Some touchstones for discerning a reliable Bible version

[JStates]

There are over 900+ English language Bible versions. Confusion. And let's be honest, they definitely DO NOT all say the same things.

In this OP, I'm not going to get lost in the weeds of this Bible version or that Bible version, but I do want to lay out some basic touchstones - three for now - that are good indicators of whether you have a trustworthy Bible version or one that has been tainted and altered by men with motives. Of course specifics can be discussed further if anyone wishes. Since I do have to use some Scripture as a starting point, I will use the KJV which I believe is the best, most reliable translation of the Scriptures in English.

If you disagree with that assessment of mine, very well, but rather than bicker about that I would like us to consider the touchstones themselves instead, since I think true believers should be able to agree on them upon consideration.

Touchstone #1
Isa_7:14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. (KJV)

An ancient understanding of the early Christian church and the conclusion of the best scholarship of generations of Bible scholars (except for some reason this present generation post circa AD 1890) has always held that the sign given by God is that Messiah would be born of a virgin. Many corrupt modern Bible versions replace that rendering with "young woman."

A young woman conceiving is not a sign from God, it is an everyday happenstance. Isaiah 7:14 tells us and a good Bible should SAY that the sign from God is that a virgin will conceive. An obvious miracle and work of God.


Touchstone #2
Isa 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! (KJV)

Many corrupt Bible versions in this passage - which relates to the fall of Satan - incorrectly label Lucifer as "the day star" or "the morning star" in this verse. Here is why that rendering of the text is incorrect, dangerous, and contradictory of other Scriptures.

Firstly, the Hebrew word for "star" simply is not in the original Hebrew in this verse. Therefore adding the word star into an English translation is a black and white error of scholarship. The connotation of brightness or radiance is certainly in the verse, and we see elsewhere in the Scriptures that Satan can appear to be an angel of light.

But the most important reason why Satan cannot be the Day Star is that Someone else in the Scriptures already has that place: Jesus Christ. Consider the following Scriptures.

2Pe_1:19 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: (KJV)

^ Peter is NOT saying that Satan will rise in the hearts of believers! He is referring to Jesus Christ! Again:

Rev_22:16 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. (KJV)

^ Jesus Christ is the Morning Star and therefore Satan cannot be. Here's another:

Rev 2:26 And he that overcometh, and keepeth my works unto the end, to him will I give power over the nations:
Rev 2:27 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.
Rev 2:28 And I will give him the morning star. (KJV)

^ What will Jesus give to the faithful saint? Satan? Of course not, what a lousy present! Jesus Christ will give His faithful the Morning Star: HIMSELF.


Touchstone #3
Many corrupt Bible versions remove or modify references to the blood of Christ from the Scriptures in many places.

Example:
Col 1:12 Giving thanks unto the Father, which hath made us meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light:
Col 1:13 Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son:
Col 1:14 In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins: (KJV)

^ This particular verse is a good touchstone because many Bible versions leave the blood out of Colossians 1:14 entirely. This is problematic because it is the shed blood of Christ - a terrible cost - which was paid for our sins. We are washed in Christ's blood and made white through it. Christ told His listeners to eat His flesh and drink His blood (participatory) if they wanted to have a part in Him. It's not pleasant to think about, but that's the point. And this is foolishness to unbelievers.

Rev_7:14 And I said unto him, Sir, thou knowest. And he said to me, These are they which came out of great tribulation, and have washed their robes, and made them white in the blood of the Lamb

Rev_1:5 And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood,

1Pe_1:2 Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the
blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied.

1Pe_1:19 But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot:

1Jn_1:7 But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.

Don't mess with the blood of Jesus.

 

[Pilgrimshope]

Really great read there . When you speak of the blood there’s a word of covenant spoken that goes with it also.

“For when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people according to the law, he took the blood of calves and of goats, with water, and scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book, and all the people, Saying, This is the blood of the testament which God hath enjoined unto you.”
‭‭Hebrews‬ ‭9:19-20‬ ‭KJV‬‬

“And he took the book of the covenant, and read in the audience of the people: and they said, All that the Lord hath said will we do, and be obedient.

And Moses took the blood, and sprinkled it on the people, and said, Behold the blood of the covenant, which the Lord hath made with you concerning all these words.”
‭‭Exodus‬ ‭24:7-8‬ ‭KJV‬‬

Jesus blood is the same it’s according to His words of the nee covenant that offers life. To believe his word gives power to his bloodshed

 

[Dino246]

There are over 900+ English language Bible versions. Confusion. And let's be honest, they definitely DO NOT all say the same things.

In this OP, I'm not going to get lost in the weeds of this Bible version or that Bible version, but I do want to lay out some basic touchstones - three for now - that are good indicators of whether you have a trustworthy Bible version or one that has been tainted and altered by men with motives. Of course specifics can be discussed further if anyone wishes. Since I do have to use some Scripture as a starting point, I will use the KJV which I believe is the best, most reliable translation of the Scriptures in English.

If you disagree with that assessment of mine, very well, but rather than bicker about that I would like us to consider the touchstones themselves instead, since I think true believers should be able to agree on them upon consideration.

Touchstone #1
Isa_7:14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. (KJV)

An ancient understanding of the early Christian church and the conclusion of the best scholarship of generations of Bible scholars (except for some reason this present generation post circa AD 1890) has always held that the sign given by God is that Messiah would be born of a virgin. Many corrupt modern Bible versions replace that rendering with "young woman."

A young woman conceiving is not a sign from God, it is an everyday happenstance. Isaiah 7:14 tells us and a good Bible should SAY that the sign from God is that a virgin will conceive. An obvious miracle and work of God.


Touchstone #2
Isa 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! (KJV)

Many corrupt Bible versions in this passage - which relates to the fall of Satan - incorrectly label Lucifer as "the day star" or "the morning star" in this verse. Here is why that rendering of the text is incorrect, dangerous, and contradictory of other Scriptures.

Firstly, the Hebrew word for "star" simply is not in the original Hebrew in this verse. Therefore adding the word star into an English translation is a black and white error of scholarship. The connotation of brightness or radiance is certainly in the verse, and we see elsewhere in the Scriptures that Satan can appear to be an angel of light.

But the most important reason why Satan cannot be the Day Star is that Someone else in the Scriptures already has that place: Jesus Christ. Consider the following Scriptures.

2Pe_1:19 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: (KJV)

^ Peter is NOT saying that Satan will rise in the hearts of believers! He is referring to Jesus Christ! Again:

Rev_22:16 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. (KJV)

^ Jesus Christ is the Morning Star and therefore Satan cannot be. Here's another:

Rev 2:26 And he that overcometh, and keepeth my works unto the end, to him will I give power over the nations:
Rev 2:27 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.
Rev 2:28 And I will give him the morning star. (KJV)

^ What will Jesus give to the faithful saint? Satan? Of course not, what a lousy present! Jesus Christ will give His faithful the Morning Star: HIMSELF.


Touchstone #3
Many corrupt Bible versions remove or modify references to the blood of Christ from the Scriptures in many places.

Example:
Col 1:12 Giving thanks unto the Father, which hath made us meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light:
Col 1:13 Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son:
Col 1:14 In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins: (KJV)

^ This particular verse is a good touchstone because many Bible versions leave the blood out of Colossians 1:14 entirely. This is problematic because it is the shed blood of Christ - a terrible cost - which was paid for our sins. We are washed in Christ's blood and made white through it. Christ told His listeners to eat His flesh and drink His blood (participatory) if they wanted to have a part in Him. It's not pleasant to think about, but that's the point. And this is foolishness to unbelievers.

Rev_7:14 And I said unto him, Sir, thou knowest. And he said to me, These are they which came out of great tribulation, and have washed their robes, and made them white in the blood of the Lamb

Rev_1:5 And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood,

1Pe_1:2 Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the
blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied.

1Pe_1:19 But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot:

1Jn_1:7 But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.

Don't mess with the blood of Jesus.

You have made the common error of KJV-only advocates: you assume that the KJV rendering is correct, build your theology from it, and compare other versions to it.

Let’s get one thing perfectly clear: the original-language documents are the standard; the KJV is not.

 

[ResidentAlien]

There are over 900+ English language Bible versions. Confusion. And let's be honest, they definitely DO NOT all say the same things.

In this OP, I'm not going to get lost in the weeds of this Bible version or that Bible version, but I do want to lay out some basic touchstones - three for now - that are good indicators of whether you have a trustworthy Bible version or one that has been tainted and altered by men with motives. Of course specifics can be discussed further if anyone wishes. Since I do have to use some Scripture as a starting point, I will use the KJV which I believe is the best, most reliable translation of the Scriptures in English.

If you disagree with that assessment of mine, very well, but rather than bicker about that I would like us to consider the touchstones themselves instead, since I think true believers should be able to agree on them upon consideration.

Touchstone #1
Isa_7:14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. (KJV)

An ancient understanding of the early Christian church and the conclusion of the best scholarship of generations of Bible scholars (except for some reason this present generation post circa AD 1890) has always held that the sign given by God is that Messiah would be born of a virgin. Many corrupt modern Bible versions replace that rendering with "young woman."

A young woman conceiving is not a sign from God, it is an everyday happenstance. Isaiah 7:14 tells us and a good Bible should SAY that the sign from God is that a virgin will conceive. An obvious miracle and work of God.


Touchstone #2
Isa 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! (KJV)

Many corrupt Bible versions in this passage - which relates to the fall of Satan - incorrectly label Lucifer as "the day star" or "the morning star" in this verse. Here is why that rendering of the text is incorrect, dangerous, and contradictory of other Scriptures.

Firstly, the Hebrew word for "star" simply is not in the original Hebrew in this verse. Therefore adding the word star into an English translation is a black and white error of scholarship. The connotation of brightness or radiance is certainly in the verse, and we see elsewhere in the Scriptures that Satan can appear to be an angel of light.

But the most important reason why Satan cannot be the Day Star is that Someone else in the Scriptures already has that place: Jesus Christ. Consider the following Scriptures.

2Pe_1:19 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: (KJV)

^ Peter is NOT saying that Satan will rise in the hearts of believers! He is referring to Jesus Christ! Again:

Rev_22:16 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. (KJV)

^ Jesus Christ is the Morning Star and therefore Satan cannot be. Here's another:

Rev 2:26 And he that overcometh, and keepeth my works unto the end, to him will I give power over the nations:
Rev 2:27 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.
Rev 2:28 And I will give him the morning star. (KJV)

^ What will Jesus give to the faithful saint? Satan? Of course not, what a lousy present! Jesus Christ will give His faithful the Morning Star: HIMSELF.


Touchstone #3
Many corrupt Bible versions remove or modify references to the blood of Christ from the Scriptures in many places.

Example:
Col 1:12 Giving thanks unto the Father, which hath made us meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light:
Col 1:13 Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son:
Col 1:14 In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins: (KJV)

^ This particular verse is a good touchstone because many Bible versions leave the blood out of Colossians 1:14 entirely. This is problematic because it is the shed blood of Christ - a terrible cost - which was paid for our sins. We are washed in Christ's blood and made white through it. Christ told His listeners to eat His flesh and drink His blood (participatory) if they wanted to have a part in Him. It's not pleasant to think about, but that's the point. And this is foolishness to unbelievers.

Rev_7:14 And I said unto him, Sir, thou knowest. And he said to me, These are they which came out of great tribulation, and have washed their robes, and made them white in the blood of the Lamb

Rev_1:5 And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood,

1Pe_1:2 Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the
blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied.

1Pe_1:19 But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot:

1Jn_1:7 But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.

Don't mess with the blood of Jesus.

I agree on #1.

On #2 however, not so much. The Hebrew in Isaiah 14:12, which is translated Lucifer in the KJV, is הֵילֵ֣ל (hê·lêl). Those who created the KJV fell back on the Latin which was used in virtually every version previous to the KJV: that is, "Lucifer," Latin for "light-bearing." The best translation of the Hebrew would probably be "shining one," as in Young's Literal Translation and others. So I wouldn't recommend this verse as a great example of why the KJV is better.

I agree with #3.

I agree the KJV and NKJV are better than a lot of 'em. But I wouldn't say the KJV is the "best." That's just my opinion.

My view is that in order to determine if something is corrupted or not you have to have a pristine original, which we don't. So I'm not going to call every other version that doesn't follow the TR or the KJV corrupt. I've debated enough KJV onlyists however to know that the opinion among them is that the KJV does preserve the originals. But this is fantasy world stuff.

 

[Dino246]

There are over 900+ English language Bible versions. Confusion. And let's be honest, they definitely DO NOT all say the same things.

In this OP, I'm not going to get lost in the weeds of this Bible version or that Bible version, but I do want to lay out some basic touchstones - three for now - that are good indicators of whether you have a trustworthy Bible version or one that has been tainted and altered by men with motives. Of course specifics can be discussed further if anyone wishes. Since I do have to use some Scripture as a starting point, I will use the KJV which I believe is the best, most reliable translation of the Scriptures in English.

If you disagree with that assessment of mine, very well, but rather than bicker about that I would like us to consider the touchstones themselves instead, since I think true believers should be able to agree on them upon consideration.

Touchstone #1
Isa_7:14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. (KJV)

An ancient understanding of the early Christian church and the conclusion of the best scholarship of generations of Bible scholars (except for some reason this present generation post circa AD 1890) has always held that the sign given by God is that Messiah would be born of a virgin. Many corrupt modern Bible versions replace that rendering with "young woman."

The Hebrew words can legitimately be translated "young woman" or "virgin". There is nothing "corrupt" about a version where the latter is chosen. Remember, the prophecy was not spelled out in exhaustive and specific detail. Mary's claim that she is a virgin (Luke 1:34) is the clear statement that should not be altered.

So, this verse is a poor choice for a "touchstone".

Touchstone #2
Isa 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! (KJV)

Many corrupt Bible versions in this passage - which relates to the fall of Satan - incorrectly label Lucifer as "the day star" or "the morning star" in this verse. Here is why that rendering of the text is incorrect, dangerous, and contradictory of other Scriptures.

Firstly, the Hebrew word for "star" simply is not in the original Hebrew in this verse. Therefore adding the word star into an English translation is a black and white error of scholarship.

This is cherry-picking. There are hundreds of verses in the KJV where English words were included that don't have a referent in the original language. Such is the nature of translation; neither Hebrew nor Greek can be translated "word for word" into English; the grammatical structures are just too different. Even French and English, which are very close, can't be translated this way.

The connotation of brightness or radiance is certainly in the verse, and we see elsewhere in the Scriptures that Satan can appear to be an angel of light.

But the most important reason why Satan cannot be the Day Star is that Someone else in the Scriptures already has that place: Jesus Christ. Consider the following Scriptures.

2Pe_1:19 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: (KJV)

^ Peter is NOT saying that Satan will rise in the hearts of believers! He is referring to Jesus Christ! Again:

Rev_22:16 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. (KJV)

^ Jesus Christ is the Morning Star and therefore Satan cannot be. Here's another:

Rev 2:26 And he that overcometh, and keepeth my works unto the end, to him will I give power over the nations:
Rev 2:27 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.
Rev 2:28 And I will give him the morning star. (KJV)

^ What will Jesus give to the faithful saint? Satan? Of course not, what a lousy present! Jesus Christ will give His faithful the Morning Star: HIMSELF.

You are using the KJV to prove that Jesus is the morning star, therefore Lucifer can't be. Unless you fully understand the issues in the original languages, your argument is translation-based, not Scripture-based.

Poor choice #2.

Touchstone #3
Many corrupt Bible versions remove or modify references to the blood of Christ from the Scriptures in many places.

Example:
Col 1:12 Giving thanks unto the Father, which hath made us meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light:
Col 1:13 Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son:
Col 1:14 In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins: (KJV)

^ This particular verse is a good touchstone because many Bible versions leave the blood out of Colossians 1:14 entirely. This is problematic because it is the shed blood of Christ - a terrible cost - which was paid for our sins. We are washed in Christ's blood and made white through it. Christ told His listeners to eat His flesh and drink His blood (participatory) if they wanted to have a part in Him. It's not pleasant to think about, but that's the point. And this is foolishness to unbelievers.

Rev_7:14 And I said unto him, Sir, thou knowest. And he said to me, These are they which came out of great tribulation, and have washed their robes, and made them white in the blood of the Lamb

Rev_1:5 And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood,

1Pe_1:2 Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the
blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied.

1Pe_1:19 But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot:

1Jn_1:7 But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.

Don't mess with the blood of Jesus.

Again, you're using the KJV as the standard instead of the original-language sources. Where the phrase, "the blood of Christ" does not appear in the original text, it should not appear in the English. I don't know of a single case where a modern translation has omitted "the blood of Christ" where it should be included, according to the source text. If you can demonstrate your assertion with actual source material, you may have a point. Until then, I'll consider that...

Touchstone #3 fails as well.

The next time you want to concoct an argument advocating the KJV, try not to employ circular reasoning; it's usually very easy to spot.

 

[JStates]

I agree on #1.

On #2 however, not so much. The Hebrew in Isaiah 14:12, which is translated Lucifer in the KJV, is הֵילֵ֣ל (hê·lêl). Those who created the KJV fell back on the Latin which was used in virtually every version previous to the KJV: that is, "Lucifer," Latin for "light-bearing." The best translation of the Hebrew would probably be "shining one," as in Young's Literal Translation and others. So I wouldn't recommend this verse as a great example of why the KJV is better.

I agree with #3.

I agree the KJV and NKJV are better than a lot of 'em. But I wouldn't say the KJV is the "best." That's just my opinion.

My view is that in order to determine if something is corrupted or not you have to have a pristine original, which we don't. So I'm not going to call every other version that doesn't follow the TR or the KJV corrupt. I've debated enough KJV onlyists however to know that the opinion among them is that the KJV does preserve the originals. But this is fantasy world stuff.

So, I should clarify something that I did include in the OP but it may not have been very clear. My intention was to provide three general touchstones for evaluating Bible versions, NOT to push the KJV, BUT in order to share the verses, SOME English version needs to be used, so I used the one I use, the KJV.

I'm actually not a "KJV-onlyist" as you put it, though I do use the KJV only. There used to be a wikipedia page on the KJV-only subject which identified five levels of KJV adherence. Level 1 was someone who says, "I use the KJV because I like the expressive language" but who isn't necessarily a KJV-only advocate. Level 5 would say, "The KJV CORRECTS errors in the original text and it ITSELF the inspired Word of God." This seems to me to be a cultish view elevating the physical bible above the Word itself. I'm a Level 3: "The KJV is the best, most responsibly translated modern Bible version."

In general I do adhere to a TR perspective because these MSS make up 95%-98% of all Bible manuscripts, so it's obvious that these are the ones the church historically believed were correct and worthy of preservation and dissemination. Someone on here asked me the question of whether I was for or against... Wesley's Bible, I think it was (my memory is spotty on that exchange). I'm pretty sure his work actually ended up IN the KJV to a great degree. I will say there might be some other great TR versions, but it's likely that their English is MORE archaic than that of the KJV which would make them impractical. The KJV has had two editions (NOT revisions) which standardized grammar and spelling and which changed the text from a Latin font to a Roman one. (Jesus in the modern Roman font versus IESVS in the Latin). These editions make the KJV the best historical TR Bible for the modern reader. I'm currently on the fence with the New King James because I know its translators consulted Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, two demonstrably corrupt MSS. But I'm halfway down a very long rabbit trail, lol, which was not my intention for this thread.

In response to your comment on the #2 touchstone, let me just say that I studied a bit of Hebrew in university which has been helpful in my Bible studies, and the Hebrew word "star" simply does not appear in that verse in the Hebrew. The connotation of "bright, shining" is there, which is consistent with other Scriptures, but putting the word star in there contradicts other Scriptures. The best commentary on Scripture is Scripture.

 

[JStates]

The Hebrew words can legitimately be translated "young woman" or "virgin". There is nothing "corrupt" about a version where the latter is chosen. Remember, the prophecy was not spelled out in exhaustive and specific detail. Mary's claim that she is a virgin (Luke 1:34) is the clear statement that should not be altered.

So, this verse is a poor choice for a "touchstone".



This is cherry-picking. There are hundreds of verses in the KJV where English words were included that don't have a referent in the original language. Such is the nature of translation; neither Hebrew nor Greek can be translated "word for word" into English; the grammatical structures are just too different. Even French and English, which are very close, can't be translated this way.


You are using the KJV to prove that Jesus is the morning star, therefore Lucifer can't be. Unless you fully understand the issues in the original languages, your argument is translation-based, not Scripture-based.

Poor choice #2.


Again, you're using the KJV as the standard instead of the original-language sources. Where the phrase, "the blood of Christ" does not appear in the original text, it should not appear in the English. I don't know of a single case where a modern translation has omitted "the blood of Christ" where it should be included, according to the source text. If you can demonstrate your assertion with actual source material, you may have a point. Until then, I'll consider that...

Touchstone #3 fails as well.

The next time you want to concoct an argument advocating the KJV, try not to employ circular reasoning; it's usually very easy to spot.

I explain my stance on the King James Version in my post to Resident Alien. The nature of my OP required Bible quotations in SOME version so I used the one I use - the KJV. I was not pushing that version only using it for illustrative purposes. That being said, let's talk about your comments. Thank you for your thoughts, I can definitely see where you are coming from.

Concerning #1, I will simply say that we have the completed Scriptures today, and the best commentary on the Scriptures are the Scriptures themselves. There is no excuse therefore in the modern era to render "young woman" in Isaiah 7:14 since we know how it was intended to mean. Interestingly enough, efforts to change it to "young woman" all have more modern origins. An obvious and intentional corruption of God's Word.

Concerning #2, I am not using the KJV to prove anything. I studied a bit of Hebrew in university. The ancient Hebrew word for star is the same as the modern Hebrew word for star and it correlates exactly with the modern English word for star. There is no confusion. The Hebrew word for star does not exist in the Hebrew text of Isaiah 14:12 and therefore it is not unreasonable to say that the modern English correlating word "star" should not appear in a modern English Bible translation either, ESPECIALLY since it contradicts other Scriptures which clearly say Jesus Christ is the Morning Star.

Concerning #3, the NIV specifically leaves out the blood in Colossians 1:14. It is however present in the Greek:

 

[Dino246]

I explain my stance on the King James Version in my post to Resident Alien. The nature of my OP required Bible quotations in SOME version so I used the one I use - the KJV. I was not pushing that version only using it for illustrative purposes. That being said, let's talk about your comments. Thank you for your thoughts, I can definitely see where you are coming from.

Concerning #1, I will simply say that we have the completed Scriptures today, and the best commentary on the Scriptures are the Scriptures themselves. There is no excuse therefore in the modern era to render "young woman" in Isaiah 7:14 since we know how it was intended to mean. Interestingly enough, efforts to change it to "young woman" all have more modern origins. An obvious and intentional corruption of God's Word.

You're employing circular reasoning, and your conclusion is wrong. The modern translations simply render the word as it should be rendered, without applying any theological bias to it. This is the correct way to translate, so long as the result does not actually contradict the rest of Scripture, which "young woman" doesn't. You can't prove any nefarious "intention" on this matter unless you interview the translators themselves... and I'm sure in doing so you wouldn't find any.

Concerning #2, I am not using the KJV to prove anything. I studied a bit of Hebrew in university. The ancient Hebrew word for star is the same as the modern Hebrew word for star and it correlates exactly with the modern English word for star. There is no confusion. The Hebrew word for star does not exist in the Hebrew text of Isaiah 14:12 and therefore it is not unreasonable to say that the modern English correlating word "star" should not appear in a modern English Bible translation either, ESPECIALLY since it contradicts other Scriptures which clearly say Jesus Christ is the Morning Star.

As I stated, there are many cases where there is an English word in the KJV that has no Hebrew referent, which means you're cherry-picking. Were you to reject the KJV on this basis, your point might be valid, but given that you use this argument to defend the KJV, you're being hypocritical and you have no argument.

Concerning #3, the NIV specifically leaves out the blood in Colossians 1:14. It is however present in the Greek:

The NIV actually does have "through his blood"... in the footnote, right after, "Some late manuscripts add". It's a manuscript issue, not a translation issue.

You still have no case.