I prefer a tablet. I like that I can take endless notes and get them with a "click".
But most of the time I am in my phone. I can still take and get notes, but its harder to read.
-
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
But most of the time I am in my phone. I can still take and get notes, but its harder to read.
KJB1611reader
Active Member
I don't have that convenice.
No, this is very true.
In Hebrew helel is referring to the morning star and the taunt designed to illustrate how far the king would be brought down.
In the Vulgate "Lucifer" was not taken as Satsn's name ("Lucifer" was actually a popular Christian name).
The confusion set in with the KJV translators keeping the Latin and uneducated people mistaking it for a proper name.
Your denial of facts and of history do not make those facts or the history less true. It only demonstrates a failure to actually study God's Word.
KJB1611reader
Active Member
I don't need so many bibles... even here, people only use one version. The Union version.
Don't have a phone?
KJB1611reader
Active Member
So, the translator of the kjb in Isaiah in his book was 'mistaken?'
Luther said it was wrong to think it was Satan...so there must be some who did believe it before him.
KJB1611reader
Active Member
I do have a phone. I am saying I don't have a tablet.
Some people may use only one translation. I don't. I use the NASB, the Greek text (I took Greek in seminary), the NIV, the KJV, the ESV....etc.
It is important if you seriously study Scripture because what we have in English are translations.
I don't think so. Like I said, I (like many) view this as a "dual passage".
Was the Passover account about God delivering Israel from Egypt or about Christ? The answer is both. One can speak of the Exodus using the Passover, but one can also speak of Jesus.
The kjv translator did not say that "Lucifer" is Satan's name. But had he believed that he probably shouldn't have been working on that translation because they relied so much on the Latin.
Ah....I gotcha.
KJB1611reader
Active Member
Well, he identified him as Satan. Why shouldn't he be working on it? Do even know who he is?
Dave G
Well-Known Member
According to Isaiah, the passage is interweaving the condemnation of both Satan ( Lucifer ) and the king of "Babylon".
Are you following along carefully, my friend?
Please read the entire chapter again, sir.
KJB1611reader
Active Member
It said son of the morning....
I have read it numerous times. I believe, as I stated, that it is speaking directly of the king and indirectly of Satan.
My point is that "Lucifer" is not, per Scripture, Satan's name.
I get the mythology. But the mythology is wrong (just as it is wrong that the good guys fight to stop the Second Comming).
In the Bible that passage is a taunt to the king, speaking of how low God is bringing him
It can also apply to Satan.
But Satan's proper name us not "bright and morning star" in Latin.
No. It says "הֵילֵל".
How many of those 'characters' fills this bill?:
Ezekiel Chapter 28
13 | Thou wast in Eden, the garden of God; every precious stone was thy covering, the sardius, the topaz, and the diamond, the beryl, the onyx, and the jasper, the sapphire, the emerald, and the carbuncle, and gold: the workmanship of thy tabrets and of thy pipes was in thee; in the day that thou wast created they were prepared. |
14 | Thou wast the anointed cherub that covereth: and I set thee, so that thou wast upon the holy mountain of God; thou hast walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire. |
15 | Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till unrighteousness was found in thee. |
16 | By the abundance of thy traffic they filled the midst of thee with violence, and thou hast sinned: therefore have I cast thee as profane out of the mountain of God; and I have destroyed thee, O covering cherub, from the midst of the stones of fire. |
He was speaking BEYOND the 'king of Tyre' to:
Ephesians Chapter 6
12 | For our wrestling is not against flesh and blood, but against the principalities, against the powers, against the world-rulers of this darkness, against the spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places. |
In the very same vein as:
Daniel Chapter 10
13 | But the prince of the kingdom of Persia withstood me one and twenty days; but, lo, Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me: and I remained there with the kings of Persia. |
20 | Then said he, Knowest thou wherefore I am come unto thee? and now will I return to fight with the prince of Persia: and when I go forth, lo, the prince of Greece shall come. |
It was a taunt to the king. Why would the taunt be to Satan about what had already occurred?
I think it was both, just like the Exodus was about God delivering Israel from Egypt AND Christ.
Id say it was to and beyond.
KJB1611reader
Active Member
So, why can't Isaiah be Lucifer too?
Dave G
Well-Known Member
In the Hebrew, which is what most of the "Old Testament" was written in, it is "helel" (הֵילֵל ) ...
Which has several meanings;
In the Latin, it is rendered as "Lucifer".
It means "lightbringer", or "son of the morning"...which is what the Lord created him to be.
In any case, the one who fell from Heaven, the one who ( in his arrogance ) claimed to want to be like the most High, was "Satan" ( which means "adversary" ).
..and whoever is being spoken of in Isaiah 14 here:
" 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."
...To me is indeed the very same person who led a revolt in Heaven and took 1/3rd of the angels with him when he was cast out.
The reference of "Lucifer", right or wrong, is who I know to be Satan... it certainly isn't the Lord Jesus, nor is it any earthly king.
Regardless, it seems that we disagree... and it seems that we will have to stop there.
I'm not going to argue with you, Jon.
Last edited:
?
Isaiah was a prophet. הֵילֵל referred to the king and I believe to Satan as well.
In ANE tradition the kings likened themselves to heavenly bodies. The taunt ridiculous the king by likening him to the morning star and saying how far he has fallen.
I believe this also speaks of Satan, that he aspired to ascend to the Most High and was cast out.
My point is that הֵילֵל is not a name for Satan.
Likewise, "morning star" is not the name of Jesus.
- Status