Many Bible Translations destroys unity.

[kiwimac]

1) You took my quote out of its context.
2) If you hadn't, you would have the answer to your question.
3) The answer is: the KJV preserves the integrity of Christ not being satan, while many newer translations TEACH that He is. I will not trust in a Jesus who is the father of lies. Therefore I reject those translations that teach that He is, since trusting in Jesus is essential for salvation; and also those translations teach us that He is un-trustable as the one who said in his heart, I will ascend into heaven; I will be like the Most High.

It is the KJV which is incorrect here.

 

[justbyfaith]

It is the KJV which is incorrect here.

Don't stop there: tell us, please, in what way is the KJV incorrect here? (edit: Do you believe that Jesus is satan?)

 

[justbyfaith]

Your saying something does not make it so. The early church revered the writings of Paul but that did not make them scripture for them. Remember the NT church was convinced that Jesus would return soon and so there would be no need for more scriptures. It was the delayed (from the POV of the early church) return of Jesus which created the NT corpus because of the need to provide the teachings of and about Jesus for a second and third generation who had never known Him. It was only as the years went along and the NT writings were quoted along with the OT scriptures that they became part of the corpus of scripture. As well, to address your point about the NT being considered scripture "...before it was made canon by Catholics...," you are quite wrong. There was no Catholic Church, per se, at the time; this was long before the schisms of the church began to take place and this meeting together in Church-wide councils was how the early church decided these kinds of questions.

We should all convert to Judaism if the New Testament isn't inspired, we should reject Christianity. Reason enough for me to believe that it is.

 

[kiwimac]

We should all convert to Judaism if the New Testament isn't inspired, we should reject Christianity. Reason enough for me to believe that it is.

Perhaps you could respond to what I am actually saying, not your misinterpretation of it.

 

[kiwimac]

Don't stop there: tell us, please, in what way is the KJV incorrect here? (edit: Do you believe that Jesus is satan?)

The passage you're quoting does not refer to Satan and never did.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Does your church know you say things like this? >>

3) The answer is: the KJV preserves the integrity of Christ not being satan, while many newer translations TEACH that He is. I will not trust in a Jesus who is the father of lies. Therefore I reject those translations that teach that He is, since trusting in Jesus is essential for salvation; and also those translations teach us that He is un-trustable as the one who said in his heart, I will ascend into heaven; I will be like the Most High; I will exalt my throne above the stars of God; I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, on the sides of the north; I will ascend above the heights of the clouds.

.... and this? >>

We should all convert to Judaism if the New Testament isn't inspired, we should reject Christianity. Reason enough for me to believe that it is.

 

[tampasteve]

Simply not true. Also, are you saying that you think that the New Testament isn't inspired? We should all convert to Judaism!

We should all convert to Judaism if the New Testament isn't inspired, we should reject Christianity. Reason enough for me to believe that it is.

Actually, you have that backward. If our faith (Christianity) is true, it should stand on the Jewish scriptures alone; it should be able to be proven using the "OT" scriptures without the "NT". Most of the early Christians and Jewish believers would only have had access to the Jewish Scriptures and oral word on Jesus. If our faith cannot be proven using only the OT then it is not a true faith, and Judaism would be the path to follow.

To be clear, I do believe the NT is inspired, a continuation of the Jewish faith and fulfillment of the Messianic prophesies.

 

[Monna]

Justbyfaith, as a matter of curiosity, how many languages do you speak?

If our faith cannot be proven using only the OT then it is not a true faith

Steve from Tampa, also out of curiosity, how do you "prove" your faith?

 

[tampasteve]

Steve from Tampa, also out of curiosity, how do you "prove" your faith?

I meant "faith" as in the Christian religion, not faith as in belief in something that may or may not be able to be proven rationally. So, we can "prove" that Jesus is the messiah via prophesy in the Jewish scriptures, Targums, and Oral Tradition, as well as understanding the Jewish religion and how He relates to it. Of course many Jewish people would disagree, but that is a topic for another thread.

 

[Monna]

So, we can "prove" that Jesus is the messiah via prophesy in the Jewish scriptures, Targums, and Oral Tradition, as well as understanding the Jewish religion and how He relates to it. Of course many Jewish people would disagree, but that is a topic for another thread.

I question whether it is a real proof (as most people today understand 'proof') if the majority of people are not convinced of it. The High Priests and OT scholars who met Jesus, saw his miracles, heard his wisdom, saw the evidence of how he interpreted the OT prophesies regarding the Messiah, were so unconvinced that they accused him of blasphemy, and said he got his powers from the devil. If Jesus could not "prove" the faith, even by resurrection, then I would be surprised if you or I could. Faith remains an issue of belief. Our experience of Jesus "proves" to us (that is convinces us), on a personal level, that He is who the scriptures claim he is. But that kind of proof is entirely subjective. Believing is seeing. IMHO.

 

[tampasteve]

I question whether it is a real proof (as most people today understand 'proof') if the majority of people are not convinced of it. The High Priests and OT scholars who met Jesus, saw his miracles, heard his wisdom, saw the evidence of how he interpreted the OT prophesies regarding the Messiah, were so unconvinced that they accused him of blasphemy, and said he got his powers from the devil. If Jesus could not "prove" the faith, even by resurrection, then I would be surprised if you or I could. Faith remains an issue of belief. Our experience of Jesus "proves" to us (that is convinces us), on a personal level, that He is who the scriptures claim he is. But that kind of proof is entirely subjective. Believing is seeing. IMHO.

OK, you make valid points, that I feel have answers. But as to not derail the thread, I will leave it there.

 

[Monna]

Justbyfaith, here is a little exercise that in a humourous way may illustrate just one aspect of the issues of translations. And this exercise doesn't need you to know any other language than English.

Add punctuation (as well as capitals and spaces) to this set of ordered letters:

womanwithouthermanisnothing

You can do it two ways (at least) with opposite meanings. I suspect that men and women might have different preferences, even convictions, about which set of punctuation marks to use.

Original texts did not have punctuations, capitals, and often no spaces between words. It is not always clear where sentences begin or end.

 

[Monna]

OK, you make valid points, that I feel have answers. But as to not derail the thread, I will leave it there.

Peace!

 

[DeaconDean]

Justbyfaith, here is a little exercise that in a humourous way may illustrate just one aspect of the issues of translations. And this exercise doesn't need you to know any other language than English.

Add punctuation (as well as capitals and spaces) to this set of ordered letters:

womanwithouthermanisnothing

You can do it two ways (at least) with opposite meanings. I suspect that men and women might have different preferences, even convictions, about which set of punctuation marks to use.

Original texts did not have punctuations, capitals, and often no spaces between words. It is not always clear where sentences begin or end.

Very valid point.

Here is how the Greek texts are often presented today:

"Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος. " -Jn. 1:1 (GNT)

Source

This would an example of the same verse in minuscule. (Circa AD 500-800)

"ενἀρχῇἦνὁλόγοςκαὶὁλόγοςἦνπρὸςτὸνθεόνκαὶθεὸςἦνὁλόγος"-Jn. 1:1

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[justbyfaith]

The passage you're quoting does not refer to Satan and never did.

Isaiah 14:14-16 definitely refers to satan. For if it doesn't, you would have to be rejecting that the KJV is inspired in calling the person in question, "Lucifer." My question therefore is, why reject the KJV for newer translations? The historic Christian faith has traditionally taught that the person in Isaiah 14 refers to lucifer who became satan. I'm sure the devil would love to have people misinformed about his origins. If you want to depart from the historic Christian faith regarding this teaching of how satan fell from heaven therefore, then go by the newer translations and what people might have to teach out of them.

 

[kiwimac]

Lucifer is not in the Hebrew here, it comes from the Latin text Erasmus used.

As a name for the Devil, the more common meaning in English, "Lucifer" is the rendering of the Hebrew word הֵילֵל in Isaiah (Isaiah 14:12) given in the King James Version. This Bible version took the word from the Latin Vulgate, which translated הֵילֵל by the Latin word lucifer (uncapitalized), meaning "the morning star, the planet Venus", or, as an adjective, "light-bringing".

Source

And, once again, the KJV is NOT the standard used by which other English versions are judged, it is the Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic.

 

[DeaconDean]

Lucifer is not in the Hebrew here, it comes from the Latin text Erasmus used.

Source

And, once again, the KJV is NOT the standard used by which other English versions are judged, it is the Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic.

We have disagreed in the past, but I respect that and you.

However, over the last couple of days, we are more in agreement than disagreement.

And on this point, I back you 100%.

The KJV is not the "standard" by which any version are judged.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

My question therefore is, why reject the KJV for newer translations?

Who rejected it?
Who uses a translation that mixes that up "as you claim"? (NOT what translation , but WHO uses one)

 

[DW1980]

There are slight differences in meaning from translation to translation in every verse. Won't this turn out to change the meaning of the whole Bible from translation to translation? If I change my course by 1 degree every five miles, I will never reach my destination. So I contend that if you are reading a different translation than me, your breed of Christianity will be different from mine.

There is a world of a difference between charting a course, and translating the Bible. It's more like the difference between "turn right at the next set of lights" and "at the next set of lights, turn right".

This may indeed be very dangerous for you, if my breed of Christianity is the one, narrow, and ONLY way to eternal life (see Matthew 7:13-14), that would mean your breed of Christianity will take you off course and not bring you into heaven.

Do you think "my" breed of Christianity says that I should not repent and put my faith in Jesus finished work on the cross for salvation? What else is needed to bring me to heaven? Christianity is NOT the narrow road, Jesus is. There are lots of expressions of Christianity - none will save you. Only Jesus can do that.

And yes I am of the opinion that the KJV is both inspired and inerrant, though I do not intend this to be a KJV-only post, per se.

I fundamentally disagree with this view but there are many other threads where this has been discussed.

 

[DeaconDean]

Isaiah 14:14-16 definitely refers to satan. For if it doesn't, you would have to be rejecting that the KJV is inspired in calling the person in question, "Lucifer." My question therefore is, why reject the KJV for newer translations? The historic Christian faith has traditionally taught that the person in Isaiah 14 refers to lucifer who became satan. I'm sure the devil would love to have people misinformed about his origins. If you want to depart from the historic Christian faith regarding this teaching of how satan fell from heaven therefore, then go by the newer translations and what people might have to teach out of them.

You are correct, the Isa. 14 content you posted does refer to Satan/Lucifer/Devil, whatever you choose to call him.

And yes, Rev 22 also cites Jesus as the "morning star".

Does that destroy anything? Does that mean somebody changed the content?

No and no.

Rev 5 calls Jesus the "lion out of the tribe of Judah".

And in 1 Peter, Peter says Satan/Lucifer/Devil, whatever you choose to call him, as "a roaring lion seeking whom he may devoir.

Does that destroy anything? Does that mean somebody changed the content?

No and no.

Let me quote this:

"Why are both Jesus and Satan referred to as the morning star?"

Answer: The first reference to the morning star as an individual is in 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!” (NIV). The KJV and NKJV both translate “morning star” as “Lucifer, son of the morning.” It is clear from the rest of the passage that Isaiah is referring to Satan’s fall from heaven (Luke 10:18). So in this case, the morning star refers to Satan. In Revelation 22:16, Jesus unmistakably identifies Himself as the morning star. Why are both Jesus and Satan described as the “morning star”?

It is interesting to note that the concept of the “morning star” is not the only concept that is applied to both Jesus and Satan. In Revelation 5:5, Jesus is referred to as the Lion of the tribe of Judah. In 1 Peter 5:8, Satan is compared to a lion, seeking someone to devour. The point is this, both Jesus and Satan, to a certain extent, have similarities to lions. Jesus is similar to a lion in that He is the King, He is royal and majestic. Satan is similar to a lion in that he seeks to devour other creatures. That is where the similarities between Jesus, Satan, and lions end, however. Jesus and Satan are like lions in very different ways.

The idea of a “bright morning star” is a star that outshines all the others, and Jesus is the One who is called “bright.” Satan was a morning star. Jesus, as God incarnate, the Lord of the universe, is the BRIGHT and morning star. Jesus is the most holy and powerful “light” in all the universe. So, while both Jesus and Satan can be described as “morning stars,” in no sense is this equating Jesus and Satan. Satan is a created being. His light only exists to the extent that God created it. Jesus is the light of the world (John 9:5). Only Jesus’ light is “bright” and self-existent. Satan may be a morning star, but he is only a poor imitation of the one true bright morning star, Jesus Christ, the light of the world."

Source

God Bless

Till all are one.