Isaiah 14:12

We can agree to disagree each other, but I believe My Lord Jesus is the Morning Star.

 

That's good for Bro. Eliyahu.

This Ed believes that My Lord Jesus is AS the Morning Star.

 

What did you mean by the bible? Did you mean the holy bible? Or did you mean a bible, containing man made errors?

Seek ye out of the book of the LORD, and read.

 

So much for fair and consistent enforcement of the rules. Baptist is Baptist. It is not fair to those who are kept from posting in Baptist Only forums if someone who is not Baptist is permitted to post in those same forums. Sorry, Eliyahu, I hold nothing against you personally, but I am a moderator at another board and we always try to consistently uphold the rules there. What is applied to one person is applied equally to other people.

 

This choice was an executive decision by the Webmaster himself. As he owns the board that is his privilage.

'Nuff said - lets get back to topic.

 

Please understand that there was some more detailed discussion on my participation here with the reasons and background and what I am doing.

Now, hoping the discussions covered the most of the arguments, I think the issue on Isa 1412 is not the matter of Underlying Texts, but the matter of Choice of Words. I notice John of Japan remarked very well in the other thread saying that the mainstream of the textual study is rather focusing on the majority texts, not on the Alexandrian texts. I think that is quite a good observation, and I wish the future discussion be focused on the difference between Majority and TR, about why TR departed from Majority etc, then the choice of words for the translation. I don't think the choice of words by KJV is not always overwhelmingly better than MV's as it enjoyed such in choosing the underlying texts.
The Problem is that, as I said before, people are not taking off from the ground, because they are still remaining in the ground battle between the Roman Catholic texts ( B, Aleph) and Majority Texts. If the majority texts are the descendants from one or two copies, we should value those 2 RC texts as important, but if they are found in different locations, and are not from the same ancestor copies, and their ancestor copies are even older than those 2 RC codices, then those 2 Catholic texts are nothing more than the local texts, deviation from the main texts.
Again on this issue of Isa 1412, the argument is just the choice of words. Hebrew words in OT are just about 10,000 or less, but some words are translated into many different English words, and I believe that this is the area where Holy spirit is still actively working to suite for the situation and to expalin the will of God in the best way. I expect the people can hardly find the cooperative approach to this matter of the best choice of words and vocabularies and colloquial language until they reach a reasonable agreement on the underlying texts, on which my own view is that many MV supporters are brainwashed to follow the RC texts or codices, though MV followers would disagree with me even on this observation.
Once we reached the reasonable agreement on the underlying texts, we can be more open minded toward each other, then the best choice of words and the language updates will be possible.

 

As succintly as i can sum it up, it's clear there are several Scriptural morning stars, and the KJVO argument against that rendering in newer versions at Isaiah 14;12 is baseless and crude, more grasping at straws than research.

 

I already mentioned there is no problem with basic text in case of Isa1412, but the matter is Choice of Word. You couldn't answer me my final question.

Is Lord Jesus Morning Star? say by Yes or No

Is the Satan Morning Star? say by Yes or No


This is why I said you, you are not taking off from the ground of underlying text argument.

 

Show me the evidence if you found other than discussed above.

 

Eliyahu in post#24: //Indeed the statement " Jesus
is the Morning Star" is the metaphor.//

Eliyahu in post#69:
//Is Lord Jesus Morning Star? say by Yes or No

Is the Satan Morning Star? say by Yes or No//

In light of your earlier statement how do you answer these
questions?

Here are my Answers:

//Is Lord Jesus Morning Star? say by Yes or No//
No, Jesus isn't a planet - Jesus is my Lord and Savior.
in this verse:

Rev 22:16 (KJV1611 Edition):
I Iesus haue sent mine Angel, to testifie vnto you
these things in the Churches.
I am the roote and the offspring of Dauid,
and the bright and morning starre.

Jesus is metaphorically compared to the Morning Star.

//Is the Satan Morning Star? say by Yes or No//
No, Satan (a title, not a name) isn't a planet -
Satan is the Lead Devil and Chief Deceiver.

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

The King of Babylon is metaphorically compared to the
Day Star, AKA: Morning Star. by type then Satan
is compared metaphorically to Morning Star.

 

Ed, are you saying that, as it is only Metaphor, you can call Satan as Morning Star?
Then, as Lamb of God is a metaphor, can you call Satan as Lamb of God as well ?
I am afraid what you are implying is that metaphors can be used carelessly.
Returning to the word Helel, its meaning should be " Brightly Shining One" or " splendidly shining light" originated from Halal. In that aspect Young Literal Translation is quite accurate if the readers do not have the understanding on Lucifer. Or one could transliterate it as Helel with the footnotes in detail. But, stating Helel as Morning Star, Jesus as Morning Star too is absolutely confusing.

BTW, could King of Babylon have fallen down from Heaven? Could he exalt himself and his throne above the stars of God? The verses are speaking about the spiritual power as mentioned in Ephesians 6:12. At that time when Isaiah was writing on this, Babylon was not emerging, but Assyria was ruling the region, King of Babylon would come 100 years later. the whole context is talking about the Satan. Applying the same word " Morning Star" to both Lord Jesus and to Satan sounds insane.

 

Eliyahu: //Ed, are you saying that, as it is only Metaphor, you can call Satan as Morning Star?
Then, as Lamb of God is a metaphor, can you call Satan as Lamb of God as well ?
I am afraid what you are implying is that metaphors can be used carelessly.//

You are not to fear but have faith.
The Bible compares metaphorically Satan and
the Morning Star (AKA: day star, evening star, etc).
The Bible does NOT metaphorically compare
Satan and 'Lamb of God'. It is best to stick with
the Bible and not with speculation.
I've witnessed to some who think they are doing good
to be a satan and sacrifice their eternal souls
for others.

Eliyahu: //But, stating Helel as Morning Star,
Jesus as Morning Star too is absolutely confusing//

God is neither the author of confusion in the church
nor in your mind.

Eliyahu: //Applying the same word " Morning Star"
to both Lord Jesus and to Satan sounds insane.//

Ed's recommendation: God did not consult you about
the creation; nor does He need your advise about
comparing Jesus to the true Morning Star and Satan
to the false Morning Star -- both in the same Bible.

 

Ed, please note Isaiah called him, not he himself( Satan) was calling himself as Helel.
Did Isaiah forget to add "False" ? then NIV forgot to add " Flase Morning Star" to confuse the reader while God is not the author of confusion. Satan doesn't call himself as "false" Morning Star, but may pretend to be a True Morning Star!

The people calling Satan as Morning Star and Jesus as Morning Star too, sounds like Devil is Father, God is Father too. ( Even though they may add False Father and True Father, in this case).

Why should they use Morning Star groundlessly? Son of Morning caused a preconception? That's not enough reason.