Black Spirituality Religion : The response to the Lucifer thread

Radical Faith

Well-Known Member
REGISTERED MEMBER
Dec 3, 2003
1,818
139
North Carolina
Occupation
Operations Manager
For some reason I've not been able to post responses. So here is the answer the question "What is the difference between What is said that Jesus says in Revelation 22:16 and the description of Lucifer in Isaiah 14:12?"

Jesus did not address him as Lucifer per say. First let us understand what is mean by certain words used.

Isaiah 14:12

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!

Revelations 22:16

I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.

Though subtle there is a difference between these scripture. In Isaiah this verse is part of a song that the Isaiah prophesied would be sung by the children of Israel to mock the King of Babylon after his defeat by way of the God of the Israelites. In Revelations what Jesus is saying to the both human and divine simultaneously. Let's go deeper and look at the words being used. The original Hebrew word for Lucifer is LLYH or HEYLEL which means "light bearer" or "shining one". Son of the morning is another way of saying Lucifer. When the King of Babylon is being called Lucifer it is a comparison to the Lucifer that was the first to have the ambition of becoming God. The song is not to be taken literally as if the King of Babylon was a Lucifer himself but metaphorically or comparatively. So let's replace the word Lucifer and the phrase son of the morning with messenger of truth and heavenly child of God, the scripture would read like this:

How art thou fallen from heaven, O messenger of truth, heavenly child of God! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!

By doing I don't take the meaning of the scripture away, I just clarify the meaning of a few words.

When we look at the use of the word light in the Bible it oft time does not mean waves of energy that display brilliance or color. Light is a powerful substance with great literal and symbol meaning. Being that we are visual beings our perception of light is one of our greatest tools of understand. In Revelation Jesus calls himself the bright and morning star. Again let's break down the words. The word "bright" describes the intensity of the light, morning in this case means the first light and that word star means the source from which the light emanates. Essentially what this means is Jesus is calling himself the source of the light, the truth that dispels lies, the revealer of things hidden in darkness, the knowledge that eradicates ignorance. So with that said the difference is Jesus is saying he is the source of the light or the one who has ownership of the light of which it is his to give and a Lucifer is a bearer of the light that has been bestowed upon himself.


Peace.......
 
PEACE RADICAL:

You make this assertion:

The original Hebrew word for Lucifer is LLYH or HEYLEL which means "light bearer" or "shining one". Son of the morning is another way of saying Lucifer

Immediately proceeded by this one:

When the King of Babylon is being called Lucifer it is a comparison to the Lucifer that was the first to have the ambition of becoming God.

How do you draw the etymological correlation between this "light bearer" having such lofty ambitions? Where within Hebraic literature or canon is such a correlation made?

Also:

Isaiah 14:12

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!

Revelations 22:16

I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.

Revelations is (allegedly) written by JOHN, originally in Greek, yes? That being the case, what is the Greek term used for "Bright and morning star"?

Since "Luficer" is not etymologically Hebrew in origin, it would bear a closer resemblance to Greek than Hebreew, wouldn't you agree?

Essentially what this means is Jesus is calling himself the source of the light, the truth that dispels lies, the revealer of things hidden in darkness, the knowledge that eradicates ignorance. So with that said the difference is Jesus is saying he is the source of the light or the one who has ownership of the light of which it is his to give and a Lucifer is a bearer of the light that has been bestowed upon himself.

Since LUFICER itself means "light bearer" as you stated, wouldn't he be a self-emanating source of light as well?

There is nothing within the definition of "LUCIFER" (certainly not etymologically) that would suggest otherwise.

So let's replace the word Lucifer and the phrase son of the morning with messenger of truth and heavenly child of God, the scripture would read like this:

How art thou fallen from heaven, O messenger of truth, heavenly child of God! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!

From where precisely does this interpretation come from? Is this actually in the Bible?

All of this is mere speculation, as we are entertaining the loose translations of 2nd, 3rd, and even 4th party languages, several civilizations removed.

But then, therein lies the entire issue with taking any translation of the Bible to heart.

PEACE
 
Brotha Radical

I understand your point that there may be a subtle difference between the bearer of the light and the source of the light.

The bright and morning star is Venus. It emanates light but is not the source of light any more or less than the "light bearer" (Lucifer). A star is a created thing. It is made up of matter that bears light but where did that light come from? The star itself? No. It came from the Creator. It came from the same source from which Lucifer receved the light that he bears.

The fact still remains that there's no scriptural evidene that Lucifer is a name for satan. How can that name correlate to anything else when it does not exist anywhere else? If Lucifer refers to the king of Babylon (a man) that is the only person he is referred to. All other references are mere conjecture and the traditions of men. In order to support these traditions you have to add stuff and turn things around and replace words as you did above.
 
SAMURAI36 said:
PEACE RADICAL:



How do you draw the etymological correlation between this "light bearer" having such lofty ambitions? Where within Hebraic literature or canon is such a correlation made?

Isaiah 14:12-14

12 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!

13 For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north:

14 I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High.

As you can see brother in these scriptures it explains how the "Bearer of Light" fell. Essentially the bearer of light in verse 13 desires from his heart to become God by overthrowing God and take God's place. Moreover what must first be made clear is this scripture is a prophetic message to the King of Babylon. The particular scripture is part of a song meant to mock the King of Babylon. What you are asking is where did the Israelites get is information in the song that they are teasing the King with? Honestly the canonical Bible doesn't go into great elaborate detail about the origins of Satan or Lucifer for that matter. As sister River said some versions of the Bible don't use to the word Lucifer at all. The canonical Bible was put together to achieve a straight path to salvation and on that journey what may and has happened on the way. The Apocrypha and Gnostic Gospels are books more suited to fill it the blanks so to speak. Again what is more important about this scripture is the demise and humiliation the King of Babylon is said to face for his disobedience to God and treatment of God's chosen people. For a proud and powerful King to be not only defeated but mocked and laughed at by those not even worthy to be call his enemy would be fate worse than death I would imagine. This is the true message of this scripture. Anything else is just a side track that goes away from the focus.



Revelations is (allegedly) written by JOHN, originally in Greek, yes? That being the case, what is the Greek term used for "Bright and morning star"?

The Greek words for Bright and morning star" is Lampros (bright), Proinos (morning) and Aster (star). There are two words in Greek closely related to Lucifer. The first is Phosphoros meaning morning star (Venus) and the second is Luchnos which means light. The ancient Greek writting of this part of the scripture reads "o ashtr o lamprov o prwinov". There is no mention or comparison to phosphoros or luchnos this scripture.



Since "Luficer" is not etymologically Hebrew in origin, it would bear a closer resemblance to Greek than Hebreew, wouldn't you agree?

You may have a point here. The word Lucifer in this form is a Milddle English word coming from the Latin words Lux or Lucis(light) and fero (to bring). Lucifer is the translated word for the Hebrew word LLYH or Heylel.



Since LUFICER itself means "light bearer" as you stated, wouldn't he be a self-emanating source of light as well?

There is nothing within the definition of "LUCIFER" (certainly not etymologically) that would suggest otherwise.

It is possible but I don't believe that was the intent of the author when this word was used. Just like words today the same words can have different meanings, such as "lead" or "ring" or "take" etc. As I have previously stated Lucifer is derived from Lucis-fero meaning light bringer. The prophet Jeremiah is known as the weeping prophet because he had the reluctant task of prophesying about the fall of Israel. So we could say he was the bearer of bad news. He was the messenger not the source of the message. This applies to Lucifer as well. Lets take a minute ask ourselves, were the Israelites comparing the King of Babylon to Lucifer because he was evil and cruel? This is partly correct. The other part to that is that Lucifer was close to God. Kings of the day were thought of as being close to God as well. They had a lofty and high position in life and dominion over many. Kings were thought to be more blessed than the average man. This is why the Lucifer comparison is appropriate in this scripture.



From where precisely does this interpretation come from? Is this actually in the Bible?

First brother we must understand what is meant by light. There are numerous scripture referring to physical light that shines from the sky and that speak of God as being light "the Light". Did not God appear to Mose in the form of a burning bush? If something is ablaze does not the fire radiate light? In that case God was speaking to Moses directly giving him instruction. Was not Moses forever changed from that experience? Did not Angels appear to Abraham, Hagar, Jacob, Balaam, Gideon, Manoah, David, Elijah, etc. with messages and intentions for these people and many more? Are not Angels God's heavenly children in his service? The morning is the first light of a new day which is symbolic of the emergence from the darkness of night.

Psalm 30:5

5 For his anger endureth but a moment; in his favour is life: weeping may endure for a night, but joy cometh in the morning.

Exodus 34:6

6 And the LORD passed by before him, and proclaimed, The LORD, The LORD God, merciful and gracious, longsuffering, and abundant in goodness and truth,

Does not the truth dispel lies? Does not the truth enlighten that which is shrouded in darkness and obscurity. Is not the truth like light to eyes? Is not seeing the beginning of discernment which leads to understanding? There are numerous scriptures that metaphorically use light as truth and the truth coming from God.

All of this is mere speculation, as we are entertaining the loose translations of 2nd, 3rd, and even 4th party languages, several civilizations removed.

It is only speculative if you don't hear what God is saying. However you are correct. There may be something lost in mans translations from language to language. I believe this is God's intent. Remember God made us so he knows us. For example if a person is purchasing a TV notices a small scratch on the exterior he will want to buy the TV at a discounted price because the TV is now less than perfect. It doesn't matter if the scratch in no way impedes the performance of the TV. (Laughing) I am guilty of this myself. Because we tend to become distracted and lose focus this may be God's way of keeping us focused on God and what is important. If we read the Bible for face value and say this true or this not true because the answers are made plain for everyone we would never go through the process of trying to understand what God is saying to us personally. God wants us to invite his into our minds and hearts. The Bible can be and has been dissected by Biblical Scholars and Theologians to find what the standard or recognized meanings of scriptures are through historical data and research. However I find that the Bible can only come alive when the reader opens his or her heart and is filled with the Spirit of God. When this happens the Bible becomes more than a book of stories. When this happens you know longer see a book at but the words of God. A good pastor or reverend will tell you do not trust what he is telling you but to read the Bible and find out for yourself.

But then, therein lies the entire issue with taking any translation of the Bible to heart.

To eachother his own brother. I'm in no position to judge.

Thank you for being patient with me brother. It is not my intent to ignore you. I get really busy sometimes and rather than give you some half-hearted answer I'd rather wait until time is available for me to answer you questions as thoroughly as I possibly can. I do enjoy our discussion and look forward to more intelligent conversation.

I leave you in peace......
 

Donate

Support destee.com, the oldest, most respectful, online black community in the world - PayPal or CashApp

Latest profile posts

HODEE wrote on Etophil's profile.
Welcome to Destee
@Etophil
Destee wrote on SleezyBigSlim's profile.
Hi @SleezyBigSlim ... Welcome Welcome Welcome ... :flowers: ... please make yourself at home ... :swings:
Back
Top