Why don't you just read what the NIV says instead of linking off to a blog post that tries to defend the fact that the NIV has Jesus falling from heaven? Should the commentary on the blog post be inserted into the NIV bible so that people can get that explanation or should they just be able to pick up a bible and trust it?
1 Cor 14:33 - For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.
If God is not the author of confusion then he isn’t the author of the NIV because at the very best Isaiah 14:12 and Rev 22:16 contradict each other which is the very definition of confusion.
Isaiah 14:12 (NIV) - How you have fallen from heaven, morning star, son of the dawn! You have been cast down to the earth, you who once laid low the nations!
Revelation 22:16 (NIV) I, Jesus, have sent my angel to give you [a] this testimony for the churches. I am the Root and the Offspring of David, and the bright "Morning Star."
Jesus called himself the morning star in the NIV (Rev 22:16) and the NIV then has the "morning star” falling from heaven in Isaiah 14:12.
There is no side-stepping what the NIV says. Jesus falls from heaven.
The King James Bible is the inspired word of God in English.
The NIV attacks the deity of Christ, it has removed the word 'hell' 39 times. It has removed entire verses.
For a new translation to pass copyright laws it has to be significantly changed. That's why we have all of these different bible versions today. The Word of God doesn't change, man changes it for profit and Satan changes it so as to cast doubt on the authority of the bible.
The King James Bible is free of copyright restrictions, anyone can print it off and distribute it freely.
Be careful reading blog posts from men. There is no harm in reading them but only when you keep the bible as your final authority and foundation document.
Psalm 118:8 - It is better to trust in the LORD than to put confidence in man.
Galatians 6:3 - For if a man think himself to be something, when he is nothing, he deceiveth himself.
Romans 1:22 - Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools
Do you understand that it is the KJV that has used the name "Lucifer" where it isn't warranted?
Which version then is authoring confusion? Your reasoning seems to go like this:
But the original word in Isaiah 14:12 is not "Lucifer" but "lucifer", which is the Latin for "morning star". It is also a word translated elsewhere by the KJV as 'morning'. Also, please explain where Satan 'laid low the nations' before he was cast down from Heaven, which is what is implied by the KJV.
I'm not sure but it feels like you're very committed to the idea that there is a conspiracy here. I hope you're more committed to the truth than to a particular conspiracy theory. Sometimes it is difficult to back down from a position once we've invested so heavily into it, but it isn't about 'us' or about saving face.
Here is Calvin's commentary on Isaiah 14:12 (emphasis mine):
12.How art thou fallen from heaven! Isaiah proceeds with the discourse which he had formerly begun as personating the dead, and concludes that the tyrant differs in no respect from other men, though his object was to lead men to believe that he was some god. He employs an elegant metaphor, by comparing him to Lucifer, and calls him the Son of the Dawn; (220) and that on account of his splendor and brightness with which he shone above others. The exposition of this passage, which some have given, as if it referred to Satan, has arisen from ignorance; for the context plainly shows that these statements must be understood in reference to the king of the Babylonians. But when passages of Scripture are taken up at random, and no attention is paid to the context, we need not wonder that mistakes of this kind frequently arise. Yet it was an instance of very gross ignorance, to imagine that Lucifer was the king of devils, and that the Prophet gave him this name. But as these inventions have no probability whatever, let us pass by them as useless fables.