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]! |
Bible Question:
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 |
Bible Answer: 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 |