Results 1 - 5 of 5
|
|
|||||
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 | EdB | 126877 | ||
Ancient You said, "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." KJV used the Vulgate?? Let's see English Bibles Wycliff Bible 1380 AD Tyndale 1525 AD Coverdale 1535 AD Matthew's 1537 AD Great 1539 AD Geneva 1560 AD and finally the KJV 1611 AD Plus the Masoretic text which were complied in 500-950 One would wonder why with so much existing material available that was in English plus what was then considered the finest Greek manuscripts, why would the translators go back to the Vulgate of which they weren't realy happy with to begin with. The only historical proof that the Vulgate was involved in any English translation was it's possible use in the Wycliffe and Tyndale versions. Further the word here is "Helel" which comes from the Hebrew word "halal" which means to be boastful. Helel is translated Lucifer and means a shinning one. LUCIFER [LOU see fur] (morning star) — the Latin name for the planet Venus. The word Lucifer appears only once in the Bible “How you are fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! How you are cut down to the ground, you who weakened the nations!” (Is. 14:12). Literally, the passage describes the overthrow of a tyrant, the king of Babylon. But many Bible scholars see in this passage a description of Satan, who rebelled against the throne of God and was “brought down to Sheol, to the lowest depths of the Pit” (Is. 14:15). The same kind of interpretation is often given to Ezekiel 28:11–19. The description of the king of Tyre thus is believed to reach beyond that of an earthly ruler to the archangel who was cast out of heaven for leading a revolt against God. Other scholars argue that Isaiah 14:12 should be interpreted as a reference to an ancient Canaanite myth. According to this view, Isaiah referred to the myth to dramatize the fall of the king of Babylon. Youngblood, R. F. (1995). Nelson's new illustrated Bible dictionary. Rev. ed. of: Nelson's illustrated Bible dictionary.;Includes index. Nashville: T. Nelson. This is not to say that the actual word Lucifer was not influenced by the Latin Vulgate but that is long way from saying the KJV is translated from the Vulgate. As students of history we have to careful not to rewrite history to incorrect understanding. EdB |
||||||
3 | Lucifer, Satan, Devil? | Is 14:12 | Ancient | 126890 | ||
Good afternoon, brother. If I am mistaken on the history of Bible translations, then so be it. The material I have read says what I have stated, but because they said it does not attest to any legitimacy. By all means educate me. I'd like to learn. As I understand it, the other versions you mentioned, while legitimate, were not considered authorized translations. The Vulgate, according to what I have read, was the standardized, authorized version in the Catholic Church (which was by far the most dominant in its day), and it is because of the Latin orientation of the Bible that King James commissioned the English translation to be made (in spite of the Catholic Church). Again, if the information I read is incorrect, then it is incorrect. I am, admittedly, not an expert in that particular field of study. I read enough to be educated in it so I will not be completely ignorant. On the subject of Lucifer, the lexicon I use is Strong's, derived from Vine's Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words, Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon, and Girdlestone's Synonyms of the Old Testament. And the Hebrew dictionary also cross references the Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament. According to these, the word being used in Isaiah 14:12 is heylel (hay-lale), rooted in halal (haw-lal) in the sense of brightness. halal (haw-lal) is not the word being used according to the references I have. The literal translation proposed by this lexicon is "morning-star" from the word heylel (hay-lale). The translations of the New American Standard (star of the morning), New International Version (morning star), and the New Revised Standard Version (Day Star), all concur that this is the best translation of the Hebrew word present in the text. I do not criticize your credentials or your comments. I don't know what your credentials might be, and I certainly value your input. But these three, barring the widely popular King James Version, are the three leading translations accepted for their literal and accurate renderings. In this particular case, I am going to trust in their expertise and accept the translation as "morning star." I appreciate your input on the subject regardless, and I have given your statement fair consideration. There are other versions that translate it as you say. But as those other translations are not as commonly accepted, and are not always done by the spectrum of scholars that gave their efforts to render the type of accuracy we have in the New American Standard, I must decline the veracity of your proposed translation of "Shining One." Now, in case I am confused in your post, if it is the word "lucifer" you are saying translates as "a shining one," I find that a common dictionary addresses this issue. [Middle English Lucifer, Old English Lucifer, from Latin: Lucifer, "light-bearer" : lux (stem luc-), light and -fer.] This word was commonly used for the planet Venus, recognized by epithet as the morning star. Additionally, the Greek word used in the Septuagint is heos-foros, which also means to "bear light." This is consistent with the Latin word lucifer. And in 2nd Peter 1:19, the Greek word is foce-foros, which means virtually the same thing, "light-bearer," and which the New American Standard, New Revised Standard, and the New International Version all once again agree accordingly, that the best rendition of the word is "morning star." Lucifer is used in Isaiah 14:12 and 2nd Peter 1:19. Heos-foros and foce-foros, which are variants of each other, are also used in both places, and morning star, an accepted scholarly rendition, is used in both places. While there might have been English translations, I would have to submit that lucifer, being a Latin word, came from the Latin, not from Greek, Hebrew, or English. Now, did the King James Version come from the Latin? I'll say I honestly do not know if you have information that differs from mine. I thought I knew, but it appears there are sources to express various hypotheses. I greatly appreciate your input. If you have more to add, by all means. I'm interested in learning. Correct me if I am mistaken about something. All my love, Ancient |
||||||
4 | Lucifer, Satan, Devil? | Is 14:12 | EdB | 126899 | ||
Ancient “As I understand it, the other versions you mentioned, while legitimate, were not considered authorized translations.” Authorization mentioned here means nothing more than the version was commissioned by King James and is virtually meaningless today. Your right the Vulgate was the Catholic version, then the Reformation took place and anything even remotely Catholic was virtually abhorred. The King James version wasn’t done just in spite of Rome but rather in open rebellion to Rome. It was to show Rome that the Protestants were not longer in any submission or control of Rome in open defiance of Rome’s authority. I think your misunderstanding of the shining one is one where you don’t understand what Strong’s is. Strong’s concordance is not a dictionary but in fact a concordance and that also supplies a ‘real sketchy’ definitions of words plus the words the Greek or Hebrwe was translated into. The definition preceeds the :- the translation follows the :- . However you if you look at a NASB Greek Hebrew dictionary you will see a far superior definition of the word and word the NASB translators used for the word. Strong’s heylel, Hebrew 1966, Strong’s heylel, from Hebrew 1984 (halal) (in the sense of brightness); the morning-star :- lucifer. NASB Greek and Hebrew Dictionary 1995 updated. 1966. Helel (237d); from 1984a; a shining one:— star of the morning(1). Thomas, R. L. (1998, 1981). New American Standard Hebrew-Aramaic and Greek dictionaries : Updated edition (H1966). Anaheim: Foundation Publications, Inc. 499a Helel) [Stg: 1966] Helel. TWOT Our root represents the giving off of light by celestial bodies. (Paragraph removed contained special characters that rendered it unreadable.) The root occurs five (maybe six, KD Job 25:5) times. The verb is used by Job in highly poetic passages to describe the shining of the sun (Job 29:3; Job 31:26). In both instances the parallels make the meaning clear. Also, Isaiah 13:10 contrasts this aspect of heavenly bodies and the darkening of the sun and moon. These heavenly bodies are symbolically/figuratively darkened as a sign of blessing (Isaiah 60:19; Joel 2:31 [H 3:4]) and/or judgment whether historical (Isaiah 13:13; Ezekiel 32:7) or eschatalogical (Joel 2:10). All the uses of our verb appear in contexts with mythological connections. This is not to say that biblical writers assumed the validity of pagan myth. Indeed, as Job (Job 41:18 [H 10]) seeks to make clear, God alone exists as deity! The pagan gods are creations of their own minds (Isaiah 2:8). Leviathan is a toy in God's hands, i.e., he mocks the pagan religions. Interestingly, in Job 41:18 [H 10] the line parallel to that in which our verb appears alludes to shashar (q.v., cf. J. W. McKay "Helel and the Dawn-Goddess," VT 20: 456ff.) which is probably to be understood as the name of a goddess. McKay (op. cit.) contends that in the allusion in Isaiah 14:12-15 there is a Canaanite version of the Greek Phaethon myth as mediated and influenced by Phoenician culture during the "heroic age." The development of the Canaanite version is complex and has affinities with the Ugaritic myth involving Athar, son of Athirat, who was unable to occupy the throne of Baal. It was Phaethon who attempted to scale the heights of heaven and as the dawn star was ever condemned to be cast down into Hades (sheol q.v.). Even if one does not accept McKay's argument, it is important to note the following philological oddities: (1) harmoed (Isaiah 14:13) and Ugaritic (had to remove special characters) ("The Mount of Lala") where there assembled the (had to remove special characters) ("The Assembled Body" ANET, p. 130—UT 16 Text 137:20) and (2) the name (had to remove special characters) (Isaiah 14:13) which is well known in Ugaritic as the mountain of the gods. The God of Israel is not enthroned on Saphon; he reigns from heaven itself (cf. hekal). Any interpretation of Isaiah 14 which does not take into account the mythological allusion that does injustice to what is said there. [It may be helpful to add that this much-discussed passage with possible parallels to pagan mythology is actually in form a quotation from a heathen king. It is natural for a heathen king to boast that he would exalt his throne above the gods or above the mountain where he believed the gods assembled. R.L.H.] I don’t think my claim that the word means ‘shinning one’ stands in opposition to any of the references you claim you based your opinion on. I couldn't find any listing for the word in vine's I think this statement you made “Additionally, the Greek word used in the Septuagint is heos-foros, which also means to "bear light." This is consistent with the Latin word lucifer.” Bears out what I have been saying. I said “This is not to say that the actual word Lucifer was not influenced by the Latin Vulgate but that is long way from saying the KJV is translated from the Vulgate.” EdB |
||||||
5 | Lucifer, Satan, Devil? | Is 14:12 | Ancient | 126902 | ||
Hey EdB. I will have to take some time to look over what you wrote. I don't like to be hasty in what I say, so I want to give your information the time it deserves. Then I can make some educated, wise decisions regarding which direction to continue in as far the information available to me. Thank you so much for the hard work you put into your post, and I want you to know that your efforts are appreciated and will not be ignored. Ancient |
||||||