Actually shining one would be best translation since it is not interpretative. Both morning star and Lucifer are interpretative in that they give a meaning beyond the literal sense of the term. I don't disagree with the KJV interpretation of the Hebrew term, but it is an interpretation none the less. Shining one would be the literal interpetation, but not necessary the best one.
Now, the real issue is why has a word that has been in our Bibles for some 500years been changed (every Bible before the 1611 had that word)
The onus is on those who change it to prove that their change is justified and indeed better.
Had they gone the 'literal route' a case may be made that they were trying to be literal (although the NIV is very much dominated by 'dynamic equivalant's).
However, to stick in a translation that causes confusion and does not clarify the passage is very much suspect.
Here is a quoted from David Hunt's work, The seduction of Christianity.
Hunt is not a King James defender.
Take the recently popular movie 2010 for example. In the film, a new sun suddenly appeared in the sky and brought peace to earth just as the American and Soviets were about to engage in nuclear war. What the film did not explain, Arthur C. Clarke did in his book; the sun was named Lucifer, no doubt inhonor of the power that brought it into existance. Sprangler further explains the relationship of Anti-Christ to Lucifer and why Lucifer will be worshipped,
Christ is the same force as Lucifer....Lucifer perpares man for the experience of Christhood...(he is) the great initiator....Lucifer works within each of us to bring us to wholeness and as we move into the new age...each of us in some way is brought to that point which I term the Luciferic initiation.... that many people now, and in the days ahead will be facing, for it is an initiation into the New Age (P.60 )
The name 'Lucifer' has to be first disassociated from Isa.14 and Satans fall, then switched to 'morning star' to confuse him with the Lord Jesus Christ.
I think we should literally translate all the proper names in the bible. :>)
then we can have a field day with allegorical interpretations
***The onus is on those who change it to prove that their change is justified and indeed better. ***
[1] I explained why shinig one is better, reread my reply.
[2] The Hebrew text of Isaiah has been around for almost 6 times as long as the King James.
***However, to stick in a translation that causes confusion and does not clarify the passage is very much suspect. ***
How does following the Hebrew cause confusion? How can you complain about 'dynamic equivalences' in the NIV and here defend an interprtative translation? Inconsistent. You admit that shining one is the literal interpretation.
***Here is a quoted from David Hunt's work, The seduction of Christianity. ***
I am very familiar with Dave Hunt, David Spangler and the New Age Movement. I have lectured often on the dangers of the New Age many times myself over the past twenty years. But all of this is beside the point under discussion. The Hebrew text uses a word that means shining one. Why am I a promoter of the New Age for simply following the Hebrew text? Makes no sense.
Now, ftD I agree that Isaiah 14 is a reference to Lucifer. I preach and teach that, but in doing so I am engaging in interpretation -- accurate interpretation -- yet interpretation.
Your elevation of an English translation (albeit a good translation which has been in use many years) over the original languages that the Bible was given is a much larger issue. The onus is on you to explain why the Greek and Hebrew are inferior to the King James!