Should "helel" in Isaiah 14:12 be translated as "Lucifer" or "day star"? Are modern Bible versions helping Satan? Should Christians be worried?
It’s great when I get a chance to respond to your emails! Yesterday I had a lot of fun responding to a gentleman who has put enormous effort into his emails to me about our recent podcasts.
"Larry" has strong KJV-only convictions and something of a history with Satanic metal music. My recent podcasts about "Lucifer" not being Satan and my criticisms of Riplinger, Gipp, and Peterson have given him cause for concern.
For the sake of brevity and "Larry's" privacy, I will only be publishing my most recent reply to him, and have have used a false first name.
This response turned out pretty well, so I couldn't resist sharing it with you. Below is the full text of my latest email to "Larry" addressing his concerns and responding to some of his concerns and statements.
Hello Larry,
Thank you for watching the stream and for once more taking the time to craft such a lengthy email. I appreciate the Scriptures you sent and understand your concerns (I shared many of the same five years ago). I hope you know that I am neither your or Gail's enemy nor an enemy of the King James Bible. I do not believe “Lucifer” is a mistranslation in the KJV, but I do not believe it is being understood properly by most today. I want to oppose faulty understandings of Scriptures (like Isaiah 14:12 only applying to Satan), unwarranted divisions and suspicions among Christians (like Gail calling modern versions blasphemous and New Age because of her lack of research and verified falsehoods), and other un-Christlike ills being spread by different voices in my niche. Surely, if you were in my place, you would not hesitate to call out falsehoods being spread by your heroes.
Items and documents we couldn’t look closely at in the #38 stream were further expanded in our Valentine's Day stream “39: Gail Riplinger's Heart💔Broken When Her Valentine Tells the TRUTH about Lucifer”. We especially examined the quotations by John Calvin, King James, and John Gill which show Gail's conclusions about “Lucifer” and “day star” are nothing but hot air – although “Lucifer” is a proper translation when understood correctly. (I apologize in advance for the audio on episode #39. I think I clicked the wrong button.) We also show and supply the address and password to our detailed page which will thoroughly discuss this question (bibleversionconspiracy.com/lucifer). Nonetheless, there are a few points in your email that need to be addressed.
“Examine what is the end of your arguments; you are not arguing for a single thing/a specific thing/one thing, but rather a broad spectrum of things with no definite conclusion reached.”
My specific claims are:
Gail’s and other KJV defenders' conclusions about “Lucifer” and “day star” are ahistorical and irresponsible.
Gail’s and other KJV conclusions about “Lucifer” and “day star” are easy to prove wrong and thus are of no real value, although trusting KJV-only fans think they are helpful.
Gail’s and other KJV defenders' conclusions are harmful to Christians by causing unwarranted suspicion, division, and hatred among them.
No legitimate connection exists between “Lucifer” and “Satan”, although New Ages love to tout him as their “light bearer” and Savior.
My arguments are:
KJV-only ideas about “Lucifer” and “day star” are not backed up by the old translations in English or any other language.
KJV-only ideas about “Lucifer” and “day star” are not backed up by many old Christian writers, pastors, or commentators, and lexicographers, often being flatly contradicted by them.
KJV-only ideas about “Lucifer” and “day star” are not backed up by a contextual reading of the passage but only by presupposed traditions based partly on Roman Catholic superstitions.
The passage is applied to the death of the king of Babylon (Is. 13:1 and 14:4) and has no connection to the use of “day star”, etc. when applied to Jesus Christ even though the same word (“lucifer”) is used in the Old Latin and Latin Vulgate texts.
My definite conclusions are:
“Lucifer” is an accurate translation if understood properly, but so are “day star”, “morning star”, “shining one”, and “planet Venus”.
Gail Riplinger and others who make false and falsifiable claims about “Lucifer” and “day star” should not be relied upon. Rather, they need to be called out when their arguments are weighed in the balances and found wanting and subsequently ignored.
Understanding Isaiah 14:12 as having no connection to Satan is the best defense against New Age heresies.
“Now ask yourself, how would your arguments have been of any help in my life at tearing down that stronghold of Satan? Sister Gail Riplinger's lectures and works helped tear down that stronghold in my life, because of the relationship with God's word God used her in my life to help establish….Your arguments would actually have done nothing to help tear down that stronghold of Satan that was in my life, and in fact would be concealing the stronghold by your justification of removing "Lucifer" from Isaiah 14.”
The scripture itself undertood as it was intended is more than powerful to pull down the strongholds you mentioned. Understanding Isaiah 14:12 as it was intended is the best defense against New Age heresies concerning “Lucifer”. To illustrate, I have a friend at work – also into death metal music – who said (I'm paraphrasing):
Friend: “Both Jesus and Lucifer are called the ‘day star’.
Me: “Yes, but “Lucifer” in the Bible is not talking about Satan, but rather the day star, meaning the planet Venus. In Isaiah 14, the only verse where Lucifer is used, the death of the great king of Babylon is being compared to a planet falling out of the sky.”
Friend: “Oh, that makes sense. Never mind. 😅”
Now ask yourself, what exactly about Gail's arguments helped you? What part of the idea that “day star” is an evil blasphemous translation helped cast down Satan's strongholds? Or did her teaching of things already clearly taught in the Bible help you? Also, what spiritual benefits have you reaped from being encouraged toward fearing and hating any other translation?
“And I think you said in the livestream, in order to justify the removal of the word "Lucifer" from Isaiah 14:12, that Satan is an angel not a star, but again, as I mentioned in the last sentence in the previous paragraph, the passage could simply be communicating that Satan was aspiring to be the day star in his heart and to possess and overshadow its glory; "day star" and "morning star" in the King James Bible are references to Christ.”
I don't remember saying that Satan is an angel, not a star. But if I did, I do not consider it an important argument to my point. Being “day star” was obviously no one's aspiration in the passage and I'm not sure why you would say that. “Morning stars” are also angels, not just Jesus, but you already know that.
“This made me think that perhaps modern Bibles' removing Lucifer's name from Isaiah 14:12 is their way of liberating Lucifer/Satan from his fall as God documented in His word in Isaiah 14. In so doing (that is, in removing "Lucifer" from the text), I see how it could be their way of restoring Lucifer to his risen position; do you see what I mean? Symbolically, in removing the only place Satan's name of Lucifer appears in the Bible, they are covertly (known to them at a deep level as to why but to the masses not so much) signalling the restoration of Lucifer. So I would posit corrupt Bibles are placing Jesus, who is clearly called the "morning star" in the King James Bible, in the fallen position in Isaiah 14:12 by removing the word "Lucifer" and putting instead some other term which is a reference to Jesus, and simulataneously in so doing they are removing Lucifer from the fall in the chapter, thus removing his fall from the Bible. This would be an act that would have significant meaning, both overtly and symbolic, to them.”
Satan's fall is clearly taught by Christ in the Gospels and John in Revelation, not removed from modern Bibles. There is no need for the double application of a prophecy against the king of Babylon to Satan's fall, although there could be one as John Gill allows. King James shows in his Daemonologie that “Lucifer” is not a legitimate name for Satan, but only used of him in scripture as an allegory compared to the day star Venus. He also implies that Satan has deceived his followers into calling him this so they would think he is bringing them secret knowledge. (King James' statement also illustrates how one can believe the passage is relevant to the fall of Satan while knowing “Lucifer” is synonymous with “day star” and is also not a real name for Satan. This strongly suggests that had the KJV read “day star”, King James would still have applied the prophecy to Satan.)
“If you want to chisel away at people like Gail Riplinger's, Sam Gipp's, Dr. Ruckman's, Brandon Peterson's, and others' work, that is your business, but realize you are going beyond that and into the territory of actually opposing the spiritual side of the issue and what is taking place in the Bible version issue, and opposing the truth itself. To be polite, it would appear you could be an enemy.”
As I said before, “Lucifer” is an accurate translation if understood properly, but so are “day star” (as acknowledged by the KJV translator note), “morning star”, “shining one”, and “planet Venus”. The “truth itself” is not synonymous with the work of any of these individuals. If they are wrong they are wrong and the spiritual thing to do is acknowledge it.
Was it spiritual when Gail applied a double standard and skipped over what King James, the Matthew’s Bible translator, the Geneva Bible translators, and the Old Latin said about “Lucifer” while choosing to pick on the Latin Vulgate, modern translations, and modern translators even though they all flatly contradict her ridiculous conclusions? Was it part of Satan's plan to demote Jesus Christ when Martin Luther translated the word “morgen stern”? Are you speaking from a state of genuine spiritual concern or only presumption because you have not looked into this matter for yourself? I likewise encourage you to step back and look at the bigger issues at stake.
By the way, Brandon acknowledged to me that it is important to remain open to the idea that Satan's fall was not the intention behind Isaiah's prophecy against Babylon. I was disappointed that David Daniels was far less open and that all I could get out of him was that the KJV is the “chosen translation” and nothing else matters.
“The Roman Catholic Church appeals to a broad spectrum of things in order to establish their identity and church and doctrines; the Bible believer however ultimately appeals to God's word, a singular source. The Bible believer may also appeal to history and other things, but never to subject God's word to the external source as you do in your justification of removing the word "Lucifer" from Isaiah 14.”
The Bible is not subject to your subjective experiences, KJV-only convictions, our opinions, Luciferian terminology, or Gail's ridiculous novelties either. I'm not saying it's a mistranslation. I'm saying it needs to be understood better. The historical understanding is based on the context of the Scripture itself taking the entire prophecy into account starting in Isaiah 13 and not choosing to ignore it or 14:4 as so many careless interpretations do. I did not reach this conclusion because of what others say, but because of what the Bible says. However, I do appreciate that there is so much historical information supporting what I see in the Scripture.
You're appealing to the historical understanding of the passage when you are simply affirming the popular modern tradition-based understanding which is largely divorced from the historical perspective of the word “Lucifer” and how it is used in Scripture. What I'm saying is that we need to consider information that could enhance our understanding even if it contradicts closely held KJV-only presumptions. Following is a small sampling of what I mean.
Before I start giving a few quotations which illustrate my point, I must emphasize that I do not believe any of these men are infallible. Obviously the scriptures are not subject to their opinions any more than they are subject to yours, Gail's, or mine. However, what they wrote is more than sufficient evidence that the well-informed and historical understanding of “Lucifer” is not what we assume today.
Matthew’s Bible text reads “Lucifer”, the note says:
“He compareth the death of Nebuchadnezzar to the falling of Lucifer the morning star which he calleth the child of the morning because it appeareth only in the morning. The meaning is: no such thing ought to have happened unto thee, that in earth was like the morning star, which no man can take out of heaven: And thou that wast so mighty that thou destroyedst what people thou wouldest and unto whom it was a pastime to overthrow nations, hast received such measure as thou broughtest. Such a like thing is there in Ezek. 28. Against king Cyrus.”
Geneva Bible text reads “Lucifer”, the note says:
“Thou that thought thyself most glorious, and as it were, placed in the heaven for the morning star, that goes before the sun, is called lucifer to whom Nebuchadnezzar is compared.”
John Calvin:
“How art thou fallen from heaven!
Isaiah proceeds with the discourse which he had formerly begun as personating the dead, and concludes that the tyrant differs in no respect from other men, though his object was to lead men to believe that he was some god. 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.”
King James’ Daemonologie:
“Philomathes: And what makes the spirits have so different names from others?
Epistemon: Even the knavery of that same Devil, who as he deludes the necromancers with innumerable feigned names for him and his angels, as in particular making Satan, Beelzebub, and Lucifer to be three different spirits, where we find the two former but different names given to the prince of all the rebelling angels by the Scripture. As by Christ, the prince of all the devils is called Beelzebub in that place which I alleged against the power of any heretics to cast out devils. By John in the Revelation, the old tempter is called Satan, the prince of all the evil angels. And last, to wit, Lucifer is but by allegory taken from the Day Star (so named in diverse places of the Scriptures) because of his excellence (I mean the prince of them) in his creation before his fall. Even so I say he deceives the witches by attributing to himself diverse names, as if every different shape that he transforms himself into were a different kind of spirit.”
John Gill:
“How art thou fallen from heaven
This is not to be understood of the fall of Satan, and the apostate angels, from their first estate, when they were cast down from heaven to hell, though there may be an allusion to it; see ( Luke 10:18 ) but the words are a continuation of the speech of the dead to the king of Babylon, wondering at it, as a thing almost incredible, that he who seemed to be so established on the throne of his kingdom, which was his heaven, that he should be deposed or fall from it. So the destruction of the Roman Pagan emperors is signified by the casting out of the dragon and his angels from heaven, ( Revelation 12:7-9 ) and in like manner Rome Papal, or the Romish antichrist, will fall from his heaven of outward splendour and happiness, of honour and authority, now, possessed by him:
O Lucifer, son of the morning!
alluding to the star Venus, which is the phosphorus or morning star, which ushers in the light of the morning, and shows that day is at hand; by which is meant, not Satan, who is never in Scripture called Lucifer, though he was once an angel of light, and sometimes transforms himself into one, and the good angels are called morning stars, ( Job 38:7 ) and such he and his angels once were; but the king of Babylon is intended, whose royal glory and majesty, as outshining all the rest of the kings of the earth, is expressed by those names; and which perhaps were such as he took himself, or were given him by his courtiers. The Targum is,``how art thou fallen from on high, who was shining among the sons of men, as the star Venus among the stars.''Jarchi, as the Talmud F3, applies it to Nebuchadnezzar; though, if any particular person is pointed at, Belshazzar is rather designed, the last of the kings of Babylon. The church of Rome, in the times of the apostles, was famous for its light and knowledge; its faith was spoken of throughout all the earth; and its bishops or pastors were bright stars, in the morning of the Gospel dispensation: how art thou cut down to the ground;like a tall tree that is cut down, and laid along the ground, and can never rise and flourish more, to which sometimes great monarchs and monarchies are compared; see ( Isaiah 10:18 Isaiah 10:19 ) ( Ezekiel 31:3 ) ( Daniel 4:10 Daniel 4:22 ) and this denotes that the king of Babylon should die, not a natural, but a violent death, as Belshazzar did, with whom the Babylonish monarchy fell, and never rose more; and this is a representation of the sudden, violent, and irrecoverable ruin of the Romish antichrist, ( Revelation 18:21 ) : which didst weaken the nations!by subduing them, taking cities and towns, plundering the inhabitants of their substance, carrying them captive, or obliging them to a yearly tribute, by which means he weakened them, and kept them under. So the Romish antichrist has got the power over many nations of the earth, and has reigned over the kings of it, and by various methods has drained them of their wealth and riches, and so greatly enfeebled them; nay, they have of themselves given their power and strength unto the beast, ( Revelation 17:12 Revelation 17:13 Revelation 17:15 Revelation 17:17 Revelation 17:18 ) . Several of the Jewish writers observe, that the word here used signifies to cast lots; and so it is used in the Misna F4, and explained in the Talmud F5; and is applied to the king of Babylon casting lots upon the nations and kingdoms whom he should go to war with, and subdue first; see ( Ezekiel 21:19-23 ) . The Targum is,``thou art cast down to the earth, who killedst the people:''a fit description of antichrist, ( Revelation 11:7 ) ( Revelation 13:7 Revelation 13:10 Revelation 13:15 ) .”
Glossographia by Thomas Blount (1661):
“Lucifer (Lar.) properly the Star arising before the morning, as messenger of day-light, the Day-star: but figuratively the King of Babylon, Nebuchadnezar; an arch Devil.”
I have also found two out of three KJV translators who identified “Lucifer” in Isaiah 14 as a synonym for “day star”, “morning star”, and Venus, namely Lancelot Andrewes and George Abbot. They also use the use “Lucifer” in the traditional sense of Satan. I expect to find more as I review their writings.
I encourage you that you should not make claims regarding a historical understanding when you seem unaware of the historical understanding and only seem concerned with reaffirming and dogmatizing upon views that were first put forward in the early ‘90s by a woman with no religious learning whatsoever.
I would also like to request your permission to publish our correspondence on this issue. I will remove your last name and email address to protect your privacy. Please let me know as soon as soon as you are able.
Many other points could be discussed at length, but I feel this is sufficient for this email. Replying via email is very time-consuming, as you know. If you wish to discuss this further, you have my phone number. I’ve had lengthy conversations via Facebook Messenger with Brandon and David Daniels on this subject as I mentioned above. I enjoyed the exchanges very much and Brandon said he did too, but I'm not quite sure David shares the sentiment. As always, I deeply appreciate you taking the time to read this and the time you have invested in this exchange.
God bless,
Joseph Armstrong
