Discrepancies between the Bible and the “King of Kings” version

[Red Sky at Morning]

It appears that the “King of Kings” translation of the Bible is not all it promises to be.

Even from a cursory reading, it is notable that
1 Timothy 3 is missing.

This is odd - why? @JoChris - any ideas?

 

[Maldarker]

Because a cult leader would never give up power to some one as a deacon or bishop that is suppose to have the attributes characteristics of what is set forth in 1 tim

could also be this:He must be vigilant and watchful against Satan

So if your deacon is looking for Satan aka anti christ won't need to look very far would they? Just look at AJH

 

[JoChris]

It really Is true! The King of King's "bible" omits the whole chapter 3.
Here is the proof: compare JAHtruth's 1 Timothy https://jahtruth.net/kofk-free/62.htm.
and compare 1 Timothy chapters 2-4

Therefore we can analyse what is missing... one or two verses is one thing, a whole chapter must be intentional.

3:1 This is a true saying, if a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.

2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;

3 Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous;

4 One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;

5 (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)

6 Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil.

7 Moreover he must have a good report of them which are without; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.

8 Likewise must the deacons be grave, not doubletongued, not given to much wine, not greedy of filthy lucre;

9 Holding the mystery of the faith in a pure conscience.

10 And let these also first be proved; then let them use the office of a deacon, being found blameless.

11 Even so must their wives be grave, not slanderers, sober, faithful in all things.

12 Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well.

13 For they that have used the office of a deacon well purchase to themselves a good degree, and great boldness in the faith which is in Christ Jesus.

14 These things write I unto thee, hoping to come unto thee shortly:

15 But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.

16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

So what exactly did AJH find so unappealing that the man - who adds an incredible amount of personal interpretation wherever it suits him in the bible and quran - have to leave that above chapter out?!!!

That deserves to be analysed very closely.

 

[JoChris]

I will point out the first thing that readers who are familiar with @A Freeman's thread King Christ has summonsed Charles the Pretender should notice, where he shows that a follower of Andrew John Hill (who calls himself JAHtruth) believes King Charles III should give the British throne to him on April 23rd THIS MONTH.

3 Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous;

---
Anthony John breaks the 10th commandment.

Exodus 20 17 Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's.

 

[JoChris]

It appears that the “King of Kings” translation of the Bible is not all it promises to be.

Even from a cursory reading, it is notable that
1 Timothy 3 is missing.

This is odd - why? @JoChris - any ideas?

I think each verse should be put under the microscope, the clue has to be somewhere.

 

[JoChris]

The last verse of 1 Timothy 3 directly disproves AJH's theology.



Basic algebra:
If A = B, and B = C, then A = C.

If God was manifest in the flesh, and Jesus was in the flesh, seen of angels (and rest of above verse), then Jesus = God.

 

[Red Sky at Morning]

As an aside, the long ending of Mark contains ideas that were unhelpful to Catholic doctrine:

14 Afterward he appeared unto the eleven as they sat at meat, and upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them which had seen him after he was risen.​

​

15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.​

​

16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.​

No rosaries, saints or Mary required for salvation here! The Critical texts of Codex Vaticanus and Sinaiticus both have this section missing, though with a gap in the page that would precisely accommodate it.

Vaticanus



Sinaiticus



On the left page note that the letters have been spaced wider to fill more of the gap. Compare normal script on right hand side.

The "Critical Text" Criticized

So many times the question of the authenticity of the Bible seems to come up in these forums. From people feeling that an original, more gnostic Christianity has been whitewashed and moved away from, to others who feel that certain important texts have been removed by the powers that be. What...

vigilantcitizenforums.com

 

[JoChris]

As an aside, the long ending of Mark contains ideas that were unhelpful to Catholic doctrine:

14 Afterward he appeared unto the eleven as they sat at meat, and upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them which had seen him after he was risen.​

​

15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.​

​

16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.​

No rosaries, saints or Mary required for salvation here! The Critical texts of Codex Vaticanus and Sinaiticus both have this section missing, though with a gap in the page that would precisely accommodate it.

Vaticanus

View attachment 85843

Sinaiticus

View attachment 85844

On the left page note that the letters have been spaced wider to fill more of the gap. Compare normal script on right hand side.

The "Critical Text" Criticized

So many times the question of the authenticity of the Bible seems to come up in these forums. From people feeling that an original, more gnostic Christianity has been whitewashed and moved away from, to others who feel that certain important texts have been removed by the powers that be. What...

vigilantcitizenforums.com

I found an article that goes into detail about how one ancient script differ from others. For further reading it has links to other types of scripts. https://christianpublishinghouse.co/2019/11/12/alexandrian-text-type-of-greek-new-testament-manuscripts/

Quite a while back I read or heard someone suggest that some omissions were in fact due to scholars finding some verses/ passages too hard to believe, too challenging etc. I can't remember if that was speculation or not though.

I never thought I would see actual omissions in AJH's "bible" other than single verses like 1John 5:7.

 

[clambot]

Basic algebra:
If A = B, and B = C, then A = C.

In elementary school, that is called the transitive property of equality.

It is not Algebra. Logic, maybe; but not Algebra.

 

[JoChris]

It really Is true! The King of King's "bible" omits the whole chapter 3.
Here is the proof: compare JAHtruth's 1 Timothy https://jahtruth.net/kofk-free/62.htm.
and compare 1 Timothy chapters 2-4

Therefore we can analyse what is missing... one or two verses is one thing, a whole chapter must be intentional.

3:1 This is a true saying, if a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.

2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;

3 Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous;

4 One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;

5 (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)

6 Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil.

7 Moreover he must have a good report of them which are without; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.

8 Likewise must the deacons be grave, not doubletongued, not given to much wine, not greedy of filthy lucre;

9 Holding the mystery of the faith in a pure conscience.

10 And let these also first be proved; then let them use the office of a deacon, being found blameless.

11 Even so must their wives be grave, not slanderers, sober, faithful in all things.

12 Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well.

13 For they that have used the office of a deacon well purchase to themselves a good degree, and great boldness in the faith which is in Christ Jesus.

14 These things write I unto thee, hoping to come unto thee shortly:

15 But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.

16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

So what exactly did AJH find so unappealing that the man - who adds an incredible amount of personal interpretation wherever it suits him in the bible and quran - have to leave that above chapter out?!!!

That deserves to be analysed very closely.

In verse 1, the OFFICE - that is a position of power. There is no option given for solo faith. A church is assumed to be there, if there are church leaders there will be church followers.
AJH condemns churches, therefore he is contradicting verse 1.

 

[JoChris]

In elementary school, that is called the transitive property of equality.

It is not Algebra. Logic, maybe; but not Algebra.

Maths was never my strong point and it is 30+ years since I did a class. I will take your word for it.

 

[Red Sky at Morning]

I found an article that goes into detail about how one ancient script differ from others. For further reading it has links to other types of scripts. https://christianpublishinghouse.co/2019/11/12/alexandrian-text-type-of-greek-new-testament-manuscripts/

Quite a while back I read or heard someone suggest that some omissions were in fact due to scholars finding some verses/ passages too hard to believe, too challenging etc. I can't remember if that was speculation or not though.

I never thought I would see actual omissions in AJH's "bible" other than single verses like 1John 5:7.

You might find this interesting @JoChris

In talking of a play called “Philopatros” by an Anti-Christian writer, Luci of Samasota who wrote parodies of Biblical texts…

…Thus it is the taking of Susa under Trajan which dates the Philopatros, giving it an earliest possible year of writing of AD 116, within just 46 years of the close of the Eyewitness Period during which John wrote his first epistle.19

And then there is its intriguing title, Philopatros. It is Greek for ‘love of the Father,’ and is powerfully reminiscent of John’s repeated allusions to the love of the Father which appear in his first epistle (throughout but particularly in 1John 2:15; & 3:1).

Clearly, and on this ground alone, we may conclude that Lucian of Samosata was familiar with the first epistle of John, very familiar indeed. But there’s more – much more. Remarkably, and out of all the verses of the New Testament that he could have parodied, Lucian satirises for us our disputed verse, 1 John 5:7. He puts his own satirical slant on it, to be sure, but he has clearly taken 1 John 5:7 and made it the focus of his parody.

Even after he has done his work, the close resemblance between the contents of what Lucian has written and 1 John 5:7 is truly remarkable, and leaves no room whatever for any notion of coincidence or happenstance. One wonders why the critics never mention it.20

But let’s see how Lucian deals with the verse. 1 John 5:7 has:

“For there are Three that bear record in Heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these Three are One.” (King James Version)​

Satirising the verse, Lucian has:

“The mighty god that rules on high, Immortal dwelling in the sky, the son of the father, spirit proceeding from the father, three in one and one in three. Think him your Zeus, consider him your god.”​

21 Interesting, isn’t it? Lucian’s satire (by which he meant to mock the Word of God) contains not just Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, but he even tells us that these Three are One, exactly as John does in the 7th verse of his first epistle’s 5th chapter, though in parody,

 

[Red Sky at Morning]

Btw - John 1 according to the JW “New World Translation”

1 In the beginning was the Word,+ and the Word was with God,+ and the Word was a god.*+

Isn’t it amazing how some will just give up on certain verses and decide that the only thing for it is to alter them!

 

[JoChris]

Btw - John 1 according to the JW “New World Translation”

1 In the beginning was the Word,+ and the Word was with God,+ and the Word was a god.*+

Isn’t it amazing how some will just give up on certain verses and decide that the only thing for it is to alter them!

If you think that is bad, AJH's is much worse.

1:1 In the Beginning was the Word (Truth - in Hebrew is Nazir), and the Truth was with God (NOT with Lucifer/Satan the Devil), and the Word was God.

I was expecting *a* god.... because Anthony John Hill claims he is Jesus reincarnated, born in Sheffield UK (1948).

 

[JoChris]

I thought to myself surely AJH would leave the Book of Proverbs alone, with just a few brackets here and there (as proof he had left his mark on his territory)?

I should have known better by now. He substituted the LORD for "I AM" in brackets constantly throughout the book too.

1:8 My son, hear the instruction of thy Father, and forsake not The (Mosaic) Law of thy mother (Israel):

3:7 Be not wise in thine own eyes: fear the "I AM", and depart from evil (the Devil)

4:26 Ponder the path of thy feet, and let all thy ways be established (in The Way [The Covenant] of God).

 

[Karlysymon]

It appears that the “King of Kings” translation of the Bible is not all it promises to be.

Even from a cursory reading, it is notable that
1 Timothy 3 is missing.

This is odd - why? @JoChris - any ideas?

Given the multitude of posts laden with disdain for church hierarchy, it could be one likely reason for the omission of the entire chapter. Just do a search for "pastors" under his name and see what comes up. Did you check if their version of the book of Revelation is missing texts? Because there is a warning for those who tamper with that sacred text (Rev 22:18-19)

 

[Maldarker]

Btw - John 1 according to the JW “New World Translation”

1 In the beginning was the Word,+ and the Word was with God,+ and the Word was a god.*+

Isn’t it amazing how some will just give up on certain verses and decide that the only thing for it is to alter them!

YUP nothing more then a demi god like hercules

 

[ToxicFemininitySucks]

Did you check if their version of the book of Revelation is missing texts? Because there is a warning for those who tamper with that sacred text (Rev 22:18-19)

His version of Revelation adds like 4 or 5 chapters to it.

I haven't read it, but in one reply he quoted to something like revelation 25:?? and when i told him that chapter didn't exist he tried to "educate" me.

 

[Maldarker]

His version of Revelation adds like 4 or 5 chapters to it.

I haven't read it, but in one reply he quoted to something like revelation 25:?? and when i told him that chapter didn't exist he tried to "educate" me.

Just remember your not enlightened by the AJH to give these nuggets of truth. Shame on you for not realizing there is a chapter 25 when he says there is a 25 then there is a 25th chapter ignorant just plain ignorant for just 25$ you to can have the new king of kings book complete with what should have been written from the get go damn scribes! Can't even get it right first time had to reincarnate come back & fix it geez humans am i right?

 

[Red Sky at Morning]

The end of the Book of Revelation, KJV

18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:

19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

20 He which testifieth these things saith, Surely I come quickly. Amen. Even so, come, Lord Jesus.

AJH style…

30:18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this Book. If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this Book.

30:19 And if any man shall take away from the words of this Book of Prophecy, the Father shall take away his right to the Tree of Life and he will be cast out of the Holy City and will share not the eternal gift of paradise and bliss, which are written in this Book.

30:20 He which testifieth these things saith, "Surely I come quickly. Even as night follows day, so shall century follow century, until the end of the second millennium is nigh". Amen. Even so, come, Christ Light.

#classicirony