• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.
  3. Please note there is a new rule regarding the posting of videos. It reads, "Post a summary of the videos you post . An exception can be made for music videos.". Unless you are simply sharing music, please post a summary, or the gist, of the video you wish to share.

the morning star

Discussion in 'Bibliology & Hermeneutics' started by Defender of the Faith 777, Nov 14, 2002.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Defender of the Faith 777

    Defender of the Faith 777 Well-Known Member

    +4
    United Ch. of Christ
    in the niv bible in isaish 14:12 calls satan the morning star,but in revelation 22:16 Jesus calls himself the morning star. why?
     
    We teamed up with Faith Counseling. Can they help you today?
  2. ZiSunka

    ZiSunka It means 'yellow dog'

    +276
    Christian
    The language is so framed as to apply to the Babylonian king primarily, and at the same time to shadow forth through him, the great final enemy, the man of sin, Antichrist, of Daniel, St. Paul, and St. John; he alone shall fulfil exhaustively all the lineaments here given.

    12. Lucifer--"day star." A title truly belonging to Christ (Revelation 22:16), "the bright and morning star," and therefore hereafter to be assumed by Antichrist. GESENIUS, however, renders the Hebrew here as in Ezekiel 21:12, Zechariah 11:2, "howl." --Commentary Critical and Explanatory
    on the Whole Bible



    Satan takes the title for himself, though it belongs rightly to Christ. Seems like something satan would do!
     
  3. jayebrownlee

    jayebrownlee Senior Veteran

    +12
    Protestant
    Married
    I am really not sure about this one, but I am very interested. My fiancé and I have been looking at this, since we read your post. We are by no means experts and this is only our personal opinion but,

    is it possible that part of the reason that Satan fell from heaven in the first place is that he was trying to steal the place of Jesus? Giving himself this name instead of actually deserving it like Jesus does?

    I tend to think that if Jesus himself calls himself the morning star, then he is the one who truly deserves to use that name and not Satan at all.

    Your sister in Christ

    Jay
     
  4. filosofer

    filosofer Senior Veteran

    +287
    Lutheran
    Lucifier is the the Latin word that translates the Hebrew HELLEL into Latin, and in English we would translate it as "morning star."
     
  5. Higher Truth

    Higher Truth Active Member

    962
    +8
    Messianic
    The people who use KJV Bibles [33% on this forum] get a lot of criticism for their 'KJV" only stand on interpretation. This is a clear illustration in the difference between translations. I personally would not use an NIV Bible. I have found many instances where words of critical meaning do not translate well in other versions.

    KJV
    Isa 14:12 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!

    How art thou fallen [05307] naphal
    from heaven, [08064] shamayim
    O Lucifer, [01966] heylel
    son [01121] ben >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>KJV Translators chose son not star
    of the morning [07837] shachar
    (with Strongs #) [03213] yalal


    Available Translations and Versions for
    Isa 14:12

    "How you are fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! How you are cut down to the ground, You who weakened the nations!
    NKJV Copyright 1982 Thomas Nelson

    "How you are fallen from heaven, O shining star, son of the morning! You have been thrown down to the earth, you who destroyed the nations of the world.
    NLT Copyright 1996 Tyndale Charitable Trust

    "How you have fallen from heaven, O star of the morning, son of the dawn ! You have been cut down to the earth, You who have weakened the nations !
    NASB copyright 1995 Lockman Foundation

    "How you are fallen from heaven, O Day Star, son of Dawn! How you are cut down to the ground, you who laid the nations low!
    RSV copyright info

    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! Websters


    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. YLT

    How art thou fallen from heaven, Lucifer, son of the morning! Thou art cut down to the ground, that didst prostrate the nations! Darbys

    How art thou fallen from heaven, O day-star, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, that didst lay low the nations! ASV

    How you are fallen from heaven, Heylel, son of the morning! How you are cut down to the ground, who laid the nations low! HNV
     
  6. filosofer

    filosofer Senior Veteran

    +287
    Lutheran
    But again, the basis of evaluating a translation is to see how well the translation handles the original language and conveying that into the target language (in this case, English).

    Why does the KJV use the Latin word instead of "translating"? (Not meant as a criticism of KJV, but KJVO position)
     
  7. Higher Truth

    Higher Truth Active Member

    962
    +8
    Messianic
    There are diferent 'families' of texts available. This is where these differences originate from. Some feel that the dead sea scrolls are important in 'new' translations. Upon close examination of the scroll inventory, you will also find scrolls on astrology and divination. I quess it depends on 'acceptable'standards and wisdom of men. Translating the word is a tricky business. This is also evidenced by the Textus Receptus vs Alexandrian Text argument. Translators in the past have made mistakes that are now very evident. The rendering of Jehovah from the Tetragrammation [YHVH] is one that is now in discussion. Some feel the 'new' correct rendering is' Yahweh'.
     
  8. filosofer

    filosofer Senior Veteran

    +287
    Lutheran
    Except that the "families of texts' does not directly relate to this issue about "Lucifer." The DSS are not the deciding factor in what is or is not Scripture. Rather, where there are manuscripts of the Scriptures among the DSS, then they provide a valuable resource in the Hebrew language that is about 900-1,000 years older than the oldest complete Hebrew manuscript (Leningradis, ca. AD 1007).

    Having been involved in translating and studying Scriptures (Old and New testaments) for the past 20+ years, I can affirm that translating is difficult and time/energy consuming. I wouldn't say "tricky," but I would say that it involves extended study of texts, other translations, and as many resources as are available.

    You have switched gears at this point, by mentioning the TR, MT, and NA textual traditions, because these refer to the Greek New Testament, not the Old Testament. Yet the rendering of YHWH is a Hebrew term, so it has nothing to do with the Greek New Testament (except as the Greek uses OT quotes, in which case, the Greek uses KURIOUS ["lord"] following the verbal substitution of ADONI/AI for YHWH when reading the texts aloud).
     
  9. Higher Truth

    Higher Truth Active Member

    962
    +8
    Messianic
    I was not trying to 'switch gears', but merely trying to demonstrate that throughout all of the texts [OT and NT] there is disagreement among scholars on which 'family' of texts is the best. To the average Biblical student this becomes very confusing. This has now opened up a window for 'new translations' that claim to 'restore' the names of God that were originally found in the Hebrew texts to the Greek texts according to what these translators refer to as 'textural evidence'. Have you reviewed these versions? Translation appears to me to be a tricky business.
     
  10. filosofer

    filosofer Senior Veteran

    +287
    Lutheran
    Yes, I agree; it can be confusing to the average Bible student. That's why I recommend that a student use 2-3 reliable translations (all of the major ones fall into this category).

    I don't know of any major translation that tries to "restore the names of God." The only major translation that uses Yahweh (YHWH) is the Jerusalem Bible (RCC) and the New Jerusalem Bible (RCC). But, these are still very good translations, and I don't see that issue as one to evaluate its accuracy in translation.

    Regarding (OT) textual evidence, translators try to take into account the evidence as presented. That is, a textual find (such as the DSS) is examined and used relative to all other textual evidence. One translation that has used some of the DSS translations to emend the (OT) text (sometimes without noting the emendation) is the NRSV. While at times the NRSV can be a very good translation, overall, I don't use it, except for comparison purposes. Certainly we have to examine the manuscripts (hand written, vs printed) of the Greek translations of the OT, sometimes lumped together under the name Septuagint (LXX), as well as the Latin translations, especially the Vulgate, and the Syriac P e s h i t t a [edited because the censor won't allow that letter combination], etc. Keep in mind that for several hundred years the only OT that most Christians had access to was the Septuagint (or another Greek translation). Even the NT writings show evidence that the authors favored the Septuagint readings rather than the Hebrew text.

    I guess in that sense we might call it "tricky" in the same way an amateur (like me) would look at programming using different languages (C, C++, C#, Perl, Java, JavaScript, etc.). I know just enough VBA to be inconsistently dangerous, have experimented with AppleScript, and remember a little of the Fortran IV programming on an IBM 360 - that gives you an idea of my age! ;) There is nothing "tricky" about it - it takes work and practice to know programming languages. So also with translation and textual studies, it takes hard work and practice.
     
  11. Higher Truth

    Higher Truth Active Member

    962
    +8
    Messianic
    Filo,
    Let me share with you what I have witnessed. There is a movement that is of the belief that because there are so many various translations of the NT that do not totally agree, that the Greek NT can not be trusted as an accurate record of the life of Jesus. Because of this 'belief' they feel that we must go back to the 'original' Hebrew and Aramaic NT texts. Problem with that is there are no Hebrew and Aramaic NT texts in existance. There is the Pe****ta, but this does not pre-date the Greek texts. Long story short, they have released a NT frorm the 'original' Hebrew and Aramaic texts' [according to them] This is a perfect example of the cause and effect of the NT translation controversy. Some believers who have been led astray by these translations have even denied Jesus. I have many different translations of the Bible, but prefer the KJV for my own reasons. I think that Christians sometimes become comfortable in the realm that they are exposed to, not realizing that the "author of confusion' is busy at work 24/7. As far as the Hebrew word for Lucifer, let's not forget that Hebrew is a language of few words[compared to english] so there are many variants on the same word according to appearance in the sentence context.
     
  12. Higher Truth

    Higher Truth Active Member

    962
    +8
    Messianic
    The word that was eliminated by **** was the Aramaic Text known as The P*e*S*h*i* tta
     
  13. filosofer

    filosofer Senior Veteran

    +287
    Lutheran
    I agree with you on this point. We can only go by what the text says, namely the text as we have it. Reconstructing the text based on conjecture is tenuous at best; at worst, as you say, leading people away.

    I'm not sure that this (Hebrew is a language of few words) is an issue regarding how to translate HELLEL. Can you be more specific?
     
  14. Higher Truth

    Higher Truth Active Member

    962
    +8
    Messianic
    I am by no means a Hebrew scholar, and a concordance is not a substitute for an 'expert' working knowledge of Hebrew either. If you read the concordance definition, you can see that there are different choices for meaning.

    01966 heylel {hay-lale'}

    from 01984 (in the sense of brightness); TWOT - 499a; n m

    AV - Lucifer 1; 1

    Lucifer = "light-bearer"
    1) shining one, morning star, Lucifer
    1a) of the king of Babylon and Satan (fig.)
    2) (TWOT) 'Helel' describing the king of Babylon
    so you could use the choice 'light bearer', shining one, Lucifer, etc. Did they take all of the choices and make one description in the NIV?

    This very same type of situation occurs in Amos 5:26
    But ye have borne the tabernacle of your Moloch and Chiun your images, the star of your god, which ye made to yourselves.

    I believe the NIV translation uses 'king' instead of Moloch. As you know moloch was a god that they sacrificed children to . Quite different than a 'king'. What does the concordance say?

    04428 melek {meh'-lek}

    from 04427; TWOT - 1199a; n m

    AV - king 2518, royal 2, Hammelech 1, Malcham 1, Moloch 1; 2523

    1) king

    Big difference in meaning. Who chooses based on what? I would like to ask if you believe that Jehovah was a proper rendering of the tetragrammation. Was Yahweh a proper rendering? Can't be both. Once again, it is decisions based on the wisdom of men.
     
  15. filosofer

    filosofer Senior Veteran

    +287
    Lutheran
    Until the Masoretes (7-9th centuries) came along Hebrew used only consonants (although there was a slow development of a vowel system over the centuries).

    Thus, in Hebrew consonants there is no difference between MLK (meaning "king") and MLK (referring to a King's name). Thus, in Hebrew Melek and Moloch are the same, as far as hebrew consonants; only the vowels distinguish the words.
    --------

    Regarding the tetragrammaton, there is no easy solution. "Jehovah" is an attempt to take the consonants in Hebrew for YHWH and use the vowels from ADONI/AI ("master" or "lord"). Of course, the Jewish people, out of fear/reverence for the name of God would see YHWH in the text but speak ADONI/AI. Thus, the scribes would retain the Hebrew consonants YHWH but include the vowels from ADONI/AI. That is why the Greek translations of the OT typically used KURIOS ("Lord") as the "translation" of YHWH.

    For myself, I tend to lean toward Yahweh, but I am not dogmatic about it. What I do think needs to be done is to provide a better means to identifying when the Hebrew has YHWH or ADONI/AI. Presently in English Bibles, that is done with this

    LORD = YHWH

    Lord = ADONI/AI

    I'm not sure that this is all that helpful. And having taught Bible in congregations and now at college, I find that 95% people who actively read the Bible do not know that there is a distinction in the OT between LORD and Lord.
     
  16. Higher Truth

    Higher Truth Active Member

    962
    +8
    Messianic
    Filo,

    Thank you for your explanation, and yes I am aware of the 'code' that the translators used for the names YHVH [LORD] Elohim [God] Adonai [Lord}
    Adonai YHVH [Lord GOD] YHVH Elohim [LORD God]. Now we know that the name Yah appears approximately 40 times in the Masoretic Text [OT] and represents the first half of the tetragrammation. This is excluding the times where it occurs in the word Hallelu[J] Yah. Now since the scribes use vowel pointings on everything except the tetragrammation [the pointings were for Adonai], how can we be sure that the secong half is translated 'weh'? The 'sacred name' advocates all say for sure that they know what the 'name' is. Here is a list of the 'only ' name that each group feels is a correct rendering of YHVH:

    "YHVH YHWH Yahweh Yaveh Yaweh Jehova Jahova Jahovah Yahova Yahovah Jahowa Jahowah Yahavah Jahavah Yahowe Yahoweh Jahaveh Jahaweh Yahaveh Yahaweh Jahuweh Yahuweh Iahueh Jahuwah Yahuwah Jah Yahu Jahu Yahvah Jahvah Jahve Jahveh Yahve Yahwe...."

    And there are quite a few more. I do not believe that Yahweh is any more accurate than Jehovah. It is at best just a guess using the wisdom of men. If it was that important to the Great "I AM", wouldn't he have made it easier for us to be sure? I think I'll just stick with "Father".
     
  17. filosofer

    filosofer Senior Veteran

    +287
    Lutheran
    Well, the entire Hebrew OT is under that same problem. With only consonants for the text, it would be difficult to distinguish words that had the same consonants but different meanings. In English, how would we distinguish between SiN, SoN, SuN? Only context, or repeated hearing of the pronunciation of the word. That happened in Hebrew. After centuries of passing on the consonantal text with pronunciation, the Masoretes wanted to insure that what they had heard would continue to be passed on in the same way; hence the further development of the vowel pointing system.

    Regarding what to do with this issue, the problem with "Father" is that is a title (along with many others), but God also revealed himself through this name - however it is pronounced. There is more connected with the name than just its pronuncitaiton, though. Namely the theology behind and connected with that name. Perhaps the capstone of such theology is Exodus 5:22-6:8, along with Isaiah 42:8, etc.

    The key is recognizing this God who has revelaed himself, not only with this name, but also who became flesh for us sinners, to take away our sins by dying in our place, rising from the dead victorious over sin, death, and the devil. And all of this because of God's marvelous grace. That God I would like to know and explore his name, his nature, and his future!
     
  18. Higher Truth

    Higher Truth Active Member

    962
    +8
    Messianic
    Filo,

    You stated:
    "Regarding what to do with this issue, the problem with "Father" is that is a title (along with many others), but God also revealed himself through this name - however it is pronounced. There is more connected with the name than just its pronuncitaiton, though. Namely the theology behind and connected with that name. Perhaps the capstone of such theology is Exodus 5:22-6:8, along with Isaiah 42:8, etc."

    Let us examine the first time God revealed himself to Moses as YHVH:

    Exodus 3:10-15
    Come, therefore, I will send you to Pharaoh, and you shall free My people, the Israelites, from Egypt. But Moses said to Elohim, Who am I that I should go to Pharaoh and free the Israelites from Egypt? And He said, I will be with you; that shall be your sign that it was I who sent you. And when you have freed the people from Egypt, you shall worship Elohim at this mountain. Moses said to Elohim, When I come to the Israelites and say to them The Elohim of your fathers has sent me to you, and they ask me, What is His name? what shall I say to them? And Elohim said to Moses, Ehyeh-Asher-Ehyeh. (I Am That I Am ; I Am Who I Am ; I Will Be What I Will Be;) He continued, Thus shall you say to the Israelites, Ehyeh (I Am or I Will Be.) sent me to you. And Elohim said further to Moses, Thus shall you speak to the Israelites: YHVH the Elohim of your fathers, the Elohim of Abraham, the Elohim of Isaac, and the Elohim of Jacob, has sent me to you: This shall be My name forever, This My appellation for all eternity.

    Now, for all intents and purposes, that is a pretty encompasing description of the fullness of the Father. Now in the OT translation into Greek [septuagint] the tetragrammation was rendered as Kyrios [Lord]. Now if He wanted us to know the full name and use it, surely God in the flesh at that time would have reiterated 'The Name'. In many cases in the scripture, He simply referred to God as "Father" I feel that using the Messiah as my example for using 'Father' as His name is a fairly good reason.
     
  19. filosofer

    filosofer Senior Veteran

    +287
    Lutheran
    A crucial text that would have added to your suggestion, Luke 20:41-44, in which Jesus quotes Ps. 110, Jesus does not use "Father" for the tetragrammata. Of all places that could have been an ideal time for Jesus to make the point that you make. But Jesus did not.

    I have no problem with calling God "Father." But to limit our reference to him in that way, especially when dealing with the tetragrammata, loses the richness of how God reveals himself through out Scripture.
     
  20. Higher Truth

    Higher Truth Active Member

    962
    +8
    Messianic
    Ok, that is once out of many times that he quoted OT where the tetragrammation appeared. What was the name that he said?
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...