A must see. Argue with this.

The KJV never called Lucifer the morning star.
You close your eyes to the KJV translators' 1611 marginal note. You stick your head in the sand and ignore what Lancelot Andrewes, one of the KJV translators, stated. You close your eyes to what was stated in the 1537 Matthew's Bible and the 1560 Geneva Bible. You dodge and avoid important facts that demonstrate the meaning of lucifer in the 1500's and 1600's.
 
You close your eyes to the KJV translators' 1611 marginal note. You stick your head in the sand and ignore what Lancelot Andrewes, one of the KJV translators, stated. You close your eyes to what was stated in the 1537 Matthew's Bible and the 1560 Geneva Bible. You dodge and avoid the facts.
It’s obvious you didn’t watch the video. Ignorance is bliss
 
A Modern translation calls satan morningstar.
You have that wrong on so many levels, and you’re completely oblivious to it.

Ignorance is bliss, indeed. Let me help you…..


1. The NIV does NOT “call satan morningstar.

2. The NIV merely translates helel as morning star, which is what the word actually means.

3. Lucifer is the Latin translation of helel, the Hebrew word for morning star.

4. The Latin word lucifer was carried over to the English Bible via the Latin Vulgate.

5. Lucifer is not found in any Hebrew or Greek manuscripts from which the Bible was translated. The KJV got it from the Latin Vulgate.

6. The word lucifer was never meant to be understood as the proper name of a fallen angel.

7. Thus, if the word lucifer was not originally given as a proper name, it certainly can’t be synonymous with satan!


And answer me this: why is it that the word lucifer was only grabbed from the Vulgate and used that single time in Isaiah 14:12, when the Vulgate uses the word in 3 other places?

And what about the use of phosphorus in the NT? Why is that word never translated as “Lucifer?”

Surely you’re aware of the connection between the words phosphorus and luciferin?
 
With regard to Isaiah 14:12, the 1611 KJV used "Lucifer" as a proper name, with a sidenote offering the rendering "daystar". This is from the LXX for "morning star" (as used in the Iliad and Hesiod), and the Vulgate uses "Lucifer" because (according to Cicero and Juvenal) it was the name for the planet Venus which was also called the morning star. The Hebrew word used here, helal, appears nowhere else, it might be a Babylonian name, but the words immediately following mean son of the morning.

The word used here for morning star in the LXX is a different word than the Greek word used to describe Jesus as the morning star in Rev 22:10.
 
Easter was an invented word to describe the pascha feast of the Christians as per 1Cor 11.

Passover is also an invented word in that era to describe the pascha.

Both are as legitimate as all the other invented words of the English language.
Then why the use of Easter in Acts?

There is no reason whatsoever to translate the same word differently. Zero.
 
The Church had the NT because they were the NT.

The OT was used to affirm their NT covenant.

Case in point, the Law changed per Heb 7.
Just how did letters to Corinth end up in Galatia? How long did that take?

BTW. There were probably four letters to Corinth from Paul. Not two. Two have not survived.
 
Ignorance is bliss
You are the one who is uninformed and misinformed by unreliable, biased KJV-only sources. You demonstrated that you did not consider all the facts.

I have carefully studied the claims for a modern KJV-only view, having read over 150 books by many different KJV-only authors plus reading many articles and posts by KJV-only advocates.

Perhaps I have studied the KJV-only view more than you have. You do not demonstrate that I am ignorant of any of the arguments or claims made for human, non-scriptural KJV-only teaching.
 
You have that wrong on so many levels, and you’re completely oblivious to it.

Ignorance is bliss, indeed. Let me help you…..


1. The NIV does NOT “call satan morningstar.

2. The NIV merely translates helel as morning star, which is what the word actually means.

3. Lucifer is the Latin translation of helel, the Hebrew word for morning star.

4. The Latin word lucifer was carried over to the English Bible via the Latin Vulgate.

5. Lucifer is not found in any Hebrew or Greek manuscripts from which the Bible was translated. The KJV got it from the Latin Vulgate.

6. The word lucifer was never meant to be understood as the proper name of a fallen angel.

7. Thus, if the word lucifer was not originally given as a proper name, it certainly can’t be synonymous with satan!


And answer me this: why is it that the word lucifer was only grabbed from the Vulgate and used that single time in Isaiah 14:12, when the Vulgate uses the word in 3 other places?

And what about the use of phosphorus in the NT? Why is that word never translated as “Lucifer?”

Surely you’re aware of the connection between the words phosphorus and luciferin?
All I see is YOUR translation calls satan "morning star".

Mine calls him "son of the morning".

Mine calls Jesus "morning star".

So, you call satan "morning star" and I will call Jesus "morning star".

Capeesh?
 
You are the one who is uninformed and misinformed by unreliable, biased KJV-only sources. You demonstrated that you did not consider all the facts.

I have carefully studied the claims for a modern KJV-only view, having read over 150 books by many different KJV-only authors plus reading many articles and posts by KJV-only advocates.

Perhaps I have studied the KJV-only view more than you have. You do not demonstrate that I am ignorant of any of the arguments or claims made for human, non-scriptural KJV-only teaching.
Keep digging!

You guys will eventually find the word of God in the ground.

Never give up.
 
Keep digging!

You guys will eventually find the word of God in the ground.

Never give up.
You give a bogus, off-target, diversionary response. None of your comments address what I stated and what I believe.

The word of God had been translated into English many years before 1611. The 1611 KJV is the word of God translated into English in the same sense (univocally) as the pre-1611 English Bibles are the word of God translated into English and in the same sense (univocally) as post-1611 English Bibles such as the NKJV are the word of God translated into English. The Scriptures do not teach that the word of God is bound to the textual criticism decisions, Bible revision decisions, and translation decisions of one exclusive group of Church of England critics in 1611.

I have read the KJV over 50 years. I accept and believe the truth concerning the KJV while you may choose to deceive yourself by believing claims for the KJV that are not true and that are not scriptural.
 
The Christian Pascha feast needed an English word to describe it 500 years ago. Passover likewise.

That's why.

There were no differences in the feast recorded in Acts. Jews were not celebrating Easter. The reason Easter is celebrated at different times is because of the spring equinox. Passover is not. It is based upon the Hebrew Lunar Calendar.
 
All I see is YOUR translation calls satan "morning star".
Circular reasoning.

Mine calls him "son of the morning".

Mine calls Jesus "morning star".
More circular reasoning. “Your translations are wrong because they don’t read like the KJV.”

So, you call satan "morning star" and I will call Jesus "morning star".
Your whole argument is a red herring. There is no Satan being called the morning star in Isaiah 14:12 because lucifer is not a translation of the Hebrew word for “satan” (sawtawn).

Lucifer is the Latin translation of a Hebrew word for morning star.

Lucifer is not the English translation of helel.


The Hebrew word isn’t a proper name. The Latin translation of that word is not a proper name either.

Do some research and study a little bit of history to see how your pure and perfect KJV borrowed a LATIN word from the “corrupt” LATIN VULGATE.

Comprehende?
 
Circular reasoning.


More circular reasoning. “Your translations are wrong because they don’t read like the KJV.”


Your whole argument is a red herring. There is no Satan being called the morning star in Isaiah 14:12 because lucifer is not a translation of the Hebrew word for “satan” (sawtawn).

Lucifer is the Latin translation of a Hebrew word for morning star.

Lucifer is not the English translation of helel.


The Hebrew word isn’t a proper name. The Latin translation of that word is not a proper name either.

Do some research and study a little bit of history to see how your pure and perfect KJV borrowed a LATIN word from the “corrupt” LATIN VULGATE.

Comprehende?

I don't understand the goal with the KJVOist in Isa 14:12. Do they really want to argue that it is speaking of Christ?
 
Back
Top