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!

Modern Scholarship is a Joke! - a few examples

Discussion in '2004 Archive' started by Will J. Kinney, Jan 24, 2004.

  1. skanwmatos

    skanwmatos New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2003
    Messages:
    1,314
    Likes Received:
    0
    Can you give us just a couple examples of these changes in meaning from the KJV to the NKJV?
     
  2. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    The doctrine that the evil one is named
    "Lucifer" is bashed by the NIV:

    Isaiah 14:12 (NIV):
    How you are fallen from heaven,
    O shining star, son of the morning!
    You have been thrown down to the earth,
    you who destoryed the nations of the world.


    Of course, the KJV1611 also
    has the evil one perchance called
    (not NAMED) "the day starre".

    BTW, you have read the plan of salvation? :D

    If thou shall confess that Jesus is
    Lord and believe in your heart that God
    raised Him from the dead AND BELIEVE
    THE EVIL ONE IS CALLED "LUCIFER";
    then you shall be saved.

    [​IMG]
     
  3. Orvie

    Orvie New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2001
    Messages:
    649
    Likes Received:
    0
     
  4. ScottEmerson

    ScottEmerson Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2002
    Messages:
    3,417
    Likes Received:
    0
    The doctrine that the evil one is named
    "Lucifer" is bashed by the NIV:

    Isaiah 14:12 (NIV):
    How you are fallen from heaven,
    O shining star, son of the morning!
    You have been thrown down to the earth,
    you who destoryed the nations of the world.


    Of course, the KJV1611 also
    has the evil one perchance called
    (not NAMED) "the day starre".

    BTW, you have read the plan of salvation? :D

    If thou shall confess that Jesus is
    Lord and believe in your heart that God
    raised Him from the dead AND BELIEVE
    THE EVIL ONE IS CALLED "LUCIFER";
    then you shall be saved.

    [​IMG]
    </font>[/QUOTE]Methinks the preponderance of evidence goes against a reading of "Lucifer" in this text. The Hebrew word is hêylêl and is seen as a noun only there, and in two other places (Ezekial 21:12 and Zechariah 11:2), it is used as a verb in the imperative mood of Hiphil, and is translated "howl" from the verb yālal, "to howl" or "cry." See Barnes, Clarke, and Gill's commentaries for more information here.

    Personally, I think that the translators of the KJV goofed up here. Even IF Lucifer is an accurate translation, there is much to be questioned about thinking that Satan is being referred to in this passage.

    So, what other doctrines are affected.
     
  5. skanwmatos

    skanwmatos New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2003
    Messages:
    1,314
    Likes Received:
    0
    I think it is correct to translate the word "Lucifer" which was an old word for "Venus" (I.E. "the morning star" the "light bearer"). As the Hebrew is a masculine, singular, absolute which normally indicates a proper name I would prefer the later versions capitalize the name (as some do) to indicate a proper name, but I also think this is more of an interpretation problem then a translation problem. I believe the passage is refering to a man who may or may not be a type or shadow of Satan. [​IMG]
     
  6. Pastor KevinR

    Pastor KevinR New Member

    Joined:
    May 21, 2001
    Messages:
    741
    Likes Received:
    0
    I think that the context of this passage is speaking of Satan who is being mocked, as one being "like the Most High"; "like the Morning Star", i.e. as "supreme being wannabe". Satan had an "I" problem, "I will" 5x.
     
  7. Pastor KevinR

    Pastor KevinR New Member

    Joined:
    May 21, 2001
    Messages:
    741
    Likes Received:
    0
    Will, (just sent a PM to you)-Thanks, I understand better where you are coming from. I would appreciate a clarification on the above quote. What I meant was, where did the KJV come from? i.e. Isn't it acceptable to translate a MV from the same source as the KJV? If your answer is something like "yes", but we don't need to since we have the KJV, then I'll let it go...i.e. you believe the KJV should stand as is, I believe it should be revised. :D
     
  8. Askjo

    Askjo New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2003
    Messages:
    3,736
    Likes Received:
    0
    These MV advocates' argument on these phrases shows their misunderstanding and misstatements all the time.
     
  9. Charles Meadows

    Charles Meadows New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2003
    Messages:
    2,276
    Likes Received:
    1
    Skan,

    A noun of masculine gender in the absolute state does not really make it a proper noun - although here the lack of the definite article does perhaps suggest it. But I think your Venus comparison is right on!

    Regarding its derivation from yalal - this would seem more likely at face value since the hiphil imperative is "heylaylu". Although some Ugaritic evidence (Ras Shamra) suggests that halal (shine) may be more likely. Ellitu is found in some Akkadian inscriptions - "bright one". Heylel ben shachar - shahru was the dawn. This seems like a reference to the "morning star" - "god" of the dawn. This title was also used of Venus and of Ishtar.

    Likely this was used as a comparison for the Babylonian king.
     
  10. Pastor KevinR

    Pastor KevinR New Member

    Joined:
    May 21, 2001
    Messages:
    741
    Likes Received:
    0
    Clarify your statement, please. How are they(we)misunderstading, how are they(we) making misstatements?
     
  11. HankD

    HankD Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    26,977
    Likes Received:
    2,535
    Faith:
    Baptist
    It's called advanced revelation. Even the KJV translators weren't fully aware that they were doing this.

    Here is another:

    And another...

    HankD
     
  12. tinytim

    tinytim <img src =/tim2.jpg>

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2003
    Messages:
    11,250
    Likes Received:
    0
    Will: "Also to consider, would you change the distinction between the 2nd person singular and 2 person plural (thou vs ye), which is far more accurate and reflects the Hebrew and Greek texts?"


    &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;Hows about a redneck version with instead of "thou" and "ye", we have "you" and "y'all" [​IMG]
     
  13. skanwmatos

    skanwmatos New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2003
    Messages:
    1,314
    Likes Received:
    0
    I think so too. There may be some typology involved but the primary reference is, in my opinion, to the king. [​IMG]
     
  14. Will J. Kinney

    Joined:
    May 15, 2001
    Messages:
    736
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hi Skanwmatos, you asked for some examples of where the NKJV differs from the KJB. I have a whole lot more besides these, but here are a few to consider.


    So you think the New KJV has the same meaning as the 1611 King James Version, do you? Here is just a very small sampling of some of the hundreds of very real differences between the NKJV and the real Holy Bible.

    Genesis 20:16 KJB - "Behold, HE IS TO THEE A COVERING OF THE EYES, unto all that are with thee, and with all other: thus she was reproved." RV, ASV, Geneva, Spanish, Douay, Young's, Darby and others equal KJB.

    Now that it is known to all that Abraham is Sarah's wife, others would not look upon Sarah as a potential mate. Her husband, Abraham, would in effect cause others to cover their eyes from looking upon Sarah in this way.

    NKJV: "INDEED THIS VINDICATES YOU before all who are with you and before all others. Thus she was reproved. "

    Genesis 49:6 KJB - "in their selfwill THEY DIGGED DOWN A WALL." Geneva Bible, 1936 Jewish, Douay, Hebrew Names Bible, Reina Valera 1602, Diodati, KJV 21, TMB, Webster's = KJB.

    NKJV "in their self will THEY HAMSTRUNG AN OX."

    Exodus 9:15 KJB - God says through Moses to Pharoah: "For now I WILL stretch forth my hand, that I may smite thee and thy people with pestilence: AND THOU SHALT BE cut off from the earth."

    NKJV - "Now IF I HAD stretched out My hand and struck you and your people with pestilence, THEN YOU WOULD HAVE BEEN cut off from the earth."

    1 Kin. 10:28 KJB - "And Solomon had horses brought out of Egypt, and LINEN YARN: the king's merchants received THE LINEN YARN at a price."

    NKJV - "Also Solomon had horses imported from Egypt and KEVAH; the king's merchants bought them IN KEVAH at the current price."

    Numbers 21:14: KJB - "Wherefore it is said in the book of the wars of the LORD, WHAT HE DID IN THE RED SEA, and in the brooks of Arnon,"

    NKJV - "Therefore it is said in the Book of the Wars of the LORD: WAHEB IN SUPHAH, The brooks of the Arnon."

    1 Samuel 13:21 KJB - "YET THEY HAD A FILE for the mattocks...to sharpen the goads." This is also the reading of the RV, ASV, Geneva, Lamsa, Young's, Webster's, TMB, KJV 21, Hebrew Names Version and others.

    NKJV - "AND THE CHARGE FOR A SHARPENING WAS A PIM for the plowshares...and to set the points of the goads."

    2 Samuel 14:14 KJB - "For we must needs die, and are as water spilt on the ground, which cannot be gathered up again: NEITHER DOTH GOD RESPECT ANY PERSON : yet he doth devise means, that his banished be not expelled from him."

    NKJV - "Yet GOD DOES NOT TAKE AWAY LIFE; but He devises means..."

    A clear contradiction. God does take away life. See 1 Sam. 2:6; 2 Sam. 6:7; 12:15; Deut. 32:39 and Luke 12:5.

    1 Chronicles 20:3 KJB - "And he brought out the people that were in it, and CUT THEM WITH SAWS, and with harrows of iron, and with axes."

    NKJV - "And he brought out the people who were in it, and PUT THEM TO WORK with saws, with iron picks, and with axes."

    Job 39:13 KJB - "GAVEST THOU THE GOODLY WINGS UNTO THE PEACOCKS? OR WINGS AND FEATHERS UNTO THE OSTRICH?"

    NKJV - "THE WINGS OF THE OSTRICH WAVE PROUDLY, BUT ARE HER WINGS AND PINIONS LIKE THE KINDLY STORK?"

    Job 40:23 KJB - "BEHOLD, HE DRINKETH UP A RIVER, AND HASTETH NOT."

    NKJV - " INDEED THE RIVER MAY RAGE, YET HE IS NOT DISTURBED."

    Psalms 4:4 KJB - "STAND IN AWE, and sin not."

    This is even the reading of the RV, ASV and others. Even the NASB has "Tremble, and sin not", but the NKJV joins the LXX and the NIV and says: "BE ANGRY, and do not sin."

    Psalm 7:4 KJB - "YEA, I HAVE DELIVERED HIM THAT WITHOUT CAUSE IS MINE ENEMY."

    NKJV - "OR HAVE I PLUNDERED MY ENEMY WITHOUT CAUSE"

    Psalm 10:3 KJB - "He blesseth the covetous, WHOM THE LORD ABHORRETH"

    NKJV - "He blesses the greedy AND RENOUNCES THE LORD."

    Psalm 12:5 KJB - "I will set him in safety FROM HIM THAT PUFFETH AT HIM."

    Even the NIV says: "I will protect them from those who malign them" but the NKJV says: "I will set him in safety FOR WHICH HE YEARNS."

    Psalm 36:2 KJB - "For he flattereth himself in his own eyes UNTIL HIS INIQUITY BE FOUND TO BE HATEFUL."

    NKJV - "For he flatters himself in his own eyes WHEN HE FINDS OUT HIS INIQUITY AND WHEN HE HATES."

    Psalm 37:20 KJB - "the enemies of the LORD SHALL BE AS THE FAT OF LAMBS: they shall consume."

    NKJV - "the enemies of the LORD, LIKE THE SPLENDOR OF THE MEADOWS, shall vanish."

    Psalm 56:12 KJB - "THY VOWS ARE UPON ME, O God." God made the vows.

    NKJV - "VOWS MADE TO YOU ARE BINDING UPON ME, O God." Man made the vows.

    Psalm 68:16 KJB - "WHY LEAP YE, YE HIGH HILLS?"

    NKJV - "WHY DO YOU FUME WITH ENVY, YOU MOUNTAINS OF MANY PEAKS?"

    Psalm 76:10 KJB - "Surely the wrath of man shall praise thee: THE REMAINDER OF WRATH SHALT THOU RESTRAIN."

    NKJV - "WITH the remainder of wrath YOU SHALL GIRD YOURSELF."

    Proverbs 3:4 KJB - "Write them upon thine heart: So shalt thou find favour and GOOD UNDERSTANDING"

    NKJV - "and so find favor and HIGH ESTEEM"

    Proverbs 8:30 KJB - "Then I was by him, AS ONE BROUGHT UP WITH HIM: and I was daily his delight."

    NKJV - "Then I was beside Him AS A MASTER CRAFTSMAN."

    Proverbs 16:10 KJB - "A DIVINE SENTENCE is in the lips of the king: his mouth transgresseth not in judgment."

    NKJV - "EVEN THOUGH DIVINATION is on the lips of the king his mouth MUST not transgress in judgment."

    Proverbs 18:1 KJB - "THROUGH DESIRE A MAN, HAVING SEPARATED HIMSELF, SEEKETH AND INTERMEDDLETH WITH ALL WISDOM."

    The 1599 Geneva Study Bible notes: 18:1 Through desire a man, having separated himself, seeketh [and] intermeddleth with all wisdom.

    He who loves wisdom will separate himself from all impediments, and give himself wholly to seek it.

    NKJV - "A MAN WHO ISOLATES HIMSELF SEEKS HIS OWN DESIRE; HE RAGES AGAINST ALL WISE JUDGMENT."

    Proverbs 19:18 KJB - "Chasten thy son while there is hope, and LET NOT THY SOUL SPARE FOR HIS CRYING."

    NKJV - "Chasten your son while there is hope, AND DO NOT SET YOUR HEART ON HIS DESTRUCTION."

    Proverbs 19:27 KJB - "Cease, my son, to hear the instruction THAT CAUSETH TO ERR FROM the words of knowledge."

    NKJV - "Cease LISTENING TO INSTRUCTION, my son, AND YOU WILL STRAY FROM the words of knowledge."

    Proverbs 29:24 KJB - "Whoso is partner with a thief hateth his own soul: HE HEARETH CURSING, AND BEWRAYETH IT NOT."

    NKJV - "Whoever is a partner with a thief hates his own life: HE SWEARS TO TELL THE TRUTH BUT REVEALS NOTHING."

    Isaiah 66:5 KJB - "Hear the word of the LORD, ye that tremble at his word; Your brethren that hated you, that cast you out for my name's sake, said, Let the LORD be glorified: BUT HE SHALL APPEAR TO YOUR JOY, and they shall be ashamed."

    NKJV -"Let the LORD be glorified, THAT WE MAY SEE YOUR JOY. But they shall be ashamed." Changed the subject and what happened to the second coming of our Lord?

    Matthew 7:14 KJB - "Because strait is the gate and NARROW is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it."

    NKJV - "Because narrow is the gate and DIFFICULT is the way which leads to life".

    The way is narrow but easy to enter, not difficult. We enter by simple faith in our Saviour Jesus Christ. Not even the NIV, NASB read as does the NKJV here.

    Matthew 12:40 KJB - "For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the WHALE'S belly: so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth."

    The word is clearly WHALE and is so rendered in Tyndale, Geneva, the RV, ASV, RSV, Spanish, Diodati, Wycliff, Webster's, TMB, KJV 21 and the World English Bible.

    NKJV - "three days and three nights in the belly of THE GREAT FISH", the NASB says it was a "SEA MONSTER"!

    Acts 17:22 KJB - "Then Paul stood in the midst of Mars' hill, and said, Ye men of Athens, I perceive that in all things ye are TOO SUPERSTITIOUS."

    NKJV - "Then Paul stood in the midst of the Areopagus and said, "Men of Athens, I perceive that in all things you are VERY RELIGIOUS;"

    1 Corinthians 15:33 KJB - "Be not deceived. EVIL COMMUNICATIONS CORRUPT GOOD MANNERS." The evil communications or words are the false doctrine referred to in verse 12 "How say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead?"

    NKJV - "Be not deceived. EVIL COMPANY corrupts GOOD HABITS." A popular saying but not what God wrote in His word.

    2 Cor. 2:17 KJB - "For we are not as many, which CORRUPT the word of God: but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ."

    NKJV "For we are not, as so many, PEDDLING the word of God; but as of sincerity, but as from God, we speak in the sight of God in Christ."

    Phillipians 2:6 KJB - "Who, being in the form of God, THOUGHT IT NOT ROBBERY TO BE EQUAL WITH GOD."

    NKJV 1979 edition "Who, being in the form of God, DID NOT CONSIDER EQUALITY WITH GOD SOMETHING TO BE GRASPED."

    Compare the phrase "The black man thought it not robbery to be equal with the white man" with "The black man did not consider equality with the white man something to be grasped." Not the same meaning at all.

    Hebrews 3:16 KJB - "FOR SOME, WHEN THEY HAD HEARD, DID PROVOKE; HOWBEIT NOT ALL THAT came out of Egypt by Moses." Notice it is a statement and Caleb and Joshua did not provoke but believed God.

    NKJV - "FOR WHO, HAVING HEARD, REBELLED? INDEED, WAS IT NOT ALL WHO CAME OUT OF EGYPT, led by Moses?" Two questions and the answer would be Yes, all provoked. A clear contradiction.

    2 Peter 3:12 KJB - "Looking for and HASTING UNTO the coming of the day of God.". Our lives are quickly over and we hasten towards that coming day. We can not speed up God's timetable. The times and the seasons the Father hath put in His own power. See Acts 1:7; Daniel 2:21 "He changeth the times and the seasons."

    NKJV - "looking for and HASTENING THE COMING of the day of God." Wrongly teaches that we can do something to speed up this coming day, which has already been appointed and marked on the calendar by God Himself.

    Revelation 19:8 KJB - "And to her (the Lamb's wife) was granted that she should be arrayed in fine linen, clean and WHITE, for the fine linen IS THE RIGHTEOUSNESS OF SAINTS."

    The white linen is the imputed righteousness of the Lord Jesus Christ. Isaiah 61:10 "He hath clothed me with the garments of salvation, he hath covered me with the robe of righteousness."

    NKJV - "And to her it was granted to be arrayed in fine linen, clean and BRIGHT, for the fine linen IS THE RIGHTEOUS ACTS of the saints."

    If your "righteous acts" make up your fine linen, it will be soiled, tattered and skimpy to be sure.

    These are just a very few of the hundreds of very real differences between the New KJV and the true King James Bible.

    Will Kinney
     
  15. Will J. Kinney

    Joined:
    May 15, 2001
    Messages:
    736
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hi Orvie, you asked about Easter in the KJB. I have a different view than many KJB believers on this, but not all. I know of several others who do hold the same position I do on this.

    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.
     
  16. Ransom

    Ransom Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2000
    Messages:
    4,132
    Likes Received:
    1
    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.

    Good one, Will!

    All those modern version readers are either:

    </font>
    • too forgetful to remember that Paul had already preached on the Resurrection just a few moments before (Acts 13:30) :rolleyes:
      or</font>
    • too ignorant to know that Jesus had already been alive once before. :rolleyes:</font>
    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.

    You gotta laugh.

    [​IMG] [​IMG] [​IMG] [​IMG] [​IMG] [​IMG]
     
  17. Archangel7

    Archangel7 New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2003
    Messages:
    513
    Likes Received:
    0
    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. [​IMG]
     
  18. robycop3

    robycop3 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    11,888
    Likes Received:
    422
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Remember the long discussion I had with Doc Cas on a Yahoo board over Easter's meaning either Passover or Resurrection Day back in the "old days"? Clearly, the AV translators knew Easter referred to Resurrection Day in their time, as they include Easter in the AV's list of Holy Days, along with the current definition. This lessens the correctness of whatever excuse they had for using Easter at Acts 12:4 while rendering pascha as Passover every other time that word occurred in the Greek.

    Funny, they rendered it "Passover" in two instances AFTER Acts-1 Corinthians 5:7 & Hebrews 11:28.
     
  19. Will J. Kinney

    Joined:
    May 15, 2001
    Messages:
    736
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ed posts: "The doctrine that the evil one is named
    "Lucifer" is bashed by the NIV:

    Isaiah 14:12 (NIV):
    How you are fallen from heaven,
    O shining star, son of the morning!
    You have been thrown down to the earth,
    you who destoryed the nations of the world.

    Of course, the KJV1611 also
    has the evil one perchance called
    (not NAMED) "the day starre".

    BTW, you have read the plan of salvation?

    If thou shall confess that Jesus is
    Lord and believe in your heart that God
    raised Him from the dead AND BELIEVE
    THE EVIL ONE IS CALLED "LUCIFER";
    then you shall be saved.
    --------------------------------------------------------

    Ed, perhaps humorous, but not very accurate.

    I'm glad at least you said the 1611 "perchance" had the day starre. The fact that the marginal note in the KJB says: "Or, O day starre" merely shows their flawed humanity. The fact is, the Hebrew does not mean "day star". God providentially guided the TEXT of the KJB, and correctly has Lucifer.

    This is an old subject of debate between KJB onlies, of which I am unashamedly one, and the Probably Close Enuf promoters like yourself (at least for the present time - there is always hope).

    Here are some things to consider.


    Lucifer or Morning Star?

    In Isaiah 14:12 the King James Holy Bible reads: "How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations! For 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: I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High. Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit."

    The reason this passage is attacked by the modern bible version proponents is because the NASB and NIV translated this section in a VERY different way. Instead of, "How art thou fallen from heaven, O LUCIFER. . .", they say, "How you have fallen from heaven, O MORNING STAR. . ."

    There are several problems with the translation "O morning star", but first let me point out that there are as many opinions in Bible commentaries as to who or what is being referred to as there are bible versions. Some believe this passage refers to the king of Babylon, whom many identify as king Nebuchadnezzar; others believe it refers to Belshazzar, some say it speaks of the Antichrist, and others as the kingdom of Babylon itself.

    Many others see Isaiah 14:12 as referring to the spiritual power behind the king and kingdom of Babylon. There is little agreement among scholars as to who or what is being addressed in this passage or how to translate it.

    The problem with the translation, "MORNING STAR" (#1966- haylale), is that the words "morning" and "star" are not found here in ANY Hebrew text. (Morning is #1242- boker and star is #3556- kokawb)

    The word for star IS found in verse 13, where it says: "I will exalt my throne above the stars of God." The two words, morning and star, are found together in Job 38:7, where God is asking Job in verse 4, "Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth?. . . When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?" This seems to be a reference to the angels who rejoiced at God's creation.

    Another serious problem with rendering this word (#1966 Haylale) as "morning star" is that Jesus Christ himself is called the morning star in Rev. 22:16 where he says: "I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star." The NIV and NASB make it possible to identify Satan with Jesus Christ. I believe this is Lucifer's ultimate game plan and that the new versions have taken a giant step forward in advancing Satan's deception.

    The word translated as Lucifer in the KJB occurs only once in the Hebrew, just as the word Lucifer occurs only once in the Holy Bible. It is a noun and it comes from a very interesting verb #1984 hawlal. This verb is used many times and has many very different meanings including: "to shine, to be foolish, to boast, to glory, to praise, and to be mad (insane or crazy)".

    Isn't it interesting that Satan boasts and glories in his wisdom and power, wants to receive praise as god, shines as an angel of light to deceive, and his madness in wanting to be like the most High is ultimately the height of foolishness?

    The reasons I believe the King James Bible reading of Lucifer is correct are many. First, if this passage is not referring to the fall of Satan, also known as the dragon, the old serpent, the devil, leviathan, Beelzebub, etc., then we have no account in Scripture as to how he, who was originally created by God as good, became what he is today.

    In I Timothy 3:6 we are told that a bishop should not be a novice "lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil." We are also told that Satan wishes to be worshipped. We see in the temptation in the wilderness that he came to Jesus Christ and said: "All these things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me." Where are this desire to be like the most High God and the pride that resulted in his condemnation recorded in the Scriptures except here in Isaiah 14:12-15? They are not found anywhere else.

    Second, I disagree with those that argue that only the king of Babylon is being referred to in Isaiah 14:12 and not the fall of Satan. Many say it refers to king Nebuchadnezzar. A big problem with this view is that Nebuchadnezzar became a worshipper of the true God and his miraculous conversion is recorded in Daniel chapter 4. Nebuchadnezzar will not "be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit", but rather will be with the Lord Jesus Christ and his redeemed for all eternity. Praise God for his mercy. Another problem is that if the passage refers to an earthly king, then how did he get into heaven from whence he fell?

    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.

    Rev. 18:2 says: "Babylon the great is fallen, is fallen, and is become the habitation of devils, and the hold of every foul spirit...", and very significantly we read in Revelation 13: 1-2, "And I stood upon the sand of the sea, and saw a beast rise up out of the sea, having SEVEN HEADS and ten horns, and upon his horns ten crowns, and upon his heads the name of blasphemy. And the beast which I saw was like unto a leopard, and his feet were as the feet of a bear, and his mouth as the mouth of a LION, and THE DRAGON GAVE HIM HIS POWER, and his seat, and great authority."

    I understand this beast which has 7 heads and 10 horns to be a combination of the four world powers depicted in the book of Daniel, of which the king of Babylon was the lion and one of the 7 heads mentioned. In the book of Revelation we see that the dragon gave him his power. Satan himself is the spiritual power behind the kingdom of the beast and he finally gets the worship he has always wanted - "And they worshipped the dragon which gave power unto the beast..." Rev. 13:4.

    Fourth, many Bible critics say Lucifer is a mistranslation of the Hebrew and that the KJB has been responsible for this misconception and confusion. It should be pointed out that the KJB is not the first or the only Bible version to so understand and translate this passage in Isaiah 14:12. All English Bibles before the KJB of 1611 also have the word Lucifer in them. This includes Matthew's Bible, Coverdale's, the Great Bible, Bishop's Bible, and the Geneva Bible.

    Lucifer is also found in the Latin Vulgate, the Douay 1950 Catholic bible, Daniel Webster's 1833 translation and Darby's 1890 version. Lucifer is also the reading in the NKJV, the 21st Century KJV, and the Third Millenium Bible.

    Ryrie's Scofield bible and Dakes annotated bible make reference to the fact that many early church fathers (among these Tertullian, Origen, and Gregory the Great), saw the passage in Isaiah 14 as referring to the fall of Satan.


    Bible versions that contain the Scofield notes, including the NIV Scofield edition, say regarding the Lucifer of Isaiah 14:12: "Verses 12-14 evidently refer to Satan, who, as prince of this world-system (See Scofield "Revelation 13:8") is the real unseen ruler of the successive world- powers. Tyre, Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece, Rome, etc. (see Ezekiel 28:12-14) Lucifer, "day-star," can be none other that Satan. This tremendous passage marks the beginning of sin in the universe. When Lucifer said, "I will," sin began.

    The Encyclopedia Britannica says: "The Church Fathers interpreted the words of Jesus in Luke 10:18, "I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven," as a reference to this passage in Isaiah, so that "Lucifer" came to be regarded as the name of Satan before his fall."

    The Random House 1999 Webster's dictionary gives the following definitions of Lucifer. The first one listed is "a proud rebellious archangel, identified with Satan, who fell from heaven." The second one is: "the planet Venus when appearing as the morning star." Of these two, I don't think it was the planet Venus that wanted to be like God and exalt its throne above the stars of God, do you?

    On one of the internet Bible clubs I belong to, I was discussing this passage with another Christian who said Lucifer was a bad translation of the Hebrew text. Here is part of our dialogue.

    "My aim has not been to argue that the Isaiah text is irrelevant to our understanding of Satan's downfall: we're probably not so far apart as it sometimes seems. Whilst "Lucifer" is a bad translation of heylel in Is 14:12 it is actually a good exposition of the text from a biblical-theological perspective. Since our discussions here usually focus on the questions of translation we often miss the fact that we're largely in agreement doctrinally." (end of statement)

    (My response) "Well, I'm glad we tend to see this passage in a similar way doctrinally, but I would disagree with you that Lucifer is a bad translation. We know that one of the primary meanings of the verb from which Hehlel is derived is "to shine". Lucifer literally means "light bearing or light bearer". The other passage that traditionally speaks of Satan is Ezekiel 28:12-19.

    First the prince of Tyrus is addressed, then beginning with verse 12 the king of Tyrus is spoken to. The king seems to be the spiritual power behind the earthly prince. This "king" is also called the anointed cherub that covereth who was in the mountain of God. He was also in the garden of Eden. Part of his description is being covered with many precious stones and gold. He walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire, and verse 17 says: "Thine heart was lifted up because of thy beauty, thou hast corrupted thy wisdom by reason of thy brightness". Apparently this covering cherub was resplendent and reflected bright lights and colors - thus "light bearer" or Lucifer.

    Many Christians have thought that the reason God made two cherubs facing each other over the mercy seat, was to provide an object lesson about pride. Lucifer was the only one of his kind before his fall. He was lifted up because of his beauty. So as an object lesson, God creates two cherubs facing each other. They can "see" that there is another one just like them and they are not so special or unique.

    Lucifer or Light bearer fits perfectly because Satan was a very bright, beautiful, light reflecting creature before his fall, and he now transforms himself into an angel of light to deceive.

    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). As you know, the words "morning star" are used in other places in Scripture, but not here in Isaiah 14:12. So I would say that the name Lucifer in Isaiah is exactly what it should be; it is an excellent translation." (end of response)

    Lucifer seems to be the personal name of this powerful spiritual entity who wants to be like the most High God and he is also known as Satan and the devil. A host of modern dictionaries and encyclopedias, including Webster's 1999 edition, Word Net. Dictionary, American Heritage Dictionary, Wordsmyth English Dictionary, and Encyclopedia Com., all define Lucifer as Satan and the devil. This is not a new doctrine nor is it an old one that has passed out of favor.

    Those who attack the King James Bible and say that we who believe and defend it are not using the facts, may not be aware that there are many differing scholarly opinions and divergent bible versions. They have no final authority as to what are the true words of God and are left to their own changeable opinions and preferences. We will not stand idly by as they try to steal God's words from us and undermine our faith.

    The King James Bible is the perfect word of the living God. It alone, like the incarnate Word of God of Whom it testifies, is the faithful and true witness.

    Will Kinney
     
  20. Will J. Kinney

    Joined:
    May 15, 2001
    Messages:
    736
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hank intones with outrage regarding this comment: "God forbid" is an example of dynamic equivalence which you don't seem to have a problem with except when it is in the KJV. Remember the post about "truth is the first casualty" in these discussions?
    ---------------------------------------------------------------

    Hank says:
    I have a problem with ANY translation that adds or removes words from the text.
    This is a clear case where the KJV translators added something not found in ANY original language text.

    HankD

    Well, Hank, let me enlighten you a bit on the use of the expression "God forbid". Perhaps you have not considered why it is correctly rendered this way.

    “GOD FORBID!”

    Doug Kutilek is a virulent critic of the King James Bible. He has written this short article criticizing the rendering of “God forbid” as is found in the Holy Bible. Here is his opinion and then I will post the refutation.

    Doug Kutilek writes: The phrase “God forbid” occurs some 24 times in the King James Version of the Bible. Nine of these occurrences are in the OT (and thrice the similar “the LORD forbid”), while fifteen are found in the NT. Of the NT occurrences, all but one are found in the writings of Paul.

    As has been pointed out countless times with regard to the use of the phrase “God forbid” to render the words of the original Hebrew and Greek, it is a close English equivalent except for two facts: 1. the word “God” is not found in the original text; and 2. neither is the word “forbid.” Other than that, it is a fine representation of the original!

    It is obvious, of course, that here at least, the KJV is not a literal translation of the original, but is at best a paraphrase, a “dynamic equivalent.” (Do I hear some rigid KJV adherent mutter under his breath, “God forbid!”?)

    The NT passages, gleaned from Strong’s concordance, are Luke 20:16;Romans 3:4; 3:6; 3:31; 6:2; 6:15; 7:7; 7:13; 9:14; 11:1; 11:11; I Corinthians 6:15; Galatians 2:17; 3:21; 6:14. In every case but the last, the phrase is a self-standing grammatical unit, expressing strong opposition or rejection of a just mentioned opinion, point of view, or implied answer to a question. In Galatians 6:14, it is incorporated into a sentence.

    In all 15 references, the Greek phrase is identical: ME GENOITO. ME is a negative particle usually used with verbs in the subjunctive, optative or imperative moods. GENOITO is a rare NT occurrence of a verb in the optative mood (just 56 cases in all). It is from the verb GINOMAI, “to be, become, happen,” etc. Taken together, the phrase may be literally rendered, “may it not be,” a phrase weaker in force in English than the Greek original.

    Modern English equivalents would be “not at all!” or “absolutely not!” or “certainly not!” or “by no means” or “under no circumstances” or “perish the thought!” or even the colloquial, “no way, Jose!” (see the New King James Bible, New American Standard Bible, and New International Version in the passages involved).

    While all of these modern renderings are other than strictly literal renderings of ME GENOITO, they at least have the advantage over the KJV rendering of not introducing the name of God where it is not found in the original.

    Frankly, I am at a loss to explain how it came to pass that “God forbid,” came to be considered by Wycliffe and other early English translators from Tyndale to the KJV as a suitable and correct translation of the Greek ME GENOITO. It was strictly a phenomenon that arose in the then-very small English-speaking world, as far as I can tell. It cannot be defended as “the closest possible English equivalent.” The renderings of the NKJB, NASB, and NIV are very much to be preferred to it.

    ---Doug Kutilek "AS I SEE IT" Volume 4, Number 4, April, 2001

    And now for my rebuttal.

    All previous English versions use this same expression, God forbid, including Wycliffe 1395; Tyndale 1525; Coverdale 1535; Bishop's Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1599, John Wesley's translation 1755.

    So also does the Douay version of 1950 in Luke 20:16; Romans, I Corinthians and Galatians, as do the Revised Version of 1881, the American Standard Version of 1901(in all the same New Testament verses as the KJB), The World English Bible in Luke 20:16 and Gal. 2:17, Weymouth Version in Mat. 16:22, Luke 20:16 and Gal. 6:14, the Revised Standard Version in Mt. 16:22 and Luke 20:16, and the New Living Translation 1996 in Luke 20:16, and Galatians 6:14.

    The New RSV has "heaven forbid" in Luke 20:16 (likewise no heaven nor forbid-according to Kutilek). By the way the NRSV also has "God forbid" in Mat. 16:22 where likewise it is not "in the Greek" as the scholars like to say.

    The modern Hebrew Names Version contains "God forbid" in Gal. 2:17, Wesleys Bible Translation has it in Mat. 16:22; Luke 20:16, and Gal. 6:14; Todays English Version has it in Mt.16:22, as well as the Good News Translation.

    The New Century Version has "heaven forbid" in all the same verses where the KJB has "God forbid"; The Living Bible has God forbid in Romans 3:6, Gal 2:17, and 6:14, the Jerusalem Bible has it in Luke 20:16.

    Mr Kutilek apparently is totally unaware that the NASB has 'God forbid" in Mat. 16:22 where his own scholarly standards would condemn this version he recommends. It is a different Greek construction, but again neither the words “God” nor “forbid” are found there. Both the NASB and the NIV frequently add the words God or Lord when they are not “in the original text”.

    Surpise! Even the New KJV, which he told us to consult, has rendered the exact same “me genoito” as God forbid in Galatians 6:14 !

    In fact this is the definition that the Oxford Greek Dictionary gives. Also Constantine Tsirpanlis, former Instructor in Modern Greek Language and Literature at New York University, Former Consultant for the Program in Modern Greek Studies at Hunter College, Professor of Church History and Greek Studies at Unification Theological Seminary, gives the definition of "me genoito" on page 72 of his book, "Modern Greek Idiom And Phrase Book," Barron's Educational Services, Inc., 1978, ISBN 0-8120-0476-0. The ONLY definition Tsirpanlis (a native Greek) gives for "me genoito" is "God forbid!" There is NO reference to"may it never be", "by no means" or "certainly not"!

    Mr. Kutilek chides our AV because "God" is not literally found in the text. In spite of all his learning he has little understanding of how languages work and exalts his opinion above any bible version out there today.

    Another example using the verb kreematizo and the noun kreematismos is found in Romans 11:4 “But what saith the answer of God unto him?”. The NIV reads, “And what was God's answer to him?” It is interesting to note that there is no word in ANY Greek text for the word “God”. Despite this fact the NIV reads "God's answer". Now I wonder what Mr. Kutilek would say to that?

    Literally the Greek of Rom. 11:4 reads, “alla ti legei autoo ho kreematismos”. The last word in the previous phrase is ‘kreematismos’ and it carries the idea of 1) an answer from God or 2) a divine response or revelation. So, in order to accurately preserve the Greek in this sentence the word “God” or “Divine” must be "added" (even though NOTHING has been added) to the English text. In fact if "God" were not 'added' then the sense of the verse would be lost.

    The verb form is found in Matthew 2:12, 22: Acts 10:22; and Hebrews 8:5 and 11:7. In Matthew 2:12 and 22 the KJB reads, “And being warned of God”. The NASB likewise reads in both, “And having been warned by God”, and so does the NKJV in 2:22. The NASB also renders this verb as "warned by God" twice in Hebrews 8:5 and 11:7. The NKJV reads "divinely instructed", though strictly speaking the words God or Divinely are not "literally" there. Once again we see that the NASB, NKJV and NIV have commited the unpardonable sin, according to Mr. Kutilek, of saying "by God" when God is not in the Greek text.

    The brand new 2001 English Standard Version also "adds" the word God in the expressions "warned of God", "God's reply", and "instructed by God" in Romans 11:4; Hebrews 8:5 and Hebrews 11:7. It also adds the word God to other passages when not literally found in the Greek.

    Another example of “God not being in the text” is found in the NASB three times in Acts 13:43; and Acts 17:4 and 17. In Acts 13:43 the KJB, as well as the NKJV, RV, ASV, and even the NIV read: “many of the Jews and RELIGIOUS (or devout) proselytes followed Paul and Barnabas”. The word is sebomai and there is nothing literally found about God in the word at all. Even the NASB in this same chapter verse 50 the word is simply translated as “devout” However in Acts 13:43, 17:4 and 17 the NASB reads “GOD-fearing”, with no literal “God” in any Greek text. The NIV too switches gears and in both Acts 17:4 and 17 likewise “adds” the word God just like the NASB, but not so the KJB, NKJV, RV or ASV.

    The NASB often adds the words Jesus, God and Lord to their translation, when these words are not found in the Hebrew and Greek texts. The NASB adds the word Jesus in Mark 1:45; Luke 22:63, and Acts 3:16; Acts 9:22. It also adds the word God in 1 Samuel 16:7, Isaiah 37:20 (from Dead Sea Scrolls, but not from Hebrew Masoretic text), Matthew 15:5, 16:22, Acts 3:19, Acts 13:43, Acts 19:26, Romans 11:28, 1 Peter 2:9; and Lord in Exodus 33:9, Exodus 34:10, 2 Kings 23:19, Job 21:17, 19, 2 Chronicles 32:24, Hosea 1:6, 9, and 10:2.

    The NIV likewise mistranslates the word hagios, which means saints, as "God's people" a total of ten times in the New Testament. Neither the words God nor people are there in any text

    Apparently the scholarly views of Mr. Kutilek are not shared by others members of the Bible of the Month Club. Perhaps Mr. Kutilek should write his own bible version to give us the true light we benighted souls have so long pined for.

    Mr. Kutilek, and fellow Bible critics are like those described in I Timothy 1:7 "Desiring to be teachers...understanding neither what they say, nor whereof they affirm."

    By the rigid standard he sets up, he condemns most bible versions in print. He criticizes the KJB for translating me genoito as God forbid, yet the lexicons, including Thayer, Liddel & Scott, and Baer, Arndt & Gingrich all tell us this is a perfectly acceptable way of rendering this expression. There are a whole host of Bible versions both before and after the King James Bible that do the very same thing, including some that Mr. Kutilek himself recommends!

    Words of advice from Proverbs for those who think Mr. Kutilek has a handle on the truth. “Go from the presence of a foolish man, when thou perceivest not in him the lips of knowledge.” Proverbs 14:7

    Will Kinney
     
Loading...