Why the KJV is Better

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.

Enow

Banned
Dec 21, 2012
2,901
39
0
#1
This thread is for showing why the KJV is better than the other Bibles.

I contend that because of John 16:13 that testifies in ALL Bibles that the Holy Spirit cannot speak for Himself, but speaks what He hears, that Romans 8:26-27 in all modern Bibles have it wrong when it implies that the Holy Spirit can give His own intercessions all by Himself. These two references oppose each other in truth even if you were to compare all modern Bibles of what John 16:13 says that the Holy Spirit cannot speak on His own accord, or on His own authority or His own words.

Therefore a re examining of Romans 8:26-27 with the KJV is in order for the truth in His words to line up with John 16:13.

Romans 8:[SUP]26 [/SUP]Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities: for we know not what we should pray for as we ought: but the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered.
The phrase "with groanings which cannot be uttered" means no sound is being made at all. You cannot hear the groanings even. The Greek text "alaletos" means unspeakable and unutterable; meaning not coming out of the mouth.

The use of the term "itself" rather than "Himself" is being used because the Holy Spirit is serving as a means by which His unspeakable intercessions is being known to God the Father by. That is explained in verse 27 below as Another Person that searches our hearts is the same One that knows the mind of the Spirit is how the Spirit's unspeakable intercessions are known to God the Father by.

[SUP]27 [/SUP]And he that searcheth the hearts knoweth what is the mind of the Spirit, because he maketh intercession for the saints according to the will of God.

Making that reference to He Who searches our heats lines up with scripture as to Who that "He" is.

Hebrews 4:[SUP]12[/SUP]For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.13Neither is there any creature that is not manifest in his sight: but all things are naked and opened unto the eyes of him with whom we have to do.[SUP]14 [/SUP]Seeing then that we have a great high priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our profession.


Now the conclusion of Romans 8:27 "because he maketh intercession for the saints according to the will of God." lines up with the Son of God being the only Mediator between God & men, specified as only the man Christ Jesus; 1 Timothy 2:5

Why is that important? Why can only the Son gives His intercessions, our intercessions, and the Spirit's intercessions to God the Father? Because when the Father says "Yes" to any of those intercessions, the Son answers the prayer so that the Father may be glorified in the Son for answered prayers and receive thanks in Jesus's name.

John 14:[SUP]6 [/SUP]Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.....[SUP]13 [/SUP]And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son.[SUP]14 [/SUP]If ye shall ask any thing in my name, I will do it.

As much as wayward believers use the errant translation of Romans 8:26-27 to imply that the Holy Spirit does use God's gift of tongues as a prayer language in vain & profane babbling nonsense, having the right Bible proves it does not say that in the KJV when read with His wisdom in the meaning of His words when Romans 8:27 is about the Son of God.

This is one of the many reasons why the KJV is better to see the truth in His words of Romans 8:26-27 as lining up with the truth in His words in John 16:13 since scripture cannot go against scripture so as to keep the faith which is the good fight while many wayward believers depart from faith in Jesus Christ to seek to receive another baptism with the Holy Ghost with evidence of tongues which never comes with interpretation because this other calling & tongue is not of Him.
 

trofimus

Senior Member
Aug 17, 2015
10,684
794
113
#2
This thread is for showing why the KJV is better than the other Bibles.

I contend that because of John 16:13 that testifies in ALL Bibles that the Holy Spirit cannot speak for Himself, but speaks what He hears, that Romans 8:26-27 in all modern Bibles have it wrong when it implies that the Holy Spirit can give His own intercessions all by Himself. These two references oppose each other in truth even if you were to compare all modern Bibles of what John 16:13 says that the Holy Spirit cannot speak on His own accord, or on His own authority or His own words.

Therefore a re examining of Romans 8:26-27 with the KJV is in order for the truth in His words to line up with John 16:13.

Romans 8:[SUP]26 [/SUP]Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities: for we know not what we should pray for as we ought: but the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered.
The phrase "with groanings which cannot be uttered" means no sound is being made at all. You cannot hear the groanings even. The Greek text "alaletos" means unspeakable and unutterable; meaning not coming out of the mouth.

The use of the term "itself" rather than "Himself" is being used because the Holy Spirit is serving as a means by which His unspeakable intercessions is being known to God the Father by. That is explained in verse 27 below as Another Person that searches our hearts is the same One that knows the mind of the Spirit is how the Spirit's unspeakable intercessions are known to God the Father by.

[SUP]27 [/SUP]And he that searcheth the hearts knoweth what is the mind of the Spirit, because he maketh intercession for the saints according to the will of God.

Making that reference to He Who searches our heats lines up with scripture as to Who that "He" is.

Hebrews 4:[SUP]12[/SUP]For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.13Neither is there any creature that is not manifest in his sight: but all things are naked and opened unto the eyes of him with whom we have to do.[SUP]14 [/SUP]Seeing then that we have a great high priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our profession.


Now the conclusion of Romans 8:27 "because he maketh intercession for the saints according to the will of God." lines up with the Son of God being the only Mediator between God & men, specified as only the man Christ Jesus; 1 Timothy 2:5

Why is that important? Why can only the Son gives His intercessions, our intercessions, and the Spirit's intercessions to God the Father? Because when the Father says "Yes" to any of those intercessions, the Son answers the prayer so that the Father may be glorified in the Son for answered prayers and receive thanks in Jesus's name.

John 14:[SUP]6 [/SUP]Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.....[SUP]13 [/SUP]And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son.[SUP]14 [/SUP]If ye shall ask any thing in my name, I will do it.

As much as wayward believers use the errant translation of Romans 8:26-27 to imply that the Holy Spirit does use God's gift of tongues as a prayer language in vain & profane babbling nonsense, having the right Bible proves it does not say that in the KJV when read with His wisdom in the meaning of His words when Romans 8:27 is about the Son of God.

This is one of the many reasons why the KJV is better to see the truth in His words of Romans 8:26-27 as lining up with the truth in His words in John 16:13 since scripture cannot go against scripture so as to keep the faith which is the good fight while many wayward believers depart from faith in Jesus Christ to seek to receive another baptism with the Holy Ghost with evidence of tongues which never comes with interpretation because this other calling & tongue is not of Him.
Even though the KJV has some good shots compared to other Bibles, it applies to every other Bible too. In every Bible you can find some verse that is translated better there than in others.
 

Enow

Banned
Dec 21, 2012
2,901
39
0
#3
Even though the KJV has some good shots compared to other Bibles, it applies to every other Bible too. In every Bible you can find some verse that is translated better there than in others.
Yes, but the KJV would still maintained that message regardless whereas the changed messages in all modern Bibles would support false tongues not of Him as well as apostasy that modern Bibles cannot reprove because of that changed message.
 
Aug 15, 2009
9,745
179
0
#4
Yes, but the KJV would still maintained that message regardless whereas the changed messages in all modern Bibles would support false tongues not of Him as well as apostasy that modern Bibles cannot reprove because of that changed message.
Perhaps you should check your history about the Church of England & the KJV.

The KJV has been proven to have been altered By The Archbishop of Canterbury & King James himself.
 

trofimus

Senior Member
Aug 17, 2015
10,684
794
113
#5
Yes, but the KJV would still maintained that message regardless whereas the changed messages in all modern Bibles would support false tongues not of Him as well as apostasy that modern Bibles cannot reprove because of that changed message.
KJV is old and nobody is maintaining this translation anymore, so its quite logical it stays unchanged while living/still maintained translations are changing and fixing errors.

I do not think this is a proof that KJV must be better, just because it is not changing... its abandoned (by translators), thats why it is still the same...
 

Enow

Banned
Dec 21, 2012
2,901
39
0
#6
Another example of why the KJV is better;

1 Corinthians 1:[SUP]18 [/SUP]For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God. KJV

1 Corinthians 1:[SUP]18 [/SUP]For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. NIV

Some believers believe they are in the process of being saved rather than are saved. They wrest the "preaching of the cross" as if it is not the subject of that verse to prove why the KJV should read as "being saved" when favoring other Bibles, but even the NIV identifies the subject of the verse as "the message of the cross", and yet in hypocrisy, the end result is still "being saved".

They twisted preaching in the KJV in the same meaning as being in the NIV as presently, thus citing that we are in the process of being saved by that preaching of the cross when that is not the case at all.

Preaching the cross is the same as the message of the cross, and so the end result is we are saved; not being saved.

1 Corinthians 1:[SUP]21 [/SUP]For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe. KJV

1 Corinthians 1:[SUP]21 [/SUP]For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. NIV

God cannot be pleased, as in past tense, if they were not saved by having believed in Him.
 

Enow

Banned
Dec 21, 2012
2,901
39
0
#7
KJV is old and nobody is maintaining this translation anymore, so its quite logical it stays unchanged while living/still maintained translations are changing and fixing errors.

I do not think this is a proof that KJV must be better, just because it is not changing... its abandoned (by translators), thats why it is still the same...
Do yourself a favor and compare reading the KJV alongside whatever you are reading as a Bible version. You may be surprised at what you find and even offended that the Bible version you are taking for granted had changed the meaning of His words and even dropped some of the testimonies regarding the Son that His disciples would go astray by, but not by sticking only with the KJV.
 

trofimus

Senior Member
Aug 17, 2015
10,684
794
113
#8
Do yourself a favor and compare reading the KJV alongside whatever you are reading as a Bible version. You may be surprised at what you find and even offended that the Bible version you are taking for granted had changed the meaning of His words and even dropped some of the testimonies regarding the Son that His disciples would go astray by, but not by sticking only with the KJV.
I am comparing almost everything I am posting on Christian Chat by biblehub.com

In my personal Bible reading I do not use English at all. So this advice does not apply to me...
 
Aug 15, 2009
9,745
179
0
#9
It has been my past experience that when anyone stands for the KJV, they always compare it to the NIV.

I don't use nor like the NIV. It might be inferior to the KJV.

That being the case, just start a thread about the inferiority of the NIV instead, otherwise you'll be labeled as a KJ onlyist.:)
 

Enow

Banned
Dec 21, 2012
2,901
39
0
#10
I am comparing almost everything I am posting on Christian Chat by biblehub.com

In my personal Bible reading I do not use English at all. So this advice does not apply to me...
Surely the KJV as well as other modern Bibles have been translated into other languages, but ask the Lord to guide you in this matter since you do trust Him as your Good Shepherd, do you not?
 

Enow

Banned
Dec 21, 2012
2,901
39
0
#11
It has been my past experience that when anyone stands for the KJV, they always compare it to the NIV.

I don't use nor like the NIV. It might be inferior to the KJV.

That being the case, just start a thread about the inferiority of the NIV instead, otherwise you'll be labeled as a KJ onlyist.:)
Cite a Bible version that you use and if the Lord is willing, we may go from there.
 

hornetguy

Senior Member
Jan 18, 2016
6,646
1,396
113
#12
NASB, ESV, and for simple reading, the NLT.
 
J

jaybird88

Guest
#13
Perhaps you should check your history about the Church of England & the KJV.

The KJV has been proven to have been altered By The Archbishop of Canterbury & King James himself.
i agree. if the KJV folks would do some simple research on king james they might ask themselves why in the world would any holy scripture be dedicated to such an unholy person.
 

Magenta

Senior Member
Jul 3, 2015
55,876
26,037
113
#14
Errors where the KJV translation disagrees with the Textus Receptus:

[TABLE="width: 920"]
[TR]
[TD="width: 34%"]KJV translates...
[/TD]
[TD="width: 66%"]Textus Receptus actually says...

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="width: 34%"]"robbers of churches." Acts 19:37[/TD]
[TD="width: 66%"]Every known Greek manuscript has HIEROSULOUS, "robbers of temples"[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="width: 34%"]"Lucifer" Is 14:12[/TD]
[TD="width: 66%"]"O Day Star" (Lucifer is a human origin nickname for the Devil in the 1600's refers not to the devil but the king of Babylon)[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="width: 34%"]"Easter" Acts 12:4[/TD]
[TD="width: 66%"]"Passover"(Easter very poor choice as it confuses the pagan origin Roman Catholic "Easter" holy day with what the TR clearly says is the Jewish Passover!)[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="width: 34%"]"Baptism" (entire New Testament) Acts 2:38; 22:16[/TD]
[TD="width: 66%"]immersion, because sprinkling was the mode of baptism in 1611AD, they jelly-fished out and transliterated the Greek "baptizo" but refused to translate it.[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="width: 34%"]"Tithes of all I possess" Lk 18:12[/TD]
[TD="width: 66%"]"all I acquire" (Not only variant with the TR, but quite wrong. Tithes were never paid on capital, only increase)[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="width: 34%"]"Schoolmaster" Gal 3:24[/TD]
[TD="width: 66%"]"attendant" (the law was the one who brought us to Christ, not taught us about Christ)[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="width: 34%"]"God save the King": 1Sam 10:24, 2Sam 16:16, 1Kings 1:25[/TD]
[TD="width: 66%"]"May the king live" ("God" not in TR, but reflects the British culture of the 1600's. Proof that the translators used dynamic equivalents.)[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="width: 34%"]"God Forbid." Ro. 3:4,6,31; 6:2,15; 7:7,13; 9:14; 11:1,11; 1 Co. 6:15; Ga. 2:17; 3:21; 6:14[/TD]
[TD="width: 66%"]"may it not be" or "let it not be." (KJV adds the word God where it is absent in the TR because it was a common expression in 1600's. Proof that the translators used dynamic equivalents.)[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="width: 34%"]"sweet savour" Lev 6:21; 8:28; 17:6; 23:18[/TD]
[TD="width: 66%"]"soothing aroma" (KJV appeals to wrong senses- taste instead of smell in the TR)[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="width: 34%"]"ashes upon his face" 1 Kings 20:38[/TD]
[TD="width: 66%"]"bandage over his eyes" (KJV varies from TR by using ashes)[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="width: 34%"]"flagon" 2 Sam 6:19; 1 Chron 16:3; SoS 2:5; Hosea 3:1[/TD]
[TD="width: 66%"]These verses contain the word "flagon" which is a fluted cup from which liquid is drunk. However, the Hebrew word is "ashishah" which has always meant raisins or raisin cakes. This is especially true in Hos 3:1 because raisin cakes were often offered to idols. This is an obvious error in translation.[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
"KJV Only" advocates refuted!
 

Enow

Banned
Dec 21, 2012
2,901
39
0
#15
NASB, ESV, and for simple reading, the NLT.
Okay. Thank you for participating. We can use Bible Gateway to compare all 3 with the KJV.

Compare 1 Corinthians 1:18 at this link below and tell me how you can reprove a believer that thinks they are in the process of being saved & so they believe they are not saved yet unless you have the KJV showing without a doubt they are saved?

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1 Corinthians 1:18-21&version=KJV;NASB;ESV;NLT
 

trofimus

Senior Member
Aug 17, 2015
10,684
794
113
#16
Surely the KJV as well as other modern Bibles have been translated into other languages, but ask the Lord to guide you in this matter since you do trust Him as your Good Shepherd, do you not?
Why would anyone translate the Bible from English? Bibles are translated from Greek and Hebrew...
 

Enow

Banned
Dec 21, 2012
2,901
39
0
#17
Perhaps you should check your history about the Church of England & the KJV.

The KJV has been proven to have been altered By The Archbishop of Canterbury & King James himself.
This is how you can tell that is a lie.

The KJV is not much different than the 1599 Geneva Version; and nothing has been changed in either one to support the accusatory deceptions of the Church & King James. The big difference is the removal of marginal notes which was running against the truths in the written scripture of the 1599 Geneva Bible. Hence .. this is why the KJV is better.

But feel free to peruse and cite proofs of the changes that somehow support the Church & ing james by deceptions at this link below at Bible Gateway

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1 Corinthians 1:18-21&version=KJV;GNV
 

Enow

Banned
Dec 21, 2012
2,901
39
0
#18
Why would anyone translate the Bible from English? Bibles are translated from Greek and Hebrew...
I believe that Bible translators today do translate an English Bible version into a foreign language rather than starting from scratch again from the Greek & Hebrew.
 

Enow

Banned
Dec 21, 2012
2,901
39
0
#19
Errors where the KJV translation disagrees with the Textus Receptus:

[TABLE="width: 920"]
[TR]
[TD="width: 34%"]KJV translates...
[/TD]
[TD="width: 66%"]Textus Receptus actually says...

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="width: 34%"]"robbers of churches." Acts 19:37[/TD]
[TD="width: 66%"]Every known Greek manuscript has HIEROSULOUS, "robbers of temples"[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="width: 34%"]"Lucifer" Is 14:12[/TD]
[TD="width: 66%"]"O Day Star" (Lucifer is a human origin nickname for the Devil in the 1600's refers not to the devil but the king of Babylon)[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="width: 34%"]"Easter" Acts 12:4[/TD]
[TD="width: 66%"]"Passover"(Easter very poor choice as it confuses the pagan origin Roman Catholic "Easter" holy day with what the TR clearly says is the Jewish Passover!)[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="width: 34%"]"Baptism" (entire New Testament) Acts 2:38; 22:16[/TD]
[TD="width: 66%"]immersion, because sprinkling was the mode of baptism in 1611AD, they jelly-fished out and transliterated the Greek "baptizo" but refused to translate it.[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="width: 34%"]"Tithes of all I possess" Lk 18:12[/TD]
[TD="width: 66%"]"all I acquire" (Not only variant with the TR, but quite wrong. Tithes were never paid on capital, only increase)[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="width: 34%"]"Schoolmaster" Gal 3:24[/TD]
[TD="width: 66%"]"attendant" (the law was the one who brought us to Christ, not taught us about Christ)[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="width: 34%"]"God save the King": 1Sam 10:24, 2Sam 16:16, 1Kings 1:25[/TD]
[TD="width: 66%"]"May the king live" ("God" not in TR, but reflects the British culture of the 1600's. Proof that the translators used dynamic equivalents.)[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="width: 34%"]"God Forbid." Ro. 3:4,6,31; 6:2,15; 7:7,13; 9:14; 11:1,11; 1 Co. 6:15; Ga. 2:17; 3:21; 6:14[/TD]
[TD="width: 66%"]"may it not be" or "let it not be." (KJV adds the word God where it is absent in the TR because it was a common expression in 1600's. Proof that the translators used dynamic equivalents.)[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="width: 34%"]"sweet savour" Lev 6:21; 8:28; 17:6; 23:18[/TD]
[TD="width: 66%"]"soothing aroma" (KJV appeals to wrong senses- taste instead of smell in the TR)[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="width: 34%"]"ashes upon his face" 1 Kings 20:38[/TD]
[TD="width: 66%"]"bandage over his eyes" (KJV varies from TR by using ashes)[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="width: 34%"]"flagon" 2 Sam 6:19; 1 Chron 16:3; SoS 2:5; Hosea 3:1[/TD]
[TD="width: 66%"]These verses contain the word "flagon" which is a fluted cup from which liquid is drunk. However, the Hebrew word is "ashishah" which has always meant raisins or raisin cakes. This is especially true in Hos 3:1 because raisin cakes were often offered to idols. This is an obvious error in translation.[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
"KJV Only" advocates refuted!
Acts 19:37 cites churches as an analogy since it was the tradecrafts that were making the complaint earlier that by denouncing the goddess at the temple, they were threatening their livelihoods.

Acts 19:[SUP]24 [/SUP]For a certain man named Demetrius, a silversmith, which made silver shrines for Diana, brought no small gain unto the craftsmen;[SUP]25 [/SUP]Whom he called together with the workmen of like occupation, and said, Sirs, ye know that by this craft we have our wealth.[SUP]26 [/SUP]Moreover ye see and hear, that not alone at Ephesus, but almost throughout all Asia, this Paul hath persuaded and turned away much people, saying that they be no gods, which are made with hands:[SUP]27 [/SUP]So that not only this our craft is in danger to be set at nought; but also that the temple of the great goddess Diana should be despised, and her magnificence should be destroyed, whom all Asia and the world worshippeth.

So they were not really robbing the temples, but diminishing the business outside the temples in the service of the goddess and elsewhere in Asia. By having these silver shrines, customers can have their own little churches outside the actual temples in their homes. So in that sense, in according to customs, the temple was not at stake nor being robbed as much as the business was in providing shrines at homes for the worshipers; thus church was needed to differentiate from the actual temple for public worship of Diana, and yet of course, they were not going into people's homes in robbing them of their idols of silver, even though having a shrine in their homes makes it a church.

________________________

Lucifier is not the actual name for Satan. It is a reference to the brightness of Venus as the morning star. This is a huge misconception by both christians and Satanists and Freemasons, because in context of that reference to Lucifer, it was about a king who exalted himself to the heavens and had died and so it was never a reference to Satan's fall.

Isaiah 14:[SUP]9 [/SUP]Hell from beneath is moved for thee to meet thee at thy coming: it stirreth up the dead for thee, even all the chief ones of the earth; it hath raised up from their thrones all the kings of the nations.[SUP]10 [/SUP]All they shall speak and say unto thee, Art thou also become weak as we? art thou become like unto us?[SUP]11 [/SUP]Thy pomp is brought down to the grave, and the noise of thy viols: the worm is spread under thee, and the worms cover thee.[SUP]12 [/SUP]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![SUP]13 [/SUP]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:[SUP]14 [/SUP]I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High.[SUP]15 [/SUP]Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit.16They that see thee shall narrowly look upon thee, and consider thee, saying, Is this the man that made the earth to tremble, that did shake kingdoms;[SUP]17 [/SUP]That made the world as a wilderness, and destroyed the cities thereof; that opened not the house of his prisoners?[SUP]18 [/SUP]All the kings of the nations, even all of them, lie in glory, every one in his own house.[SUP]19 [/SUP]But thou art cast out of thy grave like an abominable branch, and as the raiment of those that are slain, thrust through with a sword, that go down to the stones of the pit; as a carcase trodden under feet.

It cannot be about Satan as Lucifer if Lucifer was his name before the fall when this king was exalting himself up to the heavens, and winding up without a grave with a carcase exposed to be trodden underfoot by men.

So Lucifer was just an added reference to the morning star that this vain king was exalting himself in identity with.

To be continued... Lord be willing...............
 

trofimus

Senior Member
Aug 17, 2015
10,684
794
113
#20
I believe that Bible translators today do translate an English Bible version into a foreign language rather than starting from scratch again from the Greek & Hebrew.
Maybe some amateurish translators where there is nobody knowing the classical languages, only English...It can happen in some African tribes etc, but not in the developed world.