Don’t be surprised if most of the posters on this thread don’t “get” what you’re saying. The Bible versions issue often exposes the spiritual immaturity of supporters of the newer versions.
Ah, hubris! I assume you own the Codex Sinaiticus.
Your reply is a logical fallacy called “poisoning the wells.” You cannot classify all who argue contrary to your view “immature.” The responses seem very well-reasoned, so far.
BTW, I’m no particular fan of the NIV, feeling that its struggle for readability results in majestic passages going flat, lacking depth.
There is no particular reason to conclude that Lucifer refers to satan, other that a predisposition to do so in order to fit a preconceived idea of prophecy. Even if it does refer to satan, honored personages in ancient times were often called “morning star,” comparing them to Venus.
Isaiah 64 could be another “morning star” reference, this time to God, and maybe even to Jesus and the star of Bethlehem.
That's right. Most reading your post still hold the position that all of the versions and translations basically come from the same source and are in one solid stack from the "originals" to what ever the newest "NEW" version is on the bookstore shelves today in the States. And they're going to go with the "All NEW Chevrolet," you know, as if they're buying shampoo or spaghetti sauce.
And the promises of God to preserve His words to every generation are discounted altogether.
You’re funny.
Douay Rheims (inerrant Word of God):
“ [12] How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, who didst rise in the morning? how art thou fallen to the earth, that didst wound the nations?”
[Note in text - [12] O Lucifer: O day star. All this, according to the letter, is spoken of the king of Babylon. It may also be applied, in a spiritual sense, to Lucifer the prince of devils, who was created a bright angel, but fell by pride and rebellion against God.]
bibletruth’s exegesis is somewhat poor. No offense meant.