Is the KJV more than a translation

[Bible Highlighter]

I've also seen some big translation errors in the KJV to. And to be fair most people don't understand the KJV simply because kings english is not common anymore.

What you think of as errors in the KJV is simply your misunderstanding of what God's Word says.

Here are a few popular supposed contradictions in the KJV that I have provided an explanation for.

https://www.christianforums.com/thr...t-supposed-contradictions-in-the-kjv.8035969/

As for the old 1600's English: I agree that the KJV is harder to understand sometimes. But in my experience, this would be the OT and not the NT so much. But I do use Modern Translations to help update the 1600's English. The thing is that the Modern Translations are not my final word of authority. How could they be? They all say something contradictory. They all say things that are crazy.

Also, those who say that the KJV is too hard to understand supposedly know the Greek enough to correct the KJV. 2 Timothy 2:15 says we are to study to show ourselves approved unto God; But your Modern Translation says something different.

Words like divers, upbraideth, fistfruits...etc no one uses anymore. Which is why many who read the KJV end up arguing about what the older words mean, well the less obvious ones. Though being into classic theater I know kings english, I just don't care for it.

Not everything that is good and worthwhile in this life comes easy. We are told to pick up our cross, deny ourselves and to follow Jesus. Meaningful relationships take work. A good job sometimes takes hard work, etc.

Now I am interested though in what NKJV is. More modern words?

The NKJV also pulls from the other vine (i.e. the Critical Text) that all other Modern Versions use that are corrupted.

Source Used:
Bible Versions: Are There Significant Differences? Corruption Exposed!

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Here is what the Bible plainly says: διαμονιαζομεν Strong's G1139; vexed; afflicted bodily or mentally; luniticks; moonstruck; illnesses such as palsy, etc. Compare Mark 5:15 sitting in his right mind; Matthew 4:24; Acts of the Apostles 5:16. It is clear you do not understand the Greek language

And apparently you magically somehow do know a dead language. Do you have a time machine or something?

 

[Bible Highlighter]

What happens if you are wrong and there is no devil? How does that affect what the Bible is saying? What if you took responsibility for your own acts? Then you cant blame it on a "spirit being" or say the devil made me do it. You have to admit that it is you who has sinned and not an imaginary superstitious creature. Wouldnt that be a better position? James 1:13-15 says it very clearly.

It's not about "the devil made me do it"'; It's about being ignorant of his devices.

"Lest Satan should get an advantage of us: for we are not ignorant of his devices." (2 Corinthians 2:11).

 

[Bible Highlighter]

There are hardly any 'opponents' to the KJV.
It is KJV-only-ists who oppose other translations, AUTOMATICALLY.

I am gonna have to disagree with you on this one, my friend.
I have been attacked verbally in a bad way and ganged up on by those who hold to the idea that no translation is God's perfect Word. I have even been told several times that I worship the KJV when that is not the case. I merely look at the KJV as a love letter.

I also use Modern Translations to help update the language in the KJV, but I simply do not make them my final word of authority because Modern Translations put the devil's name within them in place of God or God's people and they also water down and eliminate important truths and doctrines, etc.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Lucifer is Latin and English it is a misnomer for Satan. It's hard to have a productive conversation when your only basis of textual criticism is if it matches the KJV and if it doesn't all I hear is that Satan has corrupted it. These do not express proofs they only expose bias.

Sigh. It is illogical to assume that Satan (or whatever you want to call him) has not corrupted God's Word in some way. Do you think the Queens James Bible is not a corruption? How about New World Translation? To think the devil is so easy to spot with these kinds of Bibles and yet to think he cannot subtely try to eliminate truths in God's Word with other Bibles is to undermine the enemy and his work.

Scripture tells us not to be ignorant of the devil's devices. We know from Scripture that one of his tactics is to change God's Word. We see this when he changes God's Word subtley with Eve and later with Jesus.

Side Note:

As for your erroneous assumption that "Lucifer" is not a name of the devil or Satan:

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).

 

[Bible Highlighter]

But God did not write, transcribe or translate Scripture, humans did, and they still do.

No. Humans were under the inspiration of God as they had written God's Word.

"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness." (2 Timothy 3:16).

God's Word claims that it is perfect (Psalms 12:6) (Psalms 119:140) (Proverbs 30:5) and that it will be preserved for all generations (Psalms 12:7) and it will stand forever (Isaiah 40:8) (1 Peter 1:25). Therefore, seeing Scripture plainly states these facts, it then becomes an issue of a test of your faith in God's Word (See the test the devil gave to Eve in Genesis 3:1); For the Bereans were more noble because they compared the spoken Word of God with the written Word of God (Acts of the Apostles 17:11). In other words, if the Bereans thought the written Word was corrupt in some way they would have no way of really knowing if the spoken Word of God was true or not.

I think this is the problem.
People ascribing God's attributes to a translation, particularly the KJV.
They purport it can save you, it is inerrant and full of all relevant knowledge and that it is perfect.
Anything that has anything different in it is not (of) God.

The Scriptures say we are saved by Jesus and the gospel by faith (that comes from God's Word). Obviously most translations say the same thing in regards to the gospel and Jesus. So a person can be saved by hearing words of the gospel from a Modern Translation. However, having a deeper walk with God according to His pure Word is only possible if they have the pure Word and believe it by faith. There are not many words of God or faiths. There is only one Word of God and thus .... one faith.

I think it's marvellous that Christian scholars are working long and hard to get to the bottom of things and sharing their findings with eachother and with us, so that we can better understand things.
The resources and means of communication have increased enormously over time.
This is a good thing.

As hard as they work, they will never truly know what the Hebrew and Greek says without comparing it to the English and without having a time machine.

I can understand very well though, that it's preferable to stick with what you're trusting on, rather than being blown around like a leaf in the winds of views and opinions.
So people stick with the tried and trusted KJV.
And that's okay too, because you will come across its problems and so you can work WITH the KJV in stead of FROM the KJV.

I use Modern Translations. But they are simply not my final word of authority because they all say different things. They place the devil's name within them where they should not be; And they water down and eliminate important truths and doctrines.

 

[Tree of Life]

But they are not additions. Even if they were additions (Which they are not), they actually help to promote the truth of the good things of God like clarity on the Trinity, Jesus, Christ's divinity, the Condemnation, salvation, holy living, etc. The devil's name is also placed within Modern Translations (of which I have shown you, as well).

Your claim that they are not additions is a bare assertion. The evidence is in favor of the notion that they are, indeed, additions. This is because:

1. The earliest manuscripts don't have them. It's more likely that they are added on than that they were original, dropped out, and then somehow appeared again.
2. The majority of manuscripts don't have them.

So why should I accept them as original, as you say I should?

But now you go on to admit that, even if they are additions, it doesn't matter because they promote true doctrine. I agree that they promote true doctrine. But it does matter because they are not original to the author. So at this point you seem to be ok with non-apostolic authors introducing new material to Scripture so long as it's promoting good doctrine. So it appears that you don't really care about carefully ascertaining the words of the original authors.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Your claim that they are not additions is a bare assertion. The evidence is in favor of the notion that they are, indeed, additions. This is because:

1. The earliest manuscripts don't have them. It's more likely that they are added on than that they were original, dropped out, and then somehow appeared again.
2. The majority of manuscripts don't have them.

So why should I accept them as original, as you say I should?

But now you go on to admit that, even if they are additions, it doesn't matter because they promote true doctrine. I agree that they promote true doctrine. But it does matter because they are not original to the author. So at this point you seem to be ok with non-apostolic authors introducing new material to Scripture so long as it's promoting good doctrine. So it appears that you don't really care about carefully ascertaining the words of the original authors.

Please go back and address the post I provided to you earlier about the devil placing his name in Modern Translations. Also, please stop and think logically for a second. If there is more than one Word of God (i.e. many translations), then that means there are many faiths. Not all Bibles say the same thing. In addition, if you believe the Greek says a particular thing, there is going to be another person who thinks the Greek says something else. How do you know you are right? You simply do not know. You did not grow up speaking and writing Biblical Greek. Nobody has. So you claim that you act like you know about Greek and Hebrew documents is simply false because you really cannot read and write these languages like you can with English.

The only way to know the truth is to do a fruits test of God's Word in how it exists in our languages that we use today.

 

[Tree of Life]

Please go back and address the post I provided to you earlier about the devil placing his name in Modern Translations. Also, please stop and think logically for a second. If there is more than one Word of God (i.e. many translations), then that means there are many faiths. Not all Bibles say the same thing. In addition, if you believe the Greek says a particular thing, there is going to be another person who thinks the Greek says something else. How do you know you are right? You simply do not know. You did not grow up speaking and writing Biblical Greek. Nobody has. So you claim that you act like you know about Greek and Hebrew documents is simply false because you really cannot read and write these languages like you can with English.

The only way to know the truth is to do a fruits test of God's Word in how it exists in our languages that we use today.

I think you've departed into the realm of subjectivity so much that we cannot have a fruitful discussion of this matter. If you're not willing to deal in terms of objective evidence then we simply must agree to disagree.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

I think you've departed into the realm of subjectivity so much that we cannot have a fruitful discussion of this matter. If you're not willing to deal in terms of objective evidence then we simply must agree to disagree.

It is convenient that you are not wanting to reply. I asked you to explain the verses I brought forth in regards to the devil placing his name in Modern Translations. I suggest to you to think logically about how our faith is built upon the Word of God. Reason or logic should tell us that not all Bibles say the same thing exactly. This means that not all faiths are the same if people are trusting in a different Bibles that say different things. For I have had disagreements with others over Romans 8:1 because they favored their Modern Translation that removed "walk after the Spirit." I have disagreed with others over 1 John 5:7 in the fact that it does in fact teach the Trinity unlike any other verse in their Bible. Yet, those who deny the Trinity love to knock down 1 John 5:7. You may consider these things not important but they are very important to my faith. Removing or adjusting just these two verses is a BIG deal to my faith. For my faith is founded upon God's Word (the 1769 KJV).

 

[Tree of Life]

It is convenient that you are not wanting to reply. I asked you to explain the verses I brought forth in regards to the devil placing his name in Modern Translations.

I'll happily get to this later. It'll take some time since it's a lot of material.

I suggest to you to think logically about how our faith is built upon the Word of God. Reason or logic should tell us that not all Bibles say the same thing exactly. This means that not all faiths are the same if people are trusting in a different Bibles that say different things.

I think this is an extreme position. Yes, translations have differences. But those differences are not so great as to produce entirely different faiths. People who prefer the NIV believe 99% the same stuff as people who prefer the ESV. Provided, of course, that both believe the Scriptures to be the word of God.

For I have had disagreements with others over Romans 8:1 because they favored their Modern Translation that removed "walk after the Spirit."

The KJV addition does not introduce doctrinal material here that isn't present elsewhere in Scripture in a non-disputed text. So this is not of much consequence and the disagreement is not great. Certainly not great enough to produce two different faiths.

I have disagreed with others over 1 John 5:7 in the fact that it does in fact teach the Trinity unlike any other verse in their Bible.

I agree that the Comma Johanneum teaches the Trinity more explicitly than anywhere else in Scripture. I just disagree that John wrote it or that it was originally part of his letter. Therefore, in my view, while it may be true it should not be considered Scripture.

You may consider these things not important but they are very important to my faith. Removing or adjusting just these two verses is a BIG deal to my faith. For my faith is founded upon God's Word (the 1769 KJV).

Then your faith is based on a very flimsy foundation - namely the imperfect work of fallible human translators.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

I'll happily get to this later. It'll take some time since it's a lot of material.

I appreciate that.

I think this is an extreme position. Yes, translations have differences. But those differences are not so great as to produce entirely different faiths. People who prefer the NIV believe 99% the same stuff as people who prefer the ESV. Provided, of course, that both believe the Scriptures to be the word of God.

Not at all. I have argued with Eternal Security proponents who favor the Modern Translation view on Romans 8:1. They favor the removal of "Walk after the Spirit" because it undoes what they believe.
I have also argued in defense of the Trinity using 1 John 5:7 with anti-trinitarians. Of course, yet again, they favor the removal of 1 John 5:7. Different faiths.

The KJV addition does not introduce doctrinal material here that isn't present elsewhere in Scripture in a non-disputed text. So this is not of much consequence and the disagreement is not great. Certainly not great enough to produce two different faiths.

Not true. No other verse is like 1 John 5:7. No other verse says exactly what it says. It is the only verse that describes the Trinity clearly.

Romans 8:1 is talking about the not being under the Condemnation. Walking after the Spiriti in Christ Jesus is the conditions for not being under the Condemnation. No other verse says this exactly.

So I disagree.

I agree that the Comma Johanneum teaches the Trinity more explicitly than anywhere else in Scripture. I just disagree that John wrote it or that it was originally part of his letter. Therefore, in my view, while it may be true it should not be considered Scripture.

How convenient. What is the basis for your belief here? Scripture? Or is it historical documents made by men? Or was it an impressive article by a favorite scholar of yours?

Then your faith is based on a very flimsy foundation - namely the imperfect work of fallible human translators.

Not at all. I can actually prove to you that the KJV is divine in origin. Biblical Numerics that confirms the divinity of the Scriptures in the Greek does the same thing in English with the KJV. When I say Biblical Numerics I am not talking about using numbers to tell the future or to give you good fortune or anything silly like that. The numbers in God's Word are merely a means to show us that God's Word is divine.

For example: The number 40 has the meaning "trial" attached to it. Noah was in a trial (or test) within the Ark in the storm for 40 days and 40 nights. Yet, in the New Testament: Jesus was in a trial (or test) when he fasted for 40 days and 40 nights. So numbers in your Bible actually mean something. This is important because there is a pattern involving certain numbers that can only be found in the KJV and not in any Modern Translation. I would recommend checking out Mike Hoggard's videos on YouTube called the King James Code.

 

[he-man]

It's not about "the devil made me do it"'; It's about being ignorant of his devices.
"Lest Satan should get an advantage of us: for we are not ignorant of his devices." (2 Corinthians 2:11).

2 Corinthians 2:9 It's about not knowing the evil purpose of the mind. It is about forgiveness.

 

[Tree of Life]

Not at all. I have argued with Eternal Security proponents who favor the Modern Translation view on Romans 8:1. They favor the removal of "Walk after the Spirit" because it undoes what they believe.

I don't believe that the addition of "who walk after the Spirit" undoes the doctrine of eternal security. And I don't reject it on those grounds. I reject it because it is poorly attributed and our earliest texts do not contain it.

I have also argued in defense of the Trinity using 1 John 5:7 with anti-trinitarians. Of course, yet again, they favor the removal of 1 John 5:7. Different faiths.

If someone rejects the Trinity then they are not a Christian. So yes, this would amount to a different faith. But the Scriptures very much teach the doctrine of the Trinity in many other places, so the Comma Johanneum is not necessary to establish it.

Do you think that KJV only-ists are the only Trinitarians?

Not true. No other verse is like 1 John 5:7. No other verse says exactly what it says. It is the only verse that describes the Trinity clearly.

While 1 John 5:7 is most explicit, 1 Peter 1:2 and Matthew 28:18-20 have Trinitarian formulae and are similar.

Romans 8:1 is talking about the not being under the Condemnation. Walking after the Spiriti in Christ Jesus is the conditions for not being under the Condemnation. No other verse says this exactly.

Paul gives similar doctrine in many places. Examples would include 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, Galatians 5:19-20, Ephesians 5:5, and Hebrews 12:14 (not Paul).

How convenient. What is the basis for your belief here? Scripture? Or is it historical documents made by men? Or was it an impressive article by a favorite scholar of yours?

The basis for rejecting the Comma Johanneum is that it does not appear in any manuscripts predating the fifteenth century.

Your basis for including it is simply that it's included in the King James - which is an historical document (Bible translation) made by men.

Not at all. I can actually prove to you that the KJV is divine in origin. Biblical Numerics that confirms the divinity of the Scriptures in the Greek does the same thing in English with the KJV. When I say Biblical Numerics I am not talking about using numbers to tell the future or to give you good fortune or anything silly like that. The numbers in God's Word are merely a means to show us that God's Word is divine.

For example: The number 40 has the meaning "trial" attached to it. Noah was in a trial (or test) within the Ark in the storm for 40 days and 40 nights. Yet, in the New Testament: Jesus was in a trial (or test) when he fasted for 40 days and 40 nights. So numbers in your Bible actually mean something. This is important because there is a pattern involving certain numbers that can only be found in the KJV and not in any Modern Translation. I would recommend checking out Mike Hoggard's videos on YouTube called the King James Code.

I'm not willing to engage in a discussion of numerics or other superstitious things.

 

[Marvin Knox]

There seems a specific culture that looks at the KJV as the supreme authority of the written word of God above all else. I have a hard time following this logic as there is a whole lot of history before the KJV and after the KJV in thousands of languages that it seems rather arbitrary to pick the KJV above all else. This culture feels very ethnocentric I might add which then dips into offensive areas. Should not our quest in determining responsible scripture be a little more sophisticated and more focused at our mission?

If the KJV was good enough for Joseph Smith to plagiarize, it's good enough for me.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

I don't believe that the addition of "who walk after the Spirit" undoes the doctrine of eternal security. And I don't reject it on those grounds. I reject it because it is poorly attributed and our earliest texts do not contain it.

Again, with the earliest texts excuse. Is that even Scriptural? Did Jesus say, "you do not understand because of the earliest texts say something different"? Surely not. That is why your view does not work. I do not need to say the KJV is the Word of God to defend my position. The KJV position is merely.... "The One Perfect Word of God Through Out Time" type position. It happens to just be the KJV now because of the passage of time.

In fact, God's Word claims that it is perfect (Psalms 12:6) (Psalms 119:140) (Proverbs 30:5) and that it will be preserved for all generations (Psalms 12:7) and it will stand forever (Isaiah 40:8) (1 Peter 1:25). Therefore, seeing Scripture plainly states these facts, it then becomes an issue of a test of your faith in God's Word (See the test the devil gave to Eve in Genesis 3:1); For the Bereans were more noble because they compared the spoken Word of God with the written Word of God (Acts of the Apostles 17:11). In other words, if the Bereans thought the written Word was corrupt in some way they would have no way of really knowing if the spoken Word of God was true or not.

If someone rejects the Trinity then they are not a Christian. So yes, this would amount to a different faith. But the Scriptures very much teach the doctrine of the Trinity in many other places, so the Comma Johanneum is not necessary to establish it.

What verse teaches it like 1 John 5:7?
I don't see one exactly like it.
Please show me.

Do you think that KJV only-ists are the only Trinitarians?

Your missing the point. The point is that I can use God's Word to defend the Trinity clearly with 1 John 5:7. You got nothin'. There is no other verse exactly like 1 John 5:7.

While 1 John 5:7 is most explicit, 1 Peter 1:2 and Matthew 28:18-20 have Trinitarian formulae and are similar.

It merely speaks of three different persons. The Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. Mormons believe that these verses speaks of three separate entities. By just reading these verses alone, one could conclude that. Even the beginning of the gospel of John does not help for they believe that people evolve into being like a God. The point here is that 1 John 5:7 shatters any notion or belief that they might have. It leaves no room for any excuses. But your hands are tied. You cannot use it because you don't believe it is a part of God's Word. I on the other hand, have no such restrictions and I believe by faith that it is a part of God's Word like it was always intended. Of course, this faith in God's Word has proven itself true and divine to me by evidences later on (of course).

Paul gives similar doctrine in many places. Examples would include 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, Galatians 5:19-20, Ephesians 5:5, and Hebrews 12:14 (not Paul).

No. Not the same thing. These verses do not specifically say that there is no Condemnation to those in Christ Jesus who walk not after the flesh but after the Spirit. It does not use those specific words. The Condemnation. It mentions nothing about this. But John 3:19-21 surely does.

19 "And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.
20 For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.
21 But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God." (John 3:19-21).

The basis for rejecting the Comma Johanneum is that it does not appear in any manuscripts predating the fifteenth century.

And that is not Scriptural. Besides, the Critical Text (Which is supposed to be supposed be better because it is older) is simply not true to be the pure Word of God because a current fruits test shows that it is inferior to the Textus Receptus (of which the KJV is based upon). By comparison, the Critical Text appears to be an attack upon the KJV in the fact that it puts the devil's name in them, and waters down and eliminates certain doctrines and truths.

Your basis for including it is simply that it's included in the King James - which is an historical document (Bible translation) made by men.

I did not receive the words of God as the words of men but in fact as the very words of God.

"For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe." (1 Thessalonians 2:13).

I'm not willing to engage in a discussion of numerics or other superstitious things.

Then you are disobeying God's Word. For it commands you to count numbers as a part of wisdom.

"Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is Six hundred threescore and six." (Revelation 13:18).

Second testimony.

25 "I applied mine heart to know, and to search, and to seek out wisdom, and the reason of things, and to know the wickedness of folly, even of foolishness and madness:
27 Behold, this have I found, saith the preacher, counting one by one, to find out the account:" (Ecclesiastes 7:25, Ecclesiastes 7:27).

Please take note that Ecclesiastes chapter 7 is the 666th chapter of the Bible. What are the odds that this also speaks of the number of man (666) in Revelation 13:18? Pretty rare if you ask me. But you can just right these things off as coincidence if you like. There are tons of things like this in God's Word. The beauty and majesty of God's Word is there for all to see (for those who believe it by faith). Granted, I am not saying you don't beleive in God's Word; My point is that you are not believing important teaching or truth that God's Word is trying to get across to you (i.e. that God's Word is perfect and that it will be preserved for all generations).

 

[DamianWarS]

Sigh. It is illogical to assume that Satan (or whatever you want to call him) has not corrupted God's Word in some way. Do you think the Queens James Bible is not a corruption? How about New World Translation? To think the devil is so easy to spot with these kinds of Bibles and yet to think he cannot subtely try to eliminate truths in God's Word with other Bibles is to undermine the enemy and his work.

Scripture tells us not to be ignorant of the devil's devices. We know from Scripture that one of his tactics is to change God's Word. We see this when he changes God's Word subtley with Eve and later with Jesus.

in this dialog I've only used the term Satan so please don't suggest I am hinting he is something else when I use this term. If you think that translations are corrupted by Satan then why is the KJV exempt from this? It is not good enough to say it is because the KJV is God's Pure Word as that's not a proof that's an opinion. You need start providing some substance to these claims if anyone is going to take you seriously.

As for your erroneous assumption that "Lucifer" is not a name of the devil or Satan:

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?

How is the devil's name "Lucifer" replaced with "Day Star" or the
"Morning Star" in modern translations? When something is replaced it means it starts at "A", "A" is then removed and replaced with "B". The problem is the word "lucifer" does not appear in the Greek and Hebrew text but then why would it because it is a Latin word. Modern day translations are not replacing anything they are translating the Hebrew and "lucifer" does not appear in the Hebrew.

Lucifer is a latin word and it is introduced in scripture from the Latin translation of the bible. Isaiah 14 in context is talking about the King of babylon but it is widely accepted that it is also figuratively talking about Satan. But the word "satan" doesn't come up nor does anywhere in the text tells us what Satan's name is. Here is the Latin for vs 12:

quomodo cecidisti de caelo lucifer qui mane oriebaris corruisti in terram qui vulnerabas gentes

notice the lucifer word. This word is translated from the Hebrew helel. This word is a reference to the morning star or venus as it always appears close to the horizon in the morning as a bright star but is then overshadowed by light and as the earth rotates it actually appears that this morning start descends to earth. In Latin this morning star is call "lucifer" and in english it is called morning star or just simply venus. The latin text does a good job at translating this as lucifer is a contextual equivalence latin word for the same celestial object. When the KJV however uses this word it shows us it borrowed it from Latin and it also shows it didn't translated it.

Jesus is also called lucifer in the latin text in 2 Peter 1:19 but it's far less obscure than Isaiah as the text is clearly talking about Jesus. the latin goes is:

et habemus firmiorem propheticum sermonem cui bene facitis adtendentes quasi lucernae lucenti in caliginoso loco donec dies inlucescat et lucifer oriatur in cordibus vestris

lucifer is a misnomer for Satan because although it can correctly identify Satan historically and etymologically speaking lucifer is not the proper name of Satan nor should we ever give him the honor to be called a title that in latin is dedicated to Jesus. This word needs to be abandoned to reference Satan and we should instead favour biblical language which is simply "satan"

you may say... but do you speak hebrew? do you speak latin? in the end the KJV comes under the same rules as at one point there was a Hebrew and Greek text that was translated into English. If these practices were noble and honorable in the 17th century then why not today? simply saying something is corrupt does not make it corrupt and you need to back it up with more substance then why you are providing. If you don't your thoughts on the subject will never be taken seriously. I welcome this substance to the conversation but I have yet to see it.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

in this dialog I've only used the term Satan so please don't suggest I am hinting he is something else when I use this term. If you think that translations are corrupted by Satan then why is the KJV exempt from this? It is not good enough to say it is because the KJV is God's Pure Word as that's not a proof that's an opinion. You need start providing some substance to these claims if anyone is going to take you seriously.

I already have provided evidence that the KJV is the pure Word of God already.

If you missed it; I will repeat them again.

Three Scriptural Reasons to Trust in A Perfect Word Today.

#1. God's Word claims that it is perfect
God's Word claims that it is perfect (Psalms 12:6) (Psalms 119:140) (Proverbs 30:5) and that it will be preserved for all generations (Psalms 12:7) and it will stand forever (Isaiah 40:8) (1 Peter 1:25). Therefore, seeing Scripture plainly states these facts, it then becomes an issue of a test of your faith in God's Word (See the test the devil gave to Eve in Genesis 3:1); For the Bereans were more noble because they compared the spoken Word of God with the written Word of God (Acts of the Apostles 17:11). In other words, if the Bereans thought the written Word was corrupt in some way they would have no way of really knowing if the spoken Word of God was true or not. Therefore, seeing that there is a perfect Word and that it will last for all generations, we have to conclude that it can be only one Word of God that stands out above any other translation. This leads us to the KJV. For God's people have claimed that the KJV is the perfect Word of God for today and most of them have not claimed such a thing is true for any other Bible translation.

#2. KJV vs. Modern Translations
A simple side by side comparison of the KJV vs Modern Translations shows us that the devil tries to place his name in the Modern Versions.

Many Bible versions say that it is the dragon who is standing on the sea shore in Revelation. This is just evil and wrong.

See Parallel Version for Revelation 13:1 here...

Revelation 13:1 The dragon stood on the shore of the sea. And I saw a beast coming out of the sea. It had ten horns and seven heads, with ten crowns on its horns, and on each head a blasphemous name.

See, if you know anything about Bible language, standing on something means that you "own it"; And the devil wants to own you. In the King James, John is standing on the seashore. Yet in many Bible versions the dragon (i.e. the devil) is standing on the seashore.

Why is this a problem?

Let's look at...

Genesis 22:17

"That in blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of the heaven, and as the sand which is upon the seashore; and thy seed shall possess the gate of his enemies;"

Did you catch that? God says to Abraham that He will multiply his seed as the stars of the heaven and as the sand which is upon the seashore where he will then possess the gate of his enemies (i.e. the devil and his kingdom). The apostle John who wrote Revelation was Jewish and he was the promised seed of Genesis 22 standing on the seashore in Revelation 13. It was not the dragon or the devil standing on the seashore.

For certain Modern Versions eliminate the part of the passage in Revelation 13:1 that says that John is standing on the seashore (When he refers to himself as "I").

Also, the devil tries to take out key points in important discussions within the Bible (Which can affect doctrine). For example: In Romans 7 Paul talks from the Jew's perspective in keeping the Old Testament Law (Which leads to problems), and he gives us the climax or heart of his message as a solution in Romans 8:1. Now, certain modern translations have eliminated "who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit." Eliminating this passage destroys the whole thrust of Paul's argument. Walking in the Spirit is the key to being in Christ Jesus. You eliminate that and you destroy Paul's argument. Also, 1 John 5:7 is the only verse in the Bible that is the clearest and most concise teaching on the Godhead (i.e. the Trinity).

#3. Biblical Numerics
Bible Numbers that glorify God and His Word. (Note: These are not equidistant letter sequences or numbers that attempt to get one to have a special dream, or to divine the future in some way - Striving to foretell the future is forbidden in the Bible). Numbers are something that we deal with in our everyday life and all things glorify God. So obviously the numbers in God's Word would naturally glorify Him in some way. What am I talking about? Check out this video on Numbers & the Greek New Testament.


Sevens in the Bible - Chuck Missler:

Also, here is a video series by Mike Hoggard that talks about the number 7 in the King James.

King James Code - Number 7 - Mike Hoggard (Part 1):

King James Code - Number 7 - Mike Hoggard (Part 2):

Now, while I may not agree with Mike on everything he teaches in the Bible nor on the way he teaches Bible numbers in every example, I have found that he has made some startling discoveries. Discoveries that do not appear in the modern translations but only in the King James.

How is the devil's name "Lucifer" replaced with "Day Star" or the
"Morning Star" in modern translations? When something is replaced it means it starts at "A", "A" is then removed and replaced with "B". The problem is the word "lucifer" does not appear in the Greek and Hebrew text but then why would it because it is a Latin word. Modern day translations are not replacing anything they are translating the Hebrew and "lucifer" does not appear in the Hebrew.

Lucifer is a latin word and it is introduced in scripture from the Latin translation of the bible. Isaiah 14 in context is talking about the King of babylon but it is widely accepted that it is also figuratively talking about Satan. But the word "satan" doesn't come up nor does anywhere in the text tells us what Satan's name is. Here is the Latin for vs 12:

quomodo cecidisti de caelo lucifer qui mane oriebaris corruisti in terram qui vulnerabas gentes

notice the lucifer word. This word is translated from the Hebrew helel. This word is a reference to the morning star or venus as it always appears close to the horizon in the morning as a bright star but is then overshadowed by light and as the earth rotates it actually appears that this morning start descends to earth. In Latin this morning star is call "lucifer" and in english it is called morning star or just simply venus. The latin text does a good job at translating this as lucifer is a contextual equivalence latin word for the same celestial object. When the KJV however uses this word it shows us it borrowed it from Latin and it also shows it didn't translated it.

Lucifer means light bearer.

As I said before this is fitting because the devil wore gemstones that acted like little light bearers upon himself. Gemstones reflect light. Satan is also called an "angel of light" in Scripture. Light bearer. It's fitting. Lucius derives from Latin word Lux (gen. lucis), meaning "light"

But to say that Satan is the "BRIGHT and Morning Star" and or "Day Star" is just wrong. The BRIGHT and morning star or the Day Star is the sun. In fact, Malachi 4:2 refers to the sun of righteousness (Which of course is Jesus).

Revelation 22:16 says, "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."

So again. You are wrong and you are not following the line of logic here. The devil is clearly trying to take on a name of Christ. This is wrong and evil. CEV, GNT, NIRV say that he is the BRIGHT and morning star!

Jesus is also called lucifer in the latin text in 2 Peter 1:19 but it's far less obscure than Isaiah as the text is clearly talking about Jesus. the latin goes is:

et habemus firmiorem propheticum sermonem cui bene facitis adtendentes quasi lucernae lucenti in caliginoso loco donec dies inlucescat et lucifer oriatur in cordibus vestris

lucifer is a misnomer for Satan because although it can correctly identify Satan historically and etymologically speaking lucifer is not the proper name of Satan nor should we ever give him the honor to be called a title that in latin is dedicated to Jesus. This word needs to be abandoned to reference Satan and we should instead favour biblical language which is simply "satan"

you may say... but do you speak hebrew? do you speak latin? in the end the KJV comes under the same rules as at one point there was a Hebrew and Greek text that was translated into English. If these practices were noble and honorable in the 17th century then why not today? simply saying something is corrupt does not make it corrupt and you need to back it up with more substance then why you are providing. If you don't your thoughts on the subject will never be taken seriously. I welcome this substance to the conversation but I have yet to see it.

Lucifer means "light bearer." It can mean "Day Star." But Modern Translations have called him the BRIGHT and morning star in Isaiah 14:12. This is a problem because it is the exact title given to our Lord Jesus Christ in Revelation. There is a difference between a regular "Day Star" and a BRIGHT and morning star. Today, with the passage of time, the word "Lucifer" has come to refer to as the devil (despite it meaning simply "light bearer" or "Day Star" in the Latin). Words change and evolve with a culture over the passage of time. The word "gay" could once be used in passing conversation without anyone turning any heads. Today, you say that word and you have to be very careful. To say that God would not be aware or care of how words would be used today (vs. back in the day) is not taking the Omniscience of our Lord into account. God would surely know that the word "Lucifer" would become to be known as Satan by our world language today.

 

[Tree of Life]

@Jason0047 I think that your positions are crazy and that you are unwilling to listen to reason. I can no longer engage in this discussion.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

@Jason0047 I think that your positions are crazy and that you are unwilling to listen to reason. I can no longer engage in this discussion.

Thank you. Lets agree to disagree and part ways in peace.

May God bless you.