Modern Scholarship is a Joke! - a few examples

More of Archangel's insights:

I (Will K) had posted:

I believe Easter really means Easter - the celebration of the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ from the dead.
I have written an article on this which you can read at:
http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/Easter.html
There is also another article mentioned there by Scott Jones who reaches the same conclusion as I, but by a slightly different path. Also Herb Evans believes it may refer to the Easter celebration of the Resurrection, and he does not agree with the Ruckmanite Ishtar thingy.
---------------------------------------------------------------Archangel responds:
In other words, the KJV translation "Easter" at Ac. 12:4 is so clear that there are at least two completely different understandings of what it means within the KJV-Only camp itself."

Penetrating analysis, Archy. If we all used only the KJB we would still have many different understandings of many passages. This has always been true.

However, now with all the multitude of conflicting TEXTS as well as multiplied more meanings found in the different versions, the problems have only increased, not diminished.

Then add to this mess, your own peculiar translation preferences we have seen, which differs from all the others out there, and the problem you mention is compounded.

So what is your point?

Will

 

--------------------------------------------------------------
Will J. Kinney said:
The modern NKJV, NIV, RSV, ESV, and NASB versions make this verse refer to the incarnation of Jesus, rather than His resurrection by merely saying, “God has raised up Jesus”. They leave out raised up Jesus AGAIN.

Ransom says:
Good one, Will!
All those modern version readers are either:

a. too forgetful to remember that Paul had already preached on the Resurrection just a few moments before (Acts 13:30)
or
b. too ignorant to know that Jesus had already been alive once before.
Hey Will - just because you think modern scholarship is a joke, doesn't mean you and your fellow KJVers have to go out of your way to make yourself look ridiculous, too.


Thanks, Ransom, for your thoughts. Scott E asked for an example of where the NIV perverts sound doctrine, and I gave one of several. Let's see how he responds to this.

Will he address the issue of how the NIV teaches there was a certain day when God became the Father of Christ, or will he continue to howl about all those "proven errors" in the KJB? Hmmm... the uncertainty is killing me.

Will K

 

Ed Edwards posts:

How can you ignore this?

Genesis 49:6d (Third Millenniam Bible):

... and in their self-will they dug down a wall.

Is this modern scholarship or not?

BTW, Brother Will, you quote from
the KJV1769 edition, can you please
note that in your citation so those
with KJV1611 edition and KJV1873 edition
can get the right book to check out your
modern scholarship. Thank you for your
complicance with this reuirement
of modern scholarship and bulliten board
etiquette. Feel free to use "KJV1769"
if you wish.

Hi Ed, are you referring to my typo up there with the Third MilleniAM Bible? If so, sorry about that.

It is good to see you would never be guilty of typos, huh?


"Thank you for your
"complicance" with this "reuirement"
of modern scholarship and "bulliten" board
etiquette. "

Thanks, Ed. I stand corrected.

Will K

 

Brian, I will address a couple more things about your Lucifer post. You should know by now that "scholars" and commentators frequently differ from one another. One gives a view that is totally disparaged by another.

In your post you ask:
"1966 haylale" is the name of a Babylonian god, they thought was the star that shone in the morning (what we call the planet Venus). In 2 Pet 1:19, the Greek has the single word "phosphoros" (#5459) and not "hemera" (#2250) and "aster" (#792). If it is a "problem with the translation" because the individual words "morning" and "star" are not in the original language in Isa 14:12, then tell me, does the KJV have the same "problem with the translation" because the individual words "day" and "star" are not in the original language in 2 Pet 1:19? Yes or no?

No, 2 Peter refers to the sun, not a morning star. The sun is the day star.


Chris:
In the KJV, Job 38:7 says "When the morning stars sang together...". If it is a "serious problem" that someone can confuse the title by ignorning context in the NIV and NASB, tell me does the KJV have the same serious problem with Job 38:7? Yes or no.


Will :
No, the morning stars were in all likelihood stars, not angels. Literal stars that rejoiced at the creation of God, as physical creation is shown many times as singing, clapping hands, and rejoicing - this is called anthropormorphism.
.


------------------------------------------------------------------------
Another problem is that if the passage refers to an earthly king, then how did he get into heaven from whence he fell?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because it is comparing him to his Babylonian god, Heylel, the morning star, which is in the "heaven" (see Gen 1:14-15 to see that "heaven" can also refer to the sky).

Will, wrong Chris. If it was a star, then it already was in heaven. The text says I WILL ASCEND into heaven..."

quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Third, I and many others believe that Lucifer or Satan's fall is recorded here, and that he, the devil, was the real spiritual power behind the kingdom of Babylon. Babylon also appears prominently again in the book of Revelation as the kingdom of the beast and both are spiritually empowered by Satan and his devils.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Good connections. I agree. But which "fall" of Satan are you talking about? The one before creation? If so, consider:
- verse 6 - the fall in the passage happens *after* he has ruled over people and nations - people and nations are in existence before the subject of this passage falls
- verses 7-8 - nature, including the "cedars of Lebanon" rejoices when he falls. If this is referring to Satan falling prior to creation, how could creation rejoice before creation existed? And why would they rejoice in the first place when Satan became evil and came to them - wouldn't creation mourn instead? Wouldn't rejoicing be more appropriate if it was the end of a cruel king?
- verses 9-10 - hell, including it's inhabitants, are stirred at his fall. Who was in hell before Satan fell? No-one! So who are these people in hell?
- verse 11 - mentions worms - decay of his physical body in a grave.
- verse 12 (the "Lucifer" verse) - falls *after* weakening nations
- verse 13 - his pride makes him want to ascend *into* heaven. Yet the idea is that Satan was *already in* heaven before he fell.
- verse 18 - others have already died - death is the result of sin, which couldn't have happened *before* Satan's fall."

Chris, you are confusing verses which speak of the king of Babylon (verses 4-11), with the spiritual power behind this king (verses 12 on)
You also are reading time sequences into the texts that are not there.

quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fourth, many Bible critics say Lucifer is a mistranslation of the Hebrew and that the KJB has been responsible for this misconception and confusion.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Actually, most don't say it is a mistranslation. "Lucifer" is accurate, it is your interpretation that is faulty. "Lucifer" is the old Latin and old English term for Venus when it appears as a star in the morning.

Chris, so the planet Venus decided to ascend into heaven and be like God, huh? I see...


Those that say, like the NKJV footnote, that the Hebrew reads literally "morning star" are simply making this up (that is a kind way of saying they are lying).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Are the KJV translators lying also, because of their footnote which says "Or: O daystar"? Yes or no.
This really needs to be in a FAQ somewhere. I'm tired of repeating it.
Brian

Brian, the KJB does not say "literally" day star, it is the NKJV that does this, and the NKJV is wrong. It does not literally say day star.

Now in closing, just to show how wildly different some commentators are about this passage, here are the following quotes.


Adam Clarke's view


Verse 9. Hell from beneath is moved for thee to meet thee
That is, Nebuchadnezzar. "It (hell) hath raised up from their thrones all the kings of the earth;-the ghosts (rephaim) of all the mighty ones, or goats, ( attudey,) of the earth-all the oppressors of mankind."

Verse 12. O Lucifer, son of the morning
The Versions in general agree in this translation, and render heilel as signifying Lucifer, fwsfwroV, the morning star, whether Jupiter or Venus; as these are both bringers of the morning light, or morning stars, annually in their turn. And although the context speaks explicitly concerning Nebuchadnezzar, yet this has been, I know not why, applied to the chief of the fallen angels, who is most incongruously denominated Lucifer, (the bringer of light!) an epithet as common to him as those of Satan and Devil. That the Holy Spirit by his prophets should call this arch-enemy of God and man the light-bringer, would be strange indeed. But the truth is, the text speaks nothing at all concerning Satan nor his fall, nor the occasion of that fall, which many divines have with great confidence deduced from this text. O how necessary it is to understand the literal meaning of Scripture, that preposterous comments may be prevented! Besides, I doubt much whether our translation be correct. heilel, which we translate Lucifer, comes from yalal, yell, howl, or shriek, and should be translated, "Howl, son of the morning;" and so the Syriac has understood it.

So we see that Clarke not only thinks the passage refers to Nebuchadnezzar as being in hell, which is totally wrong, because king Nebuchadnezzar will be in heaven as a believer in the true God; but Clarke also gives us his fanciful reinterpretaion of the Hebrew text, saying it should read "HOWL" like the Syriac.

David Guzik's Commentary -
4. (12-15) The fall of Lucifer.

"How you are fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! How you are cut down to the ground, you who weakened the nations! For you have said in your heart: 'I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God; I will also sit on the mount of the congregation on the farthest sides of the north; I will ascend above the heights of the clouds, I will be like the Most High.' Yet you shall be brought down to Sheol, to the lowest depths of the Pit."

a. How you are fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! Here, the prophet identifies the king of Babylon as Lucifer, son of the morning. Some debate if Lucifer is a name or a title; the word means morning star or day star, referring to a brightly shining object in the heavens. Whether it is a title or a name makes little difference; this once brightly shining king of Babylon is now fallen from heaven.

i. The prophetic habit of speaking to both a near and a distant fulfillment, the prophet will sometimes speak more to the near or more to the distant. Here is a good example of Isaiah speaking more to the distant, ultimate fulfillment. It is true that the king of literal Babylon shined brightly among the men of his day, and fell as hard and as completely as if a man were to fall from heaven. But there was a far more brightly shining being who inhabited heaven, and fell even more dramatically - the king of spiritual Babylon, Satan.


i. Jesus Himself is called the Bright and Morning Star (Revelation 22:16). Satan, though a created being, had some of these glorious qualities in himself. No wonder that Satan himself transforms himself into an angel of light (2 Corinthians 11:14), deceiving many with his apparent glory, beauty, and goodness.


Jamieson, Faussett and Brown

12. Lucifer--"day star." A title truly belonging to Christ (Re 22:16), "the bright and morning star," and therefore hereafter to be assumed by Antichrist. GESENIUS, however, renders the Hebrew here as in Eze 21:12; Zec 11:2, "howl."

Well, I'm certainly glad we have all that cleared up for us, aren't you?

Will Kinney

 

Originally posted by Will J. Kinney:
No, 2 Peter refers to the sun, not a morning star. The sun is the day star.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Uh, no. Some people call the Sun the 'day star' but to the ancients the Sun was always called the Sun because they didn't know that the stars were distant 'Suns' in space. Venus was the star in question. It has been called the Evening Star 'Persephone' and the Morning Star 'Lucifer' for ages. In fact, some civilizations didn't realize it was the same object and called it by two different names.
---------------------------------------------------------------

Hi Skanwmatos, you might be right on this. To me it is no big deal either way. However the word phosporos can mean the sun as well as the morning star Venus.

Bauer, Arndt & Gingrich 4th edition revised and enlarged 1952 on page 880 lists both meanings and references the two usages.

I have no problem with the passage looking at it either way.

Will

 

You *completely* missed my point. You said that there was a "problem with the translation" of "morning star", because the Hebrew had the single word "heylel" 1966 and not the individual words "boquer" 1242 (morning) and "kokawb" 3556 (star). I'm pointing out that in the KJV, in 2 Pet 2:19, the KJV text reads "day star" even though the Greek has a single word "phosphoros" (5459) and not "hemera" 2250 (day) and "aster" 792 (star). If it is a "problem with the translation" to use "morning star" when "morning" and "star" are not individually in the original language, why is it not a "problem with the translation" to use "day star" when "day" and "star" are not individually in the original language?

Hi Chris, I see what you are saying. But the example in the Hebrew is that there are specific words for "day" and "star" and "morning star", and the word for "star" is right there in the passage in Isaiah 14, but not in verse 12.

And as I pointed out, the scholars disagree with each other all over the range of interpretation and renderings.

Since I believe in an infallible Bible, I have a final authority and I never try to "correct" it or give a different rendering of the verses in question.

It then comes down to interpretation of the passage. I and many others see the original sin of Lucifer a.k.a. Satan, the devil, the dragon, in the passage. You apparently do not. I have noticed that even among some of the modern versionists here, some of them see the fall of Satan in the passage too.

Will K

 

Hi Brian, excuse me, I'm sorry for calling you Chris. I easily get you guys mixed up because you all sound alike and I have frequent senior moments.

Anyway, BRIAN, you posted: "My name is not Chris. Now pay attention: the Babylonian *king* was on earth. The king is being compared to one of his gods, Heylel, but the king was definitely on earth.

quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chris, you are confusing verses which speak of the king of Babylon (verses 4-11), with the spiritual power behind this king (verses 12 on)
You also are reading time sequences into the texts that are not there.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Verse 13 and 18 are *after* verse 12:
- verse 13 - his pride makes him want to ascend *into* heaven. Yet the idea is that Satan was *already in* heaven before he fell.
- verse 18 - others have already died - death is the result of sin, which couldn't have happened *before* Satan's fall."

Brian, you certainly are reading the passage differently than I am. Verse 12 Satan is already fallen. Verse 13 tells us why he had fallen, because "thou HAST SAID in thine heart, I will ascend..." This was what he HAD said earlier and why he was now fallen.

Verse 15 tells us what will happen to him in the future when he is cast into the pit where the dead SHALL narrowly look upon him. Your whole reasoning process here makes no sense to me at all. Sorry.

Will