PDA

View Full Version : Is "Lucifer" Satan?



Equipped_4_Love
Apr 24th 2010, 04:57 PM
I just came across a teaching I had never heard before saying that Lucifer is not Satan, but the King of Babylon.

Is this correct?

markedward
Apr 24th 2010, 05:13 PM
"Lucifer" is not Satan.

1. The translation error
Isaiah 14.12, in many translations, refers to an individual called "Lucifer", occasionally rendered as Morning Star or Day Star. To properly explain why this is an error requires examining the original Hebrew word used and the history of how it was translated.

In the Hebrew text of Isaiah 14.12, the noun used is hyll. The origin of the noun hyll is the root verb hlal. The verb hlal can mean "to shine", but it also (more often) means "to celebrate", "to boast", "to commend", "to praise". (Hlal is the root word for hallelu-Yah, which everyone knows to mean "praise God".) Hence, the noun hyll's proper meaning is something such as "shining one", "praising one", or "boasting one".

When the Latin Vulgate was being made, the translator decided that the closest equivalent to hyll was lucifer, which was the name of the "morning star" (which turned out to actually be the planet Venus). Lucifer means "light bringer" or "light bearer". It shouldn't need to be explained, but the word hyll ("shining one", "praising one", "boasting one") does not have the same meaning as the word lucifer ("light bringer", "light bearer"). And in extension, "morning star" is even less of a proper translation of hyll into English.

The noun hyll is being used as a descriptor of the person it is being applied to. It is not a name. So how should it be translated? Should it be "shining one"? "Praising one"? "Boasting one"?

In 14.4, the king is mocked, "How the oppressor has ceased, the insolent fury ceased!" In 14.8, the king is told, "you were laid low". In 14.9-11, the king's ego is brought down by his eventual death, when he will join the countless who have died before him. He will "become as weak" as they have. His "pomp is brought down". In 14.12, the king is told "how [he has] fallen" and "how [he has been] cut down to the ground". In 14.13-14, his heart is filled with pride, and he considers himself to be greater than all gods (including God). In 14.15-22, the king is told of his death, of how he will not be given glory, of how his sons will be slaughtered. Throughout the whole chapter, the king of Babylon is being humiliated and debased and humbled. The chapter is mocking his pride, his boastfulness.

We have here our answer: hyll is best rendered in English as "boasting one", because that is how the king of Babylon is described throughout the whole chapter, as boasting of himself, and of his eventual humiliation. As should be seen by the original Hebrew word, and the context of the passage, lucifer is not the right word to translate here.

2. The identity error
Isaiah 14 repeatedly says who it is referring to. Even if the word lucifer was the right word to be used, Isaiah is not speaking about Satan. The king of Babylon is consistently seen in Scripture as being a human king, and this is made plainly clear in Isaiah 14.

First, the king of Babylon is told that he will go down to sheol (the grave) when he dies. No passage in Scripture connects Satan (or any other fallen angel) as being sent to sheol, and likewise, no Scripture says that Satan (or any other fallen angel) will die (unless you count "the second death", being the Lake of Fire in the book of Revelation, which is not the same thing as sheol).

Second, the king of Babylon says in his heart that he "will ascend to heaven". Nowhere does the text describe the king of Babylon as actually, physically attempting to wage war upon God in order to steal God's throne. The passage is speaking about the prideful condition of the king of Babylon's heart. Meaning, the king of Babylon did not literally try to climb up "the mount of assembly" in order to deify himself.

Third, the king of Babylon is outright called a man in 14.16. Likewise, he is said to have "sons" and "offspring". He also has a "people" he can call his own. The king of Babylon is human, and nothing in the text suggests otherwise.

Fourth, in order for this passage to be considered to have a "dual fulfillment", in both the human king of Babylon, and the fallen angel Satan, one must first overcome all of the previously mentioned obstacles, and even then the "dual fulfillment" is entirely assumed about the passage. Just because the reader has a hunch that the text is also about Satan does not mean it is about him. They need definitive Scripture that says so, and there is none. There is not a single passage in Scripture that connects Satan to the individual described in Isaiah 14.

Isaiah 14 is not referring to Satan. Satan was not named "Lucifer" before his fall. The individual in Isaiah 14, called hyll ("boasting one") is the boastful, prideful human king of Babylon, and that's all.

Love Fountain
Apr 24th 2010, 05:49 PM
I just came across a teaching I had never heard before saying that Lucifer is not Satan, but the King of Babylon.

Is this correct?


Hello Welder4Christ,

All different names and titles for the the same entity and there are many more names and title he goes by in the Scripture.

Did you know that satan/lucifer/the King of Babylon/death/the serpent/dragon/king of tyre/son of perdition/god of this world/man/enemy/antichrist/devil/etc...quotes the Bible too?

He has many names and titles.

A friend of mine once said the greatest trick the devil has ever done is convincing the world he doesn't exist.

Hope this helps,
Love Fountain

Equipped_4_Love
Apr 24th 2010, 05:51 PM
Hmmm.....well we all know that Satan is the power and driving force behind many of the world's leaders.

We also know that pride has brought down many of these leaders, and even Satan himself. For me, its not such a stretch to think that the passage is actually talking to the driving force behind the king's rulership, that being Satan himself. Sounds to me like this king was extremely inflated in his ego....just as we know the anti-Christ and the son of perdition to be.

After all, when Jesus Christ was addressing Peter that one time, He said "Get thee behind me Satan." I don't think that Jesus was calling Peter Satan.

markedward
Apr 24th 2010, 06:08 PM
But the problem with that is, Satan is specifically mentioned by Jesus when he rebuked Peter. Satan is specifically mentioned by Paul when he describes the "son of perdition".

Satan is not once mentioned when Isaiah rebukes the king of Babylon.

Equipped_4_Love
Apr 24th 2010, 07:02 PM
But the problem with that is, Satan is specifically mentioned by Jesus when he rebuked Peter. Satan is specifically mentioned by Paul when he describes the "son of perdition".

Satan is not once mentioned when Isaiah rebukes the king of Babylon.

Verse 14 says that the Babylonian king said in his heart that he would be like the Most High -- this is a blatant reference to God. What person, king or not, would in his right mind make this claim? This is what Satan claimed.

It just seems to me like the power behind this king's authority is being addressed here. This description is parallel to that of Satan.

markedward
Apr 24th 2010, 07:14 PM
Verse 14 says that the Babylonian king said in his heart that he would be like the Most High -- this is a blatant reference to God.But not a blatant reference to Satan.


What person, king or not, would in his right mind make this claim?
Kings of Babylon.
Kings of Akkad.
Kings of Egypt.
Kings of Chaldea (neo-Babylon).
Kings of Media-Persia.
Kings of Greece.
Kings of Rome.
Kings of China.
Kings of Japan.
Kings of Maya.
Kings of Inca.

Basically every pagan king before the first coming of Christ, and several afterwards.

Equipped_4_Love
Apr 24th 2010, 07:45 PM
Hey, Mark -- I really hate to sound like the church lady here, but couldn't it be Satan?

I mean, I understand that it is a direct reference to the King of Babylon, but couldn't it also be an indirect reference to Satan as well? After all, God was the one who was telling Isaiah what to write. He knew what was going on behind-the-scenes, and the whole passage is just rife with imagery of Satan's arrogance.

Equipped_4_Love
Apr 24th 2010, 07:47 PM
Kings of Babylon.
Kings of Akkad.
Kings of Egypt.
Kings of Chaldea (neo-Babylon).
Kings of Media-Persia.
Kings of Greece.
Kings of Rome.
Kings of China.
Kings of Japan.
Kings of Maya.
Kings of Inca.

Basically every pagan king before the first coming of Christ, and several afterwards.

Really? All these kings claimed that they would be on equal footing with God?

markedward
Apr 24th 2010, 08:03 PM
Not every single king from those empires, but many did, yes. Hence my generalization of "basically".

Archaeological records attest to the (self-)deification of many of these kings. Pharaohs were initially believed to be the sons of gods, and later, they were seen as the actual gods, incarnated as men. Naram-Suen of Akkad is considered to be the first self-deified ruler in Mesopotamia, at about 2200 BC. The Chinese emperors were deified as "sons of heaven". Julius Caesar was deified as "the Divine Julius" after he died, but his son and several emperors over the following centuries were deified will yet alive, taking the titles of "god", "son of god", "son of the divine", and "savior".

Even the Japanese emperors were considered incarnated gods until World War 2 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hirohito#Imperial_status).



Of the kings that did consider themselves deities, they either did not believe that the God of the Bible (YHWH) existed, or if they did acknowledge his existence, they considered themselves superior to him. The self-deified condition of such a king's heart was placing him above the true God, regardless of whether or not a king had knowledge of who that God was.

Here's a somewhat comedic example: Steven Seagal and Chuck Norris both make (B-class) action movies. Their careers overlapped. For the sake of example, assume that Steven Seagal has absolutely never heard of Chuck Norris, yet Steven Seagal claims to be the best (B-class) action movie film star. While Steven Seagal has never heard of Chuck Norris, and never mentioned Chuck Norris by name, in his heart Steven Seagal considers himself to be superior to Chuck Norris.

In the same way, the king of Babylon may never have heard of YHWH, the true God. But by the mere fact that the king of Babylon is so arrogant, prideful, boastful, and has deified himself, in his heart he considers himself to be greater than the true God.

Satan may be the driving force behind the king of Babylon... but Isaiah is not referring to Satan, he is referring to the king of Babylon. Isaiah is not claiming that Satan's former name was "Lucifer", he is calling the king of Babylon a "boasting one".

jimmyjay
Apr 24th 2010, 08:46 PM
Isaiah 14:12 NKJ
"How you are fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! How you are cut down to the ground, You who weakened the nations! Even the cowboys knew that Lucifer was fire. You got a lucifer?To light a cigerette

Luke 10:18 NKJ
And He said to them, "I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven.

2 Corinthians 11:14 NKJ
And no wonder! For Satan himself transforms himself into an angel of light.

Revelation 2:9 NKJ
I know your works, tribulation, and poverty (but you are rich); and I know the blasphemy of those who say they are Jews and are not, but are a synagogue of Satan. (satan has a church)

Revelation 3:9 NKJ
Indeed I will make those of the synagogue of Satan, who say they are Jews (Christains) and are not, but lie--indeed I will make them come and worship before your feet, and to know that I have loved you

Revelation 2:13 NKJ
I know your works, and where you dwell, where Satan's throne is. And you hold fast to My name, and did not deny My faith even in the days in which Antipas was My faithful martyr, who was killed among you, where Satan dwells( Roman rule)

Revelation 11:8 NKJ
And their dead bodies will lie in the street of the great city which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where also our Lord was crucified.(Roman rule)

Read 17th chapter book of Rev.

markedward
Apr 24th 2010, 08:48 PM
None of those have to do with determining the identity of "lucifer"...

Love Fountain
Apr 25th 2010, 03:53 PM
I just came across a teaching I had never heard before saying that Lucifer is not Satan, but the King of Babylon.

Is this correct?

No that is not correct, satan, lucifer, the king of babylon, all the same. Isa 14 is about when satan will be cast into the pit and his deception removed for the 1000 year millenium. Rest given and deception removed.

Let's have a look.

Rev 20:1 And I saw an angel come down from heaven, having the key of the bottomless pit and a great chain in his hand.

20:2 And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years,

20:3 And cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal upon him, that he should deceive the nations no more, till the thousand years should be fulfilled: and after that he must be loosed a little season.

When the above happens then will those who see satan in the pit will say.

Isa 14:10 All they shall speak and say unto thee, Art thou also become weak as we? art thou become like unto us?

14:11 Thy pomp is brought down to the grave, and the noise of thy viols: the worm is spread under thee, and the worms cover thee.

14:12 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!

14:13 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:

14:14 I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High.

14:15 Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit.

Those who see him at the time mentioned above, shall see him in the pit, deceiving the nations no more! Even Paul spoke of the self exaltation of satan when referred to as the son of perdition in 2Thes 2 which is the time just before he will be cast into the pit.

2 Thes 2:3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;

2:4 Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.

When satan is cast into the pit, then shall come the rest and restoration.

Isa 14:3 And it shall come to pass in the day that the LORD shall give thee rest from thy sorrow, and from thy fear, and from the hard bondage wherein thou wast made to serve,

14:4 That thou shalt take up this proverb against the king of Babylon, and say, How hath the oppressor ceased! the golden city ceased!

14:5 The LORD hath broken the staff of the wicked, and the sceptre of the rulers.

14:6 He who smote the people in wrath with a continual stroke, he that ruled the nations in anger, is persecuted, and none hindereth.

14:7 The whole earth is at rest, and is quiet: they break forth into singing.

It shall happen exactly as it is written and lucifer is just another name/title for satan, the old serpent, the dragon, the king of babylon, the shining one, messenger of light, the assyrian, the antichrist, the god of this world and the deceiver of the whole world.

Let us come out of her my people and REPENT!! Turn our hearts back to the Father's word and be healed and converted.

Hope this helps.

Bless you,
Love Fountain

divaD
Apr 25th 2010, 06:12 PM
No that is not correct, satan, lucifer, the king of babylon, all the same. Isa 14 is about when satan will be cast into the pit and his deception removed for the 1000 year millenium. Rest given and deception removed.

Let's have a look.

Rev 20:1 And I saw an angel come down from heaven, having the key of the bottomless pit and a great chain in his hand.

20:2 And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years,

20:3 And cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal upon him, that he should deceive the nations no more, till the thousand years should be fulfilled: and after that he must be loosed a little season.

When the above happens then will those who see satan in the pit will say.

Isa 14:10 All they shall speak and say unto thee, Art thou also become weak as we? art thou become like unto us?

14:11 Thy pomp is brought down to the grave, and the noise of thy viols: the worm is spread under thee, and the worms cover thee.

14:12 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!

14:13 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:

14:14 I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High.

14:15 Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit.

Those who see him at the time mentioned above, shall see him in the pit, deceiving the nations no more! Even Paul spoke of the self exaltation of satan when referred to as the son of perdition in 2Thes 2 which is the time just before he will be cast into the pit.

2 Thes 2:3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;

2:4 Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.

When satan is cast into the pit, then shall come the rest and restoration.

Isa 14:3 And it shall come to pass in the day that the LORD shall give thee rest from thy sorrow, and from thy fear, and from the hard bondage wherein thou wast made to serve,

14:4 That thou shalt take up this proverb against the king of Babylon, and say, How hath the oppressor ceased! the golden city ceased!

14:5 The LORD hath broken the staff of the wicked, and the sceptre of the rulers.

14:6 He who smote the people in wrath with a continual stroke, he that ruled the nations in anger, is persecuted, and none hindereth.

14:7 The whole earth is at rest, and is quiet: they break forth into singing.

It shall happen exactly as it is written and lucifer is just another name/title for satan, the old serpent, the dragon, the king of babylon, the shining one, messenger of light, the assyrian, the antichrist, the god of this world and the deceiver of the whole world.

Let us come out of her my people and REPENT!! Turn our hearts back to the Father's word and be healed and converted.

Hope this helps.

Bless you,
Love Fountain



This is a pretty interesting connection, not that I agree or anything. Can you now show with the OT, when and why satan is released, and that he once again deceives the nations? IOW, from where Isaiah 14 left off.

markedward
Apr 25th 2010, 06:35 PM
I mean, I understand that it is a direct reference to the King of Babylon, but couldn't it also be an indirect reference to Satan as well? After all, God was the one who was telling Isaiah what to write. He knew what was going on behind-the-scenes, and the whole passage is just rife with imagery of Satan's arrogance.Only if you assume it's about Satan. Nothing in the text implies that it is about Satan; all of the imagery and language in the text points to a human king who has deified himself in his own eyes... this was true for many, many individuals in history (especially during the era that Isaiah was writing), so there's simply no reason within the context of what Isaiah wrote to say, "Look, it's talking about Satan!"

The "indirect reference" is wholly assumed by the reader. It's entirely based on a hunch. Interpreting the king of Babylon to be Satan is founded wholly upon eisegetical methods.

Put the belief on hold for a moment that "lucifer = Satan". Say there was an individual who had never heard of this connection. They are fluent in history. They have studied a great deal about kings who deified themselves. They knew this was true about kings from Babylon. Then they read the New Testament and became a Christian. Then they read the Old Testament and got to this passage for the first time. The Hebrew word hyll is properly translated into English as "boasting one". Now, can you objectively, honestly state that this person will read Isaiah 14 and ever come to the conclusion that Isaiah was prophesying about anyone other than the king of Babylon?

If you can say objectively and honestly that yes, they would connect "the boasting one", the king of Babylon, to Satan... then maybe Isaiah 14 is indirectly referring to Satan. (I would still have my own doubts, but that's up to others, not me.) If you can say objectively and honestly that no, they would never find a connection between Satan and the king of Babylon "the boasting one" unless someone had first told them, then it is more than likely that no, Isaiah's prophecy has nothing to do with Satan, there is no dual fulfillment, etc.

nzyr
Apr 26th 2010, 01:05 AM
I just came across a teaching I had never heard before saying that Lucifer is not Satan, but the King of Babylon.

Is this correct?

I believe these scriptures describe Satan:

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!
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 I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High.
Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit. (Isaiah 14:12-15)

The Mighty Sword
Apr 26th 2010, 01:17 AM
But not a blatant reference to Satan.


Kings of Babylon.
Kings of Akkad.
Kings of Egypt.
Kings of Chaldea (neo-Babylon).
Kings of Media-Persia.
Kings of Greece.
Kings of Rome.
Kings of China.
Kings of Japan.
Kings of Maya.
Kings of Inca.

Basically every pagan king before the first coming of Christ, and several afterwards.


You forgot the:

King of Queens
http://media.herald-dispatch.com/blog/tuned/uploaded_images/King-of-Queens-782672.jpg

ClayInHisHands
Apr 26th 2010, 11:01 AM
don't forget the King Of Rock


http://dosisminima.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/album-rundmc-king-of-rock.jpg

boangry
Apr 26th 2010, 12:22 PM
I just came across a teaching I had never heard before saying that Lucifer is not Satan, but the King of Babylon.

Is this correct?

No not really, yes Lucifer was the King of Babylon and was also Satan. Of course you could take the verses like, I will ascend above the clouds as either literal or metaphoric when taken in isolation so the best thing to do is compare this with other scripture and not rely on an isolated understanding. And we find this is actually a common occurrence for example The King of Tyre was the King of Tyre but he was also in the garden of Eden. So my view on this at the moment is, that this is how the Holy Spirit conveys to us an understanding of Satan and his work among mankind. Just from memory I think the meaning of Lucifer and the meaning of Serpent are not that dissimilar.

theBelovedDisciple
Apr 26th 2010, 03:50 PM
"Lucifer" is not Satan.

1. The translation error
Isaiah 14.12, in many translations, refers to an individual called "Lucifer", occasionally rendered as Morning Star or Day Star. To properly explain why this is an error requires examining the original Hebrew word used and the history of how it was translated.

In the Hebrew text of Isaiah 14.12, the noun used is hyll. The origin of the noun hyll is the root verb hlal. The verb hlal can mean "to shine", but it also (more often) means "to celebrate", "to boast", "to commend", "to praise". (Hlal is the root word for hallelu-Yah, which everyone knows to mean "praise God".) Hence, the noun hyll's proper meaning is something such as "shining one", "praising one", or "boasting one".

When the Latin Vulgate was being made, the translator decided that the closest equivalent to hyll was lucifer, which was the name of the "morning star" (which turned out to actually be the planet Venus). Lucifer means "light bringer" or "light bearer". It shouldn't need to be explained, but the word hyll ("shining one", "praising one", "boasting one") does not have the same meaning as the word lucifer ("light bringer", "light bearer"). And in extension, "morning star" is even less of a proper translation of hyll into English.

The noun hyll is being used as a descriptor of the person it is being applied to. It is not a name. So how should it be translated? Should it be "shining one"? "Praising one"? "Boasting one"?

In 14.4, the king is mocked, "How the oppressor has ceased, the insolent fury ceased!" In 14.8, the king is told, "you were laid low". In 14.9-11, the king's ego is brought down by his eventual death, when he will join the countless who have died before him. He will "become as weak" as they have. His "pomp is brought down". In 14.12, the king is told "how [he has] fallen" and "how [he has been] cut down to the ground". In 14.13-14, his heart is filled with pride, and he considers himself to be greater than all gods (including God). In 14.15-22, the king is told of his death, of how he will not be given glory, of how his sons will be slaughtered. Throughout the whole chapter, the king of Babylon is being humiliated and debased and humbled. The chapter is mocking his pride, his boastfulness.

We have here our answer: hyll is best rendered in English as "boasting one", because that is how the king of Babylon is described throughout the whole chapter, as boasting of himself, and of his eventual humiliation. As should be seen by the original Hebrew word, and the context of the passage, lucifer is not the right word to translate here.

2. The identity error
Isaiah 14 repeatedly says who it is referring to. Even if the word lucifer was the right word to be used, Isaiah is not speaking about Satan. The king of Babylon is consistently seen in Scripture as being a human king, and this is made plainly clear in Isaiah 14.

First, the king of Babylon is told that he will go down to sheol (the grave) when he dies. No passage in Scripture connects Satan (or any other fallen angel) as being sent to sheol, and likewise, no Scripture says that Satan (or any other fallen angel) will die (unless you count "the second death", being the Lake of Fire in the book of Revelation, which is not the same thing as sheol).

Second, the king of Babylon says in his heart that he "will ascend to heaven". Nowhere does the text describe the king of Babylon as actually, physically attempting to wage war upon God in order to steal God's throne. The passage is speaking about the prideful condition of the king of Babylon's heart. Meaning, the king of Babylon did not literally try to climb up "the mount of assembly" in order to deify himself.

Third, the king of Babylon is outright called a man in 14.16. Likewise, he is said to have "sons" and "offspring". He also has a "people" he can call his own. The king of Babylon is human, and nothing in the text suggests otherwise.

Fourth, in order for this passage to be considered to have a "dual fulfillment", in both the human king of Babylon, and the fallen angel Satan, one must first overcome all of the previously mentioned obstacles, and even then the "dual fulfillment" is entirely assumed about the passage. Just because the reader has a hunch that the text is also about Satan does not mean it is about him. They need definitive Scripture that says so, and there is none. There is not a single passage in Scripture that connects Satan to the individual described in Isaiah 14.

Isaiah 14 is not referring to Satan. Satan was not named "Lucifer" before his fall. The individual in Isaiah 14, called hyll ("boasting one") is the boastful, prideful human king of Babylon, and that's all.

Mark,

Your argurment is weak.. because 'satan' himself, can 'possess' people.. and animals... thus the man in Isaiah 14..from a 'spiritual perspective'.... points to satan or Lucifer, he who wants to exalt his throne above the throne of God Himself...

this is the problem now days..

the man is Isaiah 14, was more than likely a 'man possessed by the devil himself'.. a satan like man.. as the Greek puts it...

Jesus Christ brought ot 'light' the reality of devils possessing 'flesh and bone'.. because He cast them out of people.. and even Judas himself was directly possessed by satan...

so the 'fleshly' argument is weak.. based on carnal understanding the Scripture.. which leads to the denial and refusal to believe in the supernatural.... this Planet is a supernatural playing Field...

the reality of devils and devil possession and that teaching that they don't even exist today or at work... is usually covered up by those in organized religion who would cover them up with terms that deal with psychology and medical terms.... these used by the Great Deciever... and he is alive and well today... one does not have to go very far to see that his work in progress...

the veil of 'flesh' must be pulled away or stripped away.. and its ONLY THE ANNOINTING OF CHIRST HIMSELF.. that will do that.. and He will show you the reality of supernatural...

as Paul cry was....

Oh my litttle children, of whom I travail in birth, until Christ be formed in you.....

His Annointing will show you and reveal to you the Truth.. of the Supernatural...

but it comes with a cost... many don't want to give up that cost... for fear of ridicule and mocking, being called 'evil', and despised by those who are 'going with the flow'....

markedward
Apr 26th 2010, 05:42 PM
the man is Isaiah 14, was more than likely a 'man possessed by the devil himself'Once again, you're defaulting to assumption and hunch—not Scripture—to make this conclusion. My argument stands.


He will show you the reality of supernaturalI'm not denying the supernatural. You have no basis for claiming that I am. What I am doing is denying un-Scriptural assumptions.

David Taylor
Apr 26th 2010, 06:09 PM
I just came across a teaching I had never heard before saying that Lucifer is not Satan, but the King of Babylon.

Is this correct?

A "name" is nothing more than a title that people, things, animals are given so that they can be recognized and referred to; and understood by that reference.

Marion Morrison...some of you may not know who this is by their given name.
What if I called them by other more well-known names like....Liberty Valance, The Shootist, Rooster Cogburn, The Duke, John Wayne.
Now you have a clearer picture.

"Lucifer" is a Latin transliteration of the Hebrew word Heylel from Isaiah 14:12. The English Lucifer comes from the Latin Lucifer, translated from Heylel in the original Hebrew.

The name "Lucifer" isn't used anywhere else in the Scriptures (OT or NT) outside of this one verse.

However, if I were to ask 100 people who lucifer was, most all would say either "Satan" or "the Devil". Some really oldtimers might say "the boogey man".

So the name "Lucifer" is now assuredly a common name for Satan (whether it should or shouldn't be really can't change anything).

Where the rub comes, is that "Lucifer/Satan"wasn't the original primary subject of Isaiah 14:12...it was the King of Babylon.

However, Isaiah 14:12 is using a literary technique of 'typing' and showing us through the King of Babylon a 'type' of Satan.

Notice this passage: "14:4, 12 14:4 That thou shalt take up this proverb against the king of Babylon; 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! 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: I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High. Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit. "

This type of context points us to why the King of Babylon, referred to as Heylel/Lucifer here, is often used as a type of Satan...because this type of context is descriptive of Satan, his fall from Heaven, his being cut to the ground(symbolizing the serpent's curse), his pride to ascend to the throne of heaven to replace the Most High, and his resulting casting down to hell and the pit.

Another similar 'typology' application of Satan is done in Ezekiel regarding the King of Tyre this time, when it states: "Son of man, take up a lamentation upon the king of Tyrus, and say unto him, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Thou sealest up the sum, full of wisdom, and perfect in beauty. Thou hast been in Eden the garden of God; every precious stone was thy covering, the sardius, topaz, and the diamond, the beryl, the onyx, and the jasper, the sapphire, the emerald, and the carbuncle, and gold: the workmanship of thy tabrets and of thy pipes was prepared in thee in the day that thou wast created. Thou art the anointed cherub that covereth; and I have set thee so: thou wast upon the holy mountain of God; thou hast walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire. Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee. "

So we see two useages of ancient evil kings to personify or be a 'type' of Satan. The Isaiah passage just happened to have the name 'Lucifer' from Latin stick and hang around over the centuries, and become another common name for Satan.

Light bearer....remind you of another NT verse regarding Satan?

I Corinthians 11:14 "And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light. "

So while the strict translation of Isaiah 14 and it's words don't directly refer to Satan as Lucifer by name, they do so by typological context; and by common association over the ages.

In the original Hebrew setting circa 900 B.C. when Isaiah was written they may not have considered 'Heylel' as a name for Satan, but by the time of the N.T. and Latin, and later English, that association had become common...so that yes, "Lucifer" now is a name for Satan.

Zack702
Apr 27th 2010, 02:47 AM
A "name" is nothing more than a title that people, things, animals are given so that they can be recognized and referred to; and understood by that reference.

Marion Morrison...some of you may not know who this is by their given name.
What if I called them by other more well-known names like....Liberty Valance, The Shootist, Rooster Cogburn, The Duke, John Wayne.
Now you have a clearer picture.

"Lucifer" is a Latin transliteration of the Hebrew word Heylel from Isaiah 14:12. The English Lucifer comes from the Latin Lucifer, translated from Heylel in the original Hebrew.

The name "Lucifer" isn't used anywhere else in the Scriptures (OT or NT) outside of this one verse.

However, if I were to ask 100 people who lucifer was, most all would say either "Satan" or "the Devil". Some really oldtimers might say "the boogey man".

So the name "Lucifer" is now assuredly a common name for Satan (whether it should or shouldn't be really can't change anything).

Where the rub comes, is that "Lucifer/Satan"wasn't the original primary subject of Isaiah 14:12...it was the King of Babylon.

However, Isaiah 14:12 is using a literary technique of 'typing' and showing us through the King of Babylon a 'type' of Satan.

Notice this passage: "14:4, 12 14:4 That thou shalt take up this proverb against the king of Babylon; 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! 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: I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High. Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit. "

This type of context points us to why the King of Babylon, referred to as Heylel/Lucifer here, is often used as a type of Satan...because this type of context is descriptive of Satan, his fall from Heaven, his being cut to the ground(symbolizing the serpent's curse), his pride to ascend to the throne of heaven to replace the Most High, and his resulting casting down to hell and the pit.

Another similar 'typology' application of Satan is done in Ezekiel regarding the King of Tyre this time, when it states: "Son of man, take up a lamentation upon the king of Tyrus, and say unto him, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Thou sealest up the sum, full of wisdom, and perfect in beauty. Thou hast been in Eden the garden of God; every precious stone was thy covering, the sardius, topaz, and the diamond, the beryl, the onyx, and the jasper, the sapphire, the emerald, and the carbuncle, and gold: the workmanship of thy tabrets and of thy pipes was prepared in thee in the day that thou wast created. Thou art the anointed cherub that covereth; and I have set thee so: thou wast upon the holy mountain of God; thou hast walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire. Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee. "

So we see two useages of ancient evil kings to personify or be a 'type' of Satan. The Isaiah passage just happened to have the name 'Lucifer' from Latin stick and hang around over the centuries, and become another common name for Satan.

Light bearer....remind you of another NT verse regarding Satan?

I Corinthians 11:14 "And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light. "

So while the strict translation of Isaiah 14 and it's words don't directly refer to Satan as Lucifer by name, they do so by typological context; and by common association over the ages.

In the original Hebrew setting circa 900 B.C. when Isaiah was written they may not have considered 'Heylel' as a name for Satan, but by the time of the N.T. and Latin, and later English, that association had become common...so that yes, "Lucifer" now is a name for Satan.

I agree.
I never thought when reading Isaiah that Lucifer was Satan.
I always knew that Lucifer was a nickname people gave to the devil along time ago.
But the passage in Isaiah I think is prophesy towards a man much like all other prophecy.

ClayInHisHands
Apr 27th 2010, 01:35 PM
This is interesting http://www.israelofgod.org/lucifer.htm

It has what markedward was saying and little more

Gillian
Apr 27th 2010, 02:20 PM
In Isaiah 12 and 14 I believe, the whole passages, refer to both satan and human king, why else have past tense and eden with brimestone that Adam`s eden certainly dont have.

a audicine of two this procphecy direactly speficlly to Satan sometime in it saying, mostly by the presence of human king that attracted satan himself behind begin refered too but at same time both of course doomed by God due to their past deeds with details sometime speficlly to Satan only and others that obvious direact to human king but at same time on whole nor speficlly refer to evil deeds and it conquesces.


doesnt matter which versions cos all said same thing in it meanings.

lots of prochecies bible itself actually easily to be double refenaces supernatural and human deeds.


I just think, really you should take bible in it literall sayings when you can, by common sense as well not forgetting supernatural sense in what we already understood. whatever that God , wisodm holy spirit satan etc.


these ones is so hard unlike pently we understand easily just because some cant accept or want to understand that Satan was created in Eden the garden with brimestones etc! that arent Adam`s!

suppose for fear of truth it lead to I guess.

Gillian

Sojourner
Apr 27th 2010, 10:01 PM
13 Thou hast been in Eden the garden of God; every precious stone was thy covering, the sardius, topaz, and the diamond, the beryl, the onyx, and the jasper, the sapphire, the emerald, and the carbuncle, and gold: the workmanship of thy tabrets and of thy pipes was prepared in thee in the day that thou wast created.
14 Thou art the anointed cherub that covereth; and I have set thee so: thou wast upon the holy mountain of God; thou hast walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire.
15 Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee.
16 By the multitude of thy merchandise they have filled the midst of thee with violence, and thou hast sinned: therefore I will cast thee as profane out of the mountain of God: and I will destroy thee, O covering cherub, from the midst of the stones of fire.
17 Thine heart was lifted up because of thy beauty, thou hast corrupted thy wisdom by reason of thy brightness: I will cast thee to the ground, I will lay thee before kings, that they may behold thee. Ezek 28:13-17)

Who was the anointed cherub referred to here, created perfect, who was in Eden, the garden of God, adorned with precious stones, and who walked up and down in the midst of the "stones of fire?" Adam wasn't an angelic being , so who is this individual referred to as the king of Tyrus?