Morning Stars

Discussion in 'Bible Versions/Translations' started by robycop3, Aug 30, 2006.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,573
    Likes Received:
    10
    Some people holler about the use of 'morning star' in Isaiah 14:12 because Jesus calls Himself the morning star in Rev. 22:16.(Remember the AV 1611's marginal note, "or, O day starre" for Isaiah 14:12.) But clearly there are many morning stars in Scripture. Before He calls Himself the morning star, He says, in Rev. 2:28 "And I will give him the morning star." Clearly this isn't Himself. And before all these things we see in Job 38:7 "When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy".

    A little help from the Hebrew readers, please? I have been told by more than one Jew that 'morning star' is a valid English rendering in Isaiah 14:12 because we have 'helel', I.E. "light bringer or bearer" coupled with "son of the morning". How correct is this?

    I believe Jesus clearly indicated His uniqueness among all other 'morning stars' by calling Himself the BRIGHT AND morning star.

    Who were those morning stars in Job? And what morning star is Jesus gonna give to the believers?
     
  2. BruceB

    BruceB
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2004
    Messages:
    199
    Likes Received:
    0
    robycop3,
    I have nothing in the way of an answer for you, but I am glad you have asked this question; this is an area of confusion for me and I eagerly await an explanation.
    Bruce
     
  3. franklinmonroe

    franklinmonroe
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2006
    Messages:
    2,872
    Likes Received:
    3
    robycop3,

    I'm quite sure that you will receive some very thorough answers from the board. Therefore, I will keep my answer rather short.

    Most objections I've read are about the translation here as "morning star" (or similar) because it eliminates the KJVs "Lucifer", which many believe to be the proper personal name of our spiritual enemy (Satan, the devil, the dragon, etc. a fallen archangel).

    Lucifer is simply the Latin word standing in for the Hebrew here (and need not be capitalized). In English "morning star" is a proper rendering. As you stated, the original 1611 translators knew it was accurate translation. The "morning star" is often a reference to the planet Venus (even contemporarily).

    Jesus is symbolized as a lion (of Judah), as is Satan (as a roaring lion), so be careful of making too much of literary anthropomorphism.
     
  4. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2
    Under the heading "Lucifer, Son of the Morning," Clarence Larkin wrote: "The 'Morning Stars,' (probably other glorious created ruling beings like himself), sang together" (Job 38:7) (Rightly Dividing the Word, p. 97).
     
  5. Askjo

    Askjo
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2003
    Messages:
    3,736
    Likes Received:
    0
    Lucifer is not the morning star!

    You look at Hebrew word if you can find right word for Isaiah 14:12.

    The Hebrew word for morning is boqer. The Hebrew word for star is kokav. You look for “morning” in Hebrew word on Genesis 1:13. You also look for Hebrew word for “star” on Genesis 1:16.

    The Hebrew word, “Helel” does NOT mean morning star, but it means to SHINE. Lucifer is a right word for translation. Two words for one word: lucis and fer = Lucifer.

    Lucifer in the KJV comes from the Hebrew word, “helel – it means ‘light bearer” or “shining one” – Not morning star!

    Nowhere for “star” is found in Hebrew word on Isaiah 14:12.

    You must remember the Satan is transformed into an angel of light – See 2 Cor. 11:14. You see, he is Lucifer, an angel of light, not morning star.

    Jesus Christ is the morning star.
     
  6. tinytim

    tinytim
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/tim2.jpg>

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2003
    Messages:
    11,250
    Likes Received:
    0
    Is there a place in the Bible that shows Lucifer = satan = devil?
     
  7. Ed Edwards

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

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    Sigh :tear:

    This is idioticy bordering on blasphemy.

    //
    Nowhere for “star” is found in Hebrew word on Isaiah 14:12.//


    This is true, but meaningless. The Hebrew word is shown in
    Strongs as:

    H1966
    הילל
    hêylêl
    hay-lale'
    From H1984 (in the sense of brightness);
    the morning star: - lucifer.



    //Lucifer is not the morning star!//

    Correct. Lucifer is AS the morning star.
    The morning star brings an unfulfilled HOPE OF DAWN
    (compare to the true dawn of the SON).

    //
    Jesus Christ is the morning star.//

    Wrong, totaly wrong. Jesus Christ is AS the morning star:
    Jesus is the man leading the true dawn of God: the Messiah
    (AKA: Christ).

    These are COMPARISONS, not equaltions.

    Jesus Christ is NOT the morning star, evening star, day star,
    allof which refer to the planet Venus, the second planet from
    the Sun in the Solar System. Jesus Christ is much more than
    a hot ball of metal & gas. - always was, always will be.

    Even the KJV1611 Edition tells the truth:

    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 Footnote: Or, O daystarre

    This footnote means that the translators note a
    nearly as good way to translate the passage
    is:

    Isa 14:12 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?

    Unfortunately, this does not support the
    blasphemy
    that 'Lucifer' is the name of 'Satan' (a title: the acuser)
    AKA: The Head Devil (another title). His name is not known,
    just his titles:

    Old mealy mouth
    The Deceiver
    That Old Dragon
    etc.
     
  8. Ed Edwards

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

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    No, it is a ignorant* assigment made by people who
    'don't know' about metaphors & similies (communication devices).

    caveat "ignorant" = 'not knowing', it is NOT a judgement
    as some think, but an fruit inspection
     
  9. FERRON BRIMSTONE

    FERRON BRIMSTONE
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2006
    Messages:
    136
    Likes Received:
    0
    If you read Isaiah 14 carefully you see that the chapter has a dual focus on the king of Babylon and the Anti-Christ. Beginning in verse 12 the writer compares them to Satan and his fall. This is fitting since Satan is influencing them both.

    Whether you translate it as Lucifer, morning star, day star, light bearer or shining one, I believe the translation would be correct. However the title is used here as a derogatory term because of their desire for greatness. Satan, the king of Babylon, and the anti-Christ all see themselves as deserving such a title, but will be brought down to the lowest pits of hell. So the term is used primarily for the king of Babylon and the anti-Christ, but also for Satan, who was at one time an Angel or light-bearer.


    Isa 14:12 "How you are fallen from heaven, O Day Star, son of Dawn! How you are cut down to the ground, you who laid the nations low!
    Isa 14:13 You said in your heart, 'I will ascend to heaven; above the stars of God I will set my throne on high; I will sit on the mount of assembly in the far reaches of the north;
    Isa 14:14 I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will make myself like the Most High.'
    Isa 14:15 But you are brought down to Sheol, to the far reaches of the pit.

    ESV
     
  10. Marcia

    Marcia
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2004
    Messages:
    11,139
    Likes Received:
    0
    This has come up before here, and I recall someone posting info on that. There is an association with Venus, which was called the morning star.

     
  11. Mexdeaf

    Mexdeaf
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2005
    Messages:
    7,051
    Likes Received:
    0
    Thanks Bro. Ed, for clearing that up. In Spanish, 'lucir' is to shine. 'Lucifero' is resplendant, OR morning star, referring to Venus. So it all mathes up with what you said.
     
  12. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2
    Lucifer and morning star were used as synonyms in the 1500's and 1600's.


    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?


    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.

    To claim that the Hebrew word does not mean "morning star" is also claiming that it does not mean "Lucifer."
     
  13. Askjo

    Askjo
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2003
    Messages:
    3,736
    Likes Received:
    0
    You contradict yourself what you are saying.

    This quotation shows very obvious: Lucifer is AS Jesus. Jesus is AS Lucifer. Lucifer is AS morning star as Jesus. Jesus is AS morning star as Lucifer.

    Look at Rev. 22:16 (KJV) “I AM … morning star." This verse does not say Jesus is “AS” morning star. But this verse is very clear that Jesus IS the morning star.
    The KJV translators were very wise to select a right word in the KJV. Lucifer is a right word instead of a day star. They put “Lucifer” on Isa. 14:12 instead of morning star or day star.
     
  14. Helen

    Helen
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/Helen2.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2001
    Messages:
    11,703
    Likes Received:
    1
    The morning stars of Job were the stars in the cores of the galaxies which lit up about 3.5 to 4 days before the stars in the spiral arms (of which our sun is one). The stars of Job are literal stars. Due to the high speed of light at the creation of the cosmos, the morning, or central stars, literally blew up like giant balloons with light (all stars are, as the Bible correctly indicates "light holders") which is why we have the red giants in the cores of our galaxies. They are also called the Population II stars. The Population I stars, like our sun, are younger and bluer for the most part, which is why we see the blue color along the spiral arms of the galaxies.

    The 'morning star' of Christ is the idiom for the idea that the New Day is coming and we can look for it.

    Essentially, there is probably nothing in creation which is not some kind of picture of a spiritual truth.
     
  15. Ed Edwards

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

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

    Those who don't know methods of communication are
    limited in their ability to communicate.

    A 'metaphor' is a figure of speach in which a similarity
    with something else is implied

    A 'simile' is a figure of speach in which a similarity
    with something else directly by the use of 'like' or 'as'.

    Askjo: //Look at Rev. 22:16 (KJV) “I AM … morning star." This verse does not say Jesus is “AS” morning star.//

    Your statement shows that in this case Jesus is
    compared to the 'morning star' by a metaphor (the 'like' or 'as' is
    missing).

    The meaning of nouns is that they refer to something.
    'Jesus' refers to a person who walked and talked on earth
    about 2,000 years ago. 'Messiah' ('chosen one of God') is
    His Job title and referes to His earthly and heavenly person.
    'Morning Star' refers to the planet Venus in it's rising-before-the-sun
    position. 'Evening Star' refers to the planet Venus in
    it's setting-after-the-sun position. Venus is also known as
    'day star' for it is the only planet or star that can be seen during
    the daytime.

    Sorry, 'Jesus' does not denote the same set of attributes as
    does the term 'Morning Star'. To claim so shows the claimer
    to be a member of one of those groups
    that claim that God can honor 'not knowning' more than he can honor
    'study to shew thy self approved unto God'.

    Other debaters: fortunately "
    Those who don't know methods
    of communication are limited in their ability to communicate."
    So they pose no threat to the rest of us (save
    in our guilt-by-association).
     
  16. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,573
    Likes Received:
    10
    Any comments on the morning star Jesus said He's gonna give the believers?
     
  17. Ed Edwards

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

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    It is a metaphor of Jesus giving Himself for we Believers.
     
  18. franklinmonroe

    franklinmonroe
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2006
    Messages:
    2,872
    Likes Received:
    3
    I believe the original questions have fully answered. All the historical and linguistic evidence shows that "moring star" or "day starre" are proper renderings.

    "Lucifer" is not Hebrew, and it is not English. It is unfortunate that the KJV translators choose to retain this Catholic Latinism in the text rather than plainly and properly putting it into English vernacular. There is no contridiction that brightness or star-likeness be attributed to both Christ and Satan (they are also both powerful, intelligent, etc.)

    From the Encyclopedia Britannica:
    In classical mythology, the morning star (the planet Venus at dawn), personified as a male figure. Lucifer (Latin: “Light-Bearer”) carried a torch and served as herald of the dawn. In Christian times, Lucifer came to be regarded as the name of Satan before his fall; it was thus used by John Milton in Paradise Lost.

    From American Heritage Dictionary:
    1. The archangel cast from heaven for leading the revolt of the angels; Satan.
    2. The planet Venus in its appearance as the morning star.
    3. lucifer A friction match.
    [Middle English, from Old English, morning star, Lucifer, from Latin Lūcifer, from lūcifer, light-bringer : lūx, lūc-, light + -fer, -fer.]


    From Wikipedia:
    In the Vulgate, an early-5th-century translation of the Bible into Latin by Jerome, Lucifer occurs in Isaiah 14:12-14 as a translation of the Greek word heosphorus ("dawn-bearer"), an epithet of Venus. The original Hebrew text of this verse was הילל בן שחר (heilel ben-schahar), meaning "Venus, son of the morning" or "Venus, the brilliant one", a poetic epithet of the king of Babylon, comparable to many other titles used by kings throughout history, such as Louis XIV of France being called Le Roi Soleil ("The Sun King"). In Isaiah, this title is specifically used, in a prophetic vision, to reference the king of Babylon's pride and to illustrate his eventual fate by referencing mythological accounts of the planet Venus
     
  19. Ed Edwards

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

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    Strangly, most of what we know about Satan is a
    Catholic version from John Milton in Paradise Lost.

    1. Satan is NOT the warden of eternal Hell, he is the
    chief & intended prisioner.

    2. Satan is NOT ugly & mishapen, he frequently
    appears as an angel of light

    3. etc.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

Loading...