Translations

[truthseeker]

for me myself , i find the NWTto be a translation that is as near to the original word of God as is possible at this point in time, i am so thankful that Jehovah has appointed the Faithful slave class to accomplish this fine translation(matt 24;45-47)jehovahs people always use this fine channel ,how we are looked after by Jehovah our God in this time of the end.

Yes. He certainly does look after His people. Worldwide. All that are faithful unto Him shall put on His full armour that we may be able to withstand in the evil day. Translation is good, but it can also be detrimental in the play on words. John 3:16 in the KJV uses the word perish. John 3:16 in the NWT uses the word destroyed. Same thing, I agree, but the play on words is tremedous. To say that the original information is not good but the makeover is better may be good technologically but when it comes to the truth in how we view God it is tampering. Hebrew and Greek are a different kind of language than English. There are some words that do not translate into the English language because there is no equivalent of the expression. When getting an understanding of a text as dramatic as the Holy Scriptures, translation does indeed mean everything.

A play on words is a play on your understanding - that you are aware of. Many people see God as a loving God of all mankind and a God of vast wisdom and to be able to see into His Kingdom you have to establish a certain relationship with Him, which will spill over into how you relate to your neighbor and how you relate to yourself. When dealing with God, we must uphold ourselves in a particular manner. Either that manner is who you are, or that manner is what becomes you. Regardless, God knows who you are. But because Satan does have a great potential to have a stronghold on mankind, it is essential that you do not play sides in regard to the essence of the purpose in which God created you. You. God did not create you to stand in an army. Even Satan was a child of God. If you have children then you know what your child has the potential to do. He is an All-Mighty, All-Knowing God that created even Satan to do His Will. It presents us with the challenges that we have that makes us come back to Him. So He can show us that He reaches out in Love to all of His Creation. When God was ready to bring the Gentiles unto Him, He sent Jesus.

True Christians avoid mixing Bible truth with human philosophy .as for convenience ,to stay close to the pure saying of God makes it harder to be a christian because it is not going along the easy road of the world in general so i would have to disagree with that

It's a narrow road, but it is not difficult to live within the word of God. To live outside of the Divine is what is difficult and filled with hardship. He gives us an instruction manual on how to live right so that we may be free.

 

[mee]

Yes. He certainly does look after His people. Worldwide. All that are faithful unto Him shall put on His full armour that we may be able to withstand in the evil day. Translation is good, but it can also be detrimental in the play on words. John 3:16 in the KJV uses the word perish. John 3:16 in the NWT uses the word destroyed. Same thing, I agree, but the play on words is tremedous. To say that the original information is not good but the makeover is better may be good technologically but when it comes to the truth in how we view God it is tampering. Hebrew and Greek are a different kind of language than English. There are some words that do not translate into the English language because there is no equivalent of the expression. When getting an understanding of a text as dramatic as the Holy Scriptures, translation does indeed mean everything.

A play on words is a play on your understanding - that you are aware of. Many people see God as a loving God of all mankind and a God of vast wisdom and to be able to see into His Kingdom you have to establish a certain relationship with Him, which will spill over into how you relate to your neighbor and how you relate to yourself. When dealing with God, we must uphold ourselves in a particular manner. Either that manner is who you are, or that manner is what becomes you. Regardless, God knows who you are. But because Satan does have a great potential to have a stronghold on mankind, it is essential that you do not play sides in regard to the essence of the purpose in which God created you. You. God did not create you to stand in an army. Even Satan was a child of God. If you have children then you know what your child has the potential to do. He is an All-Mighty, All-Knowing God that created even Satan to do His Will. It presents us with the challenges that we have that makes us come back to Him. So He can show us that He reaches out in Love to all of His Creation. When God was ready to bring the Gentiles unto Him, He sent Jesus.

It's a narrow road, but it is not difficult to live within the word of God. To live outside of the Divine is what is difficult and filled with hardship. He gives us an instruction manual on how to live right so that we may be free.

The original word of God is Good as you say,that is why the NWT is as near as is possible , i must disagree with you about God creating Satan ,
All of Jehovah’s works are perfect; he is not the author of unrighteousness; so he did not create anyone wicked. (Deut. 32:4; Ps. 5:4) The one who became Satan was originally a perfect spirit son of God. When saying that the Devil "did not stand fast in the truth," Jesus indicated that at one time that one was "in the truth." (John 8:44) But, as is true of all of God’s intelligent creatures, this spirit son was endowed with free will. He abused his freedom of choice, allowed feelings of self-importance to develop in his heart, began to crave worship that belonged only to God, and so enticed Adam and Eve to listen to him rather than obey God. Thus by his course of action he made himself Satan, which means "adversary."—Jas. 1:14, 15

 

[Faithfulservant]

John 8:44 You are of your father the devil, and the desires of your father you want to do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own resources, for he is a liar and the father of it.
it never says there was ever truth in satan...it says he was a murderer from the beginning...

because you posted John chapter 8 I would like to post a bit more of it because its one of my favorites..

John 8:56-58 Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day, and he saw it and was glad." Then the Jews said to Him, "You are not yet fifty years old, and have You seen Abraham?" Jesus said to them, "Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM."

 

[mee]

John 8:44 You are of your father the devil, and the desires of your father you want to do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own resources, for he is a liar and the father of it.
it never says there was ever truth in satan...it says he was a murderer from the beginning...

because you posted John chapter 8 I would like to post a bit more of it because its one of my favorites..

John 8:56-58 Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day, and he saw it and was glad." Then the Jews said to Him, "You are not yet fifty years old, and have You seen Abraham?" Jesus said to them, "Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM."

"When he [Satan] speaks the lie, he speaks according to his own disposition, because he is a liar and the father of the lie." (John 8:44) So the first liar was Satan the Devil. When did he start telling lies? According to the Bible, it was shortly after the beginning of the history of the human race.​

The event is recorded in the Bible book of Genesis, and the lie was a matter of life or death for mankind. God indicated to the first man, Adam, that his continued life depended on obedience. He gave Adam a simple law to keep and said that if he failed to keep that law he would "positively die." But Satan maliciously lied and said: "You positively will not die." That was the first of the billions of lies that have been heard on this planet Earth.—Genesis 2:17; 3:4.​

Many today do not believe that account in the Bible. But Jesus, the most truthful man who ever lived, confirmed that the record in Genesis is not myth but true history. (Matthew 19:4, 5) Certainly, the results of that lie are still with us. It spelled disaster for the human race

 

[truthseeker]

The original word of God is Good as you say,that is why the NWT is as near as is possible , i must disagree with you about God creating Satan,
All of Jehovah’s works are perfect; he is not the author of unrighteousness; so he did not create anyone wicked. (Deut. 32:4; Ps. 5:4) The one who became Satan was originally a perfect spirit son of God.

That comment states that God created what became Satan. It is still God's creation. What is perfection is what God understands and humankind is still trying to figure out.

When saying that the Devil "did not stand fast in the truth," Jesus indicated that at one time that one was "in the truth." (John 8:44) But, as is true of all of God’s intelligent creatures, this spirit son was endowed with free will. He abused his freedom of choice, allowed feelings of self-importance to develop in his heart

So humankind suspects...

...began to crave worship that belonged only to God, and so enticed Adam and Eve to listen to him rather than obey God.

Satan told Eve that should she eat from the tree she shalt not surely die. God told them not to eat from the tree. She made a choice. She ate. Bad choice. No, Adam and Eve did not fall over and die but the relationship that they once had with God was never the same again. They had to learn what it was to get out there and get their own food and make housing for themselves and all that. Innocence died. Their eyes were opened when under the protection of God they did not know what it was to toil and labor. God still loved Adam and Eve. He loved Cain so much that although he killed his brother God still gave him protection when He told him to leave.

 

[Bandit]

dear mee,

some of the things you teach are true & i agree with you. but when you put some of those things out from watchtower, it is kind of like putting out the common book of prayer, science & health, or the book of mormon. these are many man made doctrines & we have to be careful with them.

 

[iBrian]

There's a lot of talk immediately above this thread, but much of it is either:

1. simply copy/paste - can't be bothered to add own thoughts
2. simple condemnation - nyah, you're wrong, I'm right

It would be nice to see the issue of translations argued with more sources, personal thoughts, and reasoned arguments.

At the moment all I see above is some form of spiritual warfare, where the aim is to prove one or more people false, rather than argue an actual position relating to the topics being discussed.

 

[Bandit]

Here is one on the MORNING STAR.
1Cor.11:14
And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.


I grew up with the King James & there were not a lot of choices. I dont see the point in me trying to learn a new translation just because others are doing that. I feel translations are often persuaded by the interpretor & often lean toward a specific religion, especially when there is another 'book' attatched, that may teach this is the only interpretation.

When it came out in English, I feel the translation brought out a lot of things to the surface that you cannot get in Latin. Some things simply do not translate well. The big picture of things is what I am interested in & it takes dividing it correctly & using it all, to get the best understanding, and this is how I study.

Here is one below that does not make sense. -MORNING STAR- I think the bible is often showing the villains & the good guys, then teaches how we can overcome & have the victory by choosing & following the best leader.
Everyone gets to choose who they will vote for and serve.
I am not sure which translations have done this, but I cannot except 2 Morning Stars, to 2 different persons..Especially when one is a good guy & the other is an outlaw. It is like giving Batman the title of the deeds of the Joker.
So, IMO it seems the new translations are hitting on some very key points in attempt to change who is who & who did what. Either Jesus is the morning star or Lucifer is. I am not going to debate with anyone who is on this, but my belief is that Jesus is the rose of sharon, the lilly of the valley & the bright and morning star.
I have no idea who Larry Spargimino is, but he did a nice job with this one.

Who Is the Morning Star?
Dr. Larry Spargimino
Question: The KJV states Lucifer is the "son of the morning." The NIV calls Lucifer "the morning star." Is there a conflict between these two?
Answer: Yes! Isaiah chapter 14 indicates that the one so named “Lucifer” in verse 12 will be “brought down to hell” according to verse 15. Verse 12 states: “How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning!” Verse 15 states: “Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell.”
Many Bible commentators have rightly concluded that this passage is speaking about Satan, his pride and arrogance, and his ultimate fall. This passage makes it clear that this being named “Lucifer” had many unholy ambitions. “For thou hast said,” we read in verse 13, “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.” This is what got Satan into trouble: He wanted to be like God. In verse 12 Satan is in heaven; in verse 15 he is in hell.
Modern translations have an unusual rendering of Isaiah 14:12. The New International Version, for example, translates Isaiah 14:12 this way: “How you have fallen from heaven O morning star, son of the dawn…” In verse 15 the NIV says that this morning star will be “brought down to the grave.” The NIV, with virtually all of the other modern translations, with the exception of the New King James Version, speaks about this “morning star” falling from heaven and being brought “to the grave.” Who is the “morning star”?
In Revelation 22:16 the Lord Jesus Christ says: “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.” Jesus is “the bright and morning star.” Shouldn’t we be concerned that, according to the modern translations of Isaiah 14:12, the “morning star,” identified as Jesus Christ in the New Testament falls from heaven because of pride and is cast into “hell”? Is this not the ultimate blasphemy and therefore the worst possible translation?
How did the modern versions come up with their translation? On what basis do they use the words “morning star”? Simply by adding a word to the Hebrew text. The Hebrew text has the words: “helel ben shachar.” That literally translates into“Helel, son of the morning.” You will notice that the word “star,” kokab, is not there. The modern versions translate the passage as if the Hebrew text stated: kokab shachar ben shachar. In doing so they actually add the word “star” (kokab) and repeat the word shachar, meaning “morning” or “dawn.”
But what is the justification of the modern translations for using the words “morning star”? The Hebrew helel comes from the root hll meaning “to shine.” The translation “Lucifer” is from the Latin Vulgate and comes from two Latin words, lucis, meaning “light” and fero meaning “to bring.” Neither does the Hebrew or the Latin say anything about any “star.” The source, then, of the translation “morning star” is pagan mythology. Due to the brightness of the planet Venus, and the time of its appearing, it was considered the bright and morning star. Mythology and certainly not sound linguistics calls Satan the “morning star.”
Among all the English versions readily available today, only the King James Version, and the New King James Version, establish the connection between Lucifer and Satan. This importance testimony to the rise and ultimate fall of Satan would be lost except for the testimony of these two translations.

While Lucifer does get the title of -MORNING, -STAR, transformed to an angel of Light,
SON OF etc. He does not get Morning & Star together in the same breath. He is of the night & darkness & a deciever, accuser of the brethren. Jesus is of the day & the morning star as in the rising of the sun.

Luke 10:18 And he said unto them, I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven. (even the New Testament parallels Isaiah 14:12 and confirms that the KJV is correct.) Revelation 9:1 And the fifth angel sounded, and I saw a star fall from heaven unto the earth: and to him was given the key of the bottomless pit. 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.

How many angels were cast out with Satan? ONE THIRD.
Revelation 12:4 And his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven, and did cast them to the earth:

Job 2:1 Again there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and SATAN[07854] (satan) came also among them to present himself before the LORD.
07854 satan {saw-tawn'}
from 07853; TWOT - 2252a; n m
AV - Satan 19, adversary 7, withstand 1; 27
1) adversary, one who withstands
1a) adversary (in general - personal or national)
2) superhuman adversary
2a) Satan (as noun pr)

Revelation 2:24 But unto you I say, and unto the rest in Thyatira, as many as have not this doctrine, and which have not
known the depths of Satan, as they speak; I will put upon you none other burden.
Revelation 2:25 But that which ye have [already] hold fast till I come.
Revelation 2:26 And he that overcometh, and keepeth my works unto the end, to him will I give power over the nations:
Revelation 2:27 And he shall rule them with a rod of iron; as the vessels of a potter shall they be broken to shivers: even
as I received of my Father.
Revelation 2:28 And I will give him THE MORNING{3720} STAR{792}.
Revelation 2:29 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches.

 

[mee]

this is what the NWT reads at Isaiah14;12

"O how you have fallen from heaven, you shining one, son of the dawn! How you have been cut down to the earth, you who were disabling the nations!

(Hebrew heh lel ) (shining one) (Greek ho he o spho ros) (the bringer of dawn)(morn) ( latin Lucifer)(light bearer) this name shining one was given to the babylon king because he thought he was better than God even saying he would elevate himself up to the heavens .after his fall this name was given him in a taunting way

 

[lunamoth]

Thank you all for your replies about the use of morning star in Isaiah. Seems that it could be a translation issue. NIV study footnotes say that in Isaiah the name refers to the king of Babylon, who is later used as a type (prefiguration) of the beast who will lead Babylon in the last days. It also in the footnotes gives the translation as Lucifer in the Latin Vulgate. It is kind of curious that most translations would choose the morning star version for Isaiah when it is used for Christ in Revelation, but I doubt it is some kind of CONSPIRACY.

If anything I think I would still conclude it is making some kind of point about satan wishing to be the usurper, thinking himself to have power and authority as ruler of Babylon (the world) but there is no question about who the true Morning Star is at the end.

lunamoth

 

[Abogado del Diablo]

Thank you all for your replies about the use of morning star in Isaiah. Seems that it could be a translation issue. NIV study footnotes say that in Isaiah the name refers to the king of Babylon, who is later used as a type (prefiguration) of the beast who will ead Babylon in the last days. It also in the footnotes gives the translation as Lucifer in the Latin Vulgate. It is kind of curious that most translations would choose the morning star version for Isaiah when it is used for Christ in Revelation, but I doubt it is some kind of CONSPIRACY. lunamoth

I tend to agree. From my own research the last couple of days it appears to be a reference to a Babylonian king. The passage starts at verse 4, which identifies it as a taunt to the King of Babylon. It concludes by pointing out that the object of the taunt is a "man."

The reference to "son of the morning"/"morning star" is from Hebrew helel ben-shachar - הילל בן שחר - the meaning of which is similar to "day star," but could reasonably be translated either of the ways it appears in the NIV/KJV it appears. It may have been nothing more than comparing this Babylonian king to the planet Venus, which was considered the "morning star". In the Vulgate, Venus is referred to as Lucifer when one wants to distinguish references to the planet from references to the goddess. This passage has been read as a description of the fall of Satan ever since the 4th Century or so and ever since, "Lucifer" has been another name for Satan as a result.

 

[Bandit]

i disagree. this is not a literal star(s) venus. Lucifer is his name.
King of tyre gets the same rap, but he was not in eden. People do not fall from heaven (lofty SKY). of all the switching adding & taking away of words in the bible, that one disturbs me the most..still trying to exalt himself above all that is God.
it is going to be so easy for son of perdition to slip into his throne as the 'shining' morning star.

Thanks for the replies but i am not in for a further debate .

mee, that translation you gave seems ok to me because it does not try to exalt itself or create confusion as to WHO the bright & morning star is.

 

[mee]

In the watchtower magazine of sept 15th 2002 i have found this to be interesting , it is a question from readers of the mag about lucifer.

·​

Is Lucifer a name that the Bible uses for Satan?


​

The name Lucifer occurs once in the Scriptures and only in some versions of the Bible. For example, the King James Version renders Isaiah 14:12: "How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning!"​

The Hebrew word translated "Lucifer" means "shining one." The Septuagint uses the Greek word that means "bringer of dawn." Hence, some translations render the original Hebrew "morning star" or "Daystar." But Jerome’s Latin Vulgate uses "Lucifer" (light bearer), and this accounts for the appearance of that term in various versions of the Bible.​

Who is this Lucifer? The expression "shining one," or "Lucifer," is found in what Isaiah prophetically commanded the Israelites to pronounce as a "proverbial saying against the king of Babylon." Thus, it is part of a saying primarily directed at the Babylonian dynasty. That the description "shining one" is given to a man and not to a spirit creature is further seen by the statement: "Down to Sheol you will be brought." Sheol is the common grave of mankind—not a place occupied by Satan the Devil. Moreover, those seeing Lucifer brought into this condition ask: "Is this the man that was agitating the earth?" Clearly, "Lucifer" refers to a human, not to a spirit creature.—Isaiah 14:4, 15, 16.​

Why is such an eminent description given to the Babylonian dynasty? We must realize that the king of Babylon was to be called the shining one only after his fall and in a taunting way. (Isaiah 14:3) Selfish pride prompted Babylon’s kings to elevate themselves above those around them. So great was the arrogance of the dynasty that it is portrayed as bragging: "To the heavens I shall go up. Above the stars of God I shall lift up my throne, and I shall sit down upon the mountain of meeting, in the remotest parts of the north. . . . I shall make myself resemble the Most High."—Isaiah 14:13, 14.​

"The stars of God" are the kings of the royal line of David. (Numbers 24:17) From David onward, these "stars" ruled from Mount Zion. After Solomon built the temple in Jerusalem, the name Zion came to apply to the whole city. Under the Law covenant, all male Israelites were obliged to travel to Zion three times a year. Thus, it became "the mountain of meeting." By determining to subjugate the Judean kings and then remove them from that mountain, Nebuchadnezzar is declaring his intention to put himself above those "stars." Instead of giving Jehovah credit for the victory over them, he arrogantly puts himself in Jehovah’s place. So it is after being cut down to the earth that the Babylonian dynasty is mockingly referred to as the "shining one."​

The pride of the Babylonian rulers indeed reflected the attitude of "the god of this system of things"—Satan the Devil. (2 Corinthians 4:4) He too lusts for power and longs to place himself above Jehovah God. But Lucifer is not a name Scripturally given to Satan.

 

[Abogado del Diablo]

i disagree. this is not a literal star(s) venus. Lucifer is his name.
King of tyre gets the same rap, but he was not in eden. People do not fall from heaven (lofty SKY). of all the switching adding & taking away of words in the bible, that one disturbs me the most..still trying to exalt himself above all that is God.
it is going to be so easy for son of perdition to slip into his throne as the 'shining' morning star.

Thanks for the replies but i am not in for a further debate .

mee, that translation you gave seems ok to me because it does not try to exalt itself or create confusion as to WHO the bright & morning star is.

"Lucifer" only comes in through the Vulgate. It's a by-product of Hebrew translated into Greek translated into Latin and there it means "Venus" (the planet).

It's true that people don't fall from the sky, but it's a metaphor. It's a taunt comparing the king to Venus as the brightest morning star because of his great power and authority, but whose arrogance brought him low.

 

[lunamoth]

peace, all

lots of good replies about this--thank you. I'm not debating here either, bandit, just trying to gain deeper understanding and actaully I have. Both mee and AdD brought to the table the point that the ms/Lucifer name was used only after the downfall of the king/Satan, and in a mocking way. Really, I think this does underscore who the true Morning Star is, and it is not man/Satan.


lunamoth

 

[Bandit]

i am aware of the Vulgate & the other interpretations. I am not too concerned with what Jerome or others may have been thinking at the time, about how a planet might shine like a pretty rainbow. This particular name is given to one person, one time. Not just a man or a literal planets name, no more than the king of Tyre is a cheribum. It is not just a metaphor.
If others want to believe it was given to only a man, that is up to them.

 

[Abogado del Diablo]

i am aware of the Vulgate & the other interpretations. I am not too concerned with what Jerome or others may have been thinking at the time, about how a planet might shine like a pretty rainbow.

I think you are missing the point, Bandit. Jerome used the word "Lucifer" because he intended his translation to be a reference to the planet Venus. That is what the word "Lucifer" means in the latin Vulgate. So one can either interpret the word "Lucifer," as repeated in the KJV, as simply carrying forward Jerome's translation in the Vulgate and understand it's meaning to be "Venus." Or one can disagree with the translation of helel ben-sachar as being a reference to the planet Venus in the original Hebrew. In which case, not only do you not have Jerome's reference to "Lucifer" as Venus from the Vulgate, but you won't have the word "Lucifer" in that passage at all! Which is what the scholars who performed the NIV and NAS translations decided.

It's either "Lucifer" as a reference to the planet Venus as intended in the Vulgate and carried forward into the KJV or it's no "Lucifer" at all, as in the NIV/NAS translations.

 

[Abogado del Diablo]

This particular name is given to one person, one time.

Then you must disagree with the KJV, too. Because if it was intended in the Hebrew as a proper name for one person, one time, it shouldn't have been translated at all. It should have been transliterated instead. In which case, you still wouldn't see "lucifer" in the text for that one person. That person's name should be rendered in English as "Helel Ben-sachar."

 

[Abogado del Diablo]

Not coincidentally, the same word - "lucifer" - was also used in the Vulgate to replace morning star/day star in 2 Peter 1:19.

In Latin:

et habemus firmiorem propheticum sermonem cui bene facitis adtendentes quasi lucernae lucenti in caliginoso loco donec dies inlucescat et lucifer oriatur in cordibus vestris

Which, translated in the KJV, reads:

"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."

 

[mee]

Not coincidentally, the same word - "lucifer" - was also used in the Vulgate to replace morning star/day star in 2 Peter 1:19.

In Latin:

et habemus firmiorem propheticum sermonem cui bene facitis adtendentes quasi lucernae lucenti in caliginoso loco donec dies inlucescat et lucifer oriatur in cordibus vestris

Which, translated in the KJV, reads:

"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."

"Daystar." The expression "daystar" (Gr., pho·spho´ros) occurs once, at 2 Peter 1:19, and is similar in meaning to "morning star." Such stars at certain seasons of the year are the last stars to rise on the eastern horizon before the sun appears and thus are heralds of the dawn of a new day. Peter’s previous reference to the vision of Jesus’ transfiguration in magnificent glory suggests a relation to his entering into kingly power as "the root and the offspring of David, and the bright morning star [a·ster´]."—Re 22:16; 2:26-28 i found this information in a book published by jehovahs witnesses called (INSIGHT ON THE SCRIPTURES VOL 2 PAGE 1033)


Consequently we have the prophetic word [made] more sure; and YOU are doing well in paying attention to it as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until day dawns and a daystar rises, in YOUR hearts(2 PETER 1;19)