PDA

View Full Version : Is Satan really a fallen angel or Lucifer?



Bee777
17th November 2008, 14:38
In my opinion it is a myth that Satan is a fallen angel and also known as Lucifer.
The Bible directly contradicts this assumption. See;

Joh 8:44
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.

So the question is where is the beginning?
Go to Genesis 1; 1 In the beginning……….

This is before anyone was created and the earth was still void and without form. So Satan was a liar and murderer from then. If God created Satan and he was an angel, then he would have had truth in him, if and when, God created him.

The Bible clearly gives us two scriptures where He gives us all the names of Satan and not once is Lucifer mentioned. See;

Rev 20:2 And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years,

Re 12:9
And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world:

Let us break down Isaiah 14;4

ISAIAH 14:4 That thou shalt take up this proverb against the king of Babylon, and say, How hath the oppressor ceased ! the golden city ceased ! …………….

We can see that this passage is directed to the king of Babylon

Isaiah 14:16
They that see thee shall narrowly look upon thee, and consider thee, saying, Is this the man that made the earth to tremble, that did shake kingdoms;

So this king is clearly a man and not a fallen angel. This man was brought down because of his vanity.
The ancient Syrians practiced a religion where they called themselves ” the children of heaven” see how the Bible backs this up.

Genesis 11:4
And they said, Go to, let us build us a city and a tower, whose top may reach unto heaven; ……………
11:9 Therefore is the name of it called Babel; because the LORD did there confound the language of all the earth:……………..
11:8 So the LORD scattered them abroad from thence upon the face of all the earth:

So we can see that these people in Babel were scattered in all the earth each with their own language and build their own kingdoms,
One being Babylon, after their vain thoughts of exalting themselves and referring to themselves as gods. We know this is true as we need to just look at Greek mythology and their worship of the Zodiac and referring to themselves as "Children of heaven" aswell as the ancient Babylonian religions, which is an in depth study all on it’s own. See;
Two Babylons or Papal Worship by Rev Alexander Hyssop

Here are some more links if you are interested in investigating this topic.
These links are on my blog, click here (http://bibleuncovered.blogspot.com/search/label/Satan%20is%20no%20fallen%20angel)

ISAIAH 14:13
For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God:

Observe the direct correlation of “ who’s top may reach into heaven” and “ ascend into heaven” The King of Babylon had the same mind set and speech as those at Babel, which many historians and scholars consider the abode of ancient Babylon.

So in conclusion Lucifer is a man not a spirit being, so in no way can Lucifer be Satan. Satan does not have a fleshly body that can be in a grave and covered with worms See ISAIAH 14; 11

There is allot more evidence on this subject on my blog, it is five pages long so i think too long to paste here.
please click here (http://bibleuncovered.blogspot.com/search/label
/Satan%20is%20no%20fallen%20angel)to keep reading

Blessings in truth
Bee777

Stefanus
14th March 2009, 23:02
Die woord Lucifer kom slegs een keer voor in die KJV en word vertaal as môrester in die meeste bybels:


Isa 14:12 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!

Isa 14:12 Hoe het jy uit die hemel geval, o môrester, seun van die dageraad! Hoe lę jy teen die aarde neergeslaan, oorweldiger van die nasies!
Die profeet Jesaja beskryf die Babeloniese koning as "o môrester, seun van die dageraad" wat tot 'n val sou kom, Petrus egter gebruik die term "môrester" om Jesus aan te gee:


In Latin, the word "Lucifer", meaning "Light-Bringer" (from lux, lucis, "light", and ferre, "to bear, bring"), is a name for the "Morning Star" (the planet Venus in its dawn appearances).[2] The Latin Vulgate version of the Bible used this word twice to refer to the Morning Star: once in 2 Peter 1:19 to translate the Greek word "Φωσφόρος" (Phosphoros), which has exactly the same literal meaning of "Light-Bringer" that "Lucifer" has in Latin; and once in Isaiah 14:12 to translate "הילל" (Hęlēl), which also means "Morning Star". In the latter passage the title of "Morning Star" is given to the tyrannous Babylonian king, who the prophet says is destined to fall.

2Pe 1:19 En ons het die profetiese woord wat baie vas is, waarop julle tog moet ag gee soos op ‘n lamp wat in ‘n donker plek skyn, totdat die dag aanbreek en die môrester opgaan in julle harte;
Openbaring verwys twee keer na die "môrester" en in geen geval word die "môrester" enigsins na Satan verwys nie maar na Jesus self:


Rev 2:26-29
En aan hom wat oorwin en my werke tot die einde toe bewaar, sal Ek mag oor die nasies gee, en hy sal hulle regeer met ‘n ysterstaf; soos erdegoed word hulle verbrysel, net soos Ek ook van my Vader ontvang het.
En Ek sal hom die môrester gee.
Wie ‘n oor het, laat hom hoor wat die Gees aan die gemeentes sę.

Rev 22:16 Ek, Jesus, het my engel gestuur om hierdie dinge aan julle voor die gemeentes te betuig. Ek is die wortel en die geslag van Dawid, die blink môrester.
Dus is dit duidelik dat Lucifer verwys na 'n koning van Babilon en dat Jesus die môrester is!

Die volgende vraag wat egter opkom is waarom Jesus na homself verwys as "Ek is die wortel en die geslag van Dawid, die blink môrester" en nie na Abraham nie?


Liefdegroete,
Stefanus

Stefanus
23rd May 2009, 22:02
The word "Lucifer" in Isaiah 14:12 presents a minor problem to mainstream Christianity. It becomes a much larger problem to Bible literalists.

"Lucifer makes his appearance in the fourteenth chapter of the Old Testament book of Isaiah, at the twelfth verse, and nowhere else: "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!"

The first problem is that Lucifer is a Latin name. So how did it find its way into a Hebrew manuscript, written before there was a Roman language? To find the answer, I consulted a scholar at the library of the Hebrew Union College in Cincinnati. What Hebrew name, I asked, was Satan given in this chapter of Isaiah, which describes the angel who fell to become the ruler of hell?

The answer was a surprise. 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."

Why Lucifer? In Roman astronomy, Lucifer was the name given to the morning star (the star we now know by another Roman name, Venus). The morning star appears in the heavens just before dawn, heralding the rising sun. The name derives from the Latin term lucem ferre, bringer, or bearer, of light." In the Hebrew text the expression used to describe the Babylonian king before his death is Helal, son of Shahar, which can best be translated as "Day star, son of the Dawn." The name evokes the golden glitter of a proud king's dress and court (much as his personal splendor earned for King Louis XIV of France the appellation, "The Sun King").

The scholars authorized by ... King James I to translate the Bible into 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.

So "Lucifer" is nothing more than an ancient Latin name for the morning star, the bringer of light. That can be confusing for Christians who identify Christ himself as the morning star, a term used as a central theme in many Christian sermons. Jesus refers to himself as the morning star in 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."

And so there are those who do not read beyond the King James version of the Bible, who say 'Lucifer is Satan: so says the Word of God'...."

Henry Neufeld (a Christian who comments on Biblical sticky issues) went on to say,

"this passage is often related to Satan, and a similar thought is expressed in Luke 10:18 by Jesus, that was not its first meaning. It's primary meaning is given in Isaiah 14:4 which says that when Israel is restored they will "take up this taunt against the king of Babylon . . ." Verse 12 is a part of this taunt song. This passage refers first to the fall of that earthly king...

How does the confusion in translating this verse arise? The Hebrew of this passage reads: "heleyl, ben shachar" which can be literally translated "shining one, son of dawn." This phrase means, again literally, the planet Venus when it appears as a morning star. In the Septuagint, a 3rd century BC translation of the Hebrew scriptures into Greek, it is translated as "heosphoros" which also means Venus as a morning star.

How did the translation "lucifer" arise? This word comes from Jerome's Latin Vulgate. Was Jerome in error? Not at all. In Latin at the time, "lucifer" actually meant Venus as a morning star. Isaiah is using this metaphor for a bright light, though not the greatest light to illustrate the apparent power of the Babylonian king which then faded."

Therefore, Lucifer wasn't equated with Satan until after Jerome. Jerome wasn't in error. Later Christians (and Mormons) were in equating "Lucifer" with "Satan".

So why is this a problem to Christians? Christians now generally believe that Satan (or the Devil or Lucifer who they equate with Satan) is a being who has always existed (or who was created at or near the "beginning"). Therefore, they also think that the 'prophets' of the Old Testament believed in this creature. The Isaiah scripture is used as proof (and has been used as such for hundreds of years now). As Elaine Pagels explains though, the concept of Satan has evolved over the years and the early Bible writers didn't believe in or teach such a doctrine.

The irony for those who believe that "Lucifer" refers to Satan is that the same title ('morning star' or 'light-bearer') is used to refer to Jesus, in 2 Peter 1:19, where the Greek text has exactly the same term: 'phos-phoros' 'light-bearer.' This is also the term used for Jesus in Revelation 22:16.

blue
On a lighter note, Arthur Clarke, in his fictional book 2061 correctly uses the word "Lucifer". He uses it as a name for a new sun in the solar system which is correct since the new sun is a second 'morning star' of 'original' 'light-bearing' substance -- not some evil being of religious mythology.

David Grinspoon comments on the historical aspects of the word as follows: "The origin of the Judeo-Christian Devil as an angel fallen from heaven into the depths of hell is mirrored in the descent of Venus from shining morning star to the darkness below. This underworld demon, still feared today by people in many parts of the world, is also called Lucifer, which was originally a Latin name for Venus as a morning star." (Venus Revealed p. 17) Actually, Grinspoon should just refer to the "Christian Devil" since the Jews never believed in such a creature and still don't to this day.

Pionier
24th May 2009, 09:54
Die woord Lucifer kom slegs een keer voor in die KJV en word vertaal as môrester in die meeste bybels:


Die profeet Jesaja beskryf die Babeloniese koning as "o môrester, seun van die dageraad" wat tot 'n val sou kom, Petrus egter gebruik die term "môrester" om Jesus aan te gee:


Openbaring verwys twee keer na die "môrester" en in geen geval word die "môrester" enigsins na Satan verwys nie maar na Jesus self:


Dus is dit duidelik dat Lucifer verwys na 'n koning van Babilon en dat Jesus die môrester is!

Die volgende vraag wat egter opkom is waarom Jesus na homself verwys as "Ek is die wortel en die geslag van Dawid, die blink môrester" en nie na Abraham nie?


Liefdegroete,
Stefanus

Stefanus, vir my is die verwysing na Lucifer as die Babeloniese koning in 'n geestelike konteks. Maw die gees wat ín die koning was, net so ken ons die Christus wat in Jesus die mens was.

Groetnis

Bee777
22nd June 2009, 13:28
Thanks Stefanus
All that info backed up my research and I will use it on my Blog.:thumbup_1:

Cheers
Bee777