What do the 1611 KJV Translators say? I know what you say. But what do they say in their marginal note ? "Or day star"?
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Question on how KJVO Regard the 1611 Kjv?
- Thread starter JesusFan
- Start date
KJB1611reader
Active Member
Well, what did William Thorn say about that in his book?
I don't have a clue. The 1611 KJV Translators disagree with you.
Evidence from the KJV
In response to the objection from supporters of KJV-onlyism, there are several points that can be made directly KJV.Here's how the verse looks in the 1611 edition of the KJV:
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. Similarly, the marginal note in the 1672 edition of the KJV says "for the morning star that goeth before the sun is called Lucifer".
Also of interest (not to this particular discussion, but the KJV-only issue in general) is the fact that this verse is written as two questions (question marks are used) in the original 1611 KJV, but was later changed to two exclamations (exclamation marks are used) in today's commonly used editions of the KJV
At the end of Isaiah 14, the 1549 edition of Matthew’s Bible has some notes that include these words: “Lucifer, the morning star, which he calleth the child of the morning, because it appeared only in the morning.” The marginal note in the 1560 and 1599 editions of the Geneva Bible for this word included the following: "for the morning star that goeth before the sun is called Lucifer." These two notes from two pre-1611 English Bibles that are on the KJV-only view’s line of good Bibles provide clear credible evidence concerning the meaning of the word "Lucifer" in English in the 1500's. The 1657 English translation of the 1637 Dutch States-General Version and Dutch Annotations also indicated this meaning with its rendering "O morning-star" at Isaiah 14:12.
What did the KJV translators themselves mean by the choice of the word "Lucifer" in Isaiah 14:12? The 1611 KJV gives in its margin the literal meaning or acceptable alternative translation for "Lucifer" as "daystar." The KJV translators were aware of the marginal note in the Geneva Bible, and they would have recognized that their marginal note at this verse would have associated this meaning “daystar” or “morning star” with this rendering “Lucifer.“ D. A. Waite seemed to suggest that alternative translations in the marginal notes of the 1611 N. T. were “merely synonyms of words that could have been used rather than the ones chosen to put into the text itself” so would he say the same about the marginal notes of the 1611 O. T.?” (Fundamentalist Distortions, p. 18).
In a sermon, KJV translator Lancelot Andrewes referred to "St Peter's Lucifer in cordibus [daystar in your hearts]" (Hewison, Selected Writings, p. 112). An edition of the Latin Vulgate printed with the 1538 Coverdale’s English translation of its New Testament has “lucifer oriator in cordib” in its Latin text at 2 Peter 1:19 with its rendering in English as “the day star arise in your hearts”. Lancelot Andrewes evidently cited or used the Latin Vulgate’s word Lucifer in his sermon with the meaning “daystar.” Daystar is Old English for morning star. A 1672 edition of the KJV has the following note at Isaiah 14:12: “for the morning-star that goeth before the sun is called Lucifer.” Thus, several credible sources from the 1500’s and 1600’s clearly establish how this word “Lucifer” was commonly used and understood in English in that time period.
The 1828 Webster's Dictionary defined daystar as following: "The morning star, Lucifer, Venus; the star which precedes the morning light."
Lucifer was the Latin name for the planet Venus when it appears as the morning star. The Liberty Annotated Study Bible confirmed that "the name Lucifer is actually the Latin designation for the morning star" (p. 1038). The 1968 Cassell's New Latin Dictionary indicated that the Latin word "lucifer" comes from two root words meaning "light-bearing, light-bringing" and that it would be translated into English as "Lucifer, the morning star, the planet Venus." According to the English-Latin section of this dictionary, the translation of "morning-star" in English is given as "lucifer" in Latin. The Oxford Latin Dictionary gave two definitions for lucifer: “light-bringing, light-bearing” and “the morning star” (p. 1045). The Oxford Dictionary of Word Histories affirmed that Lucifer is “a Latin word originally, meaning ’light-bringing, morning star” (p. 309). At its entry for day-star, John White listed “lucifer” as its meaning in Latin (Latin-English Dictionary, p. 100). For Lucifer, this definition is given: “the morning-star, the planet Venus” (p. 355).
What did the KJV translators themselves mean by the choice of the word "Lucifer" in Isaiah 14:12? The 1611 KJV gives in its margin the literal meaning or acceptable alternative translation for "Lucifer" as "daystar." The KJV translators were aware of the marginal note in the Geneva Bible, and they would have recognized that their marginal note at this verse would have associated this meaning “daystar” or “morning star” with this rendering “Lucifer.“ D. A. Waite seemed to suggest that alternative translations in the marginal notes of the 1611 N. T. were “merely synonyms of words that could have been used rather than the ones chosen to put into the text itself” so would he say the same about the marginal notes of the 1611 O. T.?” (Fundamentalist Distortions, p. 18).
In a sermon, KJV translator Lancelot Andrewes referred to "St Peter's Lucifer in cordibus [daystar in your hearts]" (Hewison, Selected Writings, p. 112). An edition of the Latin Vulgate printed with the 1538 Coverdale’s English translation of its New Testament has “lucifer oriator in cordib” in its Latin text at 2 Peter 1:19 with its rendering in English as “the day star arise in your hearts”. Lancelot Andrewes evidently cited or used the Latin Vulgate’s word Lucifer in his sermon with the meaning “daystar.” Daystar is Old English for morning star. A 1672 edition of the KJV has the following note at Isaiah 14:12: “for the morning-star that goeth before the sun is called Lucifer.” Thus, several credible sources from the 1500’s and 1600’s clearly establish how this word “Lucifer” was commonly used and understood in English in that time period.
The 1828 Webster's Dictionary defined daystar as following: "The morning star, Lucifer, Venus; the star which precedes the morning light."
Lucifer was the Latin name for the planet Venus when it appears as the morning star. The Liberty Annotated Study Bible confirmed that "the name Lucifer is actually the Latin designation for the morning star" (p. 1038). The 1968 Cassell's New Latin Dictionary indicated that the Latin word "lucifer" comes from two root words meaning "light-bearing, light-bringing" and that it would be translated into English as "Lucifer, the morning star, the planet Venus." According to the English-Latin section of this dictionary, the translation of "morning-star" in English is given as "lucifer" in Latin. The Oxford Latin Dictionary gave two definitions for lucifer: “light-bringing, light-bearing” and “the morning star” (p. 1045). The Oxford Dictionary of Word Histories affirmed that Lucifer is “a Latin word originally, meaning ’light-bringing, morning star” (p. 309). At its entry for day-star, John White listed “lucifer” as its meaning in Latin (Latin-English Dictionary, p. 100). For Lucifer, this definition is given: “the morning-star, the planet Venus” (p. 355).
KJB1611reader
Active Member
Hello,
William Thorne who was a translator for Isaiah in his book said Lucifer is Satan.
Shawn
Blank
Active Member
Yes it is, but I don't see how that makes the Apocrypha an 'illustration in real time'.
Blank
Active Member
What would you say about TR-only(Textus Receptus)?
KJB1611reader
Active Member
I already discussed this that Acryophra is not holy scripture.
In the 1611 edition of the KJV on the same page with the table that gives the order how the Psalms are to be read, there is also this heading: “The order how the rest of holy Scripture (beside the Psalter) is appointed to be read.“ On the next pages of the 1611 that lists the lessons from the “rest of holy Scripture” are included some readings from the Apocrypha. Thus, these pages of the liturgical calendar in the 1611 edition of the KJV assigned portions of the Apocrypha to be read in the churches.
If the 1611 edition of the KJV that included the Apocrypha was a perfect translation, does that mean that a perfect translation should still be published with the Apocrypha? If additional revelation was given in 1611 according to claims about numeric patterns in it, then the Apocrypha books included in the 1611 KJV may be inspired since the 1611 KJV had no clear disclaimer concerning the canonicity or inspiration of the Apocrypha.
If the 1611 edition of the KJV that included the Apocrypha was a perfect translation, does that mean that a perfect translation should still be published with the Apocrypha? If additional revelation was given in 1611 according to claims about numeric patterns in it, then the Apocrypha books included in the 1611 KJV may be inspired since the 1611 KJV had no clear disclaimer concerning the canonicity or inspiration of the Apocrypha.
KJB1611reader
Active Member
Thine comment is contradicting Anglican doctrine.
Not really. That table in the 1611 edition of the KJV was taken from the Church of England's Book of Common Prayer.
Archbishop Richard Bancroft, who was overseer of the making of the KJV, had preached that “the doctrine of the Church of England, is pure, and holy: the government therefore, both in respect of her Majesty, of our Bishops is lawful, and godly: the Book of Common Prayer containeth nothing contrary to the Word of God” (Seymour, English Sermon, I, p. 124).
Ernest Thompson noted that the Church of England was founded upon their Book of Common Prayer (History of the Christian Church, p. 205). Ian Green observed that "the heart of that Anglicanism was the Book of Common Prayer" (Gilley, History of Religion, p. 181). Bruce listed the first and full title of this prayer book as The Book of Common Prayer and Administracion of the Sacraments, and Other Rites and Ceremonies of the Church after the Use of the Church of England (History of Bible, p. 81). Davies contended that Anglicanism is best understood in the Book of Common Prayer and in the celebration of Holy Communion (Worship and Theology in England, pp. 165-166). The Book of Common Prayer was the official service book of the Church of England. Davies also noted that the Book of Common Prayer became "the chief channel of the doctrine and devotion" of the Church of England for four centuries (Ibid., p. xv). Davies pointed out that the Book of Common Prayer borrowed from Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, and Protestantism (Ibid., p. 165). John Booty noted that the 1559 Prayer Book was “an official book, an instrument of state” and that “the use of and worship according to the Book of Common Prayer was enforced by statute” (Book, p. 372). He wrote: “Since 1559 it has been the book of the Church of England, providing services of worship, a basis for religious education, standards of doctrine, copious amounts of Holy Scripture, and a use of English which contributed to the formation of the modern language” (p. 327).
The 1559 Act of Uniformity stated that "the Book of Common Prayer was to be used by all clergy on pain of prosecution." William Hunt noted that King James I had approved canons in 1604 that "required subscription to the entire Book of Common Prayer and the endorsement of all Thirty-nine Articles" (Puritan Moment, p. 108). Maurice Lee wrote: "The canons of 1604 demanded that every benefice-holder subscribe to a statement that the Prayer Book and the Thirty-nine Articles were entirely agreeable to the word of God" (Great Britain's Solomon, p. 172).
KJB1611reader
Active Member
I see, but the 39 articles rejects Acryophra as scripture. Just useful books.
They published it in between the Old and New Testaments.
Blank
Active Member
Perhaps true, but what has that to do with 'a creative illustration in real time'. (see post #77)
for anyone who doesn't know yet, this has been a reference to typos.
Note the spelling of Apocrypha and all of the variant spellings. An illustration of error in real time. It has been amusing to read all the spelling versions I have seen.
(just imagine what the publishers could have done WITH auto-correct.)