Isaiah 14:12 and the Identity of Lucifer
Scott McClare
April 26, 1998
How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations! (Isa. 14:12 KJV)
No, not really. I just saw that I was one of Avery's "Ignorites" and wanted to bait him. Play along.
__________________
Take care,
Scott >>>Minion of BASSENCO<<< as outed by Shiloh
"In the heat of composition I find that I have inadvertently allowed myself to assume the form of a large centipede. I am accordingly dictating the rest to my secretary." - C. S. Lewis
Yeah, I didn't know what the limit was, so I was adjusting. Fixed.
__________________
Take care,
Scott >>>Minion of BASSENCO<<< as outed by Shiloh
"In the heat of composition I find that I have inadvertently allowed myself to assume the form of a large centipede. I am accordingly dictating the rest to my secretary." - C. S. Lewis
Riplinger wastes an entire chapter at the beginning of NABV on this.
"Lucifer" is from the Latin Vulgate; it is, according to Cicero and Varro, the Roman name for the planet Venus. The LXX uses a fairly long Greek word that means "the morning star". The Hebrew here uses a word that appears nowhere else, haylayl, which somewhat resembles the Hebrew word for "shine".
Although Riplinger spins her wheels against the explanation, even the 1611 KJV marginal note offers the alternative rendering "day star".
The context shows that Isaiah is berating the King of Babylon, who has recently overthrown, and is sarcastically mentioning some of the titles and sobriquets used by that King when he was in power. It may be that this Hebrew word does refer to something that shined like a star, or - judging from some Babylonian names found in the Story of Gilgamesh (discovered only about 150 years ago), that ended in -il, it may be a Babylonian name used by the king.
Lucifer is not used anywhere else in the KJV; there is no reason to suppose that it is a personal name of a demon.
Lucifer is not used anywhere else in the KJV; there is no reason to suppose that it is a personal name of a demon.
Those who hobnob with demons have no trouble with the spiritual recognition, such as those who set up the "Lucis Trust" which grew out of the Lucifer Publishing Company.
Even today they write.
The Baileys' reasons for choosing the original name are not known to us, but we can only surmise that they, like the great teacher H.P. Blavatsky, for whom they had enormous respect, sought to elicit a deeper understanding of the sacrifice made by Lucifer ... In the theosophical perspective, the descent of these solar Angels was not a fall into sin or disgrace but rather an act of great sacrifice, as is suggested in the name “Lucifer” which means light-bearer.
In modern days, Constance Cumbey pointed this connection out at least as early as 1985. (Nope, this is not an endorsement of all her writings.) Now you may claim it is all coincidental, or they were reacting to the Christians or something, yet the simple truth is that the personal name aspect is well understood by those on the dark side.
Those who hobnob with demons have no trouble with the spiritual recognition, such as those who set up the "Lucis Trust" which grew out of the Lucifer Publishing Company.
Even today they write.
The Baileys' reasons for choosing the original name are not known to us, but we can only surmise that they, like the great teacher H.P. Blavatsky, for whom they had enormous respect, sought to elicit a deeper understanding of the sacrifice made by Lucifer.
In modern days, Constance Cumbey pointed this connection out at least as early as 1985. Now you may claim it is all coincidental, or they were reacting to the Christians or something, yet the simple truth is that the personal name aspect is well understood by those on the dark side.
Shalom,
Steven Avery
And of course, those apart of "the dark side" have all the right answers in theology and Bible exegesis...
“The most fundamental presupposition of the philological method in Biblical exegesis is that all exegesis must be done in the original languages if it is to be competent and trustworthy exegesis…
The interpreter who interprets Scripture only in his modern language is always working with a linguistic veil between himself and original texts. And he never knows how thin or how thick this veil is.” – Bernard Ramm, Protestant Biblical Interpretation
The views and opinions expressed on this web site are not necessarily those of the Fighting Fundamental Forums management. This is an open and unmoderated forum. The content of each post is the sole responsibility of the poster. Participants are expected to follow the simple rules of the forum. Within these wide parameters various views are welcome to be expressed freely.
The college names used on the FundamentalForums.com web site are trademarks of their respective schools. The forums are not officially sanctioned by any of the institutions represented.
Isaiah 14:12 and the identity of Lucifer
Linear Mode
