"Luciferase"?

Twisted

Well-known member
Doctor
Registered
Joined
May 5, 2016
Messages
13,236
Reaction score
130
Points
63
You can't make this stuff up.

 

voicecrying

Active member
Registered
Joined
Jul 26, 2019
Messages
280
Reaction score
52
Points
28
Age
52
Can you give a brief summary? Not sure I have the time to watch that long of a video only to find it was a waste of time.
 

Twisted

Well-known member
Doctor
Registered
Joined
May 5, 2016
Messages
13,236
Reaction score
130
Points
63
Can you give a brief summary? Not sure I have the time to watch that long of a video only to find it was a waste of time.
??? It starts right at the section, at around 1 hour, 23 minutes.
 

voicecrying

Active member
Registered
Joined
Jul 26, 2019
Messages
280
Reaction score
52
Points
28
Age
52
??? It starts right at the section, at around 1 hour, 23 minutes.
Ah, didn't catch that. Thanks. I saw it the video was well over an hour long and bailed the 1st time.

I don't put much stock in the name. Doesn't Lucifer mean light-bearer or something like that? Makes sense that something light related would use the same root word.
 

Ransom

I know all about wind
Staff member
Administrator
Doctor
Registered
Joined
Jan 25, 2012
Messages
8,193
Reaction score
190
Points
63
Luciferase is one of the enzymes that cause bioluminescence, e.g. in fireflies. "Lucifer" is Latin for "light bearer."

It has nothing to do with Satan. Calm your tots.
 

Tarheel Baptist

Well-known member
Doctor
Registered
Joined
Jan 27, 2012
Messages
7,858
Reaction score
54
Points
48
Luciferase is one of the enzymes that cause bioluminescence, e.g. in fireflies. "Lucifer" is Latin for "light bearer."

It has nothing to do with Satan. Calm your tots.
If your authority was the King James Bible 1611, you’d be just as concerned as twister.
Hayman!
 

UGC

FagBoyCigar
Joined
Jan 18, 2020
Messages
1,289
Reaction score
34
Points
48
"Lucifer" is Latin for "light bearer."

It has nothing to do with Satan. Calm your tots.
Do you believe Isaiah 14:12 is talking about a light bearer or the morning star?
 

Ransom

I know all about wind
Staff member
Administrator
Doctor
Registered
Joined
Jan 25, 2012
Messages
8,193
Reaction score
190
Points
63
And, speaking of tots, right on schedule . . .

Do you believe Isaiah 14:12 is talking about a light bearer or the morning star?
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).

Go peddle your dispy allegories elsewhere.
 

UGC

FagBoyCigar
Joined
Jan 18, 2020
Messages
1,289
Reaction score
34
Points
48
Go peddle your dispy allegories elsewhere.
I didn't bring up any "dispy"

I believe it's talking about the king of Babylon (14:4)
14:9 "Hell from beneath is moved for thee to meet thee at thy coming:..."

Pretty important king. Hell was moved just to meet him.

"it stirreth up the dead for thee, even all the chief ones of the earth; it hath raised up from their thrones all the kings of the nations."
So you're saying this verse is not anthropomorphizing hell? So hell literally "stirs up" the dead? Does it use a spoon?

"...it hath raised up from their thrones all the kings of the nations. 10 All they shall speak and say unto thee, Art thou also become weak as we? art thou become like unto us?"

Question. Why do all of the kings of the nations care about this one king of Babylon? Aren't they kings to? What makes this chump so special?
Why are they surprised he became as weak as them if he's just another king like them, why are they all astounded that he became "like unto" them in this new weakness?

If he's just a regular human king, other kings wouldn't look at him as less than their equal, neither would they all be surprised he "became like them", neither would they all even care about this one king, neither would hell care to take its spoon and stir it all up for him so that they could all collectively give him their attention for these things.



"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."

So I'm guessing you have to take a fringe, unorthodox view that this is not talking about Satan, but just some measly human king. I guess this king wanted to fly above the clouds and be like the most High (no allegory, remember), no wonder all the other kings were concerned about him.

It's hilarious how anti-"dispys" allegorize literal passages while taking obviously allegorized passages literally.
 
Last edited:

Ransom

I know all about wind
Staff member
Administrator
Doctor
Registered
Joined
Jan 25, 2012
Messages
8,193
Reaction score
190
Points
63
14:9 "Hell from beneath is moved for thee to meet thee at thy coming:..."

Pretty important king. Hell was moved just to meet him.
The most powerful ruler of the known world? How important do you think he was?

So you're saying this verse is not anthropomorphizing hell?
So hell literally "stirs up" the dead? Does it use a spoon?
What in the world are you blabbering about now?

ts;dr (too stupid; didn't read).
 

logos1560

Active member
Registered
Joined
Jun 29, 2012
Messages
553
Reaction score
29
Points
28
What did the KJV translators themselves mean by the choice of the word "Lucifer" in Isaiah 14:12?

The 1611 KJV gives in its margin the literal meaning or acceptable alternative translation for "Lucifer" as "daystar."

The KJV translators were aware of the marginal note in the 1560 Geneva Bible ["for the morning star that goeth before the son is called Lucifer"] at this verse, and they would have recognized that their marginal note at this verse would have associated this meaning “daystar” or “morning star” with this rendering “Lucifer.“

D. A. Waite seemed to suggest that alternative translations in the marginal notes of the 1611 N. T. were “merely synonyms of words that could have been used rather than the ones chosen to put into the text itself” so would he say the same about the marginal notes of the 1611 O. T.?” (Fundamentalist Distortions, p. 18).

In a sermon, KJV translator Lancelot Andrewes referred to "St Peter's Lucifer in cordibus [daystar in your hearts]" (Hewison, Selected Writings, p. 112). An edition of the Latin Vulgate printed with the 1538 Coverdale’s English translation of its New Testament has “lucifer oriator in cordib” in its Latin text at 2 Peter 1:19 with its rendering in English as “the day star arise in your hearts”. Lancelot Andrewes evidently cited or used the Latin Vulgate’s word Lucifer in his sermon with the meaning “daystar.” Daystar is Old English for morning star. A 1672 edition of the KJV has the following note at Isaiah 14:12: “for the morning-star that goeth before the sun is called Lucifer.”

The 1534 Luther’s German Bible, which is on the KJV-only line of good Bibles, has “morgen stern” [morning star] at Isaiah 14:12.
 

illinoisguy

Active member
Registered
Joined
Jan 1, 2019
Messages
353
Reaction score
67
Points
28
In ancient times, Lucifer simply meant Morning Star or day-star, and had no diabolical connotation. In the 4th Century AD there was a Christian bishop named Lucifer, of Calaris in Sardinia, who for a while was association with the Novatian sect, and who died in 371 AD. The original word for Lucifer in the Hebrew is heylel, which means brightness, morning star, shining star, shining one, star of the morning, day-star or shining gleam. In Isaiah 14, it is a reference to the pride and arrogance of the King of Babylon. Not until 405 AD did Jerome translate this word as "Lucifer" in the Latin Vulgate, from which we get the idea that it is talking about the Devil, an idea later popularized in the 17th Century by John Milton in his "Paradise Lost." But in Isaiah 14:16 we see that the personage described here is a man, not an angelic being. The location is in Babylon, not some place before the world was created. He weakened the nations, 14:12, and shook kingdoms, which could not apply to the fall of Satan which took place before there were any nations or kingdoms on earth. He is described in 14:19-20 as not having an honorable burial but rather being cast out of his grave. Clearly Isaiah is talking about an ordinary man with an ordinary body here, not the Devil who is a spirit being. We are talking about the shame and disgrace of the fall of the King of Babylon here. In 14:16 we are told that everyone looks narrowly on him, considering him in amazement, saying, "Who could have thought he should ever come to this?" His dynasty and his posterity are completely destroyed, 14:20-22.

Sorry, but we are not interested in these dispy allegories that transmute the "King of Babylon" into the Devil. The dispensationalists are the ones who say that Bible interpretation must be "literal if possible' but they don't practice what they preach.
 

UGC

FagBoyCigar
Joined
Jan 18, 2020
Messages
1,289
Reaction score
34
Points
48
Lucifer simply meant Morning Star or day-star
acceptable alternative translation for "Lucifer" as "daystar."
No, Ransom was right on this particular point.

Lucifer means "light bearer". A Star can bear light, but that does not make it a Lucifer. By that fallacy, fires, flashlights, and anything else that bears light are Lucifers too.

We'd be able to call firefighters "Lucifer fighters".

If I say something is a "shaker", that word is not synonymous with "earthquake", even though earthquakes shake. It could be a salt shaker.
Similarly, Lucifer has nothing to do with a star by simple definition of the word.

Ransom's ability to use logic on occasion exceeds your usual fallacies, Projector, it's just he has an emotional bias and hatred toward all things remotely KJV-O (evident by his avatar), therefore he cannot allow himself to align with any doctrine KJV users hold. So even though he's wrong on Lucifer because he has to adopt the fringe view in teenage rebellion to the KJV, determined to believe anything but the fact that the New Versions make Satan Jesus in Isaiah 14:12, for that would cause massive cognitive dissonance in his mind and force him to side with KJV-O people (he can't allow that, even if he has to reject truth God reveals to him, he'd rather believe a lie than do that), he was still closer than you.

The KJV translators were wrong on this point by lazily adding the Geneva Bible's "commentary" on the side of a page on the KJV.
 
Last edited:

illinoisguy

Active member
Registered
Joined
Jan 1, 2019
Messages
353
Reaction score
67
Points
28
Ugg's response comes as no surprise. Since the Scofield notes say that Isaiah 14 is about the Devil, not the King of Babylon, he has to blindly accept that without question, because his false god Peter Ruckman taught that Scofield was receiving "advanced revelation from the Holy Spirit." Never mind that Scofield said his reference notes were based on the scholarship of Westcott and Hort. The whole Ruckmanoid theological system is a logical contradiction. They tell us that Westcott and Hort were emissaries of Satan, but then they tell us that we must blindly follow the dispensational malarkey of Scofield who says in his "Introduction - To Be Read" that he based it on Westcott and Hort.

Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain, and Avoid The Ruckmanoid.
 

UGC

FagBoyCigar
Joined
Jan 18, 2020
Messages
1,289
Reaction score
34
Points
48
Since the Scofield notes say that Isaiah 14 is about the Devil, not the King of Babylon, he has to blindly accept that without question
No, I simply believe the accurate definition of the word "Lucifer" and don't change the definition of it to mean "morning star".

That word means neither "morning", nor "star". Nor does it mean "day". It means light bearer. Anyone throughout history who added these definitions was wrong.

The dispensationalists are the ones who say that Bible interpretation must be "literal if possible' but they don't practice what they preach.
Too bad you didn't read my refutation of Ransom's fringe viewpoint:

So you're saying this verse is not anthropomorphizing hell? So hell literally "stirs up" the dead? Does it use a spoon?
"it stirreth up the dead for thee, even all the chief ones of the earth; it hath raised up from their thrones all the kings of the nations."

Do you also believe Daniel 10:13 is talking about a "human" Prince of Persia? Was the angel bringing the message to Daniel STOPPED by a "human" Prince?
Is the Michael who came to fend off the Prince of Persia also a "human prince", or an archangel?

"But the prince of the kingdom of Persia withstood me one and twenty days: but, lo, Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me; and I remained there with the kings of Persia."


It's hilarious how anti-"dispys" allegorize literal passages while taking obviously allegorized passages literally.

The "light bearer" or "shining one" is obviously Satan in this passage. You guys need to read a book on logic.
 
Last edited:

Ransom

I know all about wind
Staff member
Administrator
Doctor
Registered
Joined
Jan 25, 2012
Messages
8,193
Reaction score
190
Points
63
No, Ransom was right on this particular point.
Good. Ransom agrees with them on this particular point. "Lucifer" was the morning star.

Lucifer means "light bearer". A Star can bear light, but that does not make it a Lucifer.
Lucifer was the Latin proper name of the morning star, i.e. the planet Venus as seen before dawn (in its evening aspect, Venus was known as Vesper).

In Greek, the equivalents were Hesperus and Phosphorus, respectively.

And in Hebrew, the morning star was Helel, and it has been suggested that ayish was the evening star, although that is more likely the name of a constellation (Job. 9:9; 38:32). The "queen of heaven" in Jeremiah 18 is also an indirect reference to Venus, as the planet was a symbol of the goddess Astarte.

By that fallacy, fires, flashlights, and anything else that bears light are Lucifers too.
Matches were, in fact, once known as "lucifers." So much for your argument.
 
Last edited:

Ransom

I know all about wind
Staff member
Administrator
Doctor
Registered
Joined
Jan 25, 2012
Messages
8,193
Reaction score
190
Points
63
Flip flopped faster than a politician!
Ignorance of the use of language on your part does not constitute a "flip flop" on mine.

I notice you haven't even tried to engage with what I said before you try to spin some wild fantasy about my motives. How do you know I "flip flopped"? Can you show me a previous post where I said something different?

Of course not. You're just making up BS to cover up the fact that you are an utter ignoramus.

I doubt you even consulted a dictionary, let alone any sort of in-depth reference material.

Heck, I doubt you could spell enough of "dictionary" to find one on the shelf.

Idiot.
 
Last edited:

Ransom

I know all about wind
Staff member
Administrator
Doctor
Registered
Joined
Jan 25, 2012
Messages
8,193
Reaction score
190
Points
63
Hey Ignoramus UGC, why don't you tell us all what reference works you consulted to determine that "lucifer" could never mean the morning star? I say you're nothing but another stupid fundy blowhard who makes up for his complete lack of knowledge with windbaggery.
 
Top