Posted by rpcman on April 07, 1998 at 16:14:01:
mikeyom writes:
The issue is defined as:
"Did JS plagiarize the KJV of the Holy Bible as an independent translation?"
The consequence being:
If yes, JS was a fraud,
If no, the jury would still be out pending other facts.
Specifically, the accusation is JS continued the misquote of the Babylonian word Helel into the Latin word Lucifer. Both words are reference to the Morning Star, which in turn was another name for Nebuchadnezzar, King of Babylon. All of the commentaries of this verse which I have read see in this a dual prophecy, a technique Isaiah used a frequently.
This is the same problem Mike which I went over with Kevin. Christians and Mormons are forced to reinterpret things in order to bring them into accordance with their current beliefs. If you read something scholarly, which wasn't based on Mormon apologetics, you won't find "all of the commentaries of this verse which I have read see in this a dual prophecy, a technique Isaiah used a frequently". This is a Mormon apologetic attempt to reconcile LDS belief with Biblical scholarship reality.
mikeyom continues:
Isaiah saw in this prophecy the same type of pride Satan had, and so the original term 'Helel' would also have applied to Satan.
Isaiah didn't see this. If he did, we have no evidence of it. Mormon apologists see this. The book Chris and I have discussed briefly, The Word of God, may be very enlightening for you.
mikeyom continues:
'Lucifer' is a another name for Satan.
It is to Christians only after Jerome's Latin Vulgate.
mikeyom continues:
In fact Shakespeare said, "How wretched Is that poor man that hangs on princes' favors! . . . When he falls, he falls like Lucifer, Never to hope again." So, while Isaiah did not write 'Lucifer' the verse he was writing was in reference to Satan...
This would only mean something if Shakespeare was born before Jerome. He wasn't so it turns into poor apologetics rather than decent scholarship.
mikeyom concludes:
Conclusion:
This passage does not prove fraudulence on the part of JS.
Conclusion:
You see only what you already believe and have a difficult time (because of this) seeing the forest for the trees.