blackbird Posted January 7 Author Report Posted January 7 2 hours ago, User said: You brought this up as some kind of problem with the NASB, when it is the KJV that is not consistent here. 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. On 1/2/2025 at 12:47 PM, User said: This is your argument to prove, not mine. It is a silly one so far. 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? Quote
Boges Posted January 7 Report Posted January 7 So for salvation you have to believe the world was made in 6 literal days, Noah could fit all the world's animal in a boat, and a human was swallowed by a whale and survived? Gotcha! Quote
User Posted January 8 Report Posted January 8 On 1/6/2025 at 5:00 PM, blackbird said: 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. Again: What is the root Hebrew word that the KJV translates as Lucifer in Isaiah and what is the root word that the KJV translates to morning star in Revelation that you say means Jesus? I can comprehend just fine. This is a KJV problem, not with the NASB. The NASB translates the word consistently in both places. The KJV does not. Then you try to argue that this is corruption with the NASB. Quote
User Posted January 8 Report Posted January 8 On 1/6/2025 at 6:20 PM, blackbird said: You should explain why you say the KJV is wrong in Isaiah 14:12 and the NASB is correct. I already have. The NASB is a more accurate word for word translation. The root hebrew word translates to morning star and the context of that chapter is the Bablyon King, not Satan. It is the KJV that went to vulgate latin here, conflating morning star with Lucifer, instead of a direct to English translation. Either way, this doesn't prove there is some kind of nefarious corruption by the writers of the NASB here. On 1/6/2025 at 6:20 PM, blackbird said: 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? No, you did not. I have already explained many times why I reject your mostly baseless assertions and where you offer something more specific, I have clearly articulated why you are wrong. Quote
User Posted January 8 Report Posted January 8 22 hours ago, Boges said: So for salvation you have to believe the world was made in 6 literal days, Noah could fit all the world's animal in a boat, and a human was swallowed by a whale and survived? Gotcha! That is blackbirds extreme argument that is not based on any clearly established doctrine from the Bible. It is just his extreme opinion. Whether you believe in a literal Young Earth Creation or a more metaphorical creation that aligns with evolutionary theory, neither of these things are what salvation are based on. Faith in Christ is the key to salvation. Quote
blackbird Posted January 8 Author Report Posted January 8 1 hour ago, User said: What is the root Hebrew word that the KJV translates as Lucifer in Isaiah and what is the root word that the KJV translates to morning star in Revelation that you say means Jesus? 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. Quote
blackbird Posted January 8 Author Report Posted January 8 (edited) 1 hour ago, User said: It is the KJV that went to vulgate latin here, 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. Edited January 8 by blackbird Quote
blackbird Posted January 8 Author Report Posted January 8 On 1/7/2025 at 9:18 AM, Boges said: So for salvation you have to believe the world was made in 6 literal days, Noah could fit all the world's animal in a boat, and a human was swallowed by a whale and survived? 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. Quote
User Posted January 8 Report Posted January 8 12 minutes ago, blackbird said: 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? Nothing fake about it. 17 minutes ago, blackbird said: The original Hebrew says "helel, ben shachar," which is accurately translated "Lucifer, son of the morning". That is not the translation at all. "shining one, son of the morning" is the translation. The KJV only gets Lucifer from the Latin. 19 minutes ago, blackbird said: 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. No, I clearly said the chapter is talking about the Babylon King. 20 minutes ago, blackbird said: 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. You keep avoiding my question. Show me the Hebrew the KJV is using in Revelation and then compare it to Isaiah. You won't do that, because the same language is used in Revelation and the NASB correctly translates it while the KJV does not. 37 minutes ago, blackbird said: In Isaiah 14:12 the Hebrew is "helel, ben shachar" which is accurately translated "Lucifer, son of the morning." No, that is not the accurate translation at all. Lucifer is not the word used. That is what the KJV translators used based on the Latin. Quote
User Posted January 8 Report Posted January 8 44 minutes ago, blackbird said: 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. That was exactly the conclusion you drew in your first post and are beating around the bush in this one. You said: "There can be no salvation if one does not have faith in Jesus Christ as the Bible describes him. " That was as part of your overall argument here that one must absurdly believe only the KJV... But are you willing to clearly say that a person can have faith in Christ, be saved, and read the NASB Bible and reject YEC? Quote
blackbird Posted January 8 Author Report Posted January 8 58 minutes ago, User said: Show me the Hebrew the KJV is using in Revelation and then compare it to Isaiah. 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? 25 minutes ago, User said: That was as part of your overall argument here that one must absurdly believe only the KJV... But are you willing to clearly say that a person can have faith in Christ, be saved, and read the NASB Bible and reject YEC? 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. Quote
User Posted January 8 Report Posted January 8 1 minute ago, blackbird said: I don't study Greek or Hebrew as it's not necessary to read the Bible. LOL... you are here making arguments about the Bible translations being corrupt... what do you think those translations are based on? The Bible was not originally written in the King's English. This is your argument here, that other translations are corrupt. The original languages they are translated from are important to know if you are going to be here making these arguments. 3 minutes ago, blackbird said: 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? Pretty simple, you are the one who claimed there is a discrepancy here because the KJV translates things the way they do between Isaiah and Revelation as compared to the NASB. So... you tell me then, this is your argument, what are the original words the KJV is using in those translations that you base this argument on? Quote
blackbird Posted January 8 Author Report Posted January 8 (edited) 10 minutes ago, User said: LOL... you are here making arguments about the Bible translations being corrupt... what do you think those translations are based on? 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. 10 minutes ago, User said: The original languages they are translated from are important to know if you are going to be here making these arguments. 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 Edited January 8 by blackbird Quote
blackbird Posted January 8 Author Report Posted January 8 16 minutes ago, User said: So... you tell me then, this is your argument, what are the original words the KJV is using in those translations that you base this argument on? 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. Quote
User Posted January 8 Report Posted January 8 14 minutes ago, blackbird said: 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. Asking you to back up your argument is not a frivolous argument. This is your claim. You are here arguing that that NASB is corrupt and you used this verse as one of the examples and you don't even know what the KJV based its translation on. If you can't figure that out, you have no argument. Quote
User Posted January 8 Report Posted January 8 32 minutes ago, blackbird said: I think I already told you. Modern versions N.T. are based on the 1% of manuscripts which are corrupt. It was a rhetorical question... because we are here talking about your claim the NASB and other translations are corrupt and then you claim you don't know anything about what the translations are based on: "I don't study Greek or Hebrew as it's not necessary to read the Bible." The point is that understanding the Greek and Hebrew is necessary to make the arguments you are making here. 34 minutes ago, blackbird said: Read chapters 34 The Majority Text This is your argument. You prove it. It is not my job to go read this crazy book you keep pushing that critics have refuted already. Quote
blackbird Posted January 8 Author Report Posted January 8 15 minutes ago, User said: This is your claim. You are here arguing that that NASB is corrupt and you used this verse as one of the examples and you don't even know what the KJV based its translation on. 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. Quote
blackbird Posted January 8 Author Report Posted January 8 13 minutes ago, User said: It was a rhetorical question... because we are here talking about your claim the NASB and other translations are corrupt and then you claim you don't know anything about what the translations are based on: 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. Quote
blackbird Posted January 8 Author Report Posted January 8 (edited) 17 minutes ago, User said: The point is that understanding the Greek and Hebrew is necessary to make the arguments you are making here. 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. Edited January 8 by blackbird Quote
User Posted January 8 Report Posted January 8 2 minutes ago, blackbird said: 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. Try not to cut off the important part of my response next time: "The point is that understanding the Greek and Hebrew is necessary to make the arguments you are making here. " Quote
User Posted January 8 Report Posted January 8 Just now, blackbird said: 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. We are not talking about reading a book written in English. We are talking about your bad argument that the way the NASB translated the scriptures is corrupt and specifically that the way they translated Isaiah and Revelation was corrupt. Yet... you can't explain what the original manuscripts said that the KJV is based on to say why it is right and the NASB is corrupt. To do that, you would need to know what the original Greek, Hebrew, and Latin were that that KJV used. So again, this is your bad argument, lets see you support it. Quote
blackbird Posted January 8 Author Report Posted January 8 Just now, User said: "The point is that understanding the Greek and Hebrew is necessary to make the arguments you are making here. " 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. Quote
blackbird Posted January 8 Author Report Posted January 8 Just now, User said: and specifically that the way they translated Isaiah and Revelation was corrupt. 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. 3 minutes ago, User said: you can't explain what the original manuscripts said that the KJV is based on to say why it is right and the NASB is corrupt. Go back and read the comments. I explained it in detail. Quote
User Posted January 8 Report Posted January 8 9 minutes ago, blackbird said: 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. You are the one claiming the NASB translation is wrong. You are the one who can't back this up by showing what the KJV translation was based on. I am not inventing anything, this is your argument. You can't support it. Quote
User Posted January 8 Report Posted January 8 6 minutes ago, blackbird said: I don't need to understand Greek and Hebrew because the book explains in detail why the modern versions are corrupt. Why do you believe what some other book says about the Bible instead of what the actual Bible says? 7 minutes ago, blackbird said: 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. Well, yes. When you go to the doctor, he will explain to you what the terms mean. If you are going to come to a forum and claim medical terms are corrupt, you damn well be prepared to understand them and explain how. Quote
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
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.