Is It Right?

[Petro]

The Wescott & Hort 1881 Translators, never did their work out in the open, they kept everything a secret, they hand picked their team, and never annouced their work publicly until imediately before the published it; it can hardly be compared to the work of the KJV committees.

This also, is a historical fact..

Petro

Again, we touch on the character of the translators, and their method of work.  What of the scriptural support you'd given that I showed you'd taken out of context for use as support for your viewpoint?

Allinall,

Rev 22
18  ..........If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
19  And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.


I have no idea what mean by what you have proven, I have taken out of context.

The fact is the NIV, is partially a result of the Wescott & Hort 1881 work, the NIV, adds words and omits words, some without editors notes in the margins and some with editors notes.

The website I posted, which shows these men as pro Roman Catholicism , Mariologists, and anti protestant.

I am beginignto think you do not understand what the issue here is..

Petro

[Petro]

Allinall,

Now, as for the character of the trabnsaltors, w

hat else can be said they, simply want to inject their bias into the word of God.

All newer simpler to read english renditoins of the scriptures are the result of this work of 1881.

What else can be concluded, from the results of their works, I suppose you would disgree with this assesment.

If you do, it wouldn't surprise me, from what you ahev posted to this point.

But I say, lets bring up, some scriptures, take whatever ones you like from the table I have supplied you, and show me how you justify there translation of their version.


Petro

[ebia]

Rev 22
18  ..........If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
19  And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

(Avoiding the debate of whether "this book" refers to the book of revelations or the whole bible.)
This book refers to the original, in greek (or Hebrew or Aramaic, as appropriate); not the AV, which is a translation from non-original texts.  Unless you can prove that the AV is identical to the originals, comparing the NIV to the AV is pointless.   You need to compare it to the originals (which we don't actually have).

The website I posted, which shows these men as pro Roman Catholicism , Mariologists, and anti protestant.

So what if they were.  The man who assembled the text behind the AV was a Roman Catholic too.

[Socrates]

I don't know who this "pastor" doug dodd is, but it breaks my heart that someone would have such a passion and desire to divide believers.   There is nothing at all wrong with the NIV, and I absolutely gaurantee that you CANNOT prove that there is, because there just isn't. The thing you have to realize is that though the wording of translations differ, that does not in any way mean that the meaning differs at all. The NIV is not a word-for-word translation, what it is, is a thought-for-thought translation. what this basically means is that the original meaning of the text is kept in tact, yet it is communicated in a way that is more understandable in this day and age. The meaning of the text is preserved. Again, the NIV is not the superior translation, but it is a perfectly acceptable and accurate translation. whatever translation you prefer, is fine. yes there are some exceptions, in which the actual meaning has been changed to say what someone wants it to say, but these fabrications are pretty easily spotted. the NASB, NIV, KJV, etc, are all perfectly acceptable. Which Bible is the right Bible? The one you read!

(Emphasis added)

If it could be shown that the NIV was internally inconsistent by recklessly referring to Satan as Jesus, would that be enough to convince you that the NIV was flawed?

Grab your NIV:

Compare Isaiah 14:12 (identifying Satan as the "Morning Star") with Revelation 22:16 (Jesus calling himself the "bright Morning Star")...

That's all I need to conclude the NIV was carelessly translated.  How about you?  

PS.  I didn't read the entire thread, so if this was brought up already, forgive the cumulative evidence . . .

[Petro]

ebia, Allinall,

Well there you go.

What about it??

Isa 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!  KJV


Isa 14
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

Rev 22
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

Rev 22
16  I, esus have sent my angel to give you this testimony for the churches. I am the Root and the Offspring of David, and the bright Morning Star.  NIV


ebia,

Talk about avoiding the debate!

You do like to focus elsewhere, rather than  the very words in question.

I ask you what is wrong with the verses shared above by  Socrates??

Can you see anything wrong with the words as translated by the NIV, in refering to Jesus??

Your preseumption that we cannot get the original language text straight is to comprimise the Word of God.

As I said, before, it is sad, that you are so, misinformed in this age of information, nothing is a secret today, if you apply yourself and determine to establish truth, you can find it, unfortunately if you chiose to ignore it, it simply shows a willingness to ignore the truth.  (Rom 1:18-19)

Petro

[Allinall]

Allinall,

Rev 22
18  ..........If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
19  And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

Amen!  Yet I hold that the book is the conglomeration of transcripts that we possess - not the KJV alone.

I have no idea what mean by what you have proven, I have taken out of context.

The text you used stating that heaven and earth would pass away, but "my word" would not was taken out of context to support your KJV based view.  Christ was not speaking contextually of His written word, but rather, the truthfulness and power of His word concerning the fall of the temple.  He was saying that the temporal things of earth would fall - His word, His prophecy of the fall of the temple, would not fail.  And it didn't.

The fact is the NIV, is partially a result of the Wescott & Hort 1881 work, the NIV, adds words and omits words, some without editors notes in the margins and some with editors notes.

The NIV work is not based upon the same transcripts as the KJV.  It is based upon what the AV folk would call "minority texts," implying that the bulk of the transcripts agree with the KJV.  Interestingly, the NIV side would claim they have the greater number of agreeing transcripts.  The added/missed words are considered added in light of the TR transcripts - not the transcripts from which they were derived.

The website I posted, which shows these men as pro Roman Catholicism , Mariologists, and anti protestant.

And the KJV translators weren't.  This argument would and could go on forever.  The point being that more believers than Baptists will be in Heaven and even those will find that they had several doctrinal misunderstandings I dare say.  Please, don't read more into that than was intended.  I'm not pro-Catholic or pro-protestant.  I'm a believer by grace and a baptist by choice.

I am beginignto think you do not understand what the issue here is..

I dare say, my friend, that I understand the issue better than the average believer.  I came from a church where I was given an NIV when I graduated.  I never used it!  Why?  I preferred my KJV.  I always found it to be a good translation!  However, when this issue came to a head, I decided to see why the other translations were wrong.  Why?  Because something didn't feel right about the argument.  Through study and prayer lasting for a period of roughly 4 years, I came to the conclusion that the ecclectic view was the biblical one.  When you say I do not understand, you assume that I have not studied the arguements you pose.  This simply, is not true.  Rather, I have studied and chosen not to take what man has said, regardless of how good that man may be.  

Allinall,

Now, as for the character of the trabnsaltors, w

hat else can be said they, simply want to inject their bias into the word of God.

All newer simpler to read english renditoins of the scriptures are the result of this work of 1881.

What else can be concluded, from the results of their works, I suppose you would disgree with this assesment.

If you do, it wouldn't surprise me, from what you ahev posted to this point.

But I say, lets bring up, some scriptures, take whatever ones you like from the table I have supplied you, and show me how you justify there translation of their version

The works of all other translations has not come just from this work.  If that were so, there would be no ecclectic versions!  And that simply is false.  There are ecclectic translations.  The work comes from the transcripts.

Again, the verses and their differences are based upon two different transcripts and the translations derived from each.  Arguing them would be arguing the validity or invalidity of the KJV or other translations.  I do not argue the validity of either over the other.  But...I will (later as right now I have to put my kids to bed  ) address those scriptures, as well as any others that are brought into question.

[Allinall]

Are we basing the lack of the "Lucifer" label in the NIV translation to imply that that text now labels Jesus in its stead due to the Revelation 22 passage?  If that is so, that is not only non-discerning, but also uneducated.  Am I then to say that God's referral to Ezekiel as the "son of man" is actually referring to Christ, as that was a title He held?  God referred to Ezekiel in that fashion apart from Jesus.  He referred to Lucifer, the greatest of all His angels, in a similar fashion.  The passage itself shows the connection to the "fallen" Satan.  Hermeneutic application here is a must.

[RegsH]

Wow.  Perhaps I shouldn't have read this first.  I might have gotten a better impression of the forum if I hadn't.

Why are we fighting?

Matthew 12:25-26
And Jesus knew their thoughts, and said unto them, Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand: And if Satan cast out Satan, he is divided against himself; how shall then his kingdom stand?

Now, I first read this in NIV, because KJV is a bit difficult for uneducated people to understand; however, it sounds like it has the exact same message in both versions.  The message?  Perhaps it doesn't say, "United we stand," but it does say clearly, "Divided we fall."

Why must Christians be divided over versions of the bible?

[asaph]

The following article is taken from: http://www.tegart.com/brian/bible/kjvonly/index.html

Most KJV-only supporters, and even many others, think Isaiah 14:12 is referring to Satan because of the KJV's use of the word "Lucifer":

Isaiah 14:12 (KJV) "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!"

However, here's how the verse appears in some modern translations:

Isaiah 14:12 (NIV) "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!"

Isaiah 14:12 (NASB) "How you have fallen from heaven, O star of the morning, son of the dawn! You have been cut down to the earth, You who have weakened the nations!"

Isaiah 14:12 (Young's Literal Translation) "How hast thou fallen from the heavens, O shining one, son of the dawn! Thou hast been cut down to earth, O weakener of nations."

Some KJV-only supporters have pointed to Isaiah 14:12 in the other English versions, and accuse them of a great mistranslation error. Some even suggest that these versions are suggesting that Christ and Satan are one in the same, and that Satan himself is responsible for inspiring these translations. This extreme view is because of where, in the KJV, Christ calls himself the "morning star" in Revelation 22:16:

Revelation 22:16 (KJV) "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."

Revelation 22:16 (NIV) "I, Jesus, have sent my angel to give you this testimony for the churches. I am the Root and the Offspring of David, and the bright Morning Star."

So, are the accusations of some KJV-only supporters justified? Have these versions taken Christ's title and given it to Satan in Isaiah 14:12? Let's look at this in a little detail, then you can decide for yourself.

One distinction that can be seen right away is that the title "morning star" in Isaiah 14:12 of the NIV is in all lower-case letters, while the title "the bright Morning Star" in Revelation 22:16 is capitalized. Another distinction is that in the Revelation verse, the title is qualified with the definite article "the", as well as the descriptor "bright", both of which are not present in Isaiah 14:12. These differences seem minor, but they are more than enough to distinguish between the KJV's "sons of God" and "Son of God", "lord" and "Lord", "god" and "God", "spirit" and "Spirit", etc.

So where did the name "Lucifer" come from?

Continued...

[asaph]

So where did the name "Lucifer" come from?

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. (Click Here to read why I don't think this passage could be about Satan in the first place.)

continued...

[asaph]

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:, 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"?:

1 Peter 5:8 (KJV) "Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour:"

Revelation 5:5 (KJV) "And one of the elders saith unto me, Weep not: behold, the Lion of the tribe of Juda, the Root of David, hath prevailed to open the book, and to loose the seven seals thereof."

Of course, Jesus is "the bright Morning Star" (NIV, Rev. 22:16), and the NIV makes a strong distinction between the title as used in Isaiah 14:12, as mentioned near the top of this article. The KJV also makes distinctions between the title as in Rev. 22:16 and Job 38:7, but because it does not use the upper-case letters as the NIV does in Rev. 22:16, the NIV in fact makes a stronger distinction when the title is given to Christ.

So, accusing new versions of a strange error or even blasphemy when it comes to Isaiah 14:12 seems wholly unjustified. But don't take my word for it, let's see what some people with credentials that even KJV-only supporters recognize have to say:

1. James Strong, S.T.D., LL.D. (author of Strong's concordance)
Here's what the Strong's Hebrew Dictionary (that accompanies Strong's exhaustive concordance of the KJV) says about the Hebrew word heylel (hay-lale', Strong's #1966), translated as "Lucifer" in Isaiah 14:12 of the KJV:

1966.  heylel, hay-lale'; from 1984 (In the sense of brightness); the morning-star:--lucifer.

It seems that Strong agrees that heylel means morning-star.

2. The KJV Translators Themselves
Here's how the verse looks in the original 1611 KJV:

Isaiah 14:12 (1611 KJV) "How art thou fallen from heauen, O Lucifer, fonne of the morning? how art thou cut downe to the ground, which didft weaken the nations?"

In the original 1611 edition of the KJV, there is a marginal note for the words "O Lucifer". The marginal note reads:

Or, O daystarre.
Clearly the KJV translators themselves understood the meaning of the Hebrew word heylel (hay-lale', Strong's #1966), and even provided "daystarre" for us as an alternate translation!

Also of interest (not to this particular discussion, but the KJV-only issue in general) is the fact that this verse is written as two questions (question marks are used) in the original 1611 KJV, but it's written as two exclamations (exclamation marks are used) in today's commonly used editions of the KJV. Which edition is the "inspired/inerrant/infallible" one?


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The above article was taken from: http://www.tegart.com/brian/bible/kjvonly/isa14_12.html

asaph

[Allinall]

 

[Allinall]

Wow.  Perhaps I shouldn't have read this first.  I might have gotten a better impression of the forum if I hadn't.

Why are we fighting?

Matthew 12:25-26
And Jesus knew their thoughts, and said unto them, Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand: And if Satan cast out Satan, he is divided against himself; how shall then his kingdom stand?

Now, I first read this in NIV, because KJV is a bit difficult for uneducated people to understand; however, it sounds like it has the exact same message in both versions.  The message?  Perhaps it doesn't say, "United we stand," but it does say clearly, "Divided we fall."

Why must Christians be divided over versions of the bible?

Amen.  That is, through my argumentation   , the point I'm trying to make.  We divide over issues that have no biblical support.  If God said to divide over it, then so be it.  But He hasn't!  So why do we?

At our prayer meeting this evening, our Pastor brought up the need to pray for President Bush in "drawing the line in the sand" on this homosexual marriage legislation.  Why?  Because on the shirt tails of that legislation comes further legislation claiming the Bible to be "hate literature" in regards to its stand against homosexuality.  If God's word becomes subject to legislation...

So regardless of your view of version, or translation, you, I and others view God's word with a high regard.  If not, we would not argue it so.  We must be praying for our President to make hard decisions.  

BTW - I didn't post this as another attempt to start debating homosexuality.  I'm just relating what this issue has to do with the word we're debating here.

[Ralph]

  Pastor Doug Dodd: One short answer, please, in regard to your question #8 (Re:Calvinism) How much time have you actually given to the doctrinal issues which divide Calvinists from Arminians? The Arminian faith, held to by very many protestants, stems from James Arminius, who lived in the late 16th century. Was church doctrine wrong until Arminius put people on his chosen path? Have you ever-EVER-sat down surrounded by commentaries written by theologians of both persuasions and actually witnessed the way the men of each
doctrinal persuasion handles the verses put forth as proof of the other's position? Have you seen the way Arminians respond to challenges from reformed theologians, or the way Calvinists respond to challenges from the Arminian theologians? I doubt that you have. Arminians usually haven't really giving honest consideration. They just know APRIORI that their Arminianism is right. Is that a God honoring way to deal with issues concerning His word? Reformed people can COMFORTABLY preach ANY text of Scripture. How about you? Do you have to avoid certain texts because they "don't fit"? Do you understand the full meaning in Jesus being termed "the everlasting Father, the prince of peace"? Do you realize the full import of Jesus being the head of the church? or that He is the Second Adam? How much meaning can you put in a message to your people on Sunday morning when you preach those texts? Are you familiar with the Arminian theologian Theissen who, when faced with a typical Arminian problem with verses out of Romans chapters 9-11, fell back on get this-HUMAN REASON-, saying "Nevertheless, human reason DEMANDS that we believe..". Mr. Dodd. HUMAN REASON has no standing before God's infallible word. Remember that those who will be teachers shall receive greater judgment. What, Mr. Dodd, did Jesus mean when He said, "Why do you not believe what I say? Even because you cannot hear my word."

[Ambassador4Christ]

Is It Right?

1.To tell sinners they can merit the favor of God by doing good works?

2.To extract money from people using the tithe?

3.To tell people they cannot understand the Bible?

4.To comfort sinners with thoughts of purgatory?

5.To teach people that water baptism can save them from eternal judgement?

6.To teach seeking saints from a corrupt text like the NIV?

7.To teach infant baptism?

8.To teach Calvinism?

9.To believe in annihilation?

10.To teach someone today can be a part of the 144,000?

11.To teach that saved people are "spiritual Israel"?

No, none of the above and hundreds more are not right according to the Bible but are practiced everyday... Christ will come again, what will he find you doing?

By Pastor Doug Dodd s.b.g.


I really liked this thread, its a oldie but goldie