1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Isaiah 14:12

Discussion in 'Bible Versions & Translations' started by 2 Timothy2:1-4, Feb 7, 2007.

  1. Eliyahu

    Eliyahu Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2005
    Messages:
    4,957
    Likes Received:
    16
    Faith:
    Baptist
     
    #41 Eliyahu, Feb 13, 2007
    Last edited: Feb 13, 2007
  2. Eliyahu

    Eliyahu Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2005
    Messages:
    4,957
    Likes Received:
    16
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Many people misunderstand that NT quoted LXX.
    In addition to above, I would show discrepancies.


    3) Acts 8:32-33 quoted from Isaiah 53:7-8

    Greek NT
    Καιως αμνος εναντιοντουκειραντος αυτον αφωνοςουτωςουκανοιγειτοστομα[FONT=바탕].. [/FONT]αυτου

    LXX

    Καιωςαμνοςεμπρσθεντουκειραντος[FONT=바탕] (- )[/FONT]
    αυτοναφωνοςουτωςουκανοιγειτοστομα[FONT=바탕] ([/FONT]

    Masoretic Text

    [FONT=바탕]He is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearer[/FONT]





    (quoted from Blueletterbible.com)

    LXX used the synonym, but different word.

    4) Hebrews 10:5 quoted from Psalm 40:6


    Greek NT

    Ευδοκησας
    [FONT=바탕](delight in, pleasure)[/FONT]

    LXX

    Εζητησας

    [FONT=바탕](seek, pursue)[/FONT]

    Masoretic Text

    [FONT=바탕]Chaphatsta[/FONT]

    [FONT=바탕](pleased to do, delight in)[/FONT]

    [FONT=바탕]Masoretic Text is nearer to Greek NT than LXX is[/FONT]

    There are hundreds of verses where LXX has disagreements with Greek NT, even though LXX is often nearer to Greek NT than Masoretic Texts.

    The Dead Sea Scrolls and other documents suggest us that there might have been a certain Hebrew underlying texts before LXX, and NT may have quoted such Hebrew Vorlage Text, not the Greek LXX which was written in Greek used by Pork meat eating, pagan worshipping, idol worshipping Greeks, full of myths during OT period.

    [FONT=바탕]The claim that NT quoted LXX is a non-sense created by the people who try to advocate the Apocrypha and paganism, prayer to the dead. It is a Hoax.[/FONT]
    [FONT=바탕][/FONT]
    [FONT=바탕]1[/FONT]
    [FONT=바탕][/FONT]
    [FONT=바탕]Dear Anti-KJVs,[/FONT]
    [FONT=바탕][/FONT]
    [FONT=바탕]Have you ever condemned Roman Catholic? Have you ever commented that Roman Catholic practices are wrong?[/FONT]
    [FONT=바탕]If you find any problem with KJV, you must have found thousand times problems with whorish Roman Catholic which teaches Purgatory, Maria Worship, Idol making, Idol worship, Papacy, Clergy System, Inquisition, Infant Baptism, Mother of God, etc.[/FONT]
    [FONT=바탕] I have never seen Anti-KJVs condemning Roman Catholic on this site![/FONT]
    [FONT=바탕]Why do you criticize KJV from the bases of Catholic manuscripts, Vatican text and Sinaiticus ?[/FONT]
    [FONT=바탕][/FONT]
     
    #42 Eliyahu, Feb 13, 2007
    Last edited: Feb 13, 2007
  3. Eliyahu

    Eliyahu Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2005
    Messages:
    4,957
    Likes Received:
    16
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Ed,
    Your post is very much useful as we can confirm that LXX is quite different from Hebrew Text.
    For example, even in Esther 5:1, there is no word for "prayer" or " "mourning" in Hebrew Text, but such words are found in LXX.

    I estimate there are discrepancies between LXX and Masoretic Text in thousands of verses, and in most cases LXX is quite wrong and ridiculous. therefore none of the Bible translators translate OT from LXX. If LXX is more reliable, why don't the modern versions translate OT from LXX?
    If anyone translate OT from LXX, it will look very much ridiculous, and be full of funny statements!
    Awake from the wine of Roman Catholic!
     
  4. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    Eliyahu: // I have never seen Anti-KJVs condemning Roman Catholic on this site!//

    I have never seen Anti-KJVs post on this site.

    Personally two of the five most used Bibles in my life
    have been KJVs[/]:

    1. KJV1769 Edition
    2. nKJV
    3. NIV
    4. KJV1611 Edition
    5. HCSB = Christian Standard Bible /Holman, 2003/ )

    (these are listed in order of usage in my life:
    highest to lowest. The reason the KJV1611 Edition
    and HCSB are lowest is that I've not had them as long.)
     
  5. Eliyahu

    Eliyahu Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2005
    Messages:
    4,957
    Likes Received:
    16
    Faith:
    Baptist


    Used for what? for condemning it?

    It is time that we should reasonably compare the translations based on the most reliable texts, not on the bases of Roman Catholic texts which performs Idolatry and ran the Indulgence Business.
    If we compare the texts, we can easily conclude that Vatican texts and Sinaiticus are not reliable at all. Based on MT-TR, we can still find a lot of work to elaborate the translation.
    Someone said KJV has evolved. Some or many KJVOs would not agree to that, but I believe it is true. KJV has evolved!
    However, the evolution of KJV during the past 400 years is far less than that of NIV during the past 30 years( either it is TNIV or NIV itself), I believe.
     
  6. Mexdeaf

    Mexdeaf New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2005
    Messages:
    7,051
    Likes Received:
    3
    I find this statement incredible and doubtful. What is your proof?

    I am no fan of the NIV, as I much prefer a more formal translation like the ESV. But with the hundreds if not thousands of changes made to the KJV through the past 400 years, I find it difficult to believe that the NIV has undergone as much change as the KJV has.
     
  7. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ed Edwards:
    Used for doctrine, reproof, correction and for instruciton
    in righteousness. And no matter which of those five
    Bibles I used, i was completely furnished to do good works.

    2 Timothy 3:16-17 (KJV1611 Edition):
    All Scripture is giuen by inspiration of God, & is profitable for doctrine,
    for reproofe, for correction, for instrution in righteousnesse,
    2Ti 3:17 That the man of God may be perfect,
    throughly furnished vnto all good workes.

    BTW, I used the KJV1769 almost exclusively for 28 years
    from 1952 to 1980 (age 8 to 36).


    So yes, I've actually taught others that "Lucifer" is the name
    of the lead Devil. ("Satan" is a job title meaning 'accuser').
    But the doctrine that Satan Lucifer, lead devil, has a name
    of 'Lucifer' is based on one verse (and only one verse)
    and that verse is a misunderstanding of Isaiah 14:12.
     
  8. amity

    amity New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2006
    Messages:
    811
    Likes Received:
    0
  9. Eliyahu

    Eliyahu Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2005
    Messages:
    4,957
    Likes Received:
    16
    Faith:
    Baptist
    In that case I don't find any more disagreement with you than the last statement. Lucifer didn't come from the original text but a kind of interpretation or the word used to depict the person of Satanic being translated from Helel.
     
  10. Eliyahu

    Eliyahu Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2005
    Messages:
    4,957
    Likes Received:
    16
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I don't have anything documented yet but I am very sure that NIV changed quite a lot during the past decades, not only TNIV
     
    #50 Eliyahu, Feb 13, 2007
    Last edited: Feb 13, 2007
  11. rsr

    rsr <b> 7,000 posts club</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2001
    Messages:
    11,850
    Likes Received:
    1,084
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I am shocked, shocked, that you come to that conclusion.

    We're not talking about the accuracy of the entire LXX, just the way it chose to translate one word.

    None of which, however, is the point. But you surely knew that.

    Why don't you look it up instead of supposing?

    So silly that it isn't worth refuting.

    See above. Surely you can do better.

    Good. Then we can contain the disagreement to the translator notes.

    I would too. What difference it makes, I'm not sure. It appears that Morning Star must always refer to Jesus - except when it doesn't.

    Not likely. The parallelism identifies the morning stars not as mere astral objects but as "all the sons of God." Really, you make this more difficult than you need to. The interpertation is right in the verse (no thanks to Ms. Riplinger, though.)

    We could - if the Bible read that way. It doesn't, so why raise the question?

    Obviously, nothing can change your conclusion, which is based on extra-biblical traditions.
     
  12. rsr

    rsr <b> 7,000 posts club</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2001
    Messages:
    11,850
    Likes Received:
    1,084
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Last I looked, this was a forum on translations, not the errors of the Roman Catholic church. There's another forum for that.

    Because we're all Baptists - well, except for you - it should be clear that we understand the errors of the Latin church and don't need to go into them ad nauseum. I am a tad surprised you have not rejected the doctrines of the Trinity, original sin, et al. because the Catholics hold them.
     
    #52 rsr, Feb 13, 2007
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 13, 2007
  13. Eliyahu

    Eliyahu Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2005
    Messages:
    4,957
    Likes Received:
    16
    Faith:
    Baptist
    What I pointed out is that I don't see any of you arguing so much against KJV do not appear in the threads where Roman Catholics are dealt with. You are not rejected there but welcomed to present your opinions. If you found much problems with KJV, you could have found thousand times problems with Roman Catholic and Muslims etc. Try to be a soldier of christ ( 2 Tim 2:3) fighting the paganism and idolatry. I don't say you should do it on this thread, but you can do it in other Christian denomination threads. Even in this thread, you can present the ideas based on the texts preserved by others than Roman Catholic which prohibited Bible reading, persecuted Bible translators, conducted Inquisitions, running Indulgence business, etc. I would wonder if God entrusted His Words to such group.
     
    #53 Eliyahu, Feb 13, 2007
    Last edited: Feb 13, 2007
  14. Eliyahu

    Eliyahu Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2005
    Messages:
    4,957
    Likes Received:
    16
    Faith:
    Baptist
    LXX cannot be a proof that modern versions are correct with Morning Star, because LXX is proven to be wrong in many verses. Even the verses brought by Ed shows that it is different from Masoretic Text in every verse.

    You even didn't know how to interpret Rev 2:28.

    Even now you don't know how to distinguish between the significance of the singular word and the plural word when you come to Job 38:7

    I am tired to explain you but just feel sorry to tell you that I see the difference of the spiritual level.

    As for Latin Vulgate, I knew they distinguished them as follows:

    Isaiah 14:12

    12 quomodo cecidisti de caelo lucifer qui mane oriebaris corruisti in terram qui vulnerabas gentes

    Rev 2:28

    28 sicut et ego accepi a Patre meo et dabo illi stellam matutinam


    [FONT=바탕]Rev 22:16[/FONT]

    16 ego Iesus misi angelum meum testificari vobis haec in ecclesiis ego sum radix et genus David stella splendida et matutina

    ( from Crosswalk.com)

    The reason why I didn't quote them is because it is not Old Latin like the one dated back to 157 AD which I definitely prefer, but I don't have.
    But even any Latin vulgate would have distinguished between Satan and Jesus.


    Do you smoke as Spurgeon smoked ? Do you believe that Jews must be killed as Luther claimed? What they said cannot justify that we can call Satan as Morning Star while we call our Lord as Morning Star.

    It is up to you whether you call both Satan as Morning Star and Jesus as Morning Star, but I would not do so and believe that the wise believers would not do so.
     
    #54 Eliyahu, Feb 13, 2007
    Last edited: Feb 13, 2007
  15. Eliyahu

    Eliyahu Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2005
    Messages:
    4,957
    Likes Received:
    16
    Faith:
    Baptist
    rsr,
    Do you really believe that Satan is Morning Star ?

    Do you believe Jesus is Morning Star too?

    Say yes or no, only by Yes or NO!
     
  16. Mexdeaf

    Mexdeaf New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2005
    Messages:
    7,051
    Likes Received:
    3
    Eliyahu,

    FYI it is against BB rules for a non-Baptist to post in a 'Baptists only' section of the board. Please refrain from doing this so the moderators do not have to take action. Thank you.
     
  17. Eliyahu

    Eliyahu Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2005
    Messages:
    4,957
    Likes Received:
    16
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Sorry, I have obtained the exceptional permission to participate in this forum since long time ago. I hope you do not raise that question just because you disagree with me.
     
  18. Mexdeaf

    Mexdeaf New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2005
    Messages:
    7,051
    Likes Received:
    3
    Oh, okay, I did not know that. Pardon my intrusion. Carry on.:thumbs:
     
  19. Eliyahu

    Eliyahu Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2005
    Messages:
    4,957
    Likes Received:
    16
    Faith:
    Baptist
    BTW I want to apologize to all the posters on this issue of Isaiah 14:12 because I feel my arguments went a little too harsh against the fellow posters, including rsr and ed. Forgive me!
     
  20. rsr

    rsr <b> 7,000 posts club</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2001
    Messages:
    11,850
    Likes Received:
    1,084
    Faith:
    Baptist
    And I think it's just best to leave it at that, rather than respond to your intervening posts.
     
Loading...