Lucifer

Discussion in 'Bible Versions/Translations' started by Deacon, Apr 8, 2006.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Deacon

    Deacon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2002
    Messages:
    6,925
    Likes Received:
    111
    This is one of those places where the KJV used the Vulgate to clarify the text.
    A classic verse on the origin of Satan OR a classic case of misinterpretation?

    Would you include this verse in a doctrinal statement about demons?

    Rob
     
  2. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,565
    Likes Received:
    4
    I believe it's correct to add "Lucifer" to this verse because the context points to him. However, it's NOT wrong in other versions to say "day star' or "morning star". The KJVO notion that some versions seek to replace the devil with Jesus is pure hooey. Sure, Jesus calls Himself the bright and morning star, but He also says(of the believer) that He will "give him the morning star". Obviously that morning star is neither Jesus nor Satan. (I am told by several Hebrew-users that "heylel", the word rendered "Lucifer" in the KJV is MORE CORRECTLY rendered "morning star" by strictly-literal translation, but, given the context, "Lucifer" is acceptable.
     
  3. TCassidy

    TCassidy
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    11,385
    Likes Received:
    1,167
    Astrologers identify the planet Venus as having been known by the name Lucifer in Roman astrology before being given the name Venus by astronomers. The Latin word is made up of two words, lux (light; genitive lucis) and ferre (to bear, to bring), meaning light-bearer.

    Calling the morning star "Lucifer" is no problem at all and "morning star" is not more literal nor more correct. As any competent Hebrew exegete can see the word "heylel" is a masculine, singular, absolute indicating a proper name and thus requiring capitalization of the initial letter.

    The LXX translates "heylel" as ‘Εωσφορος or Φωσφωρος (depending on which one you are reading) the first meaning "sun bearer" and the second meaning "light bringer." When I was a kid kitchen matches were called "phosphorus" matches.
     
  4. Deacon

    Deacon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2002
    Messages:
    6,925
    Likes Received:
    111
    The word "Lucifer" for some reason has been accepted as a name for "Satan", although this is the only occurrence of the word in the entire Bible.

    There are several problems with an interpretation of this passage as a reference to Satan: 1). Isaiah clearly says it is the king of Babylon (14:4).
    2). He is a man (14:16).
    3). He is said to be dead (14:9, 11, 19),
    4). He is destroyed his land and his people (14:20).
    5). In death, he was “not be united with them [his people] in burial".

    Is there biblical evidence that any other rulers would display such pompous arrogance?
    (Daniel 4:25 – Nebuchadnezzar)
    (Daniel 11:37, and 2 Thessalonians 2:4 – the Antichrist)
    There might be some that would declare this even in this day.

    No other reference to this passage is found in the Old or New Testament that points us to reading Isaiah 14:12-15 in anything but a literal way.

    All the evidence points to it being a description of a historical ruler of Babylon.

    To insist that it be interpreted to mean anything else breaks the commonly accepted rules of hermeneutics.
    We can speculate but we can’t use this as a doctrinal proof text.

    Rob
     
  5. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,565
    Likes Received:
    4
    I believe the text goes from the devil to a human king. First, he is seen falling from heaven, while no human king had been there. Next, even the haughtiest of the kings of Babylon or Tyre served some kinda god. Next, these kings knew they didn't have the ability to simply ascend into whatever their concept of heaven was.

    The text begins its description of a human king when it mentions the "mount of the congregation". Sometines, people think it's the Mount of Olives, but a study of Babylonian archaeology reveals it was a mythical mountain where the pantheon of Bab gods assembled.

    And God refers to Satan as "king of Tyre" in Eze.28 along with a brief descriptuon of him. This ties in some with Isaiah 14.
     
  6. Deacon

    Deacon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2002
    Messages:
    6,925
    Likes Received:
    111
    “How you have fallen from heaven,
    O star of the morning, son of the dawn!
    vs 12 NAS


    He's not seen falling, it's a comparison to his desire;
    ‘I will ascend to heaven;
    I will raise my throne above the stars of God
    .

    The image is a fall as precipitously low as his heart's desire was high.

    Robycop, you state:
    You have heard of the divine right of kings?
    The Kings of the Old-World believed they were God's authority on earth.

    The Babylonians themselves had a long history of vain, foolhearty pride (even up to the present time).
    They attempted to build the tower of Babal saying: "Come, let us build for ourselves a city, and a tower whose top will reach into heaven".

    Rob
     
  7. Joseph_Botwinick

    Joseph_Botwinick
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/532.jpg>Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2000
    Messages:
    17,527
    Likes Received:
    0
    A classic verse on the origin of Satan OR a classic case of misinterpretation?

    Would you include this verse in a doctrinal statement about demons?

    Rob
    </font>[/QUOTE]The Bible does teach about Satan and demons...but no, I would not use this passage in a doctrinal statement about demons. It is referring to the King of Babylon.

    Joseph Botwinick
     
  8. rsr

    rsr
    Expand Collapse
    <b> 7,000 posts club</b>
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2001
    Messages:
    9,949
    Likes Received:
    78
    Robycop said:

    Where does Ezekiel refer to Satan?

    I see no reason to think that the primary reference is not to the human prince of Tyre, just as it is to the literal city of Sidon in the next section or to a human pharoah in the next section.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

Loading...