Lucifer in Isaiah 14:12

Steven Avery

Steven Avery

Administrator
CARM
https://forums.carm.org/vb5/forum/theology/general-christian-topics/biblical-languages/4695917-trinitarian-latin-mass/page4
https://forums.carm.org/vb5/forum/theology/general-christian-topics/biblical-languages/4695917-trinitarian-latin-mass?p=4975387#post4975387

CARM - 2018
https://forums.carm.org/vb5/forum/theology/general-christian-topics/biblical-languages/4840470-jehovah-as-the-pronunciation-of-יהוה?p=5226455#post5226455

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...

Luke 10:17-18
And the seventy returned again with joy, saying,
Lord, even the devils are subject unto us through thy name.
And he said unto them, I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven.

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.

=======================

The Devil Is in the Details: The Subtlety of Satan in the Complexity of Life (2010)
https://www.amazon.com/Devil-Details-Subtlety-Satan-Complexity/dp/1615071520
https://voice.dts.edu/review/tony-kessinger-the-devil-is-in-the-details/

You should be able to see p. 15-19, to start, from Chapter 2, in Amazon.

=======================

Tony Kessinger, reviewed by DTS, is, as I mentioned, generally superb, Basically a must read.

Sigve K. Tonstad also recognizes that even looking at just the original Hebrew "the original Hebrew may imply a name." And Jerome really was in the loop living in Bethlehem and studying at the Caesarea library and working with the Jews for language knowledge.

As for Jerome, I suggest you find and read his quotes, rather than take Gesenius or the Hermeneutics Stack Exchange ultra-sparse analysis. (Granted, Stack Exchange, Redddit and Quora and sources of that nature can sometimes really be helpful.) They were online from me a while back but got purged, so I would have to reinvigorate the list. (Now I generally mirror.)

In Isaiah 14:12 did the King James translator make a mistake using the term Lucifer to describe morning star?
https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/20952/in-isaiah-1412-did-the-king-james-translator-make-a-mistake-using-the-term-luci/20959#20959?newreg=c04af4339ed74daca792a0b4c2016175
 
Last edited:
Steven Avery

Steven Avery

Administrator
Lucifer - ECW - Origen and Treatise on Rebaptism

Why is Isaiah 14:12-15 interpreted by some to refer to Satan?
https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/8066/why-is-isaiah-1412-15-interpreted-by-some-to-refer-to-satan/8071
Origen appears to be the prime candidate to connect explicity Isaiah 14:12 and Luke 10:18. First, from De principiis (On First Principles), Bk. I.v.5 (brief citation: see link for whole passage):
​
Most evidently by these words is he shown to have fallen from heaven, who formerly was Lucifer, and who used to arise in the morning. For if, as some think, he was a nature of darkness, how is Lucifer said to have existed before? Or how could he arise in the morning, who had in himself nothing of the light? Nay, even the Saviour Himself teaches us, saying of the devil, “Behold, I see Satan fallen from heaven like lightning.”​

This is the direct link (the smoking gun?) that joins together the two passages. The other, less explicit, passage also comes from De principiis, Bk. IV.i.22 (again, brief citation), and only offers support for the basis on which Origen could make the exegetical move:
​
And what is said in many places, and especially in Isaiah, of Nebuchadnezzar, cannot be explained of that individual. For the man Nebuchadnezzar neither fell from heaven, nor was he the morning star, nor did he arise upon the earth in the morning.​
​
=================================

And finally, the third "intriguing" suggestion is an editorial note in an anonymous work (sometimes connected with Cyprian, contemporary with Origen), "Treatise on Rebaptism", in which the ancient author briefly discusses the "Get behind me..." (Matthew 16:23) passage. The editor comments:

Isa. xiv. 12. The sin of Lucifer had, very possibly, been this of rebelling against the Incarnation and the introduction thereby of an order of beings higher than himself. Hence our Lord recognised in Peter’s words the voice of the old adversary, and called him “Satan.”...

=================================
 
Last edited:
Steven Avery

Steven Avery

Administrator
Tertullian on Ezekiel 28

CARM 2018 continues - plan more ECW quotes.

For Tertullian, check out the discussion and references in Karlo V. Bordjadze - Darkness Visible: A Study of Isaiah 14:3-23 as Christian Scripture - p. 135-136 and especially the two refs in p. 136.
https://books.google.com/books?id=RSA6DwAAQBAJ&pg=PA136

Jerome has a number of good references, I am checking if they are available in one spot.

And I think there are others that pre-date the Vulgate.of Jerome.

============================

Tertullian on Ezekiel 28 is akin to Origen on Isaiah 14.

If, however, you choose to transfer the account of evil from man to the devil as the instigator of sin, and in this way, too, throw the blame on the Creator, inasmuch as He created the devil — for He makes those spiritual beings, the angels— then it will follow that what was made, that is to say, the angel, will belong to Him who made it; while that which was not made by God, even the devil, or accuser, cannot but have been made by itself; and this by false detraction from God: first, how that God had forbidden them to eat of every tree; then, with the pretence that they should not die if they ate; thirdly, as if God grudged them the property of divinity. Now, whence originated this malice of lying and deceit towards man, and slandering of God? Most certainly not from God, who made the angel good after the fashion of His good works. Indeed, before he became the devil, he stands forth the wisest of creatures; and wisdom is no evil. If you turn to the prophecy of Ezekiel, you will at once perceive that this angel was both by creation good and by choice corrupt. For in the person of the prince of Tyre it is said in reference to the devil:

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 says the Lord God: You seal up the sum, full of wisdom, perfect in beauty (this belongs to him as the highest of the angels, the archangel, the wisest of all); amidst the delights of the paradise of your God were you born (for it was there, where God had made the angels in a shape which resembled the figure of animals).

Every precious stone was your covering, the sardius, the topaz, and the diamond, the beryl, the onyx, and the jasper, the sapphire, the emerald, and the carbuncle; and with gold have you filled your barns and your treasuries. From the day when you were created, when I set you, a cherub, upon the holy mountain of God, you were in the midst of stones of fire, you were irreproachable in your days, from the day of your creation, until your iniquities were discovered. By the abundance of your merchandise you have filled your storehouses, and you have sinned, etc.[COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)]

This description, it is manifest, properly belongs to the transgression of the angel, and not to the prince's: for none among human beings was either born in the paradise of God, not even Adam himself, who was rather translated there; nor placed with a cherub upon God's holy mountain, that is to say, in the heights of heaven, from which the Lord testifies that Satan fell; nor detained among the stones of fire, and the flashing rays of burning constellations, whence Satan was cast down like lightning. Luke 10:18 No, it is none else than the very author of sin who was denoted in the person of a sinful man: he was once irreproachable, at the time of his creation, formed for good by God, as by the good Creator of irreproachable creatures, and adorned with every angelic glory, and associated with God, good with the Good; but afterwards of his own accord removed to evil. From the day when your iniquities, says he, were discovered, — attributing to him those injuries wherewith he injured man when he was expelled from his allegiance to God — even from that time did he sin, when he propagated his sin, and thereby plied the abundance of his merchandise, that is, of his Wickedness, even the tale of his transgressions, because he was himself as a spirit no less (than man) created, with the faculty of free-will. For God would in nothing fail to endow a being who was to be next to Himself with a liberty of this kind. Nevertheless, by precondemning him, God testified that he had departed from the condition of his created nature, through his own lusting after the wickedness which was spontaneously conceived within him; and at the same time, by conceding a permission for the operation of his designs, He acted consistently with the purpose of His own goodness, deferring the devil's destruction for the self-same reason as He postponed the restitution of man. For He afforded room for a conflict, wherein man might crush his enemy with the same freedom of his will as had made him succumb to him (proving that the fault was all his own, not God's), and so worthily recover his salvation by a victory; wherein also the devil might receive a more bitter punishment, through being vanquished by him whom he had previously injured; and wherein God might be discovered to be so much the more good, as waiting for man to return from his present life to a more glorious paradise, with a right to pluck of the tree of life.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Steven Avery

Steven Avery

Administrator
Kirk DiVietro - PDF

Did the King James Bible borrow from the Latin Vulgate?

Much is made of the name Lucifer in Isaiah 14:12. We are told that the King James translators used the Vulgate in translating this verse and this name. Let us understand that if a word is an accurate translation of a given Greek or Hebrew term then if it appears in more than one translation without there being any direct dependence of the one on the other. This is especially true if the word has already gained wide usage in English, having its own English meaning. This is the case with the word Lucifer.

1743785480108.png


This is an interlinear of the Isaiah passage. The Hebrew is certain. There are no variants to consider. The question is, does the Hebrew say morning star or does it say Lucifer? Lucifer is not a transliteration of the Hebrew like many of the proper nouns of the Hebrew Scriptures. The name is an interpretation of the Hebrew noun. Since Hebrew does not have capital and lower case forms the identification of Halal as a proper noun is due to grammar and context.

The context demands that it be seen as a proper noun. The halal is being directly and vocatively addressed. It is a personification. The person being addressed is king of Babylon. Most interpreters look behind the human king to see the spiritual king and see Satan. From the statement of Jesus we know that he is the one who ‘fell from heaven'. Interpreters see this passage along with Ezekiel 28 as the biblical description of that fall. It is only appropriate then that the word be translated as a name.

Why did the King James translators use the name Lucifer? Did they simply look to the Vulgate translation and adopt its translation? Since they were rabidly anti-catholic this is hardly probable.

Instead we look to the instruction given to them. The first three rules apply


1. The ordinary Bible read in church, commonly called the Bishops' Bible, to be followed and as
little altered as the truth of the original will permit.

The first instructed them to make the "Bishop's Bible, "so called, the basis of their work, altering it no further than fidelity to the originals required. In the result, however, the new version agreed much more with the Geneva than with any other; though the huffing king, at the Hampton Court Conference, reproached it as "the worst of all."

2. The names of the prophets and the holy writers with the other names of the text to be retained as nigh as may be, accordingly as they were vulgarly used.

The second rule requires that the mode then used of spelling the proper names should be retained as far as might be.

3. The old ecclesiastical words to be kept, viz. the word "church" not to be translated "congregation." (The Greek word can be translated either way.) The third rule requires "the old ecclesiastical words to be kept, "such as "church " instead of "congregation.”

A simple survey of the versions of the English Bible prior to the KJV shows that the name Lucifer was in common biblical tradition and in ecclesiastical use.

Luke 10:18
And he said unto them,
I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven.

1743802105282.png


Reading sermons and Christian writing of the same period has allusions to Lucifer. By the time that the King James Bible was translated there was over 200 years of its use among English Christians. Most modem words and titles do not have a history that long! Should we say that anyone using the name William is borrowing from Chaucer? Or, that someone using the word Caesar is borrowing from Shakespeare? NO. These words have established usage and meaning independent of their first appearance in formal literature. It is absurd to ignore this fact. The King James translators used the word Lucifer because that was the common understanding of the passage.

Further, the name Lucifer means “light carrier”. The greek Septuagint translates it (Greek) - dawn morning (f>epco - carrier. This was the meaning to contemporary Greek speaking Jews. The Greek in Revelation 22.21 actually says MORNING STAR (Greek - early morning astar - star). If the Septuagint Jews had considered Halal the morning star they would no doubt have used this translation. Who would be more qualified to translate the Hebrew, those who actually spoke both languages or us, 2000 years later?

The Vulgate translation was not made in a vacuum. It no doubt leaned on the Septuagint translation and why? Because Lucifer has the same meaning. The word morning star does not come from a literal translation of Halal. It is just as interpretative as Lucifer and more misleading.

(SA Note: Jerome had solid Hebrew translator connections.)

Why is this issue raised if it has no real basis in fact? There are two possibilities. The first is a concession to those who do not believe in a literal personal devil. Removing the proper name Lucifer and substituting morning star makes the statement a metaphor and open to this less literal interpretation. Secondly, calling Satan the morning star, no matter what sophistry is introduced to support the translation, impunes the identification of the Lord Jesus as the true morning star.2
Finally, the charge that the KJV translators depended on the Vulgate in this translation is an attempt to denigrate the KJV. It is intellectually dishonest. It is unwarranted by fact or tradition.

2 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.
 
Last edited:
Steven Avery

Steven Avery

Administrator
Christopher Yetzer
https://m.facebook.com/groups/467217787457422/permalink/1877312776447909/?

The Old Latin uses it one less time. Job 28:32 it uses something more like Mazzaroth.

Origen believed it was Satan before Jerome, "For if, as some think, he was a nature of darkness, how is Lucifer said to have existed before? Or how could he arise in the morning, who had in himself nothing of the light? Nay, even the Saviour Himself teaches us, saying of the devil, “Behold, I see Satan fallen from heaven like lightning.”"

Augustine believed it was Satan as a contemporary of Jerome "And how do they answer the prophetic proofs,—either what Isaiah says when he represents the devil under the person of the king of Babylon, “How art thou fallen, O Lucifer, son of the morning!” or what Ezekiel says, “Thou hast been in Eden, the garden of God; every precious stone was thy covering,”

The KJV translators believed it was Satan after Jerome:

Richard Eedes:
Six learned and godly sermons 1604, "as we may see by Lucifer, that fell from heauen"

William Thorne:
Esoptron basilikon 1603, "Hast thou with Lucifer said in thine hart? Lucifer I meane and all his fellow Angelles, that fell from heauen"

John Spencer:
A learned sermon of the nature of pride 1612, "For a foule scarre may be covered with a faire cloath. And as proud as Lucifer, may be in outward appearance lowly."
"would they not plainely pronounce of the authors of such writ, that they were fuller of Lucifer then of Christ,"

A learned and gracious sermon 1615, "Thus hath Lucifer inuaded Christs poore Family, and hath made choyce of a person of humility,"

Thomas Sparke:
An ansvvere to Master Iohn De Albines 1591, "terming the pope a murderer of soules, a spiller & piller of the flocke of Christ, saying, that they were more abhominable, thē Iewes; more cruel, thē Iudas; more vniust, thē Pilate; & worse then Lucifer himselfe. Whereof it came, that of their very superfluities, vnlesse they had beene prouder then Lucifer, and more wastfull in belly cheare,"

Henry Saville:
Thomæ Bradwardini Archiepiscopi 1618, "imò & superbiores Lucifero æqualitate tui nequaquam contenti, super te, Rex Regum, impudentissime gestiunt se regnare?"
"Primo namque horum Hæresiarcha Lucifero, nolente Deo subesse…" etc. etc.

Thomas Sanderson:
Of romanizing recusants, and dissembling Catholicks, "Not they that come to Protestants, but rather yee, that hold and hang with Papists, participate with Infidels; haue fellowship with Beliall, and the cup of De∣uils; are in darkenes; Ioyne with Lucifer;"

Lancelot Andrewes
Holy Devotions, "I further thank thee, O Father, that when, as by our first Parents fall, all mankind was in the state of damnation, it pleased thee (not to deal with us, as thou didst with Lucifer, whom thou utterly expelledst thy presence,"
"For if thou sparedst not Lucifer, and his Angels, for one only sin, Pride, but didst cast them from Heaven,"

The Pattern of Ctechistical doctrine, "It was Lucifers vaunt, he would have part of Gods glory,"

Apospasmatia sacra
"Yea Lucifer hath said in his heart, I will ascend into Heaven: Oh Lucifer how art thou fallen, which art the Sunne of the morning? Esay 14. 12. Venus is the morning Starre; the evening starre is the Mace-bearer to the Moon, and the morning starre to the Sunne."
"But though Lucifer were the most glorious in the Heavens, yet for his pride God sent him headlong from the Heavens."

You can disagree with such a long traditional understanding, but it would be wise on your part to understand that this tradition is deeper than KJVO.

https://m.facebook.com/groups/1228131104911357/permalink/1387350158989450/?
https://www.facebook.com/groups/467217787457422/permalink/1874687780043742/?
 
Last edited:
Steven Avery

Steven Avery

Administrator
John Gill
: O Lucifer, son of the morning!
alluding to the star Venus, which is the phosphorus or morning star, which ushers in the light of the morning, and shows that day is at hand; by which is meant, not Satan, who is never in Scripture called Lucifer, though he was once an angel of light, and sometimes transforms himself into one, and the good angels are called morning stars, ( Job 38:7 ) and such he and his angels once were; but the king of Babylon is intended, whose royal glory and majesty, as outshining all the rest of the kings of the earth, is expressed by those names; and which perhaps were such as he took himself, or were given him by his courtiers. The Targum is,

``how art thou fallen from on high, who was shining among the sons of men, as the star Venus among the stars.''
Click to expand...
Jarchi, as the Talmud F3, applies it to Nebuchadnezzar; though, if any particular person is pointed at, Belshazzar is rather designed, the last of the kings of Babylon. The church of Rome, in the times of the apostles, was famous for its light and knowledge; its faith was spoken of throughout all the earth; and its bishops or pastors were bright stars, in the morning of the Gospel dispensation: how art thou cut down to the ground;

F3 T. Bab. Cholin, fol. 89. 1. Gloss. in Pesachim, fol. 94. 1. & Chagiga, fol. 13. 1.
 
Steven Avery

Steven Avery

Administrator
Isaiah 14

The Geneva Bible Translation Notes
https://sacred-texts.com/bib/cmt/geneva/isa014.htm

How art thou fallen from heaven, O (h) Lucifer, son of the morning! [how] art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!

(h) You who thought yourself most glorious and as it were placed in the heaven for the morning star that goes before the sun, is called Lucifer, to whom Nebuchadnezzar is compared.
 
Last edited:
Steven Avery

Steven Avery

Administrator
Rob Bradshaw
https://web.archive.org/web/20220522204453/https://www.robibradshaw.com/chapter8.htm

the interpretation of Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28 which see the King of Babylon and the King of Tyre as referring to Satan. Such a view has a long history, the first reference to it being found in the writings of
Tertullian,(8)
Origen,(9)
John Cassian,(10)
Cyril of Jerusalem,(11)
Jerome,(12)
Athanasius of Alexandria,(13)

(8) Tertullian, Marcion, 2.10; 5.11, 17 (ANF, Vol.3, 305-306, 454, 466).

(9) Origen, Principles 1.5.4-5; Marcion 6.43 (ANF, Vol. 4, 258-300, 593).

(10) John Cassian, On Principalities 8

(11) Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures 2.4 (NPNF, 2nd series, Vol. 7, 9).

(12) Jerome, Jovianus 2.4 (NPNF, 2nd series, Vol. 6, 391).

(13) Athanasius, To the Bishops of Egypt, 1.2; Discourse III, 25.17 (NPNF, 2nd series, Vol. 4, 224, 403).

Nevertheless, the Reformer Martin Luther(14) rejected it, pointing out that both passages referred primarily to human kings who suffered from human pride.(15) The majority of modern commentators follow his example.(16)

(14) Commenting on Isaiah 14:20 Luther wrote: “This is not said of the angel who once was thrown out of heaven, but of the king of Babylon, and it is figurative language.” Martin Luther “Lectures on Isaiah,” Jaroslav Pelican & Hilton C. Oswald, ede. Luther’s Works, Vol. 16. (Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1969), 140.

(15) John N. Oswalt, “The Book of Isaiah, Chapters 1-39,” NICOT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986), 320.

(16) See further Sydney H.T. Page, Powers of Evil: A Biblical Study of Satan & Demons. (Grand Rapids / Leicester: Baker Book House / IVP, 1995), 37-42.
 
Last edited:
Steven Avery

Steven Avery

Administrator
John Cassian
https://www.catholiccrossreference.online/fathers/index.php/Isaiah 14:12#fna_iv.iv.ix.viii-p3.2

The Conferences of John Cassian. Part I. Containing Conferences I-X.
Conference VIII. The Second Conference of Abbot Serenus. On Principalities.
Chapter VIII. Of the fall of the devil and the angels.

“How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, who didst rise in the morning? how art thou fallen to the ground, that didst wound the nations? and thou saidst in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God, I will sit in the mountain of the covenant, in the sides of the north. I will ascend above the heights of the clouds. I will be like the Most High.”


========================

Athanasius

For they would not have remained in their own glory, unless, what the Father willed, that they had willed also. He, for instance, who did not remain, but went astray, heard the words, ‘How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning28712871 Is. xiv. 12.?’ But if this be so, how is only He Only-begotten Son and Word and Wisdom? or how, whereas so many are like the Father, is He only an Image? for among men too will be found many like the Father, numbers, for instance, of martyrs, and before them the Apostles and Prophets, and again before them the Patriarchs.
 
Last edited:
Steven Avery

Steven Avery

Administrator
Tony Kessinger
may have to buy .. check NYPL

The Devil is in the Details: The Subtlety of Satan in the Complexity of Life (2010)
Tony Kessinger
review by Roy B. Zuck
https://voice.dts.edu/review/tony-kessinger-the-devil-is-in-the-details/

Presenting a thorough discussion of Satan, the book begins by discussing the existence of angels, one of whom was Satan who fell from his lofty position in heaven. After discussing Isaiah 14:12–15 and Ezekiel 28:11–17, Kissinger concludes that these passages, especially the latter, describe the fall not of a human being but of “Lucifer,” the Latin term for the Hebrew lleyhe, “light bearer, morning star,” who desired to be like God and whose pride led to his downfall.

1753532413171.png
 
Last edited:
Steven Avery

Steven Avery

Administrator
Should the Bible say "Lucifer" or "morning star" in Isaiah 14:12? A Plain, Straightforward Bible Treatment of "LUCIFER" in Isaiah 14:12.
https://www.baptistboard.com/thread...-treatment-of-lucifer-in-isaiah-14-12.131848/



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."


SpanishReina-Valera (1557 through 1909)Lucero
CzechKralika (1613)lucifere
RomanianCornilescu (to present)Luceafar

"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...
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."
 
Steven Avery

Steven Avery

Administrator
KJV-only author Kirk DiVietro himself acknowledged that a literal meaning of the Hebrew word was "shining thing" (Anything But the KJB, p. 46).

=========

Alan Dale Gross

"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 Luciferrather 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.
 
Last edited:
Steven Avery

Steven Avery

Administrator
The OED gives five instances of Lucifer being used as a proper noun before the KJV was written:

OE Christ & Satan 366 Wæs þæt encgelcyn ær genemned, Lucifer haten, leohtberende.
a1300 Cursor Mundi 442 And for þat he was fair and bright, lucifer to nam he hight.
c1380 Wyclif Wks. (1880) 30 Þese nouelries maad of ydiotis & synful wrecchis of lucifers pride.
c1450 Mirour Saluacioun 4377 With feendes and lucifere..in helle.
1567 Compend. Bk. Godly Songs (1897) 175 Proude Lucifer, the greit maister of hell.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top