That is weird indeed.
NIV (the manuscript they used) doesn't make sense there.
Hence, the problem with Modern Translations and why you should not put your trust in them. Only the KJV can be trusted. In fact, this is not the only time the devil has tried to place his name in the Bible in exchange for something that is supposed to be sacred or holy. We see the devil tries to place his name in Modern Translations in Daniel 3.
In Daniel 3, the Babylonian king says there is one like the "Son of God" in the fiery furnace along with Daniel's three friends. This is Jesus! Yet, in the Modern Translations it says the "son of the gods." In many false religions we can see how certain gods had mated with human females and created a hybrid. This is popular even in Greek mythology. So who saved Daniel's friends? Jesus or some hybrid like Hercules?
Nebuchadnezzar thought this was an angel of God (singular and not plural).
"
Then Nebuchadnezzar spake, and said,
Blessed be the God of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, who hath sent his angel, and delivered his servants that trusted in him, and have changed the king's word, and yielded their bodies, that they might not serve nor worship any god, except their own God." (Daniel 3:28).
This was not the "son of the gods (plural) (little "g")!!!
No way Hosea! I mean, "No way José!"
Nebuchadnezzar clearly was referencing the most high God.
The Bible says (even something similar in your Modern Version),
"Then Nebuchadnezzar came near to the mouth of the burning fiery furnace,
and spake, and said,
Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, ye servants of the most high God, come forth, and come
hither. Then Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, came forth of the midst of the fire." (Daniel 3:26).
Angels are called the: "sons of God" in Job.
The fourth person in the fire was still Jesus! The son of God. The Scriptures were still correct in their inspiration by God when they say, "and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God." While Nebuchadnezzar did not know it was the second person of the Godhead or the Trinity, the Lord our God who inspired Scripture surely would have glorified the name of the Son of God (Jesus) in this instance. For it was Jesus who was in the fire with Daniel's three friends!
Also, please check out this thread here, as well. It will help to explain this situation a little better, too.
Jesus is the Messenger of the Lord in the Old Testament.
(Please take note: I do not believe Jesus is an angelic being; I believe Jesus is the second person of the Godhead or the Trinity and that He is fully 100% God who took on the flesh of man).
In Isaiah 14:12, the devil's name "Lucifer" is replaced with "Day Star" or the "Morning Star."
Yes, I am aware that "morning stars" are angels in the book of Job.
But Modern Translations also say this is the Shining Star or the Son of the Dawn. Why?
Jesus says,
"I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David,
and the
bright and
morning star." (Revelation 22:16).
So Jesus is the BRIGHT and MORNING star!
Yet, the individual in Isaiah 14:12 in Modern Translations is called the shining (bright) and morning star or the Day Star, etc.
So the devil is trying to be like the most high here. He is taking a similar sounding title of Jesus in Isaiah 14:12.
For where is the bright and morning star up in the sky?
It is the sun.
That is why He is called the bright and morning star because the sun is bright and rises in the morning.
Also, Lucifer means "light bearer."
Scripture tells us this is what it means.
"And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an
angel of light." (2 Corinthians 11:14).
The word "angel" also means "messenger." So 2 Corinthians 11:14 is saying that Satan is a light messenger or light bearer. In fact, when Satan is described with having all kinds of jewelry on him, it was symbolic of
who he was. Certain gemstones refract light. They are not light themselves, but they merely reflect whatever light is in existence. Gemstones are like little light bearers. So how fitting the name "Lucifer" is for the devil. Yet, Modern Translations seek to give the devil a name that is similar to Jesus. This is wrong (of course).
You said:
From what i understand, this 'Lazarus and the rich man' story was a traditional story among Jews in those days, but Jesus used it to make a point, so it's an analogy.
But this could simply be a made up story by a false group of Israelites. We do not really know that such a thing is true or not. We have to take God's Word at face value unless it says otherwise. In fact, we know that the story is literal because we see other instances in the Bible of where men can die and experience the after life. So the idea of a 100% soul sleep is not Biblical. Note: I believe the wicked will go through long periods of sleep in hell. But there are other verses that suggest that they are awake at certain times, too. This makes sense because it lines up with reality or our real world whereby we sleep part of the day and we are awake part of the day.
You said:
Likewise to you brother.
I didn't answer everything you wrote.
But i want to get back to Deuteronomy 32:8-9 again, because it's important i.m.o.
Maybe i should open a new topic about it, because it doesn; t matter which Bible has it worng or right, the question is what would be correct.
Yeah, not sure how that passage is a problem. For me it is clear in what it says.
You said:
I use the KJV and the ESV as examples of the difference.
We could use other translations that differ here too.
(i'm not an 'ESV-only-ist' either
)
There can only be ONE Word of God and not many.
You said:
KJV:
8 When the Most High divided to the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of Adam, he set the bounds of the people according to the number of the children of Israel.
9 For the Lord's portion is his people; Jacob is the lot of his inheritance.
ESV:
8 When the Most High gave to the nations their inheritance, when he divided mankind, he fixed the borders of the peoples according to the number of the sons of God.
9 But the Lord's portion is his people, Jacob his allotted heritage.
I can see that verse 9 in both cases make sense with verse 8, because KJV says "For" and the ESV says "But".
But when you look at Genesis 10, there are 70 nations as a result of God mixing up the languages, and they, except for Jacob, were divided among the gods = the divine council of Pslams 82.
But Jacob wasn't even born when the nations were divided, let alone his sons.
I really do not see a change here. Both the ESV and the KJV can be true in this particular passage. With the KJV: God set the bounds of the people according to the number of the children of Israel because the Lord's portion is his people; Jacob is the lot of his inheritance. It is not a contradiction or a problem to say this either way. But I would stick to the KJV in this instance because that it is the pure Word of God here.