A must see. Argue with this.

And a few notes to those who have viewed and/or participated in this thread:

1. I have viewed the video in the OP in its entirety, despite being told I haven’t.

2. It doesn’t tell any of us who have been involved in the KJVO issue for the last couple of decades anything we didn’t already know.

3. What it does show is that there’s a new batch of newbies who have come across the “missing verses” in a modern translation and think they’ve stumbled upon some big secret.

4. The video amounts to nothing but a comparison of the modern versions with the KJV.

5. The W/H part is around the 56 minute mark.

6. While they do put a couple of quotes from Hort up on the screen, they do not provide the written work(s) of Hort from whence they got those quotes…..which is what I knew all along would be the case, based on the OP author’s inability to provide the name of the work(s) when asked for it/them.

7. The KJVO who posted the video claimed more than once that the video provided the source of Hort’s quotes about the “vile TR.”

8. I have verified that to not be true. Ironically, one of the quotes they put up from Hort reveals exactly why he called the TR “vile.”

9. I actually know where the quotes are to be found in Hort’s works.

10. The KJVO who posted the video does not, and never did.


Finally, the most irritating part of the video was listening to the ridiculous attempts at mimicking the voices of Tyndale, Tischendorf, and others.
 
Last edited:
And a few notes to those who have viewed and/or participated in this thread:

1. I have viewed the video in the OP in its entirety, despite being told I haven’t.

2. It doesn’t tell any of us who have been involved in the KJVO issue for the last couple of decades anything we didn’t already know.

3. What it does show is that there’s a new batch of newbies who have come across the “missing verses” in a modern translation and think they’ve stumbled upon some big secret.

4. The video amounts to nothing but a comparison of the modern versions with the KJV.

5. The W/H part is around the 56 minute mark.

6. While they do put a couple of quotes from Hort up on the screen, they do not provide the written work(s) of Hort from whence they got those quotes…..which is what I knew all along would be the case, based on the OP author’s inability to provide the name of the work(s) when asked for it.

7. The KJVO who posted the video claimed more than once that the video provided the source of Hort’s quotes about the “vile TR.”

8. I have verified that to not be true.

9. I actually know where the quotes are to be found in Hort’s works.

10. The KJVO does not, and never did.


Finally, the most irritating part of the video was listening to the ridiculous attempts at mimicking the voices of Tyndale, Tischendorf, and others.
Glad you watched it.

Continue digging for the pure word of God.

Don't give up.

Indiana Jones might even find it.

When you find it, find the PHD modernists to translate the pure word of God for you, unless you use Strongs and do it yourself.
 
The 1611 translators did not call Lucifer, morning star.

The NIV does.

They wanted to equate Jesus with Lucifer.

Plain and simple.

This is a form of JW/Mormonism etc, too.
What did the marginal note say in the 1611 KJV?
 
Isaiah 14:12

King James Version for Isaiah 14:12
12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!

New International Version for Isaiah 14:12
12 How you have fallen from heaven, morning star, son of the dawn! You have been cast down to the earth, you who once laid low the nations!

-------
Contrary to Truther's assertion, the NIV does not mention Satan (or Lucifer) in this verse.
 
Isaiah 14:12

King James Version for Isaiah 14:12
12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!

New International Version for Isaiah 14:12
12 How you have fallen from heaven, morning star, son of the dawn! You have been cast down to the earth, you who once laid low the nations!

-------
Contrary to Truther's assertion, the NIV does not mention Satan (or Lucifer) in this verse.
Who fell from heaven?
 
Did it call Lucifer the morning star?
"
1611isa1412.jpg

Notice in the original 1611 edition of the KJV, there is a marginal note for the words "O Lucifer". The marginal note reads "Or, O daystarre".
Clearly the KJV translators themselves understood the meaning of the Hebrew and provided "daystarre" as additional translational meaning

 
Who fell from heaven?
https://www.gotquestions.org/morning-star.html

Read the entire passage both before and after verse 12.


I have a 1611 facsimilie from Hendrickson publishers. The marginal notes say very clearly "O day starre".

Learn to read the Bible. This stuff you are posting is right out of the KJVO playbook.

Tell me how 1st John 5:10 is properly different in the KJV (1769) than the 1611 Authorized version? What happened? Did God's words become less pure in the 1769.

This is but one example of confused KJVO thinking. I can post them here if you would like to see them.
 
Last edited:
Glad you watched it.

Continue digging for the pure word of God.

Don't give up.

Indiana Jones might even find it.

When you find it, find the PHD modernists to translate the pure word of God for you, unless you use Strongs and do it yourself.

This is response you get after watching what a KJVO demands you watch. It is never really about the video. It is about control to them.
 
It has been my experience in reading what those who defend the KJVO position write is that they never let Facts and Truth come between them and their KJVOism.
 
It has been my experience in reading what those who defend the KJVO position write is that they never let Facts and Truth come between them and their KJVOism.
Exactly.

Truther refused to look into the origin and meaning of the word lucifer.

He refused to look into what the word lucifer meant to Jerome in all 5 places where he used it in the Vulgate.

He refused to look into why and how lucifer turned into the proper name of a “fallen angel,” when the Hebrew word it was translated from was never the proper name of anyone.

He refused to look into why it took nearly a millennium after the book of Isaiah had been written for someone to figure out that “helel” was a fallen angel.

He refused to look into why the Latin translation of a Hebrew word was transferred to the English Bible, rather than being translated out of Latin into English.

He refused to look into why his KJV doesn’t read “How art thou fallen from heaven, O Helel,” if helel was a proper name.


Not only does he not deal with a ton of truth and facts in order to protect his KJVOism, he has let the doctrinal beliefs which stem from his misunderstanding of the word lucifer muddy things further.

Not knowing anything about anything, all he could muster - over and over again - was:

“the NIV calls Satan the morning star,” and

“the KJV never calls Lucifer morning star.”

He demanded we watch his video, but couldn’t be bothered to read the article at conan’s link that refutes his nonsense.
 
Last edited:
My NASB95
Notice he asks that question without telling us what determines a “pure” word from a “corrupt” word.

Notice he also asks that question without knowing what the Christians in Wycliffe’s day would have identified as the “pure” word of God.


When he gives us the criteria for corrupt words vs. pure words, then perhaps I will provide my answer.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mik
"
1611isa1412.jpg

Notice in the original 1611 edition of the KJV, there is a marginal note for the words "O Lucifer". The marginal note reads "Or, O daystarre".
Clearly the KJV translators themselves understood the meaning of the Hebrew and provided "daystarre" as additional translational meaning

NIV calls Satan MorningStar.

To the modernist, Satan is their Morningstar.
 
This is response you get after watching what a KJVO demands you watch. It is never really about the video. It is about control to them.
About control? You really should control which translation you choose to read. They all say something different to the tune of about 40,000 words. By copyright. They don’t want to have to sue each other.
 
Back
Top