Lucifer is not the proper name of Satan

DamianWarS · Jan 28, 2017

The word "lucifer" is Latin and it is nothing more than that. It appears in the Latin text 3 times all of which is referring to the morning star (or the planet venus).

Since it is a Latin word here is how the Latin text uses the word with corresponding text. First the hebrew/greek, then latin vulgate, then the KJV, then NASB.

Job 11:17
MT: ומצהרים יקום חלד תעפה כבקר תהיה׃
LXX: ἡ δὲ εὐχή σου ὥσπερ ἑωσφόρος ἐκ δὲ μεσημβρίας ἀνατελεῖ σοι ζωή
VUL: et quasi meridianus fulgor consurget tibi ad vesperam et cum te consumptum putaveris orieris ut lucifer
KJV: And thine age shall be clearer than the noonday: thou shalt shine forth, thou shalt be as the morning.
NASB: Your life would be brighter than noonday; Darkness would be like the morning.

Isaiah 14:12
MT: איך נפלת משמים הילל בן־שחר נגדעת לארץ חולש על־גוים׃
LXX: πῶς ἐξέπεσεν ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ ὁ ἑωσφόρος ὁ πρωὶ ἀνατέλλων συνετρίβη εἰς τὴν γῆν ὁ ἀποστέλλων πρὸς πάντα τὰ ἔθνη
VUL: quomodo cecidisti de caelo lucifer qui mane oriebaris corruisti in terram qui vulnerabas gentes
KJV: 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!
NASB: “How you have fallen from heaven, O star of the morning, son of the dawn! You have been cut down to the earth, You who have weakened the nations!

2 Peter 1:19
TR: καὶ ἔχομεν βεβαιότερον τὸν προφητικὸν λόγον ᾧ καλῶς ποιεῖτεπροσέχοντες ὡς λύχνῳ φαίνοντι ἐν αὐχμηρῷ τόπῳ ἕως οὗ ἡμέραδιαυγάσῃ καὶ φωσφόρος ἀνατείλῃ ἐν ταῖς καρδίαις ὑμῶν
GNT: καὶ ἔχομεν βεβαιότερον τὸν προφητικὸν λόγον ᾧ καλῶς ποιεῖτεπροσέχοντες ὡς λύχνῳ φαίνοντι ἐν αὐχμηρῷ τόπῳ ἕως οὗ ἡμέραδιαυγάσῃ καὶ φωσφόρος ἀνατείλῃ ἐν ταῖς καρδίαις ὑμῶν
VUL: et habemus firmiorem propheticum sermonem cui bene facitis adtendentes quasi lucernae lucenti in caliginoso loco donec dies inlucescat et lucifer oriatur in cordibus vestris
KJV: We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:
NASB: So we have the prophetic word made more sure, to which you do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star arises in your hearts.

As you can see there are 3 examples and all though all refer to the morning star (a bit of a stretch for Job) they also all have different meanings in their context. Job is using this "dawn/morning star" figuratively to represent a climbing out of an emotional or "down and out" state saying that the new darkness will be like the morning; it is a positive thing. Isaiah is the infamous passage where the KJV chooses to keep the "lucifer" word. It is referring to again the morning star because at dawn it appears close to the horizon descending or falling from above; when dark comes it is no longer visible. This passage is figuratively refer to Satan (literally the king of Babylon). The Peter reference refers to Christ as the morning star.

The KJV keeps the word "lucifer" (and they capitalize it which neither the Latin text or of course hebrew does) I assume they do this as a sort of contextual example of how the word and the text were interpreted at that time (14/15th c.). The name associated with Satan is also dominate in arts and literatures since the KJV.

The language Latin emerged in the 1st century well after the Isaiah text. Other than a cultural superstition there is no reason to accept that lucifer is the proper name of Satan. I have spoken to people who refuse to accept this as myth like as if the name holds a special place in language and they get offended at the thought of calling Jesus Lucifer as well. Let's be smart about this... Lucifer is not the proper name of Satan. If there was a proper name it would just be Satan which is Hebrew for "adversary"

AlasBabylon · Jan 28, 2017

The term, Lucifer, is only in Isaiah 14 [KJV] It is a descriptive term for the [human] king of Babylon.

Isaiah 13 describes God's army [Cyrus' Medes and Persians] and the fall of Babylon.

Isaiah 14 describes the fall of the king of Babylon.

The word, satan, means adversary... that is all it means.

.

LastServant · Jan 28, 2017

DamianWarS said:
The word "lucifer" is Latin and it is nothing more than that. It appears in the Latin text 3 times all of which is referring to the morning star (or the planet venus).

Since it is a Latin word here is how the Latin text uses the word with corresponding text. First the hebrew/greek, then latin vulgate, then the KJV, then NASB.

Job 11:17
MT: ומצהרים יקום חלד תעפה כבקר תהיה׃
LXX: ἡ δὲ εὐχή σου ὥσπερ ἑωσφόρος ἐκ δὲ μεσημβρίας ἀνατελεῖ σοι ζωή
VUL: et quasi meridianus fulgor consurget tibi ad vesperam et cum te consumptum putaveris orieris ut lucifer
KJV: And thine age shall be clearer than the noonday: thou shalt shine forth, thou shalt be as the morning.
NASB: Your life would be brighter than noonday; Darkness would be like the morning.

Isaiah 14:12
MT: איך נפלת משמים הילל בן־שחר נגדעת לארץ חולש על־גוים׃
LXX: πῶς ἐξέπεσεν ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ ὁ ἑωσφόρος ὁ πρωὶ ἀνατέλλων συνετρίβη εἰς τὴν γῆν ὁ ἀποστέλλων πρὸς πάντα τὰ ἔθνη
VUL: quomodo cecidisti de caelo lucifer qui mane oriebaris corruisti in terram qui vulnerabas gentes
KJV: 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!
NASB: “How you have fallen from heaven, O star of the morning, son of the dawn! You have been cut down to the earth, You who have weakened the nations!

2 Peter 1:19
TR: καὶ ἔχομεν βεβαιότερον τὸν προφητικὸν λόγον ᾧ καλῶς ποιεῖτεπροσέχοντες ὡς λύχνῳ φαίνοντι ἐν αὐχμηρῷ τόπῳ ἕως οὗ ἡμέραδιαυγάσῃ καὶ φωσφόρος ἀνατείλῃ ἐν ταῖς καρδίαις ὑμῶν
GNT: καὶ ἔχομεν βεβαιότερον τὸν προφητικὸν λόγον ᾧ καλῶς ποιεῖτεπροσέχοντες ὡς λύχνῳ φαίνοντι ἐν αὐχμηρῷ τόπῳ ἕως οὗ ἡμέραδιαυγάσῃ καὶ φωσφόρος ἀνατείλῃ ἐν ταῖς καρδίαις ὑμῶν
VUL: et habemus firmiorem propheticum sermonem cui bene facitis adtendentes quasi lucernae lucenti in caliginoso loco donec dies inlucescat et lucifer oriatur in cordibus vestris
KJV: We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:
NASB: So we have the prophetic word made more sure, to which you do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star arises in your hearts.

As you can see there are 3 examples and all though all refer to the morning star (a bit of a stretch for Job) they also all have different meanings in their context. Job is using this "dawn/morning star" figuratively to represent a climbing out of an emotional or "down and out" state saying that the new darkness will be like the morning; it is a positive thing. Isaiah is the infamous passage where the KJV chooses to keep the "lucifer" word. It is referring to again the morning star because at dawn it appears close to the horizon descending or falling from above; when dark comes it is no longer visible. This passage is figuratively refer to Satan (literally the king of Babylon). The Peter reference refers to Christ as the morning star.

The KJV keeps the word "lucifer" (and they capitalize it which neither the Latin text or of course hebrew does) I assume they do this as a sort of contextual example of how the word and the text were interpreted at that time (14/15th c.). The name associated with Satan is also dominate in arts and literatures since the KJV.

The language Latin emerged in the 1st century well after the Isaiah text. Other than a cultural superstition there is no reason to accept that lucifer is the proper name of Satan. I have spoken to people who refuse to accept this as myth like as if the name holds a special place in language and they get offended at the thought of calling Jesus Lucifer as well. Let's be smart about this... Lucifer is not the proper name of Satan. If there was a proper name it would just be Satan which is Hebrew for "adversary"

You don't need to learn an old language to know that there are my symbolic names meaning the deceptive forces at work in our flesh and world. Some of those names are Lucifer, Serpent, Dragon, Devil, Satan, Wicked One, the World, Flesh of man, etc.

Norbert L · Jan 28, 2017

When I first studied this a few years ago, it reminded me about how words change. Not only within the same language but also through translation. It's somewhat similar to how the word gay changed in definition and meaning.

Historical context is very important. The question, are we talking about the same thing? Comes to mind about the scriptures. If several people were in the same room and one of them happened to be someone who lived thousands of years ago as the scriptures were being written down. Would that persons interpretation be different from us living today?

Those are important questions to use as a filter when studying the Bible.

LastServant · Jan 28, 2017

Norbert L said:
When I first studied this a few years ago, it reminded me about how words change. Not only within the same language but also through translation. It's somewhat similar to how the word gay changed in definition and meaning.

Historical context is very important. The question, are we talking about the same thing? Comes to mind about the scriptures. If several people were in the same room and one of them happened to be someone who lived thousands of years ago as the scriptures were being written down. Would that persons interpretation be different from us living today?

Those are important questions to use as a filter when studying the Bible.

The good news is that God isn't limited to one earthly language. He can take his invisible language and convert it into any language that his servant can understand while he's being used to testify to the knowledge of Christ.

Jeremiah 5:
15: Behold, I am bringing upon you a nation from afar, O house of Israel, says the LORD. It is an enduring nation, it is an ancient nation, a nation whose language you do not know, nor can you understand what they say.

God's language can't be understood until it's converted into the earthly languages we can understand. And even then you have to be chosen to understand his language converted into an earthly language.

Romans 11:
3: "Lord, they have killed thy prophets, they have demolished thy altars, and I alone am left, and they seek my life."
4: But what is God's reply to him? "I have kept for myself seven thousand men who have not bowed the knee to Ba'al."
5: So too at the present time there is a remnant, chosen by grace.
6: But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works; otherwise grace would no longer be grace.
7: What then? Israel failed to obtain what it sought. The elect obtained it, but the rest were hardened,
8: as it is written, "God gave them a spirit of stupor, eyes that should not see and ears that should not hear, down to this very day."

Norbert L · Jan 28, 2017

The Bible is like a gun, people are held accountable for how they use it. A person can end up shooting himself with like minded others in the process of using it. Isaiah 28:13

But when it's used properly it is good. 1 Timothy 1:8

LastServant · Jan 28, 2017

Norbert L said:
The Bible is like a gun, people are held accountable for how they use it. A person can end up shooting himself with like minded others in the process of using it. Isaiah 28:13

But when it's used properly it is good. 1 Timothy 1:8

The only one who can use the scriptures properly is God via his Holy Spirit. If you have never heard the voice of God, then you will never be able to understand the prophecies.

DamianWarS · Jan 28, 2017

There's no arguing "lucifer" is a 500 year old "nickname" for Satan and that it's modern use is iconically linked to him. But this is just a nickname dominantly endorsed by the KJV not a proper name and it certainly doesn't predate the language of Latin. Calvin and Luther opposed this interpretation in Isaiah as the name of Satan. The real adversary, won't care what name he goes by and I'm sure loves the attention.

The latin word means "light-bringer". But in Latin it was the word used to refer to the morning star so in context Latin translated this right. It also is simply used to refer to anyone carrying a light or torch (a lucifer) plus was a popular Christian boy's name in it's time. Using it's literal meaning as "one who carries light" or "light-bringer" who would we rather have this title? Satan or Jesus because the word describes them both in the Latin text.

I for one see it's meaning more appropriate to Jesus however it's modern context is ignorant of it's roots and demands a myth. In the end it's just semantics but let's still be smart about how we use it, because it's not a cursed name and has no intrinsic connection to Satan.

benelchi · Jan 28, 2017

DamianWarS said:
The word "lucifer" is Latin and it is nothing more than that. It appears in the Latin text 3 times all of which is referring to the morning star (or the planet venus).

Since it is a Latin word here is how the Latin text uses the word with corresponding text. First the hebrew/greek, then latin vulgate, then the KJV, then NASB.

Job 11:17
MT: ומצהרים יקום חלד תעפה כבקר תהיה׃
LXX: ἡ δὲ εὐχή σου ὥσπερ ἑωσφόρος ἐκ δὲ μεσημβρίας ἀνατελεῖ σοι ζωή
VUL: et quasi meridianus fulgor consurget tibi ad vesperam et cum te consumptum putaveris orieris ut lucifer
KJV: And thine age shall be clearer than the noonday: thou shalt shine forth, thou shalt be as the morning.
NASB: Your life would be brighter than noonday; Darkness would be like the morning.

The word "morning star" doesn't appear in the Hebrew text, and the word you highlighted in red isn't "morning" it is "it will be." The correct highlight for morning world be:

ומצהרים יקום חלד תעפה כבקר תהיה׃

Additionally this text has never been associated with Satan, and is a poor text to use when making this point. And clearly the 2 Pe. 1:19 text is also not a passage that is associated with Satan. That leave only the text of Is. 14:12. In that passage, there has been considerable debate about whether this is a reference to Satan or just the earthly king of Babylon, and the question isn't settled even today. In the 17th century, "Lucifer" was a name that was already long associated with both "Satan" and "the Morning Star." The KJV translators were not inventing something new, but using what had been long established. While it is fair to recognize that the KJV translation shows a bias towards a particular interpretation of this text, questions about whether the name they chose was proper or not really are unimportant. There are many biblical names we use today that do not resemble the phonetics of the original language names i.e. Babylonians, Euphrates, Jehovah, Eve, etc... These, like Lucifer, are simply translations of their biblical names, and are what is recognized as the proper name in English today. From a linguistic perspective, it is far more important to understand how a word is understood today than to understand how its current meaning evolved; the latter is sometimes quite interesting, but immaterial. Linguists don't decide how a word should be understood, they seek to understand how it is understood. The following is from a middle English dictionary (with citations) that show how the word was understood prior to the 17th century.

Lūcifer (n.)

[ L ]

(a) The leader of the fallen angels, the Devil; to ~, to hell; leien with ~, to be imprisoned in the Limbus Patrum; (b) luciferes aunte (brother, hine, knave, lemman, maister), an exceptionally wicked person; luciferes feste [see feste 4. (d)]; luciferes lordshipe, the rule of Satan; (c) the morning star.

(a) (1340) Ayenb.(Arun 57) 182/32: He ualþ oþerhuil uram zuo heȝe zuo loȝe ase dede lucifer. (c1375) Chaucer CT.Mk.(Manly-Rickert) B.3189,3195: At Lucifer, thogh he an aungel were And nat a man, at hym I wol bigynne..O Lucifer, brightest of aungels alle, Now artow Sathanas. (a1382) WBible(1) (Dc 369(1)) Is.14.12: Hou felle thou, Lucyfer, fro heuene, the whiche erli sprunge. (a1398) * Trev. Barth.(Add 27944) 18a/a: Þe heed of þis euel spiritis..is lucifer..he was I-maad more clere & briȝt þan oþir angelis. a1400(c1303) Mannyng HS (Hrl 1701) 6661: Þys ryche man sone aftyr deyde; Hys soule was bore to Lucyfere with-outyn ende to dwelle þere. a1400(a1325) Cursor (Vsp A.3) 26765: On ilk side sal be þe fere, þai þat war tint wit lucifere. c1400(a1376) PPl.A(1) (Trin-C R.3.14) 11.284: Adam..or any of þe prophetis Þat hadde leyn with lucifer manye longe ȝeris. c1450(?a1400) Roland & O.(Add 31042) 827: Thaire saules went alle to lucyfere, Þat hade þam alle to welde. c1450(c1400) Vices & V.(2) (Hnt HM 147) 187/7: Þei fallen ofte from so hiȝe in-to þe lowest pitt, as dide Lucifer. a1500 Mirror Salv.(Beeleigh) p.143: The dampnid with feendes and lucifere at the last In helle..shalle be shette.

(b) c1390 PPl.A(1) (Vrn) 5.259: He haþ leiȝen bi latro lucifers brother [vrr. hyne, Aunte, lemman]. c1400(a1376) PPl.A(1) (Trin-C R.3.14) prol.39: Qui loquitur turpiloquium his luciferis hyne [C: Lucyfers knaue]. c1400(c1378) PPl.B (LdMisc 581) 13.456-7: Foles þorw her foule wordes Leden þo þat louen hem to luciferes feste, With turpiloquio, a lay of sorwe and luciferes fithele. c1400(c1378) PPl.B (LdMisc 581) 17.8: Lucyferes lordeship laste shal no lenger. c1400(?a1387) PPl.C (Hnt HM 137) 3.107: After hure deþ dwelling, day with-outen ende In luciferes lordshup. ?c1430(c1400) Wycl.Obed.Prel.(Corp-C 296) 29: Ȝif ony worldly prelat axe more obedience, he his anticrist & luciferis maister.

(c) (a1398) * Trev. Barth.(Add 27944) 126a/b: In þe dawinge lucifer, þe day sterre, arisiþ. c1400 Bible SNT(2) (Dc 250) 2 Pet.1.19: Lucifer [SNT(1): þe day-sterre] the grete sterne, be resen in ȝoure hertis, þat schyneþ so briȝt. a1425(c1385) Chaucer TC (Benson-Robinson) 3.1417: Lucyfer, the dayes messager, Gan for to rise. a1425(c1395) WBible(2) (Roy 1.C.8) Job 38.32: Whether thou bryngist forth Lucifer, that is, dai sterre, in his tyme? ?a1425(c1380) Chaucer Bo.(Benson-Robinson) 4.m.6.18: Lucyfer, the sterre, bryngeth ayein the clere day. a1500(?a1425) Lambeth SSecr.(Lamb 501) 92/3: Take seuen graynes of þat seed..and breke hem yn þe vpsryngynge of lucyfer and venus.

Basically, it is clear that Lucifer was not an original name for Satan, but it is equally clear that it is a proper name for Satan today. Arguing about whether it "should be" a proper name doesn't change the fact that it has been a proper name for Satan in English for more that six centuries. I voted "Yes" in your poll because this is how the word is understood today, regardless of its etymology.

Here is the definition from the current edition of the Oxford English Dictionary:

Lucifer (noun)

1 another name for Satan
2 literary The planet Venus when it rises in the morning.
3 lucifer archaic A match struck by rubbing it on a rough surface.

‘A quantity of lucifers were in his cart ignited and Jones with his horses were burnt to death.’
‘Leaning sideways and striking a lucifer against the toenails on the elephant foot umbrella stand, Dimpler thoughtfully lit his last Cuban.’

Origin
Old English, from Latin, light-bringing, morning star, from lux, luc- light + -fer bearing. Lucifer is by association with the ‘son of the morning’ (Isa. 14:12), believed by Christian interpreters to be a reference to Satan.

AlasBabylon · Jan 28, 2017

Norbert L said:
When I first studied this a few years ago, it reminded me about how words change. Not only within the same language but also through translation. It's somewhat similar to how the word gay changed in definition and meaning.

Historical context is very important. The question, are we talking about the same thing? Comes to mind about the scriptures. If several people were in the same room and one of them happened to be someone who lived thousands of years ago as the scriptures were being written down. Would that persons interpretation be different from us living today?

Those are important questions to use as a filter when studying the Bible.

I agree that understanding the Bible from an historical perspective is important.

Much of the Old Testament... including the only use in the KJV of "Lucifer" in Isaiah 14...
involves Babylon [and God's king, Cyrus, who conquered Babylon.] The book of Revelation
uses symbols from this critical time in Israel's history. In Revelation, the end-time evil empire
is symbolically called Babylon... and if one knows the history... Cyrus is also in Revelation
in symbolic form... which makes sense because Cyrus is an OT archetype for Christ.

Isaiah 14:4 tells us it is a taunt against the king of Babylon. Before his fall to Cyrus, the king
of Babylon was the most wealthy, most powerful, most hated man in the ancient world.

.

DamianWarS · Jan 28, 2017

benelchi said:
The word "morning star" doesn't appear in the Hebrew text, and the word you highlighted in red isn't "morning" it is "it will be." The correct highlight for morning world be:

ומצהרים יקום חלד תעפה כבקר תהיה׃

Additionally this text has never been associated with Satan, and is a poor text to use when making this point. And clearly the 2 Pe. 1:19 text is also not a passage that is associated with Satan. That leave only the text of Is. 14:12. In that passage, there has been considerable debate about whether this is a reference to Satan or just the earthly king of Babylon, and the question isn't settled even today. In the 17th century, "Lucifer" was a name that was already long associated with both "Satan" and "the Morning Star." The KJV translators were not inventing something new, but using what had been long established. While it is fair to recognize that the KJV translation shows a bias towards a particular interpretation of this text, questions about whether the name they chose was proper or not really are unimportant. There are many biblical names we use today that do not resemble the phonetics of the original language names i.e. Babylonians, Euphrates, Jehovah, Eve, etc... These, like Lucifer, are simply translations of their biblical names, and are what is recognized as the proper name in English today. From a linguistic perspective, it is far more important to understand how a word is understood today than to understand how its current meaning evolved; the latter is sometimes quite interesting, but immaterial. Linguists don't decide how a word should be understood, they seek to understand how it is understood. The following is from a middle English dictionary (with citations) that show how the word was understood prior to the 17th century.

Lūcifer (n.)

[ L ]

(a) The leader of the fallen angels, the Devil; to ~, to hell; leien with ~, to be imprisoned in the Limbus Patrum; (b) luciferes aunte (brother, hine, knave, lemman, maister), an exceptionally wicked person; luciferes feste [see feste 4. (d)]; luciferes lordshipe, the rule of Satan; (c) the morning star.

(a) (1340) Ayenb.(Arun 57) 182/32: He ualþ oþerhuil uram zuo heȝe zuo loȝe ase dede lucifer. (c1375) Chaucer CT.Mk.(Manly-Rickert) B.3189,3195: At Lucifer, thogh he an aungel were And nat a man, at hym I wol bigynne..O Lucifer, brightest of aungels alle, Now artow Sathanas. (a1382) WBible(1) (Dc 369(1)) Is.14.12: Hou felle thou, Lucyfer, fro heuene, the whiche erli sprunge. (a1398) * Trev. Barth.(Add 27944) 18a/a: Þe heed of þis euel spiritis..is lucifer..he was I-maad more clere & briȝt þan oþir angelis. a1400(c1303) Mannyng HS (Hrl 1701) 6661: Þys ryche man sone aftyr deyde; Hys soule was bore to Lucyfere with-outyn ende to dwelle þere. a1400(a1325) Cursor (Vsp A.3) 26765: On ilk side sal be þe fere, þai þat war tint wit lucifere. c1400(a1376) PPl.A(1) (Trin-C R.3.14) 11.284: Adam..or any of þe prophetis Þat hadde leyn with lucifer manye longe ȝeris. c1450(?a1400) Roland & O.(Add 31042) 827: Thaire saules went alle to lucyfere, Þat hade þam alle to welde. c1450(c1400) Vices & V.(2) (Hnt HM 147) 187/7: Þei fallen ofte from so hiȝe in-to þe lowest pitt, as dide Lucifer. a1500 Mirror Salv.(Beeleigh) p.143: The dampnid with feendes and lucifere at the last In helle..shalle be shette.

(b) c1390 PPl.A(1) (Vrn) 5.259: He haþ leiȝen bi latro lucifers brother [vrr. hyne, Aunte, lemman]. c1400(a1376) PPl.A(1) (Trin-C R.3.14) prol.39: Qui loquitur turpiloquium his luciferis hyne [C: Lucyfers knaue]. c1400(c1378) PPl.B (LdMisc 581) 13.456-7: Foles þorw her foule wordes Leden þo þat louen hem to luciferes feste, With turpiloquio, a lay of sorwe and luciferes fithele. c1400(c1378) PPl.B (LdMisc 581) 17.8: Lucyferes lordeship laste shal no lenger. c1400(?a1387) PPl.C (Hnt HM 137) 3.107: After hure deþ dwelling, day with-outen ende In luciferes lordshup. ?c1430(c1400) Wycl.Obed.Prel.(Corp-C 296) 29: Ȝif ony worldly prelat axe more obedience, he his anticrist & luciferis maister.

(c) (a1398) * Trev. Barth.(Add 27944) 126a/b: In þe dawinge lucifer, þe day sterre, arisiþ. c1400 Bible SNT(2) (Dc 250) 2 Pet.1.19: Lucifer [SNT(1): þe day-sterre] the grete sterne, be resen in ȝoure hertis, þat schyneþ so briȝt. a1425(c1385) Chaucer TC (Benson-Robinson) 3.1417: Lucyfer, the dayes messager, Gan for to rise. a1425(c1395) WBible(2) (Roy 1.C.8) Job 38.32: Whether thou bryngist forth Lucifer, that is, dai sterre, in his tyme? ?a1425(c1380) Chaucer Bo.(Benson-Robinson) 4.m.6.18: Lucyfer, the sterre, bryngeth ayein the clere day. a1500(?a1425) Lambeth SSecr.(Lamb 501) 92/3: Take seuen graynes of þat seed..and breke hem yn þe vpsryngynge of lucyfer and venus.

Basically, it is clear that Lucifer was not an original name for Satan, but it is equally clear that it is a proper name for Satan today. Arguing about whether it "should be" a proper name doesn't change the fact that it has been a proper name for Satan in English for more that six centuries. I voted "Yes" in your poll because this is how the word is understood today, regardless of its etymology.

Here is the definition from the current edition of the Oxford English Dictionary:

Lucifer (noun)

1 another name for Satan
2 literary The planet Venus when it rises in the morning.
3 lucifer archaic A match struck by rubbing it on a rough surface.

‘A quantity of lucifers were in his cart ignited and Jones with his horses were burnt to death.’

‘Leaning sideways and striking a lucifer against the toenails on the elephant foot umbrella stand, Dimpler thoughtfully lit his last Cuban.’

Origin
Old English, from Latin, light-bringing, morning star, from lux, luc- light + -fer bearing. Lucifer is by association with the ‘son of the morning’ (Isa. 14:12), believed by Christian interpreters to be a reference to Satan.

Thanks for the correction on the Job reference. I of course don't speak Hebrew and used online interlinear resources (blueletterbible, biblehub) but clearly I still made an error.

I appreciate your perspective and resolve of still considering Lucifer the proper name of Satan. Languages of course are dynamic and the words we use today may have new meaning tomorrow. I believe that this name is not an invention from the KJV and the fact the KJV uses it shows that it was widely accepted and used as a name of Satan.

Is Lucifer Satan's "original name" or is it his "proper name" and do these things mean the same thing? I didn't think it was so ambiguous but as you have pointed it out it is. It is clear that you are informed enough on the origins of the word but accept it's modern use as a proper name for him simply because it's widely accepted in spite of the ignorance surrounding it.

I still don't accept it as his proper name as it is built on ignorance. To me simply because it is widely accepted isn't good enough to establish something as the correct name... but is "correct" the same as "proper" I am considering it is.

For example what's the proper name of Jesus. Is it "Jesus" or the way the biblical greek identifies it as "Iesous" or is it the way the 1411 KJV has it as "Iesus" or is it the Hebrew name Yeshua or Yehoshua. I think most people would point to some sort of Hebrew name (even if they don't know it) but maybe 200 years ago it was different and English speakers would only identify with the English name. Languages do evolve but people also become more informed over time, to me the proper name is more static.

Lucifer is a language variant as well, namely latin for the morning star. The Latin text was once the dominate biblical text of the church and it's easy to see how some biblical latin words could take root. Somewhere along the line the Isaiah text was widely accepted as a reference for Satan and the latin word lucifer was transformed into a name for him. The KJV picked up on this and translated with the lucifer reference. It's still a latin word and because we are ignorant of it's roots we should not assume it's a proper name for him especially since the text in question is not even clear that it is figuratively referencing Satan. I would more consider it an "improper name".

benelchi · Jan 29, 2017

DamianWarS said:
Thanks for the correction on the Job reference. I of course don't speak Hebrew and used online interlinear resources (blueletterbible, biblehub) but clearly I still made an error.

I appreciate your perspective and resolve of still considering Lucifer the proper name of Satan. Languages of course are dynamic and the words we use today may have new meaning tomorrow. I believe that this name is not an invention from the KJV and the fact the KJV uses it shows that it was widely accepted and used as a name of Satan.

Is Lucifer Satan's "original name" or is it his "proper name" and do these things mean the same thing? I didn't think it was so ambiguous but as you have pointed it out it is. It is clear that you are informed enough on the origins of the word but accept it's modern use as a proper name for him simply because it's widely accepted in spite of the ignorance surrounding it.

I still don't accept it as his proper name as it is built on ignorance. To me simply because it is widely accepted isn't good enough to establish something as the correct name... but is "correct" the same as "proper" I am considering it is.

For example what's the proper name of Jesus. Is it "Jesus" or the way the biblical greek identifies it as "Iesous" or is it the way the 1411 KJV has it as "Iesus" or is it the Hebrew name Yeshua or Yehoshua. I think most people would point to some sort of Hebrew name (even if they don't know it) but maybe 200 years ago it was different and English speakers would only identify with the English name. Languages do evolve but people also become more informed over time, to me the proper name is more static.

Lucifer is a language variant as well, namely latin for the morning star. The Latin text was once the dominate biblical text of the church and it's easy to see how some biblical latin words could take root. Somewhere along the line the Isaiah text was widely accepted as a reference for Satan and the latin word lucifer was transformed into a name for him. The KJV picked up on this and translated with the lucifer reference. It's still a latin word and because we are ignorant of it's roots we should not assume it's a proper name for him especially since the text in question is not even clear that it is figuratively referencing Satan. I would more consider it an "improper name".

When I look at questions about how to pronounce Jesus name, I truly believe this is a non-issue. When I travel, my own name is pronounced very differently in different linguistic contexts (as are most names). Some pronunciations are so significantly different that many English ONLY speakers might not even see the connection. It has never bothered me that people pronounce my name differently in different linguistic contexts, nor has it ever bothered the people I have traveled with. I personally have a very hard time believing that Jesus, Y'shua, Isa, Iesus, etc... would make an issue over how his name was pronounced in different cultures when the practice is so common among those who do travel the world. I have known some whose names are so difficult to pronounce in English contexts, that they have just picked another name to use when they are living in English speaking contexts.

When I look at the question about whether 'Lucifer' is a proper name for Satan, I don't think the answer can be anything other than yes. However, that is a very different question than whether 'Lucifer' was the original given name for Satan, and the answer to that question is unquestionably NO.... but it is a very fitting name (2 Co. 11:14).

From a translation perspective, I do believe the KJV translators were wrong when they chose to use 'Lucifer' in Is. 14:12 because it unnecessarily promotes one particular interpretation over another. Sadly, this practice is becoming more common in bible translations.

DamianWarS · Jan 30, 2017

benelchi said:
When I look at questions about how to pronounce Jesus name, I truly believe this is a non-issue. When I travel, my own name is pronounced very differently in different linguistic contexts (as are most names). Some pronunciations are so significantly different that many English ONLY speakers might not even see the connection. It has never bothered me that people pronounce my name differently in different linguistic contexts, nor has it ever bothered the people I have traveled with. I personally have a very hard time believing that Jesus, Y'shua, Isa, Iesus, etc... would make an issue over how his name was pronounced in different cultures when the practice is so common among those who do travel the world. I have known some whose names are so difficult to pronounce in English contexts, that they have just picked another name to use when they are living in English speaking contexts.

When I look at the question about whether 'Lucifer' is a proper name for Satan, I don't think the answer can be anything other than yes. However, that is a very different question than whether 'Lucifer' was the original given name for Satan, and the answer to that question is unquestionably NO.... but it is a very fitting name (2 Co. 11:14).

From a translation perspective, I do believe the KJV translators were wrong when they chose to use 'Lucifer' in Is. 14:12 because it unnecessarily promotes one particular interpretation over another. Sadly, this practice is becoming more common in bible translations.

I agree names, like words are somewhat flexible and are free to change as they move through cultures and languages. The more and more this discussion carries on the more the term "proper" seems to be loosely defined and therein lies the issue.

You seem to identify with the word lucifer as the proper name for Satan even though you recognize it is founded on what possibly could be an erroneous interpretation of the Isaiah text. Yet to you the roots of the word are less important than its modern usage. To you the word has morphed into the proper name for Satan from popular acceptance and you even identify with the word's meaning of a lighter bearer with the idea that Satan masquerades as such.

I would still point to the roots and context of the word in scripture which would reveal it is not the name of Satan but it would seem you recognize the word has taken on meaning outside of the context of scripture and look to the extra-biblical cultural meaning of the word rather than the biblical.

Cultural definitions are fickle and uncontrollable so, however important, i'll leave the cultural view where it is but if I understand you correctly we should be able to conclude that scripturally speaking "lucifer" is not the proper name of Satan.

Lucifer is not the proper name of Satan

Do you think Lucifer is the proper name for Satan

Yes

No

I don't know

Follower of Isa Al Masih

Mystic

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Follower of Isa Al Masih

INACTIVE

Mystic

Follower of Isa Al Masih

INACTIVE

Follower of Isa Al Masih

Similar threads