Posted by mikeyom on April 07, 1998 at 18:21:57:
In Reply to: Lucifer 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.
:rpcman said:
: 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.
Michael replied:
A)You miss the point,
B)You make an assumption that what I have read
comes from "Mormon Apologetics",
and C)You are not being Honest in your approach.
A) It does not matter for the discussion, if
"Lucifer" is a reasonable Latin translation of
the Babylonian "Helel", what matters is that
JS's vocabulary associated the name "Lucifer"
with Satan. I clearly illustrated that it was
common to do that. Hence, by his vocabulary, if
he was associating that particular passage more
with Satan than the Babylonian King, than it was
an accurate translation into the common vocabulary
of the time.
B)I get my resources from numerous commentaries,
and feel by now that I have displayed an honest
approach to your "Honest Intellectual Inquiry"
page. If you like I can go through numerous quotes
of commentaries illustrating this. There are
to be sure those who deny a the theory that Isaiah
spoke dualistically, within the Christian world,
most prominent are the Churches of Christ.
C)You on the other hand are not honest. I clearly
illustrated that it was not a mistranslation to
coincident with Jerome's Vulgate, but can be traced
back to Tertullian. A point which is relatively
easy to verify, and a point which you avoid by
denying its existence, thus committing the fallacy
of exclusion. (Tertullian lived form ~160-240,
165 years before the Vulgate. Tertullian considered
this passage to be a reference to Satan also.)
:
: 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.
Michael replied:
You need to take a course in logic. AND THEN USE
IT. Simply because you have no evidence that
Isaiah was not referring to this is only proof
that you have no evidence to believe Isaiah was
referring to Satan in Isaiah 14:12. To assume
that LDS and Christian scholars who believe this
to be a reference to Satan are in error because of
this is committing the fallacy of argumentum ad
ignorantiam.
: mikeyom continues:
: 'Lucifer' is a another name for Satan.
rpcman said:
: It is to Christians only after Jerome's
Latin Vulgate.
Michael replied:
Again with the dishonesty. Within this statement
is a lie and a truth. The truth is that the term
'Lucifer' was a "scriptural" reference to Satan.
However, as I have previously illustrated
Tertullian, John, and Christ are amoung those who
assume this reference to be to Satan. Thus, whether
one considers this to be 'Helel' or 'Lucifer' is
irrelevant to the context and message of Isaiah
14:12, that is where the lie is.
:
: 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...
rpcman said:
: This would only mean something if Shakespeare
was born before Jerome. He wasn't so it turns
into poor apologetics rather than decent
scholarship.
Michael replied:
A)That would only mean something if Shakespeare
was a theologian (which he might have been), however
as a writer of some import, his effect on the
vocabulary of JS' time is not to be underestimated.
Thus, as a regular part of the vocabulary,
JS understood Lucifer to be synonymous with Satan.
B)Hence there was no poor apologetics, but rather
use of the common vernacular of Shakespeares time.
Again you commit several logical fallacies to
prove your argument.
Gee, now that it is clear your page is not what
you purport it to be, Honest Intellectual Inquiry,
and that you can't hold an arguement without
withholding relevent facts (Wife tells me I lie
when I do that about her Christmas Presents),
and that it is clear that Joseph Smith is in the
company of Tertullian, St. Gregory, Jerome, John,
and the Christ, are you having fun yet?
I am curious about one thing, what does the
Septuagint refer to Isaiah 14:12? Does it pass
on the word 'helel' or does it use 'phosporous'
or 'hesophous'? Hmmm. I'll get back.