Is Satan the morning star? New-age versions say yes!

[Dan7]

Hello everyone, I've summarized the information I recently found regarding Satan, the morning star, and new-age versions.

Isaiah 14:12-17 outlines Lucifer's (Satan's) five "I will"s, portraying his pride and deep desire to be above God.

Well, the NIV changes "Lucifer" to"morning star" (one of Jesus's titles), thereby going off the course of the Hebrew they are translating from (which in no way, shape, or form translates to morning star). This is not a matter of different manuscripts, as I thought before. These translators are literally coming up with these changes without regard to the manuscripts they are translating from! Well, not really, someone is behind this (and as we shall see, this someone is Satan).

"New Age Versions" points out the origin of swapping "Lucifer" for "morning star": "The matching of Lucifer with the morning star rises not from the Hebrew bible but from classical mythology, a fount of bitter water not intended by God as our "fountain of living waters" (Jeremiah 17:13). Reference works concede that the switch is based on ". . . classical mythology for the planet Venus."5 Just because Satan has convinced the heathen world to connect him with Venus, the morning star, is no basis for the repetition of that "myth" by Christian scholars. But II Timothy 4:3,4 says the time for myths has come."

"New Age Versions" also points out the sheer blasphemy of the NASB: "The NASB compounds its role as malefactor by placing the
reference, II Peter 1:19, next to Isaiah 14:12 to solidify the notion that the passage refers to Jesus Christ rather than Lucifer."

These "translators" know what they are doing. New-Ager R. Swinebum Qyrner, when talking about this new "translation", claimed that "In this one short sentence is stated most clearly one of the greatest occult truths."

Here is a traditional definition of the morning star in "Commentary: Critical and Explanatory of the Old Testament": "Daystar: a title truly belonging to Christ and hereafter to be assumed by antichrist." This is exactly what is happening with the New Age versions: Satan is assuming the title of Jesus Christ!

The "Theophysical Glossary" reads as follows: "The Christians. . .without suspecting the real meaning.. . greeted the Morning Star, Venus, Lucifer. The Trinity... was in truth composed of the Sun (the Father). . .Venus (the Holy Ghost), . . . and Lucifer, as Christ, the bright and morning star. The Verbum (the Word) and Lucifer are one".

It's clear that Satan is behind this new "translation" of Isaiah 14, as Satan has assumed Jesus Christ's title.

Revelation 13:18 says this: "Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man, and his number is Six hundred threescore and six." The beast's (antichrist/Satan) number is 666.

Let's see how the number 666 connects to the NIV.

As previously mentioned, Isaiah 14 portrays Satan's 5 "I will"s. "New Age Versions" says this about the city where the NIV was founded: "I will," is also the official motto of the U.S. city sporting zip code 60606. In 1966, this same city hatched the NIV." I'm sure this was done purposefully and symbolically, so as to identify the guiding hand of the NIV: Satan.

Do you need more proof that the NIV and other new-age versions are authored by the devil? I don't think so.

Satan says "I will" and proceeds to deceive many, but as bible believing Christians, we'll say "you won't" and won't allow him to deceive us.

Jesus commanded, "Get thee behind me, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve". I'm thankful for the Christians who exclaim the same.
 

[someguy85]

Be careful about delving too deep into number rabbit holes, if you get lost in it you can start seeing patterns everywhere, even when there aren't any. The number of the beast is clearly stated in the book of Revelation as being the number of a man. Who is the man? I don't know, that time hasn't come to pass yet but if we are given understanding from the holy spirit, it will be glaringly obvious who it is when he arises.

I wouldn't hold any deep regard for what new age bibles say either. Jeremiah 8:8 in the KJV says:

" How do ye say, We are wise, and the law of the Lord is with us? Lo, certainly in vain made he it; the pen of the scribes is in vain."

Basically saying why did God write a law for you if you're going to so flippantly dismiss it? When the NIV says something altogether different.

"How can you say, “We are wise, for we have the law of the Lord,” when actually the lying pen of the scribes has handled it falsely?"

Might not seem like much but it insinuates that the scribes had already made changes to the law and it wasn't true anymore, basically calling God a liar. If you come across someone you want to convince that the new age versions lie, have a small list of verses that are outright missing, if someone is genuinely open to receiving the truth, it will be a bit of a shock to them...if they are blinded then they'll make any excuse to justify it.

[Dan7]

Hello there Chris,

I agree that numerology is foolish and that it relies on random tactics and connections. The only reason I used the number "666" is because the Bible states that 666 is the number of the beast (and the antichrist if I'm not mistaken using Revelation 19:20; please correct me on this if I'm wrong), and as the antichrist wants to unite the world under a one-world religion, it is only natural for the NIV committee (one of the ones who are planning this one world religion) to portray their partnership with the beast/antichrist.

On the omitted verses, the problem is that these new-age versions have an "explanation" for their verse omissions. You rightfully said that "they'll make any excuse to justify it" (the omitted). At this point, there is no need for making up excuses themselves: the NIV makes the excuses for them. For example, the NIV may omit a verse and claim that "the oldest manuscripts do not contain this verse", conveying their incorrect belief that some verses (e.g. Romans 16:24) were later added by translators/scribes. If you would tell a staunch new-age Bible reader that, say, Romans 16:24 is missing in the NIV, they would just read their footnotes and see that it says "Some manuscripts include" Romans 16:24; thus, judging from previous footnotes, they'll most likely claim that the "originals" do not have this verse. I'd love to use omitted verses as an example of new-age versions perverting God's word, but nobody cares for them because their NIV footnotes justify these perverse removals.

With that being said, for those who listen, I like the NIV Bible quiz (https://chick.com/information/article?id=niv-quiz). You'll get a 0% if you use the NIV and other new-age "translations". Sadly, from my experience, most don't care and even go as far as to claim that the NIV is better for omitting some verses.

[someguy85]

Hi again Dan,

hope you don't get me wrong, I'm not saying there isn't any kind of signature as to the real author of these new age perversions, just saying, don't fall into the trap that some people do of trying to work out what's going on from the outside, because even from the inside this stuff is confusing and written in as much "legalese" as possible (just take a look at the freemasonic oaths and rules if it doesn't bore you to sleep in the process), the NIV committee already proved where their loyalties lay when they hired Virginia Mollenkott, an obvious member of the alphabet mafia and there's even accounts that she was a goddess worshiper too. Don't mean to sound too harsh or stern, just saying these things can leave you more confused at the end than when you started, as Jesus said it only takes a little leaven to leaven the whole lump, if you spot some leaven, start questioning, if you uncover more of it, then it's time to walk away.

As for bible versions, I have a simple test, if you can find a version that glorifies God, The Holy Ghost, Jesus Christ as the only begotten son of God, his sacrifice on the cross, his resurrection, the need for repentance and salvation more than the KJV, then I'll consider using it, but so far every version I've seen tries casting most if not all of those things into doubt. And you're definitely right, those who use the NIV, NKJV, NAS, RSV etc etc, all basically say "near enough is good enough" but will always try their best to discredit the Authorized Version.

[Dan7]

Hello Chris,

That's correct. Even going down to the basics, we see, as you said, pagans, along with other explicit sinners such as homosexuals.

I'm content that you are one of the few who see the perversions in the new-age versions.