S
Sinner1
Guest
Why is Lucifer referred to as the Morning Star?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
N
NotWorthy
Guest
Isn’t the morning star the brightest? Wasn’t Lucifer considered the greatest angel, at least before his downfall?
S
Sinner1
Guest
I just don’t quite understand why the name “Morning Star” was chosen. If it’s the brightest star in the morning, that would seem like a good thing.
N
NotWorthy
Guest
The creation of Lucifer was a good thing, too! I mean, God created him, didn’t He?I just don’t quite understand why the name “Morning Star” was chosen. If it’s the brightest star in the morning, that would seem like a good thing.
The end result, due to Lucifer’s ego, was not good, however.
E
Eucharisted
Guest
His name means ‘morning star’ because it was at the dawn of creation that he was the brightest angel ever created. But then he rebelled against God and now he is Satan.
S
Sinner1
Guest
Interesting. I guess that makes sense.His name means ‘morning star’ because it was at the dawn of creation that he was the brightest angel ever created. But then he rebelled against God and now he is Satan.
J
Jean_1958
Guest
Morning Star refers to the king of Babylon (Is 14:12). The Vulgate translation of the Bible used the word Lucifer. Lucifer is the Latin for light-bearer and was used by the early Church Fathers as the name of Satan. . All angels have their assigned jobs. Before the fall, Lucifer was the angel whose job it was to usher in the dawn.
Jean
Jean
J
Jolly_Joe
Guest
This is actually a very interesting study.
For instance, maybe you don’t know what the word Lucifer actually meant?
Lucifer was the Latin name for the planet Venus when it preceeded the sun. Hence, it is the bright morning star. A different name was used for evening, Hesperos.
So the Vulgate used Lucifer in two places. Isaiah 14:12, and 2 Peter 1:19.
Isaiah 14:12 Vulgate
(12) quomodo cecidisti de caelo lucifer qui mane oriebaris corruisti in terram qui vulnerabas gentes
Isaiah 14:12 Vulgate
(12) quomodo cecidisti de caelo lucifer qui mane oriebaris corruisti in terram qui vulnerabas gentes
Interestingly, translations like the KJV and the Challoner DRB retained the reference to Lucifer in Isaiah, but not in 2 Peter.
Then along comes the place where the common interpretation of Isaiah 14 comes from. Dante’s Inferno. That’s right, until that period of time, I can find nothing that indicates that Isaiah 14 was generally perceived to be a reference to Satan. But with the popularity and power of that novel, the use of Lucifer as a name for Satan seems to have solidly enterred our culture.
Now the interesting thing indeed is the whole Isaiah passage is a paraphrase, it’s not hard to translate. It says “Helel, son of Shackar” which means exactly nothing to most people whether living or dead.
Our research has indicated its a reference to Canaanite mythology. Certainly those to whom it was written understood it, but it’s been largely lost. As we understand it, Helel, a minor god tries to take over, and he was hurled down to the underworld after he failed.
So it’s a taunt to a Babylonian king who thinks too highly of himself and who is going to be hurled down.
Not a direct reference to Satan, though I’m sure some similarities exist.
It continues to be paraphrased in translations because doing a literal translation would still be meaningless. And the paraphrase is basically correct in its meaning. The major difficulty comes from groups that proclaim the superiority or infallibility of older translations and then overlay an interpretation of the passage right out of Dante’s Inferno.
Hope that helps.
For instance, maybe you don’t know what the word Lucifer actually meant?
Lucifer was the Latin name for the planet Venus when it preceeded the sun. Hence, it is the bright morning star. A different name was used for evening, Hesperos.
So the Vulgate used Lucifer in two places. Isaiah 14:12, and 2 Peter 1:19.
Isaiah 14:12 Vulgate
(12) quomodo cecidisti de caelo lucifer qui mane oriebaris corruisti in terram qui vulnerabas gentes
Isaiah 14:12 Vulgate
(12) quomodo cecidisti de caelo lucifer qui mane oriebaris corruisti in terram qui vulnerabas gentes
Interestingly, translations like the KJV and the Challoner DRB retained the reference to Lucifer in Isaiah, but not in 2 Peter.
Then along comes the place where the common interpretation of Isaiah 14 comes from. Dante’s Inferno. That’s right, until that period of time, I can find nothing that indicates that Isaiah 14 was generally perceived to be a reference to Satan. But with the popularity and power of that novel, the use of Lucifer as a name for Satan seems to have solidly enterred our culture.
Now the interesting thing indeed is the whole Isaiah passage is a paraphrase, it’s not hard to translate. It says “Helel, son of Shackar” which means exactly nothing to most people whether living or dead.
Our research has indicated its a reference to Canaanite mythology. Certainly those to whom it was written understood it, but it’s been largely lost. As we understand it, Helel, a minor god tries to take over, and he was hurled down to the underworld after he failed.
So it’s a taunt to a Babylonian king who thinks too highly of himself and who is going to be hurled down.
Not a direct reference to Satan, though I’m sure some similarities exist.
It continues to be paraphrased in translations because doing a literal translation would still be meaningless. And the paraphrase is basically correct in its meaning. The major difficulty comes from groups that proclaim the superiority or infallibility of older translations and then overlay an interpretation of the passage right out of Dante’s Inferno.
Hope that helps.
J
Jolly_Joe
Guest
In reading through, I should mention that the Vulgate uses the word lucifer in additional passages. And that there was indeed for a long time, ideas that tied Lucifer to being an arch angel and indeed to being Satan.
It was Dante’s Inferno and Milton’s Paradise Lost that really made the connection a part of popular culture, something that people would usually take automatically. It wasn’t to say there was never any such connection made by anyone before that time.
It was Dante’s Inferno and Milton’s Paradise Lost that really made the connection a part of popular culture, something that people would usually take automatically. It wasn’t to say there was never any such connection made by anyone before that time.
S
Sinner1
Guest
Thanks for the information.This is actually a very interesting study.
For instance, maybe you don’t know what the word Lucifer actually meant?
Lucifer was the Latin name for the planet Venus when it preceeded the sun. Hence, it is the bright morning star. A different name was used for evening, Hesperos.
So the Vulgate used Lucifer in two places. Isaiah 14:12, and 2 Peter 1:19.
Isaiah 14:12 Vulgate
(12) quomodo cecidisti de caelo lucifer qui mane oriebaris corruisti in terram qui vulnerabas gentes
Isaiah 14:12 Vulgate
(12) quomodo cecidisti de caelo lucifer qui mane oriebaris corruisti in terram qui vulnerabas gentes
Interestingly, translations like the KJV and the Challoner DRB retained the reference to Lucifer in Isaiah, but not in 2 Peter.
Then along comes the place where the common interpretation of Isaiah 14 comes from. Dante’s Inferno. That’s right, until that period of time, I can find nothing that indicates that Isaiah 14 was generally perceived to be a reference to Satan. But with the popularity and power of that novel, the use of Lucifer as a name for Satan seems to have solidly enterred our culture.
Now the interesting thing indeed is the whole Isaiah passage is a paraphrase, it’s not hard to translate. It says “Helel, son of Shackar” which means exactly nothing to most people whether living or dead.
Our research has indicated its a reference to Canaanite mythology. Certainly those to whom it was written understood it, but it’s been largely lost. As we understand it, Helel, a minor god tries to take over, and he was hurled down to the underworld after he failed.
So it’s a taunt to a Babylonian king who thinks too highly of himself and who is going to be hurled down.
Not a direct reference to Satan, though I’m sure some similarities exist.
It continues to be paraphrased in translations because doing a literal translation would still be meaningless. And the paraphrase is basically correct in its meaning. The major difficulty comes from groups that proclaim the superiority or infallibility of older translations and then overlay an interpretation of the passage right out of Dante’s Inferno.
Hope that helps.
J
Jehuty_X
Guest
// yes it is interesting…i was reading the castillian version of the latin vulgate translated by bishop felix torres amat along with the castillian version of the jerusalem bible and it’s translated correctly as lucero which means the same thing as lucifer…Interestingly, translations like the KJV and the Challoner DRB retained the reference to Lucifer in Isaiah, but not in 2 Peter.
// i was searching on the internet about it and interesting the douai-rheims and authorized version did not translate it…the newer versions translate it…
- Status
- Not open for further replies.