Christian Readers discussion

I ask because I have been looking into the origins of the "advesary" very recently in an attempt to understand a little better.

And what I found was very interesting... I discovered that the name "Lucifer" only occurs in the entire Bible 1 time, and that is entirely dependent on what translation you use. Almost all of them do not contain the word at all.

Now the Bible I use for word study is the Interlinear actual Hebrew and Greek translation, and it does not contain it. If I'm not mistaken, one of the only translations that has it is KJV.

I did a little research and I found some information as to why that may be, but I want to get some other input on this.

The hebrew translation of isaiah 14: 12 , says light bringer. "light bringer" in latin is "lucifer". I found some info, (but of course can't trust everything you read online) that said when the KJV was translated, the latin version was used to translate into English and the "lucifer" was taken as a proper noun and used as a name and that is where Satan got the name Lucifer.

Does anyone else have any info or input one way or another? From what I am understanding, a Lucifer is WHAT Satan was, not WHO.

Interesting question and I think you've touched on a critical point in your last statement. The adversary is referred to by many names and they tend to be vocational terms, rather than proper nouns. Even the term "Lucifer" is a misnomer, as he is not a genuine bearer of light (truth/wisdom), but only represents himself as such. Honestly, I don't think he deserves a proper noun, as he is merely a whore who will assume whatever guise appeals to his respective "Johns" for the nefarious work he's doing at a given time and place. This definitely ties into the question I asked earlier. I don't want to give him more attention than is due, but we do need to know our enemy and his wiles. We are told to be wise as serpents, yet gentle as doves.

I agree. He certainly does not deserve any more attention than is due. I was researching a few different commentaries for my current work and ran across an article or two that suggested that satan may not be a physical or literal being at all, but rather an idea. I don't agree with this in any sense, but I do admit that it was a rather interesting read. And from that sprang up the question as to who or what satan originally was.

Interesting. Lucy is certainly a character from the beginning to end of scripture and history. He certainly made some famous comments.

Any commentaries about him before the KJV? Probably. Or art and poetry?

Rod wrote: "Interesting. Lucy is certainly a character from the beginning to end of scripture and history. He certainly made some famous comments.

Any commentaries about him before the KJV? Probably. Or art ..."

It's interesting that you ask that. I originally thought the same thing and almost thought I had "debunked" myself because there are some paintings that depict "Lucifer" prior to the KJV. But if you look closely, none of the title's actually contain "Lucifer". They all refer to "Satan", "Devil" or "Advesary". The ones that mention "Lucifer" are either Post KJV or they were retro-titled with Lucifer.

So as far as my knowledge and research go, there is no mention of Satan or the Devil referred to as "Lucifer" prior to KJV.

Interesting. Who would Lucifer be, if not satan?

Oh hey there Robert. I see you didn’t quote scripture...

Robert wrote: "Interesting. Who would Lucifer be, if not satan?"

Reading Jennifer's post "Lucifer" comes from the KJV translating from Latin for the underlying Hebrew "light bringer".

Therefore, "Lucifer" is a term in the KJV which refers to The Adversary, Satan, but one that is a questionable translation. Which is likely why it's one that, for English translations, it's mostly found only in the KJV.

In short, who is being referred to as "Lucifer" in the KJV is not in question.

Jennifer: While the KJV is a fine translation, and perfectly sufficient, it's not without some minor translation flaws. I'd say you've found one example. :D

I'm glad you checked that Jennifer. Interesting.

Robert, Isaiah 14:12 says : "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" KJV

But KJV is one of the only that contains the word "Lucifer". If you read my original post, I stated information that I found that stated where the name came from.

I'm not denying the existence of a literal or physical Satan or devil, I was asking input on whether or not anyone had any other info to support Satan's actual name as "Lucifer". As I stated above, "Lucifer" did not appear until after the KJV which may be attributed to translating from a Latin translation instead of the actual Hebrew text the Old Testament was originally written in.

Calling Satan "Lucifer" wouldn't necessarily be wrong in any sense, but I believe that a Lucifer is WHAT he was, not WHO he was.

I have another subject such as this that I'm currently researching, but I'll save that for another thread! 😁

Isaiah 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!"

Lucifer = Strong's H1966 - heylel - "הֵילֵל hêylêl, hay-lale'; from H1984 (in the sense of brightness); the morning-star "
________________________________

The reason I asked is because "Lucifer" by definition includes " morning star " and some have tried to say that "Lucifer" is "Jesus" because He is called the "morning star"...
________________________________

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 ."

Robert wrote: "The reason I asked is because "Lucifer" by definition includes " morning star " and some have tried to say that "Lucifer" is "Jesus" because He is called the "morning star"...."

True.

But, that's not what's being discussed in this thread. :)

Robert wrote: "Isaiah 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!"

Lucifer = Strong's H1966 - heylel - "הֵילֵל hê..."

Robert,

I believe you are onto something...

https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/...

There is no verse in the Bible that says, “Lucifer is Satan,” but an examination of several passages reveals that Lucifer can be none other than Satan. The fall of Lucifer described in Isaiah 14:12 is likely the same that Jesus referred to in Luke 10:18: "I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven.” A similar fall is depicted in Ezekiel 28.

I'm not sure that Lucifer was is actual name or just a description of him...

Jennifer wrote: "Does anyone else have any info or input one way or another? From what I am understanding, a Lucifer is WHAT Satan was, not WHO."

What's in a name? Gabriel means God is Great. Lucifer means Morning Star. If Gabriel had been the one to fall... would he have become Satan and would Lucifer have been God's messenger? Would we have people named Lucifer in Christian families instead of Gabriel? Probably...

Just thinking out loud...

Chad wrote: "Jennifer wrote: "Does anyone else have any info or input one way or another? From what I am understanding, a Lucifer is WHAT Satan was, not WHO."

What's in a name? Gabriel means God is Great. Luci..."

Not that that isn't a valid point, but given the underlying Hebrew that is translated "Lucifer" I don't see a reason to consider it a name. A descriptor, sure. Perhaps a title. A name, such as Gabriel? I don't see it.

We Christians have used it as such, and I don't really see much harm in that, it's sort of short hand, we know what/who we're talking about, but I'm not seeing a proper noun in the text.

And, if it were a name, a proper noun, I'd expect to see it used in most reputable English translations, as Gabriel is. Yet, it isn't.

Alexandra wrote: "given the underlying Hebrew that is translated "Lucifer" I don't see a reason to consider it a name. A descriptor, sure. Perhaps a title. A name, such as Gabriel? I don't see it."

I don't disagree...

It's a great question... I enjoy the discussion... I could find a way to defend either point. Both have merit.

At the end of the day though... I think lucifer as a description is probably the correct way to look at it.

Chad wrote: "At the end of the day though... I think lucifer as a description is probably the correct way to look at it. "

That's how it looks to me, yeah.

Here's the NIV: "How you have fallen from heaven, morning star, son of the dawn! You have been cast down to the earth, you who once laid low the nations!"
Isaiah 14:12

Very interesting comments. I enjoyed reading them as I am writing a Christian paranormal novel. I have had experiences with the paranormal and I am reading as much as I can.

Sylvia wrote: "Very interesting comments. I enjoyed reading them as I am writing a Christian paranormal novel. I have had experiences with the paranormal and I am reading as much as I can."

Interesting. Have you read This Present Darkness? I really enjoyed that series.

Here's a thought... just brain storming back to what Robert said about some referring to both Satan and Jesus being a morning star...

Maybe they intentionally left "Lucifer" in KJV so people wouldn't try and connect the two that way. As Alexandra said, it is accurate as a descriptor, but maybe not so much as a Proper name as in Gabriel.

It could be they were trying to keep us or anyone else from trying to compare the two as both Morning stars, so they left "Lucifer". I would say that it is still correct.

That's just a thought though. I have no evidence to support that.

Alexandra, I have heard great things about This Present Darkness, but I haven't read it yet. It is good?

Does it matter how the world uses the word lucifer?

What does satan think when people sings songs about lucifer? Is he upset that they are not using his proper name?

Jennifer wrote: "Alexandra, I have heard great things about This Present Darkness, but I haven't read it yet. It is good?"

I really liked it, yeah. Read all three books years ago. Can't guarantee I'd feel the same if I reread it now, but I do know at the time I really enjoyed it. And it doesn't play fast and loose with Biblical ideas. It's still make-believe - or perhaps a supposition of how things might be in the spiritual realm, but of the respectful sort.

Jennifer wrote: "It could be they were trying to keep us or anyone else from trying to compare the two as both Morning stars, so they left "Lucifer". I would say that it is still correct."

Possible. I'd call it an minor translation error coming from translating a translation. But an insignificant one. It gets the idea across it's meant to get across.

2 Corinthians 6:15 - "And what concord hath Christ with Belial ? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel?"

What about Belial ? A name? A descriptor? This one seems like a descriptor.

Belial = Strong's G955 - Belial - "Βελίαλ Belíal, bel-ee'-al; of Hebrew origin (H1100); worthlessness; Belial, as an epithet of Satan"

Robert, that's an interesting one. I haven't looked into that one, but I will! I'll have to do some word studies on "Belial".

Chad wrote: "Robert wrote: "Isaiah 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!"

Lucifer = Strong's H1966 - heyl..."

I agree. there's also a reference Satan's fall from heaven in Revelation 12:3-4,7-9. I understood the names Lucifer and Satan to be reflective of character, not formal names.

Rod wrote: "Interesting. Lucy is certainly a character from the beginning to end of scripture and history. He certainly made some famous comments.

Any commentaries about him before the KJV? Probably. Or art ..."

Interesting that you shortened it to Lucy. The name Lucifer may be the masculine form of Lucy...

The meaning of Lucy from Wikipedia is, "an English and French feminine given name derived from Latin masculine given name Lucius with the meaning as of light (born at dawn or daylight, maybe also shiny, or of light complexion)."

The following is from a baby names website:

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 used the Latin Vulgate as a source which was done by St. Jerome in the fourth century. Jerome had used the Latin word "Lucifer" to in the place of the Hebraic metaphor, "Day star, son of the Dawn," 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.

If there is any truth to this at all... it would seem that the word lucifer should have never been used in the KJV.

Chad wrote: "If there is any truth to this at all... it would seem that the word lucifer should have never been used in the KJV. "

Told ya so! haha (teasing).

Seriously, it's known that the KJV has some errors and questionable translations in places. They're minor, and don't touch on doctrine. The KJV is considered completely valid and acceptable as a translation. But it doesn't surprise me to have one spotted (good job, Jennifer!)

Chad wrote: "If there is any truth to this at all... it would seem that the word lucifer should have never been used in the KJV."

Don't tell that to Robt D. Clearly, you don't recognize and worship the TRUE Jesus.

I just found and read this very interesting thread. You guys are doing some great detective work since I left. I guess you don't need me after all. haha. Love ya, Chad & company.

Alexandra wrote: "Chad wrote: "If there is any truth to this at all... it would seem that the word lucifer should have never been used in the KJV. "

Told ya so! haha (teasing).

Seriously, it's known that the KJV h..."

Thank you! and I agree! There is also another that I believe found and am looking into, but I think it spans more than just KJV. It goes along with a much bigger subject that may touch on doctrine, so I'm making sure I do my due diligence before bringing it up.

But that will be a whole other thread all together!

Eric wrote: "Don't tell that to Robt D. Clearly, you don't recognize and worship the TRUE Jesus...."

My response: I am unsure as to what this means since I am not and have never been a KJV only person.

Jennifer wrote: "I agree. "

This is one reason I don't use the KJV. There are several more recent English translations that are more accurate, and were translations made from the original languages, not translations of translations.

But for those that prefer the KJV there's no real problem or issue with that. The only time I use it now is when I'm discussing with someone who has a preference for it (or those who reject any other translation).

Jennifer wrote: "There is also another that I believe found and am looking into, but I think it spans more than just KJV. "

Interesting! The one I know about is Exodus 20:13 ;)

Alexandra wrote: "Told ya so! haha (teasing)."

:P

Chad wrote: "Alexandra wrote: "Told ya so! haha (teasing)."

:P"

:D

Robert wrote: "My response: I am unsure as to what this means since I am not and have never been a KJV only person."

That's good to know... :)

Alexandra wrote: "Jennifer wrote: "There is also another that I believe found and am looking into, but I think it spans more than just KJV. "

Interesting! The one I know about is Exodus 20:13 ;)"

Ooohh... I don't know about that one... I'm going to look now! ;P

Jennifer wrote: "Ooohh... I don't know about that one... I'm going to look now! ;P "

Have fun!

Alexandra wrote: "Jennifer wrote: "There is also another that I believe found and am looking into, but I think it spans more than just KJV. "

Interesting! The one I know about is Exodus 20:13 ;)"

I see it! That is a good one!

Jennifer wrote: "I see it! That is a good one! "

:D

It's a handy one to know, I use it as a test the times I've considered a new Bible in a translation other than what I had been using.

Hebrews 4:8 - Who failed to give rest? Jesus or Joshua?

KJV - Hebrews 4:8 - "For if Jesus had given them rest, then would he not afterward have spoken of another day."

ESV - Hebrews 4:8 - "For if Joshua had given them rest, God would not have spoken of another day later on."

Robert, that was one I haven't seen either! I just looked it up and did little research.That is a good one as well!

Robert wrote: "Hebrews 4:8 - Who failed to give rest? Jesus or Joshua?

KJV - Hebrews 4:8 - "For if
Jesus
had given them rest, then would he not afterward have spoken of another day."

ESV - Hebrews 4:8 - "Fo..."

The Greek word is the same, which is why context matters. :D

https://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en...

http://biblehub.com/greek/2424.htm

Jennifer wrote: "Robert, that was one I haven't seen either! I just looked it up and did little research.That is a good one as well!"

Yes, the KJV is my personal favorite, but the Word that God preserved and protected is the original language words that He Himself chose in writing the Bible.

No translation is the preserved Word of God.

Alexandra wrote: "The Greek word is the same, which is why context matters. :D.."

My response: I know. My point is that the KJV is not perfect, and this verse is an example of such.

Robert wrote: "I know."

Ah, well, shame on me for thinking that was actually a question. However, I don't assume everyone who might be reading does. Which is why I helpfully provided some info. :D

"My point is that the KJV is not perfect, and this verse is an example of such."

I think that point was already made LOL, but yes, this is another example.

Robert wrote: "Hebrews 4:8 - Who failed to give rest? Jesus or Joshua?

KJV - Hebrews 4:8 - "For if
Jesus
had given them rest, then would he not afterward have spoken of another day."

ESV - Hebrews 4:8 - "Fo..."

Yeshua (ישוע‬, with vowel pointing יֵשׁוּעַ‬ – yēšūă‘ in Hebrew) or Y'shua (spelling of Messianic Jews) was a common alternative form of the name יְהוֹשֻׁעַ‬ ("Yehoshua" – Joshua) in later books of the Hebrew Bible and among Jews of the Second Temple period. The name corresponds to the Greek spelling Iesous, from which, through the Latin IESVS/Iesus, comes the English spelling Jesus.