Are modern Bible translations as good as the old ones? KJV versus ESV versus NKJV

Copperhead

Newbie
Supporter
Feb 22, 2013
1,434
442
✟208,325.00
Country
United States
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
They are better than the old ones because they involve updated scholarship and manuscripts that were not available in the distant past.

That can be true to some extent, but involving more manuscripts only supports the concept of what the majority of texts say and does not prove the reliability of those texts. Given that the LV was done in the 4th century, it likely had far more Greek texts lying around to compare with than anything we have today, and the LV was the primarily bible for all of world Christianity for about 1200 years. So the distant past may not be an accurate statement on your part. We do have more observable manuscripts and fragments than were available a few hundred years ago, but it would be a real stretch to take that and apply it to the first 500 years AD. There was a reason that there was a period in between called the "dark ages". We are far ahead of anything in that period, but maybe not so much compared to the period before the dark ages.

And "updated" scholarship may not be all that it is cracked up to be. Ever hear of the Jesus Project? Supposed "scholars" all sitting around deciding who Jesus really was and what Jesus really stated based solely on their academic prowess to judge the evidence. Scholarship may not be something one would want to hang their hat on, as there is a lot of bias in academic circles. Even in the hard sciences.

There are many examples of where even modern translations have problems. There are also many examples of where the older translations like the Geneva and KJV didn't get things quite right. But at least with those older translations, they have been around for a lengthy period of time and those errors are well documented. With the newer translations, so many are coming out all the time so there really isn't any way to accurately judge what they got right or wrong before they are in the hands of many thousands of people and folks are basing their ideas on what those modern translations are stating.
 
Upvote 0

createdtoworship

In the grip of grace
Mar 13, 2004
18,941
1,758
West Coast USA
✟33,173.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Upvote 0

ralfyman

Active Member
Apr 12, 2019
172
82
Moonachie
✟22,115.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Private
That can be true to some extent, but involving more manuscripts only supports the concept of what the majority of texts say and does not prove the reliability of those texts. Given that the LV was done in the 4th century, it likely had far more Greek texts lying around to compare with than anything we have today, and the LV was the primarily bible for all of world Christianity for about 1200 years. So the distant past may not be an accurate statement on your part. We do have more observable manuscripts and fragments than were available a few hundred years ago, but it would be a real stretch to take that and apply it to the first 500 years AD. There was a reason that there was a period in between called the "dark ages". We are far ahead of anything in that period, but maybe not so much compared to the period before the dark ages.

And "updated" scholarship may not be all that it is cracked up to be. Ever hear of the Jesus Project? Supposed "scholars" all sitting around deciding who Jesus really was and what Jesus really stated based solely on their academic prowess to judge the evidence. Scholarship may not be something one would want to hang their hat on, as there is a lot of bias in academic circles. Even in the hard sciences.

There are many examples of where even modern translations have problems. There are also many examples of where the older translations like the Geneva and KJV didn't get things quite right. But at least with those older translations, they have been around for a lengthy period of time and those errors are well documented. With the newer translations, so many are coming out all the time so there really isn't any way to accurately judge what they got right or wrong before they are in the hands of many thousands of people and folks are basing their ideas on what those modern translations are stating.

According to the prefaces of the NRSV and NABRE, the newly discovered manuscripts gave translators context to several passages that they had difficulty understanding, leading to dozens of corrections mentioned in the footnotes.

Finally, the updated scholarship refers to NRSV, NABRE, etc. You should not use the Jesus Project as representative of that.
 
Upvote 0

Copperhead

Newbie
Supporter
Feb 22, 2013
1,434
442
✟208,325.00
Country
United States
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
One thing that quite a few folks who are involved in the newer translations seem to also suggest is that, based on the manuscript evidence, the account of the woman caught the act of adultery that included the confrontation between the religious leaders and Yeshua is likely not part of the original narrative of John 8. That what they classify as textual evidence does not include this in them, so the story must be a later addition.

I would contend that these folks have little clue of what they are talking about. The passage is fulfillment of passages in the OT. This story is at the time of the feast of tabernacles. The ceremony at this time was the Beit Hashoevah, or house of the water pouring. The high priest would gather a vase of water from the pool fo Siloam which would be called "living water".

Folks often speculate what Yeshua wrote in the dirt when this event happened. Again, only a lack of study would cause speculation. When Yeshua confronts these guys, telling them that those without sin cast the first stone, they departed.

Yeshua often said that those who trust in Him, that out of their heart will flow living water. He told the Samaritan woman at the well that if she knew who she was talking to that she would ask of Him and He would give her living water.

First, the time is Tabernacles and the Beit Hashoevah. At that same time, Yeshua proclaims during this ceremony of the "living water" by the high priest that all who come to Him will have the true living water come out of his heart.

John 7:37-38 (NKJV) On the last day, that great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried out, saying, “If anyone thirsts, let him come to Me and drink. 38 He who believes in Me, as the Scripture has said, out of his heart will flow rivers of living water.”

Now we look at Jeremiah 17 and compare with the story of the woman caught in adultery and the religious leaders who wanted to set up Yeshua in a trap and Yeshua just wrote in the dirt......

Jeremiah 17:13 (NKJV) O Lord, the hope of Israel,
All who forsake You shall be ashamed.
Those who depart from Me
Shall be written in the earth,
Because they have forsaken the Lord,
The fountain of living waters.”


Yeshua wrote the names of the religious leaders in the dirt.

And that Yeshua also did not condemn the woman, we know in the very next verse of Jeremiah how the woman perceived of Yeshua....

Jeremiah 17:14 (NKJV) Heal me, O Lord, and I shall be healed;
Save me, and I shall be saved,
For You are my praise.

So while there are all sorts of claims about the newer translations being better, I am somewhat skeptical of the "scholarship" behind the scenes. In the little small print comment sections or in commentary study bibles of many of the newer translations, they dismiss this account in John 8. Yet the OT supports it in spades. If they knew as much as they think they know, they would have known this.

I like some aspects of the newer translations, but as to the claim that they are better, I have serious reservations. These translations are good for comparisons with older translations, but they also have their own problems.
 
Upvote 0

createdtoworship

In the grip of grace
Mar 13, 2004
18,941
1,758
West Coast USA
✟33,173.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
I like the NKJV best, but I thought this image was funny:

kjv 10.jpg
 
Upvote 0

Radagast

comes and goes
Supporter
Dec 10, 2003
23,821
9,817
✟312,047.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
the westcott and hort text (the text of all modern translations), does not account for papyri evidence as it was unavailable. And those papyri almost universally support the text behind the NKJV. see my last post:

Are modern Bible translations as good as the old ones? KJV versus ESV versus NKJV

That's just about the complete opposite of the truth.

The standard modern Greek text (which is not Westcott-Hort) uses papyri that have become available. Those papyri do not support the NKJV.
 
Upvote 0

Copperhead

Newbie
Supporter
Feb 22, 2013
1,434
442
✟208,325.00
Country
United States
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
I like the NKJV best, but I thought this image was funny:

That was cool. I wondered after looking at it, how much larger and vicious would the Latin Vulgate look since it was the standard bible of the church for 1200 years, 3x longer than the KJV has been around, the KJV translators referred to the Latin frequently as there is evidence in even some words that the KJV translators used.
 
Upvote 0

Radagast

comes and goes
Supporter
Dec 10, 2003
23,821
9,817
✟312,047.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
I wondered after looking at it, how much larger and vicious would the Latin Vulgate look since it was the standard bible of the church for 1200 years

About like this:

Saber-tooth-tiger.jpg
 
Upvote 0

Concord1968

LCMS Lutheran
Sep 29, 2018
790
437
Pacific Northwest
✟23,029.00
Country
United States
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
That's just about the complete opposite of the truth.

The standard modern Greek text (which is not Westcott-Hort) uses papyri that have become available. Those papyri do not support the NKJV.
Aren't most modern translations based on the Nestle-Aland?
 
Upvote 0

createdtoworship

In the grip of grace
Mar 13, 2004
18,941
1,758
West Coast USA
✟33,173.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
That's just about the complete opposite of the truth.

The standard modern Greek text (which is not Westcott-Hort) uses papyri that have become available. Those papyri do not support the NKJV.
you have evidence those papyri do not support the NKJV, who told you this. Totally wrong. And I would also question how much of the papyri was consulted in the greek text, because it would contradict westcott hort, and modern translations don't do this.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

createdtoworship

In the grip of grace
Mar 13, 2004
18,941
1,758
West Coast USA
✟33,173.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
That was cool. I wondered after looking at it, how much larger and vicious would the Latin Vulgate look since it was the standard bible of the church for 1200 years, 3x longer than the KJV has been around, the KJV translators referred to the Latin frequently as there is evidence in even some words that the KJV translators used.
there is no evidence the KJV translators used latin vulgate. They used english words that came from latin, a big difference.
 
Upvote 0

GreekOrthodox

Psalti Chrysostom
Oct 25, 2010
4,121
4,187
Yorktown VA
✟176,292.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
there is no evidence the KJV translators used latin vulgate. They used english words that came from latin, a big difference.

From wikipedia:
For the Old Testament, the translators used a text originating in the editions of the Hebrew Rabbinic Bible by Daniel Bomberg (1524/5),[132] but adjusted this to conform to the Greek LXX or Latin Vulgate in passages to which Christian tradition had attached a Christological interpretation.[133] For example, the Septuagint reading "They pierced my hands and my feet" was used in Psalm 22:16 (vs. the Masoretes' reading of the Hebrew "like lions my hands and feet"[134]). Otherwise, however, the Authorized Version is closer to the Hebrew tradition than any previous English translation – especially in making use of the rabbinic commentaries, such as Kimhi, in elucidating obscure passages in the Masoretic Text;[135] earlier versions had been more likely to adopt LXX or Vulgate readings in such places. Following the practice of the Geneva Bible, the books of 1 Esdras and 2 Esdras in the medieval Vulgate Old Testament were renamed 'Ezra' and 'Nehemiah'; 3 Esdras and 4 Esdras in the Apocrypha being renamed '1 Esdras' and '2 Esdras'.
 
Upvote 0

Dr. Jack

Well-Known Member
Mar 9, 2019
839
120
63
Pennsylvania
✟26,705.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Private
That's just about the complete opposite of the truth.

The standard modern Greek text (which is not Westcott-Hort) uses papyri that have become available. Those papyri do not support the NKJV.
Nestle's first Greek text was a combination of the works of Tischendorf, Westcott and Hort, and Weymouth. The principles that led to the critical text were greatly advanced by Westcott and Hort.

To say that the modern Greek Text is not the product of Westcott and Hort, would be equivalent to saying the TR is not the product of Erasmus.
 
Upvote 0

Copperhead

Newbie
Supporter
Feb 22, 2013
1,434
442
✟208,325.00
Country
United States
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
there is no evidence the KJV translators used latin vulgate. They used english words that came from latin, a big difference.

I was watching a discussion among the editors of the NASB, NIV, NKJV and they were commenting how the KJV translators would take notes on their discussions of translation and those notes were in Latin.

But let's look at KJV Isaiah 14:12, specifically Lucifer.

Isaiah 14:12 (KJV) How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!

Lucifer is not a name. It is Latin for "light bearer". The Hebrew behind it is helel which means shining one morning star, light bearer, etc. The KJV just brought over the Latin word instead of actually translating helel into English. And in their laziness to do things right, they caused untold number of people to think that Lucifer is a proper name when it is not.

That is just one piece of evidence right there.
 
Upvote 0

Concord1968

LCMS Lutheran
Sep 29, 2018
790
437
Pacific Northwest
✟23,029.00
Country
United States
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
I was watching a discussion among the editors of the NASB, NIV, NKJV and they were commenting how the KJV translators would take notes on their discussions of translation and those notes were in Latin.

But let's look at KJV Isaiah 14:12, specifically Lucifer.

Isaiah 14:12 (KJV) How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!

Lucifer is not a name. It is Latin for "light bearer". The Hebrew behind it is helel which means shining one morning star, light bearer, etc. The KJV just brought over the Latin word instead of actually translating helel into English. And in their laziness to do things right, they caused untold number of people to think that Lucifer is a proper name when it is not.

That is just one piece of evidence right there.
This I think:
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Dr. Jack

Well-Known Member
Mar 9, 2019
839
120
63
Pennsylvania
✟26,705.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Private
I was watching a discussion among the editors of the NASB, NIV, NKJV and they were commenting how the KJV translators would take notes on their discussions of translation and those notes were in Latin.

But let's look at KJV Isaiah 14:12, specifically Lucifer.

Isaiah 14:12 (KJV) How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!

Lucifer is not a name. It is Latin for "light bearer". The Hebrew behind it is helel which means shining one morning star, light bearer, etc. The KJV just brought over the Latin word instead of actually translating helel into English. And in their laziness to do things right, they caused untold number of people to think that Lucifer is a proper name when it is not.

That is just one piece of evidence right there.
A look at "Lucifer"
The word “lucifer” comes from Jerome’s Vulgate, which is the late fourth century AD Latin translation of the Hebrew Scriptures. In Latin, the word “lucifer” means the “bringer of light,” and in English, the word “luciferous” is used as an adjective to describe something that emits light.

In the Latin Vulgate, Isaiah 14:12 reads:

Isaiah 14:12 quomodo cecidisti de caelo lucifer qui mane oriebaris corruisti in terram qui vulnerabas gentes

The word “lucifer” in the Vulgate is not a proper name. It is simply a translation from the Hebrew word “heylel” (or “halal” or “helel”), found in the Hebrew Masoretic text.

Below is the translation of the Hebrew words in Isaiah 14:12 (remember that the Hebrew language is written from right to left):


12.jpg


The Hebrew Word “Helel”

“Helel“ (halal) is defined by Strong’s Dictionary as:

H1966. heylel, hay-lale’ (in the sense of brightness); the morning-star:—lucifer.

The word derives from another Hebrew word, “halal,” defined as:

H1984. halal, haw-lal’; to be clear (orig. of sound, but usually of color); to shine;hence to make a show, to boast; and thus to be (clamorously) foolish…

Jewish sources record that the word literally means “shining one.” The word can also mean “bearer of light,” which gives understanding to Paul’s proclamation that Satan is able to transform into an “angel of light” (2 Cor 11:14).

The Jewish Publication Society translated “helel” into English in this way:

Isaiah 14:12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O day-star [helel], son of the morning [ben-sahar]! How art thou cut down to the ground, that didst cast lots over the nations!

While the Latin Vulgate translated the Hebrew word “helel” as the Latin word “lucifer,” and then early English translations capitalized the “L,” it is not a proper name for the cherub. The Jewish Publication Society translates “helel” as “day star.” That is also not a proper name.

While lucifer and day-star are not proper names for the anointed cherub who fell from Heaven, both, when coupled with “ben-sahar” (“son of the morning”), provide a good description of this cherub BEFORE he rebelled against God and was cast out of Heaven. Both translations give a good description of the honor and light that the cherub once had and lost, and that should be a reminder of the devasting consequences of sin against God.

The Fallen Cherub

Since the time this cherub fell from heaven, he no longer deserves such an honorable description/name. He no longer is the bearer of light and he no longer shines as a day-star or as the son of the morning. Even though this fallen cherub is able to transform himself into an angel of light (2 Cor 11:14), in reality, he is the bearer of darkness and the son of the night. He opposes God and he desires to devour those who love God (1 Pet 5:8).

With Identity Change Came Name Change

The Hebrew word for that which opposes, or that which goes against, is “satan.” Strong’s dictionary defines the word as:

H7854. satan, saw-tawn’; from H7853; an opponent: espec. (with the art. pref.) Satan, the arch-enemy of good:–adversary, Satan, withstand.

In the Hebrew Scriptures, the fallen cherub is called “ha satan” –the adversary and the arch-enemy of God and all that is of God (creation). Satan is now the name of the fallen cherub. The name describes him well as the evil one who opposes God and the one who seeks to accuse, devour, and destroy.

The first use of “Satan” (as a name for the evil one) is found in the book of 1st Chronicles, where his opposition to God’s will and His people is recorded, as well as his attempt to cause trouble.

1 Chronicles 21:1 And Satan stood up against Israel, and provoked David to number Israel.

The Adversary of God and Man

Since the time when he fell from Heaven (Isaiah 14:12), it has been his mission to thwart God’s purpose and plan. His desire has been to subvert God’s will, to interfere with God’s works, and to tempt and seduce God’s people. Such is Satan’s purpose and plan, his “game.” He is an adversary, a liar, an oppressor, and a thief. He is a threat to anyone who belongs to the true God of all creation, and we know both his name and his game.

“Satan” is the appropriate and accurate name for this fallen angel. It serves as a reminder that he opposes both God and us. The name “Satan” should create in us a motivation to stand strong against him. We know that he rebelled against God and lost all that he had—his communion with God and his special and significant role in serving God. So also did Adam lose his relationship with God when he sinned. Adam lost all that God had given him and he plunged the world and all mankind into a fallen state— a state of rebellion against God.

“But God….”

Those are two of the most hopeful words.

Man sinned…but God, in His mercy, promised to send a rescuer (Gen 3:15).

Man was without hope…but God, in His grace, sent His Son (1 John 4:10).

Sin still abounds…but God, in His justice, will one day vanquish all sin and the adversary, Satan.

Jesus died for the sins of mankind, but not for the sins of angels (Satan took a third of Heaven’s angels with him when he rebelled. Revelation 12:3-9). Only man was created in God’s image, and only man can be redeemed by the Saviour’s substitutionary atonement.

No Sympathy for the Devil

Please allow me to introduce myself, I’m a man of wealth and taste.

I’ve been around for a long, long year, Stole many a man’s soul to waste…

Pleased to meet you, Hope you guess my name.”

We don’t need to guess his name. He is Satan, our adversary. And he gets no sympathy from us because we know his name and his game of evil intent. When we think of Satan, we should be quick to remember the power that God has given us:

1 John 4:4 You are of God, little children, and have overcome them [all those who oppose God]: because greater is he that is in you [the Holy Spirit], than he that is in the world [Satan and his minions].

The apostle John’s words remind us that while Satan might think he has the power to deceive and destroy us, God has given us the greater power and, therefore, we can withstand his attacks. Yes, Satan is the “god of this world” (2 Cor 4:4), but he is a “god” with a small “g.” Satan’s control only reaches to the extent that God allows and to the extent that we neglect to call upon the power of the Holy Spirit.

There are many that present the idea that the Scriptures must be preserved in the original languages. I believe God has for the most part; but, is it proper to limit God to only those languages? If God chose to use the Latin to convey the meaning of "light bearer" in the Latin name Lucifer, who are we to judge Him?
 
Upvote 0

createdtoworship

In the grip of grace
Mar 13, 2004
18,941
1,758
West Coast USA
✟33,173.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
From wikipedia:
For the Old Testament, the translators used a text originating in the editions of the Hebrew Rabbinic Bible by Daniel Bomberg (1524/5),[132] but adjusted this to conform to the Greek LXX or Latin Vulgate in passages to which Christian tradition had attached a Christological interpretation.[133] For example, the Septuagint reading "They pierced my hands and my feet" was used in Psalm 22:16 (vs. the Masoretes' reading of the Hebrew "like lions my hands and feet"[134]). Otherwise, however, the Authorized Version is closer to the Hebrew tradition than any previous English translation – especially in making use of the rabbinic commentaries, such as Kimhi, in elucidating obscure passages in the Masoretic Text;[135] earlier versions had been more likely to adopt LXX or Vulgate readings in such places. Following the practice of the Geneva Bible, the books of 1 Esdras and 2 Esdras in the medieval Vulgate Old Testament were renamed 'Ezra' and 'Nehemiah'; 3 Esdras and 4 Esdras in the Apocrypha being renamed '1 Esdras' and '2 Esdras'.

I would have to see the link, in which you got this information. Because the KJV used a massoretic text for the OT, not the LXX. So to say the LXX influenced the KJV is not the same as saying that the KJV translators may have consulted the LXX on less than 1% of old testament text.
 
Upvote 0

createdtoworship

In the grip of grace
Mar 13, 2004
18,941
1,758
West Coast USA
✟33,173.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
I was watching a discussion among the editors of the NASB, NIV, NKJV and they were commenting how the KJV translators would take notes on their discussions of translation and those notes were in Latin.

But let's look at KJV Isaiah 14:12, specifically Lucifer.

Isaiah 14:12 (KJV) How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!

Lucifer is not a name. It is Latin for "light bearer". The Hebrew behind it is helel which means shining one morning star, light bearer, etc. The KJV just brought over the Latin word instead of actually translating helel into English. And in their laziness to do things right, they caused untold number of people to think that Lucifer is a proper name when it is not.

That is just one piece of evidence right there.
A look at "Lucifer"
The word “lucifer” comes from Jerome’s Vulgate, which is the late fourth century AD Latin translation of the Hebrew Scriptures. In Latin, the word “lucifer” means the “bringer of light,” and in English, the word “luciferous” is used as an adjective to describe something that emits light.

In the Latin Vulgate, Isaiah 14:12 reads:

Isaiah 14:12 quomodo cecidisti de caelo lucifer qui mane oriebaris corruisti in terram qui vulnerabas gentes

The word “lucifer” in the Vulgate is not a proper name. It is simply a translation from the Hebrew word “heylel” (or “halal” or “helel”), found in the Hebrew Masoretic text.

Below is the translation of the Hebrew words in Isaiah 14:12 (remember that the Hebrew language is written from right to left):


12.jpg


The Hebrew Word “Helel”

“Helel“ (halal) is defined by Strong’s Dictionary as:

H1966. heylel, hay-lale’ (in the sense of brightness); the morning-star:—lucifer.

The word derives from another Hebrew word, “halal,” defined as:

H1984. halal, haw-lal’; to be clear (orig. of sound, but usually of color); to shine;hence to make a show, to boast; and thus to be (clamorously) foolish…

Jewish sources record that the word literally means “shining one.” The word can also mean “bearer of light,” which gives understanding to Paul’s proclamation that Satan is able to transform into an “angel of light” (2 Cor 11:14).

The Jewish Publication Society translated “helel” into English in this way:

Isaiah 14:12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O day-star [helel], son of the morning [ben-sahar]! How art thou cut down to the ground, that didst cast lots over the nations!

While the Latin Vulgate translated the Hebrew word “helel” as the Latin word “lucifer,” and then early English translations capitalized the “L,” it is not a proper name for the cherub. The Jewish Publication Society translates “helel” as “day star.” That is also not a proper name.

While lucifer and day-star are not proper names for the anointed cherub who fell from Heaven, both, when coupled with “ben-sahar” (“son of the morning”), provide a good description of this cherub BEFORE he rebelled against God and was cast out of Heaven. Both translations give a good description of the honor and light that the cherub once had and lost, and that should be a reminder of the devasting consequences of sin against God.

The Fallen Cherub

Since the time this cherub fell from heaven, he no longer deserves such an honorable description/name. He no longer is the bearer of light and he no longer shines as a day-star or as the son of the morning. Even though this fallen cherub is able to transform himself into an angel of light (2 Cor 11:14), in reality, he is the bearer of darkness and the son of the night. He opposes God and he desires to devour those who love God (1 Pet 5:8).

With Identity Change Came Name Change

The Hebrew word for that which opposes, or that which goes against, is “satan.” Strong’s dictionary defines the word as:

H7854. satan, saw-tawn’; from H7853; an opponent: espec. (with the art. pref.) Satan, the arch-enemy of good:–adversary, Satan, withstand.

In the Hebrew Scriptures, the fallen cherub is called “ha satan” –the adversary and the arch-enemy of God and all that is of God (creation). Satan is now the name of the fallen cherub. The name describes him well as the evil one who opposes God and the one who seeks to accuse, devour, and destroy.

The first use of “Satan” (as a name for the evil one) is found in the book of 1st Chronicles, where his opposition to God’s will and His people is recorded, as well as his attempt to cause trouble.

1 Chronicles 21:1 And Satan stood up against Israel, and provoked David to number Israel.

The Adversary of God and Man

Since the time when he fell from Heaven (Isaiah 14:12), it has been his mission to thwart God’s purpose and plan. His desire has been to subvert God’s will, to interfere with God’s works, and to tempt and seduce God’s people. Such is Satan’s purpose and plan, his “game.” He is an adversary, a liar, an oppressor, and a thief. He is a threat to anyone who belongs to the true God of all creation, and we know both his name and his game.

“Satan” is the appropriate and accurate name for this fallen angel. It serves as a reminder that he opposes both God and us. The name “Satan” should create in us a motivation to stand strong against him. We know that he rebelled against God and lost all that he had—his communion with God and his special and significant role in serving God. So also did Adam lose his relationship with God when he sinned. Adam lost all that God had given him and he plunged the world and all mankind into a fallen state— a state of rebellion against God.

“But God….”

Those are two of the most hopeful words.

Man sinned…but God, in His mercy, promised to send a rescuer (Gen 3:15).

Man was without hope…but God, in His grace, sent His Son (1 John 4:10).

Sin still abounds…but God, in His justice, will one day vanquish all sin and the adversary, Satan.

Jesus died for the sins of mankind, but not for the sins of angels (Satan took a third of Heaven’s angels with him when he rebelled. Revelation 12:3-9). Only man was created in God’s image, and only man can be redeemed by the Saviour’s substitutionary atonement.

No Sympathy for the Devil

Please allow me to introduce myself, I’m a man of wealth and taste.

I’ve been around for a long, long year, Stole many a man’s soul to waste…

Pleased to meet you, Hope you guess my name.”

We don’t need to guess his name. He is Satan, our adversary. And he gets no sympathy from us because we know his name and his game of evil intent. When we think of Satan, we should be quick to remember the power that God has given us:

1 John 4:4 You are of God, little children, and have overcome them [all those who oppose God]: because greater is he that is in you [the Holy Spirit], than he that is in the world [Satan and his minions].

The apostle John’s words remind us that while Satan might think he has the power to deceive and destroy us, God has given us the greater power and, therefore, we can withstand his attacks. Yes, Satan is the “god of this world” (2 Cor 4:4), but he is a “god” with a small “g.” Satan’s control only reaches to the extent that God allows and to the extent that we neglect to call upon the power of the Holy Spirit.

There are many that present the idea that the Scriptures must be preserved in the original languages. I believe God has for the most part; but, is it proper to limit God to only those languages? If God chose to use the Latin to convey the meaning of "light bearer" in the Latin name Lucifer, who are we to judge Him?
yes I have dealt with this in previous posts. English words have over 200 cases of words in english that were derived from latin. Lucifer is such a word. It's actually an english word that was translated from latin. So to say that the KJV used the LXX in this case is misleading, when it simply used an english word that was transliterated from latin. See latin is a base language for english. That is why it's confusing.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Radagast

comes and goes
Supporter
Dec 10, 2003
23,821
9,817
✟312,047.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
you have evidence those papyri do not support the NKJV, who told you this. Totally wrong. And I would also question how much of the papyri was consulted in the greek text

The modern Greek text lists every major variation in the footnotes, and then gives (using a somewhat cryptic code) the manuscripts and papyri which support each variation. This is a typical page. It starts off giving the inscription as "According to John," but noting in the footnote that Papyrus p66, Papyrus p75, and some other manuscripts have "Gospel according to John":
apparatus.jpg
 
Upvote 0