NIV Calls Lucifer, "Jesus" (Article)

[michelle]

--------------------------------------------------
Then why are you remaining in such ignorance regarding Truth? I don't mean to be mean, but you have to admit that over and over again you say in no uncertain terms that you don't care about learning.
--------------------------------------------------

I am not in ignorance regarding the truth. There may be things in the word of God that I still need to learn. This I am not against nor do I argue. I am neither against learning. I am against using human logic, or my own logic in opposition to the word of God and his truth. His word comes first and foremost. Faith in Him comes first and foremost, over that of the wisdom of the world. If the wisdom of the world conflicts, or contradicts that to which God tells me and/or my faith, then I disregard it and trust God.

love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

[michelle]

--------------------------------------------------
And by innuendo the rest of us don't?

Just because many of us hold the original language text in an authoritative position above ANY translation does not mean we are not able to take God's Word very seriously. In fact many of us take it so seriously that we have taken the time, paid the expense and practiced the discipline necessary to learn the original languages.

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

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. You don't stand against those things that have or would corrupt it. 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. You have only made an unneccessary expense to yourself, wasted time and energy, that you could have spent delved in His words he already gave you in your own language. It is like a parent who takes the time and loving effort to save their money to send their son/daughter to college, to only have that son/daughter refuse to take it, and go and do this on their own. This sounds great to us in the flesh and human mindset, but God desires to provide for us, not us working ourselves to give ourselves what he has already provided. It is an insult to him. Look at the story of Cain and Abel? Did God not do a good enouph job for you in your own prospective language? Why do you doubt what he has done? What gives you the desire to go to a language that is dead, and to which you don't need to learn, in order to know God when He has already provided it for you? This makes no sense to me whatsoever, and it just brings me to believe what I have relayed to you in this post.

Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

[Marcia]

Michelle, you said:

God desires me to have faith in Him, his word and his truth, not my own logic, nor the logic or wisdom of men. The beginning of wisdom is the fear of God. Where is your fear of God? Let my logic be irrelevant, and the wisdom of God abound.

As someone else pointed out here, logic flows from God's character. Language is based on logic. The Bible is written logically. God gave us a mind and made us in His image and so we reflect that use of logic. Using logic is not actually man's wisdom, but is an ability that God gave us.

The Bible has passages that tell us to use reason and use our mind and to think, such as Is.1:18; Matt.22:37; Rom. 12:3; I Cor. 14; and Phil. 4:8.

 

[michelle]

--------------------------------------------------
As someone else pointed out here, logic flows from God's character. Language is based on logic. The Bible is written logically. God gave us a mind and made us in His image and so we reflect that use of logic. Using logic is not actually man's wisdom, but is an ability that God gave us.

The Bible has passages that tell us to use reason and use our mind and to think, such as Is.1:18; Matt.22:37; Rom. 12:3; I Cor. 14; and Phil. 4:8.
--------------------------------------------------

Yes I also agree .

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 . Not all logic is good, nor Godly. We must have our minds renewed in Christ Jesus our Lord, not the world and its logic and ways. There is Godly logic, and worldly logic. There is the wisdom of God and then there is the wisdom of the world. We have to discern between the two, and we must do this by being grounded in the word of God and trusting in Him and obeying his word. We can do nothing of ourselves, outside of God, if we are to be in his will and his wisdom. It is God who gives us true wisdom, which will not contradict His word, truth, or our faith

.

I just love these little icons, but it seems that the only time I have the option of using them is when I first login .

Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

[HankD]

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

michelle. you don't know my heart just as I don't know yours.

But you are wrong in that the KJV translators have altered God's Word from the original languages as I showed - ask your Bishop if it’s true or not concerning the items I asked you (BTW one thing that a "dead" language has – it NEVER changes).

It seems also that you have reverted to what you complain being the object of yourself.
Ad hominems.

HankD

 

[Charles Meadows]

Michelle,

"I am against using human logic, or my own logic in opposition to the word of God and his truth. His word comes first and foremost. Faith in Him comes first and foremost, over that of the wisdom of the world. If the wisdom of the world conflicts, or contradicts that to which God tells me and/or my faith, then I disregard it and trust God."

Well there's nothing wrong with that. The problem is whether or not you realize it you have used alot of YOUR logic and that of other fundamentalist writers.

I ask how we know Lucifer is satan. You respond with, "if you do an in depth study of ... you'll understand." No offense but that doesn't address the question. You certainly can believe it and that's OK - but the bible does not EXPLICITLY say so - so you're using some of your logic here. Now there's nothing wrong with that - but I don't think you can expect others to completely accept Michelle theology! I want to go by what the bible says! Thus I don't care how many fundamentalist preachers have interpreted this passage. I want to know what God really said!

 

[skanwmatos]

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

The above is a perfect example of the vicious hatred Michelle spews out on anyone who has the courage to disagree with her utter nonsense. She spews this disgusting hatred on her brothers and sisters in Christ, and by so doing, spews her bitter hatred on the gospel that saved them and the Christ who died for them. What a terrible testimony for one who claims to know the Lord as Savior.

 

[Marcia]

There is the wisdom of God and then there is the wisdom of the world. We have to discern between the two, and we must do this by being grounded in the word of God and trusting in Him and obeying his word.

I understand all that, Michelle, but you are ignoring facts about God's word that have been posted here. For example, the meaning of helel which is often used in the Bible to describe the light of constellations, such as stars. I gave some examples as that.

I also believe in God's word and that is why I can question the translation of His word, such as when the KJ translators used the Latin "Lucifer" in Is. 14; and I can question men saying that "Lucifer" in this passage means Satan, when God's Hebrew word says otherwise.

Even if Is. 14 describes the King of Babylon as a type of Satan, the word for helel is not meaning Satan in Hebrew. There is no way to make it mean that.

When the Latin vulgate was written, they put Lucifer here to mean the morning star because that is what it meant. It's that simple. So for the NIV or any other version to use the real meaning of helel is actually going closer to God's word.

 

[Johnv]

Originally posted by michelle:
You obviously have no knowledge of the history of the Bible version debate.

Then you'd know that the KJV was not well received by many of the folks in England at the time. Good ole King James sought to quell the dissention by making it illegal for anyone to own any other translation. The Puritans had to hide their Geneva Bibles, lest they be arrested and jailed. This was one of the straws that broke the camel's back, for the Puritans had had enough religious persecution. The Puritans left for the New World, in hopes of settling a colony where they could practice their religion freely. You'll no doubt be aware that the Bible the colonists brought with the was the Geneva, not the King James.

 

[Askjo]

Originally posted by Marcia:
When the Latin vulgate was written, they put Lucifer here to mean the morning star because that is what it meant. It's that simple. So for the NIV or any other version to use the real meaning of helel is actually going closer to God's word.

Very WRONG! Lucifer is absolutely NOT a morning star. Lucifer means a light bearer or shining one. In Latin "lucis" + "fer" = Lucifer. Morning star is not in Latin Vulgate!

 

[GeneMBridges]

Originally posted by Askjo:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Marcia:
When the Latin vulgate was written, they put Lucifer here to mean the morning star because that is what it meant. It's that simple. So for the NIV or any other version to use the real meaning of helel is actually going closer to God's word.

Very WRONG! Lucifer is absolutely NOT a morning star. Lucifer means a light bearer or shining one. In Latin "lucis" + "fer" = Lucifer. Morning star is not in Latin Vulgate! </font>[/QUOTE]And that was the common name for the planetary body we also call Venus. Venus is the morning star. It is only a name applied to Satan by way of the literary device called parallelism. What is so difficult about this?

 

[GeneMBridges]

Originally posted by michelle:
God desires me to have faith in Him, his word and his truth, not my own logic, nor the logic or wisdom of men. The beginning of wisdom is the fear of God. Where is your fear of God? Let my logic be irrelevant, and the wisdom of God abound.

love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

No, michelle, that's not faith, that is subjectivism. Subjectivism is not of God. Logic exists as a necesssary concomitant of the existence of God Himself. The entire history of the faith is built on historical facts and logical veracity. The heart of Christian theology is its very logic. The basis of faith is, in fact, its logic. Liberal theology, not orthodox evangelical/fundamental theology argues otherwise. Human logic is a logic built on subjectivism, that is why it is faulty. You are saying that you will ignore logic in favor of your own conviction. You are, in fact, making the argument that many liberal theologian and exegetes make in defending their own positions, which always carry with them at least one, if not more, logically self-defeating expression or premise. That is the first strike that tells me that your "logic" and your "faith," is not faith in God, it is faith in your own viewpoint, and that says it is subjectivism. The second strike is your constant ad hom attacks. You accuse others of judging you, but at the same time you call our faith in God, and our commitment to truth in question. The third and final proof of your illogic and the subjectivism of it is the fact that we are just as indwelled by the Holy Spirit as you are. We have Him too, and He has not led us to your conclusions. Now either God is contradicting Himself or one of us is wrong, and, since there is not one single line of Scripture that supports the notion that any translation of the Scriptures is superlative, which is the cornerstone of KJVOnlyism, we are left with only one conclusion...

 

[Askjo]

Originally posted by Marcia:
When the Latin vulgate was written, they put Lucifer here to mean the morning star because that is what it meant. It's that simple. So for the NIV or any other version to use the real meaning of helel is actually going closer to God's word.

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!

 

[Marcia]

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 looked at the word, Askjo and posted quite a few sentences on it. You don't just look at the definition but to how it's used. This word is used in several places in the Bible to describe the light coming from a constellation. That is how God had the Bible writers use it in certain cases, including Is 14:12. Sometimes it means "lamp," sometimes the light from the moon, sometimes the light from the star. I don't have time to go back and read my other post but I give the verses where this is done.

Just as in English a word can be used for different things -- so "helel" can mean different things in different contexts. How the word is used show its meanings and I did that by citing other verses where it means the light of constellations or heavenly bodies.

BTW, there is no need for the multi !!!! marks. It's unnecessary. It's something I see in my emails from young teenagers.

 

[Johnv]

Originally posted by Askjo:
Morning star is not in Latin Vulgate!

Neither is Satan.

 

[Charles Meadows]

The problem with heylel is we really don't know what type of grammatical form it is. It very well may be a name or a noun derived from the verb "halal" but this isn't known since heylel is not any recognizable conjugated form of the verb. For years Strongs listed as being from "yalal" because some of the hiphil forms looked similar (heylalu) but the relation with Lucifer in the light of some Ugaritic inscriptions since discovered have changed the thinking on the part of most Hebraists.

 

[Orvie]

Originally posted by michelle:
Nothing like diffusing the issue yet again. If Lucifer really was referring to the planet Venus, then that would be most appropriate rendering in the modern versions, if this is what they have a problem with, in this word choice of Lucifer. Why did the KJV translators not render this Venus? You all know why.

However, this passage is speaking specifically about Satan who fell from heaven. This can cause nothing but confusion to the believer who has NEVER READ the KJV of the Bible, as to who this morning star is. There are many out there who are claiming the morning star is Lucifer, making Lucifer Jesus Christ (to which many people, such as Madame Blavatsky referred to as Christ - her christ who is Satan, or Lucifer), to whom he IS NOT. God is not the author of confusion, and the KJV translators properly translated this word, to Lucifer, which means light bearer and morning star. The Hebrew word means bright one. Whether this is referring to the planet venus or not, that is not the intended meaning of this passage. This is speaking of the son of the morning, to the bright one who fell from heaven, speaking of Satan's fall from heaven. There are dual meanings to this passage that have been shown regarding this, but the main point is speaking of Lucifer who is Satan, and many generations of believers knew this to be the truth, and this is how it has been understood. You are trying to concoct some new understanding of this passage in order to justify, and excuse a clear, direct and quite obvious BLASPHEMY against our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.

WHERE IS YOUR FEAR OF THE LORD?

love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

Dr Orvie says, "Classic Conspiracy Paranoia"

 

[Orvie]

Originally posted by michelle:
I am merely questioning where there love for the truth of God's word is. Where is it? I haven't seen it.

You haven't seen it b/c you refuse to open your eyes. You have exalted the Anglican translators to prophets, instead of human interpretors.

 

[Orvie]

Originally posted by michelle:
So Skan,

You like to reply to posts that you have nothing to refute it with, with a copycat style post? Real mature, and again, typical of the mv crowd.

love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

Are you the female version of "Precepts"? Oh, how I miss him!

 

[Charles Meadows]

I do miss ole Bro Precepts! Hope he's doing well!