-
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!
Believed King James was most accurate, now unsure what to think
- Thread starter JasonF
- Start date
This is exactly the kind of thing that Dr. Bob is talking about here: Eleven Simple Rules for Posting
And I quote:
"9. Certain terms are off limits in this forum.
For example:
- The KJVO crowd will not not refer to the Modern Versions as "perversions," "satanic," "devil's bibles," etc...nor call those that use them "Bible correctors," "Bible doubters," etc.
- The MV crowd will not refer to the KJVOs as "cults," "heretics," "sacrilegious," etc...nor refer to the KJV in derisive terms such as "King Jimmy's Bible," "Pickled Preserved Version," etc."
Alan Gross
Well-Known Member
I have Dr. Bob's Eleven Simple Rules memorized, thank you.
When I said, "They just changed the 'bible' from that representing Christianity, to another religion. Gnosticism, if you like, or Anti-Christ Occultism", I was mostly interested in the 'religion' that the modern versions are intended to be a bridge to, (is what I had in mind) rather than calling the modern versions 'bibles' themselves already fully Anti-Christ Occultism.
The modern versions are intended to be a 'bridge', between Apostate Christianity and the Occult. That is why the supposedly 'older' manuscripts reserviced from the Occult Underground, where they had lain for some time, not bothering anybody.
They haven't fully had time and opportunity, yet, for them to be accurately called absolutely and utterly Gnostic or Anti-Christ Occultism.
More changes to be made. My bad.
In my mind, I can post this cut and paste can't I?
Maybe you'd like to.
I don't see how a soul can say they are saved without cutting and pasting all over creation.
see: I don't see how a soul can say they are saved without cutting and pasting all over creation.
"Satanic", "demons", "Satan", "Lucifer", and "Anti-Christ" are just proper nouns being used in the narrative quoted and not as some random name-calling, to me.
You're the legalist. You tell me.
That's all you've got? Legalism? Hyper-extended, at that.
That's one more Cult or Occult type category I'm hoping for deliverance from, like here: Precious-Testimonies.com - Deliverance From New Age - Occult - Cults - Legalism
from: Undeniable: The Satanic infiltration of Churches (Westcott & Hort and BEYOND)
"Westcott and Hort dabbled with the occult and communicating with spirits, and had a club called the "Ghostly Guild", which included a man named Lightfoot, who created a Lexicon to support their new Greek Text.
"This club became the "Society for Psychical Research", who interviewed the founder of the Satanic religion of Theosophy, Helena P. Blavatsky (Sublime Elect Scotch Lady, Masonic Patent issued by John Yarker), and were favorably impressed with her.
"Theosophy involves channeling demons through a process called "automatic writing", from which they receive their instructions which have since been championed at the world government level at the UN, through Blavatsky's protégé Alice Bailey, who founded Lucifer Trust Publishing (since changed to "Lucius Trust"), which is held in high regard by the UN.
"Blavatsky believed she was reviving the ancient Mystery Religions of Babylon, essentially the original religion of Satan that split into the world religions today: all of the fundamental aspects of which, such as dualism, survived in Hinduism (different gods over dualistic aspects of nature), Buddhism (yin yang), Islam (sun and moon), etc.
"The original source of this was Nimrod and Semiramis, who originally became allegorized as the sun and moon.
"At the First Annual Congress of the Theosophical Society, which took place around 1900 (the same time Westcott and Hort's new versions were just entering churches), the original transactions of which states, quote, "I believe it is through the churches, and NOT through the Theosophical Society, that Theosophy [the worship of Lucifer] must and should come to large bodies of people...
"The work of destructive criticism [Westcott & Hort's Textual Criticism / Critical Text] and has paved the way, sweeping away certain passages that grate on the ears: the phrase 'washed in the blood' is one. "
"This is why Col. 1:14 "through his blood" has been removed in the NASB and NIV.
"Rom. 3:25 through faith "in his blood" has been removed.
"Rev. 1:5 "washed" us from our sins has been removed.
"Luke 22:20 "blood which is shed" has been removed and replaced with "cup which is poured". Gotta love allegories.
"We see here clear evidence of these relationships and the outworkings of their stated motives found plainly in the New Versions.
"Henry Travers Edge was a friend of Blavatsky's who stated, "The New Versions have produced a rendering much more in accord with the views of a Theosophist [Satanist]." -Henry T. Edge, Esoteric Keys
"The Chief Editor of the NIV, Edwin Palmer, called verses that support Salvation by Grace a "great error", and stated: "This shows the great error that is so prevalent today in some Orthodox Protestant circles, and that namely the error that Regeneration depends upon faith, and that in order to be born again, one must first accept Jesus as savior."
"He called the Gospel of Grace a "great error".
This is why Matt. 7:14 was changed to say, "difficult is the way" instead of the original "narrow is the way" in support of Catholic works salvation doctrine.
Mark 10:24 was also changed to say, "Children, how hard it is to enter the Kingdom of God" in support of works salvation, rather than the original,
"how hard it is for them that trust in riches to enter", was we must recognize our need for a savior and trust Christ's payment on the cross.
"At this point I don't even need to mention Isaiah 14:12, which replaced Satan, the shining falling angel, with Jesus Christ, the Morning Star.
"This is all part of their clearly stated plan to bring Lucifer worship in through the churches to prepare them to worship the Antichrist, as many of them don't even believe an Antichrist will come, are Amillennial just like the Catholic church, and are now turning to Replacement Theology, in part due to these New Versions and in part due to infiltration of Satanic ministers the Bible warns against."
When I said, "They just changed the 'bible' from that representing Christianity, to another religion. Gnosticism, if you like, or Anti-Christ Occultism", I was mostly interested in the 'religion' that the modern versions are intended to be a bridge to, (is what I had in mind) rather than calling the modern versions 'bibles' themselves already fully Anti-Christ Occultism.
The modern versions are intended to be a 'bridge', between Apostate Christianity and the Occult. That is why the supposedly 'older' manuscripts reserviced from the Occult Underground, where they had lain for some time, not bothering anybody.
They haven't fully had time and opportunity, yet, for them to be accurately called absolutely and utterly Gnostic or Anti-Christ Occultism.
More changes to be made. My bad.
In my mind, I can post this cut and paste can't I?
Maybe you'd like to.
I don't see how a soul can say they are saved without cutting and pasting all over creation.
see: I don't see how a soul can say they are saved without cutting and pasting all over creation.
"Satanic", "demons", "Satan", "Lucifer", and "Anti-Christ" are just proper nouns being used in the narrative quoted and not as some random name-calling, to me.
You're the legalist. You tell me.
That's all you've got? Legalism? Hyper-extended, at that.
That's one more Cult or Occult type category I'm hoping for deliverance from, like here: Precious-Testimonies.com - Deliverance From New Age - Occult - Cults - Legalism
from: Undeniable: The Satanic infiltration of Churches (Westcott & Hort and BEYOND)
"Westcott and Hort dabbled with the occult and communicating with spirits, and had a club called the "Ghostly Guild", which included a man named Lightfoot, who created a Lexicon to support their new Greek Text.
"This club became the "Society for Psychical Research", who interviewed the founder of the Satanic religion of Theosophy, Helena P. Blavatsky (Sublime Elect Scotch Lady, Masonic Patent issued by John Yarker), and were favorably impressed with her.
"Theosophy involves channeling demons through a process called "automatic writing", from which they receive their instructions which have since been championed at the world government level at the UN, through Blavatsky's protégé Alice Bailey, who founded Lucifer Trust Publishing (since changed to "Lucius Trust"), which is held in high regard by the UN.
"Blavatsky believed she was reviving the ancient Mystery Religions of Babylon, essentially the original religion of Satan that split into the world religions today: all of the fundamental aspects of which, such as dualism, survived in Hinduism (different gods over dualistic aspects of nature), Buddhism (yin yang), Islam (sun and moon), etc.
"The original source of this was Nimrod and Semiramis, who originally became allegorized as the sun and moon.
"At the First Annual Congress of the Theosophical Society, which took place around 1900 (the same time Westcott and Hort's new versions were just entering churches), the original transactions of which states, quote, "I believe it is through the churches, and NOT through the Theosophical Society, that Theosophy [the worship of Lucifer] must and should come to large bodies of people...
"The work of destructive criticism [Westcott & Hort's Textual Criticism / Critical Text] and has paved the way, sweeping away certain passages that grate on the ears: the phrase 'washed in the blood' is one. "
"This is why Col. 1:14 "through his blood" has been removed in the NASB and NIV.
"Rom. 3:25 through faith "in his blood" has been removed.
"Rev. 1:5 "washed" us from our sins has been removed.
"Luke 22:20 "blood which is shed" has been removed and replaced with "cup which is poured". Gotta love allegories.
"We see here clear evidence of these relationships and the outworkings of their stated motives found plainly in the New Versions.
"Henry Travers Edge was a friend of Blavatsky's who stated, "The New Versions have produced a rendering much more in accord with the views of a Theosophist [Satanist]." -Henry T. Edge, Esoteric Keys
"The Chief Editor of the NIV, Edwin Palmer, called verses that support Salvation by Grace a "great error", and stated: "This shows the great error that is so prevalent today in some Orthodox Protestant circles, and that namely the error that Regeneration depends upon faith, and that in order to be born again, one must first accept Jesus as savior."
"He called the Gospel of Grace a "great error".
This is why Matt. 7:14 was changed to say, "difficult is the way" instead of the original "narrow is the way" in support of Catholic works salvation doctrine.
Mark 10:24 was also changed to say, "Children, how hard it is to enter the Kingdom of God" in support of works salvation, rather than the original,
"how hard it is for them that trust in riches to enter", was we must recognize our need for a savior and trust Christ's payment on the cross.
"At this point I don't even need to mention Isaiah 14:12, which replaced Satan, the shining falling angel, with Jesus Christ, the Morning Star.
"This is all part of their clearly stated plan to bring Lucifer worship in through the churches to prepare them to worship the Antichrist, as many of them don't even believe an Antichrist will come, are Amillennial just like the Catholic church, and are now turning to Replacement Theology, in part due to these New Versions and in part due to infiltration of Satanic ministers the Bible warns against."
Last edited:
You do not know the intentions and motives of all the English Bible translators which you may falsely accuse. You improperly presume or assume something that you do not at all prove. Your subjective bias could cause you to jump to wrong conclusions. In addition, you do not demonstrate that you apply the exact same measures/standards consistently and justly; which would suggest that you are not judging righteous judgment. You may be misleading and deceiving any people who blindly trust your unproven accusations and assertions.
Would you suggest that the makers of the KJV intended the KJV to be a bridge to the Roman Catholic Church since they borrowed many renderings from the 1582 Roman Catholic Rheims New Testament?
You make a bogus, false accusation since you do not prove that any English Bible translation considers their rendering at Isaiah 14:12 to refer to Jesus Christ. Your non-true statement bears false witness.
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 indicate that they meant 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 1534 Luther’s German Bible, which is on the KJV-only line of 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?
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).
Any English Bible translation that has "morning star" at Isaiah 14:12 may have been influenced by the Latin Vulgate's and the KJV's rendering "Lucifer." It is the Latin-based term Lucifer that suggests its synonym "morning star."
The 1828 Webster's Dictionary defined daystar as following: "The morning star, Lucifer, Venus; the star which precedes the morning light." In her 1997-1998 catalogue, Riplinger claimed that the 1828 Webster's Dictionary "defines words as they were used during the writing of the KJV 1611." The 1992 Roget's International Thesaurus listed as synonyms: "morning star, day star, Lucifer, Phosphor, Phosphorus" (p. 757). Rodale’s Synonym Finder listed the following as synonyms for morning star: “daystar, bright planet; Venus, Lucifer, Phosphor, Phosphorus” (p. 750).
The preponderance of evidence shows that the renderings "Lucifer," "daystar," and "morning star" were used as synonyms so that any arguments which can be validly used again the rendering "morning star" in this verse would also apply to the rendering "Lucifer."
What is the proper wording of this text? What is the prophet trying to tell us?
In a note at Isaiah 14:12 in his reference Bible, Peter Ruckman acknowledged that Lucifer “is a translation of a Hebrew word meaning ‘the shining one’” (p. 931). Kirk DiVietro himself acknowledged that a literal meaning of the Hebrew word was "shining thing" (Anything But the KJB, p. 46). D. A. Waite wrote: "If you look up helel, the masculine noun, you see the meaning is 'the shining one'" (Foes, p. 56). He added: “’Shining one’ is certainly a good translation” (p. 56). In his commentary Understanding the Bible, David Sorenson, a KJV-only author, asserted that the Hebrew word “has the sense of a ‘shining one,‘ or ‘light bearer,‘ or even ‘morning star’” (p. 428). In David Cloud’s Concise KJB Dictionary, this definition of the Hebrew word “shining one” is listed as the definition for “Lucifer” (p. 57).
At least four English Bible translations use "O shining one" at Isaiah 14:12 (Young's Literal Translation, Rotherham's The Emphasized Bible, 1912 Improved Edition, and Tanakh--the 1985 English translation of the Masoretic Text by Jews). The Literal Translation by Jay Green and the Modern King James Version have "O shining star" at this verse.
At least four English Bible translations use "O shining one" at Isaiah 14:12 (Young's Literal Translation, Rotherham's The Emphasized Bible, 1912 Improved Edition, and Tanakh--the 1985 English translation of the Masoretic Text by Jews). The Literal Translation by Jay Green and the Modern King James Version have "O shining star" at this verse.
Alan Gross
Well-Known Member
The first reference to the morning star as an individual is in Isaiah 14:12:
“How you have fallen from heaven, O morning star, son of the dawn!
You have been cast down to the earth, you who once laid low the nations!”
(NIV).
The KJV and NKJV both translate “morning star”
as “Lucifer, son of the morning.”
It is clear from the rest of the passage
that Isaiah is referring to Satan’s fall from heaven (Luke 10:18).
So in this case, the morning star refers to Satan.
In Revelation 22:16,
Jesus unmistakably identifies Himself as the morning star.
"I Jesus have sent mine angel
to testify unto you these things in the churches.
I am the root and the offspring of David,
and the bright and morning star."
There are apparently those
who thought this "would be a good look", for Jesus.
They are the ones who "made the switch", from having Isaiah 14:12
refer to "Satan", to assigning a Bible designation of Jesus to it.
Then, there are those who are able to do
what would seemingly be unthinkable
and come running to the defence of such a blasphemous disgrace(?)
The article above indicates that there have been influences behind changes made to the words in versions of the Bible that were intended to accommodate the worship of something other than God.
However this is not the time or place to attempt convincing anyone to the possible error of their ways.
re: Eleven Simple Rules for Posting
"9. Certain terms are off limits in this forum.
For example:
- The KJVO crowd will not not refer to the Modern Versions as "perversions," "satanic," "devil's bibles," etc...nor call those that use them "Bible correctors," "Bible doubters," etc."
The article that you quoted or cited was wrong. Claims in that article were refuted. Your opinion is also incorrect.
Clear verified facts proved it. Perhaps you did not read and consider the facts or perhaps you choose to reject the truth.
Last edited:
GodisgraciousR325
Active Member
Without Yet, Jesus lied.
Try and think a little deeper. Jesus could have changed his mind. Yes, the word "yet" does belong there. But without it does not make Jesus a liar. You are not that powerful.
GodisgraciousR325
Active Member
No, it did.
Read this post.
"yet" or no "yet" - Jesus did not lie in John 7:8
There is a conversation in this forum about King James Only concerning in part the word "yet" in John 7:8. Or, the non-use of the word "yet" in modern versions. The context is crucial. In chapter 7 of John, verses 1-5, here's what is happening. Jesus is staying in Galilee because the Jewish...
www.baptistboard.com
Read this post.
"yet" or no "yet" - Jesus did not lie in John 7:8
There is a conversation in this forum about King James Only concerning in part the word "yet" in John 7:8. Or, the non-use of the word "yet" in modern versions. The context is crucial. In chapter 7 of John, verses 1-5, here's what is happening. Jesus is staying in Galilee because the Jewish...
www.baptistboard.com