-
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!
NIV Calls Lucifer, "Jesus" (Article)
- Thread starter brothersmiller
- Start date
Ed Edwards
<img src=/Ed.gif>
Conversation that got deleted from
another topic:
Hank: Which revision is the correct one?
Michelle: "I do not need to go to the
original languages,
nor do i need another version,
for the Lord has been gracious,
and faithful to provide his work for us
in the English language already.
What out of this do you not understand?
I don't understand why you can't answer
a simple question. I don't understand
why you don't share with us the amazing
book you have found that contains God's
word. I've got a bunch of books on
my shelve that say THE HOLY BIBLE, but
i'm not sure which you find contain
the words of God and which do not.
Simple question, please answer. Thank you.
You keep saying that someone or some ones
have called you a name you apparently don't
like. But I don't remember what it was.
Our local dignity, Brother Dr. Bob Griffin
defined various and sundry (King James Version
Only)-ites, KJVO-ites, at:
Definitions of "KJV Only"
I am, by that definition KJVO#1.
I know some posters here that fit
each defintion. Yet the Bible speaks
of some in 2 Peter 2:10B (KJV1769):
Presumptuous are they, selfwilled, they are not afraid to speak evil of dignities.
Others who read the list above don't seem
to understand and will debate with
several levels of KJVOs as though they
were homogenous, believing all alike.
These who cannot tell the differenct
between friends and foes quickly
loose believeabilty, their conversation
quickly becoming useless and ingnored.
Other more prospers discussers realise
they can ally with one one this issue,
with the other on that issue and
be against the other on one issue
and be against somebody else on another
issue.
The duds come out against everybody without
exception. But, i only have twenty
calendar years experience on Bulleting
Board (do you remember when they were
called Posting Walls?)
May all God's blest blessings be unto
those who post here and are not taken
to being easily offended but try to
understand what the other is saying
(if anything) even if we disagree
(one does not have to agree with
stuff we understood).
another topic:
Hank: Which revision is the correct one?
Michelle: "I do not need to go to the
original languages,
nor do i need another version,
for the Lord has been gracious,
and faithful to provide his work for us
in the English language already.
What out of this do you not understand?
I don't understand why you can't answer
a simple question. I don't understand
why you don't share with us the amazing
book you have found that contains God's
word. I've got a bunch of books on
my shelve that say THE HOLY BIBLE, but
i'm not sure which you find contain
the words of God and which do not.
Simple question, please answer. Thank you.
You keep saying that someone or some ones
have called you a name you apparently don't
like. But I don't remember what it was.
Our local dignity, Brother Dr. Bob Griffin
defined various and sundry (King James Version
Only)-ites, KJVO-ites, at:
Definitions of "KJV Only"
I am, by that definition KJVO#1.
I know some posters here that fit
each defintion. Yet the Bible speaks
of some in 2 Peter 2:10B (KJV1769):
Presumptuous are they, selfwilled, they are not afraid to speak evil of dignities.
Others who read the list above don't seem
to understand and will debate with
several levels of KJVOs as though they
were homogenous, believing all alike.
These who cannot tell the differenct
between friends and foes quickly
loose believeabilty, their conversation
quickly becoming useless and ingnored.
Other more prospers discussers realise
they can ally with one one this issue,
with the other on that issue and
be against the other on one issue
and be against somebody else on another
issue.
The duds come out against everybody without
exception. But, i only have twenty
calendar years experience on Bulleting
Board (do you remember when they were
called Posting Walls?)
May all God's blest blessings be unto
those who post here and are not taken
to being easily offended but try to
understand what the other is saying
(if anything) even if we disagree
(one does not have to agree with
stuff we understood).
michelle said:
Within the 9 pages of this thread it has been answered and explained to you, you have either chosen to ignore it, or disregard it.
Not once within this thread have you ever explained what I asked: why each and every instance of "morning star" must be taken to mean Jesus.
There simply is no rule that says a symbol always stands for the same thing every time it is used. Much less by multiple human authors over a 600-year time span. KJV-onlyists simply want us to take their word for it.
Within the 9 pages of this thread it has been answered and explained to you, you have either chosen to ignore it, or disregard it.
Not once within this thread have you ever explained what I asked: why each and every instance of "morning star" must be taken to mean Jesus.
There simply is no rule that says a symbol always stands for the same thing every time it is used. Much less by multiple human authors over a 600-year time span. KJV-onlyists simply want us to take their word for it.
Askjo said:
Let's look at the word, "helel." Helel came from the verb, halal. Halal means to "shine." There is NO morning star!!!! The OT said, "His lamp (helel) shone upon my hand." A lamp can't be a morning star!
I love the way the KJV-onlyists just keep repeating this over and over and over again as though it proves a single thing.
Apparently, Askjo and Michelle live in some sort of fantasy world where metaphors and proper names never existed.
Let's look at the word, "helel." Helel came from the verb, halal. Halal means to "shine." There is NO morning star!!!! The OT said, "His lamp (helel) shone upon my hand." A lamp can't be a morning star!
I love the way the KJV-onlyists just keep repeating this over and over and over again as though it proves a single thing.
Apparently, Askjo and Michelle live in some sort of fantasy world where metaphors and proper names never existed.
--------------------------------------------------
I don't understand why you can't answer
a simple question. I don't understand
why you don't share with us the amazing
book you have found that contains God's
word. I've got a bunch of books on
my shelve that say THE HOLY BIBLE, but
i'm not sure which you find contain
the words of God and which do not.
Simple question, please answer. Thank you
--------------------------------------------------
Ed,
This is not your post. Who posted this?
Anyway, I have answered the question many times, but no one likes the answer. It would also help you to better understand if you read my entire post in relation to Hank's entire post.
I also have been labeled (KJVO) as something I am not, and even if I did fit the label that one places on me, it is only that devised of men, and has no bearing on this issue, nor should it - this in itself causes division and strife and leads to false accusations. This label is placed on anyone who speaks out against the modern versions and warns others of the errors in them. This label has caused many to misunderstand and false accuse those of us that have been labeled, and diffuses one away from the real important issue. People here argue the label and disregard the truth. Focus is almost always turned upon the KJV translators, the Anglican Church, Rome, and the apocrypha, to which has nothing whatsoever to do with this topic. Smokescreens is all this is, to divert one's attention away from the truth and topic at hand.
--------------------------------------------------
May all God's blest blessings be unto
those who post here and are not taken
to being easily offended but try to
understand what the other is saying
(if anything) even if we disagree
(one does not have to agree with
stuff we understood).
--------------------------------------------------
To this I agree and say Amen!
love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle
I don't understand why you can't answer
a simple question. I don't understand
why you don't share with us the amazing
book you have found that contains God's
word. I've got a bunch of books on
my shelve that say THE HOLY BIBLE, but
i'm not sure which you find contain
the words of God and which do not.
Simple question, please answer. Thank you
--------------------------------------------------
Ed,
This is not your post. Who posted this?
Anyway, I have answered the question many times, but no one likes the answer. It would also help you to better understand if you read my entire post in relation to Hank's entire post.
I also have been labeled (KJVO) as something I am not, and even if I did fit the label that one places on me, it is only that devised of men, and has no bearing on this issue, nor should it - this in itself causes division and strife and leads to false accusations. This label is placed on anyone who speaks out against the modern versions and warns others of the errors in them. This label has caused many to misunderstand and false accuse those of us that have been labeled, and diffuses one away from the real important issue. People here argue the label and disregard the truth. Focus is almost always turned upon the KJV translators, the Anglican Church, Rome, and the apocrypha, to which has nothing whatsoever to do with this topic. Smokescreens is all this is, to divert one's attention away from the truth and topic at hand.
--------------------------------------------------
May all God's blest blessings be unto
those who post here and are not taken
to being easily offended but try to
understand what the other is saying
(if anything) even if we disagree
(one does not have to agree with
stuff we understood).
--------------------------------------------------
To this I agree and say Amen!
love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle
--------------------------------------------------
Not once within this thread have you ever explained what I asked: why each and every instance of "morning star" must be taken to mean Jesus.
--------------------------------------------------
Okay, then, I will explain it very plainly and boldly for you then:
BECAUSE THIS IS WHAT GODS WORD SAYS AND REVEALS.
2 Peter 2:19
Revelation 2:28
Revelation 22:16
Did you comprehend it this time? I don't know if I can explain it any simpler than that for you.
love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle
Not once within this thread have you ever explained what I asked: why each and every instance of "morning star" must be taken to mean Jesus.
--------------------------------------------------
Okay, then, I will explain it very plainly and boldly for you then:
BECAUSE THIS IS WHAT GODS WORD SAYS AND REVEALS.
2 Peter 2:19
Revelation 2:28
Revelation 22:16
Did you comprehend it this time? I don't know if I can explain it any simpler than that for you.
love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle
--------------------------------------------------
Apparently, Askjo and Michelle live in some sort of fantasy world where metaphors and proper names never existed.
--------------------------------------------------
Metaphors used for the Lord are never used for the wicked or Satan. Metaphors for Satan and the wicked, are never used for the Lord. WE don't live in a fantasy world, we live in Christ Jesus our Lord and His word of truth.
love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle
Apparently, Askjo and Michelle live in some sort of fantasy world where metaphors and proper names never existed.
--------------------------------------------------
Metaphors used for the Lord are never used for the wicked or Satan. Metaphors for Satan and the wicked, are never used for the Lord. WE don't live in a fantasy world, we live in Christ Jesus our Lord and His word of truth.
love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle
--------------------------------------------------
I love the way the KJV-onlyists just keep repeating this over and over and over again as though it proves a single thing.
--------------------------------------------------
The reason this is continually repeated, is because there are many here who do not seem to be able to hear (stubborn to the truth), or who have stated an untruth and are being corrected with the truth.
love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle
I love the way the KJV-onlyists just keep repeating this over and over and over again as though it proves a single thing.
--------------------------------------------------
The reason this is continually repeated, is because there are many here who do not seem to be able to hear (stubborn to the truth), or who have stated an untruth and are being corrected with the truth.
love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle
GeneMBridges
New Member
You mean 2 Peter 1:19, not 2:19 I take it.
Well...
The Latin Vulgate (from whence came the KJV “Lucifer”: in the Isaiah passage) also reads “Lucifer” in 2Pet 1:19:
…quasi lucernae lucenti in caliginoso loco
donec dies inlucescat et lucifer oriatur in cordibus vestris
Wonder why the KJVO advocates will accept Lucifer in Isaiah, but will be unwilling to accept “until the day dawns and Lucifer rises in your hearts” in 2Pet? But of course – the KJV translators were right to follow the Vulgate when they pleased, and not to do so when they pleased. So also the KJVO advocates, under the great “double standard” banner.
Again, the word for morning star can be and in fact IS translated as Lucifer in the Vulgate, the same VUlgate from which the word Lucifer was transferred into the Isaiah passage. Mentioning 2 Peter 2:19 works against your argument, not for it.
michelle said:
Okay, then, I will explain it very plainly and boldly for you then:
BECAUSE THIS IS WHAT GODS WORD SAYS AND REVEALS.
2 Peter 2:19
Revelation 2:28
Revelation 22:16
In other words, because you say so. Thank you.
Metaphors used for the Lord are never used for the wicked or Satan. Metaphors for Satan and the wicked, are never used for the Lord.
Er, isn't this the very assertion you have yet to demonstrate to the rest of us? Circular reasoning at its finest.
Okay, then, I will explain it very plainly and boldly for you then:
BECAUSE THIS IS WHAT GODS WORD SAYS AND REVEALS.
2 Peter 2:19
Revelation 2:28
Revelation 22:16
In other words, because you say so. Thank you.
Metaphors used for the Lord are never used for the wicked or Satan. Metaphors for Satan and the wicked, are never used for the Lord.
Er, isn't this the very assertion you have yet to demonstrate to the rest of us? Circular reasoning at its finest.
Oh, Stop it, Ouch, I just busted my gut laughing!!!!
Imagine a KJVO calling others stubborn because they don't believe the truth!!!
That has to be the funniest post this year.
If the KJVOs would just look for truth instead of believing man made myths and taking outright liars at their words then maybe churches wouldn't be spliting over this devisive doctrine that is not even found in scripture.
MV users stubborn, at least we don't stand on quicksand and call it rock. At least we don't base our fellowship on a doctrine that is not even in the Bible ( and you can use any version of the KJB you want from 1611 to 1873 and you will not find version onlyism anywhere) This thinking came straight from the RCC and now Baptists are buying it!
And you call us stubborn.
Prove *by scripture* that any version of the King James Version is the only word of God, or quit spreading this false doctrine.
GeneMBridges
New Member
No, that's not completely true. In Ezekiel 28:12 - 15, Scripture describes Satan as the model of perfection, full of wisdom, anointed, blameless in his ways, and perfect in beauty. The passage in Isaiah, if we assume it is primarily about Satan, would fit such a description, for such was Satan at the time he fell from heaven and iniquity was found in him. Therefore, calling him "the morning star" in the context of falling from heaven makes perfect sense after all. He would be the wise, anointed, perfect, blameless, beautiful morning star that fell from heaven (which is exactly what the text says), not the Morning Star that lasts forever, the one that never sets in the heavens, the Lord Jesus Christ.
This interpretation fits your belief quite well and the context of the passage and its meaning as you interpret its primary meaning. God is not required not to use descriptions that are applied to Himself in any one person of the Godhead or all of Himself and apply them elsewhere in order to show the contrast between false and true, evil and good, imperfection and perfect.
Also in Isaiah, Satan is described using the Hebrew word Sair, meaning a wild goat. It is the same word from which the word "satyr" is derived. A satryr is a half-human half bestial creature. Does this then mean that Satan is actually such a figure. After all, he is elsewhere referred to as an angel of light? Which is it, a wild goat/human-beast hybrid, or an angel of light? See, even to Satan, there are contrasting descriptions. Moreover, not every "sair" is Satan and not every "Satan" is "sair," just as not every light giver or source of light is Christ. It depends on the context.
[ May 21, 2004, 12:28 AM: Message edited by: GeneMBridges ]
GeneMBridges
New Member
But, Askjo God does use descriptions/terms He elsewhere applies Himself to describe Satan before the fall, and the verse in Isaiah is, in your own view, a description of Satan at his own fall.
Anointed is a name and a description for God (Ps.2:2, Acts 4:27). In Ezekiel, God applies the same term to Satan. Jesus says that only God is perfect, yet in Ezekiel, Satan is described as the model of perfection; Jesus is constantly described as blameless; in Ezekiel Satan is described the same way.
If we take your own interpretation that "Lucifer" is the correct and only correct translation, then it makes good sense...but only if God actually does apply the same descriptions He elsewhere applies to Himself to Satan, because this verse would be a mention of Satan at the time he fell, which fits Ezekiel quite well. Therefore, morning star does NOT cease to be only used for Jesus, on the basis that clearly God does, in fact, see fit to apply same and similar terms for Satan that He elsewhere applies to Himself/Jesus. "...morning star..." becomes descriptive of Satan at the time he fell from heaven. He is not the Morning Star, Christ that never fell from heaven that never will fall from heaven that is anointed, perfect, beautiful, and blameless. He is,however, the morning star that was once blameless, anointed, beautiful, etc., etc.
"Morning star" is therefore a valid rendering of the word, even if it is meant to refer to Satan and only Satan in this passage, because, in the context of how Scripture describes Satan at that time, it is an accurate description / term.
Anointed is a name and a description for God (Ps.2:2, Acts 4:27). In Ezekiel, God applies the same term to Satan. Jesus says that only God is perfect, yet in Ezekiel, Satan is described as the model of perfection; Jesus is constantly described as blameless; in Ezekiel Satan is described the same way.
If we take your own interpretation that "Lucifer" is the correct and only correct translation, then it makes good sense...but only if God actually does apply the same descriptions He elsewhere applies to Himself to Satan, because this verse would be a mention of Satan at the time he fell, which fits Ezekiel quite well. Therefore, morning star does NOT cease to be only used for Jesus, on the basis that clearly God does, in fact, see fit to apply same and similar terms for Satan that He elsewhere applies to Himself/Jesus. "...morning star..." becomes descriptive of Satan at the time he fell from heaven. He is not the Morning Star, Christ that never fell from heaven that never will fall from heaven that is anointed, perfect, beautiful, and blameless. He is,however, the morning star that was once blameless, anointed, beautiful, etc., etc.
"Morning star" is therefore a valid rendering of the word, even if it is meant to refer to Satan and only Satan in this passage, because, in the context of how Scripture describes Satan at that time, it is an accurate description / term.
--------------------------------------------------
The Latin Vulgate (from whence came the KJV “Lucifer”: in the Isaiah passage) also reads “Lucifer” in 2Pet 1:19:
--------------------------------------------------
I don't care what the Latin Vulgate says, and I don't need to know what it says. The Vulgate got it wrong in 2 Peter 1:19. The word of God says that it is Lucifer in Isaiah 14:12 and day star in 2 Peter 1:19. The Latin Vulgate is not my authority, the word of God is.
love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle
The Latin Vulgate (from whence came the KJV “Lucifer”: in the Isaiah passage) also reads “Lucifer” in 2Pet 1:19:
--------------------------------------------------
I don't care what the Latin Vulgate says, and I don't need to know what it says. The Vulgate got it wrong in 2 Peter 1:19. The word of God says that it is Lucifer in Isaiah 14:12 and day star in 2 Peter 1:19. The Latin Vulgate is not my authority, the word of God is.
love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle
--------------------------------------------------
Again, the word for morning star can be and in fact IS translated as Lucifer in the Vulgate, the same VUlgate from which the word Lucifer was transferred into the Isaiah passage. Mentioning 2 Peter 2:19 works against your argument, not for it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Excuse me, but my Bible says Lucifer in
Isaiah 14:12 and day star in 2 Peter 1:19. My Bible says it, and I believe it and I don't need to question it. Morning star is not the Hebrew word in Isaiah 14, nor is it the meaning of Lucifer.
love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle
Again, the word for morning star can be and in fact IS translated as Lucifer in the Vulgate, the same VUlgate from which the word Lucifer was transferred into the Isaiah passage. Mentioning 2 Peter 2:19 works against your argument, not for it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Excuse me, but my Bible says Lucifer in
Isaiah 14:12 and day star in 2 Peter 1:19. My Bible says it, and I believe it and I don't need to question it. Morning star is not the Hebrew word in Isaiah 14, nor is it the meaning of Lucifer.
love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle
--------------------------------------------------
posted May 21, 2004 12:16 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
michelle said:
Okay, then, I will explain it very plainly and boldly for you then:
BECAUSE THIS IS WHAT GODS WORD SAYS AND REVEALS.
2 Peter 2:19
Revelation 2:28
Revelation 22:16
In other words, because you say so. Thank you.
--------------------------------------------------
I didn't say so, the word of God says so. I am just answering your question with what God has said and revealed about it in his word.
--------------------------------------------------
Metaphors used for the Lord are never used for the wicked or Satan. Metaphors for Satan and the wicked, are never used for the Lord.
Er, isn't this the very assertion you have yet to demonstrate to the rest of us? Circular reasoning at its finest.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Er, no it isn't circular reasoning, it is stating a fact.
love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle
posted May 21, 2004 12:16 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
michelle said:
Okay, then, I will explain it very plainly and boldly for you then:
BECAUSE THIS IS WHAT GODS WORD SAYS AND REVEALS.
2 Peter 2:19
Revelation 2:28
Revelation 22:16
In other words, because you say so. Thank you.
--------------------------------------------------
I didn't say so, the word of God says so. I am just answering your question with what God has said and revealed about it in his word.
--------------------------------------------------
Metaphors used for the Lord are never used for the wicked or Satan. Metaphors for Satan and the wicked, are never used for the Lord.
Er, isn't this the very assertion you have yet to demonstrate to the rest of us? Circular reasoning at its finest.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Er, no it isn't circular reasoning, it is stating a fact.
love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle