Isaiah 14:12

Eliyahu: //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.//

Isn't it a Jewish tradition not to say the name of a false god?
Why would they say 'helel' if it is a false god?


Her is the entry from Webster's 1828 Dicitonary:

 

I wonder about people who can't keep up
with 'metaphor' and 'simile' ...

Here is the place:

Figures of Speach at:

http://www.godstruthfortoday.org/Library/bullinger/FiguresOfSpeech.html#omission

 

it's quite plain there are several different morning stars in scripture. The morning stars sang together. Isaiah mentions the 'day starre' or Lucifer. Jesus says he's the bright morning star. And he also sez he will give the morning star to the believers.

Saying the MVs sub Jesus for the devil in Isaiah 14:12 is pure hokum, typical KJVO grasping at straws. All the above evidence you others have posted above proves this point & drives it home.

 

Indeed the statement " Jesus is the Morning Star" is the metaphor.
The Morning Star doesn't mean the second planet of the solar system, otherwise we had to worship that planet.
The "Helel" in the hebrew sentence doesn't mean any name of deity or flase god such as Ashera, or Baal which are shown apparently in the Tanak. We know Dagon in seven verses ( Judges 16:23, 1 Sam 5:3,4,5,7, 1 Chron 10:10) plus Beth-Dagon ( Josh 15:41, 19:27)
But I don't say that Helel was the name of any deity or gods. I said it is related to Helios or ( maybe even to Hell in English).
On the other hand many modern versions translate Rev 2:28 and 22:16 as Mornig Star for Lord Jesus. If so, they should use different term for the satanic person or any pagan god or any deity or any false angel. That is the point. KJV was quite correct as it distinguish between Bad person and our Lord Jesus. However, if I am requested to translated that part and if the most people do not understand the word " Lucifer", I would transliterate as " Helel" instead Lucifer. But if the most people understand it means Satan or Satanic being, Lucifer is the right word to be translated from Helel. That word must be distinguished from Morning Star which is used for our Lord Jesus,and the Morning Star doesn't mean the second planet of the solar system, as the Sun doesn't mean our Lord.

Malachi 4:2
But unto you that fear my name shall the Sun of righteousness arise with healing in his wings; and ye shall go forth, and grow up as calves of the stall. ( Crosswalk.com)

If The Morning Star mean the second planet, we should bow down to it every morning. But it is a metaphor and symbolizes our Lord because He comes into the darkness and the darkness will end up as soon as He comes, and He is the real and true Light which breaks the Darkness and brings the Dawn.
Apparently ,modern versions didn't have the proper ideas for translating Isa 14:12, while KJV is correct.

 

Remember, Eliyahu, that the AV 1611 has the marginal note "or, O day starre" for Lucifer.

 

That's why I said translation is the area where the Holy Spirit is still working. Later editions may have found that even having such marginal notes is not right.

Saying Satan a Day Star and Jesus the Morning Star as ASV, ESV did, is at least a little better because it distinguishes the 2 different persons.

Satan is Morning Star, Jesus is Morning Star too, which sounds like Devil is Father, our God the Father is Father too. Such translation is wrong.

In this case modern versions translating Helel as Morning Star or Star of Morning is apparently wrong.
What is wrong is wrong. We must start to admit what is wrong is wrong. Otherwise we won't make a progress.

 

Strange, if I say the following, everybody would understand what
I'm talking about (and no, I'm NOT brother RSR)

Brother RSR is sharp as a tack but Brother Ed is
flat as a tack.

This statement compares RSR to the sharp end
of a tack (i.e. RSR is smart); Ed to the flat end of a
tack (i.e. Ed is really rather dull).

 

I really think this conflation of Lucifer with Satan comes from Dante, and if not from Dante, then from Milton. If it is not Bible, and I have never seen one shred of evidence for it, then shouldn't we abandon it?

BTW, I have read a secondary source that maintained that the "Lucifer" of the Bible was actually a pagan god. Wish I could remember what source this was. Without knowling, that is not very helpful info, is it? At any rate, there seems to be no scriptural reason to think Lucifer is Satan.

 

Accept for Isaiah 14:12.

 

Is 14:16 ..."Is this the man who shook the earth and made kingdoms tremble, 17 the man who made the world a desert, who overthrew its cities and would not let his captives go home?"

john.

 

I am not sure what is implied by this post but if it is implied that Satan/Lucifer/the Devil can not be referred to as a man, then you have a hard time reconciling this verse...

2Th 2:3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;

 

This is quite a misunderstanding, but I feel it is hard to explain to you.
Let me put this way.

A Metaphor is used in this case, Jesus is Lamb of God or I am the Door.( John 10)
Then, as Metaphor is nothing serious, can we call Satan is Lamb of God?
Can we say Satan is The Door? Jesus is the True Vine ( JOhn 15), as He is not actually vine, can we use the term to Satan as well ?

Could you not interpret that verse?

Jesus Christ gave Himself to His believers! To the True Believers He will give Himself, which is the Best of the best gifts!

NOPE!

Is the verse talking about any spiritual abstract noun?
Job is talking about the stars of the morning, neither Satan nor Jesus. Does Bible deny that there are stars in the morning?

Trying to hold on what is wrong, is like drowning man catching at a straw!

The whole argument is refuted.

 

I think Pastor MHG commented very well.
Even the pronoun can be used for that, or Jesus called him Murderer.

 

:thumbsup:

The most simple and effective arguments often come from 1611 itself. Good thread. Lots of solid info here! http://www.kjv-only.com/isa14_12.html is a very thorough article, thanks for the link annsni.

 

I have read thru the article on that site, and it doesn't provide any significant information to turn the argument in a different way.

1. LXX : I don't trust this as most KJVOs don't
If it is translated by Jews into Greek, it is like translating into Chinese by American, into the language of Pork meat eating, full of myths, idol worshippers. Moreover its " Heosphoros cannot be Morning Star only. The argument here is whether we can use the term "Morning Star" which is used for Lord Jesus can be used also for the Satan. It doesn't provide such reason to justify the common usage. Note LXX is used by Roman Catholic to justify the prayer to dead, prayer for dead, and purgatory.

2. Wicliffe : He didn't show any problem with Isaiah 14:12, but as for Job 38:32, as KJV translate Mazzaroth, it is not applicable.
Did Wicliffe apply the same word ( Morning Star) for Jesus and for Satan ? I don't think so. Check again.

3. 2 Peter 1:19 Posphoros - this word is different from Astera Prwinon, so Day Star could be OK as long as it is not used in Isa 14:12.

4. Latin Vulgate by Jerome;
Actually I have been investigating Old Latin, not the Jerome's Latin.
Do you believe that Roman Empire lived without Latin Bible until that time?
KJVO people believe that there was an Old Latin before 157AD. But my estimation is far earlier than that. In china we discover the Christian monuments dated back to 86AD, and we read Paul preached the Gospel to Yugoslavia in Romans 15:19( 60AD), and there were already Christian believers in Rome ( 35AD) before Paul was converted ( Rom 16:7). If you ever travelled to Europe, you would have found it doesn't take longer than 2 days by driving a car from Yugoslavia to Bavaria, South Germany where Waldenses or De Vauis people mostly lived. I firmly believe that there must have been a Latin translation before the end of 1 century ( Probably around or before 70AD). Early Christians were not so lazy as we are today.

I don't think such Latin Bible treated Satan of Isa 14:12 as Morning Star, the same as used for our Lord Jesus in Rev 22:16

5. Martin Luther
I already mentioned the Reformists made many mistakes even though they were brave and did a tremendous contributions for the Christianity. e.g. Luther maintained Con-sunbstantiation, which was a modification from Catholic Transubstantiation. Zwingli was far more competent in this argument with Luther because Zwingli had much more knowledge of Bible than Luther had. Luther was anti-semitic. He claimed Jews and Gypsies must be killed.

6. Spurgeon - I don't smoke the cigar which he smoked as the cigarette companies advertized " Let's smoke the cigarette Spurgeon is smoking!"

7. Word " Lucifer" and " Helel"
If the word " Lucifer" came from Latin and therefore etimlogically has some complicated history, then we can avoid such word and then transliterate it as "Helel", not as Morning Star.

8. Job 38:7 morning stars-

I hope everyone knows how to distinguish the difference between SINGULAR and PLURAL.

Did Jesus say I am one of the morning stars?
What Job was talking about was the stars themselves. Did Job say that there are many morning stars because Satan is Morning Star, Son of God is Morning Star, and so on ?

9. Again, can we say that Jesus is Lamb of God, Satan is Lamb of God, Satan is a True Vine ( because He may be the father of many Alcohol addicted people!) ?

10. Young's Literal Translation (Shining One)_: that translation is quite acceptable and correct because it distinguishes Helel from Morning Star which indicates Jesus Christ. Actually the word-to-word translation from Helel may be Shining One.

Again when I read thru all the arguments, I found no value and therefore I can conclude that 365x0= 000000000000....0000.
Nothing can change the conclusion that modern versions translating Helel as Morning Star or Star of Morning are wrong, while KJV which distinguish Helel from Morning Star by translating it as Lucifer is correct.

 

Eliyahu: //LXX : I don't trust this as most KJVOs don't//

Consider this passage from the book of Esther.
The parts in Blue are from the LXX, the parts in black
are from the Hebrew sources:

Esther 5:1-14 and 15:1-16 (KJV1611 Edition from e-sword.com )

Est 5:1 Now it came to passe on the third day, that Esther put on her royall apparell, and stood in the inner court of the kings house, ouer against the kings house: and the King sate vpon his royall throne in the royall house, ouer against the gate of the house.
(15:1) And vpon the third day when shee had ended her prayer, she laide away her mourning garments, and put on her glorious apparell.
(15:2) And being gloriously adorned, after she had called vpon God, who is the beholder, and Sauiour of all things, she tooke two maids with her.
(15:3) And vpon the one shee leaned as carying her selfe daintily.
(15:4) And the other followed bearing vp her traine.
(15:5) And she was ruddy through the perfection of her beautie, and her countenance was cheerefull, and very amiable: but her heart was in anguish for feare.
(15:6) Then hauing passed through all the doores, shee stood before the King, who sate vpon his royall throne, and was clothed with all his robes of maiestie, all glittering with golde and precious stones, and he was very dreadfull.
Est 5:2 And it was so, when the king saw Esther the Queene standing in the court, that shee obtained fauour in his sight: and the king helde out to Esther the golden scepter that was in his hand: So Esther drew neere, and touched the top of the scepter.
(15:7) Then lifting vp his countenance that shone with maiestie, he looked very fiercely vpon her: and the Queene fell downe and was pale, and fainted, and bowed her selfe vpon the head of the maide that went before her.
(15:8) Then God changed the spirit of the king into mildnesse, who in a feare leaped from his throne, and tooke her in his armes till she came to her selfe againe, and comforted her with louing words, and sayd vnto her:
(15:9) Esther, what is the matter? I am thy brother, be of good cheere.
(15:10) Thou shalt not die, though our comandement be generall: come neere.
(15:11) And so he held vp his golden scepter, and laid it vpon her necke,
(15:12) And embraced her, & said, Speake vnto me.
(15:13) Then said shee vnto him, I saw thee, my lord, as an Angel of God, and my heart was troubled for feare of thy maiestie.
(15:14) For wonderfull art thou, lord, and thy countenance is full of grace.
(15:15) And as she was speaking, she fell downe for faintnesse.
(15:16) Then the king was troubled, and all his seruants comforted her.
Est 5:3 Then sayd the King vnto her, What wilt thou, Queene Esther? and what is thy request? it shall bee euen giuen thee to the halfe of the kingdome.
Est 5:4 And Esther answered, If it seeme good vnto the King, let the King and Haman come this day vnto the banquet that I haue prepared for him.
Est 5:5 Then the King sayd, Cause Haman to make haste, that he may doe as Esther hath said: So the king and Haman came to the banquet that Esther had prepared.
Est 5:6 And the king said vnto Esther at the banquet of wine, What is thy petition, and it shall be granted thee? and what is thy request? euen to the halfe of the kingdome it shall be performed.
Est 5:7 Then answered Esther, and said, My petition, and my request is,
Est 5:8 If I haue found fauour in the sight of the king, and if it please the king to grant my petition, and to performe my request, let the king, and Haman, come to the banquet that I shall prepare for them, and I wil do to morow, as the king hath said.
Est 5:9 Then went Haman foorth that day, ioyfull, and with a glad heart: but when Haman saw Mordecai in the kings gate, that hee stood not vp, nor mooued for him, hee was full of indignation against Mordecai.
Est 5:10 Neuerthelesse Haman refrained himselfe, and when he came home, hee sent and called for his friends, and Zeresh his wife.
Est 5:11 And Haman told them of the glory of his riches, and the multitude of his children, and all the things wherein the king had promoted him, and how he had aduanced him aboue the Princes, and seruants of the king.
Est 5:12 Haman said moreouer, Yea Esther the Queene did let no man come in with the king vnto the banquet that she had prepared, but my selfe; and to morrow am I inuited vnto her also with the king.
Est 5:13 Yet all this auaileth me nothing, so long as I see Mordecai the Iew sitting at the kings gate.
Est 5:14 Then saide Zeresh his wife, and all his friends vnto him, Let a gallous be made of fifty cubits hie, and to morrow speake thou vnto the king, that Mordecai may be hanged thereon: then goe thou in merily with the king vnto the banquet. And the thing pleased Haman, and hee caused the gallous to be made.

Why does the KJV include these portions from the LXX?

Note that there are other passages taken from the LXX
particulary many quotations of the Old Testament which
were Messanic prophecies -- quoted in the New Testament.