I have some comments,too...
Sorry if I hit on anything already addressed by Stukov, but I'm supposed to be working right now and if Da Wife catches me I'm a dead man. [razz]
This is the best I could do off the top of my head to address this um, interesting Thread...
Iesus wrote:
In the original Hebrew text, the fourteenth chapter of Isaiah is not about a fallen angel, but about a fallen Babylonian king, who during his lifetime had persecuted the children of Israel.
True. However, Isaiah was a prophet and so these verses are written about something that was to come for the Israelites (the Exodus out of Babylon ~538 B.C.E.?), and not something that had already happened. If you examine the text you will see that the bulk of it is written in the future tense.
As to the Babylonian king, Isaiah 14, Verses 24 and 25 state "(24)The LORD of hosts hath sworn, saying: Surely as I have thought, so shall it come to pass; and as I have purposed, so shall it stand," and "(25)That I will break Asshur in My land,..." So, while it is indeed a king of Babylon it is not a Babylonian king; it is an Assyrian king. Furthermore, Isaiah 14:28 states that these events were to take place place during the reign of the Judean king, Ahaz who ruled from about 735 to 715 B.C.E., which places him right in the Neo-Assyrian period. You may recall that the Assyrians sacked the kingdom of Northern Israel around 712 B.C.E.
Iesus wrote:
It contains no mention of Satan, either by name or reference.
Right, it’s not about Satan or Lucifer. It appears to be about either Tiglath-Pileser III [744-727 B.C.E.], Shalmaneser V [727-722 B.C.E.], or Sargon II [722-705]. All three of whom were Neo-Assyrian rulers who claimed dominion over the city of Babylon.
Iesus wrote:
The Hebrew scholar could only speculate that some early Christian scribes, writing in the Latin tongue used by the Church, had decided for themselves that they wanted the story to be about a fallen angel, a creature not even mentioned in the original Hebrew text, and to whom they gave the name "Lucifer".
Interesting comment. The Old Testament, from where the prophetic texts of Isaiah originate were first translated from their original Hebrew and Aramaic into Greek, known as The Septuagint. It is from this version that the reference to Lucifer is known. Compare the following:
Hebrew Bible, Isaiah 14:12 “How art thou fallen from heaven, O day-star, son of the morning! How art thou cut down to the ground, that didst cast lots over the nations!”
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt1014.htm
Septuagint, Isaiah 14:12 “How is Lucifer fallen from heaven, that rose up in the morning! He is crushed unto the earth that sent light to all the nations.”
http://orthodoxengland.org.uk/pdf/ot/isaiah.pdf
It is generally accepted academically that the prophetic texts of the Old Testament, that is Amos, Hoseah, Isaiah, Jeremiah and Micah originate within the Eighth to Seventh centuries B.C.E. [e.g., Miller-Hayes, 224:1986]. The Septuagint wasn’t translated into Greek until the Egyptian Ptolemaic ruler Philadelphus had it commissioned in Alexandria some time early in the Third century B.C.E., four to five hundred years later.
Iesus wrote:
Why Lucifer?
Why indeed.
I believe that the translators of the texts (some 70 or 75 of them, apparently), who were translating a document that was hundreds of years old already, were most likely translating the text not just linguistically, but also culturally, altering the metaphors in such a way that the Hellenistic mind of that era could more easily understand and identify with the texts.
Iesus wrote:
In Roman astronomy, Lucifer was the… (etc.)
Your etymology is clear, and I don’t disagree with the way you have connected the identification of “Lucifer” to the Assyrian king. However I would interpret the text differently. Bearing in mind that this is a prophetic text, foretelling the anticipated delivery of the Israelites by God. What Isaiah is saying is that the king of Babylon glorified himself, and dared to elevate himself and compare his own glory to that of God. For example, you referenced Isaiah 14:12 in “Day star, son of the Dawn.” If one reads on, in 14:13-14 Isaiah paraphrases the king of Babylon,
14:13“And thou saidst in thy heart: 'I will ascend into heaven, above the stars of God will I exalt my throne, and I will sit upon the mount of meeting, in the uttermost parts of the north;”
14:14 “I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the Most High.”
Still further on we see how the god of the Israelites rewards the Assyrian king of Babylon for having the audacity to compare himself to god:
Isaiah 14:22 “And I will rise up against them, saith the LORD of hosts…”
and, Isaiah 14:23” I will also make it [Babylon] a possession for the bittern, and pools of water; and I will sweep it with the besom of destruction, saith the LORD of hosts” (my italics).
When I read these lines and think about them in relation to the Venus/Lucifer/Day star, son of the Dawn metaphor, I see the dawn star rising beyond the horizon, shining brightly, but only briefly, and only to be swept away by the rising of the brilliant light of the Sun; a divine force and power, which in the desert of the Near East is fully capable of sweeping the land like a besom of destruction.
Iesus wrote:
The scholars authorized by King James I to translate the Bible… …used versions translated largely by St. Jerome in the fourth century. Jerome had mistranslated the Hebraic metaphor, "Day star, son of the Dawn," as "Lucifer,"
No he didn’t, the Greeks did. In fact St. Jerome was responsible for the translation of the Bible from Greek into Latin, The Latin Vulgate, which is still in use by the Roman Catholics. The King James Bible was first published in 1611 CE, some 225 years after Wycliffe’s 1385 English translation of The New Testament.
Iesus wrote:
Theologians, writers, and poets interwove the myth with the doctrine of the Fall...
The Book of Enoch, which was edited out of The Bible at the Council of Nicea in 366 C.E. lists [Ch. LXIX] the names and functions of the angels and 'satans' involved in The Fall.
Iesus wrote:I will also say this this so called doctrine/lucifer religion wouldn't even exist without Christianity
More like, without the Jews and the Greeks.
Iesus wrote:…also there was never a J and never will be in Hebrew so that would change the whole name for example John the baptist was called Iohn.
No ‘J’ in Greek or Latin either; or even Assyrian for that matter.
Can you please explain what relevance this has to anything in this Thread?
Iesus wrote:If you take 30mins to go study the Egyptian proven history because it was constantly updated such as our history is today so that later others can see who we were and our accomplishments
Actually, I spent four years studying “Egyptian proven history” at the university of Toronto.
You are quite right: their history was constantly updated, much like U.S. history is updated frequently. In fact, one “historical update” currently being discussed in the United States is whether or not humans evolved, or were created by God 6,000 years ago --long after the proto-Egyptians had already established themselves in the Nile Delta.
I wonder where that update will lead us? [geek2]
I know you're not trolling, TheSeeker, I know you're genuinely interested in where that bit of information can be verified, but I couldn't help it.