Results 1 - 2 of 2
|Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Unanswered Bible Questions
Author: Ancient Ordered by Date
|1||The Doctrines Please?||Bible general Archive 2||Ancient||127413|
|Dear forum members,
Post #127351 has been restricted after only a few posts. I was clear that I didn't have much interest in the particular topic, but I thought I made a valid point that searching the topic to conclusion was a good and edifying thing. Someone has disagreed and restricted the thread. This is disturbing, but beyond my say so.
Because of this action, it is abundantly clear to me that this forum is not about discussing the Bible and determining truths in humility to the Word, but about discussing topics according to a predetermined doctrine.
I have read books both for and against every major doctrine in the church today, and I find that both sides offer substantial evidence for their points of view. One particular doctrine is not necessarily correct, and the point of study and discussion is to determine the truth of scripture.
Now, knowing that this is a doctrine forum by practical evidence and vehement objections to scholarly, educated, and accredited points of view based on scripture, I need not offer any scripturally based advice, except what conforms to the said doctrine. I have my own points of view based on diligent study, but I can be silent on some issues as required to avoid dissension. I need to know what the doctrines are on this site so I can properly conform my answers so as not to make myself a stumbling block to others.
This is not a gripe or a post in anger. I am not trying to bait or tempt anyone. This is something I need to know, because it is a waste of time to put my knowledge into a post that no one will see.
Please list the doctrines by their common titles, indicating a for or against position on each.
Your assistance in this matter would be of great help.
|2||Lucifer, Satan, Devil?||Is 14:12||Ancient||126843|
I apologize that I have to repost this to you. There is good information to be shared, and the original thread of our conversation is now restricted because of that debate earlier today.
I had previously written: Something else that is not in the Bible, as often believed, is the name Lucifer as pertaining to the devil. This was a Latin word that means "to bear light," or light-bearer. The word was used in vulgar Latin to translate the Hebrew word Haylal, which means "morning star," a title Jesus takes for himself. Also, the word lucifer (small "l") actually appears twice in the Vulgate, not once. The second occurence is in 2nd Peter 1:19, where he says, " ... until the day dawn, and the morning star (lucifer) rises in your hearts."
I found this interesting. Since discovering it, I have been doing a rather in depth study on the Fall of Satan, trying to verify the veracity of the theory.
So far, I have found it grossly flawed. The theory, as it originally started, was in the third century. Origen, a founding church father, expressed the spiritualized view of the heavenly rebellion and subsequent fall in his treatise, "The First Principles." Lacking anything definitive from the Apostles, he sought to deduce from scripture a position regarding the origin of opposing powers that might be more credibly maintained.
Origen, while a magnificent man, was known quite notoriously for spiritualizing things.
You responded: Interesting! In the KJV I only find Lucifer in Isaiah 14:12. It is difficult in the OT because names often meant things, which means that the meaning and the name could be used interchangably. With no other clues in the text, its hard to know if a word should be transliterated or translated. I don't envy the job of the translators!
This is my point precisely. "Interesting! In the KJV I only find Lucifer in Isaiah 14:12."
The word lucifer (small "l") is a Latin word. It never existed in the Hebrew text. Origen's spiritualized theory gave birth to a legend, and because of the teaching, by the time the Bible got translated into English in the 1611 King James Version, the word lucifer was no longer associated with its actual meaning, but now held the honor of a name. Lucifer (capital "L").
The 1611 King James Version was translated from the Latin Vulgate, assembled by Jerome in the late fourth century by means of the first actual criticism of text. In the Latin Vulgate, you will find the word lucifer twice, not once. Because of the word's association with the theorized name of the highest angel who rose up in rebellion against God, the monks responsible for the English translation left the word Lucifer intact in Isaiah, but translated the same word according to its correct definition in 2nd Peter 1:19. Morning Star.
You will find that all other copies of the Bible today use the word Morning Star, Day Star, Shining Star, or something akin to that. Only the King James Version holds to Lucifer in their Isaiah translation.
In truth, Lucifer is not the name of Satan's former being. Satan is his former name. Although, in all fairness, the name Lucifer genuinely belongs to him at this point because of all the deceit that surrounds the name.
I have tons more on the subject if you are interested.