Lucifer... just a euphemism for Satan.

[DamianWarS]

I don't really like it when people cling to this name Lucifer like it is inherently an evil and proper name reserved for Satan. The truth is Lucifer is just a word and its not even Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek but Latin completely disconnected from the original languages of the bible.

This name has been widely accepted because the KJV choose to use the Latin word while translating Isaiah 14:12. The Isaiah passage is directly about the downfall of the King of Babylon but is also thought to parallel the fall of Satan. Babylon is commonly liken to evil and thus its King should then be the King of evil, namely Satan. The verse reads:

Isaiah 14:12 (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!

The KJV isn't the only translation that uses the word Lucifer and others that I was able to find were the DARBY, Douay-Rheims, NKJV and the Wycliffe Bible all of which are older translations. I was unable to find any modern translation (within the 20th century) that uses Lucifer in this passage.

The word in question, Lucifer, is Latin and it comes directly out of the Latin Vulgate to which translations like the KJV consulted while translating. In Latin the word means "morning star" which also happens to be the most popular translated text of this passage. Literally the word means "light-bringing".

Interestingly enough the Latin Vulgate uses this word Lucifer also in 2 Peter 1:19 which reads:

2 Peter 1:19 (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:

here is the same passage in the Latin:

2 Peter 1:19 (Latin Vulgate): et habemus firmiorem propheticum sermonem cui bene facitis adtendentes quasi lucernae lucenti in caliginoso loco donec dies inlucescat et lucifer oriatur in cordibus vestris

this verse however has nothing to do with Satan and actually is a reference to Christ. The KJV choose to translate it as "day star" instead of keeping it in its Latin name of Lucifer like it did in Isaiah.

Lucifer is still an active reference to Christ and within Catholic circles it is in the Exsultet hymn sung during Easter proclamation as follows:

Flammas eius lúcifer matutínus invéniat:
ille, inquam, lúcifer, qui nescit occásum.
Christus Fílius tuus,
qui, regréssus ab ínferis, humáno géneri serénus illúxit,
et vivit et regnat in sæcula sæculórum.

May the Morning Star which never sets
find this flame still burning:
Christ, that Morning Star,
who came back from the dead,
and shed his peaceful light on all mankind,
your Son, who lives and reigns for ever and ever.

The actual Hebrew for this word in the Isaiah passage is "Heylel" which means shinning one, morning star or day star. In the Septuagint the word in the Isaiah passage is Heosphoros where the Greek in the 2 Peter for "day star" is phosphoros. Both mean similar things but the Latin Lucifer is an exact translation of the word Heosphoros which probably means the Septuagint played the influencing role in this verse rather than the Hebrew texts.

The reference "Morning Star" is talking about the planet Venus. Venus is the brightest celestial object in the sky other than the sun and the moon, however you can only see Venus during dawn and dusk for a short period on the horizon and never in the dark. Mythical stories commonly depict Venus as a type of god that is constantly trying to rise above all the other stars but is then cast down to earth which is the constant struggle of Venus in the sky raising at dusk but never quite making it to the sky and then thrown back down to earth at dawn. Its reference is thought to come from Canaanite mythology and in myth the god is thrown down to earth to rule the underworld which is very similar to this Isaiah reference and one must have been influenced by the other. Possibly Isaiah was merely using a popular cultural reference of a mythical story to emphasize his point.

Regardless of the origins of this account Lucifer remains to be a Latin word and that is it. In Latin it perhaps is a parallel reference to Satan but it is also a reference to Christ so the word is largely ambiguous and certainly doesn't present itself as a reserved proper name for Satan. The KJV is drawn to this word for the Isaiah reference which is probably why it is a popular name for Satan today.

Once you understand its origins Lucifer is only a euphemism for Satan perhaps ignorantly accepted as his proper name but still only a euphemism. Euphemisms of course can be any name you want to represent the actual thing but its more stressing points are to make something sound a little nicer like instead of saying someone died you say they "passed on". Lucifer is an example of a euphemism because it takes an inherently evil being and calls him instead a "falling star" or Lucifer which is a much nicer way of wording the actual embodiment of evil itself. You can continue to call him Lucifer or Morning Star, Son of Dawn or whatever else you feel is appropriate but the best reveled biblical name for the devil is simply Satan a Hebrew word for adversary also used in the Greek text.

 

[childofdust]

The KJV isn't the only translation that uses the word Lucifer and others that I was able to find were the DARBY, Douay-Rheims, NKJV and the Wycliffe Bible all of which are older translations.

Both the Douay-Rheims and Wycliffe bibles were translated from the Latin Vulgate. That is why they have “lucifer.” The KJV made use of the Vulgate, which is why both it and the NKJV have it. I don't know why Darby has it. The English OT was done entirely by Darby's students and Darby told them the KJV was more than adequate, so they probably just aped the KJV.

I was unable to find any modern translation (within the 20th century) that uses Lucifer in this passage.

That's because modern translations don't use the Latin Vulgate. The Latin Vulgate is important in terms of textual criticism, but it is irrelevant when it comes to translating the Masoretic Text. Modern versions use the Masoretic Text, so there is no possibility of "lucifer" appearing in those translations unless they are intentionally deceptive.

 

[DamianWarS]

Both the Douay-Rheims and Wycliffe bibles were translated from the Latin Vulgate. That is why they have “lucifer.” The KJV made use of the Vulgate, which is why both it and the NKJV have it. I don't know why Darby has it. The English OT was done entirely by Darby's students and Darby told them the KJV was more than adequate, so they probably just aped the KJV.

That's because modern translations don't use the Latin Vulgate. The Latin Vulgate is important in terms of textual criticism, but it is irrelevant when it comes to translating the Masoretic Text. Modern versions use the Masoretic Text, so there is no possibility of "lucifer" appearing in those translations unless they are intentionally deceptive.

I understand that these more traditional translations are influenced by the Latin text which is why they use the word Lucifer instead of the more popular and modern morning star. However I don't think it justifies them using the word Lucifer because after all Lucifer is not inherently an English word and it is a Latin word so is irresponsible to a translation. These principals of translations go against the reason to have an English translation from Latin to begin with. If certain words are best in their Latin form why make an English translation to begin with as it seems the statement is Latin text is more superior or at least in the the case of Isaiah 14:12 it is. The point of a translation is to translate and the word "lucifer" is not a good example of this. In terms of proper names, which this verse is not an example of, the Hebrew or Greek names in their Hebrew and Greek forms are of course accepted as it is their original state but there is no reason to keep a Latin word.

Perhaps these translations are heavily influenced by the Latin but I think it is more that Lucifer is a very dominate accepted title culturally speaking for Satan especially in Isaiah 14:12 which is probably the reason why these versions, including the KJV, leaned toward this word. Not because of the Latin alone but because of the cultural acceptance of the word. the KJV was completed in 1611 but I'm sure in 1610 most people had heard of the name Lucifer and connected it with Satan. This is why the word is only a euphemism for Satan but should not be regarded as his proper name.

 

[childofdust]

Yeah, I agree. “Lucifer” isn't a translation. If someone wanted to do a translation that pointed back to the use of this Latin name, they should have used the English word “Venus.”


It still puzzles me why the NKJV did not fix such a blatant error in the KJV. The Latin word “lucifer” has nothing to do with anything in the 1967/1977 Stuttgart edition of the Biblia Hebraica or the ben Chayyim edition used by the KJV, the two Hebrew texts that the NKJV was supposedly based on.

 

[Lyssah]

Well I'll be... I never thought about this before. Very enlightening. Thank you for sharing thins information. I never thought much about where "lucifer" came from.

 

[ptomwebster]

I don't really like it when people cling to this name Lucifer like it is inherently an evil....

You just keep thinking that way D. Let's see how it works out for you in a few years.

 

[DamianWarS]

You just keep thinking that way D. Let's see how it works out for you in a few years

not really sure what this is supposed to mean... but you obviously put a lot a time into that well thought out and encouraging message. As it stands I have been thinking about this for much more than a few years and it has worked just fine for me.

 

[seeingeyes]

Thanks for this lesson. Very thorough.

It's interesting how much of our understanding of Satan's 'past' comes from this picture of 'Lucifer' and that verse in 2 Cor: "Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light."

Do you have any knowledge on the book of Enoch? Do you know if any of the 'particulars' of the 'Lucifer' story stem from there (as well as the Isaiah passage and Revelation). I haven't researched it myself yet, just wondering if you have any more insight on the history.

 

[childofdust]

Most important to me about the Satan's past is the fact that Yeshua's death disarmed and overthrew his power:

Since, therefore, the children share flesh and blood, he himself likewise shared the same things, so that through death he might destroy the one who has the power of death, that is, the devil.
--Hebrews 2:14, NRSV

 

[Phaedron]

The word lucifer appears only in the KJV and is latin and was invented in the middle ages or so. The name only occurs in Isiah 14 and refers to the king of babylon. The former word translated lucifer is "morning star" which is what Jesus said he is. Lucifer does mean Jesus to some occultists, but they would be fools not to realize Jesus said HIS goats would go into everlasting suffering and HIS Sheep into everlasting life.

There is an excellent article that describes all of this called "Lucifer King of Babylon"

1. The words “devil” , “satan” and “angel” never occur in this chapter. This is the only place in Scripture where the word “Lucifer” occurs.


2. There is no evidence that Isaiah 14 is describing anything that happened in the garden of Eden; if it is, then why are we left 3,000 years from the time of Genesis before being told what really happened there?


3. Lucifer is described as being covered in worms (v. 11) and mocked by men (v. 16) because he no longer has any power after his casting out of heaven (vs. 5-8); so there is no justification for thinking that Lucifer is now on earth leading believers astray.


4. Why is Lucifer punished for saying, “I will ascend into heaven” (v. 13), if he was already there?


5. Lucifer is to rot in the grave: “Thy pomp is brought down to the grave...and the worms cover thee” (v. 11). Seeing angels cannot die (Lk. 20:35-36), Lucifer therefore cannot be an angel; the language is more suited to a man.


6. Verses 13 and 14 have connections with 2 Thessalonians 2: 3-4, which is about the “man of sin” - thus Lucifer points forward to another man, perhaps another king of latter day Babylon- but not to an angel.


7. It should be noted that the idea of 'morning star' is translated 'Lucifer' in the Vulgate [Latin] translation of the Bible made by Jerome. Significantly, he uses 'Lucifer' as a description of Christ, as the 'morning star' mentioned in Revelation. Indeed, some early Christians took the name 'Lucifer' as a 'Christian name' in order to identify themselves with Jesus (1). It wasn't until Origen that the term 'Lucifer' took on any connotation of 'Satan' or a force of evil; and even then it was only popularized much later in Milton's Paradise Lost . 'Lucifer' in its strict meaning of 'bearer of the light' actually was applied in a positive sense to Christian communities, e.g. the followers of Lucifer of Cagliari were called 'Luciferians'. As an aside, it's worth pointing out that they were one of the groups who insisted that the devil was not a personal being and held to the original Biblical picture of sin and the devil (2).

Suggested Explanations

1. The N.I.V. and other modern versions have set out the text of Isaiah chapters 13-23 as a series of “burdens” on various nations, e.g. Babylon, Tyre, Egypt. Isaiah 14: 4, sets the context of the verses we are considering: “Thou shalt take up this proverb (parable) against the king of Babylon...”. The prophecy is therefore about the human king of Babylon, who is described as “Lucifer”. On his fall: “they that see thee shall...consider thee, saying, Is this the man that made the earth to tremble...?” (v. 16). Thus Lucifer is clearly defined as a man.


2. Because Lucifer was a human king , “All kings of the nations...shall speak and say unto thee, Art thou also become weak as we? art thou become like unto us?” (vs. 9-10). Lucifer was therefore a king like any other king.


3. Verse 20 says that Lucifer’s seed will be destroyed. Verse 22 says that Babylon’s seed will be destroyed, thus equating them.


4. Remember that this is a “proverb (parable) against the king of Babylon” (v. 4). “Lucifer” means “the morning star”, which is the brightest of the stars. In the parable, this star proudly decides to “ascend (higher) into heaven...exalt my throne above the (other) stars of God” (v. 13). Because of this, the star is cast down to the earth. The star represents the king of Babylon. Daniel chapter 4 explains how Nebuchadnezzar, the king of Babylon, proudly surveyed the great kingdom he had built up, thinking that he had conquered other nations in his own strength, rather than recognizing that God had given him success. “Thy greatness (pride) is grown, and reacheth unto heaven” (v.22). Because of this “he was driven from men, and did eat grass as oxen, and his body was wet with the dew of heaven, till his hairs were grown like eagles’ feathers, and his nails like birds’ claws” (v. 33). This sudden humbling of one of the world’s most powerful men to a deranged lunatic was such a dramatic event as to call for the parable about the falling of the morning star from heaven to earth. Stars are symbolic of powerful people, e.g. Genesis 37: 9; Isaiah 13:10 (concerning the leaders of Babylon); Ezekiel 32: 7 (concerning the leaders of Egypt); Daniel 8:10, cp. v. 24. Ascending to heaven and falling from heaven are Biblical idioms often used for increasing in pride and being humbled respectively - see Job 20: 6; Jeremiah 51:53 ( about Babylon); Lamentations 2 :1; Matthew 11:23 (about Capernaum): “Thou, Capernaum, which art exalted unto heaven, shalt be brought down to hell” (the grave). Adam Clarke's commentary rightly notes: "The truth is, the text speaks nothing at all concerning Satan nor his fall... but of the pride, arrogance and fall of Nebuchadnezzar".


5. Verse 17 accuses Lucifer of making the “world as a wilderness, (destroying) the cities thereof; that let not loose his prisoners to their home...(that did) fill the face of the world with cities...the exactress of gold” (vs 17 & 21 R.V.; v. 4 A.V. margin). These are all descriptions of Babylonian military policy - razing whole areas to the ground (as they did to Jerusalem), transporting captives to other areas and not letting them return to their homeland (as they did to the Jews), building new cities and taking tribute of gold from nations they oppressed. Thus there is emphasis on the fact that Lucifer was not even going to get the burial these other kings had (vs. 18-19), implying that he was only a human king like them, seeing his body needed burying. Is. 14:8 records the relief that now the "Lucifer" figure would no longer cut down cedars in Lebanon and hew mountains. This is exactly the language used by Nebuchadnezzar: "What no former king had done, I achieved: I cut through steep mountains, I split rocks, I opened passages and constructed a straight road for the transport of Cedars... to Marduk, my king, mighty cedars... the abundant yield of the Lebanon" (3). Clearly the figure spoken of in Is. 14 was Nebuchadnezzar.


6. Verse 12 says that Lucifer was to be “cut down to the ground” - implying he was a tree. This provides a further link with Daniel 4: 8-16, where Nebuchadnezzar and Babylon are likened to a tree being cut down.


7. Babylon and Assyria are often interchangeable phrases in the prophets, thus, having spoken of the demise of the king of Babylon, v. 25 says, “I will break the Assyrian...”. The prophecies about Babylon in Isaiah 47, are repeated concerning Assyria in Nahum 3: 4, 5, & 18, and Zephaniah 2 :13 & 15; and 2 Chronicles 33:11, says that the king of Assyria took Manasseh captive to Babylon - showing the interchangeability of the terms. Amos 5:27 says that Israel were to go into captivity “beyond Damascus”, i.e. in Assyria, but Stephen quotes this as “beyond Babylon” (Acts 7:43). Ezra 6:1 describes Darius the king of Babylon making a decree concerning the rebuilding of the temple. The Jews praised God for turning “the heart of the king of Assyria” (Ezra 6: 22), again showing that they are interchangeable terms. The prophecy of Isaiah 14, along with many others in Isaiah, fits in well to the context of the Assyrian invasion by Sennacherib in Hezekiah’s time, hence v. 25 describes the breaking of the Assyrian. Verse 13 is easier to understand if it is talking about the blasphemous Assyrians besieging Jerusalem, wanting to enter Jerusalem and capture the temple for their gods. Earlier the Assyrian king, Tilgath-Pilneser, had probably wanted to do the same (2 Chron. 28: 20-21). Isaiah 14:13: “For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven...(symbolic of the temple and ark - 1 Kings 8: 30; 2 Chron. 30: 27; Ps. 20: 2 & 6; 11: 4; Heb.

7:26) I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation (mount Zion where the temple was) in the sides of the north” (Jerusalem - Ps. 48:1-2).


8. There's a good reason why the King of Babylon is described as "the morning star", or Venus. The Babylonians believed that their king was the child of their gods Bel and Ishtar, both of whom were associated with the planets- they thought that their King was the planet Venus.


9. The Lucifer-king was to "lie down" (Is. 14:8) in his destruction- and that Hebrew term occurs later in Isaiah with reference to the 'laying down' of Babylon's King and army in the grave (Is. 43:17)


10. Note that "the stars of God" can refer to the leaders of Israel (Gen. 37:9; Joel 3:15; Dan. 8:10), above whom the King of Babylon wished to arise.


11. The passage about "Lucifer" is alluding to and deconstructing a contemporary myth, in a manner which is common to much Biblical literature. "An ancient myth told how Heylel, the morning star (Venus), tried to climb the walls of the northern city of the gods to make himself king of heaven, only to be driven from the sky by the rising sun. In Isaiah 14:12-20 this mythis given a historical application" (4). Isaiah is mocking the myth, and saying that the King of Babylon was acting like Heylel in the myth- but would be thrown down not by another planet, but by God Himself.


12. "The mount of the congregation in the sides of the north" 13) is surely an allusion to "the Babylonian Olympus, the [supposed] dwelling place of the gods, which was considered to be situated somewhere in the high Asiatic mountain range which forms the bounday or the Plain of Mesopotamia on the northern side, and is also the region of the source of the Euphrates and Tigris" (5). This location was on earth- not in Heaven. The King of Babylon, the morning star, didn't aspire to greatness in Heaven, but rather to mount Olympus, or possibly to the temple mount in Jerusalem [another possible interpretation of the mount on the sides of the north". The point of the prophecy is that it is Yahweh alone who is the ultimate and only God-King, reigning on His mount, the mountain of God, which is mount Zion, not Olympus.

 

[DamianWarS]

...It should be noted that the idea of 'morning star' is translated 'Lucifer' in the Vulgate [Latin] translation of the Bible made by Jerome. Significantly, he uses 'Lucifer' as a description of Christ, as the 'morning star' mentioned in Revelation...

Lucifer is not mentioned in Revelation contrary to popular belief. In the Latin text Lucifer appears only 3 times Job 11:17, Isaiah 14:12 and 2 Peter 1:19 and the KJV uses it once in Isaiah 14:12. Although 2 Peter 1:19 uses Lucifer as a reference to Christ Revelation does not. Your confusion is probably in the passages in Revelation that does call Jesus the "Morning Star" however in the Latin text the word Lucifer is not used but instead "stellam matutinam" for "morning star" in Rev 2:28 and "stella splendida et matutina" for "bright and morning star" in Rev 22:16. Likely the reason why Jerome used Lucifer is because for the Isaiah text he was probably influenced by the Septuagint which uses the greek word Heosphoros and the 2 Peter text the greek word is Phosphoros (the greek name for venus) both of which are literal equals to the Latin Lucifer meaning "light-bringer". Where as the in Revelation isolated greek words are used that are translated to "morning" and "star".

Do you have any knowledge on the book of Enoch? Do you know if any of the 'particulars' of the 'Lucifer' story stem from there (as well as the Isaiah passage and Revelation). I haven't researched it myself yet, just wondering if you have any more insight on the history.

I see the book of Enoch as a lost text that perhaps was regarded as pure by NT believers but has no longer maintained that state so all I can only glean from the book of Enoch that which is quoted in Jude. The book of Enoch seems more of mythology then anything else. It tries to further expand upon the accounts right before the flood during the corruption of mankind. It says a group of angels called the Satans made a pack to corrupt mankind and it was lead by an angel called Semjaza. Later Semjaza and the other Satans are bound by the arch angel Michael in a underworld type place until judgment. In the second book of Enoch a similar account is told but instead of the Satans they are called the Grigori lead by an angel called Sataniel and it describes that they were cast out of heaven and sent to some sort of underworld until judgment.

Sataniel is thought to be the original name of Satan before his fall which bears the ending "el" common in Jewish names to represent God. Any Jewish name that has "el" in it probably has a meaning with the word God in it for example Michael in hebrew means "who is like God" Satan is a hebrew word that means adversary or accuser. Other angels, like Michael, all bear this "el" mark as well a popular example being Gabriel which means "warrior of God". Sataniel probably means "Accuser of/for God" Revelation 12:10 revels this as well calling Satan "the accuser of our brothers, who accuses them before our God day and night, has been hurled down." I suppose the idea is Satan dropped the "el" when he dropped out of heaven. But the accounts in Enoch and names like this can really only be taken at "story" levels and nothing more.

Biblical accounts of Satan being cast out of heaven are paralleled in Ezekiel 28, Isaiah 14, Luke 10:18, Revelation 8 (v10) and in Revelation 12 (v9,10) in 12:4 a dragon uses his tail and "swept away a third of the stars of heaven and threw them to the earth" which is thought as all the other fallen Angels or as Enoch puts it "Satans" or "Grigori". Extra biblical accounts aside from Enoch where this idea of a god depicted as the star Venus trying to rise above the other stars and then is cast down to the underworld is a popular mythology among a surprising amount of cultures such as Babylonian, Canaanite and Greek. Ezekiel 28, Isaiah 14 and Revelation 12 probably are the best examples of this idea of Satan being throw out of heaven. In Ezekiel 28 it is a judgment against King of Tyre (paralleled to Satan) who "walked among the fiery stones ... on the holy mount of God" but because of his wickedness was thrown "from among the fiery stones." Angels are often liken to stars as it is in Revelation and "fiery stones on the holy mount of God" sounds a lot like this angel/star relationship to me.

 

[seeingeyes]

Lucifer is not mentioned in Revelation contrary to popular belief. In the Latin text Lucifer appears only 3 times Job 11:17, Isaiah 14:12 and 2 Peter 1:19 and the KJV uses it once in Isaiah 14:12. Although 2 Peter 1:19 uses Lucifer as a reference to Christ Revelation does not. Your confusion is probably in the passages in Revelation that does call Jesus the "Morning Star" however in the Latin text the word Lucifer is not used but instead "stellam matutinam" for "morning star" in Rev 2:28 and "stella splendida et matutina" for "bright and morning star" in Rev 22:16. Likely the reason why Jerome used Lucifer is because for the Isaiah text he was probably influenced by the Septuagint which uses the greek word Heosphoros and the 2 Peter text the greek word is Phosphoros (the greek name for venus) both of which are literal equals to the Latin Lucifer meaning "light-bringer". Where as the in Revelation isolated greek words are used that are translated to "morning" and "star".



I see the book of Enoch as a lost text that perhaps was regarded as pure by NT believers but has no longer maintained that state so all I can only glean from the book of Enoch that which is quoted in Jude. The book of Enoch seems more of mythology then anything else. It tries to further expand upon the accounts right before the flood during the corruption of mankind. It says a group of angels called the Satans made a pack to corrupt mankind and it was lead by an angel called Semjaza. Later Semjaza and the other Satans are bound by the arch angel Michael in a underworld type place until judgment. In the second book of Enoch a similar account is told but instead of the Satans they are called the Grigori lead by an angel called Sataniel and it describes that they were cast out of heaven and sent to some sort of underworld until judgment.

Sataniel is thought to be the original name of Satan before his fall which bears the ending "el" common in Jewish names to represent God. Any Jewish name that has "el" in it probably has a meaning with the word God in it for example Michael in hebrew means "who is like God" Satan is a hebrew word that means adversary or accuser. Other angels, like Michael, all bear this "el" mark as well a popular example being Gabriel which means "warrior of God". Sataniel probably means "Accuser of/for God" Revelation 12:10 revels this as well calling Satan "the accuser of our brothers, who accuses them before our God day and night, has been hurled down." I suppose the idea is Satan dropped the "el" when he dropped out of heaven. But the accounts in Enoch and names like this can really only be taken at "story" levels and nothing more.

Biblical accounts of Satan being cast out of heaven are paralleled in Ezekiel 28, Isaiah 14, Luke 10:18, Revelation 8 (v10) and in Revelation 12 (v9,10) in 12:4 a dragon uses his tail and "swept away a third of the stars of heaven and threw them to the earth" which is thought as all the other fallen Angels or as Enoch puts it "Satans" or "Grigori". Extra biblical accounts aside from Enoch where this idea of a god depicted as the star Venus trying to rise above the other stars and then is cast down to the underworld is a popular mythology among a surprising amount of cultures such as Babylonian, Canaanite and Greek. Ezekiel 28, Isaiah 14 and Revelation 12 probably are the best examples of this idea of Satan being throw out of heaven. In Ezekiel 28 it is a judgment against King of Tyre (paralleled to Satan) who "walked among the fiery stones ... on the holy mount of God" but because of his wickedness was thrown "from among the fiery stones." Angels are often liken to stars as it is in Revelation and "fiery stones on the holy mount of God" sounds a lot like this angel/star relationship to me.

Thanks for the synopsis.

I find it so fascinating to see how all these pieces-parts, threads of all these different stories, get woven together into our understanding of "how things are". We really are slaves to our culture to quite a large degree.

 

[ptomwebster]

not really sure what this is supposed to mean...

Not sure what it is about the few words that are hard for you to understand.

...but you obviously put a lot a time into that well thought out and encouraging message. As it stands I have been thinking about this for much more than a few years and it has worked just fine for me.

I expect I have studied Scripture as long as you have. I still do not agree with you. And I will repeat, "we'll see how it works out for you."

 

[DamianWarS]

I expect I have studied Scripture as long as you have. I still do not agree with you. And I will repeat, "we'll see how it works out for you."

Well at least we have established you don't agree with me. Lucifer is just a word and biblically as a morning star I see Jesus more suited for the title. But you can call Satan whatever you want; a dog will come to any name as long as you call it right.