ayin jade Posted August 3, 2011 Group: Worthy Ministers Followers: 44 Topic Count: 6,178 Topics Per Day: 0.87 Content Count: 43,798 Content Per Day: 6.19 Reputation: 11,244 Days Won: 58 Joined: 01/03/2005 Status: Offline Share Posted August 3, 2011 This still doesn't answer the original question: Are Satan and Lucifer one and the same? Again, I am not convinced. So who do you think they are? Which is the devil we know of, and who is the other one supposed to be? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nebula Posted August 3, 2011 Group: Royal Member Followers: 10 Topic Count: 5,823 Topics Per Day: 0.75 Content Count: 45,870 Content Per Day: 5.94 Reputation: 1,897 Days Won: 83 Joined: 03/22/2003 Status: Offline Birthday: 11/19/1970 Share Posted August 3, 2011 ...I understand that it's not a name. However, it may also be a title and that's what I've been saying all along. Well, you haven't actually made that clear. To keep calling Satan "Lucifer" or to claim he was ever called Lucifer is a mistranslation and misinterpretation. Do you agree? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nebula Posted August 3, 2011 Group: Royal Member Followers: 10 Topic Count: 5,823 Topics Per Day: 0.75 Content Count: 45,870 Content Per Day: 5.94 Reputation: 1,897 Days Won: 83 Joined: 03/22/2003 Status: Offline Birthday: 11/19/1970 Share Posted August 3, 2011 i don't think you'll find the answer to your question in the Word becuase the term Lucifer is not Hebrew. My Bible translates that O star of the morning. The passage in Hebrew by this source reads: eich nafalta mishamayim heylel ben-shachar "Ben-shachar" is "Son of the dawn" "Heylel" is the Hebrew word that the Latin Vulgate translated as "Lucifer." My point of contention has been on this one word. Is it valid to call Satan as Lucifer if it was never his name and/or if it could be a mistranslation? One would have to know Lucifer to understand why the KJV translators would choose that name from my point of view. i don't think you will find your answer without udnerstanding that principal. The translarots simply knew who he was and what to call him. I don't put my faith in the translators that way. And I certainly don't rely on the false religions for what is in Scripture. Just because occults use the name that came from the Latin Vulgate centuries ago does not mean they used it before the translation came out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthitjah Posted August 3, 2011 Group: Royal Member Followers: 4 Topic Count: 1,285 Topics Per Day: 0.16 Content Count: 17,917 Content Per Day: 2.27 Reputation: 355 Days Won: 19 Joined: 10/01/2002 Status: Offline Share Posted August 3, 2011 ...I understand that it's not a name. However, it may also be a title and that's what I've been saying all along. Well, you haven't actually made that clear. To keep calling Satan "Lucifer" or to claim he was ever called Lucifer is a mistranslation and misinterpretation. Do you agree? No, because it's a title. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthitjah Posted August 3, 2011 Group: Royal Member Followers: 4 Topic Count: 1,285 Topics Per Day: 0.16 Content Count: 17,917 Content Per Day: 2.27 Reputation: 355 Days Won: 19 Joined: 10/01/2002 Status: Offline Share Posted August 3, 2011 i don't think you'll find the answer to your question in the Word becuase the term Lucifer is not Hebrew. My Bible translates that O star of the morning. The passage in Hebrew by this source reads: eich nafalta mishamayim heylel ben-shachar "Ben-shachar" is "Son of the dawn" "Heylel" is the Hebrew word that the Latin Vulgate translated as "Lucifer." My point of contention has been on this one word. Is it valid to call Satan as Lucifer if it was never his name and/or if it could be a mistranslation? One would have to know Lucifer to understand why the KJV translators would choose that name from my point of view. i don't think you will find your answer without udnerstanding that principal. The translarots simply knew who he was and what to call him. I don't put my faith in the translators that way. And I certainly don't rely on the false religions for what is in Scripture. Just because occults use the name that came from the Latin Vulgate centuries ago does not mean they used it before the translation came out. Sis, You keep linking to that site but they don't appear to have a problem with the Strongs translation either, in fact they quote it. It translates as "shining one" or in the base root, "to shine/to boast." So again, the mocking title translated as "Lucifer" is "Shining/boasting/prideful son of the dawn/morning." I still don't see what the problem is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthitjah Posted August 3, 2011 Group: Royal Member Followers: 4 Topic Count: 1,285 Topics Per Day: 0.16 Content Count: 17,917 Content Per Day: 2.27 Reputation: 355 Days Won: 19 Joined: 10/01/2002 Status: Offline Share Posted August 3, 2011 Lucifer is translated as "light bringer" in some instances and also as "shining star." I don't really have a problem with that especially when one takes into account that the Title is one of mockery. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
other one Posted August 3, 2011 Group: Worthy Ministers Followers: 29 Topic Count: 599 Topics Per Day: 0.08 Content Count: 56,254 Content Per Day: 7.56 Reputation: 27,983 Days Won: 271 Joined: 12/29/2003 Status: Offline Share Posted August 3, 2011 Neb, i can't tell you what that Hebrew word means in English....... but I do know that Satan and his followers call him Lucifer. So I'm having trouble understanding the problem with that word in this one translation. Even if we throw out the KJV of the Bible, he is still going to call himself Lucifer and he's still Satan and he's still the prince of this world until Jesus comes and sets things strait. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nebula Posted August 3, 2011 Group: Royal Member Followers: 10 Topic Count: 5,823 Topics Per Day: 0.75 Content Count: 45,870 Content Per Day: 5.94 Reputation: 1,897 Days Won: 83 Joined: 03/22/2003 Status: Offline Birthday: 11/19/1970 Share Posted August 3, 2011 Sis, You keep linking to that site Actually, that site was just something I pulled in a quick search to explain the concept I was trying to convey. This issue is something I've been mulling around in my mind for quite some time based on what I've heard and read from various sources. Really, I've grown up believing the traditional understanding, but having been hearing reasons to question that I'm searching it out as best I can. In the Hebrew, heylel and ben-shachar are separate words, but tied together. To combine them into "Star of the Morning" or "Star of the Dawn" (as some translations do) removes the word ben out of the Scripture. The KJV presents heylel as what he was called, with ben-shachar being an added description to the title. But most people treat "Lucifer" as his previous name. Consider this, how many times does the Lord call Israel something other than "Israel" (i.e. Virgin daughter of Zion"). What would you say to someone trying to use such as Israel's name? but they don't appear to have a problem with the Strongs translation either, in fact they quote it. It translates as "shining one" or in the base root, "to shine/to boast." And the point is that the root word halel means several things, including "to shine/to boast" - which is not the same as "light." If the Scripture wanted the being to be called "Light bringer", would the Hebrew word for "light" be used? It makes no sense to me at all why you believe "shining one" (if that really is what heylel means, which no one can verify for sure since it is only used this once) and "light bringer" are one and the same. A "light bringer" is one who brings light - like the sun or someone who carries a torch for the purpose of filling a place with light. A "shining one" is something that shines but does not have the actual purpose or function of sending light to anyone. The "morning star" (which we now know to be the planet Venus) isn't an object that brings light. If Venus was the only object in the sky, Earth would be a very, very dark place. If anything, it is a herald to the dawn. It really does not bring much light. It just shines bright and pretty and makes people happy to see it. As Shiloh mentioned, "boastful one" can be just as valid a translation - "How have you fallen from heaven, boastful son of the dawn". So again, the mocking title translated as "Lucifer" is "Shining/boasting/prideful son of the dawn/morning." I still don't see what the problem is. "Lucifer" does not mean "Shining/Boastful/Prideful". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nebula Posted August 3, 2011 Group: Royal Member Followers: 10 Topic Count: 5,823 Topics Per Day: 0.75 Content Count: 45,870 Content Per Day: 5.94 Reputation: 1,897 Days Won: 83 Joined: 03/22/2003 Status: Offline Birthday: 11/19/1970 Share Posted August 3, 2011 Lucifer is translated as "light bringer" in some instances and also as "shining star." I don't really have a problem with that especially when one takes into account that the Title is one of mockery. The Hebrew word for "star" is kowkab (כוכב). I am failing to see how it is valid to translate heylel ben-shachar as "star". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthitjah Posted August 3, 2011 Group: Royal Member Followers: 4 Topic Count: 1,285 Topics Per Day: 0.16 Content Count: 17,917 Content Per Day: 2.27 Reputation: 355 Days Won: 19 Joined: 10/01/2002 Status: Offline Share Posted August 3, 2011 Okay, you'll have to struggle with this one yourself. I don't have a problem with the translation as a mocking Title is all that I'm saying. I really don't have the struggle that you're having with it. It makes sense and in context it's just another way of saying what the Hebrew say's, IMO. It definately doesn't denote Adam and on that note we can both agree. Love ya sis. Peace, Dave Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts