Tuesday, March 30, 2010

Controversy Settled - Part 2

If you missed Part 1, you can CLICK HERE.

I am now going to share with you some of the things I believed or took for granted but through study have come to realize they are just not so.

1) Misconception ~ The KJV was divinely inspired and is the standard by which all other versions should be based upon.

1) Truth - "Our standard must always be found in the question, "What did the original author of Scripture say at this point?" We must be concerned to know the words of Moses and David and Isaiah and Matthew and Paul first; the words of the translators in 1611 may be important, but they cannot take precedence over the words that were the direct result of the divine inspiration." (James R. White)

In other words, it is the original texts in the original languages - Greek, Hebrew - that were divinely inspired. All modern versions, as well as the KJV, are simply translations of those texts.


2) Misconception - There are several verses that had changes that used to concern me, as well as the deletions, omissions, etc., that were found throughout the new versions. For example, one of the verses in the newer versions that really used to disturb me is Isaiah 14:12:

KJV - 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!

The NASB exchanges "O Lucifer" for "O star of the morning" and NIV says "O morning star."

2) Truth - "......if one dares to translate the Hebrew by another term, such as "star of the morning" or "morning star" one will be accused of removing "Lucifer" from the Bible! Such a "change" surely "preaches" well, and this example is often used as the "capper" to prove the true intention of the "devilish modern versions."....one would do well to take a second look and discover that the very translations being accused of "hiding Lucifer's name" refer to Satan, the accuser, the "old serpent," the devil, each and every time the term appears in Scripture. Again, the inconsistency of the argument is striking." (JRW)

In other words, if the modern translations are trying to remove "Satan" from the Bible, why did they not do it at every occurrence?

" "But," someone is to retort, "isn't Jesus the 'morning star' at Revelation 22:16?" Yes, He certainly is. "So, doesn't translating Isaiah 14:12 with 'morning star' identify Jesus with Lucifer? Aren't the modern translations trying to connect Jesus with the devil?" Only if one does not read things in context very well. The person under discussion in Isaiah 14 is obviously not the Lord Jesus Christ, and how anyone could possibly confuse the person who is obviously under the wrath of God in that passage with the Lord Jesus is hard to imagine. Further, aren't the terms being used in Isaiah 14 sarcastic in nature? Didn't this person claim lofty titles that were proven to be misapplied?" (JRW)

Now I get it. Other verses/deletions/omissions that confused or concerned me have similar explanations. I've come to realize that if the modern version translators were trying to remove Satan from the Bible or take away from the Deity of Jesus Christ, they did a very poor job of it.

I'll continue with more tomorrow.

Part 3
Part 4
Summary

No comments: