Re: WARNING, STRANGE BIAS ALERT (was Re: Museum accused of censoringPalestinian exhibition)

>   ISAIAH 14:12: The KJB reads, "How art thou fallen from
>   heaven, O LUCIFER, son of the morning!. . ." The NIV
>   PERversion reads, "How you have fallen from heaven,
>   O MORNING STAR, son of the dawn. . ." The NIV change
>   "Lucifer" to "MORNING STAR".

  Quick response before I go more in depth. Morning Star == Lucifer
(i.e. Satan was the bright morning star who falls with 1/3 of the
angels). 

  Dante provides very nice imagery of this. :-)

  Now, more detail can come from one's best friend in such questions --
and interlinear Bible and a good Hebrew-English dictionary (side note:
this is a good example of why a Pastor should know Greek and Hebrew
before being ordained... that way they don't have to depend on
translators).

  The word rendered "Lucifer" is Heylel which can be translated into the
word Lucifer. The word Lucifer means "light-bearer" (see the star
connection yet?). Okay, so anyway, it means shining one, morning star or
Lucifer (or the completely unrelated 'Helel,' a term describing the King
of Babylon).
 
  

> In the same section, the critique continues:
> 
>   ISAIAH 14:15: The King James Bible condemns Lucifer to
>   hell: "Yet thou shalt be brought down to HELL . . ."
>   The NIV does NOT condemn Lucifer to HELL! The NIV reads,
>   "But you are brought down to the GRAVE. . ." We all go
>   to the GRAVE! Why doesn't the NIV want Satan in hell?
> 
> These seem like pretty strong critiques - so, is the critique right?


   The term in question is sheol. The word is Hebrew for underworld/ or
"abode of the dead." Here's some more bits from it:

   1) place of no return 
   2) without praise of God 
   3) wicked sent there for punishment 
   4) righteous not abandoned to it 
   5) of the place of exile (fig) 
   6) of extreme degradation in sin 
  
   So, both terms are technically accurate. Although, the NIV is being
more politically correct (which I don't necessarily agree with). But,
there are even some conservative Christians (especially Adventists) who
do not believe in an eternal hell, so it really is just a translation
judgment call.

> Having read those, I can see how one might move away from Lucifer (the fallen
> angel), but how to equate it with the "Morning Star" is altogether another
> story, with the Revelation 22:16 connection of "morning star".  The link above
> seems to argue they are two different "Morning Stars" b/c the "Morning Star" in
> NIV Isaiah 14:12 is capitalized and the "morning star" in NIV Revelations 22:16
> is not capitalized.

  You might be reading too much into it. :-)

> Assuming that is true, what is the basis for capitalizing it in one verse and
> not the other?  Are the words in the originals different?

  Yes, completely. One is Koine Greek and one is in Hebrew.

> Well, you have now discovered why I don't bother myself with Bible verses.  So
> much ado about something written hundreds of years after the events and

  There's good evidence against that... I've been working on gathering
it.

> translated by people living thousands of years after the language died with a
> completely different cultural upbringing and experience and they argue about
> things like whether "morning of the star" is capitalized or not.

  Hey, people can't agree with what was written yesterday even! :-)

  -Tim


-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------
Timothy R. Butler       Universal Networks      www.uninet.info
==================== <[email protected]> ====================
| Christian Portal:      | Have you not learned great lessons |
|      www.faithtree.com | from those  who  braced themselves |
| GNU/Linux News:        | against  you   and   disputed  the |
|            www.ofb.biz | passage with you?   --Walt Whitman |

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQA/wYxqK37Cns9gJ0gRAjqGAJ9kOb6uFQXHD2h3ManuCaOScVjOfgCeJPZW
eU8+vGkZAFzafbLP5wZHgPU=
=5vx0
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----