"This text (Isa 14:12 ff.) is represented as "spoken" by restored Israel (Isa. 14:1-2) after their future restoration and at the downfall of the "King of Babylon" which takes place during the 7th vial (Rev. 16:19, Rev. 19:20). The fall of this King of Babylon-- directly describes the future fall of Antichrist-- who is given power by Satan--but who is not Satan himself.
Satan himself is here indeed suffering a great defeat/fall, as both the Beast (which represents the civil power of the present European Union) and the False Prophet (which represents the religious power of Antichrist/the Man of Sin/The Office of Pontifex Maximus) are cast down into the lake of fire.
Satan himself however is not cast into the lake of fire until Rev. 20:10--after the Millenium--after the little season of Satan-- and "at" the bodily second coming of Jesus Christ. Notice that Satan is cast into the lake of fire where the Beast and the False Prophet already are--which obviously implies that they were cast down first.
Thus, in my judgment, as one considers the context--Isa 14:12 is describing "a fall" of Satan's most powerful helper/office --in language that merely parallels the literal fall of Satan himself.
The only ENGLISH motto that Chicago has is seen in their stature: The Chicago "I Will" Figure http://www.chipublib.org/004chicago/chiiwill.html
the LATIN motto is Urbs in Horto (not translated)`Urbs in Horto' at the bottom of the shield=======so the ONLY English motto is "I Will"
=========What Engineer so helpfully said(Using every one of his words & sentences in order to avoid creating a misimpression, or change a meaning.)===4/26/9:18amabout Chicago's flag)Wikipedia:"The fourth star represents the Century of Progress Exposition (1933-1934), and was added in 1933. Its points refer to: the World's Third Largest City, Chicago's Latin Motto (Urbs in horto - City in a garden),
Chicago's "I Will" Motto,
Great Central Marketplace, Wonder City, Convention City. "
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Municipal_Flag_of_Chicago(authoritative)
also citing "I Will" as an official Chicago motto ..
www.chicagocyclingclub.org/merch/symbols.htmlwww.crwflags.com/fotw/flags/us-il-ch.html
==BEST?in the same spirit:the Chicago IRS has 2 mottos:
Remember, our motto is, "We're here to please." Our other motto is, "Questions come in two forms: stupid and very stupid, which one are you?"
http://www.chicagotribune.com (etc) see below
I'd like to go back a few hours to point something out that shows up in various posts by various people, often the ones critically accusing "per" versions for doing what the critics do in their posts. That is to change a word or sentence here or there in order to create an impression, or change a meaning.
4/26/9:18am/Engineer: "An example of why I don't trust other's'authoritative' citesof dictionarylexiconhistory...Chicago's "I Will" Motto, though Mike says it isn't, below says an official motto of Chicago is (in English) "I Will""
4/25/11:49pm, Mike actually said:
"The official motto of Chicago is (in English) City in a Garden. from-
http://www.gochicago.com/outdoors/
See the difference? btw, gochicago.com is the official Chicago and Illinois Tourist Office website, thus quite authoritative, don't you think?
Further, what was Mike responding to?
4/25/9:09pm/Daniel: "(I will," is also the official motto of the U.S. city sporting zip code 60606. In 1966, this same city hatched the NIV.)
But it isn't *the* official motto, according to the City's own website and corporate seal. The dots don't connect 'hatching' of NIV(1967-68 still) to Chicago "I Will" to Lucifer's 5 'I wills'
[There be many words in the Scriptures which be never found there but once, (having neither brother nor neighbour, as the Hebrews speak) so that we cannot be holpen by conference of places. Again, there be many rare names of certain birds, beasts, and precious stones, &c., concerning which the Hebrews themselves are so divided among themselves for judgement, that they may seem to have defined this or that, rather because they would say something, than because they were sure of that which they said, as S. Hierome somewhere saith of the Septuagint. Now in such a case, doth not a margin do well to admonish the reader to seek further, and not to conclude or dogmatize upon this or that peremptorily? For as it is a fault of incredulity, to doubt of those things that are evident, so to determine of such things as the Spirit of God hath left (even in the judgement of the judicious) questionable, can be no less than presumption. Therefore as S. Augustine saith, that variety of translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures: so diversity of signification and sense in the margin, where the text is not so clear, must needs do good, yea, is necessary, as we are persuaded.]
More tomorrow.
That satanic reference is a popular one. A few years ago a friend loaned me a tape from a popular South American evangelist. He spoke for forty minutes about the fall of Satan described in this particular chapter. By the time he was through, Satan was once the prince of the Milky Way angelic hosts and his power was now circumscribed to lowly planet earth alone.
Calvin would certainly disagree with this satanic reference. In his commentary he states: "The exposition of this passage which some have given, as if it referred to Satan, has arisen from ignorance, for the context shows that these statements must be understood in reference to the King of the Babylonians."
Even while this passage can not be referred specifically to Satan, we may understand that his shadow lies behind the personality of the King of Babylon. You see, by his self-deification, the King of Babylon proves that he is a type of Satan, who is by nature anti-Christ. To this very fallen human prince, this half chapter would focus our attention." (M.A. Forsythe)www.tulip.org/trf/isa14a.htm
Are the AV translators right? Are you sure they are right? Do you accept their scholarship and integrity? Do you believe they correctly translated the King James Bible? Can their word be trusted as to this version of the scriptures? Can their comments as to their finished work be accepted as truthful?
I say a resounding, "Yes!"
Tomorrow I will show you just where you are wrong on this. And if I am not able to do this, I assure you that I will concede the point. But it is an important point!
p.s. Sometimes current posts do not appear on my screen until after I have posted, so I apologise for my last one.
1. I start off trusting God's word -the AV1611 ---
2.Then, if so inclined, I look to see why the providence of God led the godly translators to their wording choice (in prayer, as a group, with input from the church at large in that great age before our Laodicean retardation).
3. I see the implications of the proposed alternatives (such as making Christ fall from heaven, or exalting Lucifer into the NT as a 'morning star).
4. Don't trust people citing a dictionary/lexicon( finding meanings of the AV's choice in both Latin and Heb. that resonate with NT allusions to false gods.)
5.Good example of an AV proponent responding to a single use word is here:http://jacklewis.net/kjvniv/KJV5.htm`ataktos'
6. The King James Verison Defended by Edward F. Hills www.biblebelievers.com/KJV_Defended_Hills.html orwww.wayoflife.org/fbns/textof.htmThe 'logic of faith' quoted often byDr. Waite (on SA)
Has my comment been ignored?
Perhaps you do realise that I am right in what I say.
In the Authorized Bible Preface the translators themselves consider the Authorized Bible 1611a Bible "not justly to be excepted against"
THE "one principal good" translation(yeah, those are direct quotes, look'em up)&If one were to "except against" the King James, this is ,by the standards of the translators"not justly" done.because it is "through the good hand of the Lord upon us" that the 1611 Bible was born.John you said 'translators' of the KJV "translators did not accept that their new version was perfect"you are wrong.the quotes above show you to be wrong.You have "excepted against" the King James Bible,which the translators say cannot be "justly" done.You are , by the translator's definition :unjust.God will let those who WANT no perfect word to have their wayRe. 22:11 "let him be unjust still"
see this over in 'versions' thread..
Hel (a pagan goddess, and also a ref. to the blinding fire/brightness of Hell) + el -a god
Angels: An Endangered Species, by Malcolm Godwin, Simon and Schuster, New York, 1990, ISBN 0-671- 70650-0. On pgs. 91 and 92, are what the author says is "the original Canaanite version" of the Biblical passage Isaiah 14:12-14: How hast thou fallen from heaven, Helel's son Shaher!Thou didst say in thy heart, I will ascend to Heaven.Above the circumpolar stars I will raise my throneAnd I will dwell on the Mount of Council in the back of the NorthI will mount on the back of a cloud.I will be like unto Elyon.
Godwin says, "This ancient epic was recorded seven centuries before Christ in a Canaanite scripture.
On pg. 116, there is a note under the subtitle "The Nephilim," which states, "Helel: Son of the Canaanite Shaher who is often identified with Lucifer himself. But he is really the leader of the Nephelim,those gigantic offspring who were sired by the angels upon the daughters of Cain.These Nephelim were the builders of the Tower of Babel."Isaiah referenced the pagan gods when inspired to recast this.Calvin didn't know
2. The Bible refers to fallen angels as kings -- King of Persia, King of Grecia in Daniel 10.
3. We showed King of Tyre in Ezekiel is an angel -- a covering annointed cherub w/ musical abilities, tabrets; likewise Lucifer in Isaiah w/ his viols.
4. We showed Babylon refers to endtime world system, so the king of Babylon is not dead because Babylon is not destroyed yet, per Revelation.
5. We showed the king of Babylon can't be Nebuchadnezzer (he was a saved man). If it's Belshazzer, why not just say Belshazzer? Is Belshazzer a light bearer who wanted to be like the Most High? Anybody beside God name him Lucifer?
6. The church has, until Calvin, seen Isaiah 14 referring to Lucifer. To most people it's elementary "milk of the word" Lucifer means Satan. The powerful Luciferians who run this planet and worship him also think so.
7. The apologists for Lucifer -- who want him to be Belshazzer the Morning Star wanting to be like the Most High -- don't give an inch because they are Calvinists, and the Institutes are all they listen to.
quote:
[One way I'd confirm the AV translators are right: ]
But the KJV-only crowd do not say "Yes!" to all the above; or if they do, they are not aware yet of the evaluation of the 1611 AV given by the body of translators themselves.
The translators did not accept that their new version was perfect. The translators would have a lot of difficulty and controversy with the current KJV-only position. In fact, although the KJV-only defenders continually refer to the translators of the 1611 Bible, it is very clear to me that they have not yet read their own evaluation of that Bible. Am I not right?
I am reading every post on this subject with interest. It is only since I joined this group that my traditional view of Lucifer = Satan has changed to Lucifer = king of Babylon (type of Satan).
Arthur: Thanks a lot for your very clear and helpful comments.
http://icarus.umkc.edu/sandbox/perseus/shore.hor_eng/page.0.a.php
Horace, Odes, Epodes, and Carmen SaeculareBy Paul ShoreyNew York Benj. H. Sanborn and Co. 1910
we see Helel rightly translated Lucifer: not with a sterile evokation of 21st century astronomy,but understanding the pagan mindset : Venus means not 'how goes the heavens' but how to go to heaven.(in Origen's LXX `Phosphorus') = 2 faced figure in the heavenlies, as represented here : as Plato said (Among the dead) ...god of the dead/ god of hell...and in yesterday's cites a god (son of Jupiter) and yet a goddess(Diana).Helel="god of hell"
Interesing that Lucifer refers to 2 Pagan false 'gods'
both of which are mentioned in the Bible
Acts 14:13 Then the priest of Jupiter, which was before their city, brought oxen and garlands unto the gates, and would have done sacrifice with the peopleActs 19:... "Paul hath persuaded and turned away much people, saying that they be no gods, which are made with hands: 19:27 So that not only this our craft is in danger to be set at nought; but also that the temple of the great goddess Diana should be despised, and her magnificence should be destroyed, whom all Asia and the world worshippeth.Thus, without questionLucifer refers to a false 'god'as a LATIN word alone...and the inference of that false god is both 'male & female' as Bullingersays Lucifer impliesHelel, when split apart reads bright or clear god,or god of hell
He employs an elegant metaphor, by comparing him to Lucifer, and calls him the Son of the Dawn; and that on account of his splendor and brightness with which he shone above others.
The exposition of this passage, which some have given, as if it referred to Satan, has arisen from IGNORANCE; for the context plainly shows that these statements must be understood in reference to the king of the Babylonians.
But when passages of Scripture are taken up at random, and no attention is paid to the context, we need not wonder that mistakes of this kind frequently arise.
Yet it was an instance of very gross ignorance, to imagine that Lucifer was the king of devils, and that the Prophet gave him this name.
But as these inventions have no probability whatever, let us pass by them as USELESS FABLES."
remember that OC's point is that the
ENEMY
takes these numbers seriously.
We might joke about a serious attack on
the first tuesday of this coming
June...but I bet there are
nutcase /cult groups that would really
like the 'rep' of hitting a city,
etc. on
6/6/6...
Which is why Riplinger takes note of a plot to subvert God's word in a `numeric environment' attractive to those of a MINDSET that's given toLuciferian plotting.Shows she's read Blavatsky et. al. and understands that there IS a serious attempt to subvertGod's people.Doesn't matter if WE believe it.They do."Historically, Isaiah 14 has been used as the singular biography of Lucifer, shedding unique light upon the "mystery of iniquity." In verse twelve Lucifer is in heaven; in verse fifteen Satan is in hell. The intervening verses expose his pride in the five "I wills," each a rung in his descent into hell. (I will," is also the official motto of the U.S. city sporting zip code 60606. In 1966, this same city hatched the NIV.) "
4/25/06 9:09 PM Ford
quoting
angelfire.com/la/prophet1/prayingtoanewgod.html
See, Daniel was joking. He doesn't go for all that numerology divination stuff either. Glad of that!
The Illuminists never do what they do by chance; everything has to be done in accordance with the numbers.
The city of Washington DC is laid out by Masonic symbols. There are many "secret" meanings placed into our dollar.
Even the assassination of JFK was according to their numerology, likewise with the death of Gus Gissom and the others in the Apollo (hoax), the Challenger, 9/11.
Nothing is done by chance.
Their "secret knowledge" involves numerology, hand shakes, hand signals, secret messages placed in their logos such as the logo for McDonald's is 13 if you turn it on its side or the double cross in Exxon.
The Illuminati recognizes each other by these signals, and think they draw Satanic power by using them.
The Washington monument is covered with signs and symbols peculiar to the Masons/Illuminati. Likewise the Georgia Guidestones.
If they'd try surfing the Net or reading or listening to things other than NYTimes or Fox News, branch out, might learn something.
BTW, I just discovered GCN radio. WOW. Alex Jones live radio show, other good stuff. I click on channel 2. http://www.gcnlive.com/listenlive.htm
Page 1 | Jump to Page : 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 10 more | last
