In light of a blog I posted last week: Observations Always Involves Theory Part 1: Gap Theory
My friend sent me this response via email and I thought it would be an interesting topic to discuss on the blog. I won’t be addressing the different “versions” of scripture on this blog BUT I will try to expound upon this topic one day this week, hopefully. What I will be doing is addressing the question about why one version of Isaiah 14:12 differs from another version of Isaiah 14:12. For the most part we will be sticking with this verse, except for a few examples. Let me know your thoughts in the comments below.
From my friend: “As you know I’m a KJB (King James Bible) ONLY person, so much so that I do not consider any of these other so called “versions” a Bible. That being said, I know we disagree and I’m not looking for an argument or trying to change your mind and don’t try to change mine it wont work!! Haha. I just want an explanation for a verse comparison because I want to see how you are processing things.
Isaiah 14:12 you mentioned in one of your blogs. “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!” (KJB)
This is referred to as the fall of Satan or Lucifer. How do we find the name Lucifer removed from the NLT, which will give a distorted view of whom this verse is referring to. As well as calling him the “shinning morning star” when plainly in Revelation 22:16 Jesus names Himself as the “Bright and Morning Star”
“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.” Rev 22:16 (KJB)
Would this not be confusing to certain people and as we both know that God is not about confusion in the church.
1 Corinthians 14:33 (KJB)
“For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.”
Could all these so called “versions” be an attack on the Word of God and a way in time to be used as a strong delusion because a simple change in God’s word which may I add, God states that it is pure and is settled in heaven, cause enough confusion to make a person believe a lie concerning Satan?
Ok so before I get into the Isaiah text, let me address the question you asked at the end of the email.
“Could all these so called “versions” be an attack on the Word of God and a way in time to be used as a strong delusion; because a simple change in God’s word, which may I add God states that it (His Word) is pure and is settled in heaven, can cause enough confusion to make a person believe a lie concerning Satan?”
To answer your question…Yes and No. I’m not sure ALL versions are created equal but what I think you aren’t understanding here is that the King James Bible is a VERSION of God’s Word. That’s why it is called the “King James VERSION“. So when you ask the question about the other “versions” you HAVE to include the KJB in that discussion as well.
Matter of fact, unless you have the Authorized King James 1611 as your primary version of choice, then what you have is a NEWER VERSION of the King James. If your argument is against updated versions of scripture, then why are you using a version of the King James that is 158 years OLDER than the original? And I am sure you know that there are versions of God’s word that are OLDER than the King James. Just so you know, there are over 100,000 changes in between the 1611 and the 1769 version you read from every Sunday. That’s a lot of stuff that was changed. Do you not question why that was?
God says his WORD is pure and settled in heaven, NO WHERE IN SCRIPTURE WHETHER GREEK, HEBREW, ARAMIC, LATIN SPANISH, CHINEESE OR GERMAN DOES IT SAY THE KING JAMES VERSION IS PURE AND SETTLED IN HEAVEN. NO the King James was NOT the first English translation and NO the King James does NOT get everything right, but for that matter NONE OF THEM DO. The King James has errors just like the all the ones before and the ones after. William Tyndale was the first person to translate the New Testament into English before he was martyred for treason. Did you know that in comparison from the Tyndale to most of the later versions, up until the 1611, there is about a 90% exact copy rate. That means that most English scholars believe that 90% of Tyndale’s New Testament matches with the Greek. But there is still 10% that they don’t agree with. There is still 10% that Tyndale got WRONG!! Oh and by the way the verse in the NT that says God’s Word is God breathed and inspired was in the Tyndale New Testament. How can God’s word be “God breathed and inspired” and how can we be warned about adding to and taking from YET WILLIAM TYNDALE GOT 10% of his translation WRONG!! What of the people in 1525 who ONLY had Tyndale’s NT to read? They believed that it was “God breathed and Inspired” but their translations was only partially right. Now how are we supposed to know whether or not the King James has anything that wasn’t translated correctly.
Need an example?
Daniel 3:25 (KJB) He answered and said, Lo, I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they have no hurt; and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God.
Have you ever wondered how Nebuchadnezzar KNEW that the fourth man was the “Son of God”? How could he POSSIBLY know that considering that the term “Son of God”, referring to Jesus, WASN’T USED IN THE OLD TESTAMENT AT ALL. No one knew that Jesus was be the literal, SON OF GOD. Sure there were plenty of references to a Son but NEVER was the phrase used in the OLD TESTAMENT as the “Son of God”. So HOW, just HOW did Nebuchadnezzar, look into a fire that, by the way, he WOULDN’T have been able to see clearly through considering it was SO hot that you could DIE by just getting to close, recognize that there was a fourth man who just so happened to look like Jesus, even though mind you, HE DIDN’T EVEN BELIEVE IN THE GOD OF THE HEBREWS!! What I am trying to say is, the KING JAMES BIBLE GOT THIS ONE WRONG!! What Nebuchadnezzar actually said was “son of the gods”. He was pagan! An unbeliever!! A vessel of dishonor!!
And furthermore, it could have been an angel God had sent into that fiery furnace. We built a doctrine about this story based on what the KJV said and WE GOT IT WRONG!!! We don’t know if it was an incarnate Jesus or whether it was one of the angels, the BIBLE doesn’t say and honestly we have no idea. You say the Isaiah text gives people the wrong impression about God, well how would our church people feel if we attributed this even to Jesus when it was actually an angel? How would they feel about us preaching Jesus in the fire when old Nebby actually said “son of the gods”?
Now to the Isaiah text.
“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!”
So firstly, most texts DO say Lucifer. But the ONLY use of הֵילֵל hêylêl, or the word used for Lucifer, in the Old Testament is in the Isaiah text. So here is my explanation.
Most likely this passage refers to the Assyrian King who declared himself King of Babylon, Tiglath-pileser III. Now I understand that what Isaiah was writing was a message for the King delivered by God, but you must understand, Tiglath-pileser III wouldn’t have known WHO LUCIFER WAS!!! The Assyrians had their own set of pagan gods and wouldn’t have gotten the reference to Lucifer. One could argue that the reference wasn’t really for Tiggy but was made for us, the problem with that is, until Myles Coverdale in 1539 wrote the first authorized version issued by the Church of England called “The Great Bible”, the book of Isaiah would have been still considered a letter to “. . . Judah and Jerusalem in the days of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah, kings of Judah.”
Please note however:
“Isaiah offered a “song of contempt,” or taunt, against the king of Babylon. This passage has also been taken as a metaphorical reference to the fall of Satan (Lucifer), the “shining morning star” (v. 12). This interpretation is suggested by the Latin translation of “shining star” as Lucifer (lit. “light-bearer”). This later Latin identification has nothing to do with Isaiah’s original reference to a real king who would die and be powerless in Sheol, the place of the deceased spirits (v. 15). Calling the Babylonian ruler the “morning star” may have been a sarcastic reference to his pretense and arrogance.”
Now to the reference about Jesus being the “bright and morning star”. When we study out the Hebrew word for Lucifer in Strong’s Concordance, this is what we get:
1966. הֵילֵל hêylêl, hay-lale´; from 1984 (in the sense of brightness); the morning-star:—Lucifer.
Now if we go to the Septuagint, which is the OLD TESTAMENT translated into GREEK, this is what we find:
[ is.14.12 ] πως [HOW] εξεπεσεν [FELL OFF] εκ [ON] του [THE] ουρανου [HEAVEN] ο [THE] εωσφορος [MORNING STAR â€“] ο [THE] πρωι [PROI] ανατελλων [RISING] συνετριβη [WERE BROKEN] εις [A] την [THE] γην [EARTH] ο [THE] αποστελλων [SENDING] προς [TO] παντα [ALL] τα [THE] εθνη [NATIONS]
This isn’t translated out to be Lucifer, but morning star. If you’re asking me about how this verse measures up to the one in Revelation:
Ἐγὼ Ἰησοῦς ἔπεμψα τὸν ἄγγελόν μου μαρτυρῆσαι ὑμῖν ταῦτα ἐπὶ ταῖς ἐκκλησίαις. ἐγώ εἰμι ἡ ῥίζα καὶ τὸ γένος Δαυίδ, ὁ ἀστὴρ ὁ λαμπρός, ὁ πρωϊνός.
This last phrase highlighted in Red means: bright morning star.
Here is my point: there is no confusion between the two verses because the words used aren’t the same.
הֵילֵל hêylêl in Hebrew means the morning star, Lucifer.
εωσφορος Heōsphóros, which is the parallel word in Greek means, morning star, Lucifer.
Both Hebrew and Greek use one word to refer to Lucifer.
In Revelation, the reference to Jesus as bright and morning star is three words: ὁ ἀστὴρ ὁ λαμπρός, ὁ πρωϊνός . If it was referring to Lucifer they would have used the Heosphoros word. I know our congregations won’t know this difference that’s why it is up to US to know the difference.
I believe you said it yourself in the email that God is not the author of confusion, so we need to know how to combat these situations.
You claim KJB only, which I am completely fine with. But in order to understand the differences between these two phrases and what they mean, I had to turn to something older and more accurate than the KJB. I had to go back to the original Greek and Hebrew.
Please understand that your KJB only philosophy is your personal preference. Personal preferences aren’t dangerous until we try to make them doctrine. Then it can become disastrous. Next thing I know you’ll be telling me you can ONLY be saved through the preaching from the KJB. And BTW, the ONLY way that the KJB would be the SOLE “pure and settled in heaven” is if you could ONLY be saved through the preaching of the KJV.
Are these other versions stumbling blocks for the Gospel? Well let me ask you: Did Jesus go to the cross in the original language. Sure he did. Did he rise from the dead in the KJV? Sure. Did he ascend to the father in the NLT? Last time I checked. Is he pleading my case RIGHT NOW in the ESV? Yup!! Is he coming back for his bride, the church, in the NIV? You bet. Can you still be saved by calling on the name of Jesus in the AMP? Absolutely.
The WORD OF GOD is alive. THE WORD OF GOD IS ALIVE. THE WORD OF GOD IS ALIVE!!!
Whether that be Bishops Bible, Douy-Rheims Bible, Tyndale New Testament, The Geneva Bible, De Nyew Testament in Gullah, New Living Translation, The Authorized 1611 King James, The New King James, The Coverdale Bible…etc.
As long as people are getting saved by the preaching of the gospel of Jesus Christ, and that salvation leads them into a lasting personal relationship with Jesus, does it REALLY matter if they prefer the KJV or not?
Can we really deny the success of say Bethlehem UMC since we don’t use the KJV but primarily the NKJV and the NLT?? Is all of that success fake? It would be fake if you could only TRULY WORSHIP JESUS THROUGH THE KJV.
Thankfully that’s just not the case.