blackbird Posted January 2 Author Report Posted January 2 (edited) 7 hours ago, User said: You do some investigation. What is the point you wish to make about him here? He was a co-founder of the NASV and when he saw how wrong it was, he distanced himself and does not support it. You need to look into that. I can't spoon feed you with every detail as you seem to demand. 7 hours ago, User said: Nope. This is your argument. It is not my job to go out and prove it for you. You don't have to prove anything to me. I have been reading about this for years. You are the one in total ignorance. Edited January 3 by blackbird Quote
User Posted January 2 Report Posted January 2 4 minutes ago, blackbird said: He was a co-founder of the NASV and when he saw how wrong it was, he distanced himself and does not support it. You need to look into that. I can't spoon feed you a baby with every detail as you seem to demand. No, he was not a co-founder. The issue is that you can't articulate an argument, you just tell me to go research stuff. No. 4 minutes ago, blackbird said: You don't have to prove anything to me. I have been reading about this for years. You are the one in total ignorance. This is your argument to prove, not mine. It is a silly one so far. Quote
blackbird Posted January 2 Author Report Posted January 2 2 hours ago, User said: We simply have found more and older manuscripts than what was available at the time of the KJV translation. And to the point I have made here, the changes you are pointing out are hardly anything significant at all. Simply put, the KJV is based on a overwhelming majority of manuscripts that have been believed to accurately give us the New Testament for the past 1,900 years. Then in the 1800s, a few corrupt Alexandrian manuscripts were found that were a little older, but disagreed with the overwhelming majority of manuscripts used for the past 1,900 years. They disagree with thousands of manuscripts and parts of manuscripts that have been found since the 1611 Authorized Version came out. But based on the theory of two heretics, Westcott and Hort, who produced a New Greek N.T. in 1881, modern Bible producers accepted this claim as legitimate. The overwhelming manuscript evidence proves the handful of corrupt manuscripts should never have been accepted. But there is money to be made in producing new Bibles and translations which is what happened. You say you are not interested in reading books or articles on it and want me to spoon feed you the proof, but you reject anything I say. So what are you doing here? You don't want to know anything. Quote
blackbird Posted January 2 Author Report Posted January 2 6 minutes ago, blackbird said: the changes you are pointing out are hardly anything significant at all. I have given you several significant changes but you rejected them and claim now it is insignificant. The book I pointed out is about 690 pages long and has a massive amount of information. Do you seriously expect me to spend my life copying the hundreds of pages of information to spoon feed you here because you are too lazy to get the book or read it online? You know well it is impossible to give you the tons of information exposing the modern versions in postings on here or you should know. The information I have is Frank Logsdon was one of the key figures in producing the NASV. He recanted and this is what he said: "1 must under God renounce every attachment to the New American Standard. . .I'm afraid I'm in trouble with the Lord. . .We laid the groundwork; I wrote the format; I helped interview some of the translators; I sat with the translator; I wrote the preface. . . I'm in trouble; I can't refute these arguments; its wrong, it's terribly wrong; it's frighteningly wrong; and what am I going to do about it?. . I can no longer ignore these criticisms I am hearing and I can't refute them. . . When questions began to reach me at first I was quite offended. However, in attempting to answer, I began to sense that something was not right about the NASV. Upon investigation, I wrote my very dear friend, Mr. Lockman, explaining that I was forced to renounce all attachment to the NASV. . .The product is grievous to my heart and helps to complicate matters in these already troublous times. . .The deletions are absolutely frightening. . .there are so many. . .Are we so naive that we do not suspect Satanic deception in all of this?... I don't want anything to do with it. . . [T]he finest leaders that we have today. . .haven't gone into it [the new version's use of a corrupted Greek text], just as I hadn't gone into it. . .That's how easily one can be deceived. . .I'm going to talk to hun [Dr. George Sweeting, then president of Moody Bible Institute] about these things. . • [Y]ou can say the Authorized Version [KJV] is absolutely correct How correct? 100% correct!. . . If you must stand against everyone else, stand. Dr. Frank Logsdon unquote In the introduction to New Age Bible Versions Quote
User Posted January 2 Report Posted January 2 9 minutes ago, blackbird said: Simply put, the KJV is based on a overwhelming majority of manuscripts that have been believed to accurately give us the New Testament for the past 1,900 years. No, it is not. It is based on the KNOWN manuscripts at that time. More have been discovered since. E.g. Like the Dead Sea Scrolls. 16 minutes ago, blackbird said: The overwhelming manuscript evidence proves the handful of corrupt manuscripts What makes them corrupt? I keep asking you this, you just keep asserting it. Quote
blackbird Posted January 2 Author Report Posted January 2 6 hours ago, User said: Christianity is not because bible translations exist like the NASB since the NASB did not fundamentally change any of the scriptures those doctrines are based on. Actually this book goes into how many doctrines are attacked and changed in various verses. 1. The deity of Christ is attacked. 2. The virgin birth of Christ is attacked. 3. Salvation by faith in Jesus Christ is attacked. There are many other basic doctrines which are attacked. Quote TABLE OF Contents Introduction. OVERVIEW: THE MESSAGE, THE MEN AND THE MANUSCRIPTS 1 The Mandate: Infiltrate 9 THE MESSAGE PART ONE THEY WORSHIPPED THE DRAGON 2 Praying to a New God 39 3 Your Father, the Devil 56 4 The Dragon 74 5 The One vs. the Holy One 76 6 His Marie & Masquerade 98 7 Mystery Babylon the Great 120 8 Seven Hills: Spires of Satan's Church 133 PART TWO THE NEW CHRISTIANITY 9 Men ShaU Be Unholy 152 10 Self-Esteem Dream 177 11 King James for Kids 195 12 Finally: They Worshipped Devils 218 PART THREE ANOTHER GOSPEL & ANOTHER GOD 13 Another Gospel 229 14 Initiated or In Christ 236 15 Striving or Saved 250 16 Gospels & Gods of the New Age 259 17 The New Earth or A New Age 280 18 Judgement or Interment 290 PART FOUR CHRIST OR ANTICHRIST 19 Antichrist Is Here 301 20 Test 1 for Antichrist 309 21 Antichrist: The Worid Teacher 322 22 King of Kings & Lord of Lords 330 23 Test 2 for Antichrist 334 24 Test 3 for Antichrist 351 25 Resurrection or Reincarnation 355 26 The Ascended Christ or Antichrist 360 27 The Final Blow 367 28 The Godhead's Gone 373 THE MEN & THE MANUSCRIPTS PART ONE THE MEN 29 The Serpent's Scribes 391 30 The Necromancers 397 31 The 'New' Greek & Ghosts 429 32 Silenced Scribes Summon Psychology 443 33 The Epitaph of Philip Schaff 457 PART TWO THE MANUSCRIPTS 34 The Majority Text 467 35 The Earliest Manuscripts 480 36 The Modem Greek Editions 492 37 Inspiration & Preservation 504 PART THREE BACK TO THE FUTURE 38 The Western Roots of the New Age & New Versions 515 39 The 1% Manuscripts 545 40 The Final Bible! 555 41 The Black Lodge 584 42 Lucifer's Lexicons 591 EPILOGUE APPENDICES A Summary: Westcott & Hort 616 B TheKJV and the Earliest Manuscripts 630 C The Seven Seals 635 NOTES DO YOU HAVE A HOLY BIBLE? unquote -Contents of New Age Bible Versions Quote
User Posted January 2 Report Posted January 2 6 minutes ago, blackbird said: I have given you several significant changes but you rejected them and claim now it is insignificant. I gave you a clear and well-articulated explanation. I did not merely reject them. You have yet to give a real response to any of the arguments I made. Quote
blackbird Posted January 2 Author Report Posted January 2 (edited) 5 hours ago, User said: More have been discovered since. E.g. Like the Dead Sea Scrolls. The dead sea scrolls have nothing at all to do with the New Testament and do not affect the Old Testament. They are irrelevant to the issue of the versions. Edited January 3 by blackbird Quote
blackbird Posted January 2 Author Report Posted January 2 (edited) 5 hours ago, User said: No, it is not. It is based on the KNOWN manuscripts at that time. What???? A few corrupt manuscripts were found and used in the 1881 revised Greek New Testament by Westcott and Hort, but they have no validity to them and have no legitimacy to claim they are superior to the Received Text or majority of manuscripts which were used for the past 1,900 years. It's really quite simple. Would you be willing to watch a youtube video on this? If so, do a search for New World Order Bible Versions and you should find it. Edited January 3 by blackbird Quote
blackbird Posted January 2 Author Report Posted January 2 11 minutes ago, User said: You have yet to give a real response to any of the arguments I made. I gave lots of responses and tons of information which I doubt you bothered to even read. What specific argument did you make that I did not answer? Just give one argument so we can deal with it. Quote
blackbird Posted January 2 Author Report Posted January 2 (edited) 5 hours ago, User said: I gave you a clear and well-articulated explanation. I did not merely reject them. You have yet to give a real response to any of the arguments I made. I have in fact responded to most of your comments. If there is a specific argument which I missed please give it again in one simple post. _______________________ Here are two examples of serious corruption in modern versions. This is a drop in the bucket. Micah 5:2 " 2 But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting. " KJV The NIV says: "“But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, though you are small among the clans[a] of Judah, out of you will come for me one who will be ruler over Israel, whose origins are from of old, from ancient times.” Micah 5:2 NIV The KJV speaks about Jesus Christ being everlasting. The NIV speaks about Jesus Christ being from ancient times, not everlasting. Check Isaiah 14:12 "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!" Isaiah 14:14 KJV This describes the fall of Lucifer from heaven. Lucifer's name became Satan. Now see what the NASB says in Isaiah 14:12: "How you have fallen from heaven, You [a]star of the morning, son of the dawn! You have been cut down to the earth, You who defeated the nations!" Notice the name Lucifer has been removed and replaced with "star of the morning". The NIV says in Isaiah 14:12: "How you have fallen from heaven, morning star, son of the dawn! You have been cast down to the earth, you who once laid low the nations!" Notice how the NASB and NIV changed Lucifer to star of the morning or morning star. The fact is morning star is a title for Jesus Christ in Revelation 22:16 KJV "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." So Lucifer has been elevated to morning star in the modern versions. Yet Jesus Christ is identified as morning star in Rev. 22:16, 2:28, and 2 Peter 1:19 in the KJV The fact is "morning star" is not in the Hebrew. Edited January 3 by blackbird Quote
blackbird Posted January 2 Author Report Posted January 2 (edited) 5 hours ago, User said: What makes them corrupt? quote The Doctrine of Satan: The Name Game "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! For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north: I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High. Yet thou Shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit. They that see thee shall narrowly look upon thee, and consider thee saying, Is this the man that made the earth to tremble, that did shake kingdoms, that made the world as a wilderness, and destroyed the cities thereof; that opened not the house of his prisoners?" Isaiah 14: 12-17 In Lucifer's boastful cry, "I will be like the most High," discontentment weighs on every word; the anointed cherub wanted an PRAYING TO A NEW GOD: LUCIFER • 41 identity change. The new persona he wished to pursue included the response of worship from whomsoever would. This is seen in his appeal to Jesus Christ to "fall down and worship me," recorded in Matthew 4:9. Unfortunately his ambition will be fulfilled, as seen in Revelation 13:4, "and they worshipped the dragon." Revelation 12:9 identifies, "the great dragon [as]. , .that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan." for the whole article go to New Age Bible Versions archive.org on a search line. Almost all modern versions of the Bible have taken Lucifer (Satan) out of Isaiah 14:12 KJV and put "morning star" in his place. In fact morning star is another name for Jesus Christ in a number of other verses in the Bible. This corruption makes no sense at all. Edited January 3 by blackbird Quote
User Posted January 4 Report Posted January 4 (edited) On 1/2/2025 at 4:03 PM, blackbird said: Almost all modern versions of the Bible have taken Lucifer (Satan) out of Isaiah 14:12 KJV and put "morning star" in his place. In fact morning star is another name for Jesus Christ in a number of other verses in the Bible. This corruption makes no sense at all. You are not explaining why this is corruption. You simply show there is a difference between the KJV and others like the NASB and call it corruption. That is not an argument. Why is this corruption? The reason why the NASB translates that without Lucifer is because of the original Hebrew and what the verses are talking about: The King of Babylon. Where is "morning star" or the Hebrew word here, used for the name of Jesus in other verses? Edited January 4 by User Quote
User Posted January 4 Report Posted January 4 On 1/2/2025 at 3:54 PM, blackbird said: I have in fact responded to most of your comments. If there is a specific argument which I missed please give it again in one simple post. Go back and actually respond to my arguments here: Here: Here: Here: Over and over again, where you post something specific enough to refute, I explain the silliness of what you are claiming. Quote
User Posted January 4 Report Posted January 4 On 1/2/2025 at 3:54 PM, blackbird said: The fact is morning star is a title for Jesus Christ in Revelation 22:16 KJV "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." So Lucifer has been elevated to morning star in the modern versions. Yet Jesus Christ is identified as morning star in Rev. 22:16, 2:28, and 2 Peter 1:19 in the KJV The fact is "morning star" is not in the Hebrew. OK... so this is YOUR problem and a problem with the KJV, not with the NASB. The same word is used in both places in the Hebrew, the word is helel. So you tell me why the KJV says it is Lucifer in Isiah and then morning star in Revelation. The NASB doesn't do this. Quote
User Posted January 4 Report Posted January 4 On 1/2/2025 at 3:19 PM, blackbird said: The dead sea scrolls have nothing at all to do with the New Testament and do not affect the Old Testament. They are irrelevant to the issue of the versions. The Dead Sea scrolls provided confirmation of Old Testament manuscripts as the Dead Sea scrolls were much older. This impacts the New Testament as much of the New Testament is and its contexts is driven by what is in the Old Testament. You are sitting here calling these things corrupt. So... what makes the Dead Sea scrolls corrupt? Quote
blackbird Posted January 4 Author Report Posted January 4 (edited) 17 hours ago, User said: On 1/2/2025 at 2:03 PM, blackbird said: Almost all modern versions of the Bible have taken Lucifer (Satan) out of Isaiah 14:12 KJV and put "morning star" in his place. In fact morning star is another name for Jesus Christ in a number of other verses in the Bible. This corruption makes no sense at all. You are not explaining why this is corruption. You simply show there is a difference between the KJV and others like the NASB and call it corruption. That is not an argument. Why is this corruption? Fair question. I can see you have a different take on this. I am not blaming you for it. So I will simply try to show what the problem is with the change in Isaiah 14:12 KJV to the modern versions. I will try to deal with each one of your points individually otherwise the whole thing becomes a mess and confusion. Lets deal with Isaiah 14:12 for now. The book New Age Bible Versions explains it clearly: quote The Doctrine of Satan: The Name Game "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! For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north: I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High. Yet thou Shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit. They that see thee shall narrowly look upon thee, and consider thee saying, Is this the man that made the earth to tremble, that did shake kingdoms, that made the world as a wilderness, and destroyed the cities thereof; that opened not the house of his prisoners?" Isaiah 14: 12-17 In Lucifer's boastful cry, "I will be like the most High," discontentment weighs on every word; the anointed cherub wanted an identity change. The new persona he wished to pursue included the response of worship from whomsoever would. This is seen in his appeal to Jesus Christ to "fall down and worship me," recorded in Matthew 4:9. Unfortunately his ambition will be fulfilled, as seen in Revelation 13:4, "and they worshipped the dragon." Revelation 12:9 identifies, "the great dragon [as]. , .that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan." The public relations campaign required to transform the public's image of Satan, from his true evil character to one which would inspire worship, is monumental. It pivots upon the transformation of his identity. Historically, Isaiah 14 has been used as the singular biography of Lucifer, shedding unique light upon the "mystery of iniquity." In verse twelve Lucifer is in heaven; in verse fifteen Satan is in hell. The intervening verses expose his pride in the five "I wills," each a rung in his descent into hell. ("I will," is also the official motto of the U.S. city sporting zip code 60606. In 1966, this same city hatched the NIV.) These passages must be the object of Satan's rancor and consequently his opposition. They reveal his arrogance (verse 13 and 14), his responsibility for much of the world's misery (verse 17) and his end (verse 15 and 16). He is indicted as soundly in Ezekiel 28, but is unnamed and designated "the anointed cherub." His ambition is to be "like the most High" and these verses sweep away that illusion, presenting him transparently. To hold that he would not grapple with the word "Lucifer" until it was securely removed from such an unflattering context and replanted into a "like-the-most-High" context, is naivete. Fait accompli, the feat is accomplished in all new bible versions; the KJV remains uncorrupted. NIV NASB How you have fallen from heaven O morning star, son of the dawn. . .but you are brought down to the grave. How you have fallen from heaven O star of the morning, son of the dawn. . .you will be thrust down to Sheol. How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning!. . . Yet thou Shalt be brought down to hell...{ls. 14:12,15). Twentieth century versions have removed the name Lucifer, thereby eliminating the only reference to him in the entire bible. The word Lucifer then falls to the realm of the poets and writers of mythology and ceases to be an identifiable character of biblical origin. He is thereby divorced from the truth concerning himself. In John 8:44 Jesus said, "the devil. . .is a liar, and the father of it." He can now have whatever characteristics he desires. "Morning Star" Not In Hebrew The change in new versions does not spring from the original Hebrew language, but from the 'theology' of the new version editors. The NIV's wording parallels exactly the view expressed by NIV committee member R. Laird Harris. He asserts that Isaiah 14 is not about "Lucifer" and his descent to "hell," but about a king from Babylon and his interment in the "grave. "3 The NIV's version of Harris' view is one link in a chain tied to New Age Luciferian H.P. Blavatsky, who like the new versions and new theologians, denies the fall of Lucifer. Blavatsky writes the script for the 20th century scribes saying: Now there are many passages in the Bible that prove on their face, exoterically, that this belief was at one time universal; and the two most convincing are Ezekiel 28 and Isaiah 14. Christian theologians are welcome to interpret the great War before Creation. . .if they so choose, but the absurdity of the idea is too apparent.4 An examination of the original Hebrew will dispel any illusion that "morning star" is an acceptable substitute for the word "Lucifer." 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 (or dawn). Yet the word for star (kokab) appears nowhere in the text. Also '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 NIV translators; morning or dawn is likewise used hundreds of times. New version editors know boger kokab is 'morning star' since it is used in Job 38:7. If God had intended to communicate '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. Why "Morning Star"? The matching of Lucifer with the morning star rises not from the Hebrew bible but from classical mythology, a fount of bitter water not intended by God as our "fountain of living waters" (Jeremiah 17:13). Reference works concede that the switch is based on ". . .classical mythology for the planet Venus. "5 Just because Satan has convinced the heathen world to connect him with Venus, the morning star, is no basis for the repetition of that "myth" by Christian scholars. But II Timothy 4:3, 4 says the time for myths has come. For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables, [muthos: from which we get the word •myths'] The ultimate blasphemy occurs when the "morning star" takes "Lucifer's" place in Isaiah 14. Jesus Christ is the "morning star" and is identified as such in Revelation 22:16, 2:28 and II Peter 1:19. With this slight of hand switch, Satan not only slyly slips out of the picture but lives up to his name "the accuser" (Revelation 12:10) by attempting to make Jesus Christ the subject of the diatribe in Isaiah 14. The NASB compounds its role as malefactor by placing the reference, II Peter 1:19, next to Isaiah 14:12 to solidify the notion that the passage refers to Jesus Christ rather than Lucifer. In using this reference the NASB becomes the willing marionette, costumed in sheep's clothing, of ravenous wolves like New Age Rosicrucian leader R. Swineburn Clymer. His occult treatise concurs with the new versions' perversions regarding the daystar. He concludes, In this one short sentence is stated most clearly one of the greatest occult truths. 7 Lucifer's Spar To Be "The Morning Star" With an eye to be ". . .like the most High" (Isaiah 14), Lucifer has tried to infer that he is the "Morning Star." Spanning the gamut from the compendium on black magic, The Secret Teachings of All Ages by Manly P. Hall, to the increasingly popular New International Version of the bible, the "Morning Star" is used as a synonym for Lucifer. Hall comments: The pentagram is used extensively in black magic. . .it signifies the fall of the Morning Star.8 Blavatsky echoes, "[T]he pentagram. . .is the Morning Star." In the Theosophical Glossary, used as a major resource of dogma by the New Age we read: [T]he Christian savior is made to say of himself in Revelation XVI:22, [sic] I am the bright morning star or Lucifer. The Christians. . .without suspecting the real meaning. . . greeted the Morning Star, Venus, Lucifer. The Trinity. . . was in truth composed of the Sun (the Father). . .Venus (the Holy Ghost), . . . and Lucifer, as Christ, the bright and morning star. The Verbum (the Word) and Lucifer are one. . . One hundred years ago, Blavatsky's Theosophical Society promoted Krishnamurti, a young Hindu, as "the star from the east" and "the second coming" of Christ. Today the "prince of the power of the air" propagandizes to a new generation through the radio air waves that "a new god. . .is a star from the east. . .another second coming." The sounds have reached the United Nations Plaza where Lucis Trust re-echoes the 'new version' of the facts. Lucifer as here used means. . .the morning star and has no connection whatsoever with Satan. Prior to the "falling away" and apostasy of this current generation of scholars, there was a general consensus that Christ alone was the day star. The old Commentary: Critical and Explanatory of the Old Testament by Robert Jamieson foretold the current name game. Daystar: a title truly belonging to Christ and hereafter to be assumed by antichrist. Likewise timeworn (1913) The Pulpit Commentary: Isaiah by H.D.M. Spence states: [The title daystar is truly Christ's but will be confiscated by the antichrist of whom Babylon is a type and mystical Babylon is a forerunner. And Satan will assume it, who is the spirit that energizes the heathen world power Babylon, that now energizes the apostate church and shall at last energize the secular antichrist. . .and his champion the false prophet. Stages Of Initiation: The first step in Satan's public relations campaign was to remove his name from the indictment in Isaiah 14, which is the only historical non-fictional documentation of his true nature. Evidently it was much easier to excise the one word "Lucifer," than to retain it and replace the remaining verses of chapter 14 with the compliments he has currently deceived New Age leaders into penning. New Age and esoteric literature is replete with references to levels of initiation as a part of their theory of the evolution of consciousness. Overheard on one of my infrequent research visits to the local New Age bookstore was the comment by the owner to a customer selecting a book, "I don't know if you are ready for that; you'd better start with something that doesn't shock a beginner." Expectedly, there are a number of different levels of esoteric understanding among New Agers regarding the identity of Lucifer and Satan. The following five steps represent Satan's progressive and gradual image-transforming campaign. unquote From New Age Bible Versions, page 40 - 45 For the full section on this go to: New Age Bible Versions : G. A. Riplinger, Gail : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive _____________________________________________________- One major point on this. This book tells us that the words for "morning star" are not in the Hebrew of Isaiah 14:12. I don't know what the Latin Bible says but the original Old Testament book of Isaiah and the rest of the Old Testament was written in Hebrew, the language of the Jewish nation in antiquity. The Latin Vulgate was written centuries after the New Testament was completed by a Roman Catholic writer. The Jews carefully copied the Old Testament books down through the ages in the Hebrew language. New Age Bible Versions say on page 594: The NKJV and all new versions have abandoned the traditional Old Testament Hebrew, Ben Chayyim Masoretic Text, and follow Rudolph Kittel's 1937 corruption, Biblia Hebraica, which follows Leningrad Ms B 19a. The book New Age Bible Versions says modern version translators changed Isaiah 14:12 and removed Lucifer in order to agree with their "theology". The book explains at great length how New Age thinking has influenced modern translators and modern versions. So they ignored the Masoretic Hebrew Old Testament. Edited January 5 by blackbird Quote
blackbird Posted January 4 Author Report Posted January 4 31 minutes ago, User said: Where is "morning star" or the Hebrew word here, used for the name of Jesus in other verses? Jesus Christ is referred to as the morning star in Revelation 22:16 KJV, Revelation 2:28 KJV, and 2 Peter 1:19 KJV. "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. " Rev 22:16 KJV " 27 And he shall rule them with a rod of iron; as the vessels of a potter shall they be broken to shivers: even as I received of my Father. 28 And I will give him the morning star. 29 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches. " Rev. 2:27-29 KJV "19 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: " 2 Peter 1:19 KJV Quote
blackbird Posted January 4 Author Report Posted January 4 (edited) 44 minutes ago, User said: OK... so this is YOUR problem and a problem with the KJV, not with the NASB. The same word is used in both places in the Hebrew, the word is helel. So you tell me why the KJV says it is Lucifer in Isiah and then morning star in Revelation. The NASB doesn't do this. Here is the answer as to why Lucifer is used in Isaiah 14:12 KJV "An examination of the original Hebrew will dispel any illusion that "morning star" is an acceptable substitute for the word "Lucifer." 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 (or dawn). Yet the word for star (kokab) appears nowhere in the text. Also '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 NIV translators; morning or dawn is likewise used hundreds of times. New version editors know boger kokab is 'morning star' since it is used in Job 38:7. If God had intended to communicate '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." New Age Bible Versions, p.42-43 The change in new versions does not come from the original Hebrew language, but from the theology of the new version editors. ""Morning Star" Not In Hebrew The change in new versions does not spring from the original Hebrew language, but from the 'theology' of the new version editors. The NIV's wording parallels exactly the view expressed by NIV committee member R. Laird Harris. He asserts that Isaiah 14 is not about "Lucifer" and his descent to "hell," but about a king from Babylon and his interment in the "grave. "3 The NIV's version of Harris' view is one link in a chain tied to New Age Luciferian H.P. Blavatsky, who like the new versions and new theologians, denies the fall of Lucifer. Blavatsky writes the script for the 20th century scribes saying: Now there are many passages in the Bible that prove on their face, exoterically, that this belief was at one time universal; and the two most convincing are Ezekiel 28 and Isaiah 14. Christian theologians are welcome to interpret the great War before Creation. . .if they so choose, but the absurdity of the idea is too apparent." Edited January 4 by blackbird Quote
blackbird Posted January 5 Author Report Posted January 5 (edited) 59 minutes ago, User said: The Dead Sea scrolls provided confirmation of Old Testament manuscripts as the Dead Sea scrolls were much older. This impacts the New Testament as much of the New Testament is and its contexts is driven by what is in the Old Testament. 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. Edited January 5 by blackbird Quote
blackbird Posted January 5 Author Report Posted January 5 (edited) 17 hours ago, User said: Why is this corruption? 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. Edited January 5 by blackbird Quote
User Posted January 6 Report Posted January 6 On 1/5/2025 at 10:47 AM, blackbird said: 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. If you can't sum up your argument here to make any kind of point, then it isn't a very good argument. The book you continually reference here is full of highly criticized assertions that are hardly fact at all. No, the NASB is not very corrupt at all. Each of the examples I have gone through and picked apart show how bad your argument is here. On 1/4/2025 at 6:03 PM, blackbird said: So the Dead Sea Scrolls were identical with the Masoretic text. No, they were not identical. They are very close and to the point I am making here, they are exactly why some of the subtle changes have been made in the NASB, to be more accurate than the KJV is on its translation. So... what makes the Dead Sea Scrolls corrupt? This is why I specifically brought this up, because you just keep asserting corruption, but offer no real evidence or argument to back it up. Quote
User Posted January 6 Report Posted January 6 On 1/4/2025 at 5:46 PM, blackbird said: Here is the answer as to why Lucifer is used in Isaiah 14:12 KJV That is not the question I asked you. It was why does the KJV use it there and not in Revelation. You brought this up as some kind of problem with the NASB, when it is the KJV that is not consistent here. Quote
blackbird Posted January 6 Author Report Posted January 6 (edited) 56 minutes ago, User said: That is not the question I asked you. It was why does the KJV use it there and not in Revelation. You brought this up as some kind of problem with the NASB, when it is the KJV that is not consistent here. 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. Edited January 6 by blackbird Quote
eyeball Posted January 6 Report Posted January 6 27 minutes ago, blackbird said: It comes from the modern corrupt translator's ideology. Let me guess....Marxist ideology. Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.