NIV Calls Lucifer, "Jesus" (Article)

Michelle, I know the Bible uses the term "morning star" to describe Jesus, but in Is. 14, the Hebrew term for 'day star' or 'shining one' is used for the King of Babylon. The KJ translators used the Latin term "Lucifer" for the Hebrew word in Is. 14.

Confusion arose from equating the Latin word "Lucifer" with Satan. There is no name "Lucifer" in the Bible. Do you understand that "Lucifer" is Latin for "brilliant star," "shining one," etc. and is not Hebrew or Greek?

"Lucifer" is Latin and is not in Hebrew or Greek, which are the languages (along with a little Aramaic) the Bible was written in.

 

So you are saying that God (and the KJV translators) lied when He inspired (and they translated) verse 4 which identifies the person in question as "the king of Babylon?"

 

--------------------------------------------------
Now before anyone labels me a heretic look in the Bible and see if it actually says that Lucifer is satan - Isaiah is talking about the king of Babylon - a man!
--------------------------------------------------

Actually it goes well beyond that. Lucifer is a name referring to Satan (maybe this is even his angelic name just as Michael and Gabriel have names?), who is giving power to a man, or quite possibly possessing him. Do an indepth study of the Book of Revelation, and you will be greatly blessed. You will also find in your study, that Satan is called by many names.

love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

Uh, well, actually, no. Jesus says, of Himself, in Revelation 22:16, "o asthr o lamprov kai oryrinov." The star bright and morning. The New Testament is in Greek, not Hebrew.

 

Well, actually, not. Your first example is "day star" not "morning star." Your second example is not referring to Jesus, unless you believe salvation is by works. Your third example says "the bright and morning star" not "the morning star."

You are no 0 for 3.

Are you ready to admit you are wrong yet?

 

Once again you refuse to answer, proving that you just don't know. You say you believe the bible is wrong in verse 4, that Lucifer is not the king of Babylon, the words God inspired and the words the KJV committees translated.

Once again you have proven you don't have a clue what you are talking about.

If you would actually study the bible instead of listening to some ignorant KJVO ranting and raving from the pulpit you might just learn something.

 

I am well aware of the fact that Lucifer is a latin word that the translators chose. Go back and read my post on the most likely reason (with the scriptures) they chose this latin word for this passage. They could have very well chose "bright one" or "light bearer" but they didn't. Why? There is a reason. Not only that, but the Hebrew does not indicate the rendering of star anywhere in this passage. He may be the son of the morning, which is what the KJV says, but he is NOT THE MORNING STAR - no Hebrew word for star to be rendered. The Babylonian king might have been called by his followers the morning star, but this doesn't mean he was. The morning star is Jesus Christ, not the Babylonian King, or anyone else for that matter. There are many false Christs, who come in the name of the Lord and have been since the beginning. The word Lucifer gives the proper rendering as so not to confuse this with Jesus Christ our Lord and to give the dual and full understanding of this passage.

The NIV has blasphemied the Lord Jesus Christ by rendering it morning star. Stop making excuses for your love of those things that would and have altered God's words, and rather love his words of truth more.

love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Savioiur,
michelle

 

--------------------------------------------------
Once again you refuse to answer, proving that you just don't know. You say you believe the bible is wrong in verse 4, that Lucifer is not the king of Babylon, the words God inspired and the words the KJV committees translated.
--------------------------------------------------

You are claiming I said things I did not say. I never said this. I did answer your questions, with the scriptures.

love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

--------------------------------------------------
If you would actually study the bible instead of listening to some ignorant KJVO ranting and raving from the pulpit you might just learn something.
--------------------------------------------------

And if you would rather listen to what people are saying, and hear what the scriptures are telling you, rather than arguing against a label, you just might learn something and be blessed.

love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Marcia:
Jesus calls himself the "morning star" (helel) in Rev. 22:16.
----------------------------------------------

Skan responded:
Uh, well, actually, no. Jesus says, of Himself, in Revelation 22:16, "o asthr o lamprov kai oryrinov." The star bright and morning. The New Testament is in Greek, not Hebrew.

Marcia:
Sorry, I was wrong about putting the Hebrew term there. I was looking at Is. 14 at the time and got mixed up.

 

The reason is, quite apart from your rambling and ignorant "explanation," that the word heylel in Hebrew is a masculine, singular, absolute making it a proper name. In this case the proper name of a planet we now call Venus. You see, in ancient days they did not know that Lucifer (morning star) and Venus (evening star) were the same planet! (Well, the Greeks did, but the Romans never listened to the Greeks even though the Greeks were smarter, better educated, and much more advanced scientifically than the Romans. Kind of like KJVOs and every body else in the world.)

Heylel means "Venus" - everybody who has ever looked through a telescope knows that Venus is "the morning star."

Sorry, but you are talking about different words. "Son of the morning" is translated from the Hebrew words "ben shachar" which is literally "son of dawn."

So, once again you are saying that God made a mistake in verse 4 when he identifies the person in question as "the king of Babylon?"

 

Verse 4 says the person in question is "the king of Babylon." You say that is wrong. You are saying that God made a mistake!

 

So, are you finally admitting that "the king of Babylon" is who is being referred to in this passage and that he is called "Lucifer" (Venus) because Venus, the morning star, goes from the brightest object in the sky just before dawn to being completely invisible just a few minutes later? Just as the king of Babylon went from being the most powerful king in the world to being completely powerless in just a few hours?

 

I figured that was what happened. But you are correct in that the NT calls Jesus "the bright and morning star" in Revelation.

 

However "morning star" was not found in Latin Vulgate.

 

However "morning star" was not found in Latin Vulgate. </font>[/QUOTE]Wrong again! Isaiah 14:12, "quomodo cecidisti de caelo lucifer qui mane oriebaris corruisti in terram qui vulnerabas gentes." Latin Dictionary, "Lucifer, name for the planet Venus when it appears as the morning star."

 

--------------------------------------------------
Confusion arose from equating the Latin word "Lucifer" with Satan. There is no name "Lucifer" in the Bible. Do you understand that "Lucifer" is Latin for "brilliant star," "shining one," etc. and is not Hebrew or Greek?
--------------------------------------------------

Confusion didn't arise until the modern version NIV inappropriately, erroneously, and blasphemously rendered this as morning star.

love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour, the bright and morning star,
michelle

 

"Morning star" is exactly what the word means. The only confusion is caused by the KJVOs ignorance of simple facts.

 

Venus is not a star, but a planet. It was also known as the Roman goddess of love and beauty. Hence, it is not a morning star, but a planet, and a bright one at that.

love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

Now Charles says Isaiah is talking about a man. So which is it ? Is the King of Babylon now likened to the planet Venus in its brightness ?Is it the planet Venus that fell or is it the king of Babylon ?

Is the king of Babylon a type of Satan, the adversary of God's people, or is he not ? Is Babylon a type of the world, or is it not ?