Your elevation of an English translation (albeit a good translation which has been in use many years) over the original languages that the Bible was given is a much larger issue. The onus is on you to explain why the Greek and Hebrew are inferior to the King James!
Can't wait for ftD and xzins to respond to this challenge. Doubt that they will honestly address it because if they did, they would have to admit that the KJV is not perfect; a conclusionthat any reasonable person would admit. While I prefer the NIV (footnotes are good because the compilers of the NIV are not so arrogant as to state that there is only one 'best word' in all instances where there is honest disagreement), the NIv is not perfect either.
The KJVO crowd seems to be placing an unwarranted amount of faith in the perfection of the KJV. Their words and accusations are a bit cult-like, and their logical reasoning is not all that different from Mormon justifications for their belief that the BoM is holy scripture. I am certainly not lumping the KJVO adherents with Mormonism, just their use of false premises and conclusions about any version other than the KJV.
I can 'complain' about the 'dynamic equivalent' if the change in translation does not communicate what the word actually means.
Now, in the English, the word Lucifer is associated with Satan, not the Lord Jesus Christ.
***Here is a quoted from David Hunt's work, The seduction of Christianity. *** I am very familiar with Dave Hunt, David Spangler and the New Age Movement. I have lectured often on the dangers of the New Age many times myself over the past twenty years. But all of this is beside the point under discussion. The Hebrew text uses a word that means shining one. Why am I a promoter of the New Age for simply following the Hebrew text? Makes no sense.
Is that that the word the New versions use?
They do not use 'shining one',which if they had, I said they could make a case for, since they were using a 'literal' vs a 'dynamic' equivalent.
What they 'opted' for was another 'dynamic equivalent' one that can be cross-referenced to the clear passages that refer to Christ himself.
This is suppose to be accidental?
Now, if you were doing exgesis on Isa.14 and wanted to tell the people that the word meant 'literally' 'shining one' that would do no harm
The harm comes from changing the English usage, dropping Lucifer for 'morning star' and the confusion it purposefully generates.
Now, ftD I agree that Isaiah 14 is a reference to Lucifer. I preach and teach that, but in doing so I am engaging in interpretation -- accurate interpretation -- yet interpretation.
That is fine, and it is a correct interpretation of a word that has been in our Bibles for 500 years.
A translation is to communicate accuratly, the thoughts of the original language, not confuse it as the modern versions do.
Your elevation of an English translation (albeit a good translation which has been in use many years) over the original languages that the Bible was given is a much larger issue. The onus is on you to explain why the Greek and Hebrew are inferior to the King James!
It is 'inferior' in that we do not think in either language, we think in English, thus, the Reformation principle of getting the Bible into peoples hands they could understand and believe.
Now, the modern version translation is not an accurate rendering of that passage, and they do not give the literal meaning of the Hebrew word.
They have another agenda, to confuse, not to clarify.