Is ‘Lucifer’ the Planet Venus?

Lollerskates

Junior Member
May 2, 2013
2,992
250
✟4,340.00
Faith
Non-Denom
I've heard similar theories about a number of astrological happenings in the past .

basically as the principle goes .

celestial bodies like the stars and planets and the sun do not have a consciousness per se. however, they do have a distinct electromagnetic signature. Our thoughts travel along an electromagnetic medium in our bodies much like the internet data travels along wires.

so basically, modify the medium of transmission (the electromagnetics) and then you may even modify the data being transmitted.

but is the electromagnetic signature of Venus what causes people to commit insane acts of evil inspired by a great flash of "light"?

i don't have such data, but it is all very interesting . if examined scientifically, of course.

On the contrary Michael, I disagree with only one of your well-thought-out arguments: that planets do not have a consciousness. This is both my personal opinion, and the opinion of many philosophers of antiquity and modernity.

It is thought that "planets," Greek (I believe) for "wanderer" were gods that went against the set and predictable patterns of seeming stationary stars (which were also considered deities/titans.) Venus = Aphrodite, most likely for its bright, faint reddish-orange color of a morning "star." Note the color is representative of passion, as was Aphrodite's power. Earth is not only considered a superorganism, but Gaia - the mother of all gods and titans. So, though I doubt it, I wouldn't doubt that Venus is a cryptic/gnostic astrological reference to a very high-ranking angel. It just may not be The Satan.

EDIT: I see you said "per se," and you reference EM signatures as a pseudo-consciousness perhaps. I am inclined to believe EM signatures of these super structures are similar to ESP and EM radiation from human brains in the form of alpha, beta and theta waves. To me, the earth quaking in areas with dense, polluted population is like me scratching and shaking an area of ly body that has been assaulted and abused by pests. Or, acid rain is like using eye drops to flush irritation, as the windows of heaven are analogous to the windows of the soul, which are the sky and eyes, respectively. It kind of insinuates intelligence when you think about it.
 
Upvote 0

JimB

Legend
Jul 12, 2004
26,337
1,595
Nacogdoches, Texas
Visit site
✟34,757.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
I gleam from all of this discussion that you have to be really really bad to be with Satan on the rock called Venus in the here after, but you don't have to be really really good to be with Jesus in heaven.

How odd :D
And that's what you came up with?

Apparently, I am not making myself clear. :)
 
Upvote 0

Messy

Well-Known Member
Jan 30, 2011
10,027
2,082
Holland
✟21,082.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Interesting, the angels were called morning stars.
Job 38
Or who laid its cornerstone,
When the morning stars sang together,
And all the sons of God shouted for joy?
So Lucifer was there before the earth was made.
Isaiah 14 is about the antichrist I think, if you look at the context and it's a man.
Ezekiel 28 is first about the prince and then about the king.
It's first about the King of Tyre, a man and then it's about a cherub, the power behind the king of Tyre, I think the king of Tyre is the antichrist. Also in the verse that God created the destroyer it's not about satan, it's another word and in regard to Israel, so it's the antichrist and other earthly kings who they think it is about were just also antichrists.
 
Upvote 0

Gregory Thompson

Change is inevitable, feel free to spare some.
Site Supporter
Dec 20, 2009
28,369
7,745
Canada
✟722,927.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Christian Seeker
Marital Status
Married
On the contrary Michael, I disagree with only one of your well-thought-out arguments: that planets do not have a consciousness. This is both my personal opinion, and the opinion of many philosophers of antiquity and modernity.

It is thought that "planets," Greek (I believe) for "wanderer" were gods that went against the set and predictable patterns of seeming stationary stars (which were also considered deities/titans.) Venus = Aphrodite, most likely for its bright, faint reddish-orange color of a morning "star." Note the color is representative of passion, as was Aphrodite's power. Earth is not only considered a superorganism, but Gaia - the mother of all gods and titans. So, though I doubt it, I wouldn't doubt that Venus is a cryptic/gnostic astrological reference to a very high-ranking angel. It just may not be The Satan.

EDIT: I see you said "per se," and you reference EM signatures as a pseudo-consciousness perhaps. I am inclined to believe EM signatures of these super structures are similar to ESP and EM radiation from human brains in the form of alpha, beta and theta waves. To me, the earth quaking in areas with dense, polluted population is like me scratching and shaking an area of ly body that has been assaulted and abused by pests. Or, acid rain is like using eye drops to flush irritation, as the windows of heaven are analogous to the windows of the soul, which are the sky and eyes, respectively. It kind of insinuates intelligence when you think about it.

i wrote "per se" because our minds that think in an electromagnetic medium may interpret the electromagnetics of the planet venus as an actual consciousness .. However, this is not necessarily the case .. to prove sentience, you would first need to establish communication in which actions are exchanged.

since this essential step has not been established, it's all in our heads .. so to speak . at least .. for now .
 
Upvote 0

Gregory Thompson

Change is inevitable, feel free to spare some.
Site Supporter
Dec 20, 2009
28,369
7,745
Canada
✟722,927.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Christian Seeker
Marital Status
Married
In terms of scripture, the bringing about of the new heaven and the new earth implies a resurrection (or restoration) of all things .. implies a death and a new life .. and if something can die .. and be resurrected .. then it must be alive .. in some way or fashion .

but conscious in the same sense we are .. perhaps not .
 
Upvote 0

Simon_Templar

Not all who wander are lost
Jun 29, 2004
7,807
1,086
49
Visit site
✟34,622.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
While this is popularly considered a reference to the Devil, most commentators see it as a reference to Babylon, the Day Star being a metaphor of the empire. The context of the passage is Israel’s taunt of Babylon, which would be brought to ruin by the Assyrians.

This is really not as complicated an issue as many people make it out to be.

Lucifer, as you point out in your original post was simply the latin colloquialism for "morning star". It was used to translate the hebrew colloquialism for "morning star". It was not a proper name.

Thus the text should read "morning star, son of the dawn" Day star is basically the same thing though it's not really the common usage colloquialism that we use today. IE morning star is a more common phrase than day star.

The same term is used in the book of Job to describe how the angels sang together at the creation of the world. This illustrates that it is not a proper name or even a designation of one specific angel. Rather it is an appellation that can be used of any or all angels (or perhaps a specific grouping or type of angels).

That raises the second important point. There is frequently an argument in certain circles whether the text is meant to refer to a fallen angel or to the King of Babylon. The reality is that it is doing both.

The text is directly addressed against the King of Babylon. Yet it distinctly uses descriptions that can only possibly apply to an Angelic being, and in specific a high angel who fell.

What is going on here is, again as you correctly point out, that the prophecy is taunting the King of Babylon by comparing him to Satan. It is directly speaking about Satan because it is directly comparing the King of Babylon too Satan. Drawing the analogy that the King of Babylon is high and mighty, just like Satan was high among the angels of heaven, but because the King of Babylon exalted himself above his station, just like Satan he will fall utterly to the lowest levels.

So it's really not an either or. It's both.
 
Upvote 0

JimB

Legend
Jul 12, 2004
26,337
1,595
Nacogdoches, Texas
Visit site
✟34,757.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
This is really not as complicated an issue as many people make it out to be.

Lucifer, as you point out in your original post was simply the latin colloquialism for "morning star". It was used to translate the hebrew colloquialism for "morning star". It was not a proper name.

Thus the text should read "morning star, son of the dawn" Day star is basically the same thing though it's not really the common usage colloquialism that we use today. IE morning star is a more common phrase than day star.

The same term is used in the book of Job to describe how the angels sang together at the creation of the world. This illustrates that it is not a proper name or even a designation of one specific angel. Rather it is an appellation that can be used of any or all angels (or perhaps a specific grouping or type of angels).

That raises the second important point. There is frequently an argument in certain circles whether the text is meant to refer to a fallen angel or to the King of Babylon. The reality is that it is doing both.

The text is directly addressed against the King of Babylon. Yet it distinctly uses descriptions that can only possibly apply to an Angelic being, and in specific a high angel who fell.

What is going on here is, again as you correctly point out, that the prophecy is taunting the King of Babylon by comparing him to Satan. It is directly speaking about Satan because it is directly comparing the King of Babylon too Satan. Drawing the analogy that the King of Babylon is high and mighty, just like Satan was high among the angels of heaven, but because the King of Babylon exalted himself above his station, just like Satan he will fall utterly to the lowest levels.

So it's really not an either or. It's both.
This is interesting, but can you conclusively show that Isaiah 14 is a direct (even an indirect) comparison of the King of Babylon to Satan? I simply cannot see it. :)
 
Upvote 0

The Unforgettable Fire

Regular Member
May 29, 2008
1,823
181
✟11,155.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Is ‘Lucifer’ the Planet Venus?

The word heo?sphoros does not appear in Kittel, because it does not appear in the NT. This word is the Septuagint (LXX) translation of the Hebrew ?????? ??????????? (he?le?l ben s?ah?ar) in Isa 14:12. (Incidentally, the Qamets under the Shin in ?????? is a pausal form used with a heavy accent; the contextual from is with Patach, ??????, and in both cases the word is accented on the first syllable.) To understand how the KJV reads “Lucifer,” we need to look at the Hebrew, the language in which most of the OT was composed, then the LXX, the Greek translation of the Hebrew OT, and the Vulgate, Jerome’s Latin translation of the Hebrew OT.

First, the Hebrew. The phrase consists of three words. He?le?lis found only here in the Hebrew OT, but is a word derived from a verb meaning “to shine.” The noun would presumably mean “shining one.” The second word, ben, means “son of.” S?ah?ar is found 24 times in the Hebrew OT. It basically means “dawn” (cf. Gen 19.15). In some cultures “Dawn” was the name of a god. Isaiah was probably using the phrase ?????? ???????????, “shining one [=star], son of the Dawn,” as a poetic reference to the planet Venus. The Hebrews used the same word ??????? (ko?kab) to refer to either a star or a planet. But the literal planet Venus was probably being used to refer to an astral deity. Isaiah used this deity to represent the king of Babylon as a (self-proclaimed?) divine figure. This has the effect of making the king’s fall greater and therefore more dramatic.

Second, the Greek. The three-word Hebrew phrase is rendered by ? ???????? ? ???? ????????? (ho heo?sphoros ho pro?i anatello?n), “O Heosphoros, who rises early/who raises the morning.” The key word, heo?sphoros, has two parts: heo?s means “morning” and phoros means “bearer, one who brings.” Heo?sphoros, “bringer of the morning/dawn,” is again a reference to the planet Venus. Thus, though heo?sphoros is not a literal translation of he?le?l ben s?ah?ar, it is an accurate translation of a phrase referring to Venus, an exact equivalent of he?le?l ben s?ah?ar. The interpretation of the Bible text by the LXX translators is probably the same as that mentioned above.

Third, the Latin. The exact Latin equivalent of the Greek Heosphoros is Lucifer. Luci comes from lux meaning “light” and fer is the same as the Greek phoros, “bearer.” So, though it had other uses, Lucifer is a term for the planet Venus, just as the Greek and the Hebrew are. (from Koinonia)

The biblical text of Isaiah 14.12-15 reads:
How you are fallen from heaven, O Day Star (KJV, ‘Lucifer’), son of Dawn! How you are cut down to the ground, you who laid the nations low! You said in your heart, ‘I will ascend to heaven; above the stars of God I will set my throne on high; I will sit on the mount of assembly in the far reaches of the north; I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will make myself like the Most High.’ But you are brought down to Sheol, to the far reaches of the pit. (ESV)

Well I started to read this, but then my mind wandered off to this song for some reason.

http://youtu.be/06X5HYynP5E

Now I have an inexplicable desire to watch star trek the original series...or maybe sharknado.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
A

Andrea411

Guest
This theologian, and the ones who were my mentors would respectfully disagree with you.

I do hold a Masters in Theology FYI. The devil is known in scripture by a number of names including:

1. Lucifer - Isa 14:12
2. Satan - used 56 time in the OT and directly referenced by Peter (1Pet 5:80 and Paul 1 Thes 2:18)
3. Devil - referring to Satan himself 35 times in the NT
4. Serpent - Gen 3:1-15 and 2 Cor 11:3
5. Dragon - Rev 20:2 "2 He laid hold of the dragon, that serpent of old, who is the Devil and Satan, "
6. Beelzebub of Beelzebul - Mt 10:25 and Mt 12:24
7. Belial - DT 13:13, Jgs 20:13
8. Tempter - 1 Thes 3:5
9. Wicked, evil or lawless one - 2 Thess 2:8, 1 Jn 5:19, 1 JN 2:13,14
10 Prince of this world - Jn 14:30, Jn 12:31, Jn 16:11
11. Prince of the power of the air - Eph 2:2, Eph 6:12
12. God of this world or age - 2 cor 4:4,
13: The deceiver - Rv 20:10
14. The Accuser - Rv 12:10
15. Angel of Light - 2 Cor 11:13-15
16. Murderer - Jn 8 :44
17. Father of Lies - JN 8:44 and Mt4:6
18. Roaring Lion - 1 Pet 5:8
19. Destroyer - Rv 9:11

In everyone of these 19 "names/descriptive references to the devil, not one is the second rock from the sun.

That's what I learned in my theology classes.

am I supposed to be impressed? I don't understand your comment especially the attitude that came with it... theologians say many things. Some of them are atheists. My comment is that there are many renowned theologians who agree this verse and the name Lucifer are not referring to satan, the devil, the father of lies or any of the other names you so thoughtfully listed that had nothing what-so-ever to do with the OP.
There are some areas of disagreement that many Christians disagree on and it should not be such a divisive 'TEST" as to their spirituality or which bible is the most correct and therefore more holy then the next. As is so often done also with other Christians.
When this verse comes up it is usually to poke the KJVO groupies. They are fun to poke. They are worse then most fundies and make far less sense.

If the church has been arguing over this for 2000 years do you really think you and your group are the ones with the "CORRECT" interpretation? and what would it matter? simple silliness.
 
Upvote 0

Alithis

Disciple of Jesus .
Nov 11, 2010
15,750
2,180
Mobile
✟101,992.00
Country
New Zealand
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Interesting, the angels were called morning stars.
Job 38
Or who laid its cornerstone,
When the morning stars sang together,
And all the sons of God shouted for joy?
So Lucifer was there before the earth was made.
Isaiah 14 is about the antichrist I think, if you look at the context and it's a man.
Ezekiel 28 is first about the prince and then about the king.
It's first about the King of Tyre, a man and then it's about a cherub, the power behind the king of Tyre, I think the king of Tyre is the antichrist. Also in the verse that God created the destroyer it's not about satan, it's another word and in regard to Israel, so it's the antichrist and other earthly kings who they think it is about were just also antichrists.

point of interest....
does it actually say "the angels were called morning stars"?
or- that the morning stars sang together?
if it says both... good.
if not, we mustn't present an assumption as fact.

the trees of the field clap their hands
and the stones on the ground would have cried out hosanna if the people were silenced.
 
Upvote 0

Simon_Templar

Not all who wander are lost
Jun 29, 2004
7,807
1,086
49
Visit site
✟34,622.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
This is interesting, but can you conclusively show that Isaiah 14 is a direct (even an indirect) comparison of the King of Babylon to Satan? I simply cannot see it. :)

First of all, the same thing is done in Ezekiel's prophecy against Tyre. That one has statements which are more clear to most people. The prophecy in Isaiah against Babylon relies upon some imagery or references that are a little more obscure to most people.

1. "day star" or "morning star" - this is an angelic title or description. It is used elsewhere in the OT to refer to angels. to my knowledge it is never used elsewhere to refer to human beings. The literal translation is also a likely play on words referring to the serpent in the Garden of Eden. Halel ben shachar (literally shining one son of the morning). The word for serpent in the Garden "nachash" also can mean "shining one". Nachash has 3 possible different meanings. Serpent in noun form, shining in adjective form, and divination in verb (if memory serves).

2. "how you are fallen from heaven" - who ever is being addressed fell from heaven. This pretty much demands a celestial being.

3. "ascend to heaven, above the stars of God" again an angelic reference. The stars of God are the angels. This isn't conclusive of course as a man could think this as well if he was completely deluded or insane, but it continues the overt angelic imagery.

4. I will sit on the mount of assembly, in the far reaches of the north. This pretty much seals the deal. The "mount of assembly" was the holy mountain in the Garden of Eden where God held his divine council. The person making this statement is saying that he is going to preside over God's divine council as king (ie he will take God's place). This is again clearly evoking angelic imagery since only God, the angels, and Adam were ever on the mount of assembly. or in the divine council. Furthermore it basically places the speaker in the Garden of Eden, before the fall of man.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

hislegacy

Memories pre 2021
Site Supporter
Nov 15, 2006
43,917
14,014
Broken Arrow, OK
✟702,156.00
Country
United States
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
First of all, the same thing is done in Ezekiel's prophecy against Tyre. That one has statements which are more clear to most people. The prophecy in Isaiah against Babylon relies upon some imagery or references that are a little more obscure to most people.

1. "day star" or "morning star" - this is an angelic title or description. It is used elsewhere in the OT to refer to angels. to my knowledge it is never used elsewhere to refer to human beings. The literal translation is also a likely play on words referring to the serpent in the Garden of Eden. Halel ben shachar (literally shining one son of the morning). The word for serpent in the Garden "nachash" also can mean "shining one". Nachash has 3 possible different meanings. Serpent in noun form, shining in adjective form, and divination in verb (if memory serves).

2. "how you are fallen from heaven" - who ever is being addressed fell from heaven. This pretty much demands a celestial being.

3. "ascend to heaven, above the stars of God" again an angelic reference. The stars of God are the angels. This isn't conclusive of course as a man could think this as well if he was completely deluded or insane, but it continues the overt angelic imagery.

4. I will sit on the mount of assembly, in the far reaches of the north. This pretty much seals the deal. The "mount of assembly" was the holy mountain in the Garden of Eden where God held his divine council. The person making this statement is saying that he is going to preside over God's divine council as king (ie he will take God's place). This is again clearly evoking angelic imagery since only God, the angels, and Adam were ever on the mount of assembly. or in the divine council. Furthermore it basically places the speaker in the Garden of Eden, before the fall of man.

Well said. This is a great demonstration of examining the prophetic.
 
Upvote 0
A

Andrea411

Guest
The thing is that "satan" (Heb. 'satan') just means adversary. We wouldn't call Michael "Angel" as a proper name, because his name means much more than just angel. Likewise, The Satan - main accuser of brethren - has a proper name that highlights its entire history, function, purpose and possible future.

There are many satans: Baal, Ra, Enki, Enlil, Molech, Diana, Isis, Zeus, Odin, etc. They all misrepresent and antagonize the Most High - whether through active or passive means. So, a name is important. "Devil/Dragon" represents the grotesque transformation of a fallen Seraphim, whose brightness of glory is associated with the faded brightness of red (for rage and primal passion,) and breaths out and/or emits fire as the name Seraphim means "bright and fiery". The Devil/Dragon is a unique creature, though there are many of them likewise.

The word "Lucifer" is "Heylel," the name of a specific angel. It also means bright, shining and fiery (like a Seraphim.) It may be The Satan that led the assault on the throne of God, but in the book of Enoch, that angel goes by a different name. So, his Heylel may just be another who attempted, whose principality also influenced the hearts of men here on earth to substantiate his assault.
My thought, it is a 'type' of satan, devil or demonic power... but the fact that the NIV (or any other) changed the translation was to improve on the translation, not so much to change the intent.

God bless, andrea
 
Upvote 0

JimB

Legend
Jul 12, 2004
26,337
1,595
Nacogdoches, Texas
Visit site
✟34,757.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
First of all, the same thing is done in Ezekiel's prophecy against Tyre. That one has statements which are more clear to most people. The prophecy in Isaiah against Babylon relies upon some imagery or references that are a little more obscure to most people.

1. "day star" or "morning star" - this is an angelic title or description. It is used elsewhere in the OT to refer to angels. to my knowledge it is never used elsewhere to refer to human beings. The literal translation is also a likely play on words referring to the serpent in the Garden of Eden. Halel ben shachar (literally shining one son of the morning). The word for serpent in the Garden "nachash" also can mean "shining one". Nachash has 3 possible different meanings. Serpent in noun form, shining in adjective form, and divination in verb (if memory serves).

2. "how you are fallen from heaven" - who ever is being addressed fell from heaven. This pretty much demands a celestial being.

3. "ascend to heaven, above the stars of God" again an angelic reference. The stars of God are the angels. This isn't conclusive of course as a man could think this as well if he was completely deluded or insane, but it continues the overt angelic imagery.

4. I will sit on the mount of assembly, in the far reaches of the north. This pretty much seals the deal. The "mount of assembly" was the holy mountain in the Garden of Eden where God held his divine council. The person making this statement is saying that he is going to preside over God's divine council as king (ie he will take God's place). This is again clearly evoking angelic imagery since only God, the angels, and Adam were ever on the mount of assembly. or in the divine council. Furthermore it basically places the speaker in the Garden of Eden, before the fall of man.
I’m sorry, but this only proves that “heaven” as Isaiah is using it in Isaiah 14 is a figure of speech. Like, if I say that an actress looks “heavenly” or “Venus is the brightest star in the heavens,” I am not ascribing divine qualities to an actress of to a planet; I am simply doing what Isaiah did—using a figure of speech. Venus was in the heavens so naturally, to be faithful to the allusion, Isaiah would continue with his analogy and say “how are you fallen from heaven” or “ascend to heaven above the stars of God.” That’s just the nature of figurative language, which Isaiah is using to refer to the King of Babylon. :)
 
Upvote 0

hislegacy

Memories pre 2021
Site Supporter
Nov 15, 2006
43,917
14,014
Broken Arrow, OK
✟702,156.00
Country
United States
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
I’m sorry, but this only proves that “heaven” as Isaiah is using it in Isaiah 14 is a figure of speech. Like, if I say that an actress looks “heavenly” or “Venus is the brightest star in the heavens,” I am not ascribing divine qualities to an actress of to a planet; I am simply doing what Isaiah did—using a figure of speech. Venus was in the heavens so naturally, to be faithful to the allusion, Isaiah would continue with his analogy and say “how are you fallen from heaven” or “ascend to heaven above the stars of God.” That’s just the nature of figurative language, which Isaiah is using to refer to the King of Babylon. :)

That is because you are viewing the verses as metaphor, which they are not. The whole chapter is prophetic.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

murjahel

Senior Veteran
Oct 31, 2005
8,768
1,066
✟29,367.00
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
Isaiah knew of Satan, who is the devil, even, "Lucifer" (as he was known before his fall).

Isaiah 14:12
"How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning."

"Lucifer" is from the Hebrew word - "heylel" - which means "brightness, morning star." He was once a heavenly being, who served God, serving and honoring God. Satan was cast from heaven after his initial rebellion.

Luke 10:18
"And He said unto them, I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven."

He will finally be expelled from heaven during the tribulation on the earth.

Revelation 12:7-12
"Michael and his angels fought against the dragon, and the dragon fought and his angels, and prevailed not, and the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world; he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him."

Before the initial fall of Lucifer, he was "full of wisdom, perfect in beauty." (Ezekiel 28:12).

The original abode of Lucifer was in the original Eden.

Ezekiel 28:13
"Thou hast been in Eden, the garden of God."

He was an anointed cherub (Ezekiel 28), and as a cherub, he was to stand in defense of God's holiness. But he fell from that high place. He organized a rebellion of the pre-adamite humans that he was supposed to lead in worship of God.

The previous creation on earth, before Adam and Eve, was to worship God. Lucifer was the one to lead their worship. Many do not know of this previous creation. God created this earth to be inhabited, and made it perfect.

Isaiah 45:18
"For this saith the Lord that created the heaven's; God Himself that formed the earth, and made it, He hath established it, He hath created it not in vain, He formed it to be inhabited."

God made this earth "not in vain" (not "tohu"). Yet, in Genesis 1:2, it tells us that the earth became "tohu va bohu" ("without form and void"). This was the result of the destruction of the earlier creation, when God judged the devil and those pre-adamites who sinned with him.

Lucifer had said "I will ascend into heaven." (Isaiah 14:13). He wanted to exalt his throne above the stars of God.

Lucifer ruled the men of this pre-adamite creation. In Isaiah 14:12 it refers to "nations" which is from the Hebrew "goy" meaning "peoples". Since this creation of humans was totally destroyed by God, Adam and Eve was told to "replenish" the earth. Even Peter referred to the "world that then was, and it “perished."

Pride was his cardinal sin.

Ezekiel 28:17
"Thy heart was lifted up because of thy beauty."

Isaiah 14:14
"thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God."

This rebellion resulted in God casting him out.

Ezekiel 28:16
"I will cast thee as profane out of the mountain of God, and I will destroy thee."

As an angel, before his fall, he was known as Lucifer. We now call him other names...
 
Upvote 0