I started this new thread from the �Conversions?� thread because of the possible amount of criticism that could come from it, also this post would be off topic there.
I do not plan to argue Bible versions after this but I believe Leon�s post needed a reply, no offence intended Leon, nor anyone else.
klmartin62's post
Conversions?
Posted : 30 Jan, 2011 10:34 AM
It is also funny that most KJV only people are lost with a 1611 edition. They cannot read it or understand it.
I am Baptist, so you know I see these people all the time. The sad part is, they would rather go by it than any of the original manuscripts. (Well, as close to original as we can get)
There is nothing wrong with the KJV.It has stood the test of time better than many translations. Mainly because it has been updated so many times. These are not major changes, but things like spelling. But that is one of the reasons that you have to have footnotes to understand it. Below is an example of what I am talking about:
Job 22:30 He shall deliver the island of the innocent: and it is delivered by the pureness of thine hands. KJV
Job 22:30 He will even deliver one who is not innocent; Yes, he will be delivered by the purity of your hands." NKJV
Would anyone have gotten not innocent from island of the innocent? It is clarified in the footnotes, but most people only read them in bible study.
Leon
Rebuttal to klmartin62
First, we all have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ, I believe He gives us understanding in our own level of understanding. I fully understand that I am no Bible scholar and can barley keep up with many on this board.
This in my understanding of Job 22:30
Starting in 27: Eliphaz is telling Job to repent to God.
Job 22:27 Thou shalt make thy prayer unto him, and he shall hear thee, and thou shalt pay thy vows.
In 28: Eliphaz is telling Job after repentance Job can ask whatever, and it shall be added unto him.
Job 22:28 Thou shalt also decree a thing, and it shall be established unto thee: and the light shall shine upon thy ways.
In 29: Eliphaz is telling Job after repentance, that when people fall into sin Job will be able to lead them to prayer (lifting up) and teaching and the humble that listen will be lead to God.
Job 22:29 When men are cast down, then thou shalt say, There is lifting up; and he shall save the humble person.
And finally 30: Eliphaz is reemphasizing the previous versus and telling Job that after repentance Job will through his fruit, prayer and teaching be able to deliver �the island of the innocent� or a mountain of innocent people (a boat load of people), and it will be done because he will have of repented and have pure hands or a pure heart.
Job 22:30 He shall deliver the island of the innocent: and it is delivered by the pureness of thine hands.
We all know Job didn�t need repentance because he already had a pure heart, and Im sure he led the island of the innocent to the Lord!
------------------------------------------
Now for my understanding of the NKJV Job 22:30
Job 22:30 He will even deliver one who is not innocent; Yes, he will be delivered by the purity of your hands." NKJV
I think this interpretation can lead one to believe that Job�s friend Eliphaz was not versed in his scripture because we know that �one who is not innocent� can not go to heaven and this verse implies that Job can forgive sins and deliver this �one who is not innocent� into heaven. I believe this NKJV Job 22:30 has a ring of Catholicism to it by implying that man can forgive sins.
If you made it this far, thanks for suffering through all that.
You asked, What exactly did I say that was absurd? Be specific.
I gave you two in my rebuttal to your first post who you hold in regard of validation for the bibles you promote. The first was Shakespear who I believe was a Catholic and possibly a Jesuit, either or neither I doubt he was born again because a man of his literature would have shown fruit. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_of_Shakespeare
The second is your statement �the KJV has been changed so many times it is silly". This one I ask you to give me proof and I ask you to stick to the Bible in reference here the English version KJ1611.
More absurdities you gave:
1: �Because the art and science of Translation has improved.� Science also tells us of the big bang theory
2:"You should not use an old KJV bible for serious study, because you don't speak that language." I speak the language in my Bible, its in English. And most people who study the Bible rather they commonly use modern bibles or not do use the 1611KJ for serious study.
3:�ESV or English Standard Version. The ESV and the NAS have the tightest word for word translation.� This statement does not make sense. �tightest�? Are you saying it has the most translated verses? If you take the name Jesus out of the Bible are you doing it justice?
4:�I think it is ironic that some protestants demand KJV only, and it was a translation paid for by a CATHOLIC king, in response to the protestants Geneva Bible!� I think this quote sums up your faith in the Textus Receptus, you have none.
5: �The Geneva Bible!� I have only made reference to the 1611KJ and modern bibles. Here you attempt to make direct conflict with my topic and post, and even catagorize me in a group and calling me out into saying Im involved in a tight nit group that believes in only one book and one book only. Well wrong again SirJames I have nothing against the Geneve Bible, the related Hebrew books, Textus Receptus and many history books, also I have no affiliation with any such group that calls themselves KJ only.
I�ve said this before, be very careful following the words of men. The founding fathers that you seem to put your trust in have searchable quotes that could rock the very foundation of what you believe their biblical foundation is.
If you think people were not saved until Jesus Christ was crucified then you should ponder this verse.
Mat 9:2 And, behold, they brought to him a man sick of the palsy, lying on a bed: and Jesus seeing their faith said unto the sick of the palsy; Son, be of good cheer; thy sins be forgiven thee.
The English version King James1611 also known as the Authorized version are a good start, although there is a 12 verse rule of difference in the printing that should always be kept in mind. The modern KJV and the now NKJV are modern bibles that I believe are susceptible to error due to there sources. And Leon, don�t get me started on that most historic document that was taken out of the trash can at the Vatican.
Twosparrows:
I really appreciate your knowledge and mannerisms and do respect your opinion here. Defiantly the context of every verse is extremely important.
ThunderofGod:
I kinda feel a slap there, let me turn my other cheek to you. I believe my English version KJ1611 is complete with the Old and New Testaments, the Hebrew texts for me are no longer necessary.
cool trek1:
1:Sorry I know very little about the Koran.
2: I can see how one might feel judged by the topic, no judgment intended. I believe my English version KJ1611 is complete with the Old and New Testaments, the Hebrew texts for me are no longer necessary. Other languages I wouldn�t know, I only know English.
3: I would be very carful listening to words of men who claim to be learned and have insight from God.
SirJames:
That�s totally absurd, I mean common Shakespeare! What part of the KJ1611 Bible are you having a stumbling block with? There is so much wrong with what you said that it needs a whole new thread, one being �the KJV has been changed so many times it is silly".
To answer my own question is, I think why most converts cling and defend modern bibles is because converts coming out of a religion now on fire for Jesus Christ have a different mix of fellowship, and the modern bibles being the most popular are used to be on the same page. And or maybe they used them in the religion they were in, got saved using them and have a sense to cling and defend it.
I believe Jesus Christ is God and that the English version King James1611 Bible (also known as the Authorized version) is an exact word for word God inspired Bible, infallible (including Mark versus 9-20), and the translators were in full prayer with the Holy Ghost (God) when this Bible was translated using the Holy Testus Receptes, Im not sure of the accuracy of the sources of the modern bibles that the translators used, and question some of the translators themselves. I do believe and have heard several Born Again Christians say they were saved by a modern bible but have switched to the KJ1611 Bible only, for their increase of the Truth, and Truth is accuracy, and Galatians 5:9. Im pretty sure any one that has given serious verse for verse consideration of the modern bibles compared to the KJ1611 can give a pretty decent rebuttal to someone defending verse modification of any modern bible.
Sorry about the lengthily post I have started very few threads in about 20 years of owning a computer and have a sense of duty to this thread. I am no Bible scholar and believe everyone should do their own study and research.
Why is it that most all converts cling and defend modern Bibles (albeit do use the King James too), when you had the wisdom and knowledge to know to come out of a religion probably because you study and did research and if so must have researched the histories of Bibles, manuscripts, translations and translators?
I haven�t done a lot of researched in Bible codes nor need to go beyond my KJV, but I do believe the codes are only encoded in the Hebrew books, the Textus Receptus and the KJV and none of the modern Bibles can encode. Some of these codes are pretty trippin. Daniel12:4 does say (knowledge shall be increased), and Im thinking our high tec world and brainiack professors may not be what God had in mind for knowledge, after all the Preacher did say in Ecc 1:9 (no new under the sun), Im thinking that knowledge has always been here waiting for us.
No offence on the word convert. the Lord God uses it graciously in Isaiah 6:10 (Make the heart of this people fat, and make their ears heavy, and shut their eyes; lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and convert, and be healed.)
I like what my thesaurus says about a convert �To change into a different form, substance, or state� and uses the word �translate� which is only used once in the Bible in 2 Samuel 3:10, go king David! And poor Abner (no pun intended) :~)
Thanks SIRjames for pointing out our American ignorance to the fall, church history, theologians, pilgrims and puritans, the reformation, middle ages, the early church fathers and even the apostles themselves.
Of course that�s why we saved Europe from the nazis so you could teach us ignorant Americans how to be saved.
Good thing even us dogs can eat scraps from the masters plate.
By the way SIRjames where you like knighted by the Knights of Malta or something similar?
Wow your Bible is way different than mine, I can see how we might disagree. In verse 26 does it really say �...the Anointed One will be put to death and will have nothing.�? Wow because He had everything, He completed it! He won, He conquered sin for us!
Not looking like Im a futurist but Im willing to entertain the gap theory for fun.
