Is Lucifer actually Satan?

[posthuman]

The word Lucifer is what was given in Latin for an Hebrew word whose meaning was uncertain but has something to do with light. KJV didn't have any better idea about how to translate it so they just copied the Latin word.

Isaiah 14 is a dual reference ((common in Hebrew writing and particularly in prophetic scripture where describing types of Christ and also of Satan / antichrist)) - yes, the king of Babylon is being written about and also it is about Satan simultaneously, they are being compared.

So it is fair to say 'lucifer' is a name that refers to Satan, but more accurate to use the Hebrew word that was here translated to Latin, and more accurate still to think of it as a title or office he once held - as the case of 'morning star' which is given as a title for Christ later, in Revelation.

 

[Nehemiah6]

Isaiah 14 is a dual reference ((common in Hebrew writing and particularly in prophetic scripture where describing types of Christ and also of Satan / antichrist)) - yes, the king of Babylon is being written about and also it is about Satan simultaneously, they are being compared.

Yes, this is the only proper way to interpret Isaiah 14, which blends what is addressed to the king of Babylon with what is addressed to Satan/Lucifer.

There is no way that anyone can reasonably apply this portion to the king of Babylon, and there is no biblical confirmation that any king of Babylon even tried to say what Lucifer said:

How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! howart thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!

For thou hast said in thine heart,

I will ascend into heaven,
I will exalt my throne above the stars of God:
I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north:
I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High.

Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit.

The Hebrew word translated as Lucifer is helel which literally means "shining one" but has been taken to mean "son of dawn" or "star of the morning" (morning star). However, since Christ has been given the title of Morning Star, "Lucifer" is perfectly appropriate for Satan.

 

[Bladerunner]

Just a question I thought I would propose. I believe Satan and Lucifer are one in the same but on another site someone says no.

Plus these other Names for him.......

The prince of the power of the air: Eph 2:2; 1 Jhn 2:13–14, 3:12, 5:18; The enemy: Mat 13:39; Luk 10:19; A murderer: Jhn 8:44; The wicked one: Mat 13:19, 38; The father of lies: Jhn 8:44; The tempter: Mat 4:3; The great dragon: Rev 12:9, The serpent: Gen 3:1; Rev 12:9, 20:2; Beelzebub: Mat 12:27; Luk 11:18; The god of this world: 2 Cor 4:4; An adversary as a roaring lion: 1 Pet 5:8;


Have fun and may God grant you a Blessed Evening.


Blade

 

[Locutus]

Nope, there is no "dual" meaning in Isaiah or Ezekiel.

 

[UnderGrace]

Yes there is no dual meaning, and how sad that a title given to Jesus would also be attributed to Satan because of a poor Catholic translation.

Lucifer figures quite prominently in Theosophy, so they are more than happy to see Satan as the light bringer and so the attribution has continued through the ages.

Nope, there is no "dual" meaning in Isaiah or Ezekiel.

 

[SovereignGrace]

When you take a corrupted ms that has Latin interspersed, this is what you come up with.

 

[MarcR]

Is Lucifer actually Satan?

No.

Its the king of Babylon. Either Nebuchadnezzar or his grandson Belshazzar.

IMO that doesn't work considering Job 38:6-7

6 Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof;
7 When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?
KJV

Here we have an obvious reference to angels and NO POSSIBLE REFERENCE to Nebuchadnezzar.

Jesus is elsewhere referred to as Bright and Morning Star.

In Hebrew Cochav and in Greek Astrid refer either literal stars or messengers of light.

The Bible indeed uses many symbolic references but uses them consistently.

 

[Lucy-Pevensie]

IMO that doesn't work considering Job 38:6-7

6 Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof;
7 When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?
KJV

Here we have an obvious reference to angels and NO POSSIBLE REFERENCE to Nebuchadnezzar.

Jesus is elsewhere referred to as Bright and Morning Star.

In Hebrew Cochav and in Greek Astrid refer either literal stars or messengers of light.

The Bible indeed uses many symbolic references but uses them consistently.

I believe the Isaiah 14 prophecy is a description of both Satan and man. Similar to the Revelation beast. The Satanic counterfeit Christ.

 

[preacher4truth]

IMO that doesn't work considering Job 38:6-7

6 Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof;
7 When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?
KJV

Here we have an obvious reference to angels and NO POSSIBLE REFERENCE to Nebuchadnezzar.

Well, of course there is no reference to Nebuchednezzar. Why would there be reference when you're quoting the book of Job?

 

[MarcR]

Well, of course there is no reference to Nebuchednezzar. Why would there be reference when you're quoting the book of Job?

That is not like you! you don't usually twist people's words. Please reread my post.

 

[garee]

"satan" means "adversary".

"lucifer" means "bearer of light".

So terms are not the same, one is negative, the second one is positive.

If you are talking about the use of "lucifer" in Isaiah and the use of "satan" in the New Testament, they are one being, IMHO.

Yes one and the same. "lucifer" means reflection of light, not of his own as the source . Like the reflection of the Sun pertaining to the Moon.Again and not the source of light. He is the source of darkness as he blinds the mind of those who know not the true light ..

Amo 5:26 But ye have borne the tabernacle of your Moloch and Chiun your images, the star of your god, which ye made to yourselves.

How you have fallen from heaven, O morning star, son of the dawn! You have been cast down to the earth, you who once laid low the nations! Isaiah 14:12

The difference is Satan was created to be a reflection of God where Christ not created is the bright as the light and the true reflection of God. So its bright as the true light and the morning star the reflection of the light. Satan is not reckoned as a light bearer .

Sometime the little word and gets lost the word and can carry the weight

Revelation 2:28 And I will give him the morning star.

Revelation 22:16 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.

Both the source and the reflection.

 

[Nehemiah6]

Nope, there is no "dual" meaning in Isaiah or Ezekiel.

There absolutely is.

Again in Ezekiel 28 some of the statements can only be applied to a cherub -- an angel. The cherubim (plural) are a special group of angels in Heaven, distinct from the Seraphim. Lucifer was a cherub.

The king of Tyre was never in the Garden of Eden, but Satan in (or as) the Serpent (that great Dragon) certainly was. Also, after the Fall, no man was "perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created". But Lucifer certainly was.

12 Son of man, take up a lamentation upon the king of Tyrus, and say unto him, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Thou sealest up the sum, full of wisdom, and perfect in beauty.

13 Thou hast been in Eden the garden of God; every precious stone wasthy covering, the sardius, topaz, and the diamond, the beryl, the onyx, and the jasper, the sapphire, the emerald, and the carbuncle, and gold: the workmanship of thy tabrets and of thy pipes was prepared in thee in the day that thou wast created.

14 Thou art the anointed cherub that covereth; and I have set thee so: thou wast upon the holy mountain of God; thou hast walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire.

15 Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee.

 

[star]

I'm far from being a bible scholar although I study it each day. Yet, to my human mind and my spiritual one, it seems quite plausible that Lucifer and its Latin meaning is a substantive meaning for satan who was suppose to be the most beautiful of angels before his fall.

Awesome responses here, however.

 

[dcontroversal]

Yes, here is some further evidence,

In the original Hebrew text, the fourteenth chapter of Isaiah is not about a fallen angel, but about a fallen Babylonian king, who during his lifetime had persecuted the children of Israel. It contains no mention of Satan, either by name or reference. The Hebrew scholar could only speculate that some early Christian scribes, writing in the Latin tongue used by the Church, had decided for themselves that they wanted the story to be about a fallen angel, a creature not even mentioned in the original Hebrew text, and to whom they gave the name "Lucifer."

....

The scholars authorized by King James I to translate the Bible into then current English did not use the original Hebrew texts, but used versions translated largely by St. Jerome in the fourth century. Jerome had mistranslated the Hebraic metaphor, "Day star, son of the Dawn," as "Lucifer," and over the centuries a metamorphosis took place. Lucifer the morning star became a disobedient angel, cast out of heaven to rule eternally in hell. Theologians, writers, and poets interwove the myth with the doctrine of the Fall, and in Christian tradition Lucifer is now the same as Satan, the Devil, and, ironically, the Prince of Darkness.

http://jdstone.org/cr/files/luciferaproblemforchristianity.html

Funny thing....a study of Daniel, the three main discourses of Nebuchadnezzar and what he states about Daniel's God reveals a man who found faith and actually acknowledged the God of Daniel as the one true GOD..........

 

[MarcR]

There absolutely is.

Again in Ezekiel 28 some of the statements can only be applied to a cherub -- an angel. The cherubim (plural) are a special group of angels in Heaven, distinct from the Seraphim. Lucifer was a cherub.

The king of Tyre was never in the Garden of Eden, but Satan in (or as) the Serpent (that great Dragon) certainly was. Also, after the Fall, no man was "perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created". But Lucifer certainly was.

12 Son of man, take up a lamentation upon the king of Tyrus, and say unto him, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Thou sealest up the sum, full of wisdom, and perfect in beauty.

13 Thou hast been in Eden the garden of God; every precious stone wasthy covering, the sardius, topaz, and the diamond, the beryl, the onyx, and the jasper, the sapphire, the emerald, and the carbuncle, and gold: the workmanship of thy tabrets and of thy pipes was prepared in thee in the day that thou wast created.

14 Thou art the anointed cherub that covereth; and I have set thee so: thou wast upon the holy mountain of God; thou hast walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire.

15 Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee.

I agree that cherubim and seraphim are indeed distinct classes of angels. I believe that the archangels including Michael, Gabriel, and Satan are a another distinct class of angels. I believe that only the archangels have personal names in Scripture.

 

[blue_ladybug]

Satan is NOT an angel anymore. He is the devil...

I agree that cherubim and seraphim are indeed distinct classes of angels. I believe that the archangels including Michael, Gabriel, and Satan are a distinct class of angels.

 

[MarcR]

Satan is NOT an angel anymore. He is the devil...

Indeed he is no longer a messenger of God. I believe he still has the form and powers he was created with.

 

[blue_ladybug]

I disagree. Satan is NOT still in the form of an angel. He's a demon now. He isn't all shiny and pretty like he used to be. He is ugly and evil and in no way at all, resembles an angel.. As for still having the powers God gave him as lucifer, I think he doesn't have any powers except those that God allows him to use from time to time.

Indeed he is no longer a messenger of God. I believe he still has the form and powers he was created with.

 

[Nehemiah6]

Satan is NOT an angel anymore. He is the devil...

But the devil is the highest of the evil angels. He remains an angelic being, but thoroughly corrupted and destined for the Lake of Fire. Beneath him are hierarchies of powerful evil angelic beings. So never underestimate your enemy.

 

[blue_ladybug]

He isn't the "highest" of anything. He got thrown down from heaven to the pits of hell... He IS NOT an angel! Nor is he any form of angelic being. He is satan now, not Lucifer. And his minions aren't angels anymore either. They are lowly demons who help him carry out his dastardly evil deeds. Don't give them more credit than they deserve..

But the devil is the highest of the evil angels. He remains an angelic being, but thoroughly corrupted and destined for the Lake of Fire. Beneath him are hierarchies of powerful evil angelic beings. So never underestimate your enemy.