NIV Calls Lucifer, "Jesus" (Article)

It is not my fault, nor anyone elses fault that you do not understand this verse of scripture.

I understand it just fine. I simply reject the King Jimmy Only interpretation of it, because KJV-onlyism is dumb.

 

There is not one single indication in this passage that this is referring to Venus or the morning star.

Margin note at Isa. 14:12, in the 1611 KJV: "Or, O day starre."

The KJV translators understood quite rightly what this meant. Michelle is the stubborn one here who refuses to accept reality.

I've seen plenty of blather about why the correct reading in Isa. 14:12 is always "Lucifer," but the only reason ever given is that michelle says so.

Well, if I have the choice between "michelle says so" and "the great KJV scholars said so," why should I listen to michelle? Is michelle more qualified than Lancelot Andrewes and crew to tell me what heylel means? Surely not.

 

Read the posting rules.

 

And:

 

Before I begin this debate rebutal I would like to say to michelle: I admire your tenacity and loyalty to what you believe.

You too askjo, you have both fearlessly taken on the "heavy-weights" and stood in there where others have run away.

I believe I can safely say that we all love you both. Stay the course.

These factors have everything to do with KJVO position (of which you are now appear to be in denial, but that's OK, we've all been there). Because these very factors of the translators personalities and fallibility, Church affiliation and “Alexandrian” bent are the fiery darts which are aimed at MV supporters.

It has always been my defense against such attacks to hold up the criteria of the KJVO to our AV to show up the KJVO double-standards.

This is not the stand of the KJV translators themselves. They indicated that all translations ARE the Word of God, even the “meanest” of them. In fact they spoke highly of the RCC Latin Vulgate and RCC “Saint Jerome” and his work (the Latin Vulgate) and they included some of his unique readings in the AV from the Vulgate as well as the inclusion of the "Alexandrian" RCC Apocrypha in the First Edition of the AV (which according to the KJVO double-standard should have introduced “poison to the well” into the AV, but again they get a pass).

It appears to me that KJVOs ignore the fact that their criteria for condemning MVs can be used successfully to measure the AV as well and in fact the KJVO are therefore their own worst enemy.

Let me say in defense of the AV translators: They (and those who followed) took great pains in correcting and refining their work for several hundred years following the First Edition.

Again, neither do you since there are hundreds of differences between the 1611 AV First Edition and the refined AV 1769 Edition. According to KJVO logic “things which are different are not the same”, therefore only one of the several revisions (1611-1853) and/or editions (Oxford, Cambridge, Nelson) can be the “actual” words of God. The number and gravity of the corrections is not the issue. That there is ONE official difference between any two editions of the Authorised Version makes them NOT the same according to KJVO philosophy, the AV getting a pass however.

Again where would you like to start using this very criteria for the AV? Omissions and additions are common in the AV not only compared to the TR but between the several revisions/editions or else there would never have been another AV after the 1611AV
(e.g. the 1769 revision, although several proceeded the 1769AV).

Regardless of the value of labels (of which the Word of God abounds against those in error) you have indeed labeled others by innuendo comparing your superiour spirituality against others here on the BB. In fact you have published a litany of “You do..I do not”.

There is a mandate in the Word of God concerning comparing ourselves to others.

2 Corinthians 10:12
For we dare not make ourselves of the number, or compare ourselves with some that commend themselves: but they measuring themselves by themselves, and comparing themselves among themselves, are not wise.

And I quote you in a comparison of yourself to others “You may adhere to the labels of men, however I do not”.

HankD

 

Read the posting rules.

Thank you, TWade. I was aware of the "civility" rules in general, but not that particular prohibition specifically.

Unfortunately, the editing window has expired in the meantime. My apologies. (My main point, however, stands.)

 

--------------------------------------------------
Furthermore, they also said in a margin note that "day starre" was also a good translation of the term heylel. How come you can't deal with that?
--------------------------------------------------

And how come you put the opinions of man on the same level of authority and above that of the word of God? This is what you are claiming. I don't care what one iota what the translators "opinions" of that word is. I only care what the word of God has said. If the translators thought Day Star accurately rendered the Hebrew word Helel, they would have so translated it as such. They didn't, because they KNEW it was their own OPINION and INTERPRETATION outside of the plain and literal meaning of the Hebrew word.

love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

Michelle,

As I said we don't know what heylel means. What grammatical are you insisting it to be? Those of us who can read and write Hebrew realize that we don't know what heylel means. And what of ben shachar? This is son of the early dawn. Most near eastern people reading about a bright one who was son of the early dawn would think of the morning star Venus and the (fake) God's it was thought to represent.

 

Let's see. Michelle says she does not adhere to the labels of men. I don't think she is telling the truth, so let's check her out.

1. Christian - does Michelle adhere to the label Christian?

2. Fundamentalist - does Michelle adhere to the label of Fundamentalists?

3. Baptist - does Michelle adhere to the label of Baptist?

After all, "Christian" was a name the followers of Christ were called by the pagan unbelievers in Antioch so that is a "label of men."

Fundamentalist was a name applied by men to themselves following the publication of the booklets "The Fundamentals" in 1907 so that is also a "label of men."

Baptist is a name applied to us by men due to our insistence on believers baptism so that too is a "label of men."

Oh, and if Michelle does not adhere to the label of men called "Baptist" she is here under false pretenses for this is a "Baptist Only" section of the Baptist Board.

I think Michelle's hypocrisy has just been exposed!

 

--------------------------------------------------
There is a mandate in the Word of God concerning comparing ourselves to others.

2 Corinthians 10:12
For we dare not make ourselves of the number, or compare ourselves with some that commend themselves: but they measuring themselves by themselves, and comparing themselves among themselves, are not wise.

And I quote you in a comparison of yourself to others “You may adhere to the labels of men, however I do not”.
--------------------------------------------------

It helps to put things into context before you accuse me of doing something disobediant as a christian:

2 Corinthians 10

1 Now I Paul myself beseech you by the meekness and gentleness of Christ, who in presence am base among you, but being absent am bold toward you:
2 But I beseech you, that I may not be bold when I am present with that confidence, wherewith I think to be bold against some, which think of us as if we walked according to the flesh.
3 For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war after the flesh:
4 (For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strongholds
5 Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exhalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obediance of Christ;
6 And having in readiness to revenge all disobediance, when your obediance is fulfilled.
7 Do ye look on things after the outward appearance? If any many trust to himself that he is Christ's, let him of himself think this again, that, as he is Christ's, even so are we Christ's.
8 For though I should boast somewhat more of our authority, which the Lord hath given us for edification, and not for your destructrion, I should not be ashamed:
9 That I may not seem as if I would terrify you by letters.
10 For his letters, say they, are weighty and powerful; but his bodily presence is weak, and his speech contemptable.
11 Let such one think this, that, such as we are in word by letters when we are absent, such will we be also in deed when we are present.
12 For we dare not make ourselves of the number, or compare ourselves with some that commend themselves; but they measuring themselves by themselves, and comparing themselves among themselves, are not wise.
13 But we will not boast of things without our measure, but according to the measure of the rule which God hath distributed to us, a measure to reach even unto you.
14 For we stretch not ourselves beyond our measure, as though we reached not unto you: for we are come as far as to you also in preaching the gospel of Christ:
15 Not boasting of things without our measure, that is, of other men's labors; but having hope, when your faith is increased, that we shall be enlarged by you according to our rule abundantly,
16 To preach the gospel in the regions beyond you, and not to boast in another man's line of things made ready to our hand.
17 But HE THAT GLORIETH, LET HIM GLORY IN THE LORD.
18 For not he that commendeth himself is approved, but whom the Lord commendeth.


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

--------------------------------------------------
Again where would you like to start using this very criteria for the AV? Omissions and additions are common in the AV not only compared to the TR but between the several revisions/editions or else there would never have been another AV after the 1611AV
(e.g. the 1769 revision, although several proceeded the 1769AV).
--------------------------------------------------

There is a big difference between a translational error, printing or spelling error, to that of an omittion/addition based on the text being used for the translation. That is the difference and it is a big one, and to which is the issue. Translational, printing and spelling errors can be corrected. However, if the underlying text that is being translated from is corrupt, so also is the translation if that corruption is veiwed as being authentic, reliable and accurate. It is that simple.

love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

Might I add that you have accused others (namely me) of not loving the Word of God or even God Himself.

Putting that aside though might I quote the words erroneously attributed to Paul and adding to the Word of God by the KJV translators concerning your disobedience
"God forbid".

Another double-standard criteria which the KJVO grant to the AV alone.

HankD

 

michelle said:

And how come you put the opinions of man on the same level of authority and above that of the word of God?

The same men who put "Lucifer" in the text put its alternate translation in the margin. You can choose to believe they were inspired of God to put "Lucifer" in the text, but somehow God failed to prevent them from turning into morons when they wrote the margin not, if you like.

Personally, I think objective reality is a little more sensible than the KJV-only crowd makes it out to be.

This is what you are claiming.

No, I am claiming that if we are to take the translators seriously as translators, the credibility we extend to them for their translation should also be extended for the sake of their own textual notes.

It's called "consistency," another quality severely lacking in KJV-only rhetoric.

I don't care what one iota what the translators "opinions" of that word is.

As a matter of fact you do, because you are defending their choice to put "Lucifer" in the text instead of "day starre." You care very much about thier opinion of that word, and you have been braying about it more than anyone else in this thread.

I only care what the word of God has said.

No, let's be honest here. You care what a particular translation, which you have arbitrarily declared to be exclusively the word of God without any credible evidence to support your declaration, says. All your whining and complaining in these KJV-only threads is because we just won't take your word for it.

 

--------------------------------------------------
The same men who put "Lucifer" in the text put its alternate translation in the margin. You can choose to believe they were inspired of God to put "Lucifer" in the text, but somehow God failed to prevent them from turning into morons when they wrote the margin not, if you like.

--------------------------------------------------

I do not claim, nor have I said the KJV translators were inspired to translate the Hebrew word Helel to "Lucifer" in this passage, nor have I claimed they were inspired. I believe this translation was in the providence of God's guidance and that he has blessed it. I believe that this is the word God intended for this passage in the English translation he provided for us, as it is evidenced in the long history of the christian churches as such. If God saw it was not appropriate rendering of his inspired word for us, He would have seen fit to have it corrected soon thereafter. He did not.

Now in these last days, we are told that it means something else.

love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

Presuming Godly providence in translations, apparently He did via the NIV.

But no one (except for the KJVOlaters) claims or implies such providence, at least not to the point of infallibility. You claim a translation to be infallible to the exclusion of its source texts. That's completely unscriptural.

Oh please! We've been in the last days since Jesus left the Earth some 1,980 or so years ago. Your statement is a translational straw man. No one's saying it means "something else". From what I gather, it doesn't appear that the KJV translators meant for it to refer to Satan. They meant for it to refer to the "day starre". People who claim that it means "Satan" are the ones who are saying it's something else.

 

michelle said:

I do not claim, nor have I said the KJV translators were inspired to translate the Hebrew word Helel to "Lucifer" in this passage, nor have I claimed they were inspired. I believe this translation was in the providence of God's guidance and that he has blessed it.

Yeah, whatever. You're not going to dodge a major inconsistency by playing semantic games.

I believe that this is the word God intended for this passage in the English translation he provided for us

Based on your own opinion, and nothing else.

as it is evidenced in the long history of the christian churches as such.

Because medieval Catholics allegorized it as such for 1000 years.

If God saw it was not appropriate rendering of his inspired word for us, He would have seen fit to have it corrected soon thereafter. He did not.

And if he did, you would whine and complain about the correction because it deviated from the King James. You can't have it both ways.

 

--------------------------------------------------
Might I add that you have accused others (namely me) of not loving the Word of God or even God Himself.
--------------------------------------------------

Hank,

I apologize to you for this, and ask that you forgive me. It is my own observation and opinion based upon what you have shown forth in your posts, but this is all it is, my opinion, and I should not have accused you of this. I am truly sorry, and I will try my best not to do this type of thing again. I also ask our Lord Jesus Christ to forgive me. In Jesus name I pray. Amen.

By the way, I in no way meant you didn't love God, and since it came across to you as I did, I also apologize to you for this. I do not doubt your love for our Lord, I know you love him. You have been forgiven and cleansed of your sins through His shed blood, also as I have, and we are brothers and sisters in Christ. I love you as my brother in Christ, even though we disagree on this issue.

love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

It's not even an issue to me michelle.

But if you need to hear the words - I forgive you.

And since this is a matter of preception, I also ask for your forgiveness if I have offended you.

HankD

 

--------------------------------------------------
Presuming Godly providence in translations, apparently He did via the NIV.
--------------------------------------------------

This is assuming God's providence is on the NIV. This is the word that has been preserved and believed within the churches for hundreds of years, and specifically for the English speaking people and with the specific meaning of Satan. Does morning star reflect to the reader that this is speaking of Satan? Or does this metaphor used for Satan conflict with the metaphor of Jesus? And if it hadn't for hundreds of years, why now would God make it so? Why is God now changing this word and causing confusion and strife by it? Why all of a sudden in these last days does this word need to be changed if it was okay for hundreds of years as it was and still is? God's providence does not appear to be on the NIV, for the reason that He does not change and He is not the author of confusion.

Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle