Digging a well.

Discussion in 'Bible Versions/Translations' started by Salamander, Dec 20, 2008.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Salamander

    Salamander
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2005
    Messages:
    3,965
    Likes Received:
    0
    Not the whole quote as it "breaks" BB rules!:rolleyes:

    But is this claim supported? Not really.

    But here is something for fodder Rev 22:17 The Spirit and the bride say, "Come!" And let him who hears say, "Come!" Whoever is thirsty, let him come; and whoever wishes, let him take the free gift of the water of life. NIV

    Athirst:
    1. Thirsty; wanting drink.


    2. Having a keen appetite or desire.

    He had a soul athirst for knowledge.

    The NIV seems to leave the reader at a disadvantage here to think anyone anywhere dying of natural thirst could "come to Jesus" and Jesus would have to obey the word of God and grant him water immediately to save his mortal life.

    The first definition would support this ideal, while the 2nd is actually the understanding of the Scripture that any soul thirsty for the knowledge of salvation would have ample opportunity affording the same access to spiritual water as found in John 4.

    dipsao:
    1) to suffer thirst, suffer from thirst
    a) figuratively, those who are said to thirst who painfully feel their want of, and eagerly long for, those things by which the soul is refreshed, supported, strengthened ( if that ain't what accompanies salvation I don't know what does!)

    This is the sort of errors we see too many times in modern versions claiming to hold the same authority and substanciability as the KJB.

    I know, I know, we "KJVO's" worship a translation!:love2:
     
    #1 Salamander, Dec 20, 2008
    Last edited: Dec 20, 2008
  2. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2
    You are correct. The KJV-only accusation that you quoted is not supported by the evidence. The NIV's rendering at Isaiah 14:12 is actually a synonym for the KJV's rendering "Lucifer" according to the evidence for how the KJV's rendering was used in the 1500's and 1600's.

    The old 1300’s Wycliffe's Bible made from the Latin Vulgate may have been the first English Bible to introduce the Latin word "lucifer" into English at Isaiah 14:12. The 1395 edition of the Wycliffe Bible had “Lucifer” more than once since it was also used at Job 38:32: “Whether thou bringest forth Lucifer, that is, day star, in his time, and makest evening star to rise on the sons of earth.“ The Oxford English Dictionary pointed out at its entry word Lucifer the following: "The Latin word was adopted in all the English versions down to 1611" (IX, p. 81). This source noted that this word was “used as a proper name of the morning star” (Ibid.).

    The 1534 Luther’s German Bible, which is on the KJV-only line of good Bibles, has “morgen stern” [morning star] at Isaiah 14:12. In his lectures on Isaiah concerning this verse, Martin Luther indicated that the Hebrew word “denotes the morning star, called Lucifer and the son of Dawn” (Luther’s Works, Vol. 16, p. 140). According to this translation of his own comments, Luther’s rendering was likely the result of the influence of the Latin Vulgate or at the very least his rendering “morning star“ was intended to mean the same as “Lucifer.” Of the earlier English Bibles of which the KJV was a revision, the 1535 Coverdale’s Bible first used “Lucifer” at Isaiah 14:12. Coverdale is said to have translated primarily from the German with guidance from the Latin, and he is not known to have had a manuscript copy of the old Wycliffe‘s Bible. Is it possible that Coverdale’s rendering “Lucifer” was his translation for Luther’s German Bible’s “morgen stern?” Does this evidence suggest that the rendering “Lucifer” was first introduced into the English Bible from the direct or indirect influence of the Latin Vulgate?


    Lucifer was the Latin name for the planet Venus when it appears as the morning star. The Liberty Annotated Study Bible confirmed that "the name Lucifer is actually the Latin designation for the morning star" (p. 1038). The 1968 Cassell's New Latin Dictionary indicated that the Latin word "lucifer" comes from two root words meaning "light-bearing, light-bringing" and that it would be translated into English as "Lucifer, the morning star, the planet Venus." According to the English-Latin section of this dictionary, the translation of "morning-star" in English is given as "lucifer" in Latin. The Oxford Latin Dictionary gave two definitions for lucifer: “light-bringing, light-bearing” and “the morning star” (p. 1045). The Oxford Dictionary of Word Histories affirmed that Lucifer is “a Latin word originally, meaning ’light-bringing, morning star” (p. 309).


    At the end of Isaiah 14, the 1549 edition of Matthew’s Bible has some notes that include these words: “Lucifer, the morning star, which he calleth the child of the morning, because it appeared only in the morning.” The marginal note in the 1560 and 1599 editions of the Geneva Bible for this word included the following: "for the morning star that goeth before the sun is called Lucifer." These two notes from two pre-1611 English Bibles that are on the KJV-only view’s line of good Bibles provide clear credible evidence concerning the meaning of the word "Lucifer" in English in the 1500's. The 1657 English translation of the 1637 Dutch States-General Version and Dutch Annotations also indicated this meaning with its rendering "O morning-star" at Isaiah 14:12.


    What did the KJV translators themselves mean by the choice of the word "Lucifer" in Isaiah 14:12? The 1611 KJV gives in its margin the literal meaning or acceptable alternative translation for "Lucifer" as "daystar." The KJV translators were aware of the marginal note in the Geneva Bible, and they would have recognized that their marginal note at this verse would have associated this meaning “daystar” or “morning star” with this rendering “Lucifer.“ D. A. Waite seemed to suggest that alternative translations in the marginal notes of the 1611 N. T. were “merely synonyms of words that could have been used rather than the ones chosen to put into the text itself” so would he say the same about the marginal notes of the 1611 O. T.?” (Fundamentalist Distortions, p. 18). In a sermon, KJV translator Lancelot Andrewes referred to "St Peter's Lucifer in cordibus [daystar in your hearts]" (Hewison, Selected Writings, p. 112). Clearly, Andrewes used the word Lucifer in his sermon with this understood meaning “daystar.“ Daystar is Old English for morning star. A 1672 edition of the KJV has the following note at Isaiah 14:12: “for the morning-star that goeth before the sun is called Lucifer.“ Thus, several credible sources from the 1500’s and 1600’s clearly establish how this word “Lucifer” was commonly used and understood in that time period.
     
  3. Salamander

    Salamander
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2005
    Messages:
    3,965
    Likes Received:
    0
    The difference is found in the attributes: Lucifer is a counterfeit when compared to Jesus everytime one considers them, Jesus always fulfills the meaning of Daystar and Morning Star where lucifer could never do this.

    But I see no mention of the fodder?

    I made specific reference to Rev 22:17 as found in the NIV as misleading.

    What about it? It is associated with water found in a well, verse 16 is not.
     
  4. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2
    Yes, Satan could be considered as the counterfeit or false daystar or false morning star in contrast to the Lord Jesus Christ, who is the true morning star.

    I have not recommended the Critical Greek text or English translations made from it such as the NIV. Therefore, I do not attempt to defend their renderings. When doing study or research concerning English Bibles including the KJV that are based on the same traditional original languages texts as the KJV, I sometimes find information that relates to them as in this case concerning Isaiah 14:12.
     
  5. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    Request the place you got this from (from which you got it?). Thank you.

    from on-line: dictionary.reference.com

    The fastest source of checking makes the item about the NIV Versus KJV null, void, and moot. The archaic meaning of the term 'athirst' is the modern term 'thirsty'.
     
  6. franklinmonroe

    franklinmonroe
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2006
    Messages:
    2,872
    Likes Received:
    3
    Your assessment is either contrived or overly dramatic (some one who is thirsty is not neccesarily in peril of dying). I also doubt that any one reading Revelation 22 with genuine comprehension would actually relate this to the physical state. But excuse me for moment, I desire a drink of liquid.

    Thanks, I'm back. Revelation 22:17 from the KJV --
    And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely.
    So, how exactly does this translation of the KJV avoid your same conclusion?

    To "thirst" for something also has the contemporary meaning to crave or desire (other than liquid).
     
    #6 franklinmonroe, Dec 21, 2008
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 21, 2008
  7. Rippon

    Rippon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    17,407
    Likes Received:
    328
    Well,Sal has the tendency to dig holes for himself.
     
  8. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2
    I checked and found that your definitions for "athirst" came from the 1828 Webster's Dictionary.

    Did you also check "thirsty" in the 1828 Webster's?

    It has a third definition for "thirsty" that is similar to the second definition for "athirst."

    3. To have a vehement desire for anything.

    That is also the 1828 Webster's second definition for "thirst" as a verb.

    Does the source you used support the reasoning of your post?
     
  9. Trotter

    Trotter
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/6412.jpg>

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2003
    Messages:
    4,815
    Likes Received:
    0
    Spit and wind, spit and wind.

    The NIV is correct in its rendering of day star as opposed to Lucifer. It kills me that people use this verse to give the advesary a name when it is just the latin name of the "star" which wasn't a star at all.

    As for the thirsty vs athirst debate, they are the same thing. Sort of like how David's heart pants for the Lord like a deer pants for water.

    For the record, I don't care much for the NIV as I prefer literal translations, but when someone is espousing error it gets under my skin.
     
  10. Salamander

    Salamander
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2005
    Messages:
    3,965
    Likes Received:
    0
    Faulty dictionaries always mislead the unsuspecting.

    Whether the term is considered archaic or not has nothing to do with the context in which Rev 22:17 is written.

    The context is spiritual, not literal.

    Try defining it according to doctrine?
     
  11. Salamander

    Salamander
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2005
    Messages:
    3,965
    Likes Received:
    0
    Error. It's "spit into the wind".

    The NIV is incorrect in its rendering of "daystar" as being Christ. Christ has never been an adversary or a competitor of the Lord!:laugh:

    The context indicates that Lucifer is the counterfeit describing himself as the daystar. Remember, it is he who is speaking in Isaiah 14.

    Yes, thirst denotes desire to have thrist quenched, but thirsty is always associated with water or drink of sorts. But this context points towards the soul's desire for fulfillment, that cannot be synonymous with thirst for water.

    David's desire for the Lord is expressed by the metaphor "as the hart panteth after the waterbrooks". There is no such comparison in Rev 22:17.

    The NIV simply used the wrong word.

    Nice of you to compare me to a boil.
     
  12. Salamander

    Salamander
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2005
    Messages:
    3,965
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yet some one devoid of the water of life is already dead and dying.
    "Athirst" carries a conotation which mere "thirst" does not. It is something akin to English which expresses the meaning a wee-bit clearer than modernists will admit. maybe it's due to their objection to the artistry and poetic justice afforded by Englsih literature.

    The context determines the meaning associated with the wording. The NIV and contemporary ideals do go hand-in-hand.

    The KJB is simply clearer.:godisgood:
     
  13. Abell

    Abell
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2008
    Messages:
    58
    Likes Received:
    0
    The NIV does not say "day star" in Isaiah 14:12. It says "morning star". The exact name Jesus attributes to Himself in Rev.22:16. The NIV plainly accuses Jesus of being Lucifer.

    Besides this outright blasphamy, would anyone care to address the three other errors, mistakes and lies I cited in the other thread before it was shut down? I'll refresh your memories:

    1. Who killed Goliath? Compare I Sam.17:50, II Sam. 21:19, and I Chron.20:5. In the NIV and other versions you have a contradiction. One verse says David did, another says Elhanan did. (Error & Confusion)

    2. Who is speaking? Look at Mark 1:2. Isaiah did not say this as the NIV claims. This is a quote from Mal.3:1. (Lie)

    3. How is one saved? In newer versions it is by baptism. Most newer versions omit Acts 8:37. In this verse the eunuch confess his belief in Jesus as the Son of God. Leave this verse out and the eunuch is saved by baptism. (Confusion)
     
  14. Salamander

    Salamander
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2005
    Messages:
    3,965
    Likes Received:
    0
    We will find clarity in further research to agree with my ascertian: (ours)Keen:: showing a quick and ardent responsiveness

    (yours)Vehement: marked by forceful energy , : intensely emotional

    It seems more that your line of reasoning would concur with the Charismatic Movement or the Word of Faith movement.

    Isn't it nice to understand the mind of the Spirit and remain doctrinally correct!
     
  15. Salamander

    Salamander
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2005
    Messages:
    3,965
    Likes Received:
    0
    Is this the best you can offer?:laugh:
     
  16. sag38

    sag38
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2008
    Messages:
    4,394
    Likes Received:
    1
    Speak louder we can't hear you because of the hole.
     
  17. Salamander

    Salamander
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2005
    Messages:
    3,965
    Likes Received:
    0
    Do all of you have the same holes in your heads? Is that what you're saying?:laugh:
     
  18. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    Why do you hate God's word so much? You really should not attack it so vehemently.

    Did you know that the KJV accuses God of being Satan? Compare 1 Chron 21:1 and 2 Sam 24:1. Unbelievable that the KJV would do such a thing.

    Unless of course one has a rudimentary knowledge of language and communication, in which case they would know that the same word can be used to describe two different people. If we say that Ronald Reagan was president, and Bill Clinton was president, no one would be silly enough to think we were accusing Ronald Reagan of being Bill Clinton. Yet when it comes to attacking the word of God, some people will believe that.

    If you read Isaiah 14 you will see very clearly that it is not talking about Jesus Christ.

    In reality, the KJV is a bad translation at this point. The Hebrew word is hellal and if you look it up you will see that it is speaking of a celestial body that gives off light. It does not mean "Lucifer."

    So let's knock off the attacks on God's word. It is more important than to be a pawn in your game of attacking other believers.
     
  19. EdSutton

    EdSutton
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2006
    Messages:
    8,755
    Likes Received:
    0
    I'm not sure exactly what "newer versions" you might be referring to here. I have just checked the NIV, NASB, AMP, NLT, ASV, NCV, NKJV, YLT, MLB, HCSB, WYC-(2001), AKJ, TNT-(), TNIV, LitV, TMB, and ISV. It was in every one of them. In which version did you not find the verse?

    Incidentally, to help alleviate your apparent confusion about salvation, I did not read that any remotely standard version uses either the word "saved" or "salvation" anywhere in Ac. 8:26-40.

    You might check out Ac. 16:30-31. I believe you might find the answer there to the question of what one must do to be saved.

    I covered one of your questions.

    Someone else can get the others.

    If they can manage to beat the Moderators to the punch.

    Considering this post was effectively "cross-posted."

    From a thread that was shut, just after the similar post, at that.

    Ed
     
    #19 EdSutton, Dec 22, 2008
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 22, 2008
  20. franklinmonroe

    franklinmonroe
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2006
    Messages:
    2,872
    Likes Received:
    3
    Well, EdSutton & Abell here is what I PMed to Baptist4life a couple of days ago after his topic "Closed Thread" got closed --
    Hello Brother B4L,

    I will respond to the four challenges if you wish.

    For example, the first: Who killed Goliath? Well, more recently evidence has been accumulating that "goliath" may not be a proper name of a single individual (of course, the possibility has always existed that there would be more than one Philistine with that name, just as there are many Hebrew indivduals with the same name in the Bible). It may be that "goliath" was a term for an elite warrior (kind of like our Navy 'Seal' or US Army 'Ranger'). Obviously, a solution is that two different "goliath" victories were recorded.

    A recent archeaological find concerning "goliath" may be read here --

    http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1131367063187

    In Christ,
    Frank

    B4L hasn't responded to me, so I didn't send any more.
     
    #20 franklinmonroe, Dec 22, 2008
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 22, 2008
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

Loading...