“Lucifer” does not refer to the fallen angel

[manxboz]

“Lucifer” (light-bearer)is a generic title referring to the morning star (Venus). As such, it has been used throughout history to refer to Satan, Christ, and others. With this in mind, Isaiah 14:12 starts out “How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning!”. Taken as a separate verse, this appears to refer to the battle of angels – however, the PASSAGE starts at Isaiah 12:4 “Thou shalt take up this proverb against the king of Babylon” and towards the end is Isaiah 14:22 “For I will rise up against them saith the Lord of hosts, and cut of from Babylon the name, and remnant, and son, and nephew, Saith the Lord.” Thus Lucifer in the Old Testament refers to some unnamed Babylonian king.

[rapunzel]

“Lucifer” (light-bearer)is a generic title referring to the morning star (Venus). As such, it has been used throughout history to refer to Satan, Christ, and others. With this in mind, Isaiah 14:12 starts out “How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning!”. Taken as a separate verse, this appears to refer to the battle of angels – however, the PASSAGE starts at Isaiah 12:4 “Thou shalt take up this proverb against the king of Babylon” and towards the end is Isaiah 14:22 “For I will rise up against them saith the Lord of hosts, and cut of from Babylon the name, and remnant, and son, and nephew, Saith the Lord.” Thus Lucifer in the Old Testament refers to some unnamed Babylonian king.

You are quite right. The Hebrew reads "Heylel ben Shachar" which means something like "shining son of the morning".

Shachar was the Canaanite god of dawn so Heylel is obviously his son. Source: "Yahweh and the gods of Canaan" by William Foxwell Albright.

Lucifer was never intended to be a proper noun but I guess too many people think Lucifer is the name of Satan to change things now.

[octopusrex]

So typical of religions to demonize Gods of other Nations.

[dedicate]

You're right about Lucifer not being an Fallen Angel. But I'm not so sure this passage is about Christ. Maybe the False Christ is what Isaiah is refering to. One may wonder why the ascending Christ would refer to himself as the planet Mercury or a king of Babylon or a falling comet as some would say.

I have to wonder if maybe The Book of Acts and the early Jerusalem roots of Chritianity haven't been hidden by those in power who quietly disposed of those complete records. The records that would show maybe the Jews living in Israel today are not the actual descendants of people who lived as Jews 2,000 years ago? Or maybe something about Christian life, they wouldn't want us to know. Maybe a lot of those early stories and records are lost or remain secret. A lot of paper gets shredded, burned or stashed away in 2,000 years. Maybe the first few chapters of Acts has been taken to with a pair of scissors, sorry to say.

[measle_weasel]

This has some good info.

From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucifer#The_Morning_Star_in_Isaiah_14:12

"

The Morning Star in Isaiah 14:12

The Book of Isaiah has the following passage:

When the Lord has given you rest from your pain and turmoil and the hard service with which you were made to serve, you will take up this taunt against the king of Babylon: How the oppressor has ceased! How his insolence has ceased! … How you are fallen from heaven, O Day Star, son of Dawn! How you are cut down to the ground, you who laid the nations low! You said in your heart, "I will ascend to heaven; I will raise my throne above the stars of God; I will sit on the mount of assembly on the heights of Zaphon; I will ascend to the tops of the clouds, I will make myself like the Most High." But you are brought down to Sheol, to the depths of the Pit. Those who see you will stare at you, and ponder over you: "Is this the man who made the earth tremble, who shook kingdoms, who made the world like a desert and overthrew its cities, who would not let his prisoners go home?[10]

The passage refers to the king of Babylon, a man who seemed all-powerful, but who has been brought down to the abode of the dead ("Sheol"). Isaiah promises that the Israelites will be freed and will then be able to use in a taunting song against their oppressor the image of the Morning Star, which rises at dawn as the brightest of the stars, outshining Jupiter and Saturn, but lasting only until the sun appears. This image was used in an old popular Canaanite story that the Morning Star tried to rise high above the clouds and establish himself on the mountain where the gods assembled, in the far north, but was cast down into the underworld.[6][11]

The phrase "O Day Star, son of Dawn" in the New Revised Standard Version translation given above corresponds to the Hebrew phrase "הילל בן־שׁחר" (Helel Ben-Shachar) in verse 12, meaning "morning star, son of dawn". As the Latin poets personified the Morning Star and the Dawn (Aurora), as well as the Sun and the Moon and other heavenly bodies, so in Canaanite mythology Morning Star and Dawn were pictured as two deities, the former being the son of the latter.[12]

In the Latin Vulgate, Jerome translated "הילל בן־שׁחר" (morning star, son of dawn) as "lucifer qui mane oriebaris" (morning star that used to rise early).[13] Already, as early as the Christian writers Tertullian and Origen,[11] the whole passage had come to be applied to Satan. Satan began to be referred to as "Lucifer" (Morning Star), and finally the word "Lucifer" was treated as a proper name. The use of the word "Lucifer" in the 1611 King James Version instead of a word such as "Daystar" ensured its continued popularity among English speakers.

Most modern English versions (including the NIV, NRSV, NASB, NJB and ESV) render the Hebrew word as "day star", "morning star" or something similar, and never as "Lucifer", a word that in English is now very rarely used in the sense of the original word in Hebrew (Morning Star), though in Latin "Lucifer" was a literal translation.

A passage quite similar to that in Isaiah is found in Ezekiel 28:1–19

, which is expressly directed against the king of Tyre, a city on an island that had grown rich by trade, factors alluded to in the text.[14] In Christian tradition, it too has been applied to Lucifer, because of some of the expressions contained in it.[15] But, since it does not contain the image of the Morning Star, discussion of it belongs rather to the article on Satan than to that on Lucifer.
Lucifer (Le génie du mal) by Guillaume Geefs (Cathedral of St. Paul, Liège, Belgium)

The same holds for the Christian depiction of Satan in other books of the Old Testament as, for instance, in the Book of Job, where Satan, who has been wandering the earth, has a discussion with God and makes a deal with him to test Job.

The Tyndale Bible Dictionary states that there are many who believe the expression "Lucifer" and the surrounding context in Isaiah 14 refer to Satan: they believe the similarities among Isaiah 14:12

, Luke 10:18

, and Revelation 12:7–10

warrant this conclusion. But it points out that the context of the Isaiah passage is about the accomplished defeat of the king of Babylon, while the New Testament passages speak of Satan.[11]

"

[dedicate]

So, the word "Lucifer" only appears in the Roman text. The Original Greek NT uses the term, "Light Bearer".. so Acts reads, "I am the Light Bearer" not as the authorized texts read "I am the Son of the Morning". In written Latin light bearer (The Greek) translates as lucifer (The latin). Lucifer is a Latin word meaning "incandescent one" while also one of the pantheon of Latin Gods, thus the confusion.

Isaiah writes, "Hellil -- Ben-Shakar". How that got to be translated as "Lucifer" is dificult to understand. Hellil is a proper noun and needs no translation. Ben means "Son". Shakar is "Morning." Why would "Hell-il" be translated at all?

Lucifer is a pagan God or a pagan myth. Lucifer, as we think of it now, was not ever written in the Bible?,, or only alluded to in Isaiah? as some evil force of Ego? But Lucifer as Satan a fallen angel doesn't seem to be true. Both are evil though, so sometimes the two use the same name.

[phildee3]

“Lucifer” (light-bearer)is a generic title referring to the morning star (Venus). As such, it has been used throughout history to refer to Satan, Christ, and others. With this in mind, Isaiah 14:12 starts out “How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning!”. Taken as a separate verse, this appears to refer to the battle of angels – however, the PASSAGE starts at Isaiah 12:4 “Thou shalt take up this proverb against the king of Babylon” and towards the end is Isaiah 14:22 “For I will rise up against them saith the Lord of hosts, and cut of from Babylon the name, and remnant, and son, and nephew, Saith the Lord.” Thus Lucifer in the Old Testament refers to some unnamed Babylonian king.

Yes, "fallen" does not mean fallen in status or favour, it means a high divinity who has incarnated into a "lower," physical form.

[loveisthelaw]

Maybe Angels can't fall since they have no free will, making Lucifer something else :@)

[bougz]

You are quite right. The Hebrew reads "Heylel ben Shachar" which means something like "shining son of the morning".

Shachar was the Canaanite god of dawn so Heylel is obviously his son. Source: "Yahweh and the gods of Canaan" by William Foxwell Albright.

Lucifer was never intended to be a proper noun but I guess too many people think Lucifer is the name of Satan to change things now.

Truth!!!! And one day we will all know it!

[herushura]

By looking at the image of Satan (Trident Holder, Horns, Tail), can only mean one thing, Satan is the same as Poseidon.

Poseidon > Po-Satan.

Indeed the Fall of Babylon = Fall of Atlantis(Poseidons Kingdom) = Fall of Satan = Revelations

Indeed idiotics who are looking for atlantis in the middle of the Atlantic ocean are indeed looking in the wrong place, because Atlantis and Babylon are the same place.

Atlantis Story was written 100 years after the fall of babylon, indeed Platos inspiriation.