bible-truths.com/forums

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

Need Account Help?  Email bibletruths.forum@gmail.com   

Forgotten password reminders does not work. Contact the email above and state what you want your password changed to. (it must be at least 8 characters)

Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: How would you respond to this rebuttal of Ray's article on Lucifer?  (Read 6685 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Paul

  • Guest

Sorry, but that article is junk. The Latin "lucifer" was/is the same celestial body (Venus) as the Hebrew "helel ben shahar," so Jerome's translation was correct.

 ::)
Logged

Kat

  • Guest
Re: How would you respond to this rebuttal of Ray's article on Lucifer?
« Reply #1 on: June 30, 2008, 11:51:39 AM »


Hi Paul,

Here is a email about this very thing  :)

http://www.forums.bible-truths.com/index.php/topic,1539.0.html ---

Hi Ray,
 
I hope all is well.  While reading Part 9 of the Lake of Fire Series, I came across the enjoyable quote from the Adam Clarke Bible commentary.  I wanted to pass it along in case you hadn't seen it.  It notes very clearly how incorrectly this passage has been translated.
 
Isa 14:12 -

O Lucifer, son of the morning - The Versions in general agree in this translation, and render הילל heilel as signifying Lucifer, ΦωσφωÏ?ος, the morning star, whether Jupiter or Venus; as these are both bringers of the morning light, or morning stars, annually in their turn. And although the context speaks explicitly concerning Nebuchadnezzar, yet this has been, I know not why, applied to the chief of the fallen angels, who is most incongruously denominated Lucifer, (the bringer of light!) an epithet as common to him as those of Satan and Devil. That the Holy Spirit by his prophets should call this arch-enemy of God and man the light-bringer, would be strange indeed. But the truth is, the text speaks nothing at all concerning Satan nor h is fall, nor the occasion of that fall, which many divines have with great confidence deduced from this text. O how necessary it is to understand the literal meaning of Scripture, that preposterous comments may be prevented! Besides, I doubt much whether our translation be correct. הילל heilel, which we translate Lucifer, comes from ילל yalal, yell, howl, or shriek, and should be translated, "Howl, son of the morning;" and so the Syriac has understood it; and for this meaning Michaelis contends: see his reasons in Parkhurst, under הלל halal.

God bless,
 
Bert
Dallas, TX


Dear Bert:
No I had not seen that in Adam Clark's Commentary.  My Adam's Clark Commentary was lost in several moves years ago, and I have never bought another commentary. That is great stuff for sure.  Not too many honest scholars around anymore when it comes to relgion. I have said all my life: "When it comes to relgion simples words loose all meaning."
Thanks for your input.

God be with you,
Ray

Logged

rjsurfs

  • Guest
Re: How would you respond to this rebuttal of Ray's article on Lucifer?
« Reply #2 on: June 30, 2008, 11:52:36 AM »

Hello Paul,

First of all I wouldn't feel it necessary to respond (outside of this group) to such a rebuttal or the countless other rebuttals that are made against the truth.

Lucifer (the word) is Latin... I don't see where Ray argues with that.  For me it is good enough to see all but one form of the Hebrew stem yah-lahl is translated as "howl" in the Old Testament text.  That being about thirty other times... and once it is translated "Lucifer"?

http://bible-truths.com/lake9.html

Bobby

Logged

David

  • Guest
Re: How would you respond to this rebuttal of Ray's article on Lucifer?
« Reply #3 on: June 30, 2008, 03:15:41 PM »

I like the NRSV of these verses. Verse 3 and 4 of Chapter 14 put the whole thing into its correct context perfectly.
Isa 14:3  (NRSV) When the Lord has given you rest from your pain and turmoil and the hard service with which you were made to serve, 4 you will take up this taunt against the King of Babylon.
Then follows.......
  "How the oppressor has ceased,
   the insolent fury ceased!
5The LORD has broken the  staff of the wicked,
   the scepter of rulers,
6 that struck the peoples in wrath
   with unceasing blows,
that ruled the nations in anger
   with unrelenting persecution.
7The whole earth is at rest and quiet;
    they break forth into singing.
8 The cypresses rejoice at you,
    the cedars of Lebanon, saying,
'Since you were laid low,
   no woodcutter comes up against us.'
9 Sheol beneath is stirred up
   to meet you when you come;
it rouses the shades to greet you,
   all who were leaders of the earth;
it raises from their thrones
   all who were kings of the nations.
10 All of them will answer
   and say to you:
'You too have become as weak as we!
   You have become like us!'
11Your pomp is brought down to Sheol,
   the sound of your harps;
maggots are laid as a bed beneath you,
   and worms are your covers.
 12"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!
13You said in your heart,
   'I will ascend to heaven;
above the stars of God
   I will set my throne on high;
I will sit on the mount of assembly
   in the far reaches of the north;
14I will ascend above the heights of the clouds;
   I will make myself like the Most High.'
15 But you are brought down to Sheol,
   to the far reaches of the pit.
16Those who see you will stare at you
   and ponder over you:
'Is this the man who made the earth tremble,
   who shook kingdoms,
17who made the world like a desert
   and overthrew its cities,
    who did not let his prisoners go home?'
18All the kings of the nations lie in glory,
   each in his own tomb;
19but you are cast out, away from your grave,
   like a loathed branch,
clothed with the slain, those pierced by the sword,
   who go down to the stones of the pit,
   like a dead body trampled underfoot.
20You will not be joined with them in burial,
   because you have destroyed your land,
   you have slain your people.


These verses clearly pertain to the King of Babylon, not Satan. They are all part of the same proverb, verse 12 is not separated from the previous verses.

NIV has verse 3 and 4 almost the same. New Life has it  3 When the Lord gives you rest from your pain and trouble and the hard work which you were made to do, 4 you will speak against the king of Babylon, and say Youngs literal has it  3And it hath come to pass, In the day of Jehovah's giving rest to thee, From thy grief, and from thy trouble, And from the sharp bondage, That hath been served upon thee,

 4That thou hast taken up this simile Concerning the king of Babylon, and said, How hath the exactor ceased,
NASV has it  3 And it shall come to pass in the day that Jehovah shall give thee rest from thy sorrow, and from thy trouble, and from the hard service wherein thou wast made to serve,

 4 that thou shalt take up this parable against the king of Babylon,

And many more versions have verse 3 and 4 clearly preceeding this proverb against the King of Babylon. Amazing how Christians that believe the fall of satan from heaven nonesense use verse 12 of Chapter 14 as a "proof" scripture, and never see verses 3 and 4.
Logged

Craig

  • Bible-Truths Forum Member
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4282
  • There are two kinds of cops.The quick and the dead
Re: How would you respond to this rebuttal of Ray's article on Lucifer?
« Reply #4 on: June 30, 2008, 04:40:06 PM »

    
Quote
How would you respond to this rebuttal of Ray's article on Lucifer?

I wouldn't.

Craig
Logged

Chris R

  • Guest
Re: How would you respond to this rebuttal of Ray's article on Lucifer?
« Reply #5 on: June 30, 2008, 09:46:50 PM »

   
Quote
How would you respond to this rebuttal of Ray's article on Lucifer?

I wouldn't.

Craig

Me either

Chris R
Logged

Samson

  • Guest
Re: How would you respond to this rebuttal of Ray's article on Lucifer?
« Reply #6 on: June 30, 2008, 10:31:02 PM »

   
Quote
How would you respond to this rebuttal of Ray's article on Lucifer?

I wouldn't.

Craig

Me either

Chris R

Hello Everyone,

                     I agree with Chris & Craig and not because it's convenient. I have enough trouble spending adequate time reading, listening and repeating that process, then trying to retain Ray's explanations on things that are considered Foundational in regards to my personal belief system, this is not to say that I don't venture occasionally elsewhere, because I do, but I don't have the desire to debate elsewhere at Bible based Web-sites or those that want to critique and put through a microscope minute details on what precisely the Hebrew word and meaning regarding Lucifer and it's Latin equivalent. From my understanding, Latin has done much damage in translation, especially the New Testament, the so-called Latin Church Fathers were the ones whi misrepresented the Greek Word AION and started the ball rolling regarding the eternal punishment heresy, aka-Augustine and others who didn't adequately understand the Greek Language.

                          Sorry, I went into a tangent and rambled on, but I wish I had an English Bible Translation that translates from the Greek directly to the English, bypassing the step of Latin.

                                                Samson.

Logged

EKnight

  • Guest
Re: How would you respond to this rebuttal of Ray's article on Lucifer?
« Reply #7 on: June 30, 2008, 10:39:08 PM »

If I venture out (like Samson said) and I know that Ray spoke on the subject at hand, I usually copy and paste the actual paper Ray wrote or just bible-truths.com.  That way, maybe someone comes here and learns more than they expected and if not, so be it.

Eileen
Logged

Falconn003

  • Guest
Re: How would you respond to this rebuttal of Ray's article on Lucifer?
« Reply #8 on: July 02, 2008, 03:18:52 PM »

Sorry, but that article is junk. The Latin "lucifer" was/is the same celestial body (Venus) as the Hebrew "helel ben shahar," so Jerome's translation was correct.

 ::)

Ray spends MONTHS, WEEKS, DAYS and HOURS on writting  articles and even more in editing and re-writing them. COMPARED to the little time, that it took a person to call an article JUNK, based solely on thier opinions and premise of ""so Jerome's translation was correct"" and other writers, who are alienated to the terms of Spirit, Spirituality and Living Words. These writers would rather embrace the veil of context, literally and law, til thier death beacons them. 

Ray writes articles based on SPIRITUAL Truths not opinions, and yet opposers DO NOT stipulate SCRIPTURE/s as INCORRECT or FALSE in anyone's JUNK ASSESMENT.

FACT: That is just plain DUMB !

It is an easier task rebutting vanity, then taking on the inspired articles written on the Word of God.

Seems opposers (spirit of anit-christ ) have a personal problem understandinig the article/s , and .....well......it is a PERSONAL PROBLEM !

Peace
Rodger
« Last Edit: July 02, 2008, 11:48:14 PM by Falconn003 »
Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up
 

Page created in 0.039 seconds with 19 queries.