Conquer Club

Isaiah 14:12 (New International Version)
New International Version (NIV)

Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society
[NIV at IBS] [International Bible Society] [NIV at Zondervan] [Zondervan]

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!

and

Revelation 22:16 (New International Version)
New International Version (NIV)

Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society
[NIV at IBS] [International Bible Society] [NIV at Zondervan] [Zondervan]

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

It is quite clear to me that the passage that relates to the entity the Christians call Lucifer/The Devil is indeed the same thing as Jesus. There are some confusing things in the Bible, but eventually you can understand them and realize that the Christians have secretly been worshiping Lucifer by renaming him Jesus.

Weird...

jay_a2j wrote::roll:

Jay, why so quiet?

You forgot the "Myths" option.

Backglass wrote:You forgot the "Myths" option.

That is just a given. I voted lactose intolerant because I don't think Jesus and Lucy can handle their milk products.

Isaiah 14:12 The Hebrew for this expression--"light-bringer" or "shining one"--is translated "Lucifer" in The Latin Vulgate, and is thus translated in the King James Version. But because of the association of that name with Satan, it is not now used in this and other translations. Some students feel that the application of the name Lucifer to Satan, in spite of the long and confident teaching to that effect, is erroneous. The application of the name to Satan has existed since the third century A.D., and is based on the supposition that Luke 10:18 is an explanation of Isa. 14:12, which many authorities believe is not true. "Lucifer," the light-bringer, is the Latin equivalent of the Greek word "Phosphoros," which is used as a title of Christ in II Pet. 1:19 and corresponds to the name "radiant and brilliant Morning Star" in Rev. 22:16, a name Jesus called Himself. This passage here in Isa. 14:13 clearly applies to the king of Babylon. But to know this you would have to read all of Isaiah 14.

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

I don't understand. This sound like DAVID, and the MORNING STAR had a baby. And that baby is the speaker.

DaGip, maybe I've just misunderstood everything you've ever posted, but it seems to me you change your opinion more even than Mitt Romney.

OnlyAmbrose wrote:DaGip, maybe I've just misunderstood everything you've ever posted, but it seems to me you change your opinion more even than Mitt Romney.

QFT

OnlyAmbrose wrote:DaGip, maybe I've just misunderstood everything you've ever posted, but it seems to me you change your opinion more even than Mitt Romney.

He's probably just bored and trying to see our reactions to whatever weird shit he can pull up.

The Weird One wrote:

OnlyAmbrose wrote:DaGip, maybe I've just misunderstood everything you've ever posted, but it seems to me you change your opinion more even than Mitt Romney.

He's probably just bored and trying to see our reactions to whatever weird shit he can pull up.

And for this, he deserves no less than four cookies. Likely five.

Neoteny wrote:

The Weird One wrote:

OnlyAmbrose wrote:DaGip, maybe I've just misunderstood everything you've ever posted, but it seems to me you change your opinion more even than Mitt Romney.

He's probably just bored and trying to see our reactions to whatever weird shit he can pull up.

And for this, he deserves no less than four cookies. Likely five.

Too bad there isn't an option for that.

Beastly wrote:Isaiah 14:12 The Hebrew for this expression--"light-bringer" or "shining one"--is translated "Lucifer" in The Latin Vulgate, and is thus translated in the King James Version. But because of the association of that name with Satan, it is not now used in this and other translations. Some students feel that the application of the name Lucifer to Satan, in spite of the long and confident teaching to that effect, is erroneous. The application of the name to Satan has existed since the third century A.D., and is based on the supposition that Luke 10:18 is an explanation of Isa. 14:12, which many authorities believe is not true. "Lucifer," the light-bringer, is the Latin equivalent of the Greek word "Phosphoros," which is used as a title of Christ in II Pet. 1:19 and corresponds to the name "radiant and brilliant Morning Star" in Rev. 22:16, a name Jesus called Himself. This passage here in Isa. 14:13 clearly applies to the king of Babylon. But to know this you would have to read all of Isaiah 14.

So what you are saying is that Lucifer is not Satan, but is something else? Come on. Every Christian I talk to will tell me that Lucifer is the Devil and vice versa, but undoubtedly they would deny that Jesus is Lucifer and would consider them to be opposites. I am sorry, but as I read the verses, it quite clearly states that Jesus and Lucifer are the morning star. If this is not the case, than one verse indeed is contradicting the other and we are looking at a clear double standard in the Christian belief system (or should I say the Luciferian belief system).

The term in the Isaiah passage is the Hebrew “hay-lale” meaning “brightness” or “shining (one)”, a derivative of “halal” meaning “clear, in sound or color”. The Revelation term is “orthrinos aster” – “orthrinos” being an adjective meaning “of the dawn (orthros)”, and “aster” of course meaning “star”. No similarity, no confusion. Glad to be of service.

For the record, the NIV translation which you are using is meant to be a popular version and sometimes sacrifices literal translation of individual words to make whole phrases and sentences easier to understand. More literal translations like the King James and the NASB tend to do the reverse. The things God is trying to communicate come through clearly in all of them, and can be understood by a child, but if you’re going to get into semantic knit-picking like this, you’ve got to do some homework and get your facts straight. Nice try though.

daddy1gringo wrote:The term in the Isaiah passage is the Hebrew “hay-lale” meaning “brightness” or “shining (one)”, a derivative of “halal” meaning “clear, in sound or color”. The Revelation term is “orthrinos aster” – “orthrinos” being an adjective meaning “of the dawn (orthros)”, and “aster” of course meaning “star”. No similarity, no confusion. Glad to be of service.

For the record, the NIV translation which you are using is meant to be a popular version and sometimes sacrifices literal translation of individual words to make whole phrases and sentences easier to understand. More literal translations like the King James and the NASB tend to do the reverse. The things God is trying to communicate come through clearly in all of them, and can be understood by a child, but if you’re going to get into semantic knit-picking like this, you’ve got to do some homework and get your facts straight. Nice try though.

Wait....WTF? I may be an Atheist, but I'm not stupid. Surely Jesus as an "omnivorous" being knew that Satan was called the "Morning Star."
If there was a molester on my block nicknamed "Awesome Dude," you can be sure no one would refer to themselves as "Awesome Dude" too. So why would Jesus, or anyone call him by the same name as the devil? Seems like there would be other cool names that he could have been called. Unless he was trying to take the name "Morning Star" back. But it doesn't say that there......

"Morning Star" = the planet Venus, so jesus and satan are actually astrological interpretations of astronomical phenomenon. All Abrahamic religions are trumped up paganism with patriarchal overtones.

Juan_Bottom wrote:

daddy1gringo wrote:The term in the Isaiah passage is the Hebrew “hay-lale” meaning “brightness” or “shining (one)”, a derivative of “halal” meaning “clear, in sound or color”. The Revelation term is “orthrinos aster” – “orthrinos” being an adjective meaning “of the dawn (orthros)”, and “aster” of course meaning “star”. No similarity, no confusion. Glad to be of service.

For the record, the NIV translation which you are using is meant to be a popular version and sometimes sacrifices literal translation of individual words to make whole phrases and sentences easier to understand. More literal translations like the King James and the NASB tend to do the reverse. The things God is trying to communicate come through clearly in all of them, and can be understood by a child, but if you’re going to get into semantic knit-picking like this, you’ve got to do some homework and get your facts straight. Nice try though.

Wait....WTF? I may be an Atheist, but I'm not stupid. Surely Jesus as an

"omnivorous"

I hope this is an intentional joke.

being knew that Satan was called the "Morning Star."
If there was a molester on my block nicknamed "Awesome Dude," you can be sure no one would refer to themselves as "Awesome Dude" too. So why would Jesus, or anyone call him by the same name as the devil? Seems like there would be other cool names that he could have been called. Unless he was trying to take the name "Morning Star" back. But it doesn't say that there......

Read again, please. The point is that the devil is never called "morning star" except in the non-literal English translation the OP is using.

daddy1gringo wrote:

Juan_Bottom wrote:

daddy1gringo wrote:The term in the Isaiah passage is the Hebrew “hay-lale” meaning “brightness” or “shining (one)”, a derivative of “halal” meaning “clear, in sound or color”. The Revelation term is “orthrinos aster” – “orthrinos” being an adjective meaning “of the dawn (orthros)”, and “aster” of course meaning “star”. No similarity, no confusion. Glad to be of service.

For the record, the NIV translation which you are using is meant to be a popular version and sometimes sacrifices literal translation of individual words to make whole phrases and sentences easier to understand. More literal translations like the King James and the NASB tend to do the reverse. The things God is trying to communicate come through clearly in all of them, and can be understood by a child, but if you’re going to get into semantic knit-picking like this, you’ve got to do some homework and get your facts straight. Nice try though.

Wait....WTF? I may be an Atheist, but I'm not stupid. Surely Jesus as an

"omnivorous"

I hope this is an intentional joke.

being knew that Satan was called the "Morning Star."
If there was a molester on my block nicknamed "Awesome Dude," you can be sure no one would refer to themselves as "Awesome Dude" too. So why would Jesus, or anyone call him by the same name as the devil? Seems like there would be other cool names that he could have been called. Unless he was trying to take the name "Morning Star" back. But it doesn't say that there......

Read again, please. The point is that the devil is never called "morning star" except in the non-literal English translation the OP is using.

Oh! Now I get it! Thank-you for that!
And yeah, it was intentional. It is a Homer Simpson joke. 'Your everywhere, you see everything, you're omnivorous."

King Nebuchadnezzar is being described in Isaiah as the son of the dawn and the morning star, which is translated in some versions as Lucifer, from what I understand. So quite literally Jesus and Nebuchadnezzar can not possibly be the same person, but why then would Jesus call himself the Morning Star when that same term was definitely known to refer to Nebuchadnezzar?

Christ is the son of God and lucifer is a fallen angel ... tradition has it that he tried to challange God for control and was defeated.

There is no real discussion here.

PLAYER57832 wrote:Christ is the son of God and lucifer is a fallen angel ... tradition has it that he tried to challange God for control and was defeated.

There is no real discussion here.

Then you agree that Jesus and Lucifer are the same thing?

Curmudgeonx wrote:"Morning Star" = the planet Venus, so jesus and satan are actually astrological interpretations of astronomical phenomenon. All Abrahamic religions are trumped up paganism with patriarchal overtones.

I partially agree with you, but I believe that the names are based on the Sun - that shining star you can see at day in the sky.

The Sun was worshipped thousands of years before Jesus appeared on the stage. The oldest civilizations understood the importance of the Sun for their life and they knew how to predict the seasons, which made it possible for them to improve their farming. Improved and partially controlled farming made it possible for civilization to actually kick off, since cities could be created and society could develop more specializations.
Jesus, Lucifer, and many pagan gods are all based on the Sun-worshipping. Lucifer aka night, as other pagan gods, did fight God for control. The birth of Jesus is celebrated on the same day the older religions celebrated the birth of their hero, the Sun (/insert whatever name according to religion). Late december, days are starting to get longer, which was greeted by people thousands of years back.

So yeah, Jesus and Lucifer are actually the same, but through the centuries, clergymen shaped their teachings to suit their needs, so in today's context we are talking about two different characters.
Oh, btw, I am not saying that Jesus didn't live, I just believe that the church as his PR agent did an interesting job, at least.

As for the Venus as morning star, I think that refers to the Christmas story. The three kings (actually 3 stars pointing to the spot the sun will raise on 24th/25th) following Venus which is visible on that day.

Can I just point out that Venus is not always the Morning Star, but can also be the Evening Star. If we are talking about winter solstices then the Morning Star, in fact, would be Sirius and the Three Kings (Orion's Belt) follow the star in the east (Sirius) which signals the birth of the Son (Sun) of God (the Sun that rises during the winter solstice).

DaGip wrote:King Nebuchadnezzar is being described in Isaiah as the son of the dawn and the morning star, which is translated in some versions as Lucifer, from what I understand. So quite literally Jesus and Nebuchadnezzar can not possibly be the same person, but why then would Jesus call himself the Morning Star when that same term was definitely known to refer to Nebuchadnezzar?

You still don't get it. Please read again what I wrote. Neither satan nor Nebuchadnezzar was called the "morning star." The New International Version of the Bible, which is the only thing that translates "hay-lale" as "morning star" wasn't published until 1973. "Hay-lale" is Hebrew for "(the) shining (one)". The name "Lucifer" is a translation of that from the Latin Bible used by the priests in the middle ages, and was kept in the King James Bible in 1611. Nothing that either Jesus (or John, the author of Revelation) would have read uses the term "morning star".

daddy1gringo wrote:

DaGip wrote:King Nebuchadnezzar is being described in Isaiah as the son of the dawn and the morning star, which is translated in some versions as Lucifer, from what I understand. So quite literally Jesus and Nebuchadnezzar can not possibly be the same person, but why then would Jesus call himself the Morning Star when that same term was definitely known to refer to Nebuchadnezzar?

You still don't get it. Please read again what I wrote. Neither satan nor Nebuchadnezzar was called the "morning star." The New International Version of the Bible, which is the only thing that translates "hay-lale" as "morning star" wasn't published until 1973. "Hay-lale" is Hebrew for "(the) shining (one)". The name "Lucifer" is a translation of that from the Latin Bible used by the priests in the middle ages, and was kept in the King James Bible in 1611. Nothing that either Jesus (or John, the author of Revelation) would have read uses the term "morning star".

I think I get the message, the bible must always be taken literaly unless it contradicts itself hopelessly, then its OBVIOUSLY a mistranslation or a metaphor or of course that old favoirite ; ' The bible is the word of God, who are we to question the omnipotent one '