Isaiah 14:12

Not a problem. Accepted.

 

I don't want to comment on the other points here except mark 2:26, because they are somehow duplicated in other posts.

Jesus mentioned Abiathar as High Priest in Mark 2:26.
Do you mean that Abiathar was the High Priest and his father Ahimelech was the priest under his son?

You don't know the point of the discrepancy here.
There was nothing wrong with Ahimelech in Sam 21.
Also, there is nothing wrong with Abiathar the High Priest in Mark 2:26 either. The problem was the translation of "epi" there !
Ahimelech died suddenly and had no chance to write the story about that event, and therefore his son Abiathar reported the story later when he became the High Priest.
This was illustrated as an example of the questions about whether or not I should follow the hundreds of the translators just because they have been famous during the past 6 century.

I must plead guilty at your ex-cathera proclamation that Eliyahu is wrong !
Ex-cathera must apply to the people who follow the manuscript( B) preserved by the Popes who declare the bulls ex -cathera.

 

My translation or interpretation must stand by itself, and therefore I mentioned and explained the renderings according to the original words in the text.
However, it was you that brought the necessity of supporting numbers of the translators to convince the correct rendering. You mentioned many famous scholars or the previous translators. I do respect them. The most of them are great believers. However, they can be at times wrong, and even in some case all the translators can be wrong. But when you illustrated all the famous translators, ignoring my reasonable explanations, I mentioned that God can help me to prove my translations, in His own way.

Ezekiel 45:21 was started from the discussion on Acts 12:3-4 about Easter. At that time, I didn't mean that addition of "then" is necessary for the translation, but meant that the real meaning of the sentence was "then", which means that the interpretation of the verse was like that.
Therefore, it doesn't matter whether translators translated it without "then" If I am given the chance of translation for English, I may do it without " then" too. However, the interpretation of the verse should include " then" because it doesn't make sense otherwise.
Even if I explained that 14th Abib is not 7 days, even the days from 14 Abib thru 21 are not 7 days, but 8 days. Therefore it must be understood as including "then" because va can be omitted in Hebrew.

But you and other posters brought the fame and number of many other translators. I can stay with the translation. But the interpretation is that 7 days of ULB followed the Passover on 14th Abib.

I don't need my testimony or my fame to prove my translation. However, when you appeal to the number of the supporters and their fame, I mentioned that God would do something great to support me too.
Again, I don't care about 7 billion people or thousands of translators, but focus on the Bible itself, on the original means of the words, and on the spiritual lesson thru the words of God there.

 

This is the good example that you bring the names and numbers of the great believers to disprove my renderings or interpretation.

1. As I said, Eze 45:21 was brought up by MV supporters here, when we argue about Acts 12:3-4
2. I have no problem with the translation without any conjunction there. I may do it without "then" if I translate that verse ( my translation didn't reach there yet)
3. However, the meaning of the verse is exactly as I explained, because it doesn't make sense otherwise. Also, I illustrated the examples of "conjunctions inserted" even if there was no conjunction in the original texts in Hebrew.

Now I want to defend my word " half-skilled"
This was already pointed out when I commented on Acts 7:59, Eze 45:21, 1 Jn 5:7
In case of Acts 7:59, OP raised the question about the Italicized "God"
In a certain sense, the translators already implied that there is no word for " God" but inserted it for the purpose of understanding and to satisfy the English grammar. Therefore it is nothing but a defaming criticism against the Bible that KJV contains God there, which can be argued only by the people who do not know the difference between the Greek practices and English grammar.
Eze 45:21 was not properly understood because some of you brought it as an evidence supporting Passover meant 7 days.
Also I pointed out this problem when one argue that the neuter nouns can be represented by the masculine pronouns in 1 John 5:7-8.

Again, I am quite sure many of MV supporters here criticize the KJV without knowing the original language enough to comment on the translation. That's why I believe the half-skilled linguists can be wrong often.

 

I am not sure what you mentioned about the supporting manuscripts are correct, because the supporting manuscripts about Re 22:16-21 are far less organized than those for the other parts of Revelation and for the other Bible books. Some people even claimed that the verses from 22:16-21 have been retranslated from Latin Bible.

I was not involved in this verse very much, but mentioned the Biblical Discernment, because I believe my name is written in the Book of Life, not on the Tree of Life, and moreover the word " gegrammenon"(written) also coincides with Book. We don't write on the tree, but on the book.

The number of the mss that you mentioned is far less than the average number of the supporting other books as they have mss mostly over 500.

TR and KJV have been right despite the scarcity of the supporting mss in 1 Jn 5:7-8. I would rather stay with the "Book" due to the above-mentioned reasons.

However, I accept the argument based on the majority texts, because I believe one can argue about the discrepancy between Majority Texts and TR, not the one between minority texts and TR.

 

I don't care about the history of Old English very much, but want to defend the position of the TR-KJV unless they are wrong apparently, even if you may say I am biased for KJV.

I think the key issue is about whether there had been the literatures before 1611 where Strain At is used.
On this occasion, please accept my " Hack and Glue Work" because it is not related to the original language of texts, in order to save my time.

You may argue against my quotation, which is from Will Kinney.

Strain AT a gnat Matthew 23:24

Lamsa's 1936 translation of the Syriac Peshitta gives a similar meaning to Matthew 23:24 saying: "O blind guides, who strain AT gnats and swallow camels."
The Baptist commentator, John Gill, writes concerning this verse: "To this practice Christ alluded here; and so very strict and careful were they in this matter, that to strain AT a gnat, and swallow a camel, became at length a proverb, to signify much solicitude about little things, and none about greater. These men would not, on any consideration, be guilty of such a crime, as not to pay the tithe of mint, anise, and cummin, and such like herbs and seeds; and yet made no conscience of doing justice, and showing mercy to men, or of exercising faith in God, or love to him. Just as many hypocrites, like them, make a great stir, and would appear very conscientious and scrupulous, about some little trifling things, and yet stick not, at other times, to commit the grossest enormities, and most scandalous sins in life.
Matthew Henry also comments: "they strained AT a gnat, and swallowed a camel. In their doctrine they strained AT gnats, warned people against every the least violation of the tradition of the elders. In their practice they strained AT gnats, heaved AT them, with a seeming dread, as if they had a great abhorrence of sin, and were ".
ENGLISH USAGE BEFORE AND CONTEMPORANEOUS TO 1611
'Strain at' was in common English usage at the time immediately before the King James Bible was published, thus proving that this phrase is an accurate translation of the Greek text and not a mere printing error as the anti-KJB folks claim. One quote is from a translation of John Calvin to English and another is from one of the King James Bible translators himself.
John Whitgift - A godlie sermon preched before the Queenes Maiestie... (1574) "...ye straine AT a Gnat, & swallow..."
John Calvin translated by Arthur Golding - The sermons of M. Iohn Caluin... (1577) "...play the hipocrytes, who will streyne AT a gnat, and swallowe..."
John King - Lectures vpon Ionas deliuered at Yorke... (1599) "...wonders of nature, wheen we straine AT gnats, & cannot conceiue..." "They have verified the olde proverbe in strayning AT gnats and swallowing downe camells."
George Abbot (1562–1633) - ***translator Second Oxford committee - assigned the Gospels An exposition vpon the prophet Ionah... (1600) "...to make a strayning at a gnat, and to swallow vp a whole Camel."
Roger Fenton - ***translator - 2nd Westminster company An ansvvere to VVilliam Alablaster... (1599) "...Let vs then leaue to straine AT gnattes, and ingenuously acknowledge..."
John Whitgift (c. 1530–1604) Archbishop of Canterbury 1583-1604 (Works of John Whitgift) "...ye straine AT a Gnat, & swallow up a camel" (p. 581) Sermon 1574 " and strain AT a gnat swallowing down a camel" (p. 523) Sermon 1583 - "..of whom Christ speaketh : ' They strain AT a gnat, and swallow a camel.' "(p. 595)
Henry Barrow and John Greenwood to Puritan compromisers (1587) "strain AT a gnat and swallow a camel; and are close hypocrites, and walk in a left-handed policy"
Rudolf Gwalther An hundred, threescore and fiftene homelyes or sermons...(1572) "...Gospel, where he sayth they strayne AT a Gnat..."
Edward Topsell The house-holder: or, Perfect man. Preached in three sermons... (1610) "...will leaue these Fooles, Which straine AT Gnats, and swallow Camels ... "
Thomas Gainsford - The vision and discourse of Henry the seuenth... (1610) "...and seeke extremities, They straine AT Gnats..."
GREENE Mamillia II. B3b, 1583 - Most vniustly straining AT a gnat, and letting passe an elephant.
And this is covered in some extra depth at: http://tinyurl.com/63q7dj Dictionary of Christianity by Jean C. Cooper where Mamillia is given as evidence of established usage at the time.
Here is another book that examines the life of Erasmus and uses the phrase "strain AT a gnat".
http://www.archive.org/stream/erasmusastudyofh013578mbp Erasmus A Study Of His Life Ideals And Place In History - Preserved Smith - p. 298
Meantime Erasmus was busy defending his work against other critics. ... It is nonsense to say that he has ridiculed religion. As for the charge of lasciviousness in the dialogue between the youth and the harlot, he answers that the critics who strain AT his gnat swallow the camels of Plautus and Pogglo.

Greene in his Maxmilla (1583) speaks of "straining at a gnat and letting pass an elephant". It means, to strain the wine at finding a gnat in it, but was early taken to stand for to swallow with considerable effort, imposing a strain on one's throat." (end of article quotes)
( extracts from http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/strain.html )

I think this proves that there have been the cases of using Strain At before 1611, and disproves the claim that there was a printing mistake of Strain At in KJV.
You brought the examples of Strain Out before 1611, but I think it was discussed some years ago on this board.
If you claim that there is a nuance between Strain At and Strain Out, and that KJV made a wrong choice between 2, then KJV supporters would defend that Strain At is still the right choice because Strain Out is to filter something, while Strain At is to strive to filter even in vain, IMO.
I don't care about this very much, but this was brought up in the thread about the discrepancy between TR and KJV.
I know MV defenders are eager to find fault with KJV in any way.

 

The verses themselves prove what they are indicating.
It is too much if they indicate the King of Babylon.

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

13For 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:
14I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High. 15Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit.

Those highlighted statements are too much for the King of Babylon.
Another point is How are thou fallen from Heaven, and I don't think Isaiah uses the metaphor there for the king who will appear 140 years later.
Often the Bible change the subject or the object in the passage, and the King of Babylon was never like Helel. Even Babylon was not a country at all when Isaiah prophesied.
Apparently this is about the great spiritual being- Satan, as many believers have believed so far.

 

Many kings at that time and for centuries believed themselves to be godlike or were seen as gods by the people they ruled. Saying they would ascend into heaven was not an unusual thing for them to claim.

Only 2 angels are named in the Bible: Michael and Gabriel. Satan is a descriptive title, not a name. He is not given a name, certainly not Lucifer, which was used for Venus.

Nothing explicitly here states this is about Satan; it is an inference.

 

Tee Hee, if our dear Brother is correct in the above statement, then his Bible, the KJV, is in error. Personally I will always believe our dear Brother's Bible instead of Our Dear Brother.

Isa 14:12 (KJV1611 Edition):

How art thou fallen from heauen, ||O Lucifer, sonne of the morning?
how art thou cut downe to the ground, which didst weaken the nations?

Margin note: ||OR, O day-starre.


Error Doctrine follows:
The name is 'Lucifer', his role is Lead Devil, his title is
'Satan' (the accuser).
Error Doctrine preceeds.

This shows that what is being compared here is the King of Bayblon
and the planet Venus, AKA /also known as/: Day Star,
Morning Star, Evening Star (according to when seen in the sky).

Blows that doctrine right down the tubes.
We don't know the name of Satan What'shisname, the Lead Devil.

---------------------------------------
Quote from another venue where the parents
of a 5-year-old girl have a problem with her
because she was told about [job title] [name]:
Satan Lucifer being a beautiful angel (cherub that
covers)

Isa 14:12 (Latin Vulgate, 0484 Version )
quomodo cecidisti de caelo lucifer qui mane
oriebaris corruisti in terram qui vulnerabas gentes

'Lucifer' is NOT the Holy Written Word of God;
'Lucifer' is the word of the Roman Catholic Church (RCC).
The Latin Vulgate has been the most used Bible
in the World since before 0500AD - for 1,500 years
It has been the word of the Pope.
(Recall that many Protestants have consider that
the Antichrist is the RCC Pope and the RCC Pope
is the Antichrist).

Even the spelling hasn't changed from the Antichrist Bible
to the KJV. (except the KJV1611 has the REAL MEANING
that is BAPTIST and non-RCC).

Isa 14:12 (KJV1611 Edition):
How art thou fallen from heauen,
||O Lucifer, sonne of the morning?
how art thou cut downe to the ground,
which didst weaken the nations?

Translator's Margin Note:
|| Or, O daystarre.

This notation means that the following is a
perfectly good reading moving from Greek to
Early Modern English

Isa 14:12 (KJV1611 Edition, alternative):
How art thou fallen from heauen,
O daystarre, sonne of the morning?
how art thou cut downe to the ground,
which didst weaken the nations?

 

Sometimes, it works in both ways. This may sound like an effort to compromise the spiritual thing with the historical matter.

But the prophecy works spiritually in a greater scale, while it works in the world physically too.

When we have dubious meanings and argument, the simple truth is that we should return to the original meaning of the word itself. Then we reach
" shining one" as Helel contains no meaning of any star. In that sense KJV may need the update as not so many people understand the Latin meaning exactly. But at that time when KJV was translated, people may have well accepted it.

 

I am not entirely clear on your point, but it is just a fact that there is no name given to Satan in the Bible. "Lucifer" is Latin, as brother Ed points out. It is not in the Hebrew.

Comparing one's self to a star - a shining one - like Venus, was not unusual among kings. Shining one was used for Venus at the time. These are just facts.

It does not take away from the text at all to acknowledge this.

 

Maybe I should clarify. I read the first post and then the last. I skipped the other 5 pages until now. I know Satan in Hebrew is only a title, and yes, Lucifer is a latin name given much later. So I see now what you meant that Lucifer is not originally mentioned in the Hebrew.

 

Okey-dokey!

 

Eliyahu: // Then we reach " shining one" as Helel contains no meaning of any star. //

'Day Star' is a 2-word-phrase in English. 'helel' is a 1-word-phrase in Hebrew.

Other terms that can be used in English are:
Bright and Morning Star
Morning Star
Evening Star

Morning Star, Evening Star, and Day Star are also called 'Venus' (Latin false goddess of 'love').

Strange, the Bible uses metaphors and other retorical devices. Here the King of Bablyon is compared to the PLANET (not star), Venus metaphorically. In other places Messiah Yeshua Himself is comparted to the planet Venus.

Revelation 22:16 (Geneva Bible, 1599 edition, e-sword.com edition)
I Iesus haue sent mine Angell, to testifie vnto you these things in the Churches: I am the root and the generation of Dauid, and the bright morning starre.

As a type of Satan (the lead devil), Isaiah 14:12 compares (twice to the planet Venus). Messiah Yeshua is also compared to the planet Venus. Messiah Yeshua is the predecessor of the TRUE dawn; The King of Babylon (and his seccessors) and the Satan (it is a title, not a name) are both predecessors of a FALSE dawn. It NEVER is good to take a metaphor further than intended. That is what Revelation 22:18-19 is talking about (not mere WORD COUNT).

 

2 Peter 1:19 (New American Standard Bible)

So we have the prophetic word made more sure, to which you do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star arises in your hearts.

Revelation 2:24-28 (New American Standard Bible)

24'But I say to you, the rest who are in Thyatira, who do not hold this teaching, who have not known the deep things of Satan, as they call them--I place no other burden on you.

25'Nevertheless what you have, hold fast until I come.

26'He who overcomes, and he who keeps My deeds until the end, TO HIM I WILL GIVE AUTHORITY OVER THE NATIONS;

27AND HE SHALL RULE THEM WITH A ROD OF IRON, AS THE VESSELS OF THE POTTER ARE BROKEN TO PIECES, as I also have received authority from My Father;

28and I will give him the morning star.

Revelation 22:16 (New American Standard Bible)

16"I, Jesus, have sent My angel to testify to you these things for the churches I am the root and the descendant of David, the bright morning star."


The Isaiah reference is a star falling , but the references used by and for Christ is the light bringing in the dawn ending the darkness. Its purely symbolic in nature.

 

I do appreciate your comments.
When there is no variance among the texts, it is not so difficult for us to find out the right rendering as long as we refer to the Bible in original language and to the dictionary.

In the Bible it says : Helel which came from Halal ( shine)
There is no sense of any star. There is no sense of indicating any planet or any star by Helel.

Now, the word Lucifer has come from luceo, lucere, luxi ( shine) plus fero, ferre which means carry, bring.

I am not sure when the meaning of Venus was added to the meaning of Lucifer, but the word Venus existed in Latin too. Venus, Veneris may have been the origin for it. Such attachment might have been done by Myths.
When KJV rendered Helel to Lucifer, did they do it as meaning Planet Venus? I don't think so.

The passage of Isaiah 14:12 is very clear.

Isaiah 14

12How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!
13For 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: 14I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High

( Biblegateway.com)

1) Planets and Stars are sin-neutral and they are not arrogant or exalting themselves as any deity. So, it is not talking about the planet Venus here.
Planet Venus never weakened any nations.

2) The expressions that " thou art fallen from Heaven" cannot apply to any human being, and no human being would have claimed that he or she ascend high above clouds and exalt his or her throne above the stars of God.

3) Satan is not a proper noun, but when it is attached with Ha (article), Ha-Satan means a specific angelic being who accuses the people.

Satan must have been a shining one before his fall.

4) Again we have to return to the Bible and the original meaning of the word according to the dictionary. The dictionary tells us that Helel means " Shining One"

If you can claim that the "Shining One" can mean King of Babylon, or Planet Venus, it is up to you.

But the Morning Star for Jesus ( Re 2:28 and 22:16) is clearly stated with star (Astera, Aster ), and moreover we have to distinguish between Jesus and Satan.

 

Almost there !!!!!

2Peter 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

2Peter 1:19 (NASB) So we have the prophetic word made more sure, to which you do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star arises in your hearts.

KJV renders "day star".

The Latin word lucifer is used in this verse in the Latin Vulgate. But this verse is a reference to Christ. Ain't this a pickle ?!?!??!?

 

I think you got it almost! But the situation may have been the same as today. At that time, Latin Vulgate may have been like Modern Versions confused between the concepts. If it had been the same as in Old Latin which was used by the Waldensians and many other true believers which disagreed with RCC, we can admit that Lucifer was used for the star or for Lord Jesus, though even in that case both should be distinguished from each other.