Welcome • User Guide
ToS • Privacy • Canary
Donate • Bugs • License

©2025 Poal.co

1.4K

This started out as a reply to a comment but it's such an important issue that it deserves it's own post.

"Yea hath God said" being, quite literally, the oldest trick in the book the enemy loves to cast doubt on what God really said. (The serpent making Eve question if God really said what He said about not eating the forbidden fruit, and if He did, did He mean it, and if He did was he lying.)

Consider the New Testament, for about a millennium and a half there was essentially no real debate on what the text of the books that comprise the New Testament was.

Those accepted texts were collectively called "the received text" meaning essentially "the same texts we've always had" scholars refer to them as the "Textus Receptus".

About 500 years ago, a guy named Desiderius Erasmus (aka Erasmus of Rotterdam) who has been widely regarded as the smartest man who ever lived, compiled them all together. There was of course the occasional manuscript found that differed from the vast majority and it was rightly discarded.

This assembled Greek Textus Receptus forms the basis for all faithful translations of the (New Testament) Bible, the most recent one in English being the King James Bible.

Since those times scholarly methods of textual criticism have become popular with really "smart" ideas like "well if 120 ancient texts agree and 1 or 2 say something different, the 1 or 2 must be right because they wouldn't go against the grain unless it were true".

Using these sorts of methods God-haters have been able twist the words to say whatever they want to undermine key doctrines of the Bible like the virgin birth, Jesus' death on the cross, the divinity of Christ, etc. And with corrupt minority texts like the codices vaticanus and sinaiticus they release so-called bibles that just change whatever they feel like.

We could do the same sort of breakdown for the old testament and the masoretic text vs the septuagint and get into all that if I felt up to it but hopefully you get the idea.

TL:DR if you speak English you should be reading the King James Bible and not some modern adulteration like the NIV.

*This started out as a reply to a comment but it's such an important issue that it deserves it's own post.* "Yea hath God said" being, quite literally, the oldest trick in the book the enemy loves to cast doubt on what God really said. (The serpent making Eve question if God really said what He said about not eating the forbidden fruit, and if He did, did He mean it, and if He did was he lying.) Consider the New Testament, for about a millennium and a half there was essentially no real debate on what the text of the books that comprise the New Testament was. Those accepted texts were collectively called "the received text" meaning *essentially* "the same texts we've always had" scholars refer to them as the "Textus Receptus". About 500 years ago, a guy named Desiderius Erasmus (aka Erasmus of Rotterdam) who has been widely regarded as the smartest man who ever lived, compiled them all together. There was of course the occasional manuscript found that differed from the vast majority and it was rightly discarded. This assembled Greek Textus Receptus forms the basis for all faithful translations of the (New Testament) Bible, the most recent one in English being the King James Bible. Since those times scholarly methods of textual criticism have become popular with really "smart" ideas like "well if 120 ancient texts agree and 1 or 2 say something different, the 1 or 2 must be right because they wouldn't go against the grain unless it were true". Using these sorts of methods God-haters have been able twist the words to say whatever they want to undermine key doctrines of the Bible like the virgin birth, Jesus' death on the cross, the divinity of Christ, etc. And with corrupt minority texts like the codices vaticanus and sinaiticus they release so-called bibles that just change whatever they feel like. We could do the same sort of breakdown for the old testament and the masoretic text vs the septuagint and get into all that if I felt up to it but hopefully you get the idea. TL:DR if you speak English you should be reading the King James Bible and not some modern adulteration like the NIV.

(post is archived)

[–] • 0 pt

The New Testament translation of the KJV is ok. The NKJV is probably the most useful - because the 1600s Kings English is a foreign language.

The best version of the Old Testament is found in the .

They used the Septuagint instead of the Masoretic text. There are several critical differences. If you have ever read the words "Behold a virgin shall conceive and bear a child", you have read a quote from the Septuagint.

In ~200BC the best scholars who spoke Hebrew translated the book of Isaiah to say "A virgin shall conceive", and in 100AD, the "updated" version said "a young woman shall conceive". Before Christ the promised Messiah had striking differences to what Rabbinical Judaism said following 100AD.

The other books that you should have, are found in the Ethiopian Canon - namely Jubilee's and Enoch. Jubilees in particular is interesting, read as a part of the Torah, it adds tremendous context and explains a lot of the events seen in the first five books of the accepted Bible.

TL;DR: KJV is not written in modern english, and it is a dialect that none now speak. The source text has significant corruption of the Old Testament. The NJKV is a good x-lation of the NT, and the Orthodox Study Bible sources from the Septuagint, is a much improved source text for the Old Testament.

[–] • 0 pt

OP, please answer these:

You smell Jewish. But please humor me.

Jews are lactose intolerant - to a degree it can actually kill them. Yet Judeans desire the land of milk and honey. Why would they crave a land which promises to kill them?

Arab means Mixed in Hebrew. Jews are Arabs. But Judeans are not, according to the bible. You now claim the bible is wrong.

I've provided an article confirming that arabs jews are of canaanites. What did the bible command be done to the canaanites? What does it say because of the failure to do so? Who are the edomites? Who are the pharisees?

Why do the ashkenazi appear as the pharisees disappear? Who wrote the talmud and why does it curse Jesus?

But hey, you continue to listen to the people Jesus plainly says are the children of Satan. But you are no Christian.

https://poal.co/c/df149354-cbd3-4319-81d5-7efd9479f751#cmnts

[–] [deleted] • 0 pt

KJVO is a cult. Why not suggest a collection of Hebrew and Greek manuscripts? Surely it would be possible to translate those into a more modern, readable English.

I will say that the one thing the olde English has going for it is a distinction between singular and plural "you." It's a pain to have to look that up for every verb in the NT.

[–] • 0 pt

There are some KJVO groups, like ruckmanites, who are pretty culty. But don’t let nutballs like ruckman turn you off the best English translation that exists.

[–] [deleted] • 0 pt

the best

No, the TR has major issues. There are word translations that just don't work with modern English (e.g. "the end of the world" in Matt 24).

Ruckman didn't turn me off; James White did.

[–] • -1 pt

Wait are you saying James White because you recognize he’s a garbage theologian who obviously doesn’t understand the Bible, cause if so I 100% agree about that.

[–] • 0 pt

KJV is riddled with mistakes. I'm not saying it's bad but if you want accuracy in the translation then English Standard Version (ESV) is the way to go. Best thing you can do is read multiple translations to compare and get a better idea of what the text is trying to say.

[–] • 0 pt

The KJV had been updated at least a half dozen times. Subverted at least once with the insertion of "Jew." Even the experts admit it's not perfect. Strong's appears to be the best basis for translation and we know many parts of the KJV are wrong based on our current understanding of ancient Greek and Hebrew.

The KJV screws up basic things like "gentiles" and purposely replaces and conflates Jew with Judean or Tribe of Judah. We know this because of historical records which align with current Strong's translations.

The KJV is pretty good but it's far from perfect and frequently, purposefully, misleads Christians on many topics.

https://poal.co/c/df149354-cbd3-4319-81d5-7efd9479f751#cmnts

[–] • 0 pt

Where was Jew inserted?

[–] • 0 pt

The last good KJV was the 1611 edition. Sometime after this Jew was inserted because for reasons never explained, Jews needed to mysteriously rename their tribe from Tribe of Judah, or Judeans, to Jew. Now we have all three conflated in the KJV.

Please review the research I've assembled and the truth continues to become more apparent.

[–] • 1 pt

Thank you. I was unaware of this.

[–] • 0 pt

Entirely wrong and excuse us if we don't take the word of a guy who says "Christianity serves Europeans because that's the people who created it. Jesus was white." :/

[–] • 1 pt (edited )

You ignoring documented history without even looking says all we need to know about your Christian integrity or faith in the bible.

"For nothing is secret that will not be revealed, nor anything hidden that will not be known and come to light."

Not to mention you are directly contradicting Jesus. So you most certainly are not Christian. You would know this if you bothered to educate yourself. I even cite it.

If you are a Christian then stop denying and contradicting Jesus and the bible - the very book you just endorsed.

Edit: you took less than 4 minutes to review at least a day's worth of material. You pretend to advise others? There is no wisdom in your position.

[–] • 0 pt

Your entire reply was so retarded I cant bring myself to undertake the massive project it would be to first have you unlearn all your nonsense and then teach you the truth.

But I'll give you one hint: Strong was a heretic and subversive who's work directly lead to garbage like dispensationalism and the jew-worshiping nonsense so prevalent in "Christianity" today.