NIV Calls Lucifer, "Jesus" (Article)

Considering that the NIV is the best selling, and now, the most used Bible? It's as reasonable to presume this as it is the KJV.

The preservation was by force. King James made it illegal to own any bible exceept the KJV. Those who were caught were imprisoned.

Since the KJV translators did not intend this (by evidence of their marginal note the to contrary), this has nothing to do with the KJVOlatrous arguement.

No. Neither did the word "Lucifer" to the KJV translators.

Because "Lucifer" no longer means the same things it did in 1611.

Since the NIV clearly has the same meaning that the KJV translators intended, your statement is false.

 

Hank,

Thank you.

You have not offended me, as you have been very patient and kind toward me. Thank you.

love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

--------------------------------------------------
Considering that the NIV is the best selling, and now, the most used Bible? It's as reasonable to presume this as it is the KJV.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------

Not really, but now that you mention this, it could be said that with advent of the KJV we saw great revivals. However with the advent of the NIV we have seen great apostacy. You brought it up, so this is what I also respond to you.

love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

--------------------------------------------------
The preservation was by force. King James made it illegal to own any bible exceept the KJV. Those who were caught were imprisoned.
--------------------------------------------------

This is irrelevent to the power and promise of God to preserve his words for every generation.

love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

--------------------------------------------------
Since the KJV translators did not intend this (by evidence of their marginal note the to contrary), this has nothing to do with the KJVOlatrous arguement.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------

The KJV translators are not God. God is God and has this power and ability to do this and did it.

love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

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

No. Neither did the word "Lucifer" to the KJV translators.
--------------------------------------------------

I suggest you pick up a dictionary, or go out into the streets and ask someone. Or better yet, look into church history.

love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

michelle said:

This is assuming God's providence is on the NIV.

It's as good an assumption as your assumption that God's providence is on the KJV, and probably made with equal basis in fact. What's the problem?

 

Err, that's not true. With the advent of the NIV, we saw the conservative reformation of the Southern Baptist COnvention. The First Great Awakening began with Jonathan Edwards. Edwards congregation did not use King James Bibles, they followed his sermons using Greek New Testaments and Hebrew versions themselves. They were remarkably more literate.

Cults have risen around KJVonlyism, like SDA and Mormonism. False revivals have arisen around KJVonlyism including many of the charismatic "revivals" that surround the Word of Faith movement out West and in Canada. As many false revivals as true ones have incorporated the King James Version, and the First Great Awakening began with a man and a congregation that did not use the KJV.

This brings up a rather interesting point. If what you say is true about Isa.14:12, then why do non-English Bibles translate the portion in question as "star of the morning?" Since God perfectly preserves His Word, we should see the translation "Lucifer" rendered that way. I have looked through Greek, Cyrillic, Portugeuse, French, German, and Spanish versions. Of those, one and only one translated heylel with the word Lucifer, and it went with "Lucifer STAR of the morning, not Lucifer, son of the morning." The literal rendering actually used the word "luces and capitalized it, which makes Luces mean Lucifer not just "light." The point is this; Why did God see fit to preserve His Word in this form in only one language. What makes English so special? If God preserved His word in the way you say, then He should preserve it in other languages than English.

 

--------------------------------------------------
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.

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

These two quotes of mine go together, that you have taken upon yourself to separate and as a result of your added comment in between, make what I said something to not be what it says. Please stop doing this. It is not my opinion, as my full statement indicates, that you so wonderfully separated, to make your comment seem to be true, to which it is not. My statement is FACT, not OPINION.

love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

It has been stated MULTIPLE times here that Webster's Dictionary, which you yourself appealed to, says that the PRIMARY definition of "Lucifer" is "the morning star, Venus. The SECONDARY definition is "Satan." Church history tells us the exact same thing. Church history and the dictionary itself are arrayed against you.

 

--------------------------------------------------
It's as good an assumption as your assumption that God's providence is on the KJV, and probably made with equal basis in fact. What's the problem?
--------------------------------------------------

I gave you the reasons and evidence and scriptural support for my statement. Where is yours? Please show me the "equal basis" for your assumption with reasons and evidence and scriptural support.


Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

--------------------------------------------------
Err, that's not true. With the advent of the NIV, we saw the conservative reformation of the Southern Baptist COnvention. The First Great Awakening began with Jonathan Edwards. Edwards congregation did not use King James Bibles, they followed his sermons using Greek New Testaments and Hebrew versions themselves. They were remarkably more literate.
--------------------------------------------------

Ecumenicism is not revival but apostacy and blatant disobediance to the commands of God. The SBC is steeped in ecumenicism.

love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

Logical fallacy of begging the question. You assume the premise and argue it as fact, also known as circular reasoning. Logical fallacies are, by definition, illogical. God is a God of logic, not illogic. Therefore, what you say is not a fact, it is merely an opinion.

 

LOL....clearly you have no understanding the SBC. The SBC repudiates Catholicism. It has just withdrawn from the Baptist World Alliance. It has just fought hard to purge neo-orthodoxy and classical liberalism from its seminaries and agencies. The moderates are forming their own convention even as we speak. Please, michelle, you're grasping a straws and accusing an entire denomination of being ungodly. Judge not that you be not judged.

The fact remains that your original statement is false. The First Great Awakening did not begin tied to the KJV. Whole cults have arisen around KJVonlyism.

 

--------------------------------------------------
This brings up a rather interesting point. If what you say is true about Isa.14:12, then why do non-English Bibles translate the portion in question as "star of the morning?" Since God perfectly preserves His Word, we should see the translation "Lucifer" rendered that way. I have looked through Greek, Cyrillic, Portugeuse, French, German, and Spanish versions. Of those, one and only one translated heylel with the word Lucifer, and it went with "Lucifer STAR of the morning, not Lucifer, son of the morning." The literal rendering actually used the word "luces and capitalized it, which makes Luces mean Lucifer not just "light." The point is this; Why did God see fit to preserve His Word in this form in only one language. What makes English so special? If God preserved His word in the way you say, then He should preserve it in other languages than English.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


We are speaking of the English language here, and the versions in the English language. Lets not get off onto a topic that is irrelevant, and stick to what we are familiar with and to which this topic is about, in the language that we know and speak.

love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

--------------------------------------------------
Logical fallacy of begging the question. You assume the premise and argue it as fact, also known as circular reasoning. Logical fallacies are, by definition, illogical. God is a God of logic, not illogic. Therefore, what you say is not a fact, it is merely an opinion.
--------------------------------------------------

Are you claiming that this is not evidenced in the history of the churches?

love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

No, michelle, let's not. This flies directly in the face of your own views. God does not change, and God transcends all human languages. I say again, non-English Bibles go with "star of the morning," or "Lucifer, star of the morning." Since, as you yourself say, God never changes and is the same, then surely He would superintend the translation of His Word for the non-English speaking peoples. This point is MOST germaine to the issue, and I will not back off from it. Answer the objection.

 

michelle said:

It is not my opinion

As long as you continue to make such statements independent of any sort of documentation, it remains your opinion, and shall be treated as such.

I gave you the reasons and evidence and scriptural support for my statement.

No, you made an assertion about church history that assumes the validity of your premise. Quoting yourself is not "support."

 

You are making an argument that simply assumes the validity of the premise. You are arguing the premise. That is called begging the question. It is circular logic. God is perfectly logical, always. He is never illogical. You can not use illogical arguments and claim they are of God for that very reason. I have said this to you many times.

 

--------------------------------------------------
Judge not that you be not judged.
--------------------------------------------------

We are also commanded to judge righteous judgement. How else are you to discern things, and test all things? If you can find that I am ecumenical, or the church I attend is ecumenical, then I would be guilty of judging unrighteously.


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle