Isaiah 14:12-14 King James Version (KJV)
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.
Lucifer in the KJV is correctly identified as SON OF THE MORNING… NOT MORNING STAR.
Now let's look at Isaiah 14:12 in the corrupted New International Version (NIV)
Isaiah 14:12-14 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!
The NIV doesn't say who is mentioned here, but son of morning has been changed to MORNING STAR. In other words, the NIV here along with other corrupted new translations calls Jesus Christ Lucifer otherwise known as Satan.
Now Let's see who The King James Bible correctly identifies as THE MORNING STAR.
Read Revelation 22:16:
Revelation 22:16 King James Version (KJV)
16 I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.
Also note Job 38:7 uses morning stars (plural- angels). However, Jesus Christ Himself identifies Himself as THE (definite article= only one, no others) BRIGHT AND MORNING STAR.
Read
Revelation 2:28
Revelation 2:28 King James Version (KJV)
28 And I will give him the morning star.
Do you honestly believe Jesus Christ is telling the overcoming true believers that he will give them Lucifer? The NIV. ESV and other modern - so called easier to read - perverted, polluted Bible translations sure do. Read for yourself.
Revelation 2:28 New International Version (NIV)
28 I will also give that one the morning star.
Wait, The NIV and the other modern versions tell us that the morning star is Lucifer. ???
Other same is found in 2 Peter 1:19,...
Note the perverted Bible translations also confuse Revelation 8:10, 9:1 with Jesus Christ when in actuality these refer to angels by both context and comparing words of scripture.
God will not be mocked.
Notes:
Why King James Only?
Understanding Bible Translations. Why only the Textus Receptus Antioch source for Canon KJV 1611 and NOT the CORRUPT Vatican Alexandria ( Codex Vaticanus, Sinaiticus - Septuagint - Sources for NIV, ESV, NASB, etc and other perverted modern translations version is true:
They know good Bereans with the KJV see the errors of corrupt translations but say the Latin Septuagint translation (A Vatican Translation) actually agrees with modern Translation. The Septuagint changes Hebrew and original Alexandria Greek vs Antioch see link Understanding Bible Translations. Ask any Reprobate who defends the Textus Vaticanus Codex Vaticanus Sinaiticus Alexandrian Manuscripts Latin Septuagint why there Hundreds of major flaws example John 7:53-8:16 omitted, etc.
THE GODHEAD:
Comments