Freethought & Rationalism Archive

show_no_mercy · 09-01-2004, 04:22 PM

This was emailed to me awhile ago, and I thought I'd share it here. I don't know if it was posted here previously, so bear with me if it has because I'm rather new:

Quote:

The word "Lucifer" in Isaiah 14:12 presents a minor problem to mainstream Christianity. It becomes a much larger problem to Bible literalists, and becomes a huge obstacle for the claims of Mormonism. John J. Robinson in A Pilgrim's Path <http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/AS...ternetinfidels , pp. 47-48 explains: "Lucifer makes his appearance in the fourteenth chapter of the Old Testament book of Isaiah, at the twelfth verse, and nowhere else: "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!" The first problem is that Lucifer is a Latin name.

So how did it find its way into a Hebrew manuscript, written before there was a Roman language? To find the answer, I consulted a scholar at the library of the Hebrew Union College in Cincinnati. What Hebrew name, I asked, was Satan given in this chapter of Isaiah, which describes the angel who fell to become the ruler of hell? The answer was a surprise. In the original Hebrew text, the fourteenth chapter of Isaiah is not about a fallen angel, but about a fallen Babylonian king, who during his lifetime had persecuted the children of Israel. It contains no mention of Satan, either by name or reference. The Hebrew scholar could only speculate that some early Christian scribes, writing in the Latin tongue used by the Church, had decided for themselves that they wanted the story to be about a fallen angel, a creature not even mentioned in the original Hebrew text, and to whom they gave the name "Lucifer."

Why Lucifer? In Roman astronomy, Lucifer was the name given to the morning star (the star we now know by another Roman name, Venus). The morning star appears in the heavens just before dawn, heralding the rising sun. The name derives from the Latin term lucem ferre, bringer, or bearer, of light." In the Hebrew text the expression used to describe the Babylonian king before his death is Helal, son of Shahar, which can best be translated as "Day star, son of the Dawn." The name evokes the golden glitter of a proud king's dress and court (much as his personal splendor earned for King Louis XIV of France the appellation, "The Sun King").

The scholars authorized by ... King James I to translate the Bible into current English did not use the original Hebrew texts, but used versions translated ... largely by St. Jerome in the fourth century. Jerome had mistranslated the Hebraic metaphor, "Day star, son of the Dawn," as "Lucifer," and over the centuries a metamorphosis took place. Lucifer the morning star became a disobedient angel, cast out of heaven to rule eternally in hell. Theologians, writers, and poets interwove the myth with the doctrine of the Fall, and in Christian tradition Lucifer is now the same as Satan, the Devil, and --- ironically --- the Prince of Darkness.

So "Lucifer" is nothing more than an ancient Latin name for the morning star, the bringer of light. That can be confusing for Christians who identify Christ himself as the morning star, a term used as a central theme in many Christian sermons. Jesus refers to himself as the morning star in 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."

And so there are those who do not read beyond the King James version of the Bible, who say 'Lucifer is Satan: so says the Word of God'...." Henry Neufeld (a Christian who comments on Biblical sticky issues) went on to say, "this passage is often related to Satan, and a similar thought is expressed in Luke 10:18 by Jesus, that was not its first meaning. It's primary meaning is given in Isaiah 14:4 which says that when Israel is restored they will "take up this taunt against the king of Babylon . . ." Verse 12 is a part of this taunt song. This passage refers first to the fall of that earthly king... How does the confusion in translating this verse arise? The Hebrew of this passage reads: "heleyl, ben shachar" which can be literally translated "shining one, son of dawn." This phrase means, again literally, the planet Venus when it appears as a morning star.

In the Septuagint, a 3rd century BC translation of the Hebrew scriptures into Greek, it is translated as "heosphoros" which also means Venus as a morning star. How did the translation "lucifer" arise? This word comes from Jerome's Latin Vulgate. Was Jerome in error? Not at all. In Latin at the time, "lucifer" actually meant Venus as a morning star. Isaiah is using this metaphor for a bright light, though not the greatest light to illustrate the apparent power of the Babylonian king which then faded." Therefore, Lucifer wasn't equated with Satan until after Jerome. Jerome wasn't in error.

Later Christians (and Mormons) were in equating "Lucifer" with "Satan". So why is this a problem to Christians? Christians now generally believe that Satan (or the Devil or Lucifer who they equate with Satan) is a being who has always existed. Therefore, they also think that the "prophets" of the Old Testament believed in this creature. The Isaiah scripture is used as proof (and has been used as such for hundreds of years now).

As Elaine Pagels explains though, the concept of Satan has evolved over the years and the early Bible writers didn't believe in or teach such a doctrine. The irony for those who believe that "Lucifer" refers to Satan is that the same title ('morning star' or 'light-bearer') is used to refer to Jesus, in 2 Peter 1:19, where the Greek text has exactly the same term: 'phos-phoros' 'light-bearer.' This is also the term used for Jesus in Revelation 22:16.

funinspace · 09-01-2004, 04:34 PM

Not sure if you had a question here or just a point? But yes, the KJV is a very poor translation to rely upon.

Toto · 09-01-2004, 04:39 PM

This seems to have been originally copied from

http://www.lds-mormon.com/lucifer.shtml

Chris Weimer · 09-01-2004, 06:46 PM

I fail to see a point. I thought this was common knowledge? Christians misinterpret the OT 99.99% of the time.

spin · 09-01-2004, 07:27 PM

Just incidentally, I came across a mention of Lucifer in Seneca's Apocolocyntosis ("Pumpkinification" -- of Claudius -- as against "deification" -- upon death). It was strange after all this xian propaganda about Lucifer.

In fact, the LXX of Isaiah has Eosforos, ie "dawn bringer" as compared the Latin "light bringer". Does anyone know of Eosforos being used as an epithet of Satan, or are we dealing with quite a late event, with the use of Lucifer as Satan? The original text is quite clear that we are dealing with the dawn bringer, with the implicit notion that the sun is God, for the dawn bringer comes before the sun.

But an interesting tie-up with the thread on the Nephilim, Isaiah 14:12 says,

How fallen (NPLT) from heaven, bright one, son of the dawn . . .

NPLT is a form of the verb NPL, ie to fall, which is the root of Nephilim, "fallen ones".

It is the term "bright one", HYLL, which is translated as Eosforos and Lucifer.

The interesting question for me is what the passage is really about. The literal approach is that it is about the fall of the king of Babylon, the xian wishful approach is that it is about Satan and his fall. (I think it's about Antiochus IV who, as king of Syria, was also king of Babylon, and whose fall is described in 2 Macc 9.)

spin

atheist · 09-01-2004, 07:37 PM

That "Lucifer" translates into "light-bringer" is something that registered with me while I was still a christian, but failed to 'click', if you know what I mean. I always thought it was a pity about the name Lucifer being associated with christianity's devil, because I've always thought of it as a really nice name.

Chris Weimer · 09-02-2004, 05:31 PM

Well, looking at 14:16, you should realize that Isaiah is talking about a person...

"They that see thee shall narrowly look upon thee, and consider thee saying, Is this the man that made the earth to tremble, that did shake kingdoms;"

and 14:20-22

"Thou shalt not be joined with them in burial, because thou hast destroyed thy land, and slain thy people: the seed of evildoers shall never be renowned.
"Prepare slaughter for his children for the iniquity of their fathers; that they do not rise, nor possess the land, nor fill the face of the world with cities.
"For I will rise up against them, saith the LORD of hosts, and cut off from Babylon the name, and remnant, and son, and nephew, saith the LORD."

And then the first part of 14:25

"That I will break the Assyrian in my land..."

It's a human he's talking about, a Babylonian King to be more precise: Antiochus IV

post tenebras lux · 09-02-2004, 05:40 PM

I thought that Lucifer's fall was also claimed to be referenced in Ezekiel 28 :12-19.

Quote:

Thou seal most accurate, full of wisdom, and perfect in beauty,

13 thou wast in Eden the garden of God; every precious stone was thy covering, the carnelian, the topaz, and the emerald, the beryl, the onyx, and the jasper, the sapphire, the carbuncle, and the smaragd, and gold; the workmanship of thy settings and of thy sockets was in thee, in the day that thou wast created they were prepared.

14 Thou wast the far-covering cherub; and I set thee, so that thou wast upon the holy mountain of God; thou hast walked up and down in the midst of stones of fire.

15 Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till unrighteousness was found in thee.

16 By the multitude of thy traffic they filled the midst of thee with violence, and thou hast sinned; therefore have I cast thee as profane out of the mountain of God; and I have destroyed thee, O covering cherub, from the midst of the stones of fire.

17 Thy heart was lifted up because of thy beauty, thou hast corrupted thy wisdom by reason of thy brightness; I have cast thee to the ground, I have laid thee before kings, that they may gaze upon thee.

18 By the multitude of thine iniquities, in the unrighteousness of thy traffic, thou hast profaned thy sanctuaries; therefore have I brought forth a fire from the midst of thee, it hath devoured thee, and I have turned thee to ashes upon the earth in the sight of all them that behold thee.

19 All they that know thee among the peoples shall be appalled at thee; thou art become a terror, and thou shalt never be any more.'

Making Lucifer a bejewelled bright beautiful cherub, specifically one who floated above the throne of God. Hence his name?

Does that help?

Luxie

Magdlyn · 09-02-2004, 08:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by post tenebras lux

I thought that Lucifer's fall was also claimed to be referenced in Ezekiel 28 :12-19.
Making Lucifer a bejewelled bright beautiful cherub, specifically one who floated above the throne of God. Hence his name?

Does that help?

But that Ezekiel passager refers to the ruler of Tyre, a seagoing man. Not the ruler of Babylonia. Are you suggesting they were both the same?

How about the ruler of Sidon? Is he also Lucifer? How far should we stretch this metaphor?

Chris Weimer · 09-02-2004, 08:17 PM

Jesus Christ, people! Really now! What, are you negating every historical validity in the Bible by claiming everyone who is evil is Satan, and everyone who was tortured is Jesus? Get real! Your making things up now. Look, I can do that too. "George Bush represents the manipulative devil that declared war on the planet..." Can't you see some future religious nut saying that about history books? Spin all you want to, it makes you look like an idiot.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

09-01-2004, 04:34 PM	#2
funinspace Contributor Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: North West usa Posts: 10,245	Not sure if you had a question here or just a point? But yes, the KJV is a very poor translation to rely upon.

09-01-2004, 04:39 PM	#3
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	This seems to have been originally copied from http://www.lds-mormon.com/lucifer.shtml

09-01-2004, 06:46 PM	#4
Chris Weimer Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: none Posts: 9,879	I fail to see a point. I thought this was common knowledge? Christians misinterpret the OT 99.99% of the time.

09-01-2004, 07:27 PM	#5
spin Contributor Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: nowhere Posts: 15,747	Just incidentally, I came across a mention of Lucifer in Seneca's Apocolocyntosis ("Pumpkinification" -- of Claudius -- as against "deification" -- upon death). It was strange after all this xian propaganda about Lucifer. In fact, the LXX of Isaiah has Eosforos, ie "dawn bringer" as compared the Latin "light bringer". Does anyone know of Eosforos being used as an epithet of Satan, or are we dealing with quite a late event, with the use of Lucifer as Satan? The original text is quite clear that we are dealing with the dawn bringer, with the implicit notion that the sun is God, for the dawn bringer comes before the sun. But an interesting tie-up with the thread on the Nephilim, Isaiah 14:12 says, How fallen (NPLT) from heaven, bright one, son of the dawn . . . NPLT is a form of the verb NPL, ie to fall, which is the root of Nephilim, "fallen ones". It is the term "bright one", HYLL, which is translated as Eosforos and Lucifer. The interesting question for me is what the passage is really about. The literal approach is that it is about the fall of the king of Babylon, the xian wishful approach is that it is about Satan and his fall. (I think it's about Antiochus IV who, as king of Syria, was also king of Babylon, and whose fall is described in 2 Macc 9.) spin

09-01-2004, 07:37 PM	#6
atheist Regular Member Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Ottawa, ON Posts: 371	That "Lucifer" translates into "light-bringer" is something that registered with me while I was still a christian, but failed to 'click', if you know what I mean. I always thought it was a pity about the name Lucifer being associated with christianity's devil, because I've always thought of it as a really nice name.

09-02-2004, 05:31 PM	#7
Chris Weimer Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: none Posts: 9,879	Well, looking at 14:16, you should realize that Isaiah is talking about a person... "They that see thee shall narrowly look upon thee, and consider thee saying, Is this the man that made the earth to tremble, that did shake kingdoms;" and 14:20-22 "Thou shalt not be joined with them in burial, because thou hast destroyed thy land, and slain thy people: the seed of evildoers shall never be renowned. "Prepare slaughter for his children for the iniquity of their fathers; that they do not rise, nor possess the land, nor fill the face of the world with cities. "For I will rise up against them, saith the LORD of hosts, and cut off from Babylon the name, and remnant, and son, and nephew, saith the LORD." And then the first part of 14:25 "That I will break the Assyrian in my land..." It's a human he's talking about, a Babylonian King to be more precise: Antiochus IV

09-02-2004, 08:17 PM	#10
Chris Weimer Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: none Posts: 9,879	Jesus Christ, people! Really now! What, are you negating every historical validity in the Bible by claiming everyone who is evil is Satan, and everyone who was tortured is Jesus? Get real! Your making things up now. Look, I can do that too. "George Bush represents the manipulative devil that declared war on the planet..." Can't you see some future religious nut saying that about history books? Spin all you want to, it makes you look like an idiot.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.