Posted on 04/10/2017 2:59:06 PM PDT by WhatNot
God Almighty knows everything we say, think and do, there's nothing that escapes His purview. The idea that God may be on one side of the world, and you're on the other, doesn't hinder Him. God is everywhere at all times. The devil on the other hand can't see or hear everything, he's not omnipresent, omniscient or omnipotent, but he wants to be, he wants to be "like the most High."
Isaiah 14:12-14
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! 13 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: 14 I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High.
When the devil says, he will be "like the most High," he's admitting that he's not there yet, but his evil scheme is in full swing.
We have CCTV everywhere, we have "smart" appliances and home electronics being sold with more computing power, then the first moon shot. These devices created by man have the ability to gather information on and about you. That's not so bad, in and of itself, but can these devices connect to the Internet? If so, the potential for utilization in Satan's nefarious scheme of being "like the most High" exists. Your blog, twitter, FB posts, mobile devices, TV, car, and various other personal devices; all wired into networks and storing vital intelligence, adding to your future dossier.
Presently, this may sound like an over-the-top conspiracy theory, but remember we wrestle against a spiritual conspiracy every day.
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.
The word conspiracy means "together with spirit," and just because human beings are not aware of demonic influences that inspire them, nonetheless their devices are still helping to accomplish Satan's goal. That's why it's extremely important to believe all of God's word, nothing doubting. When we believe every word in God's preserved word, we then have on the full armour with no chink and fully protected.
Ephesians 6:13-18
13 Wherefore take unto you the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand. 14 Stand therefore, having your loins girt about with truth, and having on the breastplate of righteousness; 15 And your feet shod with the preparation of the gospel of peace; 16 Above all, taking the shield of faith, wherewith ye shall be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked. 17 And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God: 18 Praying always with all prayer and supplication in the Spirit, and watching thereunto with all perseverance and supplication for all saints;
If you want on or off the ping list, please freep mail me, thanks and have a blessed day.
Who is Ling?
Will there be spicy shrimp and noodles?
sorry about he type o
LOL
Thanks mods for the typo fix.
All defensive armor except Scripture and Prayer. I teach my kids in Sunday School this passage constantly as we are always under attack.
I remember “Good News for Modern Man” which was said to be a direct translation from the “original” Aramaic and Greek to modern English. It was very cold and IIRC didn’t catch on.
Then there was “Angels with Busted Halos” which attempted to do the bible using by then hackneyed and out of usage street slang (”gave him 2 busted peepers”) which was both laughable and didn’t connect.
I think I will stay with the Ling James version, noodles and all. It has the sound of authority and age.
OTOH: my teen daughter and her friends (she's now grown) would have found it more difficult. So I think more modern versions have their place, too.
I don't think slang versions are needed.
I think the NIV (New International Version) was the one her church used. (It was a Presbyterian church, now unaffiliated with PC-USA due to various disagreements.)
“sorry about he type o”
I have always admired an “edit” feature. Especially since smartphones have allowed accessibility where cells never could. I find it difficult to sit down in front of a PL with a keyboard and write. The Android is taking over the communications function in many people’s busy schedules.
Would an edit feature even be possible with the coding required for HTC driven sites such as Free Republic.
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! 13 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: 14 I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High.
Here is the NIV version:
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! 13 You said in your heart, “I will ascend to the heavens; I will raise my throne above the stars of God; I will sit enthroned on the mount of assembly, on the utmost heights of Mount Zaphon. 14 I will ascend above the tops of the clouds; I will make myself like the Most High.”
The lack of "Lucifer" at first seems sort of strange, like the whole object of the verse has been removed. It is sort of strange.
Wikipedia provides this explanation:
Lucifer (/ˈluːsɪfər/;[1][2][3] loo-sif-ər) is the King James Version rendering of the Hebrew word הֵילֵל in Isaiah (Isaiah 14:12). The Vulgate translation uses the Latin word lucifer, but with a lower-case initial,[4] The Hebrew word, transliterated Hêlêl[5] or Heylel (pron. as HAY-lale),[6] occurs once in the Hebrew Bible[5] and according to the KJV-based Strong's Concordance means "shining one, light-bearer".[6] The Septuagint renders הֵילֵל in Greek as ἑωσφόρος[7][8][9][10][11] (heōsphoros),[12][13][14] a name, literally "bringer of dawn", for the morning star.[15] The word Lucifer is taken from the Latin Vulgate,[16] which translates הֵילֵל as lucifer,[17][18] meaning "the morning star, the planet Venus", or, as an adjective, "light-bringing".[19]Later Christian tradition came to use the Latin word for "morning star", lucifer, as a proper name ("Lucifer") for the devil; as he was before his fall.[20] As a result, "'Lucifer' has become a by-word for Satan / the Devil in the church and in popular literature",[16] as in Dante Alighieri's Inferno, Joost van den Vondel's Lucifer and John Milton's Paradise Lost.[14] However, the Latin word never came to be used almost exclusively, as in English, in this way, and was applied to others also, including Jesus.[21] The image of a morning star fallen from the sky is generally believed among scholars to have a parallel in Canaanite mythology.[22]
However, according to both Christian[23] and Jewish exegesis, in the Book of Isaiah, chapter 14, the King of Babylon, Nebuchadnezzar II, conqueror of Jerusalem, is condemned in a prophetic vision by the prophet Isaiah and is called the "Morning Star" (planet Venus).[24][25] In this chapter the Hebrew text says הֵילֵל בֶּן-שָׁחַר (Helel ben Shachar, "shining one, son of the morning").[26] "Helel ben Shahar" may refer to the Morning Star, but the text in Isaiah 14 gives no indication that Helel was a star or planet.[27][28]
The term appears in the context of an oracle against a dead king of Babylon,[29] who is addressed as הילל בן שחר (Hêlêl ben Šāḥar),[30][31] rendered by the King James Version as "O Lucifer, son of the morning!" and by others as "morning star, son of the dawn".In a modern translation from the original Hebrew, the passage in which the phrase "Lucifer" or "morning star" occurs begins with the statement: "On the day the Lord gives you relief from your suffering and turmoil and from the harsh labour forced on you, you will take up this taunt against the king of Babylon: How the oppressor has come to an end! How his fury has ended!"[32] After describing the death of the king, the taunt continues:
"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! You said in your heart, 'I will ascend to the heavens; I will raise my throne above the stars of God; I will sit enthroned on the mount of assembly, on the utmost heights of Mount Zaphon. I will ascend above the tops of the clouds; I will make myself like the Most High.' But you are brought down to the realm of the dead, to the depths of the pit. Those who see you stare at you, they ponder your fate: 'Is this the man who shook the earth and made kingdoms tremble, the man who made the world a wilderness, who overthrew its cities and would not let his captives go home?'"[33]
J. Carl Laney has pointed out that in the final verses here quoted, the king of Babylon is described not as a god or an angel but as a man; and that man may have been not Nebuchadnezzar II, but rather his son, Balthazar. During the trito Isaiah period of the Persian sacking of the Babylonian empire, Nebuchadnezzar was gripped by a spiritual fervor to build a temple to the moon God Sin (possibly analogous with Hubal, the primary God of pre Islamic Mecca), and his son ruled as regent. The abrahamic scriptural texts could be interpreted as a weak usurping of true kingly power, and a taunt at the failed regency of Balthazar.[34][35]
So it seems at least in this example it is the KJV that gives a misleading reading of what was meant by the scripture, even though it is the one I am more familiar with, due to the unique (and incorrect according to almost all scholars) modification of turning a latin word into a proper noun. And clearly, given the context the subject is the former King of Babylon, and not the Devil.
do all protestants use the KJV and derivatives? If so, why, and not the Catholic version? Does KJV derive from Henry VIII? Did Henry VIII split off from Catholics due to wanting a divorce (pretty much)? Does the difference between the KJV and Catholic versions have to do with divorce?
No. Most Protestants use a translation that is based on earlier and more accurate Greek Manuscripts. The Old Testament is not really in dispute.
If so, why, and not the Catholic version?
Because the Catholic version (which Catholic version?) has books included that neither the Jews nor the historical church recognised as canonial.
Does KJV derive from Henry VIII?
No. The KJV postdates Henry VII.
Did Henry VIII split off from Catholics due to wanting a divorce (pretty much)?
You'd have to ask Henry VIII that question...shout loud, he's been dead a long time.
Does the difference between the KJV and Catholic versions have to do with divorce?
No.
what do you mean “historical church,” and was there ever a formal codification of what the historical church believed the bible to consist of? Can you please distinguish between the “historical church” and the Catholic Church? IIRC protestantism did not exist before Luther, or do you define “historical church” to be Lutheran?
The King James Version seems most definitively associated with the Church of England, which most definitively originated from Henry VIII and his desire to remarry after Katerine of Aragon was unable to bear him an heir. He started the Church of England which split off from Catholicism. He burned Catholic monastaries and libraries, and killed Catholics including Thomas More.
Thus the KJV seems historically forever tainted by the exigencies of the Crown of England (a worldly concern, to put it mildly), and beyond that, a desire to bless the sacrament of divorce (or nullify the sacrament of marriage).
And what of the NRSV, which apparently is an updated version of the NIV?
Does adherence to NIV/NRSV/KJV imply adherence to all of Luther’s teachings? Didn’t Luther believe in polygamy? Does the KJV/NIV/NRSV support polygamy? Didn’t Henry VIII effectively believe in polygamy?
For reference
https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/9-things-you-should-know-about-the-council-of-trent
Luther appears to have departed from Jewish tradition as practiced by Jesus in the time of Jesus.
If the doctrine of original intent is applied to Jesus’ teaching, therefore, it should include the seven books banished by Martin Luther in the 1500s (revisionism).
KJV, NIV, and NRSV follow Luther and so are revisionist when viewed from a Jesus-centric viewpoint.
Modern Judaism was revised after the time of Jesus and so must be historically regarded as less relevant to the teachings of Jesus.
http://www.ewtn.com/v/experts/showmessage.asp?number=438095
The 7 books removed by Martin Luther.
Question from Rhonda Kaiser on 5/1/2005:
Please explain why Martin Luther removed these 7 books of the Old Testament: Tobit, Judith, 1st & 2nd Maccabees, Wisdom, Sirach & Baruch. I understand he wanted to remove James & Revelation also. I know he had a problem with James 2:14-26 but what was the issue with Revelation & the rest of the books? God bless you & Thank you for your answer. Rhonda
Answer by Rev. Mark J. Gantley, JCL on 5/1/2005:
The canon of Scripture is the list of 73 books that belong to the Bible. (The word “Bible” means “the Book.”) The earliest writings of the Bible were likely composed in the 10th century B.C. The writing of Scripture continued until the first century A.D., when Revelation was complete.
Seven books of the Bible, all in the Old Testament, are accepted by Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox, but are not accepted by Jews or Protestants. These include 1 and 2 Maccabees, Judith, Tobit, Baruch, Sirach, and Wisdom, and additions to the books of Esther and Daniel. These books are called Deuterocanonical by Catholics and Orthodox and Apocryphal by Jews and Protestants. These were the last books of the Old Testament written, composed in the last two centuries B.C. Their omission in Protestant Bibles leaves a chronological gap in salvation history.
The version of the Bible in use at the time of Jesus was the Septuagint (abbreviated LXX, for the 70 men who translated it from Hebrew into Greek by the beginning of the first century B.C.). This version of the Bible included the seven Deuterocanonical books. This was the version of the Old Testament used by the New Testament authors and by Christians during the first century A.D.
With the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem by the Romans in the year 70 A.D. and because the Christians were seen as a threat, the Jewish leaders saw a need to get their house in order. One thing that they did was to decide officially the list of books that were to compose their Scriptures. They did this at the Council of Jamnia (about 100 A.D.), at which they rejected the seven Deuterocanonical books because they believed that they were not written in Hebrew. (In 1947, however, fragments in Hebrew of Tobit and Sirach were discovered among the Dead Sea Scrolls. In addition, most Scripture scholars believe that 1 Maccabees, Judith, Baruch and parts of Wisdom were also originally written in Hebrew.) The early Church did not require all Scripture to be written in Hebrew, and the New Testament books were written in Greek.
The early Church continued to accept the books of the LXX version, although some debate about these books continued through the 5th century. This list, as accepted by the Catholic Church, was affirmed by the Council of Hippo in 393 A.D., by the Council of Carthage in 397 A.D., and by Pope Innocent I in 405 A.D. At the Ecumenical Council of Florence in 1442, the Catholic list was again restated, against those who wanted to include even more books.
In the 16th century, Martin Luther adopted the Jewish list, putting the Deuterocanonical books in an appendix. He also put the letter of James, the letter to the Hebrews, the letters of John, and the book of Revelation from the New Testament in an appendix. He did this for doctrinal reasons (for example: 2 Maccabees 12:43-46 supports the doctrine of purgatory, Hebrews supports the existence of the priesthood, and James 2:24 supports the Catholic doctrine on merit). Later Lutherans followed Luther’s Old Testament list and rejected the Deuterocanonical books, but they did not follow his rejection of the New Testament books.
Finally, in 1546, the Council of Trent reaffirmed the traditional list of the Catholic Church.
Thus a strict historical following of Jesus would appear to argue in favor of the Catholic bible in its modern form, NABRE (New American Bible, Revised Edition):
http://www.usccb.org/bible/index.cfm
as an authoritative text where the teachings of Jesus are concerned.
I wrote several long posts quoting various articles that explain the history of the KJV on the KJV thread last week. My posts begin at #2 on this thread.
Just as Calvinist Dark Lord says (which Catholic version?) it's also reasonable to ask (which King James Version). Older ones contained the Apochrapha in it's own section, most newer ones delete it, although some versions still include it. Some parts are included in The Book of Common Prayer which is an important book for some Protestant sects.
Again this is covered in some detail in the previous thread, which contains links to the source material.
What not just go ahead and declaim on the problems you have with the KJV and Protestant versions of the Bible directly? It seems more straight forward and gives us the decision about engaging without the pretext of answering insincere questions.
I only raise this because it would be nice for Christian religious threads like this to remain as free of acrimony as possible, while still allowing us to discuss our differences openly.
I do very much appreciate your perspectives and the information which you provided. Thanks.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.