Satan exposed

According to Christendom, Satan created himself. He was supposedly a perfect archangel and then CHANGED HIMSELF INTO A DEVIL. Is this Scripturally true? Who created Satan?

1. You are of your FATHER the DEVIL [the GREAT DRAGON, OLD SERPENT, the DEVIL, and SATAN {Hebrew for Adversary -- I Pet. 5:8} Rev. 12:9], and the lusts of your father ye will do... He was a murderer FROM THE BEGINNING, and abode not in the truth [from the beginning], because there is no truth in him [from the beginning]. When he speaks a lie, he speaks of his own: for he is a liar [from the beginning], and the father [the beginner] of it" (John 8:44).
2. "Now the SERPENT was more subtle than any beast of the field which the LORD GOD had MADE..." (Gen. 3:1)God "made" this serpent which TALKED with Eve as an articulate, intelligent creature. Satan did not possess this serpent of the field, Satan was this serpent! Satan doesn’t possess snakes! Satan himself was CREATED A SERPENT. Even Paul acknowledges that it was "the SERPENT" that deluded Eve, and not some other creature possessing a snake (II Cor. 11:3).
   
   "And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between THY SEED and her seed, it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel" (Gen. 3:15).
   
   This serpent that shall bruise the heel of Eve’s seed (singular seed -- Christ) is clearly Satan the Devil who also has seed, "thy seed." Jesus said, "You are of your father the Devil...?" (John 8:44).Satan the Devil has "seed"; he is a "father;" a father has children and followers of like nature. No literal snake ever produced a seed that bruised the heel of Jesus. Snakes do not "eat dust" but Satan dines on mankind "Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour [Greek: (lit. or fig.) gulp entirely, swallow up] I Pet. 5:8). And he seeks to devour mankind who are "dust" of the earth ("...for dust thou art...." Gen. 3:19).
3. "By HIS SPIRIT He hath garnished the heavens; his HAND has FORMED THE CROOKED SERPENT" (Job 26:13). God garnished the heavens by His SPIRIT, because they are a thing of great glory, beauty, and splendor. But the crooked SERPENT God formed by His "hand" -- at ARM'S LENGTH. Thus indicating it was something necessary, but not of His HEART AND SPIRIT! Satan is called "the crooked serpent." This word crooked comes from a Hebrew word that is not translated "crooked" anywhere else in the Bible. The word in Hebrew is bariach, and it means "a fugitive," Strong’s #1281. And "fugitive" is from the Hebrew word nuwa, Strong’s #5128, among its several meanings are: "to [go] up and down," and "to and fro," and to "sift." Remember that God names things according to what they are and what they do:
   (A) "And the LORD [is this a high enough authority for everyone?] Said unto SATAN [not a heretofore archangel,] Whence comest thou? Then Satan answered the LORD, and said, ‘From going TO AND FRO in the earth, and from walking UP AND DOWN in it" (Job. 1:7 and 2:2).
   
   It is the "crooked [fugitive] SERPENT" SATAN who goes "TO AND FRO" and "UP AND DOWN" in the earth! God created Satan for this purpose.
   
   (B) "And the LORD said [is this a high enough authority for everyone?], Simon, Simon, behold, SATAN [not a heretofore archangel] hath desired to have you, that he may SIFT you as wheat" (Luke 22:31).
   
   It is the "crooked [fugitive] SERPENT" SATAN who "SIFTS" men like wheat! God created Satan for this purpose.
4. "Behold, I have created the smith [that’s me] that blows the coals in the fire, and that brings forth an instrument for His work, and I have CREATED THE WASTER TO DESTROY" (Isaiah 54:16). ["waster" -- Hebrew: shachath, decay, ruin, batter, cast off, corrupt, destroy, lose, mar, perish, spill spoil -- UTTERLY WASTE, #7843, p. 115, Strong’s Hebrew and Chaldee Dictionary].
   
   God created the "WASTER," not the archangel who later supposedly became Satan, but from the BEGINNING God said He created "The WASTER" and He created him "TO DESTROY." Now then, WHOSE role is it to "destroy" the flesh of man so that the spirit may be saved?
   
   "In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when you are gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ, To deliver such an one UNTO SATAN for DESTRUCTION of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus" (I Cor. 5:4-5).
   
   It is SATAN who was created from his very beginning to be "the WASTER to DESTROY" men’s flesh (carnal mindedness) so that they learn not to blaspheme (I Tim. 1:20). Satan started with Adam and Eve and he isn’t finished YET!
5. "And no marvel [Gk: to wonder with ASTONISHMENT]; for Satan himself is transformed [Gk: meta schematizo, transfigure -- to change the outward form or appearance, to make GLORIOUS] into an ANGEL OF LIGHT" (II Cor. 11:14).
6. I am the LORD, and there is none else, there is no God beside me: I girded you, though you have not known me: That they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the west, that there none beside Me. I am the LORD, and there is none else. I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, AND CREATE EVIL: I the LORD do ALL [even the creation of evil and even the creation of Satan] THESE THINGS" (Isaiah 45:5-7).
   
   Satan is evil, God created evil, God CREATED SATAN!
7. "He that commits sin is of the DEVIL [Gk: Adversary, Satan] for the Devil SINS FROM THE BEGINNING. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that He might destroy the WORKS of the Devil" (I John 3:8).So was it AFTER a supposed "Lucifer archangel" metamorphosed into Satan that he sinned, or did Satan the Adversary sin "from the BEGINNING? L.Ray.Smith Exposing those who contradict http://forums.bible-truths.com
   
   

In that Satan CHOSE to rebel against God, one COULD say that God creating Satan was God creating EVIL. But the TRUTH is, it was NOT God that 'created' EVIL, it was one of His creation that CHOSE to rebel. And that CHOOSING created EVIL.

Satan rebelled LONG AFTER being the NUMBER ONE angel in heaven. His POSITION is what brought about his PRIDE, (belief that HE could BE GOD).

And here we go, I appreciate your bring this scripture to mind:

For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that He might destroy the WORKS of the Devil

Now, ALL you NEED to DO is define the word MANIFESTED: The Son of God was brought into EXISTENCE and revealed to mankind in order to destroy the works of the Devil.

An UTTER indication that the Son was CREATED for this VERY PURPOSE. And if 'created', then NOT eternal so far as is God, The Father. Only eternal FROM the time of 'creation'. But indicating a DEFINITE 'time BEFORE' the Son. A time BEFORE the creation of Christ.

Blessings,

MEC

Christ was MADE better than the angels for ONE REASON: the angels were UNABLE to DESTROY Satan. So God created His ONLY begotten Son to achieve this very goal. For that is what "MADE" means. When someone MAKES something, they CREATE IT. Before it is MADE, it does NOT EXIST.

Blessings,

MEC

Satan entered Eden as "that Old Serpent [Satan]" and deceived Eve to eat of the forbidden fruit. Satan didn’t sneak into the garden against God’s will. He performed a needful task with our first parents. God knew what Satan was going to do to Adam and Eve. God did not try to prevent it. It is all part of God’s master plan.
Just as God has provided food for mankind, He has also provided food for Satan. And just what kind of food does Satan dine on? Satan dines on mankind.
This is, of course a parable. That "serpent" in the garden was none other than
And this is the same serpent that "deceived" Eve.
Man is the "dust of the earth" upon which Satan dines: "The first man [Adam] is of the earth, earthy [dust]…" (I Cor. 15:47). Man IS ‘dust.’
When God told the serpent devil Satan that he would eat DUST, He was telling him that he would eat MAN (adam). And this is exactly what Peter tells us in his epistle:
Satan dines and thrives on the meat of the "carnal [Greek: sarx; flesh] mind [which] is enmity [hostility/hatred] against God: for it is not subject to the [spiritual] law of God, neither indeed can be" (Rom. 8:7).
Satan does not seek to devour everyone for food; only those who are carnally [fleshly] minded represent a great steak dinner to him.
Satan even had King David for dinner:
But always remember, Satan never operates beyond his God-given parameters as we will see in the case of Job.
God gave Satan charge over Job, his body, and all his possessions, to try him severely before God:
It was GOD’S idea to severely try Job, not Satan’s. But Satan took strict orders from God as to just how he could try Job. Satan got permission from God at each and every step of this severe trying of Job. Do we think God does it differently today? Do we think Satan now has "free reign"- "free will?" Do we think that God "changes?" Nonsense: "For I am the LORD, I change not…" (Mal. 3:6).
David prayed for God to use Satan in judging his enemies:
Are not these activities of Satan necessary? Does God use Satan for no good purpose? Then why can’t men see that God also CREATED Satan for these very purposes?
Satan is constantly finding fault with God’s Chosen ones:
Remember, Satan can do NOTHING without God’s approval. When God completed His creating, He said
Satan was not only necessary, but he was, in fact, PERFECT for the job that God created him to fulfill

I never liked snakes.

One of the reasons I've abandoned the Old Testament is because other than many teachings that contradict the teachings of Jesus, it speaks highly of Satan - relatively-speaking compared to how Jesus treated Satan.

timewerx said:

One of the reasons I've abandoned the Old Testament is because other than many teachings that contradict the teachings of Jesus, it speaks highly of Satan - relatively-speaking compared to how Jesus treated Satan.

Click to expand...

Is this speaking highly?

“Because you have done this,
Cursed are you more than all cattle,
And more than every beast of the field;
On your belly you will go,
And dust you will eat
All the days of your life;
And I will put enmity
Between you and the woman,
And between your seed and her seed;
He shall bruise you on the head,
And you shall bruise him on the heel.”

Click to expand...

Jesus did not write off the OT, neither should you.

Jesus said:

You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; it is these that testify about Me;

Click to expand...

I can't even begin to count the number of assumptions and "out of context" references in the OP.

Food for thought...

1. If Satan was the serpent in the Garden of Eden (Genesis never makes that claim) then that means he rebelled and fell before the creation of Adam and Eve, the events in Revelation happened before Adam and Eve, and apparently there is no such thing as a rapture (which is not biblical anyway). It also means that we are either living in hell on earth, or this is the paradise that was promised to us.

2. Satan is a title, not a name, and does indeed come from the Hebrew ha-satan, which simply means "the adversary." People have been called ha-satan for as long as Hebrew has been a language.

3. The OT, which is THE bible for Judaism, does not say anything about Satan being evil, wicked, sinister, anti-God or anything else. He is merely a "son of God," and has a specific duty to fulfill, given to him by God. You can bring up Job if you want to, but I'll show you where it fulfills Satan's duty. Satan can't do ANYTHING without God's express permission.

4. Satan does not become public enemy #1 until the NT, especially in the Book of Revelation, which is mostly prophetic anyway. It is John interpreting visions/dreams during his exile on Patmos. The red flag is: was John sane at the time? If not, Revelation is the ramblings of a madman.

On a sidenote, the original Koine Greek does include the term ha-satan, BUT, it can refer to any adversary/accuser, not necessarily a single entity. We ASSUME it means "Satan" but in reality the interpretations differ and are unclear. Such has been the debate among scholars far more educated than you or I.

5. To ignore the OT is a big no-no! Jesus even said to keep the Law (Torah - Genesis through Deuteronomy). You can't ignore the OT just because you have a specific mold you want to fit into. If you ignore the OT, you are ignoring the words of Jesus.

Primi Agminis said:

I can't even begin to count the number of assumptions and "out of context" references in the OP.

Click to expand...

Name all the assumptions you accuse me of, or hold your peace !

And show me how these verses are out of context with your doctrine !


"For the creature [and/or creation itself] wasMADE subject to VANITY NOT WILLINGLY, but by reason of Him [that’s God] Who HATH SUBJECTED the same in hope. Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the BONDAGE OF CORRUPTION into the glorious liberty of the children of God. For we know that the WHOLE CREATION groans and travails IN PAINuntil NOW" (Rom. 8:20-22)!
Wow! Did you know that Scripture is in the Bible? Have you ever meditated at length on its meaning? This one Scripture does much damage to Christian doctrine. From a strictly carnal-minded approach, this Scripture is devastating. Let’s see what these words entail from Strong’s GREEK DICTIONARY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT:
The force of these verses in Rom. 8:20-22 is inescapable. It was God HIMSELF Who subjected the whole creation to vanity, and He didn’t ask anyone’s permission before He did it. And it is only God Himself Who will deliver the whole creation from the bondage of corruption, pain, and suffering. Make no mistake about it: God is the Creator of evil, and He takes full responsibility for the deliverance from the consequences of all the evils that have caused the creation to "groan and travail in PAIN until NOW" as Paul describes. God takes responsibility for the temporary failures of creation so that He can take all the credit and glory for its successes.

drstevej said:

Is this speaking highly?

Click to expand...

I you go back to my thread, I said "relatively-speaking". Obviously, I'm not speaking in absolute terms. In absolute terms, I certainly agree with you

I'm an ancient history buff and have been for years and years. A few years ago I found out something about the name "Satan" that has given me considerable pause and I'd like share it with you.

Because I'd really never learned anything much about ancient India or the Hindu's, a while back I ordered a copy of the Mahabharata and read it. In doing so, I ran across the name "Satanika" and I thought it was very strange to see "Satan" used in a personal name. So I did an internet search on the name.

Much to my surprise, the search turned up a bunch of sites that were Hindu "What to name your Baby" sites. (??????!!!)

Well, I thought that was pretty dang strange so I checked them out.

Much to my further surprise and concern, I found the name "Satanand" listed for Vishnu and "Satinath" and "Satindra" listed for Shiva! I have actually found these names listed on about half the Hindu "baby name" sites that I have visited.

Shiva, Vishnu and Brahma make up the Hindu Trinity. The Hindus teach that Brahma is the creator, Vishnu the preserver and Shiva is the destroyer. The Hindu's teach that their gods each have a thousand names. You can even download lists with each of the thousand names listed, however I've never seen "Satanand" or "Satinath" on any of those "official" Brahman name lists.

To my knowledge, the names with Satan as a prefix only appear on Hindu baby name sites. It's pretty weird.

I have also seen an internet article that included a map showing the names of some towns in a section of ancient India and one of the towns was actually called "Satana."

Then last week, I was watching a video that featured Graham Hancock discussing ancient submerged megalithic sites and some very old maps. One very ancient map correctly showed the island of Japan, only Japan was listed under the name "Satanazi."

All I can conclude is that evidently in very, very ancient times, "Satan" was a common prefix used in place names and the names of certain "gods."

And I think that is very, very spooky…

Indeed.

Interesting Pluvkiy.

That led me to deduce that "Satan" as a term may be a reference to Eastern Pagan Religions, generally-speaking.

When Jesus told Peter "get behind me Satan". Peter may be following instead an Eastern Pagan Principle - "to value life" by trying to save the physical life of Jesus which came from ancient Egypt:

Ankh wedja seneb - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Which is none other than "long life, good health, and prosperity" - an extremely popular belief in the east.

Which I personally think maybe an ancient form of "humanism"

Note the devil also tempted Jesus with the same things - life, health, and prosperity.

Pluckiy Pilgrim said:

All I can conclude is that evidently in very, very ancient times, "Satan" was a common prefix used in place names and the names of certain "gods."

Click to expand...

Ancient languages had many similarities across a broad spectrum of words. Language was very limited back then. Since people tended to be migratory, it is only natural that languages of ancient times will have those similarities, as will the stories told.

Horus vs. Jesus, anyone?

@ timewerx,

Hmmm. I was under the impression that Satan told Jesus all he had to do was bow down and worship him and Satan would give him the world.

Nearly all Near and Middle Eastern cultures came out of India or the Indus Valley Civilization. The nations of Cannon, Sumer, Phoenicia, Egypt, Iran & Assyria (just to name of few) were all begun as colonies of India, or in some cases, nations were begun by war refugees who had been driven out of India after losing a war. And they had a lot of wars there.

Those people brought their multiple gods, idol worship and their various religious ideologies with them. They also brought their wars.

The 1st verse in the book of Esther tells us that 127 provinces from Ethiopia to India were all under the rule of the Aryan king of Iran (Elam). That's HUGE when you think about it.

Iran basically represented the "Asura" culture that came out of India and the Indus Valley Civilization. Sometimes Assyria was the nation-state that held that control. Sometimes Egypt, which represented India's solar "Deva" culture held the reigns of control. Sometimes it was the Amorites. But all of those civilizations initially came out of India or the Indus Valley culture centered in Pakistan. And that includes the Jewish nation.

I've spent roughly 40 years studying the texts of various Near and Middle Eastern nations. I would not classify any of them as humanistic; not by a long shot.

Satan sinned from the beginning:
from when he turned from Lucifer into satan, from the beginning of creation, because darkness was on the face of the deep and that was spiritual darkness.

Messy said:

Satan sinned from the beginning:
from when he turned from Lucifer into satan, from the beginning of creation, because darkness was on the face of the deep and that was spiritual darkness.

Click to expand...

Except that Lucifer is not Satan, never will be Satan, and is actually nothing more than a bad translation by a 4th century monk. Isaiah 14:12 is talking about a fallen king from Babylon (Nebuchadnezzar II), not Satan.

The darkness over the surface of the deep is merely a descriptor of the absence of enlightenment, if you read the actual Hebrew.

Messy said:

Satan sinned from the beginning:
from when he turned from Lucifer into satan, from the beginning of creation, because darkness was on the face of the deep and that was spiritual darkness.

Click to expand...

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.
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? We will see.
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.
The Church believes it has accomplished a most marvelous thing: they have gotten God off the hook of responsibility for all of the sickness, disease, pain, suffering, sin, evil, terrorism, and death in the world. You see, without free will, God could never know who is for Him and who is against Him—it’s the only way, the only "fair" way, and God is fair and God is good. Doesn’t this make good carnal sense, and everyone is happy? It is rank heresy at the highest level; that is what it is!
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! Now I am well aware of the fact that people are deceived about these things, as was I. 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. Let’s go through it.
First Isaiah 14. To whom is God addressing Himself in these verses we quoted above?
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:
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 pray tell, does the end of the King of Babylon have to do with the beginning of Satan? Really nothing, but let’s check out their hypothesis anyway, as it is believed by the Church worldwide.
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:
What is this? 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?"
I am going to shine some LIGHT on this "O Lucifer, son of the morning star" business, and we can all watch Lucifer disappear in the dawn’s early light. It is but another heresy from the Dark Ages that crept into the hallowed halls of the Church. This is a little lengthy, but it is also one of the most intriguing bits of deception your will ever see exposed, so I will take the time to debunk it.

​

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." Hmmmmm. What have we here? "Lucifer + in."
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

Primi Agminis said:

Except that Lucifer is not Satan, never will be Satan, and is actually nothing more than a bad translation by a 4th century monk. Isaiah 14:12 is talking about a fallen king from Babylon (Nebuchadnezzar II), not Satan.

The darkness over the surface of the deep is merely a descriptor of the absence of enlightenment, if you read the actual Hebrew.

Click to expand...

Isaiah 14 is about the antichrist and only Ezekiel 28: 11-19 is about Lucifer. The first part is about the Antichrist, he dies different, he's a man. The second is the power behind him, a cherub, not a man.

sinning machine said:

Name all the assumptions you accuse me of, or hold your peace !

And show me how these verses are out of context with your doctrine !

Click to expand...

Challenge accepted...

sinning machine said:

God "made" this serpent which TALKED with Eve as an articulate, intelligent creature. Satan did not possess this serpent of the field, Satan was this serpent! Satan doesn’t possess snakes! Satan himself was CREATED A SERPENT. Even Paul acknowledges that it was "the SERPENT" that deluded Eve, and not some other creature possessing a snake

Click to expand...

That entire paragraph is 100% pure assumption by you. No where in Genesis does it say anything about Satan being in the Garden of Eden. Neither was Satan created a serpent. He was created as a "son of God," or as we call them, an angel. Furthermore, he is most likely one of the archangels, as he is also known as Sataniel, which coincides with Gabriel, Uriel, Michael, etc...the "archs" all seem to have an -iel or -ael ending.

We are also told in Genesis, that the serpent (never says snake...another assumption) was made to crawl on its belly, that man would bruise its head (step on), and that it would bruise man's heel (bite him around the lower leg). This, of course, is if Genesis is to be taken literally (I do not).

The rest of your post is, and do forgive me, rambling with a lot of assumptions, as well as the position of post hoc ergo propter hoc. I won't be debating this with you...not worth the time and effort for me.

And so what do fireflies have to do with the King of Babylon or Satan the devil? Nothing, absolutely nothing. Was Satan once a "light-bringing firefly"? No, no he wasn&#8217;t. Then how in the world did we get this Latin word "lucifer" as part of Isa. 14:12, in so many English Bibles?
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&#8217;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:
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&#8217;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&#8217;sif-ur){1} Title applied to king of Babylon.
Clearly the editor of Strong&#8217;s Concordance realized that this word (whatever it means) is to be applied to the "king of Babylon," and NOT TO SATAN THE DEVIL!
We are told that the word in question is Strong&#8217;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?
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":
Rev. 16:10 is but the continuation of the same Babylonian beast that we read about in Isa. 14:
So what is this heylel/halal of Isa. 14:12? Here is the problem&#8212;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,&#8217; 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&#8217;s right, "Lucifer" turns out to be nothing more than a "howl" (maybe of &#8216;hot air&#8217!
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.
Even such an eminent translator as Rotherham seemed to follow the Septuagint in this verse, however, from his comments within parenthesis, it is clear that he was fully aware of the fact that whatever this word meant, it was referring to none other than the context of these verses which is Babylon and not Satan:
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."
Next I will list the King James renderings of the word that is found in the "Hebrew" texts and transliterations of its various forms in every occurrence in the entire KJV Bible. Now you can be the judge. 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&#8217;s Hebrew Text for the Hebrew Stem ill&#8212;"yah-lahl"&#8212;HOWL:
I don&#8217;t believe one has to be a Hebrew scholar to see at a glance that "Lucifer" is totally out of place in this list. The meaning of this word is clear; eill is a verb that means "HOWL", and not a noun than can be twisted into a personal name such as "lucifer"!
Is there no end to the religious lies fostered on the naive Church? I assure you there is an end, and that end may be soon in sight!
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&#8217;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&#8230;" We would have, "Lucifer, O gate; cry, O city&#8230;" 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!
Well, there you have it. There ain&#8217;t no Lucifer who was supposedly perfect before he supposedly turned into Satan. Lucifer is a Christian hoax! What a difference a Hebrew "yode" (&#8216;i&#8217;&#8212;iota) makes. We dare not LEAVE OUT THE IOTAS.
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&#8217;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:
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:
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