NIV Calls Lucifer, "Jesus" (Article)

--------------------------------------------------
The text says what the text says. The langugage says what the language says. You are the one reading your interpretation into the text, not the MV's.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And the text does not allow the rendering of the morning star, for if it had, the KJV translators would have so done. They did not. They rendered it Lucifer. They rendered morning star as morning star elsewhere, but not here, because quite honestly, the Hebrew text does not indicate the word "star" anywhere in this passage. It was/is a unique Hebrew word in all of the Old testament Hebrew text.

love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

Posted by Michelle:

The dead kings (read v. 9 and you will see they are dead) are aroused in v. 9, where it says, "They will all respond and say to you," and then it continues that way through v. 17.

Verse 18 then picks up talking about the kings lying in the tomb. The dead kings are speaking in verses 9-17. Of course, dead kings can't speak. This is poetic language. God is rebuking the King of Babylon and even uses the dead kings, which is quite an insult. These dead kings are letting the King of Babylon know how foolish his attempts to gain glory for himself is as they did. Now that they are dead, they realize that.

God is painting a picture of the vanity and pride of the King of Babylon. Of course all this comes from God, but he specifically sets up part of the rebuke through the dead kings. This is clear as crystal.

As far as the Lucifer thing goes, you still don't seem to understand the concept of language and how it's used. I showed clearly how 'helel' is used mainly for light coming from constellatons and other heavenly bodies.

It does not confuse me if "star of morning" (NSB) or "morning star" is used in Is. 14:12 of the King of Babylon and then Jesus says he is the morning star in Rev. 22. I realize they are not the same thing because neither the king nor Jesus is literally a star; neither one is literally Venus. Those are just poetic metaphors. The context is what matters. In Is. 14, the King is a star that fades. In Rev. Jesus says he is the norning star. This does not make me equate Jesus with the King of Babylon because obviously, Jesus is a differnt kind of morning star.

I gave the example of lightning earlier. This is another example of a metaphor being used for Satan, Jesus, and an angel.

Robycop -- I hear ya!

 

If the translators did not render it that way, then why is there a note in the 1611 version that says "O Day Starre?" Clearly they recognized that it was a valid enough translation to include that note. Why don't you?

As Johnv says below, the word "Lucifer" is from the Vulgate, a Latin translation and was just copied into the the KJV. IT was not rendered, eg. directly translated, into it. When it was copied, they, the translating committee felt it was wise to include the above note in the margins. Why would they do such a thing if things are as you say?

 

You are sooo wrong. They "rendered" nothing. They copied "lucifer" exactly from the latin vulgate. Lucifer in the Vulgate Latin is morning star in English.

 

"Lucifer" was Venus when viewed as the morning star and "Hesperus" was Venus when viewed as the evening star. The Romans did not realize they were the same thing.

I guess it never occurred to them to stay up all night, just to be sure.

Anyway, yes, you're right. I mis-spoke. They're both the planet Venus, but at different times of the day.

 

--------------------------------------------------
The dead kings (read v. 9 and you will see they are dead) are aroused in v. 9, where it says, "They will all respond and say to you," and then it continues that way through v. 17.

Verse 18 then picks up talking about the kings lying in the tomb. The dead kings are speaking in verses 9-17. Of course, dead kings can't speak. This is poetic language. God is rebuking the King of Babylon and even uses the dead kings, which is quite an insult. These dead kings are letting the King of Babylon know how foolish his attempts to gain glory for himself is as they did. Now that they are dead, they realize that
--------------------------------------------------

Since when do dead kings prophesy? Since when does anyone who is not a prophet, prophesy the words of the Lord? How is it that these dead kings know what is to come, and know what is in the heart of Lucifer?

This passage is the Lord speaking through the prophet Isaiah about the King of Babylon but ultimately about Satan and antichrist. The chapters prior to this chapter are about the total destruction of Babylon forever:

Isaiah 13

19 And Babylon, the glory of the kingdoms, the beauty of the Chaldees' excellency shall be as when God overthrew Sodom and Gomorah.

20 It shall never be inhabited, neither shall it be dwelt in from generation to generation: neither shall the Arabian pitch tent there; neither shall the shepards make their fold there.

Then we see the restoration of Israel. It would be beneficial and a great blessing for a better and full understanding of this to do an indepth study on the book of Revelation, to put this passage in a better prospective. Like I said, vs. 10 are the questions that the kings of the nations say to him. In vs. 8 it is the cedar trees of Lebanon that speak, and vs. 9 God resumes to speak again until vs. 10, and then again resumes in vs.11:

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. (God speaking)

10 And they shall speak and say unto thee, Art thou also become weak as we? art thou become like unto us? (kings of the nations say)

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. (God speaking)

Then God resumes speaking through the prophet, until vs.16 where we see that "they that see thee" say to him until vs.17, then God resumes speaking again in vs.18 until the end of the chapter.

Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

Wrong!

 

By the way, vs. 9 is speaking of the resurrection of the dead. Should give you a clue as to the timing of this passage. As we also see previous to this verse:

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, (hasn't happened yet)

4 That thou shalt take up this proverb against the King of Babylon, and say, How hath the oppressor ceased! the golden city ceased! (hasn't happened yet)

5 The LORD hath broken the staff of the wicked, and the scepter 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.

When has the whole earth been at rest and quiet and broken into singing? Hasn't happened yet. Neither has the resurrection of the dead as spoken of in vs.9.

Also pay close attention to vs. 19 where it says:

19 But thou art cast out of thy grave like an abominable branch, and as the raiment of those that are slain, thrust through with a sword, that go down to the stones of the pit; as a carcass trodden underfeet.

This is speaking of the enemy of our Lord that has made his enemies his footstool, to which the Lord will bruise his head, and he will bruise his heel:

Genesis 3

15 And I will put emnity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shall bruise his heel.

By the way, Satan is the oppressor.

Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

Wrong! </font>[/QUOTE]Then kindly tell us what the word lucifer in the vulgate means in English.

 

Definitions in 2000, 1996 and 1998 are from TODAY's language.

The 1828 Webster dictionary, that you did not add number 2, defines Lucifer as:

 

Wrong! </font>[/QUOTE]Then kindly tell us what the word lucifer in the vulgate means in English. </font>[/QUOTE]Light bearer. Lucis in Latin means light. Fer in Latin means to bear or carry. Lucis + fer = Lucifer. Lucifer cannot be a morning star. A good translation from Lucifer in Latin is a light bearer in English. Also Shining one. Lucifer is a name for an angel of light, who turned out to be Satan.

 

If so, you think. If a King of Babylon fell down from heaven, how would he gets up and walk -- NOT die?

 

--------------------------------------------------
Askjo quoted:

Light bearer. Lucis in Latin means light. Fer in Latin means to bear or carry. Lucis + fer = Lucifer. Lucifer cannot be a morning star. A good translation from Lucifer in Latin is a light bearer in English. Also Shining one. Lucifer is a name for an angel of light, who turned out to be Satan.
--------------------------------------------------

Amen!!!! Askjo, thank you for this. At least someone else here understands this also.

Keep up the good work and may the Lord continue to bless you.

love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

Ok, then if Lucifer means light bearer, then that actually works in favor of the translation "Day Starre" or "morning star." It's so nice when people post information that works against them.

WHo then is the light bearer? Jesus or Satan, if the name Lucifer literally means "light bearer?" Light and darkness are constantly contrasted with righteousness and sinfulness throughout the Bible.

Jesus is called the Light of the World, right?

The point of the passage is not to teach the name of the angel of light. NOTHING in the passage indicates that. You are making theological connections where none lie, because there is no exegetical support for the connection in the passage in question. The word of God can not mean to us something that it did not mean to its ORIGiNAL recipients. It only takes on different meaning due to parallelism, a literary device. It means BOTH, not one thing. This is the same exact hermaneutic that tells us that the Messianic prophecy in Isa.7:14 is fulfilled first by the child in Isa.8:3 and also and finally in Jesus. That's the entire point the MV's are trying to make. There is nothing, besides your own rigid predilections that says that morning star is invalid or confusing. The only confusion there seems to be is your own.

As has been said REPEATEDLY here, the original 1611 includes a side note that says "Day Starre," indicating that the translating committee then thought it was a valid rendering, enough so that they included it in the text.

The fact that the 1828 Webster's Dictionary lists Satan as the SECONDARY meaning not the PRIMARY meaning of the term Lucifer speaks VOLUMES, because, if we are to go with the plain meaning of the text, common sense tells you to go with the plain meaning of the language, which would be the primary definition of the word. The fact that they are included together within the entry itself is also important, because it shows that the name was derivative of the astronomical body known as the morning star. Therefore "morning star" is a correct rendering of the term.

 

--------------------------------------------------
Brothersmiller, you're doing nothing but posting the same KJVO falsehoods that crop up from time to time. But a lie is a lie, and since you're consinually posting this stuff on the board, that makes you a liar.
--------------------------------------------------

JohnV,

You posted this in reference to a post on another thread that was closed, because of some things that Brother Miller had said to you. I am curious, since you gave the link to this thread that you refuted him, to which you didn't, and haven't (are you a liar?), as to what it is that you can refute from what he posted. Seems pretty clear to me. What is a lie that he posted? You claimed he had posted lies concerning the article he provided on the other thread, and you claimed he was posting lies, and further accused him of being a liar. You asked and provoked him by the way, to saying such a thing to you, to which I have to admitt, made me LOLROF. I am still getting a chuckle out of it. Of course, this is not appropriate christian behaviour, but neither have you behaved appropriately.

Anyway, the point to this post to you, is to find out why you accused him of posting lies, and please provide us with the facts to back up your accusation against him, and the article he posted.

Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

Now pay attention, I am not going to say this again. Venus is the morning star. Just before dawn it is the brightest star in the sky. Just after dawn you couldn't see it at all. It "fell from heaven" in that it lost its place of prominence, just as the king of Babylon went from being the most powerful man in the world to being powerless.

If you deny that "Lucifer" refers to "the king of Babylon" you are calling God, and the bible, liars for that is exactly what verse 4 says.

 

Jesus is never referred to as the angel of light, nor the Light bearer. Only Satan is. Jesus is referred to as the morning star or the day star. What do you not understand in that the Hebrew text does not indicate the word "star" to be rendered? Why are you overlooking this very important fact? Morning stars is rendered as such in other portions of God's word, here it is not! I do not refer to sidenotes as God's words, but the text of the Bible itself. The KJV opinions are just that, opinions. They rendered the Hebrew word Helel as Lucifer, to which means light bearer, to which also means bright one. No star available in there at all. Besides, it is the english word that God has preserved for the english speaking people in that passage for hundreds of years. Think on that for a while.

love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

--------------------------------------------------
Besides, it is the english word that God has preserved for the english speaking people in that passage for hundreds of years. Think on that for a while.
--------------------------------------------------


Correction:

It is the word that God has preserved for the english speaking people in that passage for hundreds of years. Think on that for a while.

love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

Skan:

Correction. I am not KJVO. I am KJVP-referred.
If there weren't any KJV around, I'd use any version except the one that has the dirty word in it for which I got a rebuke on the board when I pointed it out.