Isaiah 14:12

It was not a substantial difference in the 1500's and 1600's.

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?”



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.

 

They were my words based on my research that I have saved on my computer. The sources were indicated. I have photocopies or reprint editions of the Bibles I cited: Luther's 1534 German Bible, the 1535 Coverdale's, 1549 edition of the 1537 Matthew's Bible, the 1560 and 1599 editions of the Geneva Bible, the 1611 edition of the KJV, the 1657 English translation of the Dutch Bible, and the 1672 edition of the KJV.

 

2 Timothy2:1-4, do you see a substantial difference in how the two renderings were used in the 1500's and 1600's and do you see it as a problem?

 

The link you provided does have an informative article on this verse.

 

Where does that put ya'll as it pertains to the person of "Lucifer"? Is Lucifer the devil or is that name meaningless? What of Luciferianism?

 

There is no problem.

Venus is the morning star. Morning star was translates into Lucifer in latin. ISA 14:12 has been mistaken to mean Satan but Satan was an angel and JOB 38:7 while the morning stars sang together and all the angels shouted for joy? Says that the angels are different from the morning stars.

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

REV 2:26 To him who overcomes...28 I will also give him the morning star.

2PE 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.

ISA 14:12 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!

john.

 

Recommend using the correct rendering
of what the KJV & NIV say:

Isaiah 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?

Sidenote: || Or, O daystarre

Isaiah 14:12 (NIV):
[FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]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!

[/FONT]As can be seen, there is no significant differrence between
the two phraselogies. The morning star is Venus when it
preceeds the sun ( it is also called the evening star when
it follows the sun), in either role Venus can be seen during
a clear day so is also called the day star.

The significant difference is who
'thou' (or 'you') refers to: probably 'the king of Babylon'
in verse 4. Of course, by type, 'the king of Babylon' referrs
to the Lead Devil: AKA: 'Satan'.

As for both Christ being compared to the Morning Star
and (by type) Satan being compared to the Morning Star -
note that the comparitave differences are different.
In any case, neither Christ nor Satan IS THE planet Venus.

 

'Lucifer' the name, comes from the Latin Vulgate.
Note that 'the Latin Vulgate' is congemned by
many KJVOs as part of the corrupt line of Bible
Manuscripts. Strange that the KJV uses that line???

(Ed has added the bolding of Lucifer):


[FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]The Latin Vulgate
[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]Isaiah [/FONT][FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]14:12[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]

quomodo cecidisti de caelo lucifer qui mane oriebaris corruisti in terram qui vulnerabas gentes[/FONT]

 

I should imagine they knew what they were doing.
Wycliffe used it as did Coverdale, The Bishop's Bible (1568) and the The Geneva Bible (1587).
The word meant morning star why not use it? The Vulgate was used as a source. Anyone one know when Satan got entangled in it first?
john.

 

Why did you quote me and not answer my questions?

 

I am personally unconvinced that "Lucifer" is another name for Satan. I am uncomfortable with establishing this as a fact upon just a single occurrance in the Bible, and that once is within an allegorical interpretation.

I know him well as "Satan" from several citations in the New Testament, and this one name is good enough for me. The same personality is clearly referred to as the "devil" as well, which I think is more a description than a name (like "serpent" and others).

I think that it is entirely probable that Satan's deceptions would include confusion concerning his real name, and he would be pleased that his vitims' false religion would be known to the world by a completely erroneous label.

 

It is KJV-only advocates that seem to have a problem with the evidence from the 1500's and 1600's that demonstrates that the Reformation translators such as Martin Luther and the early English translators considered "morning star" and "Lucifer" to be synonyms or considered "Lucifer" to be another name for the "morning star." If you have a problem with how the KJV translators used this rendering with the same meaning as "day star" [another name for "morning star"], why don't you just say so?

 

I think this is well covered by this site.

http://www.angelfire.com/la2/prophet1/prayingtoanewgod.html

Our Lord Jesus Christ is the Morning Star, Satan is not.

The question is whether modern versions recognized Isa 14:12 as indicating Satan or King of Babylon

 

I don't have a problem with it as it is quite obvious to me who the light-bearer/illuminated one/Satan/Lucifer is, as I believe in the Holy Bible. Further, it is quite obvious to the Satanists and Luciferians as to who their master is. Lavey knew it for one of the books of his Bible is called the book of Lucifer. Shakespeare, Milton, Dickens they knew, Black Sabbath, Megadeth, and the Rolling Stones they knew. To paraphrase the devil's music...what seems to be puzzling you is the nature of his game...hope you guess his name.

 

Martin Luther based his translation on TR ( maybe on 1,2 edition of Erasmus) but his translation is not so accurate as KJV.
For example, he translated Dan 9:26, the Anointed will be cut off and there will be nothing any more.
Also, he translated Passover ( Paska) into Osterfest ( Easter festival), though he distinguished it from Fest vor das Volk ( Feast for the Folk),

He also translated Acts 3:13, 26 Jesus as the servant of God, while KJV translated as Son of God.

He omited Johanine Comma in 1 John 5:7, maybe because Erasmus didn't have it in 1,2 edition by that time.

Not only Martin Luther, but also, J.N. Darby, even though his bases were Majority and TR, he retreated from what KJV followed, in some verses ( not many). This is why I believe KJV is outstanding even among the MT-TR or Majority based translations, and I believe that there has been the providence of God, which has made KJV outstanding among all the translations.

As for Isaiah, Luther translated it as Schoner Morgenstern ( Beautiful Morning Star) while he also stated Jesus is the bright Morgenstern in Rev 2:28 and 22:16.

Again, KJV is quite correct, because it distinguish between Satan ( Isa 14:12) and Jesus ( Rev 2:28 and 22:16), while many modern versions do not distinguish, or stated " Day Star", or King of Babylon.

Helel in Hebrew used in Isaiah 14:12 mean a certain spiritual being and cannot be the same as Morning Star which symbolizes our Lord, but it may be related to Helios, sun or sun-god.

 

I explained it above.

No that isn't the question.
Jesus is NOT the Morning Star.
Satan is NOT the Morning Star.

Jesus is AS the Morning Star - for He bears Father God's
True Word before Him.
The King of Babylon (and by type, the Lead Devil: Satan)
is AS the Morning Star - for he is a false Dawn compared to
Father God.

What is the meaning of "Lord Jesus Christ"?
What is the meaning of 'the Morning Star'?
-- What meanings of these leads this contention to be true:
// Our Lord Jesus Christ is the Morning Star.// ?

Come on, Jesus is a member of the Triune Godhead;
Jesus is the person who is my Lord and My Savior.
The Morning Star is the second planet from the sun in
the solar system. How can anybody confuse
the Devine Savior and a chunk of metal?