blackbird

I already told you what the Hebrew words used Isaiah 14:12 were. It is "helel, ben shachar". I don't have the Hebrew root words for Rev. 22:16, but it is reasonable to believe they are the words for morning star. Knowing the Hebrew words for Revelation 22:16 will prove nothing. Those words are not in dispute. Nobody questions the use of morning star in Rev. 22:16. So what is your point? I don't think you are interested in any facts about the version issue. We might as well end this discussion here. Unless God gives you the grace to want to know the truth, there is nothing I can say on here that will change anything. So far, you show you are not really interested in knowing and don't care. It appears to me that truth is not one of your interests. Unless you can give some evidence you really want to know, we might as well give it up. The only suggestion I can make is if you are serious in wanting to know the truth, buy the book I mentioned or some similar book. It is hard to read the book on the internet.

I already told you a number of times the KJV is based on the Received Text and supported by the majority of manuscripts. What else needs to be said? " 470 • NEW AGE VERSIONS There are over 5366 manuscripts of the Greek New Testament. A corrupt few give a view of the text much like a shifting kaleidoscope. "They contain several hundred thousand variant readings. . notes Pickering.7 In an attempt to marry these 'moody' manuscripts, the 'Wheel of Fortune’ is whirled and readings are selected for inclusion in what scholars call a 'critical edition of the Greek Text’. There are more than two dozen of these texts, each a 'prize' stuffed with between 5000 and 8000 variations. As one scholar puts it, ". . .equally competent critics often arrive at contrary conclusions as to the same variation."8 Scholar's Sources Evidence for the New Testament is composed of papyrus fragments and manuscripts, uncial and minuscule manuscripts (modified capitals and cursives) and lectionaries (books used in churches). Each of the 5366 manuscripts including 2209 lectionaries extant today are given a name, an abbreviation and/or a number.9 In addition to the above, numerous other language versions of the Greek text were made in the second century and those following. Those include the Old Latin, the Syriac, the Coptic, the Ethiopic, and score of others. These provide witnesses to the correct readings of the New Testament. Finally, scores of second, third and forth century personalities, such as John Chrysostom, Irenaeus, Tertullain, and Justin Martyr, to name just a few, have left writings containing citations of scripture verses, witnessing to the original readings of the New Testament. Dean John Burgon has extrapolated over 87,000 of these. Currently the manuscripts are being collated by the Institutfur neutestamentiche Tereforschung by Kurt Aland in Munster, Germany. Microfilms of many are housed in the archives of the Ancient Biblical Manuscript Center in Claremont, California. Should the reader wish to pursue their own investigation, a list of sources where copies of those manuscripts may be found is given in this footnote. The Majority Text The overwhelming majority of these manuscripts, lectionaries, and writers agree generally with each other as to the readings of the New Testament. Manuscripts from the second century (P66) down through the Middle Ages (A.D.1500) attest to the readings of this 'Majority Text', as Kurt Aland terms it. Dean Burgon, who found this 'Majority Text' in most of the early writers collated, calls it 'The Traditional Text’. It is also called the Syrian Text, the Byzantine Text and the K (Kappa) or Common Text. This text type is available today in English in the Authorized Version , or as it is called in the United States, the King James Version. It's 809,000,000 copies since 1611, in 300 languages, demonstrates the continuum of this 'Majority Text'. (Unfortunately, as we shall see, the new versions are not based on this 'Majority Text', but on the dissenting handful of manuscripts which disagree with the Majority.) The scriptures themselves attest to the proliferation and early creation of a 'Majority' text. Acts 6:7 "And the word of God increased." Acts 12:24 "But the word of God grew and multiplied." Acts 13:49 ”[T]he word of the Lord was published throughout all the region" Acts 19:20 "So mightily grew the word of God and prevailed." Pickering explains the multiplication of the originals throughout history. [W]e may reasonably assume that in the earliest period of the transmission of the text, the most reliable copies of the Autographs would be circulating in the region that held the Autographs. With an ever-increasing demand and consequent proliferation of copies throughout the GraecoRoman world and with the potential for verifying copies by having recourse to the centers still possessing the Autographs, the early textual situation was highly favorable to the wide dissemination of MSS in close agreement with the original text. . .It follows that within a relatively few years after the writing of the N.T. books, there came rapidly into existence a 'Majority text’, whose form was essentially that of the Autographs. . .the science of statistical probability demonstrates that a text form in such circumstances could scarcely be dislodged from its dominant position. . .[I]n every age, from the apostolic to the nineteenth century, the text form in question. . .was the one that the church in general recognized, used, and transmitted.il From the academic arena, world-class scholars express their unanimous agreement on the overwhelming dominance of this type of New Testament text in the early church and throughout history. • Colwell calls it ”[T]he uncontrolled popular edition of the second century." 12 • Comfort says it, "became the most prevailing type of text throughout the Greek speaking world. . .it was nearly standardized. From then on, almost all MSS follow the Byzantine [Majority] text, including those MSS used by Erasmus in compiling the text that eventually would become the Textus Receptus." [The Greek Text type underlying the KJV.]i3 • Geerlings affirms regarding the Majority Text saying, "Its origins. . .go back to the autographs." i4 • Hodges writes, "The Majority text, it must be remembered, is relatively uniform in its general character with comparatively low amounts of variation between its major representatives. . . [T]he majority of MSS in the transmission of any book will, a priori preserve the best text. Thus the Majority Text, upon which the King James Version is based, has in reality the strongest claim possible to be regarded as an authentic representation of the original text. . .based on its dominances in the transmissional history of the New Testament text." is • Harvard Theological Review cites Kirsopp Lake's exhaustive examination of MSS which revealed, "the uniformity of the text exhibited by the vast majority of the New Testament manuscripts." • Von Soden, who made the most extensive review of the text yet accomplished, calls it the Common (Kappa) text, showing that it was the Greek text type most commonly used throughout history. • Kurt Aland's collation of 1000 minuscules in 1000 different passages shows that 90% contain the 'Traditional Text'. Work done at The Institut fur neutestamentliche Textforschung in Munster, Germany confirms this same 90%. When they include papyrus and uncials together with cursives the number remains above 80%. i6 • Metzger agrees speaking of ". . .the great majority of the minuscule manuscripts on which the Textus Receptus rests." • Hills says, "The vast majority of these extant Greek New Testament manuscripts agree together very closely, so closely indeed that they may fairly be said to contain the same New Testament. This Majority Text is usually called the Byzantine Text by modem textual critics. This is because all modem critics acknowledge that this was the Greek New Testament text in general use throughout the greater part of the Byzantine Period (A.D.312-1453). For many centuries, before the Protestant Reformation, this Byzantine text was the text of the entire Greek Church, and for more then three centuries after the Reformation, it was the text of the entire Protestant Church. . .[It is] found in the vast majority of the Greek New Testament manuscripts. . .[T]he Traditional Text. . .is the true text because it is that form of the Greek New Testament which is known to have been used in the Church of Christ in unbroken succession. . .Thus the evidence which has accumulated. . .is amply sufficient to justify the view. . .that therefore the Byzantine text found in the vast majority of the Greek New Testament manuscripts is that true text."is 1881: The 1% Minority [A] false balance is an abomination to the Lord. Proverbs 11:1 The variations among the Majority Text are minor, like the varieties of doves. On the other hand, the remaining handful of manuscripts are as diverse as dogs and dragons. This handful, not only disagree with 'the Majority', as to what the New Testament says, but disagree among themselves. These include such manuscripts as Vaticanus (B), Sinaiticus (Aleph), Bezae (D), Papyrus 75 and a smattering of versions. Of the four uncials, Aleph, B, C, and D, Burgon writes: All four are discovered on careful scrutiny to differ essentially, not only from the 99 out of 100 of the whole body of extant manuscripts, but even from one another. 19 In 1881 this 1% minority text type supplanted the Majority Text with its almost two millennia standing. A 'New' Greek Text, using the Vatican manuscript (B), was introduced by Westcott and Hort and has been used as the Greek Text for all subsequent versions. Frederic Kenyon, the late Director of the British Museum and author of the most widely used textbooks on textual criticism, says of the Majority Text: This is the text found in the great majority of manuscripts, entrenched in print by Erasmus and Stephanus and known as the Textus Receptus or Received Text. . .Until 1881. . .it held the field as the text in practically universal use and when its position was then decisively challenged, a stiff fight was made in its defence by advocates such as Burgon. [This 'New' Minority-type Greek text] used predominantly. . .Aleph and B type readings. . .[The changes] amount to an extensive modification of the text. [It] has been the dominating influence in all modem critical editions. It is clear that. . .deliberate alteration. . .has been at work on a large scale in one text or the other. . .The Textus Receptus being habitually the longer and fuller of the two .20 Pickering reveals the continued use of this 1 % text by the new version editors. [The new versions] ignore the over 5000 Greek MSS now extant. . .[T]he evidence cited does prove that aberrant forms of the N.T. text were produced. Naturally some of those text forms may have acquired a local and temporary currency. Recall that the possibility of checking with the Autographs must have served to inhibit the spread of such forms. We have the Majority Text (Aland) or the Traditional Text (Burgon), dominating the stream of transmission with a few individual witnesses going their idiosyncratic ways. . .One may reasonably speak of 90% of the extant MSS belonging to the Majority Text type. . ,[T]he remaining 10-20% do not represent a single competing form. The minority MSS disagree as much (or more) among themselves as they do with the majority. We are not judging between two text forms, one representing 80% of the MSS and the other 20%. Rather we have to judge between 80-90% and a fraction of 1% (comparing the Majority text with P75 and B text form for example. . .) Or to take a specific case, in I Timothy 3:16 over 300 Greek MSS read 'God' [KJV]. . .7 Greek MSS read 'who' [NIV, NASB, etc.] So we have to judge between 97% and 2 %. . . It really does seem that those scholars who reject the Majority text are faced with a serious problem. . .They are remnants reflecting ancient aberrant forms. It is a dependence on such aberrant forms that distinguishes contemporary critical editions of the New Testament. . .1 submit that due process requires us to receive as original that form of the text which is supported by the majority of witnesses. To reject their testimony in favour of our own imagination as to what a reading ought to be is manifestly untenable .21 Hodges describes the readings in the new versions. [M]odern criticism repeatedly and systematically rejects majority readings on a large scale. . .[This is] monstrously unscientific. . .[I]f modern criticism continues its trend toward more genuinely scientific procedures, this question will once again become a central consideration. . .[T]he Textus Receptus was too hastily abandoned. . .22 Pages 470-476 New Age Bible Versions at the archive.org website

Here again you are falsely making things up. I was talking about Isaiah being corrupt, not Revelation being corrupt. I never said Revelation is corrupt although in the modern versions there is lots of corruption in it. But I never said this because we were talking about Isaiah 14:12 being corrupt. I think you need to take a rest. You are getting carried away with nonsense. Go back and read the comments. I explained it in detail.

I don't need to understand Greek and Hebrew because the book explains in detail why the modern versions are corrupt. Your nonsensical argument is like saying one needs to understand special medical terms to go to a doctor and hear what the medical problems are. You don't need specialized medical training to receive a diagnosis.

That is an outright lie. Nobody needs to understand Greek or Hebrew to read a book written in English that clearly explains what the KJV and what the modern versions are based on. Nobody needs to understand Greek or Hebrew to read the Bible either because the KJV is a trustworthy translation into English. You are making foolish and frivolous claims now.

No, I never said I don't know anything about what translations are based on. I know enough to know the modern translations are based on the 1% of manuscripts which are corrupt. How plain can I say that? Go read the book and then come back with some intelligent comments. You are not making sense.

I think we have reached a dead end with you. You obviously are not being serious now. You and I agree the verse in Rev 22:16 says morning star and we agree it refers to Jesus Christ. So Isaiah 14:12 in new versions is also referring to morning star incorrectly. You have no defence. Admit it and move on. You are trying to invent a frivolous argument which I cannot understand.

As I told you I do not study Greek or Hebrew. But the three verses in the New Testament which refer to the morning star as being Jesus Christ are clear. Obviously the Greek must use words meaning "morning star" or similar phraseology. So what is your point? You are obviously making up frivolous arguments now.

I think I already told you. Modern versions N.T. are based on the 1% of manuscripts which are corrupt. The KJV New Testament is based on the Received Text which is supported by the majority text which has been used and established for 1,900 years and are reliable copies of the original manuscripts. The book goes into great detail about the manuscripts, but you have not read it. Yes, I have read the parts of the book New Age Bible Versions concerning the manuscripts. The manuscripts support the KJV, not the modern versions. That is because changes in the modern versions are based on a few corrupt manuscripts as well as corrupt modern version editors and their committees. Read chapters 34 The Majority Text ch 35 The Earliest Manuscripts ch 36 The Modern Greek Editions ch 37 Inspiration and Preservation

I don't study Greek or Hebrew as it's not necessary to read the Bible. What are you claiming about Rev. 22:16? I thought you agree that it refers to Jesus as the "morning star". So what is your point about Rev 22:16? I never said one must believe only the KJV. One can believe in other versions, but it is a serious error. One can be as long as they have faith in Jesus Christ and his sacrifice on the cross for their sins. But using corrupt versions is a serious mistake. One cannot grow in faith properly if they do not believe God has given man an inerrant, preserved word of God. That is the KJV. The reason is because the modern versions are full of corruption which include weakening the fundamental doctrines such as the deity of Christ, salvation by faith alone, the virgin birth, the resurrection and ascension into heaven, etc. etc. Followers of modern versions do not believe that God has preserved his actual words in one Bible. How could they? There are hundreds of modern versions which differ with each other in thousands of places and differ with the Received Text in thousands of places. They pick a modern version based on advertising, or what other people are using, or whatever seems easier to read on the surface, etc.

Nobody said you have to believe those things to be saved and go to heaven, BUT you need to understand those events were supernatural events. God is omnipotent (all powerful) and can do anything. You have to believe Jesus Christ was raised from the dead and he is God to have salvation. Why would you believe one supernatural event but reject others? That is the problem. People who cherry pick what they will believe in the Bible are in a very precarious position because God requires faith. Hebrew says without faith it is impossible to please God. It is dangerous to think you can pick and choose what is true or false from God's revelation, the KJV Bible. That is not how to grow in faith.

No, the KJV Old Testament is based on the Hebrew Masoretic text. The book New Age Bible Versions gave the original Hebrew which I quoted above. It has nothing to do with the Latin Vulgate. Why make up fake claims? The original Hebrew says "helel, ben shachar," which is accurately translated "Lucifer, son of the morning". This is how it would have been translated and understood for centuries. It has only been changed in the 20th century because of the ideology of modern corrupt translators. Obviously Jesus Christ never fell from heaven and never received the condemnation which is directed to Lucifer in the verses in Isaiah 14:12-17 KJV. There is no justification for using "morning star". That is a blasphemy. The name "morning star" clearly refers to Jesus Christ in the other three verses in the Bible I mentioned. If as you say the verse is talking about the Babylon king, why does it call him the "morning star" which clearly refers to Jesus Christ elsewhere in the Bible? That is illogical. If you want to believe a lie, that is your choice. I suggest you read the book I told you about repeatedly. There are countless other corrupt changes based on corrupt manuscripts and corrupt translators beliefs. This is just one corruption out of countless others.

In Isaiah 14:12 the Hebrew is "helel, ben shachar" which is accurately translated "Lucifer, son of the morning." The NIV and NASB give an English translation as if the Hebrew said, "shachar kokab, ben shachar" or morning star, son of the morning. The NIV and NASB leave out the Hebrew word "helel", which is translated Lucifer in the KJV. Also, the word for star, used in the NIV and NASB, is "kokab" appears nowhere in the Hebrew text. Also "morning" appears only once in the Hebrew, as the KJV shows, not twice as the new versions indicate. Jesus Christ is the morning star and is identified as such in Revelation 22:16 KJV The NIV and NASB correctly refer to Jesus as the "morning star" in Rev 22:16 as does the KJV. So there is no question about the Hebrew for morning star in Rev. 22:16. The word "helel" would obviously not be in the Hebrew for Rev 22:16. I do not have a source for the Hebrew for Rev 22:16. The fact is since the NIV, NASB, and KJV all say morning star in Rev 22:16, that is not in dispute.

Yes, they do die all the time. You must be some kind of Mother Earth worshipper. You think man has no right to exist. Man rules this earth and there is nothing wrong with burning fossil fuels. Billions of people depend on it. Life must go on. Mother earth worshippers are worshipping a false god. Nothing good can come of worshipping a false god. That is the way to self destruct man and life on earth.

That doesn't make sense. What you're saying is man doesn't have a right to live on earth. Bogus and nonsensical. God gave man dominion over the earth. Read Genesis. The idea that GHGs are a problem is just nonsense. Manmade CO2 does not cause global warming and everything is fine. We should burn fossil fuels and natural gas is clean. It heats millions of homes. Carbon taxes have done absolutely nothing for the environment except cause misery for many Canadians who are struggling to make ends meet. Environmentalists are not good for the environment. They are wrecking life in Canada. If you are on here just to look for arguments, you are wasting your time. Not interested.

If you look at the small pipe from a home heated by natural gas, you can't even see any smoke. GHG is not an issue. Canada's emissions are very tiny compared to the world and there is no harm to the environment. GHG is emitted by forests, animals, dead animals, and many things. It is a natural process of how the planet functions. Nothing to worry about.

That is only in a part of the province that which is far from the cities. Also, they can be cleaned up and vegetation replanted if the government wishes. Seems to me I have seen pictures of restored areas and they look fine. So it can be done. Why would you get your shirt in a knot over the tar sands which contributes billions of dollars in royalties to Alberta and thousands of jobs and provides oil and gas that fuels millions of cars, ship and aircraft that keeps the world going. It is a major economic benefit to Canada. There is no way windmills could replace the benefits of the oil sands. Windmills are just a tiny drop in the bucket of the amount of energy needed and don't even compare to the gas and oil industry.

Did I say that? No. So stop falsely imputing things I never said. There are other ways to create electricity. Windmills are a poor way. A large number is required to produce a little power. That looks ugly on the landscape. Much better to use natural gas power plant to generate electricity or small nuclear reactors. They are very clean and can generate a lot of steady power. Natural gas is a clean-burning fuel with a lot of energy. We have lots of it in Canada.

The Holy Spirit is the Spirit of Truth. "17 Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you. " John 14:17 KJV You should explain why you say the KJV is wrong in Isaiah 14:12 and the NASB is correct. I gave a clear explanation of why the correct word in Isaiah 14:12 is Lucifer. If you are not willing to accept the truth, not much I can do. I gave you a detailed explanation which proves the KJV is correct and the NASB is wrong. Are you willing to accept that and if not, why not?

What do you mean? The correct translation in Isaiah 14:12 is with the name Lucifer as I explained above, as the KJV has it. Morning star as in the NASB and NIV is not correct. It is not a correct translation of the Hebrew. It comes from the modern corrupt translator's ideology. I explained the problem with the modern versions in Isaiah 14:12. You can't seem to comprehend it.

It is hard to know where to begin. When you ask why is this a corruption, the answer is very long and I could not do it justice by making brief comments on here which you obviously dismiss. There is a whole 650 page book written on the subject of the versions which I gave the link for. I did post some long quotes from the book. But it is not possible to post the whole book on here. I do at times make brief quotes, but often it does not really give a complete explanation that way. That is why it is important, if one is serious about wanting to know the whole truth, to either get the book New Age Bible Versions or read it online at the archive.org website. The NASB is indeed a very corrupt translation and is not based on the Received Text.

What was the choice? Tell a pipeline company they cannot expand their pipeline. How much money did the company already spend at that point? Billions? Or let the company go broke because of all the opposition to expanding the pipeline including from the BC NDP government. Not much choice. The only sane path forward was for the government to buy the pipeline, which they did, and get it finished. We are living in a world of contradictions and the government often does things that seem irrational to some people and sometimes they do it because there is no other rational choice.

"We are born and indoctrinated into satanic systems of control. The world is under more mind control than ever before in history." Against Spiritual Wickedness | Exposing the Lies of Satan to Reveal the Truth of Jesus Christ

" Hi I’m Thomas Carroll and welcome to my channel Against Spiritual Wickedness. The phrase “against spiritual wickedness” comes from the Bible, Ephesians 6:12 “For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.” This channel is about exposing satanic deception to reveal Jesus Christ. We are born and indoctrinated into satanic systems of control. The world is under more mind control than ever before in history. I used to study the occult, and the paranormal, but back in January 2012 Jesus Christ showed me the truth. I took a 180% turn from the occult to Jesus and I haven’t looked back. Jesus has shown me that the only way out of the satanic matrix is through Him. In John chapter 14 verse 6 it says “Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life, no man cometh unto the Father but by me.” Against Spiritual Wickedness | Exposing the Lies of Satan to Reveal the Truth of Jesus Christ

This article says in part "The scrolls were found to be almost identical with the Masoretic text…A significant comparison study was conducted with the Isaiah Scroll written around 100 B.C. that was found among the Dead Sea documents and the book of Isaiah found in the Masoretic text. After much research, scholars found that the two texts were practically identical. Most variants were minor spelling differences, and none affected the meaning of the text.” So the Dead Sea Scrolls were identical with the Masoretic text. The Dead Sea Scrolls were copies of parts of the Old Testament. The KJV Old Testament is based on copies of the Masoretic Text. As I said in quoting the book New Age Bible Versions, the new Bible versions O.T. are not even based on the traditional Masoretic text. So if anything, the Dead Sea Scrolls would be in opposition to the modern Bible versions, which are based on different manuscripts, which I mentioned in an earlier post today.