Translations

[Abogado del Diablo]

Originally Posted by lunamoth

Thank you all for your replies about the use of morning star in Isaiah. Seems that it could be a translation issue. NIV study footnotes say that in Isaiah the name refers to the king of Babylon, who is later used as a type (prefiguration) of the beast who will ead Babylon in the last days. It also in the footnotes gives the translation as Lucifer in the Latin Vulgate. It is kind of curious that most translations would choose the morning star version for Isaiah when it is used for Christ in Revelation, but I doubt it is some kind of CONSPIRACY. lunamoth

I tend to agree. From my own research the last couple of days it appears to be a reference to a Babylonian king. The passage starts at verse 4, which identifies it as a taunt to the King of Babylon. It concludes by pointing out that the object of the taunt is a "man."

The reference to "son of the morning"/"morning star" is from Hebrew helel ben-shachar - הילל בן שחר - the meaning of which is similar to "day star," but could reasonably be translated either of the ways it appears in the NIV/KJV it appears. It may have been nothing more than comparing this Babylonian king to the planet Venus, which was considered the "morning star". In the Vulgate, Venus is referred to as Lucifer when one wants to distinguish references to the planet from references to the goddess. This passage has been read as a description of the fall of Satan ever since the 4th Century or so and ever since, "Lucifer" has been another name for Satan as a result.

[Bandit]

i disagree. this is not a literal star(s) venus. Lucifer is his name.
King of tyre gets the same rap, but he was not in eden. People do not fall from heaven (lofty SKY). of all the switching adding & taking away of words in the bible, that one disturbs me the most..still trying to exalt himself above all that is God.
it is going to be so easy for son of perdition to slip into his throne as the 'shining' morning star.

Thanks for the replies but i am not in for a further debate .

mee, that translation you gave seems ok to me because it does not try to exalt itself or create confusion as to WHO the bright & morning star is.

[mee]

In the watchtower magazine of sept 15th 2002 i have found this to be interesting , it is a question from readers of the mag about lucifer.

·

Is Lucifer a name that the Bible uses for Satan?

The name Lucifer occurs once in the Scriptures and only in some versions of the Bible. For example, the King James Version renders Isaiah 14:12: "How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning!"

The Hebrew word translated "Lucifer" means "shining one." The Septuagint uses the Greek word that means "bringer of dawn." Hence, some translations render the original Hebrew "morning star" or "Daystar." But Jerome’s Latin Vulgate uses "Lucifer" (light bearer), and this accounts for the appearance of that term in various versions of the Bible.

Who is this Lucifer? The expression "shining one," or "Lucifer," is found in what Isaiah prophetically commanded the Israelites to pronounce as a "proverbial saying against the king of Babylon." Thus, it is part of a saying primarily directed at the Babylonian dynasty. That the description "shining one" is given to a man and not to a spirit creature is further seen by the statement: "Down to Sheol you will be brought." Sheol is the common grave of mankind—not a place occupied by Satan the Devil. Moreover, those seeing Lucifer brought into this condition ask: "Is this the man that was agitating the earth?" Clearly, "Lucifer" refers to a human, not to a spirit creature.—Isaiah 14:4, 15, 16.

Why is such an eminent description given to the Babylonian dynasty? We must realize that the king of Babylon was to be called the shining one only after his fall and in a taunting way. (Isaiah 14:3) Selfish pride prompted Babylon’s kings to elevate themselves above those around them. So great was the arrogance of the dynasty that it is portrayed as bragging: "To the heavens I shall go up. Above the stars of God I shall lift up my throne, and I shall sit down upon the mountain of meeting, in the remotest parts of the north. . . . I shall make myself resemble the Most High."—Isaiah 14:13, 14.

"The stars of God" are the kings of the royal line of David. (Numbers 24:17) From David onward, these "stars" ruled from Mount Zion. After Solomon built the temple in Jerusalem, the name Zion came to apply to the whole city. Under the Law covenant, all male Israelites were obliged to travel to Zion three times a year. Thus, it became "the mountain of meeting." By determining to subjugate the Judean kings and then remove them from that mountain, Nebuchadnezzar is declaring his intention to put himself above those "stars." Instead of giving Jehovah credit for the victory over them, he arrogantly puts himself in Jehovah’s place. So it is after being cut down to the earth that the Babylonian dynasty is mockingly referred to as the "shining one."

The pride of the Babylonian rulers indeed reflected the attitude of "the god of this system of things"—Satan the Devil. (2 Corinthians 4:4) He too lusts for power and longs to place himself above Jehovah God. But Lucifer is not a name Scripturally given to Satan.

[Abogado del Diablo]

Originally Posted by Bandit

i disagree. this is not a literal star(s) venus. Lucifer is his name.
King of tyre gets the same rap, but he was not in eden. People do not fall from heaven (lofty SKY). of all the switching adding & taking away of words in the bible, that one disturbs me the most..still trying to exalt himself above all that is God.
it is going to be so easy for son of perdition to slip into his throne as the 'shining' morning star.

Thanks for the replies but i am not in for a further debate .

mee, that translation you gave seems ok to me because it does not try to exalt itself or create confusion as to WHO the bright & morning star is.

"Lucifer" only comes in through the Vulgate. It's a by-product of Hebrew translated into Greek translated into Latin and there it means "Venus" (the planet).

It's true that people don't fall from the sky, but it's a metaphor. It's a taunt comparing the king to Venus as the brightest morning star because of his great power and authority, but whose arrogance brought him low.

[lunamoth]

peace, all

lots of good replies about this--thank you. I'm not debating here either, bandit, just trying to gain deeper understanding and actaully I have. Both mee and AdD brought to the table the point that the ms/Lucifer name was used only after the downfall of the king/Satan, and in a mocking way. Really, I think this does underscore who the true Morning Star is, and it is not man/Satan.


lunamoth

[Bandit]

i am aware of the Vulgate & the other interpretations. I am not too concerned with what Jerome or others may have been thinking at the time, about how a planet might shine like a pretty rainbow. This particular name is given to one person, one time. Not just a man or a literal planets name, no more than the king of Tyre is a cheribum. It is not just a metaphor.
If others want to believe it was given to only a man, that is up to them.

[Abogado del Diablo]

Originally Posted by Bandit

i am aware of the Vulgate & the other interpretations. I am not too concerned with what Jerome or others may have been thinking at the time, about how a planet might shine like a pretty rainbow.

I think you are missing the point, Bandit. Jerome used the word "Lucifer" because he intended his translation to be a reference to the planet Venus. That is what the word "Lucifer" means in the latin Vulgate. So one can either interpret the word "Lucifer," as repeated in the KJV, as simply carrying forward Jerome's translation in the Vulgate and understand it's meaning to be "Venus." Or one can disagree with the translation of helel ben-sachar as being a reference to the planet Venus in the original Hebrew. In which case, not only do you not have Jerome's reference to "Lucifer" as Venus from the Vulgate, but you won't have the word "Lucifer" in that passage at all! Which is what the scholars who performed the NIV and NAS translations decided.

It's either "Lucifer" as a reference to the planet Venus as intended in the Vulgate and carried forward into the KJV or it's no "Lucifer" at all, as in the NIV/NAS translations.

[Abogado del Diablo]

Originally Posted by Bandit

This particular name is given to one person, one time.

Then you must disagree with the KJV, too. Because if it was intended in the Hebrew as a proper name for one person, one time, it shouldn't have been translated at all. It should have been transliterated instead. In which case, you still wouldn't see "lucifer" in the text for that one person. That person's name should be rendered in English as "Helel Ben-sachar."

[Abogado del Diablo]

Not coincidentally, the same word - "lucifer" - was also used in the Vulgate to replace morning star/day star in 2 Peter 1:19.

In Latin:

et habemus firmiorem propheticum sermonem cui bene facitis adtendentes quasi lucernae lucenti in caliginoso loco donec dies inlucescat et lucifer oriatur in cordibus vestris

Which, translated in the KJV, reads:

"We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts."

[mee]

Originally Posted by Abogado del Diablo

Not coincidentally, the same word - "lucifer" - was also used in the Vulgate to replace morning star/day star in 2 Peter 1:19.

In Latin:

et habemus firmiorem propheticum sermonem cui bene facitis adtendentes quasi lucernae lucenti in caliginoso loco donec dies inlucescat et lucifer oriatur in cordibus vestris

Which, translated in the KJV, reads:

"We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts."

"Daystar." The expression "daystar" (Gr., pho·spho´ros) occurs once, at 2 Peter 1:19, and is similar in meaning to "morning star." Such stars at certain seasons of the year are the last stars to rise on the eastern horizon before the sun appears and thus are heralds of the dawn of a new day. Peter’s previous reference to the vision of Jesus’ transfiguration in magnificent glory suggests a relation to his entering into kingly power as "the root and the offspring of David, and the bright morning star [a·ster´]."—Re 22:16; 2:26-28 i found this information in a book published by jehovahs witnesses called (INSIGHT ON THE SCRIPTURES VOL 2 PAGE 1033)


Consequently we have the prophetic word [made] more sure; and YOU are doing well in paying attention to it as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until day dawns and a daystar rises, in YOUR hearts(2 PETER 1;19)