Tobin wrote:Really?!? What is exaclty is so profound here and leads you to such a ridiculous conclusion?vessr wrote:Your Lucifer comment was profound, Ludwigm. I believe that means that all references to Lucifer in the Mormon religion are references that misstakely assume Lucifer shows up in those two verses.
Shall we look at the facts instead?
Lucifer is the latin translation of the hebrew noun הֵילֵל (heylel) which most assuredly appears in Isaiah in Hebrew. It also happens to be a fact that the latin word lucifer was commonly used and understood in English when Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon.
It is surprising that an expert translator such as ludwigm would state that the best representation of this word should be "morning star". If he had spent even a few minutes looking into the matter, he would have discovered that this hebrew noun heylel can yield a deeper meaning than how it was simply rendered in Greek. As it turns out, heylel is most likely derived from the root hebrew verb הָלַל (halal). halal has a number of meanings including to praise, to shine, to make a show, to foolishly boast, to rave, to be mad, and so on. If one were to try to capture all the possible meanings here and make a perfect translation, you would render a list that included "the foolish boasting one", "the shining one", "the mad one", "the performing one", "the praising one" and so on.
Another problem with this argument is the implication that the KJB was translated from the Latin Vulgate. This was not the case in fact. And even if it were true, there would be several references to Lucifer in the KJB (instead there is just this single reference) as there are in the Latin Vulgate. It just so happened that the word Lucifer had been adopted into English (as is common) and the usage here was appropriate (this is the only time this noun appears here in hebrew). The same could be said about Joseph Smith's day.
Given that information, it seems that using lucifer here is very consistent with the era and English that Joseph Smith spoke. It certainly connotates just as much meaning as "morning star" would in this instance. And there would have definitely been a hebrew noun there that required translation.
Oh, Tobin, Tobin, Tobin, even when you're arguing for your point you're just setting yourself up as a bigger target.
I don't know what you use as sources or even who you accept as knowledgeable in matters of scripture but you are way off base with your claim above. The word lucifer comes from the latin "lux" or "lucis" and "ferre" 'bringer of light'. And if you ever get up early enough in the morning and the sky is clear you will have a good understanding of why Venus is called the morning star, bringer of light.
The original scriptures were not written in Latin. That much you can at least agree upon.
The original scriptures of Christ's words were probably written in Hebrew, although we have none of the original texts left. Jesus himself spoke Aramaic, and may have known Greek, but was probably ill versed in latin, as would be his public. Isaiah definitely did not write in Latin. So Christ would not have used the word Lucifer in his reference to Isaiah, and the Nephites would also have had no knowledge of Latin. Hence, none of the above would have used the word Lucifer.
No biggy? Go back and read the Articles of Faith regarding scripture.
