D*****r
发帖数: 6791 | 1 http://www.franknelte.net/Nelte_HTML/LUCIFER.htm
In the English version of the Bible the name "Lucifer" appears only one time
, in Isaiah 14:12. This verse reads:
"How are you fallen from heaven, O LUCIFER, son of the morning..." (Isaiah
14:12)
Now the word "Lucifer" is not an English word, but a LATIN word. And so the
question is:
WHO GAVE THE WORLD THIS LATIN NAME "LUCIFER"? AND WHY DID THEY GIVE US THIS
LATIN NAME?
HOW WE CAME TO HAVE THIS NAME "LUCIFER"
In 382 A.D. Pope Damasus commissioned the scholar Jerome to make an official
revision of the many Latin versions of the Bible that were floating around
in the Catholic Church at that time. Jerome went off to a cave in Bethlehem,
where he proceeded to make his translation, the Old Testament part of which
he supposedly based on the Hebrew text. But in practice Jerome based his
Old Testament very largely on the Greek language Septuagint version (i.e. "
LXX") of the Old Testament, which Origen had produced about 140 years
earlier, while in Caesarea.
By A.D. 405 Jerome had completed his work, which we today know as "The Latin
Vulgate" Bible. It is far from a particularly accurate translation of the
original texts. Rather, it is AN INTERPRETATION OF THOUGHT, PUT INTO
IDIOMATIC, GRACEFUL LATIN!
For a thousand years this Translation was without a rival, and herein lies
the problem! The Latin Vulgate translation was the only version of the Bible
available to the people of Europe during that period of time. There was no
possibility for anyone to compare the Vulgate with any other translation.
Jerome had understood that Isaiah 14:12 is talking about Satan. There the
HEBREW word "HEYLEL" is used for Satan, and Jerome translated this into
LATIN as "LUCIFER"!
THIS IS A MISTRANSLATION!
The Latin word "Lucifer" is made up from two Latin words. These two words
are:
LUX (=light) + FEROUS (=to bear or carry).
Thus the name "Lucifer" means in the Latin language "Light-bearer" or "Light
-bringer".
But this is NOT what the Hebrew word "HEYLEL" means!
Later we will see exactly what this word Hebrew "heylel" does mean.
Anyway, as a result of this Latin Vulgate translation, which was virtually
the only version of the Bible in use throughout Europe for the next 1000
years, Satan popularly became known as Lucifer. This identity for Satan with
the name Lucifer was established long before there ever was a translation
into the English language.
It should be clear that, when the first people to translate the Bible into
English came along, one of their paradigms was that the name "Lucifer"
applied to Satan. When they came to translate Isaiah 14:12 into English,
they decided that, rather than actually "TRANSLATE" the word "heylel", they
would simply substitute it with the already well-known Latin name "Lucifer".
And they could do this because on the surface this seems to be a reasonably
accurate translation. But it isn't really accurate at all!
So, to summarize thus far:
1) It was the Catholic Church which assigned the name "Lucifer" to Satan.
2) This Latin word is supposedly a translation of the Hebrew noun "heylel"
used in Isaiah 14:12.
3) But "lucifer" was NOT an original way of mistranslating the Hebrew "
heylel" into Latin!
4) Rendering the Hebrew "heylel" into Latin as "lucifer" was simply COPYING
THE
PRECEDENT SET IN THE GREEK LANGUAGE LXX TRANSLATION!
5) The Greek LXX had translated Isaiah 14:12 into Greek as "EOSPHOROS", an
older way of spelling the Greek word "PHOSPHOROS".
6) The reason WHY Jerome translated "heylel" as "lucifer" is BECAUSE THE LXX
had translated "heylel" as "PHOSPHOROS"!
7) The Greek word "phosphoros" and the Latin word "lucifer" mean ABSOLUTELY
100% THE SAME THING! ABSOLUTELY!
In their respective languages both these words mean "light-bearer" or "light
-bringer". They are just as identical as are the English word "bread" and
the German word "Brot", or the English word "knife" and the German word "
Messer". They are completely identical in meaning.
So the word "lucifer" is a PERFECT translation into Latin of the Greek word
"phosphoros"! This means that Jerome PERFECTLY translated into Latin the
Greek LXX interpretation of Isaiah 14:12, but Jerome did NOT correctly
translate the HEBREW word "heylel" into Latin! Jerome simply latched onto
the Greek LXX version of Isaiah 14:12, while totally ignoring the
ramifications of this way of translating Isaiah 14:12 into Latin.
So now let's examine the facts. We need to examine both, the LXX and also
the Latin Vulgate. Then the error in Isaiah 14:12 should become apparent.
THE GREEK LXX TEXT
In the Greek language LXX text of the Old Testament the word "phosphoros" (
actually its older version "eosphoros") is used SEVEN times. It is in fact
used to translate SIX different Hebrew words into Greek. Thus:
1) In 1 Samuel 30:17 the Greek word "phosphoros" represents the Hebrew word
"nesheph", which means "twilight". In the Latin Vulgate this is rendered as
"vespere". The Latin "vesper, vesperis" means "evening".
2) In Job 3:9 the Greek word "phosphoros" represents the Hebrew word "aphaph
", which means "eyelids", and by extension "dawn". The KJV rendering of "the
dawning of day" is rendered in the Jewish translation (JPS) as "the eyelids
of the morning". In the Latin Vulgate this is rendered as "aurorae". The
Latin "aurora, aurorae" means "dawn" or "daybreak" or "sunrise".
3) In Job 11:17 the Greek word "phosphoros" represents the Hebrew word "
boqer", which means "morning" or "daybreak". In the Latin Vulgate this is
rendered as "lucifer".
4) In Job 38:12 and also in Job 41:18 (which is Job 41:10 in the LXX) the
Greek word "phosphoros" represents the Hebrew word "shachar", which means "
dawn" or "dayspring". In the Latin Vulgate Job 38:12 is rendered as "
diluculo" and in Job 41:18 (which is Job 41:9 in the Vulgate) it is rendered
as "diluculi". The Latin "diluculum, diluculi" means "lesser" and "break of
day" and "dawn".
5) In Psalm 110:3 the Greek word "phosphoros" represents the Hebrew word "
mishchar", which means "dawn". In the Latin Vulgate this is rendered by the
adjective "luciferum", which means "light-bringing".
6) In Isaiah 14:12 the Greek word "phosphoros" represents the Hebrew word "
heylel". We will see the meaning of this word later. But in the Latin
Vulgate this is rendered as "lucifer", which means "light-bringer".
So here is what we have found:
The ONE Greek word "phosphoros", which specifically means "light-bringer",
has been used in the LXX to translate SIX different Hebrew words with the
following meanings:
A) Nesheph means "twilight".
B) Aphaph" means "eyelid" and by extension "dawn".
C) Boqer means "morning".
D) Shachar means "dawn" and "dayspring".
E) Mishchar means "dawn".
F) Heylel has a meaning we'll examine later.
Thus in the LXX ALL SIX OF THESE HEBREW WORDS ARE MISTRANSLATED INTO GREEK!
The Greek word "phosphoros" does NOT mean "morning". The Greek word for "
daybreak" and for "dawn", which is used about 26 times in the LXX, is "
orthros" (e.g. Genesis 19:15; Genesis 32:26; etc.).
Thus the above Hebrew words "aphaph" and "boqer" and "shachar" and "mishchar
" would all have been translated more accurately by the Greek word "orthros"
than by "phosphoros"!
Translating the Hebrew "nesheph" into "phosphoros" was clearly a mistake,
which even Jerome recognized, and that is why Jerome therefore translated
this correctly into Latin as "vespere" (meaning "evening").
That leaves the one Hebrew word "heylel" that is ALSO mistranslated in the
LXX as "phosphoros". "Heylel" really does not have anything to do with "
BRINGING" anything!! It's simply not about bringing or carrying anything, be
it "light" or be it anything else! (We'll examine "heylel" more closely
later.)
But this is typical of the extremely poor quality of the LXX translation.
Here they have indiscriminately translated six different Hebrew words with
the one Greek word "phosphoros". It is the same as the LXX indiscriminately
translating fifteen different Hebrew words with the one Greek word "
hupostasis". The Greek language LXX Old Testament is a poor quality and
highly unreliable translation, that's all that we can say about it.
However, one thing should already be quite clear:
THE FACT that the LXX has INCORRECTLY used the Greek word "phosphoros" to
translate the five different Hebrew words (i.e. nesheph, aphaph, boqer,
shachar and mishchar) should tell us that the LXX is ALSO WRONG in
translating the Hebrew word "heylel" with this Greek word "phosphoros"! It
is not as if "heylel" somehow really means the same as "phosphoros", and
that it is just that THE OTHER 5 WORDS are incorrectly translated!
Furthermore, IF "phosphoros" really was equal to one of those five Hebrew
words, THEN it would automatically mean that THEREFORE "phosphoros" must be
a WRONG translation for "heylel" ... since "heylel" has absolutely nothing
at all to do with any of the other five Hebrew words! "Heylel" is a
different word with a totally different meaning. It has nothing at all to do
with "morning"!
Now let's see what Jerome did with his Vulgate translation.
1) Jerome recognized that the LXX mistranslated 1 Samuel 30:17 with "
phosphoros", and so he correctly supplied the word "vespere" for his Latin
text.
2) Jerome also recognized that the LXX mistranslated Job 3:9 as "phosphoros"
, and so he correctly supplied the Latin word "aurorae" for this verse.
3) Jerome also recognized that the LXX mistranslated Job 38:12 and Job 41:18
as "phosphoros", and so he correctly supplied the Latin words "diluculo"
and "diluculi" for these two verses.
4) But Jerome did not recognize that the LXX translation of "phosphoros" for
the Hebrew "boqer" in Job 11:17 was a mistranslation, and so he stayed with
the LXX rendering, and supplied the Latin word "lucifer" here. THIS IS A
MISTAKE! The Hebrew "boqer" means "morning" and "lucifer" does NOT mean "
morning"!
5) Jerome also did not recognize that the LXX translation of "phosphoros"
for the Hebrew "mishchar" in Psalm 110:3 was a mistranslation, and so here
he also followed the LXX, and supplied the Latin adjective "luciferum". THIS
IS ALSO A MISTAKE! The Hebrew "mishchar" means "of the dawn" and "luciferum
" does NOT mean "of the dawn"!
6) Consider also that of the six different Hebrew words indiscriminately
translated in the LXX by "phosphoros", only the Hebrew "heylel" REFERS TO A
SPECIFIC BEING! The other five words refer to certain CONDITIONS! But "
heylel" is used to describe AN INDIVIDUAL! It is only in Isaiah 14:12 that
this Hebrew word "heylel" is ever used! So there are no other direct
references in the Old Testament to help us understand what this word is
supposed to mean.
With this word "heylel" Jerome in his Latin translation blindly followed the
flawed LXX translation, and therefore simply translated the LXX word "
phosphoros" correctly into Latin as "lucifer". THIS IS ALSO A MISTAKE! And
Jerome simply must have been aware of this mistake, because Jerome ALSO used
the word "lucifer" to refer to A DIFFERENT INDIVIDUAL IN THE NEW TESTAMENT!
7) So Jerome himself knew very clearly that in his translation of the whole
Bible he had used the Latin word "lucifer" as A NAME FOR TWO DIFFERENT
INDIVIDUALS: one individual in the Old Testament, and a different individual
in the New Testament. Jerome simply could not avoid being aware of this
conflict!
We have now seen TWO places in the Latin Vulgate where the word "lucifer" is
used: Job 11:17 and Isaiah 14:12. But there is also another occurrence of "
lucifer" in the Vulgate, and that is found in the New Testament.
EXAMINING 2 PETER 1:19
Here is the text for this verse, first the Greek text, then the Latin
Vulgate text, and then the text of the KJV.
kai echomen bebaioteron ton prophetikon logon ho luchno phainonti en
auchmero topo heos ou hemera diaugase kai PHOSPHOROS anateile en tais
kardiais humon (2 Peter 1:19 TR)
et habemus firmiorem propheticum sermonem cui bene facitis adtendentes quasi
lucernae lucenti in caliginoso loco donec dies inlucescat et LUCIFER
oriatur in cordibus vestris (2 Peter 1:19 VULGATE)
We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take
heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and
THE DAY STAR arise in your hearts: (2 Peter 1:19 AV)
So note the following:
1) The Greek text reads: "kai PHOSPHOROS anateile en tais kardiais humon".
This means: "and PHOSPHOROS arise in your hearts".
2) The Latin Vulgate has CORRECTLY translated this into Latin to read: "et
LUCIFER oriatur in cordibus vestris", which also means: "and LUCIFER arise
in your hearts".
3) But the English translators MISTRANSLATED this section to read: "and THE
DAY STAR arise in your hearts".
This means:
1) The Latin Vulgate has CORRECTLY translated the Greek word "phosphoros"
with the Latin word "lucifer". These two words are 100% identical in meaning
. So the Latin is a perfectly correct translation of the Greek text.
2) THE CONTEXT of this verse makes very clear that JESUS CHRIST is being
spoken about! Therefore Peter in this verse referred to JESUS CHRIST as "
PHOSPHOROS", or translated into Latin as "LUCIFER"! If we are going to
translate the Hebrew word "heylel" into a Latin word, then we need to be
consistent and also translate the Greek word "phosphoros" into a Latin word.
It is hypocritical in the extreme to insist on translating the Hebrew "
heylel" into Latin, but to refuse to also translate the New Testament Greek
"phosphoros" into Latin.
3) This conclusion that Peter referred to Jesus Christ as "Lucifer" is
indisputable! And Jerome knew without a shadow of a doubt that Peter was
referring to Jesus Christ as "Lucifer"! Yet Jerome chose to also use this
same word "lucifer" in Isaiah 14:12 to refer to Satan. WHY?
4) The English translators ALSO realized full well that Peter in this verse
calls Jesus Christ "Lucifer". But since they had, through their ingrained
paradigms, committed themselves in Isaiah 14:12 to refer to SATAN as "
Lucifer", THEREFORE they had no option but to TRANSLATE THIS VERSE DEVIOUSLY
!!
5) They could not allow themselves to retain Jerome's correct translation as
"Lucifer", because that would have been an obvious clash with Isaiah 14:12.
BUT they also had to have this verse worded in such a way that it would
STILL be clear that this verse is speaking about Jesus Christ. Their readers
had to know WHO this verse is referring to, but without using the correct
meaning of the name used for that person (i.e. for Jesus Christ) in this
verse.
6) Therefore they hit on the option of REPLACING the codename used here for
Jesus Christ (i.e. Lucifer) with ANOTHER CODENAME used for Jesus Christ
elsewhere in the New Testament. So they opted to use the codename "THE DAY
STAR"! That codename for Jesus Christ is very similar to one that is used in
the Book of Revelation, namely "morning star".
And I will give him THE MORNING STAR. (Revelation 2:28 AV)
I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the
churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and THE BRIGHT AND
MORNING STAR. (Revelation 22:16 AV)
Both these verses are speaking about Jesus Christ as "the morning star". In
Revelation 2:28 the Greek expression reads PROINOS + ASTER, and in
Revelation 22:16 the Greek expression reads ORTHRINOS + ASTER. In both
verses the key word is "aster", which means "star".
7) So by deliberately MISTRANSLATING "phosphoros" as "DAY STAR" they
diverted attention away from the REAL meaning of the name used for Jesus
Christ here, while at the same time still ensuring that readers would have
no difficulty identifying this codename as applying to Jesus Christ.
8) THE FACTS ARE: The Greek word "phosphoros" has NOTHING AT ALL to do with
"stars" or with "days"! Nothing at all! It doesn't mean "star" in any way,
shape or form! And it doesn't mean "day" in any way, shape or form! It ONLY
HAS ONE MEANING ... and that is "Lucifer"! Or you can translate that into
English as "Light-bringer", if you prefer.
Every single English and German and Dutch translation of this verse that I
have seen is DECEITFUL! They all infer the word "STAR" into this verse, even
though the Greek word for "star" (i.e. "aster") is not used, and not even
hinted at! "Phosphoros" is simply not the same as "aster"! But they will
fight tooth and nail to justify attaching the meaning of the Greek word "
aster" to the Greek word "phosphoros" in 2 Peter 1:19.
TO DO THAT IS DEALING DECEITFULLY WITH THE WORD OF GOD!
All the English translators obviously got their word "lucifer" in Isaiah 14:
12 from Jerome's Latin Vulgate version. But we have now seen that Jerome
used the word "lucifer" THREE times in his whole translation, all three of
which Jerome himself simply got from the Greek "phosphoros" in the Greek
texts (LXX for the Old Testament, and the Received Text for the New
Testament). Yet the English translators chose to only retain one of those
three as "lucifer", while rejecting one case (i.e. Job 11:17) as a flawed
translation, and then deliberately heavily disguising the last occurrence of
"phosphoros" (i.e. 2 Peter 1:19). WHY DID THEY NOT TRANSLATE ALL THREE
VERSES AS "LUCIFER"?
It bears repetition:
TO TRANSLATE "PHOSPHOROS" AS "DAY STAR" IS PLAIN DISHONESTY!
Now let's get back to Jerome and his Latin Vulgate translation.
Jerome KNEW that in the New Testament "Lucifer" is a title for Jesus Christ.
Jerome KNEW that he had translated the Greek text of 2 Peter 1:19 perfectly
correctly. There could not be any doubt, because the meaning of the Greek
word "phosphoros" was well known.
Yet Jerome still chose to also translate the far less clearly defined Hebrew
word "heylel" in Isaiah 14:12 as "lucifer", knowing that in this Scripture
this word referred to Satan. WHY did Jerome just accept the LXX translation
of this word "heylel", when he was perfectly willing to question the LXX
translation in 1 Samuel 30:17 and in Job 3:9, etc.?
THE HEBREW WORD "HEYLEL"
Let's now examine this Hebrew word "heylel".
It is used only once in the Bible, in Isaiah 14:12. That does not give us
much help. When a Hebrew word is used several times in the Old Testament,
then we can often clarify the meaning for such a word by looking at the
context of the other places where this word is used. But when a word is only
used once, and when this word is not used anywhere else outside of the text
of the Old Testament, then there is ONLY ONE WAY to establish the meaning
for such a word.
In the case where a word is unique, where it is only used once in the Bible,
the only way to correctly establish the meaning is to examine two things:
1) We must examine, where this is known, THE ROOT word from which our unique
word has been formed.
2) We must very carefully examine THE CONTEXT in which our unique word is
used.
These are the only tools God has made available to us when He confronts us
with unique words. So let's use these two steps to try to establish what
meaning GOD had in mind for "heylel", since Isaiah 14:12 represents the
words of God Himself.
EXAMINING THE ROOT WORD FOR "HEYLEL"
The word "heylel" is derived from the primitive root word "halal". This root
word, a verb, is used fairly commonly. It really has TWO categories of
meanings. Its one meaning is "to shine" and its other meaning is "to boast,
to be mad". In Gesenius' Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon to the Old Testament there
are four definitions for this word. These four definitions fall into these
two opposite groups of meanings. The four meanings given by Gesenius are:
1) to be clear, to be brilliant
2) to brightness of light
3) to make a show, to boast
4) to be foolish, mad.
To illustrate these opposing meanings for this word, let's look at how it is
translated into English. In the Old Testament "HALAL" is used 165 times and
it is translated as follows in the KJV:
117 times = Praise
14 times = Glory
10 times = Boast
8 times = Mad
3 times = Shine(d)
3 times = Foolish
2 times = Fools
2 times = Commended
2 times = Rage
1 time = Celebrate
1 time = Give
1 time = Marriage
1 time = Renowned
This illustrates that the translators felt they should attach over a dozen
different meanings to this word "halal", all of which basically fall into
the two main categories referred to above. The meanings are both, positive
and negative.
Now there is no question that this word "halal" has a good, positive meaning
. But neither is there any question that it also has a bad, negative meaning
. It follows that the noun "heylel" that is formed from this root verb "
halal" must be based on only one of those two possible meanings; it must
reflect EITHER a good and positive meaning of "halal" OR it must reflect a
bad and negative meaning of "halal". Since the word "halal" has two clearly
conflicting meanings, we cannot simply decide which meaning is to apply to
the noun "heylel" formed from this verb. God simply does not give us such a
choice.
THE ONLY WAY WE CAN KNOW FOR CERTAIN WHETHER THE GOOD MEANING OF "HALAL" OR
WHETHER THE BAD MEANING OF "HALAL" SHOULD APPLY TO THE NOUN "HEYLEL" IS TO
EXAMINE THE CONTEXT IN WHICH GOD USES THE WORD "HEYLEL"!
THERE IS NO OTHER WAY!
Before we do that, however, let's notice a few places where the verb "halal"
is very obviously used with a bad and negative meaning. In the following
passages I have in each case rendered the translation of "halal" into
capital letters for easy recognition. I will present 24 different Scriptures
to show that this is not some rare meaning. Also, in each case THE CONTEXT
is evidence itself that the translators did get it basically right when they
assigned these negative meanings to "halal".
SCRIPTURES WHICH USE "HALAL" WITH A NEGATIVE MEANING
And he changed his behaviour before them, and FEIGNED HIMSELF MAD in their
hands, and scrabbled on the doors of the gate, and let his spittle fall down
upon his beard. (1 Samuel 21:13 AV)
Mine enemies reproach me all the day; and THEY that ARE MAD against me are
sworn against me. (Psalm 102:8 AV)
I said of laughter, IT IS MAD: and of mirth, What doeth it? (Ecclesiastes 2:
2 AV)
Surely oppression MAKETH a wise man MAD; and a gift destroyeth the heart. (
Ecclesiastes 7:7 AV)
That frustrateth the tokens of the liars, and MAKETH diviners MAD; that
turneth wise men backward, and maketh their knowledge foolish; (Isaiah 44:25
AV)
And they shall drink, and be moved, and BE MAD, because of the sword that I
will send among them. (Jeremiah 25:16 AV)
A drought is upon her waters; and they shall be dried up: for it is the land
of graven images, and THEY ARE MAD upon their idols. (Jeremiah 50:38 AV)
Babylon hath been a golden cup in the LORD’S hand, that made all the earth
drunken: the nations have drunken of her wine; therefore the nations ARE MAD
. (Jeremiah 51:7 AV)
He leadeth counsellors away spoiled, and MAKETH the judges FOOLS. (Job 12:17
AV)
I said unto THE FOOLS, DEAL NOT FOOLISHLY: and to the wicked, Lift not up
the horn: (Psalm 75:4 AV) (halal is used TWICE in this verse!)
THE FOOLISH shall not stand in thy sight: thou hatest all
workers of iniquity. (Psalm 5:5 AV)
For I was envious at THE FOOLISH, when I saw the prosperity of the wicked. (
Psalm 73:3 AV)
Come up, ye horses; AND RAGE, ye chariots; and let the mighty men come forth
; the Ethiopians and the Libyans, that handle the shield; and the Lydians,
that handle and bend the bow. (Jeremiah 46:9 AV)
The chariots SHALL RAGE in the streets, they shall justle one against
another in the broad ways: they shall seem like torches, they shall run like
the lightnings. (Nahum 2:4 AV)
And the king of Israel answered and said, Tell him, Let not him that girdeth
on his harness BOAST HIMSELF as he that putteth it off. (1 Kings 20:11 AV)
For the wicked BOASTETH of his heart’s desire, and blesseth the covetous,
whom the LORD abhorreth. (Psalm 10:3 AV)
My soul SHALL MAKE HER BOAST in the LORD: the humble shall hear thereof, and
be glad. (Psalm 34:2 AV)
In God WE BOAST all the day long, and praise thy name for ever. Selah. (
Psalm 44:8 AV)
They that trust in their wealth, and BOAST THEMSELVES in the multitude of
their riches; (Psalm 49:6 AV)
<
came and told Saul, and said unto him, David is come to the house of
Ahimelech.>> Why BOASTEST THOU THYSELF in mischief, O mighty man? the
goodness of God endureth continually. (Psalm 52:1 AV)
Confounded be all they that serve graven images, THAT BOAST THEMSELVES of
idols: worship him, all ye gods. (Psalm 97:7 AV)
It is naught, it is naught, saith the buyer: but when he is gone his way,
then HE BOASTETH. (Proverbs 20:14 AV)
Whoso BOASTETH HIMSELF of a false gift is like clouds and wind without rain.
(Proverbs 25:14 AV)
BOAST NOT THYSELF of to morrow; for thou knowest not what a day may bring
forth. (Proverbs 27:1 AV)
In every one of the above 24 verses the words in capital letters represent
the translation of the Hebrew verb "halal". Yes certainly, we can find many
Scriptures where "halal" has a good and positive meaning (as in Psalm 44:8
above, for example). But it is equally clear that this word also has a
negative meaning, which is expressed by words like: boasting or bragging,
acting foolishly, acting like a madman, getting into a foolish rage, etc.. I
provided the above long list of quotations to make very clear that this is
not a rare or incidental side of the word "halal". This meaning is clearly
understood by all scholars of Hebrew, as is also shown by the definitions
Gesenius provides in his lexicon.
So we have established beyond any doubt that "halal" has two opposing
meanings, one set is good and positive, and the other set is bad and
negative. The only way to know the correct meaning in every one of the above
24 Scriptures is to EXAMINE THE CONTEXT IN WHICH "HALAL" IS USED! That
context makes quite clear whether the meaning should be "bright" or whether
it should be "mad" or "foolish" or "boasting".
Likewise, to clearly establish which meaning of "halal" should go with the
noun "heylel" in Isaiah 14:12 WE MUST EXAMINE THE CONTEXT!
Anyone who assigns a meaning to "heylel" BEFORE examining the context is
like a man who decides that the word "halal" simply must mean "brilliant" or
"glorious" in 1 Samuel 21:13, and so he would be forced to read about David
...
And he changed his behaviour before them, and MADE HIMSELF BRILLIANT AND
GLORIOUS in their hands, and scrabbled on the doors of the gate, and let his
spittle fall down upon his beard. (1 Samuel 21:13 AV)
Such a translation would be absurd! Yet that is precisely what people do
with Isaiah 14:12, when they decide BEFORE EXAMINING THE CONTEXT that "
heylel" must have a good and positive meaning.
I can understand the "halal" translators of the Greek LXX text making such a
foolish assumption, and I can also understand that a man who worked for the
Catholic Pope (i.e. Jerome) made the same wrong assumption, because those
people were working for "the god of this age" (see 2 Corinthians 4:4). But I
cannot understand how ministers in the Church of God can make such an
assumption, when they are confronted with the facts I am presenting in this
article? Can anyone really deny that THE CONTEXT of Isaiah 14:12 must hold
the key as to which meaning of "halal" must be applied to the noun "heylel"?
So let's now examine the context of the word "heylel".
THE CONTEXT OF "HEYLEL"
In Isaiah 14:4 God starts to present a message of punishment against the
king of Babylon. Verse 10 then reads:
All they shall speak and say unto thee, Art thou also become weak as we? art
thou become like unto us? (Isaiah 14:10 AV)
This shows the king of Babylon having become weak. There is a reason why God
punishes that king. Notice verse 11:
THY POMP is brought down to the grave, and THE NOISE OF THY VIOLS: the worm
is spread under thee, and the worms cover thee. (Isaiah 14:11 AV)
The words "your pomp" and "the noise of your viols" show that the man was
vain and arrogant! He had a high opinion of himself. He thought far too much
of his own power and greatness. Is that not obvious? If that isn't clear,
perhaps you need to read the whole section from verse 4 down to verse 11?
So God leads us to the point where some human ruler is shown up as being
arrogant, proud and haughty. And AT THAT POINT GOD SWITCHES THE FOCUS TO
SATAN!
So the next verse says:
How art thou fallen from heaven, O HEYLEL, son of the morning! how art thou
cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations! (Isaiah 14:12 AV)
So let's ask ourselves:
Is God referring to this individual "heylel" in a positive way or in a
negative way? Is God speaking softly and friendly to this "heylel", or is
God speaking harshly and in a punitive way? Can anyone deny that God is
speaking HARSHLY and FORCEFULLY to this "heylel"?
WHY and HOW would anyone possibly "fall from heaven"? Would God ask them
politely to "just move along, dear fellow", or would they fall from heaven
BECAUSE GOD THREW THEM OUT?! Now if YOU were a Hebrew speaker, and if YOU
would throw someone out of your house ... if in the process of throwing such
a person out of your house YOU would use the word "halal" to refer to such
a person ... would YOU be thinking of the positive meaning of "halal" or
would YOU under such circumstances be thinking of THE NEGATIVE meaning of "
halal"? I mean, that should really be a "no-brainer", right?
Next, the king of Babylon had been shown as subjugating nations and ruling
over them (Isaiah 14:6), and God in verse 12 draws a very clear parallel for
this "heylel", who also had "weakened the nations". So is that where the
parallels stop, or are there further parallels between "heylel" and the king
of Babylon? There clearly are further parallels.
Let's continue with the next verse.
FOR THOU HAST SAID IN THINE HEART, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt
my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the
congregation, in the sides of the north: (Isaiah 14:13 AV)
Let's ask some more questions.
What is the opening word "FOR" supposed to tell us? This word tells us that
verse 13 gives us THE REASON why "heylel" fell from heaven". So verse 13
tells us the reason for the severe treatment "heylel" received in verse 12.
[I don't think it is an exaggeration to refer to being thrown out of heaven
as "severe treatment", right?]
But understand this: Verse 13 also tells us WHY God refers to this
individual as "heylel"!
Now what do the words "you have said IN YOUR HEART" tell us? These words
tell us that what follows reveals the innermost feelings and attitudes and
motivations and thought processes of this individual referred to as "heylel"
. So verse 13 tells us what went on in Satan's mind!
Next, when ANYBODY OTHER THAN GOD says: "I am going to ascend into heaven" .
.. what kind of statement is that? WHY is God presenting this statement here
for Satan? Is that a factual and accurate observation? Is it, as one man
tried to seriously convince me, a SINCERE STATEMENT OF INTENT by Satan? Or
is it an incredibly arrogant boast? Is there ANYTHING sincere about Satan?
Sincerity is totally contrary to Satan's nature and everything Satan stands
for! He is the most insincere, two-faced hypocrite that exists anywhere in
the universe! Jesus Christ summarized Satan's character in John 8:44 as
being "a liar and the father of lies".
Did God in Isaiah 14:4-11 present a good picture of the king of Babylon, or
did God present a bad picture of that king? So is God in this section trying
to present a good picture of Satan or a bad picture of Satan? Is this the
place where God is going to list ALL THE GOOD POINTS ON SATAN'S CV? Or does
God apply the principle of Ezekiel 3:20 ... that when a righteous person or
being turns away from righteousness, THEN NEVER AGAIN WILL ANY OF HIS PAST
RIGHTEOUSNESS EVEN BE REMEMBERED!?
Next, is the statement "I will exalt my throne above the stars of God" an
objective, humble and factual statement ... or is it AN INCREDIBLE BOAST?
Are the words "I WILL EXALT" a sincere statement of intent, or do these
words show UNBELIEVABLE ARROGANCE? Are the words "I will exalt" a wise
statement or are those words THE HEIGHT OF STUPIDITY? Are those the words of
a wise individual, or are those the words of A SUPER FOOL? Are these words
not just another way of saying "I AM THE GREATEST"?! And what are such words
... if not boasting?!
Next, what are the words "I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation
, in the sides of the north" ... a sincere factual statement, or THE
GREATEST BOAST ANY BEING COULD EVER MAKE? Do we believe that God would say
to such an individual: "oh, be my guest; I guess I'll just move on over"? Or
would God not WITH GREAT FURY THROW OUT SOMEONE LIKE THAT? Do we really
expect God to say ANYTHING "nice" about someone who wants to, in Mr.
Armstrong's words, "knock God off His throne"? Which meaning of "halal"
would God use for an individual who had the arrogance to challenge His own
Creator ... the good meaning or the bad meaning? God's anger at times "waxed
hot" against the people of Israel when they just kept on sinning ... how
much "HOTTER" would God's anger wax against someone who attempted to take
over God's very throne? I mean, compared to Satan's audacity towards God,
the sins of the people of Israel in the wilderness were on a far lower level
. And that is why Satan's sins are far more serious than the sins of the
people of Israel in the wilderness.
God continues to state about Satan in the next verse:
I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I WILL BE LIKE THE MOST HIGH
” (Isaiah 14:14 AV)
Now how would you describe the words "I WILL ASCEND ABOVE THE HEIGHTS OF THE
CLOUDS"? Did God intend these words to convey the honest and objective
intentions of the one God is speaking about ... or are these words an
expression of ARROGANT BOASTING? Are these words wise or are they FOOLISH?
Are those words the expression of a sound mind or are they the expression of
a mind that is MAD? Is God here trying to praise Satan or is God SEVERELY
CRITICIZING Satan?
Next, what do the words "I will be like the most High" tell you? Are they
nothing more than an honest statement of intent (from the father of lies!)
or are they THE ABSOLUTELY SUPREME BOAST THAT ANYONE ANYWHERE AT ANY TIME
COULD EVER MAKE? Is it possible for anyone to ever make a greater boast than
this? No, that simply is not possible! There is no greater boast possible,
than for someone to say: "I am going to take over from God"! That statement
here ("I will be like the most High"), made in obvious rebellion and
opposition towards God, is the greatest expression of boasting, pride,
arrogance, stupidity, madness and foolishness that is possible! That is the
pinnacle! Only an absolutely arrogant idiot could ever think that he could
possibly replace his own Creator God!
Can you understand what God has done in these three verses (Isaiah 14:12-14)
? God has EXPOSED Satan's pride and arrogance and foolishness and boasting.
It is all there in the open, for any of us to see. Verse 15 continues by
spelling out a penalty for Satan.
Now the point is this:
To understand exactly what the word "halal" in 1 Samuel 21:13 means, it is
imperative for us to examine the precise context in which this word is used.
The same holds true for the noun "heylel".
SO WHAT DOES THE CONTEXT OF "HEYLEL" TELL US?
Does the context of "heylel" speak about praise and glory and brilliance and
light? Does the context convey that God is calm, relaxed, friendly,
merciful, encouraging and helpful? Or does the context show that God deals
in anger and in fury with this individual who has challenged His supreme
authority? Does the context of "heylel" convey arrogance and foolishness and
madness and incredible boasting or not?
It should be clear that the word "heylel" is NOT A NAME for the individual
being spoken about (i.e. Satan), but A DESCRIPTIVE TERM APPLIED TO THAT
INDIVIDUAL, intended to sum up all the attributes exposed by the next two
verses!
The context makes ABSOLUTELY clear, beyond any doubt, that God intended THE
BAD MEANING OF "HALAL" TO FORM THE BASIS FOR THE NOUN "HEYLEL"!
In other words, the way God INTENDED for us to translate Isaiah 14:12-14
into English is as follows:
"How are you fallen from heaven, YOU INCREDIBLY ARROGANT AND MAD BOASTER,
son of the morning (i.e. Jesus Christ, the Morning Star, created you); how
are you cut down to the ground, who weakened the nations; because you
thought that you could ascend up to heaven, to be above all My holy angels,
and to then knock Me off My throne and replace Me as ruler over everything."
Now it should be clear that Satan was not going to allow his own church to
translate these verses like this. But we in God's Church ought to be able to
immediately recognize the unbelievable boasting involved in Satan's
statements here. God called Satan "heylel" in verse 12 BECAUSE of what Satan
said in verses 13 and 14! God did not call Satan "heylel" because of
something that is NOT SAID in this context. The only time God ever used the
descriptive term "heylel", God also provided in the very same context THE
REASONS FOR THIS "NAME"!
Verse 12 cannot be read in isolation. It must be read in conjunction with
the two verses that follow it. That's the way things work in the entire rest
of the Bible. It is always the context that helps to understand the
intended meaning when a word or an expression could perhaps be ambiguous.
So:
THE BIBLE calls Jesus Christ "Lucifer" in 2 Peter 1:19. Satan's inspired his
own people to then insert the word "lucifer" as a name for Satan into
Isaiah 14:12. On this matter Satan has deceived "the whole world" (see
Revelation 12:9). In the process Satan has claimed a name that really
belongs to Jesus Christ.
Let's now examine various statements in the New Testament, that are relevant
to this matter.
RELEVANT NEW TESTAMENT STATEMENTS
In 2 Corinthians 11:14 Paul tells us the following about Satan:
And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into AN ANGEL OF LIGHT. (2
Corinthians 11:14 AV)
Paul is telling us that Satan has DISGUISED HIMSELF into "an angel of light"
, the Greek expression here being "eis aggelon photos". The Greek "photos"
is the genitive case of "phos", and means "of light". Literally this verse
means that Satan has presented himself as "A MESSENGER OF LIGHT"! And the
name "Lucifer" means "A BRINGER OF LIGHT"! And "a messenger" is a person who
"brings" something, right?
Can we not see that Paul is here, under inspiration, telling us that Satan
has "disguised himself to appear in the role of LUCIFER"?! That's what 2
Corinthians 11:14 means! Satan has disguised himself into a role that the
Apostle Peter shows very clearly as belonging to Jesus Christ!
Notice how clearly and plainly the Bible identifies Jesus Christ as "Lucifer
"!
The same came for a witness, TO BEAR WITNESS OF THE LIGHT, that all men
through him might believe. (John 1:7 AV)
This is speaking about Jesus Christ. And He came to "to bear witness of the
light". Does that make Jesus Christ "a Light-bringer" or not? Does this make
Jesus Christ "Lucifer" or not?
That was THE TRUE LIGHT, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world
. (John 1:9 AV)
"The true light" (Greek "to phos to alethinon") is Jesus Christ. Is John not
also implying that there is therefore also A FALSE LIGHT? Who is John in
this verse referring to as BRINGING LIGHT to mankind ... Satan or Jesus
Christ? So who should have the name "Lucifer"?
And this is the condemnation, that LIGHT IS COME INTO THE WORLD, and men
loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. (John 3:19
AV)
Again, if Jesus Christ brought LIGHT into the world, then WHO is "the Light-
bringer" ... Satan? Isn't it obvious that if you had asked the Apostle John
the question: "Do you mean to say that Jesus Christ is actually 'Phosphoros'
, or 'Lucifer'?", that John would have answered: "Well, certainly. That's
the whole point I am trying to get across."?
Then spake Jesus again unto them, saying, I AM THE LIGHT OF THE WORLD: he
that followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of
life. (John 8:12 AV)
So did Jesus Christ claim to be "the Light-bringer" or not? Would Jesus
Christ ever want to lay claim to a name that at one stage belonged to Satan
... who in turn had only been CREATED BY JESUS CHRIST? Does God ever want
the titles He had given to individuals He Himself had created? OR ... had
that created individual gotten too big for his boots and laid claim to a
title that belonged to his Creator?
Just who is trying to get his hands on whose titles?
As long as I am in the world, I AM THE LIGHT OF THE WORLD. (John 9:5 AV)
WHY was Jesus Christ so intent on referring to Himself as the One who had
brought LIGHT into the world? Did Christ know that Satan wanted to usurp
that specific status, of "Light-bringer"? Jesus Christ could just as well
have said: "I am Lucifer", and conveyed 100% exactly the same message as
with the words "I am the light of the world". How often does the Apostle
John record Jesus Christ making this point ... that HE was "Lucifer", the
real "Light-bringer"?
Then Jesus said unto them, Yet a little while IS THE LIGHT WITH YOU. Walk
while ye have the light, lest darkness come upon you: for he that walketh in
darkness knoweth not whither he goeth. While ye have light, BELIEVE IN THE
LIGHT, that ye may be the children of light. These things spake Jesus, and
departed, and did hide himself from them. (John 12:35-36 AV)
Again, who did Jesus Christ say had brought the light ... Satan? If Satan
had NOT brought the light, how could he possibly be called "Light-bringer"?
But people who want to give Satan the name "Lucifer" then say: "No, no. We
are not saying that Satan is NOW a Light-bringer. We are just saying that
Satan USED TO BE a Light-bringer, before he sinned".
That kind of twisted and convoluted reasoning is typical of Satan's mind.
First of all, any glory "that used to be" is as though it had never been, as
far as God is concerned. And secondly, Satan has NEVER at any time brought
any light to anybody! How could he possibly ever have been "a light-bringer"
when he in fact was "a murderer FROM THE BEGINNING" (John 8:44)?
Who did Satan in the past SUPPOSEDLY "bring light to"? The dinosaurs over
which he ruled before Adam was created, and which all ended up being totally
annihilated? Or the angels, which he led in rebellion against God,
permanently destroying all the potential those angels had possessed until
then? Any planets, stars or galaxies within this universe, which will need
to be destroyed by God and replaced with a NEW heaven and earth? To whom has
Satan ever brought light at any time?
The truth is that Satan has NEVER brought light to anybody or to anything!
I AM COME A LIGHT INTO THE WORLD, that whosoever believeth on me should not
abide in darkness. (John 12:46 AV)
Again, did Jesus Christ here imply that HE was "a Light-bringer" or not? If
in this verse Jesus Christ was not claiming to be "a Light-bringer" (i.e.
Lucifer), then what was He saying?
IT IS BECAUSE OF ALL THESE STATEMENTS BY JESUS CHRIST THAT PETER CALLED
JESUS CHRIST "PHOSPHOROS" OR "LUCIFER"! PETER HAD ALSO HEARD ALL THESE
STATEMENTS PERSONALLY!
Bear in mind also that we human beings use names differently from the way
God uses names. We FIRST give someone a name or a title, AND THEN we hope
the person will live up to that name or fulfill the duties attached to that
title. The name or title very often comes first, and the actions come later.
But with God the actions come first, and only then do the names or titles
follow. So with God someone has to FIRST actually "bring light" before that
individual becomes eligible for the designation "Light-bringer". It is not
that God would somehow give someone (i.e. Satan) the designation "Light-
bringer" and THEN HOPE that this individual also lives up to this
designation.
There is not the slightest indication anywhere in the Bible that Satan ever
"brought light" to anyone. ALL the angels received access to light from God
Himself; they did not receive such access to light from another angel. God
has ALWAYS been the only "Light-giver" and "Light-bringer"!
HOW GOD THINKS ABOUT "CREDIT WHERE CREDIT IS DUE"
We human beings always want credit for our good deeds, even when we are
sinning! Even when we are clearly in the wrong, we will still say: "YES BUT
... I also did this and that good thing, and you should take my good conduct
here and here into account, etc.". We believe in "plea BARGAINING"!
Criminals who have clearly transgressed still want their good deeds taken
into account as "mitigating factors". That is precisely the way Satan's mind
works! Satan has sinned most seriously. But he would like "his good past"
to somehow be remembered and recognized and taken into account. And he will
not hesitate to fabricate an imaginary "good past" ... that's what liars
tend to do.
BUT THAT IS NOT HOW GOD WORKS!
When people sin, then all their "good past" is blotted out. It is just as if
they NEVER had any "good past" before their sin. The "good past" is as
though it had never been. That's the way God works. Sinners NEVER get any
credit for "past good behaviour". THE PRESENT is the only thing that counts
before God. If the present is "good", then the past "good" is remembered and
the past "bad" is forgotten and blotted out. But if the present is "bad",
then the past "good" is forgotten and blotted out, and only the past "bad"
is remembered and taken into account. With God THE PRESENT is the key to
which part of the past "stays active".
With God there is no "plea bargaining" (except for total confession and real
repentance) to obtain a more lenient sentence in the absence of real
repentance, and there are never mitigating factors in the past that would
diminish the penalty for present wrong actions.
Now God is the One who has identified Satan to us throughout the Bible by
names and designations like: Satan, devil, slanderer, murderer, liar,
serpent, deceiver, etc.. And it is Satan himself who has persuaded a
deceived humanity to "at least give him credit for (supposedly) at one time
having been a 'light-bringer'". And it all goes back to that terribly
corrupt LXX translation, which found six different Hebrew words for "
phosphoros" and 15 different Hebrew words for "hupostasis".
Peter shows that Jesus Christ is "Phosphoros", or "Lucifer" (2 Peter 1:19).
This means that Lucifer is worthy of worship, because Christ is God! To
assign the name "Lucifer" to Jesus Christ is one way of worshipping Jesus
Christ. It follows that assigning the name "Lucifer" to Satan is one way of
worshipping Satan! And giving the name "Lucifer" to Satan is a staggering
insult to Jesus Christ, the only true "Light-bringer"!
If you have read through this whole article and then still insist that "
Lucifer used to be Satan's name before he sinned", then I will tell you that
before God you will be guilty of insulting Jesus Christ and of worshipping
Satan!
Frank W. Nelte |
|
