It is in Hebrew: הֵילֵל hêylêl, hay-lale'; from H1984 (in the sense of brightness); the morning-star:—lucifer.
New world order Bible Versions (NIV ESV NKJV etc)
- Thread starter Paisley_buddie
- Start date
-
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.
It is in Hebrew: הֵילֵל hêylêl, hay-lale'; from H1984 (in the sense of brightness); the morning-star:—lucifer.
I find it somewhat humorous that someone who advocates for the KJV does so in such poor English. Perhaps you should read the KJV... and perhaps thereby learn to write the language properly instead of doing so in Gullah.
Please read the following very carefully, lest you misunderstand either unintentionally or willfully: THERE IS NO ATTACK ON PEOPLE WHO "JUST WANNA (sic) READ AND BELIEVE THEIR (sic) BIBLE". There is, however, an unwillingness to accept poorly-founded attacks on other translations, which is what the OP of thread is about.
What is the book which (supposedly) refutes his? I'd like to look into this. I suspect that the alleged refutation is a joke, but I'm willing to suspend judgment until I read it.
And, praytell, how can you know beyond any shadow of doubt, the modern versions are corrupted?
Was it the goons such as Gipp, Riplinger, Ruckman, et al that led you to this erroneous conclusion?
King Jimmy <----a transliteration/translation compared to earlier English versions and much of it copied verbatim.....nothing more, nothing less and not the only version that contains truth!
You shouldn....snick....you really shou....snicker....you really shouldn't have said....pffft.....you really shouldn't have said that....bwaaahaaahaaa...couldn't hold it back any longer...
I read Biblical Hebrew and Biblical Greek. The KJV is simply not accurate. Hort and Westcott is a red herring! Nestle Aland or United Bible societies are much better. UBS gives all the alternate readings, in which exact manuscripts they are found.
The fact is, the KJV was translated from 7 very late, corrupted manuscripts. Only 7, known to be dated to the 14th centuries. So copies of copies of copies of copies of...
The more something is copied, the more room for copyist errors, and that is exactly what happened in those 7 manuscripts. They were rife with errors! So, then, is the KJV.
I have translated and compared KJV for the OT with Hebrew and for the NT with Greek. There are huge mistakes on almost every line. It's not that I am so great, but that these errors are so obvious, even a beginner at Greek or Hebrew can see the issues with the KJV.
Stop believing people with some strange axe to grind,and study Greek for 6 months. We had a KJOnlyist start in second year Greek, and she quit rather than accept that KJV was simply wrong in so many places.
We won't even get into the lack of being in our language. I am not Elizabethan, and I speak modern English. You will never convince me that a 400 year old translation, with archaic and obsolete words and language is the best way to translate the Bible. I've read the Bible 50 times in English, in many translations. I've never found anything affecting doctrine in a modern version.
Oh, and hi to John146, who only shows up to say that if we don't use the KJV, we can't trust our Bible. Sorry, I trust my Bible, plus I have studied, and read the NT in Greek, and the OT in Hebrew. Still the same Bible! Still Jesus, our Lord and Saviour!
And, why is it the worst heresies always come out of the KJV? I believe it is because people do not read Elizabethan English, and misinterpret the Bible. Here's a little secret! If you post everything in a KJV and I don't respond, it's because I don't speak the language,and I refuse to waste time looking up what it says in modern English. I don't like Shakespeare either, for the same reason! Give me Greek, any day!
The fact is, the KJV was translated from 7 very late, corrupted manuscripts. Only 7, known to be dated to the 14th centuries. So copies of copies of copies of copies of...
The more something is copied, the more room for copyist errors, and that is exactly what happened in those 7 manuscripts. They were rife with errors! So, then, is the KJV.
I have translated and compared KJV for the OT with Hebrew and for the NT with Greek. There are huge mistakes on almost every line. It's not that I am so great, but that these errors are so obvious, even a beginner at Greek or Hebrew can see the issues with the KJV.
Stop believing people with some strange axe to grind,and study Greek for 6 months. We had a KJOnlyist start in second year Greek, and she quit rather than accept that KJV was simply wrong in so many places.
We won't even get into the lack of being in our language. I am not Elizabethan, and I speak modern English. You will never convince me that a 400 year old translation, with archaic and obsolete words and language is the best way to translate the Bible. I've read the Bible 50 times in English, in many translations. I've never found anything affecting doctrine in a modern version.
Oh, and hi to John146, who only shows up to say that if we don't use the KJV, we can't trust our Bible. Sorry, I trust my Bible, plus I have studied, and read the NT in Greek, and the OT in Hebrew. Still the same Bible! Still Jesus, our Lord and Saviour!
And, why is it the worst heresies always come out of the KJV? I believe it is because people do not read Elizabethan English, and misinterpret the Bible. Here's a little secret! If you post everything in a KJV and I don't respond, it's because I don't speak the language,and I refuse to waste time looking up what it says in modern English. I don't like Shakespeare either, for the same reason! Give me Greek, any day!
I don't know how you got the idea that Nestle-Aland or the UBS critical texts are any different from Westcott & Hort or Nestle. There is not one iota of difference. So let's put this fallacy to rest with one example, which actually has doctrinal significance (1 Timothy 3:16). You will note that all these critical texts are IDENTICAL, so you might as well admit that Westcott and Hort rule the roost.
I will also compare the Traditional Text, and your repetition of the fallacy that the KJV is based on a handful of manuscripts will be seen to be totally false. Indeed the Traditional Text is supported by 95-99% of all Greek manuscripts in existence (over 5,000).
CRITICAL TEXTS (CORRUPT)
Westcott and Hort 1881
καὶ ὁμολογουμένως μέγα ἐστὶν τὸ τῆς εὐσεβείας μυστήριον· Ὃς ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί, ἐδικαιώθη ἐν πνεύματι, ὤφθη ἀγγέλοις, ἐκηρύχθη ἐν ἔθνεσιν, ἐπιστεύθη ἐν κόσμῳ, ἀνελήμφθη ἐν δόξῃ.
Nestle Greek New Testament 1904
καὶ ὁμολογουμένως μέγα ἐστὶν τὸ τῆς εὐσεβείας μυστήριον· Ὃς ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί, ἐδικαιώθη ἐν πνεύματι, ὤφθη ἀγγέλοις, ἐκηρύχθη ἐν ἔθνεσιν, ἐπιστεύθη ἐν κόσμῳ, ἀνελήμφθη ἐν δόξῃ.
NESTLE ALAND TEXT
καὶ ὁμολογουμένως μέγα ἐστὶν τὸ τῆς εὐσεβείας μυστήριον· ὃς ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί, ἐδικαιώθη ἐν πνεύματι, ὤφθη ἀγγέλοις, ἐκηρύχθη ἐν ἔθνεσιν, ἐπιστεύθη ἐν κόσμῳ, ἀνελήμφθη ἐν δόξῃ.
UNITED BIBLE SOCIETIES TEXT
καὶ ὁμολογουμένως μέγα ἐστὶν τὸ τῆς εὐσεβείας μυστήριον·Ὃς ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί, ἐδικαιώθη ἐν πνεύματι, ὠφθη ἀγγέλοις, ἐκηρύχθη ἐν ἐθνεσιν, ἐπιστεύθη ἐν κόσμῳ, ἀνελήμφθη ἐν δόξῃ.
TRADITIONAL TEXTS (GENUINE)
RP Byzantine Majority Text 2005
Καὶ ὁμολογουμένως μέγα ἐστὶν τὸ τῆς εὐσεβείας μυστήριον· θεὸς ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί, ἐδικαιώθη ἐν πνεύματι, ὤφθη ἀγγέλοις, ἐκηρύχθη ἐν ἔθνεσιν, ἐπιστεύθη ἐν κόσμῳ, ἀνελήφθη ἐν δόξῃ.
Greek Orthodox Church 1904
καὶ ὁμολογουμένως μέγα ἐστὶ τὸ τῆς εὐσεβείας μυστήριον· Θεὸς ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί, ἐδικαιώθη ἐν Πνεύματι, ὤφθη ἀγγέλοις, ἐκηρύχθη ἐν ἔθνεσιν, ἐπιστεύθη ἐν κόσμῳ, ἀνελήφθη ἐν δόξῃ.
Scrivener's Textus Receptus 1894
καὶ ὁμολογουμένως μέγα ἐστὶ τὸ τῆς εὐσεβείας μυστήριον· Θεὸς ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί, ἐδικαιώθη ἐν πνεύματι, ὤφθη ἀγγέλοις, ἐκηρύχθη ἐν ἔθνεσιν, ἐπιστεύθη ἐν κόσμῳ, ἀνελήφθη ἐν δόξῃ.
Stephanus Textus Receptus 1550
καὶ ὁμολογουμένως μέγα ἐστὶν τὸ τῆς εὐσεβείας μυστήριον· Θεὸς ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί ἐδικαιώθη ἐν πνεύματι ὤφθη ἀγγέλοις ἐκηρύχθη ἐν ἔθνεσιν ἐπιστεύθη ἐν κόσμῳ ἀνελήφθη ἐν δόξῃ
The reason I have bolded "os" and "Theos" is because the corrupt manuscripts have "who" or "which" instead of "God". To Socinians, Arians and Unitarians, that is very significant, since they always say "Where is Jesus called 'God' in the New Testament?"
Nestle GNT 1904
Θεὸν οὐδεὶς ἑώρακεν πώποτε· μονογενὴς Θεὸς ὁ ὢν εἰς τὸν κόλπον τοῦ Πατρὸς, ἐκεῖνος ἐξηγήσατο.
Westcott and Hort 1881
θεὸν οὐδεὶς ἑώρακεν πώποτε· μονογενὴς θεὸς ὁ ὢν εἰς τὸν κόλπον τοῦ πατρὸς ἐκεῖνος ἐξηγήσατο.
Westcott and Hort / [NA27 variants]
θεὸν οὐδεὶς ἑώρακεν πώποτε· μονογενὴς θεὸς ὁ ὢν εἰς τὸν κόλπον τοῦ πατρὸς ἐκεῖνος ἐξηγήσατο.
RP Byzantine Majority Text 2005
Θεὸν οὐδεὶς ἑώρακεν πώποτε· ὁ μονογενὴς υἱός, ὁ ὢν εἰς τὸν κόλπον τοῦ πατρός, ἐκεῖνος ἐξηγήσατο.
Greek Orthodox Church 1904
Θεὸν οὐδεὶς ἑώρακεν πώποτε· ὁ μονογενὴς υἱὸς ὁ ὢν εἰς τὸν κόλπον τοῦ πατρὸς ἐκεῖνος ἐξηγήσατο.
Tischendorf 8th Edition
θεὸν οὐδεὶς ἑώρακεν πώποτε· ὁ μονογενὴς υἱὸς ὁ ὢν εἰς τὸν κόλπον τοῦ πατρός, ἐκεῖνος ἐξηγήσατο.
Scrivener's Textus Receptus 1894
Θεὸν οὐδεὶς ἑώρακε πώποτε· ὁ μονογενὴς υἱός, ὁ ὢν εἰς τὸν κόλπον τοῦ πατρός ἐκεῖνος ἐξηγήσατο.
Stephanus Textus Receptus 1550
θεὸν οὐδεὶς ἑώρακεν πώποτε· ὁ μονογενὴς υἱός, ὁ ὢν εἰς τὸν κόλπον τοῦ πατρὸς ἐκεῖνος ἐξηγήσατο
The reason I have bolded "hyos" and "Theos" is because the corrupt manuscripts have "hyos" instead of "God". To Socinians, Arians and Unitarians, that is very significant, since they always say "Where is Jesus called 'God' in the New Testament?"
----
I hope you see how poor your reasoning is.
You must understand the tools you are using.
Strong's is a concordance to the KJV. It only says that this word means "the morning star" and was translated in the KJV as "lucifer".
Now I would say that that is not only a biased statement, but also one that is prejudiced and malicious. Why did you not try prove that I am "ignorant"? My posts speak for themselves, and personal attacks are not permissible on Christian forums.
Hi Angela, it seems like you trust in your scholarship more than you trust in the Lord's promise to preserve His pure words for all generations. You say, "Sorry, I trust my Bible, plus...." Do you trust your Bible or not? Do you trust every word? Or do you trust your scholarship more?
It's funny that you bring up the Elizabethan English and how difficult it is, but then you bring in Greek and Hebrew. If you are educated, then the old language of the KJV should be quite easy.
Question: In Exodus 10:7, we have Moses recording the words of Pharaoh's servants, spoken after he left the room. To begin with, how does Moses know what they said? Next, do you suppose those Egyptians spoke Hebrew to one another? Obviously, the Lord gave Moses the content, but in which language? In any event, Moses eventually inserted the translated discussion into the Hebrew "autograph." The question arises, was the Hebrew originally inspired, or just the words spoken by the Egyptian that Moses didn't hear? Does God have the authority to translate one language into another and it still be the holy word of God?
You've already proven and claimed your own ignorance on the issue.
I'm prejudiced and malicious, yet, you won't read the book, and instead read a false refutation that takes out of context excerpts and turns them into straw man arguments, and attacks them? You're scared the book will refute your KJVO belief system, and, thankfully, it does just that.
That said, there was no personal attack. Look up the word ignorant and see its meaning. It applies to your stance of which you have no knowledge, willfully, yet you make conclusions based on that willful ignorance. That is literally prejudice and malice right there.
Instead of this, read the book, gain knowledge, see your errors.
Not at all. "Only begotten God" is a CORRUPTION. The majority of manuscripts have "only begotten Son" which is not only theologically correct, but corresponds to every instance of the use of "only begotten" (Gk. monogenes) in relation to Christ. There were only three manuscripts with this corruption, but to the critics that was good enough to throw out the true reading. But the MAJORITY of English translations follow the KJV.
New International Version [paraphrase]
No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son, who is himself God and is in closest relationship with the Father, has made him known.
Holman Christian Standard Bible
No one has ever seen God. The One and Only Son-- the One who is at the Father's side-- He has revealed Him
Jubilee Bible 2000
No man has seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he has declared him.
American Standard Version
No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him .
Douay-Rheims Bible
No man hath seen God at any time: the only begotten Son who is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.
Darby Bible Translation
No one has seen God at any time; the only-begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, *he* hath declared [him].
English Revised Version [even Westcott & Hort dared not corrupt their revision of 1881]
No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.
Weymouth New Testament ["begotten" omitted]
No human eye has ever seen God: the only Son, who is in the Father's bosom--He has made Him known.
Webster's Bible Translation
No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.
World English Bible
No one has seen God at any time. The one and only Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he has declared him.
Young's Literal Translation
God no one hath ever seen; the only begotten Son, who is on the bosom of the Father -- he did declare.
All Reformation Bibles agree with the KJV
Johannes 1:18 German: Luther (1912)
Niemand hat Gott je gesehen; der eingeborene Sohn, der in des Vaters Schoß ist, der hat es uns verkündigt.
Giovanni 1:18 Italian: Giovanni Diodati Bible (1649)
Niuno vide giammai Iddio; l’unigenito Figliuolo, ch’è nel seno del Padre, è quel che l’ha dichiarato.
Jean 1:18 French: Martin (1744)
Personne ne vit jamais Dieu; le Fils unique qui est au sein du Père, est celui qui nous l'a révélé.
Juan 1:18 Spanish: Sagradas Escrituras 1569
A Dios nadie le vio jamás; el Unigénito hijo, que está en el seno del Padre, él nos lo declaró.
There is no doubt that the Geneva Bible is an excellent Reformation Bible, and was the Bible of the Puritans and the Calvinists. But for whatever reason, God chose to use the KJV as the leading Reformation Bible, and it became the standard English Bible for hundreds of years throughout the English-speaking world.
You have been trying to elevate a fake analysis of the Bible version issue into something akin to the Bible itself. Ignoring garbage is not ignorance, put prudence. So back off from your personal insults and prove WITH EVIDENCE that James White was objective, unbiased, and also presented the merits of the KJV and the Traditional Texts as was his duty.
I don't happen to have a copy. Probably won't buy one. Ever. Seems James White feels the same...lolzzzzzzzzzzzz
One of the best things I've ever done was to read a version other than KJV. It's a good discipline to read through the Bible (well, at least I've heard it is).
I am actually starting to like the NASB better, but I do love them both.
Is the NASB trustworthy? Can you trust every word to be true? If you can't...throw it out. If you can't trust every word to be true, then you end up trusting in your own scholarship. You become your own final authority.