Should the Bible say "Lucifer" or "morning star" in Isaiah 14:12? A Plain, Straightforward Bible Treatment of "LUCIFER" in Isaiah 14:12.

From "Answers To Your Bible Version Questions"© 2002 by David W. Daniels.

"Question: Should the Bible say "Lucifer" or "morning star" in Isaiah 14:12? And does it refer to Satan?

"Answer: The King James Bible is correct. Although "Lucifer" is the Latin version of the name,
the passage is talking about Satan, not a mere Babylonian king.

"Light-Bearer or Morning Star?"

"Throughout the world, if you ask people who "Heyleel" (hey-LEYL) is, most will not know what to answer.
But if you ask them, "Who is Lucifer?" you will very likely get the correct answer. People know who Lucifer is.
Ask the Luciferians, who worship Lucifer as a being of light. Ask the Satanists, who call their master Lucifer.
No one is in doubt as to who Lucifer is.

"What if you ask them, "Who is the morning star?" or "Who is the day star?"
Most will know it’s Jesus. Look at these scriptures:

2 Peter 1:19: "We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:"

Revelation 22:16: "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."

Click to expand...

"Any translation that says "day star" or "morning star" or "star of the morning" in Isaiah 14:12,
like most modern p---------s, is bringing confusion. And God is not the author of confusion (1 Corinthians 14:33).
Many people reading the modern p---------s end up asking,
"If Lucifer is the morning star and Jesus is the morning star, then is Lucifer Jesus?"
The modern translations are simply not clear!

"That is not all. The term translated "Lucifer" does NOT at all mean "morning star" or "star of the morning."
That would be two totally different Hebrew words.
The word means "light-bearer." In Greek it's "heosphoros," "light-bearer." In Latin it's translated "Lucifer," light-bearer.
Whether you say "heylel," "heosphoros" or "lucifer," the meaning is the same: "light-bearer."
But only Lucifer communicates who we are talking about in English.

"And not only English uses the term. Look at these ancient translations of the word. They also use some form of "Lucifer."



"Going Deeper: the Example of Ezekiel

"There is evidence that God is speaking through his prophet to someone other than the king, even though it starts out to that person.
Ezekiel 28 is an excellent example. It begins by talking about a human being ruling as king of Tyrus (Tyre).
Then the scene shifts and the devil behind the leader starts to take focus:

"First God addresses the king, called the "prince of Tyrus":

Ezekiel 28:1-2: "The word of the LORD came again unto me, saying, 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"

Click to expand...

"Then to the devil behind the prince, called the "king of Tyrus"
(note the more specific references that have nothing to do with the location or time of Tyre):

Ezekiel 28:11-17: "Moreover the word of the LORD came unto me, saying, 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. Thou hast been in Eden the garden of God; every precious stone was thy covering, the sardius, 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 prepared in thee in the day that thou wast created. 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. Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee. By the multitude of thy merchandise they have filled the midst of thee with violence, and thou hast sinned: therefore I will cast thee as profane out of the mountain of God: and I will destroy thee, O covering cherub, from the midst of the stones of fire. 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."

Click to expand...

"There was no one in Tyre that was in Eden or the mountain of God. No one there was a cherub (a type of angel).
No one there was "created."
This is Satan, Lucifer, the serpent, the dragon, the devil. I'm sure he recognizes those names for him by now!
Satan/Lucifer/the serpent/the dragon/a cherub/ an angel.
"He was created, since angels were created, not born. Humans were born after Adam and Eve, not created.
"He was in the garden of God, Eden. He was the "covering cherub." He was "bright" as an angel of light (see also 2 Corinthians 11:14)

"Now let's look back at Isaiah 14. Isaiah also begins talking to the physical king of Babylon, then afterward to the spirit behind him.

"It starts out to the king:

Isaiah 14:4-8: "…thou shalt take up this proverb against the king of Babylon, and say, How hath the oppressor ceased! the golden city ceased! The LORD hath broken the staff of the wicked, and the sceptre of the rulers. He who smote the people in wrath with a continual stroke, he that ruled the nations in anger, is persecuted, and none hindereth. The whole earth is at rest, and is quiet: they break forth into singing. 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"

Click to expand...

"Then it changes in tone:

Isaiah 14:12-15: "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! 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: I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High. Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit."

Click to expand...

"The scriptures tell us who this is. Jesus said:

Luke 10:18-20: "And he said unto them, I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven. Behold, I give unto you power to tread on serpents and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy: and nothing shall by any means hurt you. Notwithstanding in this rejoice not, that the spirits are subject unto you; but rather rejoice, because your names are written in heaven."

Click to expand...

"Revelation also leaves no doubt as to who fell from heaven:

Revelation 12:7-12: "And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels, And prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in heaven. And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him. And I heard a loud voice saying in heaven, Now is come salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of his Christ: for the accuser of our brethren is cast down, which accused them before our God day and night. And they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of their testimony; and they loved not their lives unto the death. Therefore rejoice, ye heavens, and ye that dwell in them. Woe to the inhabiters of the earth and of the sea! for the devil is come down unto you, having great wrath, because he knoweth that he hath but a short time."

Click to expand...

"So we know that the only ones in the Bible who fell from heaven are the Devil and his angels.
These are the ones for whom "everlasting fire," the lake of fire, was made:

Matthew 25:41:"Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:"
Revelation 20:10: "And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever."

Click to expand...

"The King James Bible is right, however we view it.
"Even if we pretend the scripture is only talking to the earthly king, it still is clearly talking about Satan, the Devil, known worldwide as Lucifer."

Alan Dale Gross said:

"Any translation that says "day star" or "morning star" or "star of the morning" in Isaiah 14:12,
like most modern p---------s, is bringing confusion. And God is not the author of confusion (1 Corinthians 14:33).
Many people reading the modern p---------s end up asking,
"If Lucifer is the morning star and Jesus is the morning star, then is Lucifer Jesus?"
The modern translations are simply not clear!

Click to expand...

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).

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. A 1672 edition of the KJV has the following note at Isaiah 14:12: “for the morning-star that goeth before the sun is called Lucifer.”

The preponderance of evidence shows that the renderings "Lucifer," "daystar," and "morning star" were used as synonyms in the 1500's and 1600's so that any arguments which can be validly used again the rendering "morning star" in this verse would also apply to the rendering "Lucifer."

If KJV-only advocates are concerned about any possible confusion caused by either the rendering "Lucifer" or its synonym "morning star," they could consider another possible rendering.

Several Bible scholars think that a better literal, accurate translation of the Hebrew Helel is "shining one" or perhaps "shining star" with star implied. For example, G. Rawlinson stated: "The word translated 'Lucifer' means properly 'shining one,' and no doubt here designates a star" (Pulpit Commentary, X, p. 245). Hasting’s Dictionary of the Bible defined the Hebrew word Helel as the “shining one” (III, p. 159).

In a note at Isaiah 14:12 in his reference Bible, Peter Ruckman acknowledged that Lucifer “is a translation of a Hebrew word meaning ‘the shining one’” (p. 931). KJV-only author Kirk DiVietro himself acknowledged that a literal meaning of the Hebrew word was "shining thing" (Anything But the KJB, p. 46). KJV-only author D. A. Waite wrote: "If you look up helel, the masculine noun, you see the meaning is 'the shining one'" (Foes, p. 56). He added: “’Shining one’ is certainly a good translation” (p. 56). In his commentary Understanding the Bible, David Sorenson, a KJV-only author, asserted that the Hebrew word “has the sense of a ‘shining one,‘ or ‘light bearer,‘ or even ‘morning star’” (p. 428). In David Cloud’s Concise KJB Dictionary, this definition of the Hebrew word “shining one” is listed as the definition for “Lucifer” (p. 57).

The Criswell Study Bible affirmed that the Hebrew word helel “means ‘shining one’” (p. 794). The 2002 Zondervan KJV Study Bible also maintained that “the Hebrew for ‘Lucifer’ is literally ‘shining one’” (p. 975).

At least five English Bible translations use "O shining one" at Isaiah 14:12 (Young's Literal Translation, Rotherham's The Emphasized Bible, 1912 Improved Edition, and Tanakh--the 1985 English translation of the Masoretic Text by Jews, 2020 Literal Standard Version). The Literal Translation by Jay Green and the Modern King James Version have "O shining star" at this verse. This would be one possible answer to the claimed problem.

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).

"Scripture itself is the final judge; we may not go beyond what is written and with the Spirit's decision in Scripture, we are to be content.
Luther summed up the difference between the Reformation and the Renaissance nicely when he said once to the great scholar Erasmus;

"The difference between you and me, Erasmus, is that you sit above the Scripture and judge it, while I sit under Scripture and let it judge me.

"Rev. J. Rogers (North Shore)", from: How Do We Interpret The Bible?
...
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."

The Hebrew here is helel, ben shachar (rx;v'-!B, lleyhe), which translates "Lucifer, son of the morning"
(as is found in most 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.

The King of Babylon is a Figure of speech Polyonymia . One of the names for the Antichrist. See note on Daniel 7:8 .

Isaiah 14:4. -The Antichrist is called “the King of Babylon,” because he is the end and final outcome of Babel.

Polyonymia; or, Many Names An Application of AEnigma to the Names of Persons or Places

Pol´-y-ô-nym´-i-a . Greek, πολυωνυμία having many names, or more than one name: from πολύς (polys), many, and ὄνομα (onoma), a name.

Lucifer = Worshipped by the Assyrians as male at sunrise, female at sunset. The name of Satan.
...

"If Lucifer is the morning star and Jesus is the morning star, then is Lucifer Jesus?"

Logos1560 said:

What did the KJV translators themselves mean by the choice of the word "Lucifer" in Isaiah 14:12?

Click to expand...

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.

THAT IS CRAZY TO DO.

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, WITHOUT THAT BEING THE MEANING OF THE WORD.

The older references I was referring to start with 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.]

The Isaiah citation is a proper name, Heillel. You have to read with the ta'amim to see it. The Mecha on the words איך and נפלת
indicate that they are forming a phrase with the final word משמים which carries a Tafcha. "How did you fall from Heaven".

The Mounach on הילל indicates that it is associated with the words which follow it.
בן-שחר is considered a single word because of the Makaf and the phrase stops there because of the Reviah over the word שחר.

In other words, Heilel ben-Shachar.
The sentence then continues with נגדעת meaning you are (involuntarily) chipped off to the earth. You were caused to fall.

Would it have arguably been more accurate to transliterate the Hebrew word הֵילֵל as Heilel?

Perhaps. But using the name Lucifer did two things at once: readers would understand it as a name,
while also understanding the semantic link between the name and the concept of 'light', due to the many other words in the lux word family. Transliterating הֵילֵל directly would have completely obscured the meaning of the name.

Names are always tough to translate. Many of our current forms are two or three steps removed from the Bible.
Every name could be transliterated directly, but that would mean that almost none of the Biblical characters' names would be recognisable!

When it comes to names, accessibility is usually judged to trump accuracy. No one bats an eyelid
at translations which say Xerxes rather than Ahasuerus, and no common English translation uses Jacob rather than James!

The reason modern translations don't say Lucifer in Isaiah 14:12 isn't because it's a Latin name,
but because it's no longer thought of as a proper noun.

If the proper noun interpretation was more dominant, then I'd not doubt at all that our translations would still use Lucifer rather than Heilel!

The vulgate line is

quomodo cecidisti de caelo lucifer qui mane oriebaris corruisti in vulnerabas gentes

"Lucifer" is used, of course, in Bible translations even before the King James Version (circa 1611).

The Geneva Bible uses it (circa 1587), as does the Great Bible (circa 1541),

and the Coverdale Bible (circa 1535).

As guessed, “Lucifer” is the easy translation of ἑωσφόρος.

So it appears many subsequent translations kept the Vulgate's "Lucifer" for the Hebrew הֵילֵל (hêylêl).

(Note: the following view is pure speculation on my part.)

I would imagine that the translators kept the word "Lucifer"

because they believed that the passage was in fact referencing Satan and his original sin (pride).

Others also see a reference to Satan in Ezekiel's lament for the king of Tyre in Ezekiel 28:11-19.

……………..

Logos1560 said:

The 1611 KJV gives in its margin the literal meaning or acceptable alternative translation for "Lucifer" as "daystar."

Click to expand...

There is a leap there, inspired by the influences of Mythology outside the Bible and I happen to believe that was a wrong uninspired stretch.

Logos1560 said:

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.“

Click to expand...

Actually, a lot of the KJV was based on the Geneva Bible and this is the more probable reason for keeping it.

The book of Isaiah has two sources the Greek Septuagint and the Hebrew texts.

For the King James they used the Greek source which listed Eosphorus.

In Latin that equates to phos= light and phoros=bringer and becomes Lux Light Ferre Bringer Lucifer.

The story that Isaiah sends to taunt the Babylonian king is an allegory/wives' tale that was well known at the time.
It concerns El. El had two sons, Shaher the Daystar and Shalim the Evening star. El, Elyon, originates from the Canaanite region.

They viewed the planet Venus as the morningstar/daystar which was El's son Shaher.
El's wife was Astarte who was also represented by the planet Venus.

In the Hebrew we find Helel ben Shaher ( KJV: day(-spring), early, light, morning, whence riseth (?)
NASB: dawn, daybreak, morning, charm away, dawning of the day, (?) son of El).

So either way, if you go by the Greek or the Hebrew it leads to the allegorical characters Shaher, El
(meaning god or Elyon meaning most high god), and Astarte also represented by the Planet Venus which was Aphrodite to the Greeks,

It is Astarte who was represented by the Planet Venus.

Inanna to the Sumerians, Venus to the Romans.

And if you're going with a Canaanite allegory concerning El Elyon then you're probably also aware of the stories of Ba'al Hadad
and the Ugaritic mythology and all their stories.

So it's clear that the author of Isaiah is sending a messenger to taunt the cruel King of Babylon
and compare him to the old allegories/myths of the fall of the Shaher
meaning day(-spring), early, light, morning, whence riseth (?)
or dawn, daybreak, charm away, dawning of the day, (?) son of El).
and El (meaning god or Elyon meaning most high god

In those myths Shaher attempts to set his throne higher than his father's and take his power by seducing El's wife,
which is his own mother and can be represented also as an abyss of nothingness.

Elyon catches them in the act and hurls Shaher down into the pit of his wife and all the stars in the sky follow suite.

El Elyon, the sun, then rules the sky. This act fertilizes the abyss (Astarte being a fertility/love goddess) and brings forth the dawn of a new day.

It's comparable to the Horus/Set battles in which day battles night battles day, etc.

Such stories were a way of explaining to the young when they asked,

"Where do the stars go in the daytime?"

It would have been a well-known allegory at the time,
one in which the Babylonian King would recognize, informing him instantly that his "howling" mad
and insane levels of pride are going to be his downfall just as they were for Shaher.

So either way, Hebrew text or Septuagint Greek the interpretation is valid interpreted as "Lucifer."

Logos1560 said:

The preponderance of evidence shows that the renderings "Lucifer," "daystar," and "morning star" were used as synonyms in the 1500's and 1600's so that any arguments which can be validly used again the rendering "morning star" in this verse would also apply to the rendering "Lucifer."

Click to expand...

FOR MY TASTE, 'according to me', I go all in and attribute the addition of "morning star" to be associated with the text which has no "star" in it,
to it having taken Satan 1500 years to sell that altered miscue, entirely for his benefit. That's where I'm at with that.

Logos1560 said:

synonyms for morning star: “daystar, bright planet; Venus, Lucifer, Phosphor, Phosphorus”

Click to expand...

I can go without any of what I see as man's carnal thinking,
which includes the idea from the Mythological influences, i.e., Venus, planet, daystar, for no better reason than that they are myths.

Logos1560 said:

synonyms: "morning star, day star, Lucifer, Phosphor, Phosphorus"

Click to expand...

Again, I can't make 'a light bearer', day(-spring), early, light, morning, whence riseth, or dawn, daybreak, charm away, dawning of the day,
into a celestial body, apart from simply, casually making up a new extra-Biblical definition, like by fiat, without Biblical precedence, or succession, as we see present in the translations from the proper process of comparison and holding to the principles of preservation.

I leave Jesus the Morning Star in the Bible, not adding Satan, or anyone else to be one, too, and go ahead and allow the King James translators the well-earned license to render their educated insight into the identity of "Lucifer", as "Lucifer". It's just honest-to-God translation.

Alan Dale Gross said:

I can go without any of what I see as man's carnal thinking,
which includes the idea from the Mythological influences, i.e., Venus, planet, daystar, for no better reason than that they are myths.

Click to expand...

The historical facts concerning synonyms are not "man's carnal thinking" and are not myths.

Does KJV-only reasoning seem to display use of carnal smear tactics in its misleading and unjust accusations against the word of God translated into present standard English? Do you attempt to act as a judge over the word of God translated into present standard English?

Modern, human KJV-only reasoning is not a doctrine of God taught in Scripture. Are any false claims and fallacies involved in typical modern human KJV-only reasoning/teaching?

The Latin rendering lucifer may be found in Jerome's Latin Vulgate 4 times (Job 11:17, Job 38:32, Isaiah 14:12, 2 Peter 1:19).

The 1395 edition of the Wycliffe Bible had “Lucifer” more than once since it was also used at Job 38:32: “Whether thou bringest forth Lucifer, that is, day star, in his time, and makest evening star to rise on the sons of earth.“

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”.

Probably "day star" or "morning star" would be the best.

But there needs to be some commentary because we don't have the same association with celestial bodies and rulers as did the ANE culture.

Modern translations do not make it appear that the taunt in Isaiah was speaking of Jesus. Here are a few reasons

1. In Isaiah it was a taunt to a king (the passage clarifies)
2. "Morning star" in the passage is not identifying a person but highlighting how great the fall.
3. Just knowing a very little of ANE culture one would know rulers associated themselves with celestial bodies as a sign of their power or greatness.

The greater issue is translation philosophy. Do we deliberately mistranslate or introduce Latin into the Hebrew to prevent misunderstanding or do we expect Christians to study?

Logos1560 said:

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).

Click to expand...

"The morning star (a celestial body), Lucifer (a light-barer), Venus (feminine); the star (not in the text)
(which is a foreshadowing of the sun's light, with the sun's light being the only light generated, apart from a little speck in the night sky, of Venus) which precedes the morning light (and can in no way be contributing one candle-power of the widely scattered sunlight of the sun, as simply a fake, phony, fraudulent methodological folly of canal man's pagan imagination, robbing Glory from God.)"

Logos1560 said:

The historical facts concerning synonyms are not "man's carnal thinking" and are not myths.

Click to expand...

"The Morning Star" AND "the morning star", purely as an addition to the scripture with the addition of 'star',
are just force-fed to be synonymous, when that then would be equating 'Jesus' with also being 'Lucifer',
from which it is said 'Satan' is derived, as being a 'Bible teaching'. Not good.

So, that kind of contradiction in terms used in the Bible should not only be avoided, but viewed with abhorrence and indignation.

One element of Hermeneutics is the rule we have, which says that 'the interpretation',
or in this case, translation, also MUST MAKE SENSE.

JonC said:

Probably "day star" or "morning star" would be the best.

Click to expand...

Only problem being that "star" is never a part of the Hebrew text.

And that is a huge development from nothing, no 'warrant' at all, zero cause, as opposed to 'Lucifer' from the Latin.

So to make 'Jesus' equal 'Satan', we just need to interpret a female word as if it pertains to a male
and add a new word with a new concept, entirely, to the text that isn't there, with impunity, and no guilt, losing several gems of scripture and The Deity of Christ and make a man have a throne that he raises above the stars of God, when he is supposedly depicted as being 'Venus', which is a planet and in no way a self-light generating 'star'.

Too many rationalizations in the mixed metaphors and poor analygies with better resolution that to be 'of God', to me.

This is what "Keil and Delitzsch Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament"; says;

I emphasize some points of theirs in blue and my comments are in green;

This shows;
"How art thou fallen from the sky, thou star of light, sun of the dawn, hurled down to the earth, thou that didst throw down nations from above?" הילל is here the morning star (from hâlal, to shine, {just by the guesswork in the weakness of the flesh that "shine" necessitates it/he/ being a 'star' out of the clear blue? Others may assume that in a New York minute, but I don't, for a hot second} resolved from hillel, after the form מאן, Jeremiah 13:10, סעף, Psalm 119:113, or rather attaching itself as a third class to the forms היכל, עירם: compare the Arabic sairaf, exchanger; saikal, sword-cleaner).

"It (הילל...from hâlal, to shine, resolved from hillel, after the form מאן) derives its name in other ancient languages also from its striking brilliancy, and is here called ben-shachar (sun of the dawn), just as in the classical mythology it is called son of Eos, from the fact that it rises before the sun, and swims in the morning light as if that were the source of its birth, when it is absolutely not and is just a man-made fabal.

1.) Here, "morning star" in the Semitic nations is personified as female, (Astarte, see at Isaiah 17:8), and that it is called Nâghâh, Ashtoreth, Zuhara, but never by a name derived from hâlal;

"(Note: It is singular, however, that among the Semitic nations the morning star is not personified as a male (Heōsphoros or Phōsphoros), but as a female (Astarte, see at Isaiah 17:8), and that it is called Nâghâh, Ashtoreth, Zuhara, but never by a name derived from hâlal; whilst the moon is regarded as a male deity (Sin), and in Arabic hilâl signifies the new moon, which might be called ben-shacar (son of the dawn), from the fact that, from the time when it passes out of the invisibility of its first phase, it is seen at sunrise, and is as it were born out of the dawn.)

"Lucifer, as a name given to the devil, was derived from this passage, which the fathers (and lately Stier) interpreted, without any warrant whatever, as relating to the apostasy and punishment of the angelic leaders.

2.) Here is 'warrant' from the New Testament.
"And he said unto them, I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven". Luke 10:18.

3.) Then, "The appellation ('Lucifer') is a perfectly appropriate one for the king of Babel", "The appellation is a perfectly appropriate one for the king of Babel, on account of the early date of the Babylonian culture, which reached back as far as the grey twilight of primeval times, and also because of its predominant astrological character and then, "I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven" being from Luke 10:18. . The additional epithet chōlēsh ‛al-gōyim is founded upon the idea of the influxus siderum:

"(Note: In a similar manner, the sun-god (San) is called the "conqueror of the king's enemies," "breaker of opposition," etc., on the early Babylonian monuments (see G. Rawlinson, The Five Great Monarchies, i.160).)

"cholesh signifies "overthrowing" or laying down (Exodus 17:13), and with ‛al, "bringing defeat upon;" whilst the Talmud (b. Sabbath 149b) uses it in the sense of projiciens sortem, and thus throws light upon the cholesh ( equals purah, lot) of the Mishnah. 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 (Daniel 11:36; 2 Thessalonians 2:4), and of who, as a person, whether type, or anti-type or king, has a throne that he could have said that he was going to rise it above the stars of God, not himself being a star with a throne and which had met with its reward.

Besides;

Alan Dale Gross said:

The older references I was referring to start with 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].

Click to expand...

Alan Dale Gross said:

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.]

Click to expand...

We have Pre-Vulgate usages, where Pre-Vulgate Vetus Latina (Old Latin) manuscripts use the word "Lucifer" at Isaiah;

who found an online copy of the VL (Gryson, 1949).

Gryson provides two variants of the line (the first in African readings, the second European ones)

[African] quomodo cecidit de caelo lucifer mane oriens contritus est in terra qui mittit ad omnes gentes

[European] quomodo de caelo cecidit lucifer qui mane oriebatur confractus ad terram qui inmittebat ad cunctas nationes

The vulgate line is;

quomodo cecidisti de caelo lucifer qui mane oriebaris corruisti in vulnerabas gentes

As guessed, again, as God's Business and not just throwing the dice as a gable of sorts, “Lucifer” is the easy translation of ἑωσφόρος.

Check the Septuagint, the passage in Greek is:

πῶς ἐξέπεσεν ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ ὁ ἑωσφόρος ὁ πρωὶ ἀνατέλλων συνετρίβη εἰς τὴν γῆν ὁ ἀποστέλλων πρὸς πάντα τὰ ἔθνη

ἑωσφόρος or “dawn light”, it would almost certainly be rendered in Latin as “Lucifer”.

Since the Vetus Latina was a semi-pro translation of the LXX (at best!) 'Lucifer' is still a safe bet business decision, regardless of anything.

A little digging however, did turn up the fact that Jerome was very familiar with Origen’s On First Principles
and the Latin translation thereof by Rufinus — which comments on this passage.

Rufinus also used “Lucifer” here, before Origen and Rufinus:

et de Nabuchodonosor, ex quae multis in locis ab scriptura dicuntur, et maxime in Isaia, quomodo possibile est nos dicta de homine suscipere? Neque enim homo is qui dicitur “cecidisse de coelo”, vel “qui Lucifer fuit” vel “qui mane oriebatur.”

And how could we possibly accept, as spoken of a man, what is related in many passages of Scripture, and especially in Isaiah, regarding Nebuchadnezzar? For he is not a man who is said “to have fallen from heaven”, or “who was Lucifer”, or “who arose in the morning.”

(Latin here & Greek here, English here; I added quotation marks for clarity)

This looks a bit different from the Vulgate, which was still about five years from publication at the time. Jerome has “Quomodo cecidisti de caelo, Lucifer, qui mane oriebaris?” but Rufinus’ changes to the endings are just the way Latin handles indirect discourse — It’s likely that Rufinus version of the text was the same as Jerome’s. It certainly uses “Lucifer,” and Rufinus and Jerome would not agree on anything unless they had to.

It took a long time for Lucifer, the devil (a personage), to displace Lucifer, the morning star (a Heavenly body) in Latin.

Here’s a 10th century diagram from Isidore of Sevilles’ De Natura Rerum showing the geocentric cosmos;
as you can see the planets include Mercurius, Lucifer, Sol (the sun) Vesper (Mars), Foeton (Jupiter) and Saturnus.

Isidore’s book was a standard encyclopedia for many medieval libraries into the 14th century.

This is what Keil and Delitzsch Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament; says;

I emphasize some points of theirs in blue and my comments are in green;

"How art thou fallen from the sky, thou star of light, sun of the dawn, hurled down to the earth, thou that didst throw down nations from above?" הילל is here the morning star (from hâlal, to shine, resolved from hillel, after the form מאן, Jeremiah 13:10, סעף, Psalm 119:113, or rather attaching itself as a third class to the forms היכל, עירם: compare the Arabic sairaf, exchanger; saikal, sword-cleaner).

"It (הילל...from hâlal, to shine, resolved from hillel, after the form מאן) derives its name in other ancient languages also from its striking brilliancy, and is here called ben-shachar (sun of the dawn), just as in the classical mythology it is called son of Eos, from the fact that it rises before the sun, and swims in the morning light as if that were the source of its birth.

1.) Here, "morning star" in the Semitic nations is personified as female, (Astarte, see at Isaiah 17:8), and that it is called Nâghâh, Ashtoreth, Zuhara, but never by a name derived from hâlal;

"(Note: It is singular, however, that among the Semitic nations the morning star is not personified as a male (Heōsphoros or Phōsphoros), but as a female (Astarte, see at Isaiah 17:8), and that it is called Nâghâh, Ashtoreth, Zuhara, but never by a name derived from hâlal; whilst the moon is regarded as a male deity (Sin), and in Arabic hilâl signifies the new moon, which might be called ben-shacar (son of the dawn), from the fact that, from the time when it passes out of the invisibility of its first phase, it is seen at sunrise, and is as it were born out of the dawn.)

"Lucifer, as a name given to the devil, was derived from this passage, which the fathers (and lately Stier) interpreted, without any warrant whatever, as relating to the apostasy and punishment of the angelic leaders.

2.) Here is 'warrant' from the New Testament.
"And he said unto them, I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven". Luke 10:18.

3.) Then, "The appellation ('Lucifer') is a perfectly appropriate one for the king of Babel", "The appellation is a perfectly appropriate one for the king of Babel, on account of the early date of the Babylonian culture, which reached back as far as the grey twilight of primeval times, and also because of its predominant astrological character. The additional epithet chōlēsh ‛al-gōyim is founded upon the idea of the influxus siderum:

"(Note: In a similar manner, the sun-god (San) is called the "conqueror of the king's enemies," "breaker of opposition," etc., on the early Babylonian monuments (see G. Rawlinson, The Five Great Monarchies, i.160).)

"cholesh signifies "overthrowing" or laying down (Exodus 17:13), and with ‛al, "bringing defeat upon;" whilst the Talmud (b. Sabbath 149b) uses it in the sense of projiciens sortem, and thus throws light upon the cholesh ( equals purah, lot) of the Mishnah. 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 (Daniel 11:36; 2 Thessalonians 2:4), and which had met with its reward.

Alan Dale Gross said:

"The Morning Star" AND "the morning star", purely as an addition to the scripture with the addition of 'star',
are just force-fed to be synonymous, when that then would be equating 'Jesus' with also being 'Lucifer',
from which it is said 'Satan' is derived, as being a 'Bible teaching'. Not good.

So, that kind of contradiction in terms used in the Bible should not only be avoided, but viewed with abhorrence and indignation.

Click to expand...

Do you try to misrepresent and distort some of the facts? What was accurately pointed out is that the Latin-based rendering "Lucifer" is synonymous with the renderings "day star" or "morning star". The synonymous renderings day star or morning star may come more from influence of the Latin Vulgate rendering "Lucifer" than from the Hebrew word. The meaning of Lucifer as day star or morning star is not being force-fed since that has been proven to have been its meaning in the 1500's and 1600's and even earlier in the Wycliffe's Bible. 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." You keep avoiding the clear evidence.

You keep avoiding the fact that Jerome's Latin Vulgate had the rendering "lucifer" four times, not one time.
The Latin rendering lucifer may be found in Jerome's Latin Vulgate 4 times (Job 11:17, Job 38:32, Isaiah 14:12, 2 Peter 1:19).

The 1395 edition of the Wycliffe Bible had “Lucifer” more than once since it was also used at Job 38:32: “Whether thou bringest forth Lucifer, that is, day star, in his time, and makest evening star to rise on the sons of earth.“ Wycliffe's Bible clearly defined Lucifer as day star in this verse.

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”.

In a sermon, KJV translator Lancelot Andrewes referred to "St Peter's Lucifer in cordibus [daystar in your hearts]" (Hewison, Selected Writings, p. 112). Do you accuse this KJV translator of supposedly equating Jesus with Lucifer? Do you falsely accuse the Geneva Bible translators of supposedly equating Jesus with Lucifer?

Alan Dale Gross said:

"The morning star (a celestial body), Lucifer (a light-barer), Venus (feminine); the star (not in the text)
(which is a foreshadowing of the sun's light, with the sun's light being the only light generated, apart from a little speck in the night sky, of Venus) which precedes the morning light (and can in no way be contributing one candle-power of the widely scattered sunlight of the sun, as simply a fake, phony, fraudulent methodological folly of canal man's pagan imagination, robbing Glory from God.)"


"The Morning Star" AND "the morning star", purely as an addition to the scripture with the addition of 'star',
are just force-fed to be synonymous, when that then would be equating 'Jesus' with also being 'Lucifer',
from which it is said 'Satan' is derived, as being a 'Bible teaching'. Not good.

So, that kind of contradiction in terms used in the Bible should not only be avoided, but viewed with abhorrence and indignation.

One element of Hermeneutics is the rule we have, which says that 'the interpretation',
or in this case, translation, also MUST MAKE SENSE.


Only problem being that "star" is never a part of the Hebrew text.

And that is a huge development from nothing, no 'warrant' at all, zero cause, as opposed to 'Lucifer' from the Latin.

So to make 'Jesus' equal 'Satan', we just need to interpret a female word as if it pertains to a male
and add a new word with a new concept, entirely, to the text that isn't there, with impunity, and no guilt, losing several gems of scripture and The Deity of Christ and make a man have a throne that he raises above the stars of God, when he is supposedly depicted as being 'Venus', which is a planet and in no way a self-light generating 'star'.

Too many rationalizations in the mixed metaphors and poor analygies with better resolution that to be 'of God', to me.

This is what "Keil and Delitzsch Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament"; says;

I emphasize some points of theirs in blue and my comments are in green;

This shows;
"How art thou fallen from the sky, thou star of light, sun of the dawn, hurled down to the earth, thou that didst throw down nations from above?" הילל is here the morning star (from hâlal, to shine, {just by the guesswork in the weakness of the flesh that "shine" necessitates it/he/ being a 'star' out of the clear blue? Others may assume that in a New York minute, but I don't, for a hot second} resolved from hillel, after the form מאן, Jeremiah 13:10, סעף, Psalm 119:113, or rather attaching itself as a third class to the forms היכל, עירם: compare the Arabic sairaf, exchanger; saikal, sword-cleaner).

"It (הילל...from hâlal, to shine, resolved from hillel, after the form מאן) derives its name in other ancient languages also from its striking brilliancy, and is here called ben-shachar (sun of the dawn), just as in the classical mythology it is called son of Eos, from the fact that it rises before the sun, and swims in the morning light as if that were the source of its birth, when it is absolutely not and is just a man-made fabal.

1.) Here, "morning star" in the Semitic nations is personified as female, (Astarte, see at Isaiah 17:8), and that it is called Nâghâh, Ashtoreth, Zuhara, but never by a name derived from hâlal;

"(Note: It is singular, however, that among the Semitic nations the morning star is not personified as a male (Heōsphoros or Phōsphoros), but as a female (Astarte, see at Isaiah 17:8), and that it is called Nâghâh, Ashtoreth, Zuhara, but never by a name derived from hâlal; whilst the moon is regarded as a male deity (Sin), and in Arabic hilâl signifies the new moon, which might be called ben-shacar (son of the dawn), from the fact that, from the time when it passes out of the invisibility of its first phase, it is seen at sunrise, and is as it were born out of the dawn.)

"Lucifer, as a name given to the devil, was derived from this passage, which the fathers (and lately Stier) interpreted, without any warrant whatever, as relating to the apostasy and punishment of the angelic leaders.

2.) Here is 'warrant' from the New Testament.
"And he said unto them, I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven". Luke 10:18.

3.) Then, "The appellation ('Lucifer') is a perfectly appropriate one for the king of Babel", "The appellation is a perfectly appropriate one for the king of Babel, on account of the early date of the Babylonian culture, which reached back as far as the grey twilight of primeval times, and also because of its predominant astrological character and then, "I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven" being from Luke 10:18. . The additional epithet chōlēsh ‛al-gōyim is founded upon the idea of the influxus siderum:

"(Note: In a similar manner, the sun-god (San) is called the "conqueror of the king's enemies," "breaker of opposition," etc., on the early Babylonian monuments (see G. Rawlinson, The Five Great Monarchies, i.160).)

"cholesh signifies "overthrowing" or laying down (Exodus 17:13), and with ‛al, "bringing defeat upon;" whilst the Talmud (b. Sabbath 149b) uses it in the sense of projiciens sortem, and thus throws light upon the cholesh ( equals purah, lot) of the Mishnah. 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 (Daniel 11:36; 2 Thessalonians 2:4), and of who, as a person, whether type, or anti-type or king, has a throne that he could have said that he was going to rise it above the stars of God, not himself being a star with a throne and which had met with its reward.

Click to expand...

One issue is that we do not have a one word equivalent for הֵילֵל which translates to "morning star".

The Hebrew text is talking about the position (a high state falling to a low state) and the passage itself is a taunt to the king (per Scripture). We know Venus is a planet, but even we refer ti it as a "star". God was not telling Abraham he would have a handful of descendents when He compared them to stars. Jesus was not lying about the "morning star", comparing it the first and last. Nor even flat-earthers belueve the Earth has 4 corners.

Also, the Sun is not the only soyrce of light. And Scripture is not a science book.

I say use "morning star" because it gives a better idea to the reader of the meaning. It is also a literal translation of the Hebrew text. But the more accurate for today would probably be "Venus, son of the morning" as this is literally what the taunt is saying.

Problem is even then some would think the king's name is "Venus" (or even that Satan's name is "Venus").

Another issue is "Venus" is a proper name for the planet while helel is not a proper name.


The task of translation would be to communicate what the Hebrew passage was communicating.

Given that this was a taunt to the king, and as such relied on ANE customs, I am not sure one could translate the passage in such a way as to allow those who refuse to study to understand.


Do I prefer the literal "morning star" or "day star". Might as well keep the translation accurate and let those who refuse to study Scripture believe whatever they desire.