Lucifer

Discussion in 'Baptist Theology & Bible Study' started by grahame, Jan 25, 2008.

  1. grahame

    grahame
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2006
    Messages:
    360
    Likes Received:
    0
    Someone keeps on at me to answer this. Apparently, according to him the name "Lucifer" is not a Semitic word, but rather a Latin word. Hid question is, "How did a Latin word get into a Hebrew scripture? Why would Isaiah, being a Jew write in Latin just here?" Can anyone give me a satisfactory answer to his question please?
     
  2. Brandon C. Jones

    Brandon C. Jones
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2005
    Messages:
    598
    Likes Received:
    0
    Lucifer is a Latin word and of course the Latin word was not a part of the Hebrew Scripture. Some English Bibles simply carryover the Latin translation (Jerome's Vulgate I believe in this case) of the Hebrew word in their translations.

    This is a link to Doug Kutilek's essay on this verse:

    http://www.kjvonly.org/doug/kutilek_notes_on_lucifer.htm
     
  3. grahame

    grahame
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2006
    Messages:
    360
    Likes Received:
    0
    Thanks for that Brandon. That is very helpful.
     
  4. grahame

    grahame
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2006
    Messages:
    360
    Likes Received:
    0
    I know that this verse is often seen by Christians as referring to Satan or the devil. But this person said that the Jews had no concept of Satan or the Devil. Is that true? Well I know that according to Paul the apostle and also the writers of the gospels and of course the book of revelation that they are all Jews and also refer to the devil. But was this a general belief among the Jews?
     
  5. David Lamb

    David Lamb
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2006
    Messages:
    2,982
    Likes Received:
    0
    There are plenty of Latin and Latin-based words in our English translations of the bible. But they were not in the Hebrew or Greek originals. The word translated "Lucifer" was the Hebrew heylel (sorry, I don't know how to insert Hebrew and Greek characters). So Isaiah did not write "Lucifer", or any other Latin word. heylel apparently means "Light-bearer". "Lucifer" means the same thing. Indeed, there was a brand of matches called "Lucifers". The website http://www.matchbox-labels.co.uk/examples.htm says:
    Lucifer matches were first sold under that name in 1829 by chemist Samuel Jones. Demand was high and others soon followed his example. During 1832 a new friction match was introduced from the continent called the Congreve, using phosphorous and soon replaced the lucifer match.

    Even though those particular matches were no longer made, the name "Lucifer" stuck, at least until the time of the First World War, when the song "Pack up your troubles in your old kitbag" was written, with the line "While you've a Lucifer to light your fag". Sorry, I am wandering :).
     
  6. Brandon C. Jones

    Brandon C. Jones
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2005
    Messages:
    598
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hello again Grahame,

    Yes, some Christians relate this passage to Satan (along with Ezekiel 28), but that is surely not a necessary reading of it. I also do not think that the Jews read Satan into this passage either. Personally, I don't link this passage with Satan.

    However, your friend is wrong to say that the Jews had no concept of Satan. The Jewish Scriptures contain many references to Satan. There is some dispute when passages refer to Satan or just an adversary since the word is the same, but there are plenty of places where the context is clear that it is referring to the Devil.
     
    #6 Brandon C. Jones, Jan 26, 2008
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 26, 2008
  7. grahame

    grahame
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2006
    Messages:
    360
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yes I thought this was so. I referred him to the New Testament scriptures where Jewish writers like Paul the apostle who was originally a Pharisee certainly believed in Satan. Thank you for your help both of you.
     
  8. Dr. L.T. Ketchum

    Dr. L.T. Ketchum
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2002
    Messages:
    212
    Likes Received:
    0
    These references to Satan in the OT often come in the form of Duelisms; i.e., a historical figure who is typical of Satan.

    There are certainly actual references to Satan in the book of Job (1:7 for instance).
     
  9. grahame

    grahame
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2006
    Messages:
    360
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yes, I was wondering if this passage in Isaiah was one such case. I think that commentators say that this is a reference to the king of Babylon?
     
  10. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2
    Yes, that is correct.

    The word "lucifer" is the rendering of the Hebrew Helel at this verse according to the Latin Vulgate. The Barnhart Dictionary of Etymology affirmed that this word was "borrowed from Latin lucifer the morning star" (p. 613). Gleason Archer noted: "The title Helel, which KJV (following the Latin Vulgate) translates 'Lucifer,' is rendered Hesphoros in the Septuagint (meaning 'Dawn-bringer' and referring to the morning star)" (Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties, p. 268). This LXX rendering was said to be the common Greek name for Venus as the morning star. Henry Thiessen affirmed that "this term [Lucifer] means the morning star, an epithet of the planet Venus" (Lectures in Systematic Theology, p. 202). At Isaiah 14:12, John Wesley gave this note: "Lucifer--which properly is a bright star that ushers in the morning" (Explanatory Notes upon the O. T., III, p. 1985). William Wilson pointed out that the meaning of the Hebrew word according to the Septuagint and Vulgate was "brilliant star, i.e. Lucifer, the morning star" (O. T. Word Studies, p. 261). The International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia has at its entry for Lucifer the following: “the morning star, an epithet of the planet Venus” (p. 1934). David Daiches maintained that Lucifer “is the name of the morning star” (KJV, p. 204). John Brown wrote that “the king of Babylon is called Lucifer, or the morning-star, because his glory and power far surpassed those of his fellow-sovereigns (Dictionary of the Bible, p. 483).

    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 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?”


    Since the Hebrew word in this verse occurs only once in the whole Old Testament, it was perhaps easy for English translators to follow this interpretation of the Latin translators. 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.

    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 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.
     
  11. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    Amen, Brother Logos1560 -- Preach it! :thumbs:

    rewritten 14 Oct 2007

    Isa 14:12 (KJV1611 Edition):

    How art thou fallen from heauen, ||O Lucifer, sonne of the morning?
    how art thou cut downe to the ground, which didst weaken the nations?

    Error Doctrine:

    The name is 'Lucifer', his role is Lead Devil, his title is
    'Satan' (the accuser).

    Margin note: ||OR, O day-
    starre.


    This shows that what is being compared here is the King of Bayblon
    and the planet Venus, AKA /also known as/: Day Star,
    Morning Star, Evening Star (according to when seen in the sky).

    Blows that doctrine right down the tubes.
    We don't know the name of Satan What'shisname, the Lead Devil.

    ---------------------------------------
    Quote from another venue where the parents
    of a 5-year-old girl have a problem with her
    because she was told about [job title] [name]:
    Satan Lucifer being a beautiful angel (cherub that
    covers)

    Isa 14:12 (Latin Vulgate, 0484 Version )
    quomodo cecidisti de caelo lucifer qui mane
    oriebaris corruisti in terram qui vulnerabas gentes

    'Lucifer' is NOT the Holy Written Word of God;
    'Lucifer' is the word of the Roman Catholic Church (RCC).
    The Latin Vulgate has been the most used Bible
    in the World since before 0500AD - for 1,500 years
    It has been the word of the Pope.
    (Recall that many Protestants have consider that
    the Antichrist is the RCC Pope and the RCC Pope
    is the Antichrist).

    Even the spelling hasn't changed from the Antichrist Bible
    to the KJV. (except the KJV1611 has the REAL MEANING
    that is BAPTIST and non-RCC).

    Isa 14:12 (KJV1611 Edition):
    How art thou fallen from heauen,
    ||O Lucifer, sonne of the morning?
    how art thou cut downe to the ground,
    which didst weaken the nations?

    Translator's Margin Note:
    || Or, O daystarre.

    This notation means that the following is a
    perfectly good reading moving from Greek to
    Early Modern English

    Isa 14:12 (KJV1611 Edition, alternative):
    How art thou fallen from heauen,
    O daystarre, sonne of the morning?
    how art thou cut downe to the ground,
    which didst weaken the nations?

    Please pray for the 5-year-old & her parents.
    5-year-olds are going to have problem when old
    men can't even agree.
     
  12. grahame

    grahame
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2006
    Messages:
    360
    Likes Received:
    0
    Thank you Logos. It seems the explanation is quite simple after all. I thought it was. That's why I ignored his question for some time. But he kept on about it and it seemed that because of this word, to him it was vital in proving that there are errors in the word of God for some reason. I don't think this made any difference to him as he has found more excuses not to believe, thus proving that unbelief is stronger than evidence. :BangHead:
     

Share This Page

Loading...