Two passages, Two translations...can you tell the difference?
- Thread starter Blessed2Progress
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Far from being clear it is in fact not so. The one who was called the bright morning star was the King of Babylon who had 'laid low the nations'. Kings in those days regularly applied such ideas to themselves, and the king of Babylon was no exception. Kings did think in terms of placing themselves among the gods, In the New Year ritual the king would represent a god. Isaiah was being derisory and saying, recognise that you are just an ordinary man and will soon be in the grave with all the others.
It is very probable that under the use of drugs he thought he was 'in heaven', and proclaimed as much.
yes, Their temples were enclosed by gardens and having close connections with Israelite beliefs they may well have seen those gardens as 'the garden of Eden' with the king as 'the anointed cherub'. Cherubim were a feature of Tyrian temples.
yes the kings of Tyre may well have associated themselves with the covering cherubim and seen themselves in that role as they walked in the sacred gardens.
Tyrian temples were on high places, and the trees in the garden would be covered in jewels
it is certainly probable that the king saw himself in this way in line with his ideas garnered from Genesis 2-3. Isaiah is being sarcastic.
me too.
you should do a study into what these kings regularly thought about themselves. they were constantly involved in drugs and hallucinations and had exalted ideas about themselves.
Bingo! We have a winner. Pharaoh was shown like a dragon, the King of Tyrus like the "covering cherub", the King of Babylon like Lucifer because they are of their father the Devil. God is not only speaking to the man, but to the spirit that is at work in the world and in mankind.
Ephesians 2:2
Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience:
Your either of Gods Spirit, or of the spirit of the Prince of this world.
1 John 4:4
Ye are of God, little children, and have overcome them: because greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world.
Ephesians 2:2
Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience:
Your either of Gods Spirit, or of the spirit of the Prince of this world.
1 John 4:4
Ye are of God, little children, and have overcome them: because greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world.
"lucifer" is literally Latin for "light bearer"
the KJV translators didn't "translate" the Hebrew word here --
it's not clear what the Hebrew word itself means. the Latin may be a poor translation, so that the association with the 'morning star' Venus is off-base. some scholars (like those in this link) think the word stems from "halal" which can mean 'shining' but has a lot of other possible uses too.
someone who knows something about Hebrew can help us out here, but i think that no one can really say for certain what it means -- it could be that the KJV and modern translations are probably equally wrong about this word. this isn't a "proof text" for the KJV above other English translations -- it's an illustration of how that the original language (which is not Elizabethtan English, and not Latin either) is still in some ways not wholly understood.
the "morning star" reference to Christ in Revelation is Greek - totally different, and not nearly as unclear.
if we take it as a "title" or "description of status" rather than a proper name, the befuddlement disappears - Satan once had a high status, but was cast down, because of His pride. our Lord is now given that honorific, forever.
the KJV translators didn't "translate" the Hebrew word here --
הילל (hê·lêl)
-- they copied the Latin vulgate, probably because they didn't know how it should be translated. this is the only place in the entire Bible that particular word is used.
it's not clear what the Hebrew word itself means. the Latin may be a poor translation, so that the association with the 'morning star' Venus is off-base. some scholars (like those in this link) think the word stems from "halal" which can mean 'shining' but has a lot of other possible uses too.
someone who knows something about Hebrew can help us out here, but i think that no one can really say for certain what it means -- it could be that the KJV and modern translations are probably equally wrong about this word. this isn't a "proof text" for the KJV above other English translations -- it's an illustration of how that the original language (which is not Elizabethtan English, and not Latin either) is still in some ways not wholly understood.
the "morning star" reference to Christ in Revelation is Greek - totally different, and not nearly as unclear.
if we take it as a "title" or "description of status" rather than a proper name, the befuddlement disappears - Satan once had a high status, but was cast down, because of His pride. our Lord is now given that honorific, forever.
Last edited:
i found this article to be a thoughtful, well written & well researched response to the whole question about Isaiah 14:12 -- it details the KJV-cult argument about this verse, why modern translations have something different, and is relatively free from the bias we hear & read from KJV-only-ist sources.
but hey, i don't know Hebrew at all. i just know how to look things up. maybe one of our better-studied brothers and/or sisters will notice this thread and correct me or confirm what i found, i hope. that is - i hope either way, to be corrected or confirmed
no shame in being wrong so long as you remain teachable.
but hey, i don't know Hebrew at all. i just know how to look things up. maybe one of our better-studied brothers and/or sisters will notice this thread and correct me or confirm what i found, i hope. that is - i hope either way, to be corrected or confirmed
no shame in being wrong so long as you remain teachable.
The KJV translates Strongs H1966 in the following manner: Lucifer (1x).
Bible usage...Lucifer = "light-bearer"
2 Corinthians 11:14
And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.
Satan is the lessor light that rules over the children of darkness.
Bible usage...Lucifer = "light-bearer"
2 Corinthians 11:14
And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.
Satan is the lessor light that rules over the children of darkness.
Hi,
I apologize for what I said am so sorry. but here is to reiterate my position on Isaiah 14 that Lucifer is indeed an angelic being and not human being. Being one of the stars(angel) of God . Lucifer is referred to Satan not in his sinful estate but wanted to exalt his position over other angels longing to have been worship as God, which is indicated in the phrase “even the throne of God”. His 5 “I wills” marked his revolt against God but to his downfall.
As said, Stars =angels, and Lucifer = angel. The scriptures are clear on this matter. Citing Job 38:7 says
“When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?”
A diagram of the verse is:
morning stars = sons of God
sang together = shouted for joy
This is what the Psalmist did. This what morning stars did, they sang together and shouted for joy.
Psalms 33:3 Sing unto him a new song; play skilfully with a loud noise.
Psalms 95:1 O come, let us sing unto the LORD: let us make a joyful noise to the rock of our salvation.
What about the term “sons of God”, this term as used in the Bible may be applied to:
1. Adam. As quoted in the N.T. found in Luke 3:38 Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son ofAdam, which was the son of God.
2. Saved/ believers in Christ. John 1:12 and others.
3. Angels. Citing the book of Job 1:6 and 2:1 etc. To quote:
Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them.
Again there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them to present himself before the LORD.
The “sons of God” could not be a mere human since they present themselves before the LORD and this refer to the angels. The objection may arise here is that Satan is different from the angels. This is so, because Lucifer is now in his fallen estate. Notice Job 38:7 that indeed Lucifer is included shouting for joy when he still not in his fallen estate and that the word “all” indicated it so.
Thus the stars therefore here refer to the angels…not yet convince on the stars as angels? Let then the scripture speaks of itself for which I am quoting Revelation 1:20 for reference.
“The mystery of the seven stars which thou sawest in my right hand, and the seven golden candlesticks. The seven stars are the angels of the seven churches: and the seven candlesticks which thou sawest are the seven churches.” So what’s the problem? Lucifer is an angelic being but not a human being.
It seems we got a bigger problem since Isaiah 14:16 told that Lucifer is a man. The term “man” as used in the bible does not speaks only of a human kind. It may also be applied also to an angelic being. Scriptural proofs: Please read Zechariah 1: 8-11 and I quote:
8 I saw by night, and behold a man riding upon a red horse, and he stood among the myrtle trees that were in the bottom; and behind him were there red horses, speckled, and white.
9Then said I, O my lord, what are these? And the angel that talked with me said unto me, I will shew thee what these be.
10And the man that stood among the myrtle trees answered and said, These are they whom the LORD hath sent to walk to and fro through the earth.
11And they answered the angel of the LORD that stood among the myrtle trees, and said, We have walked to and fro through the earth, and, behold, all the earth sitteth still, and is at rest.
Hope we figured this out.
In Luke 24: 4 says and behold two(2) men but in John 20:12 sees two (2) angels.
Luke 24:4 And it came to pass, as they were much perplexed thereabout, behold, two men stood by them in shining garments:
John 20:12 And seeth two angels in white sitting, the one at the head, and the other at the feet, where the body of Jesus had lain.
Here’s more:
In the Bible ANGELS are CALLED MEN (Gen 18:1-2, 19:1-11), so the fact they were called "men" is really moot and has no bearing on what they were. The strange "nature" of these creatures was unusual, and probably one reason why the Lord was determined to remove every last one of them from the earth, not to mention for the trouble they likely caused.
Nor can it be claimed that they were not offspring of angels because they LOOKED LIKE MEN, because we know that angels can easily assume a human-like form, and that their sex is always masculine (not "SEXLESS"). The writer to the Hebrews mentions that angels can be entertained without man’s knowing it (Hebrews 13:2). Angels must be convincingly like men; the homosexuals of Sodom were very capable of judging sexuality, and they were attracted by the ‘male’ angels who came to destroy the city (Genesis 19:1, especially verse 5).
So we can see that angels are CALLED MEN, and they APPEAR AS MEN in the Bible.
Whatever "nature" they had or did not have, the Bible does define the term ‘the sons of God’ for us.
God cares,
I apologize for what I said am so sorry. but here is to reiterate my position on Isaiah 14 that Lucifer is indeed an angelic being and not human being. Being one of the stars(angel) of God . Lucifer is referred to Satan not in his sinful estate but wanted to exalt his position over other angels longing to have been worship as God, which is indicated in the phrase “even the throne of God”. His 5 “I wills” marked his revolt against God but to his downfall.
As said, Stars =angels, and Lucifer = angel. The scriptures are clear on this matter. Citing Job 38:7 says
“When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?”
A diagram of the verse is:
morning stars = sons of God
sang together = shouted for joy
This is what the Psalmist did. This what morning stars did, they sang together and shouted for joy.
Psalms 33:3 Sing unto him a new song; play skilfully with a loud noise.
Psalms 95:1 O come, let us sing unto the LORD: let us make a joyful noise to the rock of our salvation.
What about the term “sons of God”, this term as used in the Bible may be applied to:
1. Adam. As quoted in the N.T. found in Luke 3:38 Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son ofAdam, which was the son of God.
2. Saved/ believers in Christ. John 1:12 and others.
3. Angels. Citing the book of Job 1:6 and 2:1 etc. To quote:
Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them.
Again there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them to present himself before the LORD.
The “sons of God” could not be a mere human since they present themselves before the LORD and this refer to the angels. The objection may arise here is that Satan is different from the angels. This is so, because Lucifer is now in his fallen estate. Notice Job 38:7 that indeed Lucifer is included shouting for joy when he still not in his fallen estate and that the word “all” indicated it so.
Thus the stars therefore here refer to the angels…not yet convince on the stars as angels? Let then the scripture speaks of itself for which I am quoting Revelation 1:20 for reference.
“The mystery of the seven stars which thou sawest in my right hand, and the seven golden candlesticks. The seven stars are the angels of the seven churches: and the seven candlesticks which thou sawest are the seven churches.” So what’s the problem? Lucifer is an angelic being but not a human being.
It seems we got a bigger problem since Isaiah 14:16 told that Lucifer is a man. The term “man” as used in the bible does not speaks only of a human kind. It may also be applied also to an angelic being. Scriptural proofs: Please read Zechariah 1: 8-11 and I quote:
8 I saw by night, and behold a man riding upon a red horse, and he stood among the myrtle trees that were in the bottom; and behind him were there red horses, speckled, and white.
9Then said I, O my lord, what are these? And the angel that talked with me said unto me, I will shew thee what these be.
10And the man that stood among the myrtle trees answered and said, These are they whom the LORD hath sent to walk to and fro through the earth.
11And they answered the angel of the LORD that stood among the myrtle trees, and said, We have walked to and fro through the earth, and, behold, all the earth sitteth still, and is at rest.
Hope we figured this out.
In Luke 24: 4 says and behold two(2) men but in John 20:12 sees two (2) angels.
Luke 24:4 And it came to pass, as they were much perplexed thereabout, behold, two men stood by them in shining garments:
John 20:12 And seeth two angels in white sitting, the one at the head, and the other at the feet, where the body of Jesus had lain.
Here’s more:
In the Bible ANGELS are CALLED MEN (Gen 18:1-2, 19:1-11), so the fact they were called "men" is really moot and has no bearing on what they were. The strange "nature" of these creatures was unusual, and probably one reason why the Lord was determined to remove every last one of them from the earth, not to mention for the trouble they likely caused.
Nor can it be claimed that they were not offspring of angels because they LOOKED LIKE MEN, because we know that angels can easily assume a human-like form, and that their sex is always masculine (not "SEXLESS"). The writer to the Hebrews mentions that angels can be entertained without man’s knowing it (Hebrews 13:2). Angels must be convincingly like men; the homosexuals of Sodom were very capable of judging sexuality, and they were attracted by the ‘male’ angels who came to destroy the city (Genesis 19:1, especially verse 5).
So we can see that angels are CALLED MEN, and they APPEAR AS MEN in the Bible.
Whatever "nature" they had or did not have, the Bible does define the term ‘the sons of God’ for us.
God cares,