NIV Calls Lucifer, "Jesus" (Article)

[robycop3]

Michelle:No, I don't agree, and cannot believe you would say such a thing.

Why not? he typed the TRUTH.

Every single word in my Bible is the very words of God. I believe this and will always believe this. I am sorry for you if you don't.

Is your Bible in Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek? If not, you do NOT have the very words of God before you, but someone's TRANSLATION of them.


I believe God when he has promised to preserve his word for every generation, and I also believe that his words are everlasting, and I also believe that man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.

Then you should have no prob with differing Bible versions. No two are alike, and if God has preserved His word, then that's the manner in which He's chosen to have preserved it.


Not only that, but I have the Holy Spirit of truth dwelling in me that gives me conviction of these truths.

KJVO ruse...er...ruLe # 4: "When all else fails, fall back on 'MY faith can whup YOUR faith'. That's the way to put them nasty ole dissenters in their places!"

 

[robycop3]

Michelle:Did I say this? No, I did not. Did I imply this? NO I did not. The proper translation of the Hebrew and Greek of the received text into the English language is still God's word, just translated to the same meaning in another language. They are still God's words. God is creator of all languages, and has the power, ability and authorization to provide all people His words of truth in one's own prospective language. This is what I believe, and this is what is evidenced in my Bible. I am sorry you have a difficult time understanding this simple truth. And it is not heresy. It is faith in God and his promises and his faithfulness and lovingkindness.


Then you should have NO prob with more modern versions written in TODAY'S English.

You say you're not KJVO. What other version(s) do you recommend?

 

[robycop3]

Michelle:With all due respect, Hank, you do not love nor revere God's word of truth by virtue of condoning those things that have altered it.

No two English BVs are alike. How do you know which one(s) aren't "altered"?


You don't stand against those things that have or would corrupt it.

Yes he does, by his rejection of KJVOism, among other things.


If you loved God's word, and you revered it, you would also know that He has provided it for you already in your own language.

Just as He provided it in the languages of the 1600s, before and after, with no 2 versions being alike.

 

[robycop3]

Michelle: But as I said in my post, that if it conflicts with God's word of truth and/or my faith in Him, then I must reject that logic.

Then you must reject the KJV, as its translators used THEIR human logic to render English translations of difficult or uncertain Greek or Hebrew passages.

 

[robycop3]

Askjo: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!

The AV 1611's marginal note for Isaiah 14:12:

"or O DAY STARRE"

 

[robycop3]

Ransom: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.

Revelation 2:28
"And I will give him the morning star."

Obviously Jesus isn't referring to Himself nor Satan here. I see the KJVOs have no comment on THIS verse so far.

 

[robycop3]

Michelle:I also have been labeled (KJVO) as something I am not, and even if I did fit the label that one places on me,

So you're not KJVO. What other version(s) do you recommend?

 

[Ed Edwards]

Ransom: "(Apparently they didn't teach you about
metaphor, simile, and symbolism when you
went to English class, did they?)

I think it may bahe been my fault instead of
theirs. I didn't listen to much.
I do know though that those subjects did not
come up in the first 50 years of listening
to sermons at church. But my pastor the
last ten years has a Bachelor's Degree in
English.

My current pastor has turned a flat, black & white view
of the Holy Scripture iint a three-dimensional,
full color experience.

My pastor is KJVO #1 saying that the
origial translators of the KJV1611 edition
were better than other sets of translators
in that they seemed to best understand
literary devices employed by the
Hebrew and Greek texts being translated.

 

[Ed Edwards]

Michelle: "I also have been labeled (KJVO) as something
I am not, ... "

Will you please tell me which of the
five times of KJVO discussed in
Dr. Bob's essay that you are not.

It is found here --> Definitions of KJV Only <-- Click here

BTW, I am KJVO.
I am on Dr. Bob's list a KJVO #1.

 

[Ed Edwards]

Originally posted by 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.

Michelle: "I don't care what the Latin Vulgate says, and I don't need to know what it says."

This is the advocacy of apathy (I don't care)
and ignorance (I don't know). Plain,
simple, and now documented.

BTW, the Latin Vulgate is the written word
of God. It just happens to be in a language
"Latin" that i don't understand.

 

[michelle]

--------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------
Michelle quoted:

I believe God when he has promised to preserve his word for every generation, and I also believe that his words are everlasting, and I also believe that man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.
--------------------------------------------------
robycop quoted:

Then you should have no prob with differing Bible versions. No two are alike, and if God has preserved His word, then that's the manner in which He's chosen to have preserved it.
--------------------------------------------------
Michelle quoted:

Not only that, but I have the Holy Spirit of truth dwelling in me that gives me conviction of these truths.
--------------------------------------------------

KJVO ruse...er...ruLe # 4: "When all else fails, fall back on 'MY faith can whup YOUR faith'. That's the way to put them nasty ole dissenters in their places
--------------------------------------------------

robycop, if you stopped chopping up what people have written in their post inappropriately, you and others might understand what I said. Why do you continually do this to take what I have said out of context? Please read my post again, and stop chopping up my post inappropriately! You are clearly misrepresenting what I have stated.

love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

[michelle]

--------------------------------------------------
Then you should have NO prob with more modern versions written in TODAY'S English.

You say you're not KJVO. What other version(s) do you recommend?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If you have understood me, or at least tried to understand me, you would know already why I do have problems with the modern versions. Secondly I have answered your last question already.

By the way, you have no scriptural authority to condone the omitting/adding to God's words, as it is condemned in His words to us to do so.

love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

[michelle]

--------------------------------------------------
No two English BVs are alike. How do you know which one(s) aren't "altered"?

--------------------------------------------------

Again, you lack understanding of the differences in the reformation Bibles and why, to which cannot be compared to as being alterations, as are seen in the modern versions. It is comparing apples to oranges.

love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

[michelle]

--------------------------------------------------
You don't stand against those things that have or would corrupt it.

Yes he does, by his rejection of KJVOism, among other things.

--------------------------------------------------

Standing against the errors in the modern versions, and the belief the belief that the KJB is God's word of God is not corrupting the word of God. It is standing for the words of God, and warning of those things that have altered it. This is not teaching others to corrupt the word of God. If Hank is rejecting a label that is fine, but to reject the truth is a whole different matter altogether and does not in any way show that he is standing against those things that corrupt God's word. Rather he stands for those things that have in order to fight some label.

Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

[michelle]

--------------------------------------------------
Ransom: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.

Revelation 2:28
"And I will give him the morning star."

Obviously Jesus isn't referring to Himself nor Satan here. I see the KJVOs have no comment on THIS verse so far.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


It is not my fault, nor anyone elses fault that you do not understand this verse of scripture. It is you own fault. I suggest you pray to the Lord to give you understanding.


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

[michelle]

--------------------------------------------------
Michelle: "I also have been labeled (KJVO) as something
I am not, ... "

Will you please tell me which of the
five times of KJVO discussed in
Dr. Bob's essay that you are not.

It is found here --> Definitions of KJV Only <-- Click here

BTW, I am KJVO.
I am on Dr. Bob's list a KJVO #1.

--------------------------------------------------

Ed,

You may adhere to the labels of men, however I do not. They cause nothing but strife and misunderstanding regarding this issue. You may bow down to what man has placed upon you, but I will not, for what they label me as is irrelevant to this issue.

love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

[Ransom]

michelle said:

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.

N.B.: Michelle gives no evidence for her assertion. The Vulgate is wrong because the King Jimmy is right, and the King Jimmy is right because Michelle says so.

 

[Ransom]

Michelle said:
I didn't say so, the word of God says so.

and

Er, no it isn't circular reasoning, it is stating a fact.

Once again, michelle gives no evidence of the truth of any of her assertions. The King Jimmy is always right, and the King Jimmy is always right because michelle says so.

 

[Ransom]

michelle said:

It is a word they chose to use, and whether they got it from the vulgate or not, I don't know, and neither do you, and it really doesn't matter.

Actually we can know. The translators said in their preface that they consulted ancient versions as helps, including the Vulgate. And in Isa. 14:12 appears a Latin transliteration that just happens to appear in the same place in the Vulgate.

Most people are capable of putting two and two together. Just because you are unable doesn't mean everybody has attained to your level of ignorance.

Furthermore, they also said in a margin note that "day starre" was also a good translation of the term heylel. How come you can't deal with that?

 

[michelle]

--------------------------------------------------
What shines? The bright one, the shining one. What would that refer to? The morning star, venus, also known as Lucifer. Therefore morning star = Lucifer. Same thing, interchangeable terms. One is simply descriptive. If you and I stood on the earth at the time of Isaiah's writing and somebody pointed to the morning star and asked the name of that star, we would all agree "Lucifer." Therefore the morning star is Lucifer. There is nothing, zero, zip, nada, wrong with rendering the word "heylel" as "morning star" for that reason. What is the problem that you don't understand this other than, "The KJV says so?"
--------------------------------------------------

You asked what shines? Uh, the sun shines, the moon shines, a diamond shines - many things shine and it is a very big leap to saying it means morning star. If the NIV accurately translated from the Hebrew text, it would have been rendered bright one or light bearer, or Lucifer. There is not one single indication in this passage that this is referring to Venus or the morning star. The translators of the NIV have pulled two words out of thin air, to render for this Hebrew word, to which do not accurately, nor appropriately render this word.

The words of God, are God's words, inspired by God, not what man thinks. Whether man referred to the planet Venus as the morning star or not, is irrelevant to this passage. The Hebrew word means bright one. The word choice of Lucifer is an accurate rending for this word, because it means the same thing as the Hebrew word. Venus and the morning star have no bearing in this verse whatsoever.

love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle