The Bible Agnostic Test.

[Will J. Kinney]

Lucifer, AFAIK, is not in any OT manuscript. The ppl who worked on the KJV took it from Jerome’s Latin Vulgate. But nice try anyways.

Helpful Hint for all bible agnostics and self appointed authorities who will NEVER show us a copy of any Bible in any language they believe is now or ever was the complete and inerrant words of God. Read the article before you make your comments. Just a suggestion.

Proverbs 18:13 - "He that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is folly and shame unto him."



"Lucifer" or "Morning Star" (Day Star) in Isaiah 14:12?
Lucifer is correct and here is why -

Another King James Bible Believer

The King James Bible.

brandplucked.com

Another King James Bible Believer


"He that hath ears to hear, let him hear."

God bless.

 

[Will J. Kinney]

Helpful Hint for all bible agnostics and self appointed authorities who will NEVER show us a copy of any Bible in any language they believe is now or ever was the complete and inerrant words of God. Read the article before you make your comments. Just a suggestion.

Proverbs 18:13 - "He that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is folly and shame unto him."



"Lucifer" or "Morning Star" (Day Star) in Isaiah 14:12?
Lucifer is correct and here is why -

Another King James Bible Believer

The King James Bible.

brandplucked.com

Another King James Bible Believer


"He that hath ears to hear, let him hear."

God bless.

Here is just part of the article.

All English Bibles before the KJB of 1611 also have the word LUCIFER in them. This includes Wycliffe 1395, Coverdale's 1535, the Great Bible 1540, Matthew's Bible (John Rogers) 1549, Bishop's Bible 1568, and the Geneva Bible 1599 - "How art thou fallen from heauen, O LUCIFER, sonne of the morning?".
Lucifer is also found in the Latin Vulgate 425 A.D., the Douay-Rheims of 1582 - "How art thou fallen from heaven, O LUCIFER", the Douay 1950 Catholic bible.

BUT the more modern Catholic versions like the Jerusalem Bible and the St. Joseph New American Bible now agree with the NIV, NASB, RSV versions and have "morning star". However the latest 2009 Catholic Public Domain Version has now gone back to reading "Lucifer". You can see this 2009 Bible translation here
- http://www.sacredbible.org/catholic/index.htm

Lucifer is also the reading found in The Bill Bible 1671, The Thomson Bible 1808, Daniel Webster's 1833 translation, The Longman Version 1841, The Brenton Translation 1851, The Boothroyd Bible 1853, Noyes Translation 1869, Darby's 1890 version, The American Translation 1927, The Word of Yah 1993, God's First Truth 1999, The Revised Geneva Bible 2005, the 2012 Natural Israelite Version -"How you are fallen from heaven, O LUCIFER, son of the morning!", the Jubilee Bible 2010, Conservative Bible 2011, the Biblos Interlinear Bible 2011 - "how are you fallen from heaven, O LUCIFER.", the BRG Bible 2012 and the Modern English Bible 2014 - "How are you fallen from heaven, O LUCIFER, son of the morning!"

The New European Version of 2010 has recently come out and it has BOTH readings in it. It put the name Lucifer in [brackets], indicating either as a commentary or an alternative translation.
It says: "How you have fallen from heaven, morning star [Lucifer], son of the dawn! How you are cut down to the ground, who laid the nations low!

The 2008 Ancient Roots Translinear Bible - "How you fell from the heavens, LUCIFER, son of the daylight! You smashed to the ground, feeble over the nations."

Jewish Virtual Library - This online Jewish Tanach = Isaiah 14:12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O LUCIFER, son of the morning!

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/yeshayahu-isaiah-chapter-14


This Hebrew Interlinear Old Testament - "How art thou fallen from heaven, O LUCIFER, son of the morning!"
http://studybible.info/IHOT/Isaiah%2014:12

Hebrew Roots Bible 2012 - Oh LUCIFER, son of the morning, how you have fallen from the heavens2! Footnote - Showing the downfall of Satan.

The Asser Septuagint version 2009 - "How is LUCIFER fallen from heaven, that rose up in the morning! "
http://orthodoxengland.org.uk/zot.htm

FOREIGN LANGUAGE BIBLES = LUCIFER
The Romanian Cornilescu Bible and the 2009 Romanian Fidela Bbile both say Lucifer - "Cum ai ca?zut din cer, LUCIFER, fiu al diminet?ii" as well as the 1569 Spanish Sagradas Escrituras read Lucifer - "¡Cómo caíste del cielo, oh LUCIFER, hijo de la mañana!" Lucifer is also the reading of the 2004 Spanish Reina Valera Gomez bible, that can be seen here
http://www.reinavaleragomez.com/RVGhtml/index.html
It says: ¡Cómo caíste del cielo, oh LUCIFER, hijo de la mañana! Cortado fuiste por tierra, tú que debilitabas las naciones." Czech Kralika (1613) LUCIFERE; the Albanian Bible - "Vallë, si ke rënë nga qielli, o LUCIFER". The New Italian Diodati of 1991, as well as the Conferenza Episcopale Italiana version read: "Come mai sei caduto dal cielo, oLUCIFERO". The Portuguese O Livro of 2000 also reads the same with - "Como caíste do céu, ó LUCIFER - estrela matinal!". The Russian Synodal Version also reads Lucifer - "Как упал ты с неба, денница, сын зари!" = "How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning!", the Lithuanian Bible - "Kaip tu iškritai iš dangaus, LIUCIFERI, ryto aušros sūnau?", The French Sainte Bible of 1759 by Louis Lemaistre de Sacy also reads Lucifer - "Comment es-tu tombé du ciel. LUCIFER,toi qui paroissois si brillant au point du jour?"
Lucifer is also the reading in the 1982 NKJV, the 21st Century KJV 1994, The Brenton Translation 1851, the Calvin Bible 1855, the 2001 Urim-Thummin Version, the Knox Bible 'You' Version 2009, The Septuagint Bible of 1954 by C.A. Muses, the Old Testament According to the Septuagint of 2009 - "How is LUCIFER fallen from heaven, that rose up in the morning!"-
http://orthodoxengland.org.uk/pdf/ot/isaiah.pdf and the Third Millennium Bible 1998.

 

[37818]

Reasons Why The King James Bible Is The Absolute Standard - God's Historic Witness to the Truth

God's Historic Witness to the Absolute Truth of The King James Holy Bible.

Another King James Bible Believer

Are you really trying to.persuade people against the KJV?

 

[SovereignGrace]

Helpful Hint for all bible agnostics and self appointed authorities who will NEVER show us a copy of any Bible in any language they believe is now or ever was the complete and inerrant words of God. Read the article before you make your comments. Just a suggestion.

Proverbs 18:13 - "He that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is folly and shame unto him."



"Lucifer" or "Morning Star" (Day Star) in Isaiah 14:12?
Lucifer is correct and here is why -

Another King James Bible Believer

The King James Bible.

brandplucked.com

Another King James Bible Believer


"He that hath ears to hear, let him hear."

God bless.

Lots of revisions [1611, 1613, 1614, 1616, 1617, 1626. 1630, 1631, 1633, 1634, 1640. 1644, 1650. 1652, 1655, 1657, 1698] for an inerrant Bible, eh?

Inerrant:

free from error
incapable of being wrong
If a religious book is inerrant, it contains no faults or mistakes (from Cambridge dictionary)
not erring; making no mistakes; infallible

None of these can the KJV meet, seeing all the revisions they went through.

 

[SovereignGrace]

Helpful Hint for all bible agnostics and self appointed authorities who will NEVER show us a copy of any Bible in any language they believe is now or ever was the complete and inerrant words of God. Read the article before you make your comments. Just a suggestion.

Proverbs 18:13 - "He that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is folly and shame unto him."



"Lucifer" or "Morning Star" (Day Star) in Isaiah 14:12?
Lucifer is correct and here is why -

Another King James Bible Believer

The King James Bible.

brandplucked.com

Another King James Bible Believer


"He that hath ears to hear, let him hear."

God bless.

Right here is your context, buttercup.

That thou shalt take up this proverb against the king of Babylon, and say, How hath the oppressor ceased! the golden city ceased![Isaiah 14:4]

Further proof “Lucifer” isnt a pre-fallen Satan:

Thy pomp is brought down to the grave, and the noise of thy viols: the worm is spread under thee, and the worms cover thee.[vs 11]

Satan was never buried, so a grave is useless for him. He never had a physical body, so worms won’t be able to feast on his body. This is taunting the Babylonian king, that in all his pomp, his lifestyle, he will be buried and his body used as worm food. In all his grandeur, in death, he is no better than the poorest person who died. Death puts all bodies on equal ground, one is just as dead as the rest.

Prepare slaughter for his children for the iniquity of their fathers; that they do not rise, nor possess the land, nor fill the face of the world with cities.[vs 21]

Satan never had any children. This is about killing this Babylonian king’s son, so that none would assume the throne after his death.

 

[SovereignGrace]

Are you really trying to.persuade people against the KJV?

It’s the same old tired rhetoric. He’s saying the same things I’ve read posted by others on here and other forums. It’s a cult he’s in, and he’s too blind to see it.

 

[37818]

It’s the same old tired rhetoric. He’s saying the same things I’ve read posted by others on here and other forums. It’s a cult he’s in, and he’s too blind to see it.

I would like what is being claimed to be true. I need to know a specific evidence. I honestly am unable to be KJV onlyist. I have been a pro KJVist since 1968.

Psalm 12:6, The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.

Proverbs 30:5-6, Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.

 

[Ascetic X]

I would like what is being claimed to be true. I need to know a specific evidence. I honestly am unable to be KJV onlyist. I have been a pro KJVist since 1968.

I think most of us in this Baptist Board forum already love the wonderful King James Version of the Bible, even though it contains 300 - 700 archaic words, many of which are hard to understand. We also like other, more modern versions that use contemporary words. The books of the Bible were written in the language of the common folk, so KJV can seem less in touch with everyday people.

But to quarrel endlessly and pompously about it is not what believers are called to do.

 

[SovereignGrace]

Are you really trying to.persuade people against the KJV?

He’s doing of good job of it.

 

[Will J. Kinney]

Prepare slaughter for his children for the iniquity of their fathers; that they do not rise, nor possess the land, nor fill the face of the world with cities.[vs 21]

Satan never had any children. This is about killing this Babylonian king’s son, so that none would assume the throne after his death.

Hi SG. Once again, you did not actually read the article before you posted your comments, right?

It is prophetic about what will happen to Lucifer, who became Satan. "Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell"

And as for your Biblical illiterate statement that Satan never had any children, you might want to take a closer look at the real Bible and learn the truth of it. Satan does have many children.

Matthew 13.

"He answered and said unto them, He that soweth the good seed is the Son of man; The field is the world; THE GOOD SEED ARE THE CHILDREN OF THE KINGDOM; but THE TARES ARE THE CHILDREN OF THE WICKED ONE; The enemy that sowed them is the devil; the harvest is the end of the world; and the reapers are the angels."

The same truth is seen in John 8:43-45 where Jesus says to the Pharisees and other Jews - "Why do ye not understand my speech? even BECAUSE YE CANNOT HEAR MY WORD. YE ARE OF YOUR FATHER THE DEVIL, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own, for he is a liar, and the father of it. And because I tell you the truth, ye believe me not."


1 John 3:10 also mentions the two families and their characteristics. "In this THE CHILDREN OF GOD are manifest, AND THE CHILDREN OF THE DEVIL: whosoever doeth not righteousness IS NOT OF GOD, neither he that loveth not his brother."

In the book of Acts 13:10 the apostle Paul refers to a certain sorcerer and false prophet named Elymas, who sought to turn away people from the faith, in this manner: "O full of all subtilty and all mischief, THOU CHILD OF THE DEVIL, thou enemy of all righteousness, wilt thou not cease to pervert the right ways of the Lord?"

There are some really good Bible commentators that also believe that Isaiah 14 refers to the fall of Satan. But commentators like bible versions are often all over the board and disagree with each other.

"Lucifer" or "Morning Star" (Day Star) in Isaiah 14:12?

the KJB is right (and many others too), and here is why -

Another King James Bible Believer


"He that hath ears to hear, let him hear."

"But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant."

 

[Will J. Kinney]

I think most of us in this Baptist Board forum already love the wonderful King James Version of the Bible, even though it contains 300 - 700 archaic words, many of which are hard to understand. We also like other, more modern versions that use contemporary words. The books of the Bible were written in the language of the common folk, so KJV can seem less in touch with everyday people.

But to quarrel endlessly and pompously about it is not what believers are called to do.

Hi Ascetic. You don't really believe that any Bible in any language you can show us is now or ever was the complete and 100% true words of God.

This is not slander. It is just the truth of the matter, and you know that it is.

There are no where near 300 let alone 700 archaic words in the KJB.

For those who have ears to hear, may I recommend this article I put together about the so called "archaic" words.

The "Old fashioned language" of the King James Bible.

"Archaic and Inerrant" beats "Modernized and Wrong" Any Day of the Week.
Another King James Bible Believer

Another King James Bible Believer

 

[Logos1560]

There are no where near 300 let alone 700 archaic words in the KJB.

A booklet by KJV-only author David Daniels has “over 500 archaic words defined” (KJB Companion). Concerning the KJV, David Daniels asserted: “I would only consider about 600 words archaic” (New King James, p. 123). In one of his books, KJV-only author D. A. Waite (1927-2024) acknowledged that there are 618 words in the KJV whose meaning has changed since 1611 (Defending the KJB, p. 1). KJV-only author David Cloud referred to this “list of 618 antiquated words” (Glorious History, p. 215). KJV-only author Douglas Stauffer included an “abridged KJB Dictionary” in one of his books, listing 766 words (One Book One Authority, pp. 265-324). Steve Combs wrote: “The final dictionary I recommend is 4,114 Definitions from the Defined King James Bible by D. A. Waite, Jr.” (Magnified Above His Name, p. 444).

Some archaic words may be found as many as one hundred times or more in the KJV. For example, verily has been identified as being an archaic word, and it is used 140 times in the KJV. David Crystal identified begat as the “archaic past-tense of beget” (Begat, p. 43), and it is used 225 times in the KJV. The verb shalt is considered an archaic verb form, and it is found 1,616 times in the KJV. Consider the number of times the KJV uses what are considered archaic pronouns such as thou, thee, thy, thine, thyself, and ye. Thou is used over 5,400 times, thy over 4,500 times, thee over 3,800 times, ye over 3,700 times, thine over 900 times, and thyself over 200 times. One archaic preposition unto may be used over 9,000 times in the KJV.

 

[Logos1560]

"Lucifer" or "Morning Star" (Day Star) in Isaiah 14:12?

The 1534 Luther’s German Bible, which is on the KJV-only view's pure stream good Bibles, has “morgen stern” [morning star] at Isaiah 14:12. In his lectures on Isaiah concerning this verse, Martin Luther indicated that the Hebrew word “denotes the morning star, called Lucifer and the son of Dawn” (Luther’s Works, Vol. 16, p. 140). According to this translation of his own comments, Luther’s rendering was likely the result of the influence of the Latin Vulgate or at the very least his rendering “morning star“ was intended to mean the same as “Lucifer.” Of the earlier English Bibles of which the KJV was a revision, the 1535 Coverdale’s Bible first used “Lucifer” at Isaiah 14:12. Coverdale is said to have translated primarily from the German with guidance from the Latin, and he is not known to have had a manuscript copy of the old Wycliffe‘s Bible. Is it possible that Coverdale’s rendering “Lucifer” was his translation for Luther’s German Bible’s “morgen stern?” Does this evidence suggest that the rendering “Lucifer” was first introduced into the English Bible from the direct or indirect influence of the Latin Vulgate?

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.

 

[SovereignGrace]

Hi SG. Once again, you did not actually read the article before you posted your comments, right?

It is prophetic about what will happen to Lucifer, who became Satan. "Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell"

And as for your Biblical illiterate statement that Satan never had any children, you might want to take a closer look at the real Bible and learn the truth of it. Satan does have many children.

Matthew 13.

"He answered and said unto them, He that soweth the good seed is the Son of man; The field is the world; THE GOOD SEED ARE THE CHILDREN OF THE KINGDOM; but THE TARES ARE THE CHILDREN OF THE WICKED ONE; The enemy that sowed them is the devil; the harvest is the end of the world; and the reapers are the angels."

The same truth is seen in John 8:43-45 where Jesus says to the Pharisees and other Jews - "Why do ye not understand my speech? even BECAUSE YE CANNOT HEAR MY WORD. YE ARE OF YOUR FATHER THE DEVIL, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own, for he is a liar, and the father of it. And because I tell you the truth, ye believe me not."


1 John 3:10 also mentions the two families and their characteristics. "In this THE CHILDREN OF GOD are manifest, AND THE CHILDREN OF THE DEVIL: whosoever doeth not righteousness IS NOT OF GOD, neither he that loveth not his brother."

In the book of Acts 13:10 the apostle Paul refers to a certain sorcerer and false prophet named Elymas, who sought to turn away people from the faith, in this manner: "O full of all subtilty and all mischief, THOU CHILD OF THE DEVIL, thou enemy of all righteousness, wilt thou not cease to pervert the right ways of the Lord?"

There are some really good Bible commentators that also believe that Isaiah 14 refers to the fall of Satan. But commentators like bible versions are often all over the board and disagree with each other.

"Lucifer" or "Morning Star" (Day Star) in Isaiah 14:12?

the KJB is right (and many others too), and here is why -

Another King James Bible Believer


"He that hath ears to hear, let him hear."

"But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant."

I wonder what color the oxygen is on the planet you live on is? Delusion is some sort of drug. I’m done with this, speaking with cult members gets nowhere and fast. Farewell.

I also noticed you avoided my posts showing with all the revision year like the plague. But good bye.

 

[SovereignGrace]

Hi SG. Once again, you did not actually read the article before you posted your comments, right?

It is prophetic about what will happen to Lucifer, who became Satan. "Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell"

And as for your Biblical illiterate statement that Satan never had any children, you might want to take a closer look at the real Bible and learn the truth of it. Satan does have many children.

Matthew 13.

"He answered and said unto them, He that soweth the good seed is the Son of man; The field is the world; THE GOOD SEED ARE THE CHILDREN OF THE KINGDOM; but THE TARES ARE THE CHILDREN OF THE WICKED ONE; The enemy that sowed them is the devil; the harvest is the end of the world; and the reapers are the angels."

The same truth is seen in John 8:43-45 where Jesus says to the Pharisees and other Jews - "Why do ye not understand my speech? even BECAUSE YE CANNOT HEAR MY WORD. YE ARE OF YOUR FATHER THE DEVIL, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own, for he is a liar, and the father of it. And because I tell you the truth, ye believe me not."


1 John 3:10 also mentions the two families and their characteristics. "In this THE CHILDREN OF GOD are manifest, AND THE CHILDREN OF THE DEVIL: whosoever doeth not righteousness IS NOT OF GOD, neither he that loveth not his brother."

In the book of Acts 13:10 the apostle Paul refers to a certain sorcerer and false prophet named Elymas, who sought to turn away people from the faith, in this manner: "O full of all subtilty and all mischief, THOU CHILD OF THE DEVIL, thou enemy of all righteousness, wilt thou not cease to pervert the right ways of the Lord?"

There are some really good Bible commentators that also believe that Isaiah 14 refers to the fall of Satan. But commentators like bible versions are often all over the board and disagree with each other.

"Lucifer" or "Morning Star" (Day Star) in Isaiah 14:12?

the KJB is right (and many others too), and here is why -

Another King James Bible Believer


"He that hath ears to hear, let him hear."

"But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant."

What I meant was that Satan never had a literal body that was buried in verse 11 and no children who needed to be killed to keep them from assuming his throne in verse 21. There is no one who will assume Satan’s position. When he’s cast into the lake of fire, it’s over for him and his ppl. And I don’t need to read a useless article by a KJVO cultist. And you need a mirror every time you type this, "But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant." That is you my friend, not I. There’s an old saying that you need to read, “Even a kitten opens its eyes after nine days.” According to your bio, you’re 79. Time to open your 79 year old eyes my friend.

 

[Will J. Kinney]

I wonder what color the oxygen is on the planet you live on is? Delusion is some sort of drug. I’m done with this, speaking with cult members gets nowhere and fast. Farewell.

I also noticed you avoided my posts showing with all the revision year like the plague. But good bye.

Hi SG. Two things for now. First, your list of different years are not different revisions of the KJB as though they were changing the underlying Hebrew and Greek texts they are translating from as do the versions you like so much like the ESVs, NASBs, NIVs, etc. They were just catching and correcting minor printing errors. There is only one copyright date on the KJB and it is 1611.

I give many examples of what these printing corrections were and the dates they occurred in my article you are not going to read called The Printing Errors Ploy.

Those interested can see it here.



The Printing Errors Ploy - the last ditch effort of the Bible Agnostics to turn us into one of them.


What About Those Printing Errors and "Revisions" of the 1611 King James Holy Bible?


Has the King James Bible ever been "revised"? Simple answer: No.


BUT versions like the NKJV, NASB, ESV, NIV have been revised many times over.

Another King James Bible Believer


Check out the copyright dates on your NASB, ESV or NIV and see how many copyright dates there are.

Second thing. Like most KJB critics you claim I am in a cult. I am not adding anything to the gospel. People can get saved using any bible version no matter how incomplete or corrupt it may be. We do not have a cult leader. The only real difference is that we believe God has worked in history to give us a real, in print complete and 100% true words of God Bible. If we are a Cult, then does this mean that people like you who are your own authority (and not a very good one at that) and who do NOT believe that any Bible in any language you can show us is the inerrant words of God are you then therefore Orthodox? Is that how it works in your world? (rhetorical question).

 

[Will J. Kinney]

I and many others believe that Lucifer or Satan's fall is recorded here, and that he, the devil, was the real spiritual power behind the kingdom of Babylon. Babylon also appears prominently again in the book of Revelation as the kingdom of the beast and both are spiritually empowered by Satan and his devils.


David Guzik's commentary notes (Caps are mine): "How you are fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! Here, the prophet identifies the king of Babylon as Lucifer, son of the morning. Some debate if Lucifer is a name or a title... The prophetic habit of speaking to both a near and a distant fulfillment, the prophet will sometimes speak more to the near or more to the distant. HERE IS A GOOD EXAMPLE OF ISAIAH SPEAKING MORE TO THE DISTANT, ULTIMATE FULFILLMENT. It is true that the king of literal Babylon shined brightly among the men of his day, and fell as hard and as completely as if a man were to fall from heaven. BUT THERE WAS A FAR MORE BRIGHTLY SHINING BEING WHO INHABITED HEAVEN, AND FELL EVEN MORE DRAMATICALLY - THE KING OF SPIRITUAL BABYLON, SATAN."




Likewise, E.W. Bullinger notes in his well known Companion Bible In Isaiah 14:12, Lucifer = Morning star. Is worshipped by the Assyrians as male at sunrise, female at sunset. And is a name of Satan, this is according to the work of E.W. Bullinger. See also verse 13, in that context, the north, this helps us to localize the dwelling place of God. No Semitic conception, but Divine revelation of Him Who knows what Satan said in his heart. Cp. Ps. 75.6 , Job 26.7. (E.W. B.)

Bible teacher and Commentary writer Harry A. Ironside writes in his Expository Notes on the Prophet Isaiah - "These words cannot apply to any mere mortal man. Lucifer (the light-bearer) is a created angel of the very highest order, identical with the covering cherub of Ezekiel 28. He was, apparently, the greatest of all the angel host and was perfect before God until he fell through pride. It was his ambition to take the throne of Deity for himself and become the supreme ruler of the universe.


Note his five "I wills." It was the assertion of the creature's will in opposition to the will of the Creator that brought about his downfall, and so an archangel became the devil! Cast down from the place of power and favor which he had enjoyed, he became the untiring enemy of God and man, and down through the millennia since has exerted every conceivable device to ruin mankind and rob God of the glory due to His name.


It is of him our Lord speaks in John 8:44. The Lord there shows that Satan is an apostate, having fallen from a position once enjoyed, and we know from other Scriptures how he ever goes about as a roaring lion, seeking whom he may devour. The Cross was the precursor of Satan’s doom, but he is determined to wreak his vengeance upon mankind so far as he can before his own final judgment takes place, because his heart is filled with hatred against God and against those whom God loves.

We know from other passages that Lucifer was not alone in his rebellion (II Peter 2:4), and our Lord speaks of the devil and his angels (Matthew 25:41), and this is confirmed in Revelation 12:7, where we read of the coming war in heaven between Michael and his angels, and the dragon and his." (End on notes from Harry Ironside)

Commentator Dr. Henry M. Morris states: "Although the prophecy in Isaiah 14 is directed toward the earthly king of Babylon, here it goes far beyond him (he could never fall from heaven) to the wicked spirit possessing his body and inspiring his actions. Just as Satan possessed and used the serpent's body in Eden, so he does here with Babylon's king..."

 

[Will J. Kinney]

Gregory of Nyssa, A.D. 382, Against Eunomius, Book I, chapter 22: "as the Scripture says in the description of the fall of the morning star, the mysteries on which subject are revealed by our Lord to His disciples: "I saw Satan falling like lightning from heaven."

A.D. 400 - The Apology of Rufinus, Book I, chapter 34 ("Principalities and Powers"): "the Apostle means by these expressions the rebellious angels, and the prince of this world, and LUCIFER who once was the morning star, over whom in the end of the age the saints must sit with Christ...the rebellious angels and the prince of this world, and LUCIFER who once was the morning star"

Jonathan Edwards, (circa 1750) Volume II, Miscellaneous Discourses, XI. Miscellaneous Observations, II. Fall of the Angels: "This angel, before his fall, was the chief of all the angels, of greatest natural capacity, strength, and wisdom, and highest in honour and dignity, the brightest of all those stars of heaven, as is signified by what is said of him, under that type of him, the king of Babylon, Isa. xiv. 12. "How art thou fallen from heaven, O LUCIFER, son of the morning!"

Charles H. Spurgeon, in a sermon delivered on January 10th, 1864, said "We can scarcely think that all devils are Satans. There seems to be one chief arch-spirit, one great Diabolus, who is an accuser of the brethren-one mighty LUCIFER, who fell down from heaven and has become the prince of the powers of darkness. In all his hosts it is probable that there is not his like. He stands first and chief of those fallen morning stars; the rest of the spirits may stand in different grades of wickedness, a hierarchy of hell."

Even some non KJB only preachers see this passage as referring to Lucifer and Satan. These are the 1999 notes from Fullerton Calvary Chapel, Rich Cathers, Commentary Sermon Notes on Isaiah -

Satan's Boast 12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning!

Lucifer "the name is Latin for "morning star" (or, "light bearer"). The Hebrew word used here is heylel " shining one, morning star, LUCIFER. This is the only place this specific Hebrew word is found, and it comes from another Hebrew word, halal, meaning to shine; to praise, boast, be boastful. The term "morning star" is used to describe angels (Job 38:7), and Jesus (Rev. 22:16).


The morning star is actually the planet Venus. It shines brightly for a short time in the early morning, but soon fades with the rising of the sun.

Why I believe this also refers to Satan, the power behind the king of Babylon:


1. There are angelic beings (both good and bad) which seem to be connected with earthly, political persons.


a. In Daniel 10, Daniel meets the angel Gabriel, who describes having been in a war with the "prince of the kingdom of Persia", apparently a title of a demonic spirit which was in charge of the kingdom of Persia, perhaps even in charge of the king of Persia.


b. We have another passage similar to the one here in Isaiah, in Eze. 28:12-20, where a word is given to the "king of Tyre". At first he seems to be talking to a human, but there comes a point where suddenly things sound different. This "king" is described as having been in the garden of Eden (Eze. 28:13), and being the "anointed cherub that covers" which is a term describing an angel (Eze. 28:14). Again, the idea is that at a particular point, the prophecy turns and addresses the angel behind the person.

2. There are just too many telltale signs that this is Satan:


a. vs.12 - "Fallen from heaven" supposes that the person was in heaven. Satan is in heaven accusing us. (Job 1:6; Rev. 12:10)


b. vs.12 - Satan can be an "angel of light":
(2 Cor 11:13-15 KJV) For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ. {14} And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light. {15} Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works.


c. vs.12 Satan loves to imitate Jesus and deceive people. Jesus is the "morning star" (Rev. 22:16; Mat. 24:5; Rev. 13:2).


d. vs.12 - Jesus referred to seeing Satan falling from heaven (Luke 10:18), and one day Satan will be cast out of heaven (Rev. 12:10).


e. vs.14 - Satan wants to take God's place in having everyone worship him. He even tried getting Jesus to worship him (Mat. 4:8-10).


f. vs.15 - Satan will one day be thrown into a bottomless pit (Rev. 20:2) and then later thrown forever into the Lake of Fire (Rev. 20:10).

:13 I will exalt my throne above the stars of God:
stars of God, a term used to describe angels (Job 38:7)


:13 upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north
mount of the congregation refers to Mount Zion, the place where God had His temple built, the place where He would meet with His people.


the sides of the north, the side of the mountain that the temple was on.
The Antichrist, who will be empowered by Satan (Rev. 13:2), will one day set up his throne in the temple and demand to be worshipped as God (2Th. 2:4).


:14 I will be like the most High (end of notes from Rich Cathers)

 

[37818]

Gregory of Nyssa, A.D. 382, Against Eunomius, Book I, chapter 22: "as the Scripture says in the description of the fall of the morning star, the mysteries on which subject are revealed by our Lord to His disciples: "I saw Satan falling like lightning from heaven."

A.D. 400 - The Apology of Rufinus, Book I, chapter 34 ("Principalities and Powers"): "the Apostle means by these expressions the rebellious angels, and the prince of this world, and LUCIFER who once was the morning star, over whom in the end of the age the saints must sit with Christ...the rebellious angels and the prince of this world, and LUCIFER who once was the morning star"

Jonathan Edwards, (circa 1750) Volume II, Miscellaneous Discourses, XI. Miscellaneous Observations, II. Fall of the Angels: "This angel, before his fall, was the chief of all the angels, of greatest natural capacity, strength, and wisdom, and highest in honour and dignity, the brightest of all those stars of heaven, as is signified by what is said of him, under that type of him, the king of Babylon, Isa. xiv. 12. "How art thou fallen from heaven, O LUCIFER, son of the morning!"

Charles H. Spurgeon, in a sermon delivered on January 10th, 1864, said "We can scarcely think that all devils are Satans. There seems to be one chief arch-spirit, one great Diabolus, who is an accuser of the brethren-one mighty LUCIFER, who fell down from heaven and has become the prince of the powers of darkness. In all his hosts it is probable that there is not his like. He stands first and chief of those fallen morning stars; the rest of the spirits may stand in different grades of wickedness, a hierarchy of hell."

Even some non KJB only preachers see this passage as referring to Lucifer and Satan. These are the 1999 notes from Fullerton Calvary Chapel, Rich Cathers, Commentary Sermon Notes on Isaiah -

Satan's Boast 12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning!

Lucifer "the name is Latin for "morning star" (or, "light bearer"). The Hebrew word used here is heylel " shining one, morning star, LUCIFER. This is the only place this specific Hebrew word is found, and it comes from another Hebrew word, halal, meaning to shine; to praise, boast, be boastful. The term "morning star" is used to describe angels (Job 38:7), and Jesus (Rev. 22:16).


The morning star is actually the planet Venus. It shines brightly for a short time in the early morning, but soon fades with the rising of the sun.

Why I believe this also refers to Satan, the power behind the king of Babylon:


1. There are angelic beings (both good and bad) which seem to be connected with earthly, political persons.


a. In Daniel 10, Daniel meets the angel Gabriel, who describes having been in a war with the "prince of the kingdom of Persia", apparently a title of a demonic spirit which was in charge of the kingdom of Persia, perhaps even in charge of the king of Persia.


b. We have another passage similar to the one here in Isaiah, in Eze. 28:12-20, where a word is given to the "king of Tyre". At first he seems to be talking to a human, but there comes a point where suddenly things sound different. This "king" is described as having been in the garden of Eden (Eze. 28:13), and being the "anointed cherub that covers" which is a term describing an angel (Eze. 28:14). Again, the idea is that at a particular point, the prophecy turns and addresses the angel behind the person.

2. There are just too many telltale signs that this is Satan:


a. vs.12 - "Fallen from heaven" supposes that the person was in heaven. Satan is in heaven accusing us. (Job 1:6; Rev. 12:10)


b. vs.12 - Satan can be an "angel of light":
(2 Cor 11:13-15 KJV) For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ. {14} And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light. {15} Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works.


c. vs.12 Satan loves to imitate Jesus and deceive people. Jesus is the "morning star" (Rev. 22:16; Mat. 24:5; Rev. 13:2).


d. vs.12 - Jesus referred to seeing Satan falling from heaven (Luke 10:18), and one day Satan will be cast out of heaven (Rev. 12:10).


e. vs.14 - Satan wants to take God's place in having everyone worship him. He even tried getting Jesus to worship him (Mat. 4:8-10).


f. vs.15 - Satan will one day be thrown into a bottomless pit (Rev. 20:2) and then later thrown forever into the Lake of Fire (Rev. 20:10).

:13 I will exalt my throne above the stars of God:
stars of God, a term used to describe angels (Job 38:7)


:13 upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north
mount of the congregation refers to Mount Zion, the place where God had His temple built, the place where He would meet with His people.


the sides of the north, the side of the mountain that the temple was on.
The Antichrist, who will be empowered by Satan (Rev. 13:2), will one day set up his throne in the temple and demand to be worshipped as God (2Th. 2:4).


:14 I will be like the most High (end of notes from Rich Cathers)

Matthew 25:41, . . . everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels: . . . .

 

[Logos1560]

Has the King James Bible ever been "revised"? Simple answer: No.

Your answer is not true.

Your unproven claim of no revision of the 1611 edition of the KJV is demonstrably and factually incorrect as any careful examination of all the pertinent facts would reveal.

The 1828 Webster's Dictionary defined revision as "the act of reviewing; review; re-examination for correction; as the revision of a book." Roget's Thesaurus listed "revision" and "correction" as synonyms. Roget’s Pocket Thesaurus listed “revise,” “edit,” and “make corrections” as synonyms (p. 189). Rodale’s Synonym Finder gave “revised or new edition” as a synonym for “revision” (p. 1036). At its entry for edit, The New Roget’s Thesaurus in Dictionary Form listed “revise, correct” as synonyms (p. 166). Since the terms edit and revise or edition and revision can be used as synonyms as indicated in standard reference works, they could sometimes be interchangeable. Ron Minton defined revision as “a document or book that has been revised and has undergone some necessary changes or corrections” (Making and Preservation, p. 28).


Some KJV-only authors have even used the terms edition and revision as interchangeable, referring to the KJV both as a revision of a pre-1611 English Bible and as an edition of a pre-1611 English Bible. David Cloud referred to the Geneva Bible as "an edition of the Tyndale" and the KJV as "another edition of Tyndale" (Rome and the Bible, p. 106; Faith, p. 510; Glorious History of the KJB, p. 102). David Cloud noted: “The KJV has gone through multiple revisions” (Why We Hold, p. 511). Andrew Steers wrote: “Of course, a number of revisions have been made to the Authorized Version, and these include both typographical and textual changes” (Is There Not, p. 342). D. A. Waite maintained that the KJV “has had at least seven major revisions” (Warning, p. 64). Concerning the KJV, Edward F. Hills wrote: “In 1629 and 1638 the text was subjected to two minor revisions” (KJV Defended, p. 217; Text, p. 360). David Sorenson acknowledged: “Cambridge University released revised editions of the Authorized Version in 1629 and 1638” (Faithful Word, p. 174). Laurence Vance claimed: “Only four editions of the Authorized Version can be called—for lack of a better term—revisions” (Text of the KJB, p. 181; King James, His Bible, p. 172). Thomas Holland wrote: “There have been four major revisions of the KJV” (Crowned with Glory, p. 95). Robert Sargent wrote: “There were 4 major revisions of the King James Bible” (English Bible, p. 227). Craig Dennison wrote: “Two more revisions were completed in 1760 and 1769” (Hooper, It Is Written, p. 458). Joshua Gimenez referred to “the 1769 revision of the KJV” (Not New, p. 26). Steve Combs referred to the 1769 Oxford edition as “a major revision” (Magnified, p. 243). In 1994, Peter Ruckman referred to “seven revised copies of the AV (1611, 1613, 1644, 1664, 1701, 1769, and 1850) that result in a purified Book” (Differences in the KJV Editions, pp. 18-19). Since the English text of the 1611 edition needed to be corrected, changed, or improved in some places, it can accurately and truthfully be said to have been revised. Therefore, it should be clear that the word "revision" can be accurately used concerning later editions of the KJV. It is not at all a myth nor a ruse to state the truth that the English text of the 1611 edition has been revised in typical post-1900 KJV editions.

In his “Editor’s Introduction” to The New Cambridge Paragraph Bible, David Norton observed that the 1769 KJV text and that of later editions “is not the translators’ text but has many readings changed according to the judgements of editors who had made it into a revised version: not a heavily revised version, but still a revised version” (p. viii). David Norton observed: “Typically the textual changes deal with perceived inaccuracies in the work of the translators rather than printer’s errors” (Textual History, p. 86). David Norton noted: “The editors test the text against the original languages and make changes where they judge that the translators were loose in their treatment of the originals” (Ibid.). Concerning the 1611 edition, Edward Cardwell wrote: “There are errors in it of such a description as not to be explained by the common inaccuracies of the press, but owing probably in some cases to the defectiveness of the copy delivered to the printer; in others, to the imperfect knowledge of the Translators themselves” (Oxford Bibles, p. 2).