NIV Calls Lucifer, "Jesus" (Article)

[Marcia]

Michelle, I know the Bible uses the term "morning star" to describe Jesus, but in Is. 14, the Hebrew term for 'day star' or 'shining one' is used for the King of Babylon. The KJ translators used the Latin term "Lucifer" for the Hebrew word in Is. 14.

Confusion arose from equating the Latin word "Lucifer" with Satan. There is no name "Lucifer" in the Bible. Do you understand that "Lucifer" is Latin for "brilliant star," "shining one," etc. and is not Hebrew or Greek?

"Lucifer" is Latin and is not in Hebrew or Greek, which are the languages (along with a little Aramaic) the Bible was written in.

 

[skanwmatos]

Originally posted by michelle:
The scriptures are very clear as to this passage of Isaiah 14 is speaking of none other than Satan himself. We are instructed to rightly divide the word of truth.

So you are saying that God (and the KJV translators) lied when He inspired (and they translated) verse 4 which identifies the person in question as "the king of Babylon?"

 

[michelle]

--------------------------------------------------
Now before anyone labels me a heretic look in the Bible and see if it actually says that Lucifer is satan - Isaiah is talking about the king of Babylon - a man!
--------------------------------------------------

Actually it goes well beyond that. Lucifer is a name referring to Satan (maybe this is even his angelic name just as Michael and Gabriel have names?), who is giving power to a man, or quite possibly possessing him. Do an indepth study of the Book of Revelation, and you will be greatly blessed. You will also find in your study, that Satan is called by many names.

love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

[skanwmatos]

Originally posted by Marcia:
Jesus calls himself the "morning star" (helel) in Rev. 22:16.

Uh, well, actually, no. Jesus says, of Himself, in Revelation 22:16, "o asthr o lamprov kai oryrinov." The star bright and morning. The New Testament is in Greek, not Hebrew.

 

[skanwmatos]

Originally posted by michelle:
The morning star is Jesus. Scripture tells us this: . . . day star . . . I will give him the morning star. . . . the bright and morning star.

This is who the scriptures say the morning star is - Jesus Christ our Lord.

Well, actually, not. Your first example is "day star" not "morning star." Your second example is not referring to Jesus, unless you believe salvation is by works. Your third example says "the bright and morning star" not "the morning star."

You are no 0 for 3.

Are you ready to admit you are wrong yet?

 

[skanwmatos]

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

So, are you saying that God, and the KJV, is wrong in verse 4 when it identifies the person being addressed "That thou shalt take up this proverb against the king of Babylon?" Do you really believe God is an idiot and can't tell the difference between the king of Babylon and Satan? Do you really think the KJV translators were so stupid they couldn't tell the difference between the king of Babylon and Satan?

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

Study the book of Revelation and you will have a much better understanding of this passage. Refer to my post to which I gave the scripture references pertaining to the dragon.

Once again you refuse to answer, proving that you just don't know. You say you believe the bible is wrong in verse 4, that Lucifer is not the king of Babylon, the words God inspired and the words the KJV committees translated.

Once again you have proven you don't have a clue what you are talking about.

If you would actually study the bible instead of listening to some ignorant KJVO ranting and raving from the pulpit you might just learn something.

 

[michelle]

I am well aware of the fact that Lucifer is a latin word that the translators chose. Go back and read my post on the most likely reason (with the scriptures) they chose this latin word for this passage. They could have very well chose "bright one" or "light bearer" but they didn't. Why? There is a reason. Not only that, but the Hebrew does not indicate the rendering of star anywhere in this passage. He may be the son of the morning, which is what the KJV says, but he is NOT THE MORNING STAR - no Hebrew word for star to be rendered. The Babylonian king might have been called by his followers the morning star, but this doesn't mean he was. The morning star is Jesus Christ, not the Babylonian King, or anyone else for that matter. There are many false Christs, who come in the name of the Lord and have been since the beginning. The word Lucifer gives the proper rendering as so not to confuse this with Jesus Christ our Lord and to give the dual and full understanding of this passage.

The NIV has blasphemied the Lord Jesus Christ by rendering it morning star. Stop making excuses for your love of those things that would and have altered God's words, and rather love his words of truth more.

love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Savioiur,
michelle

 

[michelle]

--------------------------------------------------
Once again you refuse to answer, proving that you just don't know. You say you believe the bible is wrong in verse 4, that Lucifer is not the king of Babylon, the words God inspired and the words the KJV committees translated.
--------------------------------------------------

You are claiming I said things I did not say. I never said this. I did answer your questions, with the scriptures.

love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

[michelle]

--------------------------------------------------
If you would actually study the bible instead of listening to some ignorant KJVO ranting and raving from the pulpit you might just learn something.
--------------------------------------------------

And if you would rather listen to what people are saying, and hear what the scriptures are telling you, rather than arguing against a label, you just might learn something and be blessed.

love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

[Marcia]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Marcia:
Jesus calls himself the "morning star" (helel) in Rev. 22:16.
----------------------------------------------

Skan responded:
Uh, well, actually, no. Jesus says, of Himself, in Revelation 22:16, "o asthr o lamprov kai oryrinov." The star bright and morning. The New Testament is in Greek, not Hebrew.

Marcia:
Sorry, I was wrong about putting the Hebrew term there. I was looking at Is. 14 at the time and got mixed up.

 

[skanwmatos]

Originally posted by michelle:
Go back and read my post on the most likely reason (with the scriptures) they chose this latin word for this passage. They could have very well chose "bright one" or "light bearer" but they didn't. Why? There is a reason.

The reason is, quite apart from your rambling and ignorant "explanation," that the word heylel in Hebrew is a masculine, singular, absolute making it a proper name. In this case the proper name of a planet we now call Venus. You see, in ancient days they did not know that Lucifer (morning star) and Venus (evening star) were the same planet! (Well, the Greeks did, but the Romans never listened to the Greeks even though the Greeks were smarter, better educated, and much more advanced scientifically than the Romans. Kind of like KJVOs and every body else in the world.)

Not only that, but the Hebrew does not indicate the rendering of star anywhere in this passage.

Heylel means "Venus" - everybody who has ever looked through a telescope knows that Venus is "the morning star."

He may be the son of the morning, which is what the KJV says, but he is NOT THE MORNING STAR - no Hebrew word for star to be rendered.

Sorry, but you are talking about different words. "Son of the morning" is translated from the Hebrew words "ben shachar" which is literally "son of dawn."

The Babylonian king might have been called by his followers the morning star, but this doesn't mean he was. The morning star is Jesus Christ, not the Babylonian King, or anyone else for that matter.

So, once again you are saying that God made a mistake in verse 4 when he identifies the person in question as "the king of Babylon?"

 

[skanwmatos]

Originally posted by michelle:
You are claiming I said things I did not say. I never said this. I did answer your questions, with the scriptures.

Verse 4 says the person in question is "the king of Babylon." You say that is wrong. You are saying that God made a mistake!

 

[skanwmatos]

Originally posted by michelle:
And if you would rather listen to what people are saying, and hear what the scriptures are telling you, rather than arguing against a label, you just might learn something and be blessed.

So, are you finally admitting that "the king of Babylon" is who is being referred to in this passage and that he is called "Lucifer" (Venus) because Venus, the morning star, goes from the brightest object in the sky just before dawn to being completely invisible just a few minutes later? Just as the king of Babylon went from being the most powerful king in the world to being completely powerless in just a few hours?

 

[skanwmatos]

Originally posted by Marcia:
Sorry, I was wrong about putting the Hebrew term there. I was looking at Is. 14 at the time and got mixed up.

I figured that was what happened. But you are correct in that the NT calls Jesus "the bright and morning star" in Revelation.

 

[Askjo]

Originally posted by Johnv:
The word "lucifer" is the latin vulgate term for "morning star".

However "morning star" was not found in Latin Vulgate.

 

[skanwmatos]

Originally posted by Askjo:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Johnv:
The word "lucifer" is the latin vulgate term for "morning star".

However "morning star" was not found in Latin Vulgate. </font>[/QUOTE]Wrong again! Isaiah 14:12, "quomodo cecidisti de caelo lucifer qui mane oriebaris corruisti in terram qui vulnerabas gentes." Latin Dictionary, "Lucifer, name for the planet Venus when it appears as the morning star."

 

[michelle]

--------------------------------------------------
Confusion arose from equating the Latin word "Lucifer" with Satan. There is no name "Lucifer" in the Bible. Do you understand that "Lucifer" is Latin for "brilliant star," "shining one," etc. and is not Hebrew or Greek?
--------------------------------------------------

Confusion didn't arise until the modern version NIV inappropriately, erroneously, and blasphemously rendered this as morning star.

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

 

[skanwmatos]

Originally posted by michelle:
Confusion didn't arise until the modern version NIV inappropriately, erroneously, and blasphemously rendered this as morning star.

"Morning star" is exactly what the word means. The only confusion is caused by the KJVOs ignorance of simple facts.

 

[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.

love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

[pinoybaptist]

Originally posted by Charles Meadows:
Christ said He "saw satan fall from the sky like lightning". Thus we have over the years recognized Is 14:12 as referring to the fall of satan. Read the rest of Ch 14 - this verse is about the king of Babylon. This is really a case where we're letting human opinion cloud things. We really don't even have any proof that Lucifer has anything at all to do with satan.

Now before anyone labels me a heretic look in the Bible and see if it actually says that Lucifer is satan - Isaiah is talking about the king of Babylon - a man!

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 ?