Modern translations/ scriptural support ?

imJRR

Well-known member
Not hardly unless you like corrupted translations.

The above statement is worthless; and it is for this reason: You can't produce one Christian belief that is omitted or threatened by MVs.

And because of that - All your talk/posting about MVs being "inferior", corrupted" and so on is as false and worthless as a 3 dollar bill.
 

Truth7t7

Well-known member
The above statement is worthless; and it is for this reason: You can't produce one Christian belief that is omitted or threatened by MVs.

And because of that - All your talk/posting about MVs being "inferior", corrupted" and so on is as false and worthless as a 3 dollar bill.
Just A Few Examples Of (Deception) Like Three, Three Dollar Bills

Like hiding the identity of "Lucifer" in Isaiah 14:12 NIV, calling him the (Morning Star) who is Jesus Christ in Revelation 22:16KJV in (Deception)?

Isaiah 14:12KJV
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!

Isaiah 14:12NIV
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!

Revelation 22:16KJV
16 I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.

Hiding the identity of the future Antichrist in Daniel 11:37, in the KJV you see a Jew, who dosent follow his Hebrew decent in (God Of His Fathers) the true Hebrew God, and (dosent desire women)?

In the NIV you have a polytheistic playboy (god's of his ancestors) and (one desired by women) (Deception)?

KJV (God Of His Fathers) True Hebrew God

KJV (Nor The Desire Of Women)

Daniel 11:37KJV
37 Neither shall he regard the God of his fathers, nor the desire of women, nor regard any god: for he shall magnify himself above all.

NIV (god's of his ancestors) Polytheism

NIV (one desired by women)

Daniel 11:37NIV
37 He will show no regard for the gods of his ancestors or for the one desired by women, nor will he regard any god, but will exalt himself above them all.
 
Last edited:

imJRR

Well-known member
Just A Few Examples Of (Deception) Like Three, Three Dollar Bills

Like hiding the identity of "Lucifer" in Isaiah 14:12 NIV, calling him the (Morning Star) who is Jesus Christ in Revelation 22:16KJV in (Deception)?

Isaiah 14:12KJV
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!

Isaiah 14:12NIV
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!

Revelation 22:16KJV
16 I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.

Hiding the identity of the future Antichrist in Daniel 11:37, in the KJV you see a Jew, who dosent follow his Hebrew decent in (God Of His Fathers) the true Hebrew God, and (dosent desire women)?

In the NIV you have a polytheistic playboy (god's of his ancestors) and (one desired by women) (Deception)?

KJV (God Of His Fathers) True Hebrew God

KJV (Nor The Desire Of Women)

Daniel 11:37KJV
37 Neither shall he regard the God of his fathers, nor the desire of women, nor regard any god: for he shall magnify himself above all.

NIV (god's of his ancestors) Polytheism

NIV (one desired by women)

Daniel 11:37NIV
37 He will show no regard for the gods of his ancestors or for the one desired by women, nor will he regard any god, but will exalt himself above them all.

I am sorry for this, but I have to make this a two part response due to the limiting of how long a post can be. Please be understanding.


The word "Lucifer" is the Roman word for the morning star. The Hebrew word means "the bright one" or "light-bearer. So, "morning star", "son of the morning", "son of the dawn", or "Day star" (or "Daystar") will and does work, in terms of translation. Jesus, In Rev. 22:16 is not merely the "Morning Star", as you posted (odd that you would not use the full title), He is actually called "the Bright and Morning Star" because when He comes, He will outshine everything and drive away all darkness. Also, going back to Isaiah 14 - If you keep the verse in its context - something that is extremely important to do - You can very easily see that this can't possibly refer to Jesus Christ. It speaks about the fall of someone. Now, whether Satan should literally be viewed as the one being spoken of in these verses - or whether Satan is to be viewed as the ultimate being or power behind the throne of the king of Babylon - or whether this is what's called a "double addressing" that speaks to both Satan and the king of Babylon due to their sin of MEGA self-centered pride - Bible students have discussed this for hundreds of years. Me, I like the "double addressing" idea. Anyway, your ideas of the NIV "hiding" or "being deceptive" about this don't really work......Well, that is, they don't if one does a careful and contextual Bible study.

I refer you to the following article. It is rather long, but well worth your time:

In Isa 14:12, The KJV translators did not actually translate the Hebrew word ‏הילל as ‘Lucifer.’ This word occurs only here in the Hebrew Old Testament. Most likely, the KJV translators were not sure what to make of it, and simply duplicated the word used in the Latin Vulgate that translated ‏הילל. In the Vulgate, Isa 14:12 reads as follows:

quomodo cecidisti de caelo lucifer qui mane oriebaris corruisti in terram qui vulnerabas gentes.

Notice the fifth word of the text—lucifer. It is not a proper name but the Latin word for ‘morning star.’ The word lucifer occurs four times in the Vulgate: Isa 14:12, Job 11:17, Job 38:32, and 2 Peter 1:19. In Job 11:17, the KJV renders the Hebrew word ‏בקר as ‘morning’:

et quasi meridianus fulgor consurget tibi ad vesperam et cum te consumptum putaveris orieris ut lucifer

In Job 38:32, the KJV renders the Hebrew word ‏מזרות as Mazzaroth. This is another word that occurs only once in the Hebrew Bible. The KJV translators did not know what it meant, so they simply transliterated the Hebrew into English characters. Even though Jerome, the translator of the Vulgate, knew Hebrew better than the KJV translators did, he was not exactly sure what to make of it either. But he at least tried, rather than simply leave the word untranslated as the KJV translators did. He translated the word as lucifer—or ‘morning star,’ which is very close to the meaning of the Hebrew ‏מזרות:

numquid producis luciferum in tempore suo et vesperum super filios terrae consurgere facis

The word means ‘constellations’ or ‘crowns’ (translators are not 100% sure about this, though ‘constellations’ is usually preferred). The fact that Jerome recognized that at least the ‏מזרות probably referred to stars is far better than the KJV translators did by leaving the word completely untranslated. There is of course no conspiracy on Jerome’s part here; he is simply being faithful to the Hebrew Bible and is translating as accurately as he can.

In 2 Peter 1:19, the KJV renders the Greek word φωσφόρος (phosphoros) as ‘day star.’ Again, the Latin Vulgate has lucifer here:

et habemus firmiorem propheticum sermonem cui bene facitis adtendentes quasi lucernae lucenti in caliginoso loco donec dies inlucescat et lucifer oriatur in cordibus vestris

In other words, lucifer is not a proper name, but is the Latin word for ‘morning star’ or ‘day star.’ The KJV simply reproduced the Latin in Isa 14:12 because they were not sure what ‏הילל meant. The KJV translators knew Latin better than they knew Greek or Hebrew. In places where they were not sure what the Greek or Hebrew meant, they simply translated or reproduced verbatim the Latin text. This has happened scores, if not hundreds, of times.

Since that time, Lucifer has made its way into English Bible interpretation as another name for the devil. If there is a conspiracy to sabotage the deity of Christ by translating the Hebrew word ‏הילל in Isa 14:12 as ‘morning star,’ the same as is done with φωσφόρος in 2 Peter 1:19, then this conspiracy goes back to Jerome at the beginning of the fifth century AD! In reality, he translated the Hebrew word faithfully and the Greek word faithfully. It is the KJV that did not translate the word at all, but rather retained the Latin rendering of Jerome in Isa 14:12 and worse, simply transliterated the Hebrew in Job 38:32.2 Jerome cannot be charged with not knowing Hebrew well. He moved to Bethlehem and lived there for 35 years while he worked on the translation. He wanted to learn Hebrew well; making his home for 35 years in the land of the Jews is sufficient proof of that.

But aren’t the references to the individuals in Isa 14:12 and 2 Peter 1:19 as the morning star in modern translations confusing? And thus don’t modern translations undermine the deity of Christ? The reality is that in Isa 14:12 the primary or initial reference of ‘morning star’ is not to the devil but to the Babylonian king. The footnote in the NET Bible here says, “What is the background for the imagery in vv. 12–15? This whole section (vv. 4b–21) is directed to the king of Babylon, who is clearly depicted as a human ruler. Other kings of the earth address him in vv. 9ff., he is called ‘the man’ in v. 16, and, according to vv. 19–20, he possesses a physical body.” At the same time, Isa 14:12–15 seems to go beyond a description of a mortal king. Further, if Jesus in Luke 10:18 and John in Rev 9:1 had this passage in mind, then it is evident that there is a secondary meaning that relates to the devil himself. A double-fulfillment prophecy is thus probably in view.
 

imJRR

Well-known member
Part 2:

Here’s the point: if the primary referent is to the Babylonian king (which the great majority of biblical scholars would affirm and as the evidence mentioned in the NET Bible footnote lists), then our understanding of the use of ‘morning star’ in 2 Peter 1:19 makes sense. The morning star literally referred to Venus, but in ancient times it was used metaphorically of earthly kings. The note in the NET Bible at 2 Peter 1:19 is helpful along these lines:

The reference to the morning star constitutes a double entendre. First, the term was normally used to refer to Venus. But the author of course has a metaphorical meaning in mind, as is obvious from the place where the morning star is to rise— “in your hearts.” Most commentators see an allusion to Num 24:17 (“a star shall rise out of Jacob”) in Peter’s words. Early Christian exegesis saw in that passage a prophecy about Christ’s coming. Hence, in this verse Peter tells his audience to heed the OT scriptures which predict the return of Christ, then alludes to one of the passages that does this very thing, all the while running the theme of light on a parallel track. In addition, it may be significant that Peter’s choice of terms here is not the same as is found in the LXX. He has used a Hellenistic word that was sometimes used of emperors and deities, perhaps as a further polemic against the paganism of his day.

In other words, ‘morning star’ or lucifer in the Latin Vulgate literally referred to Venus, but metaphorically would refer to earthly kings, emperors, and pagan deities. Peter thus may have chosen this word to show that the real morning star was Jesus, not Caesar. Isaiah 14:12 thus spoke of the Babylonian king as the morning star and thus predicted his fall. Jesus and John used this text to indicate that Satan would fall. It is only by turning lucifer into a proper name, as has been done by KJV advocates, that misunderstanding of the meaning of these texts could occur. The logic of the KJV position is as follows:

Lucifer is a proper name and refers exclusively to one who is inherently evil, the devil.

Thus, even if translated as ‘morning star’ in Isa 14.12, this still refers exclusively to the devil.

Consequently, for Jesus to be called ‘morning star’ in 2 Peter 1.19 is to call him the devil.

The logic breaks down on the first premise—viz., that the term in Isa 14:12 refers exclusively to one who is evil. Since this is false, the conclusion is also false. To call Jesus ‘morning star’ in 2 Peter 1:19 makes him no more evil than calling Satan ‘god’ (2 Cor 4:4) makes him good. And to argue that since God is not the God of confusion and therefore different words must be used in each verse is to continue to compound the false view of lucifer as a name for the devil.

It is an illegitimate hermeneutic to claim that because the term in one place refers to one person, therefore the same term in another place must be to the same person. There are scores of examples of a term used in the Bible as referring primarily to one thing/person, but having a different thing/person in view if the context demands it. As hinted above, ‘God’ is used primarily of the one true God of the Bible, but there are occasional references in which human beings (John 10:34–35) or Satan (2 Cor 4:4) are called ‘god’—even in the KJV.

Further, if pressed, the argument actually backfires on KJV Only advocates. For example, the name ‘Jesus’ is the Greek form of the Hebrew name Joshua. In the New Testament, there are three references to Joshua. On two of these occasions, the KJV translators translated the name as ‘Jesus.’ But in each instance this rendering is misleading, in the second case badly so.

Acts 7:45 in KJV: “Which also our fathers that came after brought in with Jesus into the possession of the Gentiles, whom God drave out before the face of our fathers, unto the days of David”

Acts 7:45 in the NET: “Our ancestors received possession of it and brought it in with Joshua when they dispossessed the nations that God drove out before our ancestors, until the time of David.”

The context is clearly about Joshua and the Hebrews going into the promised land and conquering the nations there. Why the KJV has ‘Jesus’ here is a mystery to me. Perhaps they were trying to be literal here (by transliterating the Greek word Iesous as ‘Jesus’), but if so why did they not do this in Luke 3:29, where Jesus’ genealogy is enumerated (and Iesous, an ancestor of Jesus, is rendered ‘Jose’)?

Far more troublesome is Heb 4:8.

KJV: “For if Jesus had given them rest, then would he not afterward have spoken of another day.”

NET: “For if Joshua had given them rest, God would not have spoken afterward about another day.”

Again, the context is somewhat clear that Joshua is in view. But to the reader who is not paying careful attention to the context and who does not know that “Jesus” here is really Joshua, he could easily be misled into thinking that Jesus Christ was not able to give his people rest. As such, this could certainly undercut the deity of Christ—especially in light of Heb 4:3 which says, “As I swore in my anger, They will never enter my rest!” (NET). Further, since a proper name is used each time (unlike Isa 14:12 and 2 Peter 1:19), it would be much harder for the average reader to distinguish which Jesus is being talked about. The argument that God is not a God of confusion certainly applies much more to the KJV than to modern translations in this instance.

Does this mean that the KJV is wrong at this place? Technically, no. But in terms of clarity to the average reader, it can be very confusing. At bottom, those who argue that the KJV is the only holy Bible are using flimsy arguments that turn on themselves. And this reveals the real reason why they don’t care for modern translations: it is an issue of emotional attachment. When one examines the evidence with an open mind, many modern translations are seen to be clearer and closer to the original text than the KJV is. The KJV is still an important translation for English-speaking Christians to own and read. It is the single greatest literary monument to the English language ever produced by a committee. Its lyrical quality, cadence, memorable phrases that linger in the mind, and elegance make it a translation that has stood the test of time. Some modern translations rival it on these attributes (especially the ESV, REB, and NET), and they are far more accurate as well. These should be the primary Bibles that English-speaking Christians read, but neither they nor the King James have an exclusive claim to the throne.







If you wish, I am willing to deal with the other things you mentioned.
 

Truth7t7

Well-known member
I am sorry for this, but I have to make this a two part response due to the limiting of how long a post can be. Please be understanding.


The word "Lucifer" is the Roman word for the morning star. The Hebrew word means "the bright one" or "light-bearer. So, "morning star", "son of the morning", "son of the dawn", or "Day star" (or "Daystar") will and does work, in terms of translation. Jesus, In Rev. 22:16 is not merely the "Morning Star", as you posted (odd that you would not use the full title), He is actually called "the Bright and Morning Star" because when He comes, He will outshine everything and drive away all darkness. Also, going back to Isaiah 14 - If you keep the verse in its context - something that is extremely important to do - You can very easily see that this can't possibly refer to Jesus Christ. It speaks about the fall of someone. Now, whether Satan should literally be viewed as the one being spoken of in these verses - or whether Satan is to be viewed as the ultimate being or power behind the throne of the king of Babylon - or whether this is what's called a "double addressing" that speaks to both Satan and the king of Babylon due to their sin of MEGA self-centered pride - Bible students have discussed this for hundreds of years. Me, I like the "double addressing" idea. Anyway, your ideas of the NIV "hiding" or "being deceptive" about this don't really work......Well, that is, they don't if one does a careful and contextual Bible study.

I refer you to the following article. It is rather long, but well worth your time:

In Isa 14:12, The KJV translators did not actually translate the Hebrew word ‏הילל as ‘Lucifer.’ This word occurs only here in the Hebrew Old Testament. Most likely, the KJV translators were not sure what to make of it, and simply duplicated the word used in the Latin Vulgate that translated ‏הילל. In the Vulgate, Isa 14:12 reads as follows:

quomodo cecidisti de caelo lucifer qui mane oriebaris corruisti in terram qui vulnerabas gentes.

Notice the fifth word of the text—lucifer. It is not a proper name but the Latin word for ‘morning star.’ The word lucifer occurs four times in the Vulgate: Isa 14:12, Job 11:17, Job 38:32, and 2 Peter 1:19. In Job 11:17, the KJV renders the Hebrew word ‏בקר as ‘morning’:

et quasi meridianus fulgor consurget tibi ad vesperam et cum te consumptum putaveris orieris ut lucifer

In Job 38:32, the KJV renders the Hebrew word ‏מזרות as Mazzaroth. This is another word that occurs only once in the Hebrew Bible. The KJV translators did not know what it meant, so they simply transliterated the Hebrew into English characters. Even though Jerome, the translator of the Vulgate, knew Hebrew better than the KJV translators did, he was not exactly sure what to make of it either. But he at least tried, rather than simply leave the word untranslated as the KJV translators did. He translated the word as lucifer—or ‘morning star,’ which is very close to the meaning of the Hebrew ‏מזרות:

numquid producis luciferum in tempore suo et vesperum super filios terrae consurgere facis

The word means ‘constellations’ or ‘crowns’ (translators are not 100% sure about this, though ‘constellations’ is usually preferred). The fact that Jerome recognized that at least the ‏מזרות probably referred to stars is far better than the KJV translators did by leaving the word completely untranslated. There is of course no conspiracy on Jerome’s part here; he is simply being faithful to the Hebrew Bible and is translating as accurately as he can.

In 2 Peter 1:19, the KJV renders the Greek word φωσφόρος (phosphoros) as ‘day star.’ Again, the Latin Vulgate has lucifer here:

et habemus firmiorem propheticum sermonem cui bene facitis adtendentes quasi lucernae lucenti in caliginoso loco donec dies inlucescat et lucifer oriatur in cordibus vestris

In other words, lucifer is not a proper name, but is the Latin word for ‘morning star’ or ‘day star.’ The KJV simply reproduced the Latin in Isa 14:12 because they were not sure what ‏הילל meant. The KJV translators knew Latin better than they knew Greek or Hebrew. In places where they were not sure what the Greek or Hebrew meant, they simply translated or reproduced verbatim the Latin text. This has happened scores, if not hundreds, of times.

Since that time, Lucifer has made its way into English Bible interpretation as another name for the devil. If there is a conspiracy to sabotage the deity of Christ by translating the Hebrew word ‏הילל in Isa 14:12 as ‘morning star,’ the same as is done with φωσφόρος in 2 Peter 1:19, then this conspiracy goes back to Jerome at the beginning of the fifth century AD! In reality, he translated the Hebrew word faithfully and the Greek word faithfully. It is the KJV that did not translate the word at all, but rather retained the Latin rendering of Jerome in Isa 14:12 and worse, simply transliterated the Hebrew in Job 38:32.2 Jerome cannot be charged with not knowing Hebrew well. He moved to Bethlehem and lived there for 35 years while he worked on the translation. He wanted to learn Hebrew well; making his home for 35 years in the land of the Jews is sufficient proof of that.

But aren’t the references to the individuals in Isa 14:12 and 2 Peter 1:19 as the morning star in modern translations confusing? And thus don’t modern translations undermine the deity of Christ? The reality is that in Isa 14:12 the primary or initial reference of ‘morning star’ is not to the devil but to the Babylonian king. The footnote in the NET Bible here says, “What is the background for the imagery in vv. 12–15? This whole section (vv. 4b–21) is directed to the king of Babylon, who is clearly depicted as a human ruler. Other kings of the earth address him in vv. 9ff., he is called ‘the man’ in v. 16, and, according to vv. 19–20, he possesses a physical body.” At the same time, Isa 14:12–15 seems to go beyond a description of a mortal king. Further, if Jesus in Luke 10:18 and John in Rev 9:1 had this passage in mind, then it is evident that there is a secondary meaning that relates to the devil himself. A double-fulfillment prophecy is thus probably in view.
I Disagree
 

Truth7t7

Well-known member
Part 2:

Here’s the point: if the primary referent is to the Babylonian king (which the great majority of biblical scholars would affirm and as the evidence mentioned in the NET Bible footnote lists), then our understanding of the use of ‘morning star’ in 2 Peter 1:19 makes sense. The morning star literally referred to Venus, but in ancient times it was used metaphorically of earthly kings. The note in the NET Bible at 2 Peter 1:19 is helpful along these lines:

The reference to the morning star constitutes a double entendre. First, the term was normally used to refer to Venus. But the author of course has a metaphorical meaning in mind, as is obvious from the place where the morning star is to rise— “in your hearts.” Most commentators see an allusion to Num 24:17 (“a star shall rise out of Jacob”) in Peter’s words. Early Christian exegesis saw in that passage a prophecy about Christ’s coming. Hence, in this verse Peter tells his audience to heed the OT scriptures which predict the return of Christ, then alludes to one of the passages that does this very thing, all the while running the theme of light on a parallel track. In addition, it may be significant that Peter’s choice of terms here is not the same as is found in the LXX. He has used a Hellenistic word that was sometimes used of emperors and deities, perhaps as a further polemic against the paganism of his day.

In other words, ‘morning star’ or lucifer in the Latin Vulgate literally referred to Venus, but metaphorically would refer to earthly kings, emperors, and pagan deities. Peter thus may have chosen this word to show that the real morning star was Jesus, not Caesar. Isaiah 14:12 thus spoke of the Babylonian king as the morning star and thus predicted his fall. Jesus and John used this text to indicate that Satan would fall. It is only by turning lucifer into a proper name, as has been done by KJV advocates, that misunderstanding of the meaning of these texts could occur. The logic of the KJV position is as follows:

Lucifer is a proper name and refers exclusively to one who is inherently evil, the devil.

Thus, even if translated as ‘morning star’ in Isa 14.12, this still refers exclusively to the devil.

Consequently, for Jesus to be called ‘morning star’ in 2 Peter 1.19 is to call him the devil.

The logic breaks down on the first premise—viz., that the term in Isa 14:12 refers exclusively to one who is evil. Since this is false, the conclusion is also false. To call Jesus ‘morning star’ in 2 Peter 1:19 makes him no more evil than calling Satan ‘god’ (2 Cor 4:4) makes him good. And to argue that since God is not the God of confusion and therefore different words must be used in each verse is to continue to compound the false view of lucifer as a name for the devil.

It is an illegitimate hermeneutic to claim that because the term in one place refers to one person, therefore the same term in another place must be to the same person. There are scores of examples of a term used in the Bible as referring primarily to one thing/person, but having a different thing/person in view if the context demands it. As hinted above, ‘God’ is used primarily of the one true God of the Bible, but there are occasional references in which human beings (John 10:34–35) or Satan (2 Cor 4:4) are called ‘god’—even in the KJV.

Further, if pressed, the argument actually backfires on KJV Only advocates. For example, the name ‘Jesus’ is the Greek form of the Hebrew name Joshua. In the New Testament, there are three references to Joshua. On two of these occasions, the KJV translators translated the name as ‘Jesus.’ But in each instance this rendering is misleading, in the second case badly so.

Acts 7:45 in KJV: “Which also our fathers that came after brought in with Jesus into the possession of the Gentiles, whom God drave out before the face of our fathers, unto the days of David”

Acts 7:45 in the NET: “Our ancestors received possession of it and brought it in with Joshua when they dispossessed the nations that God drove out before our ancestors, until the time of David.”

The context is clearly about Joshua and the Hebrews going into the promised land and conquering the nations there. Why the KJV has ‘Jesus’ here is a mystery to me. Perhaps they were trying to be literal here (by transliterating the Greek word Iesous as ‘Jesus’), but if so why did they not do this in Luke 3:29, where Jesus’ genealogy is enumerated (and Iesous, an ancestor of Jesus, is rendered ‘Jose’)?

Far more troublesome is Heb 4:8.

KJV: “For if Jesus had given them rest, then would he not afterward have spoken of another day.”

NET: “For if Joshua had given them rest, God would not have spoken afterward about another day.”

Again, the context is somewhat clear that Joshua is in view. But to the reader who is not paying careful attention to the context and who does not know that “Jesus” here is really Joshua, he could easily be misled into thinking that Jesus Christ was not able to give his people rest. As such, this could certainly undercut the deity of Christ—especially in light of Heb 4:3 which says, “As I swore in my anger, They will never enter my rest!” (NET). Further, since a proper name is used each time (unlike Isa 14:12 and 2 Peter 1:19), it would be much harder for the average reader to distinguish which Jesus is being talked about. The argument that God is not a God of confusion certainly applies much more to the KJV than to modern translations in this instance.

Does this mean that the KJV is wrong at this place? Technically, no. But in terms of clarity to the average reader, it can be very confusing. At bottom, those who argue that the KJV is the only holy Bible are using flimsy arguments that turn on themselves. And this reveals the real reason why they don’t care for modern translations: it is an issue of emotional attachment. When one examines the evidence with an open mind, many modern translations are seen to be clearer and closer to the original text than the KJV is. The KJV is still an important translation for English-speaking Christians to own and read. It is the single greatest literary monument to the English language ever produced by a committee. Its lyrical quality, cadence, memorable phrases that linger in the mind, and elegance make it a translation that has stood the test of time. Some modern translations rival it on these attributes (especially the ESV, REB, and NET), and they are far more accurate as well. These should be the primary Bibles that English-speaking Christians read, but neither they nor the King James have an exclusive claim to the throne.







If you wish, I am willing to deal with the other things you mentioned.
I Disagree
 

imJRR

Well-known member
Part 2:

Here’s the point: if the primary referent is to the Babylonian king (which the great majority of biblical scholars would affirm and as the evidence mentioned in the NET Bible footnote lists), then our understanding of the use of ‘morning star’ in 2 Peter 1:19 makes sense. The morning star literally referred to Venus, but in ancient times it was used metaphorically of earthly kings. The note in the NET Bible at 2 Peter 1:19 is helpful along these lines:

The reference to the morning star constitutes a double entendre. First, the term was normally used to refer to Venus. But the author of course has a metaphorical meaning in mind, as is obvious from the place where the morning star is to rise— “in your hearts.” Most commentators see an allusion to Num 24:17 (“a star shall rise out of Jacob”) in Peter’s words. Early Christian exegesis saw in that passage a prophecy about Christ’s coming. Hence, in this verse Peter tells his audience to heed the OT scriptures which predict the return of Christ, then alludes to one of the passages that does this very thing, all the while running the theme of light on a parallel track. In addition, it may be significant that Peter’s choice of terms here is not the same as is found in the LXX. He has used a Hellenistic word that was sometimes used of emperors and deities, perhaps as a further polemic against the paganism of his day.

In other words, ‘morning star’ or lucifer in the Latin Vulgate literally referred to Venus, but metaphorically would refer to earthly kings, emperors, and pagan deities. Peter thus may have chosen this word to show that the real morning star was Jesus, not Caesar. Isaiah 14:12 thus spoke of the Babylonian king as the morning star and thus predicted his fall. Jesus and John used this text to indicate that Satan would fall. It is only by turning lucifer into a proper name, as has been done by KJV advocates, that misunderstanding of the meaning of these texts could occur. The logic of the KJV position is as follows:

Lucifer is a proper name and refers exclusively to one who is inherently evil, the devil.

Thus, even if translated as ‘morning star’ in Isa 14.12, this still refers exclusively to the devil.

Consequently, for Jesus to be called ‘morning star’ in 2 Peter 1.19 is to call him the devil.

The logic breaks down on the first premise—viz., that the term in Isa 14:12 refers exclusively to one who is evil. Since this is false, the conclusion is also false. To call Jesus ‘morning star’ in 2 Peter 1:19 makes him no more evil than calling Satan ‘god’ (2 Cor 4:4) makes him good. And to argue that since God is not the God of confusion and therefore different words must be used in each verse is to continue to compound the false view of lucifer as a name for the devil.

It is an illegitimate hermeneutic to claim that because the term in one place refers to one person, therefore the same term in another place must be to the same person. There are scores of examples of a term used in the Bible as referring primarily to one thing/person, but having a different thing/person in view if the context demands it. As hinted above, ‘God’ is used primarily of the one true God of the Bible, but there are occasional references in which human beings (John 10:34–35) or Satan (2 Cor 4:4) are called ‘god’—even in the KJV.

Further, if pressed, the argument actually backfires on KJV Only advocates. For example, the name ‘Jesus’ is the Greek form of the Hebrew name Joshua. In the New Testament, there are three references to Joshua. On two of these occasions, the KJV translators translated the name as ‘Jesus.’ But in each instance this rendering is misleading, in the second case badly so.

Acts 7:45 in KJV: “Which also our fathers that came after brought in with Jesus into the possession of the Gentiles, whom God drave out before the face of our fathers, unto the days of David”

Acts 7:45 in the NET: “Our ancestors received possession of it and brought it in with Joshua when they dispossessed the nations that God drove out before our ancestors, until the time of David.”

The context is clearly about Joshua and the Hebrews going into the promised land and conquering the nations there. Why the KJV has ‘Jesus’ here is a mystery to me. Perhaps they were trying to be literal here (by transliterating the Greek word Iesous as ‘Jesus’), but if so why did they not do this in Luke 3:29, where Jesus’ genealogy is enumerated (and Iesous, an ancestor of Jesus, is rendered ‘Jose’)?

Far more troublesome is Heb 4:8.

KJV: “For if Jesus had given them rest, then would he not afterward have spoken of another day.”

NET: “For if Joshua had given them rest, God would not have spoken afterward about another day.”

Again, the context is somewhat clear that Joshua is in view. But to the reader who is not paying careful attention to the context and who does not know that “Jesus” here is really Joshua, he could easily be misled into thinking that Jesus Christ was not able to give his people rest. As such, this could certainly undercut the deity of Christ—especially in light of Heb 4:3 which says, “As I swore in my anger, They will never enter my rest!” (NET). Further, since a proper name is used each time (unlike Isa 14:12 and 2 Peter 1:19), it would be much harder for the average reader to distinguish which Jesus is being talked about. The argument that God is not a God of confusion certainly applies much more to the KJV than to modern translations in this instance.

Does this mean that the KJV is wrong at this place? Technically, no. But in terms of clarity to the average reader, it can be very confusing. At bottom, those who argue that the KJV is the only holy Bible are using flimsy arguments that turn on themselves. And this reveals the real reason why they don’t care for modern translations: it is an issue of emotional attachment. When one examines the evidence with an open mind, many modern translations are seen to be clearer and closer to the original text than the KJV is. The KJV is still an important translation for English-speaking Christians to own and read. It is the single greatest literary monument to the English language ever produced by a committee. Its lyrical quality, cadence, memorable phrases that linger in the mind, and elegance make it a translation that has stood the test of time. Some modern translations rival it on these attributes (especially the ESV, REB, and NET), and they are far more accurate as well. These should be the primary Bibles that English-speaking Christians read, but neither they nor the King James have an exclusive claim to the throne.







If you wish, I am willing to deal with the other things you mentioned.

Regarding my two posts, allow me to observe something that I believe is very, very important:

Nothing that you wrote threatens or omits what the Bible says or what Christians believe and teach about Jesus Christ or about Satan. Satan is the enemy of God and of God's people. Jesus Christ is LORD, crucified, risen, and coming again. Both of those things are easily found in MVs as well as the KJV.
 

Beloved Daughter

Super Member
Just A Few Examples Of (Deception) Like Three, Three Dollar Bills

Like hiding the identity of "Lucifer" in Isaiah 14:12 NIV, calling him the (Morning Star) who is Jesus Christ in Revelation 22:16KJV in (Deception)?

Isaiah 14:12KJV
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!

Isaiah 14:12NIV
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!

Revelation 22:16KJV
16 I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.

Hiding the identity of the future Antichrist in Daniel 11:37, in the KJV you see a Jew, who dosent follow his Hebrew decent in (God Of His Fathers) the true Hebrew God, and (dosent desire women)?

In the NIV you have a polytheistic playboy (god's of his ancestors) and (one desired by women) (Deception)?

KJV (God Of His Fathers) True Hebrew God

KJV (Nor The Desire Of Women)

Daniel 11:37KJV
37 Neither shall he regard the God of his fathers, nor the desire of women, nor regard any god: for he shall magnify himself above all.

NIV (god's of his ancestors) Polytheism

NIV (one desired by women)

Daniel 11:37NIV
37 He will show no regard for the gods of his ancestors or for the one desired by women, nor will he regard any god, but will exalt himself above them all.

This is so odd! I have a copy of the AV1611 and there is a distinctive note in the margin, placed by the translators. 'Or ,O Day starre' Imagine that, once again KJVO nonsense decimated.

Revelation 22:16 is part of the Latin Vulgate which FR. Erasmus back translated because he could not find a single manuscript that supported this reading. Run, run, run, the Catholics are coming, the catholics are coming.

Once again, KJVO nonsense decimated.

Then of course there is this from the Preface 'To the Reader' for the AV1611.

was judged to be but a very poor and empty shift, yet even hereupon did His Majesty begin to bethink himself of the good that might ensue by a new translation, and presently after gave order for this translation which is now presented unto thee. Thus much to satisfy our scrupulous brethren. An answer to the imputations of our adversaries Now to the latter we answer that we do not deny--nay, we affirm and avow--that the very meanest translation of the Bible in English set forth by men of our profession (for we have seen none of theirs of the whole Bible as yet) containeth the word of God, nay, is the word of God: as the king's speech which he uttered in Parliament, being translated into French, Dutch, Italian, and Latin, is still the king's speech, though it be not interpreted by every translator with the like grace, nor peradventure so fitly for phrase, nor so expressly for sense, everywhere. For it is confessed that things are to take their denomination of the greater part; and a natural man could say, Verum ubi multa nitent in carmine, non ego paucis offendar maculis, etc. [Horace <"Ars Poetica," 351-2>]--a man may be counted a virtuous man, though he have made many slips in his life (else there were none virtuous, for in many things we offend all) [James 3:2]; also a comely man and lovely, though he have some warts upon his hand; yea, not only freckles upon his face, but also scars. No cause therefore why the word translated should be denied to be the word, or forbidden to be current, notwithstanding that some imperfections and blemishes may be noted in the setting forth of it. For whatever was perfect under the sun, where apostles or apostolic men--that is, men endued with an extraordinary measure of God's Spirit, and privileged with the privilege of infallibility--had not their hand? The Romanists therefore in refusing to hear, and daring to burn the word translated, did no less than despite the Spirit of grace, from whom originally it proceeded, and whose sense and meaning, as well as man's weakness would enable, it did express. Judge by an example or two. Plutarch writeth, that after that Rome had been burnt by the Gauls, they fell soon to build it again; but doing it in haste, they did not cast the streets, nor proportion the houses, in such comely fashion as had been most sightly and convenient [Plutarch in Camillo.]. Was Catiline therefore an honest man or a good patriot that sought to bring it to a combustion? or Nero a good prince that did indeed set it on fire? So by the story of Ezra and the prophecy of Haggai it may be gathered, that the temple built by Zerubbabel after the return from Babylon, was by no means to be compared to the former built by Solomon (for they that remembered the former wept when they considered the latter) [Ezr. 3:12]; notwithstanding, might this latter either have been abhorred and forsaken by the Jews, or profaned by the Greeks? The like we are to think of translations. The translation of the Seventy dissenteth from the original in many places; neither doth it come near it for perspicuity, gravity, majesty; yet which of the apostles did condemn it? Condemn it? Nay, they used it (as it is apparent, and as St. Jerome and most learned men do confess), which they would not have done, nor by their example of using it so grace and commend it to the church, if it had been unworthy the appellation and name of the word of God. And whereas they urge for their second defence of their vilifying and abusing of the English Bibles, or some pieces thereof which they meet with, for that "heretics," forsooth, were the authors of the translations ("heretics" they call us by the same right that they call themselves "Catholics," both bein...............

More KJVO nonsense decimated.
 

Truth7t7

Well-known member
Regarding my two posts, allow me to observe something that I believe is very, very important:

Nothing that you wrote threatens or omits what the Bible says or what Christians believe and teach about Jesus Christ or about Satan. Satan is the enemy of God and of God's people. Jesus Christ is LORD, crucified, risen, and coming again. Both of those things are easily found in MVs as well as the KJV.
I Disagree
 

Truth7t7

Well-known member
This is so odd! I have a copy of the AV1611 and there is a distinctive note in the margin, placed by the translators. 'Or ,O Day starre' Imagine that, once again KJVO nonsense decimated.

Revelation 22:16 is part of the Latin Vulgate which FR. Erasmus back translated because he could not find a single manuscript that supported this reading. Run, run, run, the Catholics are coming, the catholics are coming.

Once again, KJVO nonsense decimated.

Then of course there is this from the Preface 'To the Reader' for the AV1611.

was judged to be but a very poor and empty shift, yet even hereupon did His Majesty begin to bethink himself of the good that might ensue by a new translation, and presently after gave order for this translation which is now presented unto thee. Thus much to satisfy our scrupulous brethren. An answer to the imputations of our adversaries Now to the latter we answer that we do not deny--nay, we affirm and avow--that the very meanest translation of the Bible in English set forth by men of our profession (for we have seen none of theirs of the whole Bible as yet) containeth the word of God, nay, is the word of God: as the king's speech which he uttered in Parliament, being translated into French, Dutch, Italian, and Latin, is still the king's speech, though it be not interpreted by every translator with the like grace, nor peradventure so fitly for phrase, nor so expressly for sense, everywhere. For it is confessed that things are to take their denomination of the greater part; and a natural man could say, Verum ubi multa nitent in carmine, non ego paucis offendar maculis, etc. [Horace <"Ars Poetica," 351-2>]--a man may be counted a virtuous man, though he have made many slips in his life (else there were none virtuous, for in many things we offend all) [James 3:2]; also a comely man and lovely, though he have some warts upon his hand; yea, not only freckles upon his face, but also scars. No cause therefore why the word translated should be denied to be the word, or forbidden to be current, notwithstanding that some imperfections and blemishes may be noted in the setting forth of it. For whatever was perfect under the sun, where apostles or apostolic men--that is, men endued with an extraordinary measure of God's Spirit, and privileged with the privilege of infallibility--had not their hand? The Romanists therefore in refusing to hear, and daring to burn the word translated, did no less than despite the Spirit of grace, from whom originally it proceeded, and whose sense and meaning, as well as man's weakness would enable, it did express. Judge by an example or two. Plutarch writeth, that after that Rome had been burnt by the Gauls, they fell soon to build it again; but doing it in haste, they did not cast the streets, nor proportion the houses, in such comely fashion as had been most sightly and convenient [Plutarch in Camillo.]. Was Catiline therefore an honest man or a good patriot that sought to bring it to a combustion? or Nero a good prince that did indeed set it on fire? So by the story of Ezra and the prophecy of Haggai it may be gathered, that the temple built by Zerubbabel after the return from Babylon, was by no means to be compared to the former built by Solomon (for they that remembered the former wept when they considered the latter) [Ezr. 3:12]; notwithstanding, might this latter either have been abhorred and forsaken by the Jews, or profaned by the Greeks? The like we are to think of translations. The translation of the Seventy dissenteth from the original in many places; neither doth it come near it for perspicuity, gravity, majesty; yet which of the apostles did condemn it? Condemn it? Nay, they used it (as it is apparent, and as St. Jerome and most learned men do confess), which they would not have done, nor by their example of using it so grace and commend it to the church, if it had been unworthy the appellation and name of the word of God. And whereas they urge for their second defence of their vilifying and abusing of the English Bibles, or some pieces thereof which they meet with, for that "heretics," forsooth, were the authors of the translations ("heretics" they call us by the same right that they call themselves "Catholics," both bein...............

More KJVO nonsense decimated.
I Disagree
 

En Hakkore

Well-known member
Jesus quoted from the LXX.
The gospel writers often quote from the LXX, but that is not the same thing as the historical Jesus doing so... that claim is rather dubious considering he taught in first century Palestine where Aramaic was the language of the masses.

Kind regards,
Jonathan
 

En Hakkore

Well-known member
We who trust the KJV and believe it to be the best English translation because it,which you cannot seem to understand, was translated from the majority texts, and most modern translations were translated from the minority texts, which many believe are corrupt texts.
Who are these "many" who think the so-called minority texts are corrupt vis-à-vis the so-called majority texts? Last I checked, those who propound this are in the vast minority of biblical exegetes and I'm not aware of any serious text-critical scholar who thinks the Greek manuscripts underlying the KJV provide an untainted witness to the earliest recoverable texts of the New Testament...

Kind regards,
Jonathan
 

Truth7t7

Well-known member
Who are these "many" who think the so-called minority texts are corrupt vis-à-vis the so-called majority texts? Last I checked, those who propound this are in the vast minority of biblical exegetes and I'm not aware of any serious text-critical scholar who thinks the Greek manuscripts underlying the KJV provide an untainted witness to the earliest recoverable texts of the New Testament...

Kind regards,
Jonathan
I Disagree
 

Truth7t7

Well-known member
The gospel writers often quote from the LXX, but that is not the same thing as the historical Jesus doing so... that claim is rather dubious considering he taught in first century Palestine where Aramaic was the language of the masses.

Kind regards,
Jonathan
I Disagree
 
Top