Where did King James only originate?

[2ndTimothyGroup]

Because Isaiah 14:8-20 is clearly a passage about satan in holy scripture.

I am very grateful that you posted this. I had this scripture completely wrong . . . I'm stunned, but you have my attention.

I have a question for you that I'm thinking you might be able to help me with: When king Saul summoned Samuel, was he in "Sheol"? It seems that Sheol can be used in different ways, so I'm a bit confused. Do you know what the name of the place was that Samuel was located as he waited for the Day of Christ?

1 Samuel 28:13-14 NKJV - "And the king said to her, "Do not be afraid. What did you see?" And the woman said to Saul, "I saw a spirit ascending out of the earth." So he said to her, "What is his form?" And she said, "An old man is coming up, and he is covered with a mantle." And Saul perceived that it was Samuel, and he stooped with his face to the ground and bowed down."

Was this place the same "prison" that Jesus went to preach?

 

[justbyfaith]

I am very grateful that you posted this. I had this scripture completely wrong . . . I'm stunned, but you have my attention.

I have a question for you that I'm thinking you might be able to help me with: When king Saul summoned Samuel, was he in "Sheol"? It seems that Sheol can be used in different ways, so I'm a bit confused. Do you know what the name of the place was that Samuel was located as he waited for the Day of Christ?

1 Samuel 28:13-14 NKJV - "And the king said to her, "Do not be afraid. What did you see?" And the woman said to Saul, "I saw a spirit ascending out of the earth." So he said to her, "What is his form?" And she said, "An old man is coming up, and he is covered with a mantle." And Saul perceived that it was Samuel, and he stooped with his face to the ground and bowed down."

Was this place the same "prison" that Jesus went to preach?

Yes, I think that it was.

There were basically two compartments in Hades (Hebrew Sheol)...hell and Abraham's bosom.

Hell was a place of torment; while Abraham's bosom was described as paradise (though a different paradise than the third heaven).

 

[2ndTimothyGroup]

Yes, I think that it was.

There were basically two compartments in Hades (Hebrew Sheol)...hell and Abraham's bosom.

Hell was a place of torment; while Abraham's bosom was described as paradise (though a different paradise than the third heaven).

Very cool. Would you mind if I started a new thread and invited you to explain more? This is pretty important to me, as it fits in with what I think the True Gospel is.

I don't want to "be" right . . . I want to "get it" right.

 

[posthuman]

I have a question for you that I'm thinking you might be able to help me with: When king Saul summoned Samuel, was he in "Sheol"? It seems that Sheol can be used in different ways, so I'm a bit confused. Do you know what the name of the place was that Samuel was located as he waited for the Day of Christ?

Abraham's Bosom

Was this place the same "prison" that Jesus went to preach?

not the same, tho you might call both collectively 'the grave' i.e. sheol ((remember Solomon, "all go to one place")) -- see Luke 16, particularly:

And it was so that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham’s bosom. The rich man also died, and was buried.​

And being in hades in torments, he lifted up his eyes, and saw Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.​

(Luke 16:22-23 GNV)​

​

hades is typically translated 'hell' in English, but that is probably a bit misleading because there is a real contextual subtlety, just like there is with sheol in Hebrew. no one is in the lake of fire yet, right? so i changed that to hades in the quote - rather, i left it untranslated, because hades is the word in its original language.

 

[posthuman]

It has also been well-known in Christian circles for centuries that "Lucifer" is the name that the devil had before he was cast out of heaven.

well it may be commonly thought but it's not really the case.
the Hebrew word in Isaiah 14:12 is hêylêl and if it's meant to be a proper name that would be it, not 'lucifer'
that word is very difficult to translate; when the Bible was transcribed in Latin, they didn't really know what the word is, but understood linguistically that it has something to do with 'shining' -- so the Latin word 'lucifer' which more or less means shining was substituted.
when the kjv was made, they often used the Vulgate instead of Hebrew or Greek documents. so they just copied the word lucifer into the text from the Latin, not really having any better idea of what hêylêl really means at the time.

so 'Lucifer' is a word that appeared in Latin as a name for Satan. it's a made-up name. and the kjv tradition perpetuated the myth that it's his proper name, that you are continuing.

 

[peldom10]

Probably because KJV 1611 edition is the closest we have to the original words.
Few are aware that all reviewed to date of the new age religion bibles have been produced and printed since the 1960's.
To date all the new age religion interpretations of God's word is since the 1960's.

It seems new interpretations were made and then new bibles were produced in support.

Tells quite a story...doesn't it.

 

[Lanolin]

what happened to the Geneva Bible?
Did it just fall out of favour.

according to wikipedia...
with KJV it was pro-anglican (Church of England...or episcopalian in the US)
The Geneva Bible was more calvinist/puritan leaning apparently. I think thats why some people have an issue with KJV because scripture in that leans more toward free will, in that we do have a choice to obey or disobey God

Thought nobody I know ever quotes from the Geneva Bible anymore. People just like to claim that the KJV is 'mistranslated' instead.

 

[peldom10]

what happened to the Geneva Bible?
Did it just fall out of favour.

according to wikipedia...
with KJV it was pro-anglican (Church of England...or episcopalian in the US)
The Geneva Bible was more calvinist/puritan leaning apparently. I think thats why some people have an issue with KJV because scripture in that leans more toward free will, in that we do have a choice to obey or disobey God

Thought nobody I know ever quotes from the Geneva Bible anymore. People just like to claim that the KJV is 'mistranslated' instead.

God's word and His intent for us is most important. New age religion editions lean toward telling folks what they want to hear as a christian rather than what they must hear to be right with God.

The KJV 1611 edition is closest we have of the Word. We are reminded God's word does not change.

 

[Lanolin]

the other thing I read was that with the Geneva Bible it came with annotations, while King James insisted the newer translation not come with any annotations so people couldnt impose their ideas on the scripture.

Of course some later versions would come with annotations/commentaries but they werent part of scripture and it was clear they were not fixed but just someone elses interpretation.

The pro anglican bias does come through a LITTLE in the chapter headings but they are not actually part of scriputre and its obvious they are only markers to help people find the stories. I think it also was the first or one of the first Bibles to number each verse so that people could easily find the exact scripture. The original Hebrew and Greek Letters obviously did not have this numbering system.

 

[John146]

well it may be commonly thought but it's not really the case.
the Hebrew word in Isaiah 14:12 is hêylêl and if it's meant to be a proper name that would be it, not 'lucifer'
that word is very difficult to translate; when the Bible was transcribed in Latin, they didn't really know what the word is, but understood linguistically that it has something to do with 'shining' -- so the Latin word 'lucifer' which more or less means shining was substituted.
when the kjv was made, they often used the Vulgate instead of Hebrew or Greek documents. so they just copied the word lucifer into the text from the Latin, not really having any better idea of what hêylêl really means at the time.

so 'Lucifer' is a word that appeared in Latin as a name for Satan. it's a made-up name. and the kjv tradition perpetuated the myth that it's his proper name, that you are continuing.

I believe THE TEXT of the King James Bible as having been guided by God Almighty to give us His perfect words of 100% truth. God overruled the occasional marginal readings and guided them to put in THE TEXT what He wanted to be there.

The Hebrew does not mean "day star" in Isaiah 14:12, and though there is a relationship between the planet Venus and what is called the morning star, the Isaiah passage is actually referring to the fall of Lucifer, who became Satan, and not some planet wanting to be like God.

If Lucifer were referring to the planet Venus, (and it isn't) then "day star" would be an accurate translation. But since it is NOT referring to the rebellion and fall of the planet Venus, but rather to the fall of the spiritual entity we now know as Satan and the devil, the name Lucifer refers to the personal enemy of God and of His people.

The word translated as Lucifer in the KJV 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?

 

[John146]

hades is typically translated 'hell' in English, but that is probably a bit misleading because there is a real contextual subtlety, just like there is with sheol in Hebrew. no one is in the lake of fire yet, right? so i changed that to hades in the quote - rather, i left it untranslated, because hades is the word in its original language.

Hell as used in the KJV is never the lake of fire. The KJV makes a clear distinction between the two.

 

[Lanolin]

I dont suppose it was meaning a literal star or a planet when the Bible refers to Lucifer but someone who had great charisma like people thse days talk about actors being 'stars' as in Hollywood stars. But they are not literal stars. Also 'stars of God' Ive heard to mean angels of God. Not literal stars.

and of course we have the verse about Satan falling like lightening from heaven, and also appearing as 'an angel of light' elsewhere in the Bible.

 

[Lanolin]

revelation 2:3 refers to the seven stars as the seven angels of the seven churches

I thinking using a descriptive pronoun of this star is more in keeping than just an ordinary noun for the passage in Isaiah. Sometimes capitalising a word isnt enough. For example, in the Bible there are specifc descriptive names for God rather than just calling Him 'God' all the time, because there is also the god of this world to contend with as well and other gods (or god wannabees)

 

[Lanolin]

just FYI or for fun...you cant name your son Lucifer in Germany

and in nz, parents did actually name their child 'Talulah does the hula from Hawaii' but she got it changed...

https://www.goodhousekeeping.com/life/parenting/g28035638/50-illegal-names-around-the-world/

 

[2ndTimothyGroup]

Abraham's Bosom



not the same, tho you might call both collectively 'the grave' i.e. sheol ((remember Solomon, "all go to one place")) -- see Luke 16, particularly:

And it was so that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham’s bosom. The rich man also died, and was buried.​

And being in hades in torments, he lifted up his eyes, and saw Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.​

(Luke 16:22-23 GNV)​

​

hades is typically translated 'hell' in English, but that is probably a bit misleading because there is a real contextual subtlety, just like there is with sheol in Hebrew. no one is in the lake of fire yet, right? so i changed that to hades in the quote - rather, i left it untranslated, because hades is the word in its original language.

Amazing. I love learning these kinds of things, as I will propose in a future thread that this is important to understanding the Gospel as it relates to our Patriarchs.

Very grateful for the input.

 

[fredoheaven]

well it may be commonly thought but it's not really the case.
the Hebrew word in Isaiah 14:12 is hêylêl and if it's meant to be a proper name that would be it, not 'lucifer'
that word is very difficult to translate; when the Bible was transcribed in Latin, they didn't really know what the word is, but understood linguistically that it has something to do with 'shining' -- so the Latin word 'lucifer' which more or less means shining was substituted.
when the kjv was made, they often used the Vulgate instead of Hebrew or Greek documents. so they just copied the word lucifer into the text from the Latin, not really having any better idea of what hêylêl really means at the time.

so 'Lucifer' is a word that appeared in Latin as a name for Satan. it's a made-up name. and the kjv tradition perpetuated the myth that it's his proper name, that you are continuing.

Umm, are you saying because it came from Latin is not the word? Why not Caesar Augustus in Luke 2:1. Why not: adoption, altar, assurance, beauty, Calvary, cross, crucify, damnation, divine, excel, excellent, exhort, faith, grace, honour, immortality, just, justice, justification, justify, liberty, mercy, miracle, mortify, obedience, obey, offer, pardon, prayer, preacher, predestinate, propitiation, purification, reconcile, reconcilliation, redemption, remission, resurrection, revelation, reverend, revive, sacrifice, salvation, sanctification, sanctify, save, saviour, separate, servant, simple, spirit, supplication, surely tempt, temptation, testament, unsearchable, vengeance.

 

[ResidentAlien]

One might think, Is there corruption made in the KJB? I would say, yes, as it all started in the Revised version of 1881 and that is according to the revisers' committee. So that from 1611 until 1881, there's none. If you are talking about spelling changes and other standardization, it was no longer the fault of the translators. The 1679 Orthodox Confession made by General Baptist in Article 27 believes "...as they are now translated into our English Mother-Tongue, of which there hath never been any doubt of their Verity, and Authority, in the Protestant Churches of Christ to this Day. " but this was on 1679. The then "now translated into our English -Mother Tongue" would only be in reference to the KJB at their time. Even the American Bible Society in 1858 appointed committees to be sure to avoid any textual corruption from the KJB. If you may could you also please educate me if there were true "corruptions" in the KJB until 1881? Thanks

Thanks for sharing that.

All I know is KJV onlyist say that it's perfect and without corruptions. But do they all agree which version of the KJV is the one without corruptions? When they say the KJV perfectly preserves the autographs do they mean the first version of 1611? If that one was perfect why did it need revising?

 

[ResidentAlien]

God's word and His intent for us is most important. New age religion editions lean toward telling folks what they want to hear as a christian rather than what they must hear to be right with God.

The KJV 1611 edition is closest we have of the Word. We are reminded God's word does not change.

Do you believe it needed revision? Why did some feel it should be revised? There are many subsequent revisions.

 

[fredoheaven]

Thanks for sharing that.

All I know is KJV onlyist say that it's perfect and without corruptions. But do they all agree which version of the KJV is the one without corruptions? When they say the KJV perfectly preserves the autographs do they mean the first version of 1611? If that one was perfect why did it need revising?

Hmm, did I say KJV onlyist believe that there is a corruption of the 1611 KJB? Nop, the revisers claim they did but not to the staunch KJB defender or onlyist. Why corruptions when in fact there’s none at all. Are you saying editions? That might quite have the difference of saying corruption. In actuality, KJB used the word “corrupt” pertaining to those who changed the word meaning or definition Just like the modern versions did as to peddle the word…2 Corinthians 2:17. I believe there’s no revision of the KJB at all only in the eyes of critical scholars that begins with Wescott and Hort and their revisionist body in 1881. I used the 1611 KJB which is the same as todays’ KJB and which I find no substantive difference in its meaning. Now, If you know one, two, or three examples of corruption found in the KJB could you please lay it to us, perhaps this can be studied by all. Thanks

 

[posthuman]

Thought nobody I know ever quotes from the Geneva Bible anymore. People just like to claim that the KJV is 'mistranslated' instead

I like to quote from the gnv sometimes, tho for quite a while recently i have been using nkjv, mostly for how it capitalizes pronouns referring to God. Saves me the trouble of doing it myself.