Book of Mormon Borrowings from the New Testament

[_Molok]

Why? The Latin Vulgate is not in English. It is in Latin.

It's also the version half of this thread has been discussing, that's why. I like eliminating as much wiggle room in my questions as possible.

http://studybible.information/Albanian/Isaiah%2014:12

Albanian, is not English either.

Ok, thanks.

[_Molok]

Tobin, only two of your examples actually use the word Lucifer. Not sure why you put the others up. By the way Tobin, Why does the LDS church call Satan Lucifer?

[_Res Ipsa]

Which Albanian Bible is that? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible_tran ... o_Albanian Do we know whether the one you link to is a translation of the KJV or Latin Vulgate into Albanian? Do all of the Albanian Bibles use the word Lucifer? Seems to me we need a little more provenance for the Albanian Bible you cite.

[_Molok]

By the way Tobin, as an aside, every single one of those verses you posted is obviously referring to a person, not a star.

[_Bhodi]

Why? The Latin Vulgate is not in English. It is in Latin.

It's also the version half of this thread has been discussing, that's why. I like eliminating as much wiggle room in my questions as possible.

That makes the statement even sillier, if he had an example of non-English in front of him the whole time, he certainly should not have made the statement in the first place.

http://studybible.information/Albanian/Isaiah%2014:12

Albanian, is not English either.

Ok, thanks.[/quote]

So do you stand by your position?

[_Bhodi]

Which Albanian Bible is that? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible_tran ... o_Albanian Do we know whether the one you link to is a translation of the KJV or Latin Vulgate into Albanian? Do all of the Albanian Bibles use the word Lucifer? Seems to me we need a little more provenance for the Albanian Bible you cite.

Not entirely sure. The same is used here at BibleGateway...

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?se ... ersion=ALB

They are an Evangelical Christian organization, and while they have some Catholic versions, I am not sure they would use Catholic versions for their main foreign translations.

On another thread you defended Ludwig for little to no research on a subject but here seem to expect considerably more, why the difference?

[_Res Ipsa]

Which Albanian Bible is that? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible_tran ... o_Albanian Do we know whether the one you link to is a translation of the KJV or Latin Vulgate into Albanian? Do all of the Albanian Bibles use the word Lucifer? Seems to me we need a little more provenance for the Albanian Bible you cite.

Not entirely sure. The same is used here at BibleGateway...

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?se ... ersion=ALB

They are an Evangelical Christian organization, and while they have some Catholic versions, I am not sure they would use Catholic versions for their main foreign translations.

On another thread you defended Ludwig for little to no research on a subject but here seem to expect considerably more, why the difference?

I tried to track it down myself. The Bible Gateway credits a source that, in turn, credits the Bible Gateway folks. I feared I would be caught in an infinite loop and gave up.

The answer to your second question is simple: context. The OP in the other thread was about Great Britain moving "forward" on gay marriage. Ludwig said that Libya, on the other hand, was moving backward (toward religion). He cited to an article about the repeal of a law requiring an existing wife's permission before the husband added an additional wife. The leader of the interim government there was quoted as saying the law enacting that requirement violated Sharia law.

You then jumped down Ludwig's throat. Why? For the quip Ludwig made, citing the article was sufficient. Yet berated him for not knowing anything about Islam. Your treatment of Ludwig was way over the top.

In this case, we're talking about a fairly complex factual issue, the point of which is that Joseph Smith turned a poor translation in the KJV into Satan himself. I have no idea whether Ludwig is correct in his assertion about the non-use of "Lucifer" in non-English translations of the Bible. If I had to guess, I'd guess his statement is overly broad. Maybe he's read the Bible in every language it was ever published in, but I'd bet against it. It seems to me that translations in other languages could incorporate the same original error in translation, especially if they were based on the earlier versions that used the correct translations.

My point is, if we are truly interested in the use of "Lucifer" in various Bible translations, we have to know how and by whom the translation was done. That's a complex factual issue that the verse you linked doesn't address.

But now my question for you: what's the deal with playing the man instead of the ball? How about we talk about Smith's use of Lucifer in LDS scriptures?

[_ludwigm]

OK, bhodi and tobin have convinced me.
If they call it winning or victory, then be it.

Yes, some of Spanish bibles and some of Albanian bibles use the name Lucifer.
Yes, not all nonenglish Bible don't use that word, only most of them. I am sorry, I checked only 8-10 Bible, not 800. Or 1000.
By google, I should have checked all.

Well, "I did not seem that familiar with the subject matter" (by bhodi).
Well, "I've made blatantly untrue assertions" (by tobin).

Yes, in Isaiah 14:12 the word Lucifer means "morning star". Translators of King James interpreted it as such, and Joseph Smith did the same. All English speaker understand it this way, don't they?

The same way as German speakers, who use the words "du schöner Morgenstern", or "du Glanzstern, Sohn der Morgenröte". And Frenchs, who say "astre brillant, fils de l'aurore". And Hungarians - if I may mention - "fényes csillag, hajnal fia"

All those translations are correct.


Then, the real problem begins here.
Nephites, lamanites and other hebrews living in the american continent (somewhere...) used the word "helel" or something similar. Its translation could have been morning star or something similar. God could have planted into JS' head the text of any other English translation, one of hundred we have today. No, according to god, the KJV is the onlyonetrue and - what miraculous coincidence - Joseph Smith knew exactly this version.
OK, we agree the word lucifer is the most correct description for the morning star (and the Merriam-Webster uses it as second meaning), then step forward.

From this minute on, every translation of 2 Nephi 24 should use the expression "morning star" in that language.

Look:
Isaiah 14:12 in German (three different version):
Wie bist du vom Himmel gefallen, du Glanzstern, Sohn der Morgenröte! zur Erde gefällt, Überwältiger der Nationen!
Wie bist du vom Himmel gefallen, du schöner Morgenstern! Wie bist du zur Erde gefället, der du die Heiden schwächtest!
Wie bist du vom Himmel herabgefallen, du Morgenstern, wie bist du zu Boden geschmettert, der du die Völker niederstrecktest!
2 Nephi 24:12 in German:
Wie bist du vom Himmel gefallen, o Luzifer, Sohn des Morgens! Bist du niedergehauen zur Erde, der du die Nationen schwächtest!

Isaiah 14:12 in Russian:
Как упал ты с неба, денница, сын зари! разбился о землю, попиравший народы.
2 Nephi 24:12 in Russian:
Как пал ты с неба, о Люцифер, сын зари! Неужели скошен наземь ты, кто истощал народы!

Isaiah 14:12 in Hungarian:
Miként estél alá az égről fényes csillag, hajnal fia!? Levágattál a földre, a ki népeken tapostál!
2 Nephi 24:12 in Hungarian:
Hogy lebuktál a mennyből, Ó Lucifer, a hajnal fia! Levágattál a földre, aki meggyengítetted a nemzeteket!

There would be more, I didn't check all 148 or I don't know how many language can be found on LDS.org. Any of You can check the other 145. There are interesting things, by the way...

Then, step toward...
If Joseph Smith, and all his contemporaries really knew that the word lucifer is the best option for morning star, then how did he - and Sidney Rigdon - vision that they saw also, and bear record, that an angel of God who was in authority in the presence of God, who rebelled against the Only Begotten Son whom the Father loved and who was in the bosom of the Father, was thrust down from the presence of God and the Son,
And was called Perdition, for the heavens wept over him—he was Lucifer, a son of the morning.
See D&C 76:25-26 A vision given to Joseph Smith the Prophet and Sidney Rigdon, at Hiram, Ohio, 16 February 1832
The morning star, the Venus planet rebelled against the Only Begotten Son?



Maybe for Joseph Smith the word Lucifer was the satan's name?
Maybe for a few million LDS church member the word Lucifer is the satan's name?
Maybe bhodi and tobin only want to pick up a barrel with every others?
Three unanswered question...

[_Molok]

That makes the statement even sillier, if he had an example of non-English in front of him the whole time, he certainly should not have made the statement in the first place.

It only makes the statement sillier if you remove ludwigm's comments from the context of this discussion. Obviously he is aware of the Latin Vulgate, he has been discussing it in this thread. You were just being as strictly literal as possible in order to score a rhetorical point, although it looks like Ludwigm was being overly general when he said no nonenglish Bibles use the word "Lucifer." I absolutely stand by my position that using the word Lucifer as a name for the Devil is incorrect.

[_Bhodi]

I tried to track it down myself. The Bible Gateway credits a source that, in turn, credits the Bible Gateway folks. I feared I would be caught in an infinite loop and gave up.

The answer to your second question is simple: context. The OP in the other thread was about Great Britain moving "forward" on gay marriage. Ludwig said that Libya, on the other hand, was moving backward (toward religion). He cited to an article about the repeal of a law requiring an existing wife's permission before the husband added an additional wife. The leader of the interim government there was quoted as saying the law enacting that requirement violated Sharia law.

You then jumped down Ludwig's throat. Why? For the quip Ludwig made, citing the article was sufficient. Yet berated him for not knowing anything about Islam. Your treatment of Ludwig was way over the top.

In this case, we're talking about a fairly complex factual issue, the point of which is that Joseph Smith turned a poor translation in the KJV into Satan himself. I have no idea whether Ludwig is correct in his assertion about the non-use of "Lucifer" in non-English translations of the Bible. If I had to guess, I'd guess his statement is overly broad. Maybe he's read the Bible in every language it was ever published in, but I'd bet against it. It seems to me that translations in other languages could incorporate the same original error in translation, especially if they were based on the earlier versions that used the correct translations.

My point is, if we are truly interested in the use of "Lucifer" in various Bible translations, we have to know how and by whom the translation was done. That's a complex factual issue that the verse you linked doesn't address.

But now my question for you: what's the deal with playing the man instead of the ball? How about we talk about Smith's use of Lucifer in LDS scriptures?

I said Ludwigm's article was silly, and that is jumping down his throat? He has demonstrated no knowledge of the subject, but this is not his fault and others must be blamed? He made mistakes in this thread, and others must be blamed. At all costs the anti-Mormon mindset MUST be protected, and this is silly.