MORNING STAR?

“How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!” (Isaiah 14:12)

One of the most striking evidences for the Luciferian nature of the Westcott-Hort-only movement within the false church of modern times is to be found in the modern versions’ treatments of Isaiah 14:12. This is the only verse in the Bible where the name Lucifer is to be found, and it is conspicuously missing from virtually all of the modern versions.

NIV: “How you have fallen from heaven, O morning star, son of the dawn! You have been cast down to the earth, you who once laid low the nations!”

RSV: “How you are fallen from heaven, O Day Star, son of Dawn! How you are cut down to the ground, you who laid the nations low!”

The proper name of Lucifer is from the Latin translation of heylel, and means bearer of light.1 Heylel is derived from the root hll. This is a verb with two different meanings, although they are cataloged by most lexicographers as two different verbs of the same root, hll I meaning to shine, and hll II meaning to be boastful, or to praise in the piel form. There is an obvious double entendre in this name, which we can easily see in the context of the full passage.

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.
15 Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit.

There is no evidence to support the idea that heylel has ever been used to refer to the Morning Star or Venus. The modern Hebrew words for Venus are completely unrelated. It would seem strange that heylel would not be found with that meaning in later Hebrew texts, if it meant Venus.

The rest of the term that describes Lucifer is ben sahar, which literally means exactly what the KJV says that it means: son of the morning, or son of the dawn. It does not say star of the morning or morning star, and any suggestion that it means that is purely conjecture. Unlike the Isaiah verse, a plural reference to stars of the morning does literally mention the word stars in the conjunct plural in Job 38:7. “When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?” There is no reason to assume that a different word would be used in Isaiah.

Where the real mischief comes in is where the modern versions such as the NASB, use footnotes to conflate Lucifer, who they misname the morning star, with Jesus in Revelation 22:16: ” I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.” The NKJV does have Lucifer in the text, but in its usual underhanded fashion, it mixes evil with good and cancels out the word Lucifer with a footnote that states that the literal meaning is Day Star. As Will Kinney points out in an article on this verse, this is outright deceit on the behalf of the NKJV publishers.2 What could one expect from a company that uses a Satanic symbol on its cover and title pages?

Before addressing this issue further, I am going to ask a few questions that other commentators, to my knowledge, have not asked concerning the reference to the morning star. In the Revelation passage Jesus refers to himself as the aster ho lampros kai orthrinos, which, unlike the Isaiah verse, literally mean bright and morning star. My question is exactly what does this mean? Does it mean that Jesus is the planet Venus as the Romans claimed their goddess of beauty to be, or is a metaphor? It appears to me that he is saying that he is the light that breaks through the darkness — one that begins a new dawn out of a period of spiritual darkness. If the Isaiah passage does make reference to the morning star, is it not also a metaphor, and are we to assume that the Hebrew metaphor would have the same meaning that it did in the Greek text of several hundred years later? In Isaiah it would simply imply former effulgence or magnificence, if ben sahar were a reference to the morning star. Lions are a common metaphor throughout the Old Testament. They are used for many different people, tribes, and nations, and lions are used with very different connotations, both positive and negative. It is used in describing enemies, friends, Satan, qualities of God. Many other similar examples of differing uses of metaphors could easily be found.

I will let the reader find his own. If we were to accept the far-fetched contention that heylel ben sahar is a reference to the morning star, clearly, neither the Isaiah passage, nor the Revelation passage are saying that either Lucifer or Jesus is the planet Venus, and there is no reason whatsoever to connect the two passages. Whether the new versions are right or wrong on this issue, they have no support for replacing Lucifer with Christ, and must rely on the ignorance or stupidity of their readership to make the leap.

The goal of the modern version promoters is not just to conflate the two, but to make Lucifer fade away entirely. If the modern church-goer does not believe in Lucifer, and most do not anyway, even when he goes by the name Satan, then he will not believe in the Antichrist, devils, or anything else that has to do with the modern church’s descent into hell. Modern version promoters point out that the name Lucifer does not appear in the Hebrew, and that the name was taken from Latin, however, unlike the modern versions, the name does reflect its Hebrew meaning. I have not seen any of the modern versions call him by his Hebrew name, Heylel, nor have I heard any of the Westcott-Hort-only crowd criticize any version for not having done so. The Latin name is how his name has come down to us, no other would have made sense to the English-speaking world. It is important to those behind the modern versions to make the name disappear¬†entirely, so that church-goers will deny his existence.

The NIV, which is the best selling “Bible” version, not only removes his name from their text, and conflates it with the Revelation verse, but has removed other key verses that warn Christians against the end times. I have already written an essay on the NIV’s treatment of Rev. 13:18 where it calls the “number of a man” “man’s number” in order to fool the foolish into ignoring the warning about the number that will identify the Beast (c.f. The Message). The NIV is likewise one of the very few versions to go so far as to replace the reference to a future reformation with the Nazi, Masonic, and Luciferian banker term New Order in Hebrews 9:10. Again note, if Jesus is saying, as I believe he is, that he is the light leading to a new dawn — a reformation – then the NIV is implying that the New World Order is that new dawn. Zondervan published a film on biblical archaeology in which a lecturer repeatedly uses this term in a positive sense, which further pushes the Antichrist agenda. In other words, Lucifer will present their new dawn, and indeed he will, however, I wish no part in it. I will wait for the real dawn under the time of reformation that the real dawning will bring when Jesus returns.

The whole purpose and philosophy behind this deception is to be found in the writings of Madame H.P. Blavatsky herself.

Demon est Deus inversus. The devil is now called Darkness by the Church, whereas, in the Bible he is called the “Son of God” (see Job), the bright star of the early morning, Lucifer (see Isaiah). There is a whole philosophy of dogmatic craft in the reason why the first Archangel, who sprang from the depths of Chaos, was called Lux (Lucifer), the “Luminous Son of the Morning,” or manvantaric Dawn. He was transformed by the Church into Lucifer or Satan, because he is higher and older than Jehovah, and had to be sacrificed to the new dogma. (See Book II.3)

She uses this false interpretation that came about through the efforts of two of her followers, Westcott and Hort, to conflate the Isaiah and Revelation passages to imply that Lucifer and Christ function in the same manner in days of old.

The “light of Christ” shines upon as hideous features of the animal-man now, as the “light of Lucifer” did in days of old.4

She takes this conflation a step further and uses the false translations to suggest that Lucifer and the Logos are one and the same, and thereby makes Jesus the first-born brother of Satan!

LUCIFER — the spirit of Intellectual Enlightenment and Freedom of Thought — is metaphorically the guiding beacon, which helps man to find his way through the rocks and sandbanks of Life, for Lucifer is the LOGOS in his highest, and the “Adversary” in his lowest aspect — both of which are reflected in our Ego. Lactantius, speaking of the Nature of Christ, makes the LOGOS, the Word, the first-born brother of Satan, the “first of all creatures.” (Inst. div. Book II., c. viii., “Qabbalah,” 116.)5

Elsewhere she describes him as the bringer of light of enlightenment.

For it is he who was the “Harbinger of Light,” bright radiant Lucifer, who opened the eyes of the automaton created by Jehovah, as alleged; and he who was the first to whisper: “in the day ye eat thereof ye shall be as Elohim, knowing good and evil” — can only be regarded in the light of a Saviour. An “adversary” to Jehovah the “personating spirit,” he still remains in esoteric truth the ever-loving “Messenger” (the angel), the Seraphim and Cherubim who both knew well, and loved still more, and who conferred on us spiritual, instead of physical immortality – the latter a kind of static immortality that would have transformed man into an undying “Wandering Jew.”6

It is noteworthy that she later encouraged following the work of Westcott, Hort, and their followers that remove his name to to lead others to believe that they are one and the same, while at the same time she uses and recognizes his name as Lucifer. Blavatsky, who highly praised Westcott and Hort, as they praised her, operated at many levels. She spoke the language of Christianity where it was useful to influence those coming from Christian or Catholic tradition, and Sanskritic terminology for those influenced by the Eastern religions that were becoming the rage during her lifetime. She hid much in her thousands of pages of convoluted, jargon-filled writings, and her beliefs could be presented from many different angles and at different rates to suit individual followers, much as her much praised Masonic leaders operate. Early initiates are not presented their version of the truth about Lucifer until they have been properly brainwashed and indoctrinated. Once they are made ready, they are given the news that Satan is their god.

The Wescott-Hort versions are derived from followers of the same basic belief system of Blavatsky. Furthermore, witches, Bible-scoffers, and other demonically-influenced people have taken over most of the divinity schools and seminaries of the world. Anyone who does not believe this is sadly naive, for it is much worse than even the most conservative of fundamentalist Christians could imagine. The average NIV or RSV user is far too naive and ignorant to even notice that their “Bible” has been sanitized to fit Luciferian plans. The name of Lucifer is not even in most of their versions, so they no longer even think that he exists at all, which makes it simple for a false Christ to step into the seat of Lucifer and convince church-goers that he is their Lord. These are the babies of the New Age movement. They are led like cattle by those who control them and due to a total lack of critical thinking, they fail to notice even the most striking signs of demonic influence in their churches. This is why head slapping, demonic babbling, twitching and shaking, slaying in the spirit tomfoolery, Rock & Roll, immodest dress, and feel-good preaching that fails to address sin are so popular today. That is why so many churches distract their congregations from Christ with Pagan Christmas trees, Easter egg hunts, and Halloween celebrations. The latter is one of the highest days of the Satanic calendar! That also is why so many are taking the leadership of their churches and turning them over to a Satanic organization known as the IRS by becoming 501(c)3 corporations. The higher level Blavatskians, Masons, and other forms of New Agers are serving their god knowingly and slowly wearing rebellious and ignorant church-goers down their path. They will only tell them what they think that they are ready to hear. In most cases, they will keep their victims in the dark.

Gail Riplinger, in her New Age Bible Versions, sums up the indoctrination process in five steps of initiation that are used by New Age religions to indoctrinate the foolish into Luciferian religion. I am not sure if she found these outlined, or figured them out intuitively through her extensive readings into their philosophies, but they are insightful and accurately describe what I also have observed. Number one is to deny the existence of Satan. Number two is to assert that Lucifer and the Devil are separate and distinct entities. Number three is to declare that Lucifer is a good angel and is the Christ himself. Four is to reveal the true identity of Lucifer as Satan is revealed using the anagram, a transposition of letters, to obscure it. Five is to reveal the bare facts without the rhetoric. It is Satan himself behind all of the cosmetic semantics.7 Unfortunately, no culture in history has been easier to hoodwink than that of modern America, and the NIV is leading the way to the fulfillment of all of them.

1 Note the striking comparison between this name and the Hindu name for gods/daemons, which is deva,
meaning beings of light.
2 http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/Lucif.html
3 Blavatsky, H.P. The Secret Doctrine, p. 70.
4 ibid, vol. 1 p. 486.
5 ibid, Vol. 2 162 footnote.
6 ibid, Vol 2 p. 243
7 Riplinger, Gail. New Age Bible Versions, pp. 46-53.

John Hinton, Ph.D.
Bible Restoration Ministry
A ministry seeking the translating and reprinting of KJV equivalent
Bibles in all the languages of the world.