BNR32FAN said:
We don’t know who the fourth person in the fire is. What we can be sure of is that it was God’s intervention that saved them. Nebuchadnezzar wouldn’t say that he was the Son of God because he had no idea who the Son of God was. Nebuchadnezzar was a pagan so it makes perfect sense that he might say he looked like a son of the gods. I prefer to read what was actually written over what someone think the author meant.
Bible Highlighter said:
Jesus said, “Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.” (
John 5:39).
The KJV wasn’t written when He said that so please don’t quote Him out of context. There’s no indication that He was referring to any particular translation.
First, you don’t think the Scriptures testify of Jesus?
You don’t believe in Messianic prophecies?
You don’t believe in Pre-Incarnate appearances of Jesus Christ in the Old Testament?
Daniel 3:25 is a Pre-Incarnate appearance of Jesus Christ and John 5:39 ties into that.
Jesus is saying the OT Scriptures testify of Him and we can see Jesus protecting Daniel’s friends in the fire in Daniel 3:25. For if a child were to read this story in the King James Bible he would believe it is talking about Jesus. He would not overthink the story beyond the context (like many in the Modern Translation camp are doing). Again, read the context. Even in Modern Bibles: Daniel 3:28 refers to how Nebuchadnezzar refers to the angel of God that saved Daniel’s three friends. This angel or messenger is a reference to his statement back in Daniel 3:25 of one like the son of God.
Two, you believe I am taking the Lord’s Jesus’ words out of context by the KJV. If this is the case you must be appealing to some more superior source that is infallible over the King James Bible. What source is that?
(a) A buffet of Modern Vatican English Bibles that all disagree with each other?
(b) The Critical Text?
(c) Another line or set of Hebrew and Greek Manuscripts?
(d) A buffet of all the Hebrew and Greek Manuscripts that all disagree with each other (i.e. the James White mentality)?
(e) The NASB?
(f) Another Bible?
Where is your perfect Bible that you can hold in your hands right now?
Three, you believe I think that Jesus was referring to a particular translation in John 5:39?
No, that’s your way of thinking, my friend. I believe there is only one Word of God and that it continued to be preserved throughout time. Most in the Modern Translation camp believe the originals are perfect, and yet we do not have them today.
However in the Bible: We can see a pattern of God preserving copies of His Word, and not the original autographs.
(a) Moses destroyed the original 10 Commandments on tablets of stone (the original autograph) (
Exodus 32:19), and yet a copy was perfectly made to replace it (
Exodus 34:1-4).
(b) King Jehoiakim burns the scroll of Jeremiah (
Jeremiah 36:22-23), but God had Jeremiah make another copy (
Jeremiah 36:27-28).
(c)
Proverbs 25:1 says, “These are also proverbs of Solomon, which the men of Hezekiah king of Judah copied out.” (
Proverbs 25:1).
In the New Testament, Philip heard the Ethiopian eunuch read from a manuscript of Isaiah.
“And Philip ran thither to him, and heard him read the prophet Esaias, and said, Understandest thou what thou readest?” (
Acts of the Apostles 8:30).
Although Scripture does not specifically say this was a copy of Isaiah, and not the original autograph of Isaiah, logic dictates that the most plausible explanation is that the Ethiopian eunuch had a copy of a manuscript of Isaiah (and not the original). For the odds of him just happening to have the original would seem highly unlikely.
Philip calls this copy of Isaiah he possessed as Scripture.
“Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus.” (
Acts of the Apostles 8:35).
2 Timothy 3:16 says
all Scripture is given by inspiration of God.
So the copy of this Scripture was inspired by God.
So the belief of “OAO (Original Autograph Only) Proponent” that says that we need to look to the original autograph because it is perfect, and the copies are flawed and full of errors is unbiblical. Believers in God's Word can trust that God has preserved a copy of His Word for us today that is perfect (Which would be consistent in the way God operates involving the preservation of His Word). This then leads us to conclude that there must be a perfect Bible that we can find today.
“Seek ye out of the book of the LORD, and read: no one of these shall fail, none shall want her mate: for my mouth it hath commanded, and his spirit it hath gathered them.” (Isaiah 34:16).
You said:
The KJV is a modern Bible and has several translation errors from the Textus Receptus.
Just offering an opinion does not mean anything, my friend. You need to provide concrete proof.
You said:
Compared to the NASB the KJV does not give as accurate of a translation to the Textus Receptus.
The NASB is a Vatican influenced translation.
What do you think about my claim that the NASB (or all Modern Bibles) is influenced by the Vatican?
Do you agree?
Some Modern Translation Folk do not have a problem with it, and others simply deny such a thing even though I can provide concrete proof of such a thing.
Anyways, lets read some of the bone chilling examples of why you should never trust the NASB.
Revelation 13:1 NASB
“And
the dragon stood on the sand of the seashore. Then I saw a beast coming up out of the sea, having ten horns and seven heads, and on his horns
were ten crowns, and on his heads
were blasphemous names.”
Note: The NASB said something different in 1977 on this verse. So they keep changing with whatever they feel like.
Revelation 13:1 KJB
“And I stood upon the sand of the sea, and saw a beast rise up out of the sea, having seven heads and ten horns, and upon his horns ten crowns, and upon his heads the name of blasphemy.”
Okay. So why is the NASB wrong on Revelation 13:1?
Well, 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 (Including the NASB) 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").
Let’s look at another.
Isaiah 14:12 NASB
“How you have fallen from heaven, You star of the morning, son of the dawn! You have been cut down to the earth, You who defeated the nations!”
Isaiah 14:12 KJB
“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!”
In
Isaiah 14:12, the devil's name "Lucifer" is replaced with "star of the morning." (i.e. Morning star)
Yes, I am aware that "morning stars" are angels in the book of Job.
But the NASB is saying that Lucifer is the morning star (or star of the morning). 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).
2 Peter 1:19 says, “And
so we have the prophetic word
made more sure, to which you do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star arises in your hearts.”
So the NASB is saying that the devil wants to arise in your heart.
My Bible (the KJB) does not say that.
You said:
He also referred to pagan gods several times as well throughout Daniel using the same exact Hebrew word. None of the verses you quoted don’t imply that Nebuchadnezzar believed in monotheism.
Again, he was not referring to his own belief. He was referring to the God of the Hebrews and he even states this fact in Daniel 3:28. You also fail to see that this is yet another attack of the devil trying to be like Jesus in Scripture. But of course, people see what they want to see.
