Results 1 - 2 of 2
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Using the word Lucifer | Is 14:12 | Morant61 | 217810 | ||
Greetings Makarios! Interesting question my friend! I did a little checking, and I could not find any evidence that there is a manuscript question involved. It appears that some just simply mistranslated the word entirely - for some reason. Here are some sample comments about Is. 14:12: Clarke writes: "But the truth is, the text speaks nothing at all concerning Satan nor his fall, nor the occasion of that fall, which many divines have with great confidence deduced from this text. O how necessary it is to understand the literal meaning of Scripture, that preposterous comments may be prevented! Besides, I doubt much whether our translation be correct. heilel, which we translate Lucifer, comes from yalal, yell, howl, or shriek, and should be translated, “Howl, son of the morning;” and so the Syriac has understood it; and for this meaning Michaelis contends:" Barnes indicates that 'lucifer' comes from the Vulgate. Keil and Delitzsch comment: "Lucifer, as a name given to the devil, was derived from this passage, which the fathers (and lately Stier) interpreted, without any warrant whatever, as relating to the apostasy and punishment of the angelic leaders. The appellation is a perfectly appropriate one for the king of Babel, on account of the early date of the Babylonian culture, which reached back as far as the grey twilight of primeval times, and also because of its predominant astrological character." Let me know if you find any more info about the manuscripts. :-) Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
2 | Using the word Lucifer | Is 14:12 | Searcher56 | 217832 | ||
God's day to you, Tim, There are some sources I listed in post 217716. I said "When King James Version was translated, I believe the Masoretic Hebrew text was not the only source for the Old Testament. I think the Latin Vulgate was also used. One reason is Lucifer is not a Hebrew, or even an Aramaic or Greek name." Since it is Saturday, I decided to look at chrurh history and the translations, up to King Jimmy. While the Bible was translated into many languages, the church, the Roman Catholic, said Latin only around 600. However, some men didn't obey: 1384: Wycliffe 1516: Erasmus (Greek-Latin NT) 1522: Martin Luther (NT - German) ... Now we see the English versions 1526: William Tyndale (NT) 1535: Myles Coverdale 1537: Tyndale-Matthews 1539: The "Great Bible" 1560: The Geneva Bible 1568: The Bishops Bible 1609: The Douay (OT) (1582) Rheims (NT) 1611: The King James Bible Source: http://www.greatsite.com/ and select English Bible History I posted I found the 8 translations use Lucifer in Isaiah 14:12: The New King James Version The King James Version (KJV) The Douay-Rheims The Message The Darby Translation Webster's Bible Translation The Latin Vulgate Third Millennium Bible Only two translations, Latin Vulgate and Douay, before the KJV used the Latin Lucifer. The Douay was entirely from the Latin Vulgate ... "diligently compared with the Hebrew, Greek, and other editions in divers languages". Source: http://www.catholicfirst.com/bibledrv.cfm The work was *highly* influenced by the church. I wonder how much influence those on the Continent (Roman Catholics), where Douay-Rheims was translated had on the KJV, even tho they were Protestant? Searcher |
||||||