versions? I don't need you to answer, it is a point being made. That all bibles would be of the "minor texts" of new versions if they were the original choices etc, but they are "minor" in number = 1 of each, with a few newer texts thrown in to fill the gaps.

A quote from another site:
http://deanburgonsociety.org/CriticalTexts/dbs2695.htm

"The Conclusion and Importance to be Drawn from these Seven Testimonies. Have you ever wondered just WHY the basic Greek text of Westcott and Hort dated in 1881 is virtually identical with the basic Greek text of the present critical editions? The simple reason is that they are derived from the same basic, corrupt Greek manuscripts, namely "B" (Vatican) and "Aleph" (Sinai) and a few others that followed them."

The quote is about testimonies of scholars and investigators over the years who have compared the new versions as stated.

Believe what you want. As I said, it is about trust.


David Daniels video's 2 parts.



I hope this is of use. But I admit and do not presume to know everything, and therefore will allow God to guide and correct me with new information if God so wishes to clarify this with new information. Remember, there is also much money to be made in different bible versions, and there are schisms between churches / catholic / protestant / JW's / Mormons etc, who all have different bibles in general, with altered texts between all of them. Thats largely why I stick with KJV before the "new version changes". God bless all and I hope all is made clear by God in Jesus name, to all, amen.

I'm not trying to be slanderous, but westcott and hort, even one of their sons wrote that their father comuned with a church full of "the saints", meaning the dead, and the nazi war criminal is if I remember "vine" or "thayer" or "kittle" (forgot which)?, that the new versions base their text on using their dictionaries etc. Westcott and hort openly hated the KJV in written text online. And the tishendorf issue is an issue of trust. He was a forger, and the two sections of text do not match in color as videos show, one is like new, the other old, and "David Daniels" a translator, covered this in many videos. He changed to KJV because of the historical issues etc.

The KJV seems the best of a bad bunch, for English content, not modern clarity etc. The text sources, seem more reliable due to number of "same text copy sources", rather than 2 that oppose eachother, and are likely included because one includes the apochrypha (for the catholic church?) or maybe it is coincidence, who knows. The point is, reliability, not hoping or guesswork. The nestles text has a bad rap as being "westcott and hort / others etc", and the KJV has a bad rap for a "cobbled together text group". But at least the texts of the KJV were not entirely re-written potentially, by westcott / hort / others etc.

So, for me, it is to do with trust.

Do I think the whole of the new version bible constructions used today are entirely corrupted? It is obviously not the case due to much of the text being the same, but, the issue is that all modern bibles are mainly created and supported by the united bibles society, that is against the KJV because the catholic church will not allow bibles from the ubs to be created in support of KJV bibles etc. As far as I know from others.

But even if this were not the case, the Geveva bible chooses to translate "repent", to "amend your ways", which cannot be accurate due to the verses saying / suggesting, mans ways are false and Gods ways are true and perfect. Therefore, to "amend your ways", to another way of your own "amending" is seemingly false. Turning to God's ways from your own ways, makes more sense, but this is only a single word issue on the Geneva bible.

got news for you the King James is corrupted as well.
https://www.ucg.org/bible-study-too...stakes-in-the-king-james-version-of-the-bible
https://www.angelfire.com/hi2/graphic1designer/errors.html
Honestly why do people cling to this version? only the original text are spiritually inspired, everything else is just a translation, and a fair portion of the king james is a translation of a translation, We have more original text to reference back to now that have been discovered, than they did in the 17th century. Why not just get a Latin bible at that point? Because it's a dead language of no use to most people.

You did NOT watch the videos above, so you will NOT understand unless you do so. It is not possible to do what the videos say without being organised by either God who knows the future and has planned accordingly etc, or a time travelling mind controlling alien who knows all time who made Jesus and the apostles and the verse number creators and the prophets and the King James Bible makers, say and do what this so called "super alien" wanted (or simply the KJV is the only english version to follow as the videos prove, the David daniels ones add to this but the 666 and 777 videos from "christistruth.org" and youtube, show this is obviously not possible by accident or peoples design or they would have to live for thousands of years.)

i saw

I saw enough to know it hogwash, what do you expect non-english readers to use? I've literally seen a church destroyed by KJV only fanatics, in a church that wasn't king james only to begin with. KJV wasn't even the first english bible, it just had the biggest backing when it came out. Honestly, this is lunacy.