What's the difference between Satan and Lucifer?

[daydreamergurl15]

Lucifer "Day Star" is a name given to whomever Isaiah was speaking about and only the KJV and NKJV use that word in replace for "Day Star"/Morning Star.

Satan is the name of the Devil.

Lucifer =/= Satan

 

[Rev Randy]

Lucifer "Day Star" is a name given to whomever Isaiah was speaking about and only the KJV and NKJV use that word in replace for "Day Star"/Morning Star.

Satan is the name of the Devil.

Lucifer =/= Satan

But of course you know that the KJv is the only true reliable translation.....err unless you just happen to speak any language except english or err...unless you don't happen to speak 1600 era english or err...unless you actually check it against the Greek and Hebrew.....The list goes on but I'll leave it there.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

the question assumes they are different . first one must establish that they are different . then answer the question if indeed the premise of the question is true .

 

[Gregory Thompson]

so does that mean when you get the promise in revelation "to him who overcomes i will give the morning star" does that mean they'll get a thorn in their flesh?

 

[Rev Randy]

so does that mean when you get the promise in revelation "to him who overcomes i will give the morning star" does that mean they'll get a thorn in their flesh?

Or the devil to poke with a pointy stick?

 

[Nanopants]

There's a difference between "day star" and "morning star."

A morning star fades with the coming of the day, but a day star is so bright that it remains visible.

I just thought that was relevant. I'm going to guess that the "day star" opposes and exalts itself against the light of the day, though it's obviously inferior. That reading seems to fit in with Isa 14.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

Or the devil to poke with a pointy stick?

or neptune's trident .. same diff ..

 

[Rev Randy]

There's a difference between "day star" and "morning star."

A morning star fades with the coming of the day, but a day star is so bright that it remains visible.

I just thought that was relevant. I'm going to guess that the "day star" opposes and exalts itself against the light of the day, though it's obviously inferior. That reading seems to fit in with Isa 14.

One is a planet that reflects light rather than produces.
light. Or so I learned studying celestial Navigation.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Satan is a person.
Lucifer is a planet (Venus). Otherwise known as the "day star."

A "satan" is a person who is accusatory or stands in an adversarial relationship to another. (Hence Yeshua saying "satan, get behind me").

To be "lucifer" means to have the characteristic of shining and daylight--thus Yeshua as the glorious and resplendent Son of God revealed to humanity is described as a lucifer in the Latin of 2 Peter 1:19.

Unfortunately, Satan is nowhere called or characterised as Lucifer in any bible.

Very interesting! Thanks



.

 

[SG9]

What's the difference between Satan and Lucifer?
Title says it all JACK.

Their names?

 

[Setyoufree]

Title says it all JACK.

Lucifer was blameless. He reflected God's agape love. He was made in the image and likeness of God.

Satan is the master mind of sin. He is the creator of the love of self.

 

[SilentShadow100]

Satan is a title used to refer to an evil being. It comes from Hebrew "HaSatan", which means "the adversary."

From Wikipedia: As an adjective, the Latin word lucifer meant "light-bringing" and was applied to the moon. As a noun, it meant "morning star", or, in Roman mythology, its divine personification as "the fabled son of Aurora[46] and Cephalus, and father of Ceyx", or (in poetry) "day".[6] The second of the meanings attached to the word when used as a noun corresponds to the image in Greek mythology of Eos, the goddess of dawn, giving birth to the morning star Phosphorus.Isaiah 14:12 is not the only place where the Vulgate uses the word lucifer. The Vulgate uses the same word in contexts where it clearly has no reference to a fallen angel: 2 Peter 1:19 (meaning "morning star"), Job 11:17 ("the light of the morning"), Job 38:32 ("the signs of the zodiac") and Psalms 110:3 ("the dawn").[47] To speak of the morning star, lucifer is not the only expression that the Vulgate uses: three times it uses stella matutina: Sirach 50:6 (referring to the actual morning star), and Revelation 2:28 (of uncertain reference) and 22:16 (referring to Jesus).
Other indications that in Christian tradition the Latin word lucifer did not carry connotations of a fallen angel are the names of Bishops Lucifer of Cagliari and Lucifer of Siena, and its use in the Easter Proclamation prayer to God regarding the paschal candle: Flammas eius lucifer matutinus inveniat: ille, inquam, lucifer, qui nescit occasum. Christus Filius tuus, qui, regressus ab inferis, humano generi serenus illuxit, et vivit et regnat in saecula saeculorum (May this flame be found still burning by the Morning Star: the one Morning Star who never sets, Christ your Son, who, coming back from death's domain, has shed his peaceful light on humanity, and lives and reigns for ever and ever). In the works of Latin grammarians, Lucifer, like Daniel, was discussed as an example of a personal name

 

[SG9]

Perhaps, the difference is that Lucifer was spirit and then after falling to earth it means that Satan became flesh like man. Angels were created a little higher than man, and I account this as ranking in creation order, whatever is created before the latter is higher than the latter in rank. If I am accounting this correctly, all things that were gifted Adam were the things that were created before the man was, all things that were created after man were already under man's dominion. Creation has an order that I see blended into the scriptures of the creation story.

 

[nephilimiyr]

Title says it all JACK.

"Lucifer" was supposedly the name of the being that God created to be the most beautiful of all, the name is actually Hellel which is Hebrew for son of the morning star. Lucifer is Latin, and is actually the only latin word in the OT. Anyway, when this being sined he then became known as Satan, or rather, the Satan, the accuser or the adversary.

 

[nephilimiyr]

There is a long tradition of treating the Lucifer passage as allegorically relating to Satan. If the original post intends to draw on that allegorical sense of scripture then fair enough but the plain and literal sense of the passage is about the king of Babylon (Isa 14:4).

Wait, you don't believe that a passage in the Bible can have both a literal and spiritual, and or, allegorical sense?

I believe that the Isa 14 passage has both a literal and spiritual understanding to it. The spiritual understanding is directly related to the Eze 28 passage that also has a literal and spiritual meaning to it.

 

[SG9]

Satan is a title used to refer to an evil being. It comes from Hebrew "HaSatan", which means "the adversary."

I must have missed this one but I have noticed this name in pagan culture; I have learned from study that satanists do some weird things with symbols, and all of the symbolism is derived from something that was once good, and this is the nature of hiding evil in good. For example, and I don't repeat this to offend any person's but if you notice this name, "HaSatan" it can say other things if the name is spelled backwards and with a slip of a letter if needed to spell something else that cloaks the evil nature in it. So in this case we can change this as the pagans have to arrive at another name that is used in common circles around the world. HaSatan was altered to become "Natasha", and in essence is saying, "Ah Satan". The pagans derived this name from old texts in order to hide Satan in their first born daughter so to mock a first born "Son". Whatever God has established the pagans have reversed and made counterfeit. There are many pagan practices and names and vocabulary that circulate this globe still today while uninformed people use these unaware of what they are. Thanks

 

[yeshuasavedme]

"Lucifer" is just a poor translation with a great deal of superfluous baggage attached to it.

Lucifer as a proper name and as a satan fallen is a fable with no Bible foundation, for sure.
Beware the cunningly devised fables of the professing Bible scholars who teach doctrines made up by ignorant men professing to be wise, for ignorant men to follow.

 

[SG9]

Dear friends, I should also note that this pagan practice that I described in post 56 is to replicate the same relationship that Eve had with the serpent in Eden; Eve became the first born daughter of Satan when she violated God's commandments. The pagans carry on this tradition by using their flesh born daughters to mimic Eve. This is to twist backward and to counterfeit the Creation of the Son of man. Thanks

 

[yeshuasavedme]

"Lucifer" was supposedly the name of the being that God created to be the most beautiful of all, the name is actually Hellel which is Hebrew for son of the morning star. Lucifer is Latin, and is actually the only latin word in the OT. Anyway, when this being sined he then became known as Satan, or rather, the Satan, the accuser or the adversary.

Though some of what you write I agree with, this is not the doctrine of the Word of God.

It is Adam who is made in the image of God who was to come [Genesis 1:26 -28; Romans 5:14]: and made in the very bodily image indeed of God the Word, who is come in the same likeness of human being flesh that Adam was created in in the beginning -Romans 5:14.

It is the Adam spirit addressed as having been in Eden, and mocked in the Adam person king of Tyrus [the Hebrew says he is an Adam] and is guilty of the sin of the Adam father, in the same one Adam spirit, and who is a descendent of Nimrod, with whom God holds a controversy, still, in his descendents.
God has controversies to settle, and He will settle every one of them and no one will escape who does not repent of the sins of their fathers against God and of their own sins against God -that is Bible doctrine and is why we are all born dead in the one Adam spirit, and so, must be born again in the One Living Spirit of Christ to enter into Paradise above where our first father got cast down and out of at the fall..

Nimrod is the Adam who thought in his heart to ascend above the stars of heaven and set his throne above.
God still has controversy over that, and all controversies will be settled in the descendents of every rebel against God, beginning with the first controversy that got us cast down and out of Eden, from the Paradise of God above, when we were still just the seed in the loins of our first father who would all come forth in our pre-ordained season, boundaried by our pre-ordained days as it is written for us in the Book of Life.

God is mocking the Adam spirit in that passage, and the person in Adam who exalts himself to be "god" who will be brought down to Sheol as an Adam person, and "no god".

 

[yeshuasavedme]

Dear friends, I should also note that this pagan practice that I described in post 56 is to replicate the same relationship that Eve had with the serpent in Eden; Eve became the first born daughter of Satan when she violated God's commandments. The pagans carry on this tradition by using their flesh born daughters to mimic Eve. This is to twist backward and to counterfeit the Creation of the Son of man. Thanks

That is garbage stuff, and not Bible.