Search Results
6/19/2025, 11:00:56 PM
>>24477874
The KJB was translated out of the original tongues.
And you're operating on a fallacy of the "telephone game" which is just plain stupid because it's not comparable to the telephone game when you have a copy of a manuscript and you're diligently copying it to new sheets. The vast majority of manuscripts agree with the only difference being spellings of names of people or places. You're also operating on the fallacy of "oldest = best" which the Jesuits promote since they promote counterfeits which had the pages dyed to look older than it is like the Codex Sinaiticus (the pages which were removed before the dying took places are still white and there is testimony of people claiming the pages were all white). And the Codex Vaticanus was completely overwritten in the 14th or 15th century so it's completely unreliable from a paleographic point of view (there's even a note from some Catholic scribe calling someone a fool and knave for changing the text), I don't remember exactly when but I could look it up again if I cared enough. Modern "textual criticism" is literally just part of the Catholic cult's counter-reformation and Jesuits infiltrated and subverted most of the Bible colleges and seminaries: Just look at the books they use, you'll often see "S.I." next to author names (or society of Jesus, the Jesuits).
And here's the big one: You're also operating on the fallacy that God isn't capable of preserving his word as he promised to do, so you basically call God a liar when he said he'd preserve his words. This is what all Catholics are guilty of, they believe and their cult teaches that God isn't powerful enough to preserve his words and that God wasn't capable of writing a book in a way that man could understand; that's their whole argument for their cult hierarchy "magisterium" which they raise above Scripture in practice (even if they claim it's equal on paper, their cult leaders are raised above God's Word). That's how the pope can get up in the middle of the 19th or 20th century (again, don't care to look to see when exactly) and claim Mary ascended into heaven and we're all just supposed to believe that's the word of God. No, the Bible says Jesus ascended into heaven.
And the first pic I posted shows that even back in the Old Testament, the Bible had corrupted versions, and some of the epistles, I think one Paul wrote or maybe Peter, mentioned that people were writing counterfeit epistles. Then there's the fact that the minority text manuscripts which modern "textual critics" (who are either Jesuits or even sometimes atheists and open sodomites) don't even agree with each other and don't even contain the full bible. Then people who subscribe to modern "textual criticism" have said they'd be willing to change literally any verse based on any spurious scrap of paper they found in a cave in the desert-- because they don't believe God who promised multiple times to preserve his words and that his words would never perish.
The KJB was translated out of the original tongues.
And you're operating on a fallacy of the "telephone game" which is just plain stupid because it's not comparable to the telephone game when you have a copy of a manuscript and you're diligently copying it to new sheets. The vast majority of manuscripts agree with the only difference being spellings of names of people or places. You're also operating on the fallacy of "oldest = best" which the Jesuits promote since they promote counterfeits which had the pages dyed to look older than it is like the Codex Sinaiticus (the pages which were removed before the dying took places are still white and there is testimony of people claiming the pages were all white). And the Codex Vaticanus was completely overwritten in the 14th or 15th century so it's completely unreliable from a paleographic point of view (there's even a note from some Catholic scribe calling someone a fool and knave for changing the text), I don't remember exactly when but I could look it up again if I cared enough. Modern "textual criticism" is literally just part of the Catholic cult's counter-reformation and Jesuits infiltrated and subverted most of the Bible colleges and seminaries: Just look at the books they use, you'll often see "S.I." next to author names (or society of Jesus, the Jesuits).
And here's the big one: You're also operating on the fallacy that God isn't capable of preserving his word as he promised to do, so you basically call God a liar when he said he'd preserve his words. This is what all Catholics are guilty of, they believe and their cult teaches that God isn't powerful enough to preserve his words and that God wasn't capable of writing a book in a way that man could understand; that's their whole argument for their cult hierarchy "magisterium" which they raise above Scripture in practice (even if they claim it's equal on paper, their cult leaders are raised above God's Word). That's how the pope can get up in the middle of the 19th or 20th century (again, don't care to look to see when exactly) and claim Mary ascended into heaven and we're all just supposed to believe that's the word of God. No, the Bible says Jesus ascended into heaven.
And the first pic I posted shows that even back in the Old Testament, the Bible had corrupted versions, and some of the epistles, I think one Paul wrote or maybe Peter, mentioned that people were writing counterfeit epistles. Then there's the fact that the minority text manuscripts which modern "textual critics" (who are either Jesuits or even sometimes atheists and open sodomites) don't even agree with each other and don't even contain the full bible. Then people who subscribe to modern "textual criticism" have said they'd be willing to change literally any verse based on any spurious scrap of paper they found in a cave in the desert-- because they don't believe God who promised multiple times to preserve his words and that his words would never perish.
6/17/2025, 6:00:00 AM
>>24467625
For me, it's King James Bible spellings.
The ironic thing is many American spellings come from the KJB, while many English spellings differ from it. Though the KJB uses 'ou' instead of 'o', like "neighbour".
For me, it's King James Bible spellings.
The ironic thing is many American spellings come from the KJB, while many English spellings differ from it. Though the KJB uses 'ou' instead of 'o', like "neighbour".
Page 1