Morning Star

[Tsaw-Faw]

I was recently debating on another forum with a user who claimed that because the Bible refers to both Jesus and Satan as "the bright morning star" that Jesus and Satan are one and the same. I was quickly able to refute this argument with a simple word study that I'd now like to share with all of you.

As you may or may not know, one of the names of Satan is Lucifer. He is given this name in Isaiah 14:12. The Scripture is directly talking about Nebuchadnezzar, but most theologians agree that the verse is applicable to Satan as well.

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!

Okay, so the KJV specifically uses the word Lucifer. More recent translations will use the phrases "day-star" or "bright morning star". Strong's Concordance tells us that the Hebrew used here is actually "hêylêl" which is pronounced hay-lale'. The meaning of this word is "morning star" or "lucifer".

A quick Dictionary search of Lucifer yields this as one of its definitions: " The planet Venus in its appearance as the morning star." From "The Free Dictionary" online.

Now, in Revelation 22:16, Jesus refers to Himself as the "bright and morning star".

I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.

A quick check of Strong's shows us that "morning star" here is actually quite different than its Isaiah counterpart. There are actually 2 root words for this phrase, whereas Isaiah only had 1. The first root is "orthrinos" which means "relating to the dawn". The second is "astēr" which literally means "star".

It is "astēr" that I find so important. In Isaiah, Satan is described as Lucifer, another name for Venus. Venus is called the morning star because when it rises, it is one of the brightest lights in the morning sky. But Venus isn't really a star, it is a planet, and so Lucifer really refers to a false star!

Meanwhile, when Christ refers to Himself using the word "astēr", He is literally referring to a real star, not a false one.

I was always very confused by the application of the title "morning star" to both Christ and Satan, so I was happy God chose to not only set this confused forum user straight, but also to answer my own confusion as well. Hopefully you find this interesting too.

 

[filosofer]

I was recently debating on another forum with a user who claimed that because the Bible refers to both Jesus and Satan as "the bright morning star" that Jesus and Satan are one and the same. I was quickly able to refute this argument with a simple word study that I'd now like to share with all of you.

As you may or may not know, one of the names of Satan is Lucifer. He is given this name in Isaiah 14:12. The Scripture is directly talking about Nebuchadnezzar, but most theologians agree that the verse is applicable to Satan as well.



Okay, so the KJV specifically uses the word Lucifer. More recent translations will use the phrases "day-star" or "bright morning star". Strong's Concordance tells us that the Hebrew used here is actually "hêylêl" which is pronounced hay-lale'. The meaning of this word is "morning star" or "lucifer".

A quick Dictionary search of Lucifer yields this as one of its definitions: " The planet Venus in its appearance as the morning star." From "The Free Dictionary" online.

Now, in Revelation 22:16, Jesus refers to Himself as the "bright and morning star".


A quick check of Strong's shows us that "morning star" here is actually quite different than its Isaiah counterpart. There are actually 2 root words for this phrase, whereas Isaiah only had 1. The first root is "orthrinos" which means "relating to the dawn". The second is "ast?r" which literally means "star".

It is "ast?r" that I find so important. In Isaiah, Satan is described as Lucifer, another name for Venus. Venus is called the morning star because when it rises, it is one of the brightest lights in the morning sky. But Venus isn't really a star, it is a planet, and so Lucifer really refers to a false star!

Meanwhile, when Christ refers to Himself using the word "ast?r", He is literally referring to a real star, not a false one.

I was always very confused by the application of the title "morning star" to both Christ and Satan, so I was happy God chose to not only set this confused forum user straight, but also to answer my own confusion as well. Hopefully you find this interesting too.

You might want to do a little more study. The "fact" of Venus being a planet vs a star is not relevant to the discussion - would Isaiah have made that distinction? And you have to be careful making leaps from the Hebrew of Isaiah to the Greek of the NT. There's more than meets the eye in this whole discussion. Numbers 24:17 and others might help in the topic.

And no, I am not supporting the position that Jesus and Lucifer are one.

 

[GeorgeE]

To lengthy to print the whole scripture.
Genesis 2:8 And the Lord God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the MAN whom he had formed.

Ezekiel 28:13 Thou hast been in Eden the garden of God; every precious stone was thy covering-----------in the day that thou wast created. 14 Thou art the anointed cherub that covereth -----15 Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee.
Is 14:12 How art thou fallen from heaven O Lucifer, son of the morning!------13 For thou hast said in thine heart (mind) I will ascend into heaven, ---- 14 I will belike the most High, 15 yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit, -----16----Is this the MAN that made the earth to tremble, that did shake kingdoms------.
Now the religious system teaches that Ez 28:13 and Is 14:12 are speaking of Satan and the KJ Bible is the only version that uses the word Lucifer. It is not even a Hebrew word.

Moffat translation says "What a fall from heaven O Shining star of the dawns" Rotherham"How hast thou fallen from heaven, O shining One, son of the dawn!"Amplified "how are you fallen from heaven O light-bearer and day star, son of the morning!"
2 Pet 1:19 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.
Rev 22:16 I JESUS have sent mine angel to testify unto you these thing sin the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.

The word Lucifer in the Strong's Concordance says it is a title applied to the king of Babylon. The word itself means the morning star. In the natural it is speaking of a King and in the spiritual it is speaking of Adam. The word MAN means a mortal, an individual, a male person. I could rest my case on just that one verse alone, but why would Peter under the direction of the Holy Spirit compare Jesus as the Day star with Lucifer the Devil? It is the erroneous translation of the KJ that infers such.
Lucifer was never an Arc Angel, he was a MAN. (Satan is a spirit.) Is14:15 says he was brought down to hell, (sheol, place of the dead) the side of the pit. Satan is never thrown in the grave because he has no part in a natural death as he is a spiritual being. Only MAN dies and is placed in a grave. Evil spirits only go to a place called Tartarus and Satan the high ranking one is sent to the lake of fire.( which is not hell)

When Adam was placed in Eden he was perfect. When Adam fell he fell from a lofty realm. He was cast out of that realm. Adam because of the fall caused Kingdoms to shake and made the world as a wilderness. The fall brought us down into this realm of vanity. Adam was the1st Adam and Jesus is the last Adam.

Even the Jews knew the true name of Satan. They called him Beelzebub. Satan was created a tool Isaiah 54:16 Behold, I have created the smith that bloweth the coals in the fire, and that bringeth forth an instrument for his works; and I have created the waster to destroy. (See God created Satan)
Jesus in Jn 8:44 Said Ye are of your father, the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the BEGINNING and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar and the father of it. John writes in
1Jn 3:8 He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the BEGINNING. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil..
I cannot see that Satan had two beginnings. The word beginning in the Greek means beginning. Not first he was an angel, second he was a murder and liar. Which one was he? Do we take the RCC's translation or do we take the correct translation of the word Lucifer?

In the beginning Man was full of light and Satan was full of darkness. God is not working on a plan B. He has had a plan and a purpose from the beginning and Satan was a part of that plan. Simply a tool. Never an angel.

This is my stand and I feel that you have a choice to believe the word of God or to accept a false doctrine made up in the minds of religious men.

You can dig alot more deeper in this subject if you check out the below website.

http://sigler.org/eby/serpent.htm

 

[silastheDM]

In reply to the OP, I think you should examine this issue more. While I firmly do not believe that Satan and Jesus are the same person, I think your study is a bit lacking. As filosofer said, you run a dangerous route when you go from OT Hebrew to NT Greek and hang your argument on that jump. I know Hebrew but not Greek, so I can't help you, but you might consider going to the Septuagint (Greek translation of the OT made around 200 BCE) and see what it does with Isaiah 14.
To reply to GeorgeE, you are throwing some big stones when you say that those of us believe that Satan was an angel don't believe in the Bible. Infact, I believe the Bible is very clear on this issue (cf. Ezekiel 28:13-16). However, if you disagree with me I won't go so far as to say you don't believe the Word of God, just that may be ignorant of some of it.
-Silas

 

[Nazaroo]

As you may or may not know, one of the names of Satan is Lucifer. He is given this name in Isaiah 14:12. The Scripture is directly talking about Nebuchadnezzar, but most theologians agree that the verse is applicable to Satan as well.

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!
Isaiah 14:12 KJV





​

First of all, the word 'Lucifer' is not a legitimate name for 'Satan'.

This crept into the King James Version from the Latin, a case where Medieval Roman Catholic doctrine had unfortunately influenced the translators, who were High-Anglican churchmen. In this case, the Anglicans were being too conservative, and too pro-Latin, an unfortunate result of the dominance of that language throughout the later church period.

It has about as much authority, or intelligence behind it as the word "Easter" does, appearing in Acts, where the Greek clearly says 'Passover'. The KJV translators were trying to offer variety in their translation, as they explained in their original preface, however, this was a boneheaded gaff resulting in a hopeless anachronism, since there was no 'Easter' at the time of Jesus.

most theologians agree that the verse is applicable to Satan as well.

No, they don't. As a matter of fact, the problem of Roman Catholic corruptions and heresies creeping into the text through the Latin tradition is what brought passages like this to the attention of protestant theologians over 400 years ago, during the height of the Reformation.

Most theologians, textual critics and translators quietly noted that the passage really refers to the king of Tyre, and has no connection to 'Satan' or any bearing upon that person or name.

By the 1800's however, the crude understanding of the text bore some bad fruit, in just the manner you have done. In the rush to reject anything Catholic as corrupt heresy, including legitimate Christian traditions, protestants continued to study various O.T. texts and made some erroneous gaffs themselves.

One of the most infamous false doctrines to spring from this period, very popular among the thick-headed Scottish protestants, was that the 'Morning-Star' / 'Lucifer' was really Christ, and hence (falsely) that there is no 'Satan', but that Jesus Christ and Satan are one and the same person.

This was the favourite 'secret doctrine' of many flakey cults to spring up, including the freemasons under the 'guidance' of Albert Pike, the Founder of the Ku Klux Klan.

You can learn more about Freemasonry here:
http://www.freemasonrywatch.org/siteindex.html
http://www.conspiracyarchive.com/NWO/Freemasonry.htm
http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/masindx.htm
http://www.ephesians5-11.org/
http://www.prisonplanet.com/archive_freemasonry.html
http://www.rapidnet.com/~jbeard/bdm/Cults/masons.htm
http://www.seekgod.ca/nonew.htm
http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/masonry.html


The 'secret doctrine' of Pike and the Freemasons was that Jesus = Lucifer = Satan, and that Catholics and Christians are superstitious fools labouring under a Zoroastrian dogma that crept into Christianity.

This picture, supported by voluminous pseudo-philosophical ramblings by Pike and others actually did little to enlighten the Holy Scriptures or correct doctrinal excesses, but rather just added yet another layer of drivel and smoke to an already difficult and obscured teaching.

To see just what a long-winded ass Pike was, you can go here:

Morals and Dogpoop by Albert Pike

 

[silastheDM]

First of all, the word 'Lucifer' is not a legitimate name for 'Satan'.

This crept into the King James Version from the Latin, a case where Medieval Roman Catholic doctrine had unfortunately influenced the translators, who were High-Anglican churchmen. In this case, the Anglicans were being too conservative, and too pro-Latin, an unfortunate result of the dominance of that language throughout the later church period.

It has about as much authority, or intelligence behind it as the word "Easter" does, appearing in Acts, where the Greek clearly says 'Passover'. The KJV translators were trying to offer variety in their translation, as they explained in their original preface, however, this was a boneheaded gaff resulting in a hopeless anachronism, since there was no 'Easter' at the time of Jesus.



No, they don't. As a matter of fact, the problem of Roman Catholic corruptions and heresies creeping into the text through the Latin tradition is what brought passages like this to the attention of protestant theologians over 400 years ago, during the height of the Reformation.

Most theologians, textual critics and translators quietly noted that the passage really refers to the king of Tyre, and has no connection to 'Satan' or any bearing upon that person or name.

By the 1800's however, the crude understanding of the text bore some bad fruit, in just the manner you have done. In the rush to reject anything Catholic as corrupt heresy, including legitimate Christian traditions, protestants continued to study various O.T. texts and made some erroneous gaffs themselves.

One of the most infamous false doctrines to spring from this period, very popular among the thick-headed Scottish protestants, was that the 'Morning-Star' / 'Lucifer' was really Christ, and hence (falsely) that there is no 'Satan', but that Jesus Christ and Satan are one and the same person.

This was the favourite 'secret doctrine' of many flakey cults to spring up, including the freemasons under the 'guidance' of Albert Pike, the Founder of the Ku Klux Klan.

You can learn more about Freemasonry here:
http://www.freemasonrywatch.org/siteindex.html
http://www.conspiracyarchive.com/NWO/Freemasonry.htm
http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/masindx.htm
http://www.ephesians5-11.org/
http://www.prisonplanet.com/archive_freemasonry.html
http://www.rapidnet.com/~jbeard/bdm/Cults/masons.htm
http://www.seekgod.ca/nonew.htm
http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/masonry.html


The 'secret doctrine' of Pike and the Freemasons was that Jesus = Lucifer = Satan, and that Catholics and Christians are superstitious fools labouring under a Zoroastrian dogma that crept into Christianity.

This picture, supported by voluminous pseudo-philosophical ramblings by Pike and others actually did little to enlighten the Holy Scriptures or correct doctrinal excesses, but rather just added yet another layer of drivel and smoke to an already difficult and obscured teaching.

To see just what a long-winded ass Pike was, you can go here:

Morals and Dogpoop by Albert Pike

While I am no friend of the freemasons, I feel obligated to give you some correction. While I don't know Latin, I do know Hebrew. Further, I know that Satan (while it may also mean something in Latin) means "adversary" in Hebrew. Satan is the title for the person Lucifer (Jews say "haSatan" which literally means "the adversary" when referring to Lucifer). Further, while the Isaiah passage does refer to the king of Tyre, most theologians and Christian OT scholars believe it is referring to Lucifer (Satan), cf. Archer, Garrett, Henry, et al., because of the description of the protagonist and its relationship with God and heaven.
-Silas

 

[Nazaroo]

While I am no friend of the freemasons, I feel obligated to give you some correction. While I don't know Latin, I do know Hebrew. Further, I know that Satan (while it may also mean something in Latin) means "adversary" in Hebrew. Satan is the title for the person Lucifer (Jews say "haSatan" which literally means "the adversary" when referring to Lucifer). Further, while the Isaiah passage does refer to the king of Tyre, most theologians and Christian OT scholars believe it is referring to Lucifer (Satan), cf. Archer, Garrett, Henry, et al., because of the description of the protagonist and its relationship with God and heaven.
-Silas

You've jumped the gun: I am in agreement with you on the meaning of the Hebrew 'ha shawtan' . The superstitions of later Babylonian Jews are worthless for ascertaining the original meaning of the Biblical Hebrew in question however, since it predates them by a thousand years, and they picked up alot of bad habits and superstitious nonsense while in captivity.

As to the question of 'most (Christian) theologians' although none of their opinions are worth a damn, I should have been more precise and said 'most reputable theologians'. In fact this case is a good litmus test for whether a theologian is 'reputable' or just another twitish flake. If they can't see an obvious medieval kludge to support an over-elaborated doctrine, they definitely aren't reputable.

I'm pleased to discuss the original meaning of the ancient Hebrew texts and the ludicrous and superstitious accretions and distortions added to them by the Jews. What 'the Jews say' is about as useful to Christians as a screen door on a submarine.

 

[silastheDM]

You've jumped the gun: I am in agreement with you on the meaning of the Hebrew 'ha shawtan' . The superstitions of later Babylonian Jews are worthless for ascertaining the original meaning of the Biblical Hebrew in question however, since it predates them by a thousand years, and they picked up alot of bad habits and superstitious nonsense while in captivity.

As to the question of 'most (Christian) theologians' although none of their opinions are worth a damn, I should have been more precise and said 'most reputable theologians'.

I'm pleased to discuss the original meaning of the ancient Hebrew texts and the ludicrous and superstitious accretions and distortions added to them by the Jews.

I suppose I have jumped the gun then. However, I'm not sure I understand some of what you are saying here. To what superstitions are you referring? Also, to which exiles are you referring? If I recall, Isaiah was written c. 750-700 BCE (unless you ascribe to Higher Criticism, which I do not).
Also, I am not as quick to dismiss the opinions of theologians, and am curious as to why you are. Finally, you don't consider Gleason Archer, Duane Garrett, and Matthew Henry as reputable? Why not? I am sincerely curious.
-Silas

 

[Nazaroo]

...However, I'm not sure I understand some of what you are saying here. To what superstitions are you referring? Also, to which exiles are you referring? If I recall, Isaiah was written c. 750-700 BCE (unless you ascribe to Higher Criticism, which I do not).

We can begin with the superstitions about 'Satan', which resulted in the Jews committing blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, and caused their destruction.

Your date for Isaiah (in some form) is fine with me.

Higher Criticism holds a special place for me: Whereas I valued the work of most theologians at zero, I must assign Higher Criticism a negative value.

Also, I am not as quick to dismiss the opinions of theologians, and am curious as to why you are. Finally, you don't consider Gleason Archer, Duane Garrett, and Matthew Henry as reputable? Why not? I am sincerely curious.
-Silas

I would give Matthew Henry 5 out of 10, for at least doing the work. In the same manner, I would give equal points to Scrivener and John Burgon, and even Colwell: they did the work. Others tend to ride on the coattails of those who do the work, and take the credit, and get it wrong to boot.

We can also discuss your signature in which you say you 'stand with Israel'. I suspect the meaning there needs to be teased out more fully, to avoid siding with 'satan'.

 

[justified]

Silas, if you know Hebrew, tell me what the phrase חלל בן-שחר means in Is. 14:12.

Naz, don't you think you're taking a bit much time to rant? You could have just said "Lucifer" is a latin word which means light-bearer Luce + Grk φω&#961 and look at 14:4 where the subject of the mock-lament is "the king of babylon."

Soooo much easier.

Oh and mention Ugaritic antecedents for good measure.