Masonry It Really Is A Religion

I dont care about valentines day and Christmas is not a pagan holiday. That is a mhth

 

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.

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 clearly 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.“

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.

Since the 1611 edition of the KJV has several words capitalized that are not proper names, it is hard to know whether the KJV translators meant it to be a proper name or not. Beginning with the 1629 standard Cambridge KJV edition, several KJV editions have it not capitalized, but then the 1769 Oxford returned to capitalizing it.


Isaiah 14:12 [o Lucifer--1560 Geneva] [capitalization]

O lucifer (1675, 1679, 1681, 1709, 1715, 1720, 1737, 1743, 1747, 1754, 1764, 1765, 1768 Oxford) [1629, 1635, 1637, 1638, 1683, 1743, 1747, 1756, 1760, 1761, 1762, 1765, 1767, 1768, 1783 Cambridge] {1672, 1689, 1703, 1706, 1711, 1712, 1730, 1735, 1741, 1743, 1747, 1750, 1760, 1764, 1767, 1768, 1795 London} (1755 Oxon) (1722, 1751, 1760, 1769 Edinburgh) (1722, 1743, 1762 Dublin) (1645 Dutch) (1746 Leipzig) (1774 Bristol) (1782 Aitken) (1790 MH)

O Lucifer (1749, 1769 Oxford, SRB) [1769 Cambridge, DKJB] {1611 London}

 

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, Gail 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 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."

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).

 

There are bodies of professing believers that oppose the placing of God's word in motels and hotels?

 

I'm not all that concerned about Valentine's Day, either.
"Christ-Mass"?

I find it to be a little more than just coincidence that it falls on the same day as the ancient Roman Feast of Saturnalia, and that millions of unbelievers look forward to it each year.
That said, I will refrain from speaking further about it in this thread.

 

Do conspiracy theorists or those who repeat the claims of conspiracy theorists ignore this verse?

Matthew 12:26
And if Satan cast out Satan, he is divided against himself; how shall this his kingdom stand?

 

Are the same measures/standards applied to KJV translator Lancelot Andrewes and what he preached?

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”.

Is this historical usage of Lucifer at 2 Peter 1:19 in the 1538 Coverdale's English NT and in the sermon by KJV translator Lancelot Andrewes ignored or avoided since it could expose the use of unjust measures?

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 have not claimed to an expert on Freemasonry. I already noted that I am not a Mason and am not a former Mason. I have never been to a Lodge meeting. I know of no members of my family who are or were Masons.

Perhaps I can be more objective in looking at the evidence than someone who may be biased because of bad experience.

A believer does not have to be an expert to detect the use of fallacies in another person's claims and allegations and to detect the use of inconsistent, unjust measures/standards.

Perhaps an objective book about Freemasonry may be more accurate at times than a book by someone who may have an ax to grind against Masons.

I also have some Masonic editions of the KJV, and some of them have articles about Masonry written by Masons.

It is clear that I am not a conspiracy theorist and that I am not blindly accepting or repeating their unproven claims. It is not clear whether or not you may believe or parrot some unproven claims made by conspiracy theorists concerning Masons.