The Inerrancy of the Bible

quote:

---

the kjv is not in error. "lucifer" is a perfectly acceptible rendering of "heylel." it's the people who think it's talking about satan that are in error.

---

I agree that the latin meaning of the word was appropriate in a latin bible.Unfortunately the theological meaning of Lucifer in Webster's dictionary today is:
Satan, esp. as leader of the revolt of the angels before his fall.That is why I contend that in an English Bible using the word Lucifer to denote the morning star is incorrect. People today associate the word "Lucifer" with Satan, not Venus.The translation should be aimed at the people reading the book.

---

A gentle answer turns away wrath, But a harsh word stirs up anger.

It is true that the Bible is a belief. I have maintained and have stated in other posts the belief that in the matter of absolute truth vs relativism, God is the absolute standard and relativism suggests that MY belief in Gods absolute standard is by definition inclusive within the framework of relativism. My side would say that this belief sprang from original sin. I can use the Bible to build a case to support my belief, much as you could "quote yourself" out of the book that you wrote to support your belief and world view. In the end, all that we--you, I or 36 Christian students--are doing in this forum is documenting our beliefs and opinions. No "side" will ever win an argument here, although often one individual or another will frame a discussion more effectively....thus making for good reading!

purpledawn, The Secret Book of Enoch explain's Satan is Lucifer in relation to his going to and fro in the earth, that he is a creature of light, and that he was made thru God the Son (The Word kjv John 1:3) Enochs book make it clear the Angels including Satan was created in the morning of the second Creation day (a son of the Morning). It does not say in the KJV that he is the son of the Bright & Morning Star (though through the Word all the angels including Satan were created). The Word says he was the son of the morning and this agree's with Enoch Chapter 29.kjv Job 1:7 And the LORD said unto Satan, Whence comest thou? Then Satan answered the LORD, and said, From going to and fro in the earth, and from walking up and down in it.http://reluctant-messenger.com/2enoch01-68.htm#Chapter29Then it became evening, and then again "morning", and it was the second [Monday]; The fiery essence1And for all the heavenly troops I imaged the image and essence of fire, and my eye looked at the very hard, firm rock, and from the gleam of my eye the lightning received its wonderful nature, which is both fire in water and water in fire, and one does not put out the other, nor does the one dry up the other, therefore the lightning is brighter than the sun, softer than water and firmer than hard rock.2And from the rock I cut off a great fire, and from the fire I created the orders of the incorporeal ten troops of angels, and their weapons are fiery and their raiment a burning flame, and I commanded that each one should stand in his order.3And one from out the order of angels, having turned away with the order that was under him, conceived an impossible thought, to place his throne higher than the clouds above the earth, that he might become equal in rank to my power.4And I threw him out from the height with his angels, and he was flying in the air continuously above the bottomless.This message has been edited by Tom, 01-17-2005 10:39 AM

Enoch written about 200BCE or later.
Isaiah lived about 400 years earlier.The only mention of "lucifer" in your link was a footnote which actually refers to the word "ha satan" not "helel" or morning star:
(10) Satanail. Or, "the impious one." Ha-satan in Hebrew means "the adversary" referring here to the "lead" adversary, or Lucifer.I seriously doubt if Enoch wrote the footnote.This does not show that Satan is the morning star.As I showed you in my last post, equating the morning star with Satan then equates Christ with Satan.Morning Star = Lucifer = Satan
Morning Star = Christ
Therefore Christ = SatanNot a wise choice. Helel does not mean Satan!

---

A gentle answer turns away wrath, But a harsh word stirs up anger.

well that's the peoples' fault, and webster's. it's dogman, and they should know better. lucifer was perfectly acceptable in 1611. well, it was. in 1611, it probably would have been read correctly. it's just that people today are somehow absolutely afraid context, both textual, and of the context of the society that wrote or translated a dated body of work.so, you might say it's an outdated translation, but not an errant one. (i can find LOTS of errancy issues with the kjv, but imho this is not one of them)

actually, no. there are beliefs that can be proven wrong. so while there might not be a winner per-se, there are losers.it's very post-modern and culturally relativist to say that everything is belief and no one is right. but if my belief is contrary to observation -- it's wrong.

Absolute Truth...whether tru scripture or thru divine unction..can never be "proven". If I have a relativistic mindset, you can quote scripture to me without impressing upon me the need to believe or accept your truth.As a Christian, I DO believe in the power of God as a living absolute, and I DO believe that He draws all men unto Himself. Thus,
HE can work through scripture to reveal His presence and thus "prove" the Holy Spirit as reality...living and powerful. My argument is that no human can of themselves do this, even with a good Bible.You can show me your skill at Biblical interpretation, for example, but if I don't see god in the details, your intelligence will not impress me. The same goes with me if I use scripture to refute or enlighten further what you have written. In the end, it is God who begins the work in us and completes it according to His timing, His will, and His purpose.In conclusion then, I agree with you on the nature of absolute proof.This message has been edited by Phatboy, 01-17-2005 16:11 AM

ok, just for the hell of it i'll play. yes, the first option. no. yes not sure i totally follow, but yes i think so. no, not in the christian dualistic sense.

Sorry I changed my post...you answered the one that I deleted...but somehow it got on the board...anyway, I do not see Christian good/evil as a dualistic concept. I see it as an expanded spiritual reality from the original. To a person who tells you that they have the Spirit, there is only one truth. They will claim to have an awareness of God through this living, loving, personal truth within them. From a practical standpoint, however, practical in a logical sense, absolute truth is just another relative concept. It takes one (believer) to know one.

purpledawn, The KJV interestingly does not say he is the son of the bright and morning star. It says he is the son of the morning, the verses of Enoch 29:4 written before the biblical flood says the reason Satan was cast down to the earth was because he wanted to put his throne above the clouds of the earth to be like the most high. It says in Isaiah verse 14:14 that Lucifer said I will ascend above the heights of the clouds I will be like the most High. Enoch 29:3-4 says God threw him out of heaven, because he wanted to put his throne above the clouds of heaven. The Lord Jesus being he is the Son, and was before the world was, testified that Satan falling from heaven was as lightning coming down from heaven.P.S. I've given confirming evidence via scripture that Lucifer is that snake, serpent, dragon, devil, satan though agree likely had the King of Babylon under his thumb, but Satan was not able to save the King of Babylon, and Satan himself will not beable to save himself from the pit, and hell. I simply believe Lucifer means more than you believe this verse to be.In kjv revelations it talks of the dragon giving his power to the beast raising the question who is able to make war with the beast? The answer as in Isaiah chapter 14 is the Lord is able because he is the King of Kings kjv Revelation 17:14 and in Isaiah The Lord hath founded Zion and the poor of his people can put their trust in it. kjv Isaiah 14:32.I see Lucifer just another name Satan uses to pretend to be as the most high, another name he uses is Santa Claus.
http://www.biblebelievers.com/jmelton/SantaClause.htmlJob 2:1-2 Satan says he goes to and fro in the earth and walking up and down in it. { Truly how he has been cut down to the ground. }kjv 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 Job 2:2 Satan says that he goes to and fro in the earth and walking up and down in it. Truly he was cut down from the heavens above the clouds, and is flying above the ground or walking to and fro in the earth.kjv Rev 12:12 Therefore rejoice, ye heavens, and ye that dwell in them. Woe to the inhabiters of the earth and of the sea! for the devil is come down unto you, having great wrath, because he knoweth that he hath but a short time.This message has been edited by Tom, 01-17-2005 21:09 AM

Got access to a Latin Vulgate? This link is interesting if you haven't read it already.Jerome apparently used "lucifer" several times in the Latin Vulgate. None of which, thankfully, describes Satan.Ecclesiasticus is Sirach I guess the question would be was Sirach included in the first KJV with the apocrypha and if it was, was morning star translated as Lucifer in English?I'll have to do some more research.BTW, it is nice to discuss with a reasonable person.

---

A gentle answer turns away wrath, But a harsh word stirs up anger.

purpledawn, Its quite interesting the star believed by astronomers that would of shined on Bethelehem in 2 B.C. on December 25th was Jupiter and not Venus. (kjv St. Matthew 2:2 & 9-10)http://www.gods-kingdom.org/...ee%20from%20Caesar%20Augustus
25 Dec., 2 B.C.
Jupiter stationary over
Bethlehem, as viewed from Jerusalem

You know, since Jupiter had been closely observed and documented for many thousands of years before any possible date of Jesus birth, the idea that suddenly Jupiter did something unusual is really unlikely. Afterall, you're talking about Horus and Marduk, Gods that preceeded the Hebrews by thousands of years and that had been certainly very closely studied for more than 3000 years before the NT.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

jar, Jupiter is one of the wandering stars in the night sky. God said he uses the lights in the firmament for signs(kjv genesis 1:14).Astrological Events and Celebrations of 3-2 B.C.
http://www.gods-kingdom.org/...ee%20from%20Caesar%20AugustusFrom May 19, 3 B.C., to December 25, 2 B.C., a series of highly significant astrological events was observed in the heavens, which had a big impact on the Romans. We know this for sure, because modern astronomers have calculated these events with great precision. They are as follows, as given by Dr. Martin on page 66 of his book, The Star That Astonished the World and used by permission from the Griffith Observatory.Planetary Conjunctions, 19 May, 3 B.C., to 25 December, 2 B.C.Date
Conjunction19 May, 3 B.C.
Mercury-Saturn12 June, 3 B.C.
Venus-Saturn12 Aug., 3 B.C.
Venus-Jupiter31 Aug., 3 B.C.
Mercury-Venus14 Sept., 3 B.C.
Jupiter-Regulus17 Feb., 2 B.C.
Jupiter-Regulus8 May, 2 B.C.
Jupiter-Regulus17 June, 2 B.C.
Jupiter-Venus26 Aug., 2 B.C.
Mars-Jupiter25 Dec., 2 B.C.
Jupiter stationary over
Bethlehem, as viewed from JerusalemFrom this table of planetary conjunctions, we can see that there were many significant astrological events occurring in the 18 months from May of 3 B.C. to December of 2 B.C.This message has been edited by Tom, 01-17-2005 22:51 AM

Jar,You are being reasonable and factual. Tom has no interest in reason and fact. Unless you come up with some fascinating wacko revelation like Santa Claus is Satan, Tom isn't going to pay attention to you. Brian called this earlier. Tom is polite guy but he is going to live in the world that he has fasioned to his taste and he is simply not interested in any facts or reason that don't fit with what he already knows.lfen