-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Calvin denied Lucifer is Satan
- Thread starter KJB1611reader
- Start date
- Status
John Calvin would have known the fact that the word lucifer was found in Jerome's Latin Vulgate 3 or 4 times, including one time where it was used in 2 Peter 1:19.
In a sermon, KJV translator Lancelot Andrewes referred to "St Peter's Lucifer in cordibus [daystar in your hearts]" (Hewison, Selected Writings, p. 112). An edition of the Latin Vulgate printed with the 1538 Coverdale’s English translation of its New Testament has “lucifer oriator in cordib” in its Latin text at 2 Peter 1:19 with its rendering in English as “the day star arise in your hearts”. Lancelot Andrewes evidently cited or used the Latin Vulgate’s word Lucifer in his sermon with the meaning “daystar.” Daystar is Old English for morning star.
In a sermon, KJV translator Lancelot Andrewes referred to "St Peter's Lucifer in cordibus [daystar in your hearts]" (Hewison, Selected Writings, p. 112). An edition of the Latin Vulgate printed with the 1538 Coverdale’s English translation of its New Testament has “lucifer oriator in cordib” in its Latin text at 2 Peter 1:19 with its rendering in English as “the day star arise in your hearts”. Lancelot Andrewes evidently cited or used the Latin Vulgate’s word Lucifer in his sermon with the meaning “daystar.” Daystar is Old English for morning star.
Isaiah 14:12 is speaking of the Bablyonian king.
God tells Israel to take up that taunt against the king of Bablyon when He delivers them.
"3 On the day the Lord gives you relief from your suffering and turmoil and from the harsh labor forced on you, 4 you will take up this taunt against the king of Babylon:
How the oppressor has come to an end!
How his fury[a] has ended! . . .
“You also have become weak, as we are;
you have become like us.”
11 All your pomp has been brought down to the grave,
along with the noise of your harps;
maggots are spread out beneath you
and worms cover you.
12 How you have fallen from heaven,
morning star, son of the dawn!
You have been cast down to the earth,
you who once laid low the nations!
13 You said in your heart,
“I will ascend to the heavens;
I will raise my throne
above the stars of God;
I will sit enthroned on the mount of assembly,
on the utmost heights of Mount Zaphon. . .
25 I will crush the Assyrian in my land;
on my mountains I will trample him down.
His yoke will be taken from my people,
and his burden removed from their shoulders.”
Most take the taunt as applying to Satan as well because of the language.
As for the name "Lucifer", nobody believed it was Satan's name until the KJV left the Latin word in its translation. Until then it was a popular name even among Christians.
Could you imagine naming a son "Lucifer" today?
5 point Gillinist
Active Member
Attachments
KJB1611reader
Active Member
No, Lucifer is Satan
This highlights a major issue with the KJV (not the translation itself but using a translation not in the vernacular).
Obviously "Lucifer" is not a name for Satan (even in the KJV). But today people are not versed in Latin (whereas just over a century ago it was commonplace).
Scripture uses the exact same imagery in referring to Jesus. "Lucifer" refers to a high and exalted place (the morning star). I am sure the translators of the KJV knew this, and they were fine using "Lucifer" as Latin was commonly known (it represents the Hebrew name for Venus).
But while the KJV keeping the Latin can't be called an error, and it made sence at the time, it leads to misunderstanding today.
As evidence, consider your misunderstanding that "Lucifer" is a proper name.
Consider the passage is actually a taunt directed at the Bablyonian king.
Is it also an allegory for Satan? I believe so.
But "Lucifer" is not a proper name for Satan, except in modern tradition.
KJB1611reader
Active Member
Well, a translator of the King James Bible wrote in his book about Lucifer and.indirectly saith.he.is.Satan.
Is this possibly the KJV translator to which you refer?
In a sermon, KJV translator Lancelot Andrewes referred to "St Peter's Lucifer in cordibus [daystar in your hearts]" (Hewison, Selected Writings, p. 112).
An edition of the Latin Vulgate printed with the 1538 Coverdale’s English translation of its New Testament has “lucifer oriator in cordib” in its Latin text at 2 Peter 1:19 with its rendering in English as “the day star arise in your hearts”. Lancelot Andrewes evidently cited or used the Latin Vulgate’s word Lucifer in his sermon with the meaning “daystar.” Daystar is Old English for morning star.
I believe the imagery represents Satan. I agree with that part. It is a fall from grace, or a falling from an exalted place or position.
BUT it is not Satan's name no more than it is Jesus' name (Scrioture uses it to refer to Satan and Jesus....it indicates an exhausted position).
You could substitute "Venus", "bright and morning star", or "day star" for "Lucifer". They are synonyms.
The problem with the KJV isn't the translation but the fact it is no longer in the language of today and this leads to some odd conclusions (like "Lucifer" being Satan's name).
The word "Lucifer" did not even exist when Isaiah was written.
The word is helel . In the Jerome Bible it is translated lucifer. It is not a proper name but a word signifying the planet Venus, which is known as the morning star (it is typically the brightest "star", the first ti be visible at night and the last to become obscured).
Now....does it bother me that a "lucifer" myth has come about due to clinging to outdated language? Yes and no.
It bothers me that Christians do not study God's Word enough to comprehend "what is written". While Scripture warns not to fall into believing such foolishness, it is ultimately due to the Believer's laziness and lack of zeal for God's Word.
At the same time it doesn't bother me because it has no impact on one's salvation and it is a sign of warning that that person has failed to study God's Word in a serious manner. The sad part is that such a simple error (and one that is easily avoided) provides a glimpse into the lack of severance one has for Scripture and most likely is an indicator of more serious errors.
KJB1611reader
Active Member
No, Satan's name is Lucifer.
Exactly. You prove my point...that Latin did not even exist when Isaiah was written....the word is helel (lower case, not a name but a description).
If anybody wants to know why I am opposed to insisting on the KJV, this is why.
Not only must one study Scripture but one has to be careful to study how words in an antiquated target language were used.
I have sat through enough sermons erroneously using John 3:16 because the "so" takes on a different idea today.
I have listened to well meaning people describe "Lucifer's" falling based on a taunt God, in Isaiah 14, told the Isralites to shout at the Bablyonian king.
This is NOTHING against the KJV itself. But it is a caution that should one decide to use an antiquated translation they need to be more careful than @KJB1611reader lest ones faith become a mythology.
"So" in John 3:16 means "thusly" or "in this way"
"Lucifer" means "morning star", "Venus", as an exalted position.
This thread proves my concern with the KJV use today. The language is antiquated to the point the translation is no longer understood by many and false conclusions arise from that misunderstanding.
This is why I advocate for translations of God's Word in the language of the target audience.
I have no trouble saying the King of Babylon in his self glorification exactly describes the activities of Satan (called in English "Lucifer" in many contexts, following the KJV) when he fell. Charles Ryrie, as do many theologians and commentators, considered Lucifer ("Morning Star") in this passage to be "an antitype of the previous fall of Satan and a type of the future fall of antichrist" (Charles Ryrie, Basic Theology, 164). Ryrie then goes on to quote famous commentator Delitzsch as saying, "A retrospective glance is now cast at the self-deification of the king of Babylon, in which he was the antitype of the devil and the type of antichrist (Dan_11:36; 2Th_2:4), and which had met with its reward."
Last edited:
KJB1611reader
Active Member
Well, maybe but I am sure there are sources rebuking this.
KJB1611reader
Active Member
KJB1611reader
Active Member
There are no legitimate sources rebuking that.
It has been well known prior to the KJV carrying it over.
We have the source Hebrew word, the Latin translation used by the KJV, and the KJV itself.
You have to remember that for centuries after the KJV was written people learned Latin.
Over time (helped with mystics and movies) "Lucifer" became a proper name just as "Nimrod" became a word meaning "stupid".
People just never bothered to study the KJV as a translation, what the words meant when translated, etc. They just care about what Scripture means to them (often via tradition) rather than what Scripture actually means.
Here is another interesting example.
The Early Church believed in the Ransom Theory. Most theologians took this as Jesus dying as a ransom for us - not a ransom paid to anybody. Many personified sin and death and described a ransom paid to death (as the wages of sin). But in sermons sin and death was often personified as "Satan". By the middle ages the laity assumed this meant God paid a ransom to Satan (which is incorrect theology).
Time divorced the regular church member from the original intent and people adopted sort of a myth.
The same is true of "venus", "morning star", or "lucifer" (hêlêl) being a proper name for Satan.
It is interesting that this myth arose only after the KJV and after most stopped learning Latin. It arose from ignorance, but persists.
KJB1611reader
Active Member
.
Alan Dale Gross
Active Member
Yes, he does. The King of Babylon is the Interpretation about who, in actual time and space, is being addressed, the way the hearers of the Word would have understood it to mean, at that time. Then, with all the parallels which are reminiscent of Satan, we have the King as 'the antitype of the devil, as John of Japan quotes Ryrie on, below. To refer this to Satan would simply be an Application based on the activities of the King, in Typology.
Every modern reference has added all that in for some reason. Somebody wanted to pretend they were synonyms.
I see that in every modern publication I've come across; however, I can't see it in other august and venerable older reference materials.
I see it as a trick of Satan to diminish Jesus, with Whom the term "morning star" is associated elsewhere in the Bible.
I like what Ryrie says here. The King of Babylon is the primary and only actual 'INTERPRETATION'.
Once we have the 'INTERPRETATION', it then may have another 'APPLICATION', as John of Japan shows us in this case;
"the king of Babylon, in which he was the antitype of the devil and the type of antichrist (Dan_11:36; 2Th_2:4), and which had met with its reward." (In both cases, the King and Satan.)
...
"In the King James Bible, Isaiah 14:12, 15 reads:
"How are thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning!
... Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell."
"However, the New International Version pens:
"How you have fallen from heaven O morning star, son of the dawn
... but you are brought down to the grave."
"Indeed, the New American Standard and all the modern versions read almost
exactly like the NIV (except the NKJV). Yet historically Isaiah 14 has been cited
throughout the Church as the singular biography and identification of Lucifer
[G.A. Riplinger, New Age Bible Versions, (Munroe Falls, OH: A.V. Publications,
1993), pp. 40–55]. In verse twelve of the King James, Lucifer is in heaven; in
verse fifteen Satan is in hell, and the continuing context establishes that Lucifer
and Satan are one and the same being. The new versions have removed the name
"Lucifer" thereby eliminating the only reference to his true identity in the entire
Bible – yet the change in these versions is not the result of translation from the
Hebrew language.
"The Hebrew here is helel, ben shachar (rx;v'-!B, lleyhe), which translates "Lucifer,
son of the morning" (as is found in all the old English translations written before
1611 when the KJB was published). The NIV, NASB et al. read as though the
Hebrew was kokab shachar, ben shachar or "morning star, son of the dawn" (or
"son of the morning"). But not only is the Hebrew word for star (bk'AK – kokab)
nowhere to be found in the text, "morning" appears only once as given in the KJB
– not twice as the modern versions indicate.
"Moreover, the word kokab is translated as "star" dozens of other times by the
translators of these new "bibles". Their editors also know that kokab boqer (rq,bo
bk'AK) is "morning star" for it appears in plural form at Job 38:7 (i.e., morning
stars). Had the Lord intended "morning star" in Isaiah 14, He could have
eliminated any confusion by repeating kokab boqer (rq,bo bk'AK) there. God's
selection of helel (lleyhe, Hebrew for Lucifer) is unique as it appears nowhere else
in the Old Testament.
"Moreover, Revelation 22:16 (also 2:28 and II Pet.1:19) declares unequivocally that
Jesus Christ is the "morning star" or "day star" (II Pet. 1:19, cp. Luk. 1:78; Mal.
4:2), meaning the sun – not the planet Venus.
I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the
churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and
morning star.
"Thus it must be understood that the identification of Lucifer as being the morning
star does not find its roots in the Hebrew O.T., but from classical mythology and
witchcraft where he is connected with the planet Venus (the morning "star").
"The wording in the modern versions reads such that it appears the fall recorded
in Isaiah 14 is speaking of Jesus rather than Lucifer the Devil! The rendering of
"morning star" in place of "Lucifer" in this passage must be seen by the Church as
nothing less than the ultimate blasphemy.
"The NASV compounds its role as malefactor by placing II Peter 1:19
in the reference next to Isaiah 14 thereby solidifying the impression
that the passage refers to Christ Jesus rather than Satan.
"But Lucifer (helel) does not mean 'morning star'. It is Latin (from lux or
lucis = light, plus fero = to bring) meaning "bright one", "light bearer" or "light
bringer". Due to the brightness of the planet Venus, from ancient times the word
"Lucifer" has been associated in secular and/or pagan works with that heavenly
body.
"Furthermore, c.207 AD [nearly 200 years before Jerome translated helel (lleyhe) as
"Lucifer" in his Latin Vulgate], Tertullian, the founder of Latin Christianity,
undeniably understood Isaiah 14:12–15 and Ezekiel 28:11–17 in the light of Luke
10:18 as applying to the fall of Satan [Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. III, Roberts and
Donaldson, eds., (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1980 rpt.), "Against
Marcion", Bk. II, ch. x, p. 306, cp. Bk. V, ch. xi, p. 454 and ch. xvii, p. 466].
"Also writing in his De Principiis around 200 years before Jerome, Origen (c.185–c.254)
clearly and undeniably applied the fall of Satan in Luke 10:18 to that of Lucifer's
in Isaiah 14 [Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. IV, (1982 rpt.), Bk. I, ch. v, para. 5, p. 259.]
"Among the modern versions, only the King James (and NKJV) gives proof that
Lucifer is Satan. Without its testimony, this central vital truth would soon be
lost. This fact alone sets the King James Bible apart from and far above all
modern would-be rivals. Truly, it is an achievement sui generis.
"Indeed, the older English versions (the 1560 Geneva etc.) also read "Lucifer".
"The clarion has been faithfully and clearly sounded (I Cor.14:8). If the reader is
not greatly alarmed by the above, it is pointless for him to continue reading.
"However, if concern has been aroused as to how this deception has been foisted
not only upon the Christian Church, but on the general public as well – read on.
"The story lies before you."
"Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away", Mark 13:31.
From: "WHICH VERSION IS THE BIBLE?" (.pdf), by FLOYD NOLEN JONES, Th.D., Ph.D.
Older reference materials show that they were and are synonyms.
At the end of Isaiah 14, the 1549 edition of Matthew’s Bible has some notes that include these words: “Lucifer, the morning star, which he calleth the child of the morning, because it appeared only in the morning.” The marginal note in the 1560 and 1599 editions of the Geneva Bible for this word included the following: "for the morning star that goeth before the sun is called Lucifer." These two notes from two pre-1611 English Bibles that are on the KJV-only view’s line of good Bibles provide clear credible evidence concerning the meaning of the word "Lucifer" in English in the 1500's. The 1657 English translation of the 1637 Dutch States-General Version and Dutch Annotations also indicated this meaning with its rendering "O morning-star" at Isaiah 14:12. The 1534 Luther’s German Bible, which is on the KJV-only line of good Bibles, has “morgen stern” [morning star] at Isaiah 14:12.
What did the KJV translators themselves mean by the choice of the word "Lucifer" in Isaiah 14:12? The 1611 KJV gives in its margin the literal meaning or acceptable alternative translation for "Lucifer" as "daystar." The KJV translators were aware of the marginal note in the Geneva Bible, and they would have recognized that their marginal note at this verse would have associated this meaning “daystar” or “morning star” with this rendering “Lucifer.“
In a sermon, KJV translator Lancelot Andrewes referred to "St Peter's Lucifer in cordibus [daystar in your hearts]" (Hewison, Selected Writings, p. 112). An edition of the Latin Vulgate printed with the 1538 Coverdale’s English translation of its New Testament has “lucifer oriator in cordib” in its Latin text at 2 Peter 1:19 with its rendering in English as “the day star arise in your hearts”. Lancelot Andrewes evidently cited or used the Latin Vulgate’s word Lucifer in his sermon with the meaning “daystar.” Daystar is Old English for morning star.
The 1828 Webster's Dictionary defined daystar as following: "The morning star, Lucifer, Venus; the star which precedes the morning light." In her 1997-1998 catalogue, Riplinger claimed that the 1828 Webster's Dictionary "defines words as they were used during the writing of the KJV 1611." The 1992 Roget's International Thesaurus listed as synonyms: "morning star, day star, Lucifer, Phosphor, Phosphorus" (p. 757). Rodale’s Synonym Finder listed the following as synonyms for morning star: “daystar, bright planet; Venus, Lucifer, Phosphor, Phosphorus” (p. 750).
The 1968 Cassell's New Latin Dictionary indicated that the Latin word "lucifer" comes from two root words meaning "light-bearing, light-bringing" and that it would be translated into English as "Lucifer, the morning star, the planet Venus." According to the English-Latin section of this dictionary, the translation of "morning-star" in English is given as "lucifer" in Latin. The Oxford Latin Dictionary gave two definitions for lucifer: “light-bringing, light-bearing” and “the morning star” (p. 1045). The Oxford Dictionary of Word Histories affirmed that Lucifer is “a Latin word originally, meaning ’light-bringing, morning star” (p. 309). At its entry for day-star, John White listed “lucifer” as its meaning in Latin (Latin-English Dictionary, p. 100). For Lucifer, this definition is given: “the morning-star, the planet Venus” (p. 355).
Ancient Near Eastern ideology likened rulers to heavenly bodies. The taunt was mocking Nebuchadnezzar II, likening hum to the morning star (to Venus) and saying that God would bring him down to Sheol.
"Lucifer" is a mistranslation as it carties over a Latan eord for the "morning star" into English (there is absolutely no readon to use Latin in an Englisg translation of Hebrew text).
The KJVO people cannot grasp why it was a mistake to include Larin in Isaiah and have created a myth that other translations are "satanic" for remaining more faithful to the Hebrew text. "Morning star", "Venus", "Day star" are legitimate English translations of the Hebrew. "Lucifer" is not.
The passage is not about Satan at all. But Nebuchadnezzar II (as the Pharoah in Exodus) can be viewed as types to indicate Satan.
- Status