Battle Royale XIV discussion thread

[brandplucked]

Can you read in complete sentences?

Can you read in complete sentences?

Please state specifically how its out of context to say that even the meanest translation of the word of God, IS the word of God when that is exactly what they said?
.

Angel, just a suggestion. Try to read the whole sentence.


The whole quote in context is this. “Now to the latter we answer, That we do not deny, nay, we affirm and avow, that THE VERY MEANEST TRANSLATION of the Bible in English SET FORTH BY MEN OF OUR PROFESSION, (for we have seen NONE OF THEIRS of the whole Bible as yet) containeth the word of God, nay is the word of God.”


If you would actually read the article and what they said in context, they were not approving of any and all bibles or texts. They were contrasting the Reformation bibles to the Roman Catholic version.

Calm down and read the article again. Or look up the quote yourself. I took nothing out of context.

 

[brandplucked]

Pretty pathetic, even for a bible agnostic.

Pretty pathetic, even for a bible agnostic.

Another example why the KJV isn't a good Bible for today.

(Rom 9:25 KJV) As he saith also in Osee, I will call them my people, which were not my people; and her beloved, which was not beloved.

"Osee" is used in the KJV. It is the result of transliterating a Hebrew word from Greek to English.

The Hebrew word is "Hosea".

Every modern Bible version uses "Hosea".

The quote is from the book of Hosea.

Example:

(Rom 9:25 NIV) As he says in Hosea: “I will call them ‘my people’ who are not my people; and I will call her ‘my loved one’ who is not my loved one,”

Why would I want to read a Bible that uses the word "Osee", when it clearly is supposed to be "Hosea"?

There is no book in the Old Testament called "Osee".

This is about as lame as it gets. The KJB translators merely transliterated what the Greek text says. That IS what the Greek text says, guy. You can have your perverted bibles if you wish. You are obviously looking for any lame excuse to keep doing so.

 

[brandplucked]

NO LXX - The Fictitious Use of the so-called Greek Septuagint

NO LXX - The Fictitious Use of the so-called Greek Septuagint

Surely everyone knows that Jesus actually quoted from the Hebrew (Masoretic text, perhaps?) scriptures available and the writers copied the quotes from the Septuagint when they wrote in Greek to make sure they translated the quotes correctly, don't they?

Hi go. Once again it is painfully obvious that you did NOT actually read the article.

 

[genuineoriginal]

Hi go. Once again it is painfully obvious that you did NOT actually read the article.

No, I read the article.
Apparently you think it says something it does not say.

 

[Angel4Truth]

Reposting, Will Kinney can you please answer this

Were the KJV translators wrong about this that they stated:

Now to the later we answer; that we do not deny, nay we affirm and avow, that the very meanest translation of the Bible in English, set forth by men of our profession (for we have seen none of theirs of the whole Bible as yet) contains the word of God, nay, is the word of God. As the King’s Speech which he uttered in Parliament, being translated into French, Dutch, Italian and Latin, is still the King’s Speech, though it be not interpreted by every Translator with the like grace, nor peradventure so fitly for phrase, nor so expressly for sense, everywhere. No cause therefore why the word translated should be denied to be the word, or forbidden to be current, notwithstanding that some imperfections and blemishes may be noted in the setting forth of it.

If the answer is yes they were mistaken, then how is it possible to believe they could not have been mistaken in any other part that they translated?

Originally Posted by Angel4Truth View Post
Were the KJV translators wrong about this that they stated:

Quote:
Now to the later we answer; that we do not deny, nay we affirm and avow, that the very meanest translation of the Bible in English, set forth by men of our profession (for we have seen none of theirs of the whole Bible as yet) contains the word of God, nay, is the word of God. As the King’s Speech which he uttered in Parliament, being translated into French, Dutch, Italian and Latin, is still the King’s Speech, though it be not interpreted by every Translator with the like grace, nor peradventure so fitly for phrase, nor so expressly for sense, everywhere. No cause therefore why the word translated should be denied to be the word, or forbidden to be current, notwithstanding that some imperfections and blemishes may be noted in the setting forth of it.

If the answer is yes they were mistaken, then how is it possible to believe they could not have been mistaken in any other part that they translated?

Hi Angel. This is one of the quotes James White and other unbelievers in the inerrancy of ANY Bible like you take completely out of context.

"the very meanest [poorest] translation" is still "the word of God"?
“Were the KJV translators "liars" for saying that "the very meanest [poorest] translation" is still "the word of God"?

As for the Preface to the Reader found in the King James Bible, many anti-KJB folks like to use certain quotes from the KJB translators (usually taken out of context) in an effort to prove that the translators themselves would approve of the multiple, conflicting and contradictory Bible Babble Buffet versions seen on the bible market today.

It should first be pointed out that we do not hold the King James Bible translators as our final authority. Neither their Prefatory remarks, nor their individual or collective theology (though I personally agree with much of it) nor their personal lives nor opinions form any part of our Final Written Authority.

They were not always right in what they said or did, just as king David, Solomon, Peter, Paul or John were not always right in what they did or thought. They were sinful and imperfect men, but they were all God fearing, blood bought children of God who believed they were handling the very words of the living God.

It is the TEXT of the Authorized King James Holy Bible that we believe and defend as the complete and 100% true words of God. If God cannot use fallen, sinful man as His chosen vessels in the process of preserving His inspired words, then we never would have had the inspired originals to begin with! Think about it.


They ask: “Were the KJV translators "liars" for saying that "the very meanest [poorest] translation" is still "the word of God"?

This quote is always taken out of context by the KJB critics. Throughout the Preface there are repeated references to the contrast between between the Bible translation work of Christians of the Reformation faith and those of the Catholic church.

The whole quote in context is this. “Now to the latter we answer, That we do not deny, nay, we affirm and avow, that THE VERY MEANEST TRANSLATION of the Bible in English SET FORTH BY MEN OF OUR PROFESSION, (for we have seen NONE OF THEIRS of the whole Bible as yet) containeth the word of God, nay is the word of God.”

It should be clear that Miles Smith (the man who wrote the Preface) is referring to the Douay-Rheims ENGLISH NEW TESTAMENT here, which was published by the Roman Catholics in 1582, the Old Testament not appearing until 1610, some five or six years AFTER the King James Bible translators began their own work of translation. Thus the reason for Smith's notation that they had "SEEN NONE OF THEIRS OF THE WHOLE BIBLE AS YET."

Even the Catholics themselves acknowledge that the King James Bible translators severely criticized and mocked the Catholic versions. Here is their own Catholic Cultur.org site where they talk about their Douay-Rheims bible.

http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?id=4300&CFID=64452699&CFTOKEN=99023368

Here in their own words they mention: "Further, the translators of the KJV make specific reference to the Douay version in their translators' preface, where they devote space to attacking the word choices made by the translators of the Douay. "We have shunned the obscurity of the Papists, in their [use of words like] AZIMES, TUNIKE, RATIONAL, HOLOCAUSTS, PRAEPUCE, PASCHE, and a number of such like [words], whereof their late Translation is full" ("The Translators to the Reader," King James Version, 1611 ed.).

“Men of our profession” refers to the Protestant, Reformation Christians and the “theirs” refers to the Catholics. In the previous paragraph to this quote we read them say regarding “the translations of the Bible maturely considered of and examined” that “all is sound for substance in one or other of OUR editions, AND THE WORST OF OURS FAR BETTER THAN THEIR AUTHENTICK VULGAR” (which refers to the various Latin Vulgate versions)

The context of the Preface by Miles Smith shows the contrast between early English Protestant translations and the "Bible" of the Roman Catholic Church. Translations like Tyndale's 1525, Coverdale's 1535, the Great Bible 1540, Matthew's Bible 1549, the Bishops' Bible 1568 and the Geneva Bible 1587 and such were translations "set forth by men of our profession" and thus, "containeth the Word of God, nay is the Word of God."

Throughout the Preface there is a constant contrast between "our" and "their" translations, and between Protestant thought and Catholic thought. They also state in their Preface - "also on the other side we have shunned the obscurity of the Papists, in their asimes, tunike, rational, holocausts, praepuce, pasche, and a number of such like, whereof THEIR LATE TRANSLATION, and that of purpose to darken the sense, that since they must needs translate the Bible, yet by the language thereof, it may be kept from being understood.”

In another part they stated: "So that if, on the one side, we shall be traduced by Popish Persons at home or abroad, who therefore will malign us, because we are poor instruments to make God’s holy Truth to be yet more and more known unto the people, whom they desire still to keep in ignorance and darkness”.

The translators of the AV saw their task as the perfecting of the earlier English translations that followed the Traditional Greek texts as found in the Reformation bible translations of Tyndale 1525, Coverdale 1535, the Great Bible 1540, Matthew’s Bible 1549, the Bishops’ Bible 1568 and the Geneva Bible.

The supreme irony today is that these same modern versions most anti-King James Bible folks are promoting are in fact the new “Catholic” bible versions. See "Undeniable Proof the NIV, NASB, ESV are the new 'Catholic' versions" here- Please read both parts

http://brandplucked.webs.com/realcatholicbibles.htm

All of grace, believing The Book,

Will Kinney

Return to Articles - http://brandplucked.webs.com/articles.htm

Please state specifically how its out of context to say that even the meanest translation of the word of God, IS the word of God when that is exactly what they said?

I quoted verbatim from the preface of the 1611 king james bible. Nothing was added by me or taken from context.



Which isnt the question and now you just said that their remarks do not form any part of your authority, yet also maintain when they translate themselves as they state they clearly do, that they are authoritative, when they themselves agree they are not and agree they take some liberty and note it in the margins (that you have also denied exist and are mere printer errors):

From the translators:

it hath pleased God in his divine providence, here and there to scatter words and sentences of that difficulty and doubtfulness, not in doctrinal points that concern salvation, (for in such it hath been vouched that the Scriptures are plain) but in matters of less moment … in such a case, doth not a margin do well to admonish the Reader to seek further, and not to conclude or dogmatize upon this or that peremptorily? … They that are wise, had rather have their judments at libery in differences of readings, then to be captivated to one, when it may be the other.

Why do you put the kjv translators on par with those directly given the word of God?



So your position is that God made the KJV translators on par with those who were given His word directly - was unable to do so before 1611, and was unable to keep mere men from creating the same printer errors that were found in the translators own notes?

Think about that.

Angel, just a suggestion. Try to read the whole sentence.

Considering i posted the quote to start off with, its pretty apparant i read the whole sentence, did you forget what happened in your zeal to ignore most of my post and attempt to insult me instead of answering the larger concerns?

The whole quote in context is this. “Now to the latter we answer, That we do not deny, nay, we affirm and avow, that THE VERY MEANEST TRANSLATION of the Bible in English SET FORTH BY MEN OF OUR PROFESSION, (for we have seen NONE OF THEIRS of the whole Bible as yet) containeth the word of God, nay is the word of God.”

Of course, as i am who quoted it first, and you just said the same thing and yet earlier accused me of taking it out of context.

If you would actually read the article and what they said in context, they were not approving of any and all bibles or texts. They were contrasting the Reformation bibles to the Roman Catholic version.

That is false and i didnt reference an article, its like you are making things up as you go along.

Calm down and read the article again.

Nice try at diversion, but i am perfectly calm - looky, i even posted the entire exchange between us for reference.

Or look up the quote yourself. I took nothing out of context.

I dont have to look it up, i posted it for you. I never said you took anything out of context. You were who made that false assertion. (of what i quoted in full being out of context.)

Perhaps you are showing that you cannot read in full sentences or have a memory problem, are you interested in discussion or insult, i can dish out both, let me know which you prefer.

Please answer the questions above in red that you have ignored.

 

[brandplucked]

The "preserved" ever changing NIVs

The "preserved" ever changing NIVs

Why did God quit preserving His word? We don't speak like that any more. Word meanings have changed. Why did God quit preserving His word?

Hi CabinetMaker. I notice you quote from the Vatican Version called the NIV. Let's put your theory to the test, OK? Did the latest NIV 2011 "preserve" or corrupt God's word in this example? Please let us know what you think.



http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2009-09-01-bible-translation_N.htm

By Cathy Lynn Grossman, USA TODAY - The scholars and publishers behind the world's leading English language evangelical Bible announced Tuesday that they would publish a updated translation in 2011.
"And we'll make sure we get it right this time," says Keith Danby, president and chief executive officer of Biblica, once known as the International Bible Society.

Well, let’s see if they did indeed “Get it right this time”


Mark 1:41 “Jesus moved with compassion” or “Jesus was indignant”?

In Mark 1:40 - 41 we read: “And there came a leper to him, beseeching him, and kneeling down to him, and saying unto him, If thou wilt, thou canst make me clean. And Jesus, MOVED WITH COMPASSION, put forth his hand, and touched him, and saith unto him, I will; be thou clean.”

“moved with compassion” is the reading found in the Majority of all Greek texts including Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, C, the Greek Lectionaries, the Old Latin Italic aur, c, e, f, l and q, the Vulgate, the Syriac Peshitta, Sinaitic, Harkelian, the Coptic Sahidic, Boharic, the Armenian, Ethiopian, Georgian and Slavonic ancient versions. It is even the reading found in the UBS IV critical Greek text.

“moved with compassion” is the reading found in Wycliffe 1390, Tyndale 1525, Coverdale 1535, the Great Bible 1540, Matthew’s Bible 1549, the Bishops’ Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1587, the Revised Version 1885, the ASV 1901, Douay, Darby, Young’s, Lamsa’s translation of the Syriac, the RSV, NRSV, 1989, ESV 2001, NASB 1963 - 1995, Dan Wallace's NET version 2006, Holman Standard 2003, the International Standard Version and the Jubilee Bible 2000-2010 to name but a few.

The NIV 1973, 1978 and 1984 all read: “FILLED WITH COMPASSION, Jesus reached out his hand and touched the man. “I am willing,” he said. “Be clean!”

And even the Spanish version of the NIV reads the same. Marcos 1:41 (Nueva Versión Internacional 1999) “Movido a compasión, Jesús extendió la mano y tocó al hombre, diciéndole: — Sí quiero. ¡Queda limpio! “ As does also the NIV Portuguese edition Nova Versão Internacional of 1999 - "Cheio de compaixão, Jesus estendeu a mão, tocou nele e disse: “Quero. Seja purificado!”

Well, the 2011 NIV finally did it!

Here it is - Mark 1:41 (New International Version, ©2011)

41. "Jesus WAS INDIGNANT.[a] He reached out his hand and touched the man. “I am willing,” he said. “Be clean!”

Footnotes: Mark 1:41 Many manuscripts Jesus was filled with compassion.

 

[brandplucked]

Lucifer and the fall of Satan in Isaiah 14:12

Lucifer and the fall of Satan in Isaiah 14:12

No, I read the article.
Apparently you think it says something it does not say.

All English Bibles before the KJB of 1611 also have the word LUCIFER in them. This includes Wycliffe 1395, Coverdale's 1535, the Great Bible 1540, Matthew's Bible (John Rogers) 1549, Bishop's Bible 1568, and the Geneva Bible 1599 - "How art thou fallen from heauen, O LUCIFER, sonne of the morning?".

Lucifer is also found in the Latin Vulgate 425 A.D., the Douay-Rheims of 1582 - "How art thou fallen from heaven, O LUCIFER", the Douay 1950 Catholic bible.

BUT the more modern Catholic versions like the Jerusalem Bible and the St. Joseph New American Bible now agree with the NIV, NASB, RSV versions and have "morning star". However the latest 2009 Catholic Public Domain Version has now gone back to reading "Lucifer". You can see this 2009 Bible translation here

- http://www.sacredbible.org/catholic/index.htm



Lucifer is also the reading found in The Bill Bible 1671, The Thomson Bible 1808, Daniel Webster's 1833 translation, The Longman Version 1841, The Brenton Translation 1851, The Boothroyd Bible 1853, Noyes Translation 1869, Darby's 1890 version, The American Translation 1927, The Word of Yah 1993, God's First Truth 1999, The Revised Geneva Bible 2005, the 2012 Natural Israelite Version -"How you are fallen from heaven, O LUCIFER, son of the morning!", the Jubilee Bible 2010, Conservative Bible 2011, the Biblos Interlinear Bible 2011 - "how are you fallen from heaven, O LUCIFER.", the BRG Bible 2012 and the Modern English Bible 2014 - "How are you fallen from heaven, O LUCIFER, son of the morning!"

The 2008 Ancient Roots Translinear Bible - "How you fell from the heavens, LUCIFER, son of the daylight! You smashed to the ground, feeble over the nations."

Hebrew Roots Bible 2012 - “Oh LUCIFER, son of the morning, how you have fallen from the heavens2!” Footnote - “Showing the downfall of Satan.”

The Asser Septuagint version 2009 - "How is LUCIFER fallen from heaven, that rose up in the morning! "

http://orthodoxengland.org.uk/zot.htm




The Romanian Cornilescu Bible and the 2009 Romanian Fidela Bbile both say Lucifer - "*** ai căzut din cer, LUCIFER, fiu al dimineţii" as well as the 1569 Spanish Sagradas Escrituras read Lucifer - "¡Cómo caíste del cielo, oh LUCIFER, hijo de la mañana!" Lucifer is also the reading of the 2004 Spanish Reina Valera Gomez bible, that can be seen here

http://www.reinavaleragomez.com/RVGhtml/index.html

It says: ¡Cómo caíste del cielo, oh LUCIFER, hijo de la mañana! Cortado fuiste por tierra, tú que debilitabas las naciones." Czech Kralika (1613) lucifere; the Albanian Bible - "Vallë, si ke rënë nga qielli, o LUCIFER". The New Italian Diodati of 1991, as well as the Conferenza Episcopale Italiana version read: "Come mai sei caduto dal cielo, o LUCIFERO". The Portuguese O Livro of 2000 also reads the same with - "Como caíste do céu, ó LUCIFER - estrela matinal!". The Russian Synodal Version also reads Lucifer - "Как упал ты с неба, денница, сын зари!" = "How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning!", the Lithuanian Bible - "Kaip tu iškritai iš dangaus, LIUCIFERI, ryto aušros sūnau?", The French Sainte Bible of 1759 by Louis Lemaistre de Sacy also reads Lucifer - "Comment es-tu tombé du ciel. LUCIFER, toi qui paroissois si brillant au point du jour?"

Lucifer is also the reading in the 1982 NKJV, the 21st Century KJV 1994, The Brenton Translation 1851, the Calvin Bible 1855, the 2001 Urim-Thummin Version, the Knox Bible 'You' Version 2009, The Septuagint Bible of 1954 by C.A. Muses, the Old Testament According to the Septuagint of 2009 - "How is LUCIFER fallen from heaven, that rose up in the morning!"-

http://orthodoxengland.org.uk/pdf/ot/isaiah.pdf and the Third Millenium Bible 1998.

Ryrie's Scofield bible and Dakes annotated bible make reference to the fact that many early church fathers (among these Tertullian 160-220 A.D., Origen 185-254 A. D., and Gregory the Great), saw the passage in Isaiah 14 as referring to the fall of Satan. The idea that the passage refers to the fall of Satan did NOT originate with Jerome (384 A.D), though he also believed this. Tertullian lived almost 200 years before Jerome, and he held this view.

Bible versions that contain the Scofield notes, including the NIV Scofield edition, say regarding the Lucifer of Isaiah 14:12: "Verses 12-14 evidently refer to Satan, who, as prince of this world-system (See Scofield "Revelation 13:8) is the real unseen ruler of the successive world- powers. Tyre, Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece, Rome, etc. (see Ezekiel 28:12-14) Lucifer, "day-star," can be none other that Satan. This tremendous passage marks the beginning of sin in the universe. When Lucifer said, "I will," sin began.

The Encyclopedia Britannica says: "The Church Fathers interpreted the words of Jesus in Luke 10:18, "I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven," as a reference to this passage in Isaiah, so that "Lucifer" came to be regarded as the name of Satan before his fall."

 

[patrick jane]

How long is the debate ? Is there a winner ?

 

[brandplucked]

How long the debate?

How long the debate?

How long is the debate ? Is there a winner ?

Hi Patrick. Each side makes an opening statement. Then this is followed by 4 rounds of Q & A from each side and each side has to make their next post within 48 hours. So there is a total of 5 posts from each side. There is no "winner" declared except perhaps in the eyes of the individuals who may be following along, and I am quite sure that the opinions as to who "won" the debate will be scattered all over the board.

In any event, it will be over within 10 days. I hope it will be a learning experience for everybody concerned and we will be able to examine more thoroughly what each of us really believes about "The Bible" and what authority is has in our lives.

God bless.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

We clearly believe that some versions are better than others

If no originals exist, how can you know if some are "better"?

Where would you turn if your life depended on knowing exactly what God said on a matter?

 

[False Prophet]

The Septuagint was the first codex that was translated into Greek from Hebrew scrolls during the reign of Ptolomy Philadelphus. It was an abomination to the Jews such as the Essenes who resisted the Hellinization of the Jews. This would be our first version of the Bible, since the Book did not exist before then. It was a collection of papyrus scrolls.

 

[tetelestai]

Where would you turn if your life depended on knowing exactly what God said on a matter?

What would be the answer to your question in the year 1610?

 

[CabinetMaker]

Hi CabinetMaker. I notice you quote from the Vatican Version called the NIV. Let's put your theory to the test, OK? Did the latest NIV 2011 "preserve" or corrupt God's word in this example? Please let us know what you think.

Preserved.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2009-09-01-bible-translation_N.htm

By Cathy Lynn Grossman, USA TODAY - The scholars and publishers behind the world's leading English language evangelical Bible announced Tuesday that they would publish a updated translation in 2011.
"And we'll make sure we get it right this time," says Keith Danby, president and chief executive officer of Biblica, once known as the International Bible Society.

Well, let’s see if they did indeed “Get it right this time”


Mark 1:41 “Jesus moved with compassion” or “Jesus was indignant”?

In Mark 1:40 - 41 we read: “And there came a leper to him, beseeching him, and kneeling down to him, and saying unto him, If thou wilt, thou canst make me clean. And Jesus, MOVED WITH COMPASSION, put forth his hand, and touched him, and saith unto him, I will; be thou clean.”

“moved with compassion” is the reading found in the Majority of all Greek texts including Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, C, the Greek Lectionaries, the Old Latin Italic aur, c, e, f, l and q, the Vulgate, the Syriac Peshitta, Sinaitic, Harkelian, the Coptic Sahidic, Boharic, the Armenian, Ethiopian, Georgian and Slavonic ancient versions. It is even the reading found in the UBS IV critical Greek text.

“moved with compassion” is the reading found in Wycliffe 1390, Tyndale 1525, Coverdale 1535, the Great Bible 1540, Matthew’s Bible 1549, the Bishops’ Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1587, the Revised Version 1885, the ASV 1901, Douay, Darby, Young’s, Lamsa’s translation of the Syriac, the RSV, NRSV, 1989, ESV 2001, NASB 1963 - 1995, Dan Wallace's NET version 2006, Holman Standard 2003, the International Standard Version and the Jubilee Bible 2000-2010 to name but a few.

The NIV 1973, 1978 and 1984 all read: “FILLED WITH COMPASSION, Jesus reached out his hand and touched the man. “I am willing,” he said. “Be clean!”

And even the Spanish version of the NIV reads the same. Marcos 1:41 (Nueva Versión Internacional 1999) “Movido a compasión, Jesús extendió la mano y tocó al hombre, diciéndole: — Sí quiero. ¡Queda limpio! “ As does also the NIV Portuguese edition Nova Versão Internacional of 1999 - "Cheio de compaixão, Jesus estendeu a mão, tocou nele e disse: “Quero. Seja purificado!”

Well, the 2011 NIV finally did it!

Here it is - Mark 1:41 (New International Version, ©2011)

41. "Jesus WAS INDIGNANT.[a] He reached out his hand and touched the man. “I am willing,” he said. “Be clean!”

Footnotes: Mark 1:41 Many manuscripts Jesus was filled with compassion.

The problem with this analysis is that you assume the KJV is correct without actually proving it. When you take a list, any list, of the differences between translations all you have is a list of differences. If you attempt to say, based on that list, that it is obvious that one version is better than the other you are making unfounded assumptions.

You can take a list and say that the K.JV is better because the NIV omits this, adds that and changes these words. An equally valid interpretation of that list from the stand point of the NIV is that the KJV is obviously inferior because adds this, omits that and changes these words.

In any case, you failed to answer my original question: Why dis God quit preserving His word in 1611?

 

[genuineoriginal]

All English Bibles before the KJB of 1611 also have the word LUCIFER in them.

Thank you for the history lesson and the translation.
It must have taken you a long time to research that.

There is something missing from this great effort to research the differences between the translations.

In Hebrew the word translated as Lucifer is הֵילֵל and is found once in the Bible. It comes from הָלַל, which is translated in the KJV as:
praise (117x), glory (14x), boast (10x), mad (8x), shine (3x), foolish (3x), fools (2x), commended (2x), rage (2x), celebrate (1x), give (1x), marriage (1x), renowned (1x), Hillel (2x).

No transliteration of הֵילֵל is able to make the sounds Lu·ci·fer, instead it makes the sounds hey·lel.

Maybe Lucifer comes from the Septuagint?
No, it doesn't come from there, either.

The Septuagint uses ἑωσφόρος, which makes the sounds he·ōs·phor·os, and cannot be used to make the sounds Lu·ci·fer.

We have identified that the word Lucifer was not found in the Hebrew manuscripts, nor was it found in the Greek manuscripts, so where does it come from?

Lucifer comes from a Latin translation of Isaiah.
Lucifer literally means light-bringing, and is thought to be the Roman name for the planet Venus, commonly called the morning star.

The translation from הֵילֵל in the Hebrew and ἑωσφόρος in the Greek to Lucifer in the Latin was based on the use of ἑωσφόρος as a name for the planet Venus by the Greeks and the use of Lucifer as the name for the planet Venus by the Romans.

Lucifer is the word used in all Latin versions, including the Latin Vulgate used by the Roman Catholic church.

This seems to prove that the KJV is just another one of the "Vatican Versions" that you condemn, since it borrows from the Vatican bible in order to produce a false translation of the word, which produces a false doctrine surrounding the name Lucifer, which by your reasoning would make the KJV a false Bible.

You can't have it any other way.

 

[Desert Reign]

Hi DR. How about YOU give it an honest shot, sir? Answer the question. Think through what it is you really believe and try not to dodge the questions.


Do you believe that ANY Bible in any language, translated or untranslated, is now or ever was the complete (66 books on one volume), inerrant and 100% true words of God? Yes or No?

If Yes, can you show us a copy? Or can you tell us exactly which one it is, so that we too can go out and get one for ourselves? Yes or No?

If No, you do not believe there is now or ever has been such a thing as a complete and inerrant words of God Bible in any language, are you honest enough to admit it? Yes or No?

Thank you for asking. It is good that you do because no one has been man enough to stand up and say that they agree with your belief that there was no such thing until 1769. You don't seem to have too many supporters on this one, do you? So it puts you in a bit of a corner where your only option is to show that your belief, however preposterous, is somehow less preposterous than your opponents.

Firstly then my original comments are here.

S.

Secondly, each original book existed as it was first penned, when it was penned. This is surely obvious. And it is a matter of history that these books were not put together by the church as a fixed collection until a certain date. The date is unimportant because each of the books had been widely circulated and copied and was accepted by the church as inspired writ long before the church formally decided to make a canon.

The fact that these books were copied so widely and so accurately is proof of the high esteem the church held them in. And the fact that they were translated into every language under the sun is proof of the church's respect for their value. That respect has never been lost. It has continued unabated ever since the manuscripts were first penned. Until the present day.

In my personal opinion, respect for the scriptures suffered a hiatus when Westcott and Hort got their grubby paws involved and started using manuscripts which had been thrown away in a dungeon because of their low quality. They were pulled back from the trash whilst the good and proper copies were used and reused. This meant that the best manuscripts were younger and the worse ones were older. But you know this don't you?

So yes, I agree that in the English speaking world for several centuries and even through to the present, the KJV is the sole representative translation of the scriptures the church considers holy.

Thirdly, no new authority exists in any copy of the original scriptures or in any translation. The only authority each one, copy or translation, has is derived from the authority of the original work. The entire Christian church, in all its competing branches has been happy with this notion of derived authority until some extreme proponents of KJVOnlyism arrived on the scene, including yourself. And as I said in my earlier post referenced above, such concept of derived authority needs no theological justification. It is basic reasoning and common sense and it is only those who do not want to submit to such common sense who invent contrary notions such as your own. Your own view would have us make a radical disconnect from the authority the original writings had. Your own view would have us throw those writings away for ever.

This link shows a list of OT citations in the NT ordered by OT book and verse. If you compare OT passages where the same passage has been quoted more than once, it is abundantly clear that there was not a single text that every NT writer quoted from. Each quotation, where quoted more than once, differs in some respect from the other. This proves a) that there were different versions of the Old Testament scriptures in existence and b) that NT writers were not at all bothered by the fact that such versions were different from each other. Also, NT writers quote from books which they evidently consider to be authoritative but which are not considered by the church to be divinely authored.

All the above proves that the natural means of transmission of authority from one text to another has been accepted by the church from the beginning, along with its faults and failings. Only you would disrupt this process. If you ask, 'how can I be sure after a period of two millennia, that the versions of these texts have not diverged beyond recognition from the originals?' the answer is very clear and practical. Sufficient numbers of copies were made, under sufficient copying and verification systems so as to ensure that the texts converge, not diverge. Weak copying practices in Alexandria caused manuscripts to diverge and that is why they were thrown away by the Byzantine based churches. The Majority text converged and the degree of confidence we have in it is unassailable. But you would have us abandon those centuries of care and the wealth of experience gained in the copying process for a flimsy new translation in another language altogether. And I say flimsy without reference to the obvious care the KJV translators put into the work. Flimsy refers mainly to slip-shod work that Erasmus himself put into the task of establishing the received Greek text, which then required centuries of corrections.

In my view also, it was the slip-shod manner of the compilation of the RT which eventually prompted Westcott and Hort to create a new and even worse version based on Alexandrian manuscripts.

So yes, along with BE/WD, I would thoroughly concur that the divinely authored texts have always been with us. What you have done is to invent a new concept of 100% inerrancy which would seek to deny this obvious truth and remove from the process the possibility of proper and reasonable checks and systems in copying. Those checks and systems have continued to this day such that the R&P 2005 is the single most authoritative text of the NT. I look forward to the day when more translations are based off it. And yes, I have read it and yes I have examined it and I have only found only one single place in it that I would take issue with and that is the position of one comma (which I think is a fair criticism given that the original manuscripts were written without punctuation anyway). No exaggeration. And I would be happy to translate it all myself if I had the time and energy because I am sure there are lots of places in the KJV or NKJV as well as other translations that are absolutely incorrect... And you would gloss over these mistakes and prevent the normal process of verification from taking place, thus admitting all sorts of errors. Your own error stems from your invention of the notion of God's promise of 100% inerrancy, which is not in the Bible. Neither is there anywhere in the Bible which states that there are to be 66 particular books of inspired inerrant canon. This is a fact. You can make of it what you want but you cannot deny it.

Lucifer comes from a Latin translation of Isaiah.
Lucifer literally means light-bringing, and is thought to be the Roman name for the planet Venus, commonly called the morning star.

The translation from הֵילֵל in the Hebrew and ἑωσφόρος in the Greek to Lucifer in the Latin was based on the use of ἑωσφόρος as a name for the planet Venus by the Greeks and the use of Lucifer as the name for the planet Venus by the Romans.

Lucifer is the word used in all Latin versions, including the Latin Vulgate used by the Roman Catholic church.

This seems to prove that the KJV is just another one of the "Vatican Versions" that you condemn, since it borrows from the Vatican bible in order to produce a false translation of the word, which produces a false doctrine surrounding the name Lucifer, which by your reasoning would make the KJV a false Bible.

You can't have it any other way.

Nice one.

 

[tetelestai]

This seems to prove that the KJV is just another one of the "Vatican Versions" that you condemn

Yep

Same thing for the word "Easter"

(Acts 12:4 KJV) And when he had apprehended him, he put him in prison, and delivered him to four quaternions of soldiers to keep him; intending after Easter to bring him forth to the people.

Just about every other translation uses the word "Passover", but the KJV uses the word "Easter".

 

[Danoh]

Why did God quit preserving His word? We don't speak like that any more. Word meanings have changed. Why did God quit preserving His word?

A thought on your “We don’t speak like that anymore.”

In the medical profession the Latin is used for prescriptions because it is basically a dead language; therefore remains the same, meaning there is less likelihood for the misinterpretation of prescription by Pharmacists.

This part of their “world” has worked out rather well throughout “the world” in general.

But, they are a Profession, with very strict guidelines; laws and penalties against screw ups given that physical life is at stake.

Not so the Scripture – any amateur can read a few “books about” pull out a soapbox and set themselves up as an expert.

There is no standard but what the various sides of what has ended up an endlessly muliti-sided fence end up agreeing on against some, if not all the other sides, more or less.

And yet, in this; it appears the translators of the KJV accomplished Tyndale’s stated hearts’ desire – the Bible in the hands of the common man.

And a thought in general - as with Grace, such a freedom will invite its fair share of problems; especially where the dogmatist is found asserting that he alone is right.

The dogmatist cannot but end up being more of the same: a liar. It is par for the course: as its very origin is found in its conclusion that it; and it alone, is right.

A mere “Hello,” sets such off and their kind. Out comes the red marker of their hypocrisy “So, tell us, what is the this, the that; we want to see if you have it right by our standard, so we can vomit it all over you if you do not; all the while pointing our finger at you!”

Matthew 23:
15. Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves.

 

[Danoh]

Yep

Same thing for the word "Easter"

(Acts 12:4 KJV) And when he had apprehended him, he put him in prison, and delivered him to four quaternions of soldiers to keep him; intending after Easter to bring him forth to the people.

Just about every other translation uses the word "Passover", but the KJV uses the word "Easter".

Why?

Or are you just being you once more - ever out to prove a thing simply by asserting it is.

 

[tetelestai]

Why?

The question becomes, was Luke referring to the Passover, or the pagan festival Easter.

Most KJVO's claim the pagan festival Easter.

However, there is not one shred of evidence that the pagan festival Easter was ever celebrated in Judeae in the first century.

Also, verse three in the KJV references the Feast of Unleavened Bread.

Or are you just being you once more - ever out to prove a thing simply by asserting it is.

It can be proven that the word "Easter" in the KJV is wrong.

The following verse from the KJV proves it wrong:

(Luke 22:1 KKJV) Now the feast of unleavened bread drew nigh, which is called the Passover.

 

[False Prophet]

From my interpretation of modern theologians this portion of scripture does not belong in the Bible:5 After this there was a feast of the Jews; and Jesus went up to Jerusalem.

2 Now there is at Jerusalem by the sheep market a pool, which is called in the Hebrew tongue Bethesda, having five porches.

3 In these lay a great multitude of impotent folk, of blind, halt, withered, waiting for the moving of the water.

4 For an angel went down at a certain season into the pool, and troubled the water: whosoever then first after the troubling of the water stepped in was made whole of whatsoever disease he had.

5 And a certain man was there, which had an infirmity thirty and eight years.

6 When Jesus saw him lie, and knew that he had been now a long time in that case, he saith unto him, Wilt thou be made whole?

7 The impotent man answered him, Sir, I have no man, when the water is troubled, to put me into the pool: but while I am coming, another steppeth down before me.

8 Jesus saith unto him, Rise, take up thy bed, and walk.

9 And immediately the man was made whole, and took up his bed, and walked: and on the same day was the sabbath. John 5
Is this the fault of the King James translators?