Isaiah 14:12

Synonyms are defined by the dictionaries, and the dictionaries just reflect the then current meanings of the words available.
Therefore if there had existed any dictionary for the Hebrew at the time of Isaiah, it would have not included any word like Day Star or Morning Star, because the word Helel didn't contain any meaning of Kokav or kokaviim, and it is simply the noun form of Halal.
In the context, Isaiah didn't mean the Helel denoting any star, nor he praised the Satan as a kind of a star. He might have meant the Shining One or Shining Angel. In such a meaning Lucifer is quite correct.

 

Lancelot didn't survive until 1672 since he died in 1626, and the most powerful statement supporting the connection between Lucifer and Morning Star may be found in 1672 KJV as per your information, which I have not checked so far. However, as I said, we do not know how they connected such meanings, or why they brought such linkage. If they were wrong, they were wrong, and we have to return to the original meaning of the word. This is not too difficult to discern, because we know the original meaning of the word, and we know the problem with confusion in case we call both Satan and Jesus Morning Stars.
Do you find Revelation 22:16 of 1672 KJV states the Day Star for Jesus Christ?
Even KJV 1611 is wrong, we must return to the original meaning of the word.

KJV is not flawless, not inerrant. When I translated NT and Genesis, I have found few problems with KJV, but when I translated after Exodus, suddenly I started to disagree with KJV in many verses!

The reason why I don't bring those problems of KJV here is because all the debate on this forum is rather focussed on the defense of Modern Versions, whose head is Vatican Text preserved by RCC, the center of all the paganism, idolatry and goddess worship, human theology.

As you pointed out in your next post, the exact meaning of Helel may be Shining One, then it is OK with Shining One. Lucifer had the same meaning as the Shining One, and it is only a matter of language environment whether a version use the word Lucifer or Shining One.

KJV translators, when they put the notes related to daystar, may not have foreseen any problem with the morning stars to be flourished in the future modern versions.
Cassel's 1968 doesn't mean anything in this discussion because it just refelcted the existing renderings.

In any case, it is absolutely causing the confusion by the groundless rendering if we call both Satan and Jesus Christ " morning stars"

 

Shining One is absolutely OK. Lucifer can be OK as long as the readers understand the Latin background of it. I don't trust JP Green and MKJV in many verses. MKJV is based on BHS, which was compiled and edited by Gerhardt Kittel, who was imprisoned for War Crimes at Nuremberg Tribunal.
Helel has no meaning of Star.

 

The next 4 words " son of the dawn" make the word mean morning star or day star by context. Or will you deny the context since it corrects you?

 

Who is your morning star? Is Satan your morning star?

 

FTR, This posting of this reply is occasioned by an 'attack' in another thread. I had previously composed the reply, but held off in posting it until now.

Glad to see that "Shining One" and/or "Lightbearer" get your stamp of approval.

No doubt, you are referring to yourself, as an "Hebrew specialist", I would assume. After all, you are the ONLY individual I have ever run across who has been brazen enough to suggest, ot at least imply, that literally hundreds of translators of the Hebrew in Bible versions didn't really "get it" (although you, apparently are effectively claiming to be that one individual to have recognized their collective oversight, since in fact, apparently ONLY you did "get it.") including the hundreds of Hebrew translators all the way from William Tyndale, Miles Coverdale, and John Rogers, through the latest translators of this present time. FTR, this was in response to a post I wrote, where I suggested that while your singular treatment of one particular passage might, in fact, be correct, the simple fact that I had personally checked out more than 40 English versions over 6 1/4 Centuries (representing several hundred Hebrew translators), to find that each and every one of them was saying the same thing, which was not what Eliyahu was saying about this verse, was enough to cause me to stick with the greater number, here, absent some additional evidence to back up the position taken by Eliyahu.

The response I received, was effectively that I did not understand enough about Hebrew to "get it" which was not exactly any "new revelation" considering I had already posted that I did not understand the first thing about the Hebrew language, thus was 'forced' to rely on other of reputable report, in this. Were this response directed at me alone, with no more said, I would never have posted this, as I am doing now.

However, this seems to be a continuing pattern, continuing to the present time, and showing few signs of stopping any time, soon. So -

"Enough with the 'language arrogance', already!!"

This arrogance you are displaying is really starting to become very tiresome. These are merely some of the quotes and accusations by you directed at others, in their supposed lack of understanding and comprehending of the Hebrew and Greek languages, since the first of this year. (I'll toss in a couple of unproven assertions, opinions, and erroneous statements, as well, just for good measure.) {Incidentally, let me note that you do appear to be fairly accomplished at the usage of the 'hack and glue' method, by contrast. And I would hope you will not mind as Language Cop now begins to note a few of your own misuses with the dreaded "[sic]" designation (Do you even have the first clue as to what "[sic]" actually means??). And although I have announced in the past, that I am generally willing to give you a "pass", that was at that time, and for this post, I rather choose to award you the same freedom you appear willing to allow others, in this general vein.}

I believe I can find some others, with ONLY a little additional effort, but I suggest these should suffice to establish the pattern.

These comments are nothing more than ONLY your own opinions or conclusions, for to my recollection, exactly three other posters (apart from you) have said anything about their own Biblical language skills, be they real or imagined. One said he or she did in fact, read Greek, after an insinuation from you that they did not; the second announced they had some skills in both Greek and Hebrew, with better Hebrew skills: and I was the third, with my own 'up front' declarations that I made no claims to being any scholar, and also that I did not have any knowledge of Hebrew.

I do respect and appreciate the fact that you are involved in translating the Bible into the Korean language. And in no manner, do I, nor have I ever degraded such efforts, but rather I fully support all such efforts to get the written Word into as many hands and languages as possible. However, that fact alone does not afford any carte blanche for putting down some other, IMO, especially when you have shown what I consider to be a slightly less adeptness in the Greek language, than one might expect.

I shall mention four points which very blatantly 'jump out', and which I suggest serve to undermine your own claims, here.

The first is the 'tree of life'/'book of life' bit in Rev. 22:19, where you suggested that, despite the absence of virtually any support for the reading of book of life, the question still needed further study. One does not have to be a Greek scholar to recognize a difference between 'xulon' and 'biblos', I suggest.

The second, which happens to be closely related, is your ex cathedra proclamation that the TR is the best compilation of the Greek NT;

the third is that of your own understanding of what exactly is "TC" and why it is important, despite the fact that you are buying, sight unseen, the results of many years of textual criticism by others, by your own standard;

and the fourth - last but not least, is your attempted argument over "strain at" vs. "strain out" in appealing to English usage (there is no question as to any variants in the Greek word here, to my knowledge), despite the fact that these two English phrases require entirely unrelated usages of "strain" for the meaning. Again, there are several other points I could bring up, but I shall belabor this no longer.

I will close with saying this about the last one. It did not require Language Cop to quickly notice a decided relationship between "diulizO" (Gk.); dilutus (Lat.); dis+leure (Indo-European roots); through the English word 'dilute' as having to do with liquid and the filtering and/or 'thinning out' of such. There is absolutely nothing to even remotely suggest some exaggerated effort of physical straining or that of someone 'choking' in any of these words.

Enough said, for now.

Ed

 

Someone who would attempt to be like the most High could also ascribe to themselves titles that belong to God.

I would think that you would be aware of the reference to "morning stars" [plural] at Job 38:7. Many Bible scholars consider "morning stars" at Job 38:7 to be used of angels. Do you think that anyone associates that reference with the Lord Jesus Christ?

The evidence from the 1300's Wycliffe's and from the 1500's and 1600's is clear concerning how "lucifer" was used and understood in that day. Is it being implied that Martin Luther, the early English translators with their notes stating the meaning of Lucifer, and even the KJV translators with their marginal note were suggesting that the person at Isaiah 14:12 was the Lord Jesus Christ? It would seem to be ridiculous to suggest that anyone would confuse the person at Isaiah 14:12 with the Lord Jesus Christ. You have provided no evidence that proves or even suggests that the KJV translators used the rendering "Lucifer" at Isaiah 14:12 any differently than the pre-1611 English Bibles. With such clear statements in the Matthew's and Geneva Bibles, the KJV translators would have needed to indicate it clearly if they were using the rendering differently. Instead, they indicated that they used it in the same way with their marginal note "day star" which meant the same thing as "morning star."

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."

 

Oh the true nature of the KJVO comes out !!!!! All you can do is insult, belittle, taunt and basically make a fool of yourself.

Isaiah 14:12 is a taunt to the King. No reference to Satan there.

 

And what kind of nature do you have?

 

I won't present a lengthy explanation to comment on yours.

1. Job 38:7 - Apparently you can see the Kokebei in the sentence, Stars in Hebrew. The only argument you can present may be that KJV should have rendered them into Stars of Morning in JOB.
This is not a word for any spiritual beings but a plural word for any actual stars or any actual constellations. I don't think this will be confused with the title of our Lord Jesus. Sun of righteousness won't be confused with the Sun.

On the other hand, Isaiah 14:12 states the spiritual being. Even the king of Babylon cannot be an actual star.

2. Equation of Lucifer with Day Star by Pre-KJV. They might have been wrong. Even KJV translators might have been wrong if they thought Lucifer and morning-star were the same words, and if they stated such equation in the footnotes. But the word Lucifer is a proper word and correct rendering for Helel, meaning Light-carrier.

3. The word Helel doesn't contain any meaning of star. There is no word Kokab. This is very important when one translate the Bible. Even " morning" is not contained in the word " Helel" but many translators may have reflected the next words " son of the morning ( Dawn) " Even if Helel may try to sit above the stars of God, it doesn't mean that it is included in the stars.

As I said, in the modern term, the Shining One may be the best translation, which doesn't contain "star", otherwise the transliteration as Helel is an alternative too.

 

:tonofbricks: Well, you caught me in one. But I am at least man enough to own up to it. I let him get under my skin and lost my temper.

 

It seems to be the Greek LXX rendering and the Latin Vulgate rendering at Isaiah 14:12 that influences translators to use either one of the synonyms "lucifer" or "morning star."



The word "lucifer" is the rendering of the Hebrew Helel at this verse according to the Latin Vulgate. The Barnhart Dictionary of Etymology affirmed that this word was "borrowed from Latin lucifer the morning star" (p. 613). Gleason Archer noted: "The title Helel, which KJV (following the Latin Vulgate) translates 'Lucifer,' is rendered Hesphoros in the Septuagint (meaning 'Dawn-bringer' and referring to the morning star)" (Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties, p. 268). This LXX rendering was said to be the common Greek name for Venus as the morning star. Henry Thiessen affirmed that "this term [Lucifer] means the morning star" (Lectures in Systematic Theology, p. 202). At Isaiah 14:12, John Wesley gave this note: "Lucifer--which properly is a bright star that ushers in the morning" (Explanatory Notes upon the O. T., III, p. 1985). William Wilson pointed out that the meaning of the Hebrew word according to the Septuagint and Vulgate was "brilliant star, i.e. Lucifer, the morning star" (O. T. Word Studies, p. 261). The International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia has at its entry for Lucifer the following: “the morning star, an epithet of the planet Venus” (p. 1934). David Daiches maintained that Lucifer “is the name of the morning star” (KJV, p. 204). John Brown wrote that “the king of Babylon is called Lucifer, or the morning-star, because his glory and power far surpassed those of his fellow-sovereigns (Dictionary of the Bible, p. 483).

 

I post the response to the post in other thread here because I want to integrate the same issues in one thread.

Before I answer the main issues on so-called Language Arrogance, which you brought to me, I would comment on your so-called language cop mission. I already mentioned to you, that you may point out the problems with my post if you find anyone any time. In the meantime, you have been quiet, but now you start to find faults with them. I often noticed many grammatical errors by other posters but never saw you are doing your missions for them. Even in your posts I have noticed some minor errors like mistyping or misspelling (though they are not grammar problems). I hope you are not biased against KJV supporters.
Once you explained me about sic, but isn’t that your Language Arrogance?

This is the impasse that I have encountered on this board, which makes it very difficult for me to continue posting here.
The point is that I am so arrogant as to ignore many other great believers during the past 6 1/2 centuries since Wycliffe. But I have maintained the very simple belief. What is wrong is wrong, even if it is written by many great believers. I do prefer KJV to any other versions, but find it wrong in Mark 2:26. I don’t mind objecting to 7 billions of people if they go wrong, against God. This may sound another arrogance, but it is my way and belief.
I hope some day will come when you may be surprised if you know who I am and what I am doing. This may sound like another arrogance again. But I have had many testimonies in my life, and discovered a huge Gold Mine in the spiritual world at the time of Harvest. The translation is only a part of it, and it should be proven by my actual life. That’s why I said “the impasse” until the time when I can prove it.
I know I cannot convince the people of my translation without the real testimony enough to support it and therefore I am working on both sides and do not hurry up the translation very much.
Once I questioned on this board, “ Can you be sure that any great Believers would not visit this board and suggest the Biblical discernments different from all the other great translators before” Is it too much arrogant to such ambition? I would understand such recognition until I can prove it. This is why I feel I am nearing the end of my posting here.
I do understand your pointing my “ Language Arrogance”

Another aspect of the Language Arrogance is this:
Many of the posters, I understand, do have some background about the Biblical languages like Greek or Hebrew, but in my observation, they are half-skilled in them, but they criticize KJV mostly. In my view, they are like grade 1 students criticizing what University students did, what KJV scholars did. That’s why they are just doing the “Copy and Glue” work here. I showed you my own interpretation many times, and then you called it “ Language Arrogance”
If I brought the articles of others, then you would have said my information is “ copy and glue work”
To which should I dance? Judging KJV or even any other translation by half-skilled linguists can lead the people in danger.

I already pointed out the Greek practice in Acts 7:59, and Hebrew practice in Eze 45:21.
In any case, I may be guilty until I can prove the guidance by the Lord.

I may post one or two more here, which may include the summary of the arguments.
Shortly speaking,
1) Re 22:16 -
As you may know, the texts about Rev are much less organized and analyzed than any other books of the Bible, and therefore we don’t know very much about which manuscripts support the ”book”, which support “ tree”,.
KJV can be wrong due to the scarcity of the supporters here. I don’t know the exact numbers of the supporters for KJV. But I do find some good reasons for KJV statement:
His portion or part may be written in the book of life, and the previous sentence talk about the book too. In the next sentence there is the word for gegrammenon ( written) too. After trusting KJV have been correct in many other cases, though I sometimes do disagree with it, I would still stay with KJV on this verse until I find any clear evidence against it.

2) strain at:
I already mentioned this was discussed enough on this board years ago. This was not incorrect with a view to the then current grammar of Elizabethan English.

 

Part 1.

I will post the response in multiple posts, due to their length, in response to this post of Eliyahu - Ed

Actually, I have regularly passed over language variations, in mostly not using the designation of "[sic]" than I might for some in a similar position, simply because I did not believe English to be your native language. Or did I misunderstand this? I normally also extend the same courtesy to posters Mexdeaf and Askjo, for the same reason, even when responding to their posts. (Why do you even consider my responses to be 'personal'? I do not get 'personal' with anyone, by any stretch, until there have been multiple 'personal' responses' from someone and directed at another, and when such is normally unwarranted, IMO.) And the primary reason, I seldom go on any "language cop mission" [sic], as you put it, where most other posters are concerned, is simply because I am not quoting them. When I do quote other posters, I will attempt to properly note the variances. Thus my "mission", as you put it, is generally to merely denote variances, such as archaic usage, incorrect grammar, punctuation, spelling, etc., by the use of the [sic] notation.

This is not something that has arisen with me, by any stretch, but has been around for at least a century and a half, and is used to denote a variance, or as I summed it up the meaning, "as written", and is regularly used in this manner in quoted material. This is especially true for copyrighted material. (BTW, each and every post on the Baptist Board is copyrighted material.)

Webster's Dictionary definition of "sic": (FTR, this is my 'hard copy' definition.)

(My emphases, above) This is the usual manner in which I use this notation, although I occasionally note my own use of some unusual variant, in this manner, as well.

In my own case, not that I am making any particular defense of my posting(s), I can assure you that my errors are not often that of any actual 'spelling', but are predominately two-fold - specifically first, that of typing, as I never was taught how to type, having reached what small level of ability I have by trial and error. In addition, I suffer from the two physical problems of Arthritis and Peripheral Diabetic Neuropathy, which leads to my not striking keys, properly, hence leading to errors. The second is simply my failure to notice these errors (I do attempt to 'proof' every post before entering, for the very reason that if I did not, I would probably be noted to have at least two errors for each and every line in the post, very notably the use of the words "and" and "the", which would often appear as 'nad' or 'adn' and 'teh' [sic] were I not to 'proof' before posting). Unfortunately, my overlooking my own miscues still leads to the appearance of the many typos, in my own posts.

But you are correct, in that 'typos' are not "grammatical errors", as you have just noted. Once again, refer to the definition of [sic] effectively meaning "as written" and which meaning is not some sort of put-down. However, this designation is unable to distinguish among the natures of any variants.

[End of part 1]

 

Part 2.

I happen to be very biased concerning the KJV. In several ways.

Probably that is why I have said a genuine KJ-1967 Edition is one of the two Bibles I prefer and use, on a regular basis, along with a genuine NKJ-1988 edition. FTR, I have noted and/or explained why these are the versions I prefer several times, including more than once on threads where you are or were posting.

Have you actually read any of the posts I have written about this? :BangHead:

Thus, I would say that I am definitely not biased against against "KJV supporters" being as "I are [sic] one of them!" Out of curiosity, is the KJV you are packing around a "genuine" KJV? I'll give you a hint. If it is not an 'Oxford' or 'Cambridge' Bible, it is not the genuine article, even were one to find more typos in that than in some American or any other printing, in any other country.

But I do happen to be biased, if you will, against the contradictions and 'double-speak' I so often see that often comes from the KJVO position. Let it be said that position is not even close to being the same thing as preferring (any particular) KJV edition.

If this is my alleged 'language arrogance' (Out of curiosity, why did you capitalize this but not the proper noun and adjective in the title of Language Cop??), then it is also the same arrogance of Webster's Dictionary in giving the meaning, and that of multiple hundreds of writers, when quoting another, in copyrighted material, I'd say.

Perhaps the "impasse" you have encountered is more along the lines that the majority of posters are simply unwilling to accept any of these 'ex cathedra' proclamations, and are challenging them, when offered.

BTW, I can assure you that I have never attempted to cause anyone to leave, nor even suggested such.

I have previously posted this, re. Mk. 2:26. I guess I have to repeat it. [Sigh!]

I believe you previously stated it this way.

In this case at least, yes, you should follow what others have said, including the explanatory notes in the Geneva Bible as cited by Logos1560. The one who is "wrong" here, is Eliyahu, in his own understanding, for I Sam. 21 does not read in the manner to which you are ascribing it. None of those you cited is "wrong" from Jesus through the translators, nor did any of them misunderstand what is being said here.

In fact, the phrase "High Priest" does not even occur a single time in I Sam., at least in any of the 8 or so standard versions I checked. Not once! ("Thumbs up" to Bible gateway, here!) What is said, not only in I Sam. but elsewhere, is that two named Ahimelech [the father and the grandson, (BTW, all but one of the 20 English versions found on Bible gateway spell this name as Ahimelech or Achimelech, with only the TNIV spelling this as 'Ahimelek' as you have. I do find your this citing of this spelling as strange indeed, for one who is effectively "going out of their way" to argue for and 'support' the KJV, elsewhere, except when, it seems, it doesn't seem to support your own "private interpretation" that you have offered.)] and the son, Abiathar were all priests, a not unusual occurrence. Jesus is the one who stated (and the writer of Mark recorded, under the direction of the Holy Spirit) that Abiathar was the "High Priest" when David entered the temple, in the time of I Sam. 21. There is no real contradiction (or mistranslation) here, except for this one that has somehow been conjured up by Eliyahu. So yes, I would offer that, IMO, to argue with the Holy Spirit who authored the Gospel of Mark, and Jesus who made the statement there recorded is extremely arrogant!!!!!!!

End of Part 2.

 

Part 3.

I do not intend to sound either crass or mean-spirited here, but I frankly do not especially care who you are, or may happen to be, from the days of Polycarp and Irenaeus through such as Wycliffe and Tyndale, Luther and Calvin, through through C. H. Spurgeon, John N. Darby, "Mister Moody" through whether you are Dr. Billy Graham or Dr. David Yonggi Cho, or the best of all the above rolled into one.

I suggest that 'whom you may happen to be' is entirely irrelevant to the questions that have been raised here. The issue is about "not handling the (written) Word of God deceitfully" (II Cor. 4:2 - NKJV), which incidentally, I do not think you are attempting to do, or at least which I would hope to be the case, or "adulterating the word of God" as the NASB renders this. I am simply not convinced that some of your emendations do not fit this second description, as I believe you are allowing your own "interpretation" of one or more Scriptures, even when I would fully agree with your interpretation of said verse(s), to interfere with with the proper "translation" of other verses of Scripture. I believe such practice to be very dangerous ground on which to travel, and in fact, this practice (via the commentary notes in the GEN) was one of the main reasons cited for the having the new translation known as the KJV, in the first place.

Well, I would say that "The proof is in the pudding!" when it comes to Bible translations, without intending to sound 'flip' here.

By no means would I ever suggest that one should not attempt to attain the very best possible translation, should this be the undertaking!! And I certainly would not be so presumptuous as to assume that some other "great believer" as you put it, might not have a far better handle on any passage than do I. With that said, would you also be willing to consider that perhaps "some one of us ordinary peons" might also have a better handle than some "great believer" as well? I certainly can, and in fact, have changed my own views in the past, at times, when presented evidence from such 'ordinary' Christians.

It has happened before in Scripture, in the case of Apollos, where arguably one of the greatest preachers ever was better instructed by two ordinary laborers, namely Aquila and Priscilla. (Ac. 18:24-28)

End of Part 3.

 

Part 4.

Actually, I still don't believe you do, but shall not belabor this point any further, at least as of now.

You are saying this, not me, here.

I am not sure this is particularly accurate in assigning this charge to "mostly" criticizing of the KJV, at least here. I'm pretty sure I recall you "criticizing" "MVs" as you call them, quite frequently. Would you like me to list chapter and verse, in this??

Even if so, why should the KJV be above any "criticism" more than any other version? I certainly have seen the NIV also criticized multiple times on this board, along with many other versions constituting what are generally disparagingly lumped in as "MVs" and even when this is shown to be inaccurate by those who are purporting to somehow 'defend' the KJV, is generally ignored, in this effort of "pigeonholing". Why is there this double standard, here? And I'll add, from any? Who is it that got to decide that the KJV is a "better" translation than say, the GEN or NIV, to begin with? Or conversely who got to decide that the NIV is "better" than the NKJV or ASV? One can substitute any version(s), here, for the purposes of this rhetorical question, I'll add.

There are or should be ONLY a very few questions, at least to my mind, when rating any version, in any point. The very first is "Does the translation seem to accurately portray the sense of the passage of Scripture in question?" The second is very close to this (although not identical) and is "Does this version faithfully translate the (meaning of) underlying texts behind the version?" After these two have been answered in the affirmative, only then can we proceed to the third question. "Are these underlying texts sufficiently supported?" The particular "style" if you will, of the translation does not even come into play here, except as to one's personal preference, in my mind. (BTW, I do not include any "agenda-driven" versions, such as the NWT, CWT, and JST as acceptable, as I have previously noted, even though the NWT, for example is closer to a reasonable 'formal equivalence' 'style' which is my decided preference, than say the NIV or LIV, which 'styles' are not one I prefer. FTR, I also do not especially like the extremely "literal" translation of the YLT, for roughly the same reasons, in reverse, of why I do not usually prefer so-called "DE" versions.)

Not true.

I never questioned your making an "interpretation" although I may have disagreed with it. I have disagreed with some of what has been set forth as 'Bible' in contrast. What I characterized as "Language Arrogance" was your repeated conclusions and comments that most of the rest of the respondents did not read and/or understand the Biblical languages enough to doubt, or even question your own offerings, judgments, and conclusions on said passages.

I do not refer to this in this manner, when one actually posts the source of the work. In fact, "copy and glue" is not a phrase I have ever used. Only you have used this phrase on the Baptist Board, for I checked this out, when I did not recall using this phrase. (I didn't, although I have "slash and glue" two times, and "hack and glue" one time. I do admit being annoyed when one effectively plagiarizes what another has said, appropriating this for their own ideas, and usually without even considering what is being said. And I am even more annoyed at times, when someone simply quotes another, thus appealing to the 'authority' of said person.

 

Part 5.

I'm afraid, unfortunately, that the mere bringing back up of these two verses are symptomatic of something I had already discerned, although you did not verbally say it, at least very clearly, in this thread until now, if my memory is correct.

Unfortunately, I do believe that you are at least somewhat aware of what you are doing, and are, in fact, 'elevating' the KJV a good deal above any and all other translations, in your approach, at least where others are concerned.

Also, again unfortunately, I see little indication that you are really open to anyone's POV but your own, as well, including the justifications offered for what you are saying, which effectively include 'Well, I have "prayed about it," so my own conclusion has to be right, you see.'. That is what you have effectively claimed, in this post, I believe.

Nevertheless, I shall try and comment, yet once again, on these two points and portions of Scripture.

It is simply incorrect to say that 'we don't know much about which MSS support the "book", which support "tree",.' for in fact, we now do know a great deal, unlike Erasmus, I'd say, who never had such a chance back in 1520, for this passage.

I will fully grant that the MSS evidence for Revelation, is or was not found to be as neat, concise, and thorough as for some other areas of the text that Erasmus had access to, at that time. (Remember, he only had access to one MSS of Rev. and that was one interspersed throughout with commentary.), hence his interpolations. FTR, I believe Erasmus tried very faithfully to reconstruct what was missing, and reject what had been added. However, given the limitations these early textual critics faced, I believe the Greek text compiled by Erasmus and those who were immediately following him, for Rev., such as Colineaus, and Estienne, and even Beza. is subject to some scrutiny. However, also following these, we have now found many more Rev. MSS, along with some partial papyri including p18, p24, p47, Codices Aleph, A, C, D, P, 046, 0207, 0229, 1, 88, 94, 1006, 1611 (interesting number on this one, don't you think? ), 1828, 1859, 2020, 2042, 2053, 2065, and on and on I could go, mentioning at least another 40, of which some are likely considered to be Byzantine, and some are not, I would think! Incidentally, Codex B, which you seem to delight in disparaging, does not contain Revelation, at all, if I've undertood the evidence for this correctly.

Regardless of any of that, 50-60 MSS is a far cry from 1 MSS that had been 'worked over' by Andrew of Caesarea, with his injected commentary, in the "Evidence Department" at least in my book, I'd offer, and certainly deserves to be considered. And I'd consider the "clear evidence against it (the KJV rendering of Rev. 22:19)" to be the fact that, as noted by Hodges and Farstad (whose team checked more than 400 Gr. MSS), neither the MTs nor CT supports this reading. BTW, how does the rendering of the KJV qualify as the automatic default rendering to be preferred, anyway? Who pronounced this so? I thought the question was and is how well did the translators do, in their rendering, of a verse accurately. Did I miss this one, somehow?

The verse in question, as to the translation is not Rev. 22:16, but rather Rev. 22:19. There is actually no question that "το ξυλον της ζωης" is properly rendered as "tree of life" as rendered in Rev. 22:14. There is no question that "ξυλου της ζωης" is also properly rendered as "tree of life" either, as found in the NIV and NASB, for examples. There is also likewise no question that "βιβλου της ζωης" is properly rendered as "book of life". The question is not translation, which you seem to have brought up several times, including the translation of Mk. 2:26, but the text here. One cannot possibly get "book of life" from "ξυλου της ζωης" anymore than one can get "tree of life" from "βιβλου της ζωης" and retain any credibility as a translator, at least in my book

Let me suggest that if you really do seek credibility (as opposed to promoting some particular agenda), this might be one place to start. Do the homework and see what is the Greek MSS evidence. There will be a test. In your case, this test will be the translation, in the language you have undertaken, which is I believe to be the Korean language. Personally, this is a test that I am more than happy to be able to forgo.

End of Part 5.

 

Part 6. (Finally - Phew!)

Unfortunately, more than any other, this response shows that sadly, you really don't "get it" :tear: in that you "strain at" your attempt and "strain out" the evidence, regarding this verse.

The phrase "strain at" has little to do with "the then current grammar of Elizabethan English" at all. In fact, this phrase is still current, and something that I can and do say today, albeit not in the context of Matt. 23:24, where it never has been a proper rendering. The phrase "strain out" is likewise not merely some relatively new way of phrasing this, but has also been around for a few centuries. Give my current physical limitations, I now have to "strain at" stacking ordinary bales of hay four bales high on the hay-wagon. I "strain at" hooking up the hydraulic lines to some equipment, as well. However, I "strain out" the trash from the water through a screen, before putting it into my sprayer, lest the trash clog up my lines and spray tips, thus rendering them unworkable, until I stop and clean them out, again. And I can assure you, that if I do not "strain out" any foreign matter in the hydraulic system, and that trash happens to get into the system and then the hydraulic pump, the resultant damage will put a very severe "strain on" my wallet!

Is your mindset so biased "toward" the KJV, that you not see the difference in these two meanings of "strain" at all? Dr. Bob is entirely correct, that the KJV happens to be wrong, here. In fact, this was actually most likely a printer's error that simply escaped detection, as Dr. Strong has noted, meaning the KJV translators did not actually render this incorrectly, but there was an undetected typo, even by Drs. Paris and Blayney, who missed it, along with some other editors and 'revisers'.

Unfortunately, this typo has apparently now become some sort of 'shibboleth' that is being used to determine one's position, it seems.

A quick glance at the earlier English translations of Mt. 23:24 plus a couple that follow shortly after the KJV tend to confirm this reading, as well.

You might note that for Mace the swallowed object lost a bit of size! Of course, that was not the reason i was citing his version.

Let me close with this. I hope I am wrong, in this, but I fear I am not. I fully expect you to translate the version you are working on, in a manner generally consistent with (and in consultation with) the English language of the KJV. I think that is the wrong approach, for as I believe I have noted (or at least now noted), there is nothing more than personal opinion, to support any idea that somehow the KJV is the pinnacle of all translations of Scripture, and therefore translations in other languages should somehow reflect this. WHY? While there is absolutely nothing wrong with one who is conversant in Jacobean English in comparing that translation to another, in another language (in your case Korean), Korean is simply not the same as English, by any stretch of the imagination.

And even were I to accept that the "TR" (flavor not stated, you understand) and the particular Masoretic text that lies behind the KJV are entirely accurate and flawless, the point stands that the Korean language is the only language important for a translation into Korean aside from the Biblical languages of Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. The English language is irrelevant to the Korean, apart from tangentially, and vice versa, for a Bible Translation.

Incidentally, unless there are multiple and varied dialects, one or more to which you are directing your efforts, what is 'wrong' with the "ko" Bible??
And why would one consider any version that is not in their native language as the "best" of the translations, anyway?? You may feel free to answer these, even though they are both primarily rhetorical questions.

Ed