This is probably one of the biggest myths about the alleged being "Satan".
Lucifer is a fictional character created by English poet John Milton for an epic poem entitled "Paradise Lost" (which is an excellent poem), in which he describes the fall of man and the fall of Lucifer. Lucifer is not even a real Latin word, but a name he made up for the poem, combining words. Its approximate translation from latin would be "Light-Bringer". If one believes there really is an Archangel named "Lucifer", one is horribly wrong for this fact alone. Should a real "Lucifer" have any name, it would be Hebrew.
This is partially incorrect. While the popularization of this story and several facets of it DID come from the poem, the name Lucifer did not.
In addition, the whole "cast from heaven" concept and Lucifer tempting man stems from this poem. In genesis, Adam and Eve are
tempted by a SNAKE, and while some say that this was Satan in the form of an animal, the syntax of the text might prove otherwise:
Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the LORD God had made. He said to the woman, "Did God really say, 'You must not eat from any tree in the garden'?" Genesis 3:1
If the Serpent was really Satan, it would not say that the creature was "more crafty than any of the wild animals", because it would not BE a wild animal, it would be "Satan", and though it would not say "Satan", it would likely say that the serpent talking to Eve was not actually an animal. Now there is also debate that the "serpent" could refer to a Seraphim (seraph = fiery serpent, or something to that extent
), though with that particular usage, it seems more that they are actually talking about an animal than any sort of divine being. (I've also heard that perhaps it was a "dragon", but that's another debate) There is no further evidence in the text to indicate that the serpent is anything BUT a normal snake, aside from the fact it talks, but who's to say talking animals weren't a common occurance in "Eden", or wait... the entire story is symbolic and not actually real events.
To go beyond this, so that no one attempts to bring this up in future posts, some believe that there is evidence in the bible
to support the details of Milton's poem.
a. Ezekiel 28:13-19
b. Isaiah 14:12
These excerpts are used out of context. Read the entire section (Ezekiel 28 and Isaiah 14) and you will learn that in fact
the text has NOTHING to do with Satan, but instead are prophecies against the King of Tyre (Ez 28) and the King of Babylon (Is 14).
Now notice that in a King James Isaiah 14:12, the name of Lucifer is listed. This is only true in KJV. ONLY KJV. This is a
strange coincidence, and with a few quick Google searches to check dates...
Paradise Lost first published: 1667
KJV first published: 1611
KJV revised: 1769
All KJV bibles are based off the revised text. By 1769 in England, where BOTH works were published, its entirely likely "Lucifer" just found its way into the text. It was not there initially, COULD not be there initially, KJV would not be the
only edition containing the "error".
I have discovered the reason for this error, and it coincides with the origins of the "name" Lucifer!
In the Tanakh--the Jewish translation of scripture direct from Hebrew--, Isaiah 14:12 reads:
"... O Shining One, son of Dawn!..."
In the New International Version, it reads:
"... O morning star, Son of Dawn!..."
and in the King James, it reads:
"... O Lucifer, son of the morning!..."
Lucifer, in the Latin Vulgate text, is another name for the "morning star" or "light bringer (in regards to a STAR bringing the first light of morning)"; a person versed in astrology would know the "morning star" to be none other than the planet Venus! And so "Lucifer" WAS the morning star -- Venus! Originally this literal, astrological definition was the connotation
of the "name".
How did a synonym for the morning star, Venus, become an archangel? This is where the history becomes hazy, and I have more
research to do. What I have thus far is that the original King James was published with the Apocrypha--a series of books that
are not 'scripture', but more like folk stories. Apparently there is also the Pseudepigrapha, containing similar stories... but I have yet to read either of these books. I intend on at least skimming them soon, and will continue to update with my findings.
From what I have gathered, by Milton's time, the personification of Lucifer was at least partially complete, and he merely penned, exaggerated, and popularized the legend; using stories from the Apocrypha as his base!
(And notice that I am willing to admit my error, unlike the Christians!)
Finally, "hell".
"Lucifer" was only placed in "hell" because of literature. Dante placed him in Hell as well as Milton, and for some reason, people took the words of these two poets as another Gospel. Now the common view of hell is a Dantean 9-layered pit, full of Demons and Tortures for sinners, depending on their sin of choice. Unfortunately for those believers, this was created as a
work of fiction -- political satire, entertainment, and so on. It was never meant as Gospel, nor was Milton's poem, yet
people use these works of LITERATURE and folk tales as truth. It'd be like me using A Tale of Two Cities as a factual source
on a scholarly paper about the French Revolution.
