Isaiah 14:12 - KJV vs. NIV

[CSICop]

It has long been established that the KJV is erroneous with several passages (blame Jerome - 4th century AD) and this particular passage often leaves me wondering. I grew up as a Southern Baptist and we used the KJV exclusively, but recently, through a good friend who is a theology major, I have grown to prefer the NIV or HCSB for greater accuracy in translation.

I find it interesting that we were taught that Lucifer is Satan, only to find out later that it was a false translation, and that in the original Hebrew there is no name mentioned. It's also interesting that the passage is not about Satan, but a fallen king of Babylon (Tyr). Even though this information is widely known, it is still taught incorrectly.

I guess my questioning is about the validity of the KJV and why these incorrect teachings are still being used today.

There are others...

 

[GodspromisesRyes]

It has long been established that the KJV is erroneous with several passages (blame Jerome - 4th century AD) and this particular passage often leaves me wondering. I grew up as a Southern Baptist and we used the KJV exclusively, but recently, through a good friend who is a theology major, I have grown to prefer the NIV or HCSB for greater accuracy in translation.

I find it interesting that we were taught that Lucifer is Satan, only to find out later that it was a false translation, and that in the original Hebrew there is no name mentioned. It's also interesting that the passage is not about Satan, but a fallen king of Babylon (Tyr). Even though this information is widely known, it is still taught incorrectly.

I guess my questioning is about the validity of the KJV and why these incorrect teachings are still being used today.

There are others...

i do not believe in kjv onlyism but mostly i read a kjv but refer also to asv or numeric. I also take issue with alot of southern baptist doctrines and certainly would never be one ( no offence anyone) however on this lucifer thing i do not think that you have been led to believe the truth about this.Lucifer is a latin name true, so if you prefer not to use it then ok, but the hebrew world heylel is a name and lucifer is a proper latin translation of it if you use latin. Even jewish commentaries say this is a name and not referring to the literal man the king of babylon. for example here is rashi's commentary on it
Rashi's commentary on Isaiah 14:12 the morning star: This is Venus, which gives light as the morning star, ?????? being derived from ???, to shed light. This is the lamentation over the heavenly prince of Babylon, who will fall from heaven."

We know that babylon is ALOT more in scripture than one literal physical nation because we see in revelation mystery babylon. We also know because of Jesus WHO is fallen from heaven
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!
Luk 10:18 And he said unto them, I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven.

Also in the future we see this-Rev 12:7 ¶ And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels,
Rev 12:8 And prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in heaven.
Rev 12:9 And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.

In cultures all over the world venus is known to represent satan or the devil so nothing is out of sync here, lucifer is just the latin word.

Just because things are physical in the bible does not mean they are not also spiritual. This is referring in this chapter to both the literal king nebuchanezar (sp) and the one who is fallen from heaven.

 

[CSICop]

Yes, I am aware of other passages referring to Satan, or one, falling from heaven. However, the Torah never named a specific being in Isaiah 14:12. Take these translations for example:

NIV
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!

NASB
How you have (A)fallen from heaven,
O (B)star of the morning, son of the dawn!
You have been cut down to the earth,
You who have weakened the nations!

HSCB
Shining morning star, (A) [a]
how you have fallen from the heavens! (B)
You destroyer of nations,
you have been cut down to the ground.

ESV
How(A) you are fallen from heaven,
O Day Star,(B) son of Dawn!
How you are cut down to the ground,
you who laid the nations low!

KJV
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!

You see, only in the KJV of these top 5 translations does it mention Lucifer. If you can read/understand Hebrew & Greek, you'd see where the KJV is erroneous in this passage. Latin was not even a language at the time the Torah was written. Furthermore, Jesus Himself is often referred to as the daystar or dawnstar.

Not even the Catholic church, which uses the New Jerusalem Bible (here anyway) does it mention a named being.

Jerome, for whatever reason during his writing of the Latin Vulgate (correct me if I am wrong) added Lucifer into the passage. The KJV is translated from the Latin Vulgate (correct me if I am wrong again).

Side by side comparison makes things like this quite an eye opener.

Edit: FYI-
Jerome translated the original Hebrew word "heylel" to mean lucifer. This is incorrect. Lucifer comes from the Latin Lux (light) and ferous (to carry). Together they would mean Light-bearer. It is a correct translation from the Greek phosphorus, which also means light-bearer. Neither the Latin nor Greek in these translations have anything to do with day, dawn, or star.

However, heylel does not mean anything close to the Latin or Greek translations. It is only used 1 time in the Bible: Isaiah 14:12. However it comes from the word "halal," which is used quite often. Halal can mean both good and bad things: praise, glory, boast, mad, fools, etc.

Simply put, Jerome made a translational error and for 1600 years people went with it...albeit incorrectly.

 

[GodspromisesRyes]

The reason that i am saying it is a name(heylel) is that it was considered to be the name of venus the planet., elsewhere in the bible it speaks of morning stars and does not use the same word as in this verse, this is the only verse that uses this name/word.

Here is what is ODD That verse has a hebrew word that is not translated in any version into an english word? this is what some versions say
NIV 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!

ASV 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!

RSV "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!

So in the hebrew though it says this - between " son of the morning" and "how are thou cut down" there is the hebrew word yalal which is always usually translted to say HOWL and is always speaking of people howling when Gods wrath come upon them. So WHY does this verse in English not read " How are you fallen from heaven O day-star son of the morning HOWL how are thou cut down"?

 

[CSICop]

Just remember, things change. One must keep an open mind about religion and interpretation. Just because we were taught one certain way for so long does not make it correct, divine, or absolute.

There was a time, when the greatest religious scholars/teachers in the world truly believed the earth was flat and that the sun revolved around us.

They were proven wrong.

Jerome has also been proven wrong, but that also means taking back 1600 years of misinterpretations. Some churches have acknowledged his mistakes and are no longer teaching from the KJV, opting for a more "up to date" version in its stead.

 

[Geo]

"The KJV is translated from the Latin Vulgate (correct me if I am wrong again)."


Not even close. The KJV comes from the Textus Receptus text stream. That's the exact opposite text stream of where the Latin Vulgate and also the NIV, NASB etc. come from. Look at the source yourself, not at what a theology major thinks is the source of a text stream.

 

[Geo]

let me quote someone to explain where you took a "wrong turn":

The Old Latin Vulgate (AD157)

The word 'vulgate' is Latin for vulgar or common. The Old Latin Vulgate is a version. It was used by
early believers in Europe when Latin was in popular use. It was sometimes referred to as the Itala
version.

The Old Latin Vulgate must not be confused with Jerome's Vulgate, which was produced over 220 years
later in AD 380. Jerome's Vulgate (also written in Latin for the Roman Church) was rejected by the
early Christians for almost a millennium.

 

[CSICop]

Ah, but did not Erasmus "look up to" Jerome, and even consider him his favorite church father (ie his book, Life of Saint Jerome) as well as Origen? Since Erasmus was reared in the Latin church, who is to say that he did not take from the Vulgate rather than the Textus Receptus from time to time. I understand that KJV advocates often label Jerome's "The Latin Vulgate" as a corrupt translation. That is not to say that the KJV could never be influenced by Jerome, through Erasmus.

I merely dabble with history, especially religious (Christian) history, beyond what is taught in Sunday School. But this is one of those "what if" questions...

Regardless, Lucifer doesn't belong in the passage, nor does the passage refer to Satan.

 

[JudaicChristian]

It has long been established that the KJV is erroneous with several passages (blame Jerome - 4th century AD) and this particular passage often leaves me wondering. I grew up as a Southern Baptist and we used the KJV exclusively, but recently, through a good friend who is a theology major, I have grown to prefer the NIV or HCSB for greater accuracy in translation.

I find it interesting that we were taught that Lucifer is Satan, only to find out later that it was a false translation, and that in the original Hebrew there is no name mentioned. It's also interesting that the passage is not about Satan, but a fallen king of Babylon (Tyr). Even though this information is widely known, it is still taught incorrectly.

I guess my questioning is about the validity of the KJV and why these incorrect teachings are still being used today.

There are others...

I have the same problem. No matter how many facts I present, people still resist the truth. I can not help but wonder if God has given them over to vain imaginings. Another problem is that many can not tell the difference between literal or parable.

 

[JudaicChristian]

Ah, but did not Erasmus "look up to" Jerome, and even consider him his favorite church father (ie his book, Life of Saint Jerome) as well as Origen? Since Erasmus was reared in the Latin church, who is to say that he did not take from the Vulgate rather than the Textus Receptus from time to time. I understand that KJV advocates often label Jerome's "The Latin Vulgate" as a corrupt translation. That is not to say that the KJV could never be influenced by Jerome, through Erasmus.

I merely dabble with history, especially religious (Christian) history, beyond what is taught in Sunday School. But this is one of those "what if" questions...

Regardless, Lucifer doesn't belong in the passage, nor does the passage refer to Satan.

The correct translation is "Morning Star." It can be a person of God or an entity such as an institution, like a synagogue.

 

[azlan88]

There are ravenous wolves disguised as Christians who say things like "Lucifer isn't Satan" Don't be fooled, brethren.

 

[CSICop]

I am no wolf.

And yes, Isaiah 14:12 was mistranslated, so no, Lucifer does not = Satan. I know you (and I) were taught that, but it simply isn't true. Go check for yourself. As a matter of fact, go to www.biblegateway.com and compare translations (as I have done). Few and far between translations still use Lucifer in that passage because they have proven that it does not belong.

Lucifer does mean, in Latin, day star or dawnstar. Jesus is also referred to as the day star (depending on how you translate day/dawn).

There was also a Christian sect (not of Roman Catholic faith) that called themselves the Luciferians, knowing what Lucifer meant in Latin.

Argue all you want to (or deny), but those facts do remain.

 

[glorydaz]

There are ravenous wolves disguised as Christians who say things like "Lucifer isn't Satan" Don't be fooled, brethren.

Satan has many names and Lucifer is one of them. There are also types of satan in the Word and one only needs to read the scripture to see that is indeed who is being referred to. Personally, I think it's making much ado about nothing. We know he was the most beautiful angel and desired to be like God. It's an age old story that can't be dismissed because translations vary. We know who our enemy is and he goes by many names.

 

[CSICop]

Some people simply do not get it.

Lucifer, only appears ONE time in the entire Bible. Count... 1.

That 1 time is Isaiah 14:12, which has proven to be a bad/corrupt/false translation. Don't believe me? Again, go to www.biblegateway and look up that verse using the multi-translation option and pick your versions of the Bible. Yes the KJV uses Lucifer (erroneously). Other versions, including the NIV, ESV, NJB, HCSB, NASB and others DO NOT use Lucifer at all, anywhere in the Bible. Why?

I have explained why.

I know it may be hard to swallow. It goes against every grain of teaching you ever learned. They said the same thing about the earth being flat a few centuries back.

Lucifer does not belong in that passage. Jerome used the Latin word for what he thought was a correct translation for The Latin Vulgate. It wasn't.

The thing is, you don't have to believe me, nor do I have to convince you. The data is there, if you or anyone else would simply do the research for yourself.

 

[Geo]

"Other versions, including the NIV, ESV, NJB, HCSB, NASB and others DO NOT use Lucifer at all, anywhere in the Bible. Why?"

The counterfeits never want to offend him. And that is not an isolated case. The conncetion Lucifer = Satan is made by inspiration of the Holy Spirit, and is avoided by most because this serves as a "coming revelation" in the dawning of the New Age according to top mason writers like Pike and others. New agers agree that Lucifer is not Satan, so tthey are ready for the merger. Lucifer will get introduced as the "true light bearer" that brings "true freedom" to humanity, in contrast to the other "God in Genesis that tried to deprave us of becoming gods and live forever".

The 'No offence' policy continues in Lh 4:8 :

"Get thee behind me, Satan." is avoided in all "nice bibles" that agree that offence is just bad policy

http://av1611.com/kjbp/charts/various.html

of course discernment of evil spirits would be an offence too, so only the KJV got it right:

"And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God."

 

[JudaicChristian]

There are ravenous wolves disguised as Christians who say things like "Lucifer isn't Satan" Don't be fooled, brethren.

I think the proper way to view this is that Lucifer is an interpretation, were as Morning Star is a translation. In symbolism Lucifer is associated with Satan the Snake, and or the Dragon. The word Satan literally means accuser. It is used for any who are in opposition to Gods earthly rule, even those who are thought of as Morning Stars. Jude 1:3. Loved, I was eager to write to you about the salvation we share, it was necessary for me to write to you, and encourage you to earnestly contend for the faith that was given to the saints.
4. Because you are unaware that certain men have sneaked in, who are of a ancient order to their condemnation, these ungodly men turn the grace of our God into immorality, and deny that the only God is Yahwah, or that our lord Yahshua is the Messiah.
Job 3:9
May its morning stars become dark; may it wait for daylight in vain and not see the first rays of dawn,

Job 38:7
while the morning stars sang together and all the angels shouted for joy?

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! Israel once laid low the nations around it.

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.

Revelation 2:28
just as I have received authority from my Father. I will also give him the morning star.

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

 

[Free]

There are ravenous wolves disguised as Christians who say things like "Lucifer isn't Satan" Don't be fooled, brethren.

Why not contribute something to the discussion instead? Just because you disagree with someone about something doesn't mean that they're a ravenous wolf. :gah

There are ravenous wolves disguised as Christians who say things like "Lucifer isn't Satan" Don't be fooled, brethren.

Satan has many names and Lucifer is one of them. There are also types of satan in the Word and one only needs to read the scripture to see that is indeed who is being referred to. Personally, I think it's making much ado about nothing. We know he was the most beautiful angel and desired to be like God. It's an age old story that can't be dismissed because translations vary. We know who our enemy is and he goes by many names.

Since KJVOists claim that the use of "morning star," or something similar, in most other versions of that passage is a denial of the deity of Christ, it really isn't "making much ado about nothing."

 

[einstein]

The KJB is rife with mistranslations and errors from the original Hebrew Bible. Nothing really new there. Read this entire chapter (for context) in the original Hebrew and it is clear Isaiah is talking about the pride, arrogance and fall of Nebuchadnezzer as well as the redemption of Israel from Babylon.

 

[Geo]

"You have been cast down to the earth, you who once laid low the nations!"

["Israel once laid low the nations around it." Hey mdo757 - you are interpreting here, and that totally out of context]

That verse 12 alone should give us a hint who it is that has been cast down. The full context is even clearer and cannot leave anyone confused:


13 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:

14 I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High.

15 Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit.

"above the stars of God - I will be like the most High" How much clearer can it get ?

 

[CSICop]

I failed to mention something...

Isaiah 14 (entire chapter) refers to Babylon, and its fallen king. Babylon is mentioned multiple times throughout that chapter. Why would they be writing about Babylon and its oppression of Israel, then for 1 single verse throw Lucifer (as Satan) in there, then go right back to talking about Babylon again?

That simply does not make any sense at all. If you understand poets, especially Hebrew poets, then you would know that they have a tendency to repeat themselves over and over when describing a text.

There is alot of metaphors going on throughout the chapter. Many of those metaphors are boasting (halal) from the Babylonian king.

Sorry KJV enthusiasts, but not only does Lucifer simply not belong as it is a mistranslation, but the passage itself is not about Satan in any shape or form.

I know this will make you

I had to learn to look at things with a different perspective as well before I accepted these FACTS.