What's new
By:
Filters
Christian Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Is Lucifer Satan? A study of scripture...

P31Woman said:
Scritpure scare you off?

If you are going to teach this you need to "back it up". I said you were wrong and used "scripture" as my proof now support your "doctrine"

Your Claim:


The Book of Isaiah is in the OT. Why on earth would they write about
something (the liberal Christian interpretation of Isaiah 14:12 as
Lucifer...something the KJV got
WRONG) when they don't believe in the concept of
either?


My Reply


Prophets did not necessarily have a CLUE what they were guided to speak or write about. They were moved by the Holy Spirit to speak/write the very words God wanted them to say/write.

(the deals with the inspiration of scripture)
Click to expand...

Sigh.

The Prophet Isaiah wrote the first 39 chapters of the "Book of Isaiah." The verse of Isaiah 14:12 is poetic in nature, and is describing the downfall of the Babylonian King (Nebuchadnezzar II). That king of Babylon, had kept the Hebrew people under his rule and treated them rather poorly. It is the Babylonian King Nebuchadnezzar II that destroyed the temple in Jerusalem, as well as many of the writings of the Hebrews. He disgraced them, murdered them, tried to wipe out their culture and history. He sought to be viewed as a god (much like Egyptian pharoahs) and when he died, the Hebrews celebrated and mocked him. That is what the Prophet Isaiah was doing in 14:12...mocking the fallen Babylonian King Nebuchadnezzar II, after his treatment of the Hebrew people. All of this has already been covered.

Ancient History 101.

What, you think that the Prophet Isaiah started off a chapter talking about Babylon and its king, then halfway through he went off on a sideroad for 1 verse to talk about the devil (who they don't believe in and their religion never said anything about), then came back to the story about the king?

I wish we had a "face palm" smiley we could use.
 
Vanguard, the Lord is written all over the OT, who was the Lord in the OT?
 
Vanguard said:
Sigh.

The Prophet Isaiah wrote the first 39 chapters of the "Book of Isaiah." The verse of Isaiah 14:12 is poetic in nature, and is describing the downfall of the Babylonian King (Nebuchadnezzar II). That king of Babylon, had kept the Hebrew people under his rule and treated them rather poorly. It is the Babylonian King Nebuchadnezzar II that destroyed the temple in Jerusalem, as well as many of the writings of the Hebrews. He disgraced them, murdered them, tried to wipe out their culture and history. He sought to be viewed as a god (much like Egyptian pharoahs) and when he died, the Hebrews celebrated and mocked him. That is what the Prophet Isaiah was doing in 14:12...mocking the fallen Babylonian King Nebuchadnezzar II, after his treatment of the Hebrew people. All of this has already been covered.

Ancient History 101.

What, you think that the Prophet Isaiah started off a chapter talking about Babylon and its king, then halfway through he went off on a sideroad for 1 verse to talk about the devil (who they don't believe in and their religion never said anything about), then came back to the story about the king?

I wish we had a "face palm" smiley we could use.
Click to expand...

Defend your Doctrine:

Your Claim:


The Book of Isaiah is in the OT. Why on earth would they write about
something (the liberal Christian interpretation of Isaiah 14:12 as
Lucifer...something the KJV got
WRONG) when they don't believe in the concept of
either?

My Reply

Prophets did not necessarily have a CLUE what they were guided to speak or write about. They were moved by the Holy Spirit to speak/write the very words God wanted them to say/write.

(the deals with the inspiration of scripture)

2 Peter 1
20 Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation of things. 21 For prophecy never had its origin in the human will, but prophets, though human, spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.

Note it's the "scripture prophecy" we are to put our trust in to be from God not some modern day or past prophet.

The written Prophecy has it's origin from God. They spoke from Him and were carried along by the Holy Spirit.



I see you deleted the SCRIPTURE I posted when you copied my post above. That may be a TOPS violation to cut out portions of a reply.
 
Vanguard, who are they talking about when they say Lord in Isaiah 14:5
 
Sinthesis said:
Of course a 'satan' can also be a 'lucifer', depending on how you define the terms.
Click to expand...

Interesting thought. Ha-SaTan in Hebrew means "The Satan." Take out the "Ha" part and drop the term down to all lower case and you have a word that simple means "accuser or deceiver," which can be applied to anyone, including a devil/demon (again, all lower case).

Linguistics 101!
 
Not to mention Isaiah 14:12 is mocking the fallen king of Babylon, and has no reference to Satan to begin with, no matter how badly KJVO advocates want it to be. A classic example of taking a verse out of context to support an idea that is erroneous to begin with.
 
At no place in the entire context of Isa. 14 is satan, the devil etc. alluded to as Lucifer but rather the very opposite. Nothing in the Hebrew word Helel (or its root) could cause it to be translated Lucifer by the KJV translators. My best understanding is that they borrowed it from Jerome's Bible Translation (383-405 A.D.) known as the Latin Vulgate. The context of Isa.14 begins in Vs. 4 speaking against the king of Babylon. The Babylonian king was to die and be buried which is a fate the scripture does not teach for satan. The king was called a man whose body was to be eaten by worms, a fate I do not find for satan, inasmuch as he does not seem to have a physical body (unless it be the time when he appeared as the serpent in the garden). This king of Babylon lived in a "golden city", vs. 4, but Satan is over a kingdom of spiritual darkness, Eph. 6:12 etc., etc. No, Satan is not Lucifer. The Lucifer of Isa. 14 is the king of Babylon.
 
www.onenesspentecostal.com/isaiah1412.htm

The idea that this pericope is also a reference to Satan's fall is due to the fact that Isaiah said, "Look how you have fallen from the sky" (Isaiah 14:12), which is reminiscent of Jesus' words, "I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven." It is speculated that Jesus drew His words from Isaiah 14, thus making the connection that this passage was not only referring to the king of Babylon, but also to Satan's fall.

Another reason for believing Isaiah 14 is a reference to Satan's fall is because of the parallels that exist between the Isaiah passage and Ezekiel 28 (the concept of a fall and expulsion-Ezekiel 28:16), which has more clear references to the fall of Satan (although the historical figure being spoken of there was a man: the king of Tyre [vs. 2, 9]). Such references include the fact that the king of Tyre is said to have dwelt in Eden, been created, and is called the anointed cherub which covers (Ezekiel 28:13-15). Such descriptions are obviously poetic in regards to the king of Tyre, but seem to have a more direct reference to Satan himself.
 
Webb said:
At no place in the entire context of Isa. 14 is satan, the devil etc. alluded to as Lucifer but rather the very opposite. Nothing in the Hebrew word Helel (or its root) could cause it to be translated Lucifer by the KJV translators. My best understanding is that they borrowed it from Jerome's Bible Translation (383-405 A.D.) known as the Latin Vulgate. The context of Isa.14 begins in Vs. 4 speaking against the king of Babylon. The Babylonian king was to die and be buried which is a fate the scripture does not teach for satan. The king was called a man whose body was to be eaten by worms, a fate I do not find for satan, inasmuch as he does not seem to have a physical body (unless it be the time when he appeared as the serpent in the garden). This king of Babylon lived in a "golden city", vs. 4, but Satan is over a kingdom of spiritual darkness, Eph. 6:12 etc., etc. No, Satan is not Lucifer. The Lucifer of Isa. 14 is the king of Babylon.
Click to expand...
I didn't know much of this. Webb, this is a very good post. :)
 
Webb said:
At no place in the entire context of Isa. 14 is satan, the devil etc. alluded to as Lucifer but rather the very opposite. Nothing in the Hebrew word Helel (or its root) could cause it to be translated Lucifer by the KJV translators. My best understanding is that they borrowed it from Jerome's Bible Translation (383-405 A.D.) known as the Latin Vulgate. The context of Isa.14 begins in Vs. 4 speaking against the king of Babylon. The Babylonian king was to die and be buried which is a fate the scripture does not teach for satan. The king was called a man whose body was to be eaten by worms, a fate I do not find for satan, inasmuch as he does not seem to have a physical body (unless it be the time when he appeared as the serpent in the garden). This king of Babylon lived in a "golden city", vs. 4, but Satan is over a kingdom of spiritual darkness, Eph. 6:12 etc., etc. No, Satan is not Lucifer. The Lucifer of Isa. 14 is the king of Babylon.
Click to expand...

If it is as you say, that IS refers only to the King of Babylon, but not satan, who is the alson serpent and the devil, how then can he be called the 'seed of evil doers' (vs 20) when sin began long before his day? Or how can he have made the 'world as a wilderness' (vs 17), when this was a judgment against Adam (GEN3)?
 
People are still missing the concept that the scrolls [Book] of Isaiah, which resides in the OT, was mostly written by the Hebrew prophet Isaiah, before Christ was ever born. The Hebrews did not believe in the concept of the devil or hell. As much as you might want it to refer to Satan, it doesn't. The KJV got it wrong, and modern translations have revised that verse to reflect the accuracy of the Hebrew. It's not that hard to understand.

All of this has been covered in the OP.
 
Vanguard said:
People are still missing the concept that the scrolls [Book] of Isaiah, which resides in the OT, was mostly written by the Hebrew prophet Isaiah, before Christ was ever born. The Hebrews did not believe in the concept of the devil or hell. As much as you might want it to refer to Satan, it doesn't. The KJV got it wrong, and modern translations have revised that verse to reflect the accuracy of the Hebrew. It's not that hard to understand.

All of this has been covered in the OP.
Click to expand...

Proverbs 18:2
 
Vanguard said:
People are still missing the concept that the scrolls [Book] of Isaiah, which resides in the OT, was mostly written by the Hebrew prophet Isaiah, before Christ was ever born. The Hebrews did not believe in the concept of the devil or hell. As much as you might want it to refer to Satan, it doesn't. The KJV got it wrong, and modern translations have revised that verse to reflect the accuracy of the Hebrew. It's not that hard to understand.

All of this has been covered in the OP.
Click to expand...

It does not matter what the individual did not did not know, believe, think or understand when it comes to scripture. It's God Word not man's ideas. It's the actual words of scripture that are God breathed.....every jot and tittle..... Modern day translation.........the dot over the i is God breated.

2 Peter 1 (NASB)

19 So we have the prophetic word made more sure, to which you do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star arises in your hearts. 20 But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, 21 for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.

This is copy and paste from this sites SoF. Maybe this wording will help you understand.

The bible is the inspired, infallible and authoritative Word of God.

2 Timothy 3:16 (NASB)

16 All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; 17 so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.


Acts 4 (NASB)

24 And when they heard this, they lifted their voices to God with one accord and said, “O Lord, it is You who made the heaven and the earth and the sea, and all that is in them, 25who by the Holy Spirit, through the mouth of our father David Your servant, said,
‘Why did the Gentiles rage,
And the peoples devise futile things?
26 ‘The kings of the earth took their stand,
And the rulers were gathered together
Against the Lord and against His Christ.’
 
Last edited by a moderator:
John Gill, using the KJV, even said that Isaiah 14:12 should not be seen as a reference to Satan being cast out of heaven.
This is not to be understood of the fall of Satan, and the apostate angels, from their first estate, when they were cast down from heaven to hell, though there may be an allusion to it; see ( Luke 10:18 ) but the words are a continuation of the speech of the dead to the king of Babylon, wondering at it, as a thing almost incredible, that he who seemed to be so established on the throne of his kingdom, which was his heaven, that he should be deposed or fall from it. So the destruction of the Roman Pagan emperors is signified by the casting out of the dragon and his angels from heaven, ( Revelation 12:7-9 ) and in like manner Rome Papal, or the Romish antichrist, will fall from his heaven of outward splendour and happiness, of honour and authority, now, possessed by him.
​
Not that I endorse the concept of a future pope being the antichrist, but the rest of the exposition is, I believe, spot on. I believe there is a triple entendré here, looking back to Satan's fall, looking forward to the antichrist's fall, and in fact detailing the recent (to the text) fall of Babylon's king. But the last is what it is actually referencing.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Old beliefs, even when in err, die hard. People don't want to admit that they were wrong about something. Doesn't matter, to each their own.
 
Fair enough, it's just that they are not old beliefs. The Word of God is eternal and everlasting.
Do God's prophets not have visions from God? Better yet, the meaning of Isaiah is 'God is Salvation'.
 
urk said:
Fair enough, it's just that they are not old beliefs. The Word of God is eternal and everlasting.
Click to expand...
True, but it is only God's word that is eternal and everlasting. The translations are not. The bad translation of 'heylal, as I pointed out, is the sole reason behind the misunderstanding of Satan's name being Lucifer. It is not.

urk said:
Do God's prophets not have visions from God? Better yet, the meaning of Isaiah is 'God is Salvation'.
Click to expand...
What does that have to do with the discussion?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top