Featured Genesis 12:18-19; The plagues were to stop Pharaoh from taking Sarah as his wife.

So, in keeping with not talking about modern versions, just the influence behind them:

In the sense of "give light" or "shine", from the primitive root "halal" 1984, (again, in the sense of "brightness"); "helel" 1966, in Isaiah 14:12, does not directly translate as "morning star" or "star of the morning", by it's loansome.

That would be two totally different Hebrew words.

It gets help for that in Isaiah 14:12, with šā·ḥar; שָׁ֑חַר, of the morning.

""helel" 1966, means "light-bearer."

In Greek it's "heosphoros," "light-bearer."

In Latin it's translated "Lucifer," light-bearer.

Whether you say "heylel," "heosphoros" or "lucifer," the meaning is the same: "light-bearer."

But only 'Lucifer' communicates who we are talking about in English.

As translated by many:

Bishops Bible 1568
Howe art thou fallen from heauen O Lucifer, thou faire mornyng chylde? Howe hast thou gotten a fall euen to the grounde, which didst weaken the nations

Geneva Bible 1560/1599
How art thou fallen from heauen, O Lucifer, sonne of the morning? and cutte downe to the grounde, which didest cast lottes vpon the nations?

The Great Bible 1539
How art thou fallen from heauen (O Lucifer) thou faire mornynge childe? how hast thou gotten a fall euen to the grounde, and art become weaker then the people?

Matthew's Bible 1537
How art thou fallen from heauen (O Lucifer) thou faire mornyng childe? hast thou gotten a fal euen to the ground, thou that (not withstanding) diddest subdue the people.

Coverdale Bible 1535
How art thou fallen from heauen (o Lucifer) thou faire mornige childe? hast thou gotten a fall euen to the grounde, thou that (notwithstondinge) dyddest subdue the people?

Wycliffe Bible 1382
A! Lucifer, that risidist eerli, hou feldist thou doun fro heuene; thou that woundist folkis, feldist doun togidere in to erthe.

And not only English uses Lucifer.

Look at these ancient translations of the word. They also use some form of "Lucifer."

Spanish Reina-Valera (1557 through 1909) Lucero

Czech Kralika (1613) lucifere

Romanian Cornilescu (to present)
12 Cum ai căzut din cer, Luceafăr strălucitor, fiu al zorilor!

So, while the GoogleOnly Cult says, "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, THEY CAN'T EVEN BE SUUUURE The KJV translators even looked at the Latin Vulgate, on Isaiah 14:12.

There are plenty of other sources, aren't there?

Now, given they did of course, in the Vulgate, Isaiah 14:12 reads as follows:

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

"The KJV translators did not know what it meant". There they go again. GoogleOnly puts you guys to shame.

Then, they thought they'd throw some pee on Jerome, "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,"

Imagine how knowledgeable they must be to condescend down and share with us, "The KJV simply reproduced the Latin in Isaiah 14:12 because they were not sure what ‏הילל meant."

That's what they say.

But besides showing a feeling of patronizing superiority, with malice, because they can't defend their position, the one behind the scenes is free to go about seeking whom he may devoir.

So, while Strong's puts the definition of the Hebrew, "helel" 1966, as "lucifer", probably only from 'usage', let's go far as to say it is a figurative meaning of 'light-bearer'.

If so, figurative language, is literally in literature, often MORE EXPRESSIVE of The TRUTH, than literal letterism.

That is the case here with the translators going with a 'hermenutic' of progressive revelation.

While Satan is never actually referred to, as 'Lucifer', in the Bible, here the KJV translators used it as a proper noun to A.) nail the 'luminary', 'constillation', 'celestial body, of the 'light-bearer', as "the king of Babylon is intended, whose royal glory and majesty, as outshining all the rest of the kings of the earth, is expressed by those names; and which perhaps were such as he took himself, or were given him by his courtiers.

"The Targum is,

"how art thou fallen from on high, who was shining among the sons of men, as the star Venus among the stars.'' (Gill)

This 'light-bearer', is called out as, 'Lucifer', the 'light-bearer' who had shined brightly AS A POLITICAL RULER, the Targum calls 'the star Venus' 'who was shining among the sons of men', but now we see "how art thou fallen from on high", from Political Rule.

Here in Isaiah that would be the king of Babylon, as the Interpretation.

Think of Joseph's dream, where "the sun and the moon and the eleven stars" are pictured as powers ruling over him, now, i.e., his brothers: "Behold, I have dreamed a dream more; and, behold, the sun and the moon and the eleven stars made obeisance to me." Genesis 37:9b.
...

con't

 

Now, while the Interpretation of 'light-bearer', in Isaiah 14:12, is the King of Babylon, in context, the translators have gotten the word personified into a proper noun.

Why? So, the allusion can more easily be made to unearth and identify Satan hidden behind the King of Babylon, as a progression in Revelation, from the earthly to the spiritual, by Application.

"How art thou fallen from heaven,....

"This is not to be understood of the fall of Satan, and the apostate angels, from their first estate, when they were cast down from heaven to hell, though there may be an allusion to it; see Luke 10:18 but the words are a continuation of the speech of the dead to the king of Babylon, wondering at it, as a thing almost incredible, that he who seemed to be so established on the throne of his kingdom, which was his heaven, that he should be deposed or fall from it." (Gill)

So, as we are now going with the allusion portion of Satan hidden behind the King of Babylon, as a progression in Revelation, from the earthly to the spiritual, by Application:

It goes like this, as we are now
Going Deeper into the realm of the spirit and first learning from the Example of Ezekiel.

There is evidence that God is speaking through his prophet to someone other than the king, even though it starts out to that person here in Ezekiel, also.

Ezekiel 28 is an excellent example.

It begins by talking about a human being ruling as king of Tyrus (Tyre).

Then the scene shifts and the devil behind the leader starts to take focus:

First God addresses the king, called the "prince of Tyrus":

Ezekiel 28:1-2: "The word of the LORD came again unto me, saying, Son of man, say unto the prince of Tyrus, Thus saith the Lord GOD;

"Because thine heart is lifted up, and thou hast said, I am a God, I sit in the seat of God, in the midst of the seas;

"yet thou art a man, and not God, though thou set thine heart as the heart of God"

Then to the devil behind the prince, called the "king of Tyrus" (note the more specific references that have nothing to do with the location or time of Tyre):

Ezekiel 28:11-17: "Moreover the word of the LORD came unto me, saying, Son of man, take up a lamentation upon the king of Tyrus, and say unto him, Thus saith the Lord GOD;

"Thou sealest up the sum, full of wisdom, and perfect in beauty. Thou hast been in Eden the garden of God;

"every precious stone was thy covering, the sardius, topaz, and the diamond, the beryl, the onyx, and the jasper, the sapphire, the emerald, and the carbuncle, and gold: the workmanship of thy tabrets and of thy pipes was prepared in thee in the day that thou wast created. Thou art the anointed cherub that covereth;

"and I have set thee so: thou wast upon the holy mountain of God; thou hast walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire.

"Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee.

"By the multitude of thy merchandise they have filled the midst of thee with violence, and thou hast sinned: therefore I will cast thee as profane out of the mountain of God: and I will destroy thee, O covering cherub, from the midst of the stones of fire.

"Thine heart was lifted up because of thy beauty, thou hast corrupted thy wisdom by reason of thy brightness: I will cast thee to the ground, I will lay thee before kings, that they may behold thee."

There was no one in Tyre that was in Eden or the mountain of God.

No one there was a cherub (a type of angel).

No one there was "created."

This is Satan, Lucifer, the serpent, the dragon, the devil. (And I'm sure he recognizes those names for him by now!)

"Satan/Lucifer/the serpent/the dragon was a cherub, an angel.

He was created, since angels were created, not born.

Humans were born after Adam and Eve, not created.

He was in the garden of God, Eden.

He was the "covering cherub."

He was "bright" as an angel of light (see also 2 Corinthians 11:14)

Now let's look back at Isaiah 14.

Isaiah also begins talking to the physical king of Babylon, then afterward to the spirit behind him.

It starts out to the king:

Isaiah 14:4-8: "…thou shalt take up this proverb against the king of Babylon, and say, How hath the oppressor ceased! the golden city ceased!

"The LORD hath broken the staff of the wicked, and the sceptre of the rulers.

"He who smote the people in wrath with a continual stroke, he that ruled the nations in anger, is persecuted, and none hindereth.

"The whole earth is at rest, and is quiet: they break forth into singing.

"Yea, the fir trees rejoice at thee, and the cedars of Lebanon, saying, Since thou art laid down, no feller is come up against us"

Then it changes in tone:

Isaiah 14:12-15: "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!

"For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north: I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High.

"Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit."

The scriptures tell us just who this is alluding to, by Application, with this language used .

Jesus said:

Luke 10:18-20: "And he said unto them, I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven.

"Behold, I give unto you power to tread on serpents and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy: and nothing shall by any means hurt you.

"Notwithstanding in this rejoice not, that the spirits are subject unto you; but rather rejoice, because your names are written in heaven."

Revelation also leaves no doubt as to who also fell from the real heaven, besides the King of Babylon, who fell from a political heaven of rule.

Revelation 12:7-12: "And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels, And prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in heaven.

"And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.

"And I heard a loud voice saying in heaven, Now is come salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of his Christ: for the accuser of our brethren is cast down, which accused them before our God day and night.

"And they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of their testimony; and they loved not their lives unto the death.

"Therefore rejoice, ye heavens, and ye that dwell in them.

"Woe to the inhabiters of the earth and of the sea! for the devil is come down unto you, having great wrath, because he knoweth that he hath but a short time."

So we know that the only ones in the Bible that fell from the actual heaven are the Devil and his angels.

These are the ones for whom "everlasting fire," the lake of fire, was made:

Matthew 25:41: "Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:"

Revelation 20:10: "And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever."

The King James Bible is right, however we view it.

 

Even if we pretend the scripture is only talking to the earthly king, it still is clearly alluding to and talking about Satan, the Devil, as the supernaturally evil influence behind the scenes, known world over as Lucifer.

Throughout the world, if you ask people who "Heyleel" (hey-LEYL) is, or the 'light-bearer' most will not know what to answer.

But if you ask them, "Who is Lucifer?" you will very likely get the correct answer.

People know who Lucifer is.

The KJV translators may have also very well known this.

AND THEY MADE SURE THEY ANNOUNCED IT TO THE WORLD IN FRONT OF GOD AND EVERYBODY.

They took that liberty.

God bless them and their's.

Ask the Luciferians, who worship Lucifer as a being of light.

Ask the Satanists, who call their master Lucifer.

No one is in doubt as to who Lucifer is.

Especially, H. P. Blavatsky, now that she has passed on, into the Afterlife.

An "example is H. P. Blavatsky (1831-1891); she was an early leader of the occult Theosophy movement.

"She founded the Theosophical Society in 1875.

"Blavatsky was a Satanist, who claimed to be a medium.

So we might as well go there, while we're exposing Satan!, hadn't we?

But, "What do these Satanically-inspired writers think about the King James Bible and the new versions???, you may ask!

"Blavatsky's words on the subject are frighteningly close to those of many modern, conservative scholars.

"She called Westcott, "a learned scholar" (i.e. Isis Unveiled), and quotes him often.

"Statements from Blavatsky could be multiplied, such as, "...the Revised Version does not repeat the mistakes of the Authorized Version..."

"For example, she writes:

"In the King James's version, as it stands translated, it has no resemblance to the original." (Blavatsky, Isis Unveiled).

"Add to this the fact that out of the forty-seven translators of King James' Bible 'only three understood Hebrew' ...and one may easily understand what reliance can be placed on the English version of the bible...

"Now the Revised Version of the gospels has been published and most glaring mistranslations of the old versions are corrected, one will understand better the words in St. John [chapter 5:6-7]..." (Blavatsky, The Secret Doctrine, 1888)

"H. P. Blavatsky also attended the "Ghostly Guild" meetings with Westcott and Hort, along with Charles Darwin.

"In her books Isis Unveiled Vol. 1 and 2, and The Secret Doctrine Vol. 1 and 2, Blavatsky says, "we have the Bible in true in Codex Sinaiticus (א) and Codex Vaticanus (B)" and goes on to say " Westcott and Hort were true scholars that corrected the errors in previous versions."

"Blavatsky also said that Westcott was the father of "channeling."

"Now listen to this quote by her:

"Now that the 'Revised Version' of the gospels has been published by Westcott and Hort, and the most glaring mistranslations in the old version, the King James, are corrected, one will better understand the words.

"The text of the English Protestant Bible is in disagreement as usual with the Alexandrian text.

"That which for nearly 1,500 years was opposed on Christianism of a book of which every word was written under direct supervision of the Holy Ghost;

"...of which not one syllable or comma could be changed without Sacrilege, but now is being retranslated, revised and corrected and clipped of whole verses, and in some cases almost entire chapters.

"And as soon as the new edition is out, its doctors Westcott and Hort will have us accept it as new revelation of the 19th century.

"And the King James translators have made such a jumble of it, that no one but an occultist can restore the Bible to its orginal form." (H. P. Blavatsky, on the Bible, Isis Unveiled.)

"Wherever we find spiritualism, occultism and satanism, we find the infallibility of the King James Bible decried, and the RV and all other Modern Versions, based on Westcott and Hort manuscripts exalted:"

From: Westcott and Hort: Authors of the 'new' (corrupted) Bibles | Pauline Biblicist ~PBSF~ Society Fellowship

Unless!, we were supposed to keep any outside secondary sources sequestered and hidden from everyone, like the Cults.

I just thought about that.

Oh, well.

May God bless you as you read and trust the translation of His preserved words in English, the King James Bible.

 

When and if I refer to an interesting point here and my activity on the BB, from the pulpit, I call it, "arguing religion".

That is a sarcastic reference to what the rest of the entire civilized world would consider the most collosal waste of time ever.

But, as far as, 'arguing religion' goes, I really don't mind seeing if God will sit someone still long enough to place their soul under His Eternal Word, so that the Holy Spirit may use it.

Then, when it comes to "the point of every jot and tittle", I've got some people challenging me to a dual over things like, "how did the "sea of reeds" magically become "Red sea"? Even if it was the Red sea, doesn't every 'jot and tittle' matter?

I have to wonder, why don't they 'try and look intelligent'?

They're making me reference things from The Washington Post?

"The "Red Sea" or "sea of reeds" of Exodus was actually the Lake of Tanis.

"The lake “was a shallow brackish lagoon, and that was the ideal place for these papyrus reeds to grow..."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ion-for-the-parting-of-the-red-sea-in-exodus/

"In the Exodus narrative, Yam Suph or Reed Sea, sometimes translated as Sea of Reeds ...The same phrase appears in over 20 other places in the Hebrew Bible." Wikipedia

The problem is 'The Sea of Reeds' is not in the KJV, if it was to "magically" change in there to something else.

Maybe, the NJPS.

But, it can't "become the Red Sea", anyway.

"Red Sea" or "sea of reeds" and "the Lake of Tanis" are all synonyms.

I wouldn't worry your pretty little head about it.

You already labeled and pigeonholed me as a KJVO "cultist", as a Moderator on the BB, and you don't even have the first inkling of what I believe about the KJV, KJVO, other versions (except that the Modern ones were intentionally sabotaged), inspiration, or translation, etc., so not one jot or tittle of what I say seems to make an iota of difference to you.

IMHO, I think you're making a poor choice.

 

Good!

It is a consecutive imperfect if that helps...

3947 [e] וָאֶקַּ֥ח
wā-’eq-qaḥ so I might have taken Conj-w | V-Qal-ConsecImperf-1cs

Gesenius' Hebrew Grammar/111. The Imperfect with Wāw Consecutive - Wikisource, the free online library).

has it as "had taken", from this example from another word, in
Genesis 31:34; וַתְּשִׂמֵם H4959


"An imperfect consecutive occurs in dependence on a perfect which has the sense of a pluperfect (§ 106 f), e.g. in Gn 26:18, 28:6f., 31:19, 34 (now Rachel had taken the teraphim, וַתְּשִׂמֵם and had put them, &c.)"

The "had taken" is in the KJB, so their above "had put" they are showing must be implied (continuation).

No doubt the context is the principal determinant.

 

No ties or Hebrew required ever.

Not at all.

Discuss away.

C&P if you like!

(10,000 words or less, per post)

 

In John 1:1, the Greek says, "the Word was a god", if that's what you want.

That is grammatically possible.

However, it is a contextually impossible rendering, as we see from John 1:14;

"And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth."

The 'Jahovah Witnesses', in their New World Translation, based on the Westcott and Hort Greek* texts, make it,

"In the beginning was the Word,+ and the Word was with God,+ and the Word was a god."

*Modern Bible Versions Use Same Alexandrian Text As Jehovah's Witnesses

That eliminates the Deity of Christ for them and the context doesn't matter.

They just changed it.

John 1:14 "So the Word became flesh+ and resided among us, and we had a view of his glory, a glory such as belongs to an only-begotten son from a father; and he was full of divine favor and truth." WH NWT

They don't care.

...

The Hebrew does say, "and I took her to me to wife", unless consideration is given to;

(1) Antiquity or Primitiveness;
(2) Consent of witnesses, or number;
(3) Variety of Evidence, or Catholicity;
(4) Respectability of Witnesses, or Weight;
(5) Continuity, or Unbroken Tradition;
(6) Evidence of the Entire Passage, or Context;
(7) Internal Considerations, or Reasonableness.
(CASE FOR KJV by DAW BFT #83, pp. 16-17).

Along with context, we have: (5) Continuity, or Unbroken Tradition.

Tradition lends us to use a reliable underlying text, as did the following Versions of the Bible, as well as, taking their translation of the passage under consideration.

So, in using the same text, we saw these couple of examples before, in the O.P.;

(1587 Geneva Bible) {18} Then Pharaoh called Abram, and saide, Why hast thou done this vnto me? Wherefore diddest thou not tell me, that she was thy wife? {19} Why saidest thou, She is my sister, that I should take her to be my wife? Nowe therefore beholde thy wife, take her and goe thy way.

(1568 Bishops Bible) {18} And Pharao callyng Abram, sayde: why hast thou done this vnto me? {19} Why diddest thou not tel me, that she was thy wyfe? why saydest thou, she is my sister? and so I might haue taken her to be my wyfe? Nowe therfore beholde, there is thy wyfe, take her, and go thy way."

...

So, having said this about that, I don't mean to be wordy,

...but while the Hebrew word used begins with the meaning of "to take", in these examples where it is translated, we see it is given a number of different expressions:

Strong's Hebrew: 3947. לָקַח (laqach) -- 965 Occurrences

As we see below, the EXPRESSION of "I took" needs to modified and enhanced so that APPROPRIATELY, "and I took her to me to wife", WOULD READ, "I took her with the intention of making her my wife."

That is what "I took her to me to wife" is supposed to EXPRESS.

The KJV translators, were following those before them and found it contextually fitting to EXPRESS THE SAME THING AS: "I took her with the intention of making her my wife",

...by simply saying, "so I might have taken her to me to wife".

They were allowed to do that.

You can have "with the intention of making",

...instead of, "I might have taken", if you want.

Ether way.

Then, when God sent the plagues, Sarah was preserved from dishonour.

"Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers

"(19) So I might have taken her to me to wife.--

"The Hebrew is, and I took her to me to wife:

"that is, I took her with the intention of making her my wife."
...

However, just like with, "the Word was God" being translated, "the Word was a god", NWT, in John 1:1, I do not see these translations below exactly doing justice to Sarah, anymore than the 'JWs' did to Jesus.

Just as the word, 'consumation' is used in marriage, as we know it, 'consumation' is used in the study of language to describe something that has already happened.

The tense of the Hebrew does not indicate 'something that has already taken place', in the way it is alluded to by, "I took her for myself as a wife", etc.

The word is not bound to that structure, in other words, which certainly allows the latitude of "might have taken".

I just don't see where Sarah was preserved from dishonour, in the translations below this list, with the example verses and the wording in red, nor the imprimatur of God, as I can in;

(1) Peshitta Bible (150 A.D.);
(2) Itala Bible (157 A.D.;
(3) Erasmus Bible (1522 A.D.);
(4) Tyndale's Bible (1525);
(5) Luther's Bible (1534);
(6) Coverdale Bible (1535);
(7) Matthew's Bible (1537);
(8) The Great Bible (1539);
(9) Stephen's Bible (1550);
(10) The Geneva Bible (1560);
(11) The Bishop's Bible (1568);
(12) Beza's Bible (1604);
and (13) The King James Bible...

[Cf. CASE FOR KJV, BFT #83, by DAW, p. 38].

New American Standard Bible
Why did you say, ‘She is my sister,’ so that I took her for myself as a wife? Now then, here is your wife, take her and go!”

American Standard Version
why saidst thou, She is my sister, so that I took her to be my wife? Now therefore behold thy wife, take her, and go thy way."

Brenton Septuagint Translation
"Wherefore didst thou say, She is my sister? and I took her for a wife to myself; and now, behold, thy wife is before thee, take her and go quickly away."

Contemporary English Version
"Why did you make me believe she was your sister? Now I've married her. Take her and go! She's your wife."

GOD'S WORD® Translation
"Why did you say, 'She's my sister' and allow me to take her for my wife? Here's your wife! Take her and go!"

 

No, Abraham wasn't completely lying when he said Sarah was his sister.

He was, however, the one through which the Promised Messiah was to come.

It would not be fitting for Pharaoh to seem to have possibly had any part in that.

It's complicated.