Has anyone found secret messages in the bible?

Which translation? Because they contradict each other.

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.

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.

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

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

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

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.)

.

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.

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?

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.

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?

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

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.

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).

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.

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).

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.