NIV & New Age Movement by Al Lacey

[Trotter]

Michelle wrote:
Lucifer is the Latin word used that has the same meaning as that for the Hebrew words in the text that underline the KJB and to which is not morning star, but bright one or shining one, or light bearer.

So, you admit that the KJV translators ADDED to the Hebrew text?

Have you ever done any research into what "bright one" or "shining one" refers to (I'm not taling about the king of Babylon or Jesus Christ, but what the term stands for)?

Lucifer was used in the Geneva Bible also.

So, because the translators o the Geneva Bible added to the text, it was OK for the KJV translators to do so as well?

This was the word for Satan in the history of the churches even up until this day.

All because two sets of translators added to the original Hebrew. Hmmm...so I guess the Latin supercedes the original languages? Quick, somebody give me a ring to kiss...

This is most likely why it remained in it's Latin form in our English translations. But you see, I don't doubt, nor question what it is supposed to be, because this is what God provided and preserved for it to be already for us.

It remained because the king of England enforced the KJV as the only legal bible to own.

I'm glad you are beyond doubt, but, as you can see, the translators added to the text. So, which is correct? The text, or the translators? You can't have it both ways.

And if you are going to take the Vulgate's word over the texts, are you going to learn Latin and chuck your KJV? I thought not.

In Christ,
Trotter

 

[Trotter]

Askjo,

Isa 14:12 quomodo cecidisti de caelo lucifer qui mane oriebaris corruisti in terram qui vulnerabas gentes
~ Latin Vulgate, compliments of E-sword

Wrong again, Askjo!

In Christ,
Trotter

 

[michelle]

--------------------------------------------------
There is nothing wrong with you holding to your King James. Absolutely nothing at all. But, by your own admission, you have never read any other translation, correct? So, how do you know that they are not God's word?
--------------------------------------------------

Hiya Granny!

Does Genesis 3:1 come to your memory as you read this? It did to me.


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

[GrannyGumbo]

The King James Version has stood the test of time. And it will always be with us. But some of these "newer" translations are just as much God's word. And that is what I am fighting about.

"Okay~I'm really trying to see this from your point of view...ahem, well, at least trying to get it all sorted out in my head. You say "some" of these newer...So~which ones? How do you know WHICH ones? Do you go thru each one & pic'n'choose, or what? That's what I don't understand. Why all the hoopla over many, when there is already one. You said it yourself it has stood the test of time, so WHY the dissatisfaction with it? Why not stick with it and be content? Why fight about something when most of you admit you love the kjbible. I just don't understand.

Also, do you ever wonder what happens when people carry-on(mock,etc) towards this bible(& those who use it only), what does God think? Do you think He ever chastises them for doing that? Oh well, ya don't gotta answer nothing...I was jes'ramblin'.

 

[michelle]

--------------------------------------------------
So, you admit that the KJV translators ADDED to the Hebrew text?
--------------------------------------------------

No it is called T..R..A..N..S..L..A..T..I..O..N.


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

[Ransom]

Check out the way Michelle has dropped her false accusations against Bibles that say "the Christ," like a hot potato, now that Askjo and his "Lucifer" rerun has given her an escape.

 

[Charles Meadows]

"Why fight about something when most of you admit you love the kjbible. I just don't understand."

Because there are false teachers (like Jack Hyles and Peter Ruckman) who make it a sin to use another translation. None of us have problems with KJB users - many of us ARE KJB users. What we have problems with is those who get up on soap boxes and tell others that their bibles are perverted.

"Also, do you ever wonder what happens when people carry-on(mock,etc) towards this bible(& those who use it only), what does God think?"

I'd worry more about what God would think concerning those who worship a bible version.

 

[michelle]

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

Have you ever done any research into what "bright one" or "shining one" refers to (I'm not taling about the king of Babylon or Jesus Christ, but what the term stands for)?
--------------------------------------------------

I don't need to, as it is speaking of Satan falling from heaven, and is therefore refering to Satan, the shining one or the Bright one. Personally I didn't even need to go to the length of the origional languages, because it was already TRANSLATED for me, and the understanding I recieve of who Lucifer is, is by the CONTEXT OF SCRIPTURE and RIGHTLY DIVIDING THE WORD OF GOD. Church history, and church presently also confirm this understanding. I always look to the scriptures first, and trust them first.

Please don't go off on another rampage to try to tell me that Lucifer is referring to venus, because quite honestly, that is not what Lucifer literally means and is not meant in this verse of scripture either. Man has called the planet venus Lucifer, because Lucifer means Bright one or Light bearer, not the other way around.


I may be showing what you think is "ignorance" to you, to which I don't care one iota. However you are showing "doubt" in the power of God over the control of his words. God has evidenced to us all, that Lucifer is to be the word in this passage and that it is referring to Satan.


Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

[michelle]

--------------------------------------------------
So, because the translators o the Geneva Bible added to the text, it was OK for the KJV translators to do so as well?
--------------------------------------------------

I don't question what was right or wrong for the Geneve,KJB translators nor do I have to, nor anyone else in the churches for that matter , because God evidenced that this was the word he chose, by virtue of his having it used, and then preserved even up until this very day in the churches. And the Geneva translators did not ADD anything either, but TRANSLATED. It is the NIV TRANSLATORS THAT HAVE ADDED. You got it backwards.

love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

[Trotter]

Granny,

Translations that hold true to the source texts (which excludes paraphases {what somebody thinks it ought to say}) and do not push an agenda (the Good As New, New World Translation) are true bibles and the word of God.

I do love the KJV (even though I will gripe about it from time to time). It has stood the test of time, but it is frozen in the time it was translated (17th century venacular and terminology). People today (OK, me) don't talk this way anymore. English has grown and changed. Words have changed meaning and vanished from the language.

So, in order to be able to read and understand without re-translating what I read, I read a modern translation. It makes a lot more sense to me to use what I don't have to decipher.

Also, do you ever wonder what happens when people carry-on(mock,etc) towards this bible(& those who use it only), what does God think? Do you think He ever chastises them for doing that?

I dunno. What does God think when those people who only use and carry that bible carry-on (mock, etc.) towards those bibles that are different than theirs, and the people who use them? See, it works both ways.

But, remember this: It is not the person that I oppose, but the false doctrine that they proclaim.

Even the most entremched KJVO will admit that their choice is based on their faith, not cold hard facts. But, they will scream and fight that their position is "right", and anyone who doesn't agree with them is hell-bound (or wrong, depending on how rabid the person is).

Any doctrine that does not come straight from the bible is man-made, and it is wrong. And that is what I oppose...I just get a little "carried away" sometimes.

In Christ,
Trotter

 

[Trotter]

No it is called T..R..A..N..S..L..A..T..I..O..N.

No, Michelle, translation is taking what is there are exchanging it for words that mean the same thing in a target language.

"Lucifer" is not in the Hebrew. Therefore, it was added.

In Christ,
Trotter

 

[michelle]

--------------------------------------------------
Trotter quoted:

Askjo,

Isa 14:12 quomodo cecidisti de caelo lucifer qui mane oriebaris corruisti in terram qui vulnerabas gentes
~ Latin Vulgate, compliments of E-sword

Wrong again, Askjo!

In Christ,
Trotter
--------------------------------------------------


Askjo never said Lucifer was not found in the Latin Vulgate, read below:


--------------------------------------------------
Askjo quoted:

Morning star is not found in Latin Vulgate -- Neither!

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


Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

[Trotter]

Askjo never said Lucifer was not found in the Latin Vulgate

Duh...it's written, in, like...Latin...

In Christ,
Trotter

 

[Trotter]

Michelle,

It is obvious that you do not care what the original writers had to say. That is you choice. Have a good life.

I'm tired of beating my head against a brick wall that will not even look to see what is actually said.

In Christ,
Trotter

 

[michelle]

--------------------------------------------------
Translations that hold true to the source texts (which excludes paraphases {what somebody thinks it ought to say}) and do not push an agenda (the Good As New, New World Translation) are true bibles and the word of God.
--------------------------------------------------
I guess by your own standards and judgement you have come to this conclusion. Not very wise.

God already reveals to us His words in the scriptures, and tells us everything we need to know about them in the scriptures. He didn't tell us to be the judge ourselves of what his words are and try to figure it out ourselves, because HE PROVIDES HIS WORDS TO US. We are to judge ALL by His words, not the other way around. Now you must ask yourself, where was God's words to be found before the advent of 1881? And what and how do they compare to these New Bibles from "new text streams found and used" and how do they qualify to the standards that God has himself laid down and said about his words? Ask yourself this question honestly.

love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

[GrannyGumbo]

I do love the KJV (even though I will gripe about it from time to time). It has stood the test of time, but it is frozen in the time it was translated (17th century venacular and terminology). People today (OK, me) don't talk this way anymore. English has grown and changed. Words have changed meaning and vanished from the language.

"When I was given access to the world via of this 'puter, I discovered the most marvelous dictionary...the Webster's 1828. It's amazing how 'modernization' has changed so many meanings over the years. I prefer to think the definitions in the 1828 are what it's s'pose to REALLY be.

I discovered this when checking-out how the wording on marriage had changed: 'The act of uniting a man and woman for life; wedlock; the legal union of a man and woman for life. Marriage is a contract both civil and religious, by which the parties engage to live together in mutual affection and fidelity, till death shall separate them. Marriage was instituted by God himself for the purpose of preventing the promiscuous intercourse of the sexes, for promoting domestic felicity,and for securing the maintenance and education of children'.

Today's dictionary has this to say about marriage: 'The state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage>...'

Quite a difference, don'cha think? And now with the sodomites doing their thing(abomination), well, they must use a modern dictionary and a modern bible. Some things don't need changing. Some things is best to leave alone...especially if it's stood the test of time.

Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever. I'm so thankful He's never changed; frozen in time, per se. And the way I know Him is thru that blessed ol'book what's stood the test of time".

 

[Ed Edwards]

Ifaiah XIIII.12 (KJV1611)

how art thou fallen from heauen,
||O Lucifer, sonne of the morning? how
are thou cut downe to the ground,
whiich didst weaken the nations?

||or, O day starre.

The "or" in the footnote means a likely
alternate translation of the source text
term.

Ifaiah XIIII.12 (KJV1611alt)

how art thou fallen from heauen,
O day starre , sonne of the morning? how
are thou cut downe to the ground,
whiich didst weaken the nations?

The inspired KJB, the KJV 1611 Edition (KJV1611)
tells it all!

Praise Iesus, Sonne of God

 

[Ed Edwards]

Originally posted by GrannyGumbo:
Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever. I'm so thankful He's never changed; frozen in time, per se. And the way I know Him is thru that blessed ol'book what's stood the test of time".[/i]

Amen, Sister
GrannyGumbo -- I love the Latin Vulgate also.

The Latin Vulgate was the standard written
word of God for 1,000 years.
Compare to the KJV1611, the standard
for 90 years (1700-1790).
Compare to the KJV1769, the standard
for 100 years (1790-1890).
Compare to the KJV1873, never a standard.

Praise Iesus, Sonne of God!

 

[superdave]

Ed, You are terrible

I love it!


How dare you attempt to argue using facts, this discussion has nothing to do with facts

 

[Ed Edwards]

METAPHOR - "the application of a word or phrase
to an object or concept it does
not literally denote"

SIMILE - "a figure of speach in which two
unlike things are explicitly compared as
in //she is like a rose//
( Note that a metaphor is implicit,
for example //she is a rose// )

So, in Isaiah 14 the King of Babylon
is used as a methphor for Satan (lead devil).
In Isaiah 14:12 the phony dawn
(AKA: Lucifer, day starre, venus, etc)
is used as a metaphor for Satan (boss demon).

In Revelation 22:16 "the bright and morning
star" is used as a simile for Jesus, the Christ.
Does it bother you that God, in His
holy written word, uses the Morning Star
as a metaphor for Satan and a simile for Jesus?
God does this in the KJV1769, so don't let it
bother you.

Likewise, I could metaphor a rose for a wonderful person
who smells good and a slob who is thorny

My pastor got an English degree at OBU
(Oklahoma Baptist University) before getting a M.Div.
at Southwestern Seminary in Ft. Worth.
He told me all this metaphor and simile stuff
from his pulpit cause it helps us understand the
Bible better. He also says that the KJV is the
best translation because the 1611 translators were
much more aware of the retorical devises and figures
of speach than are current teams of translators.

Praise Iesus, Sonne of God![/b]