This week's portion from the prophets, Isaiah 54:11-55:5, is brimming with wonderful nuggets from the Lord! Here are two examples.
1. Isaiah 54:11-14 (KJV)
11
O thou afflicted, tossed with tempest, and not comforted, behold, I will lay thy stones with fair colours, and lay thy foundations with sapphires.
12
And I will make thy windows of agates, and thy gates of carbuncles, and all thy borders of pleasant stones.
13
And all thy children shall be taught of the LORD; and great shall be the peace of thy children.
14
In righteousness shalt thou be established: thou shalt be far from oppression; for thou shalt not fear: and from terror; for it shall not come near thee.
The afflicted "one" in this passage is Jerusalem. Although it is tossed with tempest and not comforted, things will change. The description that follows speaks of beauty, peace, and righteousness. It is hard to miss the similarities with the description of Jerusalem in Revelation.
Revelation 21:4,6-7,18-21 (KJV)
4
And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.
6
And he said unto me, It is done. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end. I will give unto him that is athirst of the fountain of the water of life freely.
7
He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son.
18
And the building of the wall of it was of jasper: and the city was pure gold, like unto clear glass.
19
And the foundations of the wall of the city were garnished with all manner of precious stones. The first foundation was jasper; the second, sapphire; the third, a chalcedony; the fourth, an emerald;
20
The fifth, sardonyx; the sixth, sardius; the seventh, chrysolite; the eighth, beryl; the ninth, a topaz; the tenth, a chrysoprasus; the eleventh, a jacinth; the twelfth, an amethyst.
21
And the twelve gates were twelve pearls; every several gate was of one pearl: and the street of the city was pure gold, as it were transparent glass.
This is what God's people have to look forward to!
2. Isaiah 55:1-4 (KJV)
1
Ho, every one that thirsteth, come ye to the waters, and he that hath no money; come ye, buy, and eat; yea, come, buy wine and milk without money and without price.
2
Wherefore do ye spend money for that which is not bread? and your labour for that which satisfieth not? hearken diligently unto me, and eat ye that which is good, and let your soul delight itself in fatness.
3
Incline your ear, and come unto me: hear, and your soul shall live; and I will make an everlasting covenant with you, even the sure mercies of David.
4
Behold, I have given him for a witness to the people, a leader and commander to the people.
Mankind thirsts for God, whether we know it or not. We try all kinds of things in life hoping to find that satisfying "something." We spend money. We labor for it, but everything falls short. However, the answer is easy. We only need to listen and come to God! It is a free gift! Then He will make an everlasting covenant with us and our souls will delight in fatness. Verse 4 also tells us that the gift is a person, one who would be a witness, a leader, and a commander to the people. He is our Messiah. Those who have heard God's message and have come to the satisfying waters, know that that person is Yeshua!
But there are more nuggets! More passages of encouragement and hints at God's essence are there for us to read. Why not partake, today?!
Showing posts with label Isaiah. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Isaiah. Show all posts
Thursday, August 21, 2014
Thursday, May 30, 2013
Isaiah 14:12 - The Problems of Translation
This week I will be teaching on Isaiah 14:12-14 to a wonderful group of women who are seeking to grow in their understanding of the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. It will be a time of learning, sharing, and caring spiritually for each other. However, this particular section of Isaiah is really more about translation issues than anything else.
There is much controversy regarding Isaiah 14:12. Here is the verse in three different versions.
Isaiah 14:12 (KJV)
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!
Isaiah 14:12 (NIV)
12 How you have fallen from heaven, O morning star, son of the dawn! You have been cast down to the earth, you who once laid low the nations!
Isaiah 14:12 (YLT)
12 How hast thou fallen from the heavens, O shining one, son of the dawn! Thou hast been cut down to earth, O weakener of nations.
The part of the verse that has caused concern is the phrase that occurs after the word, "O." Each of these versions translates it differently, as "Lucifer," "star of the morning," and "shining one." Of these three choices, "morning star" is by far the most commonly used (sometimes "day star" is used instead, but the meaning of "morning star" and "day star" are the same).
Which is correct?
The word that is translated in these three ways, is the Hebrew "helel," which is believed to probably mean "shining one." The text does not say, "Lucifer," or "morning star." So how did these other translations occur?
To complicate matters a little more, "Lucifer" is not even an English word. It is a Latin word that was used in Isaiah 14:12 in the Latin Vulgate Bible, translated by Jerome by about 405 A.D. It was then directly borrowed from the Vulgate and inserted into all the English Bibles prior to and including the King James Version.
This is where most of the heated debate on the issue comes in. We have come to associate the name Lucifer to mean Satan. Therefore, the passage Isaiah 14:12-14 is forced, by the translators, into referring to Satan when the passage is actually about a lament or prophecy against the King of Babylon. Many say this is an irresponsible translation. However, in digging a little deeper, the word "Lucifer," during at least the time of Jerome, meant "morning star." It wasn't until later that Lucifer became associated with Satan. It is likely that the KJV translators recognized the passage as very likely a description of not only the King of Babylon, but Satan, too. They decided to leave "Lucifer" in their translation.
Was this inappropriate? Personally, I don't think so. I think the translators of the KJV and the people of the day understood the dual meaning of "Lucifer." The context of the passage is very appropriate for both understandings.
Isaiah 14:12-14 (KJV)
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.
Also, there is a passage in Ezekiel where a similar situation occurs. The passage is about a lament regarding the King of Tyre, yet it also must be about Satan.
Ezekiel 28:12-15 (KJV)
12 Son of man, take up a lamentation upon the king of Tyrus, and say unto him, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Thou sealest up the sum, full of wisdom, and perfect in beauty.
13 Thou hast been in Eden the garden of God; every precious stone was thy covering, the sardius, topaz, and the diamond, the beryl, the onyx, and the jasper, the sapphire, the emerald, and the carbuncle, and gold: the workmanship of thy tabrets and of thy pipes was prepared in thee in the day that thou wast created.
14 Thou art the anointed cherub that covereth; and I have set thee so: thou wast upon the holy mountain of God; thou hast walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire.
15 Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee.
Although "Lucifer" may be acceptable, is "morning star" the better translation?
"Helel" doesn't really mean "morning star." There are separate words in Hebrew for both "morning" and "star." Yet, we do know that "morning star" is a nickname for the planet Venus. Could Venus be the true meaning behind the word? I couldn't find anything for a long time.
Finally, I found that Venus was the representation of a Babyonian god. It seems he was the nephew of the god Baal. He was the son of Shahar, which in Hebrew happens to be "morning" or "dawn." If we go back to Isaiah 14:12 and rewrite it, it could look like this:
Isaiah 14:12 (mine)
12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O Helel, son of Shahar! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!
Based on what is said later in verse 13 (see above), this makes a fair amount of sense! The Babylonian gods were believed to live in a mountain to the north. Apparently, the King of Babylon thought that he was a god himself and would ascend to the highest reaches of the mountain where the rest of the gods lived.
Without understanding the connection between Venus and the Babylonian gods, the Isaiah passage doesn't make sense with "morning star" as the translation of "helel." But even once we know this, there can be confusion when we see the following in Revelation.
Revelation 22:16 (KJV)
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.
Yeshua is here called the "morning star." How can both the bad King of Babylon and Yeshua be called the "morning star?"
2 Peter 1:19 (KJV)
19 We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:
Here again, Peter is referring to Yeshua rising in our hearts, like light that shines in a dark place, until the day dawns. Is this about Venus? No, it is the sun that brings the dawn. The comparison of Yeshua is to the sun.
Some say that it doesn't matter that "morning star" is used for both Yeshua and Satan (or a Babylonian god), but others object vehemently. What could have been done?
My personal feeling is that "helel" should have been translated as "shining one," or left as "Helel." This would allow readers to make their own connections and would have avoided misunderstandings. While "morning star" may technically be accurate, it obscures the true meaning and potentially causes an equality between Yeshua and a false god.
There is much controversy regarding Isaiah 14:12. Here is the verse in three different versions.
Isaiah 14:12 (KJV)
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!
Isaiah 14:12 (NIV)
12 How you have fallen from heaven, O morning star, son of the dawn! You have been cast down to the earth, you who once laid low the nations!
Isaiah 14:12 (YLT)
12 How hast thou fallen from the heavens, O shining one, son of the dawn! Thou hast been cut down to earth, O weakener of nations.
The part of the verse that has caused concern is the phrase that occurs after the word, "O." Each of these versions translates it differently, as "Lucifer," "star of the morning," and "shining one." Of these three choices, "morning star" is by far the most commonly used (sometimes "day star" is used instead, but the meaning of "morning star" and "day star" are the same).
Which is correct?
The word that is translated in these three ways, is the Hebrew "helel," which is believed to probably mean "shining one." The text does not say, "Lucifer," or "morning star." So how did these other translations occur?
To complicate matters a little more, "Lucifer" is not even an English word. It is a Latin word that was used in Isaiah 14:12 in the Latin Vulgate Bible, translated by Jerome by about 405 A.D. It was then directly borrowed from the Vulgate and inserted into all the English Bibles prior to and including the King James Version.
This is where most of the heated debate on the issue comes in. We have come to associate the name Lucifer to mean Satan. Therefore, the passage Isaiah 14:12-14 is forced, by the translators, into referring to Satan when the passage is actually about a lament or prophecy against the King of Babylon. Many say this is an irresponsible translation. However, in digging a little deeper, the word "Lucifer," during at least the time of Jerome, meant "morning star." It wasn't until later that Lucifer became associated with Satan. It is likely that the KJV translators recognized the passage as very likely a description of not only the King of Babylon, but Satan, too. They decided to leave "Lucifer" in their translation.
Was this inappropriate? Personally, I don't think so. I think the translators of the KJV and the people of the day understood the dual meaning of "Lucifer." The context of the passage is very appropriate for both understandings.
Isaiah 14:12-14 (KJV)
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.
Also, there is a passage in Ezekiel where a similar situation occurs. The passage is about a lament regarding the King of Tyre, yet it also must be about Satan.
Ezekiel 28:12-15 (KJV)
12 Son of man, take up a lamentation upon the king of Tyrus, and say unto him, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Thou sealest up the sum, full of wisdom, and perfect in beauty.
13 Thou hast been in Eden the garden of God; every precious stone was thy covering, the sardius, topaz, and the diamond, the beryl, the onyx, and the jasper, the sapphire, the emerald, and the carbuncle, and gold: the workmanship of thy tabrets and of thy pipes was prepared in thee in the day that thou wast created.
14 Thou art the anointed cherub that covereth; and I have set thee so: thou wast upon the holy mountain of God; thou hast walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire.
15 Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee.
Although "Lucifer" may be acceptable, is "morning star" the better translation?
"Helel" doesn't really mean "morning star." There are separate words in Hebrew for both "morning" and "star." Yet, we do know that "morning star" is a nickname for the planet Venus. Could Venus be the true meaning behind the word? I couldn't find anything for a long time.
Finally, I found that Venus was the representation of a Babyonian god. It seems he was the nephew of the god Baal. He was the son of Shahar, which in Hebrew happens to be "morning" or "dawn." If we go back to Isaiah 14:12 and rewrite it, it could look like this:
Isaiah 14:12 (mine)
12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O Helel, son of Shahar! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!
Based on what is said later in verse 13 (see above), this makes a fair amount of sense! The Babylonian gods were believed to live in a mountain to the north. Apparently, the King of Babylon thought that he was a god himself and would ascend to the highest reaches of the mountain where the rest of the gods lived.
Without understanding the connection between Venus and the Babylonian gods, the Isaiah passage doesn't make sense with "morning star" as the translation of "helel." But even once we know this, there can be confusion when we see the following in Revelation.
Revelation 22:16 (KJV)
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.
Yeshua is here called the "morning star." How can both the bad King of Babylon and Yeshua be called the "morning star?"
2 Peter 1:19 (KJV)
19 We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:
Here again, Peter is referring to Yeshua rising in our hearts, like light that shines in a dark place, until the day dawns. Is this about Venus? No, it is the sun that brings the dawn. The comparison of Yeshua is to the sun.
Some say that it doesn't matter that "morning star" is used for both Yeshua and Satan (or a Babylonian god), but others object vehemently. What could have been done?
My personal feeling is that "helel" should have been translated as "shining one," or left as "Helel." This would allow readers to make their own connections and would have avoided misunderstandings. While "morning star" may technically be accurate, it obscures the true meaning and potentially causes an equality between Yeshua and a false god.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)