Chelsea’s Relationship With Satan

36 Comments on Chelsea’s Relationship With Satan

  1. I think she is evil incarnate, and true to her heritage.

    As far as ‘Lucifer’ goes:
    Is “Lucifer” the Devil in Isaiah 14:12? – The KJV Argument against Modern Translations

    The argument that modern translations deny the deity of Christ is based on connecting several dots. First, In Isaiah 14:12 in the KJV we read: “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!” Modern translations—except for the NKJV—have something like “day star” or “morning star” instead of “Lucifer” here. KJV advocates claim that Isa 14:12 must be a prophecy about the devil falling from heaven. There is some basis for this interpretation. In Luke 10:18 Jesus tells his disciples, “I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven.” In Rev 9:1 we read, “I saw a star fallen from heaven to earth, and he was given the key to the shaft of the bottomless pit” (ESV).1 These New Testament passages seem to be alluding to Isa 14:12, connecting the fall of the one mentioned there with the fall of Satan.

    Second, in 2 Peter 1:19 the KJV has: “We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts.” For “day star” in the KJV, modern translations alternate between ‘day star’ and ‘morning star.’ Early Christian interpretation of this verse sees the ‘day star’/‘morning star’ as a reference to Jesus, based in part on an allusion to Num 24:17 (“A star shall rise out of Jacob”).

    Third, KJV advocates argue that if the word in Isa 14:12 is translated ‘morning star’ then modern translations are viewing Jesus as Satan because, as they claim, the only ‘morning star’ in the Bible is Jesus. Thus, if ‘Lucifer’ is treated as ‘morning star’ in Isa 14:12, then this is a denial of the deity of Christ.

    Fourth, they argue that God is not a God of confusion and therefore the modern translations, since they are confusing readers on the identification of the morning star, must be corrupt.

    To be frank, this is a rather convoluted argument that is grasping at straws. An examination of the evidence and logic of this argument will demonstrate it to be very badly misinformed.

    In Isa 14:12, The KJV translators did not actually translate the Hebrew word ‏הילל as ‘Lucifer.’ This word occurs only here in the Hebrew Old Testament. Most likely, the KJV translators were not sure what to make of it, and simply duplicated the word used in the Latin Vulgate that translated ‏הילל. In the Vulgate, Isa 14:12 reads as follows:

    quomodo cecidisti de caelo lucifer qui mane oriebaris corruisti in terram qui vulnerabas gentes.

    Notice the fifth word of the text—lucifer. It is not a proper name but the Latin word for ‘morning star.’ The word lucifer occurs four times in the Vulgate: Isa 14:12, Job 11:17, Job 38:32, and 2 Peter 1:19. In Job 11:17, the KJV renders the Hebrew word ‏בקר as ‘morning’:

    et quasi meridianus fulgor consurget tibi ad vesperam et cum te consumptum putaveris orieris ut lucifer

    In Job 38:32, the KJV renders the Hebrew word ‏מזרות as Mazzaroth. This is another word that occurs only once in the Hebrew Bible. The KJV translators did not know what it meant, so they simply transliterated the Hebrew into English characters. Even though Jerome, the translator of the Vulgate, knew Hebrew better than the KJV translators did, he was not exactly sure what to make of it either. But he at least tried, rather than simply leave the word untranslated as the KJV translators did. He translated the word as lucifer—or ‘morning star,’ which is very close to the meaning of the Hebrew ‏מזרות:

    numquid producis luciferum in tempore suo et vesperum super filios terrae consurgere facis

    The word means ‘constellations’ or ‘crowns’ (modern translators are not sure, though ‘constellations’ is usually preferred). The fact that Jerome recognized that at least the ‏מזרות probably referred to stars is far better than the KJV translators did by leaving the word completely untranslated. There is of course no conspiracy on Jerome’s part here; he is simply being faithful to the Hebrew Bible and is translating as accurately as he can.

    In 2 Peter 1:19, the KJV renders the Greek word φωσφόρος (phosphoros) as ‘day star.’ Again, the Latin Vulgate has lucifer here:

    et habemus firmiorem propheticum sermonem cui bene facitis adtendentes quasi lucernae lucenti in caliginoso loco donec dies inlucescat et lucifer oriatur in cordibus vestris

    In other words, lucifer is not a proper name, but is the Latin word for ‘morning star’ or ‘day star.’ The KJV simply reproduced the Latin in Isa 14:12 because they were not sure what ‏הילל meant. The KJV translators knew Latin better than they knew Greek or Hebrew. In places where they were not sure what the Greek or Hebrew meant, they simply translated or reproduced verbatim the Latin text. This has happened scores, if not hundreds, of times.
    Since that time, Lucifer has made its way into English Bible interpretation as another name for the devil…”

    Not an apologist here, but it is another name/word that people freely use without knowing its previous use or derivation. This is America- believe according to your own conscience.

  2. Who needs statues of the Devil when your mom & dad are invited to speak in churches every 4 years?

    Here is proof of the MSM bias. If Chelsea faced equal wrath of the late night comics there is no way she would have posted that statement. But when you are a sacred cow you can say such epicly tardashious statements and not feel any repercussion.

  3. Organgrinder – that point you speak of is on top of her head. And what fills that cranial cavity is old rancid cottage cheese mixed with sawdust. What more can I say?

  4. It’s an anchor. She has nothing but empty space in her head and is soulless, therefore, she needs the anchor to ground her. It’s much heavier than it looks.

    Hillary had the same problem, until she filled her lower body.

  5. HEY… doesn’t Mary crush Satan with her feet, and Satan is represented as a snake? or are the statues different in Catholic churches? How about art work? Satan is represented in Art. What about Rape in Art? That’s represented as well. Should we start a giant pyre and burn all the things that offend?

  6. I’ve wondered at what age Bill first molested her? 13? 5? 3? Infancy?

    After all, she’s no blood relation of his.

    Did Hilary actively join in, or just watch?

    And how old was she when they first showed her the home movies?

    Evil incarnate.

  7. That hand signal Bill is flashing in the one pic is also sign language for “I love you”, which he probably displays to every female he sees. Is it also a sign of the devil? Any sign he flashes is the sign of the devil as far as I’m concerned…

  8. Hillary is an avowed Alinskyite and in his forward to Rules for Radicals he credits the devil who “won a kingdom” with these means.
    Alinsky built the statue honey, your mother lives in it.

  9. And moms clinton has been floating the idea of becoming a minister. It seems her newest book has a forward by a minister, a mentor of hers it is said, who is also apparently a plagiarist. The ecidence for that is in the book itself.
    Maybe someone should ask her what denomination she is. She might answer that she is a miscreant, and her mother is a plagiarist, while her father is a philanderist. Diversity, ya know.

  10. all yall are SO smart and snarky…i just love being part of IOTW……kid gave us – UNSOLICITED – a sign for the door…..

    national sarcasm society….like we need YOUR help…..e pluribus assholium……

    yeah, i know….apple not far from tree, and all that…. 🙂

  11. other kid, on the other hand, spent three years at WVU…..toadal snowflake, even after serving two tours in iraq……

    when he first came home, he was a fine upstanding patriot…..three years in morgantown turns him into a berniebot…..go figger……..

  12. The upside-down Cross of St Peter has a long tradition in Christianity, though it’s unclear why someone not a Catholic would choose to wear one. The video’s failure to even mention this seems ignorant to me.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.