ONE OF THE BIGGEST LIES IN ALL CHRISTENDOM
("How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer")
Theologians have been teaching for centuries now that Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28 give us a perfect explanation of how a perfect Lucifer changed himself into Lucifer the Devil.
"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 you have said in your 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." (Isa. 14:-12-14).
"Son of man, take up a lamentation upon the king of Tyrus, and say unto him, Thus says the Lord God; Thou seal up the sum, full of wisdom, and perfect in beauty. You have been in Eden the garden of God; every precious stone was your 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 your tabrets and of your pipes was prepared in you in the day that you were created. You are the anointed cherub that covers; and I have set you so: you were upon the holy mountain of God; you have walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire. You were perfect in your ways from the day that you were created, till iniquity was found in you"
"By the multitude of your merchandise they have filled the midst of you with violence, and you have sinned: therefore I will cast you as profane out of the mountain of God: and I will destroy you, O covering cherub, from the midst of the stones of fire. Your heart was lifted up because of your beauty, you have corrupted your wisdom by reason of your brightness: I will cast you to the ground, I will lay you before kings, and they may behold you" (Ezek. 28:12-17).
This, we are told, is a perfect description of how perfect Lucifer, a shining light bringing archangel/cherub, became Satan the Devil. Is there any truth to this theory?
This theory suits Satan just fine, and more so, it fits Christendom even ‘finer.’ With this theory (or more correctly ‘hypothesis’
, Christendom has the perfect solution to how they can justifiably consign billions of humans to an eternal lake of fire. With their "free will" firmly established in their deceived minds, Christendom can now teach the world that Satan CHOSE to do evil and has not repented, and most of mankind has also CHOSEN to do evil and not repent, therefore they are all thrown into an eternal lake burning with fire, and God is not the least bit responsible.
Prepare yourself for a revelation: Satan was never perfect and then decided by his phantom free will to become a devil, neither has a single human started out perfect and then decided by his free will to become a sinner! But the Scriptural truth of these matters will set us free from centuries of unscriptural traditions. The problem with this "Lucifer fell" theory is twofold: poor translation and poor interpretation.
First Isaiah 14. To whom is God addressing Himself in these verses we quoted above?
"That you shall take up this proverb against the KING OF BABYLON..." (Ver. 4)
God is speaking of and to and about, "the King of Babylon," not Lucifer, not Satan, not a cherub. And God tells us the end of this man’s reign:
"Your pomp is brought down to the grave [Satan never died or was put in a grave], and the noise of your viols [harps or lutes]: the worm [or maggots] is spread under you [can maggots eat a spirit body], and the worms cover you" (Ver. 11).
But is not this "Lucifer" of verse 14 Satan the Devil?
This next verse is where theologians believe God stops speaking of the King of Babylon and begins speaking of the origin of Satan. What, does the end of the King of Babylon have to do with the beginning of Satan?
"How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! How art thou cut down to the ground, which did weaken the nations"! (Ver. 12).
Notice that back in verse 4 God says to take up this proverb against the "king of Babylon." Next let’s pick up this proverb in verse 10 after all the "trees" (different people which feared the king), are at rest because of the king’s demise, and see if this "Lucifer theory" fits into these verses without doing irreparable damage to the kings English:
"All they shall speak and say unto thee [king of Babylon], Art thou [king of Babylon] also become weak as we? Art thou [king of Babylon] become like unto us [mere mortals and not gods from heaven]. Thy [king of Babylon] pomp is brought down to the grave, and the noise of thy [king of Babylon] viols: the worm is spread under thee [king of Babylon], and the worms cover thee [king of Babylon]. How art thou [king of Babylon] fallen from heaven, O Lucifer…"?!?
How can, the king of Babylon, the king of Babylon, the king of Babylon, the king of Babylon, the king of Babylon, the king of Babylon, the king of Babylon, the king of Babylon (made reference to eight time in two sentences), suddenly turn into "Lucifer" in the middle of a sentence? And where are we ever told that "Lucifer" is a proper name for Satan?
So just where did this proper name, "Lucifer" suddenly appear from in the middle of this sentence? Is "Lucifer" a proper name? Is it even a noun? Is "Lucifer" another name for the king of Babylon? Is "Lucifer" an English word? Is there a Hebrew word that can be translated "Lucifer?"
From my American Heritage College Dictionary, Lucifer n. 1. The archangel cast from heaven for leading the revolt of the angels; Satan. < OE, morning star, Lucifer < Latin Lucifer < lucifer, light-bringer: lux, luc-, light" (page 821).
The very next word under "Lucifer" is, luciferase n. An enzyme that catalyzes the oxidation of luciferin."
And the word that follows "luciferase" in this same dictionary is: " luciferin n. A chemical substance present in the cells of bioluminescent organisms, such as fireflies that produce a bluish-green light when oxidized. [Latin Lucifer, light-bringing; see LUCIFER + -IN.]" (page. 821).
There it is! Lucifer is the ‘chemical bioluminescence’ in the cells of FIREFLIES! WOW! With that in mind, we should all sleep better tonight.
First, just who was it that fell from heaven, and does the phrase "fallen from heaven" prove that this person had to have been in God’s throne room, or at least in interstellar space in order for him to "fall from heaven" therefore proving that this must be a spirit being only? No, of course not. It is a figure of speech. Here is proof from none other than Jesus:
"And you, Capernaum, which art exalted to heaven, shall be thrust down [from heaven] to hell [Gk: hades]" (Luke 10:15).
So here we have a whole city being thrown down from heaven to hades, their grave. And so it is with the King of Babylon whose "pomp is brought down to the grave" (Isa. 14:11). These two Scriptures are exact parallel thoughts.
Now then, back to "lucifer." Just what is the Hebrew word found in the manuscripts that the translators turned into the Latin word Lucifer? It is very interesting. All of you with a Strong’s Concordance, look up this word Lucifer. Right after the word Lucifer we are given a definition before we ever go to the Dictionary to find the meaning. Here is what you will find: Lucifer (lu’sif-ur) {1} Title applied to king of Babylon.
We are told that the word in question is Strong’s #1966 which is heylel, from 1984 [halal] (in the sense of brightness); the morning-star:--Lucifer.
What a web of deceit is woven in this "light-bringing-brightness-morning-star-Lucifer" theory. This word "Lucifer" appears no other place in Scripture. Was Satan ever spoken of as a "light-bringing perfect archangel"? No. What saith the Scriptures?
"And no marvel; for Satan himself is TRANSFORMED into an angel of light" (II Cor. 11:14).
Satan is NOT an angel of light, neither has he ever been! It is the "false apostles, DECEITFUL workers" Ver 13, that DECEIVE people into believing lies. Satan appears as an angel of light to the world; he is transformed into an angel of light, but it is an illusion, it is not true, it is a deception!
Paul expels any such theory that Satan knows anything about "light":
"For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against power, against the RULERS OF THE DARKNESS of this world" (Eph. 6:12).
So what is this heylel/halal of Isa. 14:12? Here is the problem—too many translations of previous translations without checking the Hebrew manuscripts first.
Lucifer is the Latin Vulgate translation of the word "xosphoruos" in the Septuagint, which is a Greek version of the Hebrew of Isaiah 14:12, which the King James translators then translated over into the English as "Lucifer."
The Latin and the Greek, as well as a supposed form of a "Hebrew" word in verse 12 mean "bright shiner" or "shining one." The problem is, however, that Isa.14:12 was not written in Latin or Greek, but Hebrew. And I assure you that "lucifer" is not a Hebrew word, nor is it an English translation of a Hebrew word. Lucifer is Latin, and is related to a group of Latin derived English words including lucid, luciferin and luciferose, as we saw defined above, all of which suggest brightness or shining. Likewise xosphoros in the Greek derived English words such as, fluorescence and phosphorescence.
But, there seems to be no Hebrew or Aramaic text in which there is a word in this verse to correspond. What we find in all such texts is the word "hehlehl,’ eill, which is a form of the Hebrew stem "yah-lahl," ill. And what is the meaning of "ill"? Are you ready? It means HOWL. That’s right, "Lucifer" turns out to be nothing more than a "howl" (maybe of ‘hot air’
!
It has been suggested that the translators of the Septuagint (Hebrew into Greek) could have overlooked the smallest of the Hebrew letters or been using a copy in which it had been inadvertently omitted. Thus if the form of the world eill, as it occurs in this particular text, were shortened to ell its meaning would be derived from a different root, in fact would be itself a different root, and the sense given in the Septuagint and the Vulgate would be at least understandable, with one giant exception. There is still absolutely no reason or rule of grammar for turning this word into a personal name! It could possibly mean "a shining one," but not a personal name such as "Lucifer." Doubtless the translators followed the Vulgate as they did in most of their translating.
Clearly the reference is to Babylon and none other. It was Babylon which was exalted to heaven (as conspicuous as Venus, the brightest star of the morning) in her wealth, power, and glory. Yet just as Capernaum, God says she is brought down to the earth, the one who was a "crusher of nations."
In all Hebrew or Aramaic texts of Isa. 14:12, the only word found is "heh-lehl," eill, which is a form of the Hebrew stem "yah-lahl," ill, meaning howl. Here is Kittel’s Hebrew Text for the Hebrew Stem ill—"yah-lahl"—HOWL:
Isa. 13:6 eiliu Howl ye
Isa. 14:31 eili Howl
Isa. 15:2 iilil shall howl
Isa. 15:3 iilil shall howl
Isa. 16:7 iilil Howl
Isa. 16:7 iilil shall howl
Isa. 23:1 eililu Howl ye
Isa. 23:6 eililu Howl ye
Isa. 23:14 eililu Howl ye
Isa. 52:5 eililu make to howl
Isa. 65:14 eililu shall howl
Jer. 4:8 ueililu Howl
Jer. 25:34 eililu Howl
Jer. 47:2 ueill and shall howl
Jer. 48:20 eilili Howl
Jer. 48:31 ailil will I howl
Jer. 48:39 eililu They shall howl (Howl ye)
Jer. 49:3 eilili Howl (Howl ye)
Jer. 51:8 eililu howl
Ezek.30:2 eililu Howl ye
Hos. 7:14 iililu They howled
Joel 1:5 ueililu And howl
Joel 1:11 eililu howl
Joel 1:13 eililu And shall be howlings
Amos 8:1 ueililu and howl
Micah 1:8 uailile howl ye
Zeph. 1:11 aililu Howl
Zech.11:2 eill howl
Zech.11:2 eililu howl
Isa. 14:12 eill Lucifer (??)
And notice carefully that the Hebrew verb eill in Isa. 14:12 is the identical form of the first verb eill in Zech. 11:2. Now try substituting the personal noun "Lucifer" in place of the verb "howl" in the two places it occurs in Zech. 11:2. Here as in many Scriptures, the trees are likened to people who are crying out because of the death and destruction:
"Lucifer, fir tree; for the cedar is fallen; because the mighty are spoiled: Lucifer, O ye oaks of Bashan; for the forest of the ventage is come down."
Such a translation would be nonsense. Or let’s try it back in Isa. 14 where we find the word Lucifer in verse 12, but notice how this word is translated in verse 31: Instead of "Howl, O gate; cry, O city…" We would have, "Lucifer, O gate; cry, O city…" Again, such a translation would be nonsense, as it is also nonsense in Isa. 14:12.
Kittel in a footnote informs us that it is only the Septuagint (which, remember, is the Greek Translation of the Hebrew Scriptures) that we find this word ell instead of eill. This word was translated into eospearos, which Jerome translated into Lucifer with a capital "L," which the King James translators carried over into English without checking the HEBREW manuscripts, which would have solved this dilemma. All Hebrew manuscripts have eill in Isaiah 14:12, and remember that the Old Testament was written in Hebrew, NOT Greek or Latin!
A "jot" is a Greek "iota" and in Hebrew a "tittle" is a "yod," which is the very smallest stroke in a Hebrew letter. And just how important are those little iotas? The difference between the absence of "i", or the presence of "i", is the reason why, we have the Lucifer LIE!
Now back to Isa. 14. With "Lucifer" out of the way, let’s read a couple versions other than the KJV and see how they dealt with this strange word ell which comes to us by way of the Greek Septuagint and the Latin Vulgate:
"How you are fallen from heaven, O morning star, son of the dawn!" You are hacked down to the earth, destroyer of nations" (New International Version)
"How you are fallen from heaven, O Day Star, son of Dawn! (New Revised Standard Version)
There is absolutely no reason to capitalize "day," "star," or "dawn" in this last version.
Here is how the Concordant Literal Old Testament translates this verse by following the Hebrew Manuscripts rather than the Catholic Latin Bible:
"How you have fallen from the heavens! Howl, son of the dawn! You are hacked down to the earth, defeater of all nations."
It is the king of Babylon who elevated himself to high heaven in the heavens of his own mind, and it is the same king of Babylon who has "fallen from the heavens," and it is the same king of Babylon who is "hacked down to the earth," and it is the same king of Babylon who was the "defeater of all nations," and not a "perfect Satan."