Which Bible manuscript did the church fathers use? KJV or NIV or ESV?

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
Like I said, I haven't researched it. But I would think the earliest Fathers (maybe Clement of Rome, Hermas, Ignatius, Irenaeus, etc.) would be most likely to have it or something close to it. I'll look into it when I get a chance.
see alexandrian texts are older, but only the existing manuscripts are older. Technically as far as copies are concerned they both "should" have traced back to first century. It's just that we don't have those copies. Also as far as I know byzantine manuscripts are the only ones so far that the church fathers quoted from. But I actually don't know.
 
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
Like I said, I haven't researched it. But I would think the earliest Fathers (maybe Clement of Rome, Hermas, Ignatius, Irenaeus, etc.) would be most likely to have it or something close to it. I'll look into it when I get a chance.
wikipedia says that a few church fathers used the alexandrian text, Clement of Alexandria,[2] Athanasius of Alexandria, and Cyril of Alexandria.

I know of clement and athanasius, but I never heard of cyril.

but now we only need the actual quotes that they use of the alexandrian text, we can't assume just because they were in alexandria (as in the case of clement), that they used this manuscript by default. There is alot of bias in that statement. We simply need more evidence. And right now we only see at least half a dozen church fathers quoting from byzantine manuscripts (that which underlies the NKJV).
 
Upvote 0

Mary Meg

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Apr 11, 2019
562
700
23
Alabama
✟31,384.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
I haven't done much digging yet ... but this page appears to be a pretty good summary of the Fathers and the biblical texts they bear witness to. As I guessed, some of the very earliest (e.g. Origen) and later Alexandrian Fathers (e.g. Athanasius) follow the Alexandrian text -- but apparently all of the text-types are attested to at very early dates (Origen is Caesarean in the Gospels; Irenaeus has a largely Western text; Clement of Alexandria has them all).

The Church Fathers
 
Last edited:
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 haven't done much digging yet ... but this page appears to be a pretty good summary of the Fathers and the biblical texts they bear witness to. As I guessed, some of the very earliest (e.g. Origen) and later Alexandrian Fathers (e.g. Athanasius) follow the Alexandrian text -- but apparently all of the text-types are attested to at very early dates (Origen is Caesarean in the Gospels; Irenaeus has a largely Western text; Clement of Alexandria has them all).

The Church Fathers and Patristic Citations
the link does not work, can you just post the link without hyperlinking it? I am not sure if that is possible.
 
Upvote 0

Mary Meg

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Apr 11, 2019
562
700
23
Alabama
✟31,384.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
wikipedia says that a few church fathers used the alexandrian text, Clement of Alexandria,[2] Athanasius of Alexandria, and Cyril of Alexandria.

Yes, those are some of the most important Alexandrian witnesses I've found referred to other places.

but now we only need the actual quotes that they use of the alexandrian text, we can't assume just because they were in alexandria (as in the case of clement), that they used this manuscript by default. There is alot of bias in that statement. We simply need more evidence.

You can't accept the testimony of scholars and experts in the field? I've found multiple scholarly sources that say this (and yes I'll cite some). Why would anyone have a reason not to tell the truth? You do realize that all of the people named here were from Alexandria, right?

If you really insist, sure, I can track down the Greek texts of these Fathers for you and show you where they use the Alexandrian text. Do you know Greek?

And right now we only see at least half a dozen church fathers quoting from byzantine manuscripts (that which underlies the NKJV).

Yes, especially later Fathers and those who were, well, Byzantine are going to use the Byzantine text. The thing about it is, Byzantine manuscripts eventually became the most common, so that's why those manuscripts happened to be picked up for the basis of early printed editions — they were the ones most readily available. But that doesn't mean they were the best or the oldest. The earliest evidences of the Byzantine text-type are dated to the fourth century.
 
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 haven't done much digging yet ... but this page appears to be a pretty good summary of the Fathers and the biblical texts they bear witness to. As I guessed, some of the very earliest (e.g. Origen) and later Alexandrian Fathers (e.g. Athanasius) follow the Alexandrian text -- but apparently all of the text-types are attested to at very early dates (Origen is Caesarean in the Gospels; Irenaeus has a largely Western text; Clement of Alexandria has them all).

The Church Fathers
thats a lot of quotations, I would have to see them side by side. I did see a further proof of early quotes fro the byzantine text type:

In Matthew 6:13 the phrase “For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen” is omitted in the critical Greek text (look in the NIV for an example of this corruption and any mentioned in this article). An early text known as Didache or Teachings, short for The Teachings of the Twelve Apostles, is dated between A.D. 70-120 cites the “Lord’s Prayer” in its entirety and includes this phrase3) Tatian lived and wrote in the second century and was discipled by Justin Martyr (A.D. 100-165). Tatian produced a harmony of the four gospels called the Diatessaron, originally written in Greek but he translated it into Syriac and it became the authoritative text of the gospels in Syria for a number of centuries. Sadly, after Justin Martyr died, Tatian became a heretic, teaching Gnostic ideas. However, the Diatessaron includes this phrase,4) even though it is not the most reliable text it confirms the early Greek New Testament contained this phrase. Dean John Burgon wrote concerning this passage, “these words have been rejected by critical writers as spurious for the past 360 years, in spite of the fact that S. Paul recognizes them in 2 Tim. 4:18—which alone, one would have thought, should have been sufficient to preserve them from molestation.”5)

Matthew 9:13 states, “But go ye and learn what that meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice: for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.” The words “to repentance” is omitted and the NIV6) does not even footnote this omission. This omission of the phrase “to repentance” is also evident in the parallel passage in Mark 2:17. Interestingly, the NIV and many of the modern Bible version put preeminence of corrupted manuscripts such as Codex Sinaiticus. This Codex itself in the text of Matthew 9:13 omits the phrase,7) but the Epistle of Barnabas is included in the Codex and contains the words “to repentance.”8) The Epistle of Barnabas is of an unknown author, but the date of its composition is evident in its statement about the Jewish Temple. “Moreover, He again says, Behold, they who have cast down this temple, even they shall build it up again. It has so happened. For through their going to war, it was destroyed by their enemies; and now: they, as the servants of their enemies, shall rebuild it.”9) From this statement, scholars have recognized “the temple has been destroyed and plans to rebuild it are in process. This places the composition of Barnabas after A.D. 70 and perhaps as late as sometime in the A.D. 130s.”10) Justin Martyr (A.D. 100-165) also cites these words in his The First Apology of Justin.11) Surely these Greek documents that are centuries earlier than the Codex Sinaiticus stands on firmer ground for the inclusion of these words.

In Matthew 19:16-17 “And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life? And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.” The adjective “Good” preceding “Master” is omitted, the phrase “Why callest thou me good” is changed to “why do you ask me about what is good?” (NIV), which is not an accurate rendering of the Greek but rather an example of the corrupting character of the dynamic equivalent method; nor is this phrase even in the critical Greek text that was used for the NIV. The whole phrase “Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God” is omitted from the Greek text used by the NIV, but the phrase is quoted by Hippolytus (A.D. 170-236).12) Hippolytus quotation of the phrase is in the context of what the Gnostic Marcion taught which sets the phrase in existing text prior to Hippolytus since Marcion died around 160 A.D. Tertullian stated of him: “Marcion expressly and openly used the knife, not the pen, since he made such an excision of the Scriptures as suited his own subject-matter.”13) This would indicate that those who have omitted this phrase from Scripture have followed the corruption of the Gnostic Marcion. Origen (A.D. 185-255) also quotes this passage including the adjective “Good Master”14) as well as the second phrase which he quotes in two separate writings of his15) Origen, though not orthodox in his own theology, also opposed the heresies of Marcion16) which would indicate why he refused to recognize the omission of this text as any sort of valid variant even though he was the first New Testament textual critic in history. His actions of textual criticism is the source of many of the corruptions in the modern critical text which makes it all the more remarkable that modern critics adapt this corruption.

The phrase “for many be called, but few chosen” is omitted from Matthew 20:16 in the Greek critical text and without a footnote in the NIV.17) This phrase is quoted without reservation by Irenaeus (A.D> 130-200) in his major text Against Heresies.18) Ed Reese mentioned, “In his famed book, he made 1800 quotations from the New Testament, implying they had for some time been considered Scripture…. Irenaeus is considered the first writer to deserve the title of theologian, using both the Old Testament and New Testament in building his theology.”19)

Matthew 27:35 states: “And they crucified him, and parted his garments, casting lots: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, They parted my garments among them, and upon my vesture did they cast lots.” The critical text ends this verse with “casting lots,” omitting the larger portion of the verse and a very significant phrase acknowledging the fulfillment of prophecy. The NIV footnote states: “A few late manuscripts lots that the word spoken by the prophet might be fulfilled.”20) Tertullian (A.D. 160-230) was the earliest extant Latin author of the Christian era. He wrote, “Upon my vesture they did cast (the) lot; just as the other (outrages) which you were to commit on Him were foretold — all which He, actually and thoroughly suffering, suffered not for an evil action of His own, but that the Scriptures from the mouth of the Prophets might be fulfilled.”21) His inclusion of this phrase shows that it existed very early since Tertullian was quoting from a Latin translation of the New Testament. This early Latin version must have an early origin being translated from the Greek source showing the antiquity of this phrase predating the corrupt manuscript of an older date having omitted this portion of God’s word. “When and where the new Testament was first translated into Latin has been the subject of much dispute, but, according to [Bruce] Metzger, most scholars now agree that the first Latin translation of the Gospels was made in North Africa during the last quarter of the second century.”22) It is likely this Latin text existed earlier since Christianity was well grounded in North Africa and the extensive citations of the New Testament from Tertullian seems to imply his expectation of his readers to have a thorough knowledge of the Scriptures allowing the assumption that North Africa was proliferated with Latin New Testament quite a bit earlier than 175 A.D. David Soernson speaks of the Old Latin, “It has existed since A.D. 157. Noted church historian Fredric Nolan confirms the same. This date is less than one hundred years after most of the books of the New Testament were written. The greater point is that the Itala (or Old Latin) was translated from the Received Text, indicating its existence to the earliest days of the New Testament church. Therefore, the Received Text clearly existed and was used by churches in early church history.”23)

Mark 9:29 says: “And he said unto them, This kind can come forth by nothing, but by prayer and fasting.” The NIV following the critical text omits “and fasting” as well as the parallel verse in Matthew 17:21 which is completely missing from the text being relegated to a footnote.24) However, Origen noted in his book On Fasting, “He taught likewise that fasts are to be weapons for battling with the more direful demons…”25) He is clearly reference the thought of this verse with the presupposition his readers were familiar with what statement of the Lord was being implied without a specific quote. Furthermore, since he did not quote the verse itself, it cannot be argued that this is a text that Origen is guilty of corrupting. The verse is also cited in a pseudo-Clemetine text.26) Surely Clement of Rome was not the author of this text but it comes from an early author nevertheless as the editor’s introduction states, “Jerome was acquainted with the writing (Ad Jovinum, i. 12), and possibly Epiphaius (Haer.,xxx. 15). Hence we may safely allow an early date.”27)

In Luke 4:18, Dr. Frederick Scrivener noted εὐαγγελίζεσθαι is spelled εὐαγγελίσασθαι and the phrase “to heal the brokenhearted” is missing.28) This phrase was present when Irenaeus quotes the passage in the second century29) and it is contained in the quote by Peter of Alexandria30) who in A.D. 311 “was the last martyr put to death by public authority at Alexandria.”31) As the head of the Catechetical School of Alexandria, some might suppose affiliation with Origen, however, he opposed his false teachings and was counted “among the enemies of Origen…”32)

Acts 8:37 is completely omitted in the critical text and is rendered to a footnote in the NIV.33) It should stand as reading: “And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.” In the later half of the second century Irenaeus wrote, “But again: Whom did Philip preach to the eunuch of the queen of the Ethiopians, returning from Jerusalem, and reading Esaias the prophet, when he and this man were alone together? Was it not He of whom the prophet spoke: He was led as a sheep to the slaughter, and as a lamb dumb before the shearer, so He opened not the mouth? But who shall declare His nativity? For His life shall be taken away from the earth. [Philip declared] that this was Jesus, and that the Scripture was fulfilled in Him; as did also the believing eunuch himself: and, immediately requesting to be baptized, he said, I believed Jesus Christ to be the Son of God. This man was also sent into the regions of Ethiopia, to preach what he had himself believed, that there was one God preached by the prophets, but that the Son of this [God] had already made [His] appearance in human nature (secundum hominem), and had been led as a sheep to the slaughter; and all the other statements which the prophets made regarding Him.”(brackets in original)34) Craig Keener, whose massive commentary on Acts is considered by many to be the top scholarship on the text, says “there is little likelihood that [Acts] 8:37 is original”35) yet noted this early quotation by Irenaeus attempting to ignore it by reasoning, “Church fathers quote the passage widely (Iren. Her. 3.12.8), but what probably began as oral tradition and marginal notations took some time to work its way into the text.”36) When arguing against another authors view of Acts being a second century composition based on it being rarely quoted in the early church fathers, Keener asks: “But is dating a document no earlier than its first clear attestation in later sources a fair criterion, in any case?”37) of which his argument clearly indicates his answer is “No.” Then why would he argue the same admittedly fallacious view against Acts 8:37? Elsewhere, Keener admits (though tucked away in a footnote), “I depend mainly on secondary sources to survey patristic and later Christian opinion,”38) showing he is not personally familiar with the corpus of early church fathers. This makes it all the more improbable for a later interpolation when speaking of Irenaeus, who spoke of personal acquaintance with “the most approved and ancient copies”39) of Scriptures, specifically speaking in this context of the book of Revelation, he diligently opposed any form of corrupting God’s words. Noting that in his day some copies of Revelation had the number 616 instead of 666, he attacked anyone who would be willing to alter even one letter of the Bible. “But as for those who, for the sake of vainglory, lay it down for certain that names containing the spurious number are to be accepted, and affirm that this name, hit upon by themselves, is that of him who is to come; such persons shall not come forth without loss, because they have led into error both themselves and those who confided in them. Now, in the first place, it is loss to wander from the truth, and to imagine that as being the case which is not; then again, as there shall be no light punishment [inflicted] upon him who either adds or subtracts anything from the Scripture, under that such a person must necessarily fall.”(brackets in original)40) The verse in question is also referenced by the Latin author Cyprian,41) as well as being alluded to by Pontius the Deacon who wrote “The Life and Passion of Cyprian, Bishop and Martyr,” who stated: “For although in the Acts of the Apostles the eunuch is described as at once baptized by Philip, because he believed with his whole heart..”42) Cyprian’s writings were composed around A.D. 250, and his citations of Scripture is from the Old Latin that had been translated approximately a century earlier, thus presenting evidence for the verse a few decades earlier than Irenaeus’ writings. It is thus vouched for from both Greek and Latin sources extending back to the mid-second century.

This is just a handful of examples of where the critical text have clearly corrupted God’s word as the antiquity for the reading in the Textus Receptus is vouched for by the Christian authors of the earliest years. Other important passages such as Mark 16:9-20and 1 John 5:7-8 are also strongly evident with similar quotations but such controversial passages deserve lengthy articles for themselves so have not been included here. Those passages will be discussed in future articles. These passages are sufficient for now to present why we hold the KJV as the preeminent English Bible.

above section from:
Textus Receptus in the Early Church Fathers | Truth Watchers
I did notice that this site is a typical apologetics site, not a KJV only site. So that adds to the validity. Besides I am a NKJV user, which is heresy to the KJV only.
 
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
Yes, those are some of the most important Alexandrian witnesses I've found referred to other places.



You can't accept the testimony of scholars and experts in the field? I've found multiple scholarly sources that say this (and yes I'll cite some). Why would anyone have a reason not to tell the truth? You do realize that all of the people named here were from Alexandria, right?

If you really insist, sure, I can track down the Greek texts of these Fathers for you and show you where they use the Alexandrian text. Do you know Greek?



Yes, especially later Fathers and those who were, well, Byzantine are going to use the Byzantine text. The thing about it is, Byzantine manuscripts eventually became the most common, so that's why those manuscripts happened to be picked up for the basis of early printed editions — they were the ones most readily available. But that doesn't mean they were the best or the oldest. The earliest evidences of the Byzantine text-type are dated to the fourth century.
yeah it boils down to actually seeing them. I have provided explanations to the examples which help out. But I did find out online that John W. Burgeon has a list of over 85,000 quotes of the church fathers from the byzantine text alone. He did use later manuscripts of the byzantine text. I am not sure how that is bad, but that is a critical thing to his work online. So it really boils down to actually seeing the quotes and seeing the dates of the quotes. I did read a critical essay of Burgeon, and they did say he made some assumptions, assumptions I am not sure were also not made of the link you provided. But the sections in question only explains away about a thousand quotations I would assume, there are stll 84,000 more! And the article seemed to be lacking in positive statements of his analysis, proving bias toward the alexandrian text. I do know the top seminaries prefer the alexandrian text, which would indicate a negative bias toward anything byzantine. So I know why they were critical, but that also reveals unfair bias toward the alexandrian text. The link I provided was not from a KJV only site, it was an apologetics site, (not that it does not have bias). I just thought I would clarify that.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

FEZZILLA

Well-Known Member
Jun 24, 2003
1,031
131
53
Wisconsin
✟16,495.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
Church fathers mainly used the Septuagint and Latin Vulgate. Those Bibles best reflect the Tyndale Bibles over the KJV. True, you can see KJV is many church father quotes...where the KJV agrees with the Tyndale Bibles! The best overall English translations still are the...

1 - 1537 Matthew's Bible
2 - 1539 Great Bible
3 - 1568 Bishop's Bible

then the...

4 - 1769 KJV
5 - 1611 KJV
6 - NKJV
7 - MEV
 
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
Church fathers mainly used the Septuagint and Latin Vulgate. Those Bibles best reflect the Tyndale Bibles over the KJV. True, you can see KJV is many church father quotes...where the KJV agrees with the Tyndale Bibles! The best overall English translations still are the...

1 - 1537 Matthew's Bible
2 - 1539 Great Bible
3 - 1568 Bishop's Bible

then the...

4 - 1769 KJV
5 - 1611 KJV
6 - NKJV
7 - MEV
what manuscript family is the tyndale bibles from, I don't have time to look into this. are they alexandrian or byzantine? Must be byzantine because all the verses I show regarding founding fathers revolved around strictly byzantinian readingts
 
Upvote 0

FEZZILLA

Well-Known Member
Jun 24, 2003
1,031
131
53
Wisconsin
✟16,495.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
what manuscript family is the tyndale bibles from, I don't have time to look into this. are they alexandrian or byzantine? Must be byzantine because all the verses I show regarding founding fathers revolved around strictly byzantinian readingts
All Masoretic Text and Textus Receptus. Some Latin was also wisely evaluated.

I can give you endless comparisons where the Tyndale Bibles score the KJV. But here is where the nail meets the coffin.

:earthamericas:Psalm 89:11,

"The heaues are thine, the earth is thine: thou hast layed the foundacio of the roude worlde and all that therin is" (1535 Coverdale Bible).

"The heauens are thine, the earth is thine: thou hast layed the foundation of the rounde world, and al that therin is" (1537 Matthew's Bible).

"The heauens are thyne, the earth also is thyne: thou hast layed the foundacyon of the rounde worlde, and all that therin is" (1539 Great Bible).

"The heauens are thine, the earth also is thine: thou hast layde the foundation of the rounde worlde, and of all the plentie that is therin" (1568 Bishop's Bible).

"To thee the heavens, also to thee the earth; the habitable globe and its fulness thou didst found them" (1876 Julia E. Smith Bible).

Round world =

Hebrew = H8398 תֵּבֵל têbêl
Greek = G3625 οἰκουμένη oikouménē
Latin = orbis terrarum/orbis terrae/orbis

Now for other translations. Remember: this is just one small verse out of multiple verses.

"The heavens are yours; the earth also is yours;
the world and all that is in it, you have founded them" (ESV).

"The heavens are Yours; the earth also is Yours.
The world and everything in it—You founded them" (HCSB).

"The heavens are thine, the earth also is thine: as for the world and the fulness thereof, thou hast founded them" (KJV).

Look, I'll save the time. All translations get it wrong after the Julia Smith Bible. Its a word that means the habitable globe.

Now in fairness, the word "world" means globe. But how many people know that? Not many. Tyndale got it right.

Tyndale wins 8 out of every 10 word searches. Many priests are now catching on to this reality and surprised over the accuracy of the Tyndale Bibles over all others.
 
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
All Masoretic Text and Textus Receptus. Some Latin was also wisely evaluated.

I can give you endless comparisons where the Tyndale Bibles score the KJV. But here is where the nail meets the coffin.

:earthamericas:Psalm 89:11,











Round world =

Hebrew = H8398 תֵּבֵל têbêl
Greek = G3625 οἰκουμένη oikouménē
Latin = orbis terrarum/orbis terrae/orbis

Now for other translations. Remember: this is just one small verse out of multiple verses.







Look, I'll save the time. All translations get it wrong after the Julia Smith Bible. Its a word that means the habitable globe.

Now in fairness, the word "world" means globe. But how many people know that? Not many. Tyndale got it right.

Tyndale wins 8 out of every 10 word searches. Many priests are now catching on to this reality and surprised over the accuracy of the Tyndale Bibles over all others.
not sure the latin vulgate is very trustworthy, but the receptus is.
 
Upvote 0

ViaCrucis

Confessional Lutheran
Oct 2, 2011
37,341
26,783
Pacific Northwest
✟728,095.00
Country
United States
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Others
This same manuscript was later copied and copied, and ended up being the exact same wording as the text in the KJV.

It wasn't. You can be 100% sure that it wasn't. Because all the manuscripts, all the critical editions of the biblical texts that went into producing the KJV, weren't identical to one another. The translators of the KJV had to choose which readings to include and which not to include. They didn't work with a manuscript, they worked with several critical texts which were made in the 16th century from many different manuscripts.

There is no magical manuscript that's been passed down since the beginning. All we have to work with are a large assortment of manuscripts, some arguably better than others. Scholars have to make educated and informed decisions about which variant readings most likely reflect the originals; but there's no way to be 100% certain one way or the other.

Also, at the end of the day, even though there are literally thousands of variant readings, even within closely related manuscript families, virtually all these variants have very little impact on what the text(s) are saying. There are certain readings which we shouldn't cling too fiercely upon because they are dubious or possibly dubious, but nobody should be relying on any single reading from a single passage to use as the basis of their theology. Christian theology is not built upon disconnected biblical propositions, but on the faith delivered since the beginning; and the biblical witness keeps us in check. We should be relying upon consensus ideas in the texts, not mere isolated bits and pieces.

-CryptoLutheran
 
Upvote 0

ViaCrucis

Confessional Lutheran
Oct 2, 2011
37,341
26,783
Pacific Northwest
✟728,095.00
Country
United States
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Others
not sure the latin vulgate is very trustworthy, but the receptus is.

The KJV used the Vulgate as one of its sources. That's why the word "Lucifer" is used in the KJV in Isaiah 14. The Hebrew word in the Masoretic Text is halal, "shining [thing]"; which was translated as eosphorus in the Greek of the Septuagint, meaning "dawn-bringer", and thus the Latin lucifer, meaning "light-bringer". An English translation, rather than a transliteration from the Latin, would read something like "dawn star" or "morning star" etc, as halal here is a reference to Venus, the dawn star; the brightest "star" in the sky from the perspective of the ancients, and hence its use as a sardonic epithet against Nebuchadnezzar in Isaiah 14:12.

-CryptoLutheran
 
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
The KJV used the Vulgate as one of its sources. That's why the word "Lucifer" is used in the KJV in Isaiah 14. The Hebrew word in the Masoretic Text is halal, "shining [thing]"; which was translated as eosphorus in the Greek of the Septuagint, meaning "dawn-bringer", and thus the Latin lucifer, meaning "light-bringer". An English translation, rather than a transliteration from the Latin, would read something like "dawn star" or "morning star" etc, as halal here is a reference to Venus, the dawn star; the brightest "star" in the sky from the perspective of the ancients, and hence its use as a sardonic epithet against Nebuchadnezzar in Isaiah 14:12.

-CryptoLutheran

I am not sure this is accurate.

lucifer is an english word based from latin.

dozens of english words are from latin, because latin was a base language for english.

it was not the vulgate that they were translating from but from an english word (that happened to come from latin).

in fact 80% of our english language is directly from latin:

What Percentage Of English Words Are Derived From Latin? - Everything After Z by Dictionary.com

septuagent would have used a different word, because greek does not have latin as a base.

thats all.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

ViaCrucis

Confessional Lutheran
Oct 2, 2011
37,341
26,783
Pacific Northwest
✟728,095.00
Country
United States
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Others
I am not sure this is accurate.

lucifer is an english word based from latin.

dozens of english words are from latin, because latin was a base language for english.

it was not the vulgate that they were translating from but from an english word (that happened to come from latin).

in fact 80% of our english language is directly from latin:

What Percentage Of English Words Are Derived From Latin? - Everything After Z by Dictionary.com

septuagent would have used a different word, because greek does not have latin as a base.

thats all.

"Quomodo cecidisti de cælo, lucifer, qui mane oriebaris? Corruisti in terram, qui vulnerabas gentes?" - Isaiah 14:12

Yes, it's a Latin word. lucifer - Wiktionary

English does have a word taken from it, the English word luciferous is derived from the Latin lucifer.

-CryptoLutheran
 
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
"Quomodo cecidisti de cælo, lucifer, qui mane oriebaris? Corruisti in terram, qui vulnerabas gentes?" - Isaiah 14:12

Yes, it's a Latin word. lucifer - Wiktionary

English does have a word taken from it, the English word luciferous is derived from the Latin lucifer.

-CryptoLutheran

And Eosphorus doesnt sound as menacing Lucifer :p
 
Upvote 0

ViaCrucis

Confessional Lutheran
Oct 2, 2011
37,341
26,783
Pacific Northwest
✟728,095.00
Country
United States
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Others
And Eosphorus doesnt sound as menacing Lucifer :p

Kind of reminds me of perhaps a Greek Eeyore.

81PzXYoUGJL._SX425_.jpg


-CryptoLutheran
 
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
"Quomodo cecidisti de cælo, lucifer, qui mane oriebaris? Corruisti in terram, qui vulnerabas gentes?" - Isaiah 14:12

Yes, it's a Latin word. lucifer - Wiktionary

English does have a word taken from it, the English word luciferous is derived from the Latin lucifer.

-CryptoLutheran
According to your own source english has adopted not only Luciferous but lucifer as well. So you prove my point that it is in the English language. It also lists french as a language that adopted it. It no longer was Latin at that time.
 
Upvote 0