1. In regards to Leviticus passage on “shame” or “nakedness” I would agree that one is more direct in it’s meaning but the other is showing depth. As a child I knew what shame meant, as in cover your shame. Instead of my explaining I checked with John Gill on the subject as well as the LXX. From the Greek OT–*[[Lev 18:6]] ABP2006 wo cr* The man, a man [to any family member of his flesh shall not draw near] to uncover their indecency. I am the LORD. to uncover [their] nakedness; that is, those parts, which, by a contrary way of speaking, are so called, which should never be naked or exposed to view; but should be always covered, as nature teaches to do, and as our first parents did, when they perceived themselves naked, and were ashamed, Ge 3:7: this phrase signifies the same as to lie with another, or have carnal knowledge of them, wherefore the following laws are generally understood of incestuous marriages; for if such an action is not to be done between persons standing in such a relation, as here in general, and afterwards more particularly described, then there ought to be no intermarriages between them; and if such marriages are forbidden, and such actions unlawful in a married state, then much more in an unmarried one; wherefore the several following instances are so many breaches of the seventh command, Ex 20:14, and so many explications and illustrations of it, and consequently of a moral nature, and binding upon all men, Jews and Gentiles:. I know that when reading one doesn’t desire to think too much on any single word…but, sometimes there is meaning that isn’t necessarily plain and superficial, as I believe in this case.

   Reply ↓

2. The differences between the 1599 Geneva Bible and the 1611 King James Version of the Bible are apparent. The King James Version of the Bible eliminated the marginal notes that had been a popular feature for those who used them as a study guide in the 1599 Geneva Bible. Furthermore, the Old Testament from the 1560 and 1599 Geneva Bible was translated directly from the Greek Old Testament and the Hebrew Septuagint scriptures, while the 1611 King James Version of the Bible was compiled from previous English translations of the Old Testament.

   Reply ↓

3. If you look in the preface of a modern Bible, you will probably find a reference to the Septuagint, or LXX for short. The translators of all modern Bibles, including the New King James, use the Septuagint along with other texts in translating the Bible. They claim that the Septuagint contains true readings not found in the preserved Hebrew text. Thus they give it great importance. But what is the Septuagint? Here’s how the legend goes:

   The Septuagint is claimed to have been translated between 285-246 BC during the reign of Ptolemy II Philadelphus of Alexandria, Egypt. His librarian, supposedly Demetrius of Phalerum, persuaded Philadelphus to get a copy of the Hebrew Scriptures. Then the Scriptures (at least Genesis to Deuteronomy) were translated into the Greek language for the Alexandrian Jews. This part of the story comes from early church historian Eusebius (260-339 AD). Scholars then claim that Jesus and His apostles used this Greek Bible instead of the preserved Hebrew text.
   Did Jesus Use the Septuagint?

   Authors David W. Daniels and Jack McElroy answer questions critics ask about the King James Bible.

   The Letter of Aristeas
   The whole argument that the Hebrew scriptures were translated into Greek before the time of Christ rests upon a single document. All other historical evidence supporting the argument either quotes or references this single letter.

   In this so-called Letter of Aristeas, the writer presents himself as a close confidant of king Philadelphus. He claims that he persuaded Eleazar, the high priest, to send with him 72 scholars from Jerusalem to Alexandria, Egypt. There they would translate the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek, forming what we now call the Septuagint.

   Jewish historian Josephus, Jewish mystic Philo (both first century AD) and others add to the story. Some say the 72 were shut in separate cells and “miraculously” wrote each of their versions word-for-word the same. They say that this proves “divine inspiration” of the entire Septuagint.

   Thus, the Septuagint is claimed to exist at the time of Jesus and the apostles, and that they quoted from it instead of the preserved Hebrew text. This story has been passed around for centuries. But is it the truth? Was this Septuagint really written before the earthly ministry of the Lord Jesus and His apostles? Did they quote it? Was it really inspired by God? And if the story is a fake, why make up the story? Is there another reason to get people to use (or believe in) the Septuagint?

   The verifiable facts:

   The writer of this letter, Aristeas, claims to have been a Greek court official during the time of Philadelphus’ reign. He claims to have been sent by Demetrius to request the best scholars of Israel to bring a copy of the Hebrew scriptures to Alexandria to start the Septuagint translation project. He even goes so far as to give names of Septuagint scholars, yet many of the names he gives are from the Maccabean era, some 75 years too late. Many of them are Greek names, definitely not the names of Hebrew scholars. There are many other evidences that this letter is from a different time period, and is thus a fake. The writer is lying about his identity.
   The supposed “librarian,” Demetrius of Phalerum (ca. 345-283) served in the court of Ptolemy Soter. Demetrius was never the librarian under Philadelphus.
   The letter quotes the king telling Demetrius and the translators, when they arrived, how wonderful it was that they came on the anniversary of his “naval victory over Antigonus” (Aristeas 7:14). But the only such recorded Egyptian naval victory occurred many years after Demetrius death, so the letter is a fraud!
   The Letter of Aristeas is a hoax that doesn’t even fit the time period in which it claims to have been written. And since the other ancient writers merely add to this story, it is clear that the story itself of a pre-Christian Septuagint is a fraud. Even critical textual scholars admit that the letter is a hoax. Yet they persist in quoting the Letter of Aristeas as proof of the existence of the Septuagint before Christ.
   New Testament evidence
   Many scholars claim that Christ and his apostles used the Septuagint, preferring it above the preserved Hebrew text found in the temple and synagogues. But if the Greek Septuagint was the Bible Jesus used, he would not have said,

   “For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.” (Matthew 5:18)
   Why would Jesus not have said this? Because the jot is a Hebrew letter, and the tittle is a small mark to distinguish between Hebrew letters. If Jesus used the Greek Septuagint, His scriptures would not have contained the jot and tittle. He obviously used the Hebrew scriptures!

   In addition, Jesus only mentioned the scripture text in two ways, (1) “The Law and the Prophets” and (2) “The Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms”:

   “And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.” Luke 24:44
   The Hebrews divide their Bible into three parts: the Law, the Prophets and the Writings. Jesus clearly referred to this. The Septuagint had no such division. In fact, it contains Apocryphal books interspersed throughout the Old Testament. The sequence is so hopelessly mixed up that Jesus could not possibly have been referring to it!

   Who is pushing the Septuagint?
   So why do we still hear the story? Why do people give it a second thought? Are there other reasons why they still try to use the Septuagint to find “original readings” that were supposedly “lost from the Hebrew”?.

   Roman Catholics Need It

   According to the Roman Catholic Douay Bible:

   “…the Septuagint, the Greek translation from the original Hebrew, and which contained all the writings now found in the Douay version, as it is called, was the version used by the Saviour and his Apostles and by the Church from her infancy, and translated into Latin, known under the title of Latin Vulgate, and ever recognized as the true version of the written word of God” —Preface,1914 edition.

   So Roman Catholics desperately want the Septuagint to be genuine —even inspired! You see, the so-called Septuagint is where they got the Apocrypha (books that are not inspired and have no place in our Bibles). If the Septuagint goes, then the Apocrypha goes with it!

   Ecumenical Textual Critics Need It

   The supposed text of the Septuagint is found today only in certain manuscripts. The main ones are: Codex Sinaiticus (Aleph); Codex Vaticanus (B); and Codex Alexandrinus (A). That’s right. The Alexandrian manuscripts are the very texts we call the Septuagint!

   In his Introduction to The Septuagint with Apocrypha: Greek and English (1851) Sir Lancelot Brenton describes how some critical scholars have attempted to call the Septuagint by its real name, the Alexandrian Text, but the name never stuck. Thus he admits that they are one and the same.

   So we have textual critics who believe desperately in the 45 Alexandrian manuscripts (against more than 5,000 copies favoring the Textus Receptus). They use these to translate all modern New Testaments. But these Alexandrian manuscripts also include the Septuagint Old Testament (with the Apocrypha). They have fallen for a trap.

   Catholics now argue the following: If you accept the Alexandrian text (which modern scholars use as the basis for all new translations) for your New Testament, then you also have to accept the rest of the Alexandrian text (Septuagint) , which includes the Apocrypha. What we are seeing is the development of an ecumenical Bible, including the Apocrypha. Some versions have already gone this way. For many Protestants, all roads are truly leading to Rome.

   We Don’t Need It.

   But do we Christians need the Alexandrian manuscripts? Not at all! For the Old Testament we have the Preserved Words of God in the Hebrew Masoretic text. For the New Testament we have the 5,000-plus manuscripts in Greek, plus the many early translations spread abroad, to witness to the actual words of Christ and His apostles.
   So the Septuagint story is a hoax. It was not written before Christ; so it was not used by Jesus or His apostles. It is the only set of manuscripts to include the Apocrypha mixed in with the books of the Bible, so as to justify the Roman Catholic inclusion of them in their Bibles. And it is just those same, perverted Alexandrian codices —the same ones that mess up the New Testament —dressed up in pretty packaging.

   Reply ↓

4. Sorry about my last comment. I failed to finish it.

   Please someone help me to determine if the following verses are what the KJV always said. They seem very strange to me. Here are the two passages: 1Chronicles 29:1 and 29:19, both of which call the Temple a palace in the KJV. 1Chron 11:5,7 refers to Zion as a castle! And 1 Kings 14:10; 16:11. I won’t even include the words of those two verses in this comment. Please look them up and let me know if the King James Bible always said these things. I really do need someone’s help to sort through this. Thanks!

   Reply ↓

   • Hello TJ. I think you are referring to the Mandela Effect. I consider it another psyop akin to Flat Earth. CIA or some other spooks are trying to mess with the minds of Bible believing Christians!

     1 Chronicles 29:1  ¶Furthermore David the king said unto all the congregation, Solomon my son, whom alone God hath chosen, is yet young and tender, and the work is great: for the palace is not for man, but for the LORD God.

     19  And give unto Solomon my son a perfect heart, to keep thy commandments, thy testimonies, and thy statutes, and to do all these things, and to build the palace, for the which I have made provision.

     According to the context of those verses, the palace is referring to the temple which Solomon built.

     1 Chronicles 11:5  And the inhabitants of Jebus said to David, Thou shalt not come hither. Nevertheless David took the castle of Zion, which is the city of David.
     7 And David dwelt in the castle…

     According to the context of those verses, the castle is referring to the entire old city of Jerusalem which was encompassed by a wall.

     I don’t see anything in 1 Kings 14:16, and 16:11 that has anything to do with that. But yes, the KJV always said that and CERN did NOT change it! God’s Word is unchangeable!!! Psalms 119:89  For ever, O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven.

     Reply ↓

     • Hello and blessings to ya. While not a salvation issue flat earth is most definitely not a psyop. Bible clearly explains a enclosed cosmology and stationary earth. Many proofs you can do your self. Sun and moon are very close and just lights as God says. No one knows it all but God tells Job in chapter 38 so if ya know my creation and seen foundations set tell me…to say its a psyop is a discredit to those who are saved from it like atheists and lukewarm and many more. The Lord revealed this to world to see truly wake people up cause end is near. We do not live on a spinning water ball and we are covered by the firmament. God sits on his throne and watches his creation and hes close not distant. Bless you in name of Jesus

       Reply ↓

       • Hello Nick. Thank you for your comment but I beg to differ with you. The earth is NOT a spinning water ball. Please see https://www.jamesjpn.net/conspiracy/is-the-earth-a-spinning-ball/

         Fact: I live on an island in the Pacific, Guam, and I see beautiful sunsets over the ocean in a western direction regularly. The sun disappears over the water horizon. It does not simply vanish, it is covered by the earth. Geometry tells me this indicates the ocean is curved for it to do that. Half of the earth is illuminated by the sun and half of the earth is not illuminated by the sun at ALL times. This is my observation. NASA didn’t tell me that, my knowledge of geometry tells me that. To deny that is to say geometry is false mathematics. I sincerely hope you don’t think so. In Jesus’ Name I pray!

         Reply ↓

5. “Shame” does NOT mean “nakedness” and it is wrong to say “shame” when you mean “nakedness”. When accuracy and fidelity are important, as they are with The Holy Bible.

   Just like it is wrong to say “sexual immorality” (as in modern versions) instead of “adultery” and claim it is for “clarity” when adultery has a specific meaning. “Sexual immorality” is a squishy, slimy, slippery way to speak about it. The homosexual-dominated “Metropolitan Church” has its own interpretation. Doctrines and interpretations in context of the entirety of scripture can vary, as we know that the first two and greatest commandments are immovable and reign over the rest of them, for example. But deliberately translating something wrong is an evil thing to do.

   KING JAMES DID NOT INITIATE THE TRANSLATION!
   About this: “Some people have attacked the KJV saying it was based on the Roman Catholic Vultage and / or changed according to the whims of King James of England.”

   King James wanted to bring peace among the various factions that had clashed so violently, the Calivinists, the Puritans, the Catholics. So he gathered them together in the 1604 Hampton Conference, seeking a way to have peace. The conference was requested by the Puritans.

   A PURITAN minister requested a new translation of the Bible to be used throughout the English-speaking world. Although apparently the king rejected most Puritan demands, he thought it was a good idea.

   The Geneva Bible was saturated with Calvinist sidenotes and doctrine. The King James Bible was commissioned, the committee began work.

   Some KJB critics claim King James wanted the translation to back up his belief in the “divine right of kings” to rule. This speculation is destroyed by the text itself. Jesus called King Herod “that fox”, Jesus showed contempt for Pilate’s claim of power, and the Israel’s first anointed king Saul was overthrown by the second anointed king David. Besides the fact that God himself objected to the demand for a king by the elders of Israel, one Samuel warned against!

   Some KJB-haters claim it is a Catholic-friendly version, while defending modern versions, that always include Catholic theologians in their own supervisory boards. This claim is also refuted by many of the doctrines explicit in the text. And to this day, Catholic authorities reject it, refuse to acknowledge it.

   In fact, there is little doubt that the Roman Catholic hierarchy hated the idea of a vernacular translation. The context is plenty of intrigue. It must have entered into the motivations or timing of the Jesuit-led Gunpowder Plot, the plan to blow up the Parliament building while King James delivered a speech. Their idea was to make England leaderless and make way for a Roman takeover.

   They gave thanks to God for stopping the plot, the very same day. As recently as 1588, when King Philip, encouraged by the Pope Sixtus V, sent the Spanish Armada to England. The weather aided in the defeat of the Spanish Armada, and the Spanish king himself had said that God himself had fought against them.

   Reply ↓

   • Douay-Rheims Bible preceded the Authorised Bible in common vernacular. Yes. King James started out ecumenically, but then made things quite difficult on Roman Catholics, didn’t much like the Puritans either–but what’s funny is his two sons the succeeded him were Roman Catholic or highly sympathetic towards Rome. Also, it was details Reed illegal to print the Geneva Bible and eventually to own one by decree of the King…seems freedom of the press wasn’t a thing in the kingdom. Funny thing…the Translators (KJV) were only to use notes sparingly and not be doctrinal–yet used as many of the Anglican/Catholic ecclesiastical terms possible, while ADDING to the 2 Samuel 21 text…ALL other translations translate the MSS. copies as is here adding a note for clarity. Which is wrong? Doesn’t KJV Only folks like to quote Revelation–do not add or take from the words of this book? How about shame and nakedness? Isa 47:3 KJV Thy nakedness shall be uncovered, yea, thy shame shall be seen: I will take vengeance, and I will not meet thee as a man. What is the shame that shall be seen because of nakedness? Did not Adam and Eve try to cover their shame with fig leaves? How do you cover shame with leaves? Jer 13:26 KJV Therefore will I discover thy skirts upon thy face, that thy shame may appear. What is meant by shame here? If one pulls up their skirts over their heads with no underwear, they will be showing what? Their nakedness, they expose their shame. The Geneva Bible is a fine translation and I am not against the KJB. But, there is some wonderful treasures in the first real study bible…The Geneva Bible…men risked their lives fleeing Bloody Mary to get it out there…have a little respect for them.

     Reply ↓

6. Why is it KJV only people are the only people gullible enough to believe in a phony mandela effect? If you are gullible enough to believe that why would anyone take anything else you have to say seriously?

   Reply ↓

   • WHY do you think I believe the Mandela Effect Hoax? I don’t think I even discuss it on this website. Is it really true that KJV only people are the only ones who swallowed the Mandela effect hoax? And do all KJV people believe it? I reject Mandela effect as I do Flat Earth. I believe there exists a sponsored disinformation program by some government agency to discredit Bible believing Christians. It’s called “Cognitive Infiltration”. And FYI, I do NOT believe KJV is error free and can point out what I think is a wrong translation of some verses. And I am not against modern language Bible translations, I just don’t like it when certain key prophecies are mistranslated based on bias and false teaching. The translation of Daniel 9:27 is a classic example. Please see https://www.jamesjpn.net/eschatology/daniel-927-grossly-mistranslated-in-modern-versions/

     Reply ↓

7. Hi saints. Here is my own study on the Geneva Bible. In contrast to others here I DO believe the King James Bible is the complete and inerrant words of God. If you are not KJB only, then by default, you do not believe that any Bible in any language you can show us is now or ever was the complete and inerrant words of God and you are your own authority.

   The Deficiencies of the Geneva Bible.

   https://brandplucked.webs.com/deficientgeneva.htm

   “He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.” Luke 8:8

   God bless.

   Reply ↓

   • Weather you use the KJV or the GENEVA Bible I don’t think it matters all that much. That being said the KJV was from the Roman Catholic scriptures that were Latin. The Geneva Bible was from the original texts. Also the the pilgrims who founded America had the original Geneva Bible. Also the Roman Catholicism was corrupt from the beginning by the Illuminati 1000’s of years ago who practiced satanic rituals you read from the book of revelations of the 7 failing churches in Minor Asia. These people are the Nicolaitans in the book of Revelations! Also they were in London during that time period and infiltrated the Royal Family. This is why I won’t use the KJV. Think this is pretty far fetched? I don’t blame you for that! But you can easily find out very soon what Is really happening to the world as we speak. Also you can do a little homework by searching the internet for the Italy Vatican story. But you won’t here it on the main stream media who are part of their system. You can also search for a video from a Roman Catholic preset who can tell you himself. Godspeed

     Reply ↓

8. Not a salvation issue?!

   John 3:36 is clearly difference of salvation.

   Help, I’ve listened to too many conspiracies that King James was an occultist.

   Reply ↓

   • Nick who is a Flat-earther used the phrase, “salvation issue”, not me. Please write a comment in reply to him. Maybe you can help him see the folly of his beliefs. Thank you. About John 3:36, if we truly believe in Jesus, we will obey Him.

     Reply ↓

     • In order to truly believe in Christ we must first be given a new Resurrected soul to believe. It’s kind of the the chicken and the egg, Which came first story. If your soul is dead saying the salvation plea can’t save you like all the churches tell everybody. It’s great for establishing a membership to the church but that’s it. This is why God says In Matt 7:22 Many will say to me in that day, Lorde, Lorde, haue we not by thy Name prophecied? and by thy name cast out deuils? and by thy name done many great workes? And then will I professe to them, I neuer knewe you: depart from me, ye that worke iniquitie. The sinners prayer in itself without a new raised soul from the dead first, one is not saved! And then that brings us to the biblical fact we have to of been chosen for salvation from before God even created the world. It’s why all the Bible is all parabolic language not just were it says God spoke in parables. The Bible does tells what we can do thou, Lam 3:26 26It is good both to trust, and to waite for the saluation of the Lord! Anything else than this is work we do and we can not do anything to get ourselves in his kingdom of God. Praying before we are saved is work we do, when we are truly saved first than praying to God is not work but grace.

       Reply ↓

   • He very well could of been a member or family member of the corrupt Illuminati’s in that time in history. They killed and/or married out the royal true family’s near that time period. This is why I’ve gone back to the Geneva first Bible. King James deliberately removed these notes that Geneva Bible had! Plus Geneva Bible was from the original Greek and Hebrew text and I think the KJV was from the Latin Vulgate. We also know that the Roman Catholicism is not a true religion from the very start and it definitely is infiltrated by the corrupt and evil Illuminati.

     Reply ↓

9. A little unfair, perhaps, to compare the 1599 Geneva with the 1769 KJV, rather than with one of the 1611 KJVs?

   Reply ↓

   • Maybe so. I have a hard copy of the 1599 Geneva Bible and it’s more like the 1769 KJV, meaning the spelling is more like modern English.

     Reply ↓

10. “Ask Jesus to be your Saviour!”

    THE GOSPEL OF SALVATION

    Many Modern Christian sects erroneously teach salvation is by something a sinner DOES. They make a person’s salvation dependent upon the works of the sinner. But nothing could be further from the truth of God’s word. According to the Bible, salvation is by taking what Jesus DID on the cross of Calvary, when he shed his blood to pay for the sins of man. This FINISHED WORK, once and for all, is the only thing that can give man the new birth, forgiveness of sins, and eternal life.

    The Bible clearly presents the Gospel in 1 Corinthians 15:1-4:

    1 Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand;
    2 By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.
    3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;
    4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:

    Notice the Gospel is what JESUS DID FOR MAN, and not what MAN CAN DO FOR GOD!

    A person is only saved by BELIEVING upon the finished work of Jesus Christ, when he shed his Precious Blood for our sins. This blood atonement was necessary, for without shedding of blood, is no remission (Heb. 9:22). God has always demanded blood for sin. In the Old Testament, God accepted the blood of a lamb. In the New Testament, God accepts the shed blood of Jesus Christ, the LAMB OF GOD, slain for your sins.

    The Gospel of 1 Corinthians 15:1-4 has five parts:

    1 Christ died
    2. For our sins
    3. Was buried
    4. Rose Again
    5. According to the Scriptures

    An old preacher once said, “YOU CANNOT PREACH THE GOSPEL WITHOUT PREACHING THE BLOOD ATONEMENT OF CHRIST AND YOU CANNOT PREACH THE BLOOD ATONEMENT OF CHRIST WITHOUT PREACHING THE GOSPEL!”

    This is absolute Bible truth! For salvation by Jesus Christ’s bloody sacrifice on the cross is the only means in which God offers eternal life.

    Just as we see the blood of Christ in the five wounds He bear on the cross, so we too see the blood of Jesus in the the five points of the Gospel.

    Christ died. Jesus shed every drop of his precious blood on the cross of Calvary, dying in man’s place for man’s sins. His blood dropped into the ground.

    For our sins. The Bible likens sin unto blood in Isaiah 1:18: “Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool.” Scarlet and crimson are the color of BLOOD.

    Was buried. Jesus Christ was buried in the same ground in which his blood was spilt. When Abel, died, we read the following words in Gen. 4:10, “…the voice of thy brother’s blood crieth unto me from the ground.” Shed blood speaks to God! Hebrews 12:24 then tell us the following about the blood of Jesus: “And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than that of Abel.” Christ’s blood speaks as well!

    Rose Again. When Jesus rose again, the Bible tells us Jesus Christ took his blood to heaven, and sprinkled it on the mercy seat there (Heb. 9:12-25), where it’s still waiting to wash away the sins of the most vilest sinner! Are you washed in the blood?

    According to the Scriptures. The whole Old Testament points to Jesus Christ as the Messiah. He’s pictured time and again in all the sacrifices the Jews slaughtered in the temple for the atonement of their sins. When Jesus died on the cross and the sacrificial Lamb of God, shedding his blood, he fulfilled prophecy written of him all throughout the Old Testament.

    So there you have it! The BLOOD OF JESUS CHRIST is found all throughout the Gospel. You can’t preach the blood, without preaching the Gospel, and you can’t preach the Gospel without preaching the Blood. For the Bible clearly teaches salvation is by FAITH, without WORKS (Eph. 2:8,). Faith in what? FAITH IN THE BLOOD OF JESUS CHRIST!

    Romans 3:25-28 make this clear:

    25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;
    26 To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.
    27 Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith.
    28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.
    To be justified, or saved, a person’s faith must be wholly in the shed blood of Jesus Christ. This declares God the Just one. When a sinner is saved, he cannot boast about himself or his works. He’ll only brag upon Jesus who saved him from his sins!

    Sadly, in our modern age of apostasy, very few who claim to be Christians ever preach the blood of Jesus for salvation. But the simple Bible truth is, YOU CANNOT EVEN BE A CHRISTIAN UNLESS YOU ARE TRUSTING ONLY IN THE SHED BLOOD OF JESUS CHRIST!

    Source: http://www.rrb3.com/tsam/salvation/gspl_salv_page.htm

    Reply ↓

11. I agree with you that no translation of the original Hebrew and Greek manuscripts from Antioch is perfect.
    I’m Dutch and I read the Dutch States Translation which is also based on those original Hebrew and Greek manuscripts from Antioch, the Textus Receptus. https://www.gotquestions.org/Textus-Receptus.html

    Leviticus 18:6 KJV
    6 None of you shall approach to any that is near of kin to him, to uncover their nakedness: I am the Lord
    Leviticus 18:6 1599 Geneva Bible
    6 None shall come near to any of the kindred of his flesh to uncover her shame: I am the Lord.

    There’s nothing wrong with the word ‘shame’ because this was written long after the Fall of Adam and Eve.
    “The pubic area” in Dutch is “De schaamstreek” (sounds like ‘De sgaamstrake’) literally meaning “The Shame area” (The genital area).

    II Samuel 21:19 KJV And there was again a battle in Gob with the Philistines, where Elhanan the son of Jaare–oregim, a Beth–lehemite, slew the brother of Goliath the Gittite, the staff of whose spear was like a weaver’s beam.
    2 Samuel 21:19
    1599 Geneva Bible

    19 And there was yet another battle in Gob with the Philistines, where Elhanan the son of Jaare-Oregim, a Bethlehemite slew [a]Goliath the Gittite: the staff of whose spear was like a weaver’s beam.
    Read full chapter
    Footnotes

    [a] 2 Samuel 21:19 That is, Lahmi the brother of Goliath, whom David slew, 1 Chron. 20:5.
    The footnote explains his imperfection.
    Now suppose the printing of the Geneva Bible wasn’t BANNED by King James it is conceivably that in later revision and printing this imperfection would have been corrected.

    Many think they are reading the 1611 version of the KJV, but they are actually reading a corrected version of 1769: https://idahobaptist.com/do-we-have-a-1611-king-james-bible-today/

    These are differences between the Geneva Bible and the KJB that I find important:
    Matthaeus 25:46 Luther Bibel 1545

    46 Und sie werden in die ewige Pein gehen, aber die Gerechten in das ewige Leben.
    Translation:
    And they will go in the eternal pain, but the righteous in the eternal life.

    Matthew 25:46 in the Dutch States Translation:

    46 En dezen zullen gaan in de eeuwige pijn; maar de rechtvaardigen in het eeuwige leven.
    Translation:
    And these will go in the eternal pain; but the righteous in the eternal life.

    Matthew 25:46 1599 Geneva Bible

    46 And these shall go into everlasting pain, and the righteous into life eternal.

    And then the KJV changed PAIN into PUNISHMENT which is NOT the same:

    Matthew 25:46 King James Version

    46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.

    People who believe in Annihilationism love this verse in the KJV because ANNIHILATION, which is UNBIBLICAL, is also a PUNISHMENT.

    But they have problems with the word PAIN!

    Because the word PAIN can ONLY mean ONE thing: ETERNAL TORMENT.

    2 Thessalonians 2:1-4 King James Version
    1 Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him,
    2 That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand.
    3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;
    4 Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.

    ‘the day of Christ’ is the day on which the RAPTURE will happen and ‘a falling away’ is what will happen after the RAPTURE

    2 Thessalonians 2:1-4 1599 Geneva Bible
    1 Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our assembling unto him,
    2 That ye be not suddenly moved from your mind, nor troubled neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter, as it were from us, as though the day of Christ were at hand.
    3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a departing first, and that that man of sin be disclosed, even the son of perdition.
    4 Which is an adversary, and exalteth himself against all that is called God, or that is worshipped: so that he doth sit as God in the Temple of God, showing himself that he is God.

    ‘the day of Christ’ is the day on which the RAPTURE will happen and ‘departing’ is the RAPTURE and ‘a falling away’ (KJV) is the effect of the rapture among left behind believers

    Greetings from the Netherlands!

    Reply ↓

    • The footnote explains his imperfection = The footnote explains this imperfection.

      Reply ↓

HTML tags allowed in your comment: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>