The NASB is a Satanic Bible, it's own cross references in Isa. 14:12 proves it.

[HiDefJesus]

I'm not sure how this is a Satanic controversy. Who exactly is this deceiving? Can you name one prominent minister or theologian that actually uses these verses within the NASB to support the idea that Jesus and Satan are the same person?

[edwardpf123]

@HiDefJesus - Clearly it deceived the editors of the Ryrie NASB Study Bible, who cross referenced from Isa.14:12 to 2Pe.1:19, Rev.2:28, 22:16, all verses which refer to Christ.

The footnote states that Isa.14:12 'evidently a reference to Satan and because of the inappropriatness of the expressions of Isa.14:13-14 on the lips of any but Satan' but not inappropriate enough not to use a cross reference to those verses that do refer to Christ.

This a Bible controversy, not a Satanic one.

[HiDefJesus]

"Morning star" is not the only concept that is applied to both Jesus and Satan in Scripture. In Revelation 5:5, Jesus is referred to as a lion. In 1 Peter 5:8, Satan is referred to as a lion. The point is both Jesus and Satan have similarities to lions. Jesus is similar to a lion in that He is the King. Satan is similar to a lion in that he seeks to devour other creatures. Jesus and Satan are like lions in very different ways. The same can be applied to the term "morning star".

[edwardpf123]

@HiDefJesus -the passage in Isa.14:12 talks about Lucifer, the one who fell. The point is that Satan is always trying to imitate Christ and steal His titles. The NASB editors helped him do so.

[thelordsfieldhand]

Amen!!! Call out those phonies!!! Who in their right mind would want a fake bible?

[BrauthaMinister]

WoW! Thanks, never saw that! They changed Lucifer to star of the morning, When it could have been, O Lucifer the morning star (lesser star, liken to the Moon) who use to be the son of the day star (Jesus Christ, liken to the Sun), Oh how you are cut down!

[astral400]

God bless you brother. Ive been drawing attention to this for ages.

[JimmyCarol100]

It's actually kinda funny for those who know better, I mean, between the KJV & NASB that they would use Isaiah 14 to claim it is Jesus and cross reference it to verses that refer to Jesus as the morning star, when in fact it's Isaiah 14 that Lucifer claims that he will exalt himself above the heavens and be like the Most High. I just hope most realize satan will do anything to counterfeit Christ. Remember, he wants to be Christ. I say stick with the KJV. Peace2All

[StevieWonder501]

How many of you *actually* read the 1611 AV of the KJV? Now that's a fun read! :D

Joking, of course. The KJV isn't the *only* Bible to read. And, no, it is *not* easy for 5th graders to read - I can testify to that (I didn't read the Bible for years because we had only the KJV Bible).

[edwardpf123]

@StevieWonder501 -When you read any edition of the KJB, you are reading the TEXT of the 1611. Actually, it is easy enough for 5th graders to read, but they have to want to read it.

[StevieWonder501]

@edwardpf123 No, you're actually not. Why do you think there was a *5th* revision in 1769?

They have to want to read it? Do you not think I *wanted* to understand how to pronounce "Be-nai-ah" with all the accents over it? (see 1 Chronicles 11:22, KJV) Of course I wanted to know how to read the Bible, but I didn't get why the language was so different from ours. I would have read through the Bible multiple times by now had I know there were easier to read versions out there.

[edwardpf123]

@StevieWonder501 -'Revisions' had nothing to do with the actual text. There were corrections in misprints and updating in spelling. The language is different because it best reflects the language of the original Greek and Hebrew. The English is 'biblical English'. 'Easier' versions are not God's words, they are dumbed down man's words.

[StevieWonder501]

@edwardpf123 Alright. Well, I'm not going to argue with you, since it most likely will head nowhere.

To all who read this, please don't get caught in this rut. The King James Version is *not* the *only* Bible version out there that will lead you to Christ. Maybe the time you spend defending the KJV you could spend defending Christ - did you think of that?

If you like the KJV, and read it only, that's fine. But never say that it's the *only* version - then I'd have to ask you "Which revision?"

[edwardpf123]

@StevieWonder501 -First, the primary goal of the Bible isn't to lead one to Christ, it is to get one to grow in grace, and that takes a PURE Bible.

Second, the revision issue dealt with correcting typos and updating spelling, the actual TEXT was never changed.

So, which Bible you choose to believe is important. God gave the English speaking People the AV1611, if you reject it and choose one from a corrupt text you are rejecting what God has given you.

[StevieWonder501]

@edwardpf123 How is it's primary goal *not* to lead one to Christ?

God gave me Christ as His free gift. The Bible is certainly a gift, but it does not atone for our sins - if you believe that, then you don't know Christ.

Grace and Love

[edwardpf123]

@StevieWonder501 -The primary goal of the Bible isn't to get one saved, which takes only a few verses. Most of the Bible doesn't deal with salvation, it deals with doctrine, reproval, correction and instruction in righteousness. So, it is important that one use the Bible God wants you to use, the KJB, not the corrupt Modern Versions with their gnostic readings.

[StevieWonder501]

@edwardpf123 True - 2 Timothy 3:16.

I don't have time to debate about the KJV - if God truly wants us to read the Bible in archaic language, then He'll just have to judge me under that.

[edwardpf123]

@StevieWonder501 -The language of the KJB isn't 'archaic' it is the original tongues put into English-it is Biblical English, not archaic English.

[StevieWonder501]

@edwardpf123 Believe what you want to, but don't stop preaching Christ. Don't preach the KJV (which I'm sure you don't) - preach the living Christ. Grace and Love

[edwardpf123]

@StevieWonder501 -Thank you, I will believe the truth. All the modern versions contain a false gospel in them. See 1Cor.1:18 where they have salvation as a process not an event (saved), which was the translation of all the pre-1611 Bibles.

I preach the Christ revealed by the scriptures (1Cor.15:3-5), which in English is the KJB.

[StevieWonder501]

@edwardpf123 "Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling." Salvation is certainly an event, yet it is also a process - whoever endures to the end will be saved, Jesus said. The Holy Spirit seals us for redemption, and God works in us to work out our salvation (Phil. 1:6, 2:13).

I have a question - if the KJV is the *only* Bible that is holy, why don't you write in it's language (the thees and thous, etc)?

[edwardpf123]

@StevieWonder501 -Salvation can't be both an event and a process. There must be different kinds of salvation other then eternal and that is what Phil. is speaking about.

It is talking about working your faith for growth.

Enduring to the end has nothing to do with eternal salvation, it refers to entering the Millennium kingdom

The language is Biblical English, translated from the original tongues, I am not communicating from the original tongues.

[gsschoenfeld]

The NASB is an absolutely filthy, dirty, rotten-to-the-core translation as it condones father-daughter incest in its translation of 1 Cor 7:36.

If you're one of the Lord's sheep and wish to be blindfolded and led in to a spiritual slaughter house by an absolute wolf-in-sheep's clothing run to the nearest preacher using an NASB.

[jerbaz17]

To me, the NASB calling Satan the "morning star" is mocking Satan's own view of himself...Satan, or as he was known then, Lucifer, thought of himself as being holier and more powerful than God Himself. "Lucifer" also means "light-bearer", which hooks in with the idea that Satan presents himself as an angel of light in order to entice men to look away from God. I don't think the translators were attempting to dishonor Jesus, just mock Satan's self image.

[edwardpf123]

@jerbaz17 -No, Satan (Lucifer) wants Christ's titles and glory. The NASB gives him that by giving him the same title that Christ has. The NASB translators were doing Satan's bidding.

[jerbaz17]

@edwardpf123 Yeah, that's my point, Lucifer wants Christ's title. Maybe their point in referencing this verse to Revelation 22 was to show that Jesus was refuting what Satan had wanted himself to be called. Perhaps special emphasis was meant to be placed in Jesus' sentence, like, "I am the bright morning star", with the "I" being stressed. I personally agree with the fact that Lucifer is probably the better word to use, but I don't think people translating the Bible would give Satan glory.

[edwardpf123]

@jerbaz17 -They might not think they are giving Satan glory, but Satan's strength lies in his ability to deceive.

He was able to deceive David into numbering Israel. What their motivation was isn't the issue, but the fact that if one simply read the cross references, one would be confused, and God is not the author of confusion (1Cor.14:33). That is Satan's ultimate goal for believers to confuse them so they question God's word.

[jerbaz17]

@edwardpf123 I agree with you there. Are there any footnotes indicating Lucifer?

[edwardpf123]

@jerbaz17 -There is a footnote in the Ryre study bible indicating Satan,

'Star of the morning' Lit. the bright one, evidently a reference to Satan, because of Christ's similar description (Lk.10:18) and because of the inappropriatness of the expressions of Isa. 14:13-14 on the lips of any but Satan'

Yet, the cross references are 2Pe.1:19, Rev.2:28, and 22:16 all of which refer to Christ.

[EvanConnellyNovacek]

@jerbaz17 Do you know People what the NASB co-creator said? He Rejected it publicly!

Dr. Frank Logsdon has denounced his work on that Bible and urged all Christians to return to the KJV

"I'm in trouble; I can't refute these arguments; it's wrong; it's terribly wrong; it's frightfully wrong; and what am I going to do about it? ... Are we so naive that we do not suspect Satanic deception in all of this?"

/watch?v=y3BENiXiHa4&feature=r­elated



[FitnessMinded]

@jerbaz17 Was lucifer not one of the covering cherubim, morning star prior to His fall?

So if this is the case, he was a morning star. However when you review Rev. 22:16

Christ is the Bright and Morning Star!

[edwardpf123]

@FitnessMinded -The NASB Ryrie Study Bible calls him the 'star of the morning' and then cross references it to 2Pe.1:19, Rev.2:28, 22:16, which are references to Christ.

The correct word is Lucifer.

[FitnessMinded]

@edwardpf123 But I agree with your video. I love the KJV because it keeps those little nuaiances of truth in the scripture that show clear distinction, not that it is necessary. Christ is the bright and morning star. And I compare this to Hebrews where stating Christ was made so much better than the angels.

But I understand perfectly what you are saying because I have read a few apologists commentaries that dare and reference Christ in the Isaiah 14:12 description of lucifer. Sad

[TRITCHEE]

KJV ACTS 8:37 IS STILL THERE

NIV ACTS 8:37 HAS BEEN TAKEN OUT NOW PEOPLE WILL BELIEVE THAT IN ORDER TO BE SAVED YOU MUST BE BAPTIZED.

[alexmcginness]

quick question. Were you in church today?

[edwardpf123]

@alexmcginness -actually, I am between churches now, i recently left my last church due to some issues I had with it. Why do you ask?

[alexmcginness]

@edwardpf123 what day did your last church hold their weekly get together?

[edwardpf123]

@alexmcginness -I am a Baptist if that is what you are asking. If you have any questions about my belief's they are on my channel page.

[alexmcginness]

@edwardpf123 thanks for being so non specific to a specific question. So, bapstists get together on the lords day Sunday, correct?

[edwardpf123]

@alexmcginness -Thank you for asking stupid questions! Good by.

[alexmcginness]

according to wikkipedia: Altogether, Blayney's 1769 text differed from the 1611 text in around 24,000 places.

[edwardpf123]

@alexmcginness -Ofcourse it does, if you put in such spelling changes as 'soape to 'soap'.

The 1611 TEXT is exactly the same as found in the Cambridge editions.

[alexmcginness]

@edwardpf123 not just spelling!!! Word changes, plural words to singular ect. Those, are NOT spelling changes. Punctuation changes and omissions and errors are not selling changes.

[edwardpf123]

@alexmcginness

It must be asserted that the text of the KJV has come to us unaltered. What has changed is the correction of printing errors, changes in punctuation and italics, and changes in orthography and calligraphy. This was verified by the American Bible Society in a report published in 1852 (after the fourth major revision of the KJV took place) entitled Committee on Versions to the Board of Managers.'

(Crowned with Glory)

[alexmcginness]

Any so-called “1611” King James Version you buy today at the local Christian Bookstore is absolutely NOT the 1611. it is the 1769 Baskerville Birmingham revision, even though it admits that nowhere, and may even say “1611” in the front… it’s just not true. The spellings have been revised, and some words changed, in almost every printing done since 1769, and fourteen entire books plus extra prefatory features have been removed from almost every printing done since 1885!

[edwardpf123]

@alexmcginness -The TEXT is the 1611 TEXT. I know that is a fact that, in your hatred for the truth, cannot grasp.

[alexmcginness]

Which reading is the verbally (word-for-word) inerrant scripture - "whom ye" [Cambridge KJV's] or, "whom he" [Oxford KJV's] at Jeremiah 34:16?

Which reading is the verbally (word-for-word) inerrant scripture - "sin" [Cambridge KJV's] or "sins" [Oxford KJV's] at 2 Chronicles 33:19?

Who publishes the "inerrant KJV"?

[edwardpf123]

@alexmcginness -The Cambridge is considered the accurate translation.

[alexmcginness]

@edwardpf123 by whom?Why do KJV only advocates reject the apocrypha, since the original 1611 version contained the apocrypha?

If the KJV translators were inspired, why did they use a marginal reference to the apocrypha:

Why did the KJV translators use marginal notes showing alternate translation possibilities? If the KJV translators were inspired of God in their work, why did they not know it?

[edwardpf123]

@alexmcginness -This is the last series of questions I am going to answer, so don't pester me.

The Cambridge is regarded by KJ believers as the most accurate.Apocrypha was not part of the Canon, it was between them. No one has said the KJB translators were inspired. They explained why they used marginal notes to explain obscure Heb. and Gr. words. The work they completed was inspired, not them.

[alexmcginness]

@edwardpf123 you are wrong about the Apocrypha. It was in the original 1611 version and the translators made marginal refrence to it. You say :The work they completed was inspired, not them. Kinda silly there. Thats like saying that the gospels were inspired but the gospel writers werent. Wow. If the cambridge is regarded as the most inspired, do the oxford publishers know this? Are they putting outt a second rate book, by comparrison, on purpose, simply cause they need the job? Nice try.

[edwardpf123]

@alexmcginness -No, I am not wrong about the Apocrypha, I said it was between the Testaments as being non-Canonical. The marginal note they made reference to the Apocrypha doesn't change the fact they regarded it as non-Canonical. No, the work they accomplished is what God breathed life into, not them. They were illuminated to produce the correct work. (nice strawman) The Cambridge is regarded as most accurate, correcting the printing errors. Both editions are inspired.

[alexmcginness]

@edwardpf123 if they were illuminated to produce the correct work, there would have been no need for any corrective revisions or marginal notes as the inspired work would have been perfect. If both editions are inspired but are different which one is inerrant? How did a non canonical manuscript get into an inspired work if it was regarded as non canonical? Did God err in inspiring this to be originally put in and then did he have a corrective inspiration to take it out of his "inspired" work?

[edwardpf123]

@alexmcginness -Your posts continue to show your own inability to think. The 'corrective revisions' had to do with correcting PRINTING errors, not errors in the text. Marginal notes were to explain to the reader that the translators were aware of different meanings of obscure Heb. and Gr. words. Both editions are inspired, the cambridge is inerrant since it doesn't have the PRINTING errors in it. The CORRECT KJB TEXT is both inspired and inerrant.

The Apocrypha wasn't in the KJB Canon

[alexmcginness]

@edwardpf123 nonsense. the revisions corrected more than just printing errors, you are wrong. Since the revisions of the KJV from 1613-1850 made (in addition to changes in punctuation, capitalization, and spelling) many hundreds of changes in words, word order, possessives, singulars for plurals, articles, pronouns, conjunctions, prepositions, entire phrases, and the addition and deletion of words - would you say the KJV was "verbally inerrant" in what year?

[edwardpf123]

@alexmcginness -No, the text itself was not changed. Printing errors were addressed and corrected. Spelling was updated etc.

I would say that the KJB TEXT was inerrant.

I would recommend you go to my favorites on the KJB and watch Bibleprotectors videos on the subject.

You wont' ofcourse, because you are only concerned with showing that you think you are smart enough to prove the KJB is in error-you aren't and it isn't.

[talkercv]

I find it pathetic that members of the body of christ would argue and criticize each other over a couple words of a translation difference, everyone knows what it is every version of the bible can still bring salvation to any individual and instead of letting salvation come your criticizing people who read other versions this is direct towards all those people who put down other people for using different translation, you spend all your time studying the word of God that you never experience th

[edwardpf123]

@talkercv -The Bible's primary purpose isn't salvation, it is spirtual growth

'All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reprove,for correction for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.(2Tim.3:16-17)

If you are reading a modern version, you cannot grow spiritually, since they contain spiritual poison.

I didn't criticize anyone, I criticized a translation.

[edwardpf123]

@TransformerslNC -Salvation isn't the issue. The issue is spiritual growth. The modern versions with their corruptions, poison the Christian's spiritual growth so he becomes ineffective and in many cases, even an enemy of the cross.

[TransformerslNC]

The KJV has way too many errors to be considered the only Bible to use.

[edwardpf123]

@TransformerslNC -There KJB has NO errors in it.

[Keruaran]

@edwardpf123

Yet another completely idiotic statement from a KJVonlyist. It never ends does it...

[edwardpf123]

@Keruaran -No, a factual statement. Two anti-KJB zealots and neither of them provide such proof of even a single error, no less many.

[Keruaran]

@edwardpf123

To make such a demonstrably false statement as "The KJB has NO errors" is simply idiotic. Furthermore, stating the simple fact of the KJV's imperfections does not make me an "anti-KJB zealot" nor does it detract from the fact that the KJV with its imperfections is still one of the greatest and most beloved English translations of the Holy Bible ever made. Your statement is all the more farcical when you defend the use of "Lucifer" from the Latin Vulgate, in the English of the KJB.

[edwardpf123]

@Keruaran -That is three times you had a chance to state an actual error. The NASB has two easily provable errors, Gen.1:1 and Heb.3:16. The word 'Lucifer' is an accurate translation and one used by the ASV as well as the KJB. You come on a thread against the NASB and you attack the KJB without providing a single fact to support that attack. It is ONE of the greatest translatons? Name one that is greater.

[Keruaran]

@edwardpf123

"That is three times you had a chance to state an actual error"

I have only made two posts. Neither trying to prove anything.

"The NASB has two easily provable errors"

All translations have errors. And we were not talking about the NASB.

[edwardpf123]

@Keruaran -I counted three times when you had made that post I was responding to. You made a claim without giving any actual evidence, just an assertion. No, not all translations have errors in them, so again, you make yet another assertion without a shred of actual evidence. We are not talking about the NASB? That is the subject of the video! So, it is clear that you have come on this video only to attack the KJB.

[Keruaran]

@edwardpf123

"The word 'Lucifer' is an accurate translation and one used by the ASV as well as the KJB"

"Lucifer" is a Latin word. And there is no way you could get "Lucifer" from any Hebrew or Greek manuscript. But for some reason you put great stock in Jerome's Latin Bible which has numerous problems.

[edwardpf123]

@Keruaran -There are a number of latin words in the English Bible, such as Calvary (removed by both the NIV and NASB) and centurian (kept by both). It would seem that they are very particular about what 'latin' words they want out (Lucifer, Calvary) and don't mind retaining.

Moreover, the Geneva, Bishops, ASV, YLT, KJ2000, Darby, KJ21 all have Lucifer as well.

[Keruaran]

@edwardpf123

This is ridiculous... Once again: You cannot get "Lucifer" from any Hebrew or Greek text. Show me someone who doesn't translate εκατονταρχου as centurion, or how you can get Calvary from κρανιον. Once again you show a preference for Jerome's Latin translation rather than for Greek manuscripts.

[edwardpf123]

@Keruaran -It is a formal equivalance to what the word means in Hebrew. It was the term by the Geneva and Bishops, that is the where the KJB translators took it from.

The NLT doesn't use the word 'centurian' once in it's translation. As for Latin,

A number of words in the Greek of the New Testament are borrowed from the Latin. Such are σπεκουλάτωρ, 'an executioner,' Lat. speculator; σουδάριον, 'a napkin,' Lat. sudarium; etc.

Moorish Bible Dictionary.

Lucifier is in the KJ2000, KJ21,NKJ

[Keruaran]

@edwardpf123

"You come on a thread against the NASB and you attack the KJB without providing a single fact to support that attack"

Ah, but I didn't attack the KJB. Your misrepresentation is just another example of the brain rotting bankruptcy of KJVonlyism.

"It is ONE of the greatest translatons? Name one that is greater."

The KJB owes a HUGE debt to those who went before it. A very large portion to Tyndale, not to mention Coverdale and the reformers who translated the Geneva Bible.

[edwardpf123]

@Keruaran -no one is misrepresenting you at all. You claim that the KJB isn't perfect yet fail to provide one concrete example!

No one said that the KJB didn't owe a great deal to the other translations before it, I asked for a translation that was greater. So, it isn't one of the greatest, it IS the greatest translation.

So, yes you did attack the KJB, by stating that there were errors in it, when there aren't any.

[Keruaran]

@edwardpf123

"no one is misrepresenting you at all"

You are.

"You claim that the KJB isn't perfect yet fail to provide one concrete example!"

I could spend ages providing examples but why should I bother wasting time doing that with someone who who is clearly just as whacky as Ruckman?

"it isn't one of the greatest, it IS the greatest"

I think the enormous debt it owes to Tyndale makes Tyndales work greater.

"you did attack the KJB"

Telling the truth is not an attack.

[edwardpf123]

@Keruaran -So far you have given a number of posts without yet providing one single concrete error.

No, Tyndale's work isn't greater, that is why we are using the KJB today and not Tyndale's.

You have yet to tell the truth, but have in fact just made assertions without facts and ad hominem attacks.

[Keruaran]

@edwardpf123

Sorry but I'm really not inclined to waste more time on someone who doesn't acknowledge even what has been pointed out so far, engages in egregious dishonesty and these kinds of ridiculous circular arguments. I have better things I can spend my time on.

[edwardpf123]

@Keruaran -In other words, you are wrong and just don't want to admit it. Goodby.

[Keruaran]

@edwardpf123

Err, no. I'm just not interested in offering pearls to swine. Its a waste of time.

[edwardpf123]

@Keruaran -You haven't proved one single error in the KJB.! Yes, you are wasting my time.

[TransformerslNC]

@edwardpf123 Yes it does

[edwardpf123]

@TransformerslNC -No it doesn't. And the fact that you didn't come back with an example of such an error shows you are just blowing smoke.

[TransformerslNC]

@edwardpf123 Sheol does not = Hell.  Boom, done.

[edwardpf123]

@TransformerslNC -Actually no. There are a number of translations that translate sheol as hell, such as Tyndale, the Geneva, Bishops, the NKJ, KJ2000, KJ21. Try again.

[TransformerslNC]

@edwardpf123 No, no, no... You misunderstand. I'm fully aware that other translations use Sheol, but they are two different things. Even the NKJV uses Sheol in some places, and Hell in others. KJV thinks Hell and Sheol are interchangable places, but they are not. Oh, and all the Bibles you mentioned use the same manuscripts. And the KJV is a reworking of the Bishop's Bible.

[edwardpf123]

@TransformerslNC -No, I do not misunderstand anything. The word can be translated as hell, and thus, it is not an error to do so. The fact that other versions use hell for Shoel (which has a number of meanings) shows that the KJB is not in error. Yes, the KJB was a reworking of the Bishop's, but it was also an improvement on it, as it was on Tyndales, and the Geneva.

[edwardpf123]

@TransformerslNC -The issue of using the word 'shoel' is not a manuscript issue, it is a translation issue. The manuscripts read the same. Moreover, hell has more one than one meaning, so it can be used in place of sheol, based on context.

2. The place of the dead, or of souls after death; the lower regions, or the grave; called in Hebrew, sheol, and by the Greeks, hades. Ps. 16. Jon.2. (Webster's 1828)

[TransformerslNC]

@edwardpf123 Okay. Want my honest opinion? Whether you use the KJV, NIV, NASB, or even those paraphrase Bibles, it doesn't matter as a matter as a matter of salvation. I'll see you in Heaven and say "told ya so" and you'll say "hey, what are you doing here??" lol

[geistlingster]

i love how people argue about the translations and which one is more 'holier.' Read the damn Greek if it bugs you that much. No translation is perfect. 

[edwardpf123]

@geistlingster -We King James Bible believers never argue about which Bible is holier, there is only one Holy Bible, the King James Bible. Which Greek? Which Greek text? The King James Bible translation is indeed, perfect.

[Keruaran]

@geistlingster In light of edwardpf123's response to your comment, do you now see the problem?

[edwardpf123]

@Keruaran -Still no errors? One translation is perfect, the KJB.

[Gwads27]

@edwardpdf123 you do not need to send the Bible. I'll pick one up but I would be interested in the literature. Email me direct and I'll give you my address. And is th new KJV. ok?

[edwardpf123]

@Gwads27 -No, the 'New'KJV is not ok. It is not a KJB. Make sure you get a KJB. I will PM you.

[Gwads27]

Help me discern which version to go by then. Gwads27@yahoo.com

[edwardpf123]

@Gwads27 -The King James Bible is the Bible you need to use. I would be happy to send you one free of charge if you would like with additional literature as well.

[JasionJones]

@edwardpf123 bless you

[dwdean480]

I'm always amazed at the lengths fundamentalists will go to to twist the scriprures. Isaiah 14 is a prophecy spoken against THE KING OF BABYLON (read verse 4). The king of babylon, not Satan. Satan's name is Satan, not Lucifer. Isaiah 14 has NOTHING to do with Satan. Stop twisting the scriptures and start reading what the Bible really says.

[edwardpf123]

@dwdean480 -A passage can have a double meaning. While the King of Babylon is being directly addressed, the power behind the throne, Satan (AKA Lucifer) is also being spoken to. The King of Babylon did not 'fall from heaven' (cf.Lk.10:18), Lucifer did when he sinned (Ezek.28:11-19). I am reading exactly what the Bible says, and Lucifer is Satan, not the Lord Jesus Christ (morning star) as the corrupt NASB has it.

[dwdean480]

@edwardpf123 You aren't reading what the Bible says, you're reading what Dr. Scofield told you the Bible says.

STOP TWISTING THE SCRIPTURES!!!

[edwardpf123]

@dwdean480 -Actually I am reading exactly what the Bible says and am comparing scripture with scripture.

Lucifer is a fallen cherub who became Satan/the Devil. He is not the Morning Star, a title given to Christ.

[edwardpf123]

@mydollstuff -Yes, I am always amazed how many men have sold out the word of God. Many times it is because of vanity, sometimes for money.

[edwardpf123]

@mydollstuff -What they say is what is said below by another commenter! That surely everyone knows the difference. They know the difference because they know what the KJB reading is and know who Lucifer is. The next generations won't. The people who make these translations are simply blinded by Satan (2Cor.4:4)

[HoztleOne]

I know the differences! Anyone else with common ground in Christ does too. Revelations even describes the anti Christ to have "like" characteristics of Christ. Son of the morning is accurate for this passage; because at this time Satan was still in his full glory, Satan was Gods most beautiful creation, he showed him favor. Satan come before Christ. That's why Christ came period. So he was the son of the morning but Christ himself is the ever lasting. That's why Satan was cut from heaven.

[edwardpf123]

@HoztleOne -No 'morning star' isn't accurate for this passage! Satan (Lucifier) was a light carrier, not the morning star, which is a TITLE given only to Christ. The fact that a cross reference is made to Christ in the modern bibles represent Satan's attempt to highjack that title as his own. And your acceptance of the 'morning star' translation in Isa.14:12, shows that you are all too ready to give him the title that he craves, just as those who will worship him in the Tribulation as God.

[HoztleOne]

All four of my bibles: NIV, NKJV, NASB, and KJV, all include "morning star". Are you crying they don't include lucifer? Do you you cry they don't include Satan and Gods ex right hand man? Direct you energy into what truth really is! It's not about the reference you TRY to point out, it's about understanding two identities: Christ, and Satan.

[edwardpf123]

@HoztleOne -Christ is the Morning Star. Lucifer is Satan. The modern corrupt versions change the name of Lucifer into the 'morning star' and then cross reference the verse to the verses that refer to Jesus Christ as the morning star.

[RainhadoCanto4]

Dr. Frank Logsdon, the founder of the NASB DENOUNCED HIS OWN BIBLE AS BEING SATANIC, and wholeheartedly endorsed the King James Bible, claiming "There are places where I believe the Spirit of God led the translators of the Authorized Version."

He was mortified for having worked for the Devil, and was filled with remorse, fearful of the Judgment Seat of Christ when he'd have to answer for such, but, still, look at the harm done when those who read the NASB are not even aware of this!

[shanatp]

@RainhadoCanto4 From what i have researched this is an urban legend.

[edwardpf123]

@shanatp -No, it is true. The translators of the NASB try to downplay Logsdon's influence, just as the NIV tries to downplay the role that a lesbian had on it's translation. Ofcourse, getting to the root, we find Westcott and Hort fighting to keep a Unitarian on their translaton committee. And there is a Jesuit Cardinal (Carlos Martini) on the UBS committee. This follows from thinking the Bible is just like any other book and not God's Book, and so the Modern Versions are not Bibles.

[HighwaytoHeavenfan]

@assilvertried7x THE problem is with your theory is you did too much research and fell flat on your face i suggest you stop investigating the bible being false or God is going to show you falseness i dont think you want that its not a theat its a promise do not bare false witness in his name the inspired word of God is the NKJV AS WELL AS THE NASB THE KJV are not corupt bibles you just lost a friend. and many more to lose as well.

[edwardpf123]

@HighwaytoHeavenfan -No, the other 'bibles' are Satanic and not from God. Sorry to hear about losing a friend, but I would lose every subscriber and every friend on my list then compromise the truth.

[LiveNKicking]

Lucifer = morning star

However

Jesus = Bright and morning star

which means Jesus is above Lucifer. His has a title above that of Lucifer.

[edwardpf123]

@LiveNKicking -No, because Isa.14:12 is also cross referenced to 2pe.1:19 which has Christ's title as being simply 'morning star'. 'Bright' in Rev.22:16 is simply an adjective describing the quality of the 'morning star' it is not referring to Him being different from any other 'morning star'.

So, does Satan rise in the believer's heart (2Pe.1:19)?

Is God the author of confusion?

[Johnnytm21]

Here is the Hebrew definition for Lucifer from Thayer's:

Lucifer = “light-bearer”

1) shining one, morning star, Lucifer

I'm not sure why they would have cross referenced it to Jesus. That is kind of strange and eerie...

[edwardpf123]

@Johnnytm21 -'Satan wanted it cross referenced to the passages on the Lord, beause he wants to be like the most high! The producers of these modern 'bibles' were led by Satan to do so.

[HighwaytoHeavenfan]

@edwardpf123 Hey many your dissing the bibles now come on dont do that lol oh my gosh your on my friends list and your dissing the bibles how ever dont diss the new king james ok because this is the first bible i completed and on my second time around lol i have learned alot from the new king james but i also believe the king james is a bible too its what you get out of it that matters and what God reveals to you i nthe inspired word of God.

[edwardpf123]

@HighwaytoHeavenfan -The NKJ is corrupt. It is not a 'bible' it is a counterfeit bible. It contains many of the false readings found in the modern versions. For example see my video on Heb.3:16 where it follows the modern versions in their same historical error. Get rid of it and get a King James Bible. I would be happy to send you free literature on this subject. Just PM me your mailing address.

[HighwaytoHeavenfan]

@edwardpf123 edward your hilarious man now your pretty much going after all bibles except your own correct well maybe you did too much research heres some more info did you ever think possibly in your all knoweldgeable that satan told they were corrupt could it be that satan is more inteligent then you give him credit for? Satan attacks the church you need to remember this and your wrong by the way of what your saying about NKJV

[edwardpf123]

@HighwaytoHeavenfan -No, I am correct about the NKJV. It has many of the same reading as the other modern versions do, including the error found in Heb.3:16.

[AnotherBrotherMark]

Amen. Well stated. The NASB and NIV are James White Satanic Bibles.

[BloodBoughtChad]

The Jesus I worship is the morning star, not Lucifer. Equating Jesus with Satan is blasphemy. God put the word "Lucifer" in the KJV for a reason... because it belongs there.

[BloodBoughtChad]

The English is rendered correctly as "Lucifer".Why? Because God put it there.

[jjpetkusiii]

Amen, Brother Ed!

As King James VI of Scotland and I of England put it so succinclty, "It is Atheism and blasphemy to dispute what God can do: good Christians content themselves with His will revealed in His word."

"The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever" (Psalm 12:6ff).

No factual error anywhere in the King James Bible has ever been proven.

[Lethalhabit]

Good Job Brother!

[evewale]

Anyway good video I think I'll check that guys out now

[evewale]

U know that is what is a wee bit scary about the Calvinist doctrine they have the ying yang mentality which COULD lead 2 this sort of belief. It also is a bit unsettling 2 see the Scripture state that brother will kill brother & that they will think they do God a favor. John 16:2 These things along with J Calvin's history should raise a red flag to anyone involved in or around this doctrine. I know this may seem a bit off topic but with the new versions confusing satan & Christ it really isn't

[husky394xp]

Amen brother Ed. These new versions are satanic. It is interesting that whenever Satan appears in the Bible, he will almost always try to mess with God's word! His ministers appear as the "ministers of righteousness" in 2 Cor. 11:13-15, and yet how many Christians refuse to make the connection between Satan and scripture perversion!

I not only put the new version name on the outside, I also make sure to write with marker on the inside, a warning that "this new version is satanic!"

[AntG72]

Thank you for proclaiming the truth brother. God Bless.