What is wrong with this passage?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Trust&Obey

Well-Known Member
If I've offended you, it wasn't my intention. Nor am I discrediting you or accusing you of believing in ME. I noticed you were careful to not use the exact term ME, which is why I didn't say you are indeed referring to the ME, but gave you the reason you shouldn't believe it in case you were.

Sowen
I wasn't offended, but I had hoped to keep silent on that information, at least for as long as I could. The main reason is I didn't want to hurt anyone. Someone might check out the stuff that is on the internet and become confused. I think we are both on the same page as to what view we should take to that kind of filth. The second reason was of course, I didn't want the baby thrown out with the bathwater. I'm only asking you judge what the texts say - were they altered?

As for Scripture being altered by Satan: whether that's the reason behind certain iffy translations and outright false translations (NWT), I don't know. If this is your point, have you studied Scripture's source documents in their original language? I'm currently doing that, so I'm very interested to know if you came to your belief via that route. If yes, I'd really appreciate it if you detailed your study and reading method, so I can check it out.

Our English translations update as we get a greater understanding of Scripture's source documents. The core meaning of the message doesn't change, but the words used to convey the meaning is changed. For example, the archaic language of the KJV 1611 has been replaced with modern equivalents, so thee and thou is now you and your.

My concern is that translations that we have our most confidence in, as bible students, may be changing supernaturally. My request is that others who either feel that way also or even don't feel that way, would help me research it. I'm not an expert, which is why I first appealed to the experts. It is also why I'm appealing to those here, because I know that many here are mature believers and bible students and even experts, more so than I am. You volunteering? :) Just kidding.

Here's a few things that possibly our enemy is doing:
  • changing words just to cause confusion - some are nonsense, some are just synonyms that almost mean the same thing
  • changing names to cause confusion
  • changing the creation story
  • changing the character of God
  • denying the deity of Christ
  • showing that God only has authority in some areas
  • changing references to himself (the devil)
  • other reasons I'm not yet clear on

In answer to your question about original languages, no, I have not studied them beyond mostly resources online.

In Christ,
Lora
 

GoldenEagle

Well-Known Member
What is worse, the twisting of scripture, or the re-writing of scripture?

These are thoughts I ponder.

I’ve tried to reread this thread with an open mind incase I’m not seeing or missing something.

I think the crux of the matter for me, is I disagree with you that scripture has been/ is being re-written. I don’t see from the examples I’ve read that the differing words alter the essence of the gospel. I like reading different translations and learning about words because it can illuminate things, or make more sense of something. But to me, ultimately our faith is in God - not an absolutely perfect translation.

Edit to add - I’m aware there are very poor and corrupt translations out there, but I feel we have enough knowledge already to avoid those as well as understanding why.
 

Trust&Obey

Well-Known Member
GoldenEagle
Thank you for your honesty and for your diligence in both reading and reviewing this thread. My parameters are the whole bible, not just the gospel. I've spent too many years defending it from the first verse to the last. After all - all scripture is God-breathed.

I hope you will keep following, even though you believe you have made your decision.

Maranatha
 

GoldenEagle

Well-Known Member
Trust&Obey, I certainly will continue to follow this thread because it has already made me think more deeply about some things, and also I’m open to being corrected.
I shall pray for you that God strengthens and sustains you, and for the right people to come alongside you who are able to support, help and advise you. I can see you have put yourself out on a limb here and that takes much courage as well as energy. So whilst I don’t currently agree with you, please know I am definitely for you and not against you.
God Bless.
 

Trust&Obey

Well-Known Member
Trust&Obey, I certainly will continue to follow this thread because it has already made me think more deeply about some things, and also I’m open to being corrected.
I shall pray for you that God strengthens and sustains you, and for the right people to come alongside you who are able to support, help and advise you. I can see you have put yourself out on a limb here and that takes much courage as well as energy. So whilst I don’t currently agree with you, please know I am definitely for you and not against you.
God Bless.

I love that true brothers and sisters in Christ can show such empathy, even when they disagree. Blessings to you GoldenEagle and thank you for your very, very kind words !!!!
 

Trust&Obey

Well-Known Member
OK. So I am exhausted :)

I'm going to give this a rest for a few days plus then I may spend some more time in research, especially on Rev 5:14.

That's not to say I might not respond to someone, I just have a couple of busy days including shucking corn on Monday.

After that, I may give it a few more days and if no one responds positively either privately to me or on the forum, then I may shelve it on here for a much longer time. I'm not giving up, I'm just resting when my body and God are telling me to rest.

Maranatha
 

Andy C

Well-Known Member
I’ve tried to reread this thread with an open mind incase I’m not seeing or missing something.

I think the crux of the matter for me, is I disagree with you that scripture has been/ is being re-written. I don’t see from the examples I’ve read that the differing words alter the essence of the gospel. I like reading different translations and learning about words because it can illuminate things, or make more sense of something. But to me, ultimately our faith is in God - not an absolutely perfect translation.

Edit to add - I’m aware there are very poor and corrupt translations out there, but I feel we have enough knowledge already to avoid those as well as understanding why.
Concur.
 

Sowen

Well-Known Member
Sowen
I wasn't offended, but I had hoped to keep silent on that information, at least for as long as I could. The main reason is I didn't want to hurt anyone. Someone might check out the stuff that is on the internet and become confused. I think we are both on the same page as to what view we should take to that kind of filth. The second reason was of course, I didn't want the baby thrown out with the bathwater. I'm only asking you judge what the texts say - were they altered?



My concern is that translations that we have our most confidence in, as bible students, may be changing supernaturally. My request is that others who either feel that way also or even don't feel that way, would help me research it. I'm not an expert, which is why I first appealed to the experts. It is also why I'm appealing to those here, because I know that many here are mature believers and bible students and even experts, more so than I am. You volunteering? :) Just kidding.

Here's a few things that possibly our enemy is doing:
  • changing words just to cause confusion - some are nonsense, some are just synonyms that almost mean the same thing
  • changing names to cause confusion
  • changing the creation story
  • changing the character of God
  • denying the deity of Christ
  • showing that God only has authority in some areas
  • changing references to himself (the devil)
  • other reasons I'm not yet clear on

In answer to your question about original languages, no, I have not studied them beyond mostly resources online.

In Christ,
Lora
I mentioned the ME because I'm trying to understand exactly what it is you're trying to say. Everyone here, including me, is confused regarding where you're coming from, so I'm trying to clear that up to have some meaningful dialogue.

Now that I understand you, I can definitely say: No, Scripture has not been altered in the way that you believe it has.

We can know this without a doubt because God is ultimately in control of Scripture and its transmission to us, and He has also given us the means to check for ourselves whether a translation is correct by preserving the sources for Scripture and making them available to us.

If you're interested in further info about the integrity and reliability of our current translations, look up works by Daniel B. Wallace. He's a professor of New Testament Studies at Dallas Theological Seminary and he has some stuff that's easily digestible.

He's also director of the Center For The Study of New Testament Manuscripts which digitally scans New Testament manuscripts and uploads them for all to read for free online. It's a great site and resource.

The Veritas Forum is also another great easily digestible academic resource that has info regarding Scripture's integrity and reliability. They upload many of their lectures which can be accessed for free online.

God bless you as you research. Your zeal for Scripture is wonderful! :)
 
Last edited:

Channah

Well-Known Member
Wow you did a lot of study. I think it’s important to know if it’s heaven or heavens. If it’s heaven (singular) then there is only one heaven. If it’s heavens then where are those other heavens? It’s like when I first became a Christian and this church didn’t believe in the trinity it was a Jesus only church. I think it’s import know from the original writing. Things like corn I’m ok with change but others are not.
 

Trust&Obey

Well-Known Member
EDITED 8/14/19 by Trust&Obey: I have deleted the story about the evangelist and the atheist. I wanted to make a point on how words can impact the gospel message. In hindsight, I don't like leaving it here for anyone to read. Unbelievers often have many objections to Jesus Christ and the Gospel, but I do not wish to promote them.
 
Last edited:

Andy C

Well-Known Member
It is 3:30 AM where I live (as I start this). I finished my evening in peace and went to sleep. My heart was clear and I wasn't stressing. And then a little before 3:00, I woke up . . . and then my mind engaged and I can only say that an idea came to me. I'd give God the credit, but since I don't want to damage His reputation (if I am wrong about all of this as most believe) then I will just keep it at "an idea came to me."


It was a story. A story about “Ray Comforter” (spelling intentional).


_____________________________________________________________________-

Well good old Ray was on the boardwalk last Saturday. It had been a pretty good day as he did street evangelism like very few can do. He had just encouraged another volunteer, Johnny, to step up and have a very public conversation with him. Johnny was 28. He was raised in church, even had done some evangelism himself in Florida about 9 years ago, back when he was attending a college church group. But, Johnny didn't believe in that stuff anymore. After all, he had tried God and it just didn't work for him. After the introductions, Ray began the conversation as he often does.

"Johnny, if you were to die today, would you go to heaven or to hell?", Ray asked in his Aussie accent.

Johnny replied, "I don't believe in heaven or hell".

Ray said, “The existence of hell and the surety of the judgment are not the claims of fallible man. The Bible is the source of the claim, and it is utterly infallible. When someone becomes a Christian, he is admitting that he was in the wrong and that God is justified in His declarations that we have sinned against Him.”

He continued, “Here's the good news, though, if there is no hell: You won't know a thing after you die. It will be the end. No heaven, no hell. Just nothing. You won't even realize that it's good news. Here's the bad news, if the Bible is right and that there is eternal justice: You will find yourself standing before the judgment throne of a Holy God, who has seen every sin you ever committed. Think of it. A Holy and perfect Creator who has seen your thought-life and every secret sin you have ever committed.”

“Johnny, let me ask you a question,” said Ray. “Have you ever lied?”

Johnny shuffled his feet a little bit and then looked Ray straight in the eyes and said, “Yes, but that's not a sin because God lies, too!”

Surprised but rolling with the punches Ray asks, “What do you mean that God lies?”

Johnny said, “Well, you believe that the bible is God's word, right?”

Ray said, “Yes, it is the infallible Word of God.”

“And you believe that God can't lie, right”? asked Johnny, not noticing that he likes to say “right” a lot.

“That's correct.” responded Ray.

“Right, so God lies because in the bible, in Numbers 23:22 he talks about the strength of unicorns. And unicorns are mythical creatures. God didn't create them. So, in His own book, he lied.” explained Johnny.
__________________________________________________________________________

And that's where I will end my little story. Yes, I'm sure even I could come up with some come back if I wanted to think about it hard enough - probably about translation errors. I don't. This was written to make a point. But, perhaps, Ray or someone else will have to give it some thought because it may one day happen - maybe it already has happened. I don't know.

Here's the thing: a few have kindly but firmly shrugged their shoulders at these changes. This is just translation stuff. They think that the examples I have given won't affect the Gospel. But, like I said every word of the true Bible, the Word, Jesus Christ, is God-breathed. God can't lie.

BTW – “Ray Comforter” quotes came from “The Evidence Bible (New Testament, Psalms & Proverbs), copyright 2002, pg 66.
I do not own a copy of the full version of this Bible. This means I can't look up Num 23:22. However, in the KJV, we know unicorn is verified.


Can you see the ramifications to the Gospel and even to Living Waters ministry?
Everything is explainable for those seeking answers

Why does the KJV Bible mention the unicorn?"

Answer:
In several passages (Numbers 23:22, 24:8; Deuteronomy 33:17; Job 39:9-10; Psalm 22:21, 29:6; Isaiah 34:7), the King James Version of the Bible mentions a unicorn. The original Hebrew is the word re’emwhich was translated monokeros in the Septuagint and unicornis in the Latin Vulgate. Later versions use the phrase “wild ox.” The original Hebrew word basically means “beast with a horn.” One possible interpretation is the rhinoceros. But since the Hebrew tow’apaha in Numbers 23:22 refers to more than one horn, it’s likely the translators of the Septuagint used creative license to infer a wild and powerful, but recognizable animal for their versions.

The re’em is believed to refer to aurochs or urus, large cattle which roamed Europe and Asia in ancient times. Aurochs stood over six feet tall and were the ancestors of domestic cattle. They became extinct in the 1600s. In the Bible, the “wild ox” usually refers to someone with great power. In Numbers 23:22 and 24:8, God compares His own strength to that of a wild ox. In Psalm 22:21, David imagines his enemies as wild oxen. The bull represented several different deities including Baal, Moloch, and the Egyptian Apis. The Israelites tried to adopt these beliefs when they made the golden calf.

Whether the re’em refers to a rhinocerous, or an auroch, or some other horned animal, the image is the same—that of an untamable, ferocious, powerful, wild animal. What we do know is that the Bible is not referring to the mythological “unicorn,” the horse-with-a-horn creature of fairy tales and fantasy literature. It is highly unlikely that the KJV translators believed in the mythological unicorn. Rather, they simply used the Latin term that described a “beast with a horn.”

https://www.gotquestions.org/Bible-unicorn.html
 

Sowen

Well-Known Member
Are you seeking possible correction or explanation that your belief may be in error, or do you seek confirmation and spreading of your belief?

If you seek possible correction and explanation, every reply in this thread regarding that is sound.

If it's the latter, I exhort you to stop going down this path and to stop encouraging others to also do so because it's not Biblical but based on verifiable misinformation. Prior to its conception in the late 2000s, the belief didn't exist, and it originally didn't involve Scripture at all. But once it got online, it spread like a virus and others picked it up and contributed their own perceived changes to the list of things that have allegedly been altered. One of these added things is Scripture.

I'm not dismissing you or attributing your belief to translation error. I fully understand why you don't believe it's translation error; and why instead, you believe that Scripture has been supernaturally and retroactively altered by Satan, and the changes might be ordained by God to fulfill endtimes prophecy, and evidence of these changes exists in our memories because our memories are unaltered thus those in the tribulation who want the truth may need to rely on their memories, the 144k witnesses, and the two prophets because all the Bibles are altered.

Ma'am, I want to stress that I mean no disrespect to you nor anything negative towards you. I think your zeal for the integrity of God's word is great, yet misguided. I'm simply genuinely concerned for you.

I understand exactly where you're coming from because, before I was saved, I believed what you believe, but I believed it about other alleged changes to our universe not about alleged changes to Scripture, but it's still the same belief except your version of it strips it of its origin and paranormal ties, and focuses on the aspect of the belief that deals with changes, but that cannot be done without causing confusion because the belief falls apart without its origin.

I know that nothing I or anyone else says will convince you otherwise because I understand the powerful hold this can have on someone, so I'll stop trying here and pray for you and all who believe this.

I will just say this one final thing on the matter to warn everyone else then bow out of this thread because all that has to be said has been said:

Please, do not believe this or research this fully. GotQuestions has an article that provides a good summary of it for those who want more info from a safe source. Below is a quote from their article on it, and a link to it.

Christians should dispense with the far-fetched theories based on the Mandela Effect along with anything else that “promote[ s ] controversial speculations rather than advancing God’s work—which is by faith” (1 Timothy 1:4).

https://www.gotquestions.org/Mandela-Effect.html
 

Andy C

Well-Known Member
Are you seeking possible correction or explanation that your belief may be in error, or do you seek confirmation and spreading of your belief?

If you seek possible correction and explanation, every reply in this thread regarding that is sound.

If it's the latter, I exhort you to stop going down this path and to stop encouraging others to also do so because it's not Biblical but based on verifiable misinformation. Prior to its conception in the late 2000s, the belief didn't exist, and it originally didn't involve Scripture at all. But once it got online, it spread like a virus and others picked it up and contributed their own perceived changes to the list of things that have allegedly been altered. One of these added things is Scripture.

I'm not dismissing you or attributing your belief to translation error. I fully understand why you don't believe it's translation error; and why instead, you believe that Scripture has been supernaturally and retroactively altered by Satan, and the changes might be ordained by God to fulfill endtimes prophecy, and evidence of these changes exists in our memories because our memories are unaltered thus those in the tribulation who want the truth may need to rely on their memories, the 144k witnesses, and the two prophets because all the Bibles are altered.

Ma'am, I want to stress that I mean no disrespect to you nor anything negative towards you. I think your zeal for the integrity of God's word is great, yet misguided. I'm simply genuinely concerned for you.

I understand exactly where you're coming from because, before I was saved, I believed what you believe, but I believed it about other alleged changes to our universe not about alleged changes to Scripture, but it's still the same belief except your version of it strips it of its origin and paranormal ties, and focuses on the aspect of the belief that deals with changes, but that cannot be done without causing confusion because the belief falls apart without its origin.

I know that nothing I or anyone else says will convince you otherwise because I understand the powerful hold this can have on someone, so I'll stop trying here and pray for you and all who believe this.

I will just say this one final thing on the matter to warn everyone else then bow out of this thread because all that has to be said has been said:

Please, do not believe this or research this fully. GotQuestions has an article that provides a good summary of it for those who want more info from a safe source. Below is a quote from their article on it, and a link to it.​
Thanks for this post. Others already mentioned the ME, but I have never heard that term before, so I did not give it any attention. I did read your link, so now I understand.
 

mattfivefour

Well-Known Member
Are you seeking possible correction or explanation that your belief may be in error, or do you seek confirmation and spreading of your belief?

If you seek possible correction and explanation, every reply in this thread regarding that is sound.

If it's the latter, I exhort you to stop going down this path and to stop encouraging others to also do so because it's not Biblical but based on verifiable misinformation. Prior to its conception in the late 2000s, the belief didn't exist, and it originally didn't involve Scripture at all. But once it got online, it spread like a virus and others picked it up and contributed their own perceived changes to the list of things that have allegedly been altered. One of these added things is Scripture.

I'm not dismissing you or attributing your belief to translation error. I fully understand why you don't believe it's translation error; and why instead, you believe that Scripture has been supernaturally and retroactively altered by Satan, and the changes might be ordained by God to fulfill endtimes prophecy, and evidence of these changes exists in our memories because our memories are unaltered thus those in the tribulation who want the truth may need to rely on their memories, the 144k witnesses, and the two prophets because all the Bibles are altered.

Ma'am, I want to stress that I mean no disrespect to you nor anything negative towards you. I think your zeal for the integrity of God's word is great, yet misguided. I'm simply genuinely concerned for you.
Exactly.

Trust&Obey, I have been watching this thread since the beginning, with increasing concern. I worry for you because as I read your list of what concerns you—that is to say, what you see as evidences of changes to the Word of God—I see something quite different than do you.

Just to let you know my own background, as you shared yours: I am a 74 year old male (I'll be 75 on August 22). I spent 45 years as a multiple award-winning television broadcast journalist, specializing in writing, directing and producing investigative documentaries and daily news (although I also at times produced and directed religious programs, music, telethons and drama.) The last couple dozen or so years of my career were as a manager, supervising the work of journalists, researchers, anchors, camera people, editors, studio crews and others. I was saved 46 years ago (August 1973), but in September of 2005 I had a powerful encounter with God which changed my life dramatically. God took me from someone who had asked Jesus Christ into his heart and instantly transformed me into someone who had given Jesus Christ his heart. Trust me, the two things are entirely different. A couple of years later He began to lead me into ministry and just under ten years ago I was ordained and left journalism in order to follow God's calling into full-time ministry. Since then I have labored both as a traveling evangelist in Canada and the United States and as a pastor on staff at a Southern Baptist Church in Illinois. I also edit books for a Christian author, as well as serve here.

Because I think it important to deal with the specifics that trouble you, I am going to compile all of the problems you see into one list and give you individual answers to each one. Whether that will resolve your anxiety, I do not know. But it will at least clear the air for others who may read this thread. I do hope that you are one who is "seeking possible correction or explanation that your belief may be in error," as Sown put it above, and not someone who is merely seeking "confirmation and spreading of your belief."

I will try to have the list complete and posted in this thread by the end of tomorrow (Sunday, August 11).
 

ItIsFinished!

Blood bought child of the King of kings.
Exactly.

Trust&Obey, I have been watching this thread since the beginning, with increasing concern. I worry for you because as I read your list of what concerns you—that is to say, what you see as evidences of changes to the Word of God—I see something quite different than do you.

Just to let you know my own background, as you shared yours: I am a 74 year old male (I'll be 75 on August 22). I spent 45 years as a multiple award-winning television broadcast journalist, specializing in writing, directing and producing investigative documentaries and daily news (although I also at times produced and directed religious programs, music, telethons and drama.) The last couple dozen or so years of my career were as a manager, supervising the work of journalists, researchers, anchors, camera people, editors, studio crews and others. I was saved 46 years ago (August 1973), but in September of 2005 I had a powerful encounter with God which changed my life dramatically. God took me from someone who had asked Jesus Christ into his heart and instantly transformed me into someone who had given Jesus Christ his heart. Trust me, the two things are entirely different. A couple of years later He began to lead me into ministry and just under ten years ago I was ordained and left journalism in order to follow God's calling into full-time ministry. Since then I have labored both as a traveling evangelist in Canada and the United States and as a pastor on staff at a Southern Baptist Church in Illinois. I also edit books for a Christian author, as well as serve here.

Because I think it important to deal with the specifics that trouble you, I am going to compile all of the problems you see into one list and give you individual answers to each one. Whether that will resolve your anxiety, I do not know. But it will at least clear the air for others who may read this thread. I do hope that you are one who is "seeking possible correction or explanation that your belief may be in error," as Sown put it above, and not someone who is merely seeking "confirmation and spreading of your belief."

I will try to have the list complete and posted in this thread by the end of tomorrow (Sunday, August 11).
That would be great Pastor Adrian.
I look forward to reading what the Lord has put on your heart regarding this thread.
It is also great to know more about your background and where the Lord has brought you.
I liked what you said about asking Jesus into your heart to giving Jesus your heart.

Peace in Christ.
 

Forgiven1

Watching and waiting
Dear Trust&Obey, I think your passion for God's Word is a wonderful thing. I'd like to suggest a couple of different perspectives for your consideration. First, would God allow His scripture to be supernaturally changed? He is sovereign over ALL things. He has promised in the Bible that His Word endures forever (1 Peter 1:25). Also, what you are presenting would quite possibly be used by unbelievers as a reason to disbelieve and disregard God's Word. That sounds like something the enemy would want. May the Lord bless you and give you His peace about this issue. :pray
 

mattfivefour

Well-Known Member
Lora, my sister, I agree with those who have said your passion for the Word of God is admirable. That is why I have taken the time to address every one of your concerns. Here they are compiled into a list, with my responses after each point you raise. I pray the Holy Spirit speaks to you as you read. I do not want to see you in such agony of mind over the security of the written Word of God any longer.

You write:

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

In every version but the KJV it is plural. Yet, I remember even the KJV originally saying "heavens". Am I alone here? I have a KJV that is over 100 years old and it says "heaven
".


I dealt with this in my first response. Whether a person says I look up to “heaven” or up to “the heavens” is immaterial: they are simply saying they are looking upward. The use of the word הַשָּׁמַ֖יִם haš-šā-ma-yim in Genesis 1:1 clearly refers to the universe (as separate from the earth) and therefore it does not matter whether it is translated as a singular or plural noun. The fact is that the use of the singular noun “heaven” is used in ALL the oldest Jewish translations of the Bible into English, despite the Hebrew actually being in the plural form. But since both singular and plural refer to the entire universe and not to God’s dwelling place, there is no problem or change here. Both singular and plural have been used for centuries.

------------

Matt 9:17 (KJV)
Neither do men put new wine into old bottles: else the bottles break, and the wine runneth out, and the bottles perish: but they put new wine into new bottles, and both are preserved.

First of all, bottles does not make sense as they don't break no matter if it is old or new wine.

Second, I distinctly remember this as "wineskins."


The word bottle first appeared in English in the mid-14th century. It referred to a hollow container with a narrow neck, used for holding liquids, especially wine. The first “bottles” were made of leather. Hence, the original bottles were in fact “wineskins” but were called “bottles”. The translation of the Greek ἀσκός therefore was originally “bottle” (hence the use of that word in the KJV.) Since today a “bottle” refers to a glass container, modern translations use the descriptive word “wineskins” which accurately conveys the original meaning and so allows that saying of Jesus to make sense to us..

------------

Unicorn occurs 6 times in the KJV and unicorns occurs 3. I believe it should say wild ox.
Numbers 23:22 God brought them out of Egypt; he hath as it were the strength of an unicorn.


Andy has already answered this. Never did the translators of the KJV refer to a mythical creature. Rather, relying heavily on Jerome’s Latin Vulgate translation, they simply saw that he had translated the Hebrew רְאֵם as “unicornus” and not knowing to what it referred (they lacked our knowledge of ancient species) simply transliterated it into English as “unicorn.” Now we can’t fault poor old Jerome because his unicornus was an accurate translation of the Greek μονόκερος (monokeros) which literally means "one horned." Jerome, lacking the knowledge of ancient species that we now have, simply mistranslated the word as “unicorn“. We now know that the Hebrew word רְאֵם actually refers to an extinct wild ox called an auroch.

------------

Corn
instead of wheat or grains of wheat. Corn occurs in the KJV 102 times. Corn wasn't even discovered until early American history.


I am afraid you are wrong here in thinking the word corn refers to Indian corn. The English word corn comes from the old Saxon word korn and the Gothic kaurn which simply meant “grain”. It could refer to wheat, oats or rye. In the past couple hundred years we have come to specify what type of grain we are referring to. As a result maize which was originally called “Indian corn” lost its adjective and became known simply as corn.

------------

Check out Revelation 7 in the KJV.

Tribe Names
Rev 7:6
Of the tribe of Aser were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Nepthalim were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Manasses were sealed twelve thousand.

Should be Asher, Nephtali and Manasseh.

Rev 7:8
Of the tribe of Zabulon were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Joseph were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Benjamin were sealed twelve thousand.

Should be Zebulon.


The KJV often mangled Hebrew words. But there is no doubt as to whom the various names referred. And your “should be” phrases are rather presumptuous since the vowels are far from certain in the original Hebrew. And, in the Greek, the words are written with the vowels exactly as the KJV has them, not as you or the modern translations have them. So, respectfully, you are wrong in saying there have been unwarranted changes.

------------

There are two potential changes that I believe have happened or are going to happen in the NASB.

The first one I believe has happened in Hebrews 9:4. Although everywhere else in the NASB, the word "tablets" is used to describe the 10 commandments written on stone. However, in this one verse, it (now) says "tables". I have a commentary on Hebrews written by Steven Ger, in which in the commentary it says "tablets". It should be noted that his work primarily uses the NASB. I have also sent an inquiry to him as well.

Heb 9:4 (NASB)

having a golden altar of incense and the ark of the covenant covered on all sides with gold, in which was a golden jar holding the manna, and Aaron’s rod which budded, and the tables of the covenant;



Sorry, again you are mistaken. The word “table” as used in the KJV simply refers to a flat slab on which there is writing, from the late Old English tabele which refers to a writing board. You think of table as being a piece of furniture with a flat top and legs. Back in the 1600’s, however, that was still commonly referred to as a “board” not a “table” (although the use of table for an eating surface was beginning to take over from the Old English bord.) So “table” and “tablet” both accuratelay refer to exactly the same thing.

------------

The second subject seems about to take place and is found in Genesis 40. In the KJV, all references to "cupbearer" now say "butler". In my NASB Ryrie Study Bible (copyrighted 1976, 1978) the passages still say "cupbearer", however, the heading now says "Joseph Interprets the Dreams of the Butler and the Baker"

Respectfully, another piece of misinformation. The original KJV used the word “butler” and not “cupbearer”. The fact is that back then the word butler did not refer to the head of a household staff but rather simpl;y to the chief servant in charge of the wine. It appeared in English first in the mid-1200’s, coming from the Anglo-Norman French butillier which itself came from the Old French boteillier. “Cupbearer” is a more a modern translation of the word and certainly more accurate since it does not create the mistaken image of someone in a tux and white gloves supervising a household.

------------

Words were “changed” – corn, unicorn, bottles.

I have already shown this to be incorrect.

------------

Words were missing – Sanhedrin, animals.

Sorry, but I am not sure where or to what you are referring here. But in my knowledge of Scripture, the use of a word that explains the Sanhedrin was the ruling Jewish council rather than using the word "Sanhedrin" does not constitute some underhanded change. It simply helps the reader understand what was going on during whateveer events were being discussed in the text. The changing of animal names simply reflects the fact that, through modeern scientific knowledge that was not available to people hundreds of years ago, we have a much better understanding of the meaning of the original Hebrew names for animals.

------------

Modern words were used – tires (invented in 1839 AD), passengers (1915 AD), college (1636 AD).

Not true. The word “tires” (originally spelled “tyres”) first appeared in the late 1400’s and referred to the iron surface of a carriage wheel. The word “passenger” (originally spelled “passager”) appeared in the early 1300’s and referred to passers-by. The “n” was added in the early 1400’s (when it was also added to many other words such as “messenger” and “scavenger”) and first appears as referring to a person travelling in a vehicle or vessel in 1510. The word “college” first gain common use in the late 1300’s where it originally referred to an organized association of people who had certain powers and rights or were engaged in some common duty or pursuit.”

------------

Names were “changing” – Aser (Asher), Juda (Judah), Nebuchadrezzer (Nebachadnezzar), Booz (Boaz)
Names were not consistent from the OT to the NT (although not incorrect) – Noah (Noe), Elijah (Elias), Hosea (Osee), Melchizedek (Melchisedec).
Names in the NT were “different” – Timetheous (Timothy), John Baptist (John the Baptist), Joses (John).


I have dealt with this issue earlier. Names have NOT been changed. There is only either a 17th century misunderstanding of Hebrew vowels, or normal differences in translating from one language and system of writing to another quite different alphabet and language.

------------

Men can nurse children – Isa 49:23 (your foster fathers),

That is not what the original Hebrew says, but it is what the original KJV says. The Hebrew says that kings will “support” or “nourish” the children and their princesses (or “noble ladies”) will “suckle” them. Unfortunately, Jerome in his Latin Vulgate (and I repeat, the KJV often took the Vulgate word for word rather than working from the original Hebrew and Greek) chose to translate both the Hebrew rod for “supporting” or “nourishing” and the word for “suckling” with the Latin nutricius which means both “nourish” and “suckle”. The dear old KJV translators decided that since the same adjective was used for both kings and princesses (actually they used the word “queens” because, of course, that is the Latin word that Jerome used) then they would translate both occurrences in the verse with the same English word: “nurse”. And thus an error was brought into the original KJV that has since been corrected by almost every other translation. But again, there has been no negative change to the text.

------------

Job 21:24 (body is well nourished)

Well, that is the NIV, NET, NHEB translation/paraphrase of that verse. The actual Hebrew reads: עֲ֭טִינָיו מָלְא֣וּ חָלָ֑ב וּמֹ֖חַ עַצְמֹותָ֣יו יְשֻׁקֶּֽה׃ — literally “His pails are full of milk and the marrow of his bones is moist.” The KJV tried to make sense of that by saying “His breasts are full of milk…” while others have said “His sides”, “his buckets”, “his pails”, “his sides” are full of milk. It is a Hebraic idiom that I think is best rendered by the HCSB “His body is well fed” or the NET “His body is well nourished”. Those accurately convey the meaning of the verse. The NLT puts it this way: “The picture of good health, vigorous and fit.” I couldn’t disagree with that rendering, either. It’s not the same words, but it is the same meaning. Just as a translator in another language would not help his or her readers by translating literally some English idiomatic expressions, such as "Up in the air," "Piece of cake," "Hollow leg," "Get a leg up," etc.

------------

God and His character was changed –

Respectfully, no. He and His character have not been changed. See my responses below:

God was created – Rev 3:14.

That’s not what that says. The Greek says Jesus was the ἀρχή (arché) of God’s Creation. The word in Greek means beginning, but especially in the sense of "origin". Jesus was the origin, the originator, of God’s Creation. And that is a fact, attested to in verses such as John 1:1-4; Colossians 1:15-16; and Hebrews 1:1-2. (And for the record, the original 1611 KJV used the word “beginning” just as the modern KJV does. So nothing has been changed to corrupt the eternal nature of God. I am glad that most modern translations correctly render arché as “origin”, for it eliminates the misunderstanding that you and many seem to suffer from.)

God has a father of His own – Rev 1:6 (his God and Father), Eph 5:20 (God and the Father), Col 1:3 (God and the Father), Col 3:17(God and the Father), Jam 1:27 (God and the Father).

The Greek καί does not always function as a connective but sometimes as an intensifier. In such cases, you can translate it as “even” rather than “and”. Try changing the “and” in the above verses to “even” and you get a rich new meaning that accords with the true nature of God and Jesus Christ. Incidentally, over the centuries there has been much debate among translators as to the correct rendering of that phrase in Revelation 1:6. The Greek reads τῷ Θεῷ καὶ Πατρὶ αὐτοῦ —literally “to the God and the Father of him”. Some argue that the “of him” (or the possessive form “his”) should apply to both “God” and “Father”. I (and many translators) dispute this. John’s typical form would have repeated both the definite article τῷ before Father as well as God if it had been his intention to have the pronoun αὐτοῦ apply to both “God” and “Father”. Rather, it seems more logical that the αὐτοῦ applies solely to the “Father”. Hence the better (and, I suggest, more accurate) translation is “to the God and Father of him (ie: Jesus Christ). And if you choose the intensifier function of kai rather than the connective function, then the resulting translation is “to God, even the Father of him (Jesus Christ)”. But in no way is the KJV wording some “change” to suggest that God and the Father of Jesus are different in nature, or that Jesus and the Father are not part of the Godhead. There are far too many verses in the Bible confirming that they ARE part of the one Godhead.

God was going to do evil, but He repented – Exo 32:14 (relented).

The Hebrew word does not primarily connote “evil” but “bad” in the sense of “harm”. That what God was going to do would have harmed Israel (justly so, I might add, and not without much warnings to repent which Israel ignored) is a fact. That God relented is a testimony to His character—His love, grace, and mercy. There has been no change because the original KJV reads the same: “And the Lord repented of the euill which he thought to doe vnto his people.”

God doesn't respect anyone who is wise of heart – Job 37:24 (should be “does not God have regard for” – a question confirming that He does).

Respectfully, no. The meaning is as it is written. It is a Hebraism that means “those who are wise in their own minds”, in other words, “those who are proud or conceited.” And the words you use are exactly how the original KJV also reads: “Men doe therefore feare him: he respecteth not any that are wise of heart.” So there is no change there, either.

God is terrible – Jer 20:11 (mighty warrior)

Yes He is. But in the original meaning of the word "terrible", not in its modern meaning. The original KJV reads: “But the Lord is with me as a mighty terrible one: therefore my persecutours shall stumble, and they shall not preuaile, they shall be greatly ashamed, for they shall not prosper, their euerlasting confusion shall neuer be forgotten.” Your problem arises out of your idea of the word "terrible." The modern meaning is “extremely bad”, “horrible”, distressing”. But that is not the meaning of the word as used by the original translators. Back then the word meant “causing fear, awe, or dread.” It comes from a VERY ancient Proto-Indo-European root meaning “to make afraid”. And when natural man faces God, he IS filled with fear. Moses was afraid to look at God. The children of Israel were filled with fear at Mount Sinai in the audible Presence of God. Isaiah was filled with terror in the Presence of God. So was Daniel. The beloved disciple John fell at Christ’s feet as dead in fear. Our God IS a terrible God—ie: a terror and awe-inspiring God. But, glory to His name, He has made Himself a comfort to all who believe in His Salvation through His Son, through whom we may boldly approach Him.

God has horns coming out of His hands – Hab 3:4 (rays flashing)

This is again a Hebraism (Hebrew idiom). Horns represent power in the Bible. Saying “horns” come out of His hands, meant simply that power issued from His hands. And again there has been no change. The original KJV reads: “And his brightnesse was as the light: he had hornes comming out of his hand, and there was the hiding of his power:” Since I understand the meaning of “horns” as representing His power, I much prefer this faithful rendering of the Hebrew to the modern “rays of light coming from His hands” which some modern translations have opted for, basing it on the introductory clause of that verse which reads: “His brightness was as the light.”

The list goes on but certainly includes grammar errors, misspelled words, new words that don't make sense, modern words, “changed words”, words that used to be one word divided into two (forever now for ever), words that used to be two words combined into one, nonsensical sentences or phrases and capitalization errors.

Seriously? None of that has any bearing at all on the accuracy of God’s Word.

------------

Meat or grain, fryingpan or pan
Lev 2:7 KJV
And if thy oblation be a meat offering baken in the fryingpan, it shall be made of fine flour with oil.

Lev 2:7 NASB
‘Now if your offering is a grain offering made in a pan, it shall be made of fine flour with oil.

Lev 2:7 NKJV
‘If your offering is a grain offering baked in a covered pan, it shall be made of fine flour with oil.


First, let’s see the original KJV text of 1611: “And if thy oblation be a meate offering baken in the frying pan, it shalbe made of fine flowre with oyle.” Now let's examine your issues.

Oblation is a possible substituted (changed) synonym for offering.

No, it is not a “changed” word. It is just another accurate translation of the original Hebrew. An oblation and an offering are exactly the same thing.

Note that “meat” replaces grain.

No it has not. The original was “meate.” It would probably help you to know that the word “meate” from the Old English mete simply meant “nourishment,” “food,” or “sustenance.” The use of “meat” to refer to animal flesh began in the 1400’s and was always refered to as “flesh meat” as opposed to “grene meat” (vegetables) and “white meat” (dairy products). Since common folk rarely had flesh meat to eat, their meals were largely grain. Therefore the word “meat,” while referring to all food in general, tended to mean “grain” to the average person.

The KJV now only uses the word “grain” 8 times in 7 verses as opposed to “meat” 290 times in 272 verses.
For comparison, the NASB uses “grain” 248 in 227 verses and “meat” 47 times in 39 verses.


This makes sense as the NASB is a modern translation and for us the words "grain" and "meat" have very specific meanings that are accurately reflected by the NASB and NKJV but not in the 1611 KJV where they had different meanings.

Note the word “baken” in the KJV. Strange.

Not at all strange. "Baken" is the original past participle of the verb “to bake”. Four hundred years ago you would have spoken using those old past participles that ended in “-en” as well as the adjectives that were formed by adding “-en” to the root word in order to indicate something “made of” or “of the nature of” something (such as wooden, and woolen). Nothing strange there at all.

Note the word fryingpan, a modern word.

Where on earth did you get this idea? In 1532, Thomas More used the expression “go out of the frying-pan into the fire.” So it is hardly a modern word. In fact, it first appeared somewhere in the mid 1300’s.

------------

Ark of bulrushes or basket, slime or tar, flags or reeds
Exo 2:3 KJV
And when she could not longer hide him, she took for him an ark of bulrushes, and daubed it with slime and with pitch, and put the child therein; and she laid it in the flags by the river's brink.

Others remember the KJV as:
And when she could no longer hide him, she took for him a basket of papyrus, and daubed it with tar and with pitch, and put the child therein; and she laid it in the reeds by the river's edge.


Well, they remember wrong. The original KJV reads: “And when shee could not longer hide him, she tooke for him an arke of bul-rushes, and daubed it with slime, and with pitch, and put the childe therein, and shee layd it in the flags by the riuers brinke.” There is clearly no change there.


Exo 2:3 NASB
But when she could hide him no longer, she got him a wicker basket and covered it over with tar and pitch. Then she put the child into it and set it among the reeds by the bank of the Nile.

Exo 2:3 NKJV
But when she could no longer hide him, she took an ark of bulrushes for him, daubed it with asphalt and pitch, put the child in it, and laid it in the reeds by the river’s bank.


All different translations of the same Hebrew words, meaning exactly the same things. Nothing underhanded here.

Notice grammar error, “could not longer hide him”.

There is no grammar error there in the original KJV. Now, according to our modern grammar it is incorrect; but according to the grammar of 400+ years ago it is absolutely correct and our use of “no” for “not” was completely incorrect. You have to understand that you are almost speaking of another language when you look at 400 year-old English. They would think us uneducated idiots if they could hear the way we speak English today.

------------

Give you an expected end or a future and a hope
Jer 29:11 KJV
For I know the thoughts that I think toward you, saith the LORD, thoughts of peace, and not of evil, to give you an expected end.

Jer 29:11 NASB
‘For I know the plans that I have for you,’ declares the LORD, ‘plans for welfare and not for calamity to give you a future and a hope.

Expected tiqvah: The KJV translates Strong's H8615 in the following manner: hope (23x), expectation (7x), line (2x), the thing that I long for (1x), expected (1x).

The one time it is translated “expected” is in Jer 29:11. That with the translation of “end” it seems to change the meaning.

End 'achariyth : The KJV translates Strong's H319 in the following manner: end (31x), latter (12x), last (7x), posterity (3x), reward (2x), hindermost (1x), miscellaneous (5x).



Again, let’s begin with the original KJV that you think has been somehow nefariously changed. It reads: “For I knowe the thoughts that I thinke towards you, saith the Lord, thoughts of peace, and not of euill, to giue you an expected end.”

The Hebrew translated “expected end” literally means an outcome (ie: a future) hoped for. The KJV is a wooden translation of the Hebrew words; the future and a hope captures the sense of the Hebrew words. Nothing nefarious there. Just part of the everyday business of translating from one language into another. And it IS there in the original KJV, as I have shown.

------------

Addicted or devoted
1Co 16:15 KJV
I beseech you, brethren, (ye know the house of Stephanas, that it is the firstfruits of Achaia, and that they have addicted themselves to the ministry of the saints,)

1 Co 16:15 NASB
Now I urge you, brethren (you know the household of Stephanas, that [fn]they were the first fruits of Achaia, and that they have devoted themselves for ministry to the saints),


Lora, “devoted” is simply a more modern word that means exactly the same thing as “addicted” once did.

------------

More Questionable Words in the KJV

Spake occurs 588 times in 581 verses in the KJV;
621 times in 612 verses in the ASV and
0 times in the NKJV, NIV, ESV, CSB, NASB, RSV.

Gen 8:15 KJV
And God spake unto Noah, saying,

Sware occurs 78 times in 77 verses in the KJV;
occurs 92 times in 90 verses in the ASV; and
0 times in the NKJV, NIV, ESV, CSB, NASB.

Gen 21:31 KJV
Wherefore he called that place Beersheba; because there they sware both of them.


Buildest occurs 1 times in Deut 6:10 of the KJV and
0 times in the NKJV, NIV, ESV, CSB, NASB, RSV, ASV.

Deu 6:10 KJV
And it shall be, when the LORD thy God shall have brought thee into the land which he sware unto thy fathers, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, to give thee great and goodly cities, which thou buildedst not,


Filledst occurs 2 times in 2 verses in the KJV and ASV and
0 times in the NKJV, NIV, ESV, CSB, NASB, RSV.

Deu 6:11
And houses full of all good things, which thou filledst not, and wells digged, which thou diggedst not, vineyards and olive trees, which thou plantedst not; when thou shalt have eaten and be full;

Digged, diggedst, plantedst just seem an attempt to use Old English at least in style.
Digged occurs 37 times in 35 verses in the KJV;
32 times in 31 verses in the ASV;
2 times in 2 verses in the RSV and
0 times in the NKJV, NIV, ESV, CSB, NASB.

Diggedst occurs 1 times in Deut 6:11 in the KJV and
0 times in the NKJV, NIV, ESV, CSB, NASB, RSV, ASV.

Plantedst occurs 2 times in 2 verses in the KJV, ASV and
0 times in the NKJV, NIV, ESV, CSB, NASB, RSV.

Builded occurs 50 times in 47 verses in the KJV;
51 times in 48 verses in the ASV and
0 times in the NKJV, NIV, ESV, CSB, NASB, RSV.

Gen 8:20 KJV
And Noah builded an altar unto the LORD; and took of every clean beast, and of every clean fowl, and offered burnt offerings on the altar.

Askest occurs 3 times in 3 verses in the KJV;
4 times in 4 verses in the ASV and
0 times in the NKJV, NIV, ESV, CSB, NASB, RSV.

Stomacher occurs 1 time in Isaiah 3:24 in the KJV and
0 times in the NKJV, NIV, ESV, CSB, NASB, RSV, ASV.

Isa 3:24 KJV
And it shall come to pass, that instead of sweet smell there shall be stink; and instead of a girdle a rent; and instead of well set hair baldness; and instead of a stomacher a girding of sackcloth; and burning instead of beauty.

Isa 3:24 NASB
Now it will come about that instead of sweet perfume there will be putrefaction;
Instead of a belt, a rope;
Instead of well-set hair, a plucked-out scalp;
Instead of fine clothes, a donning of sackcloth;
And branding instead of beauty.

Shamefacedness occurs 1 time in 1 Tim 2:9 in the KJV and
0 times in the NKJV, NIV, ESV, CSB, NASB, ASV.

Notice also “broided” hair which is only in the following verse in the KJV.

1Ti 2:9 KJV
In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array;

1 Ti 2:9 NASB
Likewise, I want women to adorn themselves with proper clothing, modestly and discreetly, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly garments,

1 Ti 2:9 ASV
In like manner, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefastness and sobriety; not with braided hair, and gold or pearls or costly raiment;

Shamefastness only used 1 time in ASV.

Holpen occurs 5 times in 5 verses in the KJV and
0 times in the NKJV, NIV, ESV, CSB, NASB, RSV, ASV.

Luke 1:54 KJV
He hath holpen his servant Israel, in remembrance of his mercy;

Luke 1:54 NASB
“He has given help to Israel His servant,
In remembrance of His mercy,


Forgat occurs 8 times in 8 verses in the KJV;
9 times in 9 verses in the ASV and
0 times in the NKJV, NIV, ESV, CSB, RSV.

Gen 40:23 KJV
Yet did not the chief butler remember Joseph, but forgat him.

Gen 40:23 NASB
Yet the chief cupbearer did not remember Joseph, but forgot him.


Of course these words appear in the KJV and not in the modern translations because every one of those words is an archaic English form that was used every day 400 years ago but have disappeared since. They were modern when the KJV was translated, but we do not use them any more. Instead we use modern forms of those words. That isn’t a change of meaning. That is simply a recognition that the English language has changed significantly over the past four centuries. In fact, as I said earlier, if you could go back in time and speak modern English, you would be regarded as an ignorant fool who could not speak English properly.

------------
Notice also fowl, this is replacing birds.

I don’t mean to sound snarky, but honestly? Lora, “birds” and “fowl” are EXACTLY the same thing. Even today.

------------

Impotent folk or man being embedded in the scripture in a nonsenical way.
Impotent occurs 4 times in 4 verses in the KJV;
2 times in 2 verses in the ASV; and
1 time in the NASB.

Jhn 5:3 KJV
In these lay a great multitude of impotent folk, of blind, halt, withered, waiting for the moving of the water.

Jhn 5:3 NASB
In these lay a multitude of those who were sick, blind, lame, and withered, waiting for the moving of the waters;

Isa 16:14 NASB (only verse in NASB with impotent)
But now the LORD speaks, saying, “Within three years, as a hired man would count them, the glory of Moab will be degraded along with all his great population, and his remnant will be very small and impotent.”

Isa 16:14 ESV
But now the LORD has spoken, saying, “In three years, like the years of a hired worker, the glory of Moab will be brought into contempt, in spite of all his great multitude, and those who remain will be very few and feeble.”


Nothing nonsensical about “impotent”. That is simply a word that has changed in meaning over time. At one time (back in the original KJV days) it meant “sick” or “feeble”. Now it means something quite different. Again you have failed to realize that words change meaning and modern translations have to use words that mean the same thing as the original. For example to “prevent” today means to stop someone from doing something. Four hundred years ago it meant to “come into the presence of”. “Suffer” to us means to undergo pain or discomfort; back then it meant “to permit”. These dramatic changes in the meanings of words over the centuries is why so many people stagger in comprehending the KJV.

------------
My sister, I am afraid that you have been caught up in the fear of a conspiracy that actually does not exist. No wonder you are grieving, for if what you feared were true, then Satan has greater control than we imagine. But I have tried to show you that in not one single, solitary instance of your many examples is there even a shred, a smidgen, a glimmer of truth. Everything you point out is the result of either a misunderstanding, wrong information, or demonstrable changes over the centuries in what is this living language that we call "English."

I pray this sets your mind at ease. I would not want you fearing something that does not exist. There are actually real Satanic conspiracies in the world. This is not one of them. God HAS kept His Word intact. And He always will.
 

Trust&Obey

Well-Known Member
I have read through the posts since my last and will get to them as I have time.

First, I want to say that I do have a teachable heart and ultimately, I want this proven wrong. I currently "believe" that what I am saying is true, but there is plenty of room in my mind to be corrected, especially when we go through one verse at a time. I said as much to one of the conference leaders when I asked him to review and respond at least in some way (I know it was a big ask, but I also asked for recommendations of other people to confer with). Also, in the write-up that they received from me, I noted passages that I had my doubts about and there were several. But I got no response.

Next, I thought to privately message an admin here, but found that I couldn't do so or at least couldn't find a way to do so. After over 5 months of trying to work through it all myself, I finally started this thread. And I confess, I tremble when I see the number of views. It adds so much pressure.

Probably the issue that jump-started this for me was when I opened my own personal Charles Ryrie Study Bible to Genesis 40 and found that the heading said "butler" and the verses said "cupbearer" (for more info, you'll have to go to page 1 of this thread). And so I have watched that passage, checking it once a week. I know, that sounds crazy, but if it were to change under my scrutiny, it would "prove" this theory to me, at least. There is a man online who watched a passage, photographed it, showed it to witnesses, before and after, when it changed. It was Matt 24 and twice it mentions "Noah." When he first started scrutinizing it, in one place it said "Noah" and the other "Noe." A few months later, they both said "Noe" (this is all in the KJV). Not only that, the original photo that showed both changed to show only "Noe." Now, I know this is hearsay and the internet, but the fact of Gen 40 in the NASB has my full attention.

Now, a few of you have given me some information to chew on. And that's what I'm doing. As time permits, I will respond because, honestly, on a couple of scriptures I've mentioned, you have eased my mind, but on one particularly and others I still have more questions. Not to mention I have more questions about other passages that I haven't brought forward as yet. So if you will permit me to set the pace in my responses, I would love to discuss them with you.

In His grace
 
Last edited:

mattfivefour

Well-Known Member
I pray you will take the time to read my post above in which I have detailed your concerns and the answers. Then we can move forward by you responding in like fashion. Let's not add new passages until you have dealt with these. If you do not wish to do this in this way, then this thread will be removed. We are trying to help here, but you need to truly digest what is being shared with you. God bless you, Lora, as you continue to learn of God's Word.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top