Son of the Morning

I love the Authorised Version of the Bible, also known as the King James Version. I believe it’s still the best translation into English today, which is why I use it. Martin Top chapel uses the New King James Bible, which is also good, as it’s simply an updated version of the King James into a more modern English, the main difference being that it gets rid of the rather antiquated “Thee” and “Thou,” replacing these words with “You” instead. We might think that’s an improvement, but it does away with the fundamental difference between the two: “Thee” and “Thou” being singular, and “You” plural. Nevertheless, what I am about to say refers to both these versions, as opposed to other more modern ones.

There are two main reasons why I prefer these versions: 

(1.) Firstly, they’re translated from a “received text” - a text that the Lord has providentially preserved and kept pure throughout all generations:

Psalm 119:89
For ever, O Lord, thy word is settled in heaven.

Isaiah 40:8
The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand for ever.

Most modern translators since 1881 have challenged this idea. No longer do they believe God has preserved and kept one text throughout the ages, but, instead, they take all the Biblical manuscripts they have available at the time of translation, and from them, decide for themselves what the original text was. So this manufactured “original” will change through time as new manuscripts are discovered and others rejected. In other words, the Bible is no longer fixed, but changes as and when scholars decide it should be changed.

The text in use at the present time for most modern translations, misses out a lot of the original received text, and some passages are translated completely differently. 

For example, I once preached in Martin Top on Acts 26, a pivotal verse of which was: 

Acts 26:28
Then Agrippa said unto Paul, Almost thou persuadest me to be a Christian.

The word “almost” clearly implies that he nearly became a Christian, but not quite. And I would say this was true, because Agrippa was “expert in all customs and questions which are among the Jews” (v.3), and he also believed the Scriptures:

Acts 26:27
King Agrippa, believest thou the prophets? I know that thou believest.

So he “almost” became a Christian but not quite, the thing stopping him being his too strong attachment to this world, loving the “great pomp” (25:23), and rather preferring his worldly relationship with Festus, the governor, who thought that Paul was mad (v.24) and that the Jewish religion was merely “superstition” (25:19).

However, the day after speaking on this passage, I found out (from a television programme actually) that the modern versions say something completely different:

Acts 26:28 (ESV)
And Agrippa said to Paul, “In a short time would you persuade me to be a Christian?”

Acts 26:28 (NIV)
Then Agrippa said to Paul, “Do you think that in such a short time you can persuade me to be a Christian?”

This gives an altogether different meaning to the text. There’s no “almost” here at all. Just a disparaging comment which doesn’t seem to relate to Agrippa’s background knowledge and belief of the Scriptures at all. Those in the congregation using newer versions of the Bible must have been wondering what on earth I was going on about.

On another occasion, I once heard a sermon on Psalm 110:3, which in the King James Bible reads:

Psalm 110:3
Thy people shall be willing in the day of thy power....

The preacher quite rightly interpreted this to mean that when we become a Christian, the Lord not only shows us the truth, but also changes our wills in order to embrace it. Naturally, we’re not willing to come to Him. He has to change our wills in order for us to even begin to believe:

Philippians 2:13
For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure.

Jeremiah 31:18
....turn thou me, and I shall be turned; for thou art the Lord my God.

However, most of the congregation I was in were using the New International Version, which reads altogether differently:

Psalm 110:3 (NIV)
Your troops will be willing on your day of battle....

What’s that all about? 

Even the same English “version” of the Bible can say two different things. A few years ago, I was speaking to Chinese young people learning English. They all had in front of them an interlinear New International Version (NIV) and Chinese Union Version Bible, so rather than confuse them further by insisting on using my King James Bible, I used the NIV myself. To prepare, I used my wife’s 1980 edition. But I found out afterwards that the version everybody else was using was the 2010 edition, which was significantly different, even though both were supposed to be the same NIV. I may as well have used my King James Bible after all.

And it’s embarrassing to see how many versions of the Bible there are in English. I don’t know the exact number, but just to give an idea of the situation, take a look at biblegateway.com. It’s a useful resource. Amongst other things, it contains the Bible in many different languages. English tops the list for versions with 59. Next in line is Spanish with 19, followed by Chinese with 13 (although that’s really 7 because 12 of those are 6 versions split between use of simplified or traditional characters). All other languages have 7 or less, which is now getting down to a reasonably sensible number. (Maybe English and Spanish are highlighted because it’s an American website. In any case, there are far too many translations in these languages).

Modern Bibles are constantly being changed, and they’re all being copyrighted. There could be no other reason for doing that apart from monetary gain. This does not bring clarity, but confusion.

2 Timothy 2:9
....but the word of God is not bound.

(2.) My second reason for preferring the King James and New King James versions, is that they are “word for word” translations, as much as it’s possible to keep the meaning. It is not possible to translate perfectly between any two languages, so in these Bibles some words are printed in italics, which indicate words that are not in the original but have been added to make plainer sense in English. So we can easily distinguish between what the original says, and what has been added to aid our understanding. Most modern translations don’t do that and translate “idea for idea” instead, which by definition is less accurate. Some are a lot less accurate. Some even vulgar:

1 Kings 18:27 (Living Bible)
....Perhaps he is talking to someone, or is out sitting on the toilet....

This lack of accuracy means that many modern Bibles are not only translations of an original text, but also interpretations of it. They become, no longer Bibles, but commentaries. Translators should stick to translation. Interpretation is the work of the Holy Spirit in each believer:

1 John 2:27
But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.

Only the text in the original languages is inspired of God:

2 Peter 1:21
For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

Indeed, every word in the original languages is important, because they’re the exact words God wanted to use:

Matthew 5:18
For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

So to translate “word for word” as much as we can, is important. It’s not “nit-picking,” as I once heard someone call it.

Even though it’s not possible for a translation to be perfect, God can still use whatever truth that’s still there. I was converted through reading a Revised Standard Version. This is one of the modern versions, and I’d never recommend that translation now, but God used it to save me. Jesus Christ Himself used a translation. When quoting Scripture, He uses Greek, which would have been the most common translation of His day. But the Greek Septuagint version contains what we now call the Apocrypha, which isn’t inspired by God at all. But Christ never quoted from that part, He only quoted from the inspired books. So it’s perfectly all right to use translations, which by definition are imperfect, as long as we realise these things. If we come across a problem, or don’t quite understand something, we must always refer to the original languages, which is easy enough, in this day of word searches and online Bibles. 

Now, I want to say something controversial. I want to look at one example of where I believe the King James and New King James versions have got it wrong. 

If I mentioned the word “Lucifer,” what would that mean to you? To most Christians, they would automatically assume without thinking that it’s another name for Satan. But I can’t see for the life of me where that comes from at all. 

I’ve come across countless examples in Christian books and sermons where the two names are used interchangeably. It’s often suggested that “Lucifer” was Satan’s name before he fell. But I can’t see that from the Scriptures. Please, please, please, if I’m wrong, show me from Scripture where my mistake is, I’m willing to change. Maybe there’s something obvious I’m not seeing. But until someone can show me, I have to continue to disagree with that idea.

The name “Lucifer” occurs in the Bible once, and it’s only found today in the King James and New King James versions, in the following passage:

Isaiah 14:12-15
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! For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north: I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High. Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit.

Surely that’s a clear reference to Satan and his fall from heaven, isn’t it? Well, the Hebrew word translated “Lucifer” is “heylel,” which is not a proper name. It means “morning star” or “day star.” Nearly all modern translations correct this. It’s a reference to the planet Venus, which is known as the “morning star” because it’s very bright, and often comes up before the sun in the morning. It leads the sun up before the dawn. 

In context, Isaiah 14 is primarily a reference to the king of Babylon. The gist of what’s being said here is: “You, king of Babylon, call yourself the “morning star,” but you’ll be cast down into hell.” This text can also legitimately be used as a reference to Satan’s fall, because his fall was similar to that of the king of Babylon, but we don’t need the proper name “Lucifer” in there to see that.

“Lucifer” is in fact Latin. I don’t understand why Latin is in the Bible at all. It must have been carried over from the old Latin Vulgate Bible. (That’s why I’m not so keen on the word “Calvary” either, but that’s another issue). The Latin is from two words: “Luci” meaning “light” and “fer” meaning “to carry.” “Lucifer” is literally “light-carrier,” which can also reasonably refer to the “morning star” or “day star,” because Venus “carries” the light of the sun into the sky, as it were.

But Satan is the prince of darkness. He’s “the prince of this world”:

John 12:31
Now is the judgment of this world: now shall the prince of this world be cast out.

He deceives the whole world:

Revelation 12:9
And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.

Satan has no light in him at all, He is all darkness. And he tries to keep men in darkness. 

John 8:44
Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.

So, Satan is not a “light-carrier” in any sense. There is only one source of spiritual light anywhere. Who is the real “light-carrier,” the real “Lucifer”? We know the answer:

John 8:12
Then spake Jesus again unto them, saying, I am the light of the world: he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life.

Christ is the only light there is. There’s no light to be found anywhere else in the world:

John 1:4-5
In him was life; and the life was the light of men. And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.

Only Jesus Christ can save us from the power of Satan:

Acts 26:18
To open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith that is in me.

And the Bible actually tells us He is the “light-carrier,” the “morning star,” or, if you prefer the Latin, “Lucifer”:

Revelation 22:16
I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.

Christ is the “light-carrier,” and He carries light down to men. We can receive of this light for ourselves:

Revelation 2:28
And I will give him the morning star.

The Lord has given us two witnesses of this light:

The first witness the Lord has given us are the Scriptures, which give us a window into the light of heavenly things. They shine in an otherwise dark place:

2 Peter 1:19
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 the day star arise in your hearts....

And the second witness is the Holy Spirit, the “day star” which arises in the hearts of all those who put their trust in the “light-carrier.” Yes, this light can truly be living in us. When we become Christians, we receive an earnest of the Spirit, a foretaste of heaven. A “morning star,” if you like, which guarantees that the dawn will surely come soon enough:

2 Corinthians 1:21-22
Now he which stablisheth us with you in Christ, and hath anointed us, is God; Who hath also sealed us, and given the earnest of the Spirit in our hearts.

What hope a Christian has! But we need to come to the light. We need to repent of our sin and call on Jesus Christ, the true light-carrier, in this life, to save us from where otherwise we deserve to go. Then we can know for sure we’re not going to be following Satan there:

Matthew 25:41
Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels....

2 Peter 3:7
But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.

All those who put their trust in Christ, the “light-carrier,” inherit a far better place. A place Christ has reserved for all His people in heaven:

1 Peter 1:4-5
To an inheritance incorruptible, and undefiled, and that fadeth not away, reserved in heaven for you, Who are kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation ready to be revealed in the last time.

Let’s make sure we come to the light, and worship Jesus Christ, the real “Lucifer”:

John 3:19-21
And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.