Yuku free message boards

TheXian wrote:

---

I'm going to have to ask my pastor about this topic. You all make a good case, and what I've seen other places shows me great contradictions. The only explanation I could think of is if there is no Hebrew equivalent, but there is a Greek, and thats what happened, so thats what they used. But i dont know if there is a greek word for it. Something got lost in a translation here from someone.

There are many possibilities about how these words have become so mangled in translation. Some were translated first into Greek which didn't fully capture the Hebrew meaning. (Almah / young woman in Hebrew and Parthenos / girl under 14 in Greek which came to mean virgin) to the word "virgin" in the King James in Isaiah 7 (for example).

Yet even the Greek in this instance did NOT mean virgin originally.

So there are a few possibilities as to why so many words are totally misused (e.g., sin, satan, virgin, angel, etc.).

1. Ignorance. The original translators didn't really know and their "best guesses" weren't very good. The mistakes got repeated generation after generation.

2. Malice aforethought -- even though Isaiah 7 doesn't speak of virgins (for example) they said that it did knowing full well that it didn't to re-enforce the pagan idea of a virgin birth of a god (pretty common in pagan times).

3. Words change meaning over time. As I mentioned, parthenos didn't always mean virgin, so the original use in translations may have been thought to speak of young girls but as the word evolved to mean virgin the actual original meaning was lost. This is also true of the use of the word "lucifer" in Isaiah 14. That is a Latin word (not Greek or Hebrew).

Another example of words changing meaning over time and most people never knowing what they originally meant is found in the word "lucifer." In Isaiah 14 most translators use the Latin word "lucifer" which was an early name for Ven-us (the planet and goddess). Some Hebrew (and even some modern Xian) translations use "morning star."

The use of the word "lucifer" isn't found in early Chrstian translations of Isaiah 14. It shows up in the 4th century CE (common era).

So there is no "lucifer" aka devil aka satan in Isaiah 14. Yet many people think that lucifer is the name of the Chrstian devil and is found in Isaiah 14 -- and it all stems from a translation of Hel-el in the Hebrew to a Latin word which then came to be left as Latin and thought to be a name.

Lucifer is a Latin word for a Hebrew word (Hel-l) which means "son of the morning" -- this explains why some people translate it as morning star, because Hel-el was a pagan god who was the god of the morning star. The prophet Isaiah is simply stating the the false G-d of Babylon fell when Babylon the country fell, yet thanks to mistranslations this has been lost to most readers.

The word Hel-el (translated by the KJV and others as lucifer) comes from Isaiah 14 and is about the King of Babylon and speaks of his fall.

The Babylonians (and Canaanites) had a god named Hel-el who was the god of the morning star and his father was Sha-har, god of the dawn. So Isaiah is saying that with the fall of the King of Babylon so falls his false gods Hel-el and Sha-har.

In the 4th century CE someone translating Isaiah into Latin translated the word Hel-el into lucifer.

Quote:quomodo cecidisti de caelo lucifer qui mane oriebaris corruisti in terram qui vulnerabas gentes.

Why over time didn't people translate this latin word (lucifer) either into English (son of the morning) or into Hebrew "Hel-el?" Got me.

Why did the KJV translators keep a latin word for "son of the morning?" Why didn't they translate it into the English "son of the morning"? They probably didn't even know about good old Hel-el the fake god which in turn the English would be "son of the morning." So Lucifer isn't a devil, it is the latin translation of a Canaanite / Babylonian god!

Funny, isn't it?

The 4th century Xians translated Helel (Hebrew) into lucifer (latin) and then folks began to misinterpret lucifer as being a fallen angel. No such thing -- Isaiah is speaking of false gods of the Babylonians "falling" because the kingdom was destroyed.

Again, was this done on purpose because Chrstians wanted to prove that "lucifer" the devil was mentioned in the Jewish bible when it wasn't? Was it ignornace? Was it done with malice or ignorance? Don't know. Don't know that I care except that many have been misled and deceived as a result. . .

Back to my listing of why translators make so many basic mistakes that mislead the readers into a completely false understanding of very basic concepts -- from virgin births to devils to sins. . .

4. Most languages don't have a one for one correlation, but multiple words can be used. Thus how can one take an accidental mistake (a missing of a mark) and turn it into an evil willful sin? It could be a problem in translation or it could be laziness or it could be willful deception.

No translations are perfect, it's true. As the Professor has pointed out Jews use translations sparingly and as an adjunct to the Hebrew not a replacement. Over time people become entrenched in their theology based on error and then write reams to explain that there falsities are true. The original mistakes may or may not have been innocent, but the long term ramifications have had amazingly negative connotations.