Prior Book | Prior Chapter | Prior Verse | Next Verse | Next Chapter | Next Book | Viewing NASB and Amplified 2015 | |
NASB | Isaiah 14:12 "How you have fallen from heaven, O star of the morning, son of the dawn! You have been cut down to the earth, You who have weakened the nations! |
AMPLIFIED 2015 | Isaiah 14:12 "How you have fallen from heaven, O star of the morning [light-bringer], son of the dawn! You have been cut down to the ground, You who have weakened the nations [king of Babylon]! |
Subject: Lucifer, Satan, Devil? |
Bible Note: 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 |