Isaiah 14:12

Discussion in 'Bible Versions/Translations' started by Olivencia, May 9, 2009.

  1. Olivencia

    Olivencia
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2009
    Messages:
    281
    Likes Received:
    0
    Some KJV Onlyists will cite Isaiah 14:12 in the Modern Versions in an attempt to demonstrate that the MV's are equating Lucifer with the Lord Jesus (cf. Revelation 22:16). However the Hebrew word does mean "shing star" (heylel).
    The absurdity of the KJVO's can be easily seen in the use of the word "lion". Just because Satan is called a lion in 1 Peter 5:8 doesn't necessitate that he is equated with the Lord Jesus in Revelation 5:5.
     
  2. Eliyahu

    Eliyahu
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2005
    Messages:
    4,762
    Likes Received:
    0
    Did you read Isaiah 14:12 in Hebrew for yourself ? Is it another Copy-and-Glue work by you ?

    Is Jesus roaring to you? Which critic teach you that? Does he or she know the Lion in Rev 5:5 explained well with Tribe of Judah, Root of David?

    Did your Bible tell you that the Lion of Tribe of Judah, Root of David is roaring to you ? Your Bible is Wrong, then.
     
  3. Olivencia

    Olivencia
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2009
    Messages:
    281
    Likes Received:
    0
    Did you read Isaiah 14:12 in Hebrew for yourself ? Is it another Copy-and-Glue work by you ?

    --> Deal with the facts.
    ---------------------------------------------------

    Is Jesus roaring to you? Which critic teach you that? Does he or she know the Lion in Rev 5:5 explained well with Tribe of Judah, Root of David?

    --> I am saying that just because a title is used for both does not necessitate that they are the same. So when people like G.A. Riplinger make outlandish assertions they should be challenged.
    -----------------------------------------------------

    Did your Bible tell you the Lion of Tribe of Judah, Root of David is roaring to you ? Your Bible is Wrong, then.

    --> See my second response.
     
  4. Eliyahu

    Eliyahu
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2005
    Messages:
    4,762
    Likes Received:
    0
    I don't agree with KJV completely even though I understand it could be correct at the time of 17 c because of the environment with Latin Bibles when the readers understood the word Lucifer well.
    There is no word for Lucifer at all. KJV needs to update the word or return back to the original meaning simply.


    However, the basic principle is to distinguish between Lord and the Satan who is stated as Helel.
    If Jesus is Morning Star and the Satan is Morning Star too, isn't it a chaos?
    There are many chaotic Bibles saying that !

    Once I surveyed this verse, I found Young's Literal translated it in the most accurate way. Its meaning is very simple!

    Isaiah 14:
    12How hast thou fallen from the heavens, O shining one, son of the dawn! Thou hast been cut down to earth, O weakener of nations. ( Young's Literal Translation, BibleGateway.com)
     
    #4 Eliyahu, May 9, 2009
    Last edited: May 9, 2009
  5. Eliyahu

    Eliyahu
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2005
    Messages:
    4,762
    Likes Received:
    0
    To some MV's, Satan is Morning Star, Jesus is Morning Star

    NIV

    12 How you have fallen from heaven,
    O morning star, son of the dawn!
    You have been cast down to the earth,
    you who once laid low the nations!

    Rev 22:
    16"I, Jesus, have sent my angel to give you this testimony for the churches. I am the Root and the Offspring of David, and the bright Morning Star."

    NASB

    12"How you have (O)fallen from heaven,
    O star of the morning, son of the dawn!
    You have been cut down to the earth,
    You who have weakened the nations!

    Rev 22:
    16"I, Jesus, have sent My angel to testify to you these things for the churches I am the root and the descendant of David, the bright morning star."


    TNIV
    12 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!

    Rev 2:
    28 I will also give them the morning star.
    Rev 22
    16 "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."
     
  6. Olivencia

    Olivencia
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2009
    Messages:
    281
    Likes Received:
    0
    However, the basic principle is to distinguish between Lord and the Satan who is stated as Helel.
    If Jesus is Morning Star and the Satan is Morning Star too, isn't it a chaos?
    There are many chaotic Bibles saying that !

    --> Not really because the context of Isaiah 12 demonstrates that it can not be the Lord Jesus.
    You cited the NASB:

    12"How you have (O)fallen from heaven,
    O star of the morning, son of the dawn!
    You have been cut down to the earth,
    You who have weakened the nations!

    --> It would be a very sorry state of affairs if one believed that this refers to the Lord Jesus. Jesus fell from heaven? No way. Jesus was "cut down" to the earth? No way.

    -----------
    The same would apply to thoes. Satan is called "ho theos" in 2 Corinthians 4:4. That doesn't mean Satan is God. Like in Isaiah the context explains that it can't be. Satan is "ho theos" (the God) of this world that has blinded the minds of the unsaved.
    Thus theos applies to God (as well as to Christ) and to Satan. Context is the key.
     
  7. Eliyahu

    Eliyahu
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2005
    Messages:
    4,762
    Likes Received:
    0
    But the word Morning Star is often used for Lord Jesus, and then suddenly the Morning Star is fallen from the heaven?

    In such case I would still stay with Lucifer because it indicates the Bright One in Latin. Lucid is bright in both Latin and in English. Lucesco means to begin to shine, get the light.
    Luceo means to shine, to be daylight to dawn. Therefore, if the readers can understand the meaning of the Lucifer, I would still stay with it.

    Rendering Helel to Morning Star, while calling Jesus Morning Star too, doesn't make sense but it cause the chaos absolutely.

    Helel has no meaning of Star but has the meaning of shining or shedding the light as we read in Isaiah 13:10.
    Denoting the word of Morning Star to Satan is wrong because it is used for the Lord Jesus and Helel ( Heylel) has no meaning of Star. Star is a planet or a constellation, Satan was not a Star, but a shining one as in YLT. Lucifer in KJV meant the light bearer or Bright One simply, it was absolutely right when the Latin was quite popular, and KJV rightly distinuished Satan from Jesus.
     
  8. Eliyahu

    Eliyahu
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2005
    Messages:
    4,762
    Likes Received:
    0
    Helel is not a Star !

    If any star was fallen unto the earth, there must have been a big shock to the Earth, and the star could have destroyed the Earth !

    It was not a Star that was fallen in Isaiah 14:12 !

    It was an Angel who rebelled against God !

    If any star was fallen, where is the place?

    Lucifer is correct as long as the readers can understand the Latin background.
     
  9. Askjo

    Askjo
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2003
    Messages:
    3,736
    Likes Received:
    0
    I agree with you. Shining one or light bearer. Good translation.

    Latin for Lucifer :

    Lux = light

    ferre = bear or carry.

    The word, lucifer is a good translation for helel.

    Morning star is IMPROPER or FALSE translation Isa. 14:12.
     
    #9 Askjo, May 9, 2009
    Last edited by a moderator: May 9, 2009
  10. Eliyahu

    Eliyahu
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2005
    Messages:
    4,762
    Likes Received:
    0
    Actually the Key Point is that the Fallen was not a Star
     
  11. Eliyahu

    Eliyahu
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2005
    Messages:
    4,762
    Likes Received:
    0
    It is very interesting and good that we don't have to point out the problems with MV, but that MV supporters are bringing their own problems and their own shames to us. Maybe the Holy Spirit is working for us in that way !

    1) they brought Jn 14:14 to prove they are funny, asking themselves in their name !
    2) Acts 7:59 to show how much fabrication is done in MV like the creation of Prayed which never exist there.
    3) Jn 1:18, 2 God theory by Only Begotten God which is never found elsewhere than where they fabricated.
    4) Hosea 10:5 - plural calves are correct !
    5) Mark's longer ending, Pericope Adulturae are absolutely correct.

    Fero, Ferre : Bring, Carry, Bear.
    Lux : light, Luceo : shine.

    Lightbearer is correct. Shining One is OK too.
     
  12. franklinmonroe

    franklinmonroe
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2006
    Messages:
    2,872
    Likes Received:
    3
    Actually, the Devil is not called a "lion". A similie is employed which states that our adversary's behavior is compared ("as") to that of a lion. Christ is metaphorically "the Lion" of Judah. Imprecision in argumentation can cause unnecessary problems.
     
  13. Olivencia

    Olivencia
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2009
    Messages:
    281
    Likes Received:
    0
    Actually, the Devil is not called a "lion". A similie is employed which states that our adversary's behavior is compared ("as") to that of a lion. Christ is metaphorically "the Lion" of Judah. Imprecision in argumentation can cause unnecessary problems.

    --> Both are not literally a lion. Christ is like a lion (no, He doesn't have paws). Is He literally a lion? No. So your argument is worthless.


    -----------------------------------------------
    Helel is not a Star !


    --> Heylel is not a star? Thanks for making up your own word definitions.

    http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H1966&t=KJV

    Other than that you ignored what I wrote concerning "context".

    Is Satan called ho theos in 2 Corinthians 4:4?
    Is Christ called ho theos in John 20:28?
     
  14. Eliyahu

    Eliyahu
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2005
    Messages:
    4,762
    Likes Received:
    0
    You are very much brave because you are ignorant about the Hebrew Root Verbs. Do you know the importance of the Root Verbs in Hebrew? If not, ask any Hebrew specialist.

    Helel is nothing but the gerund form of Halal here:

    http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H1984&t=KJV

    Simply its meaning is to shine. Bring Light. The addition of the meaning like morning star in the BlueletterBible.com is because of the modern versions. The lexicon on the internet was organized after the MV were published.
    Read the original Hebrew and check the origin of the word.



    Where is the star ?

    Are you blind? I understand some of the posters here may be deaf. Why do you eliminate the specifying words in 2 Cor 4:4 ? Can you read theos only ? Can you not find " tou aionos toutou" there ?

    Does your Bible state "ho theos tou aionos toutou " in Jn 20:28?
    My Bible states this in Jn 20:28 "Ho Theos mou " ! Read TR !
    They are distinguished by themselves. I hope even your own Greek Bible disagree to your logic.
     
  15. Olivencia

    Olivencia
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2009
    Messages:
    281
    Likes Received:
    0
    Total garbage

    I give the the meaning for the SPECIFIC word at hand and what do you do? You reject it. Nice to see you are making up your own defintions for words now. Yeah I know it comes from the root meaning to shine. What does a star do?? It shines. Educate yourself.
    -----------------------------------------------------

    Are you blind? I understand some of the posters here may be deaf. Why do you eliminate the specifying words in 2 Cor 4:4 ? Can you read theos only ? Can you not find " tou aionos toutou" there ?

    --> No duh. Thanks for proving my point! Both passages have "ho theos" but as I previously mentioned ---- CONTEXT!! There are other words around the same terms that allow us to make a distinction between Satan and Christ.
    Open your eyes.

    Does your Bible state "ho theos tou aionos toutou " in Jn 20:28?
    My Bible states this in Jn 20:28 "Ho Theos mou " !

    --> Wow great! Thanks for telling me something I already know.

    Read TR !

    --> Learn how to read!


    They are distinguished by themselves.

    --> Really!!?? Thanks for repeating something I already pointed out.



    I hope even your own Greek Bible disagree to your logic.

    --> As shown you have no logic.

    Bye Bye
     
  16. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2
    When the actual evidence shows that "lucifer" and "morning star" were considered synonyms in the 1500's and 1600's, how can one of them be "good" and one improper?

    The old 1300’s Wycliffe's Bible made from the Latin Vulgate may have been the first English Bible to introduce the Latin word "lucifer" into English at Isaiah 14:12. The 1395 edition of the Wycliffe Bible had “Lucifer” more than once since it was also used at Job 38:32: “Whether thou bringest forth Lucifer, that is, day star, in his time, and makest evening star to rise on the sons of earth.“ The Oxford English Dictionary pointed out at its entry word Lucifer the following: "The Latin word was adopted in all the English versions down to 1611" (IX, p. 81). This source noted that this word was “used as a proper name of the morning star” (Ibid.).

    The 1534 Luther’s German Bible, which is on the KJV-only line of good Bibles, has “morgen stern” [morning star] at Isaiah 14:12. In his lectures on Isaiah concerning this verse, Martin Luther indicated that the Hebrew word “denotes the morning star, called Lucifer and the son of Dawn” (Luther’s Works, Vol. 16, p. 140). According to this translation of his own comments, Luther’s rendering was likely the result of the influence of the Latin Vulgate or at the very least his rendering “morning star“ was intended to mean the same as “Lucifer.” Of the earlier English Bibles of which the KJV was a revision, the 1535 Coverdale’s Bible first used “Lucifer” at Isaiah 14:12. Coverdale is said to have translated primarily from the German with guidance from the Latin, and he is not known to have had a manuscript copy of the old Wycliffe‘s Bible. Is it possible that Coverdale’s rendering “Lucifer” was his translation for Luther’s German Bible’s “morgen stern?” Does this evidence suggest that the rendering “Lucifer” was first introduced into the English Bible from the direct or indirect influence of the Latin Vulgate?

    Lucifer was the Latin name for the planet Venus when it appears as the morning star. The Liberty Annotated Study Bible confirmed that "the name Lucifer is actually the Latin designation for the morning star" (p. 1038). The 1968 Cassell's New Latin Dictionary indicated that the Latin word "lucifer" comes from two root words meaning "light-bearing, light-bringing" and that it would be translated into English as "Lucifer, the morning star, the planet Venus." According to the English-Latin section of this dictionary, the translation of "morning-star" in English is given as "lucifer" in Latin. The Oxford Latin Dictionary gave two definitions for lucifer: “light-bringing, light-bearing” and “the morning star” (p. 1045). The Oxford Dictionary of Word Histories affirmed that Lucifer is “a Latin word originally, meaning ’light-bringing, morning star” (p. 309).

    At the end of Isaiah 14, the 1549 edition of Matthew’s Bible has some notes that include these words: “Lucifer, the morning star, which he calleth the child of the morning, because it appeared only in the morning.” The marginal note in the 1560 and 1599 editions of the Geneva Bible for this word included the following: "for the morning star that goeth before the sun is called Lucifer." These two notes from two pre-1611 English Bibles that are on the KJV-only view’s line of good Bibles provide clear credible evidence concerning the meaning of the word "Lucifer" in English in the 1500's. The 1657 English translation of the 1637 Dutch States-General Version and Dutch Annotations also indicated this meaning with its rendering "O morning-star" at Isaiah 14:12.

    What did the KJV translators themselves mean by the choice of the word "Lucifer" in Isaiah 14:12? The 1611 KJV gives in its margin the literal meaning or acceptable alternative translation for "Lucifer" as "daystar." The KJV translators were aware of the marginal note in the Geneva Bible, and they would have recognized that their marginal note at this verse would have associated this meaning “daystar” or “morning star” with this rendering “Lucifer.“ D. A. Waite seemed to suggest that alternative translations in the marginal notes of the 1611 N. T. were “merely synonyms of words that could have been used rather than the ones chosen to put into the text itself” so would he say the same about the marginal notes of the 1611 O. T.?” (Fundamentalist Distortions, p. 18). In a sermon, KJV translator Lancelot Andrewes referred to "St Peter's Lucifer in cordibus [daystar in your hearts]" (Hewison, Selected Writings, p. 112). Clearly, KJV translator Lancelot Andrewes used the word Lucifer in his sermon with this understood meaning “daystar.“ Daystar is Old English for morning star. A 1672 edition of the KJV has the following note at Isaiah 14:12: “for the morning-star that goeth before the sun is called Lucifer.“ Thus, several credible sources from the 1500’s and 1600’s clearly establish how this word “Lucifer” was commonly used and understood in that time period.

    The 1828 Webster's Dictionary defined daystar as following: "The morning star, Lucifer, Venus; the star which precedes the morning light." In her 1997-1998 catalogue, Riplinger claimed that the 1828 Webster's Dictionary "defines words as they were used during the writing of the KJV 1611." The 1992 Roget's International Thesaurus listed as synonyms: "morning star, day star, Lucifer, Phosphor, Phosphorus" (p. 757). Rodale’s Synonym Finder listed the following as synonyms for morning star: “daystar, bright planet; Venus, Lucifer, Phosphor, Phosphorus” (p. 750). The preponderance of evidence shows that the renderings "Lucifer," "daystar," and "morning star" were used as synonyms so that any arguments which can be validly used again the rendering "morning star" in this verse would also apply to the rendering "Lucifer." D. A. Waite wrote: “I didn’t count synonyms as being different. Synonyms are acceptable” (Central Seminary, p. 126). Waite may be unwilling to apply his own statement to this example. Gail Riplinger wrote: “Synonyms can be substituted; these provide the Bible’s built-in dictionary” (In Awe, p. 168).
     
  17. Eliyahu

    Eliyahu
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2005
    Messages:
    4,762
    Likes Received:
    0
    1. Luther based his translation on the same texts as KJV translators did, in principle though there may be minor differences in some spots.
    But he omitted Comma in 1 Jn 5:7. This can be understandable because even Erasmus didn't have it in TR, in the beginning.
    However, he used the same word Oster for Acts 12:4. ( the Same as Passover in all the other verses).
    In Daniel 9:26, he misunderstood the verse.
    26Und nach den zweiundsechzig Wochen wird der Gesalbte ausgerottet werden und nichts mehr sein ( the anointed is no more)
    This is totally different from KJV ( The anointed is still alive ! He was cut off but not for Himself- but for us !)

    So, Luther could have been wrong in some spots even though he chose the right underlying texts for the translation.

    Morgenstern is not the exact translation for the Helel

    2. As for the dictionaries, I think none of them existed at the time of Isaiah when he wrote Isaiah 14. Those dictionaries include the words which were already used by the translators like KJV when they were published later.

    Even Lucifer didn't exist in the original meaning of the Helel. It is only the exact Word-to-Word translation of Helel into Latin.

    Neither Oxford nor Webster has listed only the pure original meanings of the word " Lucifer" but they listed all the renderings available at the time of their publishing. Apparently there is a difference between Lucifer and Morning Star. In fact the Helel didn't mean any planet which is the creation by God, and none of the planets have fallen at the time of Isaiah, but the person, the angel Satan was fallen.
    Helel came from Halal which means to shine. The Planet Venus has nothing to do with any sin. It is sin-neutral.

    There may have been mixture of the concepts among the translators before KJV, but KJV rightly corrected such confusion. Helel must be distinguished from Aster Ho Lampros Ho Pruinos in rendering.
    If Helel should be called, I believe it should contain Kokab like Kokab Helel. Even the planet Venus may have been called Kokab simply ( refer to strong No 3556).

    In the original meaning of Helel, there is no meaning or rendering of Morning Star. The meaning of Morning Star or Star of Morning was attached later when the translators rendered it to Morning Star of Star of Morning. This is very clear if we study the Root Word for Helel, which is Halal.

    The Dictionaries just reflected the usage by the translators.

    In any case, it will be very much ridiculous and ludicrous if anyone call both Satan and Jesus the Morning Stars !
     
  18. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2
    Where is the actual evidence that it was understood differently in the 1500's and 1600's?

    How did the KJV translators supposedly correct such confusion when they seemed to use the word in the same sense as the earlier translators? The KJV translators seemed to use it the same way it had been even used in the 1395 edition of Wycliffe's Bible. Are you ignoring their own marginal note in the 1611 and are you ignoring the way a KJV translator Lancelot Andrewes used it?


    The 1395 edition of the Wycliffe Bible had “Lucifer” more than once since it was also used at Job 38:32: “Whether thou bringest forth Lucifer, that is, day star, in his time, and makest evening star to rise on the sons of earth.“

    The 1611 KJV gives in its margin the literal meaning or acceptable alternative translation for "Lucifer" as "daystar." The KJV translators were aware of the marginal note in the Geneva Bible, and they would have recognized that their marginal note at this verse would have associated this meaning “daystar” or “morning star” with this rendering “Lucifer.“

    In a sermon, KJV translator Lancelot Andrewes referred to "St Peter's Lucifer in cordibus [daystar in your hearts]" (Hewison, Selected Writings, p. 112). Clearly, KJV translator Lancelot Andrewes used the word Lucifer in his sermon with this understood meaning “daystar.“
     
  19. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2
    If you are correct, then there would also seem to be no meaning or rendering of Lucifer in it either since the evidence from the 1500's and 1600's indicated that the two words were used as synonyms.

    I have not and do not recommend the NIV, but to be fair to it, I thought the evidence of how the words were used in the 1500's and 1600's used be noted.
     
  20. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2
    Several Bible scholars think that a better literal translation of the Hebrew Helel is "shining one" or perhaps "shining star" with star implied. For example, G. Rawlinson stated: "The word translated 'Lucifer' means properly 'shining one,' and no doubt here designates a star" (Pulpit Commentary, X, p. 245). Hasting’s Dictionary of the Bible defined the Hebrew word Helel as the “shining one” (III, p. 159). DiVietro himself acknowledged that a literal meaning of the Hebrew word was "shining thing" (Anything But the KJB, p. 46). D. A. Waite wrote: "If you look up helel, the masculine noun, you see the meaning is 'the shining one'" (Foes, p. 56). He added: “’Shining one’ is certainly a good translation” (p. 56). In his commentary Understanding the Bible, David Sorenson, a KJV-only author, asserted that the Hebrew word “has the sense of a ‘shining one,‘ or ‘light bearer,‘ or even ‘morning star’” (p. 428). In David Cloud’s Concise KJB Dictionary, this definition of the Hebrew word “shining one” is listed as the definition for “Lucifer” (p. 57). The Criswell Study Bible affirmed that the Hebrew word helel “means ‘shining one’” (p. 794). The 2002 Zondervan KJV Study Bible also maintained that “the Hebrew for ‘Lucifer’ is literally ‘shining one’” (p. 975). At least four English translations use "O shining one" at Isaiah 14:12 (Young's Literal Translation, Rotherham's The Emphasized Bible, 1912 Improved Edition, and Tanakh--the 1985 English translation of the Masoretic Text by Jews). The Literal Translation by Jay Green and the Modern King James Version have "O shining star" at this verse.
     

Share This Page

Loading...