Unbounded Words

Myth 1

Modern versions call Lucifer, “Jesus.” This is a flat out lie. There is absolutely no basis for it, and those who make this claim are deliberately being deceptive. I guess this is what you do when your position is weak, and you have no true evidence to support it. This myth is based on the following verse:

Isaiah 14:12 (KJV 1611)

How art thou fallen from heauen, O Lucifer, sonne of the morning? how art thou cut downe to the ground, which didst weaken the nations?

As you can see, Lucifer refers to Satan and the verse speaks of his being cast out of heaven. The NIV reads as follows:

How you have fallen from heaven, O morning star, son of the dawn! You have been cast down to the earth, you who once laid low the nations!

And the ESV reads:

“How you are fallen from heaven, O Day Star, son of Dawn! How you are cut down to the ground, you who laid the nations low!

Now let us look at another verse.

Revelation 22:16

KJV 1611

I Iesus haue sent mine Angel, to testifie vnto you these things in the Churches. I am the roote and the offspring of Dauid, and the bright and morning starre.

The NIV:

“I, Jesus, have sent my angel to give you this testimony for the churches. I am the Root and the Offspring of David, and the bright Morning Star.”

And the ESV:

“I, Jesus, have sent my angel to testify to you about these things for the churches. I am the root and the descendant of David, the bright morning star.”

So, as you can see the NIV refers to LUCIFER in the same way in Isaiah 14:12 as it does Jesus in Revelation 22:16. Right? No! That is not correct. The NIV uses the term “morning star, son of the dawn” in Isaiah 14:12, while it uses “the bright Morning Star” in Revelation 22:16. So, there is a clear distinction between the two. The NIV is in no way trying to suggest that Jesus and Satan are the same person. And the ESV and other modern versions are even clearer with their choice of wording. So, why not just use Lucifer? Well, the translators of the modern versions are trying to be accurate to the original language. As you know the Old Testament was not given in English but in Hebrew. In the Hebrew Satan is being referred to as the morning star, or the day star. Either one fits because of the flexibility in the language. But the text literally says “morning star” or “day star.” This was confirmed by the translators of the KJV 1611 by the margin note in which they give the literal translation of “O day-starre.” So, we have proof that the modern versions are correct in their translation. But why did the KJV translators use “Lucifer?” Well, as you may know, Lucifer is a Latin word with a meaning which refers to “something that bears light.” Jerome chose to use the word “Lucifer” to translate the “day star” in Isaiah 14:12. Since there was no English Bible produced for centuries after that, the word “Lucifer” became synonymous with Satan. Then along comes the first English versions, and when they came to this verse they decided that there was no reason to change the word, because everyone already knows who Lucifer is. Good idea, right? Well, it wasn’t a bad one, but now people are not aware that the text actually says “morning star,” and they think that Lucifer was a name given by God. In reality, they only know a transliteration of a translation. So, by using the actual words “morning star” or “day star” the modern versions are more accurate. The point of this is that many of those who teach KJV-Onlyism use false, underhanded methods to prove their points. In this case, it is pure deception.

Myth 2

The second myth deals with the use of the word Calvary. The myth is: “Calvary is the name of the place Jesus was crucified. However some modern versions are trying to change the word Calvary.” Is that true? Well, lets look at the following verses:

Matthew 27:33 And when they were come vnto a place called Golgotha, that is to say, a place of a skull,

Mark 15:22 And they bring him vnto the place Golgotha, which is, being interpreted, the place of a skull.

John 19:17 And he bearing his crosse, went foorth into a place called the place of a skull, which is called in the Hebrewe, Golgotha:

It is very important to note here that in each of the above accounts the writer uses the word “Golgotha,” and in John we see specifically that this is a Hebrew word. Also, each of these accounts explain to us that the word Golgotha means “the place of a skull.” Now let’s look at Luke 23:33

And when they were come to the place which is called Caluarie, there they crucified him, and the malefactors, one on the right hand, and the other on the left.

Here the King James translators used the word “Calvary,” and there is no explanation of what the word means. Why was the word “Golgotha” used in the other three accounts but “Calvary” in this one? Well, this is basically a case of familiarity, just as was with the “Lucifer” case. You see, the Greek text in Luke uses the word “kranion,” in this verse, but did not mention the Hebrew word “Golgotha.” The word “kranion” is the word from which we get the word “cranium” and it means “the skull.” The other verses mentioned use the word “kranion” to explain what “Golgotha” refers to. Now let us look and see how the modern versions translate the word “kranion.”

NIV

When they came to the place called the Skull, there they crucified him, along with the criminals–one on his right, the other on his left.

HCSB

When they arrived at the place called The Skull, they crucified Him there, along with the criminals, one on the right and one on the left.

ESV

And when they came to the place that is called The Skull, there they crucified him, and the criminals, one on his right and one on his left.

So it is clear that each of these versions are true to the text, while only the KJV uses a word not found in the text. What does the word “Calvary” mean? Well, it happens to be Latin. Yeah, just like “Lucifer” was Latin, so is “Calvary.” Jerome, while translating the Latin Vulgate came across the word “kranion” and picked the Latin word “Calvary,” which means “the skull,” and since the Bible which was used for hundreds of years was based on Jerome, the word “Calvary” became common knowledge, and everyone knew it to be the place where Jesus died. So along comes the early English translations, and they must determine how to translate the word “kranion.” Since everyone knows the place where Jesus was crucified as “Calvary” they chose to stick with it. Instead of a translation, we once again have a transliteration of a translation. Why does this matter? It only matters because some KJV-Only advocates make a big deal about the versions which use the correct translation of the word “kranion.” I have heard preachers speaking of this matter, and they argue that it is totally foolish for the new translations to use the term “the Skull,” and speak of how stupid it would be to sing the song “At Calvary” as “At the Skull.” Well, if that is the best they’ve got, then they’ve got nothing. That is the most ridiculous argument I have ever heard. Because of the familiarity of a song, we should sacrifice accuracy in the Word of God? I don’t think so. I would rather know what the text actually says, than what Jerome wanted it to say. Give me a break!!! These two myths are even more hypocritical because KJV-Only advocates are using Jerome’s Latin translation to support the KJV translation. Yet, if you know anything about the argument, you will know that they consider Jerome an infidel, and consider his translations to be corrupt. This is a big part of why they reject the modern versions. When it supports their position he is okay, but when it is contrary to their position he isn’t. Dudes, you can’t have it both ways, either Jerome’s work is good, or it is bad. And when the KJV is more literal it is right, but when the modern version is more literal, then the KJV is still right? No!!! Either it should be as literal as possible, or not. Or, you have to admit that translators actually have some flexibility in translating the Word of God. Oh wait, that would mean that the KJV is not the only Word of God in English. Ahh, you’ll never admit that. These are just two more examples of how ridiculous the KJV-Only arguments are, and shows how far they will go, and how deceptive they will be to prove their points. Anyway, thanks for reading.