PDA

View Full Version : "Morning Star":Jesus or satan???



Jay Mac
Sep 26th 2007, 12:42 AM
Has anybody else noticed the NIV Bible calls Jesus and lucifer "Morning star"? When speaking of lucifer in Isaiah 14:12 the text says,

"How you have fallen from heaven, O morning star, son of the dawn! You have been cast down to the earth, you who once laid low the nations!"

But in other areas of the NIV Bible Jesus is called the Morning star,

Rev. 22:16:"I, Jesus, have sent my angel to give you [1] this testimony for the churches. I am the Root and the Offspring of David, and the bright Morning Star."

I also read that the publisher of the NIV Bible, zondervan, is owned by the same company that publishes the satanic bible. Just wondering if anybody else noticed that?

The Parson
Sep 26th 2007, 01:11 AM
Isaiah 14:12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations! Jesus is the Morning star my friend, not Lucifer.

Do me a favor. Look in your NIV at 2nd Samuel 21:19 and tell me what it says... Look closely...

enarchay
Sep 26th 2007, 01:35 AM
Has anybody else noticed the NIV Bible calls Jesus and lucifer "Morning star"? When speaking of lucifer in Isaiah 14:12 the text says,

"How you have fallen from heaven, O morning star, son of the dawn! You have been cast down to the earth, you who once laid low the nations!"

But in other areas of the NIV Bible Jesus is called the Morning star,

Rev. 22:16:"I, Jesus, have sent my angel to give you [1] this testimony for the churches. I am the Root and the Offspring of David, and the bright Morning Star."

I also read that the publisher of the NIV Bible, zondervan, is owned by the same company that publishes the satanic bible. Just wondering if anybody else noticed that?

The first morning star was a pagan Babylonian god. The second is unrelated and is in reference to Jesus as the Light of God, in my opinion.

enarchay
Sep 26th 2007, 01:38 AM
Isaiah 14:12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations! Jesus is the Morning star my friend, not Lucifer.

Lucifer is Latin and means "light-bearer" and translates the Hebrew word heylel, with connotations of brightness, meaning "morning star." In the LXX, heosphoros is used, meaning literally "bearer of dawn;" this word was used to refer to the "morning star" also, a personificition of the planet Venus. In contrast, John writes in Revelation the phrase proninus aster, carrying the same literal meaning as heosphoros.

The Parson
Sep 26th 2007, 01:47 AM
Enarchay, do me a small favor and hold your posts until Jay Mac posts & I've had a chance to explain. I appreciate it.

Thanks...

Taryn
Sep 26th 2007, 01:53 AM
I believe it Satan.

Fun Trvia time.
The planet Venus is also called the morning star by sciencetists.:P:P:P:P:P:P:P:P:P:P


This has nothing to do with the Bible. I just thought since were talking about the morning star I would add this little fun fact.
I definitly believe the Bible is talking about Satan.


TARYN :monkeyd::bible::monkeyd::crazy:

NightWatchman
Sep 26th 2007, 01:55 AM
Has anybody else noticed the NIV Bible calls Jesus and lucifer "Morning star"? When speaking of lucifer in Isaiah 14:12 the text says,

"How you have fallen from heaven, O morning star, son of the dawn! You have been cast down to the earth, you who once laid low the nations!"

But in other areas of the NIV Bible Jesus is called the Morning star,

Rev. 22:16:"I, Jesus, have sent my angel to give you [1] this testimony for the churches. I am the Root and the Offspring of David, and the bright Morning Star."

I also read that the publisher of the NIV Bible, zondervan, is owned by the same company that publishes the satanic bible. Just wondering if anybody else noticed that?

In the KJV Bible, the name "Lucifer" is used in Is. 14:12 instead of the NIV Bible's "Morning star."..............
However, "Lucifer" translates as "morning star" according to Strong's Concordance.

So, Jay Mac, is the KJV Bible a satanic Bible as well? Of course it isn't.
I find the NIV Bible to be very valuable in my walk with God.

The Parson
Sep 26th 2007, 01:55 AM
***OK folks... Just a heads up... Most of the Versions threads we have had on the board have become heated. This one seems peaceful enough but should it become heated, it will shut down. OKEY DOKEY???***

NightWatchman
Sep 26th 2007, 01:59 AM
***OK folks... Just a heads up... Most of the Versions threads we have had on the board have become heated. This one seems peaceful enough but should it become heated, it will shut down. OKEY DOKEY???***
I'll be cool Parson.:D
Just my 2-cents worth for now.:spin:

Saved7
Sep 26th 2007, 02:01 AM
Do me a favor. Look in your NIV at 2nd Samuel 21:19 and tell me what it says... Look closely...


Well?????? What is the difference? I have seen several things that made me a bit nervous when I read it in the NIV, but I don't remember what they were. and I don't know if I saw that one. So tell me please.:pray:

enarchay
Sep 26th 2007, 02:05 AM
Do me a favor. Look in your NIV at 2nd Samuel 21:19 and tell me what it says... Look closely...

I'm not sure what your point is.

Saved7
Sep 26th 2007, 02:06 AM
Is this what you were referring to???

NIV
2Sam 21:19
19 In another battle with the Philistines at Gob, Elhanan son of Jaare-Oregim [c (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=10&chapter=21&version=31#fen-NIV-8600c)] the Bethlehemite killed Goliath [d (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=10&chapter=21&version=31#fen-NIV-8600d)] the Gittite, who had a spear with a shaft like a weaver's rod.

KJV
2Sa 21:19 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=2Sa&chapter=21&verse=19&version=kjv#19)And there was again a battle in Gob with the Philistines, where Elhanan the son of Jaareoregim, a Bethlehemite, slew [the brother of] Goliath the Gittite, the staff of whose spear [was] like a weaver's beam.

The Parson
Sep 26th 2007, 02:07 AM
Well?????? What is the difference? I have seen several things that made me a bit nervous when I read it in the NIV, but I don't remember what they were. and I don't know if I saw that one. So tell me please.:pray:(NIV) 2nd Samuel 21:19 In another battle with the Philistines at Gob, Elhanan son of Jaare-Oregim the Bethlehemite killed Goliath the Gittite, who had a spear with a shaft like a weaver's rod.

Now, who killed Goliath??? I thought David did.

2nd Samuel 21:19 And there was again a battle in Gob with the Philistines, where Elhanan the son of Jaareoregim, a Bethlehemite, slew the brother of Goliath the Gittite, the staff of whose spear was like a weaver's beam.

It was Elhanan who killed the BROTHER of Goliath. I squirm in my seat every time I see that. That is the texural differences in the Received Text and the Westcott and Hort texts that made up the NIV...

enarchay
Sep 26th 2007, 02:16 AM
Is this what you were referring to???

NIV
2Sam 21:19
19 In another battle with the Philistines at Gob, Elhanan son of Jaare-Oregim [c (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=10&chapter=21&version=31#fen-NIV-8600c)] the Bethlehemite killed Goliath [d (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=10&chapter=21&version=31#fen-NIV-8600d)] the Gittite, who had a spear with a shaft like a weaver's rod.

KJV
2Sa 21:19 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=2Sa&chapter=21&verse=19&version=kjv#19)And there was again a battle in Gob with the Philistines, where Elhanan the son of Jaareoregim, a Bethlehemite, slew [the brother of] Goliath the Gittite, the staff of whose spear [was] like a weaver's beam.

The NIV appears to have translated it right. "The brother of" is not in the MT of the Hebrew.

Rotherham renders it: "And there was yet again a battle in Gob with the Philistines,—when Elhanan son of Jaare-oregim of Bethlehem, smote Goliath the Gittite, the shaft of whose spear was like a weaver’s beam" (2Sa 21:19).

In the LXX, it reads: "Kai [And] egeneto [there was] eti [still] polemos [war] meta [with] ton [the] allophulon [Philistines] en [in] Nob [Nob]. Kai [And] epataxen [struck] Ellanan [Elhanan] uios [son] Iape [of Jaareoregim] ho [the] Bethleemites [Beth-lehemite] ton Goliath [Goliath] ton [the] Gethaion [Gittite], kai [and] to [the] xulon [wood] tou doratos autou [of his spear] en [was] os [as] antion [the beam of a loom] uphainonton [of one weaving]" (Based on The Apostolic Bible Polyglot).


Clarke comments:
Elhanan the son of Jaare-oregim - slew - Goliath the Gittite - Here is a most manifest corruption of the text, or gross mistake of the transcriber; David, not Elhanan, slew Goliath. In 1Ch_20:5, the parallel place, it stands thus: “Elhanan, the son of Jair, slew Lahmi, the brother of Goliath the Gittite, whose spear-staff was like a weaver’s beam.” This is plain; and our translators have borrowed some words from Chronicles to make both texts agree. The corruption may be easily accounted for by considering that ארגים oregim, which signifies weavers, has slipped out of one line into the other; and that בית הלחמי beith hallachmi, the Beth-lehemite, is corrupted from את לחמי eth Lachmi; then the reading will be the same as in Chronicles. Dr. Kennicott has made this appear very plain in his First Dissertation on the Hebrew Text, p. 78, etc.Barnes comments:

The Hebrew text is manifestly very corrupt. First, for “Jaare-oregim,” 1Ch_20:5 gives us the reading Jair. “Oregim” has evidently got in by a transcriber’s error from the line below, where “oregim” is the Hebrew for “weavers.” Again, the word the “Bethlehemite” is very doubtful. It is supported by 2Sa_23:24, but it is not found in the far purer text of 1Ch_20:5, but instead of it we find the name of the Philistine slain by Elhanan, “Lahmi the brother of Goliath the Gittite.” It is probable, therefore, that either the words “the Bethlehemite,” are a corruption of “Lahmi,” or that the recurrence of “Lahmi,” and the termination of “Beth-lehemite” has confused the transcriber, and led to the omission of one of the words in each text.So, the KJV adds English words to harmonize the texts, and the NIV translates true to 2Sa 21:19's Hebrew. Frankly, I think it would be best to translate it literally like the NIV, and add a footnote explaining the discrepancy.

RogerW
Sep 26th 2007, 02:20 AM
Isaiah 14:12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations! Jesus is the Morning star my friend, not Lucifer.

Do me a favor. Look in your NIV at 2nd Samuel 21:19 and tell me what it says... Look closely...

Greetings Parson,

Interesting. When reading the NIV do we find truth in 2nd Sam 21:19 or 1Chron 20:5? For me personally it is just one more reason to reject the NIV as a reliable translation. Thanks for pointing this out.

Many Blessings,
RW

The Parson
Sep 26th 2007, 02:24 AM
The NIV appears to have translated it right. "The brother of" is not in the MT of the Hebrew.

Rotherham renders it: "And there was yet again a battle in Gob with the Philistines,—when Elhanan son of Jaare-oregim of Bethlehem, smote Goliath the Gittite, the shaft of whose spear was like a weaver’s beam" (2Sa 21:19).


In the LXX, it reads: "Kai [And] egeneto [there was] eti [still] polemos [war] meta [with] ton [the] allophulon [Philistines] en [in] Nob [Nob]. Kai [And] epataxen [struck] Ellanan [Elhanan] uios [son] Iape [of Jaareoregim] ho [the] Bethleemites -lehemite] ton Goliath [Goliath] ton [the] Gethaion [Gittite], kai [and] to [the] xulon [wood] tou doratos autou [of his spear] en [was] os [as] antion [the beam of a loom] uphainonton [of one weaving]" (Based on The Apostolic Bible Polyglot).Enarchay, would you read the following and not disect it. Please take it for what it says. Please?

1st Samuel 17:23 And as he talked with them, behold, there came up the champion, the Philistine of Gath, Goliath by name, out of the armies of the Philistines, and spake according to the same words: and David heard them.

~~~~~~~~~

1st Samuel 17:48 And it came to pass, when the Philistine arose, and came, and drew nigh to meet David, that David hastened, and ran toward the army to meet the Philistine. 17:49 And David put his hand in his bag, and took thence a stone, and slang it, and smote the Philistine in his forehead, that the stone sunk into his forehead; and he fell upon his face to the earth.

The Parson
Sep 26th 2007, 02:27 AM
Greetings Parson,

Interesting. When reading the NIV do we find truth in 2nd Sam 21:19 or 1Chron 20:5? For me personally it is just one more reason to reject the NIV as a reliable translation. Thanks for pointing this out.

Many Blessings,
RWYou are welcome. and while you have your NIV handy, look up the following verses for me.

Matthew 17:21 - 18:11 - 23:14
Mark 7:16 - 9:44 - 9:46 - 11:26 - 15:28
Luke 17:36 - 23:17
John 5:4
Acts 8:37 - 15:34 - 24:7 - 28:29
Romans 16:24
1st John 5:7

Saved7
Sep 26th 2007, 02:29 AM
Actually enarchy, I looked up that verse on line and it appears that they translated properly from the 'TEXT that they were quoting, however they used a different text than the KJ used. We have to remember that many people in the church are ignorant about concordances, and I am just a babe at this sort of stuff. therefore to a new believer it would appear as though the NIV contradicts itself on that topic.

This is straight from their own site....


<LI id=fen-NIV-8589a>2 Samuel 21:8 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Samuel%2021;&version=31;#en-NIV-8589) Two Hebrew manuscripts, some Septuagint manuscripts and Syriac (see also 1 Samuel 18:19 most Hebrew and Septuagint manuscripts Michal <LI id=fen-NIV-8597b>2 Samuel 21:16 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Samuel%2021;&version=31;#en-NIV-8597) That is, about 7 1/2 pounds (about 3.5 kilograms) <LI id=fen-NIV-8600c>2 Samuel 21:19 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Samuel%2021;&version=31;#en-NIV-8600) Or son of Jair the weaver
2 Samuel 21:19 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Samuel%2021;&version=31;#en-NIV-8600) Hebrew and Septuagint; 1 Chron. 20:5 son of Jair killed Lahmi the brother of Goliath

enarchay
Sep 26th 2007, 02:30 AM
It was Elhanan who killed the BROTHER of Goliath. I squirm in my seat every time I see that. That is the texural differences in the Received Text and the Westcott and Hort texts that made up the NIV...

But they are translating from the same Hebrew text, the MT.

The Parson
Sep 26th 2007, 02:32 AM
But they are translating from the same Hebrew text, the MT.
No enarchay, they weren't. The King James was translated from the original Hebrew and the Original Greek. The LXX is a copy of the original. Not very reliabe copy I might add.

enarchay
Sep 26th 2007, 02:32 AM
Actually enarchy, I looked up that verse on line and it appears that they translated properly from the 'TEXT that they were quoting, however they used a different text than the KJ used. We have to remember that many people in the church are ignorant about concordances, and I am just a babe at this sort of stuff. therefore to a new believer it would appear as though the NIV contradicts itself on that topic.

This is straight from their own site....

<LI id=fen-NIV-8589a>2 Samuel 21:8 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Samuel%2021;&version=31;#en-NIV-8589) Two Hebrew manuscripts, some Septuagint manuscripts and Syriac (see also 1 Samuel 18:19 most Hebrew and Septuagint manuscripts Michal <LI id=fen-NIV-8597b>2 Samuel 21:16 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Samuel%2021;&version=31;#en-NIV-8597) That is, about 7 1/2 pounds (about 3.5 kilograms) <LI id=fen-NIV-8600c>2 Samuel 21:19 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Samuel%2021;&version=31;#en-NIV-8600) Or son of Jair the weaver
2 Samuel 21:19 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Samuel%2021;&version=31;#en-NIV-8600) Hebrew and Septuagint; 1 Chron. 20:5 son of Jair killed Lahmi the brother of Goliath

Yes, and according to their preface, the Hebrew text they use is the MT, which is the same text the KJV used. The KJV inferred "the brother of" into their text, that is why it appears in italics or brackets—to indicate it was not in the Hebrew text.

The NIV translators did the right thing. They were true to the Hebrew text and even consulted the LXX, but added a footnote to let the reader know of the parallel verse that indicates it was "the brother of" Goliath.

The Parson
Sep 26th 2007, 02:35 AM
Yes, and according to their preface, the Hebrew text they use is the MT, which is the same text the KJV used. The KJV inferred "the brother of" into their text, that is why it appears in italics or brackets—to indicate it was not in the Hebrew text.

The NIV translators did the right thing. They were true to the Hebrew text and even consulted the LXX, but added a footnote to let the reader know of the verses parallel.Their preface is misleading. I'll try to explain in the next post. It may take a few minutes but I will try.

enarchay
Sep 26th 2007, 02:39 AM
No enarchay, they weren't. The King James was translated from the original Hebrew and the Original Greek. The LXX is a copy of the original. Not very reliabe copy I might add.

The LXX is what many were reading in the first century. It is also the text the authors of our gospels quote. I have heard, moreover, the earliest text of the LXX discovered dates earlier than the earliest text of the MT discovered, so in that sense it also can be considered more reliable.

The NIV was working with Masoretic Text (MT) but consulted also the LXX as an alterative source. However, in the MT, in 2Sa 21:19, the phrase "the brother of" is not in the Hebrew. This is why it appears in italics or brackets in the KJV.

Saved7
Sep 26th 2007, 02:41 AM
I'm afraid Parson's is right on this one....I took a class with a pastor that supported the NIV over the NKJV, and even he taught that they used different texts in translating the NIV over the KJV. And the NIV is a newer text that they translate from, hence the assumption that it is more accurate based on the "knowledge" of different languages of that time. However, that also assumes that the KJV translators were ignorant of other languages and not up to the task. But these men, were doing this for the king at his request, he was not going to put ignorant men on such a task. Especially after you read the dedication that is written to the king at the front of the KJV, it shows the care and diligence these men had in their hearts when translating.
Would I say they did a perfect work, not by any means, but I would say it is less likely to have been done for corrupt reasons, such as "it's my job, it pays the bills". :dunno:
Therefore, I trust it more than I trust the others, I used to read the others, and there are HUGE differences that can throw a new christian for a loop. It did me. That was when I got a KJ and a concordance.:saint:

enarchay
Sep 26th 2007, 02:42 AM
Their preface is misleading. I'll try to explain in the next post. It may take a few minutes but I will try.

In the footnote of the passage in question, it says "Hebrew and Septuagint." The Hebrew text they were working with, according to their preface, was the MT.

The preface indicates they consulted also the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Septuagint for certain passages.

The Parson
Sep 26th 2007, 02:45 AM
The newer versions like the NIV and the NKJV, are supposed to have been translated from an older, more reliable text. They never really say too clearly which ones. That's when you have to dig for the truth. Then you find that the "older and more reliable texts" are actually the Alexandrian (catholic) translations.



Lets look at a few examples from the NIV which relied on Jeromes Vulgate instead of the original Hebrew.


(NIV) Psalms 12:6 And the words of the LORD are flawless, like silver refined in a furnace of clay, purified seven times. 12:7 O LORD , you will keep us safe and protect us from such people forever.

(KJV) Psalms 12:6 The words of the Lord are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. 12:7 Thou shalt keep them, O Lord, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever


What differences do you see here? Really, here is something for you to disect if you like...

enarchay
Sep 26th 2007, 02:46 AM
I'm afraid Parson's is right on this one....I took a class with a pastor that supported the NIV over the NKJV, and even he taught that they used different texts in translating the NIV over the KJV.

They did use a different Greek text for the NT, as most modern translators do. But they used the same Hebrew text the KJV used, while also consulting the LXX and Dead Sea Scrolls, which is wise in my opinion.

In any case, I'm not a big fan of the NIV. I prefer the NRSV and Rotherham's Emphasized Bible. But I am merely defending the NIV on the grounds that their translation of the passage in question is correct.



And the NIV is a newer text that they translate from, hence the assumption that it is more accurate based on the "knowledge" of different languages of that time.


What are you talking about? They were working with a critical text of the Greek, which is based on much earlier manuscripts than what the TR is based on.

RogerW
Sep 26th 2007, 02:48 AM
You are welcome. and while you have your NIV handy, look up the following verses for me.

Matthew 17:21 - 18:11 - 23:14
Mark 7:16 - 9:44 - 9:46 - 11:26 - 15:28
Luke 17:36 - 23:17
John 5:4
Acts 8:37 - 15:34 - 24:7 - 28:29
Romans 16:24
1st John 5:7

Gee I guess the NIV didn't think these verses worthy of being included because all of them have been omitted from this unreliable translation. Tell me please, if you know, are these omissions common in other modern translations using Westcott/Hort? If they are omitted from other modern translations would you say it is because the manuscripts are questionable? I find it hard to believe the translators are all biased, but if they are using unreliable, or biased manuscripts to translate from, it stands to reason why so many modern versions would go the same way as the NIV translators. Could it be that the so-called "lost" manuscripts that resurfaced early in the 19th century had not been lost at all, but rather hidden to re-surface as they have? Perhaps a crafty device orchastrated by the master deceiver?

Blessings,
RW

The Parson
Sep 26th 2007, 02:52 AM
They did use a different Greek text for the NT, as most modern translators do. But they used the same Hebrew text the KJV used, while also consulting the LXX and Dead Sea Scrolls, which is wise in my opinion.

In any case, I'm not a big fan of the NIV. I prefer the NRSV and Rotherham's Emphasized Bible. But I am merely defending the NIV on the grounds that their translation of the passage in question is correct.



What are you talking about? They were working with a critical text of the Greek, which is based on much earlier manuscripts than what the TR is based on.No sir, they didn't. Here are just a few examples from the New Testament for you to consider.

(KJV) 1st Timothy 3:16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.
(NIV) 1st Timothy 3:16 Beyond all question, the mystery of godliness is great: He appeared in a body, was vindicated by the Spirit, was seen by angels, was preached among the nations, was believed on in the world, was taken up in glory.See if you will that the fact that the Lord Jesus was God in the Flesh has been completely removed from the meaning.

(KJV) Colossians 1:14 In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:
(NIV) Colossians 1:14 in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.Notice that the Blood of the Lord. The very instrument of our salvation has been removed.
(KJV) Luke 9:56 For the Son of man is not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them. And they went to another village.
(NIV) Luke 9:56 and they went to another village.Where is the reason the Savior came to earth at in the NIV verse above? Get my meaning so far? These are not from the same sources sir.

The Parson
Sep 26th 2007, 02:55 AM
Gee I guess the NIV didn't think these verses worthy of being included because all of them have been omitted from this unreliable translation. Tell me please, if you know, are these omissions common in other modern translations using Westcott/Hort? If they are omitted from other modern translations would you say it is because the manuscripts are questionable? I find it hard to believe the translators are all biased, but if they are using unreliable, or biased manuscripts to translate from, it stands to reason why so many modern versions would go the same way as the NIV translators. Could it be that the so-called "lost" manuscripts that resurfaced early in the 19th century had not been lost at all, but rather hidden to re-surface as they have? Perhaps a crafty device orchastrated by the master deceiver?

Blessings,
RWQuinticentially the NIV. But there were other things like in the NKJV where the actual worship of the Savior was removed.
(KJV) Matthew 20:20 Then came to him the mother of Zebedee's children with her sons, worshipping him, and desiring a certain thing of him.
(NKJV) Matthew 20:20 Then the mother of Zebedee's sons came to Him with her sons, kneeling down and asking something from Him.There are a number of examples that would make your skin crawl.

enarchay
Sep 26th 2007, 02:56 AM
Lets look at a few examples from the NIV which relied on Jeromes Vulgate instead of the original Hebrew.


You could say the same about the KJV. They rely on the Vulgate when adding lucifer as a proper name, "Lucifer," to Isaiah's passage about the morning star. Some verses in the TR of Revelation are translated from Latin into Greek, because the author did not possess a complete Greek text of Revelation and was in a race to finish his version. Also, most of 1John 5:7 is from the Latin, because the compiler of the TR was tricked into thinking a contemporary translation directly from a Latin footnote into Greek was genuine.



(NIV) Psalms 12:6 And the words of the LORD are flawless, like silver refined in a furnace of clay, purified seven times. 12:7 O LORD , you will keep us safe and protect us from such people forever.

(KJV) Psalms 12:6 The words of the Lord are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. 12:7 Thou shalt keep them, O Lord, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever




Not exactly sure if they based their translation off the Vulgate. Does their footnote say that? Perhaps they consulted the LXX or the Dead Sea Scrolls for this verse.


Anyway, I do not think either the KJV or the NIV is perfect. I was just trying to defend the NIV on that one passage that was brought into question.

I have to go now.

The Parson
Sep 26th 2007, 03:02 AM
You could say the same about the KJV. They rely on the Vulgate when adding lucifer as a proper name, "Lucifer," to Isaiah's passage about the morning star. Some parts of the TR, also, are translated from the Vulgate because the author did not have the Greek texts. Also, most of 1John 5:7 is from the Latin, because the compiler of the TR was tricked into thinking a contemporary translation directly from a Latin footnote into Greek was genuine.


Not exactly sure if they based their translation off the Vulgate. Does their footnote say that? Perhaps they consulted the LXX or the Dead Sea Scrolls for this verse.
Are you trusting the footnotes or are you listening the the Holy Spirit speaking to you? That would have to be the question I would ask myself. Here is the point, either you would trust the Original which is the Antiochain stream of text written by the Prophets and Apostles themselves, or would you trust the Alexandrian stream which is a copy in itself and compiled by pagan scholars in Alexandria Egypt?

RogerW
Sep 26th 2007, 03:03 AM
Quinticentially the NIV. But there were other things like in the NKJV where the actual worship of the Savior was removed.

(KJV) Matthew 20:20 Then came to him the mother of Zebedee's children with her sons, worshipping him, and desiring a certain thing of him.
(NKJV) Matthew 20:20 Then the mother of Zebedee's sons came to Him with her sons, kneeling down and asking something from Him.There are a number of examples that would make your skin crawl.

I've always had a certain suspicion about the so-called earliest manuscripts that re-surfaced in time. Am I paranoid without cause, or is there good reason for my suspicion? One of the things about the modern versions that has always troubled me is how they (almost all) tend to make man sovereign, where those translations from TR always translate making the Lord sovereign, e.g., "faith of" as opposed to "faith in". Do you know what I mean?

Blessings,
RW

enarchay
Sep 26th 2007, 03:04 AM
Gee I guess the NIV didn't think these verses worthy of being included because all of them have been omitted from this unreliable translation. Tell me please, if you know, are these omissions common in other modern translations using Westcott/Hort? If they are omitted from other modern translations would you say it is because the manuscripts are questionable? I find it hard to believe the translators are all biased, but if they are using unreliable, or biased manuscripts to translate from, it stands to reason why so many modern versions would go the same way as the NIV translators. Could it be that the so-called "lost" manuscripts that resurfaced early in the 19th century had not been lost at all, but rather hidden to re-surface as they have? Perhaps a crafty device orchastrated by the master deceiver?

They are working with critical texts rather than the TR, that is why.

enarchay
Sep 26th 2007, 03:06 AM
Where is the reason the Savior came to earth at in the NIV verse above? Get my meaning so far? These are not from the same sources sir.

I never said they were working with the same Greek text; I said they were, mostly, working with the same Hebrew text.

RogerW
Sep 26th 2007, 03:06 AM
They are working with critical texts rather than the TR, that is why.

Yes, I know that.

Blessings,
RW

enarchay
Sep 26th 2007, 03:08 AM
Are you trusting the footnotes or are you listening the the Holy Spirit speaking to you? That would have to be the question I would ask myself. Here is the point, either you would trust the Original which is the Antiochain stream of text written by the Prophets and Apostles themselves, or would you trust the Alexandrian stream which is a copy in itself and compiled by pagan scholars in Alexandria Egypt?

Written by the Prophets and Apostles themselves? We do not possess any original manuscripts. All the manuscripts we have are copies, so it comes down to: what copies are the earliest copied? It turns out most of the earliest manuscripts are Alexandrian texts.

In the same way Gnostic texts, written much later than the canonical gospels, contrary to what Dan Brown might have you think, are not reliable for understanding Jesus historically, so also sometimes are later copies of the canonical gospels not as reliable as earlier copies for determining what the authors actually wrote.

This is my last post for tonight. Have a good night!

The Parson
Sep 26th 2007, 03:19 AM
Written by the Prophets and Apostles themselves? We do not possess any original manuscripts. All the manuscripts we have are copies, so it comes down to: what copies are the earliest copied? It turns out most of the earliest manuscripts are Alexandrian texts.

In the same way Gnostic texts, written much later than the canonical gospels, contrary to what Dan Brown might have you think, are not reliable for understanding Jesus historically, so also sometimes are later copies of the canonical gospels not as reliable as earlier copies for determining what the authors actually wrote.Actually, no young sir. It comes from the faith that God will preserve His Word without error or contradiction. God is not the author of confusion but of peace. He preserved His Word in such a way that it was handed down His way. By preservation of the texts by the churches and not the pagans. That's why the Received Text is also called the Antiochian Texts because they are the faithfully preserved texts.

The largest error we Christians could ever make is to trust scholarship over the eye of faith. The preservation of the Word of God isn't a scientific task. It is a task of faith, trusting in the Holy Spirit to lead us through His Holy Word. Do you get my meaning so far?

RogerW
Sep 26th 2007, 03:20 AM
Written by the Prophets and Apostles themselves? We do not possess any original manuscripts. All the manuscripts we have are copies, so it comes down to: what copies are the earliest copied? It turns out most of the earliest manuscripts are Alexandrian texts.

It is true the earliest manuscripts are Alexandrian texts, and as such they most certainly existed when the Holy Canon was being compiled as one Book. Since they existed then, why were these manuscripts not used to translate our earliest translation of the Bible? I have to wonder why or if those manuscripts, like so many other writings circulating at that time, were not recognized as inspired and authoritative and therefore rejected?

Blessings,
RW

RogerW
Sep 26th 2007, 03:24 AM
Actually, no young sir. It comes from the faith that God will preserve His Word without error or contradiction. God is not the author of confusion but of peace. He preserved His Word in such a way that it was handed down His way. By preservation of the texts by the churches and not the pagans. That's why the Received Text is also called the Antiochian Texts because they are the faithfully preserved texts.

The largest error we Christians could ever make is to trust scholarship over the eye of faith. The preservation of the Word of God isn't a scientific task. It is a task of faith, trusting in the Holy Spirit to lead us through His Holy Word. Do you get my meaning so far?

Well Parson, I don't know about this young sir, but I certainly get your meaning so far, and appreciate very much any information you can provide about the apparent discrepancies in these manuscripts.

Blessings,
RW

The Parson
Sep 26th 2007, 03:30 AM
I've always had a certain suspicion about the so-called earliest manuscripts that re-surfaced in time. Am I paranoid without cause, or is there good reason for my suspicion? One of the things about the modern versions that has always troubled me is how they (almost all) tend to make man sovereign, where those translations from TR always translate making the Lord sovereign, e.g., "faith of" as opposed to "faith in". Do you know what I mean?

Blessings,
RWOne of the biggest things with me is 1st Corinthians 1:18 Roger... The subtle change seems harmless because it doesn't really change the context of the verse. What it does change is the precept. Case in point:

(NKJV) 1st Corinthians 1:18 For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.

(HCSB) 1st Corinthians 1:18 For to those who are perishing the message of the cross is foolishness, but to us who are being saved it is God’s power.

(NIV) 1st Corinthians 1:18 For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.

(KJV) 1st Corinthians 1:18 For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.

Now here is the deal... Either you are saved or your not... Where did this process of salvation come from? It came from Roman Catholic Dogma where you don't know if you are saved until you die. Either you is or you isn't...

The Parson
Sep 26th 2007, 03:38 AM
Well Parson, I don't know about this young sir, but I certainly get your meaning so far, and appreciate very much any information you can provide about the apparent discrepancies in these manuscripts.

Blessings,
RWThere is a boatload Roger. I'll try to get back in here tomorrow and show a few more of them.

Mograce2U
Sep 26th 2007, 03:44 AM
Has anybody else noticed the NIV Bible calls Jesus and lucifer "Morning star"? When speaking of lucifer in Isaiah 14:12 the text says,

"How you have fallen from heaven, O morning star, son of the dawn! You have been cast down to the earth, you who once laid low the nations!"

But in other areas of the NIV Bible Jesus is called the Morning star,

Rev. 22:16:"I, Jesus, have sent my angel to give you [1] this testimony for the churches. I am the Root and the Offspring of David, and the bright Morning Star."

I also read that the publisher of the NIV Bible, zondervan, is owned by the same company that publishes the satanic bible. Just wondering if anybody else noticed that?It would be nice to get back to the OP on what the distinction might be between calling Satan a son of the dawn vs Jesus as the Morning Star. Anybody have any light on that?

Love Fountain
Sep 26th 2007, 04:08 AM
Hello All,

Isn't there more than one morning star? Look what is said to Job, especially in Job 38:7 as follows,

Job 38:1-7
38:1 Then the LORD answered Job out of the whirlwind, and said,

2 Who is this that darkeneth counsel by words without knowledge?

3 Gird up now thy loins like a man; for I will demand of thee, and answer thou me.

4 Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.

5 Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it?

6 Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof;

7 When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?
KJV

What do you think?

Bless you,
Love Fountain

matthew94
Sep 26th 2007, 04:16 AM
Same old, Same old

People start with the KJV-translation
And then point out differences
And cry foul

But what makes the KJV the standard?

Mograce2U
Sep 26th 2007, 04:16 AM
Hello All,

Isn't there more than one morning star? Look what is said to Job, especially in Job 38:7 as follows,

Job 38:1-7
38:1 Then the LORD answered Job out of the whirlwind, and said,

2 Who is this that darkeneth counsel by words without knowledge?

3 Gird up now thy loins like a man; for I will demand of thee, and answer thou me.

4 Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.

5 Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it?

6 Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof;

7 When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?
KJV

What do you think?Hi Love Fountain (great handle btw!),
I think before Christ was in the world the world found its "light" in the morning star that was Satan. But once Jesus arrived, a greater light shone upon men. The difference in the Hebrew in Isaiah and Greek in the NT seems to lie in the self boasting of Satan which pales in comparison to the Light Jesus has which is actually true. Satan who tries to present himself as god vs Jesus who is God. At least that is what I have seen so far looking into this.

NightWatchman
Sep 26th 2007, 04:49 AM
One of the biggest things with me is 1st Corinthians 1:18 Roger... The subtle change seems harmless because it doesn't really change the context of the verse. What it does change is the precept. Case in point:

(NKJV) 1st Corinthians 1:18 For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.

(HCSB) 1st Corinthians 1:18 For to those who are perishing the message of the cross is foolishness, but to us who are being saved it is God’s power.

(NIV) 1st Corinthians 1:18 For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.

(KJV) 1st Corinthians 1:18 For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.

Now here is the deal... Either you are saved or your not... Where did this process of salvation come from? It came from Roman Catholic Dogma where you don't know if you are saved until you die. Either you is or you isn't...

As Christians,
We are saved from the penalty of sin,
We are being saved from the power of sin, and
We will be saved from the presence of sin when we are in the presence of the Lord.

Both translations are valid when you look at the larger context.

Love Fountain
Sep 26th 2007, 05:03 AM
Hi Love Fountain (great handle btw!),
I think before Christ was in the world the world found its "light" in the morning star that was Satan. But once Jesus arrived, a greater light shone upon men. The difference in the Hebrew in Isaiah and Greek in the NT seems to lie in the self boasting of Satan which pales in comparison to the Light Jesus has which is actually true. Satan who tries to present himself as god vs Jesus who is God. At least that is what I have seen so far looking into this.

Hello Mograce2U,

Thank you for your response. Salutations seem to be rare on these forums and it's refreshing to see!


I see it as Christ is love, the morning stars singing together in Job 38:7 before satan fell.

Job 38:7
When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?
KJV


Then satan fell away from love.


Isa 14:12
How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!
KJV


In other words,

Christ has always been.

Satan came to be.

Christ will always be.

Satan will have never existed.

Love will always exist.


Thank you for sharing your thoughts!

I wonder what others think too or what else you may also have to share?

Bless you,
Love Fountain

NightWatchman
Sep 26th 2007, 05:10 AM
You are welcome. and while you have your NIV handy, look up the following verses for me.

Matthew 17:21 - 18:11 - 23:14
Mark 7:16 - 9:44 - 9:46 - 11:26 - 15:28
Luke 17:36 - 23:17
John 5:4
Acts 8:37 - 15:34 - 24:7 - 28:29
Romans 16:24
1st John 5:7

I found each of these verses.
Yes, each was in a footnote, but not one of the truths expressed in those verses has been removed from the Bible. For you to say these verses were omitted is wrong, for I found each one. Using cross-references, I found that teachings such as

prayer and fasting,
the Pharisees' devouring widows' houses and for a show making lengthy prayers,
a blessing saying "May the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with all of you. Amen.," and
us having redemption through Jesus' blood,

Have not been removed from the Bible.



I'm curious, since you love the KJV, why can't the old grammar be brought up to date?
I don't speak that type of English, I speak 20th-21st century English.
I think in modern English thought, my first Bible I used was the NIV (The NKJV is my current one).

enarchay
Sep 26th 2007, 05:32 AM
Actually, no young sir. It comes from the faith that God will preserve His Word without error or contradiction. God is not the author of confusion but of peace. He preserved His Word in such a way that it was handed down His way. By preservation of the texts by the churches and not the pagans. That's why the Received Text is also called the Antiochian Texts because they are the faithfully preserved texts.

The largest error we Christians could ever make is to trust scholarship over the eye of faith. The preservation of the Word of God isn't a scientific task. It is a task of faith, trusting in the Holy Spirit to lead us through His Holy Word. Do you get my meaning so far?

I'm sorry, but without the work of scholars, the Bible wouldn't exist. Do you think English translations pop out of holes? Do you think Erasmus compiled his version of the Scriptures out of thin air?

enarchay
Sep 26th 2007, 06:16 AM
Since they existed then, why were these manuscripts not used to translate our earliest translation of the Bible?

Perhaps because the texts had not yet been discovered or were not in the translators' possession? I'm not exactly sure.

I have heard bad things about the Textus Receptus. Apparently, Erasmus was in a race to publish his edition of the Greek texts before Pope Leo X published the Complutensian Polyglot Bible, the first printed polyglot of the entire Bible, and as a result, his first printed text contained many errors. "Erasmus hastened to Basle, and printed almost bodily the text of the manuscripts that happened to fall into his hands" (Catholic Encyclopedia, entry on "Editions of the Bible"). Erasmus only had one incomplete text of John's Apocalypse, and had to translate the final five verses of the text from the Latin Vulgate into English. The texts that were available to him, according to wikipedia (and double check this because it could be wrong), were all dated from the 12th Century or later, only one coming from outside the mainstream Byzantine tradition. Even Erasmus admitted that his first published text was "thrown headlong rather than edited [prœcipitatum fuit verius quam editum] (qtd. in wikipedia, "History of the Printed Text", in New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, Vol. II: Basilica – Chambers, pp. 106 ff).

Another problem with the Textus Receptus is 1John 5:7b. The first two editions of the Textus Receptus did not contain the so-called Comma Johanneum, a Trinitarian formula that was not contained in any of the Greek manuscripts initially available to Erasmus. This caused some controversy. As a result, Erasmus said he would add the verse only if a Greek text was provided for him. Eventually a single Greek text was provided. However, he added a "lengthy footnote [of] his suspicions that the manuscript had been prepared expressly in order to confute him" (qtd. in wikipedia, Metzger, Bruce M. The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration, 2d ed. Oxford University, 1968 p.101). Bart D. Ehrman has expressed in his lecture on the origins of the New Testament (you can see it on youtube) that the text provided to Erasmus for 1John 5:7 was translated from a Latin version into Greek and therefore is spurious.

I really do need to research more about the Textus Receptus, but for now I will stick with the UBS4 Greek text.

enarchay
Sep 26th 2007, 08:02 AM
One of the biggest things with me is 1st Corinthians 1:18 Roger... The subtle change seems harmless because it doesn't really change the context of the verse. What it does change is the precept. Case in point:

(NKJV) 1st Corinthians 1:18 For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.

(HCSB) 1st Corinthians 1:18 For to those who are perishing the message of the cross is foolishness, but to us who are being saved it is God’s power.

(NIV) 1st Corinthians 1:18 For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.

(KJV) 1st Corinthians 1:18 For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.

Now here is the deal... Either you are saved or your not... Where did this process of salvation come from? It came from Roman Catholic Dogma where you don't know if you are saved until you die. Either you is or you isn't...

Even Rotherham and Young translate it "being saved." This is because the Greek word sozomenois is a present middle/passive participle. This means it can it can be translated entirely passive, as in the KJV, "are saved," or middle, "being saved." I wish I could expand further upon this, but I still have much to learn about Greek verbs. Let me say that the majority of the translators carried sozomenois over as a present middle participle, including the NIV, Rotherham's Emphasized Bible, Young's Literal Translation, and the ESV, so I assume they did it for good reason.

enarchay
Sep 26th 2007, 08:11 AM
But what makes the KJV the standard?

That's what I'd like to know.

enarchay
Sep 26th 2007, 08:24 AM
As Christians,
We are saved from the penalty of sin,
We are being saved from the power of sin, and
We will be saved from the presence of sin when we are in the presence of the Lord.

Both translations are valid when you look at the larger context.

To elaborate:

1) We are saved (past tense) from our sins (2Ti 1:9; Tit 3:5; cf. Rom 7:6; cf. Gal 1:4; cf. 1Jn 1:9).

2) We are saved (past tense) from spiritual death (i.e. Rom 6:4; cf. Joh 12:24; cf. Luk 1:79, 15:24).

3) We will be (future tense) saved from physical death (i.e. 1Co 15:54).

4) We will be (future tense) saved from wrath (Rom 5:9).

5) We are pressing on (present tense) with the "prize" in mind (Php 3:14).

6) We are working out, katergazomai, that is, accomplishing (present tense) our salvation with fear and trembling (Php 2:12).

7) God is working (present tense) in us to do his work and good pleasure (Php 2:13); as you said, saving us from the "power of sin."

This is why I say, and you may have heard me say it before, "saved" is a poor word to describe being a Christian, because salvation is past, present, and future; in that way, we will not be fully saved until after resurrection when death is defeated. A similar theme emerges when Jesus says those who endure to the end will be (future tense) saved (e.g. Mat 10:22; cf. Rev 2:26), where salvation seems to take on the meaning of deliverance; in that sense, we can say we will be (future) delivered from wrath, the second death, if we endure unto the end (Rom 5:9; cf. 1Th 1:10, notice ruoumenon as a present middle/passive deponent participle; Rev 2:7, 11, 17, 26).

enarchay
Sep 26th 2007, 09:00 AM
Then satan fell away from love.

Isa 14:12
How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!
KJV

This is not talking about Satan.

enarchay
Sep 26th 2007, 09:01 AM
--Deleted--

My computer froze so I double posted by mistake.

Steven3
Sep 26th 2007, 11:11 AM
There seem to be too separate threads going on :)



1. On Lucifer

This has come up only a few weeks ago: Confusion and Lucifer (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?t=100080&highlight=lucifer) or Michael and Lucifer (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?t=98854&highlight=lucifer).

2 Peter 1:19 et habemus firmiorem propheticum sermonem cui bene facitis adtendentes quasi lucernae lucenti in caliginoso loco donec dies inlucescat et lucifer oriatur in cordibus vestris

Basically Lucifer was a name of Christ (from 2 Peter 1:19 Latin for Morning Star) until about 4thC when the problems of the pre-flood "sons of God" (Dead Sea Scrolls, Pseudepigrapha, Josephus) theory about origin of fallen angels forced Christians to invent their own origin of Satan story distinct from the problems with the rabbinical story. The verse they lighted on (it may have been Origen, I forget) was Isaiah 14, which until then had only been read as it should be read - a prophecy against the king of Babylon, "a man", but utilizing fall of the titans language from Chaldean religion. After Lucifer was rebranded from Christ to Satan in the 4th C, five things happened.

1. Christians stopped singing Carmen Aurorae and other songs to Lucifer
2. Christians stopped naming their children Lucifer as if it was Immanuel.
3. The Gen6:4 based "sons of god" myths were purged from the church.
4. Isaiah 14 became the key fall of Satan passage, Ezek 28 was added later.
5. That Christ was called Lucifer in 2 Peter 1:19 was forgotten.

This is the broad brush quick version ;)



2. On 1Co1:18

There is such a thing as "tradition" even in translation. The Bible is not just a contract or commercial document (the sort of translation some of us have to do to earn a crust) it has "baggage", some good, some bad. It's only when you get radical attempts to cast off the baggage - like the ESV, which also has some baggage, does tradition cease to be an issue.

The KJV (and versions like NASB and NIV which are part of the KJV tradition) are themselves based on earlier works, in this case The Bishop's Bible (ie 95% Tyndale), then Wycliffe, and Wycliffe on the Vulgate:

Tyndale 1Co1:18 For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness: but unto us which are saved, it is the power of God.

Wycliffe 1Co1:18 For the word of the cross is folly to them that perish; but to them that be made safe, that is to say, to us, it is the virtue of God.

Jerome 1Co1:18 verbum enim crucis pereuntibus quidem stultitia est his autem qui salvi fiunt id est nobis virtus Dei est

Ironically in all of those versions - Tyndale, Wycliffe and Jerome, they are all more accurate representatives of the Greek present passive participle "are being saved" than NKJV etc, since in Shakespearean English and Latin there is a present passive aspect in those translations which is missing in modern English. This is the problem with KJV - it can be perfectly accurate in 1611, but then the NKJV says the same words and it is inaccurate in 2000. From the versions above it is the ESV that captures the Greek most correctly, although perhaps not as beautifully as the Reina Valera captures the ambiguity of passive-middle:

RV 1Co1:18 Porque la palabra de la cruz es locura á los que se pierden; mas á los que se salvan, es á saber, á nosotros, es potencia de Dios.

That doesn't mean there aren't "saved" verses in the NT, of course there are, but not here in 1Co1:18.
God bless
Steven

enarchay
Sep 26th 2007, 11:56 AM
Basically Lucifer was a name of Christ (from 1Peter Latin for Morning Star) until about 4thC when the problems of the pre-flood "sons of God" (Dead Sea Scrolls, Pseudepigrapha, Josephus) theory about origin of fallen angels forced Christians to invent their own origin of Satan story distinct from the problems with the rabbinical story.This is some interesting stuff. I never notice 1Peter via the Vulgate before.

Do you think the author of 1Peter was drawing upon a pagan tradition of Venus, the morning star, and relating it to Jesus, similar to how Paul relates the "unknown God" to YHWH?

In what sense is Jesus the morning star?


The verse they lighted on (it may have been Origen, I forget) was Isaiah 14, which until then had only been read as it should be read - a prophecy against the king of Babylon, "a man", but utilizing fall of the titans language from Chaldean religion.Was not heylel, ben shachar, also construed of as some sort of god during Isaiah's time? Can you elaborate?


3. The Gen6:4 based "sons of god" myths were purged from the church.So what is your opinion about the "sons of god"? It seems both Jude and Peter (perhaps wrongly) subscribed to the 1 Enoch tradition of interpreting the "sons of god" as heavenly angels, or watchers (which the author of Daniel mentions), who had sex with the women of men to create giants and so on. Even Paul seems to tag along when he says, and it is pretty funny actually, "That is why a wife ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels" (1Co 11:10), seemingly (and please give me your opinion on this) alluding to the lustful watchers of 1 Enoch.



4. Isaiah 14 became the key fall of Satan passage, Ezek 28 was added later.And that in particular bothers me. Talk about a proof-text!


Ironically in all of those versions - Tyndale, Wycliffe and Jerome, they are all more accurate representatives of the Greek present passive participle "are being saved" than NKJV etc, since in Shakespearean English and Latin there is a present passive aspect in those translations which is missing in modern English. This is the problem with KJV - it can be perfectly accurate in 1611, but then the NKJV says the same words and it is inaccurate in 2000.So in KJV English "are saved" can be a present passive participle as in the Greek? Are you sure?

Steven3
Sep 26th 2007, 12:15 PM
Hi Enarchay :)
Do you think the author of 2 Peter was drawing upon a pagan tradition of Venus, the morning star, and relating it to Jesus, similar to how Paul relates the "unknown God" to YHWH?Probably not, there are seven OT uses of FWSFOROS (or in OT spelling EWSFOROS)

EWSFOROS in LXX = 1 Kings 30:17, Job 3:9 11:17 38:12 41:9 Ps110:3 Is14:12.

Of these possibly the Melchizedek Lucifer is the most obviously Messianic:

Ps110:3 LXX With you is dominion
in the day of your power
in the splendour of your saints
from the womb of the morning,
Before the Venus-star I have made you.
4 The Lord has sworn
and will not change his mind,
“You are a priest forever
after the order of Melchizedek.”



In what sense is Jesus the morning star?Revelation 2:28 τον αστερα τον πρωινον - another name for Phosphoros, Venus, Lucifer.


Was not heylel, ben shachar, also construed of as some sort of god during Isaiah's time? Can you elaborate? Out of my depth - I have a very patchy reading of Canaanite myth, I'd just be recycling some commentary. Ditto re Gen 6:4




So in KJV English "are saved" can be a present passive participle as in the Greek? Are you sure?No :). It's too long since I studied Shakespeare to be sure. I'm guessing based on how the Latin reads. But in any case the general point - that grammar evolves as much as vocabulary is true enough.

Lunchtime!!! :D
God bless
Steven

enarchay
Sep 26th 2007, 12:19 PM
Revelation 2:28 τον αστερα τον πρωινον - another name for Phosphoros, Venus, Lucifer.

Why is Jesus compared with Venus?

Steven3
Sep 26th 2007, 12:53 PM
Why is Jesus compared with Venus?First sign of dawn breaking?

http://www.nyaa.ca/gallery2/main.php?g2_view=core.DownloadItem&g2_itemId=128&g2_serialNumber=2

Perhaps also a ref to:

John 20:1 Now on the first day of the week Mary Magdalene came to the tomb early, while it was still dark, and saw that the stone had been taken away from the tomb.

enarchay
Sep 26th 2007, 12:54 PM
First sign of dawn breaking?

http://www.nyaa.ca/gallery2/main.php?g2_view=core.DownloadItem&g2_itemId=128&g2_serialNumber=2

Perhaps also a ref to:

John 20:1 Now on the first day of the week Mary Magdalene came to the tomb early, while it was still dark, and saw that the stone had been taken away from the tomb.

I see. So it is a metaphor of sorts for Christ being the light in times of darkness. That reminds me of John 1.

Steven3
Sep 26th 2007, 01:05 PM
I see. So it is a metaphor of sorts for Christ being the light in times of darkness. That reminds me of John 1.Yes :)

2 Peter 1:19 And we have the word of the prophets made more certain, and you will do well to pay attention to it, as to a light shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and Phosphoros/Lucifer rises in your hearts.

Revelation 2:28 just as I have received authority from my Father. I will also give him the morning star.

Revelation 22:16 "I, Jesus, have sent my angel to give you this testimony for the churches. I am the Root and the Offspring of David, and the bright Morning Star."

Not sure why Revelation uses the literal description "morning star" - though both terms (almost) are used together in

Job 38:12 LXX Did I order the morning light in your time? Did Eosphoros see then his appointed place? To lay hold of the extremities of the earth - to cast out the ungodly from it.

Seen in this context the morning star, Venus, is both a herald of light, day, but also a herald of the ungodly being cast out from the extremities of the earth. This is the most likely ref for the two Revelation verses. Though as I said, I think the 2 Peter 1:19 one relates to the Melchizedek psalm. Who knows... :)
S.

Lampstands1383
Sep 26th 2007, 01:48 PM
Has anybody else noticed the NIV Bible calls Jesus and lucifer "Morning star"? When speaking of lucifer in Isaiah 14:12 the text says,

"How you have fallen from heaven, O morning star, son of the dawn! You have been cast down to the earth, you who once laid low the nations!"

But in other areas of the NIV Bible Jesus is called the Morning star,

Rev. 22:16:"I, Jesus, have sent my angel to give you [1] this testimony for the churches. I am the Root and the Offspring of David, and the bright Morning Star."

I also read that the publisher of the NIV Bible, zondervan, is owned by the same company that publishes the satanic bible. Just wondering if anybody else noticed that?

what in the world they published a satanic bible to make more money. How can you make a satanic bible.

Great topic i have ask myself this question about the mourning star. my guess is it repersent Christ. When the North star moves its sign the Our Lord will return soon.

12 How you have fallen from heaven,
O morning star, son of the dawn!
You have been cast down to the earth,
you who once laid low the nations!

remember mankind was thrown out of heaven to learn Good and evil so maybee this is not talking about satan but all of mankind. The scripture is about how the wicked will never inhert the Lords kingdom the new earth and Heaven when Our Lord returns.

The Parson
Sep 26th 2007, 02:00 PM
Same old, Same old

People start with the KJV-translation
And then point out differences
And cry foul

But what makes the KJV the standard?Matthew, I am going to say this publically so there is no confusion on the matter. If you look at the motives of others expecting a conspiracy then you are foreseeing a conspiracy yourself. Do not take the discussion to a personal level and things will go just fine.

Also, if a preacher smells a rat, isn't he supposed to tell someone?

Standard? In the English language it was the standard for 300 years and then all of a sudden it is considered third rate. What is wrong with that picture? Honestly?

Thank you...

The Parson
Sep 26th 2007, 02:14 PM
I'm sorry, but without the work of scholars, the Bible wouldn't exist. Do you think English translations pop out of holes? Do you think Erasmus compiled his version of the Scriptures out of thin air?
Erasmus published and noted the Received text and in no means created or compiled that which was already compiled. Simply put, he passed on the traditional and received text. Westcott and Hort plainly admitted this. That text, being known at the time of the translation of the KJV as the Byzantine text (also known as the “Syrian” “Antiochian” and “Received” texts) was the text from the original Gospel accounts and letters from the Apostles.

So Mograce2u, this does then go back to is Satan or The Savior the Morning Star which is the OP. By the original text, Jesus is.

enarchay
Sep 26th 2007, 02:31 PM
So Mograce2u, this does then go back to is Satan or The Savior the Morning Star which is the OP. By the original text, Jesus is.

According to the MT from which the KJV is translated, the morning star fell with the fall of the king of Babylon. So Mograce2u's question then is: How are there two morning stars? I think Steven3 gave a good explanation.

The Parson
Sep 26th 2007, 02:33 PM
According to the MT from which the KJV is translated, the morning star fell with the fall of the king of Babylon. So Mograce2u's question then is: How are there two morning stars? I think Steven3 gave a good explanation.Thank you enarchay for clarifying. Although to the passage given by the OP, it certainly isn't Lucifer...

enarchay
Sep 26th 2007, 02:35 PM
Standard? In the English language it was the standard for 300 years and then all of a sudden it is considered third rate. What is wrong with that picture? Honestly?

The LXX was used for years, then the Vulgate for years, then the KJV for years. I'm not sure where you are going with this. There is always room for improvement. That is what the modern translators are trying to do in light of recent textual discoveries and methods of textual criticism.

Mograce2U
Sep 26th 2007, 03:45 PM
Erasmus published and noted the Received text and in no means created or compiled that which was already compiled. Simply put, he passed on the traditional and received text. Westcott and Hort plainly admitted this. That text, being known at the time of the translation of the KJV as the Byzantine text (also known as the “Syrian” “Antiochian” and “Received” texts) was the text from the original Gospel accounts and letters from the Apostles.

So Mograce2u, this does then go back to is Satan or The Savior the Morning Star which is the OP. By the original text, Jesus is.
Hi Parson,
Are you saying that the passage in Isaiah is Messianic? Here's just some of its context:

(Isa 14:12-20 KJV) How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations! {13} For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north: {14} I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High. {15} Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit. {16} They that see thee shall narrowly look upon thee, and consider thee, saying, Is this the man that made the earth to tremble, that did shake kingdoms; {17} That made the world as a wilderness, and destroyed the cities thereof; that opened not the house of his prisoners? {18} All the kings of the nations, even all of them, lie in glory, every one in his own house. {19} But thou art cast out of thy grave like an abominable branch, and as the raiment of those that are slain, thrust through with a sword, that go down to the stones of the pit; as a carcase trodden under feet. {20} Thou shalt not be joined with them in burial, because thou hast destroyed thy land, and slain thy people: the seed of evildoers shall never be renowned.

The Parson
Sep 26th 2007, 04:01 PM
Hi Parson,
Are you saying that the passage in Isaiah is Messianic? Here's just some of its context:

(Isa 14:12-20 KJV) How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations! {13} For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north: {14} I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High. {15} Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit. {16} They that see thee shall narrowly look upon thee, and consider thee, saying, Is this the man that made the earth to tremble, that did shake kingdoms; {17} That made the world as a wilderness, and destroyed the cities thereof; that opened not the house of his prisoners? {18} All the kings of the nations, even all of them, lie in glory, every one in his own house. {19} But thou art cast out of thy grave like an abominable branch, and as the raiment of those that are slain, thrust through with a sword, that go down to the stones of the pit; as a carcase trodden under feet. {20} Thou shalt not be joined with them in burial, because thou hast destroyed thy land, and slain thy people: the seed of evildoers shall never be renowned.No, I'm saying that giving Lucifer the nomer of the morning star is incorrect. Look, I've already broken a promise to myself not to make a major issue out of it and for the sake of starting a heated debate myself, I need to cool it too.

The only explaination I can give you really is this. From my standpoint & conviction, the newer versions from the Westcott & Hort texts and their sources are just one more attempt by the very one they misname to cause more confusion and division among the brethren. That would be my conviction and I will not force it on others. I will however point out when the opportunity presents itself the very things that give evidence to that conviction. Please continue on folks...

enarchay
Sep 26th 2007, 04:07 PM
No, I'm saying that giving Lucifer the nomer of the morning star is incorrect. Look, I've already broken a promise to myself not to make a major issue out of it and for the sake of starting a heated debate myself, I need to cool it too.

But here lies your problem. The KJV OT is translated from the MT. In the MT, heylel meaning "morning star" is used. The KJV translators for some stupid reason translated heylel as a proper name, "Lucifer," which is the Latin translation of heylel in the first place.

The fact is, Isaiah, Peter, and John use the "morning star" metaphor for different reasons. For Isaiah, it represents the fall of the king of Babylon and his pagan gods (such as the "morning star," the "son of dawn"). For Peter and John, it represents Jesus as light in times of darkness. In other words, as Venus is a sign that dawn (light) is near, so also is Jesus. That is how I understand it thus far, but I'll admit I'm less clear on the New Testament use of the metaphor than the Old Testament use of the metaphor. In any case, just because a word or phrase is used as a metaphor for something in one instance, does not mean it is used in the same way in every other instance. Job talks about the morning stars in reference to angels, for example (Job 38:7).

The Parson
Sep 26th 2007, 04:31 PM
enarchay, are you familiar with the two KJV's? One is directly from the Original text and the latter is from the modified texts. The 1611, and I use that nomer because of the original publishing. Spelling corrections took place in 1762 and 1769. Still the same bible but minus the Elizabethan spelling. Then there was the Authorized King James that used a modified Maj. Text intermingled with the Alexandrian... Were you aware of that?

I think you will find in the 1611 the word referencing Lucifer is not heylel but is "hawlal" which has many meanings, including to shine (the angel of light), to be foolish, to boast, to glory, to praise, and to be mad, insane, or crazy.

RogerW
Sep 26th 2007, 04:32 PM
But here lies your problem. The KJV OT is translated from the MT. In the MT, heylel meaning "morning star" is used. The KJV translators for some stupid reason translated heylel as a proper name, "Lucifer," which is the Latin translation of heylel in the first place.

The fact is, Isaiah, Peter, and John use the "morning star" metaphor for different reasons. For Isaiah, it represents the fall of the king of Babylon and his pagan gods (such as the "morning star," the "son of dawn"). For Peter and John, it represents Jesus as light in times of darkness. In other words, as Venus is a sign that dawn (light) is near, so also is Jesus. That is how I understand it thus far, but I'll admit I'm less clear on the New Testament use of the metaphor than the Old Testament use of the metaphor. In any case, just because a word or phrase is used as a metaphor for something in one instance, does not mean it is used in the same way in every other instance. Job talks about the morning stars in reference to angels, for example (Job 38:7).

Greetings Enarchay,

I too see the problem with KJ translation "Lucifer". However I still adamantly defend translations from the TR as superior to many translations translated from manuscripts discovered (were they really lost or deliberately hidden?) many years later.

LUCIFER
"Light-bringer, the Latin name of the morning-star, or "son of the morning." In the figurative language of Scripture, a brilliant star denoted an illustrious prince, Nu 24:17. Christ was given to men as the "bright and morning Star," Re 2:28; 22:16. The word Lucifer is used once only in the English Bible, and then of the king of Babylon, Isa 14:12. It is now commonly, though inappropriately, given to the prince of darkness." - ATSD

Blessings,
RW

RogerW
Sep 26th 2007, 04:34 PM
enarchay, are you familiar with the two KJV's? One is directly from the Original text and the latter is from the modified texts. The 1611, and I use that nomer because of the original publishing. Spelling corrections took place in 1762 and 1769. Still the same bible but minus the Elizabethan spelling. Then there was the Authorized King James that used a modified Maj. Text intermingled with the Alexandrian... Were you aware of that?

I think you will find in the 1611 the word referencing Lucifer is not heylel but is "hawlal" which has many meanings, including to shine (the angel of light), to be foolish, to boast, to glory, to praise, and to be mad, insane, or crazy.

Thank you Parson for pointing this out. You have been and are being of great help to me.

Many blessings,
RW

walked
Sep 26th 2007, 04:36 PM
The morning star is still in heaven, faithful to its ordained position.
Satan roams the earth to and fro, unfaithful to his ordained position.

Theophilus
Sep 26th 2007, 04:43 PM
LUCIFER
"Light-bringer, the Latin name of the morning-star, or "son of the morning." In the figurative language of Scripture, a brilliant star denoted an illustrious prince, Nu 24:17. Christ was given to men as the "bright and morning Star," Re 2:28; 22:16. The word Lucifer is used once only in the English Bible, and then of the king of Babylon, Isa 14:12. It is now commonly, though inappropriately, given to the prince of darkness." - ATSD

Blessings,
RW
Which is why I never use Lucifer as a name for the god of this age (per 2 Corinthians 4:4)...I call him satan or the adversary...and I capitalize neither, as he is not worthy of capitalization, IMHO.

BTW, I thought the whole Lucifer thing came about because of Jerome's Vulgate translation...?:hmm:

The Parson
Sep 26th 2007, 04:44 PM
Thank you Parson for pointing this out. You have been and are being of great help to me.

Many blessings,
RWNo problem Roger. When I originally wrote the article "Bible Version Comparisions", a couple of years ago, it opened my eyes considerably too.

Mograce2U
Sep 26th 2007, 04:46 PM
No, I'm saying that giving Lucifer the nomer of the morning star is incorrect. Look, I've already broken a promise to myself not to make a major issue out of it and for the sake of starting a heated debate myself, I need to cool it too.

The only explaination I can give you really is this. From my standpoint & conviction, the newer versions from the Westcott & Hort texts and their sources are just one more attempt by the very one they misname to cause more confusion and division among the brethren. That would be my conviction and I will not force it on others. I will however point out when the opportunity presents itself the very things that give evidence to that conviction. Please continue on folks...Oh good, I thought I was misunderstanding you because I was not following your point about the mistranslation. "O' shining one" would seem to have been a better choice than "Lucifer". But the next phrase for son of the morning seems correct so that the entire phrase points to him being like the morning star - at least at one time. But as a usurper to the throne.

There is a phrase in 2 Thes 2 that refers to the man of lawlessness, the son of perdition whose coming is also a "brightness" after the working of Satan. And also Ezekiel makes a similar reference where Satan is implied in speaking of the king of Tyrus:

(Ezek 28:17 KJV) Thine heart was lifted up because of thy beauty, thou hast corrupted thy wisdom by reason of thy brightness: I will cast thee to the ground, I will lay thee before kings, that they may behold thee.

I think these 3 references together that were spoken of the king of Babylon, the king of Tyrus and the man of sin all point us to men whom Satan was working thru.

Steven3
Sep 26th 2007, 05:25 PM
Hi Mograce
And also Ezekiel makes a similar reference where Satan is implied in speaking of the king of Tyrus:It is similar yes, and no doubt the similarity is deliberate. But certainly not Isaiah, c 700BC, nor Ezekiel, c 586 BC, would relate their imagery to a specific Jewish narrative about a fallen angel, since those ideas entered Judaism in the intertestamental period, 300-200 BC. Isaiah sources his material to mock Babylon from Babylon's own religion - with fallen titans, so if Ezekiel has any references, then it would be Tyre's own religion being referenced here (by analogy with the way Babylon's own religion is referenced in Isaiah). As for the cherub in the garden the imagery has more to do with Hiram supplying the cedars for Solomon's temple and the brief period when Tyre converted to Yahweh worship, but then went back to idols. Neither Isaiah nor Ezekiel can draw from a Jewish Satan tradition, because it didn't exist yet, if anything their passages contribute to the later Satan narratives.


Hi Theophilus :)
BTW, I thought the whole Lucifer thing came about because of Jerome's Vulgate translation...?:hmm:Yes it does, but not deliberately. Jerome has lucifer (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3D %2327063http://) for all 7 of the OT הילל verses and the 2 Peter 1:19 morning star, so it wasn't Jerome's fault - he was being consistent. At some point someone in the English OT tradition decided to leave one of the seven lucifer verses in Latin to make it read as a name. Possibly even Ælfric himself who translated much of the Old Testament into Old English (see his Genesis 1 here (http://www.geocities.com/athens/academy/4506/genesis.html)). But Wyclif and his team had no access to Ælfric's Bible, so the tradition would more likely come from them.


To those on the versions thread :)

I said they were, mostly, working with the same Hebrew text.Correct. As regards the Hebrew text, and which sources to use for NIV KJV etc - there isn't a great deal of choice, all versions are predominantly dependent on the same St Petersburg Codex for reasons explained by Wurthwein:

http://graphics.christianbook.com/g/display/0/0788.gif

enarchay
Sep 26th 2007, 07:42 PM
I think you will find in the 1611 the word referencing Lucifer is not heylel but is "hawlal" which has many meanings, including to shine (the angel of light), to be foolish, to boast, to glory, to praise, and to be mad, insane, or crazy.

In the 1611 KJV, the English reads "Lucifer" as well. I'm using Strong's Concordance and the MT downloadable for e-sword, both which have heylel listed. Can you show me what version of the MT you are looking at? I think Isaiah's meaning is clear based on the additional phrase "son of dawn."

enarchay
Sep 26th 2007, 07:46 PM
BTW, I thought the whole Lucifer thing came about because of Jerome's Vulgate translation...?:hmm:

Yes. Lucifer is the Latin translation of heylel. Don't ask me why the KJV authors translated a Hebrew word with a Latin word in an English translation as a proper name.

enarchay
Sep 26th 2007, 07:53 PM
Hi Mograce It is similar yes, and no doubt the similarity is deliberate. But certainly not Isaiah, c 700BC, nor Ezekiel, c 586 BC, would relate their imagery to a specific Jewish narrative about a fallen angel, since those ideas entered Judaism in the intertestamental period, 300-200 BC. Isaiah sources his material to mock Babylon from Babylon's own religion - with fallen titans, so if Ezekiel has any references, then it would be Tyre's own religion being referenced here (by analogy with the way Babylon's own religion is referenced in Isaiah). As for the cherub in the garden the imagery has more to do with Hiram supplying the cedars for Solomon's temple and the brief period when Tyre converted to Yahweh worship, but then went back to idols. Neither Isaiah nor Ezekiel can draw from a Jewish Satan tradition, because it didn't exist yet, if anything their passages contribute to the later Satan narratives.

Yes. If anything, Ezekiel has the fall imagery of Genesis in the back of his mind and employs the imagery as a metaphor for the King's turning to idols. If that's the case, the King has more in common with Adam than Satan. As for the Cherub deal, the Jewish Encyclopedia comments, "According to the Masoretic text this king was the cherub, but the Septuagint reads more correctly 'stood with the cherub.'"

Steven3
Sep 27th 2007, 09:13 AM
990 Ælfric (No Isaiah, only Pentateuch, Book of Joshua, Judges. Old English)

1395 Wycliffe 14:12 A! Lucifer, that risidist eerli, hou feldist thou doun fro heuene; thou that woundist folkis, feldist doun togidere in to erthe.

1536 Tyndale - no Isaiah (Tyndale was burnt at the stake in Belgium before he could complete the OT ~ probably for being an Anabaptist rather than for translating the Bible.)

1535 Coverdale 14:12 How art thou fallen from heauen (o Lucifer) thou faire mornige childe? hast thou gotten a fall euen to the grounde, thou that (notwithstondinge) dyddest subdue the people?

1586 Bishops Bible 14:12 Howe art thou fallen from heauen O Lucifer, thou faire mornyng chylde? Howe hast thou gotten a fall euen to the grounde, which didst weaken the nations?

1587 Geneva Bible 14:12 How art thou fallen from heauen, O Lucifer, sonne of the morning? and cutte downe to the grounde, which didest cast lottes vpon the nations?

Serve-N-Protect
Sep 27th 2007, 03:24 PM
I heard a joke once that I think is appropriate for this thread...

NIV = Nearly Inerrant Version

:lol:

The first time I heard that, it put a lot of things into context for me personally. I realized that even though most translations of the bible are in error, the word of God written on my heart, is not. I still have a responsibility to know, obey, and live by it.

So God helped me with issues of trust and doubt and I was quoted once as saying;

"Whether or not the bible is the inerrant written word of God is not even relevant to me. The thing that concerns me the most is whether or not the inerrant voice of my King and savior Jesus can be heard through my pride, sin, and selfishness."

Translation error or not, even if the devil himself has inserted lines in the bible that were not originally there, God still has the power to speak to us through all of that, thus still making me responsible for my sin and knowing the word of God.

Anyway, I know this thread started with the "Morning star question", but because of where it has ended up I just thought I would throw this out there.

:)

Serve-N-Protect
Sep 27th 2007, 03:39 PM
I know that there are many out there that don't have the opportunities to throughly examine the word of God as we do. For one reason or the other, they don't have things like the internet, and a lot them, not even the bible or the education to read it...

With that said, I truly consider it a blessing and an honor for us to have places like this forum to discuss these issues so we can properly bring his word and his love to the rest of the world.

:saint:

enarchay
Sep 28th 2007, 09:21 AM
I know that there are many out there that don't have the opportunities to throughly examine the word of God as we do. For one reason or the other, they don't have things like the internet, and a lot them, not even the bible or the education to read it...

With that said, I truly consider it a blessing and an honor for us to have places like this forum to discuss these issues so we can properly bring his word and his love to the rest of the world.

:saint:

Yes. Praise God!!!!

What would I do without e-sword, online concordances and Bible search engines, and the Internet?

We are so blessed.

deb6031
Sep 29th 2007, 01:45 PM
Hi folks! I am new here and this is my first post.

I studied this subject myself a few months ago. I likewise found there is no textual reason to translate or capitalize “Lucifer” in place of “morning star,” which is how it is translated everywhere else.

The problem is there are no verses that specifically identify “Lucifer” as satan even if you wanted to leave it that way. No where in the Bible. These verses (Isa. 14) are talking directly about a king. It could be allegorically referring to satan, but that is guessing and there is no Biblical proof or corroboration for that assumption.

That being said, there are places in the Bible that are parallel or allegorical to future truths, such as Abraham sacrificing his only son.

For me, the jury is still out, but mostly I doubt Lucifer is satan.

And just a bit of trivia, the idea of Lucifer being satan became popular in John Milton’s Paradise Lost, written 1667.

tgallison
Sep 29th 2007, 02:50 PM
I am new to the forum, one month, and I have made the observation that a large majority of posts are preoccupied with single word definitions. While the study of word definitions of itself is not bad, the extent to which the meanings in the Bible are placed on single words is wrong.

The Bible is not a first grade primer. It is full of parables and allegories.

Matthew 13:34 All these things spake Jesus unto the multitude in parables: and without a parable spake he not unto them.

A lot of time we swat at nats, when a beast is there waiting to devour us.

You follow the beast and you follow Satan. Genesis right through Revelation.

In Isaiah, we know that Lucifer is Satan by the content of the scripture.
The content is far more important than the single word. Look at the content.

Isaiah 14:12 "How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning!"(Job 41:18) "By his neesings a light doth shine, and his eyes are like the eyelids of the morning."

Isaiah 14:13 "For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north:"

Revelation 12:4 "And his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven, and did cast them to the earth: and the dragon stood before the woman which was ready to be delivered, for to devour her child as soon as it was born."

Job 40:17 "He moveth his tail like a cedar: the sinews of his stones are wrapped together.

Ezekiel 31:3 "Behold, the Assyrian was a cedar in Lebanon with fair branches, and with a shadowing shroud, and of an high stature; and hit top was among the thick boughs."

When Satan says he will be like the most high, it means he will copy everything. The Trinity, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. The Trinity, the great beast, dragon, and false prophet.

Satan has made himself the angel of light to this world, thus perhaps the confusion over the name Lucifer.

Satan is King over this worlds governments. The proof is he offered them to Jesus. So when Nebuchadnezzar became as a beast and ate grass as an oxen, like Behemoth, it was his punishment for allowing his King to rule over him. Nebuchadnezzar exalted himself over God. Satan was Nebuchadnezzar's King.

Job 41:34 "He beholdeth all high things: he is a king over all the children of pride."

Genesis 3:1 Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?"

I would suggest to you that tree of the garden is the same tree as in
Ezekiel 31. A cedar tree that was described this way. Ezekiel 31:8 "The cedars in the garden of God could not hide him: the fir trees were not like his boughs, and the chestnut trees were not like his branches: nor any tree in the garden of God was like unto him in his beauty."

He was a cedar that stood above the other cedars (Kings of this earth).

There is a number of places where he is described as casting a shadow. Thus the verse though we walk through the valley of the shadow of death.

Just a few thoughts, hope I did not go to far off thread.

Steven3
Sep 30th 2007, 04:07 PM
Hi, just looking in :)
The Bible is not a first grade primer. It is full of parables and allegories.Like the whole Satan-allegory/parable itself ;)

Isaiah 14 actually says "a man" - so not a fallen angel.
God bless
Steven

tgallison
Sep 30th 2007, 06:16 PM
Hi, just looking in :)Like the whole Satan-allegory/parable itself ;)

Isaiah 14 actually says "a man" - so not a fallen angel.
God bless
Steven


Steven Hi

If enowsh had been used, it would have been a stronger case for mortal man.

I believe God is both speaking to a man who is king, and Satan who was the man's king.

Love Fountain
Oct 2nd 2007, 02:43 AM
Isa 14:12

12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!
KJV



This is not talking about Satan.

Hello enarchay,

Please tell me who Isa 14:12 is talking about if it is not satan?



Bless you,
Love Fountain

third hero
Oct 2nd 2007, 10:42 AM
Last time I chcked, Jesus was never a cherub. A Cherub is an angel, and Jesus is the Spirit of God in the flesh. Therefore, the morning star reference in Isaiah 14 refers to the rebel Satan, and not Jesus.

enarchay
Oct 2nd 2007, 12:42 PM
Hello enarchay,

Please tell me who Isa 14:12 is talking about if it is not satan?
A Babylonian king and his false pagan gods (Isa 14:4; cf. Isa 14:16).

"Septuagint translation of "Helel [read "Helal"] ben Shaḥar" (= "the brilliant one," "son of the morning"), name of the day, or morning, star, to whose mythical fate that of the King of Babylon is compared in the prophetic vision (Isa. xiv. 12-14). It is obvious that the prophet in attributing to the Babylonian king boastful pride, followed by a fall, borrowed the idea from a popular legend connected with the morning star; and Gunkel ("Schöpfung und Chaos," pp. 132-134) is undoubtedly correct when he holds that it represents a Babylonian or Hebrew star-myth similar to the Greek legend of Phaethon. The brilliancy of the morning star, which eclipses all other stars, but is not seen during the night, may easily have given rise to a myth such as was told of Ethana and Zu: he was led by his pride to strive for the highest seat among the star-gods on the northern mountain of the gods (comp. Ezek. xxviii. 14; Ps. xlviii. 3 [A.V. 2]), but was hurled down by the supreme ruler of the Babylonian Olympus. Stars were regarded throughout antiquity as living celestial beings (Job xxxviii. 7)" (Kaufmann Kohler, Ph.D, Jewish Encyclopedia, entry "Lucifer").

tgallison
Oct 2nd 2007, 01:59 PM
A Babylonian king and his false pagan gods (Isa 14:4; cf. Isa 14:16).

"Septuagint translation of "Helel [read "Helal"] ben Shaḥar" (= "the brilliant one," "son of the morning"), name of the day, or morning, star, to whose mythical fate that of the King of Babylon is compared in the prophetic vision (Isa. xiv. 12-14). It is obvious that the prophet in attributing to the Babylonian king boastful pride, followed by a fall, borrowed the idea from a popular legend connected with the morning star; and Gunkel ("Schöpfung und Chaos," pp. 132-134) is undoubtedly correct when he holds that it represents a Babylonian or Hebrew star-myth similar to the Greek legend of Phaethon. The brilliancy of the morning star, which eclipses all other stars, but is not seen during the night, may easily have given rise to a myth such as was told of Ethana and Zu: he was led by his pride to strive for the highest seat among the star-gods on the northern mountain of the gods (comp. Ezek. xxviii. 14; Ps. xlviii. 3 [A.V. 2]), but was hurled down by the supreme ruler of the Babylonian Olympus. Stars were regarded throughout antiquity as living celestial beings (Job xxxviii. 7)" (Kaufmann Kohler, Ph.D, Jewish Encyclopedia, entry "Lucifer").


enarchay

Are you saying our Bible is full of fables and myths? That is what it sounds like.

2 Cor 11:14 "And no marvel: for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light."

Ephesians 2:2 "Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience:"

Job 18:5 "Yea, the light of the wicked shall be put out, and the spark of his fire shall not shine."

Job 41:18 "By his neesings a light doth shine, and his eyes are like the eyelids of the morning. (19) Out of his mouth go burning lamps, and sparks of fire leap out."

Job 41:32 "He maketh a path to shine after him: one would think the deep to be hoary. (33) Upon earth there is not his like, who is made without fear. (34) He beholdeth all high things: he is a king over all the children of pride.

John 16:11 "Of judgment, because the prince of this world is judged."

Satan would love us to think the Bible is full of myths and fables.

The Parson
Oct 2nd 2007, 02:01 PM
Why don't I give ya'll a bit more to chew on... Here is something I think you will find interesting.
(KJV) Revelation 13:1 And I (John the Revelator) stood upon the sand of the sea, and saw a beast rise up out of the sea, having seven heads and ten horns, and upon his horns ten crowns, and upon his heads the name of blasphemy.
(NIV) Revelation 13:1 And the dragon (Satan himself) stood on the shore of the sea. And I saw a beast coming out of the sea. He had ten horns and seven heads, with ten crowns on his horns, and on each head a blasphemous name.Now how is it that all of a sudden it's Satan (the dragon) standing on the shore instead of John the revelator? You'll find many cases like this one where meanings are changed.

And one of you mentioned that the Vulgate (Jeromes) was the standard but the Vulgate isn't the oldest of the translations used. The Old Itala which is the original Vulgate was there all the time from the 2nd century up. It's a shame it was overshadowed by Jeromes work because it also contained a word for word translation of the original Greek letters. That same Old Itala was used to verify the translation of the King James. So no, I don't think we can give Jeromes Vulgate the credit it doesn't deserve.

enarchay
Oct 2nd 2007, 02:10 PM
enarchay

Are you saying our Bible is full of fables and myths? That is what it sounds like.

No. I'm saying the author of Isaiah incorporated a well known myth of his time as a metaphor for the fall of the king of Babylon and his false gods. I do not believe Isaiah believed the myth, though.

enarchay
Oct 2nd 2007, 02:34 PM
Why don't I give ya'll a bit more to chew on... Here is something I think you will find interesting.
(KJV) Revelation 13:1 And I (John the Revelator) stood upon the sand of the sea, and saw a beast rise up out of the sea, having seven heads and ten horns, and upon his horns ten crowns, and upon his heads the name of blasphemy.
(NIV) Revelation 13:1 And the dragon (Satan himself) stood on the shore of the sea. And I saw a beast coming out of the sea. He had ten horns and seven heads, with ten crowns on his horns, and on each head a blasphemous name.
on the shore instead of John the revelator? You'll find many cases like this one where meanings are changed.


Quit comparing modern translations with the KJV. That won't prove anything. If you must, compare them with the TR.

I'm honestly not sure why the NIV translated it that way. They did, however, add in a footnote: "Some late manuscripts And I."

The UBS4 omits the phrase translated "And I stood upon the sand of the sea/And the dragon stood on the shore of the sea" and reads, translated, "And I saw a beast coming up out of the sea." The Scrivener (1894) TR reads estathe, in the first person singular, but Stephen's TR (1550) agrees with the UBS4 and reads eidon, "I saw" rather than "I stood."

The Parson
Oct 2nd 2007, 02:36 PM
I got a kick out of this one.

(KJV) Colossians 2:18 Let no man beguile you of your reward in a voluntary humility and worshipping of angels, intruding into those things which he hath not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind,
(NIV) Colossians 2:18 Do not let anyone who delights in false humility and the worship of angels disqualify you for the prize. Such a person goes into great detail about what he has seen, and his unspiritual mind puffs him up with idle notions.

Notice, somehow that which wasn't seen became those things seen. Read closely...

The Parson
Oct 2nd 2007, 02:38 PM
Can't do it enarchay... Either we compare a version to a version or we can't compare at all and since I believe that the KJ is an exact translation of the RT in my language it makes it the best platform... By the way, that's RT for Received Text. Not TR.

enarchay
Oct 2nd 2007, 02:43 PM
Can't do it enarchay... Either we compare a version to a version or we can't compare at all and since I believe that the KJ is an exact translation of the RT in my language it makes it the best platform... By the way, that's RT for Received Text. Not TR.

Textus receptus is Latin for received text.

I just do not like how you are setting the KJV as the standard of comparison, rather than the text from which it was translated.

The Parson
Oct 2nd 2007, 02:44 PM
Unless you are referencing Textus Receptus that is...

enarchay
Oct 2nd 2007, 02:48 PM
Unless you are referencing Textus Receptus that is...

What? What do you mean?

TR=Textus Receptus, if that's what you are asking.

The Parson
Oct 2nd 2007, 02:49 PM
Textus receptus is Latin for received text.

I just do not like how you are setting the KJV as the standard of comparison, rather than the text from which it was translated.OK sir, here is the deal. Each one of us have the freedom to reference our convictions as we feel led to do within the boundries set in the forum rules.

You seem to believe that scholarship must take precidence over faith in God preserving His Word in our language. You have every right to do so. Same as I have every right to rebut with my own methodology. The only difference in our two methods is that scholarship relies on mans wisdom and faith based reasoning relies on the abilities of God. No need to protest further. Just continue on with the conversation as you have every right to ignore my posts... But the thread will remain peaceful.

The Parson
Oct 2nd 2007, 02:51 PM
What? What do you mean?

TR=Textus Receptus, if that's what you are asking.I mean't I pulled a duh because you were refering to the Textus Receptus nomer. It took me a minute to realize that...

enarchay
Oct 2nd 2007, 02:54 PM
I mean't I pulled a duh because you were refering to the Textus Receptus nomer. It took me a minute to realize that...

Haha, no problem. I thought that's what happened.

The Parson
Oct 2nd 2007, 02:56 PM
Haha, no problem. I thought that's what happened.One of the hazards of growing old enarchay. Aging is highly over rated. Shall we continue on???

The Parson
Oct 2nd 2007, 03:26 PM
May I ask all of you who are Saved. That is, those who have recieved forgiveness from your sin because of the Blood of the Lamb that was shed for you.

What was the reason that Jesus came to the world? This question has everthing to do with this thread and I would hope you would answer from the spirit instead of the mind.

I'll give you a hint. You will find the answer in Matthew 18:11, Colossians 1:14, & Luke 9:56 to name a few.

enarchay
Oct 2nd 2007, 03:27 PM
One of the hazards of growing old enarchay. Aging is highly over rated. Shall we continue on???

Not just the hazard of growing old; the hazard also of being human (young or old).

I have to go but I will be back tonight.

tgallison
Oct 2nd 2007, 04:45 PM
No. I'm saying the author of Isaiah incorporated a well known myth of his time as a metaphor for the fall of the king of Babylon and his false gods. I do not believe Isaiah believed the myth, though.


Enarchay here we differ again. While man may be the author of the NIV, God is the author of the Bible.

It is highly unlikely that God used metaphors of myths to teach us truth.

enarchay
Oct 2nd 2007, 08:03 PM
Enarchay here we differ again. While man may be the author of the NIV, God is the author of the Bible.

Which Bible might that be?


It is highly unlikely that God used metaphors of myths to teach us truth.

Why not? Isaiah did it elsewhere when he alludes to the mythical demoness Lilith (daimonia, "demons," in the LXX) and the he-goats, i.e. satyr (Isa 34:14). Just because Isaiah et al. employ descriptions of mythical figures as metaphors or details for the events they describe does not mean they believe those mythical figures actually exist. It must be kept in mind that when, moreover, Biblical authors make allusions to mythical figures it is often to criticize those who actually believe in those figures (e.g. Isaiah relates the fall of the morning star with the fall of the king of Babylon to illustrate the powerlessness of both), i.e. fight fire with fire. To illustrate my point further, another example is of both Peter and Jude (and perhaps even Paul) alluding to the 1 Enoch tradition of fallen angels, with Jude actually quoting straight from 1 Enoch in one instance, while not letting the reader be certain if they viewed the traditions they alluded to or the texts that preserve those traditions as accurate. Likewise, Paul quotes a pagan poet (Act 17:28) while not meaning to imply that God wholly inspired the poet. Lastly, John describes dragons and beasts and so on as metaphors for realities while not actually believing in dragons and beasts and so on. I'm sure more examples could be provided, but these are the ones that stick out to me the most.

I could say, for example, "That video game had more of a hold over Jim than the ring had over Frodo," while not actually acknowledging the existence of a hobbit named Frodo outside of a piece of literature. Or perhaps better yet, I could say, "His ears were pointier than the ears of an elve," with my statement being clearly hyperbolic, while not actually acknowledging the existence of elves. Those examples might not be the best, but there several more that could be provided following that line of thought.

tgallison
Oct 2nd 2007, 10:19 PM
Which Bible might that be?



Why not? Isaiah did it elsewhere when he alludes to the mythical demoness Lilith (daimonia, "demons," in the LXX) and the he-goats, i.e. satyr (Isa 34:14). Just because Isaiah et al. employ descriptions of mythical figures as metaphors or details for the events they describe does not mean they believe those mythical figures actually exist. It must be kept in mind that when, moreover, Biblical authors make allusions to mythical figures it is often to criticize those who actually believe in those figures (e.g. Isaiah relates the fall of the morning star with the fall of the king of Babylon to illustrate the powerlessness of both), i.e. fight fire with fire. To illustrate my point further, another example is of both Peter and Jude (and perhaps even Paul) alluding to the 1 Enoch tradition of fallen angels, with Jude actually quoting straight from 1 Enoch in one instance, while not letting the reader be certain if they viewed the traditions they alluded to or the texts that preserve those traditions as accurate. Likewise, Paul quotes a pagan poet (Act 17:28) while not meaning to imply that God wholly inspired the poet. Lastly, John describes dragons and beasts and so on as metaphors for realities while not actually believing in dragons and beasts and so on. I'm sure more examples could be provided, but these are the ones that stick out to me the most.

I could say, for example, "That video game had more of a hold over Jim than the ring had over Frodo," while not actually acknowledging the existence of a hobbit named Frodo outside of a piece of literature. Or perhaps better yet, I could say, "His ears were pointier than the ears of an elve," with my statement being clearly hyperbolic, while not actually acknowledging the existence of elves. Those examples might not be the best, but there several more that could be provided following that line of thought.



enarchay greetings

God is the author, man is the writer, that is what distinguishes the Bible from all other books.

We differ in that you believe there is metaphors of myths. Where I believe there are no myths in the Bible. The metaphors are of the real.

Satan is real. The metaphor is that he is discribed as a beast or dragon.

Jude 13 "Raging waves of the sea, foaming out their own shame; wandering stars, to whom is reserved the blackness of darkness for ever:", The raging waves and wandering stars are metaphors of real beings.

Job 38:31 Canst thou bind the sweet influences of Pleiades, or loose the bands of Orion? When I read in a science magazine years ago, that there was an energy force eminating from Pleiades, I said wow!

But because I do not know the fullness of the scripture, does not make it a myth.

When Peter said the elements would melt with a fervent heat, that was not a known possiblity 7o years ago. Not until the atom was split.

Our ignorance does not make them myths.

enarchay
Oct 3rd 2007, 02:08 AM
Satan is real. The metaphor is that he is discribed as a beast or dragon.And dragons and seven headed beasts and so on don't exist, therefore John employs mythical creatures (e.g. dragons) and creates his own creatures (e.g. seven headed beasts) as metaphors for realities, like Satan. How is this much different than what Isaiah does in relating the fall of the mythical morning star, the son of dawn, with the fall of the king of Babylon and his false gods? If you want to be really crazy (in a good way, perhaps), you could say the morning star really does exist, because the planet Venus actually exists.

Love Fountain
Oct 3rd 2007, 02:38 AM
A Babylonian king and his false pagan gods (Isa 14:4; cf. Isa 14:16).

"Septuagint translation of "Helel [read "Helal"] ben Shaḥar" (= "the brilliant one," "son of the morning"), name of the day, or morning, star, to whose mythical fate that of the King of Babylon is compared in the prophetic vision (Isa. xiv. 12-14). .

Hello enarchay,

Thank you for your response.

Please share with me who is the King of Babylon?

Bless you,
Love Fountain

enarchay
Oct 3rd 2007, 02:57 AM
Please share with me who is the King of Babylon?He probably was some random king who ruled over Babylon before or during the time of the author of Isaiah.

The "king of Babylon" is the one Isaiah is told to address (Isa 14:4). Apparently he was a "oppressor" who ruled a "golden city" (Isa 14:4). He was very prideful (Isa 14:11; cf. Isa 14:13). His reign is put to an end by God (Isa 14:5) and he is brought down to sheol, the grave, to rot (Isa 14:11).

I looked at some commentary and most agree Belshazzar is a likely candidate, but it is also likely, perhaps more so, that either the king of Babylon is not any one figure but representative of the Babylonian nation (especially as a military presence) as a whole, or of an unspecified king we know little to nothing about.

I think that may be more or less all there is to say, but if anyone can provide more information, it would be much appreciated!

tgallison
Oct 3rd 2007, 03:18 AM
And dragons and seven headed beasts and so on don't exist, therefore John employs mythical creatures (e.g. dragons) and creates his own creatures (e.g. seven headed beasts) as metaphors for realities, like Satan. How is this much different than what Isaiah does in relating the fall of the mythical morning star, the son of dawn, with the fall of the king of Babylon and his false gods? If you want to be really crazy (in a good way, perhaps), you could say the morning star really does exist, because the planet Venus actually exists.


enarchay

But that is the point, the morning star does exist because he is Satan.

Love Fountain
Oct 3rd 2007, 03:23 AM
He probably was some random king who ruled over Babylon before or during the time of the author of Isaiah.

The "king of Babylon" is the one Isaiah is told to address (Isa 14:4). Apparently he was a "oppressor" who ruled a "golden city" (Isa 14:4). He was very prideful (Isa 14:11; cf. Isa 14:13). His reign is put to an end by God (Isa 14:5) and he is brought down to sheol, the grave, to rot (Isa 14:11).

I looked at some commentary and most agree Belshazzar is a likely candidate, but it is also likely, perhaps more so, that either the king of Babylon is not any one figure but representative of the Babylonian nation (especially as a military presence) as a whole, or of an unspecified king we know little to nothing about.

I think that may be more or less all there is to say, but if anyone can provide more information, it would be much appreciated!


Hello enarchay,

Thank you for your response.

If I am understanding you correctly, you told me in an earlier post that Lucifer in Isa 14:12 is not satan and now you are telling me that Isa 14:12 is about the King of Babylon but you don't know who the king of Babylon is except for what you read in commentary written by mankind.

Please excuse me while I be blunt and please let me help you with what the word Babylon means, it means confusion and comes from the word babel.

In other words,

Who is the king of confusion aka the king of babylon?

Do you still not know?

Bless you,
Love Fountain

tgallison
Oct 3rd 2007, 05:22 AM
He probably was some random king who ruled over Babylon before or during the time of the author of Isaiah.

The "king of Babylon" is the one Isaiah is told to address (Isa 14:4). Apparently he was a "oppressor" who ruled a "golden city" (Isa 14:4). He was very prideful (Isa 14:11; cf. Isa 14:13). His reign is put to an end by God (Isa 14:5) and he is brought down to sheol, the grave, to rot (Isa 14:11).

I looked at some commentary and most agree Belshazzar is a likely candidate, but it is also likely, perhaps more so, that either the king of Babylon is not any one figure but representative of the Babylonian nation (especially as a military presence) as a whole, or of an unspecified king we know little to nothing about.

I think that may be more or less all there is to say, but if anyone can provide more information, it would be much appreciated!


enarchay

You have to take an overview of Satan.

Matthew 4:8-9 "Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the Kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them: (9) And saith unto him, All these things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me."

Take the premise that these Kingdoms belong to Satan and start from there.

Evidence

1. We have the prince of Tyrus and the King of Tyrus. Perhaps son and Father so to speak. Duplication of God the Father, God the Son.

Ezekiel 28:2 "Son of man, say unto the prince of Tyrus, Thus saith the Lord God; Because thine heart is lifted up, and thou hast said, I am a God, I sit in the seat of God in the midst of the seas; yet thou art a man, and not God, though thou set thine heart as the heart of God: (3) Behold, thou art wiser than Daniel: there is no secret that they can hide from thee:"

The Bible says he is a man. I do not know the answer to that. One possibility is that the son of Satan is from Satan's loins. He definitely is not a God. But he is wiser than Daniel. That says a whole lot.

Now look at his Father, if it may be stated that way.

Ezekiel 28:12 "Son of man, take up a lamentation upon the king of Tyrus, and say unto him, Thus saith the Lord God; Thou sealest up the sum, full of wisdom, and perfect in beauty. (13) Thou hast been in Eden the garden of God;------------." (14) Thou art the anointed cherub that covereth; and I have set thee so: thou wast upon the holy mountain of God: thou hast walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire."

Notice he is not called a man. How many kings have been in the garden of God?

While we are at verse 14 lets look at Job 1:7

Job 1:7 "And the Lord said unto Satan, Whence comest thou? Then Satan answered the Lord, and said, From going to and fro in the earth, and from walking up and down in it.

Do you see a connection in the walking up and down in it. If not, okay. You will only see that in the KJV.


2. Next is the king of Egypt who is discribed as an Assyrian, who is a cedar tree. Again he is in the garden of God, and his heart is lifted up.
Ezekiel 31 the whole chapter

What they all have in common is that they desired to be in the place of God. Their pride is their common denominator.

3. Job 40:15 to Job 41:34. The beast and the dragon.

The common denominator, PRIDE Job 41:34 "He beholdeth all high things: he is a king over the children of PRIDE."

Notice also that he beholds all high things. When the sons of God came before God; Who was there? Satan.

Behemoth "He is chief of the ways of God:-----" (Wiser than Daniel-----Tho wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee.)

For every verse about behemoth there are other verses in the Bible that correspond to it, relating to Satan.

Revelation 16:10 "And the fifth angel poured out his vial upon the seat of the beast: and his kingdom was full of darkness; and they gnawed their tongues for pain. (13) And I saw three unclean spirits like frogs come out of the mouth of the dragon, and out of the mouth of the beast, and out of the mouth of the false prophet."
The trinity of Satan. The dragon, the beast and the false prophet.

Genesis 3:1 "Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made.-----."
The serpent was a beast.

As Jesus is the heavenly King to the saved, Satan is the earthly king of the lost. Thus you have the Heavenly light that lightens the world, and the earthly light that darkens the soul.

enarchay
Oct 3rd 2007, 03:18 PM
But that is the point, the morning star does exist because he is Satan.

The son of dawn is Satan? Venus is Satan?

You're reading your own preconceived notions back into the text.

enarchay
Oct 3rd 2007, 03:23 PM
If I am understanding you correctly, you told me in an earlier post that Lucifer in Isa 14:12 is not satan


It's not. If you had been paying attention to Steven3 and my posts, you would have learned that lucifer is the Latin translation of heylel, and means nearly the same thing, "morning star."


and now you are telling me that Isa 14:12 is about the King of Babylon

It is.


but you don't know who the king of Babylon is

We don't know who he is because he isn't named. Isaiah merely writes "king of Babylon."


it means confusion and comes from the word babel.

Yes but it describes an empire.


Who is the king of confusion aka the king of babylon?

Last time I checked, Satan wasn't brought down to the grave (Isa 14:11).

Love Fountain
Oct 4th 2007, 02:58 AM
It's not. If you had been paying attention to Steven3 and my posts, you would have learned that lucifer is the Latin translation of heylel, and means nearly the same thing, "morning star."

It is.

We don't know who he is because he isn't named. Isaiah merely writes "king of Babylon."

Yes but it describes an empire.

Last time I checked, Satan wasn't brought down to the grave (Isa 14:11).

Hello enarchay,

Thank you for your response, but please tell me where I deserve to be spoken to the way you have spoken to me in the above responses?

Do you speak like that to your parents or other elders?

I hope not!

If you can't understand who the king of confusion is, perhaps you should pick a different topic that allows you to be kinder to others.

Bless you,
Love Fountain

Love Fountain
Oct 4th 2007, 03:05 AM
enarchay

But that is the point, the morning star does exist because he is Satan.

Hello tgallison,

Bless you for your patience and effort with this kid.

It seems many try to use the OT as merely historical when in fact much of Scripture is past, present and future.

Bless you,
Love Fountain

Love Fountain
Oct 4th 2007, 03:12 AM
Has anybody else noticed the NIV Bible calls Jesus and lucifer "Morning star"? When speaking of lucifer in Isaiah 14:12 the text says,

"How you have fallen from heaven, O morning star, son of the dawn! You have been cast down to the earth, you who once laid low the nations!"

But in other areas of the NIV Bible Jesus is called the Morning star,

Rev. 22:16:"I, Jesus, have sent my angel to give you [1] this testimony for the churches. I am the Root and the Offspring of David, and the bright Morning Star."

I also read that the publisher of the NIV Bible, zondervan, is owned by the same company that publishes the satanic bible. Just wondering if anybody else noticed that?


Hello Jay Mac,

If Jesus is the morning star you can count on satan also being the morning star, because satan is a copy cat and that's what he does.

Every Bible translation has issues which is why it is a good thing to compare them all with each other. Some things in the NIV are worded better than the KJV and vice versa, and the same in other Bibles as well.

What would you do if all the Bibles were taken away? Could you still share the gospel?

Bless you,
Love Fountain

enarchay
Oct 4th 2007, 03:40 AM
Thank you for your response, but please tell me where I deserve to be spoken to the way you have spoken to me in the above responses?What do you mean? My post contained no ad hominem arguments, to the best of my knowledge, and I responded to your questions/observations in a concise manner. You, in turn, are accusing me of not understanding "who the king of confusion is." The thing is, we both have our opinions about who or what the "king of Babylon" is. I responded with my opinion, but maybe not clear enough. While I see the logic in your argument, I do not believe the king of Babylon being addressed in the passage in question is Satan (which you seem to imply), because Satan was not a man (Isa 14:16) who was brought down to the grave (Isa 14:19). Do you see why I believe what I believe?

I'm sorry if I came off as rude or anything. I honestly did not mean to. As I wrote my post, and even re-read it for editing, I did not see myself as coming off as rude or anything. Perhaps you are misunderstanding my (written) personality, which, apparently, can be misconstrued.

Love Fountain
Oct 4th 2007, 03:59 AM
What do you mean?

Hello enarchay,

What do you mean, what do I mean?

If I had been paying attention....................I would've learned...........

Would you talk that way to your own parents or other elders?

Have you asked me what I've learned or paid attention too?

Or do you just assume by the dumb questions I asked you that I am ignorant and unlearned?

Who is the king of confusion?

It's a pretty simple question to me and I'm not sure why it's difficult for others such as yourself?

Satan is the king of confusion, the deceiver, the old serpent, the dragon, the god of this world, the prince of the power of the air, the king of babylon, lucifer, amongst the many other names he deceives by.

If you want to hold onto to history and not partake in today and tomorrow, by all means that is your choice but please try to be more kind in your words.

Bless you,
Love Fountain

Love Fountain
Oct 4th 2007, 04:06 AM
because Satan was not a man (Isa 14:16) who was brought down to the grave (Isa 14:19). Do you see why I believe what I believe?




Hello enarchay,

Satan was not a man?

Please tell me what do all the angels in the Bible appear as? A man.

Satan was not brought down to the grave? Because it is yet future.

For some reason you seem to want to live in the past, saying satan was not a man is past tense.

Satan will appear as whatever he needs to appear as to get people to worship him.

How can we discuss the original languages of the text if you can't tell me who the king of confusion is? Confusion is deception.

Yet you can tell me who he isn't but you don't know who he is? How can this be?

Bless you,
Love Fountain

enarchay
Oct 4th 2007, 04:15 AM
If I had been paying attention....................I would've learned...........I made that statement because I felt there was confusion about the word "Lucifer" in the KJV. Since you seemed (to me, at first) to pop in later in this thread, I did not think you saw my other posts as well as Steven3's posts. I did not mean to offend you by the statement; I made the statement to recommend you read over the other pages of this thread or my comments about heylel. I've had to repeat the same thing a few times so I thought it would be easier just to direct you to my past posts. I must not have been paying attention because, apparently, you posted some early on in this thread. Sorry about that.


Would you talk that way to your own parents or other elders?If they had entered a discussion later and were unaware of a certain detail or if they forgot something I had told them before, I don't see why not. (But in person it may have come out differently).


Have you asked me what I've learned or paid attention too? I don't need to ask. You've made your opinion in your posts.


Or do you just assume by the dumb questions I asked you that I am ignorant and unlearned?No.


Who is the king of confusion?

It's a pretty simple question to me and I'm not sure why it's difficult for others such as yourself?

Satan is the king of confusion, the deceiver, the old serpent, the dragon, the god of this world, the prince of the power of the air, the king of babylon, lucifer, amongst the many other names he deceives by.Yes, and I knew this is what you were implying. However, there are some problems, if you don't mind me giving my honest opinion, with interpreting Isaiah 14 as referring to Satan. 1) Regardless of its literal meaning, Babylon refers to a nation and 2) This king is portrayed as a man who is killed and brought down to the grave.

The tower of babel was a concrete, physical tower; it was not an abstract allegory for confusion. Judah, for example, literally means celebrated, but is the name of a real, concrete, physical Biblical figure. With your interpretation of the king of Babylon, moreover, it would seem we would also have to assume Belshazzar and Nebuchadnezzar, two other kings of Babylon (cf. 2Ki 24:10; cf. Dan 5:1), were also Satan.


If you want to hold onto to history and not partake in today and tomorrow, by all means that is your choice but please try to be more kind in your words.I wasn't trying not to be kind. I try to keep my posts to the point, but I guess that makes me seem void of love or angry or something. I'll try to change that if I can. By all means, I don't talk exactly the same as I write. I'm sorry if you have misinterpreted me or if I have given you too much reason to misinterpret me in the first place.

Sorry, again! Have a good night (or morning?)!

Love Fountain
Oct 4th 2007, 04:42 AM
Hello enarchay,

Thank you for your response. The other kings of babylon are merely shadows or types with the same spirit as THE King of Babylon, satan himself, but that is neither here or there when reading Isa 13 and 14. Isa 13:6 tells us the exact time of Isa 13 and 14 as follows,

Isa 13:6

6 Howl ye; for the day of the LORD is at hand; it shall come as a destruction from the Almighty.
KJV

Isa 14 confirms we are still talking about the same time of Isa 13:6 as follows,

Isa 14:4

4 That thou shalt take up this proverb against the king of Babylon, and say, How hath the oppressor ceased! the golden city ceased!
KJV


When does the king of Babylon, the oppressor cease and the golden city cease?

Check out Revelation!

The ceasing of the golden city as follows,

Rev 18:16-18

16 And saying, Alas, alas, that great city, that was clothed in fine linen, and purple, and scarlet, and decked with gold, and precious stones, and pearls!

17 For in one hour so great riches is come to nought. And every shipmaster, and all the company in ships, and sailors, and as many as trade by sea, stood afar off,

18 And cried when they saw the smoke of her burning, saying, What city is like unto this great city!
KJV


The ceasing of the oppressor, the king of babylon, satan himself, defacto


Rev 20:1-3
20:1 And I saw an angel come down from heaven, having the key of the bottomless pit and a great chain in his hand.

2 And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years,

3 And cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal upon him, that he should deceive the nations no more, till the thousand years should be fulfilled: and after that he must be loosed a little season.
KJV

How art thou fallen!

Isa 14:11-12

11 Thy pomp is brought down to the grave, and the noise of thy viols: the worm is spread under thee, and the worms cover thee.

12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!
KJV


Put away your commentaries and read the word! Go and read Isa 13 and 14, they cannot be divided into history for they are future!

Bless you,
Love Fountain

enarchay
Oct 4th 2007, 04:54 AM
The other kings of babylon are merely shadows or types with the same spirit as THE King of Babylon, satan himself, but that is neither here or there when reading Isa 13 and 14. Isa 13:6 tells us the exact time of Isa 13 and 14 as followsI see what you mean, but I honestly believe the author of Isaiah was facing a particular historical crisis. There really were king's who oppressed Israel that God judged and brought down to the grave. If you want to reuse those narratives for the hope of the defeat of Satan, that's fine, but I think there should be a difference between saying A is like B, and A=B. If you want to relate Isaiah 14 with a fall of Satan, I would relate it with what happened in Christ (cf. Luk 10:18).



The ceasing of the golden city as follows,I believe John employed the Old Covenant language about Babylon but reused it to refer to Rome. But let's not open that can of worms ;)

Thanks your opinion.

Love Fountain
Oct 4th 2007, 05:21 AM
I see what you mean, but I honestly believe the author of Isaiah was facing a particular historical crisis. There really were king's who oppressed Israel that God judged and brought down to the grave. If you want to reuse those narratives for the hope of the defeat of Satan, that's fine, but I think there should be a difference between saying A is like B, and A=B. If you want to relate Isaiah 14 with a fall of Satan, I would relate it with what happened in Christ (cf. Luk 10:18).

I believe John employed the Old Covenant language about Babylon but reused it to refer to Rome. But let's not open that can of worms ;)

Thanks your opinion.

Hello enarchay,

To be able to see is not the same as being able to perceive, neither is hearing the ability to understand. If you could here or see what I hear and see you wouldn't be thanking me for an opinion I didn't give.

History and Rome is what you prefer, history and Rome is what you receive.

Bless you,
Love Fountain

enarchay
Oct 4th 2007, 05:25 AM
To be able to see is not the same as being able to perceive, neither is hearing the ability to understand. If you could here or see what I hear and see you wouldn't be thanking me for an opinion I didn't give.I don't like the connotations of that statement. Your above argument seems like an ad hominem to me: "You don't agree with me, therefore you see but you don't perceive." Just because we interpret the texts differently does not necessarily mean one of us is spiritually blind or not.

Love Fountain
Oct 4th 2007, 05:34 AM
I don't like the connotations of that statement. Your above argument seems like an ad hominem to me: "You don't agree with me, therefore you see but you don't perceive." Just because we interpret the texts differently does not necessarily mean one of us is spiritually blind or not.

Hello enarchay,

The texts don't need interpreting because they interpret themself. I agree with you, you want history and Rome, I agree you should have what you choose to have. This has nothing to do with spiritual blindness, yet another interpretation of an opinion I didn't give.

Bless you,
Love Fountain

matthew94
Oct 4th 2007, 01:49 PM
The texts don't need interpreting because they interpret themself.

With all due respect, I think this sort of statement is meaningless. Everyone interprets the text, everyone reads it with a certain lens, everyone pours specific definitions into the words used. It's comforting to equate our interpretation, as right or wrong as it may be, to the texts own interpretation of itself, but, then again, our mission in Bible study is not to be comforted by our rightness, but to be challenged by the truth.

Theophilus
Oct 4th 2007, 02:11 PM
I would remind everyone that we can't hear tone of voice, see facial expressions, and catch the subtle nuances of body language on this board.

If you want to partake of discussion, then as I've mentioned on another thread, do so with grace not only while posting, but while reading replies. Do not assume someone is getting lippy, or being uppity.

...and when apologies are made, please accept them and move on.

If you can't be gracious here because of another poster, either put them on "Ignore"...or ask to use the Resolution Room...or post elsewhere.

'Nuff said...I hope.

:)

tgallison
Oct 4th 2007, 03:15 PM
I see what you mean, but I honestly believe the author of Isaiah was facing a particular historical crisis. There really were king's who oppressed Israel that God judged and brought down to the grave. If you want to reuse those narratives for the hope of the defeat of Satan, that's fine, but I think there should be a difference between saying A is like B, and A=B. If you want to relate Isaiah 14 with a fall of Satan, I would relate it with what happened in Christ (cf. Luk 10:18).

I believe John employed the Old Covenant language about Babylon but reused it to refer to Rome. But let's not open that can of worms ;)

Thanks your opinion.

Enarchay Greetings

How do you perceive the Bible? Do you see God as the author and the writer as inspired by God to write what God put in his heart to write?

You keep calling the writer the author. Do you believe that the writer mixes some of his own thoughts in with God's?

deb6031
Oct 4th 2007, 03:26 PM
I posted earlier I had doubt in my mind that Lucifer was satan. I have since then changed my mind. The thing that was bothering me at the time is “Lucifer” is a latin translation of the Greek word for “morning star.” And, capitalized. If you think about English, we capitalize “God” when that is what we mean, and we don’t when we are referring to false gods or god of this world. It depends on context and what we mean.

First off, as a broad over view, the surrounding chapters, or general context of Isa. 14 are mostly future and will not occur until the end times. That statement makes more sense if you start reading Isa. beginning chapter 11 and then read Revelation at least starting chapter 13 and continuing thru 17. (I wrote this and most of what follows several days ago. Love Fountain we are thinking along the same lines).

Isa 14:4 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=Isa&chapter=14&verse=4&version=kjv#4) That thou shalt take up this proverb against the king of Babylon, and say, How hath the oppressor ceased! the golden city ceased! This king was Marduk (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marduk)-apal-iddina II (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marduk-apal-iddina_II) (the Biblical (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible) Merodach-Baladan), 722 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/720s_BCE)-710 BC (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/710s_BC). I was able to figure this out because there is a time frame given to us in verse 28, the year King Ahaz died.

2Ki 20:12 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=2Ki&chapter=20&verse=12&version=kjv#12) At that time Berodachbaladan, the son of Baladan, king of Babylon, sent letters and a present unto Hezekiah: for he had heard that Hezekiah had been sick.

2Ki 20:13 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=2Ki&chapter=20&verse=13&version=kjv#13) And Hezekiah hearkened unto them, and shewed them all the house of his precious things, the silver, and the gold, and the spices, and the precious ointment, and [all] the house of his armour, and all that was found in his treasures: there was nothing in his house, nor in all his dominion, that Hezekiah shewed them not.

2Ki 20:14 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=2Ki&chapter=20&verse=14&version=kjv#14) Then came Isaiah the prophet unto king Hezekiah, and said unto him, What said these men? and from whence came they unto thee? And Hezekiah said, They are come from a far country, [even] from Babylon.

2Ki 20:15 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=2Ki&chapter=20&verse=15&version=kjv#15) And he said, What have they seen in thine house? And Hezekiah answered, All [the things] that [are] in mine house have they seen: there is nothing among my treasures that I have not shewed them.

2Ki 20:16 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=2Ki&chapter=20&verse=16&version=kjv#16) And Isaiah said unto Hezekiah, Hear the word of the LORD.

2Ki 20:17 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=2Ki&chapter=20&verse=17&version=kjv#17) Behold, the days come, that all that [is] in thine house, and that which thy fathers have laid up in store unto this day, shall be carried into Babylon: nothing shall be left, saith the LORD.

Interestingly, his name means “worshiper of Baal.” The prophesy recorded above is also recorded in Isa. 39, but doesn’t come to pass until Nebchadnezzer who will conquer Judah. Berodachbaladan and Merodach-Baladan are the same person.

The word “proverb” of Isa. 14:4 has a note in the margin of KJV saying it is “taunting speech.” I checked this with Thayer’s lexicon and it says this particular use of “proverb” is “derisive.” In general, a proverb is a truth, prophesy, or parable. So, if this is correct, we have God directing Isaiah to tell the current king of Babylon something that is a bit enigmatic, and possibly sarcastic, and certainly letting him know he won’t carry out his desire to conquer Judah. He was an indirect agent to Nebchadnezzer because he tricked Hezekiah into showing him the wealth of Judah.

Isa 14:5 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=Isa&chapter=14&verse=5&version=kjv#5) The LORD hath broken the staff of the wicked, [and] the sceptre of the rulers.

Note it is rulers plural. This is still future.

Isa 14:6 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=Isa&chapter=14&verse=6&version=kjv#6) He who smote the people in wrath with a continual stroke, he that ruled the nations in anger, is persecuted, [and] none hindereth.

This has to be satan. It is nations plural.

Isa 14:7 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=Isa&chapter=14&verse=7&version=kjv#7) The whole earth is at rest, [and] is quiet: they break forth into singing.

This is still future.

Isa 14:8 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=Isa&chapter=14&verse=8&version=kjv#8) Yea, the fir trees rejoice at thee, [and] the cedars of Lebanon, [saying], Since thou art laid down, no feller is come up against us.

Isa 14:9 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=Isa&chapter=14&verse=9&version=kjv#9) Hell from beneath is moved for thee to meet [thee] at thy coming: it stirreth up the dead for thee, [even] all the chief ones of the earth; it hath raised up from their thrones all the kings of the nations.

Where satan and his friends will end up.

Isa 14:10 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=Isa&chapter=14&verse=10&version=kjv#10) All they shall speak and say unto thee, Art thou also become weak as we? art thou become like unto us?

Isa 14:11 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=Isa&chapter=14&verse=11&version=kjv#11)Thy pomp is brought down to the grave, [and] the noise of thy viols: the worm is spread under thee, and the worms cover thee.

This entire section seems to go back and forth with some things applying more to people and others more applying to satan. At this point, ask yourself the question: where does oppression and evil come from? Is it not satan mostly by way of people who serve him?

Mat 16:23 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=Mat&chapter=16&verse=23&version=kjv#23) But he (Jesus) turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.

Luk 22:3 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=Luk&chapter=22&verse=3&version=kjv#3) Then entered Satan into Judas surnamed Iscariot, being of the number of the twelve.

Luk 22:4 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=Luk&chapter=22&verse=4&version=kjv#4) And he went his way, and communed with the chief priests and captains, how he might betray him unto them.

The big point of the Matt. reference is when Jesus confronted Peter, he said “get thee behind me, Satan.” The thoughts came from satan, but were verbalized by Peter, so that satan’s will was present in Peter’s thoughts. Sobering considering Peter was one of the twelve disciples…I am wondering if this is the same situation here in Isa. 14.

Isa 14:12 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=Isa&chapter=14&verse=12&version=kjv#12) How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! [how] art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!

First off, the phrase, “fallen from heaven” gets my attention. To understand “fallen from heaven” we need to consider time. As of the book of Job, satan still had access to heaven and God. This was still true during the time of Jesus.

Luk 10:17 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=Luk&chapter=10&verse=17&version=kjv#17) And the seventy returned again with joy, saying, Lord, even the devils are subject unto us through thy name.

Luk 10:18 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=Luk&chapter=10&verse=18&version=kjv#18) And he (Jesus) said unto them, I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven.

Revelation 12 records that there will be a war in heaven and satan and 1/3 of the angels will be cast down to the earth and will no longer have access to heaven or the throne of God. It seems clear to me the “fallen from heaven” is future. The Bible does not indicate a man “falls from heaven” so it really does have to be satan. After this in chapter 13 is the description of the antichrist coming into power.

Isa 14:13 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=Isa&chapter=14&verse=13&version=kjv#13) For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north:

Isa 14:14 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=Isa&chapter=14&verse=14&version=kjv#14) I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High.

Isa 14:15 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=Isa&chapter=14&verse=15&version=kjv#15) Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit.

The word “for” indicates reason. “I will ascend into heaven” makes sense if you understand that at this point in time of the end times, satan has been cast out of heaven. “I will be like the most High”: consider the following…

2Th 2:3 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=2Th&chapter=2&verse=3&version=kjv#3) Let no man deceive you by any means: for [that day shall not come], except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;

2Th 2:4 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=2Th&chapter=2&verse=4&version=kjv#4) Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.

2Th 2:8 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=2Th&chapter=2&verse=8&version=kjv#8) And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming:

2Th 2:9 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=2Th&chapter=2&verse=9&version=kjv#9) [Even him], whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders,

2Th 2:10 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=2Th&chapter=2&verse=10&version=kjv#10) And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.

This antichrist will reflect satan’s desire to “be like the most high God” of Isa. 14. These verses show us a person who has these same thoughts and ambitions.

Isa 14:16 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=Isa&chapter=14&verse=16&version=kjv#16) They that see thee shall narrowly look upon thee, [and] consider thee, [saying, Is] this the man that made the earth to tremble, that did shake kingdoms;

Isa 14:17 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=Isa&chapter=14&verse=17&version=kjv#17) [That] made the world as a wilderness, and destroyed the cities thereof; [that] opened not the house of his prisoners?

This current king of Babylon did not have the power or influence to make the entire world as a wilderness. One Biblical man I know of that will do this is the antichrist.

“This man” obviously didn’t fall from heaven. Satan will. We know that satan is not a literal man, so either this is a contradiction or it is like Jesus saying to Peter get behind me, satan. We know for a fact satan is the source of evil carried out by man. The king clearly had evil intent toward Judah, and a section of Isa. 14 is a confrontation of the king of Assyria. I see entire the chapter as a confrontation of Judah’s physical (influenced by satan) and spiritual (satan himself) enemies, then and future.

We know Jesus is THE MORNING STAR. As, I mentioned earlier, this entire discourse of Isa. 14 was derisive. “Son of the morning” to me equates to satan who can transform himself to an angel of light. It doesn’t mean he is one, but he can take on that appearance. The fact that Lucifer is “morning star” in the Greek may be is not meant to be literal, but in a sarcastic sense. I think that because Lucifer may have lofty ambitions, but they will not come to pass. Sort of like saying, you think you’re some great one, but ummmm…you’re not.

Isa 14:29 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=Isa&chapter=14&verse=29&version=kjv#29) Rejoice not thou, whole Palestina, because the rod of him that smote thee is broken: for out of the serpent's root shall come forth a cockatrice, and his fruit [shall be] a fiery flying serpent.

Jesus is referred to as “the root of Jesse.” The root of the serpent is the antichrist, who will be the 8th king of Babylon according to Rev. 17. I don’t particularly know that some of the verses in Isa. 14 (the Lucifer section) relate to the antichrist, but it makes sense to me.

Is there a verse that specifically states satan will be a king of Babylon? Just reading the above posts, I can also see “morning star” in the sense of a counterfeit.

I’ve been working on this for a week now, and it appears I’ve written a book, lol. Sorry it’s so long… My final conclusion on the matter is for the NIV to translate “Lucifer” as “morning star” is a bit confusing, and kinda obfuscates things.