Choice of modern Bible translations

[Purple Chris]

Greetings again salt and light,

Jesus is identified as the "morning star" in Revelation 2:28, and Revelation 22:16, are those two verses "heylel" in the greek as well?, also, who is Isaiah 14 refering to? Also, 64098 is not an exaggeration, and believe me, I know all about the footnotes. As far as the American Standard bible about "Joseph" and "father', I can't remember which verse it was, my pastor pointed it out to me this past Sunday, and I can't remember which verse it was.

In Rev. 2:28 the Greek words used are "aster proinos" literally translated as "star morning" or as we would say it "star of the morning" or "morning star." In Rev. 22:16 the Greek words used are "aster lampros kai orthrinos" literally translated as "star radiant and of the dawn" or as we might say it "bright and morning star" or something similar. Both verses are speaking about Christ...in every responsible version.

In Isaiah 14:12 the hebrew reads "heylel ben boqer" which translates as something similar to "shining/morning star son of the dawn/morning." It is speaking of Lucifer/Satan/the devil...in every responsible version.

Regarding the Joseph/father issue...I did a search in the ASB and the 3 verses I posted were the only ones I could find that related to the question at hand. My question to you is in regards to Luke 2:48 where the KJ reads "And when they saw him, they were amazed: and his mother said unto him, Son, why hast thou thus dealt with us? behold, thy father and I have sought thee sorrowing." Mary calls Joseph Jesus's "father." Obviously the KJ translators had no problem with this, only KJers after them do.

Grace & Peace,

PC

[apothanein kerdos]

Super Jew,

      Let me ask you a question,  Do you think you are smarter than the KJV translators who were the linquistic scholars of their day?  There were about 50  men and it took as many as 6 men to translate one book, like the book of John for example. I'm not trying to sound smart, I'm just asking you a question, because I've encountered a lot of  so called bible scholars who think they know better than the  KJV translators. Right now, I am sitting here and looking at many more corrupt verses from these other versions, also, I started to post this message, and then something came to mind, and thought I would include it. I remember talking with my pastor not too long ago, and he said that in Isaiah chapter 14,  the Hebrew is "helel, ben shachar",  I think I spelled it right,  any way, it is accurately translated "Lucifer, son of the morning".  I though I'd throw that in.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You didn't answer the question. Why did they get it wrong? Why did they translated the two passages in Acts incorrectly? They are extremely smart, but even the greatest of scholars can miss the simplist of things.

[soulwinner]

Super Jew you didnt answer my question, now another comment one thing thats clear to see or actually several things is #1 other versions do change things like the diety of Christ, Salvation by faith through grace to works and so on. #2 Westcott and Hort are the forefathers of these new "bibles" #3 Westcott and Hort's history sends up alarms to those looking at it. #4 You can see through out history how satan has attacked God's word. #5 Satan could not destroy God's word and it seems to me if he cant destroy then he sends confusion. ie. different versions 1Pe 1:23 Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever. Luk 8:11 Now the parable is this: The seed is the word of God. Whats wrong with the old black book my daddy use to read from is it so outdated by modern translations revised standard and goodnews their everywhere I look but won't somebody tell me whats wrong with the old black book

[salt and light]

Super Jew and Purple Chris,

Super Jew, you said,

" You didn't answer the question. Why did they get it wrong? Why did they translated the two passages in Acts incorrectly? They are extremely smart, but even the greatest of scholars can miss the simplist of things."

Sorry I didn't answer the question, but anyway, I don't think they got it wrong, and as far as Isaiah 14 goes, I just called my pastor, and asked him, since he knows the greek and hebrew, and according to what he said, the NIV and the NASB give an english translation as if the Hebrew said, "shachar kokab, ben shachar", or morning star, son of the morning {or dawn}. But the word for star, which is "kokab" appears nowhere in the text. He also said that the word "morning" appears only once, as the KJV shows, not twice as new versions indicate. The word "kokab" is translated as "star" dozens of other times by the NIV translators, and morning or dawn is also used hundreds of times. New version editors know "boger kokab is "morning star" since it is used in Job 38:7 My pastor also said that if God intended to commuicate "morning star" He could have repeated it here. The word He chose, "helel" appears nowhere else in the old testament, just as "Lucifer" appears nowhere else. As I was listening to my pastor on the phone, I wrote this stuff down, and think I heard what he said correctly.

[apothanein kerdos]

Horizon, may I suggest you take a class in reading and comprehension? I say this not out of spite but merely at the fact I am amazed that you are misunderstanding something so incredibly simple.

Umnnn... OK. Yes, it does go into much more depth but Arndt's comments appear to be a direct contradiction to your self-interpretation of the Greek in these verses. You state,

"In fact, the KJV leaves open a massive realm for contradictions within the Bible. Take for instance Acts 9:7 and Acts 22:9

[soulwinner]

Super Jew what was your question to me i must have missed it?

Edited December 15, 2004 by soulwinner

[Purple Chris]

Hi salt and light!

I appreciate your detemination to get to the bottom of truth! Even if we respectfully agree to disagree on this topic.

as far as Isaiah 14 goes, I just called my pastor, and asked him, since he knows the greek and hebrew, and according to what he said, the NIV and the NASB give an english translation as if the Hebrew said, "shachar kokab, ben shachar", or morning star, son of the morning {or dawn}. But the word for star, which is "kokab" appears nowhere in the text. He also said that the word "morning" appears only once, as the KJV shows, not twice as new versions indicate. The word "kokab" is translated as "star" dozens of other times by the NIV translators, and morning or dawn is also used hundreds of times. New version editors know "boger kokab is "morning star" since it is used in Job 38:7 My pastor also said that if God intended to commuicate "morning star" He could have repeated it here. The word He chose, "helel" appears nowhere else in the old testament, just as "Lucifer" appears nowhere else. As I was listening to my pastor on the phone, I wrote this stuff down, and think I heard what he said correctly.

First let me say I in no way want to nor intend to say anything against your Pastor. I'm sure you love and respect him as I do ours and will deal only with the text. Here are what these different versions say:

KJV - "Lucifer, son of the morning!"

NKJV - "Lucifer, son of the morning!"

RSV - "Day Star, son of Dawn!"

ASV - "O day-star, son of the morning!"

NASB - "O star of the morning, son of the dawn!"

NIV - "O morning star, son of the dawn!"

ESV - "O Day Star, son of Dawn!"

All of those are communicating the exact same meaning. According to the definitions of the phrases in Hebrew I've already given, each of these is fine. Technically the odd ones are the KJ and NKJ as they use "Lucifer" which in not from the Hebrew at all, but from the Latin. It is not in the Hebrew manuscripts but was chosen by the KJ translators as being an acceptable translation since the text is clearly talking about Lucifer. But the text does not use his name. Your Pastor is correct that "heylel" is only used here in the OT, but is mistaken with the word "Lucifer" as it does not appear in any Hebrew text (at least that I'm aware of). All of the other versions are actually more ture to literal translations here than the KJ and NKJ, but as I said, the intent and meaning is the same.

To soulwinner...hello!

#1 other versions do change things like the diety of Christ, Salvation by faith through grace to works and so on.

Can you give examples of how they do this? I don't see any of the versions I listed above, for example, ever attack the deity of Christ or say that salvation is not by grace through faith alone. They all support those doctrines. Have you read the other versions?

#2 Westcott and Hort are the forefathers of these new "bibles"

What about their textual criticisms do you disagree with?

#3 Westcott and Hort's history sends up alarms to those looking at it.

How so? Why...on what basis do these alarms go up?

#4 You can see through out history how satan has attacked God's word.

Certainly...he has done so from the Garden on. Does he not also try to get us to attack one another and not seek to maintain the unity we have in Christ by dividing us over the word? For example, you would not even be questioned about using a KJ in our church...but if I used my RSV in your church, I doubt it would be met with warmth, but rather judgement and an attempt to get me to change to the KJ...am I wrong?

#5 Satan could not destroy God's word and it seems to me if he cant destroy then he sends confusion. ie. different versions.

Again I'd agree, but not with your conclusion that all versions other than KJ are sources of confusion.

Whats wrong with the old black book my daddy use to read from is it so outdated by modern translations revised standard and goodnews their everywhere I look but won't somebody tell me whats wrong with the old black book.

Nothing is "wrong" with it. It is a very beautiful translation, but as with all translations, it has it's difficulties. Not one translation is perfect.

To horizoneast...Hiya!

Ardnt and Super Jew are talking about two different things (at least I think - SJ correct me if I misunderstand or misrepresent you). Ardnt is accurate in his explanation of the text as not being contradictory. The problem SJ is pointing out is that in the KJ (as well as some others) interprets the account in two different places in such a way that make it possible for someone to say they are contradicting each other. Read:

And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man. Acts 9:7

And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me. Acts 22:9

It seems that they "heard" in one account but "heard not" in the other. If it had been interpreted by Ardnt, it may have been more clear and in line with the pure meaning of the text. In the plain English this does appear to be an absolute and utter contradiction, though in truth it is not at all. And while I don't know if I'd say along with SJ that "this translation error has lead to the disbelief of many" I would agree in principle that apparent contradictions and in some cases, errors, such as this in the KJ, and other translations, does give ammo to those who are looking to disprove Scripture and it's trustworthiness and can be cause for doubt or misunderstanding amongst believers.

All for now...

Purp

[soulwinner]

Brother Purple tonight I wont be able to get back to these i gotta work but tommrow i will answer what questions i can. It's refresshing though to see people that can ask questions in a nice manner thank you for that!

[Purple Chris]

Brother Purple tonight I wont be able to get back to these i gotta work but tommrow i will answer what questions i can. It's refresshing though to see people that can ask questions in a nice manner thank you for that!

Thanks salt and light, I appreciate that very much. I do try, not all ways successfully, but I try. It's so easy to be misunderstood in this type of format. I look forward to reading your thoughts later.

Blessings,

PC

Edited December 15, 2004 by Purple Chris

[soulwinner]

soulwinner brother purple not salt and light lol but im sure he feels the same!