Telegram RegisterThe public register of Telegram

Channel

π•¬π–“π–™π–Ž π•Έπ–”π–‰π–Šπ–—π–“ π•π–Šπ–—π–˜π–Žπ–”π–“π–˜ (Anti Modern Versions - The KJB/The KJV Versus The Modern Versions)

@AntiModernVersions

On this record: Growth Β· Engagement Β· Reactions Β· Posts Β· Polls Β· Citations Β· Cite this entry

1,630subscribers

+2 since we began measuring on 6 August 2026

Risers and fallers across the register Β· movement among entries of 1,000–3,162.

Register entry

Telegram ID-1002095295132
TypeChannel
Username@AntiModernVersions
CreatedBetween 1 November 2023 and 31 May 2024β€” estimated from Telegram’s id allocation, not measured. How this range is calculated.
First recorded6 August 2026
Last confirmed live13 August 2026
Measurements held4
Confirmed unchanged1 time, most recently 13 August 2026
On Telegramt.me/AntiModernVersions

Growth

1,6251,6301,627.56 August 2026 β€” 1,628 subscribers7 August 2026 β€” 1,626 subscribers10 August 2026 β€” 1,625 subscribers13 August 2026 β€” 1,630 subscribers6 August 202613 August 2026
4 measurements spanning 7 days, net +2. Dots are measurements; the straight line between them is drawn to join them, not to claim we know the path taken in between β€” snapshots are recorded only when a count changes, so gaps mean β€œno change observed”, never β€œinterpolated”. The vertical axis spans 1,624–1,631 and does not start at zero.
Measurement log β€” every subscribers count we have recorded
Measured (UTC)SubscribersChange
13 Aug 2026, 14:081,630+5
10 Aug 2026, 09:331,625-1
7 Aug 2026, 02:071,626-2
6 Aug 2026, 13:371,628first reading

Engagement

20 posts held, back to 25 July 2026 β€” the reader has not yet reached the start of this channel’s public history, so older posts may sit further back, unread. Read across 2 pagesof Telegram’s post history, 20 posts per page.

ERR Β· 30 days
10.6%
avg views Γ· 1,630 subscribers
Avg views / post
174
20 posts measured
Reaction rate
1.78%
reactions Γ· views Β· ER floor
Posts in window
20
of 20 held

ERR is average views per post over the last 30 days divided by subscribers, the definition TGStat uses, so this figure is comparable with the one you will see elsewhere. It falls structurally as a channel grows: a high ERR on a small channel and a low one on a large channel describe reach mathematics, not quality. We publish the figure and the sample it came from and pass no verdict on it.

ER is defined industry-wide as (forwards + reactions + comments) Γ· viewsβ€” note the denominator is views, not subscribers. Telegram’s public web preview carries views and reactions but not forward or comment counts, so the reaction rate above is the reactions term only and is therefore a floor: the true ER for this channel is higher by an amount we have not measured and will not estimate. It is computed over the 14 of 20 measured posts that carry a reaction reading, and over those same posts' views.

What these figures were computed from
WindowRolling 30 days Β· latest post in window 6 August 2026
Posts held20 (25 July 2026 – 6 August 2026)
Views total3,470
Reactions total44
Forwards / commentsnot exposed by the public surface β€” not measured, not estimated
Readings taken7 Aug 2026, 17:55 UTC

Views are a single reading per post, taken at the time above. A post published in the last day or two is still accumulating views, which pulls the 30-day average down slightly. That is a property of the standard definition rather than a fault in it, so we keep the definition rather than β€œcorrecting” the number into something nobody can reproduce.

Precision. Telegram publishes view counts on its public widget in short form β€” 8.12K, 3.7M β€” so any reading at or above 1,000 reaches us rounded to three significant figures, and only counts below 1,000 are exact. Averages and rates derived from them are shown to the same precision rather than to the unit: a figure like 3,701,250 would assert digits nobody measured.

Reaction counts are published per emoji and rounded the same way, so a total below 1,000 is exact and a larger one is a sum that may carry a rounded component from each emoji above 1,000. Because it is a sum, it does not look rounded β€” read a large reaction total as three significant figures per contributing emoji rather than as the figure it prints.

Reaction mix

44 reactions across 13 posts, in 7 distinct kinds. The most used accounts for 29.5% of them.

Every reaction kind recorded on the sample, most used first
ReactionCountShareShare, drawn
😁1329.5%
❀715.9%
πŸ’―613.6%
⚑511.4%
❀‍πŸ”₯511.4%
πŸ”₯511.4%
✍36.82%

No sentiment is inferred, and none should be read in. This table is ordered by count and by nothing else. Emoji do not carry stable meaning across languages or communities β€” πŸ™ is thanks in one channel and mourning in another β€” so we publish which ones were pressed and how often, and pass no judgement on what an audience meant by them.

Precision. Telegram publishes reaction counts per emoji and short-forms each one β€” 4.34K, 1.2M β€” so any single kind at or above 1,000 reaches us at three significant figures, and only counts below 1,000 are exact. The shares above are ratios of those figures and carry the same error. This is also why the total here can differ slightly from a reaction total printed elsewhere on the page: both are sums of the same rounded parts, taken over samples with different edges.

Coverage. Reactions were read on 14 of the 20 sampled posts in this sample. Summed by Telegram’s own count on each post β€” not by adding up the per-emoji breakdown above β€” those same posts carry 44reactions in total: the kind of figure the paragraph above means by β€œa reaction total printed elsewhere on the page”.

Measured over the 20 most recent posts we hold, published 25 July 2026 to 6 August 2026, using the newest reading held for each. Telegram Stars are excluded: they are a payment, not a reaction, and they have their own section.

Recent posts

6 Aug 2026, 14:25 UTC107 viewsread 7 August 2026
Photo

π•¬π–“π–™π–Ž π•Έπ–”π–‰π–Šπ–—π–“ π•π–Šπ–—π–˜π–Žπ–”π–“π–˜

3 Aug 2026, 16:39 UTC185 views4 reactionsread 7 August 2026

Basically, the ESV severely wrests and twists Revelation 13:16 in many sneaky ways just as how sneaky foxes or ravening wolves would twist Scripture, affecting all of Revelation 13 in very absurd, errorneous ways, and the ESV lies and makes very huge changes that have massive, serious implications, push numerous problems/errors and both go against Scripture and turn God's words into a contradiction filled with errors…

❀‍πŸ”₯4

3 Aug 2026, 15:56 UTC132 viewsread 7 August 2026

The pictures' comparsion of ESV VS KJB in Revelation 13:16 will be sent today or the next day.

3 Aug 2026, 15:56 UTC171 viewsread 7 August 2026

In Revelation 13:16, the ESV changes and twists "in" into "on" in relation to the mark of the beast & creates many errors and contradictions in Revelation 13: ~ Revelation 13:16 1611 KJB βœ… πŸ’― πŸ“– πŸ† 16 And he causeth all, both smal and great rich and poore, free and bond, to receiue a marke in their right hand, or in their foreheads: ~ Revelation 13:16 ESV ❌ 😨 😱 ⚠️ 16 Also it causes all, both small and great, both ric…

30 Jul 2026, 05:36 UTC197 viewsread 7 August 2026
Forwarded from @falsebookofenochPhoto

π•¬π–“π–™π–Ž 𝕭𝖔𝖔𝖐 𝖔𝖋 π•°π–“π–”π–ˆπ–

29 Jul 2026, 23:57 UTC204 views6 reactionsread 7 August 2026
Forwarded from @EvidenceOfJesusandTheBiblePhoto

Refuting the claim that the Masoretic Text talks about the Preservation of People and NOT the Presevation of SCRIPTURE Would God leave Humanity without perfect words where they will be filled with doubt? Or will he fill them with a perfect message that cannot be tampered by the enemy? Let's look at the underlying Masoretic text of the KJB in Psalms 12:7. In this whole chapter we can see a clear pattern where in the…

✍3πŸ”₯3

29 Jul 2026, 16:51 UTC155 views4 reactionsread 7 August 2026

Even after seeing so much evidence in every way possible - biblically (supremely and most importantly) & historically & linguistically & comparatively - that points to the King James Bible as being God's preserved, translated, inspired, trustworthy, 100% accurate, perfect Word for those who speak and/or read and/or read in English, it is both truly unscholarly and very hard/ extremely hard to deny that the KJB/KJV/Ki…

⚑2❀‍πŸ”₯1πŸ”₯1

29 Jul 2026, 16:13 UTC134 views0 reactionsread 7 August 2026

Debunking Internet Lies & False Accusations that claim "the KJB's underlying sources' editions did not use a lot of manuscripts & did not use any ancient manuscripts": πŸ‘‰πŸ» This claim is really about attacking both the manuscripts behind those collated editions that collated the manuscripts & the collated editions underlying the KJB. By attacking them, modern versionists+fake pseudoscholars think they can discredit th…

29 Jul 2026, 16:11 UTC116 views3 reactionsread 7 August 2026
Forwarded from @TheRealKingJamesIPhoto

Famous Freemason Manly P. Hall is against and attacks King James I, the King James Bible, KJB Believers, and Christians. In Hall's β€œAsia in the Balance of the Scales” by Manly Palmer Hall, in Horizon: The Magazine of Useful and Intelligent Living, Spring, Volume 4, No. 1, April 1944, Manly P. Hall attacks KJB, King James I, & King James Bible Believers & promoted the strawman fallacy of the King James Bible being v…

⚑3

29 Jul 2026, 14:53 UTC150 views2 reactionsread 7 August 2026
Photo

πŸ“– π•¬π–“π–™π–Ž π•Έπ–”π–‰π–Šπ–—π–“ π•π–Šπ–—π–˜π–Žπ–”π–“π–˜ πŸ“š

😁2

29 Jul 2026, 14:53 UTC187 views2 reactionsread 7 August 2026
Photo

Billy Graham's "Evangelistic" Association/BGEA promoted 3 Lies (while Graham was alive, he's complict): πŸ’₯ 1) Falsely claims Vaticanus+Sinaiticus are advantageous+reliable+"older=better": "modern translators have the advantage of using many older Greek manuscripts of the New Testament discovered..Most scholars consider these older manuscripts more reliable than the few later manuscripts available to those who transla…

❀1πŸ”₯1

29 Jul 2026, 14:27 UTC139 views2 reactionsread 7 August 2026
Photo

πŸ“– π•¬π–“π–™π–Ž π•Έπ–”π–‰π–Šπ–—π–“ π•π–Šπ–—π–˜π–Žπ–”π–“π–˜ πŸ“š

😁2

Showing the 12 most recent of 20 posts we hold for @AntiModernVersions. View and reaction counts are the latest single reading for each post, not a live figure, and a recent post is still accumulating both. A view count marked β‰ˆ was rounded by Telegram before we ever saw it β€” t.me prints views in full below 1,000 and to three significant figures above, so β‰ˆ1,200,000 means somewhere between 1,150,000 and 1,249,999. Unmarked counts are exact. Text is reproduced from the public post preview and truncated for length.

Polls

The poll we hold for this entry, as Telegram rendered it when we read the post. A poll’s figures keep moving after that, so each one is dated.

28 Jul 2026, 06:27 UTCAnonymous Poll63 voters

In English, which is God's preserved, translated, inspired Scriptures:

  1. A. The King James Bible89%
  2. B. The "New" "International" Verison2%
  3. C. The "New American" "Standard" Bible2%
  4. D. The English "Standard" Version0%
  5. E. Other3%
  6. F. No Bible in English5%

Shares as published, totalling 101%. No per-option vote count is published by Telegram, so none is shown.

Percentages only β€” there are no per-option vote counts here, because Telegram publishes none.The public post preview gives each option’s share and a single voter total, and nothing else. Multiplying one by the other would produce a per-option tally that looks measured and is not: the shares are rounded to whole numbers before we ever see them. We print what was published and leave the column that does not exist empty.

The shares need not add up to 100.Rounding alone puts many polls at 99 or 101. A poll that allows more than one answer per voter runs well past 100 by design, and several here do. The bars are drawn against a fixed 100% track at each option’s own percentage rather than normalised to the total, so a poll that exceeds it shows that it does instead of being quietly rescaled.

Read from the 20 most recent posts we hold, published 25 July 2026 to 6 August 2026. Telegram labels each poll by kind β€” an anonymous poll, a quiz, a closed set of final results β€” and that label is reproduced rather than paraphrased.

Citation-graph rank

Citation-graph rank β€” 179,837 of 1,169,250entries in the measured graph. A weighted position computed from the forward and mention edges below β€” republished posts weigh more than named mentions β€” and recomputed periodically, over the whole graph. Published only as this ordinal position, never as a score: a position is a fact, and a score printed beside one channel’s name would read as a verdict this register does not make. The two counts beneath stay separate for the same reason mentions are never summed with forwards anywhere else on this page β€” a named-by count costs nothing to manufacture. The top 100 by this measure, or how it is computed.

Forward network

Republished by

Channels on the register that have forwarded this channel's posts into their own feed.

Built only from forwarded posts we have actually read, on both sides. Coverage is early and deliberately incomplete: a missing link means we have not read the post that would prove it, never that the relationship does not exist. Counts are distinct forwarded posts observed, so they only ever go up as we read more.

Mentions

Named by 11 registered channels β€” every channel on the register whose own posts have named this one, by its current username or any other username it currently holds, merged from two separately captured readings of the same fact so a namer caught by only one of them is not missed and a namer both caught is not counted twice. A username this channel has since dropped is not matched β€” that handle may belong to someone else now, and crediting today’s namer to yesterday’s owner would misattribute it.

Named by

Channels on the register whose posts name this channel's handle.

𝔄𝔫𝔱𝔦 β„Œπ”’π”Ÿπ”―π”’π”΄ β„œπ”¬π”¬π”±π”°
@antihebrewroots Β· 924
2 posts
ℭ𝔲𝔩𝔱𝔳𝔦𝔫𝔦𝔰π”ͺγ€˜ π”Έπ•Ÿπ•₯π•š β„‚π•’π•π•§π•šπ•Ÿπ•šπ•€π•ž γ€™
@Cultvinist Β· 615
2 posts
π•¬π–“π–™π–Ž 𝕭𝖔𝖔𝖐 𝖔𝖋 π•°π–“π–”π–ˆπ–
@falsebookofenoch Β· 658
2 posts
𝔾𝕠π•₯ β„šπ•¦π•–π•€π•₯π•šπ• π•Ÿπ•€ π”Όπ•β„™π•†π•Šπ”Όπ”» (π”Έπ•Ÿπ•₯π•š 𝔾𝕠π•₯ β„šπ•¦π•–π•€π•₯π•šπ• π•Ÿπ•€)
@GotQuestionsEXPOSED Β· 112
2 posts
𝔍𝔒π”₯π”¬π”³π”žπ”₯'𝔰 π”‰π”žπ”©π”°π”’ π”šπ”¦π”±π”«π”’π”°π”°π”’π”° [π”Έπ•Ÿπ•₯π•š-π•π•Ž]
@Anti_JW Β· 461
1 post
𝔄𝔫𝔱𝔦-π”“π”’π”«π”±π”’π” π”¬π”°π”±π”žπ”©π”¦π”°π”ͺ
@AntiPentecostal Β· 554
1 post
π•Žπ• π•£π•œπ•€-𝔹𝕒𝕀𝕖𝕕 π•Šπ•’π•π•§π•’π•₯π•šπ• π•Ÿπ•šπ•€π•₯
@AntiWorksSalvation Β· 977
1 post
π•­π–†π–˜π–Šπ–‰ π•­π–Žπ–‡π–‘π–Š π•Έπ–Šπ–’π–Šπ–˜
@BasedBibleMemes Β· 547
1 post
π”…π”¦π”Ÿπ”©π”¦π” π”žπ”© 𝔽𝔼
@BiblicalFE Β· 3,369
1 post
Recommended Bible Translations
@recommendedbibletranslations Β· 80
1 post
URFRIENDLYHOOD
@urfriendlyhood Β· 88
1 post

A mention is a weaker signal than a forward and is counted separately for that reason β€” naming a channel is not republishing it, and a handle in a post body is easy to place deliberately. The post counts beside each row below are distinct posts in which the handle appeared, from posts we have read on both sides β€” the β€œNamed by N registered channels” figure above is a different count, of distinct NAMING CHANNELS rather than posts, and is not the sum of the rows under it.

Cite this entry

A live page changes as we take new readings, so a citation should name the measurement it is based on, not just the URL. The line below cites the subscriber count as measured 13 August 2026 β€” this entry's latest reading, not the date you are reading this.

β€œπ•¬π–“π–™π–Ž π•Έπ–”π–‰π–Šπ–—π–“ π•π–Šπ–—π–˜π–Žπ–”π–“π–˜ (Anti Modern Versions - The KJB/The KJV Versus The Modern Versions)” (@AntiModernVersions), 1,630 subscribers as measured 13 August 2026. Telegram Register, tgregister.com/channel/AntiModernVersions.

Full measurement history, CC BY 4.0. Every reading this register holds for this entry, not just the latest one, as a dated, downloadable record: CSV Β· JSON. Free to use with attribution to tgregister.com. Each file carries its own generation timestamp, which is the figure to cite for exactly when the data was retrieved.