NIV Calls Lucifer, "Jesus" (Article)

Discussion in '2004 Archive' started by brothersmiller, May 18, 2004.

  1. brothersmiller

    brothersmiller
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 15, 2004
    Messages:
    20
    Likes Received:
    0
    (1) Just about everybody knows the word "Lucifer" as another name for Satan. The word "Lucifer" is found one time in the King James Bible.

    Isaiah 14:12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!

    (2) But what about the NIV? The word "Lucifer" is clean, bald-headed gone and now this creature is identified as the "morning star". Lucifer is the "morning star" in the NIV.

    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!

    (3) So we know that in the NIV the "morning star" is a negative, evil figure. Right? He was fallen from heaven. He was cast down to the earth. Can we find the "morning star" anywhere else in the NIV? Yes! The following passages in the NIV show the "morning star" as Jesus Christ! But the NIV just called the fallen creature of Isaiah 14:12 "morning star". Lucifer AND Jesus are ONE in the NIV! Lord have mercy, Jesus! Help me, Lord.

    NIV: Revelation 22:16,
    "I, Jesus, have sent my angel to give you [1] this testimony for the churches. I am the Root and the Offspring of David, and the bright Morning Star."

    NIV: 2 Peter 1:19,
    And we have the word of the prophets made more certain, and you will do well to pay attention to it, as to a light shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts.

    NIV: Revelation 2:28--
    I will also give him the morning star.


    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    [ATTACK ON THE BIBLE SNIPPED BY ADMINISTRATOR]

    On 10/28/99 I received an e-mail in response to this article which may prove instructive to others.
    READER: ...It is because of your articles on the King James Bible that I went out and purchased one and now read it at the expense of my NIV bible. Today, however, I decided to look more closely at the accusations made against the NIV. What caused this decision was the article on your site that stated that the NIV called satan, Jesus or vice versa. [ATTACK ON THE BIBLE SNIPPED BY ADMINISTRATOR]

    ...My first observation was that in the center of the King James Bible, where my commentary is, and yes I do have the Authorized King James Version and not the New King James, it said that the word lucifer literally means day star.

    MY RESPONSE: [Three] problems: (1) you are looking at a "commentary" not the Bible. You cannot define the Bible by a commentary. (2) Many of the "commentaries" found in the Bibles you buy today come from the same folks who write the new versions and so the commentaries disagree with the Bible text and agree with new versions. (3) Lucifer does NOT mean day star. In fact DAY STAR is another name for Jesus Christ so now you've got a commentary that calls Lucifer Jesus ONE MORE TIME. See II Peter 1:9 [in the King James Bible] to see that the day star is Jesus Christ.

    READER: Can't morning star be the same? And even though Jesus is also called the Morning Star, it is in caps as I have written it where morning star refering to satan is in small letters.

    MY RESPONSE: Problem--if you had read the article more carefully, you would have seen that the NIV refers to Jesus as the "morning star" in lower case letters also.

    READER: To go farther in my study I actually looked up the work lucifer and here is what I found.

    lucifer: Middle English (meaning) morning star, fallen rebel archangel, the devil
    Old English (from Latin) the morning star, from lucifer, light bearing from lue-lux light

    MY RESPONSE: Lucifer [supposedly] means "light bearer" [so in this case it seems] they've mixed truth with error. You should NEVER go outside of the Bible to prove something wrong. The Bible stands on its own.

    READER: My point from these definitions is: If the KJV commentary defines, literally, that lucifer means day star and that the definition of lucifer found in the dictionary means morning star as well as the devil etc. can't the term lucifer and morning star be used interchangably without it being in error?

    MY RESPONSE: Your commentary is in error, not the Bible.

    READER: I do understand your concern and it is some what valid. However, anyone who is in Christ knows without a doubt that He is the true Morning Star and the Savior of all who come to HIm. I don't think that in this instance we need fear the NIV version.

    MY RESPONSE: The purpose of our section concerning the NIV is not to convince but rather to provide information. Whether folks agree or not is not the point.

    [Additional comments by tracy--the reader here says anyone in Christ knows without a doubt that Jesus is the morning star. Is that so? How do they know? Only the Bible can tell you that information. If they have an NIV they can't know for sure. In fact, the NIV only renders confusion...and we know who authors confusion. The evil found in the NIV cannot be glossed over. Yea, in this instance we must reject the NIV if on no other grounds--though there be many.]

    [ May 18, 2004, 11:19 PM: Message edited by: Dr. Bob Griffin ]
     
  2. Johnv

    Johnv
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    Oh man, this is an old arguement. The reference in Isaiah is referring the the planet Venus.

    The Hebrew word in Isaiah 14:12 is heylel, which means "morning star", and translated "lucifer". The passage speaks of a being cast out of heaven because of pride. Since there is a reference in the New Testament to the devil being cast out of heaven (Rev 12:9-12; cf. Lk 10:18), some have assumed that the Isaiah passage referred to the same thing.

    The reason term "Lucifer" was used in the KJV is because, since the 4th century Latin, it was a name for Venus, especially as the morning star, derived from a term meaning "bright light," or the verbal form "to shine brightly." The same word is used in other places in the Latin Vulgate to translate Hebrew terms that mean "bright," especially associated with the sky. (Job 11:17 and 2 Peter 1:19).

    But the Hebrew word "heylel" DOES NOT refer to Satan. Rather, it inferrs praise. In fact, it is a root word in the phrase hallelu yah (translated Hallelujah, or Alleluia), which means "give praise to the Almighty One".

    Claims by the KJVOnlyists that the NIV "replaced Satan with Jesus" are just another patently false, boldfaced lie.
     
  3. brothersmiller

    brothersmiller
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 15, 2004
    Messages:
    20
    Likes Received:
    0
    The NIV is corrupt whether you believe it or not as the earth is round as it is you can drown in water ect...

    Thank you for your opinion and may Gods truth set you free.Amen.

    Bro miller.
     
  4. Johnv

    Johnv
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    If you feel the NIV is corrupt, feel free to discuss the ponts as to why you think so. But all you've done is post a cut & paste blatent falsehood, which took me all of five minutes to refute. Your first post is a lie, and that's not my opinion, that's a fact.
     
  5. Ransom

    Ransom
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2000
    Messages:
    4,132
    Likes Received:
    0
    brothersmiller said:

    {b](1) you are looking at a "commentary" not the Bible. You cannot define the Bible by a commentary. [/b]

    Oh, man, this argument is so old it has tumbleweed rolling through it.

    The marginal note that says "Lucifer" means "day star" is as old as the KJV itself. The very translators put that there. I can believe them, or I can believe you. Which one do you suppose knows better what they were talking about?
     
  6. David J

    David J
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2004
    Messages:
    796
    Likes Received:
    0
    And how many times has this been answered??????

    Whatever happened to reading the bible in context? [​IMG]
     
  7. Orvie

    Orvie
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2001
    Messages:
    649
    Likes Received:
    0
    ***yawn***
     
  8. Alcott

    Alcott
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2002
    Messages:
    7,455
    Likes Received:
    93
    Well, if it ain't another scarecrow skipping down the black bonded leather road to the
    Anglican City to ask King Jimmy for his brain!
     
  9. superdave

    superdave
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    2,055
    Likes Received:
    0
    Amen,

    By the Way, if you study astronomy at all, a common name for the planet Venus is the Morning Star since at certain times it can be seen low in the sky in the early morning hours, and historically it has been mistaken for a very bright star. Word Studies can be facsinating. And it only takes about 30 seconds to figure out that the NIV rendering is true to the original language, and could indeed refer to Lucifer.

    When we abandon intelligence in our study of the Bible we end up with tripe like that seen in the above posts. The Bible can only be properly interpreted in its literal historical context.
     
  10. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,573
    Likes Received:
    10
    Brothersmiller,(and Askjo) ya might try looking in either a genuine AV 1611 or a replica, & notice the marginal note at Isaiah 14:12 reading "or O day starre". By your standards, Askjo, the AV translators blew it in their note.
     
  11. Askjo

    Askjo
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2003
    Messages:
    3,736
    Likes Received:
    0
    The morning star in the OT and the NT in the NIV is Jesus or Satan, EITHER!!! The NIV is WRONG because it is an interpretation and NOT a translation. The NIV contradicted itself with Hebrew text.

    No Hebrew word for "star" on the Isaiah 14:12 There is no morning star!!!! Helel does not translate "morning star." Lucifer means a light bearer. 2 Cor. 11:14 said the satan is an angel of LIGHT.

    Lucifer in the KJV is right because 2 Cor. 11:14 refers him to "LIGHT bearer," NOT morning star!!!!
     
  12. skanwmatos

    skanwmatos
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2003
    Messages:
    1,314
    Likes Received:
    0
    Is the KJV referring to Jesus or Satan in Revelation 2:28?
     
  13. Ed Edwards

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

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    To bad people don't know about English
    figues of speach like SIMILIEs and
    METAPHORs. They will never be able to
    handle prophecy if they can't get
    the simple cases like "lucifer" :(

    AND what about the polysendton :confused:
     
  14. Askjo

    Askjo
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2003
    Messages:
    3,736
    Likes Received:
    0
    Is the KJV referring to Jesus or Satan in Revelation 2:28? </font>[/QUOTE]The NIV identified "morning star" to both of them. Did the KJV say "morning star" on Isaiah 14:12? The KJV said the morning star on Rev.2:28 is Jesus Christ, not satan!

    Three teenage boys chatted each other. One smartest boy who is curious to test other 2 boys, asked them about the Bible, "Who is the morning star"? These 2 boys answered differently. One boy said it was Satan. Another boy puzzled and said it was Jesus Christ. This smartest boy saw something incorrect here. Who is right???? Is that a big problem? :confused:
     
  15. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,573
    Likes Received:
    10
    "...and I will give him the morning star."

    Obviously Jesus wasn't referring to either Himself or Satan.

    "Or O day starre"(AV 1611 marginal note for Isaiah 14:12)
     
  16. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    29,402
    Likes Received:
    12
    Another wasted thread. Com'on folks. Let's deal with real issues and not thoughts sucked out the thumb that have been answered and answered and answered on many threads. :mad:

    Suggestion: Before jumping to "straighten out" the BaptistBoard, take 30 minutes and scan back over topics from the past few weeks.
     
  17. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,573
    Likes Received:
    10
    I figure you're getting ready to drop the hammer, Dr. Bob, so I thought I'd get a few words in. These cats are SO-O-O-O original!

    Anyway, have a nice night, Y'all-I gotta git up early & go make little steel bars outta big steel bars!

    GOD BLESS ALLYA!
     
  18. tinytim

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

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2003
    Messages:
    11,250
    Likes Received:
    0
    OK, so the NIV blew it in Isaiah,
    Well the KJV blew it in Acts 7:45, and Heb 4:8, when it calls Joshua, "Jesus".

    It (KJV) also slanders the Holy Spirit by taking away his personality by calling Him an it.

    Also the KJV refuses to acknowledge that God is the one that completes the work *He* began in Philipians 1:6. Who ie the "he" in that verse. Every good Christian knows that you must capitalize any pronoun referring to God!!
    This example was a problem in a Sunday school class a few years ago. If God is meant, then why did the translators not capitalize "he"?
    Simple, they were only human, and they blew it!!!!
     
  19. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    29,402
    Likes Received:
    12
    You right about dropping the hammer. But as thread-worn as this is and ludicrous the argument, this does not violate our rules.

    Yet.
     
  20. rsr

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

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2001
    Messages:
    10,073
    Likes Received:
    101
    Dr. Bob said:

    But that would be too much trouble. And we certainly couldn't have that, given that it might take our valuable time.
     

Share This Page

Loading...