Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
In greek the word which is translated 'Lucifer' is 'eosphoros' refering to light, remember me saying 'Lucifer' is the 'light-bringer'? thats what its about, the morning star: which brings light. Almost the same word is used in 2 Peter 1:19, although a little different. Its phosphoros in there also refering to light, the morning star. And in Revelations 22:16 the word is very different but also talks about the morning star and light.
Ok, but in order to match the negative connotation, would it not have to match the Isaiah reference? If the Isaiah reference is faulty, or different, it would mean that only Jesus bears the positive title, since it is more directly translated.
Are there 2 morning stars or is there 1? If Isaiah tells us the morning star is a fallen bad creature. And Peter + Revelations tell us Jesus is the morning star then Jesus is a fallen bad creature. This can only be explained away and brought to appeasement by saying that there are 2 morning stars. A good one and a fallen one.
As i said, the Septuagint is using 'eosphoros' refering to the dawn (eos) and bringer? (phoros) in the Isaiah verse. In 2 Peter the word is phosphoros refering to the same light (phos) and bringer? (phoros). Both most certainly refer to venus which is a star visible at dawn, 'brining' light as the day starts. Im no expret on greek but this is what i got after a few minutes of research on the Septuagint and google translate.
yeah ok. I wanted to make sure the Isaiah wasn't referring to some other celestial body, or whatnot,
And by the way The King James Bible is based on the Septuagint, if im not mistaken. And the LDS guy was using KJV. so i think he might learn something after reading these posts.
clearly not. but one could argue that since the word eosphoros is not the same as phosphoros that therefore the are talking about different entities. however once you understand that they both refer to the 'light bringer' in one sense or another that its obvious they are talking about the same thing.
See i'm trying to make sure that one isn't a sun reference.
hmm possible i will check the meaning of the words and sentences and come back to you later.
Yeah im certain it isnt refering to the sun since its the 'morning star' in revelation instead of the 'day' star. they wouldnt have used 'light bringer' but simply 'The Light' or 'helios' instead of 'phosphoros'. It also says in 2 Peter 1:19 that "the day dawns" and this "light bringer" is showing, instead of "the day is dawning" and jesus is "the major light (ie. helios)". in other words they could very simply tell us jesus is like the sun 'helios' but they called him 'phosphoros'.
Proof is for mathematics. Scientists don't deal with proofs because they don't work in a closed-discourse realm (they have to deal with the reality, not axioms, and thus every inference or deduction falls prey to Kantian and similar epistemological difficulties.).
Your whole point is to say that Christ is fallen. One has to wonder why you would want to put forward such an idea. You are either an atheist or some else who is anti-Christ and has an axe to grind. I believe your reasoning and subsequent interpretation not only to be faulty, but just plain silly. So, I'm not going to waste any more time with you.
I dont have any axes to grind. I was just showing everybody what the bible says about Lucifer.
While I don't agree with the conclusions that that poster has about this, its not fair to state that he or she is being silly, is an atheist, has an axe to grind and or that there reasoning is faulty. Interpretation is the foundation of the faith of Christianity and of the Bible. Who is to say that he or she is wrong and that only your views are correct? It cannot be stated either way.
