Lucifer in KJV and Book of Mormon

[_Joseph]

http://www.lds-mormon.com/lucifer.shtml

After visiting the webite above I am a bit confused.
Anyone have a relatively easy explanation as to "Lucifer' and how the meaning has changed in the King James Version of the Bible? Also how, if this is actually a mistake, it would be found in the Book of Mormon which is supposed to have the Isaiah verses from the originals in the old world?

[_Molok]

In essence this is what I got out of that website.

The original Hebrew verse in question is talking about a king who persecuted the Jews. In that verse Isaiah refers to the king as the "day star." When Jerome was making his Latin Vulgate, he translated "day star" as Lucifer. Later on, Christian scribes decided that Lucifer was a name for the devil, and invented the whole mythos of him being a fallen angel, etc. This is a problem for the LDS church because it makes it somewhat obvious that Joseph was copying portions out of the KJV. If he wasn't, he would not have used the word Lucifer in the Book of Mormon, because Lucifer is a word referring to some ancient king, not the Devil. At least, that's what I got out of it. The website wasn't exactly written with perfect clarity.

[_Joseph]

That is what I got from it. Anyone on here with the knowledge of what is accurate with this topic?
If this is right maybe Christian teachings for quite some time are based in this part on baloney and outright fables, and not just small ones?

[_Joseph Antley]

About to head out the door for church, but I'll give this a shot when I get back. However, suffice it to say this is definitely solid evidence that the Book of Mormon Isaiah chapters rely on the KJV text, although I don't consider the word "Lucifer" in the KJV/Book of Mormon to be a "mistake."

[_Manfred]

This might help: http://www.fairlds.org/Bible/Lucifer_and_Satan.html

[_Joseph]

Great, refer me to the jokers who can't tell a horse from a tapir or maybe even a weasel?

If Joseph put the word Lucifer in the Book of Mormon(as currently printed) is that the word The Lord put on his magic peepstone in English for him to read? He did read the words off, have them repeated, and only if correct... the next words came up to him, right?

So God is the one who really is the cause of all the confusion, not Satan or mean guys who bully kids changing the meaning of the scriptures?

[_Paul Osborne]

This might help: http://www.fairlds.org/Bible/Lucifer_and_Satan.html

Sorry, that's garbage.

I've read many a commentary that attests that the name Lucifer is improperly applied to Satan in the KJV and that the real translation is day star, the planet venus as a symbol of the Babylonian king who is about to take a plunge to hell. Satan is not even part of this mix. The Book of Mormon is a cheap carbon copy of error.

I like this article:

http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2215

Paul O

[_Paracelsus]

This might help: http://www.fairlds.org/Bible/Lucifer_and_Satan.html

Sorry, that's garbage.
I've read many a commentary that attests that the name Lucifer is improperly applied to Satan in the KJV and that the real translation is day star, the planet venus as a symbol of the Babylonian king who is about to take a plunge to hell. Satan is not even part of this mix. The Book of Mormon is a cheap carbon copy of error.
I like this article:
http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2215
Paul O

I am sorry, Paul, I don't like you. I will use the word Shulem...
BUT:
- you are not on my ignore list
- in this case, you are right

This is a garbage.

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!

Lucifer : The planet Venus in its appearance as the morning star, the other name of Venus in Rome. A term meaning "light bringer".

Wie bist du vom Himmel gefallen, du schöner Morgenstern! Wie bist du zur Erde gefället, der du die Heiden schwächtest!

Morgenstern = morning star

Comment es-tu tombé des cieux, astre brillant, fils de l'aurore? Tu es abattu jusqu'à terre, toi qui subjuguais les nations!

fils de l'aurore = son of the dawn/daybreak

That king of Babylon was called as son of the dawn, as Louis XIV was called as Sun King (le Roi Soleil).

There are languages outside of English.
There are bibles outside of KJV.
There is life outside of US/Utah/temple_square.


by the way

Louis XIV of France
His reign, from 1643 to his death in 1715, began at the age of four and lasted seventy-two years, three months, and eighteen days, and is the longest documented reign of any European monarch.

[_Joseph Antley]

This might help: http://www.fairlds.org/Bible/Lucifer_and_Satan.html

Sorry, that's garbage.

I've read many a commentary that attests that the name Lucifer is improperly applied to Satan in the KJV and that the real translation is day star, the planet venus as a symbol of the Babylonian king who is about to take a plunge to hell. Satan is not even part of this mix. The Book of Mormon is a cheap carbon copy of error.

I like this article:

http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2215

Paul O

Those who translated the text knew that the Hebrew did not actually say "Lucifer," but considered it a reasonable translation of the Hebrew הילל בן־שׁחר. It's wasn't a translation error. And critical scholars have long accepted that this passage in Isaiah actually borrows from Canaanite mythology where the "morning star" is a deity who tries to exalt himself in the mountains of the gods but is instead cast into the underworld. See, for example, J.W. McKay, “Helel and the Dawn-Goddess: A Reexamination of the Myth in Isaiah XIV 12-15,” Vetus Testamentum 20, Fasc. 4, (October 1970): 451.

So, you're right that the passage is literally about the king of Babylon, but it isn't comparing the king to the planet Venus. Instead it's comparing the king to the fallen deity (called the "morning star," or in Latin, "Lucifer") who attempted to overthrow God and rule the divine council -- which, in Christian terms, sounds a lot like the Devil.

So there is archaic language, to be sure. But this isn't an "error," although it's appearance in the Book of Mormon is a clear indication that the Book of Mormon Isaiah chapters are based on the KJV text.

[_Paul Osborne]

Those who translated the text knew that the Hebrew did not actually say "Lucifer," but considered it a reasonable translation of the Hebrew הילל בן־שׁחר. It's wasn't a translation error. And critical scholars have long accepted that this passage in Isaiah actually borrows from Canaanite mythology where the "morning star" is a deity who tries to exalt himself in the mountains of the gods but is instead cast into the underworld. See, for example, J.W. McKay, “Helel and the Dawn-Goddess: A Reexamination of the Myth in Isaiah XIV 12-15,” Vetus Testamentum 20, Fasc. 4, (October 1970): 451.

So, you're right that the passage is literally about the king of Babylon, but it isn't comparing the king to the planet Venus. Instead it's comparing the king to the fallen deity (called the "morning star," or in Latin, "Lucifer") who attempted to overthrow God and rule the divine council -- which, in Christian terms, sounds a lot like the Devil.

So there is archaic language, to be sure. But this isn't an "error," although it's appearance in the Book of Mormon is a clear indication that the Book of Mormon Isaiah chapters are based on the KJV text.

It could be argued that being reasonable isn't good enough, perhaps second rate. I prefer total accuracy if possible. I hardly see how placing the name Lucifer in the text is accurate. The translators of newer editions of the Bible don't copy the KJV but usually render day star or the like.

Whatever Isaiah borrowed from other cultures in his writings is beside the point. Scholars will argue until the cows jump over the moon. Apologists will present their ideas and proposals to support their conclusions.

I think we can agree that it would be more impressive if the Book of Mormon said "day star" rather than Lucifer. The Book of Mormon version takes the magic out of a seer's translation.

Paul O