Lucifer

[Lindsey]

I was taking a bible Quiz somewhere and one of the questions was on lucifer i allways thought Lucifer to mean The devil and i answered the question to the devil but according to the quiz .Lucifer isn,t the devil he is a Babylonian king .Now i am confused .Is Lucifer the Devil or a Babylonian king . If he is a Babylonian king then why do preacher use Lucifer to mean the Devil?

[Will]

I was taking a bible Quiz somewhere and one of the questions was on lucifer i allways thought Lucifer to mean The devil and i answered the question to the devil but according to the quiz .Lucifer isn' date='t the devil he is a Babylonian king .Now i am confused .Is Lucifer the Devil or a Babylonian king . If he is a Babylonian king then why do preacher use Lucifer to mean the Devil?[/quote']

Both. "Lucifer" is a Latin word for the Hebrew word meaning "light-bearer." The passage in question is speaking both to a Babylonian king, and Lucifer in a spiritual sense. It contains double-meaning.

[Madeline]

I was taking a bible Quiz somewhere and one of the questions was on lucifer i allways thought Lucifer to mean The devil and i answered the question to the devil but according to the quiz .Lucifer isn' date='t the devil he is a Babylonian king .Now i am confused .Is Lucifer the Devil or a Babylonian king . If he is a Babylonian king then why do preacher use Lucifer to mean the Devil?[/quote']

I'll give my 2 cents. Isaiah 14:12 reads, "How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning". Does this passage refer to one of the kings of Babylon, as suggested? Verse 20 of Is. 14 says, "Thou shalt not be joined with them in burial.....". Both Nebuchadnezzar and Beltchazzar were buried, or at least they were never said not to be buried. Knowing what we do about how these ancient kings thought of death, I think we may assume that they certainly were buried, and if they were not, for some reason, I think that that would have been mentioned.

Love,
Madeline

[Anon]

Babylon also symbolizes the world and thus the king of the world is Satan, or Lucifer.

[falin115]

Babylon also symbolizes the world and thus the king of the world is Satan' date=' or Lucifer.[/quote']



Lucifer was Satan's name in Heavan

[Guest Guest]

Yes and no. It's a reference to both Satan and the Babylonian King. Also it's looking forward to the antichrist.

Isaiah 14:12 -How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning

[Madeline]

Babylon also symbolizes the world and thus the king of the world is Satan' date=' or Lucifer.[/quote']

Ok, makes sense after reading the context that Isaiah also used "Lucifer" to illustrate the fall of the Babylonian king. Thanks! :thumb

[sarcrew]

In case anyone is still interested I found this etymology interesting concerning this subject.

Lucifer
O.E. Lucifer "Satan," also "morning star," from L. Lucifer "morning star," lit. "light-bringing," from lux (gen. lucis) + ferre "carry" . Belief that it was the proper name of Satan began with its used in Bible to translate Gk. Phosphoros, which translates Heb. Helel ben Shahar in Isaiah xiv.12 -- "How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning!" [KJV] The verse was interpreted by Christians as a reference to "Satan," because of the mention of a fall from Heaven, even though it is literally a reference to the King of Babylon (cf. Isaiah xiv.4). Lucifer match "friction match" is from 1831.
Satan
proper name of the supreme evil spirit in Christianity, O.E. Satan, from L.L. Satan (in Vulgate, in O.T. only), from Gk. Satanas, from Heb. satan "adversary, one who plots against another," from satan "to show enmity to, oppose, plot against," from root s-t-n "one who opposes, obstructs, or acts as an adversary." In Septuagint (Gk.) usually translated as diabolos "slanderer," lit. "one who throws (something) across" the path of another (see devil), though epiboulos "plotter" is used once.
"In biblical sources the Hebrew term the satan describes an adversarial role. It is not the name of a particular character. Although Hebrew storytellers as early as the sixth century B.C.E. occasionally introduced a supernatural character whom they called the satan, what they meant was any one of the angels sent by God for the specific purpose of blocking or obstructing human activity." [Elaine Pagels, "The Origin of Satan," 1995]
Satanic "pertaining to Satan" is first recorded 1667 (in "Paradise Lost"); meaning "diabolical" is from 1793. Satanism "worship of Satan" dates from 1896, with ref. to France, where it was said to be active at that time; Satanist is attested from 1559, applied by their enemies to Protestant sects.
devil
O.E. deofol "evil spirit," from L.L. diabolus, from Gk. diabolos "accuser, slanderer" (scriptural loan-translation of Heb. satan), from diaballein "to slander, attack," lit. "throw across," from dia- "across, through" + ballein "to throw." Jerome re-introduced Satan in L. bibles, and Eng. translators have used both in different measures. In Vulgate, as in Gk., diabolus and d

[Jerry]

O.E. Lucifer "Satan," also "morning star," from L. Lucifer "morning star,"

Just to clarify something: there is no word in Hebrew in the passage for star - Lucifer is not the morning star; Jesus is. Granted, many are now associating Venus and the morning star together (therefore associating Lucifer with the morning star), but they are never connected in the Bible.

[bibletotingunslinger]

OK now I pray all watch out for Lucifer, he has gotten Alexandrian(Minority Text) into even the foot notes and commentary's of some of our King James Bibles. Modern versions are translated from Wescott and Hort Critical text and contain this mistake(One of many), Bible companies want to poison even our King James with this.
Beware Thompson Chain owners this is a bad mistake in the Chain Ref.

One quick check to see if you got good Cross refs Bible, Look up Isaiah 14:12 , see what cross ref points to, if it's SATAN, you got a good Bible, if it don't. you got bogus Cross refs.


For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.

I love you all, and only want to help, :praying

[John81]

OK now I pray all watch out for Lucifer, he has gotten Alexandrian(Minority Text) into even the foot notes and commentary's of some of our King James Bibles. Modern versions are translated from Wescott and Hort Critical text and contain this mistake(One of many), Bible companies want to poison even our King James with this.
Beware Thompson Chain owners this is a bad mistake in the Chain Ref.

One quick check to see if you got good Cross refs Bible, Look up Isaiah 14:12 , see what cross ref points to, if it's SATAN, you got a good Bible, if it don't. you got bogus Cross refs.


For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.

I love you all, and only want to help, :praying

Great point. Some KJB cross references and commentaries are not strictly based upon the KJB, but oftentimes are the exact same as those companies have created from and put into their various MV's.

[tired]

The higher ranks of freemasonry teach this malarchy that Lucifer is not the devil. Then they worship Lucifer. If you can get people to believe that Lucifer is not the devil than in many cases these same people say that we should worship Lucifer as the morning star. Read some Albert Pike writings. That is his main point.

[pneu-engine]

OK now I pray all watch out for Lucifer, he has gotten Alexandrian(Minority Text) into even the foot notes and commentary's of some of our King James Bibles. Modern versions are translated from Wescott and Hort Critical text and contain this mistake(One of many), Bible companies want to poison even our King James with this.
Beware Thompson Chain owners this is a bad mistake in the Chain Ref.

One quick check to see if you got good Cross refs Bible, Look up Isaiah 14:12 , see what cross ref points to, if it's SATAN, you got a good Bible, if it don't. you got bogus Cross refs.


For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.

I love you all, and only want to help, :praying

:amen:

[qwerty guy]

The NIV put morning star instead of "lucifer" for many years. After it was pointed out that Jesus calls himself the morning star in rev 22:16, they said it was an error, and changed it to "star of the morning". You will find this in NIV's from about mid 80-s until a couple years ago

You see, they said that "lucifer" translates to "star of the morning". This is not only untrue, but is not logical. If you double translate the name lucifer, then why not the other names in the bible? Shouldn't the book of "Daniel" be the book of "God is my Judge"? And, given they put morning star, then shouldn't "God is my Judge" turn into "Judge of God"? Think that's horrible? So is putting Morning Star falling from Heaven.

They changed it back.. this was no mistake, the devil knew what he was doing. How funny it must of been for Lucifer to take his name out of the bible, and put Jesus there instead. That's like Hitler getting his name out of the history books and replacing it with George Washington.

If you run into someone with a MV, dont' tell em what's in it, open it up, make sure what you think is there is there, and show them. They change em so much, you don't know if the NIV they have has morning star, star of the morning, coca-cola, or what ever. Nothing makes them trust their satanic book more then you saying something is there, and they look and it's not. They figure you don't know what you're talking about.