I have been blessed to see this issue from this perspective.

All of the translations are the word of God interpreted by men's finite positions influenced by the Holy Spirit. One translation may have been by men who have a clearer heavenly inspired understanding of one issue and less inspired on others.

Men have been steadily progressing in knowledge of the truth in light of the Holy Spirit who reveals the true interpretation of God's word.

Spiritual things are spiritually discerned. So this 'present truth' understanding is continually unfolding till the last days when the 144,000 will be filled with the knowledge of the glory of the Lord and have the mystery of Godliness fully unveiled in their hearts.

Did Moses have a better understanding of what he wrote than the people of the last days? I do not believe this to be true.

Moses saw clearly what God revealed to him, but when he was resurrected, more truth of what he was prompted by God to write has been unveiled to his understanding in perfection.

The point is, we need all of the translations, just as God has made it, until the end when He will reveal the complete unadulterated truth about everything written in scripture. The mystery of Godliness WILL be made manifest.

The 144,000 will have the Holy Spirit guiding their thoughts and impressing them to the meaning of scripture, so in essence the bible is incomplete without the Spirit of truth guiding our understanding.

Everything we need is given in all of the translations available to be led to the complete truth.

By faith in His word, He leads us to the perfect translation and interpretation of each text. It could be one text is better translated in the King James version, and another text translates better in the NIV.

This is due to the limited understanding of the finite minds of men.

As heavenly inspired disciples we should have the Holy Spirit guiding us to find answers in even the hardest of translations. To us the information might make perfect sense, but if you showed that translation to someone weak in the Spirit they might not see what God wants them to see, so He sends us to the translation that correlates with the intent that He wants us to see, so it can be addressed in the correct light for the receiver.

God has inspired me to quote the NIV translation of His word almost as much as the King James version because certain issues are more easily recognized through that translation of God's word.

When God wants me to see the line by line flow of how He intended verses to be strung in translation, He inspires me to look at Young's Literal Translation because there is no conjectural placement of words or interpretive juxtaposition of thoughts.

We need ALL of the translations for God's will to be complete.

Well said Jamesonofthunder. Often the differences can add much depth to our understanding. I know some SDA's will disagree with me on this, but I even found the use of the indefinite article before "Sabbath" in Exodus 20:10 to be one such opportunity. Let me explain.

Though the seventh day can rightly be called "the Sabbath" no loss of significance or authority is implied. Throughout the OT (especially in Exodus through Deuteronomy) the festal sabbaths pointed to the cessation of OUR works to focus on Christ's priestly work on our behalf. Ezekiel 20:12 reminds us that God gave us His Sabbaths to be a sign that He is the one who sanctifies us. In other words, the Sabbath is the rest we receive as we cease from our own works and enter into His work on our behalf (Hebrews 4:10). While the 7th day is THE Sabbath, it is not the Sabbath in its entirety. Without the Lord of the Sabbath, it is just another day. The 7th day is holy time, sanctified by God for the purpose of suspending our works so that we may enter into the Sabbath at God's appointed time. While some charge SDA's with legalism, a true understanding of the Sabbath safeguards us from legalism. By referring to the 7th day as "a" sabbath, it stresses the fact that holy time is one aspect of "THE" Sabbath, albeit an indispensable one.

Like I said, some SDA's would take exception to this. I know I did before I realized that the indefinite article indicated that there is far, far more to the Sabbath than time -- confirming my conviction that it can in no way be done away with.

Like the "New" KJV says "For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of an archangel, and with the trumpet of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:" 1 Thes 4:16. WHereas the KJV Says, "For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:"
Can anyone see the difference?

I see where you are coming from. The Sabbath is more than the formalism of keeping a day, there is a power waiting for us that is a blessing we cannot receive unless we make the effort to take the day off. This is how my God brings me to the gate of the Sabbath where His glory shines. Every thought has a purpose in how God gave us His word, follow the path He has given by the mental images of His word.

But I hope you do not still keep the ceremonial Sabbaths, which our last day prophet said were fulfilled, and a new system of honoring what those Sabbaths represented was instituted in the Lords supper.

Time is relative within the guidelines of our space.

The 'day' is part of creation, and the Sabbath was made to honor creation, for men to witness what God has done, and this form of meditation brings us to the gate to wait for the light.

You are completely right in the fact that 'time' is one dimension of the Sabbath, but to honor the day is all some people get to fulfill, not entering into the true Sabbath rest.

Every time the Sabbath comes, we should honor it. Salute it in the name of the creator by getting on your knees and thanking God for forgiving you for your weekly sins, so you can be free to enjoy His rest.

One of the things God wants us to witness in common sense is the fact that to us time is linear. The 'arrow of time' explains so much. Prophecy has the arrow of time as it's anchor, God's presence beyond all of it.

Why would we want to go back to before the fulfillment?

On the subject of the translations there are many instances where half a sentence from one translation and the next half from another is the correct understanding of the true text.

The Greek does not contain the definite article. It simply says "en phone archangelou" and can grammatically be translated as "an archangel". On the other hand, since the word "Archangel" could be understood as a proper noun, the definite article is legitimate as well. Interestingly, here the NASB and the NET keep with the KJV. Though here the KJV reading may be better than the NKJV, there are many, many places where the NKJV appropriately corrects KJV renderings (Hebrews 2:16 for example).

The big difference is "an archangel in the NKJV to "the archangel" in the KJV.

The "an archangel" would imply that there are morec than one archangel, whereas "the archangel" would more correctly imply that there is only one archangel.

I saw that discrepancy in the writing also but I knew that Lucifer also was called an archangel, so the thought didn't arise to argue the point.

“Rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry.” Rebellion originated with Satan. Notwithstanding the exalted position which he occupied among the heavenly host, he became dissatisfied because he was not accorded supreme honor. Hence he questioned God’s purposes and impugned his justice. He bent all his powers to allure the angels from their allegiance. The fact that he was an archangel, glorious and powerful, enabled him to exert a mighty influence. His complaints against God’s government, at first met with no favor; yet being urged again and again, they were finally accepted by those who had before been loyal and happy subjects of the King of Heaven. There was not the shadow of justification or excuse for disaffection; but envy and jealousy, once cherished, gained a power that paralyzed reason and destroyed honor and loyalty. As the result, Satan and all his sympathizers were cast out of Heaven. {ST September 14, 1882, par. 9}

The discrepancy that I saw was the 'Trump' and the 'trumpet'. A trumpet being a literal instrument. But 'Trump' in the sense of the voice of the arch angel is literally the voice of God. So the text is saying the Archangel Michael has the voice of God calling the sleeping saints to awake.

I didn't realize until now that Lucifer was once known as an archangel.

As Gabriel took Lucifer's place, then Gabriel must also be an archangel.

What really gets freaky in the study of the position from which Satan fell from, is understanding what "Anointed Cherub" could mean in his case.

"Thou art the anointed cherub that covereth; and I have set thee so: thou wast upon the holy mountain of God; thou hast walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire. Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee.” Ezekiel 28:12-15. {DD 1.5}

This anointing is a special blessing from God to be His messenger, to speak with His voice, just as the high priest had to be anointed to speak for God.

Covering Cherubs are God's personal body guards. They guard the gate to where His throne is. Satan was a covering Cherub, anointed by God just like Michael. There are always two covering Cherubs, one on the northern side of the Ark symbolizing Michael and one on the south from which Lucifer fell(I believe).

This honored position is what originally confused the angels as to why they had to honor Michael instead of Lucifer who seemed to be more powerful than Michael. They found just enough visual proof that they were correct in not listening to God.

Jesus appeared to the angels as an angel and to men as a man, in humility, as a test, to see how His creation would judge the truth.

Here is an interesting quote:

Gabriel, however, was only referred to as an angel in another quote: