Isaiah 14:12
Discussion in 'Bible Versions & Translations' started by 2 Timothy2:1-4, Feb 7, 2007.
Page 3 of 4
-
-
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] -
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! -
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.) -
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. -
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. -
Ed Edwards:
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. -
-
-
-
-
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. -
-
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. -
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! -
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. -
-
-
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!
-
And I think it's just best to leave it at that, rather than respond to your intervening posts.
Page 3 of 4