PDA

View Full Version : Discussion Is Lucifer in the Bible or not?



Rufus_1611
Sep 25th 2008, 09:44 PM
This is an off-shoot of Mr. Strickland's thread (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?t=140757). Notice how the two lines of Bibles treat Isaiah 14:12...

Isaiah 14:12
Line 1


"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!" - KJV

"How art thou fallen from heauen, O Lucifer, sonne of the morning? and cutte downe to the grounde, which didest cast lottes vpon the nations?" - Geneva

"Howe art thou fallen from heauen O Lucifer, thou faire mornyng chylde? Howe hast thou gotten a fall euen to the grounde, which didst weaken the nations?" - Bishop's

"How art thou fallen from heauen (o Lucifer) thou faire mornige childe? hast thou gotten a fall euen to the grounde, thou that (notwithstondinge) dyddest subdue the people?" - Coverdale

"A! Lucifer, that risidist eerli, hou feldist thou doun fro heuene; thou that woundist folkis, feldist doun togidere in to erthe." - Wycliffe


Line 2



"How you have fallen from heaven, O star of the morning, son of the dawn! You have been cut down to the earth, You who have weakened the nations!" - NASB

"How you have fallen from heaven, O morning star, son of the dawn! You have been cast down to the earth, you who once laid low the nations!" - NIV

"How you are fallen from heaven, O Day Star, son of Dawn! How you are cut down to the ground, you who laid the nations low!" - ESV

"What a comedown this, O Babylon! Daystar! Son of Dawn! Flat on your face in the underworld mud, you, famous for flattening nations!" - The Message

"How you are fallen from heaven, O Day Star, son of Dawn! How you are cut down to the ground, you who laid the nations low!" - RSV

"King of Babylon, morning star, you have fallen from heaven, even though you were as bright as the rising sun! In the past all the nations on earth bowed down before you, but now you have been cut down." - NCV

Questions for discussion:

Is the individual described in Isaiah 14:12 Lucifer/the Devil/Satan?

If Lucifer/the Devil/Satan's name is the "morning star", who is being described in Revelation 22:16?


"I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star."


If Lucifer is considered to be the Day Star, is the Daystar television network Satanic?

Clydson
Sep 25th 2008, 10:08 PM
Questions for discussion:

Is the individual described in Isaiah 14:12 Lucifer/the Devil/Satan?



Jake: No it is not. The context is speaking of Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon.

Clay Blucher
Sep 25th 2008, 11:00 PM
Jake: No it is not. The context is speaking of Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon.


More specifically, it is about the destruction of the King of Babylon. It sets up his ironic fall, especially in light of what follows:

Isa 14,13 You said in your heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God...
Isa 14,15 Yet you shall be brought down to Sheol, to the uttermost parts of the pit.

Specifically though, Isaiah prophecies that although Israel will be taken captive for their transgressions against God, there will be a time in which God will judge their captor Babylon. This is what the passage is on about. There is no inference towards Satan or the devil.

markedward
Sep 26th 2008, 01:10 AM
The word lucifer is Latin, meaning "light bringer".

It was used as the Latin equivalent of the Hebrew word heylel.

Heylel, however, is an adjective, not a name or title. It's root word it the Hebrew verb halal, which means "to praise, to boast, to shine". Heylel is directly related to the word halleluiah ("praise to Yah"), attesting to this.

Most literally, the best English translation of the original Hebrew word would be "shining one", "praising one", or even "boasting one", and is best interpreted to refer to how much a "shining" or "praised" individual the king of Babylon was, or possibly it refers to how "boastful" he was of himself; given the context of the Isaiah 14, this seems likely, since the text directly states that the king was repeatedly claiming he was a god: he was "boasting" or "praising" himself. As stated before, the king's end is an ironic one.

cdo
Sep 26th 2008, 01:34 AM
This is an off-shoot of Mr. Strickland's thread (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?t=140757). Notice how the two lines of Bibles treat Isaiah 14:12...

Isaiah 14:12
Line 1

"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!" - KJV

"How art thou fallen from heauen, O Lucifer, sonne of the morning? and cutte downe to the grounde, which didest cast lottes vpon the nations?" - Geneva

"Howe art thou fallen from heauen O Lucifer, thou faire mornyng chylde? Howe hast thou gotten a fall euen to the grounde, which didst weaken the nations?" - Bishop's

"How art thou fallen from heauen (o Lucifer) thou faire mornige childe? hast thou gotten a fall euen to the grounde, thou that (notwithstondinge) dyddest subdue the people?" - Coverdale

"A! Lucifer, that risidist eerli, hou feldist thou doun fro heuene; thou that woundist folkis, feldist doun togidere in to erthe." - Wycliffe

Line 2


"How you have fallen from heaven, O star of the morning, son of the dawn! You have been cut down to the earth, You who have weakened the nations!" - NASB

"How you have fallen from heaven, O morning star, son of the dawn! You have been cast down to the earth, you who once laid low the nations!" - NIV

"How you are fallen from heaven, O Day Star, son of Dawn! How you are cut down to the ground, you who laid the nations low!" - ESV

"What a comedown this, O Babylon! Daystar! Son of Dawn! Flat on your face in the underworld mud, you, famous for flattening nations!" - The Message

"How you are fallen from heaven, O Day Star, son of Dawn! How you are cut down to the ground, you who laid the nations low!" - RSV

"King of Babylon, morning star, you have fallen from heaven, even though you were as bright as the rising sun! In the past all the nations on earth bowed down before you, but now you have been cut down." - NCV

Questions for discussion:

Is the individual described in Isaiah 14:12 Lucifer/the Devil/Satan?

If Lucifer/the Devil/Satan's name is the "morning star", who is being described in Revelation 22:16?

"I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star."
If Lucifer is considered to be the Day Star, is the Daystar television network Satanic?No.
Let's give this acknowledgement to Jesus Christ The son of David The Morning Star(Rev.)AS in Isaiah yes, these are the names he is called as the Morning Star,Daystar,Jesus Christ is Our Mighty God.These are the true and only Most High God (names)
Satan however is the "Fake... Deceiver .....False Christ"
Satan,who was cast out of heaven thinking himself to be our"God".
This one is the deceiver of the world.

Alaska
Sep 26th 2008, 01:48 AM
Lucifer didn't want to be exposed. That's why he took his name out of these corrupted "bibles".

Clay Blucher
Sep 26th 2008, 02:11 AM
Lucifer didn't want to be exposed. That's why he took his name out of these corrupted "bibles".

I guess you take the Latin Vulgate as not being corrupted then, since that is where the term "Lucifer" is first found. But now it is also not in the original Greek or Hebrew, so that almost begs the question: how does one consider them infallible if they are corrupt from the start? Or does one then believe that the term "Lucifer" as referring to a particular being was intended to be apart of the Bible? Most likely–if not assuredly!–it must be the latter position.

cdo
Sep 26th 2008, 02:48 AM
Lucifer didn't want to be exposed. That's why he took his name out of these corrupted "bibles".

If he didn't wont to be exposed........he did a poor job of messing up.
He let our one and only Most High God know his intentions.The names he chooses to go by also are in fact The Names in which our Lord has. So I'm wondering what Bible or Bibles your talking about :hmm:

Emanate
Sep 26th 2008, 12:15 PM
Lucifer didn't want to be exposed. That's why he took his name out of these corrupted "bibles".


Yes, I saw a big demon walking down the street the other day. He was very evil looking, the tail, huge horns, bifurcated tail. I thought he might be the devil so I asked if he was Lucifer. He said no, my name is "Fred." I think he was lying like those new bible translatations.

Ethnikos
Sep 26th 2008, 05:07 PM
Questions for discussion:
Is the individual described in Isaiah 14:12 Lucifer/the Devil/Satan?
If Lucifer/the Devil/Satan's name is the "morning star", who is being described in Revelation 22:16?

"I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star."
If Lucifer is considered to be the Day Star, is the Daystar television network Satanic?
So many thousand years ago, the earth wobble caused a shift in the pole stars.(from Draco to Ursa Minor) A myth was created to explain it. A character in the myth decided, out of pride, to take his place in the Assembly of the North. He ended up being cast down to the lowest star.
This myth would have still been current when Isaiah was writing. In his use of the name, he was referring to how close to the earth that one star is, compared to the pole star.
In Revelation, that same star was used in a completely different context and was referring to how it was called the light bringer because once it came up, the dawn was right behind.

Ethnikos
Sep 26th 2008, 05:24 PM
Yes, I saw a big demon walking down the street the other day. He was very evil looking, the tail, huge horns, bifurcated tail. I thought he might be the devil so I asked if he was Lucifer. He said no, my name is "Fred." I think he was lying like those new bible translatations.
Lucifer comes from the Latin Vulgate Bible and not from the Greek Bible.
That explanes why it is not in other versions.
There seems to be a good reason to think of Lucifer as Satan because of later references to this person in the Bible.

markedward
Sep 26th 2008, 07:22 PM
Lucifer comes from the Latin Vulgate Bible and not from the Greek Bible.
That explanes why it is not in other versions.
There seems to be a good reason to think of Lucifer as Satan because of later references to this person in the Bible."Lucifer" is only referenced twice in the entire (Latin Vulgate) Bible. The first is in Isaiah 14 - again, it is easily seen that lucifer was a poor translation of heylel (see my post above in the thread). The second is in the NT, where (still in the Latin Vulgate) the term is applied in reference to salvation found in Christ.

There is no Scriptural support for connecting "lucifer" to Satan unless the individual reads such an interpretation into the text.

Ethnikos
Sep 26th 2008, 08:06 PM
"Lucifer" is only referenced twice in the entire (Latin Vulgate) Bible. The first is in Isaiah 14 - again, it is easily seen that lucifer was a poor translation of heylel (see my post above in the thread). The second is in the NT, where (still in the Latin Vulgate) the term is applied in reference to salvation found in Christ.

There is no Scriptural support for connecting "lucifer" to Satan unless the individual reads such an interpretation into the text.
I meant verses like Luke 10:18
"And he said unto them, I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven."
Not just verses that use that word. There are places that seem to be talking about Lucifer.

Clay Blucher
Sep 26th 2008, 08:36 PM
I meant verses like Luke 10:18
"And he said unto them, I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven."
Not just verses that use that word. There are places that seem to be talking about Lucifer.

I do not think your position is as easily defensible as you believe. For instance, the only three times that the term Lucifer is used in the Vulgate are Job 11:13 (in reference to daybreak), Isa 14:12 (in reference to the King of Babylon), and 2 Pet 1:19 (in reference to a period of time, most likely when the full understand of all things comes with the return of Christ). Your equality of Lucifer to Satan then is dependent upon the similar "fall from heaven" motif found in Isa 14:12 and Luke 10:18. But if Isa 14:12 is directly addressing the King of Babylon (cp. prince of Tyre in Eze 28), then this connection is not absolute. There is not enough here to distinguish one unique being who is always being referred to as "falling from the heavens." On one hand there is the king of Babylon (cp. prince of Tyre), and on the other hand Luke 10:18 refers to Satan (which might be an indivdiual but I take as a reference to the portion of ethnic Israel which has become like Babylon, Tyre, Sidon, etc and rejected Christ and will meet the same fate as Babylon, etc). In any case, if you believe Satan as an unique individual, then most certainly there is not enough Biblical evidence to equate to him the name "Lucifer."

Ethnikos
Sep 27th 2008, 12:44 AM
I do not think your position is as easily defensible as you believe. For instance, the only three times that the term Lucifer is used in the Vulgate are Job 11:13 (in reference to daybreak), Isa 14:12 (in reference to the King of Babylon), and 2 Pet 1:19 (in reference to a period of time, most likely when the full understand of all things comes with the return of Christ). Your equality of Lucifer to Satan then is dependent upon the similar "fall from heaven" motif found in Isa 14:12 and Luke 10:18. But if Isa 14:12 is directly addressing the King of Babylon (cp. prince of Tyre in Eze 28), then this connection is not absolute. There is not enough here to distinguish one unique being who is always being referred to as "falling from the heavens." On one hand there is the king of Babylon (cp. prince of Tyre), and on the other hand Luke 10:18 refers to Satan (which might be an indivdiual but I take as a reference to the portion of ethnic Israel which has become like Babylon, Tyre, Sidon, etc and rejected Christ and will meet the same fate as Babylon, etc). In any case, if you believe Satan as an unique individual, then most certainly there is not enough Biblical evidence to equate to him the name "Lucifer."
You take a negative position, meaning you believe I need to prove a positive.
I already gave the clues to how I arrived at my position and you are not satisfied. I did not really want to spell it out because it is based on science. As in astronomy and archeology. Astronomy tells us about the shift of the pole star. Archeology tells us about the myths of the people who lived what is present day Lebanon. This is second hand information from my brother who analyzed the Ugaritic texts. The point is that there was a definite person in the myth who was, most likely, the character who was being used as an example. Read the verses that come after:

13 For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north: 14 I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High.
Was this Nebuchadnezzar or was it someone who Isaiah was comparing him to? What I look at as evidence points to a definite person who would have been recognized by the people of his day because the Israelites knew this Myth and would have understood the analogy.
So, what I am saying is that Isaiah was describing, in terms what would have been understandable to his contemporaries, an actual person, who we call Lucifer. I also believe that Jesus would have recognized that person as Satan and so did John when he was given the revelation.

zombieCat
Sep 27th 2008, 01:41 AM
Yes, I saw a big demon walking down the street the other day. He was very evil looking, the tail, huge horns, bifurcated tail. I thought he might be the devil so I asked if he was Lucifer. He said no, my name is "Fred." I think he was lying like those new bible translatations.That's nothing--I saw a werewolf with a Chinese menu in his hand, walking through the streets of Soho in the rain. He claimed to be Lucifer, said he got rid of the red skin, horns and pitchfork thingy so he wouldn't be exposed. They're in a closet in his basement, along with the torn-out pages of the nasty translations.