The King James Only Debate

[trofimus]

There isn't much else to tell. The term "lucifer" is only found once in your KJV.It is not found at all in the Masoretic Text or the Tanakh.


Here is an article you might want to read. I'm sure you can find other on that web site, if you search.


Isaiah 14 | Concordant Publishing Concern

Lucifer is a Latin term, meaning "light bearer". It is in Vulgate.

In Septuagint, there is the meaning of the term, but not the Latin word "Lucifer".

"πῶς ἐξέπεσεν ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ ὁ ἑωσφόρος ὁ πρωΐ ἀνατέλλων;"
"How did you fall from the heaven/sky, you who bear the light, who are the first to rise up?"

(the planet Venus is the first "star" visible in the sky)

But you were talking about the term "Lucifer" to be from Septuagint?

 

[Dan_473]

Thanks for responding. I realize the KJV words don't match Strongs but honestly aren't the two analogies the same. I mean digging down a wall undermines the wall just like hamstinging an oxen undermines the oxen. The spiritual principle being taught would be the same, just two different ways of saying the same thing.

Maybe back in the day hamstringing an oxen would have been taken in the same manner as digging down a wall in our day. I do appreciate your comment, do you have any more?

Edit to add: In the KJV a wall represents salvation.

you are very generous when checking out the kjv. If you will use the same approach when dealing with the niv, the same set of 'weights', I'm pretty sure it will pass with flying colors.

PROVERBS 11:1 a just weight is the Lord's delight.

 

[Yonah]

what I don't understand is the point to all this in the first place... I can see defending ones faith, defending the defenseless or giving answer for the hope that dwells within us, but what I don't understand is why defend a particular version of the bible over any of the others ? is the Fathers arm shortened that now the message of Salvation and restoration is limited to mans versions of Holy writ? how about we just pray for guidance and be willing to sit at our Saviors feet a children learning pure doctrine from the Author himself, He is really not limited within any translation, if he can teach through his creation surely he is not limited to what man may think is best.. how about we trust in Him to reach the lost through us instead of us presuming to knw a better way?

 

[breno785au]

I feel sorry for those who don't understand English - they will never have the opportunity to read the one true Bible!

 

[trofimus]

I feel sorry for those who don't understand English - they will never have the opportunity to read the one true Bible!

Some of KJV guys say that every nation has its own perfect translation. Well, others say the opposite... so it depends on what KJV guy you will meet

 

[breno785au]

Some of KJV guys say that every nation has its own perfect translation. Well, others say the opposite... so it depends on what KJV guy you will meet

I wonder if only English speakers have this man made dilemma or do say Indonesian Christians debate on which is the best Javanese translation?

 

[The_Bible]

I feel sorry for those who don't understand English - they will never have the opportunity to read the one true Bible!

KJV is the preserved bible in English in spanish it is the Reina Valeria Gomez ik bc it says it was modeled after the KIV and check it out myself. IT IS pretty simple to get a preserved Bible in your language just translate from the KJV that's it. Consider the KJV the original mamuscript to translate from.

 

[The_Bible]

They probably need to have some final authority, they do not want to study languages or use more books than one.

I can understand this feeling, I would also want one and only one final and perfect translation of Bible. But there is no such edition... so we must put some effort to study. At least, while we are on this Earth.

God made the Bible for man to read someone who is an average human. Why would he tell us to study other languages just to learn his word? That's pointless he would have one bible with ALL the details already for us to follow. The Bible is GOD's WORD all these "words of God" do not say the same thing obviously meaning that Satan has corrupted "GOD's WORD" into corrupting others belief.

Matthew 4:4 - But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.

 

[KJV1611]

I don't know whether you just don't get it or really don't care.

No I get it, Jesus is the Bishop of my soul... Bishoprick is an office of the church, Jesus is THE Bishop of the church. Have you ever heard of the "office of overseer" in any church at any time in history?

 

[The_Bible]

you are very generous when checking out the kjv. If you will use the same approach when dealing with the niv, the same set of 'weights', I'm pretty sure it will pass with flying colors.

PROVERBS 11:1 a just weight is the Lord's delight.

Don't ever recommend somebody the NIV that is a clear sign that you lack the knowledge of bible versions and its corruption. The NIV is the most corrupted sold bible there is sold by the same company who sells the satanic bible and homosexual books. The bible says a good tree would not produce bad fruit and vice versa.

Luke 6:43- For a good tree bringeth not forth corrupt fruit; neither doth a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.

Here are the differences

Luke 2:33 (KJV) And Joseph and his mother marvelled at those things which were spoken of him.

Luke 2:33 (NIV) The child's father and mother marveled at what was said about him.

Luke 2:43 (KJV) And when they had fulfilled the days, as they returned, the child Jesus tarried behind in Jerusalem; and Joseph and his mother knew not of it.


Luke 2:43 (NIV) After the Feast was over, while his parents were returning home, the boy Jesus stayed behind in Jerusalem, but they were unaware of it.


Was Joseph, Jesus dad? And what Jesus truly birthed of a virgin after you read fhe NIV?

Mark 15:28 (KJV) And the scripture was fulfilled, which saith, And he was numbered with the transgressors.


Mark 15:28 (NIV)

Nice verse tooken out which even the Catholic Bible has the verse ^

1 John 5:7-8 (KJV) For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. 8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.


1 John 5:7-8 (NIV) For there are three that testify: 8 the Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement.

Luke 4:4 (KJV) And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God.


Luke 4:4 (NIV) Jesus answered, "It is written: 'Man does not live on bread alone.'"

1 Corinthians 15:47 (KJV) The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven.


1 Corinthians 15:47 (NIV) The first man was of the dust of the earth, the second man from heaven.

Luke 22:64 (KJV) And when they had blindfolded him, they struck him on the face, and asked him, saying, Prophesy, who is it that smote thee?


Luke 22:64 (NIV) They blindfolded him and demanded, "Prophesy! Who hit you?"

 

[The_Bible]

I didn't say that the Septuagint was used in the KJV. I said the term "lucifer" comes from a mistake in the Septuagint.

I use the Concordant Literal Version. I have explained that in my thread "New Guy."


If you want to know more go to http://concordant.org/


All you are doing (or all the KJV is doing) is interpreting the text. Not translating it. The kjv is one of like 3 English versions that still use the word "hell."

Only the Catholic versions and the KJV use the word "hell."

There are many more that do not.

If Lucifer comes from a mistake on the Septuagint then what relevancy does that have with the KJV if we are against Septuagint and use the Hebrew & Aramaic? I pasted the verses that all mentioned hell and gave the clear interpretation what translation do i need to give it if is already in English? The reason being is cus the KJV is the preserved word of God also for this very reason is why translation is important bc then bibles start teaching different things and people act like if it doesnt matter which bible to use.

 

[Dan_473]

Don't ever recommend somebody the NIV that is a clear sign that you lack the knowledge of bible versions and its corruption. The NIV is the most corrupted sold bible there is sold by the same company who sells the satanic bible and homosexual books. The bible says a good tree would not produce bad fruit and vice versa.

Luke 6:43- For a good tree bringeth not forth corrupt fruit; neither doth a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.

Here are the differences

Luke 2:33 (KJV) And Joseph and his mother marvelled at those things which were spoken of him.

Luke 2:33 (NIV) The child's father and mother marveled at what was said about him.

Luke 2:43 (KJV) And when they had fulfilled the days, as they returned, the child Jesus tarried behind in Jerusalem; and Joseph and his mother knew not of it.


Luke 2:43 (NIV) After the Feast was over, while his parents were returning home, the boy Jesus stayed behind in Jerusalem, but they were unaware of it.


Was Joseph, Jesus dad? And what Jesus truly birthed of a virgin after you read fhe NIV?

Mark 15:28 (KJV) And the scripture was fulfilled, which saith, And he was numbered with the transgressors.


Mark 15:28 (NIV)

Nice verse tooken out which even the Catholic Bible has the verse ^

1 John 5:7-8 (KJV) For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. 8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.


1 John 5:7-8 (NIV) For there are three that testify: 8 the Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement.

Luke 4:4 (KJV) And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God.


Luke 4:4 (NIV) Jesus answered, "It is written: 'Man does not live on bread alone.'"

1 Corinthians 15:47 (KJV) The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven.


1 Corinthians 15:47 (NIV) The first man was of the dust of the earth, the second man from heaven.

Luke 22:64 (KJV) And when they had blindfolded him, they struck him on the face, and asked him, saying, Prophesy, who is it that smote thee?


Luke 22:64 (NIV) They blindfolded him and demanded, "Prophesy! Who hit you?"

I've read the Niv and never come away thinking that Jesus wasn't born from a virgin.

But my real favorite is the nirv.

 

[trofimus]

KJV is the preserved bible in English in spanish it is the Reina Valeria Gomez ik bc it says it was modeled after the KIV and check it out myself. IT IS pretty simple to get a preserved Bible in your language just translate from the KJV that's it. Consider the KJV the original mamuscript to translate from.

Sorry, but this is so wrong... you bring the same problem that existed before the reformation. All translations were from the Latin Vulgate instead of the original languages. Reformation changed it.

 

[trofimus]

God made the Bible for man to read someone who is an average human. Why would he tell us to study other languages just to learn his word? That's pointless he would have one bible with ALL the details already for us to follow. The Bible is GOD's WORD all these "words of God" do not say the same thing obviously meaning that Satan has corrupted "GOD's WORD" into corrupting others belief.

Matthew 4:4 - But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.

Actually, you dont need to know every exact word in the Bible to be a complete Christian.
You probably dont even know the most of the Bible texts (small prophets, the Cry of Jeremiah etc). Do you really think that somebody needs to have the perfect Song of songs to be a good Christians?

Of course not. We need to have the New Testament, now. And even in the New Testament you will take no harm not knowing if Jesus was staying or sitting during some sermon etc. You are not alive by such "word", but by the message.

 

[JamesBejon]

Here are the differences

Luke 2:43 (KJV) And when they had fulfilled the days, as they returned, the child Jesus tarried behind in Jerusalem; and Joseph and his mother knew not of it.


Luke 2:43 (NIV) After the Feast was over, while his parents were returning home, the boy Jesus stayed behind in Jerusalem, but they were unaware of it.

Was Joseph, Jesus dad?

Dear The_Bible.

Can I ask. Is it your view that we shouldn't read a Bible that refers to Mary and Joseph as Jesus' "parents"?

James.

 

[The_Bible]

Dear The_Bible.

Can I ask. Is it your view that we shouldn't read a Bible that refers to Mary and Joseph as Jesus' "parents"?

James.

We shouldn't call Joseph his father bc he did not have sex with mary. That would question Christ divinity being God incarnate or being birthed off a virgin. To us Christians it doesn't really affect us bc WE know the meaning but again the bible is not going to be used as something we read but its going to be criticized by scoffers. We Christians shoukd defend the bibe bc is what ee represent but imagine a heathen pointing out all the corruption in a non KJV how would you defend your Scripture? We have to think outside the box if you want to take bible study serious and are lookin into being a scholar or theologist you should understand how important the word of God is and we shouldnt just accept sny plain ol bible. That simple.

 

[JamesBejon]

Sure, I get that, but what about calling Joseph and Mary together Jesus' "parents"? Do you think we shouldn't read Bibles that do that?

 

[The_Bible]

Actually, you dont need to know every exact word in the Bible to be a complete Christian.
You probably dont even know the most of the Bible texts (small prophets, the Cry of Jeremiah etc). Do you really think that somebody needs to have the perfect Song of songs to be a good Christians?
Of course not. We need to have the New Testament, now. And even in the New Testament you will take no harm not knowing if Jesus was staying or sitting during some sermon etc. You are not alive by such "word", but by the message.

Nobody is saying you cannot get saved with any Bible or can be a "good" Christian with a non KJV. What i am referring to is what you said about the "message" you understand all bibles say the events with different interpretations, right? You can be saved with a different interpretation but overall you will have a.... Different interpretation. We would be debating about the different meanings of scripturess thats why to be serious about what the word say you need a infallible Bible. Is Jesus not the word? If your "word" says something misinterpreted wouldnt that make your view of Jesus corrupt? Wouldn't that make you a misguided Christian? The catholic church had the latin vulgate promoted only BUT ONLY the aristocrats were able to have the manuscripts in hand. Not the people so i am not starting a cult but going back to the essence.

 

[The_Bible]

Sure, I get that, but what about calling Joseph and Mary together Jesus' "parents"? Do you think we shouldn't read Bibles that do that?

No that would be clear criticism in the eyes of a scoffer they should clearly distinguish Joseph being Mary's partner, husband, dtc etc not a parent at all. Neither Mary just let her be a mother bc she had to birth him but God did not mate with her.

 

[trofimus]

Nobody is saying you cannot get saved with any Bible or can be a "good" Christian with a non KJV. What i am referring to is what you said about the "message" you understand all bibles say the events with different interpretations, right? You can be saved with a different interpretation but overall you will have a.... Different interpretation. We would be debating about the different meanings of scripturess thats why to be serious about what the word say you need a infallible Bible. Is Jesus not the word? If your "word" says something misinterpreted wouldnt that make your view of Jesus corrupt? Wouldn't that make you a misguided Christian? The catholic church had the latin vulgate promoted only BUT ONLY the aristocrats were able to have the manuscripts in hand. Not the people so i am not starting a cult but going back to the essence.

The point of reformation was the return to the beginnings, i.e. to the original texts. Not to some text from the middle ages. Guess why all the reformation translations were from the hebrew/greek and not from latin like all before.

Of course you can be saved without any Bible. No question about it.

But you can be also absolutely complete Christian without ever reading Ester or Rut. Do you think that we need every exact word in such books or else we are doctrinally corrupted? Can you show me why?