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

©2025 Poal.co

504

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

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.