Lucifer =/= Satan

[Alaude Drenxta]

This has been thoroughly discussed elsewhere, however now I feel as if I should share some more insight. =P

The word "Lucifer" in Isaiah 14:12 presents a minor problem to mainstream Christianity. It becomes a much larger problem to Bible literalists, and becomes a huge obstacle for the claims of Mormonism. John J. Robinson in A Pilgrim's Path, pp. 47-48 explains:

"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. So why is Lucifer a far bigger problem to Mormons? Mormons claim that an ancient record (the Book of Mormon) was written beginning in about 600 BC, and the author in 600 BC supposedly copied Isaiah in Isaiah's original words. When Joseph Smith pretended to translate the supposed 'ancient record', he included the Lucifer verse in the Book of Mormon. Obviously he wasn't copying what Isaiah actually wrote. He was copying the King James Version of the Bible. Another book of LDS scripture, the Doctrine & Covenants, furthers this problem in 76:26 when it affirms the false Christian doctrine that "Lucifer" means Satan. This incorrect doctrine also spread into a third set of Mormon scriptures, the Pearl of Great Price, which describes a war in heaven based, in part, on Joseph Smith's incorrect interpretation of the word "Lucifer" which only appears in Isaiah.

[Xiao]

Ah, biblical mistakes. They're always so interesting.

This reminds me of the possible translation error of Exodus, when Moses leads the people across the red sea. Its possible to translate it into the "reed" sea as well, making the story much more possible and tangible.

I love these kinds of things. It opens peoples' eyes a little.

[Phoenix]

People see historical things all the time, and they see they refer to kings and monarchs with fancy titles, yet won't accept this. Shocking.

[Dogenzaka]

Nice thread you got there......

But once again I will leave you hanging with anxiety. I haven't read your little paragraph there, because....well it's too long to tickle my fancy xD.

Anywho, whether they are or are not different people, I believe my mom explained it in a way I never heard before. "Satan is the spirit of Lucifer...the spirit that tempts people into damnation" or something. I kinda get it (like say my soul's name is Bob....Bob is the soul of Dogenzaka xD). But oh well. I don't really care whether they are or are not or are both or neither two people, they just are not referred to nicely in the Bible, therefore I don't like them xD.

[Phoenix]

Well Dogen, pretty explanations mean nothing. Lucifer isn't Satan. Satan isn't Lucifer. The Bible makes it clear, biblical scholars know it. You're unwillingness to part with this beliefs speaks volumes -_-

[.:Game Master:.]

I'll admit, I used to be convinced that Lucifer and Satan were the same thing, but if we're not openminded, we'll never discover the truth. This could very well be true, though I doubt it really matters.

[Dogenzaka]

Well Dogen, pretty explanations mean nothing. Lucifer isn't Satan. Satan isn't Lucifer. The Bible makes it clear, biblical scholars know it. You're unwillingness to part with this beliefs speaks volumes

Lol I'll part Pho. I don't care. If they're two different people, big deal. I won't lose any sleep over it =P.

[Ryu]

Usually topics like these are my thing, since this in no way discredits the bible itself, just the interpretation, and possibly the translation of it - which I usually like doing, clearing up biblical misinterpretations - but since I'm currently on an... Intel-hiatus, it seems many others have taken over on this subject.

http://forums.khinsider.com/showthread.php?t=48457

This topic and many others have already addressed this. No lack of arguments there I'd say.

Originally Posted by Xiao

This reminds me of the possible translation error of Exodus, when Moses leads the people across the red sea. Its possible to translate it into the "reed" sea as well, making the story much more possible and tangible.

Scientifically possible, yes. But then again there are so many 'scientifically impossible' stories in the Bible, why should this one be any different? And I have to say, the story sounds even more ridiculous and impossible if it actually did say 'reed' sea instead of the Red sea.

[Dogenzaka]

And I have to say, the story sounds even more ridiculous and impossible if it actually did say 'reed' sea instead of the Red sea.

I must agree on everything Ryu said.

[Phoenix]

How long would it take for a nation to cross the territory that is the Red Sea?

[Ryu]

Probably roughly a day.

Not as long as it would take an entire army to drown in just a swamp, assuming that they were utter retards and instead of just standing in it, decided to splash their faces into the mucky water to drown themselves.

[Phoenix]

It's not a scout with a horse, it's a whole nation. The larger the group, the slower they go.

[Ryu]

I know that. And knowing that, I gave you my answer.

[Phoenix]

Are you referring to the part that made no sense?

[Ryu]

What? I said it would've taken the Israelites roughly a day to get through.

For my second comment, I was assuming that the part that they crossed actually was just a swamp. (reed sea) Assuming that, it'd be impossible for the Egyptians to drown in it, which is where my second comment comes in.