NIV version

capnator · Aug 1, 2006

NIV: Revelation 22:16,
"I, Jesus, have sent my angel to give you [1] this testimony for the churches. I am the Root and the Offspring of David, and the bright Morning Star."

Isaiah 14:12 How you have fallen from heaven, O morning star, son of the dawn! You have been cast down to the earth, you who once laid low the nations!

oops.

Sophia7 · Aug 1, 2006

Just to be clear, are you saying that the NIV is bad because it translates the Hebrew term in Isaiah 14:12 morning star rather than Lucifer? From what I have read, the NIV rendering would actually better convey the original descriptive meaning of the term.

The term Lucifer is found only in certain translations (originating with the Latin Vulgate), including the KJV. It was not at first used as a proper name associated with the devil or Satan. (For that matter, Satan is also a descriptive term rather than a proper name.)

In his Bible Questions Answered column in the Adventist Review (in 2004), Angel Manuel Rodriguez addressed the origin of the term Lucifer. Rodriguez said that the epithetic title "shining one, son of the dawn" (his rendering of the Hebrew), emphasizes glory, like the brightness of the morning, and a position of prominence.

The one thing that I would add to what he said is that Isaiah 14:12 does not actually refer to Satan but to the king of Babylon. It has often been interpreted as a metaphorical description of Satan's rebellion against God and fall from heaven as well, but I would be wary of taking it out of context.

woobadooba · Aug 1, 2006

captor said:
NIV: Revelation 22:16,
"I, Jesus, have sent my angel to give you [1] this testimony for the churches. I am the Root and the Offspring of David, and the bright Morning Star."

Isaiah 14:12 How you have fallen from heaven, O morning star, son of the dawn! You have been cast down to the earth, you who once laid low the nations!

oops.

And Jesus said, "I am the light of the world." Jn. 8:12

But then He also said, "You are the light of the world." Matt. 5:14

So who is the light of the world? Obviously Jesus, but when His purpose becomes our own, and His thoughts our thoughts, we too become a light to the world, but only because we are living and moving within His purpose.

Now then, what was Satan before He fell out of God's favor? He was one who lived and moved within the purpose of God. Thus He was the highest of angels, and was therefore called "the morning star".

Nevertheless, as you had noted, Jesus also referred to Himself as The Morning Star. So who then is the Morning Star, Jesus or Satan? Obviously Jesus (God). And when Satan (Lucifer at the time) lived and moved within God's purpose, he too was identified as such, although not in the same way, but in the likeness thereof. Hence likeness doesn't = sameness.

Thus the matter is solved.

woobadooba · Aug 1, 2006

Sophia7 said:
The one thing that I would add to what he said is that Isaiah 14:12 does not actually refer to Satan but to the king of Babylon. It has often been interpreted as a metaphorical description of Satan's rebellion against God and fall from heaven as well, but I would be wary of taking it out of context.

It is rightly interpreted as such, but only on the grounds that the king of Babylon was manifesting the same characteristics of Satan, thus disclosing himself to be subject to his influencing power.

By God referring to the king in this manner, He endeavored to open the eyes of those to whom the prophet was speaking of the true condition of the king's heart, to show them that his heart did not go after God, but after Satan, thus resembling his character.

This, of course, was also a rebuke to the king. Yet, it was a rebuke to Satan too! For in speaking in this way, God was informing him (Satan) that He was aware of what he was up to.

Now then, Jesus did something similar to Peter when He referred to him as "Satan" in Matthew 16:23. It's not that Jesus thought Peter to be Satan, but that He was disclosing to Peter that his thoughts were not God's thoughts; rather, they found their origin in Satan Himself, for they resembled his self-centered character. Again, it was also a rebuke to Satan in that Jesus was informing him that He knew what he was up to. So you could say that Jesus was speaking to, and thus rebuking both Peter and satan at the same time for the same reason.

So then, what we see in both accounts is that God could refer to someone as being someone else for the purpose of disclosing that the person(s) to whom He is speaking is manifesting the same characteristics of the one to whom he is being referred.

Sophia7 · Aug 1, 2006

woobadooba said:
It is rightly interpreted as such, but only on the grounds that the king of Babylon was manifesting the same characteristics of Satan, thus disclosing himself to be subject to his influencing power.

By God referring to the king in this manner, He endeavored to open the eyes of those to whom the prophet was speaking of the true condition of the king's
heart, to show them that his heart did not go after God, but after Satan, thus resembling his character.

This, of course, was also a rebuke to the king.

Now then, Jesus did something similar to Peter when He referred to him as "Satan" in Matthew 16:23. It's not that Jesus thought Peter to be Satan, but that He was disclosing to Peter that his thoughts were not God's thoughts; rather, they found their origin in Satan Himself, for they resembled his self-centered character.

So then, what we see in both counts is that God could refer to someone as being someone else for the purpose of disclosing that that someone, whoever it is, is disclosing the same characteristics of the one to whom he is being referred.

Yes, I agree. The king of Babylon could definitely be described as exhibiting the influence and character of Satan. I just believe that the primary purpose of this passage is a prophecy against Babylon rather than a historical account of Satan's fall.

woobadooba · Aug 1, 2006

Sophia7 said:
Yes, I agree. The king of Babylon could definitely be described as exhibiting the influence and character of Satan. I just believe that the primary purpose of this passage is a prophecy against Babylon rather than a historical account of Satan's fall.

Well, it's actually referring to both, except that the account that refers to Satan is brief.

After all, it wouldn't make much sense to believe that the king of Babylon fell from "heaven", or that he also went by the name of Lucifer whom we now know to be Satan. Isa. 14:12

The only one who fits this description is Satan. Rev. 12:9

Moreover Ezek. 28:11-18 employs the same idea that I spoke of in my previous post concerning the dual personage rebuke.

capnator · Aug 2, 2006

The NIV says Jesus is the Morning star that was cast from heaven. You can try to theologize your way around it I spose, but that would be the literal translation, just dont go spinning the line "let the bible interpret itself when telling people about prophecy"

woobadooba · Aug 2, 2006

capnator said:
The NIV says Jesus is the Morning star that was cast from heaven. You can try to theologize your way around it I spose, but that would be the literal translation, just dont go spinning the line "let the bible interpret itself when telling people about prophecy"

Show me in the NIV where it says Jesus was cast from heaven.

You are reading something into the NIV Bible that isn't there.

And did you really understand my response?

drgibson · Aug 2, 2006

Young's Literal Translation

Isaiah 14:12 How hast thou fallen from the heavens, O shining one, son of the dawn! Thou hast been cut down to earth, O weakener of nations.

Revelation 22:16
`I, Jesus did send my messenger to testify to you these things concerning the assemblies; I am the root and the offspring of David, the bright and morning star!

Since Isaiah and Revelation originate from different languages the translations are not quite the same but they are awfully close.

Sophia7 · Aug 2, 2006

drgibson said:
Young's Literal Translation

Isaiah 14:12 How hast thou fallen from the heavens, O shining one, son of the dawn! Thou hast been cut down to earth, O weakener of nations.

Revelation 22:16
`I, Jesus did send my messenger to testify to you these things concerning the assemblies; I am the root and the offspring of David, the bright and morning star!

Since Isaiah and Revelation originate from different languages the translations are not quite the same but they are awfully close.

But it doesn't say that Jesus fell from heaven. These two verses are talking about two different things. Jesus and the king of Babylon/Satan are compared metaphorically to the brightness of the dawn, but that doesn't equate them.

Here are a couple of other verses in which the NIV uses the term morning star. What do you make of them?

2 PE 1:19 And we have the word of the prophets made more certain, and you will do well to pay attention to it, as to a light shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts.

REV 2:26 To him who overcomes and does my will to the end, I will give authority over the nations--
27 `He will rule them with an iron scepter;
he will dash them to pieces like pottery' --
just as I have received authority from my Father. 28 I will also give him the morning star. 29 He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches.

woobadooba · Aug 2, 2006

Sophia7 said:
But it doesn't say that Jesus fell from heaven. These two verses are talking about two different things. Jesus and the king of Babylon/Satan are compared metaphorically to the brightness of the dawn, but that doesn't equate them.

Here are a couple of other verses in which the NIV uses the term morning star. What do you make of them?

2 PE 1:19 And we have the word of the prophets made more certain, and you will do well to pay attention to it, as to a light shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts.

REV 2:26 To him who overcomes and does my will to the end, I will give authority over the nations--
27 `He will rule them with an iron scepter;
he will dash them to pieces like pottery' --
just as I have received authority from my Father. 28 I will also give him the morning star. 29 He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches.

I don't think drGibson is saying that the NIV states that Jesus fell from heaven; rather, what I see him saying is that though the titles given in the two passages are similar, they are not exactly the same. Therefore, it can't be justifiably argued by the OP that the NIV says that Jesus was cast out of heaven.

drgibson · Aug 2, 2006

woobadooba said:
I don't think drGibson is saying that the NIV states that Jesus fell from heaven; rather, what I see him saying is that though the titles given in the two passages are similar, they are not exactly the same. Therefore, it can't be justifiably argued by the OP that the NIV says that Jesus was cast out of heaven.

Right My initial point is that the translations to the two different descriptive terms in these verses are the same. I wasn’t implying that they referred to the same being. In other translations they make the logical conclusion and translate O shining one, son of the dawn in Isaiah as Lucifer.

Look at Isaiah in context;

Isaiah 14 10-15
10 They will all respond,
they will say to you,
"You also have become weak, as we are;
you have become like us."
11 All your pomp has been brought down to the grave,
along with the noise of your harps;
maggots are spread out beneath you
and worms cover you.
12 How you have fallen from heaven,
O morning star, son of the dawn!
You have been cast down to the earth,
you who once laid low the nations!
13 You said in your heart,
"I will ascend to heaven;
I will raise my throne
above the stars of God;
I will sit enthroned on the mount of assembly,
on the utmost heights of the sacred mountain.
14 I will ascend above the tops of the clouds;
I will make myself like the Most High."
15 But you are brought down to the grave,
to the depths of the pit.

Look at verses 13 & 14 this is clearly referring to statements that satin made. Show me anywhere in scripture where Jesus make the statement “I will raise my throne above the stars of God” This clearly written in the context of what was in satin’s heart and how to correlates to the King of Babylon. We must remember that at one time satin held the position right below that of Christ so their names would be similar maybe even the same.

Sophia7 · Aug 2, 2006

OK, I see what you're saying, and I agree for the most part. I would point again to what Rodriguez says about the term translated morning star or Lucifer in Isaiah, though, because it was not originally used as a proper noun but as a descriptive term. I don't believe that Jesus and Satan would have ever had the same name or title; Jesus, even preincarnate, was always superior because he was not a created angel but the Creator. Rather, they both had positions of prominence and a glorious presence that was poetically likened to the brightness of morning or the morning star. What their roles were exactly we can't really know for sure, but I just have a hard time believing that Satan would have had a position of power anywhere near the level of Jesus. I think he was deluded in imagining that he could usurp Jesus' authority. I guess I don't see these two texts (in Isaiah and Revelation) as relating to each other since, as you pointed out, they are translated from different words in the original languages. So I don't really see a problem with the NIV on this, as it seems the OP does.

capnator · Aug 3, 2006

I have in my hands my NIV this is what it says;

Isaiah 14:12 How you have fallen from heaven,
O morning star, son of the dawn!
You have been cast down to the earth,
you who once laid low the nations!

Now it seems that you have agreed that this is most definately talking about Lucifer/Satan.. what do I see in my NIV next to "morning star" a little l pointing me to the footnotes which refers us to look at 2 Peter 1:19 and Revelation 2:28 to find out some more about the morning star.

2 Peter 1: 19 And we have the word of the prophets made more certain, and you will do well to pay attention to it, as to a light shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts.

Rev 2:26- 28
26 To him who overcomes and does my will to the end, I will give authority over the nations–
27 ‘He will rule them with an iron scepter;
he will dash them to pieces like pottery’*–

just as I have received authority from my Father. 28 I will also give him the morning star.

Way to go NIV.

Sophia7 · Aug 3, 2006

Yes, but that is not equating them or saying that Jesus fell from heaven; it is simply referencing other texts that use the same term in the NIV. It is not an interpretation. The term morning star was not intended to be a proper noun, limited to one being. In that sense, the NIV conveys the idea of the original languages better than KJV (and before it the Vulgate) since most modern readers wouldn't understand what the term Lucifer meant originally and how it came to be attributed to Satan. The NIV uses the same English term in Isaiah and 2 Peter and Revelation to describe different things. I don't see this as a problem for the NIV. I have a few other problems with it, as I do with all Bible translations, including the KJV. None of them are perfect.

capnator · Aug 3, 2006

Sophia7 said:
Yes, but that is not equating them or saying that Jesus fell from heaven; it is simply referencing other texts that use the same term in the NIV. It is not an interpretation. The term morning star was not intended to be a proper noun, limited to one being. In that sense, the NIV conveys the idea of the original languages better than KJV (and before it the Vulgate) since most modern readers wouldn't understand what the term Lucifer meant originally and how it came to be attributed to Satan. The NIV uses the same English term in Isaiah and 2 Peter and Revelation to describe different things. I don't see this as a problem for the NIV. I have a few other problems with it, as I do with all Bible translations, including the KJV. None of them are perfect.

It seems to me that the obvious conclusion that anyone who just picked up the bible for the first time would be that isaiah 14 and references in 2 peter and revalation were talking about the same being.

If you go into some long winded explanations you can try and nut it out and come up with some funky explanations why this is not so... but then again you can do the same thing to give validity to a lot of other errors too.

drgibson · Aug 3, 2006

capnator said:
It seems to me that the obvious conclusion that anyone who just picked up the bible for the first time would be that isaiah 14 and references in 2 peter and revalation were talking about the same being.

If you go into some long winded explanations you can try and nut it out and come up with some funky explanations why this is not so... but then again you can do the same thing to give validity to a lot of other errors too.

Are trying to say that the NIV version of the Bible is full of errors, or the Bible is full of errors?

Sophia7 · Aug 3, 2006

capnator said:
It seems to me that the obvious conclusion that anyone who just picked up the bible for the first time would be that isaiah 14 and references in 2 peter and revalation were talking about the same being.

If you go into some long winded explanations you can try and nut it out and come up with some funky explanations why this is not so... but then again you can do the same thing to give validity to a lot of other errors too.

I seriously doubt that anyone who picked up the Bible for the first time would start by comparing those texts. There are plenty of excuses that I've heard people use to question the Bible's validity, but this is not one of them. There are a lot of things about the Bible that a person reading it for the first time simply wouldn't get without further explanation. That doesn't mean that the Bible is in error or that we shouldn't go beyond face value and look at the historical context and the original intent of a text to try to understand it better.

capnator · Aug 3, 2006

drgibson said:
Are trying to say that the NIV version of the Bible is full of errors, or the Bible is full of errors?

I'm was saying that when you need to go into a long winded explanation to explain away what looks like a simple conclusion that it's often wrong.

The NIV seems to me to have things that are questionable about it. I most definately believe that "all scripture is inspired by God", I'm just not so sure about the NIV that's all.

Sophia7 · Aug 3, 2006

capnator said:
I'm was saying that when you need to go into a long winded explanation to explain away what looks like a simple conclusion that it's often wrong.

The NIV seems to me to have things that are questionable about it. I most definately believe that "all scripture is inspired by God", I'm just not so sure about the NIV that's all.

If you draw a perfunctory conclusion that the NIV equates Jesus and Satan because of its marginal notes, then that is wrong. The simplest explanation is not always right. Further explanation is necessary in this case.

Are you saying that the NIV is not Scripture then? Of course it has some things that are questionable, but so does every other translation. I don't believe that the Bible was verbally inspired (that is, dictated word-for-word), so I would grant the textual scholars some discretion in trying to figure out the best way to express in English the message that God originally intended. They do make mistakes. If I have trouble with something in one version, then I like to consult other translations to see what they say. I think it's good to have a balanced viewpoint, and there is also an element of personal preference; some people like more literal translations. I grew up with the KJV and love it for its literary qualities, but it, too, has some textual problems, and it is difficult for most people to understand anymore. On the other hand, I hate paraphrases and cringe every time someone breaks out The Clear Word during Sabbath School.

NIV version

Senior Member

Tall73's Wife

Legend

Legend

Tall73's Wife

Legend

Senior Member

Legend

Active Member

Tall73's Wife

Legend

Active Member

Tall73's Wife

Senior Member

Tall73's Wife

Senior Member

Active Member

Tall73's Wife

Senior Member

Tall73's Wife

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency