2 Pet 1:19 an error in the KJV?

Yeah, orvie, like you translated I Corinthians 14:9 for us </font>[/QUOTE]Sorry that you don't agree w/ the KJV:kjv here.

 

that was funny! as you howl at the moon. Blah, blah, blah, blah....again qs, you make it all too easy.

 

Yeah, Orvie, the GV, like as in God's Version: AV 1611 KJB, care to argue with that? Here, let me answer that for you,"Of course, I've always argued with God" Just like you snatched I Corinthians 14:9 out of context to try to relate it to your error.

I haven't "forced" anything to "fit", but we can all see your throwing a fit.

Also I see brian and skwanny haven't posted any "evidences" to support their rants, I did nail them didn't I? (borrowed that from Mister Ed) Hey, what happened to that dude, him and the 25 monther get lost in love or something?

 

I personally think that "day star" is a perfectly fine translation of the Greek here. Similar in concept to the idea in Isaiah 14.

Interesting that the calling of Lucifer as the "morning star" has generated so much debate. Granted that "morning star" was a term of significance. If Lucifer was "great" he could have been referred to as such (albeit sardonically). The term would certainly not have been applied to Jesus if it were not one of grandeur.

Any thoughts?

 

The only problem with your theory is that there is no kethiv/qere pair in Isaiah 14:12 regarding Lucifer or even related to his identity.

Then they saw something which does not exist.

Please post the kethiv and the qere from Isaiah 14:12.

So you admit that "Lucifer" is an error? After all, the Latin text is where "Lucifer" comes from! Isa 14:12 "quomodo cecidisti de caelo lucifer qui mane oriebaris corruisti in terram qui vulnerabas gentes."

Still no answer. I thought not.

 

What specifics? All you have done is use two words you don't even know the meaning of, and tried to tell us there was something in the Hebrew manuscript which simply isn't there.

Talking with you is more like talking at the wall!

 

Yeah, "morning star" represents that time of day when darkness is still in view of the visual sky. "Day star" is that which is visable even during the noonday sun.

Big difference, huh? lucifer/shining one. Day star/ One who outshines the sun. Jesus is NOT the morning star.

 

Yeah I guess not, especially since a pair indicates a match. The qere rendering does not match the kethiv: not a pair to compare.

I didn't say that and you know it.

12 How art thou fallen &lt;05307&gt; (8804) from heaven &lt;08064&gt;, O Lucifer &lt;01966&gt;, son &lt;01121&gt; of the morning &lt;07837&gt; (8676) &lt;03213&gt; (8685)! how art thou cut down &lt;01438&gt; (8738) to the ground &lt;0776&gt;, which didst weaken &lt;02522&gt; (8802) the nations &lt;01471&gt;!

08676 Qere Readings

In the Hebrew Bible, the scribes did not alter any text they felt had been copied incorrectly. Rather they noted in the margin what they thought the written text should be. The written variation is called a kethiv and the marginal note is called the qere. Where the translators of the Authorised Version followed the kethiv reading rather than the qere,we indicate the qere reading by the number 08676. For example, in #De 19:6 "blood" is coded as 01818 08676 05315. The translators followed the kethiv reading that has Strong’s number 01818, which means "blood", but the qere reading is Strong’s number 05315, which means "life".

Seems to me there is, else the Strong's numbering system indicates it very clearly.

Again:

יב אֵיךְ נָפַלְתָּ מִשָּׁמַיִם, הֵילֵל בֶּן-שָׁחַר; נִגְדַּעְתָּ לָאָרֶץ, חוֹלֵשׁ עַל-גּוֹיִם.

son of the morning/ howling in the morning/lucifer

 

Posted by Precepts:

Jesus is NOT the morning star.

Rev 22:16 ?????

 

Rev. 22:16, the "bright" and "morning" star. The wording in context truly makes a difference, huh?

!!!!!!!!!

 

Bro Ricky,

Skan is right on the kethiv/qere thing here. The BHS doesn not have a qere here - or at least the BHS I have doesn't. The qere is always right out in the margin with the rest of the masora parva.

 

Bro Ricky,

OK. I'd agree with that. I think context is key! Thus I don't have a problem seeing "morning star" as a potential alternative translation for Lucifer in Is 14:12.

 

O.K. I can be wrong, but I made my assumption by looking at the Strong's numbers and also by the rendering espoused in the JPS 1917:

12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O day-star, son of the morning! How art thou cut down to the ground, that didst cast lots over the nations!

Seems the Jews have come up with something rather contrary, wouldn't you think?

Also I have the "BHM" Hebrew Text:
containing the Biblia Hebraica Kittel/Stuttgartensia consonantal texts in morphologically separated (BHM) format.

As far as I know they are the same as the BHS, but I will check.

 

The pot has just called the kettle black!

 

No, phosphorus in Greek and "day star" in English both refer to the planet Venus.

Am I missing something?

 

No. I suppose you haven't missed a thing if Venus has risen in your heart that is. Man, you must really have a big heart to have a whole planet rise on the horizon of your heart. But then if you consider the metaphor as figuratively speaking of Jesus Christ according to the context of II Peter 1 then you'll be allright.

 

The pot has just called the kettle black! </font>[/QUOTE]Yes, yes, but then we are all black on the inside, it's just some are blacker than others. Like those who compare pots and kettles.

 

Now you have proven conclusively that you don't know what you are talking about.

 

No. I suppose you haven't missed a thing if Venus has risen in your heart that is. Man, you must really have a big heart to have a whole planet rise on the horizon of your heart. But then if you consider the metaphor as figuratively speaking of Jesus Christ according to the context of II Peter 1 then you'll be allright. </font>[/QUOTE]I'm not (yet) dealing with what the word can symbolize in the context of this verse, I think that's a separate issue. According to Thayer's lexicon "day star" is not an erroneous translation of "phosphorus" since both terms can refer to Venus.

 

Now you have proven conclusively that you don't know what you are talking about. </font>[/QUOTE]No. You've proven conclusively you don't know what I'm talking about.

I've shown the indications of the presence of the qere and the kethiv, they do not "match" as you would "pair up" things that do match.