The NIV Does Not Call Jesus Satan – Isaiah 14:12 & Revelation 22:16

Helped by this? Tell a Friend! ---->

I have heard this accusation for the third time this week and I want the truth to be put out there clearly and concisely so that if people google this subject hopefully they don’t find all the misinformation out there but get the truth. Here is how this argument against the NIV usually goes. The claim is laid that the NIV is corrupt and deliberately misleads people into believing that the Savior is actually Satan. They attempt to work that out with two verses (Isaiah 14:12 and Revelation 22:16). Here are the verses:

“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!”
– Isaiah 14:12

“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.” – Revelation 22:16

No appearance of a problem until you look at Isaiah 14:12 in the King James Version – “12How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!”

That is the basis of the charge…that the NIV deliberately replaced Lucifer with “morning star” the same word used for Jesus in Revelation 22. That appears to be problematic on the surface but let’s dig a little deeper.

The word translated Lucifer by the KJV and “Morning Star” by the NIV is the word הֵילֵל (heilel). That word literally means “shining one” as the verb form means “to shine.” It is not a word that means Satan or the devil in Hebrew as a proper name. So two questions arise:

  1. Why does the KJV use “Lucifer” and not “shining one”?
  2. Why does the NIV use “morning star” and not “shining one”?

1 – Why does the KJV use “Lucifer” and not “shining one”? Lucifer is how the Latin Vulgate translated this word, which the KJV adopted. Lucifer in Latin is a combination of two words Lux = light and ferous = “to bear” or “to carry” which would make Lucifer = bearer of light in Latin. That was a valid translation in the Vulgate. The problem is the KJV didn’t translate it into English. They kept the Latin Lucifer instead. The problem is 99.9% of people don’t know that any more and only think of it as a proper name referring to the Devil or Satan.

So the first point to make is that the verse is not about Lucifer but is about a “light bearer.” Who is that light bearer? Let’s have a look at Isaiah 14 in context…that is always a good idea right? When we do this, we see exactly who Isaiah 14:12 is referring to and it is not Jesus or the Devil. Look back at Isa 13:1 – “An oracle concerning Babylon that Isaiah son of Amoz saw.” (NIV). Isaiah 13 speaks of the destruction of Babylon (see especially 13:19). Chapter 14 continues this message. 14:1-3 is about the return from exile back to Israel. Then notice 14:4 (just 8 verses before the verse in question) – “You will take up this taunt against the king of Babylon:” The taunt seems to go from 14:4b-8. Then 14:9 talks about the grave meeting them at their coming. Meeting who? The same people the taunt was against – Babylon. It is a curse referring back to the object of their taunt…not Jesus or Satan but the King of Babylon. Then 14:11-23 is more about Babylon – “your pomp has been brought down, maggots are spread out beneath you, worms cover you….how you have fallen from heaven shining one, son of the dawn.” Also, notice verse 16-17 – ”

Those who see you stare at you,
they ponder your fate:
“Is this the man who shook the earth
and made kingdoms tremble,

17 the man who made the world a desert,
who overthrew its cities
and would not let his captives go home?”

In context you see this is about a man and not Satan. It is about what the rest of the chapter is about – the king of Babylon.

2 – Why does the NIV use “morning star” instead of “shining one”?
This is best understood by the rest of the verse Isaiah calls him “son of the dawn.” It is a parallel to a star that rises high and bright in the sky at morning but then disappears quickly (like the planet Venus). There was an ancient myth in the Babylonian literature that Heylel the morning star Venus scaled to great heights to make himself like a king in the heavens but was quickly driven back down. That is what the king of Babylon will be like…one who rises to great heights and then is toppled from his high position. In other words, the NIV makes the connection that would have been made by Isaiah’s hearers and people in Babylon…those who knew the myth about now its new found application by God toward the king of Babylon. The NIV translators recognized this parallel and made us of it as in the Babylonian mind the “shining one” was the “morning star Venus.” Was that the best move? Probably not if you are going for a literal translation. But if you are trying to read and hear the Bible as they heard it, it is actually a pretty good take on this verse. It is a little too much interpretation in the text for me.

Bottom line, I wish the KJV had actually translated this rather than borrowed from the Latin. I wish the NIV had left interpretation for the footnotes and not taken so much liberty with the text. But at the end of the day it can hardly be said that the NIV was propogating a view that Jesus and Satan are the same based on this text. Instead, when you look at the evidence it appears to be more the case that the NIV was taking history, cultural context, linguistics and much else into consideration to give their best shot at this verse to end up with “morning star” and not some grand conspiracy by wicked and careless translators.

For more information on this as well as more details and a thoughtful analysis, see this link as well.

73 Responses

  1. Thanks for this…it is pretty concise and is put clearly. I know I have my own bones to pick with the KJV for not translating some things literally. I wonder if these particular passages will be addressed in the new version of the NIV.

    1. I can’t help but comment that the topic of the sources manuscript and manuscripts the NIV and KJV used to translate there versions are night and day or I’ll say are completely different. That is paramount to this article. Second, what about the issue that around the 2nd century BC that
      when the Jewish people of the Hebrew finally were able to read their Holy Word of our Father God was written in Koina Greek (Not the dead language of Hebrew–at the time) that it was first translated into. This is also relevant to scouse manuscript. As well as is third issue. To infer that the NIV used “morning star” because of the relation to the Babylonian myth is all but screaming the NIV is majorly interpreted/translated by the unpopular practice of “eisegesis” lense viewing of manuscript. Even more so the heinous actual practice of exegesis in use when translating a Bible version. Of course I text this as I looked up those verses and the additional two your article left out (in the NT of Jesus Christ being referred to as the “morning star” in I Peter 1:19 and Rev. 2:28) from very own NIV Study Application Bible. Yes, a KJV only person went all out on that purchase.You did open my mind for further debate (you all but won the argument) of whom Isaiah 14:12 has meant all this time. And when you commit the even just as heinous crime of exegesis of translating but the crime of reading a verse “out of context” you listen to an ill informed preacher and believe the verse read out of context. A crime against humanity! Reading anything out of context of course mostly God’s Word. But, to the people as yourself who put themselves out here for us wolves to read and devour people doing our due diligence want to learn the meaning of God’s breathed Word…Not only Matthew Henry’s commentary on Scripture or like matters and topics should be read. God Bless.

  2. Well said Matt.

    Brianna — do you consider the NIV to be a more literal translation than the KJV?

    My biggest problem with the NIV is that it has influenced so many to believe that children are born sinners and that we all have some type of “sinful nature.”

    I wish I could ask the NIV translators whether or not they believe we were born with the same type of physical body as was Jesus?

    1. Does that mean that they would consider Jesus to have had the same “sinful nature” as they ascribe to us?

      Just curious….

    2. I’m sorry. I just respond in such length to a 2009 article you wrote about NIV vs. NIV controversy of word of mouth of the Morning Star and Lucifer debate in the NIV Bibles. I also forgot to address the subject line in my email so that made things wires even before I realized how old your article was. Sorry and thank you. Your,
      Sister-in-Christ Jesus!

  3. I preach/teach from the TNIV (that is the new NIV) and actually think it is a better translation than the old NIV. Since I can work in the original languages (more so Greek than Hebrew), the TNIV is not without some questions but no translation of the Bible is question free. In my opinion, the TNIV is right there with the NRSV (my favorite but few in the church pews read this version). The ESV is also a good recent translation.

    Any ways…thanks for pointing out the folly people make by claiming the NIV identifies Jesus as Satan. I have ran across people who believed this rediculous notion as well. However, in my experience, most of those people were not interested in what the evidence had to say about the subject. And why not? If they did not have an issue like this to talk about they probably would have no meaningful biblical issue to discusss. And somehow, when they pour all their energy into trying to convince people that the NIV is evil, Satan is getting a good laugh on because he has sucessfully distracted them from the real kingdom issues.

    Grace and peace,


    1. Hi Rex,

      Since you preach and teach from the TNIV, I would like to hear (read) what you have to say about the decision of the NIV and TNIV to translate sarx as “sinful nature.” Personally, I mostly use the ESV today although I do keep a KJV close by since that is what I used in school and used for all my memory work back then. Having said that, I have no problem with those who prefer the NIV (or TNIV)…only a couple of questions. Here they are:

      Assuming the NIV and TNIV translators believe that we were all born with the same type of physical bodies as was Jesus, does that mean that they would consider Jesus to have had the same “sinful nature” as they ascribe to us? (I realize you were not one of the translators but since you can work in the original languages and use the TNIV, I am curious to get your thoughts).

      1. How do you think they might answer that?
      2. What are your thoughts regarding the phrase “sinful nature”?
      3. If Jesus had the same type of physical body as you and I have, do you believe he had a “sinful nature”?

      Do you follow my thinking here?


    2. Hank,

      I would prefer the word *sarx* to be translated as “flesh” just because I am aware of what some Christians mean by “sinful nature”. While I think your question makes a valid point, I do know that no textbook definition can be inserted to a word everytime it is used. Instead, the context must dictate the meaning. Thus when *sarx* is used in reference to humanity, it often refers to that essence of us which is corrupt, fallen, cursed, and dead and therefore I think “sinful nature” can be an acceptable way of interpreting and thus translating *sarx* so long as that rendering 1) is not assumed to mean an inherrited sin passed on to us in conception and 2) that rendering is not transposed on to *sarx* when it refers to Jesus (which no serious translator, regardless of theological persuasion, would do). Instead, when *sarx* is used in referance to God/Jesus (i.e., John 1.14) rather than it implying Jesus is a sinner it is implying that God became that which is corrupt, fallen, cursed, and dead (without sinning). And of course, we know God became this “flesh” in order to redeem us in the flesh and through the flesh.

      As far as translations go, I don’t keep a running tab on specific verses which I think are mistranslated (and just because I work out of the original languages, I am far from a scholar in Hebrew or Greek). I do know that over the course of my preaching in the last six years, I have found occasions where I disagreed with every major committee English translation (KJV/NKJV; ASV/NASV; RSV/NRSV; NIV/TNIV; ESV; NLT). My encouragement to Christians is to have read from several different translations. Pick one to be your standard translation which reads easy (I tend to think the easiest read are the NIV/TNIV and NLT) and will be the one you make notes in, etc… But as you prepare for a Bible study, read that particular passage from your other translations as well. The main thing I try to impress upon people is that anyone of the above mentioned translations acurately conveys the core story of God’s redemptive gospel. That is to say, I can pick up any one of those translations and learn who I am, where I came from, why life is the way it is, what has and is being done about life by God, where the course of history is headed, and thus how to be a faithful disciple of Jesus Christ living in wait for his return.

      I hope that helps explain how I feel about the translation of the word *sarx* as well as my approach to Bible translations.

      Grace and peace,


    3. You can rationalize it all you want, the bottom line is that in he NIV it refers to the morningstar as Jesus in one place, satan in another. What’s the secret? The NIV board is a pretty liberal board, didn’t they recently change the text to ” MALE shrine prostitutes”? Sorry, but on this one, I think you are off. The contradiction and inconsistencies are clear in the NIV.

  4. Rex,

    Thanks for your thoughts here. You make a very good point regarding the fact that one “textbook definition” cannot always be correctly applied to a single Greek word in every situation and still convey the true idea of what the original writer had in mind.
    And thanks for knowing that I was/am not trying to put you on the spot here — just want another’s perspective.

    I was glad to see you say that we have no inherrietd sin.

    My I ask a few more questions (and I would be curious to hear others respond as well).

    1. Do you believe that Adam and Eve hd a “sinful nature”
    2. If they did not, but Cain and Able did…were Cain and Able still made in the image of God?
    3. If the body of Jesus was not corrupt, fallen, etc., and ours are, is it harder for us to risist temptation than it was for him (did he have an advantage that way).
    4. Although he was sinless, would the physical body of Jesus have grown old and died?
    5. In what way (if at all), do you believe that the physical body of Jesus was different than ours today?

    Please know that I am in no way trying to argue or “pick a fight,” I simply am curious to how others feel about these questions?

    Thanks brother,


  5. Hank,

    Not a problem. I don’t mind trying to answer these questions but some of them I am less certain of than others.

    I believe that all people are born in the image of God, both Adam and Eve as well as Cain and Able and every other human-being. In Genesis 1.26-27, besides God saying that he has created humanity “in his image”, he also describes this creation as bearing his “likeness” (v. 26). The same Hebrew word for “likeness” is used again in Genesis 5.1 to describe how God is still creating humanity. Does this refer to a singular event or to God’s continued act of creating? That would make for a great term paper. I lean to the former but my reasons would take up too much space.


    As for Jesus… When God becamse “flesh” (John 1.14-17) as the Son, Jesus of Nazareth, I believe it was a corruptible, fallen flesh that God became. Not because in Jesus, God had sinned but because it was the same human flesh that had been corrupted by sin from the fall. That is to say, it was as succeptable to death and decay as our own flesh because it was the same flesh we are. We know that it was succeptable to death because Jesus, that is God in the flesh, did die (and then was raised from death). We also know that the life Jesus lived was one that needed to develop in terms of maturity (Lk 2.51). Also in 1 Corinthians 15, Jesus Christ is described as the “firstfruits” regarding his resurrected body which is no longer succeptable to the corrupt and fallen condition that made it vulnerable to death. Paul’s argument there is not about what the pre-resurrection body was about but rather that the body will be raised incorruptable and immperishable, for which Jesus is the firstfruits of that resurrection. However, for the resurrection body to be imperishable, the ‘death’ body is by nature perishable (which Paul acknowledges (vv. 42-44).

    The botton line is that in the Gospel of John, the Apostle tells us that God became flesh…not lived within flesh or appeared like flesh but BECAME flesh. And John chooses the strongest word, *sarx*, to tell us that God became a human (as opposed to the softer term *anthropos*). Thus, without sinning, everything we experience as flesh, God did so as well (temptation and death). The good news about that is that as we experience suffering, God knows what it is to suffer as a human too. From a Trinitarian viewpoint, God the Father knows what it is to have a Son die, God the Son knows what it is too experience death (the outcome of evil), and God the Spirit knows what it is then to grieve that which was never intended for God’s creation.

    I hope that helps.

    Grace and peace,


  6. Thanks for your thoughts Rex, I appreciate you taking the time to share them.

    I pray that those who believe that we have a “sinful nature” (as though we are born with some inherrited sin), will consider what you have written as well as think about the fact that Jesus was born with the same physical body as you and I were. He had the same lust of the flesh as any other man — yet never sinned!

    God is so Good.

    Thanks bro.

  7. Hank,

    It just dawned on me but there does seem to some incoherency in the original sin claim that we are all born sinners and God become flesh in the Son, Jesus. If we are born sinners then it would seem Jesus, if God has truly became the same flesh that we are, would be born a sinner. Of course, I do not know one Christian, regardless of their belief regarding original sin, who would want to claim Jesus was born with original sin.

    I don’t know how a Calvinist/Reformed theologian would respond to this. I am sure they have a reasonable explination that would keep a sinless Jesus in tact.

    Grace and peace,


  8. I have heard a Reformed preacher address this question about why Jesus did not have a sinful nature although he was born fully human. It was a complicated answer that seemed to make inferences from Scripture where there did not seem to be any implications to support the inferences. But his main points were:
    1. Jesus did not have a human father.
    2. The sinful nature is passed down from father to children. Mothers cannot pass down the sinful nature.
    3. Therefore Jesus did not have a sinful nature. He could not inherit the guilt of Adam’s sin since he was born of a virgin.
    Obviously, Jesus did not have a human father, and he did not inherit Adam’s sin. However, I have seen nothing from the Bible to support his second point. I do not remember how he arrived at the second point (and his reasoning was highly suspect and speculative, as I remember thinking when I heard it), but that’s basically how one preacher explained it.

  9. Terry,

    Thanks for sharing what you heard. Like you, I am quite uncertain about conclusion #2 as well as the sort of exegesis and theological method it would take to arrive at it. I highly suspect that this conclusion is an example of how one questionable theological conclusion has forced a subsequent theological conclusion in order to maintain the previous conclusion.

    Grace and peace,


    1. Plus, if we were all born with some “inherrited sin” of previous generations and thus have some sort of “sinful nature” and yet Jesus was born innocent and without said “sinful nature”…….then he surely had an advantage when it came to avoiding sin.

      Seems to me that EITHER:

      1. Jesus had a “sinful nature”


      2. We do not have a “sinful nature”


      3. Jesus was born with a different physical body (having a different nature) than we were.

      Is that a valid conclusion?

    1. Hank,

      Maybe this quote from N.T. Wright’s Romans commentary in the New Interpreter’s Bible Commentary will be helpful in understanding Paul’s conception of sarx and why the NIV translated it the way they did:

      “When we were in the flesh”: this striking formulation tells us once and for all that “flesh” for Paul does not mean simply the physical substance of which humans are made. “The flesh” denotes physicality seen on the one hand as corruptible and on the other as rebellious; it is another way of saying “in Adam,” of demarcating that humanity that is characterized by sin and consequently by death. to be “in the flesh” for Paul is to be determined by “flesh” in this sense, i.e., to live under the domain of sin and death, and thus to be in the condition marked by the first half of the various antitheses both of 5:12-21 and of 6:16-23. It does not mean, in our sense “to be physical,” in some Platonic divide between the material and the non-material (see 1 Cor 15:50: “flesh and blood” cannot inherit the kingdom of God-but the resurrected or transformed body can and will; cf. Phil 3:21). It is clear from 8:9 that Christians, even while living ordinary human lives and facing ordinary human suffering and death, are, in Paul’s terminology, “not in the flesh, but in the Spirit.”

      Hope that makes sense. It seems where we are getting caught up in is saying if you have a body then you have flesh and Paul is talking about flesh which we have and which Jesus has. But it seems that is why the NIV nuanced sarx to “sinful nature” because that misses part of Paul’s theology and would then render inconsistencies with what Paul is saying the passages Wright sites. I would love to hear your thoughts/feedback on this idea.

    2. My whole point is that scores and scores of Christians believe that we not only have a “sinful nature” but that that said nature comes to us in conjunction with some sort of inherrited sin (in spite of Eze. 18:20).

      For example, in the NIV translation of Eph. 2:3, Paul wrote — All of us also lived among them at one time, gratifying the cravings of our sinful nature and following its desires and thoughts….

      And who would contend that Jesus ever had to battle and resist the desires and thoughts (and cravings) of his own “sinful nature.” Surely, he had desires of the flesh — exactly as we all do today (Heb. 4:15) but such desires never stemmed from any sort of sinful and/or corrupted nature.

      If we have to go through life with a corrupt and sinful nature and our Lord did not…then he surely had an advantage in regards to avoiding sin. And Heb 4:15 would make less sense.

      If the Lord had no such nature — than neither do we.

    3. I get what you are saying there. I don’t think we are born sinners. I am not sure what I think about the concept of a “fallen world” but certainly Jesus had to have the same body we have. What is the difference between us and Jesus? He never sinned. We do. However, notice that Paul says in Romans 7:5 (I should have noted that is the verse N.T. Wright was commenting on…that would have helped if I had mentioned that!) Paul writes, “When we were in the sarx”…that implies there is a time we are not “in the sarx” and I think that is when we live for God. In other words sarx has more meaning than simply a physical body because Paul is talking to people who have a physical body but implies it is possible for them to not be “in the sarx”

      Wright points out that for Paul to be “in the sarx” does not mean to have a physical body but to be following the desires of the flesh in a way that leads to death and destruction. In that sense, Jesus had a body but he did not live for his flesh nor was he “in the sarx” as Paul means in Romans 7″5 just as we are not either…when you read it that way you see that it still maintains Jesus having the same body as we have and our ability or capability of living as Jesus lived through God’s reconciling us to himself…once reconciled we live as Jesus lived – we have bodies but we are no longer “in the sarx” Does that make sense? I think that alleviates the apparent discrepancies we are trying to deal with here.

  10. It makes great sense. In the sense Paul used it there, Jesus was never “in the sarx.” And whenever we were/are, we cannot please God. There are certainly instances where “sarx” implies much more than “physical body.”

    And while Jesus was never “in the sarx” (as in Rom. 7:5), he nevertheless, experienced the SAME lusts/desires of the flesh as any other man has experienced (Heb. 4:15). Yet, he had no so-called “sinful nature.” He simply never gave in to his carnal desires when to do so would constitute sin. His lusts never conceived, giving birth to sin. Our’s have.

    Yet he had the same “nature” as we do. And it wasn’t a sinful one.

    1. So this solves the problem of the apparent contradiction. This leaves Jesus and us with the same body, same desires/temptations. So the difference is not in the flesh it is in the results of what we do with the desires of the flesh. Mankind has indulged in that and when we do, as you say, we are in the “sinful nature”/sarx. Jesus never indulged and so he had flesh but not the sinful nature aspect of the flesh because his desires never gave birth to sin which would result in death.

      So if you go back to your three possible conclusions they kind of get blown apart because the whole game has changed when it is looked at in the context of Paul’s broader theology and understanding of sarx as more than just the presence of flesh.

      Seems to me that EITHER:

      1. Jesus had a “sinful nature”


      2. We do not have a “sinful nature”

      With this understanding of Paul’s use of sarx we see that Jesus did not have a sinful nature and that we also don’t have to either if we will live in relationship with God and yet each and everyone of us has at some point exhibited this aspect of sarx in our lives where Jesus did not.


      3. Jesus was born with a different physical body (having a different nature) than we were.

      This alleviates this concern altogether.

  11. I read the following online:

    “I don’t kncow that a person who is new to the scriptures or new in the faith would understand what it means to “not live according to the sinful nature.” I do not think they would understand what is meant by “no longer following our sinful nature.” While attempting to help to explain the “flesh”, I simply question if “sinful nature” is any improvement.

    When the apostle Paul speaks about “not living according to the flesh,” I believe he means that we not to obey the impulses, lusts, and desires that come from our minds and bodies. We are to fight those desires and live according to the Spirit. My suggestion then would be that we discard “sinful nature” as the explanatory term for the “flesh.” Why not use “fleshly desires” or “bodily lusts?” Would this more accurately represent the meaning of the term “flesh” while still making it easier for those new to the scriptures to understand?”

    I agree with the above because I although I could say that Jesus never lived according to his “fleshly desires” and/or his “bodily lusts”……I could not say that Jesus never lived according to his “sinful nature.” Because although he had the former, he did not have the latter.

    In fact, I believe that most people who use the term “sinful nature” also believe that that nature came to us as a result of the sins of Adam. As if Adam and Eve were created without having any sinful nature at all but that because (and after) he sinned, his children were born with a sinful nature.

    Adam and Eve were crated with certain “fleshly lusts” and/or “bodily desires”…..but would you say they were created with a “sinful nature”?

    How you answer that will tell a lot (I think).

    1. It is a good question if it is an improvement. Here is the problem in my mind. If you leave it “not living according to the flesh” wouldn’t that be problematic to some people since Jesus had flesh? Would it seem to some to make the problem worse…that anyone who has flesh is automatically born in sin?

    2. I think “not living according to the desires of our flesh” would be far better than “not living according to our sinful nature” because it would remove all of the problems regarding Adam and Jesus.

      In other words, we all agree that Adam and even Jesus had to deal with the “desires of their flesh” but I doubt any of us would feel comfortable saying that Adam and Jesus had to deal with “their sinful nature.”

      What think ye?

    1. To me, it just seems as though anything “sinful” would be against the will of God and wrong. Isn’t that the very definition of sin? When God created Adam, it was very good and there was nothing sinful about him. Sure, he had to contend with the impulses, lusts, and desires that came from his mind and body since God made him with such appetites….but such appetites were not sinful.

      At the same time, Jesus himelf had to battle against the VERY SAME impulses, lusts, and desires once he became human….but Jesus didn’t ever have anything sinful.

      And the same simply must be true with every other human baby born as well. They are all born perfectly innocent and pure with nothing “sinful” about them. Just as it was with Adam and Jesus.



    HE DID NOT NEED TO OVERCOME SIN HE WAS SINLESS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


    1 JOHN

  13. 1Cor

    15:21 For since by man [came] death, by man [came] also the resurrection of the dead.

    15:22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.

    God Speed dear sir, to Christ and truth.

    PS v21 disproves evolution right there.

    Good day!

    1. Hi, sorry to revamp an old discussion, but recently i ran into this subject when a man in his confusion was trying to sway new believers with the morning star subject, including 2nd peter ch.1 vs. 19, I just wanted to say Iam no scholar, but I think as servants of god and jesus we are compelled to spread the gospel to reach as many as we can without confusing it. My excitement grew as I saw a defence of the NIV so i could have both sides reasoning, but after reading your answer Hank I was more confused, it could easily still be said that the NIV is saying king of babylon and jesus are the same. I know thats not what you were saying, but it is confusing and fire for the unbeliever to corrupt. wich in my opinion takes away from our ability to serve by spreading the gospel clearly.
      thankyou for hearing me that is all

  14. Sorry to correct my last post i was speaking in reference to matt dabbs not hank, also I would like to add matt that if you have it in your power to discuss this issue with a NIV translater and you so feel compelled would you please discuss the matter with him..In hopes to resolve a better translation for the better of the gospel..


    1. I will see what I can find out. There are several who are living and accessible and one that I am personally acquainted with. I am assuming you are talking about their take on Sarx here and the translation as “sinful nature” rather than “flesh”. Right?

      If that is what you are referring to here, as it was what my offer above was concerned with, let me offer some information.

      Have a look at Romans 8:3 – “3For what the law was powerless to do in that it was weakened by the sinful nature (sarx), God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful man (sarx) to be a sin offering. And so he condemned sin in sinful man…”

      This literally read something like – “For the inability of the law, in that is was weakened through the flesh (sarx), God sent his own son in the likeness of sinful (hamartia) flesh (sarx) and concerning sin, condemned sin in the flesh (sarx).

      The NIV is juggling several things at once here in order to find balance. A couple of things to balance:
      1 – Paul believes Jesus really did come in the flesh
      2 – Paul believes Jesus never sinned (so he came in the flesh, like that of mankind who sin, yet had never sinned).
      3 – “likeness” here must refer to the fact that Jesus didn’t sin and yet had the exact same flesh and blood as any other man. Paul was not a docetist. Paul will not say Jesus came in sin but yes, he did come in the flesh. It is like Jesus came in the same way that Adam was and any of the rest of us were before we sinned.

      Is that helpful at all?

  15. Years later, and the topic is still relevant and applicable. I for one believe in original sin, for any who claim that all humans were born sinless on the premise that our Christ Jesus was born “sinless”, then I must contest you. Yes Jesus was born 100% human, and not a transient demi-godlike deity (ironically though isn’t that what he turned out to be?), but why are you forgetting how his conception came to pass? Were any of us conceived immaculately on the missive of the Father in heaven? Sired by an angel? No. Christ Jesus was born just like any other human being, yet he was the very definition of a perfect being, he transcended all of us, he was “sinless” his will was one and the same as the Fathers’

    Luke 22:42
    “Father, if it be Thy will, take this cup away from me; yet not my will but Thine be done!”

    I daresay that if Jesus was born just like us, (where the argument being that we’re born like Jesus not the other way around) actually, I’m sorry. Yes Jesus was born just like us, but that’s exactly my point is that he wasn’t created like us. His conception was a purity to our iniquity as the east is to the west. “conceived in iniquity and born in(to) sin”. Our very origins are a slight. Only in sin were you conceived. I accept all challenges.

    **Edit – This is blind venture, but I’m contesting the existence of sex before the fall. Like I said, I’m not sure, not with conviction do I propose, but I believe it plausible.

  16. Whatever the case, I believe the NIV is corrupt. If you think you are right with your backing of the NIV what about the other verses that were altered? Am not judging you for your observation but am having doubts whether to believe your judgement all not, because instead of picking out all the verses that were alterd you have just picked out a few and claim it’s a translation problem? No sir!! Tell me otherwise, but remember that God will not let His children be deceived and fed lies. To those who are doing this remember the wrath of God will not spare you!!!

    1. Koe…tell me which other verses you think are corrupted by the NIV, NIV translators/committees, etc and we will discuss them. If you do a little more digging on this blog you will see that I haven’t just picked out a few. See these

      Any other verses you want to discuss I would be glad to but before we do I would like for you to read both of those posts and be familiar with the concepts that are outlined there. Looking forward to the discussion. God bless

  17. The New International Version is a Satanic, Alexandrian counterfeit. It is not the Bible. Can someone be saved if they read the NIV and believe in the Lord Jesus Christ alone? YES. But they cannot properly grow as a Christian into maturity, and, the NIV was put forth by Catholics and a FAGGOT LESBIAN FEMINIST Antichrist named VIRGINIA MOLLENCOT:

    “Virginia Ramey Mollenkott spent her 44 year professional career teaching college level English literature and language, but developed specializations in feminist theology and lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender theology during the second half of that career.”

    That fact alone ruins the entire thing.

    Why not use God’s Authorized Version: The 1611 AD KING JAMES BIBLE: God’s preserved Words in the English Language.

    The underlined portions are missing in the NIV. In Matthew 27:35, the KJB says:

    And they crucified him, and parted his garments, casting lots: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, THEY PARTED MY GARMENTS AMONG THEM, AND UPON MY VESTURE DID THEY CAST LOTS.

    The above is from:


    Also look at this glaring ATTACK against the LORD JESUS:

    Many of the changes in the NIV, including some that we have already looked at, affect doctrine. For example, the deity of Christ (the fact that Jesus Christ is God) is attacked in a number of places. One example is 1 Timothy 3:16. The KJB says:

    And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

    The NIV has changed “God” to “He”. This is a big difference. In this verse, the KJB clearly states that Jesus Christ is God, and in the NIV it does not.

    The NIV says “he” instead of GOD. That is an evil sin.

    KJB all the way!

    1. You wrote, “the NIV was put forth by Catholics and a FAGGOT LESBIAN FEMINIST Antichrist named VIRGINIA MOLLENCOT:”

      It seems you don’t understand translation, or the methods used to translate the NIV used. The NIV was translated by committee not by one person. Every word and verse went through extensive review by people of a multitude of Christian backgrounds (Catholic, Baptist, Methodist, Church of Christ, etc). So to say your description of the NIV translation falls short is an understatement. From what I can tell Mollencot didn’t actually do any translation at all.

      Additionally, do you believe a Bible translation must have sinless translators to be accurate? What do you do with the sins of the KJV translators? How can you say both that the NIV is not the Bible but that yes people can be saved through studying it? That doesn’t make sense? It seems like you know it contains some sort of truth about God. How is that even possible given all your assertions?

      You wrote, “Why not use God’s Authorized Version: The 1611 AD KING JAMES BIBLE: God’s preserved Words in the English Language.”

      I am fine with the AV but realize that there is no perfect translation. Even the KJV translators recognized that. Read the intro to the original 1611 KJV in the note to the readers. It is a good read. The KJV has it’s own issues and has been revised numerous times to improve it.

      Last, you say that there are glaring attacks against Jesus and his deity in the NIV and then you give an extremely weak example. If that is the best case you can make you really don’t have anything to stand on. The NIV is very, very explicitly clear about the deity of Christ in dozens of verses. If there was a plot to un-deify Jesus why didn’t they change those verses as well? If you are going to say there are glaring attacks please point some out but that example doesn’t cut it.

      I am glad to discuss this further if you like. I hope my reply makes sense. God bless in your study.

  18. i would like to point out that tha literal translation of lucifer is from the latin words lucem ferre and it means light berrer and morning or day star.

    perhapes i can only say this becouce im a peagan but i hope all of you can see that in revelations 22 16 jesus does SEEM to refer to himself as lucifer the morning star

    i am sorry if this offends any one

    may your own god(s) be with you alweys

  19. Matt, Isaiah 14 is speaking about the devil, and it is written in such a way that it cannot be talking about an ordinary man. Some of your logic that you used against this does not hold up under analysis. For example, considering your claim that the reference to “man” means that it cannot be a devil, please consider these two verses:

    Isa 14:16 KJV
    (16) They that see thee shall narrowly look upon thee, and consider thee, saying, Is this the man that made the earth to tremble, that did shake kingdoms;

    Act 2:22 KJV
    (22) Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know:

    I know people who will latch on to the word “man” in Acts and insist that this proves that Jesus could not possibly be God. If you can see the error there, perhaps you might see why applying the word “man” out of context in Isaiah 14:16 is flawed as well.

    In Isaiah 14, the Hebrew heylel is used in the sense of a proper name. Lucifer is an entirely appropriate translation for the following reasons:

    1) Most people already understand that the word is related to light
    2) Lucifer is a commonly recognized (and accepted) name for the devil, and this passage is speaking to the devil. This can be confirmed through the immediate text and comparison with other Old Testament passages.
    3) The symbolism behind the English word is significant as well, because a lucifer is something that is used to strike a light and start a blaze, is quickly burnt up and consumed, thrown to the ground and trodden underfoot, and leaves behind a slight scent of sulfurous smoke.

    “Morning star” is not an appropriate translation for the following reasons:

    1) If the author meant to say “morning star” or “morning stars” there are existing words in the Hebrew language already that we can find in the bible text, and they are entirely different than this sole occurrence of heylel.
    2) “Morning Star” is already used as a name and title of Christ multiple times within the New Testament, so it is unlikely that God would write this prophecy against his Own Name
    3) When the name of the devil is removed from the passage, it makes it harder for people to recognize other parallel prophecies as well.

    Would you be open to discussing this further so that I could answer questions without having to count blockquote tags for public posting? I would be willing to use email.

    1. I would be willing to talk more about this. This week I am swamped but I will see what I can do. Thanks for sharing your thoughts. I will consider them and respond. I am always open to being wrong on these kinds of things 🙂

    2. Andrew,

      I am not sure if you are aware of this or not but the LXX (ancient Greek translation of the Hebrew) translates Helel as Eosphoros which in Greek means “morning star.” I looked up this passage in several reputable commentaries and I can’t find anyone who supports the devil being the subject of these verses. The context doesn’t warrant it.

      So it looks like the NIV translators were taking the LXX into account here as well in the translation of Isaiah 14:12.

    3. I am hoping that you will talk to me by email where we can speak more freely. But in the meantime,

      – 1) Do you really consider the Septuagint to be an indicator of good translation? If so, which Septuagint should we use? There are different ones with different texts that in places do not agree with each other or the original Hebrew. I can show you a couple places that appear to be purposeful corruption… as in, when they didn’t understand the Old Testament, they didn’t mind editing it for their own purposes. I can provide a demonstration on request.

      – 2) Should we really be evaluating this passage on the basis of what popular commentaries decide for us, or should we be willing to look at it as it reads on the page and compare the relevant passages? Commentaries may be interesting at times, but they are fallible, and they are often wrong.

      – 3) Likewise, Wikipedia is not really the best way to examine this either. I can pick out a false statement already just in its introduction, at the 6th sentence (see 2 Peter 1:19). Also, I cannot see anything in this short entry that could actually be used to prove that the LXX was properly translating the Hebrew heylel as phosphorus, but even that does not properly address what would be the correct translation in English.

      The context of Isaiah 14 is about the devil, this is justified by the immediate and overall context, and I can show this very well (in spades) as soon as you are less swamped and can afford to look at this fully with me by email, assuming that the biblical text itself is allowed to have greater weight than alternative authorities such as the Greek Septuagint, popular commentaries, or Wikipedia entries.

      I would really prefer to wait until you have time to properly look into this, which will allow us to have proper dialogue and feedback. Is it possible that you would be able to reach me by email sometime next week?

    4. Related to the question of NIV translation of Isaiah 14:12, I was hoping that you could share your impression of a few alternative readings of other passages.

      First, considering that the literal meaning of Baal does mean Lord and Master do you feel that these two passages would be appropriate translations? Why or why not?

      1Kings 18:19 (Hypothetical modification of King James text)
      (19) Now therefore send, and gather to me all Israel unto mount Carmel, and the prophets of the Lord four hundred and fifty, and the prophets of the groves four hundred, which eat at Jezebel’s table.

      Acts 2:36 (Hypothetical modification of King James text)
      (36) Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Baal and Christ.

      Second, how do you feel about the New World Translation of John 1:1? Is it acceptable to say that the Word was “a god” (using the article “a” and lowercase for god?)

      John 1:1 (New World Translation from Jehovah’s Witness official web site)
      1 In [the] beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was
      a god.

      Third, what would be your impression of this version of 2 Peter 1:19?

      2Peter 1:19 (Hypothetical modification of the King James text)
      (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 Aphrodite arise in your hearts:

      When Isaiah used the word heylel he was invoking the association of a pagan deity, of a god that did not make the heavens and the earth (compare Jeremiah 10:11, 2 Corinthians 4:4). The Hebrew phrase for “morning star” is boker kokawb and it is used with the connotation of that which is good and divine (see Job 38:7), pertaining to the true God, not a false god.

      I would like to know what your impressions are of those “versions” I just put forth that substitute Lord with Baal, God with a god, and daystar with Aphrodite (Venus). This isn’t addressing the actual meaning and intended application of Isaiah 14 (and I am hoping that you will talk about this) but it is related.

    5. Besides the confusion between Christ and the Devil (as Rowan pointed out) there is another marked difference in this translation as well:

      * The King James text (that I am using) describes the resurrection of the dead, at the last day, when “hell is moved to meet thee at thy coming” and the kings of the earth behold this fallen being.

      * The NIV reads like a ghost story with “spirits of the departed.” The meaning of the translation between the classic translations (of the Reformation) and the NIV (I am looking at the 1984 version here) are completely different.

      Which one fits the setting given in the first few verses? Israel has not yet been joined with strangers in their own land, and they are not ruling over their former oppressors. These are events that can only happen in the last day, in the resurrection. This is a prophetic passage, an important passage, and when it is dismissed as a ghost story or a colorful polemic, rather than a prophecy against the Prince of the Power of the Air who fell from heaven like lightning bringing down a third of the stars with his tail, it certainly loses its force as well as its meaning.

      I am well aware of why modern popular commentaries will not like the passage, because it prophecies the literal destruction of the devil, which is incompatible with some of their traditions, but far before Barnes and Clarke this passage was recognized as being applicable to the devil, by Tertullian, Origen, and from reading his writings, it seems that Justin Martyr would have interpreted this passage this way as well.

      I was hoping to be able to discuss this where there was room to write and to ask each other questions.

    6. Andrew Patrick, You are quite learned in the corruptions of the received text. I have recently come to living my life as Our Father has intended me to, and have been reading The Holy Bible. Noticing the differences, some you have mentioned above, in many versions I quickly became confused. Only through research and study have I realized what is really going on. Apparently the claim is the verses in question are found in the “oldest MS”. However, this is not actually the case. My research has shown me the Vatican text was a 15th century creation just in time for the reformation, and the Vatican could have been an Eusebius work with some additions at the time of “discovery”. The Sinai text was a 17th cent. creation intended as a gift for the czar of Russia by Constantine Simonides, and “corrected” over 1400 times by Tischendorf. These 2 texts that all modern bibles are based on only have appox. 9 agreeing texts, while the Rec. text has thousands. I did not know there were multiple versions of the LXX created, as you mention above. I am interested in learning more about that, and your understanding of the History of the corruptions. Studying the scriptures can be a lifelong endeavor, It would be paramount to be reading from the most accurate.

  20. How does a man fall from heaven, obviously this is referring to a fallen angel… Allah, or Satan or anything along those lines…

  21. I personally think, many if not most pretrib rapture “scoffers”, do not understand the finished work on the cross with Jesus.I think these scoffers are “saved” through the false gospel of Lordship Salvationism-WORKS.

    They usually think, “God-Jesus is Too GOOD TO BE TRUE.I must help his work on the cross to be worthy for my salvation”, (even though Jesus said “it is finished”), is the mind set of most pre-trib scoffers, I believe.

    Also, PRIDE is a huge component of thinking you must “persevere til the end”, through works of self righteousness.
    ONLY Jesus Is Righteous. We are made righteous Through Him.Not for Him.Our own righteousness is as “filthy rags” to God.

    I believe many of these scoffers have been deceived by “another Gospel” based on works.Just like ALL “religions” are based on works for “salvation”
    We who are saved through Jesus have a Relationship-not a religion..

    Paul reveals the pre-trib rapture for all those with “ears to hear and eyes to see”
    There are types of the rapture in the old testament and new.
    We saints Return with Jesus from heaven to earth at His second coming.
    The nature and Love of Jesus would not permit His Bride to suffer His wrath-the tribulation.Once again, works based “Christians” do not and cannot understand this love-yet.
    They Deny Jesus himself with scoffing and works.They DENY Jesus with scoffing and Works.
    Look up original middle English meanings of scoffer and bible references for deny.

    All pretrib scoffers, yes I said ALL, ALL means ALL-use and study from the satanically corrupted, GNOSTIC themed twisted, Alexandrian warped through Gnostiscism, Westcott and Hort perversions of the True Word of God the King James version.These lies from the devil include, the NIV, ASV, ESV, Amplified, NKJV, The message and many more.

    All these versions remove, omit or change the deity of Jesus and the man Jesus and the savior Jesus.
    ALL of them.All the way from the old testament to revelation. Replacing or inferring by the changing of the Word to the pointing of the coming Antichrist.The angel masquerading as light is the POINT of these “bibles”

    This Is Truth.

    Study to show thyself approved…..rightly DIVIDING THE WORD OF TRUTH, and compare the versions.Asking the Holy spirit to help, for the Holy Spirit Is truth.

    Most of the body of Christ doesn’t realize this.These versions are in effect-cursed.Rev 22:18-19

    All these versions are cursed because they point to the coming Gnostic god, The Kalki Avatar (THE MOVIE AVATAR), Sri Krsna, the Messiah, the Imam Mahdi, the Bodhisattva the Fifth Buddha, Maitreya Buddha, the World Teacher, THE ONE(IMPLIED IN 2 MOVIES, THE MATRIX AND THE ONE), THE CHRIST, ETC

    Here is the truth KJV:
    Isaiah 14:12
    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!

    The NIV twisting lie:
    Isaiah 14:12
    New International Version (NIV)
    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!

    (Hmm:… “son of the dawn”..where have I seen that LOGO before???…That symbol..hmm, that idea…Hmmm, that device..hmm, that graphic, that idea…..hmm.The rising sun…hmm(son?)DAWN??)

    It Is EVERYWHERE.If we have eyes to see.

    There are many hundreds and many hundreds of changes made to the Holy Spirit inspired, unchanging Word of God-KJV. [GOD WANTS HIS BODY AND BRIDE TO KNOW THESE THINGS.

    This is an Entire study in itself, but it will bring All saved Christians closer to God, through His Word.
    1 Pet. 2:11-12

    and finally,
    Most Christians do Not study the True Word-for themselves.Like a good Berean.They let other people tell them what “god says”
    Most cemetery’s oops I mean seminary’s are a part of this world system of deception and train their people in a lie.To spread a lie.

    This is why I think The Pre-Trib Rapture Is Hard To Believe for far too many “Christians”..They want To Be Left Behind.

    I hope this simple and short answer is a blessing to all who will receive it in Jesus name, Amen.

  22. Hello children of the one true living God, please pray that you will be accounted worthy to escape the hour of temptation that is going to come upon the entire world. And pray that you will also be accounted worthy to stand in the presence of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, the Son of God.

  23. Kokab is not found in Isaiah 14;12.The translators of the NIV knew this including Edwin H Palmer Executive Secretary for the NIV’s committee. Please refer to Revelation 22:18. Westcott, Lightfoot and Hort are facing the same consequence. 1 John 2:16 For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world.

  24. Rupert Murdoch’s printing press prints both the NIV and the Satanic bible and we know we are told Christ hath no concorde with Bilial…also 52 of the smartest people ever assembled took 7yrs to translate the KJV..just 1 guy spoke 14 languages…so you think that your ability to translate a word prior to contextual application can even remotely come close because you may know 2yrs worth of seminary Koine Greek…I can give at least 17 verses either completely missing or adulterated. If it’s 99% truth and 1% lie is it a truth or a lie…Ephesians 6..Put on your whole armor…we also know that it is no great thing that Lucifers workers shall appear as workers of good for even Lucifer himself can appear as an Angel of light…if the Holy spirit is truly with you and Christ is truly discipling you through the spirit than you will know the evil of false prophets like Joel Osteen and Benni Hin and T.D. Jakes….it is pure silliness to believe that GOD is out to reward his flock in the Monetary fashions these unrepentant false ministers promote…further if you are a saved child of GOD and you are distant from Christ come back…know your Lord and his commandments by reading and living the word..not waiting on Sunday to hear a preacher who may or may not have his own agenda..YOU MUST DEVELOP A PERSONAL RELATIONSHIP WITH JESUS…that way the word will dwell in you and you won’t be misled; because you will know the truth…study lies and they will only make more lies…study the truth and you will know when the lies come…Love JESUS and leave these lame ill informed false Christians alone….again …if you’re not helping to’re actually scattering…trust me friend your GREEK doesn’t come close to the men who translated the KJV…

    1. Chris, dontou mind if I quote your comment in a new post? I think you will find it helpful as will others. Thanks for commenting.

  25. Plus the NIV comes from Textus sinaiticus….And the KJV comes from Textus Receptus
    So I pose another question….do you think GOD would of let his people for hundreds of years have and generations of people just to magically say in the 1800’s you I’ll give them the good stuff….If you truly desire a relationship with JESUS which is what it should be about..make sure you know him and he knows you..the last thing anyone should want to hear from Christ is I never knew you…you worker of iniquity…make sure you know Jesus, he wants to know you

  26. This article is incorrect
    The Hebrew is “Helel, ben shachar” which is actually translated “lucifer, son of the morning”
    NIV and NASB give a translation as if it said “Shachar kobab, ben shachar” or morning star, son of the mornings(or dawn) yet the word for star “kobab” appears nowhere in the text. The word “Helel” appears nowhere else in the Old Testament just as “lucifer” appears nowhere else.This proves the NIV Bible rejects were purposely changing God’s word.

    1. Helel as Lucifer is from the Vulgate, not the Hebrew. That is a Latin translation. In Latin, Lucifer, also means “morning star” and is a word for the planet Venus. So the NIV is accurate here – Helel (Hebrew) = Lucifer (Latin) = morning star (English).

      It is an anachronism to read the Latin Vulgate, translated a long, long, long time ago of Lucifer and think of the devil. When they wrote lucifer they were literally saying “morning star” which is an accurate translation of the Hebrew. It wasn’t until later that Lucifer came to be associated with Satan. So this all supports my point that the NIV isn’t conflating Jesus with Satan or Satan with Jesus.

      But what does it mean? Obviously there is more personality going on here than a planet. In verse 13 the Helel has a speaking part. The clues that were needed to untangle this, interpretation wise, weren’t present even 100 years ago. It wasn’t until the Ugaritic texts were uncovered with Canaanite backgrounds, that this text started making sense. Here is what Brevard Childs has to say about it,

      “The imagery shifts to the ancient mythology of the Day Star (hēlēl), who falls from the heights of the heavens to the earth. Long before the opening up of the ancient Near East in the nineteenth century, scholars had drawn parallels with Greek mythology related to Venus. Subsequently, other scholars appealed to the Babylonian-Assyrian myth of Ishtar’s descent to the underworld (ANET, 106ff.). However, with the discovery of the Ugaritic texts, the evidence mounted for seeing a far closer parallel with Canaanite mythology. The name of the highest God was ’ēl ‘elyôn, and the seat of the deity was mount Zaphon. The most plausible reconstruction is of Helel’s challenge to the power of Elyon who, when thwarted, was thrown down to Sheol. The myth depicts a cosmic battle between Helel and Elyon in the brilliant rise of the morning star in the heavens and its sudden dimming before the strengthening rays of the sun.”

      Childs, B. S. (2001). Isaiah: A Commentary. (W. P. Brown, C. A. Newsom, & B. A. Strawn, Eds.) (1st ed., p. 126). Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press.


    2. Twisting truth is a sin! The NIV is not holy! It removes and changes scripture. Pray for understanding in the name of Jesus and read the kjv (the original) all others are nothing more than BIBLES for dummies . The reason people get other versions is because they don’t u derstand God’s word. The Bible warns about removing and changing scripture.

    3. You are so very right dear sister in Christ! Mattdabbs is reprobate! Romans 1:17ff He probably will never no ever come to the knowledge of the truth 2 Tim. 3:7,8

    4. Mattdabbs is reprobate Rom. 1. 2 Tim 37-8. you my dear sister in Christ, he probably will never become a true Christian.

  27. ..Mark 4

    Then Jesus said, “Whoever has ears to hear, let them hear.”
    10 When he was alone, the Twelve and the others around him asked him about the parables. 11 He told them, “The secret of the kingdom of God has been given to you. But to those on the outside everything is said in parables 12 so that,
    “‘they may be ever seeing but never perceiving,
    and ever hearing but never understanding;
    otherwise they might turn and be forgiven!’[a]”

    . until we all have wisdom and understanding in the fact that paganism was the birth mother of Christianity, and that all ancient civilizations were way more advanced than society is today

    lost in translation

    . Mythology and theology[edit]
    Lucifer, a name based on the Latin name for the Morning Star
    Jesus, self-described as “the bright Morning Star” in the Christian Bible
    John the Baptist, called a “bright morning star” in Eastern Orthodox Church hymnology
    Mary, mother of Jesus, called “morning star” in the Litany of Loreto
    John Wycliffe, English theologian, sometimes referred to as the “Morning Star of the Reformation”
    Other mythologies and theologies[edit]
    Phosphorus (morning star), the Morning Star in Greek mythology
    Morning Star, one of the Zorya (gods in Slavic mythology)
    Morningstar or Red Horn, a culture hero in Siouan oral traditions
    Tlāhuizcalpantecuhtli, god of the morning star (Venus) Aztec mythology

  28. From the reports so far it appears NIV is not alone in “morning star” translation in Isaiah 14:12. Many other translations or versions of the Bible render it same or used a close description ” day star”. I think much of the variance comes from The King James Version that “lifted” the word ” Lucifer ” from the Latin vulgate without translating to English. So to me the blame on NIV on this issue is baseless!

  29. I didn’t read through every comment but I would recommend reading the book New age Bible versions by Gail Riplinger to anyone using any version after the kjv, and especially those preaching from them. Not that it doesn’t have its problems, but when you take the changes / emissions to all Bible versions since that translation as a whole, the motivation behind these new versions is quite clear, and it is not a Holy One. The few etymological corrections they may have gotten correct are far outweighed by their overall nefarious / deceptive intention. Thanks for the article; happiness health and wisdom to all in, Jesus name.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Subscribe To Weekly Newsletter!

Get updates and learn from the best

Read this Next!

Want to Plant Churches or make disciples?

I would love to hear from You!

%d bloggers like this: