misinformation about Isaiah 14:12?

Discussion in 'Bible Versions/Translations' started by Logos1560, Jan 18, 2008.

  1. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2
    At the Sword Conference, Pastor Bob reported that "Dr. Norris Belcher spoke on 'Staying with the Word of God.
    His text was Luke 20:45-47
    He poses the question - If you were Satan, would you not do everything in your power to weaken the Word of God and then convince people that it was indeed the pure Word of God? [It stands to reason that Satan has produced counterfeits of everything that God made pure and holy. Why would the Word of God be any different? If Satan did produce a counterfeit Bible, where is it today?]


    Dr. Belcher then offered some examples of differences in the two texts:
    Isaiah 14:12 - The only place in the Bible where we are told what Satan's name is. The CT takes it out. "


    Are the speakers at the Sword Conference so uninformed or misinformed that they would make the above inaccurate claim about Isaiah 14:12? Do they not know how the rendering "Lucifer" was used in the 1500's and 1600's?

    By the way, the term "CT--Critical Text" is commonly understood and used for certain editions of the Greek New Testament Text. The rendering at Isaiah 14:12 is not actually based on any difference in text.

    The Hebrew Masoretic Text does not have the name "Lucifer" in its text at Isaiah 14:12. The name "lucifer" comes from the Latin Vulgate. The Latin Vulgate's rendering seems to have come from the influence of Greek Septuaginat.

    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, which is on the KJV-only view's own 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?

    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 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, 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.
     
  2. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2
    At the Sword Scripture Text Conference, Pastor_Bob reported that "Dr. Mike Norris spoke on the "Pastor's Perspective" regarding the version issue.

    Some his statements include:

    "Most men today base their conclusions on the versions issue on what they were taught in college." He went on to say that most have never studied for themselves.
    ________________________________________________

    Have all the speakers at this Sword Conference studied the versions issue and examined the evidence for themselves or do they seem to be repeating what other KJV-only authors have claimed?

    Does the claim made by one speaker about Isaiah 14:12 indicate that that speaker had studied and examined the evidence for himself?
     

Share This Page

Loading...