Conversions?

[flybylow]

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) :~)

[Psalm 51:17]

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?

Many reasons - because their pastors, who supposedly everyone "respects" as "godly men", approves these modern versions. Hey if the PASTOR says it's good, and if the pastor can't do any wrong, then I guess these modern versions are good, right?

And these pastors use modern versions b/c they're more concerned about keeping up with daily expenses and church membership building more than anything else, as well as keeping up a decent salary, so they have to please their pews, ultimately.

The moral of the story is that we as human beings tend to make big mistakes of trusting TOO much in other men. Scripture condemns this in numerous times, no matter what.

We have our 1611 KJVs, so from there, we, being lead by the Holy Spirit, have no exuse to sit down and search these scriptures daily, like the Boreans.

I mean can't tell you how many times I hear people say, "But seminary Presidents said such and such, you know how well-respected they are". Oh really? Then why do these same seminary Presidents include Rick Warren garbage into their curriculums?

[flybylow]

I posted this on another website, can someone tell me if I sound like an idiot?

-------------------------------
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.