and not to Satan? how did this misunderstanding come about?
2007-07-10 10:03:52 · 8 answers · asked by Jerusalem Delivered 3 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Finally! Someone else who sees that! Thank - you.
2007-07-10 10:11:21 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
The Hebrew for this expression--"light-bringer" or "shining one"--is translated "Lucifer" in The Latin Vulgate, and is thus translated in the King James Version. But because of the association of that name with Satan, it is not now used in this and other translations. Some students feel that the application of the name Lucifer to Satan, in spite of the long and confident teaching to that effect, is erroneous. The application of the name to Satan has existed since the third century A.D., and is based on the supposition that Luke 10:18 is an explanation of Isa. 14:12, which many authorities believe is not true. "Lucifer," the light-bringer, is the Latin equivalent of the Greek word "Phosphoros," which is used as a title of Christ in II Pet. 1:19 and corresponds to the name "radiant and brilliant Morning Star" in Rev. 22:16, a name Jesus called Himself. This passage here in Isa. 14:13 clearly applies to the king of Babylon.
2007-07-10 17:16:01 · answer #2 · answered by sdb deacon 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I assume you are talking about Isaiah 14. The books of prophecy are usually understood to speak both of historical figures and activities as well as past and future figures and activities. They are best understood through Scripture as a whole body of work.
Scholars generally see this passage as referring both to the king of Babylon (at that time) and to Satan as well as to the king of Babylon in future times. Verses 1-11 are seen as spoken to the king. Verses 12-15 as referring in parallel fashion to Satan for a couple of reasons: 1) Jesus makes a similar description of Satan in Luke 10:18, and 2) the words spoken in verses 13-14 fit with the account, attitude, and actions of Satan and seem unlikely to be the words of an earthy king.
The New Testament often refers to passages from the prophets that applied to the kings who lived and died in the past and also applies them to future events yet to come.
2007-07-10 17:17:17 · answer #3 · answered by happygirl 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
if you're refering to Isaiah 14 not it's not about the king of babylon. it's about satan. try posting the passage.
2007-07-10 17:09:54 · answer #4 · answered by pissdownsatansback 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Anybody who paid close enuff attn would realize that, but of course, nobody does that these days.
Let's see, what heavenly names are divulged in the Bible?
Jehovah: He Causes to Become (God Almighty)
Michael: Who is like God? (Archangel)
Jesus/Yeshua: Jehovah is salvation (same person as Michael)
Gabriel: (I gotta look it up, sorry. But he was 1 of Michael's subordinates)
Abaddaon/Apollyon: Destroyer
What do all of these names have in common? They're of Hebrew origin, transliterated to English. Just how did Lucifer, a Latin name, make it's way into Isaiah as the original name of Satan (and why is it only mentioned 1ce)?
Wake up...
2007-07-10 17:15:59 · answer #5 · answered by DwayneWayne 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The fall of this king is used to teach about satan and satan's fall.
2007-07-10 17:15:58 · answer #6 · answered by Hawk 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Fourteenth century mistranslation, carried forward in oral tradition.
Lucifer got a bad rap.
2007-07-10 17:08:55 · answer #7 · answered by mckenziecalhoun 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
How about .... idk ... posting the passage in question?! Might help a bit in answering your questions.
2007-07-10 17:08:16 · answer #8 · answered by Catherine 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋