Tee Hee

Your worse nightmare come true - a person who can prove the KJVs are inerrant, perfect, without flaw, preserved for their generation, etc.

And dangerous, I can teach Man's Logic, which is a subset of God's Logic (a very tiny subset, I might add); I can teach Salvation (since 1952) - 57 years; I can teach Bible (since 1957 - 52 years / 1975-1957 - the the KJV only for 18 years) I blow in-again-out-again-finigan salvation out of the water; I can blow the pre-tribulation rapture socks off LaHaye, Jeffery, and etc.; I was called to be a ON-LINE Bible apologist in June 1984 - 25 year anniversary coming up. Say, I aught to have a Big Anniversary party, except I don't remember the day. Actually I posted on my first post on a public bulletin board on day one and it was day 13 before I could post the second post?

[sorry, I do admit the Lord is still working on me about enhancing my humility]

What was every body else doing 25 years ago?

Second Ed's insight on the 'Lucifer' problem:

1. Even if 'day star' is the best translation here, it would be no problem. Obviously (Scofield is right) whoever is being talked about in Isaiah 14:12 is probably directly Nebo-..., the King of Babylon. But obviously Satan (a title, not a name), the Lead Devil (a title, not a name) is by type being mentioned here, indirectly, of course.

2. The 'day star', 'Morning Star', and 'Evening Star' can refer to the planet (not star) Venus in different manifestations. The 'Morning Star' designation is probably most meaningful here. The metaphor of Satan (by type) being a false Morning Start means that Satan is the false 'dawn' that precedes the true Dawn (we know now as Jesus). Jesus is compared by Peter and John is a metaphor for Jesus as the true 'predecessor' of the true sun: God Himself.

BTW 'day star' is NOT a star, it referrs to a planet. So the Hebrew Word for 'star' is not needed here at all.