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

©2025 Poal.co

1.2K

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)

You are currently inside a comment thread.
Click here to see all the comments (19).
[–] • 0 pt (edited )

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.

[–] • 1 pt (edited )

Gah, fine. I'll help you a little more...

People we call Jews today, which are the ones so many modern "christians" wrongly "worship", are largely eastern European converts to Judaism. Presumably the actual ethnic descendants of Jacob were not lactose intolerant.

Ashkenazi "Jews" are largely the descendants of those eastern European Khazars who converted (iirc) around 700 AD, so saying pharisees disappeared right as the ashkenazi appeared makes no sense since the religion of the pharisees was largely destroyed 600 years earlier when Jerusalem fell in 70AD and the remainder of it was scattered throughout the known world as survivors migrated.

Though no doubt the remnants of that antichrist religion of the pharisees was instrumental in forming the rabbinical talmudic judaism of today.

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

Whatever you're trying to say here isn't clear.

Edit with more direct answers:

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?

Because they aren't the same people. The current ones are largely not blood descendants of Jacob.

What did the bible command be done to the canaanites?

The Israelites were told to destroy them all.

What does it say because of the failure to do so?

Well when God commands Israel to destroy them he says it's so they won't be taught the abominable ways of the Canaanites but they didn't destroy them all and did end up learning their abominable ways and so they were punished by God for it many times eventually culminating with things like the Assyrian conquest of Israel, the Babylonian Captivity of Judea and eventually the Roman destruction of Judea in 70AD.

Who are the edomites?

Thee descendants of Esau.

Who are the pharisees?

False religious leaders of ancient israel in power at the time of Christ who's false doctrines have evolved into a big part of today's Judaism.

[–] • 0 pt (edited )

Good job.

I hope you'll continue with the research links I've provided. Even the biblical scholars of the KJV disagree with OP's disagreement here. You did skip over some things.