Kings James Version why the best ?

coons786c

Regular Member
Feb 23, 2007
485
6
Port Saint Lucie
✟9,473.00
Country
United States
Faith
Marital Status
Married
To OZspen
You seem to be imposing on Bible translations what is not there according to the people who have translated them.

Since I read and teach Greek, I can assure you that the NIV, NLT, ESV, NRSV, etc are keeping true to the original. The NIV and NLT pursue a dynamic equivalence translation philosophy while the ESV and NRSV use a formal equivalence model. Both philosophies are legitimate ways of doing translations. To be honest, I find the NLT to be one of the best translations for people wanting to understand the Scriptures in basic English. It is brilliant. All 4 of the modern translations I have mentioned are excellent according to the philosophy of translation used.

If that is true then explain this from Dr. Douglas D. Stauffer

Jesus — The Morning Star
Now that the modern versions’ attack on the deity of the Lord Jesus Christ has been clearly identified, we turn our attention toward the source of this attack. Satan is identified as Lucifer only one time in the word of God. Before we look at the passage in the book of Isaiah, which identifies Lucifer, reveals his past, and foretells his future, we must first establish who Lucifer is not. For this reason, we must take note of the identity of the morning star.
(KJB) Revelation 22:16 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.
The Bible and the modern versions both state that Jesus is the bright and morning star. Now, having established the identity of the morning star, our attention is directed to Isaiah chapter fourteen — the only place in the Bible that mentions Lucifer by name. He is the son of the morning that was created perfect until pride destroyed him. Notice the five times that he uses the personal pronoun "I."
(KJB) Isaiah 14:12 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! 13 For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north: 14 I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High. 15 Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit.
Satan, Lucifer, the Devil, that crooked serpent — all the same. Praise God, one day Lucifer will be brought down to hell. The KJB proclaims this truth in this singular biography and identification of Lucifer. However, this is not the case in the blasphemous NIV. Instead of being brought low, the NIV allows Lucifer to become the imposter he desires so much to be (II Thessalonians 2:4).
Instead of revealing Satan to be the archenemy of God and man, the finger is pointed in the Saviour’s direction as though He is the imposter. Remember who the book of the Revelation identified as the morning star…now, look at the One to whom the NIV blasphemously points its finger — Jesus Christ!
(NIV) Isaiah 14:12 How you have fallen from heaven, O morning star, son of the dawn! You have been cast down to the earth, you who once laid low the nations! 13 You said in your heart, "I will ascend to heaven; I will raise my throne above the stars of God; I will sit enthroned on the mount of assembly, on the utmost heights of the sacred mountain. 14 I will ascend above the tops of the clouds; I will make myself like the Most High." 15 But you are brought down to the grave, to the depths of the pit.
The NIV fails to reveal Lucifer, but instead attributes the history and future of Lucifer to the morning star. According to Revelation 22:16, the morning star is the Lord Jesus Christ — not Lucifer! Thus, the NIV indicates that the Lord, rather than Satan, was actually the One that fell. This passage in the KJB is the only place Lucifer shows up by name. He remains hidden in the NIV.
Displacing the Lord has always been the goal of Satan. All of this has been done in preparation for the day when the antichrist will outwardly claim that he is God. The Bible foretells this future event: "so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God" (II Thessalonians 2:4). The NIV makes that deception all the more possible. The antichrist will claim that the Lord Jesus Christ was the false Messiah and that he is the true one.
 
Upvote 0

coons786c

Regular Member
Feb 23, 2007
485
6
Port Saint Lucie
✟9,473.00
Country
United States
Faith
Marital Status
Married
Lucifer is a carry over from the Latin, 14:4 tells us who Lucifer is referring to in v12 the King of Babylon

Yea but verse 12-15 Is an fallen angel Lucifer, stating in his heart trying to be above God and God kicked him out of heaven. He fallen from heaven in verse 12, can't you see that?
 
Upvote 0

Keachian

On Sabbatical
Feb 3, 2010
7,096
330
35
Horse-lie-down
Visit site
✟23,842.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Single

Yea but verse 12-15 Is an fallen angel Lucifer, stating in his heart trying to be above God and God kicked him out of heaven. He fallen from heaven in verse 12, can't you see that?

No, you're reading Scofield's Theology into the passage; Gap theory which needs a preadamic world
 
Upvote 0

childofdust

Newbie
May 18, 2010
1,041
92
✟2,177.00
Faith
Anabaptist
Marital Status
Private
Dear coons786c,


After reading that comment from Douglas D. Stauffer, it seems to me that the man doesn't deserve the “Dr” title by a long shot. I don't even have my Master's degree yet and I already know exactly what's going on better than that “Dr.” does. And I will gladly explain it for you.


“Lucifer” is the Latin name for the planet Venus. It appears in many works outside the bible because it was a common name in the ancient world. For instance, Cicero wrote this in 45 BC:


Lowest of the five planets and nearest to the earth is the star of Venus, called in Greek Phosphoros (the light-bringer) and in Latin Lucifer when it precedes the sun, but when it follows it Hesperos.
--De Natura Deorum


When Venus precedes the sun (rises before the sun and is, therefore, the “morning star”) it is called Phosphoros in Greek and Lucifer in Latin. The name “Lucifer” is literally and historically the Latin name for the morning star, Venus. It is neither Greek nor Hebrew and, therefore, does not appear anywhere in the scriptures. However, when Jerome translated the scriptures into Latin, in those places where it seemed to be talking about the morning star, Jerome translated it with the Latin word “Lucifer.”


Here are a few excerpts from Jerome's Latin Vulgate where the name Lucifer appears:


Et quasi meridianus fulgor consurget tibi ad vesperam; et cum te consumptum putaveris, orieris ut Lucifer.
Job 11:17


Quomodo cecidisti de cælo, Lucifer, qui mane oriebaris ? corruisti in terram, qui vulnerabas gentes?
Isaiah 14:12


Et habemus firmiorem propheticum sermonem : cui benefacitis attendentes quasi lucernæ lucenti in caliginoso donec dies elucescat, et Lucifer oriatur in cordibus vestries
2 Peter 1:19


2 Peter 1:19 talks about the morning star rising in the hearts of Yahweh’s people. That is a direct reference to Numbers 24:17, which is a Messianic prophecy about Yeshua (Jesus). Thus, Jerome's translation literally names Yeshua “Lucifer.”


The words used in Revelation 22:16 to call Yeshua the morning star are a Greek epithet for the planet Venus (see Strong, James, The New Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, 1990, Greek concordance number 3720). And so the Greek literally refers to Yeshua as the morning star Venus, which in Latin is called Lucifer.
 
Upvote 0

OzSpen

Regular Member
Oct 15, 2005
11,541
707
Brisbane, Qld., Australia
Visit site
✟125,343.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Private
To OZspen
You seem to be imposing on Bible translations what is not there according to the people who have translated them.

Since I read and teach Greek, I can assure you that the NIV, NLT, ESV, NRSV, etc are keeping true to the original. The NIV and NLT pursue a dynamic equivalence translation philosophy while the ESV and NRSV use a formal equivalence model. Both philosophies are legitimate ways of doing translations. To be honest, I find the NLT to be one of the best translations for people wanting to understand the Scriptures in basic English. It is brilliant. All 4 of the modern translations I have mentioned are excellent according to the philosophy of translation used.

If that is true then explain this from Dr. Douglas D. Stauffer

Jesus — The Morning Star
Now that the modern versions’ attack on the deity of the Lord Jesus Christ has been clearly identified, we turn our attention toward the source of this attack. Satan is identified as Lucifer only one time in the word of God. Before we look at the passage in the book of Isaiah, which identifies Lucifer, reveals his past, and foretells his future, we must first establish who Lucifer is not. For this reason, we must take note of the identity of the morning star.
(KJB) Revelation 22:16 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.
The Bible and the modern versions both state that Jesus is the bright and morning star. Now, having established the identity of the morning star, our attention is directed to Isaiah chapter fourteen — the only place in the Bible that mentions Lucifer by name. He is the son of the morning that was created perfect until pride destroyed him. Notice the five times that he uses the personal pronoun "I."
(KJB) Isaiah 14:12 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! 13 For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north: 14 I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High. 15 Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit.
Satan, Lucifer, the Devil, that crooked serpent — all the same. Praise God, one day Lucifer will be brought down to hell. The KJB proclaims this truth in this singular biography and identification of Lucifer. However, this is not the case in the blasphemous NIV. Instead of being brought low, the NIV allows Lucifer to become the imposter he desires so much to be (II Thessalonians 2:4).
Instead of revealing Satan to be the archenemy of God and man, the finger is pointed in the Saviour’s direction as though He is the imposter. Remember who the book of the Revelation identified as the morning star…now, look at the One to whom the NIV blasphemously points its finger — Jesus Christ!
(NIV) Isaiah 14:12 How you have fallen from heaven, O morning star, son of the dawn! You have been cast down to the earth, you who once laid low the nations! 13 You said in your heart, "I will ascend to heaven; I will raise my throne above the stars of God; I will sit enthroned on the mount of assembly, on the utmost heights of the sacred mountain. 14 I will ascend above the tops of the clouds; I will make myself like the Most High." 15 But you are brought down to the grave, to the depths of the pit.
The NIV fails to reveal Lucifer, but instead attributes the history and future of Lucifer to the morning star. According to Revelation 22:16, the morning star is the Lord Jesus Christ — not Lucifer! Thus, the NIV indicates that the Lord, rather than Satan, was actually the One that fell. This passage in the KJB is the only place Lucifer shows up by name. He remains hidden in the NIV.
Displacing the Lord has always been the goal of Satan. All of this has been done in preparation for the day when the antichrist will outwardly claim that he is God. The Bible foretells this future event: "so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God" (II Thessalonians 2:4). The NIV makes that deception all the more possible. The antichrist will claim that the Lord Jesus Christ was the false Messiah and that he is the true one.
Your advocate, Dr. Douglas D. Stauffer, seems to be a King James Version only promoter.

Please provide me with online details so that I can check out the nature of where he obtained his doctorate and what was his major.

Sincerely, Oz
 
Upvote 0

coons786c

Regular Member
Feb 23, 2007
485
6
Port Saint Lucie
✟9,473.00
Country
United States
Faith
Marital Status
Married
Dear coons786c,


After reading that comment from Douglas D. Stauffer, it seems to me that the man doesn't deserve the “Dr” title by a long shot. I don't even have my Master's degree yet and I already know exactly what's going on better than that “Dr.” does. And I will gladly explain it for you.


“Lucifer” is the Latin name for the planet Venus. It appears in many works outside the bible because it was a common name in the ancient world. For instance, Cicero wrote this in 45 BC:


Lowest of the five planets and nearest to the earth is the star of Venus, called in Greek Phosphoros (the light-bringer) and in Latin Lucifer when it precedes the sun, but when it follows it Hesperos.
--De Natura Deorum


When Venus precedes the sun (rises before the sun and is, therefore, the “morning star”) it is called Phosphoros in Greek and Lucifer in Latin. The name “Lucifer” is literally and historically the Latin name for the morning star, Venus. It is neither Greek nor Hebrew and, therefore, does not appear anywhere in the scriptures. However, when Jerome translated the scriptures into Latin, in those places where it seemed to be talking about the morning star, Jerome translated it with the Latin word “Lucifer.”


Here are a few excerpts from Jerome's Latin Vulgate where the name Lucifer appears:


Et quasi meridianus fulgor consurget tibi ad vesperam; et cum te consumptum putaveris, orieris ut Lucifer.
Job 11:17


Quomodo cecidisti de cælo, Lucifer, qui mane oriebaris ? corruisti in terram, qui vulnerabas gentes?
Isaiah 14:12


Et habemus firmiorem propheticum sermonem : cui benefacitis attendentes quasi lucernæ lucenti in caliginoso donec dies elucescat, et Lucifer oriatur in cordibus vestries
2 Peter 1:19


2 Peter 1:19 talks about the morning star rising in the hearts of Yahweh’s people. That is a direct reference to Numbers 24:17, which is a Messianic prophecy about Yeshua (Jesus). Thus, Jerome's translation literally names Yeshua “Lucifer.”


The words used in Revelation 22:16 to call Yeshua the morning star are a Greek epithet for the planet Venus (see Strong, James, The New Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, 1990, Greek concordance number 3720). And so the Greek literally refers to Yeshua as the morning star Venus, which in Latin is called Lucifer.

That is your opinion, just state the facts and dont confuse the KJV with the catholic version. God is not the author of confusion. And for your information Jerome's Translation was not used by the King James Translators, but was used by the Roman Catholics. Be careful what you say, and dont judge, you dont know if God use Dr. Stauffer in explaining these subjects.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

coons786c

Regular Member
Feb 23, 2007
485
6
Port Saint Lucie
✟9,473.00
Country
United States
Faith
Marital Status
Married
Your advocate, Dr. Douglas D. Stauffer, seems to be a King James Version only promoter.

Please provide me with online details so that I can check out the nature of where he obtained his doctorate and what was his major.

Sincerely, Oz

God word is not rightly divided with truth on the basis of reasonability,or flesh and blood,but by revelation. If you have the Holy Spirit ,let him guide you and manifest his word to you. This is the best way.
 
Last edited:
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

rdcast

Regular Member
Dec 6, 2009
871
10
Visit site
✟8,781.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
Here were your exact words:

"Both the NIVO and NIV here have more severely bent their translation for the sake of a more pleasing vernacular flow. I can't say I can agree with that."

Ref: http://www.christianforums.com/t7656653-18/#post61053333

I am not sure how I could have understood your response any differently than I did; I really don't think I misread it or quoted it out of context.

Then I misspoke from what I should have said, because I don't know to what degree any modern translation has bent the context of the translation for the sake of an acceptable vernacular flow. My sincerest apology. I only wish to point out that this has proven to be a problematic dilemma for translators that only worsens with subsequent translations.
 
Upvote 0