Re: [Bulk] Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Rikk Watts on Genesis 1

Thu, 12 May 2005 05:32:25 -0700

I can cut & paste too
http://www.tegart.com/brian/bible/kjvonly/isa14_12.html

Lance Muir <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Wow! Who needs 'the David' when one receives expositions like these from Caroline?
----- Original Message -----
Sent: May 11, 2005 23:15
Subject: [Bulk] Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Rikk Watts on Genesis 1

Who fell from heaven: Isaiah 14:12
 
"The Hebrew word translated as "Lucifer" in Isaiah 14:12 in the KJV is heylel (hay-lale', Strong's #1966), and literally means "shining one", "morning star", "light bearer", etc. Isaiah 14:12 is the only place in scripture where this Hebrew word appears.

The use of "Lucifer" appears to have originated from the Latin Vulgate. The Vulgate was produced by Jerome (c. 347-420) by translating available Greek and Hebrew manuscripts into Latin. It was started in approximately 382 A.D. and was completed in approximately 405 A.D. It was the scriptures used by the Catholic Church for nearly 1000 years. Here's what the Vulgate says (note the lower case):

Isaiah 14:12 (Latin Vulgate) "quomodo cecidisti de caelo lucifer qui mane oriebaris corruisti in terram qui vulnerabas gentes"

It would seem that Jerome understood the meaning of the Hebrew word heylel, and translated it into "lucifer", the Latin word meaning "light bearer" (from the Latin lux "light" and ferre "to bear or bring."). Because many people thought this passage was referring to Satan, people began to think of the term of "lucifer" as a proper name "Lucifer". However, this is not what "lucifer" meant. "lucifer", at the time of the Vulgate and even at the time of the KJV translation, meant "morning star" or "day star" in reference to Venus. Even though Jerome himself (and others before him) thought the passage was referring to Satan, he did not use the word "lucifer" to mean "Satan" - his view that the passage was referring to Satan was purely an interpretational issue of the entire passage - the term "lucifer" was not used to indicate Satan in any way. This can be shown by of how he used "lucifer" elsewhere in the Vulgate. Although "Lucifer" only occurs once in the KJV, "lucifer" occurs three times in the Vulgate: once as shown above, and also in:

Job 11:17 (Latin Vulgate) "et quasi meridianus fulgor consurget tibi ad vesperam et cum te consumptum putaveris orieris ut lucifer"

2 Peter 1:19 (Latin Vulgate) "et habemus firmiorem propheticum sermonem cui bene facitis adtendentes quasi lucernae lucenti in caliginoso loco donec dies inlucescat et lucifer oriatur in cordibus vestris"

What is interesting about those two verses where "lucifer" is used, is what the term is referring to. The KJV was not translated from the Vulgate (although verses like Isaiah 14:12 show that it was used and borrowed from), but here's those two verses in the KJV for comparison, to illustrate what the Latin word "lucifer" meant in the Vulgate:

Job 11:17 (KJV) "And thine age shall be clearer than the noonday; thou shalt shine forth, thou shalt be as the morning."

2 Peter 1:19 (KJV) "We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts: "

What's quite interesting is the Vulgate's use of the word "lucifer" in 2 Peter 1:19, a passage that is understood as referring to Christ. Also of interst to KJV-onlyism in general is that some KJV-onlies say the Spanish Riena Valera Bible was/is the inerrant word of God in Spanish, yet it too has the same Spanish word for "lucifer" ("lucero") in both Isaiah 14:12 and 2 Peter 1:19. If the NIV has given Christ's title to Satan, has the Spanish RV given Satan's title to Christ?

So, we learn that the name "Lucifer" (as a proper name) in the KJV is not an accurate word translation, but rather a word transliteration (a new word derived from a foreign word). This transliteration is not even from the original Hebrew, but instead from the Latin Vulgate! If "Lucifer" refers to Satan, that means the Bible has changed meaning! Thus, the term "Lucifer" in the KJV is more of a paraphrase and actually less accurate than the terms used in other translations, especially when you consider the change in meaning since the KJV was first published. However, the use of the word "lucifer" is perfectly acceptable if you understand what "lucifer" really means, and realize it is not referring to Satan, but a king of Babylon, and comparing him to the morning star, or Venus.

But "morning star" is Christ's title....

However, many KJV-only supporters still object to the use of the NIV's "morning star" and the NASB's "star of the morning" to refer to Satan in Isaiah 14:12, saying that the title is Christ's alone. However, the KJV is quite clear that it isn't:

Job 38:7 (KJV) "When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?"

In Job 38:7, the KJV indicates that this is not just a title for Christ, as it is also given to other angelic beings. One could return the "argument" and say that if "morning star" is only Christ's title, then the KJV tell us there are many Christs because of Job 38:7! (Of course that is ridiculous, but no more ridiculous than saying the NIV and NASB are equating Christ and Satan). Even if you remain unconvinced that Isaiah 14:12 is not referring to Satan, is it such a stretch to suggest that "morning star" or a similar term may be applied to Satan, since he too can appear this way? Consider:

2 Corinthians 11:14 (KJV) "And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light."

Therefore, to accuse the NIV and the NASB of giving "Christ's title" to Satan is to accuse the KJV of giving Christ's title to angels. Of course, we then see that "morning star" is simply a title that can be given to others as well.

Even if Isa 14:12 is about Satan, since "morning star" is a title the KJV uses for angels, what's wrong with with using the title for Satan? Most argue (erroneously) that "Lucifer" was Satan's name before he fell. Thus, before he fell, he was "Lucifer", an angel, a "morning star". Whoops. How do KJV-onlies know that the implied analogy is to Christ in Rev 22:16 and not to angels in Job 38:7??? Whoops again.

Also, Satan is called a lion in one passage (1 Peter 5:8), while the Lord Jesus is called a lion in one passage (Revelation 5:5). Isn't it kind of a double-standard for KJV-onlies to ignore this while jumping on the NIV's "morning star"?:

http://www.tegart.com/brian/bible/kjvonly/isa14_12.html

 

----- Original Message -----
Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2005 8:39 PM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Rikk Watts on Genesis 1

Who killed Goliath?
Who fell from heaven?
 
Still waiting for clear errors like these in the KJV.
If you want a Blasphemous book go for it....

Caroline Wong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
No English translation is perfect. Get over it. And stop turning your KJV into an idol.
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2005 7:14 AM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Rikk Watts on Genesis 1

CMON how about some clear ERRORS like your new Bibles have?
I mean a juicy one like Elkahan killed Goliath!
Ooooh here are some more:
 
The newe bibles get their God -gods mixed up! Blasphemy!
Isaiah 14:12  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!
“O Lucifer, son of the morning” in Isaiah 14:12 in the Hebrew is “helel, ben shachar.” “kokhav” or star is not found in the verse. The Hebrew “kokhve voqer” or morning stars does not appear in the text.  Why then is it changed?
NEWE Bibles: 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!
Who fell from heaven? SATAN!
 
Jesus Christ is the "morning star" in Revelation 22:16, 2:28 and II Peter 1:19.
The Secret Teachings of All Ages by Manly P. Hall "The pentagram is used extensively in black magic...it signifies the fall of the Morning Star."
Blavatsky's Theosophical Society also equates the morning star and Lucifer.
The United Nations, NGO Lucis Trust (which used to be called Lucifer now Lucis) "Lucifer as here used means...the morning star and has no connection whatsoever with Satan..."
In the newe bibles Jesus Christ is equated with this fallen creature, which we know is Satan.  The newe bibles state it is the "morning star" that fell. Satan never quits trying to be like the Most High (Is 14:14 KJV)

Watch the Bible correctors stand on their heads, put the left foot in & the left foot out, to try and salvalge their beloved perverted text.
The newe BLASPHEMOUS Bibles equate Satan with Jesus! I wonder who has been tampering with them? The father of Lies.
 
MORE BLASPHEMY
Newe bibles: Psalm 118:22 The stone the builders rejected has become the capstone
Newe bibles: Jesus becomes the "capstone" in Matthew 21:42, Mark 12:10, Luke 20:17, Acts 4:11, 1 Peter 2:7
Jesus Christ is the Cornerstone. The "newe" bibles change Cornerstone to CAPSTONE. The capstone is the top of the pyramid - not the cornerstone in which the foundation is layed. To New Agers, the capstone or Mercaba, is the top of the pyramid, the source where they channel Nimrod, the all seeing eye - into their third eye. (see your dollar) The capstone is the symbol of Nimrod in many cults and in FreeMasonry (thier god)... a false god, satan.
 
Are you praying to a new god?
 Deuteronomy 32:17,19 They sacrificed unto devils, not to God; to gods whom they knew not, to new gods...And when the Lord saw it, he abhorred them, because of the provoking of his sons, and of his daughters...
Judges 5:8 They chose new gods; then was war in the gates.
 
The King James Bible has shown itself to be the superior work of godly men, giving us the proper translation. Just seeing how the false versions highly esteem Satan, would shake me enough to cause me to refuse their perversions, and cast them aside. BUT:

Luke 4:8 Get thee behind me, Satan - OMITTED in the Newe versions

You trust your "capstone" I'll place my trust on the sure foundation & cornerstone Jesus Christ!

KJV Holy Bible: "be not afraid of their words, nor be dismayed at their looks, though they be a rebellious house."


Caroline Wong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Another extended quote from Wallace (b/c I could not be type all this out)
 

This longer reading is found only in eight late manuscripts, four of which have the words in a marginal note. Most of these manuscripts (2318, 221, and [with minor variations] 61, 88, 429, 629, 636, and 918) originate from the 16th century; the earliest manuscript, codex 221 (10th century), includes the reading in a marginal note which was added sometime after the original composition. Thus, there is no sure evidence of this reading in any Greek manuscript until the 1500s; each such reading was apparently composed after Erasmus’ Greek NT was published in 1516. Indeed, the reading appears in no Greek witness of any kind (either manuscript, patristic, or Greek translation of some other version) until AD 1215 (in a Greek translation of the Acts of the Lateran Council, a work originally written in Latin). This is all the more significant, since many a Greek Father would have loved such a reading, for it so succinctly affirms the doctrine of the Trinity.2 The reading seems to have arisen in a fourth century Latin homily in which the text was allegorized to refer to members of the Trinity. From there, it made its way into copies of the Latin Vulgate, the text used by the Roman Catholic Church.

The Trinitarian formula (known as the Comma Johanneum) made its way into the third edition of Erasmus’ Greek NT (1522) because of pressure from the Catholic Church. After his first edition appeared (1516), there arose such a furor over the absence of the Comma that Erasmus needed to defend himself. He argued that he did not put in the Comma because he found no Greek manuscripts that included it. Once one was produced (codex 61, written by one Roy or Froy at Oxford in c. 1520),3 Erasmus apparently felt obliged to include the reading. He became aware of this manuscript sometime between May of 1520 and September of 1521. In his annotations to his third edition he does not protest the rendering now in his text,4 as though it were made to order; but he does defend himself from the charge of indolence, noting that he had taken care to find whatever manuscripts he could for the production of his Greek New Testament. In the final analysis, Erasmus probably altered the text because of politico-theologico-economic concerns: he did not want his reputation ruined, nor his Novum Instrumentum to go unsold.

----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2005 10:44 AM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Rikk Watts on Genesis 1

If the Johanine Commatext (1 Jn 5:7-8)  did not exist before Erasmus. Please explain how a good number of Church fathers quoted it all the way back to 300AD. Magic? ESP? Or you are in error?

Caroline Wong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I thought about posting a long post explaining textural variants in the Hebrew texts, the making of the Septuagint, what is considered the most reliable version of the Septuagint today, the Hebrew texts KJV translators used and the differences between them, Jewish criticism of the translations, but then I thought, oh why bother?
 
I (and many others) are fully convinced that no translation is error free but the modern ones are very good. We've looked into the matter and decided the KJV is inferior.
 
I'll throw in a paragraph by Daniel B. Wallace, PhD. for free (because I don't have to type it out :-) Read it or not, I don't care.
 

Second, the Greek text which stands behind the King James Bible is demonstrably inferior in certain places. The man who edited the text was a Roman Catholic priest and humanist named Erasmus.[1] He was under pressure to get it to the press as soon as possible since (a) no edition of the Greek New Testament had yet been published, and (b) he had heard that Cardinal Ximenes and his associates were just about to publish an edition of the Greek New Testament and he was in a race to beat them. Consequently, his edition has been called the most poorly edited volume in all of literature! It is filled with hundreds of typographical errors which even Erasmus would acknowledge. Two places deserve special mention. In the last six verses of Revelation, Erasmus had no Greek manuscript (=MS) (he only used half a dozen, very late MSS for the whole New Testament any way). He was therefore forced to ‘back-translate’ the Latin into Greek and by so doing he created seventeen variants which have never been found in any other Greek MS of Revelation! He merely guessed at what the Greek might have been. Secondly, for 1 John 5:7-8, Erasmus followed the majority of MSS in reading “there are three witnesses in heaven, the Spirit and the water and the blood.” However, there was an uproar in some Roman Catholic circles because his text did not read “there are three witnesses in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit.” Erasmus said that he did not put that in the text because he found no Greek MSS which had that reading. This implicit challenge—viz., that if he found such a reading in any Greek MS, he would put it in his text—did not go unnoticed. In 1520, a scribe at Oxford named Roy made such a Greek MS (codex 61, now in Dublin). Erasmus’ third edition had the second reading because such a Greek MS was ‘made to order’ to fill the challenge! To date, only a handful of Greek MSS have been discovered which have the Trinitarian formula in 1 John 5:7-8, though none of them is demonstrably earlier than the sixteenth century.


[1] Now a humanist in the sixteenth century is not the same as a humanist today. Erasmus was generally tolerant of other viewpoints, and was particularly interested in the humanities. Although he was a friend of Melanchthon, Luther’s right-hand man, Luther did not care for him.

----- Original Message -----
Sent: Monday, May 09, 2005 10:41 PM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Rikk Watts on Genesis 1

There is a mountain of evidence that the KJV is not the best English translation
 
Like the mythological Septuagint, we are still looking for?
 
"Mountain of evidence" of which by the way you have provided only three very questionable examples! What was that one about cattle that was a classic, could you resend that?

Caroline Wong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi Terry and Izzy;
 
It boils down to faith. I know a little of philosophy, a little theology, a little church history and I know how trends in thinking and beliefs change over time and in different cultures. Faith is what keeps me going when things are dark and uncertain and I've just learned something that I wished I never knew. Faith assures me this is not the end even when others abandon the journey at the very way station I'm at. Faith can blithely park anomalous data for decades just in the off chance that some day it will make sense. Faith keeps my eyes on Christ as I shift around jigsaw pieces of hell, election, freewill, suffering, joy, grace, works etc.
 
Most people operate the same way. There is a mountain of evidence that the KJV is not the best English translation but by faith many say it is. There is evidence all over that God has abandoned some children to hideous suffering but by faith we say He has not. Logically, no one can be both 100% God and 100% man at the same time but by faith, we declare Jesus Christ is exactly that. Rationally, three Gods in one is nonsensical but by faith we relate to all three distinctively and as one.
 
I've know the stories of Christians who persevered despite all odds, even to a martyr's death. I know some who met up with evidence that was beyond reasonable doubt and they walked away from Christianity. (ex. Charles Templeton). My pastor is fond of saying to me "Fides quarens intellectum" which is Latin for "faith seeking understanding". That is what theology is. It is not to explain Christianity so that we can believe. As Augustine said, "I believe in order that I may understand."
 
So in summary, my main objection to your assertion that if someone proved Jesus is false, then it would be logical to stop believing is this: there is no room in my faith for such a thought. It is like asking me "is yellow circular?" or "are circles cold?" or "are my cats pious?" :-)
 
I know this is kind of long and I hope it makes sense. I hope this will also show why the Mormon people and the Canadians are so resistant to your arguments.
 
Love,
 
Caroline
 
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Monday, May 09, 2005 7:24 AM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Rikk Watts on Genesis 1

Caroline Wong wrote:
I consider myself Christian. There are tons of definitions of Evangelical. The simplest is a person who belongs to an Evangelical denomination. I define it as a person who tells another the good news.
 
BTW, was it you who said that if someone proved to you Jesus was false, you would stop believing? (I think it was in relation to the LDS people and Joseph Smith) I was completely stunned by that post and not sure if I read it right.
 
Love,
 
Caroline
================================================================
If you had absolute proof that Jesus was not the Savior, you would be out of your mind to continue to believe.  I am a realist.  I have examined the evidence.  Jesus is real!!!
Terry

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site!

Yahoo! Mail Mobile
Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Check email on your mobile phone.

Yahoo! Mail Mobile
Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Check email on your mobile phone.

Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses.

Reply via email to