Results 1 - 4 of 4
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Lucifer, Satan, Devil? | Is 14:12 | Ancient | 126843 | ||
doctrinsograce, 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. Ancient |
||||||
2 | Lucifer, Satan, Devil? | Is 14:12 | Hank | 126844 | ||
Ancient, mind if I intrude? I will be especially careful not to steal DocTrinsograce's thunder, for I am sure he will prepare a fine response. Recognizing that this matter of Lucifer is touchy and controversial, I will try not to be dogmatic in my remarks, leaving ample room for friendly and scholarly dissension! As you doubtlessly know, the word "Lucifer" does not appear in our sponsor's translation, the NASB. It appears, of course in the KJV, and is carried over to the NKJV, but the translators of that work footnote it with "Lit. Day Star." ........ Regarding the Isaiah 14:12-21 passage there is an annotation in Believer's Study Bible (now known as Baptist Study Bible), to wit: "This is widely considered to be a description of the fall of Satan. Although there are parallels between this passage and what we know elsewhere of the origin of Satan (cf. Ezek 28:12; Luke 10:18; 1 Tim. 3:6), the one in view here is the King of Babylon (v.4). Satan can be in view here only typologically. He was already in heaven, an attendant of God, when he fell through deceit (cf. v. 13)." ...... This brief annotation is one with which I happen to agree, and thus with much of your post I also agree. ..... I do, however, question your statement regarding the 1611 King James Version having been translated from Jerome's Latin Vulgate. In all probablilty the translators consulted the Vulgate but did not limit themselves to it alone by any means. ..... At all events, the Lucifer matter is an interesting one and, whether one agrees in whole, in part, or not at all with your views on it, it is my considered opinion that your post offers much to ponder, much to whet one's appetite to know more. Thank you. --Hank | ||||||
3 | Lucifer, Satan, Devil? | Is 14:12 | Ancient | 126861 | ||
Good Morning Hank, The 1611 King James ... I've read three books on the origin of the Bible. Personally, I was not there, but the information I have been able to glean to date, according to these authors, is that due to the corruption to the Latin texts and lack of control over the copying and transmitting, the bible as they had it was horribly distorted by the late fourth century. Because of this, Pope Damascus commissioned Jerome to collect and compile the scriptures in order to standardize a single copy for the sake of posterity, before the scriptures were corrupted beyond repair or retrieval. Jerome, as it is told, searched far and wide for texts that even then were considered ancient. It is said that he was ridiculed for his unwillingness to use the Septuagint for his work, as he believed that the only inerrant text was the original (though it is said he used it for comparison to check his accuracy). Once completed (a task that took him close to twenty years), his work became a codified text, and it was the standard used by the church. I can't disagree as to whether they used other sources, so I'll gracefully nod to that, but the authors I have read claim that the first English bible was translated from the Latin Vulgate of St. Jerome. I'm sure some of you are aware of the events leading to the alternate translations, but just for the sake of those that don't: The Latin Vulgate was at one point translated back into Greek by one scholar (very early), and in the 1800s, two (German?) scholars set about the task of the first major textual criticism, using sources going back to the 6th century. I apologize for not providing their names. I don't have the book handy. This first new textual criticism gave birth to a new age of Bible translators, and each new translation has stiven for excellence and accuracy to exceed the information and sources of the previous translations. I find that the New American Standard is a fantastic, literal translation, and is the closest thing so far. Now, Isaiah ... I agree with that study note, Hank. I find that Isaiah 14 does not offer an indisputable reference to the fall of an angel, whether Lucifer or otherwise. I am in absolute agreement that Isaiah 14 is in direct reference to the king of Babylon, and not a spiritualized representation of an angel that is named the king of Babylon in order to hide the meaning of the prophecy. This one common explanation, that "the angel" is called the "king" of Babylon, is often referred back to Daniel 10:13 which reads, "But the prince of the kingdom of Persia was withstanding me for twenty-one days; then behold, Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me, for I had been left there with the kings of Persia." Recognized as angels in their context, Michael (the other is not addressed by title) is named a prince. This passage provides the means of spiritualization to verify Isaiah 14 as speaking of an angel. Since the angel is a prince, and the prophecy speaks of another royal dignity, this must, in their minds, equate to an angel. As a matter of heirarchy, princes are below a king, and next in line. It makes no sense to place "fallen" beings at a greater status than the princes doing God's will. Jesus is the King, and the angels, as described a number of times, are princes. The king of Babylon is not an angel, but a man of high status. Then we must use a "normal" reading of scripture to deduce the intent of the author, and doing so, you will see that the prophetic passage begins by saying that the people will take up a proverb against him, which word "proverb," defines in Hebrew as something "metaphoric," as in a poem. So this passage is a deliberate metaphor used to describe a haughty king. The figurative language, however pursuasive towards the proposed theory of the fall, is being used on purpose to describe a man, and it says as much. Also, you will notice if you read the passage in its entirety that it is not all consistent with the theory of the fall. Some of the passages must be dismissed in order to adhere to that interpretation. The Ezekiel passages I find are much the same. If others would like to participate in this conversation, I'd be happy to continue. However, I saw some terrible behavior by some yesterday. You were remiss in your duties to each other to practice meekness and humility, esteeming each other as greater than yourselves, and being quick to listen, slow to speak, slow to wrath. I do not wish for the same behavior to be directed at me for sharing what I've learned through diligent study. This series of posts will require each of us taking on the mind of child, unlearning what we think we know, in order to consider the validity of an alternate view that has been come to by much study. Those with heated opinions, I beg you, please don't scream at me because you disagree out of principle. Eager to continue, Ancient |
||||||
4 | Lucifer, Satan, Devil? | Is 14:12 | Ancient | 126862 | ||
Let me add to my last statement. I fear I might have used careless words. I didn't mean what it appears to me, in retrospect, that I meant to say. I am not trying to accuse or lay blame at anyone's feet for any wrong doing. I just saw a lot of poor treatment from one brother to the next in yesterday's lengthy conversation. I do not allocate blame to anyone specifically. I brought the point to attention because I don't want someone to do that to me. It already happened once, and I carefully stepped away from the situation so as not to be ridiculed undeserved for offering a piece of information to explain where the theory of the apple came from. How it exploded into such a thing as it did, I do not know. I do know that some valid points were made, and some were unwilling to listen to reason. Again, I don't want that to be the case here. I want to edify and learn together. The wisdom that is from God is easily entreated, not stubborn or prideful. In any case, if I unintentionally caused hurt with my careless statement, please forgive. No accusation was intended towards anyone specific. Ancient |
||||||