Why so much against KJB-only?

[michelle]

Peace and love to you all in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour!

Ed, I have NOT contradicted myself. Your understanding or meaning of KJVonlyism includes those beliefs that do not fit to that term. It does not really matter to me, what you call me however. The important thing is that one stand for the truth in God's word and it's purity and preservation -

Psalm 12:6,7,8
6 The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
7 Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.
8 The wicked walk on EVERY SIDE, when the vilest men are EXALTED. (my emphasis)

To define the term "I Am" to me, as I am a child and do not understand the meaning of it, is somewhat insulting to me. I know what the term means. YOu are trying to diffuse the important issue with irrelevant and unimportant information, and on top of it, try to slander me by saying that I have contradicted myself, which indeed, I have not done. I have seen this done by those (many times), who are faced with the hard and obvious truth, and then do not want others to see it, so they must attack the persons reputation. I hope and pray that others reading these posts will not fall for this old trick.

On to the important issue, that many are not even talking about, and which is the core problem regarding this topic, that of the manuscripts that underlie the KJV verses the Modern Versions. This is where the problems have arised from, and what the whole issue comes from. Do those of you who stand so strong for the modern versions, realize where the translations come from of your beloved modern versions? Do you know the truth about this? Do you also understand that the KJV agrees with the majority texts? That the modern versions have used the 1% texts that were rejected in the KJV because they disagreed with the majority, and THIS IS WHERE THE DISCREPANCIES ARE? Not only that, but the referrences to the greek LXX is known to be fabrication done in about 200 A.D. by a man called Origen(an esoteric). The Aleph, and B are apparently in agreement with the greek LXX. There is very little evidence of the existence of the entire Old testament predating the life of Christ in greek. Only a few peices of evidence have been found. The Septuagint points these things out in its preference. Now, how reliable are the Aleph (Sinaiticus) and (Vaticanus)B? These two were used by Westcott and Hort who altered the traditional Greek text. These texts were rejected by the early church (they became stagnant in Egypt). Yet this is what has been underlying many of the modern versions of today and touted as the most accurate. The KJV agrees with the majority of the texts (RT) from various regions, from Asia, Greece, and Rome. The modern versions rely soley upon a handful of manuscripts which disagree with the majority text found throughout these regions. There is a preponderance of evidence against the modern versions and the fact that they are unreliable and have corrupted God's pure and holy word is evident.

love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

[ScottEmerson]

Originally posted by Precepts:
I can see the love overflowing for your Sister in Christ by the consistency to label her as KJVO; a mean and hateful expression to deduce some one as a member of a cult and propigating false doctrine for believing the Bible.

People are leaving BB because of this kind of treatment. How many more will yall disenfranchise by the attitudes portrayed in the debate? [/QB]

There are several shades of KJVO, the most liberal of which would say that one can only be saved by the KJV Bible and no modern version. However, what she and you both espouse most definitely falls under the KJVO umbrella. If you don't like the label, then change what you believe. It's like someone who believes in the Baptist Faith and Message but claims, "I'm not a Baptist!" It's like someone who believes that the Aryans are the supreme race in 2004 and would support another Hitler, but claims, "I'm not a Nazi supporter!" It's like someone who believes in the Constitution, was born in the US, pays taxes, and votes, but claims, "I'm not an American!"

You can't have it both ways. Your beliefs dictate the label.

 

[michelle]

Peace and love to you all in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour!

Hello Jim! I do not seem to understand why those who claim to love the Lord and love others, would condone translations that have corrupted God's holy and pure word. This really surprises me, and the most surprising thing, is that they claim to be baptists! There are not many fundamental Bible believing, God fearing persons, or churches that uses the modern versions, nor would condone them (and these churches are becoming harder and harder to find). They are almost always those of the liberal churches that are involved in the ecumenical movements or New Evangelical movements, promote tolerance, etc - this is a fact, not an IMO. Tis very sad indeed, but also very telling of the very days we are living in. There might be a select few churches that maintain separating from the world that use modern versions, and condone them, but I fear they are being mightily decieved by the heretical and apostate scholars of the day, being tossed to and fro by every wind of doctrine. To call those of us who stand for the purity of God's word believing in a false doctrine is lauphable, but also very sad indeed. What they don't seem to understand is that the modern versions have corrupted God's pure and holy word of truth, and then attack the KJV, and think (falsely) we hold the KJV as an idol. The fact is, that the KJV contains God's preserved word and is the translation of it for English speaking people, and if there were other translations of the majority texts, it would read the same and be the same and would be reliable and acceptable no matter what name it had to it. However, the modern versions have not done this and therefore are not reliable. I am not on here to argue with others, but to reason with them these things, as God Almighty would have us to do. Maybe these people do not want to face the fact that they have allowed themselves to be decieved by men who think they are wise.

Thanks for your advice about the helmet.
We need to armour ourselves with the full armour of God every day, with everyone and unfortunately one cannot have the full armour only relying upon a corrupt version of God's word.

Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

[Ben Mills SsBG]

You know that we would not have this problem if we would all just learn to use the original languages. Or possibly go back to the Latin. It seams strange to me that since we Protestants divorced the Catholic Church we started to divide ourselves over translations and communion and other strange issues. Do any of you think that this could possible be a vain dispute? You know what Paul warns Timothy about. This makes me very sad that we argue about things like this. What is worse to me is that the world sees us do this and then wants not part in the religion.

 

[michelle]

Peace and love to you all in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour!

Ben, what is sad to me, is that those who claim to love the Lord and love others, do not defend his holy and pure word against those things which have or do corrupt it. We have no sure foundation to stand upon, and no armour to dress ourselves with, if we rely upon a false foundation or a foundation that has many holes. Why should we go back to the origional languages, or latin for that matter when God has already preserved for us in our language his word of truth? It is those who have corrupted Gods truth in his word under the guise of a translation that have caused this debate, and you know what else? The truth will always divide! That is a fact, and Jesus Christ said he did not come to bring peace, but rather division!

The world must hear the gospel of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, which has the power to save. The debate going on here will prove nothing to unbelievers one way or another. But then again, this is the Baptists boards, where baptists who are believers and saved come to discuss issues. This is for the believers benefit, not unbelievers. The world already is not seeking God, nor the things of God, and are spiritually discerned.

Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
Michelle

 

[Ben Mills SsBG]

You said, “This is for the believers benefit, not unbelievers.” This is the INTERNET the most public forum ever thought of. For you to even think that there are not unsaved people who have joined or hacked into this forum and are not reading everything we write, is a joke. In all that we do and say and write we need to, no MUST, think of how it will be perceived by unsaved people.

I am of the opinion that we all should know the original languages so that the scripture will truly be infallible. That, however, is not a possible reality for many factors. I think that we need to give people milk and then meat. Most people cannot even understand the language in the KJV. To me this is sad but it is a reality. We need to give people the word of Hashem in what they can understand and then we need to wean them off of that onto something more “reliable”. If our goal it the spread of the word of Hashem then we must make that happen and not be a stumbling block of legalism. Is this not one of the reasons we Protestants divorced from the Catholic Church?

 

[Precepts]

Originally posted by ScottEmerson:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Precepts:
I can see the love overflowing for your Sister in Christ by the consistency to label her as KJVO; a mean and hateful expression to deduce some one as a member of a cult and propigating false doctrine for believing the Bible.

People are leaving BB because of this kind of treatment. How many more will yall disenfranchise by the attitudes portrayed in the debate?

There are several shades of KJVO, the most liberal of which would say that one can only be saved by the KJV Bible and no modern version. However, what she and you both espouse most definitely falls under the KJVO umbrella. If you don't like the label, then change what you believe. It's like someone who believes in the Baptist Faith and Message but claims, "I'm not a Baptist!" It's like someone who believes that the Aryans are the supreme race in 2004 and would support another Hitler, but claims, "I'm not a Nazi supporter!" It's like someone who believes in the Constitution, was born in the US, pays taxes, and votes, but claims, "I'm not an American!"

You can't have it both ways. Your beliefs dictate the label. [/QB]</font>[/QUOTE]It's like some one who espouses hatred and disdain towards his brethren and labels them as cult members and propigating false doctrine, because he or she stands on the KJB, and still claims to be a Christian. It's like some one who sends out the call to disassociate and excommunictae other BB members and still calls himself a Christian.

There's a "label" for what you espouse, and it's probably against the BB rules, but I see yours is not: hypocrisy, not Christianity; so if you don't like the "label", then change your beliefs, along with how you respond with the hateful attitude and accusations.

 

[HankD]

There's a "label" for what you espouse, and it's probably against the BB rules, but I see yours is not: hypocrisy, not Christianity; so if you don't like the "label", then change your beliefs, along with how you respond with the hateful attitude and accusations.

Precepts! Is there one post among your 1100+ in which you yourself have not brought an accusation (direct or oblique) or innuendo against another?

HankD

 

[michelle]

Peace and love to you in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour!

Ben, I am aware that there may be unbelievers that come here and are reading these posts. However, I have not said, nor done anything that would deflect from the truth, glory and power of God Almighty. I am not ashamed of what I have said, nor have I behaved in an unbiblical/unchristian manner. Are you accusing me of not doing this? Besides, you have missed the point in my earlier post, that the only thing that will save the unbeliever is the hearing of the gospel of Jesus Christ and the conviction of their heart by the Holy Spirit. Our conversations in here have nothing to do with it, one way or the other, and in fact are meaningless to them, for they are spiritually discerned.
However...
No matter who we are speaking with and at all times Ben, we should always present ourselves as Christ Jesus would lead us in doing his will, and in a Christ like manner and mind.

I do not understand your reference to legalism. Could you please explain this? Are we to be willingly obediant to the word of God? Would you consider this legalism? If so, then I guess I am a legalist. I willingly heed the word of God and believe and trust Him and encourage others the same.

As far as going back to the origional languages, that is one's preference, and all to ya if you can do this. However, God has provided us with his preserved word in our english language(and I am sure other languages also), and I am so very thankful and greatful to our Lord for this most precious work/promise of his! Praise the Lord our God in Heaven!

Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

[ScottEmerson]

Originally posted by Precepts:
It's like some one who espouses hatred and disdain towards his brethren and labels them as cult members and propigating false doctrine, because he or she stands on the KJB, and still claims to be a Christian. It's like some one who sends out the call to disassociate and excommunictae other BB members and still calls himself a Christian.

I don't believe I said you were a cult member, only that you are a KJVO. The two are not necessarily synonymous. I don't think there has been hatred on my end toward you, but I have been tough with the sarcasm that you continually bring to the board. Being tough and hatred are also not synonymous. And again, I never called for an excommunication, just the willful choosing to not respond to you for a period of a couple of weeks. The two are not synonymous. I really thought that you could tell the difference.

There's a "label" for what you espouse, and it's probably against the BB rules, but I see yours is not: hypocrisy, not Christianity; so if you don't like the "label", then change your beliefs, along with how you respond with the hateful attitude and accusations.

Nah - I don't think that I'm hypocritical in expecting posts that follow God's command to the Church. If I went around and posted comments as the ones you often make, and made the stance that I do, then I agree, that would be hypocritical. I have never seen anyone on the board who has deemed me as such (or elsewhere in the "real world"), so I must conclude that you are merely talking because you are upset.

But the fact is that your belief system regarding the King James Version of the Bible, as well as your beliefs about its translation, inerrancy, and modern versions, show you to be unequivicably KJVO. Several times, you yourself have claimed in the inerrancy of the "KJV 1611" even to the point of saying that the KJV correct or makes more clear the original Greek. That makes you KJVO. Why not embrace that fact, as your other KJVO brethren do?

I would also add that I agree wholeheartedly with HankD's post as well. There are several Christians on the board, as you know, that have called you on your posting style.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by michelle:
God's word is HIS TRUTH and message to us and revelation of himself to us that he views very important, and should therefore be as important to us.

I agree very much. And it is so important, that I think we need to have it in our common language. No one is arguing for the lowest common denominator. We are arguing that God's word should be readily available.

It was already "dumbed down" when it was transalted in the KJV from Greek and Hebrew. The principle is not any different.

To say that there are many versions out there to suit once preference is like saying that God can reach others through other religions, and that they all must worship the same God, just in a different way, and that this is okay with God.

I completely disagree. To assert that different translations are the word of God is not the same as asserting that different religions worship the same God. Translations do not communicate a different God. They talk about the same God, as comparing translations will easily show.

[To say that God's word must come down to the lowest denominator of society, in order for that culture of the day to be able to understand it, is denying the power and work of the Holy Spirit.

Not any more than translation from the Greek and Hebrew denied the power and work of the Holy Spirit. We must remember that the work of the Holy Spirit is not in teaching language to people. It is in opening the spiritual eyes to the significance of the passage. Don't confuse this. The Holy Spirit was not given to us to help us understand outdated language. It he were, there would be no translation necessary.

It would be one thing if the modern versions translated word for word in the common language of today,

Not even the KJV did this, so to hold the modern versions to this standard is inconsistent at best. The NASB is the most literal of all translations, as far as "word for word" goes.

WE can all read, and understand the english in the KJV,

Actually, "we" all can't. I deal with people week after week for whom the KJV is confusing and discouraging. God's word is not meant to be like that.

Sorry, I will not rely upon such a thing,

You already have when you accepted the KJV as the only word of God. That translation involved all the problems you rail on modern versions for.

If a version says in Isaiah that this is the morning star, who falls from heaven and is to going into the pit, and then we see this same term referring to our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, do you not see the confusion this can cause? Do you not see the blasphemy?

Do you not see the confusion when a version calls Ezekiel the son of man and then calls Christ the same thing?? You see the principle is still the same. And the answer is no, I do not see the confusion. Why? Because the context is still there. The context makes clear that two different beings are in view.

Do you not see that the Hebrew does not say this about Satan?

The Hebrew actually does say this and we have talked about it many many times. You are a newcomer here; this is a very old discussion.

In the end, there is nothing in your post that is not answered by simple consistency about the word of God.

 

[Ben Mills SsBG]

This is precisely why I am in favor of Christians knowing Greek and Hebrew. Larry, what do you think about the scriptures in Latin? The Vulgate.

 

[Pastor Larry]

I think they are like the Scriptures in English or any other language. They are translations. Where they are faithful translations, they are the word of God. Where they are not faithful, they should be corrected. The Latin Scriptures are rather useless for today since no one speaks Latin.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by Precepts:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Scott J:
Like you pointed out about Jesus reading of Isaiah- the Trinity is found elsewhere in MV's. Therefore, by your own rule your objection is falsified.

Oh, so now you want to jump from the context of just one Book of the Bible to the whole context of the mv's? Sounds reasonable enough,</font>[/QUOTE] Thank you for recognizing the fact that my contention is reasonable. It also happens to be consistent, intellectually honest, and biblically fair minded.

except for the consistent omissions and deliberate changes of meanings to what is supposed to be clearer wordings but are altogether losing clarity and precise definitions

You had to ruin it didn't you? You have no proof of omissions. You have no proof that faithful MV's take any more liberty with the meanings of the original language texts than does the KJV. The wording is clearer. And there is no wholesale loss of clarity or precision of definition.

The truth is that all of these things are purely products of your unfounded assumptions.

of what Our Bible already says in the AV 1611 KJB.
No thanky

You have not established a reason for violating the rule that you admit is fair. You blather on and on but give no reasonable defense of your double standard.

 

[TC]

originally posted by michelle
IN fact, the RCC opposed the KJV, even to this day! They are very supportive of the modern versions however! Why? Because the modern versions have watered down God's word so much, that they have been one of the leading glues to the ecumencal movement.

Then why do RCC apolegists demand that only the KJV be used when debating Bible-believing evangelicals.

You see, I do not think that you have any idea of what a translation is. Was Jesus translating? OR was he reading from and preaching? There is no room for adding, or deleting from God's word in a translation from one language to another by men, unless inspired by God to do so.

Luke 4:16-17
16. And he came to Naz'a-reth where he had been brought up: and as his custom was, he went into the synagogue on the sabbath day, and stood up for to read.
17. And there was delivered unto him the book of the prophet E-sa'ias. And when he had opened the book, he found the place where it was written.

Note, Luke writes the place (singular). And since no place (singular) in the O.T. Hebrew manuscripts matches what Jesus read according to Luke. So, if Jesus didn't read from a different version, then either Luke is wrong or the O.T. Hebrew is wrong. IMO both are right and Jesus read from a different translation.

God has said that every jot and every tittle (the smallest marks of the word of God in hebrew) shall not pass away.God views his word very important. Otherwise, it waters down the message, or worse, gives a false message. This is the danger.

Uh, the jot and tittle are the smallest part of the Hebrew alphabet. Jesus was talking about the Law here and not about the words on paper. Not even the smallest part of the Law will pass away until all be fulfilled is what Jesus said. IMO you have taken the phrase out of context and applied it elsewhere. Your misapplication is not binding on me.

God speaks to me through his word, but I cannot say that with the modern versions. I learned many things about the churches, as the Lord led me, and he prepared me for the day I would look for a church. I knew already, without knowing any information yet on this debate, that the bible I had was his word of truth preserved. He led me into this topic to learn more about it, and I have heard and read both sides of this issue. I agree with those who warn against the modern versions because this is what the Lord has shown me.

The first Bible I was given that I read, was a NIV. God spoke to me through it and I believed it was the very word of God - until some KJVO came along and caused me to doubt that. I was young then and he was in a position of authority, so I thought he must be right. I was introduced into the KJVO movement through Jack T. Chick comic books. And from there to Riplinger. I had burned every Bible I had that wasn't a KJV and taught others the same things I had been told. I bought a Strongs concordance and began to look up the words to see what they mean more fully than what my limited understanding was. I began to see that the word choices in the MV's were not wrong, but were good alternatives. So I printed off a bunch of KJVO material from what I thought were different sources. I found that many quoted each other or simply cut and pasted what someone else wrote. Then I bought a NIV, NASB, NKJV, NLT, and some other MV's desparaged by Riplinger and others and began to read them for myself - word for word. I began to comepare them to the KJVO's famous charts and saw that they (the MV's) were misquoted or misrepresented in many places. As I studied more I began to see that the essential doctrines of the faith are not changed or eliminated in the MV's (except in purposely mistranslated ones such as the NWT). They are all there - every single one of them.

 

[TC]

Originally posted by michelle.
I can tell you of a recent experience I had regarding bible versions. I went to a prophecy revival where David Reagan was the speaker at my neighbor's church (she invited me). He was using a variety of versions for his presentation, and during one part of his presentation (I do not know which version he used- but it was not the KJV)he tried to prove that the word of God possibly prophesied the Israeli flag as being a sign of the last days. I was curious, and as I always bring my Bible to church with me, I looked it up, because I did not remember the verse of scripture he used to say such a thing. To my amazement and I was very upset to say the least, that this verse that he used out of the version he used, omitted a most important part in that verse. HE used it because it seemed to fit his theory and many gullible, vulnerable or lazy christians would see this verse up on the big screen and think this is what the verse actually says, and maybe in their version it does. It does not! It is deceiving and misleading and takes away from the true prophetic message of Jesus Christ in that verse. I will quote here for you, the verse as indicated in the KJV, and then show you the part that was blatantly omitted from the verse he used in that version.

Isaiah 11:10

10 And in that day there shall be a root of Jesse, which shall stand for an ensign of the people; to it shall the Gentiles seek: and his rest shall be glorious.

omitted: "to it shall the Gentiles seek:"

rendering it to be: And in that day there shall be a root of Jesse, which shall stand for an ensign of the people; and his rest shall be glorious.

His emphasis was upon the ensign and focused upon this ensign being the Israeli flag! This is clearly not what this verse, nor the context of this chapter is speaking of, which is the Lord Jesus Christ, and not some kind of flag or physical sign. Now with this version's omission of the important part "to it shall the gentiles seek" could now be interpreted as any sign, as David Reagan himself suggested/proposed. This is dangerous, and takes away God's intended message and truth. This church speaks volumes about the state of it, and the slippery slope of apostacy they are in. They use the NIV and they are also involved in the Promise Keepers,the Alpha Course, the purpose driven church and the purpose driven life, contemporary worship services, etc.

Sounds like he was twisting the scripture to fit his own little whatever. With or without the phrase you said was omitted, the verse is about Jesus. But there are just as many that do these mental gymnastics with the KJV as well. Does David Koresh, Jim Jones, Heaven's gate, Mormons, and JW's ring a bell? People twisting a source in such a way, does not invalidate the source. Next.

 

[Precepts]

Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
I think they are like the Scriptures in English or any other language. They are translations. Where they are faithful translations, they are the word of God. Where they are not faithful, they should be corrected. The Latin Scriptures are rather useless for today since no one speaks Latin.

Now let me show you how non-sensical your statement is. Greek and hebrew are only translations of what the Holy Spirit said to those holy men as they were moved by Him and they penned down into those translations.

The problems come when men can't discern what the Spirit is saying, not what he has said, but actively saying. God is still speaking through the Scriptures, yall are hung up on what He has said, but we know He is still speaking through the AV 1611 KJB, we don't need it told to us any simpler, we just need God to tell us, and He is doing just that.

The evidences are when yall constantly allude to "weaknesses, inconsistencies, problems, mischaracterizations, misconceptions, misinterpetations, adding of words, etc., etc."

We are sure and know the KJB is the Bible, yall will agree, but.....

Then yall try and limit the scriptures to an exact or "best" word for word translation, which yall should know all to well, that is next to impossible, that is why God gave us the KJB.

C'mon now, let's start hearing all the hogwash of "Anglican-Catholic pedo-baptising Priests and a sodomite king" and all the other garbage yall espouse.

 

[michelle]

Peace and love to you all in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour!

Pastor Larry,

You are assuming that the modern versions are based on reliable texts (which they are not). If that were the case, then they would agree with the KJV (Recieved texts), and don't in many areas. To say that I believe the KJV is the only word of God, is twisting and misrepresenting what I have said. There is only one word of God, and he has preserved it, and he has preserved it not only for the english speaking people in their own language, but I am sure by faith, for people also of every other language as well - as evidenced in the 5000 or more manuscripts (recieved texts).

You compared the translation of the Hebrew and Greek languages into English, as "dumbing down", as the same to english to english. You should know better Larry, that your example is totally flawed and in error. The origional languages absolutely would be the best for accuracy, but to stretch it and say that it is dumbing it down is not true, and is not the same thing from changing from one form of English to another, which is of the same language.

You claim that I have said the Holy Spirit is to help us understand the language? I did not say that. I said the Holy Spirit gives us understanding of God's word. It is people today, who have become lazy who do not want to search and study Gods word, or lazy pastors, who do not want to explain the hard things in the word of God, that one recieves from the Holy Spirit in his word, and the modern versions have taken this away. It has nothing to do with the language, but the process that is being done with Bible versions today that try to fix things in God's word that he requires us to work out for ourselves in what he has given, and end up corrupting it by thier false interpretations of it (adding, taking away from God's word - and taking the place of the work of the Holy Spirit in sorting it out for you), and then claiming they had to do it because there was an error or contradiction that needed to be fixed and made simple. This is wrong and it is dangerous and not a translation.

We all can understand the english language in the KJV, my children who are ages 6 and 8 years old have no problem understanding. It is simple, straigt forward, and also very beautiful. It is the most easily read and best flowing, and better for memorziation. It is the presumption on the part of the person, whether they are in rejection of the Lord, or hear people like you, say that it is hard to read, or agree with them that it is which validate thier false belief. I used to believe this when I was younger, that I could not read the bible because it was above me, and I would not be able to understand it. How wrong I was! Why did I think this? Because it was engrained into me by people like you, that claim it is hard to read and understand which also fed my rebellion of the Lord I had already had. That excuse doesn't hold, for I have been there, heard it, believed it, and found it untrue.

I do not see confusion nor contradiction to when the Bible refers to Ezekiel as the son of man, because number one, his name is given and known, and this is an addition to his real name already given. Secondly, I do not see the confusion because many of the prophets were given names representative of Christ Jesus our Lord. However, I do not see this same thing being done with those who are disobediant and wicked. The same terms for the wicked are not represented with terms representing the Lord. The context of the passage in Isaiah is speaking of Satan, or Lucifer who is the fallen angel. Lucifer has two meanings in the latin, which are morning star, or light bearer. Now, noting the fact that Helel (bright one) and not Kokab(star), in the hebrew text, allows this translation of Lucifer (light bearer), but NOT MORNING STAR. You can continue to say that you have already posted these things two weeks ago, over and over again, but this does not change the fact that the translation in the NIV is not the correct translation, and is blasphemous and is also getting rid of the negative meaning of Lucifer, by deleting it altogether. The only reason you know that Lucifer represents satan, is because the KJV has indicated this for over 400 years. Otherwise, you might believe that he is the morning star, and this my dear brother in Christ is blasphemy. Jesus Christ is the morning star. Or for those of you who keep nitpicking about the metaphor, Jesus Christ is like the morning star. Jesus Christ is far from being like Lucifer, and vise a versa.

Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

[Precepts]

You have not established a reason for violating the rule that you admit is fair. You blather on and on but give no reasonable defense of your double standard.

I don't have a double standard, I have a quadruple standard, I have four KJB's in my posession. I don't have any other versions, not that I claim anyway.

I have consistently shown how "deceived" is NOT "flattered". The KJB translators used the right word, yall just like to make everyone think God is or was deceived, we know better. Flattery is not always as deceptive as yall would like for some to believe, but is also refuted as nothing more than vain janglings exerted by those opposed to Truth. The NasV reads as if God was "deceived" but we know He was only flattered and didn't give into their rants, much like yours.

Thank you for recognizing the fact that my contention is reasonable. It also happens to be consistent, intellectually honest, and biblically fair minded.

Contention is never reasonable, intellectually honest, or Biblically fair minded. It can be consistent, but such contentions are sinful, except when the truth of God's Word is to be established in that manner, yall can't say finding "weaknesses" are doing such, but are only introducing more contentions.

God's reason is always one sided. intellectually non-discernable, and He is never "fair" by man's standard of fairness, But He is definitely consistent, mv's are not.

We can and do hold the Standard of the AV 1611 KJB, yall have to allude to too many other "versions" to try and tell us what the Lord has already said in ther AV 1611 KJB.

 

[BrianT]

Michelle, you are confusing interpretation with translation.

Strong's 1890 dictionary, Webster's 1828 dictionary, the KJV 1611 marginal note, the 1560 Geneva Bible marginal note, the 1602 Spanish Reina-Valera, Luther's 1534 German Bible, the Vulgate, the LXX, the Hebrew Masoretic itself, early church fathers, secular studies on ancient Babylonian mythology, and more - all support translating it as "morning star", and I can document each for you if you are interested.

But even with all the arguments and historicial evidence that shows how "morning star" is an accurate translation - it wouldn't amount to much good until you recognize that you approaching this backwards. Translate first, then interpret - don't do it the other way around, or you end up falling into the same trap as the JWs did with their NWT: bending scripture around preconceived doctrines and interpretations, instead of letting the scripture stand "as is" and then bending doctrines and interpretations around that.

God bless,
Brian