2 Pet 1:19 an error in the KJV?

Yes, I know. My original post said

I should have been more careful and included the "regarding Lucifer" qualifier in my later posts.

 

So? Are you trying to promote me?

Brian and "Skwanny" , why is it yall still deny the Hebrew lexicon? I fully understand what yall two are saying, but the lexicon and the Strong's both disagree with yall. Sure am glad to have provoked yall to study instead of just blather all the time like yall know-it-all.

Hint: Obviously you don't know as much as you like others to think!

 

The lexicon nor Strongs' is saying what you believe it to say. Perhaps the problem comes in your understanding of those tools than in saying that Brian and skanwmatos are "denying" it. Neither of them strike me as people who would deny what is written in black and white, and checking it for myself, I see that the two of them are quite correct.

And why did you have to add the last sentence? How can that be seen as constructive to the body of Christ? I cannot see how that quote could be formed from a loving perspective.

 

The problem is that you don't understand what Strong or the lexicon is saying. And that is the difference between Brian and I, and you. We understand what the lexicon and Strong's are saying, and you just make up blather to cover your ignorance.

And I can't but notice you still call me names instead of using my real screen name. More of your double standard.

 

O.K., Skan, you finally answered me about my using a nick-name for you that you are upset and I apologize. I will ask your permission to address you as "Skan" ?

Here, just so you and Brian can examine it again, I'm not making this stuff up, it's straight from the source that tells how to use the source, uh, The Original Strong's:
Now follow the instructions on how to use the Strong's use of the numbering system:

(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".

I don't know why yall can't see it in bold type, but it's right there in black and white.

 

I suggest you lay down your telescope and learn to use your microscope, Brother. Examine yourself, then drink the cup, then partake of the bread.

I understand what they are saying, but the conclusion is that the kethiv is correct while the qere is allusive, not intentionally, just when separate from the kethiv, it is misunderstood

When this verse is made as a reference to II Peter 1:19 is where the real problem begins, you know that, Brian knows that, and Skan knows that.

It's the latin vulgate that refers to II Peter 1:19 as lucifer as the morning star, then ties right back to Is. 14:12 as lucifer as the son of the morning, but then Rev 22:16 makes further distinction that couldn't hold true because there even the vulgate determined the bright and morning star to be Jesus. Yall say the KJB is following the vulagte when it is not.

ASV:
How art thou fallen from heaven, O day-star, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, that didst lay low the nations!
We know the "day star" is Jesus Christ by II Peter 1:19 and not lucifer as found in the vulgate, the context shows us that.

Then the RSV is really wild:

"How you are fallen from heaven, O Day Star, son of Dawn! How you are cut down to the ground, you who laid the nations low!
Again, II Peter 1:19.

niv:
Isaiah 14
12 How you have fallen from heaven,
O morning star, son of the dawn!
You have been cast down to the earth,
you who once laid low the nations!

2 Peter 1

19And we have the word of the prophets made more certain, and you will do well to pay attention to it, as to a light shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts.



The way the niv reads, one would be left to think that Jesus and lucifer are somehow related. You can look at Venus being the "morning star" all you want, but a planet doesn't rise in your heart and you live to tell aboutit, neither does lucifer rise in your heart and for Christians to take heed unto him.

We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:

Oh, well, time to move on to the next city.

 

The problem is that there is no Kethive/Qere reading in the verse in question dealing with Lucifer or his identity! You can't just make this stuff up as you go along!

 

I think we might be having some misunderstanding as to what kethiv/qere REALLY means. They're aramaic words. Qere is found out in the margin and represents an alternate form of what is written in the text. This usually corresponds to a different spelling of the same word, a word which is one consonant different, or even adonai replacing YHWH. I've looked in several Hebrew texts I have, BHS and and an Israeli text - there is no qere reading in this verse at all.

 

Uh, guys? lucifer/helel/satan/king of babylon/king of tyre is the son of the morning. The kethiv reads morning, we agree. The qere reads howling, we agree. The main subject of the verse is the devil, we agree? I do.

The metaphor "star" is figurative of "son", thus "son of the morning" is "star of the morning/morning star".

lucifer and the son of the morning are one in the same. lucifer is also the son of howling, or the star that howls. Remember, lucifer is the devil/jackal/wolf/ol'slewfoot. He howls, he roars as a wounded lion.

Last bit of dust.

Charles, did you check out the info I've posted concerning the Original Strong's?

 

I'm not surprised that this decades-old KJVO malarkey has come up again. There's a new generation of Christians out there that the KJVOs are hoping might believe some of their propaganda.With the KJVO, "proof", "evidence", and "originality" are four-letter words. Sorry, Onlyists, but there are still plenty of mythbusters around to keep your stuff in the trash heap where it came from.