NIV Calls Lucifer, "Jesus" (Article)

The NET Bible (online at www.netbible.com if you want to download it)translates "helel" as "O star of the morning, son of the dawn" and has a noted that these terms could be names for the kings of Assyria and Babylon.

The Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, (Harris, Archer, and Waltke)has a long entry for Helel on p. 217, which I do not have time to copy out here. But the entry talks about how this passage has many allusions to pagan myths, which makes sense since this is being addressed to a pagan king who was opposing God. There was a myth about a Greek named Phaethon "who attempted to scale the heights of heaven and as the dawn star was ever condemned to be cast down into Hades." The "dawn star" was usually considered to be Venus, which is also known as the morning star.

The entry also states: "Any interpretation of Is 14 which does not take into accouont the mythological allusion does injustice to what is said there."

This makes sense when you look at the language in verses 13 and 14 about ascending to the heavens and sitting on the heights. We know that God does not just on some heights but actually reigns from heaven. But pagans believed the gods reigned from a high mountain up in the heavens (like Zeus and Mt. Olympus).

God's word is so rich -- this passage just shows how far-reaching God's word goes to rebuke the pagan kings and their desire to rule like God. We see that for this king to be a morning star (Venus) is to fade when the light comes.

Jesus, in contrast,is the real, authentic morning star who never fades. Along with Jesus' statements about being the light of the world elsewhere, it only reaffirms Christ for who he is.

There is nothing wrong with using the same term or idea. We see it elsewhere where Jesus says he saw Satan fall like lightning, Jesus says that his coming will be like lightning, and the angel at the empty tomb in Matt. 28 is described as having an appearance or countenance like lightning. This does not mean that Satan, Jesus and the angel are the same thing because of the term "lightning."

 

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

The Hebrew word means bright one. Not morning star. No Hebrew word for star in this passage.

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

 

--------------------------------------------------
The NET Bible (online at www.netbible.com if you want to download it)translates "helel" as "O star of the morning, son of the dawn" and has a noted that these terms could be names for the kings of Assyria and Babylon.
--------------------------------------------------

The problem is that this Hebrew word does not translate "star" but bright one. There is a big difference.

love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

Michelle:This speaks volumes of why the KJV translators chose this rendering.

Let us read now:

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!

13 For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exhalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north.

14 I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High.

15 Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit.

16 They that see thee shall narrowly look upon thee, and consider thee, saying, Is this the man

SATAN IS NOT A MAN!

that made the earth to tremble, that did shake the kingdoms;

17 That made the world as a wilderness, and destroyed the cities thereof; that opened not the house of his prisoners?

This is clearly not speaking of the planet venus, but a person, who is Satan.

Satan has no prisoners. He hasn't devastated the earth. He is not in hell now.

The other verses you've quoted have nothing to do with this argument. Let's look at some you SHOULD'VE quoted:

Isaiah 14:1, KJV For the LORD will have mercy on Jacob, and will yet choose Israel, and set them in their own land: and the strangers shall be joined with them, and they shall cleave to the house of Jacob.
2 And the people shall take them, and bring them to their place: and the house of Israel shall possess them in the land of the LORD for servants and handmaids: and they shall take them captives, whose captives they were; and they shall rule over their oppressors.
3 And it shall come to pass in the day that the LORD shall give thee rest from thy sorrow, and from thy fear, and from the hard bondage wherein thou wast made to serve,
4 That thou shalt take up this proverb against the king of Babylon, and say, How hath the oppressor ceased! the golden city ceased!
5 The LORD hath broken the staff of the wicked, and the sceptre of the rulers.
6 He who smote the people in wrath with a continual stroke, he that ruled the nations in anger, is persecuted, and none hindereth.
7 The whole earth is at rest, and is quiet: they break forth into singing.
8 Yea, the fir trees rejoice at thee, and the cedars of Lebanon, saying, Since thou art laid down, no feller is come up against us.
9 Hell from beneath is moved for thee to meet thee at thy coming: it stirreth up the dead for thee, even all the chief ones of the earth; it hath raised up from their thrones all the kings of the nations.
10 All they shall speak and say unto thee, Art thou also become weak as we? art thou become like unto us?
11 Thy pomp is brought down to the grave, and the noise of thy viols: the worm is spread under thee, and the worms cover thee.
12 How art thou fallen from heaven...

And you might study a little about Venus's place in ancient astronomy. Venus, is, of course, the brightest natural object seen in the sky after the special cases of the sun& moon. The ancients noted that Venus did not remain night after night in the same place in the sky in relation to the fixed stars.

Venus isn't mentioned AT ALL in the extant records of Indian, Egyptian, or Babylonian astronomy from C. 1500 BC and older. How could those people, who mentioned such faint objects as the Andromeda Galaxy have failed to see something as bright as Venus? At first, it was believed that Venus had been given special status by those ancient astronomers, but that thought was dispelled when an ancient Brahmin text was discovered which mentioned "the four moving stars".

From his work gathering legends, both oral & written from around the world, Immanuel Velikovsky reached the conclusion that Venus had been "born" of Jupiter C. 1500 BC, assumed a long, cigar-shaped orbit, & twice within 52 years, came very close to the earth. Since it's known that the "plagues of Egypt" at the Exodus occurred worldwide and not just in Egypt, and that these events could have been caused by the gravity and magnetism of another planet nearby, he also concluded that the events of Exodus were caused by the close encounter between earth & Venus This is NOT at all against Scripture because God can use anything to do anything, or He can simply will something to occur.

Here's a link to an article that briefly describes one of velikovsky's theories.

http://wovoca.com/controversies-velikovskys-theory.htm

You can find out more in his book, Worlds In Collision, available in most libraries & book stores.

Keep in mind that Vel was a Jew from Russia, and he'd set out to explore whether the Scriptures narrating the sun & moon standing still at Joshua's prayer, accompanied by a rain of 'barad'(Hebrew for stones or hail)were true or not. Obviously, he found out that they ARE true!

 

Amen to that!

 

God chose to use the Hebrew word which means bright one, not bright star, because God knew/knows that Venus is a planet, and not a star. How wonderful and full of wisdom our Lord is! Praise the Lord!

love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

Michelle:The problem is that this Hebrew word does not translate "star" but bright one. There is a big difference.

Marginal note from the AV 1611 for Isaiah 14:12:

or O DAY STARRE

 

Michelle: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.

Marginal note from the AV 1611 for Isaiah 14:12:

or O DAY STARRE

 

\O/ to glory God!!!

 

Michele, first you sayd that the "The NIV has blasphemied the Lord Jesus Christ by rendering it morning star", and then you close your post with the words, love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour, and bright and morning star.

I guess that makes you a blasphemer.

 

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


Marginal note from the AV 1611 for Isaiah 14:12:

or O DAY STARRE

 

Then we got a problem with Genesis, because it does not distinguish between stars and planets. Sorry, but the writers of the OT had no knowlege of planets, and considered stars, other galaxies, and planets to be the same. Interestingly, they had no concept whatsoever that the Sun is a star, and an average one at that.

 

Michelle, you said

But Venus in those times and cultures was referred to as a star. The idea of a planet was not understood by most and all the heavenly bodies were called stars (except the sun and moon). Venus is even known today as the "morning star" even though we know it's a planet.

"Helel" must be translated in context. Language is not rigid; context always determines meaning. Due to the allusions to being like a morning star that fades that I posted earlier, translating it as "morning star" makes sense in that context.

Also, the Theological Wordbook states of Helel:

In Is 13:10, the same word is used to describe the light of the stars (constellations). In Job 25:5, a from of the root word Helel is used to describe the light of the moon. So Helel is connected to constellations and heavenly bodies.

 

robycop,

As much as I appreciate all the information you provided, my sole authority is the word of God. God chose the Hebrew word Helel, which means the bright one, and not a star. God rightly gave us this Hebrew word, as God knows himself, that Venus is a planet, and not whatsoever a star. I stick with what God has said and trust his wisdom, and leave out the wisdom of man.

The point is, the NIV has rendered this word erroneously, and blasphemously.

Should you call the Rev. Moon the Christ? OR anyone else for that matter? Why then is it different pertaining to the title of morning star of our precious Saviour Jesus? Why stand for a word that is not true to the text, the passage, or the truth and to which causes nothing but confusion and blasphemy of our Lord? Where is your love of the truth?

That passage of Isaiah is also pertaining to the last days, and it might do you well to do an indepth study on the book of Revelation. This will give you a much fuller understanding of this passage and you will be greatly blessed.

Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

michelle,

You're still not getting it. If you and I were living in 1611 or times prior and a man pointed to the morning star in the sky and asked us the question, "What is the name of that star?" The reply would be "Lucifer." "Lucifer" was, in fact, the name of the morning star, just as the marginal not for the AV 1611 says.

English has synonyms. "Morning star" = "Lucifer" same thing. It goes no further than that.

You are ignoring what is called "parallelism," the literary device most often used in Hebrew prophetic literature. There are three types. It is the use of these types that gives us the abilityt to see, among other things, the Messianic prophecies fulfilled in Christ. Several of them point to a direct fulfilment in persons or events other than Christ Himself. That is because the use of parallelism allows for not just one single meaning and one single fulfilment of prophecies. They can and do have multiple fulfilments. It is also from the use of parallelism that we draw biblical typology.

You are, ironically, making the same mistake that liberal theologicans and exegetes make when they point to OT passages and say that they could not be talking about Jesus in the New Testament because they were actually about other persons and events. The truth is that the Jews of Jesus time interpreted prophecy differently, and from that we draw our own methodology of biblical interpretation of OT prophecy. For example, Isa. 7:14 was a word to King Ahaz that God would deliver him from his enemies. It had an original fulfillment in Maher-Shalal-Hash-bash's birth in 8:3. However, Mt. understood it to be a prophecy about Jesus, and the scribes at the time of Jesus own birth understood it the same way. Who, then, is "Immanuel." It is, in its immediate context a reference to Maher-Shalal-Hash-bash, but in its wider context, Jesus, who was the final fulfilment of it. That is the way that it was understood by the original recipients of Isaiah and then each succeeding generation until Christ. God's Word can not mean something different to us that it did not mean to the original recipients.

That's what these folks here are trying to say. "Lucifer," is used as a name for Satan, but only as secondary meaning. However, in its immediate context, it was a metaphorical reference to the morning star, the "Day Starre," as a prophecy about Babylon's king himself.

Context determines the use. Therefore, to call Jesus the Morning Star elsewhere is not a contradiction at all. It is simply a different usage of the term. Its very simple.

 

michelle,

Have you read the new rules of this forum? :

4. Remember that we're presenting ideas and not destroying people. Teach patiently as 2 Tim 2 says, or don't post at all.

5. Do not attack the other poster; if you want to question the opinion, that's fine. But do so in a God honoring way. Don't attack the person; the goal is to build up and win for the truth's sake.

6. It is not acceptable to question someone's salvation relative to Bible preference. KJVOs say "get saved and you'll understand 17th century English." MVs may say "If you were as spiritual as me, you'd leave the KJV behind." Neither will be tolerated.

Please quit attack others that disagree with your views by questioning their love of the truth and associating what they believe with "blasphemy."

 

Michelle, look at the text. God is not saying this to the king, the kings referred to in v. 10 are saying it:

The kings of the nations are talking to the king of Babylon, so it makes sense that these pagan kings would use the term "morning star" for Venus. They certainly did not know it was a planet. God is having the King of Babylon rebuked poetically through these other kings.

 

I should have included verse 9, so here it is with v. 10 so you can see the continuum:

Sheol beneath is stirred up
to meet you when you come;
it rouses the shades to greet you,
all who were leaders of the earth;
it raises from their thrones
all who were kings of the nations.
10 All of them will answer
and say to you:
‘You too have become as weak as we!
You have become like us!’

"All of them" being the old leaders who were cast down, pointing out to the King of Babylon he is as weak as they were.

 

--------------------------------------------------
Then we got a problem with Genesis, because it does not distinguish between stars and planets. Sorry, but the writers of the OT had no knowlege of planets, and considered stars, other galaxies, and planets to be the same. Interestingly, they had no concept whatsoever that the Sun is a star, and an average one at that.
--------------------------------------------------

Now there is a problem, and that is if you assume that the writers of the Old testament, or New testament were not inspired by God to write what they wrote, but only wrote what they chose to write based upon their own understanding. Uh Oh, I wouldn't do that if I were you, [PERSONAL ATTACK SNIPPED].

Please be reminded of this:

2 Peter 1

19 We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:

20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

and...

2 Timothy 3

16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

17 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

2 Timothy 4

1 I charge thee therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom;

2 Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all long-suffering and doctrine.

3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;

4 And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.

5 But watch thou in all things, endure afflictions, do the work of an evangelist, make full proof of thy ministry.


Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

[ May 20, 2004, 06:57 PM: Message edited by: Dr. Bob Griffin ]

 

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

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by michelle:
robycop,

As much as I appreciate all the information you provided, my sole authority is the word of God. God chose the Hebrew word Helel, which means the bright one, and not a star. God rightly gave us this Hebrew word, as God knows himself, that Venus is a planet, and not whatsoever a star. I stick with what God has said and trust his wisdom, and leave out the wisdom of man.

The point is, the NIV has rendered this word erroneously, and blasphemously.

Should you call the Rev. Moon the Christ? OR anyone else for that matter? Why then is it different pertaining to the title of morning star of our precious Saviour Jesus? Why stand for a word that is not true to the text, the passage, or the truth and to which causes nothing but confusion and blasphemy of our Lord? Where is your love of the truth?

That passage of Isaiah is also pertaining to the last days, and it might do you well to do an indepth study on the book of Revelation. This will give you a much fuller understanding of this passage and you will be greatly blessed.

Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

michelle,

Have you read the new rules of this forum? :

4. Remember that we're presenting ideas and not destroying people. Teach patiently as 2 Tim 2 says, or don't post at all.

5. Do not attack the other poster; if you want to question the opinion, that's fine. But do so in a God honoring way. Don't attack the person; the goal is to build up and win for the truth's sake.

6. It is not acceptable to question someone's salvation relative to Bible preference. KJVOs say "get saved and you'll understand 17th century English." MVs may say "If you were as spiritual as me, you'd leave the KJV behind." Neither will be tolerated.

Please quit attack others that disagree with your views by questioning their love of the truth and associating what they believe with "blasphemy."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I did not attack anyone or their salvation.

love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle