Isaiah 14:12

The Latin Vulgate is based on the Alexandrian Text, which KJV avoided.

2 Pet 1:19
19 et habemus firmiorem propheticum sermonem cui bene facitis adtendentes quasi lucernae lucenti in caliginoso loco donec dies inlucescat et lucifer oriatur in cordibus vestries

1 John 5 :7-8

7 quia tres sunt qui testimonium dant 8 Spiritus et aqua et sanguis et tres unum sunt

It omits Johannine comma too.


It is based on Alexandrian Text in 1 Tim 3:16 again:

et manifeste magnum est pietatis sacramentum quod manifestatum est in carne iustificatum est in spiritu apparuit angelis praedicatum est gentibus creditum est in mundo adsumptum est in gloria

In other words, the translation maintains the same pattern, based on Alexandrian Texts.

This translation states Helel as Lucifer, and Jesus as Lucifer, which is exactly the one that we must avoid.

It is no wonder that both Satan and Jesus are denoted as Lucifer in such Bible.

 

So why not argue facts ,but no, you have to smear the source.

Lets see what a bible from the 1500's says. As we know the Bishops and Geneva Bibles had "Lucifer" but what did the study notes say? These would reflect the theology of the times.

The Geneva's say this:

Thou that thought thy felt glorious and as it were placed in the heaven. for the morning star that goeth before the sun is called lucifer to whom Nebuchad-nezzar is compared.

Lets see what conspiracy theory explains this one away. No Alexandrian texts here, this here is a TR translation.

There is a comparison to a star and the king of Babylon.

 

I already mentioned the Latin Vulgates which showed that they are rather the same as Alexandrian texts in Tim 3, 1 John 5:7, in other spots.
Latin Vulgate must have stood on the same basis as the Modern Versions stand today.

TR has nothing to do with King of Babylon! because it is only for the NT, not for the OT.

Geneva Bible couldn't be correct in this case, and that's why KJV was needed.

The key points may be analyzed in this way:

1) if there was any Bible which attached the meaning of star to Lucifer - yes, you brought the evidence. It doesn't mean that those translations were correct. They were like MV of today and the reason why KJV was translated was because they disagreed with them in many ways.

2) Was such meaning used in KJV? I don't think it can be proven. Because as you can see it from Latin word, its first meaning is " Light Bringing". Planet Venus was Venus in Latin even at that time.

3) We have to return to the Bible and Dictionary simply.
Bible says " Helel" and the dictionary says " Shining or Shining One" came from Halal ( shine)

4) Is there any meaning of Morning Star in " Helel" ? No!

5) What about " Lucifer"? It can mean Shining One as it means " Light- Bringing" and can be " Lightbringing One" the same as " Shining One"

6) Planets and Stars are sin-neutral, and the king of Babylon would never try to reach the sky and nestle on top of the stars, or attempted to go over to North Star or to North Pole. It is about Satan.

7) Important Truth is that Helel has no meaning of Morning Star, and we must distinguish Helel from Jesus Christ.

8) What is wrong is wrong, either it was in KJV or in Latin Vulgate or in Geneva Bible. The criteria are Bible and Dictionary in this case as there is no variance among the texts.

 

Your totally missing my point.

Jerome translated directly from the Hebrew as we know. Translating helel to lucifer in adjective form was a fine translation. But how did the adjective become a noun? Theological interpretation that totally leaves out the context is how !!!

Isaiah 14:4 (New American Standard Bible)

that you will take up this taunt against the king of Babylon, and say,
"How the oppressor has ceased,
And how fury has ceased!

Right there the "taunt against the king of Babylon", there is the focus. This "taunt" runs through to verse 21. You will find a similar taunt in Ezekiel 28 against the King of Tyre.

Morning star comes from the words following helel "ben shachar" son of the morning/dawn. The son of the morning is the morning star or Venus. This taunt to the king shows him falling from grace in a symbolic way.


I haven't read any commentary on the morning star references to Christ. But I think it was used to show Christ as the Light that ushered in the dawn. But I will look into this further. Deep study on 1st Peter and Revelations are on my study plans for the year.

 

I think even Ezekiel 28 relates to the spiritual being, relating to Commerce. It covers a very long period until the end times when Israel returns back from Diaspora. Often Tyre and Sidon were condemned on their commerce and wealth in the Bible.

The translators' job is to transfer the meaning of the words from original language to the same meaning of the other language.

Even if we say, "Shining One, son of morning" it is OK and the rest of the job should belong to the commentaries or interpreters.
There is no meaning of star in the word Helel. If we add something in one word, considering other words in the sentence, it is not a translation but a creation or an addition.

In other threads opened by Logos, I mentioned KJV departed from such principle of Word-to-Word.

 

You could look at it this way:

Luke 24:44

The picture in Isa 14:1-23 is that of a mighty monarch whose pride has brought him to destruction. This is what happened to Belshazzar when Darius the Mede captured Babylon in 539 B.C. (Dan 5). Isaiah described the king's arrival in sheol, the world of the dead, where the king's wealth, glory, and power vanished. The dead kings already in sheol stood in tribute to him (Isa 14:9), but it was all a mockery. Death is the great leveler; there are no kings in the world of the dead. "Lucifer" (v. 12) is Latin for "morning star" and suggests that this king's glory did not last very long. The morning star shines but is soon swallowed up by the light of the sun.

The prophet saw in this event something far deeper than the defeat of an empire. In the fall of the king of Babylon, he saw the defeat of Satan, the "prince of this world," who seeks to energize and motivate the leaders of nations (John 12:31; Eph 2:1-3). Dan 10:20 indicates that Satan has assigned "princes" (fallen angels) to the various nations so that he can influence leaders to act contrary to the will of God.

This highest of God's angels tried to usurp the throne of God and capture for himself the worship that belongs only to God (Matt 4:8-10). The name "Lucifer" ("morning star") indicates that Satan tries to imitate Jesus Christ, who is "the bright and morning star" (Rev 22:16). "I will be like the Most High" reveals his basic strategy, for he is an imitator (Isa 14:14; 2 Cor 11:13-15). Like the king of Babylon, Satan will one day be humiliated and defeated. He will be cast out of heaven (Rev 12) and finally cast into hell (20:10). Whether God is dealing with kings or angels, Prov 16:18 is still true: "Pride goes before destruction, and a haughty spirit before a fall" (NKJV).

(from The Bible Exposition Commentary: Old Testament © 2001-2004 by Warren W. Wiersbe. All rights reserved.)


OR

Barnes Commentary

Isa 14:12
How art thou fallen from heaven - A new image is presented here. It is that of the bright morning star; and a comparison of the once magnificent monarch with that beautiful star. He is now exhibited as having fallen from his place in the east to the earth. His glory is dimmed; his brightness quenched. Nothing can be more poetic and beautiful than a comparison of a magnificent monarch with the bright morning star! Nothing more striking in representing his death, than the idea of that star falling to the earth!
Lucifer - Margin, ‘Day-star’ (הילל hēylēl, from הלל hâlal, “to shine”). The word in Hebrew occurs as a noun nowhere else. In two other places Eze_21:12; Zec_11:2, it is used as a verb in the imperative mood of Hiphil, and is translated ‘howl’ from the verb ילל yālal, “to howl” or “cry.” Gesenius and Rosenmuller suppose that it should be so rendered here. So Noyes renders it, ‘Howl, son of the morning!’ But the common translation seems to be preferable. The Septuagint renders it, Ἑωσφόρος Heōsphoros, and the Vulgate, ‘Lucifer, the morning star.’ The Chaldee, ‘How art thou fallen from high, who wert splendid among the sons of men.’ There can be no doubt that the object in the eve of the prophet was the bright morning star; and his design was to compare this magnificent oriental monarch with that. The comparison of a monarch with the sun, or the other heavenly bodies, is common in the Scriptures.
Son of the morning - This is a Hebraism (see the note at Mat_1:1), and signifies that that bright star is, as it were, the production, or the offspring of morning; or that it belongs to the morning. The word ‘son’ often thus denotes possession, or that one thing belongs to another. The same star in one place represents the Son of God himself; Rev_21:16 : ‘I am - the bright and morning star.’
Which didst weaken the nations - By thy oppressions and exactions, rendering once mighty nations feeble.




Now Wiersbe doesnt try to RENAME Satan but still attributes the event to him. But both he and Barnes show that the OBJECT in comparison is the morning star which is what helel is referring to. The shining one is the morning star.

Or you could just prefer the NET Bibles translation.

Isa 14:12 Look how you have fallen from the sky,
O shining one, son of the dawn!
You have been cut down to the ground,
O conqueror of the nations!