# Why did the Septuagint put Lucifer for the word Howl?



## DonP (Jun 26, 2009)

Strongs lists # 1966 heylel, Lucifer or king of babylon or morning star, over the top of the Heb word which is really the word Howl and should be #3213 yalal in Is 14:12

Ez 21:12 the word is howl and this is the same Heb word if you look at it in the Hebrew text as in Is 14:12. But the Strong's number in Ez is #3213 not 1996

The Septuagint translated the word Lucifer instead of howl also. Why? 

Son of Shachar. So is it morning star, or son of the morning star. Son of King of babylon who fell and howled as he fell?

I thought the morning star was Christ?
So why are they translating the word howl as morning star here instead of howl and making Lucifer the morning star?

yalal son of Shachar = howl son of morning 

they change it to 

heylel son of shachar
morning star son of morning

O howl son of morning. How you are cut down to the ground,
You who weakened the nations! 
NKJV


----------



## VictorBravo (Jun 26, 2009)

Context, my friend. You will often find Hebrew words spelled the same way but coming from different roots and having different meanings.

"hll" can mean "shining", "yll" is often translated "howl".

It makes a lot more sense to render the thing fallen from heaven as a noun meaining "the shining one" (as a star from heaven) rather than a verb "howl." 

There are other hints too, that Hebrew scholars can point out, plus there is the understanding of centuries of Hebrew tradition surrounding these verses.

Trying to make out a proper Hebrew translation involves a lot more than using the Strong's numbers. You might want to study Hebrew. It will open your eyes to the deficiencies of that approach.


----------



## DonP (Jun 26, 2009)

Did they think yll was a mistake in the original and decide to change it to hll? 

Or are you saying other factors contributed to this understanding?


----------



## VictorBravo (Jun 26, 2009)

PeaceMaker said:


> Did they think yll was a mistake in the original and decide to change it to hll?
> 
> Or are you saying other factors contributed to this understanding?



No, in both cases the Hebrew word is spelled HYLL so they look the same.

But in the Isaiah passage it makes sense to read the HYLL as a form of HLL, meaning "shining one" (thus Lucifer in Latin), and in the Ezekiel passage it makes more sense to read HYLL as a form of YLL, which means "to howl."

So, I'm saying that a good Hebrew translator (including the Septuagint translators) would understand that words spelled similarly may have entirely different meanings, so they look at the context, and the structure of the sentence, to determine which of the meanings is the better translation.

As Bruce pointed out elsewhere, as an example in English, the word "see" has different meanings and different roots. If you didn't understand context, you'd think someone made a mistake. Consider:

"The man tried to see if he could petition the Holy See." 

Obviously context demands that the words "see" mean something different in different places. In one case it's a verb, and in the other it's a noun.


----------

