InChrist
Free4ever
Have you asked Jesus, trusting and surrendering to Him completely to be your Savior?
-
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:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
O Lucifer
- Thread starter Cooky
- Start date
Important IMO, to recognize these desires are not a conscious choice. Part of meditation I think is to not only to quiet the mind but to observe what the unconscious mind is bringing to the table.
While we can't fathom the source of the desire, we can be aware of it as not coming from our conscious self awareness. The unconscious does play tricks on our consciousness. We have to learn to be aware of these tricks. To separate one's conscious will from their desires is difficult, but we each start from wherever we start from. I see it as a challenge to overcome the control of the unconscious mind. And, keeping in mind not all unconscious control is bad. In fact we can train the unconscious mind through repetition and practice. Sometimes it's fun to sit as an conscious observer, allowing the unconscious mind to take over mundane takes as it can react a lot faster then we can consciously.
Consciously we observe, take over and work on corrections, where needed. Step by step, lifetime process.
Nothing, IMO, to beat yourself up over. Wherever you find yourself, make a choice where to go next. Improve yourself, your conscious control over your life, where you see the need and where you can. Everyone stumbles and it is frustrating. However that is where you are and choose to go forward from that.
No sense in getting frustrated over a past you can't change. You can however choose a future. Learn from the past, choose the future. Teach Satan the correct path.
Cooky
Veteran Member
Yes, of course!
Maybe He wants to test how long I can remain faithful? Lord, it's forever!
Yes, and that is exactly what I said.
But that doesn't make it a mistranslation as you said it was. "Lucifer" is synonymous with "Venus" in the English language even if that usage has fallen out of common usage. I dislike the KJV (and other Vulgate-based translations) on principle, but this is one instance where it isn't a mistranslation.
It is a mistranslation nowadays when Lucifer is synonymous with Satan, and lucifer as a word or never doesn't appear; an accurate translation would be 'morning star' or 'Venus'. Who nowadays associates lucifer with the morning star?
Nope, it was an Old English word. Yes, a loanword from Latin, but it was and has been a part of the English lexicon for centuries. Even Google's dictionary will tell you "Venus" is one of its definitions.
And we're talking about KVJ. Is it surprising that the the book littered with thees and thys went for Ye Olde Name for Venus??
No, it's not an Old English word. You're just making things up now.
We're talking KJV.
Who nowadays uses "thee" and "thy"??
The whole thing uses older language by design. Language that was old even at the time the translation was made.
And no, using "the morning star" or "Venus" would not make it a more "accurate" translation, only a more "modern" one.
And who nowadays associates "lucifer" with the morning star?? Well, you and I obviously do. Also Google Dictionary, dictionary.com, Merriam-Webster, and Oxford. It's not super-common knowledge but it's objectively not a mistranslation, when modern dictionaries still acknowledge the word's status as a synonym for Venus.
Call it archaic or misleading. But "mistranslation" it is not.
"Misinterpretation", sure.
"Mistranslation", no.
EtuMalku
Abn Iblis ابن إبليس
Lucifer has nothing to do with the Christian bible other than being used as an adjective for the many (mis)understandings of the Morning Star/Day Star. St. Jerome misunderstood the meaning of the Hebrew word 'heylel', and translated it into "Lucifer", the Latin word meaning "light bearer" (from the Latin lux "light" and ferre "to bear or bring"). The word Lucifer at the time of the Vulgate and even at the time of the KJV translation, meant "morning star" or "day star" in reference to Venus. Jerome thought the passage was referring to Satan in addition to the king of Babylon, and because of this, the use of the word "Lucifer" made the transition from a term referring to Venus and the Morning Star to also refer to the Abrahamic Satan.
Lucifer the Roman-Greco deity is mentioned in Publius Ovidius Naso's "Metamorphoses", which was written in 8 B.C.E., the Roman poet Virgil mentions him as far back as 29 B.C.E. And the first mention is from Timaeus by Plato in 360 B.C.E. This Lucifer is also portrayed as a Lunar deity unlike his usual association with Venus.
In addition . . . English has developed over the course of more than 1,400 years. The earliest forms of English, a group of West Germanic dialects brought to Great Britain by Anglo-Saxon settlers in the 5th century.
Lucifer the Roman-Greco deity is mentioned in Publius Ovidius Naso's "Metamorphoses", which was written in 8 B.C.E., the Roman poet Virgil mentions him as far back as 29 B.C.E. And the first mention is from Timaeus by Plato in 360 B.C.E. This Lucifer is also portrayed as a Lunar deity unlike his usual association with Venus.
In addition . . . English has developed over the course of more than 1,400 years. The earliest forms of English, a group of West Germanic dialects brought to Great Britain by Anglo-Saxon settlers in the 5th century.
Google Dictionary: "Old English, from Latin, ‘light-bringing, morning star’, from lux, luc- ‘light’ + -fer ‘bearing’. Lucifer (sense 1)is by association with the ‘son of the morning’ (Isa. 14:12), believed by Christian interpreters to be a reference to Satan."
Dictionary.com: "before 1000; Middle English, Old English < Latin: morning star, literally, light-bringing, equivalent to lūci- (stem of lūx) light + -fer -fer"
Merriem-Webster: "Middle English, the morning star, a fallen rebel archangel, the Devil, from Old English, from Latin, the morning star, from lucifer light-bearing, from luc-, lux light + -fer -ferous — more at LIGHT"
Oxford: "Old English, from Latin, ‘light-bringing, morning star’, from lux, luc- ‘light’ + -fer ‘bearing’. Lucifer (sense 1) is by association with the ‘son of the morning’ (Isa. 14:12), believed by Christian interpreters to be a reference to Satan."
Gee, it looks like every single dictionary disagrees with your assertion.
Looks a lot like you are the one making things up.
You and I know that modern Christian usage is Satan. This isn't really a debate. And this is not what the passage is talking about, so it's wrong to use Lucifer.
InChrist
Free4ever
Or maybe God wants to draw you closer to Himself and show you things to remove from you life to be replaced with His love and truth. I would keep asking Him to reveal His insight and will. I'll be praying for you.
How to Break Satan’s Strongholds in Your Life - Love Worth Finding with Adrian Rogers
Cooky
Veteran Member
Thanks. I've always been a little too easy going.
Old English is an actual language. Dictionaries don't always describe categories correctly. It's a Latin word and the only reason it shows up in the KJV is because they were translating it from the Latin and kept "morning star" as "lucifer" instead of translating it into English, most likely to buttress Christian beliefs in Satan and fallen angels. Much of the reason we equate Satan and Lucifer is because of the KJV using "Lucifer" as a proper name and not an adjective. I don't know why you're so invested in defending this.
You and I know it is not a "mistranslation", like you said.
Stop making me defend KJV, it is a terrible translation that should not be used. It contains real mistranslations that were wrong at the time they were made, but this isn't one of them.
It is dishonest to try to assert the line refers only to the Christian devil rather than the Morning Star, but it is not a "mistranslation", and you are apparently not honest enough of a person to admit that you may have erred in using the word.
For it to be a mistranslation, then the word "lucifer" would have to not be defined as the morning star, as it is defined in every available dictionary to me.
People using KJV to wrongly assert anthropomorphism on the term "lucifer" do not make the translation inaccurate.
Like for instance if I stated that Leviticus 11:19 was a prohibition on eating wooden clubs due to me misconstruing what the word "bat" meant, that would not mean that the text I was misconstruing was a mistranslation.
An accurate translation can be used to mislead, but it is still, objectively speaking, an accurate translation. And again, plenty of other verses in KJV are inaccurate. This is not one. Usage of a translation does not confer or take away accuracy. Nor does people misunderstanding what they read due to lack of knowledge of the English language, and it's frankly somewhat absurd to use modern usage to gauge the accuracy of a 17th century translation (who some people insist on still using for some arcane reason).
I know Old English is a language.
As a recap of the last half hour, of which you've apparently paid no attention, I asserted "lucifer" was an Old English term.
You asserted it was not an Old English term:
It's absurd that I have to remind you of your own stupid words.
Then when I came with evidence that it was an Old English word, you proceed to assert that Old English is a language, a premise that was never in question, to make it seem like I didn't know what I was talking about, when it was you blindly asserting that it was not Old English term in the first place.
Stop making things up.
Oh yes, I'm sure you, random person on the internet, know more about the English language than the people employed in that field of study. Let me defer to your vast intellect, random internet person, your qualifications are faultless, I have no doubt your knowledge is the finest that can be gleaned from wikipedia.
Initially just to contest incorrect usage of the word "mistranslation".
Then just because it amuses me.
And now the reply is because you're an idiot who stated that a term wasn't an Old English word, then turned around and pretended we were talking about something else when it was pointed out with four citations that it most certainly was an Old English word. Unable to admit you were mistaken, you instead elected to pretend I didn't know what the Old English language was, and condescended to inform me of its existence as if doing so magically erased your stupid mistake.
An attempt to shift the goalposts to downplay your own flaccid ignorance on the term's origins.
But no. You're still wrong
You're still making things up.
And it is funny to me to keep pointing at that and laughing.
Now you're just being a dick, with all your personal insults. I'm done with you.
The word lucifer is Latin through and through. It has a Latin etymology and would mean nothing to English speakers, old or new, without explanation. It is not a native English word and native English speakers would not have used it had it not been in the Vulgate. The English word for morning star is.... morning star.