KING JAMES VERSION BIBLE VS. MODERN ENGLISH BIBLES

[KJV1611]

It does not matter that they do not exist. You believe in a continuous perfect preservation, so the next generation of Greek copies had to be perfect too, third etc.

But you are still evading my main question - if KJV can change what was before (even originals), why NIV cannot change what was in the KJV.

You said that NIV contradicts what you know about Christ. But then, how do you know that, if Scriptures can evolve all the time? Your feelings about Christ cannot be so specific to formulate nuances in doctrines.

I'm not a manuscript studier, I don't know how long the manuscripts were pure.

The NIV could change what the KJV said if God inspired the translators to do so but he didn't. The KJV translators revealed that Jesus was in the firery furnace in Daniel, the NIV changes to or either back to a son of the gods. God doesn't go backwards.

The KJV has the eternal Christ going forth from the beginning of time, the NIV has Christ having his ORIGIN at the beginning of time. I know what you believe and you believe what you believe becasue of the bibles and teachers you follow, but Christ DID NOT have an origin and the ETERNAL GOD Jesus Christ - Did not come out of God.

These are just some of the major things I can recall from memory, I couldnt tell you how many other things that are blatantly wrong that I just can't remember right now, more minor things.

 

[Lucy-Pevensie]

In the KJV Jesus is the morning star and Satan is Lucifer.

But lucifer is a title, not a name. It's a Latin word, not English, not Hebrew or Aramaic. It really doesn't belong in an English translation.

 

[trofimus]

I'm not a manuscript studier, I don't know how long the manuscripts were pure.

The NIV could change what the KJV said if God inspired the translators to do so but he didn't. The KJV translators revealed that Jesus was in the firery furnace in Daniel, the NIV changes to or either back to a son of the gods. God doesn't go backwards.

Wait, God can contradict himself? That for 2000 years it could be son of gods and after the KJV it must be son of God?

I am more and more confused about your "creed"... its seems to be very flexible regarding the KJV and very hard regarding everything else.

 

[James37]

But lucifer is a title, not a name. It's a Latin word, not English, not Hebrew or Aramaic. It really doesn't belong in an English translation.

I know one thing. The servants of the Devil acknowledge the names Lucifer, Belial, Satan, and Leviathan but not morning star (as far as I know). Lucifer is the name of one of the books of in Satanic bible.

 

[KJV1611]

In Hebrew, the word Cochav can refer to one of the lights in the night sky, or to an angel of light.

Job 38:1-7
Then the Lord answered Job out of the whirlwind, and said,
2 Who is this that darkeneth counsel by words without knowledge?
3 Gird up now thy loins like a man; for I will demand of thee, and answer thou me.
4 Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.
5 Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it?
6 Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof;
7 When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?
KJV

the morning stars here refers to angels of light of which Satan/Lucifer was created to be one; as were Michael and Gabriel.


Isa 14:12-13
12 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!
13 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:
KJV

Isa 14:12
12 How you have fallen from heaven, O morning star, son of the dawn! You have been cast down to the earth, you who once laid low the nations!
NIV

Here the NIV uses the designation in Job 38:7 to show what Satan/Lucifer is.

Rev 22:16
16 I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.
KJV


bright and morning star here is a title of Jesus; but as seen in Job 38:7 NOT exclusively a title of Jesus.


Perhaps this resolves the confusion.

The etymology of Lucifer is light bearer. Paul calls Satan an angel (messenger) of light - light bearer. It's a synergy between the old and new testament. That's my opinion at least... no bluring the lines as to who Christ is and who Satan is. There are people on this forum that actually believe Jesus fell from heaven because of those verses.

2 Corinthians 11:14 [Full Chapter]
And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.

 

[SovereignGrace]

Wrong. Try again.

You’ve got no proof to prove this lunacy. Even the KJV translators believed what you guys believe.

Didn’t believe what you guys believe was what I wanted to write. My bad.

 

[trofimus]

I know one thing. The servants of the Devil acknowledge the names Lucifer, Belial, Satan, and Leviathan but not morning star (as far as I know). Lucifer is the name of one of the books of in Satanic bible.

Now "the servants of the Devil" are your standard?

If the word means in English "morning star" and in Latin this star was called "Lucifer" (bearer of light), what sense it makes to use both terms differently when they refer to the same word?

Its planet Venus, BTW. The first bright "star" in the morning.

 

[KJV1611]

Wait, God can contradict himself? That for 2000 years it could be son of gods and after the KJV it must be son of God?

I am more and more confused about your "creed"... its seems to be very flexible regarding the KJV and very hard regarding everything else.

I don't know what the original languages said, I was giving the benefit of a doubt that possibly the original said a son of the gods.

 

[joefizz]

But lucifer is a title, not a name. It's a Latin word, not English, not Hebrew or Aramaic. It really doesn't belong in an English translation.

I don't see why not,it's an "old" language just like Hebrew,and people still use both today though people call Latin a dead language,so in a way "it fits" because let's not forget that king james and his scholars and scribes intended the bible to be readable in a "variety" of languages,and also think of today how we use "multiple languages" today,for example here in America some our primary languages are English,Spanish,and French though one could argue that only English is best,plus one must consider "what God wanted".
God at a time made salvation possible to only Israel but now it's open to all who Accept Jesus and his works and likewise languages were "many" back then too so it makes sense really.

 

[James37]

Now "the servants of the Devil" are your standard?

If the word means in English "morning star" and in Latin this star was called "Lucifer" (bearer of light), what sense it makes to use both terms differently when they refer to the same word?

Ask someone on the street who Lucifer is and see what king of response you get.

 

[Lucy-Pevensie]

Lucy,

It is not false witness for him to say what he obviously believes. I agree with you that he is mistaken; but that is another issue.

OK, I see what you mean.
He really believes the NIV contradicts the character of God and contradicts itself. So he isn't deliberately making a false statement about it.

 

[trofimus]

I don't know what the original languages said, I was giving the benefit of a doubt that possibly the original said a son of the gods.

Still, I am not sure what your reasoning about the KJV onlyism is. Whatever you said about the KJV can be applied to anything else. The only measurement you have for knowing what is good or bad is your inner feeling... its comfortable for you to read the KJV, therefore it must be perfectly inspired.
Some verse did not fit you in the NIV, therefore it must be corrupted.

Thats how it sounds to me.

 

[trofimus]

Ask someone on the street who Lucifer is and see what king of response you get.

It does not matter. Street is not our standard either. Bible is not based on opinions of uneducated street that gets its info from Hollywood movies.

 

[KJV1611]

Still, I am not sure what your reasoning about the KJV onlyism is. Whatever you said about the KJV can be applied to anything else. The only measurement you have for knowing what is good or bad is your inner feeling... its comfortable for you to read the KJV, therefore it must be perfectly inspired.
Some verse did not fit you in the NIV, therefore it must be corrupted.

Thats how it sounds to me.

Does God lie, does he mis-speak, does he make mistakes? Don't base this on your inner feelings lol.

 

[James37]

It does not matter. Street is not our standard either.

The Bible is and it reads "Lucifer" and even the heathen know who he is.

 

[Lucy-Pevensie]

Ask someone on the street who Lucifer is and see what king of response you get.

Right because of the KJV translators being lazy, it has worked it's way into popular culture. But it is NOT the devil's actual first name.

Mr Lucifer Satan.
666 Hell Street
Babylon.

He wears red tights BTW

 

[KJV1611]

It does not matter. Street is not our standard either. Bible is not based on opinions of uneducated street that gets its info from Hollywood movies.

The bible is not based on an exact word for word match to the copies of the originals either. God's word is not bound by language or words.

 

[James37]

Right because of the KJV translators being lazy, it has worked it's way into popular culture. But it is NOT the devil's actual first name.

Mr Lucifer Satan.
666 Hell Street
Babylon.

He wears red tights BTW

The King James Bible is up to date and relevant so anyone who reads Isaiah 14 understands who is being spoken of. The phrase "morning star" leads to confusion.

 

[trofimus]

Does God lie, does he mis-speak, does he make mistakes? Don't base this on your inner feelings lol.

These are general things or attributes you can, indeed, get without any Bible.

But we are talking about more specific teachings for which you need to read the Bible. How do you decide which ones are correct, by feeling?

 

[KJV1611]

Right because of the KJV translators being lazy, it has worked it's way into popular culture. But it is NOT the devil's actual first name.

Mr Lucifer Satan.
666 Hell Street
Babylon.

He wears red tights BTW

I thought the devil wore prada.