Deleting a post ain't quite a "welcome" is it (@Susan)?

If I made you feel unwelcome, I apologize. That was not my intention. However, we have a specific way of doing things here that is outlined in the tour. We think that sticking to this format yields content that is most useful for everyone. Please do read the tour. If you’d like more details, this post on meta may be helpful. Also, while I am happy to see you asking questions, please read what’s on topic here.

It wasn't only you. Perhaps I'm just off-site and shouldn't be here. Forgive me if I seem rude with my comments, too. It seems this site is mostly for extremely technical issues. I'm afraid getting too technical can very easily "miss the forest for the trees." That's all. You have your rules. Just try to not say "welcome" (as another editor wrote on one of my posts) so easily. But thanks for your reply. I hope we can all learn something from each other. But again...rules are rules.

And forgive me for extending myself much more...I've looked at the tour and been referred to the tour before. Am I that far off (@Susan)?

Is there place for "healthy discussion"? Do you (@Paul Vargas) remember Socrates' way to look for answers? Assuming a question is rethorical doesn't make the question rethorical.

Anyway...getting too late for me. (@Susan and @Paul Vargas). Have a good one everyone.

I see more and more that I'm not fitting quite well here. (@Tau) Do any of you think there is any value in my question? Do any of you think that this might NOT be a rhetorical, nor biased question? Perhaps anyone could suggest a different way I might ask this question? Or is it definitely not an idea that can be posted here? I thought it had to do with hermeneutics because it has to do with translation. And I thought I read that this site welcomed people who wanted to learn from experts. Perhaps there is an expert who sees some sense in this question?

Furthermore (@Susan, @Paul Vargas, and @Tau), I just found a tag referencing "translation-philosophy."

A friendly and welcoming option would have been to point me to a similar question. Not to "bury" me in negative votes which make it harder for me to use the site. So many votes are needded to vote anything up or down...so many to comment here or there...too many people seem to be taking this as a contest instead of a place to help others look for truth.

Paul Vargas (@PaulVargas and @All -whoever Paul referred to as "all"...I'm a "newbie," remember? Not clear on all of the nuances of this site), just to clarify: My original question didn't have to do with being a Christian or not. It just so happens that it was put on hold, and so I did more research on my own. I found that there is another article in this same site regarding the same issue. If you mean that referring me to that thread would have been the Christian thing to do, yes. I would think so. But because it is the BEST thing to do, not because it is "THE CHRISTIAN" thing to do.

I just edited it to the bare minimum. But here is an adaptation of my original post: "I remember looking up 'Lucifer' in a hard-copy edition of the British EncyclopÆdia, and there was a bishop, (also called "Pope Lucifer" -information found after a general search today, Saturday 28FEB2015, at spiritualsatanist.com/articles/popelucifer.html). This made me think that perhaps at one point the translation of the Biblical texts got mixed up with politics. Would anyone know anything about this? (Also found today, Saturday, 28FEB2015: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucifer_of_Cagliari)&quot&quot);

I think it is now a duplicate of Why is Isaiah 14:12-15 interpreted by some to refer to Satan?.

Thanks @Susan...but let me rephrase it then...I think the article referenced (which I admittedly had lightly looked over before) doesn't give specifics as to why the word "Lucifer" itself was used in the Latin Vulgate (which seems to be the first instance of it). I looked it over lightly, but DID notice that what I was looking for was missing. Forgive my ignorance: Is it the normal latin way of expressing it? The article you mention raises doubts about it.

@All (Does it go to everyone in the stackexchange, to everyone in the Hermeneutics site, or to everyone who has participated commenting about this post?) ... There is some more on that topic here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucifer#Latin_word_lucifer, BUT still...it doesn't quite say "it is not known (for sure) why" or "this is why" that word was translated as...oh, well...I'm probably just splitting hairs by now. Just can't get myself to erase this post. Sorry. Someone else might have to do it.

I guess I'm just a bit bothered with the fact that the term has been used to mean "the devil." And still, I don't quite consider myself a Catholic. Just seems wrong that such a thing has happened.

(@PaulVargas: Thanks)

aksub, I appreciate that you're asking an honest question and trying to improve it. 1) @all does nothing; 2) David's answer pretty thoroughly goes through early interpreters (principally Origen) who made the connection between this passage and Luke 10:18, thereby introducing "Satan." I can't quite see how there's room for another question there.

Hm...(@Susan) how about putting that in the form of an answer to my question...that might make it easier to other inquirers? Call me lazy if you wish, but reading through a long answer like that isn't the same as your concise answer. That would make this a Q&A post instead of a chatty one ;) And thanks for your info. on "@All"

aksub, David has kindly revised his answer to include a summary statement that I expect will meet your needs. I think you should also find it validating of your concerns about this interpretation.

Hm...thought I couldn't enter chat without enough reputation points. Ok. Anyway...

So, I think the idea that this passage has been interpreted to mean "Satan" is clear: It's an interpretation, not a fact that the writer was referring to that Being. But somehow I think there is still another question: Why was the word "lucifer" chosen in Latin to translate whatever word it was in hebrew. Isn't that a different question? One of translation techniques, instead of interpretation?

@aksub Be careful about separating translation and interpretation. :-) Especially for a hapax like this, I imagine. But as for the Latin... I think I’m still confused about your question. Sorry. We agree that “lucifer” as a Latin word (sans Christian interpretation) just means “light-bearer” or some such thing, right?

> It can simply be translated in its natural sense, "light bearer", combining the Latin lux "light" + fero "bring". But in wider usage, Latin lucifer also refers to the morning star...

Seems to be reasonable from the Hebrew:

The “satan” stuff is what got imposed on the term lucifer due to the Christian understanding of this text.

(P.S. I don’t know Latin - don’t ask me anything hard.)

Also very close to the Greek:

All three of them are basically just “morning star."

Ok. I think I got it: The word by itself has no connection to "Satan," it seems. Still, changing the conversation to different grounds: When someone looks in StackExchange for the word "Lucifer"...wouldn't it be good to have a short and concise answer like the ones you are giving me right now?

That way a "layman" like me wouldn't have to read something as long as David's answer (which is good, of course, but answers a different question).

(even if it contains the answer in it)

Perhaps the problem is the assumption I made at the beginning about politics and all that. In that case, there could be a new post (though I still think there might be something of value in that connection of politics and translation). (@Susan)

(I mean...a new post for the translation of the word as "lucifer"...not for the connection to politics)

@aksub SE keeps duplicates in existence indefinitely so that if someone does a search, your question can serve as a link to the other.

@aksub FYI - I have no knowledge on this topic except what I read in that answer, which I think I hadn’t done until this came up yesterday.

@aksub this is what I’m still not getting about your question. Step 1: translate hêlēl which means “morning star” as lucifer which means “morning star”. Step 2: The history of Christian interpretation, the subject of previously cited answer. Step 3: Lucifer has come into English with an association with Satan because of Step 2. I’m not trying to be obnoxious (really!) , but where is the gap here that needs further explanation?

(Interestingly, Origen was pre-Vulgate, so the Satan stuff could have already been loaded in there I guess, but the word itself doesn’t require it.)

(Sorry, in case it wasn’t obvious, hêlēl is the transliterated Hebrew הֵילֵל - the word in question.)

@aksub That I’m not sure about. Maybe the rep requirement is network-wide? You have that.

@Susan: yep, that coculd be (about the reputation requirement).

You just gave me further explanations :)

@Susan: So...Alright, alright! :) I got it. No connection to the word itself. Still, it could be possible to disconnect it from the interpretation...

Just as you did just now sending me the links to the dictionary definitions.

@aksub If there's something specific you'd like David to clarify so that it's on-site, you could probably drop him a comment and get him to do so. I promise there's nothing I'm saying that I didn't get from that answer (whether or not I understood it correctly...)

@aksub The possibility of disconnecting translation from interpretation is something you're going to have a hard time selling me on. Obviously, there are degrees.

Well...it's now not about whther I understand it or not. It's more about having something short ans concise on the site...

But as you say, it's still there.

@aksub Yeah, this site doesn't really specialize in concise. :-) If you try to be concise, you will be asked to provide explanation/references....

Summary statements are helpful.

Yah...not surprising there is a big debate on why there aren't more people on it...could be a good thing, from the very-scholarly point of view.

Most people get on the internet for quick answers...at least I do.

And then I put the whole puzzle together...if I can :)

But if it is to be a very-scholarly site, then access shouldn't be so easy...and so avoid hurting feelings from dumb laypeople like me :P

@aksub Well, I hope we haven't turned you away entirely. We are pretty picky about things, but I've learned a ton from people here, and I think the strict format actually helps organize available knowledge.

I mean...I wonder how many people really get into reading all of David's answers...they are good...a lot of thought and research seem to go into it...

Hm...well...no. I'm still a bit interested...but have been for a long time.

No worries.

Thanks.

@aksub Many people here (myself included) have no formal background in this area. It does take some willingness to spend time reading, though. I think the text requires that....

Yah :P But I tend to stay off of lengthy papers nowadays. Had enough of that at school.

Once in a while is good to do that again.

(read lengthy papers)

As for the text, I read it little by little, usually. Not all in one big chunk. Things fall into place with time.

(and "have" fallen into place with many questions I've had)

Anyway.

That's probably it for now.

@aksub Hope to see you around!

Hm...not sure you will...but perhaps..."read" me around :) Thanks. Most-likely will "read" you around (and see your picture).

@Susan: About reputation and doing things...apparently I can only chat with you, but not vote, nor comment on anything...so it doesn't have to do with reputation points.

This connection between reputation point and votes is not so good. Easy way to filter out people with opposing views, by those who already have enough reputation points to vote.

@aksub Definitely for the main site reputation on BH.SE is all that matters for privileges. Chat privileges may be network wide, not sure.

@Caleb ^^^?

@aksub I don't really think so. It doesn't take much rep to vote, and there are plenty of people with opposing views who have adequate rep to vote. Even if voting were based on agreement (which it's theoretically not), such a low bar is unlikely to exclude anyone's voting viewpoint on that basis. It's more for filtering out those who have no investment in the site, don't understand how it works, and aren't interested in furthering its purposes.

@Susan @aksub For chat you just have to have 25 rep on any SE site and you are good to go anywhere. There are no levels after that, they just want to make sure people are actually participants on an SE site before joining chat.

The main site rep thing is not meant to—and clearly does not—block anybody based on their views on the issues. You can upvote after participating just a little bit (including if you participated in any other SE site) and downvote a little after that. The point there is that you will learn when voting is appropriate better after having posted some first. Votes are not for agreement/disagreement, and you have to use the system some before that becomes apparent.