Modern Scholarship is a Joke! - a few examples

Hi [Brian], 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.
</font>[/QUOTE]So? There are specific words in the Greek for "day" and "star", and the word for "day" is right there *earlier in the same verse* in 2 Pet 1:19! You can't have it both ways.

Translation first, interpretation second. And if you had been reading my posts, you would have seen that I *do* think this passage can be applied to Satan. I actually don't care if you want to argue that the *passage* can be applied to Satan. My concern is when you say "morning star" is a wrong translation, when it is clearly not, and backed by a mountain of internal, linguistic and historical evidence.

 

More evidence to put on the mountain:

Luther's German Bible, and the Spanish Reina Valera Bible, both accepted by KJV-only supporters as "the word of God in German" and "the word of God in Spanish" respectively, read as follows:

Isaiah 14:12 (Luther's)
Wie bist du vom Himmel gefallen, du schöner Morgenstern! Wie bist du zur Erde gefällt, der du die Heiden schwächtest!

2 Peter 1:19 (Luther's)
Und wir haben desto fester das prophetische Wort, und ihr tut wohl, daß ihr darauf achtet als auf ein Licht, das da scheint in einem dunklen Ort, bis der Tag anbreche und der Morgenstern aufgehe in euren Herzen.

Isaiah 14:12 (Reina Valera)
¡Cómo caiste del cielo, oh Lucero, hijo de la mañana! Cortado fuiste por tierra, tú que debilitabas las gentes.

2 Peter 1:19 (Reina Valera)
Tenemos también la palabra profética más permanente, á la cual hacéis bien de estar atentos como á una antorcha que alumbra en lugar oscuro hasta que el día esclarezca, y el lucero de la mañana salga en vuestros corazones:

You get one guess what "Morgenstern" and "Lucero" mean in their respective languages. Like the Latin Bible and the Greek Bible, the German and the Spanish Bibles that are accepted by KJV-onlyists use the same term in both verses, the term that means "morning star".

 

Hi Brian, you posted: "Translation first, interpretation second. And if you had been reading my posts, you would have seen that I *do* think this passage can be applied to Satan. I actually don't care if you want to argue that the *passage* can be applied to Satan. My concern is when you say "morning star" is a wrong translation, when it is clearly not, and backed by a mountain of internal, linguistic and historical evidence."

Brian, I'm glad to see you admit the passage may be speaking of Satan. Fact is, many commentators have conflicting views about this passage, as you probably know.

It is my contention that Lucifer is not a mistranslation and that the passage does refer to Satan's rebellion against God and the cause of his fall into sin.

And I still maintain that Satan wants to be like God, and he has accomplished this to some degree in the nasb, niv by taking upon himself one of the titles of the Lord Jesus Christ - the morning star. That is why I object to this rendering in the nasb, niv.

You, of course, are free to disagree.

As for the Spanish and German versions, I and many others who believe in an inerrant Bible, think they are far superiour to the nasb, niv, esv, etc., but they are not God's perfect words. God's perfect words are found only in the King James Holy Bible. That is why we are often called King James ONLY.

This is what I believe and where I stand.
Again, you are free to disagree. Your view, however, is that there is NO perfect Bible anywhere on this earth and apparently God has failed to preserve His infallible, complete, inspired words anywhere on this earth in any cleary recognizable form.

So, I am also free to disagree with your point of view on this matter. Someday we will both find out whose view is correct.

God bless,

Will Kinney

 

My point is that the KJV's translation of Ac. 12:4 is so muddled that even KJV-Onlyists can't agree on what it means. By contrast, the Geneva Bible correctly translated Ac. 12:4 as "Passover," which has only one meaning and cannot be misconstrued. Sadly, the KJV "Bible correctors" then came along and introduced confusion in place of clarity.

 

That is my contention as well! "Lucifer" is the old Latin and old English term for Venus, the morning star. My contention is that to say "'Lucifer' does NOT mean 'morning star'" is wrong. If you *interpret* "Lucifer" or "morning star" to be talking about Satan *in the context of Isa 14*, that's one thing - but to deny that the *translational* meaning of "Heylel" means Lucifer/morningstar is entirely different.

Then he has accomplished the same thing since the passage was first written by Isaiah, for Heylel is the name of the Babylonian god who they believed was manifested as Venus, the morning star. It is how Bibles have been translated since the beginning.

Scripture says Jesus is a lion, and that Satan is like a lion. Scripture says "The earth is the Lord's" and that God made the world, but also says Satan is "the god of this world". Scripture calls Ezekiel "the son of man", yet calls Jesus the same thing. Scripture calls Jesus a "morning star", yet calls other things "morning stars" in Job 38:7. None of these confuse me, nor do I think they are attempts of Satan or Ezekiel or anyone else at trying to steal Christ's title.

*Why* do you think Luther's and the RV read that way? *Why* do you think the ancient Greek translation of the OT reads that way? *Why* do you think "Lucifer" is the old English and old Latin term for Venus? *Why* do you think Strong's and Webster's dictionaries give the definition of "Heylel" and "Lucifer" as "the morning star"? *Why* do you think there was an ancient Babylonian god named Heylel who was the morning star, who was the son of Shachar (the god of the dawn), just like Isa 14:12 says? *Why* do you think marginal notes in early English Bibles, including the 1611 KJV, indicate that "daystar" and "morning star" are valid translations and that Venus is being talked about? Are all these things just coincidence? Are you willing to discard all of those facts as irrelevant and chance just so you can avoid admitting that you just might be wrong?? Do you realize that the odds of all that being coincidence and you being correct instead are too astronomical to even calculate?

Wrong. Please don't tell me what I believe. I believe God has preserved his word in a clearly recognizable form. I *don't* believe that God did it in the format that you do - for if he did, then he was lying for the 80% of church history prior to 1611. In other words: What Bible was God's perfect words in 1605? Did one even exist, or was God lying about preservation? Did he "fail to preserve His infallible, complete, inspired words anywhere on this earth in any cleary recognizable form" in 1605? Come on, Will. You're a smart guy. This is not a difficult concept.

 

I'm reminded of the comment made by the devoted mother who was watching her son's regiment marching past: "Oh, look! Everybody's out of step but my Jimmie!"

 

So, then only the English speakers after 1611 got God's perfect words? Where were they before 1611?
Wouldn't that mean that William Tyndale and others died for imperfect words? And that God is a respecter of persons? Which would make God a liar when He says that He is not a respecter of persons. After all you claim that only the English have God's perfect words. That must mean that He respects the English speakers above all others. Why else would they have to settle for imperfect words?

Funny, I've never heard Brian or anyone else here say that. Nor have I ever said that. Isn't there a commandment about not bearing false witness? Of course God preserved his words just as he said would. And when I pick up the NIV I have them, when I pick up the NASB I have them, when I pick up the NKJV I have them, when I pick up the KJV I have them. And, even though I can't read them, when I pick up the German or Spanish or any other language bible I still have them. I say that because if I wanted to, I could put forth the effort to learn those languages.

 

Archangel, who by the way has no inspired Bible except the mystical one that exists in his own mind, says: "My point is that the KJV's translation of Ac. 12:4 is so muddled that even KJV-Onlyists can't agree on what it means. By contrast, the Geneva Bible correctly translated Ac. 12:4 as "Passover," which has only one meaning and cannot be misconstrued. Sadly, the KJV "Bible correctors" then came along and introduced confusion in place of clarity. "


Uh, Arch, it wasn't the KJB translators who corrected the Geneva bible. It was the Geneva bible that misunderstood the passage and corrected the KJB. The Bibles that came out BEFORE the Geneva and read Easter include Tyndale 1525, Coverdale 1535, Matthews Bible, Bishop's Bible 1568, Great Bible, and even Luther's 1545. You've got things backwards, Arch.

Will

 

Brian posted:

Originally posted by Will J. Kinney:
It is my contention that Lucifer is not a mistranslation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
That is my contention as well! "Lucifer" is the old Latin and old English term for Venus, the morning star. My contention is that to say "'Lucifer' does NOT mean 'morning star'" is wrong. If you *interpret* "Lucifer" or "morning star" to be talking about Satan *in the context of Isa 14*, that's one thing - but to deny that the *translational* meaning of "Heylel" means Lucifer/morningstar is entirely different."

Brian, you are the one who is mixed up here guy. Lucifer does NOT mean morning star, no matter what some of your dictionaries say. You are only giving one of several meanings of this word found even in the dictionaries.

And the Hebrew word does NOT mean "morning star". Get over it.

Lucifer literally comes from two words. Lux meaning light and fere meaning to bear or carry. Thus literally it means "light bearer".

I don't give a fig about your alleged Babylonian god explanation. That is pure fiction.

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.

There is great disagreement among scholars as to whether this is a personal name or a description.

The noun comes from the 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)". But the verb does not mean "star" or "morning".

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 KJB translators as well as those that put together the Bishop's Bible, Geneva Bible, Coverdales, Great Bible, all of which preceeded the KJB, likewise saw a reference to the fall of Satan in the passage. None of them translated it as "morning star".

Now, I am not going to change your mind and you certainly are not going to move me either. So let's drop it.

Will K

 

Your view, however, is that there is NO perfect Bible anywhere on this earth and apparently God has failed to preserve His infallible, complete, inspired words anywhere on this earth in any cleary recognizable form.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wrong. Please don't tell me what I believe. I believe God has preserved his word in a clearly recognizable form. I *don't* believe that God did it in the format that you do - for if he did, then he was lying for the 80% of church history prior to 1611. In other words: What Bible was God's perfect words in 1605? Did one even exist, or was God lying about preservation? Did he "fail to preserve His infallible, complete, inspired words anywhere on this earth in any cleary recognizable form" in 1605? Come on, Will. You're a smart guy. This is not a difficult concept. "

Brian, I have written before about where God's perfect words were before 1611. Most likely in the Old Latin Bibles of the Waldensians up through the 1500's.

You say "God has preserved his word in a clearly recognizable form". Ok, tell us all very cleary where they were before 1611 and more importantly where they are now. I would really love to hear it.

I will wager that your position is that they are somewhere out there in all the various manuscripts mixed up with spurious readings, and that some of them have been lost, since I think you are also among the number who believe all Hebrew texts have been corrupted in several places.

So if I am wrong about what you believe, please enlighten me and prove differently.

As for 80% of the church not having His perfect words, this is a bogus argument. God never promised to give everybody a perfect Bible. They had enough of His words to come to a saving knowledge of Christ and He holds us accountable for what light He chooses to give us.

If you say the perfect words of God are now found in all bible versions, then you are the one with insurmountable problems. Unless of course you redefine words to mean whatever you want them to mean.

Compare the ESV with the KJB. Now, are you telling me that both are equally the inspired, complete, inerrant words of God?

If you answer in the affirmative, then you and I have no logical basis for discussion. You would then mean one thing by the words you use and I would mean something quite different.

Will

 

Archy says: "I'm reminded of the comment made by the devoted mother who was watching her son's regiment marching past: "Oh, look! Everybody's out of step but my Jimmie!"

Gee, Archy, you have really sharpened that rapier wit of yours in the last few years, haven't you? I never heard this one before. It ranks right up there with "If the KJV was good enough for Paul, it's good enough for me."

Beside Jimmy being out of step, 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.

Arch, the one who is really out of step here is you with your own mystical bible version that differs from all the other ones out there in print, no matter what version they might be.

Will Kinney

 

Translation: "My mind's made up, don't confuse me with the evidence." A word doesn't mean what dictionaries say it means??? We're really grasping at straws, aren't we. ;)

Yes, Lucifer DOES mean morning star (even in the KJV-only-beloved 1828 Webster's dictionary), and has for as long as the word has existed in Latin and English. Check your history. It also *now* means "Satan", because some interpreted the *passage* to be about Satan, and over time as the English language changed, it incorportated that second meaning.

Yes, it DOES. Heylel ben Shachar ("Heylel son of [the god of] the morning") was a Babylonian deity, manifested as Venus when it appears as a star in the morning. You simply saying "it does not" does nothing to prove the mountain of historical evidence wrong.

Yes, I agree. That's why it was used as a name for Venus the morning star, because Venus was a light bearer. *Exactly* the same way the Greek "Phosphorus" means "light bringer" yet is translated "day star" in the KJV. I can't believe how many times I have to bring that to your attention.

Hey, I have an idea - why not actually do some research some time? It is not fiction, even the OT often refers to Babylonian gods in that pantheon (unless you think the OT is "pure fiction" as well). Heylel's uncle (Baal) and grandmother (Ashera) are mentioned *many* times in the OT. A study of any half-decent Babylonian/Canaanite mythology text will document all that I've said. Perhaps you think it's all just coincidence, in which case I recommend you buy some lottery tickets, as you would be the luckiest person in the history of mankind to be correct against these odds.

Ya, that's right. So?

Ya, that's right. So?

Ya, that's right. So? Words *derived from other words* usually don't carry the same meaning, but a *derived* meaning. If they carried the same meaning, they wouldn't need to be derived. "Shachar" ("morning" in the same phrase) is derived from #7836 which means to seek, especially early seeking. Etymology is interesting, isn't it?

WRONG. Bishop's, Coverdale's and the Great Bible made NO indication that this was about Satan - they simply took the term from the Latin Vulgate, and in Latin the term means morning star. The Geneva Bible's marginal note says "You who thought yourself most glorious and as it were placed in the heaven for the morning star that goes before the sun, is called Lucifer, to whom Nebuchadnezzar is compared."

That's correct - instead, they simply borrowed "Lucifer" from the Latin Vulgate. Lucifer in Latin means "morning star".

Yes, I can see why you'd want to: It's hard to win an argument when you're buried by a mountain of evidence (of which you have no explanation, except mind-bogglingly astronomical coincidence) and keep having double standards pointed out. ;)

Will, what really gets me is that you try to pass off your articles as if you've actually researched the issue. You haven't. You've put on blinders and focused on the one fringe aspect that already agrees with you. If you had *really* researched it, you would know about the Geneva marginal notes (many online Bibles have them, and it takes 14 seconds to look it up), you would have known that "Lucifer" is a Latin word that means morning star (ah, I forgot - dictionaries are only correct if they agree with your personal preconceptions), you would have known about Luther's translation and the RV translation, etc. You slipshod research and half-baked responses only show us that you are not honest enough to actually do a thorough job, nor accept the facts when someone else presents them to you. And it is for *that* reason I'm willing to drop it - because discussing things with someone with their fingers in their ears running in circles singing "la la la, I can't hear you" is a complete waste of time and energy. If you are too scared to look beyond your nose, that's fine with me. Just don't tell me I'm wrong unless you can actually back it up.

 

Yes, but that answer contradicts KJV-onlyism, for these do not match the KJV.

Will, how many years have you and I been discussing this issue on the various boards? And you STILL do not even understand the position you are arguing against??? VERY disappointing. OK, read slowly and maybe you'll remember it this time:

"Now to the latter we answer; that we do not deny, nay we affirm and avow, that the very meanest translation of the Bible in English, set forth by men of our profession,...containeth the word of God, nay, is the word of God."

The preserved word of God was present in the form of all manuscripts and translations. No singular manuscript needs to be word-for-word perfect to be the word of God, just as a man with a wart does not mean he was not created by God.

This is how it was before the Waldensians Bibles, this is how it was before the KJV, this is how it is now.

Possibly, depends what you mean by "corruption". Also, the "Hebrew texts" used were completed approx 1000 A.D. - what to do before then? Even if they aren't "corrupt", the KJV still deviates from them in many places, either by translating alternate text or by translating using dynamic equivalence. Despite this, I believe that both the Hebrew texts and the KJV are both "the word of God".

Ah, here's what I'm getting at with my "by what authority" question. The reason you believe we must have a word-perfect preserved Bible (in any form), is because of your interpretation of certain scriptures. Now, if those interpretations are actually correct, then they must have been true prior to 1611, and not just after it, for those scriptures from which you derive that interpretation existed before 1611. So: if those scriptures existed before 1611 (which they did) but God didn't promise to give *them* a perfect Bible and they could make due with what they had (which you say), and if scripture doesn't change meaning over a span of a few years (which I hope you don't believe) - then what was true then MUST BE TRUE NOW - the meaning of those scriptures then must be the meaning of those same scriptures now. KJV-onlyism, by your own comments, implies that those scriptures changed meaning, and that they NOW mean there must be a word-perfect, preserved Bible, even though they didn't mean that before. So "by what authority" do *you* get to claim that?

Not at all. That was how it was before the Waldensians Bibles, that was how it was before the KJV. To *change* what preservation means means to change what scripture means. YOU are the one with the insurmountable problem, for you essentially align yourself with those, like the Mormons, who claim new inspiration and new meaning of scripture.

Absolutely, yes. Even though they differ, and even though one may be more a textually accurate representation of what was originally written.

I agree. What you mean is inconsistent, for it cannot be applied across history. Your position ultimately requires either scripture to change meaning over time, or for God to have been lying prior to the existence of a word-perfect perserved Bible. Either alternative should be completely unacceptable to a Christian.

 

Will: "Lucifer is also the reading in the NKJV, the 21st Century KJV, and the Third Millenium Bible. "

Interesting concept, citing MVs to support
the KJV1769 (also a MV).
All three of these revisions of the KJV
are decried by KJVOs or cited by KJVOs
-- is that legal or two faced?

 

Will Kinney: As for the Spanish and German versions, I and many others who believe in an inerrant Bible, think they are far superiour to the nasb, niv, esv, etc., but they are not God's perfect words. God's perfect words are found only in the King James Holy Bible. That is why we are often called King James ONLY.

Proof? Authority?

This is what I believe and where I stand.

It might behoove you to see what you're standing IN.


Again, you are free to disagree. Your view, however, is that there is NO perfect Bible anywhere on this earth and apparently God has failed to preserve His infallible, complete, inspired words anywhere on this earth in any cleary recognizable form.

How can you be SURE that's his view? That's your standard answer for anyone who disagrees with your KJVO myth, but yet you've been shown wrong every time you say that. Take myself, for instance. You sometimes act as if you know my own view better than I know it myself, but the TRUTH is, my view is that each & every valid BV in every language in which it's written came out as GOD chose, whether any of us agree or not. You agree that God has preserved His word unto every generation after the ones in which He first presented any of it, but yet, you waffle when asked about whether any of the pre-KJV English BVs are the word of God or not. Why do you waffle? Because you know that no two English BVs are alike, BUT you know God has preserved/presented His word since He first presented it, and combining those two facts quashes the KJVO myth. You just cannot bring yourself to admit it.


You haven't provided one speck of evidence as to why anyone should believe the KJVO myth, all you've done is compare versions & say, "This doesn't agree with the KJV; therefore it's wrong & the whole version is false."

You even admit you CANNOT prove the veracity of your myth, but you keep on pushing it anyway. Again I ask-IS KJVO OF GOD, OR MAN? If you say, "From God", let's see some PROOF. I say KJVO is from MAN, and I, along with many others, have posted the proof of its man-made origin on this & many other boards. YOUR side aint doing so hot in the "Authority, Proof & Evidence" Dept.

 

It's called a "DOUBLE STANDARD".

 

The Geneva Bible came out in 1560. It clearly and correctly reads "Passover" at Ac. 12:4.

The KJV came out in 1611. Its muddled and confused translation of Ac. 12:4 reads "Easter."

It's as simple as that.

 

Sorry, but you are both wrong. The Geneva New Testament was first published in 1557 and read "Easter" in Acts 12:4. When the Old Testament was published in 1560, the New Testament was revised and at that time "easter" was changed to "passover."

Yes, but not quite as simple as you thought it was. :D

 

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition.  2000.
 
Lucifer
 
SYLLABICATION: Lu·ci·fer

NOUN: 1. The archangel cast from heaven for leading the revolt of the angels; Satan.

2. The planet Venus in its appearance as the morning star.

3. lucifer A friction match.

ETYMOLOGY: Middle English, from Old English, morning star, Lucifer, from Latin Lcifer, from lcifer, light-bringer : lx, lc-, light; see leuk- in Appendix I + -fer, -fer.
 
 
Webster Dictionary, 1913

Lucifer

Lu"ci*fer (?), n. [L., bringing light, n., the morning star, fr. lux, lucis, light + ferre to bring.]

1. The planet Venus, when appearing as the morning star; -- applied in Isaiah by a metaphor to a king of Babylon.

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 ! Is. xiv. 12.

Tertullian and Gregory the Great understood this passage of Isaiah in reference to the fall of Satan; in consequence of which the name Lucifer has since been applied to, Satan.

2. Hence, Satan.

How wretched Is that poor man that hangs on princes' favors! . . . When he falls, he falls like Lucifer, Never to hope again. Shak.

 

Will, there's nothing in your last post that goes against what I've been saying. In fact, I notice some of it *confirms* my position:

In other words, some (a few centuries after the NT was written, and *many* centuries after Isaiah was written) saw the *passage* to be about Satan, and thus the name started to be applied to Satan. In other words, that "definition" exists because of *interpretation over time*. We have the "Satan" definition *now*, because it originated *then*, with those early fathers. And even Tertullian (the earliest to do) while applying the passage and thus the name to Satan, still recognized that the *meaning* of the name he was applying was "morning star" (4:1:23). Gregory the Great was quite a bit later, and was the Pope at the start of the 7th century, so he was quite a bit after the fact. Others earlier men that spoke similarly were Origen and Jerome, but both these early fathers also realized that the name, even if applied to Satan, still means "morning star".