Heylel or Eill?

[david1611kjv]

having read the lake of fire part on the mission of Satan i was a little confused over why Ray states that the Hevrew word that was translated Lucifer is Eill. i have been told that the word is infact Heylel..is this a textual variant of some kind or am i being told a pile of rubbish? i wouldnt know where to begin in looking this up for myself....thanks guys...David...:¬)

[Kat]

Hi David,

This is just to go over what is from the LOF article # 9, I put in bold what seems to explain this to me, maybe it will help to just review it.

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

We are told that the word in question is Strong's #1966 which is heylel, from 1984 [halal] (in the sense of brightness); the morning-star:--Lucifer.

What a web of deceit is woven in this "light-bringing-brightness-morning-star-Lucifer" theory. This word "Lucifer" appears no other place in Scripture. Was Satan ever spoken of as a "light-bringing perfect archangel"? No.
v
So what is this heylel/halal of Isa. 14:12? Here is the problem—too many translations of previous translations without checking the Hebrew manuscripts first.

Lucifer is the Latin Vulgate translation of the word "xosphoruos" in the Septuagint, which is a Greek version of the Hebrew of Isaiah 14:12, which the King James translators then translated over into the English as "Lucifer."

The Latin and the Greek, as well as a supposed form of a "Hebrew" word in verse 12 mean "bright shiner" or "shining one." The problem is, however, that Isa.14:12 was not written in Latin or Greek, but Hebrew. And I assure you that "lucifer" is not a Hebrew word, nor is it an English translation of a Hebrew word. Lucifer is Latin, and is related to a group of Latin derived English words including lucid, luciferin and luciferose, as we saw defined above, all of which suggest brightness or shining. Likewise xosphoros in the Greek derived English words such as, fluorescence and phosphorescence.

But, there seems to be no Hebrew or Aramaic text in which there is a word in this verse to correspond. What we find in all such texts is the word "hehlehl,' eill, which is a form of the Hebrew stem "yah-lahl," ill. And what is the meaning of "ill"? Are you ready? It means HOWL. That's right, "Lucifer" turns out to be nothing more than a "howl" (maybe of 'hot air')!

It has been suggested that the translators of the Septuagint (Hebrew into Greek) could have overlooked the smallest of the Hebrew letters or been using a copy in which it had been inadvertently omitted. Thus if the form of the world eill, as it occurs in this particular text, were shortened to ell its meaning would be derived from a different root, in fact would be itself a different root, and the sense given in the Septuagint and the Vulgate would be at least understandable, with one giant exception. There is still absolutely no reason or rule of grammar for turning this word into a personal name! It could possibly mean "a shining one," but not a personal name such as "Lucifer." Doubtless the translators followed the Vulgate as they did in most of their translating.

Even such an eminent translator as Rotherham seemed to follow the Septuagint in this verse, however, from his comments within parenthesis, it is clear that he was fully aware of the fact that whatever this word meant, it was referring to none other than the context of these verses which is Babylon and not Satan:

"How has thou (Babylon—see context) fallen from heaven, O Shining One (O howl)—Son of the Dawn! (Babylon conspicuous as Venus). Hewn down to the earth, O crusher of nations."
-----------------------------------------------------------------

mercy, peace and love
Kat