Lucifer or Morning Star?
In Isaiah 14:12 the King James Holy Bible (and MANY others, as we shall soon see) reads: "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."
The reason this passage is attacked by the modern bible version proponents is because the NASB, RSV, Holman Standard, NIV, St. Joseph New American Bible, Jerusalem Bible, and many others have translated this section in a VERY different way. Instead of, "How art thou fallen from heaven, O LUCIFER. . .", they say, "How you have fallen from heaven, O MORNING STAR. . ." or "DAY STAR"
One of the loopier new versions that has caught the imagination of the "No Bible in any language is the infallible words of God" crowd (and that is the majority of Christians today) is Daniel Wallace and company's NET version, (affectionately known to Bible believers as the NUT version.) They translate it as "O shining one, son of the dawn" and then they have this amazingly convoluted footnote:
"The Hebrew text has "helel ben-shakhar, Helel son of Shachar, which is probably a name for the morning star (Venus) or the crescent moon. What is the background for the imagery in vv. 12-15? This whole section (vv. 4b-21) is directed to the king of Babylon, who is clearly depicted as a human ruler. Other kings of the earth address him in vv. 9ff., he is called the man in v. 16, and, according to vv. 19-20, he possesses a physical body. Nevertheless the language of vv. 12-15 has led some to see a dual referent in the taunt song. These verses, which appear to be spoken by other pagan kings to a pagan king (cf. vv. 9-11), contain several titles and motifs that resemble those of Canaanite mythology, including references to Helel son of Shachar, the stars of El, the mountain of assembly, the recesses of Zaphon, and the divine title Most High. Apparently these verses allude to a mythological story about a minor god (Helel son of Shachar) who tried to take over Zaphon, the mountain of the gods. His attempted coup failed and he was hurled down to the underworld. The king of Babylon is taunted for having similar unrealized delusions of grandeur. Some Christians have seen an allusion to the fall of Satan here, but this seems contextually unwarranted." (Wallace's NET (NUT) version)
Doug Kutilek, who himself does not believe that any Bible in any language is the complete and 100% true words of God, and who tells us that regarding the N.T. he accepts neither the Textus Receptus, nor the Westcott-Hort influenced critical texts, but thinks that he needs to evaluate every reading for himself before he decides which readings are right and which are not, (in other words Kutilek is his own authority) thinks he has irrefutable proof that Isaiah 14:12 is talking about the planet Venus.
Mr. Kutilek points out in one of his articles criticizing Lucifer in the KJB that the marginal reading of the King James Bible says: "or, O day star", and thus, he thinks, the KJB translators were on the side of the modern versions. It should be pointed out that we King James Bible believers do not believe the KJB translators were inspired nor do we believe their own thoughts, their Preface or their own theology was always right. We believe and defend THE TEXT of the King James Bible as having been guided by God Almighty to give us His perfect words of 100% truth. God overruled the occasional marginal readings and guided them to put in THE TEXT what He wanted to be there. The Hebrew does not mean "day star", and though there is a relationship between the planet Venus and what is called the morning star, the Isaiah passage is actually referring to the fall of Lucifer, who became Satan, and not some planet wanting to be like God.
The only thing the marginal notes show is that among the sixty some translators who worked on the King James Bible not all of them were agreed on how to translate numerous words or passages. The marginal notes refer to ideas other translators entertained but which were rejected in the final TEXT. You can see many of these marginal notes throughout the whole Bible. For example, in Isaiah 6:9 we read "Here ye indeed, but understand not" - marginal note "Or, without ceasing". Isaiah 9:1 "in Galilee of the nations" - or, populous (Galilee)"; Isaiah 9:16 "the leaders of this people cause them to err" - or, "they that call them blessed"; Isaiah 14:4 "the golden city ceased" - or, "the exactress of gold"; Isaiah 14:9 "stirreth up...all the chief ones of the earth" - or, "the great goats"; and Isaiah 15:7 "to the brook of the willows" - or, "the valley of the Arabians". We do not defend the marginal notes, but the words God caused to be placed into the TEXT of the King James Bible as being inspired and 100% true.
The Funk and Wagnalls Standard College Dictionary defines Lucifer as 1. The archangel who led the revolt of the angels and fell from heaven: identified with Satan. and 2. The planet Venus when it appears as the morning star.
There are several problems with the translation "O morning star", but first let me point out that there are as many opinions in Bible commentaries as to who or what is being referred to as there are bible versions. Some absolutely deny that it has anything to do with the fall of Satan. Others believe this passage refers to the king of Babylon, whom many identify as king Nebuchadnezzar; others believe it refers to Belshazzar, some say it speaks of the Antichrist, and others as the kingdom of Babylon itself. Amazingly, some even support the idea that it was the planet Venus that wanted to be like God and will be cast down to hell.
Many others see Isaiah 14:12 as referring to the Satanic spiritual power behind the king and kingdom of Babylon. There is little agreement among scholars as to who or what is being addressed in this passage or how to translate it.
The problem with the translation, "MORNING STAR" (#1966- haylale), is that the words "morning" and "star" are not found here in ANY Hebrew text. (Morning is #1242- boker and star is #3556- kokawb)
The word for star IS found in verse 13, where it says: "I will exalt my throne above the stars of God." The two words, morning and star, are found together in Job 38:7, where God is asking Job in verse 4, "Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth?. . . When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?" This might be a reference to the angels who rejoiced at God's creation, or the "morning stars" that sang may well be an anthropomorphism of the first created literal stars "singing". God also describes mountains and hills as singing and trees of the field clapping their hands (See Isaiah 55:12).
(more to come)
In Isaiah 14:12 the King James Holy Bible (and MANY others, as we shall soon see) reads: "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."
The reason this passage is attacked by the modern bible version proponents is because the NASB, RSV, Holman Standard, NIV, St. Joseph New American Bible, Jerusalem Bible, and many others have translated this section in a VERY different way. Instead of, "How art thou fallen from heaven, O LUCIFER. . .", they say, "How you have fallen from heaven, O MORNING STAR. . ." or "DAY STAR"
One of the loopier new versions that has caught the imagination of the "No Bible in any language is the infallible words of God" crowd (and that is the majority of Christians today) is Daniel Wallace and company's NET version, (affectionately known to Bible believers as the NUT version.) They translate it as "O shining one, son of the dawn" and then they have this amazingly convoluted footnote:
"The Hebrew text has "helel ben-shakhar, Helel son of Shachar, which is probably a name for the morning star (Venus) or the crescent moon. What is the background for the imagery in vv. 12-15? This whole section (vv. 4b-21) is directed to the king of Babylon, who is clearly depicted as a human ruler. Other kings of the earth address him in vv. 9ff., he is called the man in v. 16, and, according to vv. 19-20, he possesses a physical body. Nevertheless the language of vv. 12-15 has led some to see a dual referent in the taunt song. These verses, which appear to be spoken by other pagan kings to a pagan king (cf. vv. 9-11), contain several titles and motifs that resemble those of Canaanite mythology, including references to Helel son of Shachar, the stars of El, the mountain of assembly, the recesses of Zaphon, and the divine title Most High. Apparently these verses allude to a mythological story about a minor god (Helel son of Shachar) who tried to take over Zaphon, the mountain of the gods. His attempted coup failed and he was hurled down to the underworld. The king of Babylon is taunted for having similar unrealized delusions of grandeur. Some Christians have seen an allusion to the fall of Satan here, but this seems contextually unwarranted." (Wallace's NET (NUT) version)
Doug Kutilek, who himself does not believe that any Bible in any language is the complete and 100% true words of God, and who tells us that regarding the N.T. he accepts neither the Textus Receptus, nor the Westcott-Hort influenced critical texts, but thinks that he needs to evaluate every reading for himself before he decides which readings are right and which are not, (in other words Kutilek is his own authority) thinks he has irrefutable proof that Isaiah 14:12 is talking about the planet Venus.
Mr. Kutilek points out in one of his articles criticizing Lucifer in the KJB that the marginal reading of the King James Bible says: "or, O day star", and thus, he thinks, the KJB translators were on the side of the modern versions. It should be pointed out that we King James Bible believers do not believe the KJB translators were inspired nor do we believe their own thoughts, their Preface or their own theology was always right. We believe and defend THE TEXT of the King James Bible as having been guided by God Almighty to give us His perfect words of 100% truth. God overruled the occasional marginal readings and guided them to put in THE TEXT what He wanted to be there. The Hebrew does not mean "day star", and though there is a relationship between the planet Venus and what is called the morning star, the Isaiah passage is actually referring to the fall of Lucifer, who became Satan, and not some planet wanting to be like God.
The only thing the marginal notes show is that among the sixty some translators who worked on the King James Bible not all of them were agreed on how to translate numerous words or passages. The marginal notes refer to ideas other translators entertained but which were rejected in the final TEXT. You can see many of these marginal notes throughout the whole Bible. For example, in Isaiah 6:9 we read "Here ye indeed, but understand not" - marginal note "Or, without ceasing". Isaiah 9:1 "in Galilee of the nations" - or, populous (Galilee)"; Isaiah 9:16 "the leaders of this people cause them to err" - or, "they that call them blessed"; Isaiah 14:4 "the golden city ceased" - or, "the exactress of gold"; Isaiah 14:9 "stirreth up...all the chief ones of the earth" - or, "the great goats"; and Isaiah 15:7 "to the brook of the willows" - or, "the valley of the Arabians". We do not defend the marginal notes, but the words God caused to be placed into the TEXT of the King James Bible as being inspired and 100% true.
The Funk and Wagnalls Standard College Dictionary defines Lucifer as 1. The archangel who led the revolt of the angels and fell from heaven: identified with Satan. and 2. The planet Venus when it appears as the morning star.
There are several problems with the translation "O morning star", but first let me point out that there are as many opinions in Bible commentaries as to who or what is being referred to as there are bible versions. Some absolutely deny that it has anything to do with the fall of Satan. Others believe this passage refers to the king of Babylon, whom many identify as king Nebuchadnezzar; others believe it refers to Belshazzar, some say it speaks of the Antichrist, and others as the kingdom of Babylon itself. Amazingly, some even support the idea that it was the planet Venus that wanted to be like God and will be cast down to hell.
Many others see Isaiah 14:12 as referring to the Satanic spiritual power behind the king and kingdom of Babylon. There is little agreement among scholars as to who or what is being addressed in this passage or how to translate it.
The problem with the translation, "MORNING STAR" (#1966- haylale), is that the words "morning" and "star" are not found here in ANY Hebrew text. (Morning is #1242- boker and star is #3556- kokawb)
The word for star IS found in verse 13, where it says: "I will exalt my throne above the stars of God." The two words, morning and star, are found together in Job 38:7, where God is asking Job in verse 4, "Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth?. . . When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?" This might be a reference to the angels who rejoiced at God's creation, or the "morning stars" that sang may well be an anthropomorphism of the first created literal stars "singing". God also describes mountains and hills as singing and trees of the field clapping their hands (See Isaiah 55:12).
(more to come)