in the NIV why is Jesus going to HELL ( PIT) ?

Actually, the NIV translation is not incorrect In Isaiah 14 if one goes into the Hebrew which means "light bearer" or "shining one". The KJV depended heavily upon the Latin Vulgate for it's translation, though I don't have a major problem with the KJV or NKJV's translation either. There is no interpretation problem since Satan is an angel of light that attempts to imitate Christ the true light.

Actually Isaiah 14 is only referring to Satan in the secondary sense since it is primarily referring to the king of Babylon. There are some Bible students however that think Isaiah 14 is referring only to the King of Babylon and not to Lucifer's fall and that this applies to Satan comes from the writings of the Church Fathers. Of course that is another debate

 

Bob,

If you read the context, it is a taunt addressed to the King of Babylon (v. 4). Some people believe that Satan is personified in the King of Babylon; others do not.

However, your method of Bible study is inadequate. Just because two people are called the same thing 800 years apart does not mean they are the same person. In the context of Isa 14 it is clear that Christ is not being talked about.

The words is helel meaning "shining one, epith of king of Babylon, ... i.e., star of the morning. (Cf. As. mustilil, epith. of (Venus as) morning-star IIIR 57 60 Opp JAS 1871, 448, SCHR 8K 1874 337 COT ad loc.)" (BDB p. 237). The point is that they translate the word "morning star" because that is what it means, not because they are trying to identify the person as Christ.

You need to study the context and the meaning of the word and then the problem goes away.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I think I can understand english fairly well without the "ORIGINAL HEBREW" thank you.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Apparently not since you missed it. The whole basis of your argument lies on denying the language in which Isaiah wrote what he wrote.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>and the context is he was thrown out of HEAVEN!!! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes you are right. However, "he" is not Christ. Christ was not thrown out of heaven and thus you are mistaken to presume that it refers to Christ.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>oh yes the NIV translators removed
sodomite to give us a greater understanding
and assist the homosexual community unbderstand God right?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I thought there was a thread addressed to this. Silly me ...

 

Bob,

Does the KJV make Christ, the Lion of Judah, equal to Satan because Satan is the roaring lion seeking whom he may devour? It would seem so on the basis of your argument here.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by bob walker:
Why go back to rome for your new modern Bible? I will pass on rome.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Will you indeed? Ask yourself a few questions: Who was Erasmus? What did he believe? If he believed that RCC doctrines were wrong why did he stay with the church? Luther and others didn't. Who were the KJV translators? What did they believe? How did the act? Why did Baptists and other dissenters flee England during the 1600's and 1700's? What persecution were they fleeing? Who were their persecutors?

None of these answers necessarily make the KJV a bad translation. However, if you would have complete separation from the RCC and any church that accepts some of the most damning Catholic theology then you must reject the TR and KJV.

BTW, did you know that Erasmus did not have the last leaf of Revelation in Greek? Did you know that he back translated from a late copy of the Latin Vulgate (the RCC Bible) into Greek? Did you know that the phrase "book of life" in vs. 19 does not have Greek support? It is uniquely Latin and should be "tree of life." Do you realize that "book" coupled with the following phrase "and out of the holy city" can be used to support the RCC claim that they determine who goes to heaven? (their holy city is Rome of course) In that the "tree of life" cannot be humanized, can you see that the proper phrase does not support their false doctrine?

You are digging your own hole. You cannot have it both ways. Either the same rules apply to all versions or your rules are not valid for any version. If bad theology automatically taints scholarship then by your own definition the TR and KJV are corrupt.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Scott J:
Who was Erasmus? What did he believe? If he believed that RCC doctrines were wrong why did he stay with the church?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Who was he? Erasmus was probably the greatest renaissance scholar and bears the title, "Prince Of The Humanists." He lived from 1466-1536.

What did he believe? From 1509-1514 he lectured at the University of Cambridge, England which was a center of renaissance thought. While at Cambridge he promoted the "new learning" later called Protestantism. One of his students was a young man named William Tyndale.

He published his Greek NT in 1516, which openly defied the RCC and its prefered text.

From 1516-1521 he lectured at the University of Louvain, in the Netherlands, another center of Protestant activity.

In 1535 he returned to Basel and died amoungst his Protestant friends in 1536. He is buried in the Protestant cemetary.

Many of his writings exposed the ignorance, superstition, and unscriptural beliefs and practices of the RCC.

If he believed that RCC doctrines were wrong why did he stay with the church? He didn't! He exposed the RCC errors and remained with his Protestant friends until his death!

 

Bob,

You ought to listen to these guys. They know what they're talking about. They have done such a good job rebuking you, I shall not attempt to get in my two cents worth.

 

Bob:

In the AV both Jesus and Ezekiel are called son of man :

Ezekiel 2:3 And he said unto me, Son of man, I send thee to the children of Israel, to a rebellious nation that hath rebelled against me: they and their fathers have transgressed against me, even unto this very day.

Matthew 12:8 For the Son of man is Lord even of the sabbath day.

Does that mean that Ezekiel is the Messiah??

 

bob walker said, "vatican manuscripts translated by occultists and I should use them?"

Bob, you've got some respectable KJVonlyers around here who frown on such tactics. If you want to argue a case against a translation's worthiness, do so exegetically without the childish name calling.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Thomas Cassidy:

If he believed that RCC doctrines were wrong why did he stay with the church? He didn't! He exposed the RCC errors and remained with his Protestant friends until his death!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I do not question his greatness as a scholar nor that Protestants were more receptive to his work than Catholics. This was exactly my point. His scholarship has been validated by those who differed with his theology. That said, his having been the places you mention or thought of in the ways you cite does not demonstrate that he foresook Catholicism.

If you have any documentation detailing his opposition to any Catholic doctrine, I would be interested in seeing it. Or otherwise, I would be interested in any direct support he may have made of Protestantism. His opposition to corruption does not constitute disagreement with principles.

Here is a link to an article with extensive quotes which attempts to prove the opposite.
http://kjvonlyism.tripod.com/doug/erasmus.htm

For those who aren't interested in the whole article, here are some samples.

"Erasmus wrote, "Christ I know; Luther I know not. The Roman Church I know, and death will not part me from it till the Church departs from Christ" (p. 261). Again, "I have sought to save the dignity of the Roman Pontiff, the honour of Catholic theology, and the welfare of Christendom" "

"The Lutherans alternately courted me and menaced me. For all this, I did not move a finger's breadth from the teaching of the Roman Church. "

"The Pope's authority as Christ's Vicar must be upheld."

Many such quotes are listed with references cited. If they are false or quoted out of context, it should be easy enough to prove.

[ August 13, 2001: Message edited by: Scott J ]

 

I have made similar statement, prior to my conversion. His statements must be placed in the context of the time frame involved. When did he make such statements, and did he ever publish other statements to the contrary? If you will read his own writings, especially the later ones, you will note that he openly attacked the corruption and heresy of Rome. Not to mention he is still buried in the Protestant cemetary.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Thomas Cassidy:
I have made similar statement, prior to my conversion. His statements must be placed in the context of the time frame involved. When did he make such statements, and did he ever publish other statements to the contrary? If you will read his own writings, especially the later ones, you will note that he openly attacked the corruption and heresy of Rome.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I would be glad to do a little research which will benefit me. Can you give some resources?

But also, can you list here some Catholic doctrines that he recanted on? Especially, I would be interested to know if he ever embraced salvation by grace alone.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Not to mention he is still buried in the Protestant cemetary. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I recognize that there is some significance in the fact of where he was buried however it does not prove conversion unless coupled with a profession of faith.

I know that the context of the times in which he lived are important. It is often difficult in our times for RCC's to leave the church. There can be no doubt that the difficulties were multiplied many times over during the Reformation. However, these difficulties make the dividing line even more clear. Either he departed from the church or he didn't, I doubt that either the Protestants or Catholics were very forgiving of fence straddling.

[ August 14, 2001: Message edited by: Scott J ]