> General Discussions
Translating Lucifer
Craig:
Roy, Kat was not saying this, she was just pointing out all the different commentaries written by others.
Craig
Roy Monis:
--- Quote from: Craig on July 04, 2008, 09:38:34 AM ---Roy, Kat was not saying this, she was just pointing out all the different commentaries written by others.
Craig
--- End quote ---
Hi! Craig
Trust me I've gone and put my foot in it again, my humblest apologies, I will apologize to Kath personally. Thank you for correcting me.
God bless you brother in our joint walk in Christ.
Love in Christ Jesus.
Roy UK
Kat:
Hi Roy,
No problem. I was just showing Jason what some of the different commentaries say concerning Lucifer in Isaiah.
Oddly enough some of them did not believe that Isaiah was speaking about Satan when he spoke of Lucifer. And I think these commentaries provide a good deal of information on history, knowledge of the customs. They have also researched the original words of the Hebrew and Greek in the Scriptures from some sources we do not have access to and this helps us. I don't think we can gain spiritual knowledge in the commentaries, but they do have some good info available to us in them.
mercy, peace and love
Kat
Roy Monis:
--- Quote from: Sozo on July 03, 2008, 08:06:51 AM ---Maybe someone here has a better understanding of Biblical Hebrew than myself or at least a better understanding of this specific topic. I’ve been studying Ray’s paper on this Lucifer translation in Isaiah (http://bible-truths.com/lake9.html) and I have a couple of questions that I can’t seem to find the answer to.
1. In Ray’s paper, the original word that was translated as “Lucifer” is “hey-lehl” or “eill”. What is the difference between “hey-lehl” and “eill”? The concordant interlinear uses “eill”. Strong’s online interlinear uses “halal”. Is “hey-lehl” the annunciated form of “eill”? Any help would be appreciated. As you can see, I don’t know much about Biblical Hebrew.
2. From everything I have read on this subject, it is clear that almost all scholar’s now admit that this word should not have been translated as “Lucifer”. However, the majority of them say that it should have been translated as “day star” or “morning star”. They say that the word was most likely derived from “hll” which means to shine. However, they give no further explanation. Ray’s teaching on this is the most detailed I have found and clearly shows how the word means “howl” especially in light of Zech 11:2 and all the other word variations that he lists. I have not found where anyone else has commented on this. So my question is this, “Does anyone know how they come to the conclusion that this word means “day star” rather than “howl”? Even in Strong’s concordance, the same exact Hebrew word, הֵילֵל in Isaiah is said to mean “day star” and in Zech is said to mean “howl”. They apply a different root to the same word. Is this just blatant, in our face deception or am I missing something here. Is there some specific reason why they give this same word 2 different meanings? ("Day star"=noun..."Howl"=verb...totally unrelated...???)
Anyway, thanks for any insight on this subject in advance.
Jason
--- End quote ---
Hi! Jason
Lucifer who? Never heard of him! What is he a CROCK?
God bless you brother in our joint walk in Christ.
Love in Christ Jesus.
Roy UK
Sozo:
I found the answers that I was looking for.
1. "hey-lehl" is the phonetic hebrew word and "eill" is the transliterated hebrew word letter for letter. See below:
Hebrew Word - הילל
Hebrew Word (phonetic) - heylehl - actually should be "yawlal" as it is in Zechariah
Hebrew Word (letters, left to right) - he-yod-lamed-lamed
Transiliteration - eill
2. Why the majority of translators still translate "eill" in Isaiah as "morning star" or something to that effect is still a little baffling. For some reason they are pulling from the root word "ell" which means "to shine" rather than the root "ill" which means "to howl". I can understand this mistake happening in the past, but when we look at the leningrad codex (available online at http://www.tanach.us/Tanach.xml) which is the main document used for these translations, it just doesn't make sense that they would still apply a different meaning to these exact same words in Isaiah and Zechariah. The exact same Hebrew word here is "הילל". There is nothing here that would suggest this word meaning anything other than "howl" except for the presuppositions of man.
This seems like a perfect example of man interpreting the scriptures with their own bias...much in the same way they still interpret the word "aionios" to mean "eternal" which is a linguistic impossibility.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version