"Luciferase"?

Hey Blowhard UGC, can you tell me if this is a correct translation of 2 Peter 1:19?

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:​
 
Lucifer means "light bearer".

Lucifer was the Latin name for the planet Venus when it appears as the morning star.

The 1968 Cassell's New Latin Dictionary indicated that the Latin word "lucifer" comes from two root words meaning "light-bearing, light-bringing" and that it would be translated into English as "Lucifer, the morning star, the planet Venus." According to the English-Latin section of this dictionary, the translation of "morning-star" in English is given as "lucifer" in Latin.
The Oxford Latin Dictionary gave two definitions for lucifer: “light-bringing, light-bearing” and “the morning star” (p. 1045).
The Oxford Dictionary of Word Histories affirmed that Lucifer is “a Latin word originally, meaning ’light-bringing, morning star” (p. 309). At its entry for day-star, John White listed “lucifer” as its meaning in Latin (Latin-English Dictionary, p. 100). For Lucifer, this definition is given: “the morning-star, the planet Venus” (p. 355).

The 1828 Webster's Dictionary defined daystar as following: "The morning star, Lucifer, Venus; the star which precedes the morning light." In her 1997-1998 catalogue, Gail Riplinger claimed that the 1828 Webster's Dictionary "defines words as they were used during the writing of the KJV 1611."

The 1992 Roget's International Thesaurus listed as synonyms: "morning star, day star, Lucifer, Phosphor, Phosphorus" (p. 757).
Rodale’s Synonym Finder listed the following as synonyms for morning star: “daystar, bright planet; Venus, Lucifer, Phosphor, Phosphorus” (p. 750).

The preponderance of evidence shows that the renderings "Lucifer," "daystar," and "morning star" were used as synonyms.
 
i.e. the planet Venus as seen before dawn (in its evening aspect, Venus was known as Vesper).
Those who did not know the God of Israel nicknamed Venus as such because it is an object that bears light.

You need to read a book on fallacies, you're so incredibly lost in terrible rationalization.

Not all "lucifers" are stars, because that is not the definition of lucifer. However, pagans can nickname anything that "bears light" as a lucifer. You proved my point with matches.

By your reasoning, you must conclude: "all lucifers are stars, and all stars are lucifers", because you are literally saying the definition of lucifer is "morning star" and inserting pagan associations with the word that have nothing to do with either God or the original definition of the word into the Bible.

We do not use the world's pagan nicknames for random objects and backwards insert them into the actual definition of the word, and you certainly do not eisegetically insert them into the Bible.

You do everything backwards. No wonder your doctrine is all messed up and shares nothing in common with orthodox Baptist doctrine.
 
We do not use the world's pagan nicknames for random objects and backwards insert them into the actual definition of the word, and you certainly do not eisegetically insert them into the Bible.

You do everything backwards. No wonder your doctrine is all messed up and shares nothing in common with orthodox Baptist doctrine.
Speaking of inserting pagan names into the Bible...did you celebrate easter this year?
 
You need to read a book on fallacies, you're so incredibly lost in terrible rationalization.

Which book contains the "fallacy of calling things by proper names used for them historically"?

Nitwit.

Not all "lucifers" are stars

Correct. Some of them are matches, and at least two are fourth-century Christian bishops (of Cagliari and Siena).

Amazingly, a word or symbol can have different meanings in different contexts.

Numskull.

because that is not the definition of lucifer.

There isn't a "the" definition of lucifer.

Nimrod.

However, pagans can nickname anything that "bears light" as a lucifer. You proved my point with matches.

Of course, this claim that "lucifer" was a pagan nickname for matches will go undocumented. I'm sure you were hoping you wouldn't be challenged on it.

Too bad. Put up or shut up.

Numpty.

By your reasoning, you must conclude: "all lucifers are stars, and all stars are lucifers"

Wrong. It was the proper name given to a star. No one implied it was the proper name for all stars.

Nincompoop.

because you are literally saying the definition of lucifer is "morning star"

And you additionally don't know the meaning of "literally."

Ninny.

As I said . . . all hot air, no substance. You haven't got the wits God gave an amoeba. Go somewhere and drool quietly to yourself.
 
did you celebrate easter this year?
Lol you do know the reasoning behind this one, right. I'm tired of constantly demolishing your guys' lackluster arguments. Polish yourselves up but please, don't call yourselves lucifers after you do.

And for my simple analysis of "Lucifer":
That's why it's more important to pray, study logic, and hone your own critical thinking abilities through practice,

rather than just falling back on "popular literature" or taking a position based on which group you feel writes in the most poetic or aristocratic way, meanwhile "those Ruckmanoids are all foul in language therefore they must be of lower intelligence".

Don't be this guy
 
Hey Simpleton UGC, when Isaiah 14:4 says he was writing to the king of Babylon, who does it "literally" mean Isaiah was addressing?

Bwahahahaha!

What a dullard you are Go back "underground" and pick your nose some more.
 
Lol you do know the reasoning behind this one, right.
I know what KJV morons say is behind this one. They've presented no evidence that reason was employed. Indeed, your average KJV-onlyist proves by word and deed that he doesn't have the mental horsepower to roll a Hot Wheels downhill.

Case in point: Did you answer my question yet about 2 Peter? Or should I just add it to the list of simple questions that you have used to proclaim your cowardice to the world?
 
You can always tell when Ransom gets proven wrong because he suddenly ramps up his insults and gets speedy-fingers.

His face is no doubt lit up in anger. Hey guys, lucifer means "face" now. Record this: "In 2020, angry faces were called lucifers. Therefore, Isaiah 14:12 is talking about the King of Babylon's face, not Satan. If you just take the Bible literally here, this only further strengthens our argument that it's a human king, because humans have faces."
 
We do not use the world's pagan nicknames for random objects and backwards insert them into the actual definition of the word, and you certainly do not eisegetically insert them into the Bible.
KJV Acts 12:14
And when he had apprehended him, he put him in prison, and delivered him to four quaternions of soldiers to keep him; intending after Easter to bring him forth to the people.

What don't you do again?
 
The Bog Fish resurfaces: "tell us, UGC! tell us the meaning of easter!"

sam.gif

You guys liking those UGC Bible Studies? Getting sanctified by the washing of water of the word? Literally?

...Literally?
 
No. Since I am a Bible believer who interprets the Bible in its most natural sense, I believe it's talking about the king of Babylon (14:4).

I'm with you on that interpretation. I'm also Dispensational.
 
You can always tell when Ransom gets proven wrong because he suddenly ramps up his insults and gets speedy-fingers.

And now, let us juxtapose . . .

You need to read a book on fallacies, you're so incredibly lost in terrible rationalization.

and . . .

By your reasoning, you must conclude: "all lucifers are stars, and all stars are lucifers", because you are literally saying the definition of lucifer is "morning star"

Here is what I said:

Lucifer was the Latin proper name of the morning star, i.e. the planet Venus as seen before dawn

Now, of course, this happens to be factually true. You only need to look up "Lucifer" in a dictionary. In the online Merriam-Webster, as well as my own Concise Oxford, it's the second definition. (In Webster's 1828 edition, appealed to by so many KJV nuts, it's the first definition..)

So, since premise professional UGC wants me to read up on fallacies, let's convert this to a standard proposition form: Some things named "Lucifer" are stars. That's a particular affirmative (i.e. form I).

Local logician UGC thinks I "must conclude" from this that All things named "Lucifer" are stars. In other words, he tries to go from a particular affirmative to a universal affirmative (from form I to form A).

This is known as the fallacy of composition, confusing a property of a particular with a property of a universal. This ball is orange does not entail All balls are orange.

Authority on Aristotle UGC then further asserts that if I must conclude All things named "Lucifer" are stars, I must further conclude that All stars are things named "Lucifer".

This is known as the fallacy of false conversion, illicitly swapping the subject and predicate. All dogs are four-legged does not entail All things with four legs are dogs.

Syllogism specialist UGC wants me to read up on fallacies, and in the same breath commits two obvious ones that a first-year arts student would spot.

If the forerunner of fallacies and schlepper of sophistry UGC is put out by being called a numskull, maybe he should consider being less insensate in the cranial area.

P.S. Did I mention there was a book about fallacies right next to the computer the whole time? Classical Rhetoric for the Modern Student by Edward P. J. Corbett. The numskull couldn't even get that right.
 
Last edited:
Lol you do know the reasoning behind this one, right.

Yes, we all know the "reasoning" behind this one.

The Blessed Version King James Bible uses the word "Easter" to translate the Greek word for "Passover" in exactly one place because Herod Agrippa I who was part Jewish and part Idumean and was nominally Jewish and regarded favourably by the Judeans as a fellow Jew was actually a worshipper of the Babylonian fertility goddess Astarte for some reason so he tried to have Peter executed on a pagan feast day in her honour and this pleased the Jews for some reason and that's why the Christian celebration of the Resurrection is named after an Anglo-Saxon dawn goddess.

Jack H. Hyles, the logic is inescapable. (But you'd know all about "logic," right UG? Since you actually saw a book once?)
 
I'm with you on that interpretation. I'm also Dispensational.
I didn't realize John MacArthur was a "dispy"

"the king of Babylon. This could refer to the final AntiChrist, who will rule Babylon, which will rule the earth (Rev. 17:17,18)" - The MacArthur Bible Commentary, page 777 (interesting page #, eh?)


Dake Reference Bible:

Notes For Verse 4
a [proverb] Hebrew: mashal (HSN-<H4912>), a taunt or triumph song (note a, Prov. 1:1). The Septuagint reads lamentation over the king of Babylon (the Antichrist, Isa. 14:4). Since a future generation of Israel would not be taking up a triumph song against a king of the past who had not oppressed them, it seems clear that the whole passage pictures something in the future to be fulfilled in the Millennium.

Notes For Verse 5
a [the wicked] The Antichrist is particularly called "the wicked" (Isa. 14:5; 11:4) and "that Wicked" (2Th. 2:8), because he is that man of sin who is to oppose God and all that is called God (2Th. 2:3-4).

Dake's Annotated Reference Bible.

Fourteen Facts about the Antichrist

1. The king of Babylon (Isa. 14:4)

2. The wicked (Isa. 14:5; 11:4; 2Th. 2:8)

3. Supreme power of rulers (Isa. 14:5)

4. The destroyer of people (Isa. 14:6)

5. Ruler of nations (Isa. 14:6; Rev. 17:12-17)

6. Persecutor of saints (Isa. 14:6; Rev. 13)

7. Oppressor of earth (Isa. 14:16)

8. Conqueror of nations

9. Scourge of the earth (Isa. 14:17,20)

10. Destroyer of cities (Isa. 14:17)

11. Unmerciful to captives

12. Betrayer and murderer of his own people (Isa. 14:20)

13. The Assyrian (Isa. 14:25; Mic. 5:1-8)

14. Oppressor of Israel (Isa. 14:25)

Dake's Annotated Reference Bible.
 
Bullinger:
king of Babylon. Fig. Polyonymia. One of the names for the Antichrist. See note on Da 7:8.
 
MacArthur is a soft Dispensationalist. I'm not comfortable using the term, myself, because of the connection to the Dallas extremes.
 
MacArthur is a soft Dispensationalist. I'm not comfortable using the term, myself, because of the connection to the Dallas extremes.
Just goes to show that he's not always wrong, in fact, he's probably more right than wrong on most subjects.
 
You only need to look up "Lucifer" in a dictionary.
Another case of you going with pop culture instead of using your brain.

Dictionaries are constantly updating and changing the definitions of words to match the culture of the times.

That's why almost all of them have the false definition of repentance today:
for example, Google had the correct definition of metanoia just a few years ago, but recently changed it to help bring on the falling away from sound doctrine deception.

NOW IT SAYS THIS:
Screen Shot 2020-05-07 at 10.34.11 PM.png

Of course, this is works salvation as we will see soon with UGC Bible Studies.

Also, Dallas was certainly not extreme in their Dispensational view, they held to Classical Dispensationalism and are actually now compromising slightly into Progressive Dispensationalism, which attempts to soften its differences with Covenant Theology.

MacArthur
just fused aspects of Dispensationalism with Calvinism (Calvin was considered fringe by standard Baptist preachers at the time, and Satan made him famous in times of apostasy once again with the "New Calvinist Movement" because he adopted a CATHOLIC doctrine of soteriology: "Perseverance of the Saints"). Then he front-loaded the false definition of metanoia into the Gospel, adding a requirement to live obediently by following the law in addition to this already CATHOLIC doctrine.

CATHOLICISM is the extreme for protestants, not Classical Dispensationalism.

Extreme Dispensationalists would include Hyperdispensationalists like the Mid-Acts and especially the Acts 28 guys, however they get the Gospel of Salvation correct (so I still call them brethren and can fellowship with them), while everyone in the Lordship salvation camp is under the curse of a false Gospel according to what we'll see from UGC Bible Studies soon: we are the final leg (or at least one of them) in refinement for understanding the scriptures as a whole.

This is why Dr. Charles Ryrie (Classical Dispensationalism) was staunchly against MacArthur's Lordship Salvation view. Dr. Ryrie was one of the last brilliant and gifted theologians of our time, and now it's up to the Dispensationlists to fight the false, accursed Gospel of Lordship Salvation, because Paul said to the church: if any man preach another Gospel of salvation to them, let them be accursed.

Our Bible Studies WILL change the game. In the name of Jesus.
 
Last edited:
Here, this is not one of our videos, but it's a truly outstanding and enjoyable presentation on the topic. The man is solid on his teachings.

He used to follow MacAthur, so he has a balanced and fair understanding, having been in both sides' shoes:

 
Top