"Luciferase"?

Ransom

I know all about wind
Staff member
Administrator
Doctor
Registered
Joined
Jan 25, 2012
Messages
8,193
Reaction score
190
Points
63
Another case of you going with pop culture instead of using your brain.

Dictionaries are constantly updating and changing the definitions of words to match the culture of the times.
Local philologist UGC thinks "Lucifer" as the name of the morning star--English usage that goes back at least 1000 years--is the dictionary defining words "to match the culture of the times."

Heck, the planet Venus was Noah Webster's primary definition of "Lucifer" in 1828. "Pop culture"! Bwahahaha!

Yeah, I'm going to call Venus Lucifer, then I'm going to brew some mead and go out and party like it's 999.

What a loon you are.

Remember--this is two people supposedly sharing this account. And between the two of them, they aren't capable of doing even the minimal research one high-school senior knows how to do. Twice the hot air as a normal human being, but half the wits. No wonder Twisted is so impressed with you.

Just admit you have no clue what you're talking about, take the L, and move on, fools.
 

Ransom

I know all about wind
Staff member
Administrator
Doctor
Registered
Joined
Jan 25, 2012
Messages
8,193
Reaction score
190
Points
63
Bros. James and Abraham are like the low-budget version of the Wonder Twins.

"Shape of . . . a mentally-challenged toddler!"
"Form of . . . hot air!"

Unfortunately, they got stuck after forgetting the magic words to change back into functional human beings. Now they're permanently the idiot telling tales, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

If I had started out telling the UGC Wonder Twins that the Devil was the primary definition of "Lucifer" in a modern dictionary--which is true of the big three, Oxford, Merriam-Webster, and American Heritage--I'll bet they'd have been amenning right along with me.

All I had to do was point out that this word, like virtually every word in English, has more than one meaning--and the UGC Wonder Twins bumped fists, changed into the village idiot huffing a big bag of wind, and went into full gear to explain that I can't trust a dictionary to give accurate definitions of words because pop culture, hurr durr.

The UGC Wonder Twins went full Riplinger. Never go full Riplinger.

There is a reason the Wonder Twins are so fevered in their defense of Lucifer meaning the devil exclusively. The Blessed Version KJV uses the word "Lucifer" in Isaiah 14:12, and the wording of the KJV must never be questioned. There is no other reason. Any other purported reasons are just Bro. Zan taking the form of hot gas again.
 

tmjbog

Well-known member
Registered
Joined
Feb 26, 2020
Messages
1,218
Reaction score
155
Points
63
All I had to do was point out that this word, like virtually every word in English, has more than one meaning--and the UGC Wonder Twins bumped fists, changed into the village idiot huffing a big bag of wind, and went into full gear to explain that I can't trust a dictionary to give accurate definitions of words because pop culture, hurr durr.

The UGC Wonder Twins went full Riplinger. Never go full Riplinger.
It's those evil Alexandrian dictionaries. On a side note did you know that the year the Titanic sunk there was a dictionary published and this dictionary had the word "iceberg" in it. Coincidence?
 

UGC

FagBoyCigar
Joined
Jan 18, 2020
Messages
1,289
Reaction score
34
Points
48
Heck, the planet Venus was Noah Webster's primary definition of "Lucifer" in 1828. "Pop culture"! Bwahahaha!
Webster's 1828:

LU'CIFER, noun [Latin lux, lucis, light, and fero, to bring.]
1. The planet Venus, so called from its brightness.
2. Satan.
And when he falls, he falls like lucifer never to hope again.

Let's break this down:

lux/lucis meaning "light"
fero meaning "to bring"
Put them together: lucifer meaning light bringer, or light bearer.

1. the planet Venus, so called from it's brightness
Here we see that Venus was nicknamed lucifer because it brought light to the sky.

2. Satan
We see here that Webster separated these two definitions, as he knew that Isaiah 14:12 is not talking about Venus, or the human King of Babylon, but Satan.

He then says when Satan fell, he fell as a shining light (a shining angel). Satan can also appear as an angel of light.

"And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light." -2 Cor. 11:14. Scripture with scripture.

This is obviously talking about Satan. No human king shines like either a star or an angel, unless you allegorize the passage to force your interpretation that it's a human king.

Again, we should take literal passages literally and figurative passages figuratively, you're doing it backwards to argue for your fringe doctrine. Everyone knows Isaiah 14:12 is referring to the shining, fallen angel Satan. Twist the passages all you want because you want it to say something else, it doesn't change the truth.
 

Twisted

Well-known member
Doctor
Registered
Joined
May 5, 2016
Messages
13,236
Reaction score
130
Points
63
Twist the passages all you want because you want it to say something else, it doesn't change the truth.
Now, don't be so hard on them. Many commentators have zero input on this passage, which goes to show that being a Bible blank is more common than one would think.
 

UGC

FagBoyCigar
Joined
Jan 18, 2020
Messages
1,289
Reaction score
34
Points
48
It's those evil Alexandrian dictionaries.
It always amazes me how anti-KJV people would rather side with a group of Universalists who didn't believe in hell, the trinity, and completely allegorized scripture (they're just "stories and lessons, not history") in favor of making fun of a Bible version.

If you don't prefer the KJV, that's fine, but siding with a known group of heretics (Origen and the Alexandrians) to make fun of the word of God will bring a chastening upon your life I wouldn't care to experience. I personally respect and fear God, so you won't catch me making fun of the Bible by standing with a group of heretics.

That shows something about your character. It shows you don't exalt God's word. God himself exalts it above his own name. Yet you gamble that your anti-KJV position is right and your 50-300 New Versions that brought about the apostasy of the 1st world are better, and that it's OK to make fun of a Bible version.

That is a terrifying, ignorant position to take as a Christian. Use the New Versions all you want, but don't attack the KJV. Such a move can only be demonically influenced, because it's not Christian and it's not of God.

A real Christian would be angry with someone attacking God's word, not standing with those who make fun of it. Evil.
 

Ransom

I know all about wind
Staff member
Administrator
Doctor
Registered
Joined
Jan 25, 2012
Messages
8,193
Reaction score
190
Points
63
Webster's 1828:

LU'CIFER, noun [Latin lux, lucis, light, and fero, to bring.]
1. The planet Venus, so called from its brightness.
2. Satan.
And when he falls, he falls like lucifer never to hope again.
So yes . . . the planet Venus was the primary definition of "Lucifer" in Webster's 1828.

You could have said "Yes, you're right" without all the huffing and puffing, though.

ugc-wonder-twins.png
 

Ransom

I know all about wind
Staff member
Administrator
Doctor
Registered
Joined
Jan 25, 2012
Messages
8,193
Reaction score
190
Points
63
Again, we should take literal passages literally and figurative passages figuratively, hurr durr hurr durr.
So when Isa. 14:4 says the passage is addressed to the King of Babylon, should I take that literally or figuratively?
 

UGC

FagBoyCigar
Joined
Jan 18, 2020
Messages
1,289
Reaction score
34
Points
48
the planet Venus was the primary definition of "Lucifer" in Webster's 1828.
No, it was the primary applicational use of the word in 1828.
The definition came first, but you missed it.

Here: LU'CIFER, noun [Latin lux, lucis, light, and fero, to bring.]

THAT is the definition.
 

Twisted

Well-known member
Doctor
Registered
Joined
May 5, 2016
Messages
13,236
Reaction score
130
Points
63
So when Isa. 14:4 says the passage is addressed to the King of Babylon, should I take that literally or figuratively?
"The king of Babylon historically was Belshazaar (Da. 5), but prophetically the king will be the Antichrist with the kingdoms of the world (Zeph. 3:8, Rev. 17:1-5)." - The Common Man's Reference Bible page 1036
 

UGC

FagBoyCigar
Joined
Jan 18, 2020
Messages
1,289
Reaction score
34
Points
48
So when Isa. 14:4 says the passage is addressed to the King of Babylon, should I take that literally or figuratively?
You take it in the context of the passage.

You want to believe lucifer means morning star, right? Does a literal human king literally shine as bright as a morning star? Do you know how bright stars shine?

Does hell have a consciousness of its own and literally "stir up" and "raise up" things down there?

What about the Prince of Persia in Daniel? Is that a human Prince? What about Michael the Prince. Human Prince or Angel?

If you're going to be literal in the passage and accuse anyone of taking it in its true figurative context of "dispy-allegorizing" it (dispens are the ones who know how to take scripture literally), then be consistent and take the whole passage literally. Don't just read the 3 words "King of Babylon", take that literally, and allegorize everything else to fit it.

"Oh yeah, humans shine as bright as stars. Literally. All of the Kings of history past were in awe that this one random King came "down to their level" and became "like unto them" (I thought he was already human like them), including the Pharaohs of Egypt." Good luck with your wild, crazy, heretical interpretation.

"Gotta be anti-KJV, man! At all costs!"
 

tmjbog

Well-known member
Registered
Joined
Feb 26, 2020
Messages
1,218
Reaction score
155
Points
63
It always amazes me how anti-KJV people would rather side with a group of Universalists who didn't believe in hell, the trinity, and completely allegorized scripture (they're just "stories and lessons, not history") in favor of making fun of a Bible version.

If you don't prefer the KJV, that's fine, but siding with a known group of heretics (Origen and the Alexandrians) to make fun of the word of God will bring a chastening upon your life I wouldn't care to experience. I personally respect and fear God, so you won't catch me making fun of the Bible by standing with a group of heretics.

That shows something about your character. It shows you don't exalt God's word. God himself exalts it above his own name. Yet you gamble that your anti-KJV position is right and your 50-300 New Versions that brought about the apostasy of the 1st world are better, and that it's OK to make fun of a Bible version.

That is a terrifying, ignorant position to take as a Christian. Use the New Versions all you want, but don't attack the KJV. Such a move can only be demonically influenced, because it's not Christian and it's not of God.

A real Christian would be angry with someone attacking God's word, not standing with those who make fun of it. Evil.


Who do I side with that does not believe in Hell/Trinity? I don't make fun of the Bible version (actually think its a decent translation). I do make fun of the acrobatics that KJV-O crowd will go to in order to "prove" it's the only acceptable version. On the same token you say much worse things about translations you disagree with. As far as being as siding with the "Alexandrians", in the Ruckman world you either are an Alexandrian or a Ruckmanite-I don't plan on being a Ruckmanite.

Again you are always trying to make things one extreme or the other. I reject that the KJV-O is an extra inspired translation. I also reject a lot of newer translation that are really more of a paraphrase, done poorly, or created with a specific agenda. It's not one or the other. Just because I use one particular newer version does not mean I have to support them all. Again you make fun of Bible versions all time so probably not the best person to lecture on that.

I don't attack the KJV. I'm in strong agreement with the translators that it is a good translation in a line of good translations. Nothing more or less than that. I probably own more KJV Bibles than any other version.

Finally the "A real Christian would ..."

Look we could go at this one all day. A real Christian wouldn't be twice divorced. A real Christian wouldn't use profanity. A real Christian would label everyone they disagree with an Alexandrian. And last a special one just for you that I actually heard several years ago in an IFB church-A real Christian would let their children mess around with Pokeman. (At least in this one group of IFB Pokeman was considered demonic)
 

tmjbog

Well-known member
Registered
Joined
Feb 26, 2020
Messages
1,218
Reaction score
155
Points
63
That's because you don't read any of the irrefutable facts and empirical evidence provided, you ignore all of them and repeatedly respond with rhetoric.

That's literally all the anti-KJV crowd has. Rhetoric, rhetoric, more rhetoric. You literally lie through your teeth by projecting what you do onto the KJV supporters.

I have provided ample, irrefutable, mathematically sound analysis in support of the KJV, and you have provided absolutely nothing to defend the Alexandrian-type manuscripts added by Westcott and Hort.

In fact, you've avoided the Critical Text. You're clearly under a delusion.
Actually I don't think you have proven it as well as you think. To me the most amazing think is that there are two versions came from two different lines of manuscripts and are in agreement on every significant Christian doctrine.

Again, I stand in agreement with the KJV translators that the KJV is a great translation in a line of (some preceding & some after) great translations. The question is, when are you going to get right with God and stop going against the KJV translators?
 

tmjbog

Well-known member
Registered
Joined
Feb 26, 2020
Messages
1,218
Reaction score
155
Points
63
Only morons choose a side based on what's popular. They're incapable of trusting their own analytical abilities to take a less popular position.
So when the ASV Bible came out it wasn't well received. Most at that point stuck with KJV. Since the ASV was the less popular that made it the smart decision and the popular decision at that time was KJV. Thus according UGC those who stuck with KJV in early 1900's were morons.
 

UGC

FagBoyCigar
Joined
Jan 18, 2020
Messages
1,289
Reaction score
34
Points
48
two different lines of manuscripts and are in agreement on every significant Christian doctrine.
Actually it can be said there's either 2 or 3, depending on how you categorize and subcategorize hotspots according to mathematics.

Furthermore, they absolutely produce different doctrines. Beyond a shadow of a doubt. The New Versions must accommodate for Jehovah's Witness, Catholic AND Calvinist doctrines.
 
Last edited:

logos1560

Active member
Registered
Joined
Jun 29, 2012
Messages
553
Reaction score
29
Points
28
Many of the Translators on the board of the ESV and NASB were Calvinists
The majority of the Church of England makers of the KJV were Calvinists. They used a Greek NT edition edited by Calvinist Theodore Beza.

Along with having some examples of bias for episcopal church government, some believers also claimed that the KJV had a bias in favor of Calvinism in some places.

The KJV-only use of double standards is again on display.
 
Last edited:

UGC

FagBoyCigar
Joined
Jan 18, 2020
Messages
1,289
Reaction score
34
Points
48
The majority of the Church of England makers of the KJV were Calvinists. They used a Greek NT edition edited by Calvinist Theodore Beza.
Not all of them were, I'd pull up sources on this if I had the time, however it doesn't matter because you're not comparing the variables accurately: the NV translators inserted Calvinist doctrine into their Bibles either via thought-for-thought or because of the Critical Text.

The point is that the translators of the NV's used looser translation techniques and/or manuscripts whereby their erroneous positions then showed up in the text. That's why them being Calvinists was a problem. I'm willing to give the methods, not the manuscripts, the benefit of the doubt. But if you use those methods, you can't be Calvinist.
 
Last edited:

tmjbog

Well-known member
Registered
Joined
Feb 26, 2020
Messages
1,218
Reaction score
155
Points
63
Actually it can be said there's either 2 or 3, depending on how you categorize and subcategorize hotspots according to mathematics.

Furthermore, they absolutely produce different doctrines. Beyond a shadow of a doubt. The New Versions must accommodate for Jehovah's Witness, Catholic AND Calvinist doctrines.

One grave error is the New Versions insert the Gospel of the Kingdom (for the Great Tribulation) into the Gospel of the Grace of God (Church Age), making an accursed Gospel for Church Age saints.

Here's one place where the New Versions have inserted the "Perseverance of the Saints" false Gospel into the Church Age, for a verse that says the Church will be delivered BEFORE the Tribulation saints who WILL persevere through the Great Tribulation:

Rev. 3:10
"Because you have kept the word of My perseverance, I also will keep you from the hour of testing, that hour which is about to come upon the whole world, to test those who dwell on the earth." -NASB

"Because thou hast kept the word of my patience, I also will keep thee from the hour of temptation, which shall come upon all the world, to try them that dwell upon the earth." -KJV

Many of the translators on the board of the ESV and NASB were Calvinists (though some were much worse, but we won't go into that now). Perseverance of the Saints is a Catholic doctrine.
“patience,”ὑπομονῆςCheerful (or hopeful) endurance, constancy


Synonyms & Antonyms for endurance

Synonyms


So the greek word means cheerful endurance. A synonym of endurance is persistence. If you leave your personal doctrine out of it and translate the word "perseverance" seems reasonable.
 

tmjbog

Well-known member
Registered
Joined
Feb 26, 2020
Messages
1,218
Reaction score
155
Points
63
...Apparently you misread what I said. The KJV translators used a consistent method of translating the same Greek word using the same English word in different places.

That was why I then proved my point using other verses where they translated "patience" the same while they actually did use the words "endurance" or "perseverance" apart from the word "patience".

And anyway, "persistence" does not mean "patience".

If you were in a burning house and I gave you two sets of instructions:
1. "Patiently wait to be rescued"
2. "Persistently endure to make it out of the fire"


Can you see how many people will be trying to work their way out of the fire if they listened to the 2nd while others would give up all work and rest in the first. In this analogy, the 2nd is for the Great Tribulation, the 1st is for the Church Age.

Don't try to tell me the New Versions don't produce different doctrine, they produce different doctrine all over the place.
Tune in to UGC Bible Studies. The new one dropping soon will majorly prove this point further.
According to the Greek word used, persevere, would be an accurate word to use. Patiently wouldn't really fit. How do you turn that into the newer version isn't accurate?
 

Ransom

I know all about wind
Staff member
Administrator
Doctor
Registered
Joined
Jan 25, 2012
Messages
8,193
Reaction score
190
Points
63
No, it was the primary applicational use of the word in 1828.

Here: LU'CIFER, noun [Latin lux, lucis, light, and fero, to bring.]

THAT is the definition.
No, that is the word and its etymology. The definition is the thing after that, which the word means.

Good lord, Jayna, learn to use a dictionary. I figured this out on my own before I was ten.

Shape of . . . a third grade dropout!
 
Top