How Original Is The KJV?

Discussion in 'Bible Versions/Translations' started by Rippon, Oct 13, 2008.

  1. Rippon

    Rippon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    17,404
    Likes Received:
    328
    The King James Bible was not a brand-new, sudden creation.From the way that some speak of it -- the KJV was an independent entity; miraculous in conception.But, those are wrong notions.

    According to some estimates the KJV New Testament is 95% word-for-word William Tyndale's work.But let's reduce that down to 75% for the sake of argument.Were the KJV revisors responsible for 25% new stuff?Nay I say.The KJV team borrowed extensively from what preceded it.We know William Tyndale's (brand-new)translation was appropriated(without credit I might add);but the Geneva,Bishop's Bible,Douai-Rheims and others were gleaned for material that the KJV revisors included in their work.

    Some extremists claim that the Tyndale chain up through the Bishop's Bible were authentic,inspired versions before the advent of the KJV.Perhaps these extremists would say that those prior versions were 80-90% God-breathed -- that the KJV was the first really pure Word of God in English.

    But even though the KJV text remains very close to the English versions of the preceeding 85 years these folks holding to an extreme position on the Anglican Version willm not give any slack to the MV's like NKJ,NASB and NIV. No matter the similiarity to the KJV for large portions of the text the very idea that a non-KJV Bible can also be the Word of God is anathema to them.Why??

    That last paragraph gave too much credit to the KJV standard mentality.Even if a MV differed substantially from the KJV does not negate it from being the Word of God.And by "differed" I am referring to not using similiar wording -- not doctrinally.Any opened-minded person knows that the MV's I referenced above (and many more could be named)would not alter a single doctrine that the KJV teaches -- despite all the booing on the sidelines that my well-tuned ears can now detect.
     
  2. Goldie

    Goldie
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2008
    Messages:
    156
    Likes Received:
    0
    Rippon,

    The saying goes, "the proof of the pudding is in the eating".

    What Bible Version do you read? I trust it isn't the NIV - because they basically call Lucifer, Jesus - here's proof:

    Isaiah 14:12 (KJV):
    How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!

    That's the only time that the word "Lucifer" is used in the entire Bible - the KJV, that is, the other modern day Bible versions don't contain the word - they've been "sanitized" - it's gone, kaput, sayanara.

    Isaiah14:12 (NIV):
    O morning star, son of the dawn! You have been cast down to the earth, you who once laid low the nations!

    So who is actually the MORNING STAR?
    Revelation 22:16 tells us who it is - I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, [and] the bright and morning star.

    And that can be confirmed in 2 Peter 1:19 and Revelation 2:28 as well, for good measure.

    So effectively what the NIV is doing, is calling Jesus a fallen creature and that Jesus and Lucifer are the same. So what people are doing is learning about another Jesus and another Gospel if they hold to an NIV Bible version. And there's plenty more corruptions in the NIV apart from what I just mentioned - they also water down important Bible doctrines, remove entire verses, and so change the meaning of what was intended by God Almighty. I'm glad I won't be in their shoes on judgment day!

    [attacks on English translations snipped]
     
    #2 Goldie, Oct 13, 2008
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 13, 2008
  3. Trotter

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

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2003
    Messages:
    4,815
    Likes Received:
    0
    Lucifer is not a name for the devil. It is, literally, the morning star. People mistakenly attribute it as a implied name for the devil, but they are completely wrong. Try looking it up sometime. Besides, the passage is about someone else. Literal is literal, and putting the devil in that spot is not literal.

    "Sodomite" is no longer part of everyday speech. Why would I want to use it, other than to confuse people? Yes, "male prostitute" is not as offensive, but most other ways of putting it are very offensive. I could rattle off a dozen ways to put it, but they would not fly in the Bible.

    As for the others, you are venturing into forbidden waters here. Try reading the rules for posting in this section and then revamping your post.

    Same old song and dance, using the same old "sources." Different =/= wrong. If every Bible read just like the KJV, all would be a KJV and most people would not be able to understand it.
     
  4. Goldie

    Goldie
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2008
    Messages:
    156
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hey Trotter, surely you CAN'T BE SERIOUS??? I take it you subscribe to the NIV Bible then? So then you're saying that Revelation 22:16, Revelation 2:28 and 2 Peter 1:19 are all LYING? Wow!! Take some time to look those up, and if it says who they say it is - then surely there's a contradiction, not so?

    Okay, so Lucifer wasn't the name of Satan before he led a revolt in heaven against God and took a third of the angels with him. And nor did he say. "I will be like the most High" as stated in Isaiah 14:14 either. Go figure.

    And no, Lucifer doesn't mean "light bearer", that's why the Bible doesn't call him an "angel of light" either. ;-) I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven - Luke 10:18.

    If the KJV commentary defines, literally, that lucifer means day star and that the definition of lucifer found in the dictionary means morning star as well as the devil etc. can't the term lucifer and morning star be used interchangably without it being in error? Think about it.

    Why do you think Alice Bailey a known New Ager initially called her publishing company "Lucifer Trust" and then changed it to "Lucis Trust"??? New Agers are devil worshippers, enuf said?? No? Oh but I guess they're worshipping someone else, cos Lucifer means someone else, doesn't it?

    And I guess Helena Blavatsky a New Ager, was wrong as well (oh shiver me timbers!) because she published a journal, issued in 1887 which was titled, "Lucifer". Hey? Say what??? Oh, but also meant someone else.

    They sure like that name, don't they? I wonder why??? Any guesses??

    Yeah, you're absolutely right, it is the same old song and dance, because the devil hasn't changed his tune since the Garden of Eden, just a pity you can't see it, eh? No matter how much evidence and Biblical truth is presented.

    Lucifer is the Devil, Satan, that Old Serpent, the Dragon.

    Isaiah 14:4-32:

    14:4 That thou shalt take up this proverb against the king of Babylon, and say, How hath the oppressor ceased! the golden city ceased!

    14:5 The LORD hath broken the staff of the wicked, [and] the sceptre of the rulers.

    14:6 He who smote the people in wrath with a continual stroke, he that ruled the nations in anger, is persecuted, [and] none hindereth.

    14:7 The whole earth is at rest, [and] is quiet: they break forth into singing.

    14:8 Yea, the fir trees rejoice at thee, [and] the cedars of Lebanon, [saying], Since thou art laid down, no feller is come up against us.

    14:9 Hell from beneath is moved for thee to meet [thee] at thy coming: it stirreth up the dead for thee, [even] all the chief ones of the earth; it hath raised up from their thrones all the kings of the nations.

    14:10 All they shall speak and say unto thee, Art thou also become weak as we? art thou become like unto us?

    14:11 Thy pomp is brought down to the grave, [and] the noise of thy viols: the worm is spread under thee, and the worms cover thee.

    14:12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! [how] art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!

    14:13 For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north:

    14:14 I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High.

    14:15 Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit.

    14:16 They that see thee shall narrowly look upon thee, [and] consider thee, [saying, Is] this the man that made the earth to tremble, that did shake kingdoms;
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    So I guess the Bible isn't speaking about the Beast who is possessed by the Devil, Lucifer, Satan in the last days and tries to destroy Israel, because the Bible doesn't say that in the end times there'll be a system which will rule, called "Mystery Babylon", hence the "King of Babylon" which isn't mentioned in verse 4 above ;-) who the Book of Revelation calls the Beast who will be possessed by the Devil, aka Lucifer, the Devil, the Serpent, the Dragon. Aaaaaw shucks! ;-) Later they'll be telling us there is no devil because Lucifer means someone else. Now I've come across cartoons of the devil depicted as a nice guy, and that it's been stated that he doesn't exist, but I've never heard this one before - that Lucifer means someone else! Wow! What deception! Gulp!

    Play it again Sam. NOT!

    The truth is this : Isaiah 14 speaks of the Beast's and the devil's demise - the Beast will be turfed into the Lake of Fire, and the devil (Lucifer) will be tossed into the bottomless pit, whereafter he'll be released after a 1000 years (millennium) to once again deceive the nations, thereafter, he'll be summarily be thrown into the Lake of Fire to join the rest of the rebels who go against God and His Word. The truth is also this : Those professing to hold a view other to that proclaimed throughout the Bible will join their father the devil, otherwise known as Lucifer.
     
    #4 Goldie, Oct 13, 2008
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 13, 2008
  5. Jim1999

    Jim1999
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/Jim1999.jpg>

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2002
    Messages:
    15,460
    Likes Received:
    0
    Lucifer was the correct word for the name of Satan in 1611 English. It also referred to the morning star poetically...

    Do remember, the KJV was essentially Anglican when first published and English definitions were followed. Most other churches preferred the Geneva Bible.

    Cheers,

    Jim
     
  6. annsni

    annsni
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    May 30, 2006
    Messages:
    20,158
    Likes Received:
    368
    Goldie - I'd challenge you to understand the truth of the term "Lucifer" and it's use in the Bible versions we have today. Here are some resources for you:

    http://www.kjv-only.com/isa14_12.html
    http://www.kjvonly.org/doug/kutilek_notes_on_lucifer.htm

    If you truly have a KJV1611, which I highly doubt, you would see the |o day starre| in the margin as an alternate reading. However, in the updated KJVs, they took out the translators notes and therefore have lost much of what was meant to be there.

    One of the translators of the NIV wrote a book called NIV Accuracy Defined and here's what he had to say about the passage in Isaiah:

    "The Hebrew for "morning star" was translated "Lucifer" in the Latin Vulgate, and the KJV then borrowed Lucifer (from the Latin) in it's rendering. Although "morning star" is the correct rendering, scholars have debated who is meant by the words (whether the king of Babylon or Satan or both). Christ, of course, is the true Morning Star. Numbers 24:17, 1 Peter 1:19, Revelation 22:16."

    I don't see anything sinister here - just truth - which is what the KJV translators themselves did but that truth was removed by the subsequent KJ versions.
     
  7. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    29,402
    Likes Received:
    12
    I truly hate "cut and paste" jobs that don't have real interaction/discussion but spew someone elses trash.

    Calling my Bible "corrupt" will get Goldie (and anyone else attacking good translations of God's Word) suspended from posting here.

    This is a warning. DISCUSS, don't cut and paste nonsense. And attack words like "corrupt" are not allowed.

    Try me. :(
     
  8. ray Marshall

    ray Marshall
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2007
    Messages:
    570
    Likes Received:
    0
    Speaking about the origional. GOD has said that he will preserve his word. I don't think that if there is the origional, we may not know it to be origional if it hit us in the face. Where is the origional, if it so to be. Several thousan years old yet GOD has given us his word and as likely as any, the King James 1611 has been around sence King James allowed it to be written in English out of the Hebrew and Greek.
     
  9. franklinmonroe

    franklinmonroe
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2006
    Messages:
    2,872
    Likes Received:
    3
    Not exactly; "lucifer" (not capitalized) is also found in the Latin version at 2 Peter 1:19 --
    et habemus firmiorem propheticum sermonem cui bene facitis adtendentes quasi lucernae lucenti in caliginoso loco donec dies inlucescat et lucifer oriatur in cordibus vestris​
    This Latin word lucifer ("day star" in KJV English) can be interpreted as a referrence to Jesus Christ the Son of God --
    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​
    However, the KJV does not capitalize these words "day star". The KJV does capitalize names of deity; "Rock", "Lamb", and "Word" for example. To be fair, the NIV does NOT capitalize the words "morning star" in Isaiah 14:12 (only partially shown in post #2), but does capitalize the them in Revelation 22:16 (NIV)--
    I, Jesus, have sent my angel to give you this testimony for the churches. I am the Root and the Offspring of David, and the bright Morning Star.​
    It is obvious that the NIV is NOT establishing that the two descriptions are the same thing.
     
    #9 franklinmonroe, Oct 13, 2008
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 13, 2008
  10. ktn4eg

    ktn4eg
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2004
    Messages:
    3,517
    Likes Received:
    1
    Let me preface this by noting that I have nothing against the use of the KJV as we now have it.

    If I did, why then would I choose to quote from it in my signature at the bottom of all of my posts?

    I've done extensive research (which has been subseqently printed in tract form [PM me if you want more info on how to get this tract.]) on the issue of whether or not the words "baptism" and "baptize" as they appear in the KJV are accurate renditions of those words.

    I read from the KJV as we now have it on a daily basis, and most of my Bible memorization comes from the KJV as we have it today.

    OTOH, I do not maintain that the KJV as we have it today is neither infallible nor 100% without error.

    Here is a question and its logical conclusions that I've asked of several advocates of the "extreme" KJVO advocates (i.e., those that claim that the AV 1611 is the ONLY Word of God) that none of them has ever completely answered with any degree of satisfaction:

    I will quote from the KJV as we have it today Romans 10:17 --

    "So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God." [bolding mine]

    Now,

    (1) If what Romans 10:17 is by itself an accurate and completely true statement, and,

    (2) Only the AV 1611 KJV is the only accurate and completely true Word of God,

    Then, please tell me by what written "Word of God" did saving faith come for those who died prior to 1611?

    Either no one was truly saved prior to 1611, or there must have been some "Word of God" prior to 1611 by which saving faith came.

    If there was indeed some "Word of God" prior to 1611, why did God Himself all the sudden determine that this "Word of God" was somehow lacking to the extent that He should now consider it necessary to inspire a new "Word of God" so that now at least the English-reading people of that day would now have THE inspired, infallible "Word of God" to hear, and thus be the recipients of saving faith?

    Either the was a "Word of God" prior to 1611 whereby its readers were the recipients of saving faith, or there wasn't!

    I ask this question and its conclusions in all sincerity.

    I am waiting to receive a complete "spin-free" answer from any KJVO advocate to this question and its conclusions.
     
  11. franklinmonroe

    franklinmonroe
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2006
    Messages:
    2,872
    Likes Received:
    3
    Since Satan is a deceiver, did it ever occur to you that perhaps Satan deceives his followers about his true personal name?
     
  12. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,573
    Likes Received:
    10
    Sorry, Goldie, but we gotta go "BUUZZZ!" here.

    There's a marginal note in the AV1611 for "Lucifer" in Is. 14:12 which reads, "Or, O day starre".

    We have explained ad-nauseum here about the various uses of 'morning star' in scripture, thus discrediting the KJVO complaint completely. How about "when the MORNING STARS sang together"(Job 38:7) And how about when JESUS sez He will give him(the believer) the MORNING STAR?(rEV. 2:28) He's not referring to Himself here.

    Goldie, you've most likely picked up that incorrect info from one of the several pro-KJVO worx out there now, stuff by Ruckman, Riplinger, Grady, Ray, Fuller, etc. or their 'founding father', SEVENTH DAY ADVENTIST official Dr. Ben Wilkinson. NONE of those dudes/dudettes is very credible. I hope you do a little research into the VERACITY of their claims before you believe any of them yourself.

    MEANWHILE, BACK AT THE RANCH.................

    It appears the KJV copied some earlier versions that had "Lucifer" in this verse, so it's not a very original reading. But the reading 'morning star' or 'day star' in later versions isn't at all incorrect.
     
  13. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    29,402
    Likes Received:
    12
    God gave us His exact, precise words in Hebrew and Greek and preserved them for all generations. We still have them today. Not in one nicely wrapped book, but in the 5500 manuscripts and codices. Not a word lost, but some text have man-made errors and it takes great effort to discern the exact words.

    God did not re-breath out a NEW message in 1611 to 45 Anglican baby-baptizers (whose salvation is a matter of question). He breathed it out once-for-all-time, praise His Name. To hold to a NEW inspiration in 1611, that God gave His exact words to man, is utter heresy.
     
  14. DHK

    DHK
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2000
    Messages:
    37,982
    Likes Received:
    134
    Did he allow it to be written in Punjabi too? How about in Maori, or Cree?
    Was King James the King of all the world? A little far-fetched don't you think?
     
  15. Askjo

    Askjo
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2003
    Messages:
    3,736
    Likes Received:
    0
    Incorrect! "Star" on Isaiah 14:12 was not there in Hebrew text. Star in Hebrew is Kokav. Morning star is an interpretation and not a translation. Morning star is a false translation.
     
  16. franklinmonroe

    franklinmonroe
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2006
    Messages:
    2,872
    Likes Received:
    3
    "Serpent" is mostly a negative metaphor in the Bible. The Apostle John under inspiration describes Satan as a "serpent" (Revelation 21:9, KJV) --
    And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.​
    But there is at least one positive use of a "serpent"; the Gospel of John records in Jesus own words that the image of the brass "serpent" (see Numbers 21) also represents the Savior (John 3:14-15, KJV) --
    And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up:
    That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.​
    _______________________

    Another example of symbolism shared by Christ and Satan is the use of "lion"; for example, Jesus is the "Lion" in Revelation 5:5 (KJV) --
    And one of the elders saith unto me, Weep not: behold, the Lion of the tribe of Juda, the Root of David, hath prevailed to open the book, and to loose the seven seals thereof.​
    But the Apostle Peter writes that "the devil" is also as a lion in 1 Peter 5:8 (KJV) --
    Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour​
     
    #16 franklinmonroe, Oct 13, 2008
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 13, 2008
  17. Askjo

    Askjo
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2003
    Messages:
    3,736
    Likes Received:
    0
    I disagree with you. Lucifer means "light bearer." Lux in Latin means to "shine" or "light." Ferre in Latin means to carry or bear. Halal means to "shine." Lucifer is a proper translation for a Hebrew word.

    "Star" on Isaiah 14:12 was not there in Hebrew text. Star in Hebrew is Kokav. Morning star is a false translation.
     
    #17 Askjo, Oct 13, 2008
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 13, 2008
  18. franklinmonroe

    franklinmonroe
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2006
    Messages:
    2,872
    Likes Received:
    3
    Does this mean that the KJV is incorrect for having "day star" in 2 Peter 1:19? The Greek word here is phosphoros (Strong's #5459 meaning: light bringing); the primary Greek word for "star" is aster (Strong's #792). Is "day star" here an interpretation and not a proper translation? By your own logic, wouldn't "day star" be a false translation in 2 Peter 1:19?
     
    #18 franklinmonroe, Oct 13, 2008
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 13, 2008
  19. annsni

    annsni
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    May 30, 2006
    Messages:
    20,158
    Likes Received:
    368
    "morning star" is not two words in Hebrew. It's one term. "heylel" is the term that is translated to "day starre" in the King James - or Lucifer. Here is some more information from one of the links I listed:

    "The Hebrew word translated as "Lucifer" in Isaiah 14:12 in the KJV is heylel (hay-lale', Strong's #1966), and literally means "shining one", "morning star", "light bearer", etc. Isaiah 14:12 is the only place in scripture where this Hebrew word appears.

    The use of "Lucifer" is ancient, in Latin where it was the term to refer to the planet Venus when it appeared as a star in the morning. Although some early Christian Latin writings refer to "Lucifer", it was the Latin Vulgate that is most responsible for its widespread use. The Vulgate was produced by Jerome (c. 347-420) by translating available Greek and Hebrew manuscripts into Latin. It was started in approximately 382 A.D. and was completed in approximately 405 A.D. It was the scriptures used by the Catholic Church for nearly 1000 years. Here's what the Vulgate says (note the lower case):

    Isaiah 14:12 (Latin Vulgate) "quomodo cecidisti de caelo lucifer qui mane oriebaris corruisti in terram qui vulnerabas gentes"

    Jerome understood the meaning of the Hebrew word heylel, and translated it into "lucifer", the Latin word meaning "light bearer" (from the Latin lux "light" and ferre "to bear or bring"). "lucifer", at the time of the Vulgate and even at the time of the KJV translation, meant "morning star" or "day star" in reference to Venus. Jerome (and some others before him) thought the passage was referring to Satan in addition to the king of Babylon, and because of this the use the word "lucifer" made the transition from a term referring to Venus to also refer to Satan. In other words, it was because of some peoples' interpretation of the passage that "Lucifer", the "morning star", began to be thought of as referring to Satan in addition to its existing meaning. Early church fathers believed that "Lucifer" is not a formal name of the devil, but instead denotes only the state from which he has fallen. Thus, depending on context, "lucifer" could refer to various things, such as Venus, Satan, Jesus, an angel, a pagan deity, the morning - basically anything that "bears light". There was a fourth century bishop named "Lucifer". "Lucifer" in Dutch means "match" in English, and even appears as such in some English dictionaries. Jerome didn't use "lucifer" to refer only to Satan, and this can be shown by of how Jerome used "lucifer" elsewhere in the Vulgate. Although "Lucifer" only occurs once in the KJV, it occurs multiple times in the Vulgate..."


    from http://www.kjv-only.com/isa14_12.html
     
  20. franklinmonroe

    franklinmonroe
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2006
    Messages:
    2,872
    Likes Received:
    3
    Yes, the Latin word lucifer is a proper translation... for a Latin Bible! But it is not a proper translation for an English Bible. Actually, this is a clear case where the KJV didn't translate the Hebrew word, nor transliterate the Hebrew word, but inserted a Latin word. Moreover, the AV has capitalized the word "lucifer" to make it a proper noun; this is an interpretation, not strictly demanded by the text.
     
    #20 franklinmonroe, Oct 13, 2008
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 13, 2008

Share This Page

Loading...