Is ‘Lucifer’ the Planet Venus?

[JimB]

Murjahel, I love your posts, but I have to disagree with this one. With all due respect, this is eisegesis, threading unrelated scripture to support a popular albeit errant view. It seems to be a common exercise among conservative/fundamentalist believers. I’ll stick with the OP view.

 

[Lollerskates]

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

Ironically, in trying to improve on the translation (if that was the intent,) it increased confusion and literary division.

 

[murjahel]

Murjahel, I love your posts, but I have to disagree with this one. With all due respect, this is eisegesis, threading unrelated scripture to support a popular albeit errant view. It seems to be a common exercise among conservative/fundamentalist believers. I’ll stick with the OP view.

Your same argument is used against Isaiah 53 referring to Jesus' crucifixion... I reject that argument there, and here. The 'law of double reference applies, and is necessary due to the circumstances of Isaiah's day.

Isaiah is one of the hardest books to interpret due to several factors... I saved it for last of all the prophetic books in my study...

Isaiah 6:8-10 (KJV)
8 Also I heard the voice of the Lord, saying, Whom shall I send, and who will go for us? Then said I, Here am I; send me.
9 And he said, Go, and tell this people, Hear ye indeed, but understand not; and see ye indeed, but perceive not.
10 Make the heart of this people fat, and make their ears heavy, and shut their eyes; lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and convert, and be healed.

We still find some critics that do not see, do not understand..

This was not an easy feat for Isaiah to prophesy to the spiritual darkness then of things they were not prepared to understand. Therefore, much of the prophecy of Isaiah is still difficult for us to understand. The law of double reference here in the discussed passage is obvious, and impossible not to admit... too many parts are unexplainable otherwise.

Isaiah gave a message of near hopelessness to a people who did not want to hear him. They had eyes that would not see, ears that refused to listen. Their hearts were hard and stubborn. He was told they would stay that way until their country was waste land, and all had been taken away captive. That is a horrible calling, a hard set of sermons to preach.

The grand and glorious visions given to Isaiah were to aid him in his receiving of the message of judgment. Had he not been given hope, the hopelessness of the message to those people would have been immeasurably hard. To explain of Christ's details in crucifixion, and know that the hearers would be totally confused by it, so a double reference hid it from their eyes, but we in our times see it plainly. The same with the explanation of the fall of Lucifer, it was thought by most then, and a few even now to be reference to something else, but only the law of double reference explains what Isaiah was truly referring to...


The Messianic revelation, His birth, His life, His work, His wondrous victory at the cross, was all revealed long ago to Isaiah. He needed that revelation, and he was given it. The sceptics may scoff, we can let them scoff. The critics may look for ‘proofs’ that the books of Isaiah are forgeries by liars. Yet, Jesus Himself validated those books, and allowed the New Testament to record those validations. I would rather listen to the words of Jesus, than the sceptics and critics who have ‘degrees’ but no spiritual awareness of the faith.


Isaiah was allowed to view ‘Immanuel’, and know that Jesus was ‘God with us.’ Many Jewish clergy in the time of Jesus coming had not figured that out yet. Jesus said that the sufferings of the Messiah were ‘clearly’ taught in the Old Testament, and they are in Isaiah’s writings.

Yet, the blindness of scepticism kept many in Jesus time from seeing these passages. The same with the passage here about 'Lucifer'... and no "Lucifer' is not the planet Venus, and he was created prior to Venus, not the other way around. We all have a star named by God after us, does that make us a 'star'?

 

[Messy]

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...

I believe GAP theory is true, but I think Isaiah 14 is about the future. The antichrist and satan are not in hell yet and it can also be about the antichrist, since it's also a man and he's going to rule the world too or it's about both.
Anyway, satan is in Job and that's not allegorical:
Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan also came among them.
Where else can the devil come from? If he wasn't first an angel, then God must have created him evil, which would make God evil, ying yan. Light can't invent or create or in my opinion even think about the possibility of darkness.

 

[Simon_Templar]

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.

Ironically, your statement here kind of supports my view actually. If you recall what I said was that Isaiah is making an analogy or a comparison between a fallen angel (satan) and the King of Babylon. Using the fallen angel as a metaphorical taunt if you will.

So when you say he's using heaven as a figure of speech, I both agree and disagree. He is using it not as a merely hyperbolic adjective, like "you look heavenly" rather he is making a much more robust analogy. So instead of "you look heavenly" it's "you are like this high angel who sought to exalt himself and fell utterly to the lowest pits of sheol"

It's obviously no skin off my nose whatever you believe about the passage, but I don't see why you think your stated view is the most convincing. From my point of view, the type of reading you are suggesting seems much more like a modern reading that ignores the type of literature and the context etc.

I would agree that the passage is not a covert message about Lucifer, as many people take it. It is, however, a message to the King of Babylon that uses Lucifer as a comparative example.

 

[Always in His Presence]

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.

Now that is out of left field. Perhaps you misread my post. Is stating that I would respectfully disagree the attitude you speak of? Or is it my educational reference, or perhaps the scripture references showing what I was referring to.

CF is the only place where having a degree is a detriment.and no, I'm not trying to impress anyone, not even you. Only giving a reference of where I am coming from

 

[Andrea411]

Ironically, in trying to improve on the translation (if that was the intent,) it increased confusion and literary division.

Yes, but the point is that it should not... there are many scriptures that have dual meanings. People try to make it out that the NIV is satanic or trying to call Christ - satan bc of this verse, which was a poor translation in the KJV. The KJVO people use it as proof that the KJV is the only true version. When in fact, NIV got it right and the KJV wrong; not necessarily the intent of the scripture just the wording.

Although, I haven't heard that in some time. It may be that people are more open to other translations and more teaching with the internet. There is so much good teaching.... and so much bad...LOL.

 

[Andrea411]

Now that is out of left field. Perhaps you misread my post. Is stating that I would respectfully disagree the attitude you speak of? Or is it my educational reference, or perhaps the scripture references showing what I was referring to.

CF is the only place where having a degree is a detriment.and no, I'm not trying to impress anyone, not even you. Only giving a reference of where I am coming from

I wasn't trying to dismiss your education, it seemed to me that you were saying bc of your ed. you could decipher this scripture better then other renowned theologians... who can't seem to agree either. My point, if they can't agree, there probably is not anyway through it and just read it as you'd like. Why take the bait and fight over it? Which seemed to be the point of the OP.
Your listing all of satan's names was for what? IDK, as if I wouldn't know there are many names for satan. None of which are Venus. Obviously the OP knows that too.

 

[Always in His Presence]

I wasn't trying to dismiss your education, it seemed to me that you were saying bc of your ed. you could decipher this scripture better then other renowned theologians... who can't seem to agree either. My point, if they can't agree, there probably is not anyway through it and just read it as you'd like. Why take the bait and fight over it? Which seemed to be the point of the OP.
Your listing all of satan's names was for what? IDK, as if I wouldn't know there are many names for satan. None of which are Venus. Obviously the OP knows that too.

I said no such thing and how you came to that. Conclusion out of less than 10 words about myself, is beyond me.

The OP missed it by a mile for a number of reasons.

1. The OP thinks the verse is metaphor. It plainly is not. Because of that error he then takes a Hebrew word and uses extra Biblical text to prove his error as if it is correct.

2. To believe the OP I have to completely ignore the rest of the verse quoted as I demonstrated.

The names of Satan do not include Venus for a reason. And that is obvious.

 

[JimB]

*****

1. The OP thinks the verse is metaphor. It plainly is not. Because of that error he then takes a Hebrew word and uses extra Biblical text to prove his error as if it is correct.

*****

Huh?


.

 

[JimB]

I said no such thing and how you came to that. Conclusion out of less than 10 words about myself, is beyond me.

The OP missed it by a mile for a number of reasons.

1. The OP thinks the verse is metaphor. It plainly is not. Because of that error he then takes a Hebrew word and uses extra Biblical text to prove his error as if it is correct.

2. To believe the OP I have to completely ignore the rest of the verse quoted as I demonstrated.

The names of Satan do not include Venus for a reason. And that is obvious.

Of course not, the word “Venus” was not a word even known to Isaiah. But he did use the term “shining one” (helel) which was a Hebrew word for the morning star (aka, Venus) and, yes, it is a metaphor for the King of Babylon, as the context plainly reveals. (BTW, Have you read Isaiah 13 & 14? It would sure help this discussion if you would. Just sayin’. )

 

[Always in His Presence]

Of course not, the word “Venus” was not a word even known to Isaiah. But he did use the term “shining one” (helel) which was a Hebrew word for the morning star (aka, Venus) and, yes, it is a metaphor for the King of Babylon, as the context plainly reveals. (BTW, Have you read Isaiah 13 & 14? It would sure help this discussion if you would. Just sayin’. )

You do a whole lot of just sayin' )

The best help I can offer this discussion is to point out the obvious errors that the author made in his statements and the reasoning behind the error.

I've shown that a couple of times and yet you still say it is a metaphor, when it is not.

As for the recurring theme that I have not read it - which seems to be your only defense - might I offer you some solace that indeed I have not only read them a number of times, but also have studied the verses and chapters in three different courses.

1. Old Testament Survey
2. Types and Shadows in the Old Testament
3. Major Prophets

Now can we PLEASE leave me out and address the OP - that is the topic of the thread. I'm just not that important. And I am not the subject of the thread and I would kindly ask you once again to leave me out and stay on the topic of the thread. Instead of making such comments - why not offer a scriptural reply?

Now that would help the discussion.

 

[JimB]

You do a whole lot of just sayin' )

The best help I can offer this discussion is to point out the obvious errors that the author made in his statements and the reasoning behind the error.

I've shown that a couple of times and yet you still say it is a metaphor, when it is not.

As for the recurring theme that I have not read it - which seems to be your only defense - might I offer you some solace that indeed I have not only read them a number of times, but also have studied the verses and chapters in three different courses.

1. Old Testament Survey
2. Types and Shadows in the Old Testament
3. Major Prophets

Now can we PLEASE leave me out and address the OP - that is the topic of the thread. I'm just not that important. And I am not the subject of the thread and I would kindly ask you once again to leave me out and stay on the topic of the thread. Instead of making such comments - why not offer a scriptural reply?

Now that would help the discussion.

But SP, I just cannot follow your logic. I think it is faulty, no matter what you think about it. The very use of metaphorical language, like “shining one” (helel), “morning star” or for that matter the “stars of God” (v.13). It is obvious to any impartial reader that these shining stars are figurative language referring to prominent people, even more especially when the context tells us so. Just sayin’.

 

[Always in His Presence]

Huh?
.

1. Read the OP
2. Read the verses in context - that will show plainly that they are decidely NOT metaphor, but prophetic.
3. Now re-read the OP and see things like this:

Second paragraph:

First, the Hebrew. The phrase consists of three words. Hêlēlis found only here in the Hebrew OT, but is a word derived from a verb meaning “to shine.”

Mistake number one: the 'verb' also means: hence, to make a show, to boast; and thus to be (clamorously) foolish; to rave; causatively, to celebrate; also to stultify:--(make) boast (self), celebrate, commend, (deal, make), fool(- ish, -ly), glory, give (light), be (make, feign self) mad (against), give in marriage, (sing, be worthy of) praise, rage, renowned, shine.

The OP's obvious first error is to focus in on just one of the definitions of the word.

The noun would presumably mean “shining one.”

Mistake number two - the author of the OP takes a guess that the noun of the verb would be ...

This isn't English, no scholar would take that leap of assumption considering the other possible meanings of the word. That is why he did not make a definitive statement, but "Presumably mean". Meaning based on presumption is not good.

Now he has to support his presumption using extrabiblical proof noted in red below.




The second word, ben, means “son of.” Šaḥar 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 הֵילֵל בֶּן־שָׁחַר, “shining one [=star], son of the Dawn,” as a poetic reference to the planet Venus. The Hebrews used the same word כּוֹכָב (kôkab) 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.

Where did Isaiah ever use another diety in his writings????

He's not even convinced of what he is writing as evidenced by the (self-proclaimed?)

This has the effect of making the king’s fall greater and therefore more dramatic.​

The OP's own words and doubts about what he is exposing is enough to show the weaknesses in the argument.

Add the simple reality that he addresses NOTHING of the follwoing verses of the very same prophesy shows the error even clearer.

Shall I go on?

 

[Always in His Presence]

But SP, I just cannot follow your logic. I think it is faulty, no matter what you think about it. The very use of metaphorical language, like “shining one” (helel), “morning star” or for that matter the “stars of God” (v.13). It is obvious to any impartial reader that these shining stars are figurative language referring to prominent people, even more especially when the context tells us so. Just sayin’.

The please present scripture to show otherwise -

verses in context that are clear and unambiguous are the best.

 

[JimB]

Personally, I don't think anything would convince you that you are wrong. You seem to be committed to believing what you believe.

 

[Always in His Presence]

Personally, I don't think anything would convince you that you are wrong. You seem to be committed to believing what you believe.

I'm flattered but once again, I am not the topic of the thread, no matter how many times you bring me up.

If you ever want to discuss the OP , let me know.

 

[JimB]

I have already discussed the OP, SP. And so have you. Apparently neither one of us is convincing.

 

[Always in His Presence]

I have already discussed the OP, SP. And so have you. Apparently neither one of us is convincing.

We better keep th PC with the VP on the QT, cause if it gets to the VC the VP might go MIA and we we all be on KP.

One of my favorite movie quotes of all time.

Off topic, but you reminded me of it.