I find this next quote interesting and confusing in relation to the other quotes:

Yes there are only two archangels mentioned, Michael and Lucifer.

This is where I believe the Mormons get the idea that Satan and Jesus were brothers, which is from Satan.

Gabriel was given the position that Lucifer fell from, bestowed with more authority, but was not recreated or reformed into a more powerful angel. He is completely satisfied with the power God originally bestowed upon him.

In his weakness he was honored above other angels, by being permitted to be the trump of God both in announcing the birth of Jesus to the prophets and Marry and being sent to minister to God's lovely Son here on earth, a very wonderful position. So in the example, weakness is stronger than might.

When Lucifer and his angels fell, God had to judge all of the angels. Gabriel was one God could trust because he passed the test without wavering in his faith of the Father, so he was honored with the powerful position of being the covering Cherub. Awesome!

"The words of the angel, “I am Gabriel, that stand in the presence of God,” show that he holds a position of high honor in the heavenly courts. When he came with a message to Daniel, he said, “There is none that holdeth with me in these things, but Michael [Christ] your Prince.” Daniel 10:21. Of Gabriel the Saviour speaks in the Revelation, saying that “He sent and signified it by His angel unto His servant John.” Revelation 1:1. And to John the angel declared, “I am a fellow servant with thee and with thy brethren the prophets.” Revelation 22:9, R. V. Wonderful thought—that the angel who stands next in honor to the Son of God is the one chosen to open the purposes of God to sinful men. {DA 99.1}

So in all of this THE archangel would seem to be the correct translation of the text since there is only one archangel left, right?

The term "archangel" need not denote nature, but rather could be referring to an exclusive position or title. In that case, Gabriel could have been promoted to archangel status without undergoing a change of nature. In fact, the word angel simply means messenger and does not necessarily have to be a cherub.

As for "trump" vs. "trumpet", the greek word "σαλπιγξ" means "trumpet" and is the correct rendering.

Where is Lucifer called an archangel?

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. (ST September 14, 1882, par. 9 )

Thank you, thank you, and thank you for what you have written!

It's what I had failed to get across from some, even though it does appear you have failed so with some, too. I ask those what should it be translated as. To which I get a confused response. Because what they really mean is it should be translated as to what they have always believed. Hard to argue with that.

Regarding the archangel, whether it should be "an" or "the", it shouldn't be either according to what you've shown. However, the English language requires someone, who probably isn't inspired, to insert a word. This doesn't mean one version is more correct than another version. It just means one translator chose one way, and another chose another way. Still, "an" or "the" I don't see making a real difference. Because, "the" archangel is still "an" archangel. But that is arguing English.


And you reminded me it was probably "Veith" who I listened to a video for a whole hour waiting for him to make his point and he never came to it other than "more" is better.

I don't think she was talking about English nor Portugese but what it should be translated as regardless of the target language. When you look at the Greek and Hebrew, it has a certain meaning. That meaning should be conveyed in the target language. Which means, if one was translating KJV English to Portugese (rather than the commentary), one could accidentally come up with a better translation without having read the Greek or Hebrew. The people who choose the English words (or whatever language) are not necessarily inspired and may choose wrong words here, but right words there. That's why comparing multiple versions, looking at the Hebrew and Greek, doing word searches (Greek/Hebrew) is not only the best way for Bible study, but also part of digging diligently.

Anyone who has spent any time reading the commentary should realize the KJV is far from "perfect". Word after word has comments such as "rather it should be...", "better translated as...", etc.

Regarding the Pericope Adulterae, I figured that while not being part of the original synoptic, it had an unshakable and fully legitimate oral transmission tradition which God providentially saw to it eventually being included in the synoptic. The Adventist Biblical Research Institute also says something to that effect. I would conjecture that its oral origin is with John (though he did not include it in his original written gospel). The story is also found in a manuscript of the Gospel of Luke, who may have learned about it when conducting his research on the life of Jesus (see Luke's introduction). At any rate, the evidence is overwhelming in favor of its veracity and worthiness of inclusion in the Bible.