Job 38:7... Whats it saying?

[nebula]

Here's another take:

The Latin word Lucifer is composed of two words: lux, or in the genitive form used lucis, (meaning "light") and ferre, which means "to bear" or "to bring." So, the word Lucifer means bearer of light.

<snip>

We learned that Babylonian religion was an astral religion, closely related to Canaanite practices, although more focused on the sun, moon, and stars and their motion than on the immediate cycles of nature as it was in Canaan. The Babylonians worshipped as gods the manifestations of celestial bodies. It is from Babylon that we get the signs of the Zodiac representing the constellations. We now know that the two terms used in the Hebrew text of Isaiah, Helel, morning star, and Shahar, dawn, were Babylonian astral deities (which is reflected in most modern translations).

<snip>

Chapter 14 then begins with the promise of Israel

[lekh l'kha]

Here's another take:

The Latin word Lucifer is composed of two words: lux, or in the genitive form used lucis, (meaning "light") and ferre, which means "to bear" or "to bring." So, the word Lucifer means bearer of light.

<snip>

We learned that Babylonian religion was an astral religion, closely related to Canaanite practices, although more focused on the sun, moon, and stars and their motion than on the immediate cycles of nature as it was in Canaan. The Babylonians worshipped as gods the manifestations of celestial bodies. It is from Babylon that we get the signs of the Zodiac representing the constellations. We now know that the two terms used in the Hebrew text of Isaiah, Helel, morning star, and Shahar, dawn, were Babylonian astral deities (which is reflected in most modern translations).

<snip>

Chapter 14 then begins with the promise of Israel

[OneLight]

Lucifer is the ancient Latin name for the morning star, and Phospherous the name for the evening star, which is why the word Lucifer appeared in the Latin Bible and in the King James Bible. But that word "Lucifer" does nor appear in the original Hebrew or anywhere in the Hebrew O.T or Greek N.T, which is why all modern translations have refrained from using the word Lucifer.

Do you agree that the word Lucifer derived from Latin? The scripture, written in Hebrew, said ...

Isaiah 14:12 (New American Standard Bible)

How you have fallen from heaven,

O star of the morning, son of the dawn!

You have been cut down to the earth,

You who have weakened the nations!

When you do look up הילל; heylel; H1966; and dig beyond the simplicity of the internet, you will find it saying that the Latin Vulgate's translation meant shining star. Yes, a star of the morning has to be shining, and the very simplistic meaning has brought forth "morning star", but that is not the true meaning.

Again, one can not call Jesus the Morning Star and "Lucifer" the Morning Star.

[lekh l'kha]

Lucifer is the ancient Latin name for the morning star, and Phospherous the name for the evening star, which is why the word Lucifer appeared in the Latin Bible and in the King James Bible. But that word "Lucifer" does nor appear in the original Hebrew or anywhere in the Hebrew O.T or Greek N.T, which is why all modern translations have refrained from using the word Lucifer.

Do you agree that the word Lucifer derived from Latin? The scripture, written in Hebrew, said ...

Isaiah 14:12 (New American Standard Bible)

How you have fallen from heaven,

O star of the morning, son of the dawn!

You have been cut down to the earth,

You who have weakened the nations!

When you do look up הילל; heylel; H1966; and dig beyond the simplicity of the internet, you will find it saying that the Latin Vulgate's translation meant shining star. Yes, a star of the morning has to be shining, and the very simplistic meaning has brought forth "morning star", but that is not the true meaning.

Again, one can not call Jesus the Morning Star and "Lucifer" the Morning Star.

I agree with you 100%

Source regarding the Latin names "Lucifer" and "Phospherous", referring to the morning star and the evening star, respectively:

Microsft's Encarta Encyclopedia, 2004 edition.

The encyclopedia states that in Isaiah the reference to the morning star falling after attempting to rise above the stars of God is satyrical

It made sense to me. God does not equate "Lucifer" with Jesus - the very idea is blasphemous and repugnant to me. But through the prophet Isaiah, the king of Babylon is sarcastically, satyrically referred to as the morning star because he exalted himself and was brought low - God used the very Babylonian mythologcial belief in the god they had attached to the morning star to announce the Babylonian king's judgment.

[OneLight]

Lucifer is the ancient Latin name for the morning star, and Phospherous the name for the evening star, which is why the word Lucifer appeared in the Latin Bible and in the King James Bible. But that word "Lucifer" does nor appear in the original Hebrew or anywhere in the Hebrew O.T or Greek N.T, which is why all modern translations have refrained from using the word Lucifer.

Do you agree that the word Lucifer derived from Latin? The scripture, written in Hebrew, said ...

Isaiah 14:12 (New American Standard Bible)

How you have fallen from heaven,

O star of the morning, son of the dawn!

You have been cut down to the earth,

You who have weakened the nations!

When you do look up הילל; heylel; H1966; and dig beyond the simplicity of the internet, you will find it saying that the Latin Vulgate's translation meant shining star. Yes, a star of the morning has to be shining, and the very simplistic meaning has brought forth "morning star", but that is not the true meaning.

Again, one can not call Jesus the Morning Star and "Lucifer" the Morning Star.

I agree with you 100%

Source regarding the Latin names "Lucifer" and "Phospherous", referring to the morning star and the evening star, respectively:

Microsft's Encarta Encyclopedia, 2004 edition.

The encyclopedia states that in Isaiah the reference to the morning star falling after attempting to rise above the stars of God is satyrical

It made sense to me. God does not equate "Lucifer" with Jesus - the very idea is blasphemous and repugnant to me. But through the prophet Isaiah, the king of Babylon is sarcastically, satyrically referred to as the morning star because he exalted himself and was brought low - God used the very Babylonian mythologcial belief in the god they had attached to the morning star to announce the Babylonian king's judgment.

First, I must apologize for not first stating that the quoted post of mine, where I quoted you, was for WolfBitn, and not you. Please, accept my apologies. I was not questioning you, but was using your words as a reference.

I agree. I like how they compared Lucifer to the King of Babylon, King Ahaz. Paints such a good picture of the inner man. My beef was calling Jesus and Lucifer by the same name. I see where we are on the same page.

God Bless,

Alan

To further my discussion with WolfBitn, I already had the definition you linked to, which can also be found on Blue Letter Bible's Lexicon. My references come from the Complete Word Study Dictionary.

[WolfBitn]

I'm wondering what would be blasphemous if in fact scripture did call them by the same name? The bible is RICH in irony and sarcasm, and i can see it being used in this very passage in irony and sarcasm.

Only the Christ is God between the 2 but Lucifer WANTED to be exalted above God... there very well may have been a time when lucifer was considered a good "Beni e Elohim" however, and all of heaven was one minded. I dont know that this is what the verse is referring to or not, i do find the sarcastic nature interesting however if it were. Jesus the morning star and lucifer the soon to be rebellius one who wanted to BE the morning star singing together before his fall and the angels rejoice in GREAT joy.

If this is used as irony and sarcasm i dont see it as heretical.. i DO admit its rather odd considering lucifer before the fall but at the same time we all realize there was a lucifer who was obedient and part of the kingdom of God at one time

To me... well it causes me to fear

I see how easily pride took him, even though he beheld the glory of God... i humble myself before God and beg mercy and help because if THAT kind of wisdom and knowledge, WAY above me can be blinded and rebel and fall... how can i as a human avoid these very traps, being much less smart... wise... experienced... having seen not even close to the same level of glory that he saw

Like i said, i dunno im not dogmatic, just dont really have an opinion either way on this one... i do realize possibilitys, i find this scripture troublesome to my soul though in a way that makes me want to submit more deeply to God... search Him even further... its sure served to humble me whether it is or isnt, just to consider it

Edited July 29, 2009 by WolfBitn

[canuckamuck]

Here's another take:

The Latin word Lucifer is composed of two words: lux, or in the genitive form used lucis, (meaning "light") and ferre, which means "to bear" or "to bring." So, the word Lucifer means bearer of light.

<snip>

We learned that Babylonian religion was an astral religion, closely related to Canaanite practices, although more focused on the sun, moon, and stars and their motion than on the immediate cycles of nature as it was in Canaan. The Babylonians worshipped as gods the manifestations of celestial bodies. It is from Babylon that we get the signs of the Zodiac representing the constellations. We now know that the two terms used in the Hebrew text of Isaiah, Helel, morning star, and Shahar, dawn, were Babylonian astral deities (which is reflected in most modern translations).

<snip>

Chapter 14 then begins with the promise of Israel’s return from Babylonian exile, a theme that dominates the middle section of Isaiah (40-55). Part of that return would involve the downfall of the tyrant king of Babylon (v. 4; probably Nebuchadrezzer; for the same language used of a later Babylonian ruler, Belshazzar, see Dan 5:20). In that context, verses 12-21 are a poetic picture of that downfall. Helel, morning star, and Shahar, dawn, then, are references to the Babylonian gods who could not save the king, and are themselves to be cast down. In fact, there is probably a reference here to the habit of ancient Near Eastern kings proclaiming themselves incarnations of the gods; with the fall of the kings, the gods also fell, often physically as the images that represented them were pulled down and destroyed (recall the symbolism of the overthrow of Saddam Hussein's statue in Baghdad).

Source

This is really good Nebula. A whole new level I never considered.

Lek, you really know your stuff.

Edited July 30, 2009 by canuckamuck

[canuckamuck]

I'm wondering what would be blasphemous if in fact scripture did call them by the same name? The bible is RICH in irony and sarcasm, and i can see it being used in this very passage in irony and sarcasm.

Only the Christ is God between the 2 but Lucifer WANTED to be exalted above God... there very well may have been a time when lucifer was considered a good "Beni e Elohim" however, and all of heaven was one minded. I dont know that this is what the verse is referring to or not, i do find the sarcastic nature interesting however if it were. Jesus the morning star and lucifer the soon to be rebellius one who wanted to BE the morning star singing together before his fall and the angels rejoice in GREAT joy.

I can understand your intention with trying to explain your angle, but understand this. No one in Heaven was ever confused as to the magnitudes of difference between Jesus and Satan. Jesus is the Creator, Satan a lowly and fallible servant. Yes he is said to be the top of his class, but that is nowhere a comparison to Jesus.

The morning star reference is confusing as we see a one time reference to Jesus in the New Testament as bright and morning star(Lek makes a good case for this apparent duplicity) and we see some other references in the Old where there is a reference to mythical Lucifer and a metaphorical comparison to Satan. Remember the Bible does not directly call Satan, Lucifer at any time. It does call the King of Babylon, Lucifer in Isaiah.

If you call Satan, Lucifer, you are using a metaphor.

Edited July 30, 2009 by canuckamuck

[WolfBitn]

I can understand your intention with trying to explain your angle, but understand this. No one in Heaven was ever confused as to the magnitudes of difference between Jesus and Satan. Jesus is the Creator, Satan a lowly and fallible servant. Yes he is said to be the top of his class, but that is nowhere a comparison to Jesus.

The morning star reference is confusing as we see a one time reference to Jesus in the New Testament as bright and morning star(Lek makes a good case for this apparent duplicity) and we see some other references in the Old where there is a reference to mythical Lucifer and a metaphorical comparison to Satan. Remember the Bible does not directly call Satan, Lucifer at any time. It does call the King of Babylon, Lucifer in Isaiah.

If you call Satan, Lucifer, you are using a metaphor.

Of course i agree with all this, especially the bolded... well i guess i bolded about everything lol

No i wouldnt in any way try to compare Christ with satan or lucifer except in contrasting good and evil... but it is true that as far as the other angels were concerned, lucifer would have been considered great i believe... just trying to see him from their eyes before the rebellion. Like i said though i wouldnt ever be dogmatic, in this, its only a thought. I kind of look at it though with possibly using the same sort of sarcasm God used when telling the corrupted elders of Israel "ye are gods".

[WolfBitn]

well at least you caught me in a legitimate mistake this time ... thanks for finally saying something constructive

too bad you cant refute the point though lol