In the Bible, is the morning star not refered to as Lucifer (Satan)?
Many early English translations use Lucifer. Lucifer was one name for Venus, the morning star. The passage in the original language reads
"Helel son of Shachar", that would not have meant anything to the English readers or for that matter the translators of the KJV and other early English translations and so they translated it as Lucifer which was the equivalent in English. The actual use of the word Lucifer actually goes back to the Latin Vulgate. The build up of Lucifer equals some fallen angel and eventually Satan had taken place after the Vulgate. It really was misleading by the time of the early English translations, but we should in charity remember that they were working without the information we have now, they didn't know and so followed an earlier translation.
(There's another example like that, you can see it in the unicorn translation of the KJV. It goes all the way back to the Septuagint. No one knew exactly what was being talked about and so they followed earlier translations. Taking it as a reference to the one horned rhinocerous (not the mythical horse like creature), that continued until later when it was learned the text was talking about a species of extinct oxen.)
Anyway, back to Lucifer. If you read the passage, you will see that it isn't talking about Satan, it's talking about the King of Babylon.
Here's a footnote from the NET Bible talking about it.
sn What is the background for the imagery in Isa_14:12-15
? This whole section (Isa_14:4-21 (i.e., Isaiah 14:4b-21)) is directed to the king of Babylon, who is clearly depicted as a human ruler. Other kings of the earth address him in Isa_14:9 (i.e., Isaiah 14:9ff.) he is called "the man" in Isa_14:16, and, according to Isa_14:19-20, he possesses a physical body. Nevertheless the language of Isa_14:12-15 has led some to see a dual referent in the taunt song. These verses, which appear to be spoken by other pagan kings to a pagan king (cf. Isa_14:9-11), contain several titles and motifs that resemble those of Canaanite mythology, including references to Helel son of Shachar, the stars of El, the mountain of assembly, the recesses of Zaphon, and the divine title Most High. Apparently these verses allude to a mythological story about a minor god (Helel son of Shachar) who tried to take over Zaphon, the mountain of the gods. His attempted coup failed and he was hurled down to the underworld. The king of Babylon is taunted for having similar unrealized delusions of grandeur. Some Christians have seen an allusion to the fall of Satan here, but this seems contextually unwarranted (see J. Martin, "Isaiah," BKCOT, 1061).
Hope that helps clear it up. You will run into people who take it as a reference to Satan even today, but that really wouldn't be a mainstream interpretation anymore.
You know what I find really interesting about the word Lucifer?
It's that Joseph Smith supposedly translating the Book of Mormon from a manuscript written long before the Vulgate was written, included the verse from the KJV in the Book of Mormon. So much for the supposed prophet having supernatural help to translate from a language none of us has ever seen. Doesn't make sense that he simply copied the verse from the KJV if what he said was true.
So when Jerome translated it, it would not have been a mistake. It evolved into a mistake as the language changed and Lucifer became a word for Satan, but early English translators did not know what the original language was referencing so it continued, though by that time it would have been a misleading use of the word, thus really a mistake. But God used that mistake to show where a false prophet was no prophet at all but simply a liar set out to deceive.
How cool is that?
Marv
