NIV Calls Lucifer, "Jesus" (Article)

[GeneMBridges]

"Where is your love of the truth?"...

That's not calling into question somebody's integrity or spirituality?

Let's be careful not to follow the letter of the law and not its spirit here.

 

[michelle]

--------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michele, first you sayd that the "The NIV has blasphemied the Lord Jesus Christ by rendering it morning star", and then you close your post with the words, love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour, and bright and morning star.

I guess that makes you a blasphemer.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I guess you are not understanding the topic at hand and what is being discussed? Jesus Christ is the morning star. Morning star does not belong in Isaiah 14, and is blaspheming the Lord by saying that he has fallen from heaven and going to the pit. The morning star is Jesus Christ. Since when did Jesus fall from heaven and when shall he go into the pit?

Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour the bright and morning star,
michelle

 

[Johnv]

Originally posted by michelle:
Since when did Jesus fall from heaven and when shall he go into the pit?

Since the verse in Isaiah isn't referring to Jesus, the point is completely moot.

 

[michelle]

--------------------------------------------------
Where is your love of the truth?"...

That's not calling into question somebody's integrity or spirituality?

Let's be careful not to follow the letter of the law and not its spirit here.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


No it is not. It is merely asking a question. There is nothing wrong with this question. People here obviously do not love the truth, so therefore I ask where is it to put it in nicer terms. Questioning their spirituality? Doesn't say that. I am merely questioning where there love for the truth of God's word is. Where is it? I haven't seen it. All I have seen is excuses for those things that have altered it. If you do not like my honesty in the matter, that is your own personal problem.

love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

[michelle]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by michelle:
Since when did Jesus fall from heaven and when shall he go into the pit?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Since the verse in Isaiah isn't referring to Jesus, the point is completely moot

--------------------------------------------------

In the NIV it does. Reference the other places in the NIV where this is used, and what do you find out? Yeah, which brings us back to the very first post of this thread.


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

[Askjo]

Originally posted by GeneMBridges:
English has synonyms. "Morning star" = "Lucifer" same thing.

Morning star = Jesus Christ
Lucifer = Jesus Christ
Lucifer = Morning star = Jesus Christ

Are you ????

 

[GeneMBridges]

Originally posted by Askjo:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by GeneMBridges:
English has synonyms. "Morning star" = "Lucifer" same thing. It goes no further than that.

Morning star = Jesus Christ. Are you ???? </font>[/QUOTE]Only if you assume that it does to fit a particular interpretation that says the term morning star is always a term that can be or is always referring to Jesus.

The context of the passage does not fit it being Jesus. Furthermore, as people have written multiple times at that time of writing the name of the morning star = Lucifer.

There is a Morning Star = Jesus
There is a morning star= Lucifer or the king of Babylon. In the passage in question it would be the king of babylon.

Parallelism, the literary device used in prophetic literature and the hermaneutic of the time that actually lets us render Isa. 7:14 as a Messianic prophecy (which has an immediate fulfilment in Isa. 8:3 in someone other than Jesus) allows for this.

 

[skanwmatos]

Originally posted by michelle:
Venus is not a star, but a planet. It was also known as the Roman goddess of love and beauty. Hence, it is not a morning star, but a planet, and a bright one at that.

So you are saying the KJV is wrong in Revelation 2:28 and 22:16 where the Greek word "aster" is translated "star?"

 

[michelle]

--------------------------------------------------

The kings of the nations are talking to the king of Babylon, so it makes sense that these pagan kings would use the term "morning star" for Venus. They certainly did not know it was a planet. God is having the King of Babylon rebuked poetically through these other kings.

--------------------------------------------------

I am sorry to be so blunt Marcia, but you are taking this too far. The nations are shown to speak in vs. 10 and then in verse 11 God resumes to speak. Not only this, but the nations would have no knowledge of prophecy as such is expressed in verse 12, and they most certainly do not know what Lucifer has said in his heart in verse 13. This is a prophecy to which testifies this is coming from the Lord through the prophet, not through the kings.

Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

[Askjo]

Why did you prefer the "interpretation" rather than the translation on the word, "Lucifer"?

 

[skanwmatos]

Originally posted by pinoybaptist:
Now Charles says Isaiah is talking about a man. So which is it ? Is the King of Babylon now likened to the planet Venus in its brightness ?Is it the planet Venus that fell or is it the king of Babylon ?

Is the king of Babylon a type of Satan, the adversary of God's people, or is he not ? Is Babylon a type of the world, or is it not ?

What part of "figure of speech" don't you understand? Do you think Jesus, because He said "I am the door" that he is a literal door? Solid core? With deadbolt lock? And a little peek hole to look through? Is this the famous KJVO double standard at work?

 

[michelle]

--------------------------------------------------
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by pinoybaptist:
Now Charles says Isaiah is talking about a man. So which is it ? Is the King of Babylon now likened to the planet Venus in its brightness ?Is it the planet Venus that fell or is it the king of Babylon ?

Is the king of Babylon a type of Satan, the adversary of God's people, or is he not ? Is Babylon a type of the world, or is it not ?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What part of "figure of speech" don't you understand? Do you think Jesus, because He said "I am the door" that he is a literal door? Solid core? With deadbolt lock? And a little peek hole to look through? Is this the famous KJVO double standard at work?
--------------------------------------------------

No, but I think it is more likely the famous misunderstanding of the mv proponents due to the labels they argue against.

love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

[robycop3]

Michelle:As much as I appreciate all the information you provided, my sole authority is the word of God. God chose the Hebrew word Helel, which means the bright one, and not a star. God rightly gave us this Hebrew word, as God knows himself, that Venus is a planet, and not whatsoever a star. I stick with what God has said and trust his wisdom, and leave out the wisdom of man.

The point is, the NIV has rendered this word erroneously, and blasphemously.

Marginal note from the AV 1611 for Isaiah 14:12:

or O DAY STARRE

 

[michelle]

--------------------------------------------------

Only if you assume that it does to fit a particular interpretation that says the term morning star is always a term that can be or is always referring to Jesus.

The context of the passage does not fit it being Jesus. Furthermore, as people have written multiple times at that time of writing the name of the morning star = Lucifer.

There is a Morning Star = Jesus
There is a morning star= Lucifer or the king of Babylon. In the passage in question it would be the king of babylon.

Parallelism, the literary device used in prophetic literature and the hermaneutic of the time that actually lets us render Isa. 7:14 as a Messianic prophecy (which has an immediate fulfilment in Isa. 8:3 in someone other than Jesus) allows for this.
--------------------------------------------------

Isn't one of the reasons for the mv's is for easier reading and better understanding of the word of God in language closer to our day? If this is so, how then can you say that this makes it easier for the reader, and better to understand? How can you say this wouldn't and doesn't cause confusion? Since when has God referred to a wicked person with a title that he has given to himself? Scripture references please?

Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

[robycop3]

Marcia, Michelle says she's NOT KJVO, but she won't, after repeated queries, tell us what other BV9s) she recommends. She insists that the older Alex mss have omitted material found in newer mss, written by different people in a different place.

Her refusal to deal with those two basic issues speaks for itself.

 

[Ransom]

It is interesting to do a comparative word study on Isaiah 14:12 in the Hebrew Scriptures and in two ancient versions, the Greek Septuagint and the Latin Vulgate.

In the Vulgate, heylel is translated lucifer. (Just as a point of interest, it is lucifer that is said to "rise in your hearts" in 2 Pet. 1:19.)

In the Septuagint, heylel has been translated as eosphoros, which has an equivalent in English: Hesperus.

Know what's interesting about both the words "Lucifer" and "Hesperus"? Both of them are proper names, often used in literature, of the planet Venus as viewed in the morning.

Gee . . . you don't think Heylel might be the Hebrew equivalent, do you?

 

[GeneMBridges]

Originally posted by michelle:
--------------------------------------------------

Only if you assume that it does to fit a particular interpretation that says the term morning star is always a term that can be or is always referring to Jesus.

The context of the passage does not fit it being Jesus. Furthermore, as people have written multiple times at that time of writing the name of the morning star = Lucifer.

There is a Morning Star = Jesus
There is a morning star= Lucifer or the king of Babylon. In the passage in question it would be the king of babylon.

Parallelism, the literary device used in prophetic literature and the hermaneutic of the time that actually lets us render Isa. 7:14 as a Messianic prophecy (which has an immediate fulfilment in Isa. 8:3 in someone other than Jesus) allows for this.
--------------------------------------------------

Isn't one of the reasons for the mv's is for easier reading and better understanding of the word of God in language closer to our day? If this is so, how then can you say that this makes it easier for the reader, and better to understand? How can you say this wouldn't and doesn't cause confusion? Since when has God referred to a wicked person with a title that he has given to himself? Scripture references please?

Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

Fallacy of straw man. I have never made any of those comments. Please do not say I have said things I have not said.

The text says what the text says. The langugage says what the language says. You are the one reading your interpretation into the text, not the MV's.

 

[skanwmatos]

Originally posted by Ransom:
Know what's interesting about both the words "Lucifer" and "Hesperus"? Both of them are proper names, often used in literature, of the planet Venus as viewed in the morning.

"Lucifer" was Venus when viewed as the morning star and "Hesperus" was Venus when viewed as the evening star. The Romans did not realize they were the same thing.

 

[robycop3]

Also, "phosphorus" was Venus viewed at dawn before sunrise.

 

[michelle]

--------------------------------------------------
Marcia, Michelle says she's NOT KJVO, but she won't, after repeated queries, tell us what other BV9s) she recommends. She insists that the older Alex mss have omitted material found in newer mss, written by different people in a different place.

Her refusal to deal with those two basic issues speaks for itself.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


It's not my fault you ignore the answers given. That is your own fault, so please stop accusing me of not answering your questions. You have yet to show me with scripture, where God would condone you to use a translation of his word that has "added" to his words. Where is your scriptural support? Where is your scriptural support that God would allow his people for generations to believe things that were "added" to his words?

love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle