Lucifer = Satan?

[John Powell]

Lucifer of Isaiah 14 = Satan of Revelation?

Most Christians consider "Lucifer" (a Latin term used by Jerome based on Hebrew words meaning "shining one") to be another name for Satan, the Adversary. They believe that Isaiah 14 includes information about God's spiritual adversary called both the Devil and Satan in Revelation 12:9.

Some skeptics, Christians, and Jews disagree, believing instead that the "shining one" of Isaiah 14:12 was meant by Isaiah to refer strictly to a mortal king whom Isaiah vilified and not also to God's spiritual adversary. As an atheist, I agree with this skeptical view. Furthermore, I also see the serpent of Genesis 3 as just a talking animal, not intended by the writer to be Satan. Curiously, some of the Christians and Jews who reject the Lucifer = Satan association nevertheless accept the Talking Serpent = Satan association.

Despite my conclusion concerning how Isaiah meant for his "shining one" to be understood, I see enough parallels and other issues between Isa 14 and Revelation to conclude that the writer of Revelation probably used Isa 14 as inspiration, as a scriptural basis for his book thinking of Isaiah's "shining one" as an earlier representation of the spiritual character he called Satan. Below I give details in support of this view.

1. Revelation calls Jesus the "the bright and morning star" (Rev 22:16) while Isaiah's character is called "the shining one, son of the morning" (Isa 14:12). Surely, John used a title for Jesus that appears to be taken from Isaiah 14:12 to point out that Jesus is the "true" bright and morning star, while Isaiah's character is a counterfeit, a wannabe, a weak claimant to the honor. John's Satan is the prime example of a counterfeit to God and is surely meant to be equated to Isaiah's character.

2. Another example of this counterfeit idea is where Revelation's city paved with gold is a holy city, the New Jerusalem (Rev 21:2,21) in contraposition to Isaiah's "golden city" of Babylon (Isa 14:4).

3. A third example of this counterfeit idea is where Lucifer says "I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne" (Isa 14:13) but John says "her [good] child was caught up unto God, and to his throne" (Rev 12:5).

4. Revelation speaks of Babylon (Rev 18:2), surely meaning to be associated with the Babylon mentioned by Isaiah (Isa 14:4) and others.

5. Lucifer is the ruler of Isaiah's Babylon (Isa 14:4), while Satan is the ruler of John's Babylon in some sense (Rev 13:4,7; 17:5,18).

6. Lucifer said he would exalt his throne above "the stars of God" (Isa 14:13) while John says Satan "drew the third part of the stars of heaven" (Rev 12:4).

7. Lucifer said "I will be like the most High" (Isa 14:14), while the dragon was worshipped as a deity and the dragon (or a servant) "opened his mouth in blasphemy" (Rev 13:4).

8. Lucifer "smote the people" and "ruled the nations" (Isa 14:6), while Satan (or his servants) had power "over all . . . nations" and "to make war with the saints" (Rev 13:7).

9. Lucifer "opened not the house of his prisoners" (Isa 14:17), while "the devil shall cast some of you [saints] into prison" (Rev 2:10).

10. Lucifer "fell from heaven" (Isa 14:12) while the "place" of Satan and his people was not "found any more in heaven" (Rev 12:8).

11. Isaiah's Babylon ceases to be an oppressor (Isa 14:4), while Revelation's Babylon falls from continuing its evil activities (Rev 18:2).

12. Isaiah's Lord has "broken the staff of the wicked and the sceptre of the rulers" (Isa 14:5) while Revelation's faithful one will rule the nations "with a rod of iron" and the nations will be "broken to shivers" (Rev 2:27).

13. Isaiah says that "the whole earth . . . is quiet" (Isa 14:7), while John speaks of "silence in heaven" (Rev 8:1).

14. Isaiah's good people "break forth into singing" (Isa 14:7), while John's good people "sing the song of Moses . . and the song of the Lamb" (Rev 15:3).

15. Revelation's Babylon becomes "a cage of every unclean and hateful bird" (Rev 18:2) while Isaiah's Babylon becomes "a possession for the bittern" (Isa 14:3). The bittern is a bird, but according to both Strong's at www.blueletterbible.org and Brenton's LXX at www.apostlesbible.com, the word in Isaiah referred to a hedgehog even though Isa 34:11 and Zep 2:14 associates the animal with other birds. Rather than concluding that John mistakenly thought Isaiah was referring to a bird, a more charitable conclusion is that John was inspired by other passages where birds gain possession of the cursed city.

16. Isaiah's trees "rejoice" and say "no feller is come against us" (Isa 14:8) while the locusts in Revelation are commanded "that they should not hurt . . . any tree" (Rev 9:4).

17. According to Isaiah: "Hell from beneath is moved . . . to meet thee at thy coming: it stirreth up the dead for thee" (Isa 14:9) while Revelation says "death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them" (Rev 20:13).

18. According to Isaiah, "the worm is spread under thee, and the worms cover thee" (Isa 14:11) while Revelation speaks of a fallen star called "wormwood" that causes the water to be deathly bitter (Rev 8:11).

19. Lucifer is "cast out of [his] grave like an abominable branch, and as the raiment of those that are slain" (Isa 14:19), while ". . . the abominable, and murderers, [and others] . . . shall have . . . the second death" (Rev 21:8).

20. Lucifer shall "be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit" (Isa 14:15) while Satan is "cast . . into the bottomless pit" (Rev 20:3)

21. Preparations are made to slaughter Lucifer's "children" (Isa 14:21) and to cut off Babylon's "remnant" (Isa 14:22), while the "remnant" of the followers of Satan "were slain with the sword of him that sat upon the horse" (Rev 19:21).

Conclusion:

There seem to be enough parallels and other issues to justifiably conclude that the author of Revelation meant for his readers to associate Isaiah's "shining one" (what Jerome called "Lucifer") with his own "Satan."

What do you think?

John Powell

[technomage]

Conclusion:

There seem to be enough parallels and other issues to justifiably conclude that the author of Revelation meant for his readers to associate Isaiah's "shining one" (what Jerome called "Lucifer") with his own "Satan."

Hmmm ... I don't know if I would consider it a foregone conclusion, though it is certainly tenable ... and interesting.

[shunyadragon]

Lucifer of Isaiah 14 = Satan of Revelation?

Most Christians consider "Lucifer" (a Latin term used by Jerome based on Hebrew words meaning "shining one") to be another name for Satan, the Adversary. They believe that Isaiah 14 includes information about God's spiritual adversary called both the Devil and Satan in Revelation 12:9.

Some skeptics, Christians, and Jews disagree, believing instead that the "shining one" of Isaiah 14:12 was meant by Isaiah to refer strictly to a mortal king whom Isaiah vilified and not also to God's spiritual adversary. As an atheist, I agree with this skeptical view. Furthermore, I also see the serpent of Genesis 3 as just a talking animal, not intended by the writer to be Satan. Curiously, some of the Christians and Jews who reject the Lucifer = Satan association nevertheless accept the Talking Serpent = Satan association.

Despite my conclusion concerning how Isaiah meant for his "shining one" to be understood, I see enough parallels and other issues between Isa 14 and Revelation to conclude that the writer of Revelation probably used Isa 14 as inspiration, as a scriptural basis for his book thinking of Isaiah's "shining one" as an earlier representation of the spiritual character he called Satan. Below I give details in support of this view.

1. Revelation calls Jesus the "the bright and morning star" (Rev 22:16) while Isaiah's character is called "the shining one, son of the morning" (Isa 14:12). Surely, John used a title for Jesus that appears to be taken from Isaiah 14:12 to point out that Jesus is the "true" bright and morning star, while Isaiah's character is a counterfeit, a wannabe, a weak claimant to the honor. John's Satan is the prime example of a counterfeit to God and is surely meant to be equated to Isaiah's character.

2. Another example of this counterfeit idea is where Revelation's city paved with gold is a holy city, the New Jerusalem (Rev 21:2,21) in contraposition to Isaiah's "golden city" of Babylon (Isa 14:4).

3. A third example of this counterfeit idea is where Lucifer says "I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne" (Isa 14:13) but John says "her [good] child was caught up unto God, and to his throne" (Rev 12:5).

4. Revelation speaks of Babylon (Rev 18:2), surely meaning to be associated with the Babylon mentioned by Isaiah (Isa 14:4) and others.

5. Lucifer is the ruler of Isaiah's Babylon (Isa 14:4), while Satan is the ruler of John's Babylon in some sense (Rev 13:4,7; 17:5,18).

6. Lucifer said he would exalt his throne above "the stars of God" (Isa 14:13) while John says Satan "drew the third part of the stars of heaven" (Rev 12:4).

7. Lucifer said "I will be like the most High" (Isa 14:14), while the dragon was worshipped as a deity and the dragon (or a servant) "opened his mouth in blasphemy" (Rev 13:4).

8. Lucifer "smote the people" and "ruled the nations" (Isa 14:6), while Satan (or his servants) had power "over all . . . nations" and "to make war with the saints" (Rev 13:7).

9. Lucifer "opened not the house of his prisoners" (Isa 14:17), while "the devil shall cast some of you [saints] into prison" (Rev 2:10).

10. Lucifer "fell from heaven" (Isa 14:12) while the "place" of Satan and his people was not "found any more in heaven" (Rev 12:8).

11. Isaiah's Babylon ceases to be an oppressor (Isa 14:4), while Revelation's Babylon falls from continuing its evil activities (Rev 18:2).

12. Isaiah's Lord has "broken the staff of the wicked and the sceptre of the rulers" (Isa 14:5) while Revelation's faithful one will rule the nations "with a rod of iron" and the nations will be "broken to shivers" (Rev 2:27).

13. Isaiah says that "the whole earth . . . is quiet" (Isa 14:7), while John speaks of "silence in heaven" (Rev 8:1).

14. Isaiah's good people "break forth into singing" (Isa 14:7), while John's good people "sing the song of Moses . . and the song of the Lamb" (Rev 15:3).

15. Revelation's Babylon becomes "a cage of every unclean and hateful bird" (Rev 18:2) while Isaiah's Babylon becomes "a possession for the bittern" (Isa 14:3). The bittern is a bird, but according to both Strong's at www.blueletterbible.org and Brenton's LXX at www.apostlesbible.com, the word in Isaiah referred to a hedgehog even though Isa 34:11 and Zep 2:14 associates the animal with other birds. Rather than concluding that John mistakenly thought Isaiah was referring to a bird, a more charitable conclusion is that John was inspired by other passages where birds gain possession of the cursed city.

16. Isaiah's trees "rejoice" and say "no feller is come against us" (Isa 14:8) while the locusts in Revelation are commanded "that they should not hurt . . . any tree" (Rev 9:4).

17. According to Isaiah: "Hell from beneath is moved . . . to meet thee at thy coming: it stirreth up the dead for thee" (Isa 14:9) while Revelation says "death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them" (Rev 20:13).

18. According to Isaiah, "the worm is spread under thee, and the worms cover thee" (Isa 14:11) while Revelation speaks of a fallen star called "wormwood" that causes the water to be deathly bitter (Rev 8:11).

19. Lucifer is "cast out of [his] grave like an abominable branch, and as the raiment of those that are slain" (Isa 14:19), while ". . . the abominable, and murderers, [and others] . . . shall have . . . the second death" (Rev 21:8).

20. Lucifer shall "be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit" (Isa 14:15) while Satan is "cast . . into the bottomless pit" (Rev 20:3)

21. Preparations are made to slaughter Lucifer's "children" (Isa 14:21) and to cut off Babylon's "remnant" (Isa 14:22), while the "remnant" of the followers of Satan "were slain with the sword of him that sat upon the horse" (Rev 19:21).

Conclusion:

There seem to be enough parallels and other issues to justifiably conclude that the author of Revelation meant for his readers to associate Isaiah's "shining one" (what Jerome called "Lucifer") with his own "Satan."

What do you think?

John Powell

Whether they are the same or different is not crucial. If two it just means that there are two lesser Gods of evil in the Bible.

Both Satan and Lucifer represent entities or possibly persons that charactorize evil atributes of disobedience and rebellion against the will of God. They could very well be analogies of traitors, bad advisors to kings, evil decievers in high positions.

[runecrow]

Lucifer of Isaiah 14 = Satan of Revelation?

Most Christians consider "Lucifer" (a Latin term used by Jerome based on Hebrew words meaning "shining one") to be another name for Satan, the Adversary. They believe that Isaiah 14 includes information about God's spiritual adversary called both the Devil and Satan in Revelation 12:9.

Well, firstly Lucifer is an epithet of Christ, not Satan. The apostle Peter says in his second letter, "Et habemus firmiorem propheticum sermonem cui bene facitis adtendentes quasi lucernae lucenti in caliginoso loco donec dies inlucescat et lucifer oriatur in cordibus vestris" which is speaking of Christ. In the Isaiah passage it is being used sarcastically, "Take up this parable against the king of Babel". That is, the king of Babel envisioned himself as something great- too great- and it was taunted something like, "Okay, light-bearer, you're worm food". Something like if some puny man was to threaten you and you said, "I'm quaking in my boots, Conan".

Secondly, God doesn't have a spiritual adversary. The Satan is only allowed to do what God allows him to do- and he has to ask permission first. If he is anyone's adversary, it's man's.

Some skeptics, Christians, and Jews disagree, believing instead that the "shining one" of Isaiah 14:12 was meant by Isaiah to refer strictly to a mortal king whom Isaiah vilified and not also to God's spiritual adversary.

In the first sense of a parable, the application is certainly to be understood in the 'literal' sense. Isaiah's prophecy is being directed at the king of Babel. Note that in Hebrew 'Babylon' doesn't exist as a word, the word is 'Babel' (as the city and tower of the same name) and it means 'confusion'- so Isaiah's prophecy is directed at the 'king of confusion'.

But, more importantly, is what the symbol symbolizes. A parable is a form of allegory in which something 'earthy' is used to convey an idea that is 'heavenly'. So, while the parable concerns an earthly king, its intent is to illustrate something higher. Secondarily (and primary in understanding), this would be Satan. This is done constantly through the apocalyptic literature; take a king and use him as a symbol of something higher.

For instance, take the king of Tyre whom Ezekiel prophesied against. He says, "Son of man, take up a lamentation on the king of Tyrus, and say to him, Thus said the Lord GOD; You seal up the sum, full of wisdom, and perfect in beauty. You have been in Eden the garden of God; every precious stone was your covering, the sardius, topaz, and the diamond, the beryl, the onyx, and the jasper, the sapphire, the emerald, and the carbuncle, and gold: the workmanship of your tabrets and of your pipes was prepared in you in the day that you were created. You are the anointed cherub that covers; and I have set you so: you were on the holy mountain of God; you have walked up and down in the middle of the stones of fire. You were perfect in your ways from the day that you were created, till iniquity was found in you. By the multitude of your merchandise they have filled the middle of you with violence, and you have sinned: therefore I will cast you as profane out of the mountain of God: and I will destroy you, O covering cherub, from the middle of the stones of fire. Your heart was lifted up because of your beauty, you have corrupted your wisdom by reason of your brightness: I will cast you to the ground, I will lay you before kings, that they may behold you. You have defiled your sanctuaries by the multitude of your iniquities, by the iniquity of your traffic; therefore will I bring forth a fire from the middle of you, it shall devour you, and I will bring you to ashes on the earth in the sight of all them that behold you."

So, unless you believe that the king of Tyre was in the garden of Eden; the words are being directed at someone 'behind' the king of Tyre. The question is, who was in Eden? There was Adam, there was Eve and there was ... ?

In the same sense (it is used throughout apocalyptic literature) Isaiah's words are focused not only on the earthly king of confusion- but someone behind him.

As an atheist, I agree with this skeptical view. Furthermore, I also see the serpent of Genesis 3 as just a talking animal, not intended by the writer to be Satan. Curiously, some of the Christians and Jews who reject the Lucifer = Satan association nevertheless accept the Talking Serpent = Satan association.

I don't agree that the 'serpent' was a talking snake anymore than I think Herod was a fox even though Jesus called him a fox, but that is beside the point. The serpent is identified as Satan plainly by John, which is why that concept is acknowledged a bit more easily. The fact that Ezekiel lamented the fate of a kerub who was in Eden should be a good indicator that there is more than a talking snake going on here.

Despite my conclusion concerning how Isaiah meant for his "shining one" to be understood, I see enough parallels and other issues between Isa 14 and Revelation to conclude that the writer of Revelation probably used Isa 14 as inspiration, as a scriptural basis for his book thinking of Isaiah's "shining one" as an earlier representation of the spiritual character he called Satan. Below I give details in support of this view.

Of course. It should come as no surprise that writers of the same ideology would inter-relate their work. Jesus spoke of the flood. Paul spoke of the serpent. Peter spoke of Mount Sinai. Why would one need to support an idea that later authors further built upon an already existing foundation?

1. Revelation calls Jesus the "the bright and morning star" (Rev 22:16) while Isaiah's character is called "the shining one, son of the morning" (Isa 14:12). Surely, John used a title for Jesus that appears to be taken from Isaiah 14:12 to point out that Jesus is the "true" bright and morning star, while Isaiah's character is a counterfeit, a wannabe, a weak claimant to the honor. John's Satan is the prime example of a counterfeit to God and is surely meant to be equated to Isaiah's character.

2. Another example of this counterfeit idea is where Revelation's city paved with gold is a holy city, the New Jerusalem (Rev 21:2,21) in contraposition to Isaiah's "golden city" of Babylon (Isa 14:4).

3. A third example of this counterfeit idea is where Lucifer says "I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne" (Isa 14:13) but John says "her [good] child was caught up unto God, and to his throne" (Rev 12:5).

Counterfiet is probably the best adjective that could be used to describe the relation between the king of Babel and the king of Jerusalem. The former is a counterfeit of the latter. This is why both bear the epithet "lucifer", but to the one it is applied derisively.

There seem to be enough parallels and other issues to justifiably conclude that the author of Revelation meant for his readers to associate Isaiah's "shining one" (what Jerome called "Lucifer") with his own "Satan."

What do you think?

Absolutely.

[Conductor42]

Lucifer is a latin name.

The Latin language, let alone latin names, did not exist when the Hebrew Bible was written.

In other words, Lucifer never existed.

[F.C. Julianus]

The Lucifer of Isaiah XIV seems like an earthly king to me.

[technomage]

Lucifer is a latin name.

The Latin language, let alone latin names, did not exist when the Hebrew Bible was written.

In other words, Lucifer never existed.

Not the crux of the question, DH: we already know "Lucifer" is not the best translation of Helel. What John's looking for is if the author of Revelations used Isaiah 14 as a source--or, in other words, if the "Helel = Lucifer" mistake started with Jerome, or before.

[studyhound]

The Lucifer of Isaiah XIV seems like an earthly king to me.

:yathat: I maybe one of the few Christians who will say this but based on the text and style of the time it was the King of Babylon, plus the text says as much Isa 14.4.

[John Powell]

Hmmm ... I don't know if I would consider it a foregone conclusion, though it is certainly tenable ... and interesting.

POWELL:
I don't consider it certain. I hesitate to even say "clear" since to me that would suggest that competent persons should agree.

John Powell

[John Powell]

Whether they are the same or different is not crucial. If two it just means that there are two lesser Gods of evil in the Bible.

POWELL:
That would complicate Christian Demonology.

Shunyadragon:
Both Satan and Lucifer represent entities or possibly persons that charactorize evil atributes of disobedience and rebellion against the will of God. They could very well be analogies of traitors, bad advisors to kings, evil decievers in high positions.

POWELL:
Sure, just like God might be an analogy of a good parent or a good monarch.

John Powell

[shunyadragon]

That would complicate Christian Demonology.

It is already quite complicated.

Sure, just like God might be an analogy of a good parent or a good monarch.

It was brought up that Lucifer of Isaiah may refer to a bad king. Satan and Lucifer may both be ultimately analogies of evil, bad advice, insincerity, or deceit in the real world and not real entities as when Christ said, . . . get the behind me, Satan! Mat 16:23.

[John Powell]

POWELL:
Lucifer of Isaiah 14 = Satan of Revelation?

Most Christians consider "Lucifer" (a Latin term used by Jerome based on Hebrew words meaning "shining one") to be another name for Satan, the Adversary. They believe that Isaiah 14 includes information about God's spiritual adversary called both the Devil and Satan in Revelation 12:9.

RUNECROW:
Well, firstly Lucifer is an epithet of Christ, not Satan.

POWELL:
Perhaps it's a name used for both like "god of this world" could be used for both, but one is the counterfeit of the other.

RUNECROW:
The apostle Peter says in his second letter, "Et habemus firmiorem propheticum sermonem cui bene facitis adtendentes quasi lucernae lucenti in caliginoso loco donec dies inlucescat et lucifer oriatur in cordibus vestris" which is speaking of Christ. In the Isaiah passage it is being used sarcastically, "Take up this parable against the king of Babel". That is, the king of Babel envisioned himself as something great- too great- and it was taunted something like, "Okay, light-bearer, you're worm food". Something like if some puny man was to threaten you and you said, "I'm quaking in my boots, Conan".

POWELL:
Perhaps.

RUNECROW:
Secondly, God doesn't have a spiritual adversary. The Satan is only allowed to do what God allows him to do- and he has to ask permission first. If he is anyone's adversary, it's man's.

POWELL:
I think most Christians would disagree with you, but I didn't mean to open up that debate. Perhaps I should have merely called Satan "the adversary."

POWELL:
Some skeptics, Christians, and Jews disagree, believing instead that the "shining one" of Isaiah 14:12 was meant by Isaiah to refer strictly to a mortal king whom Isaiah vilified and not also to God's spiritual adversary.

RUNECROW:
In the first sense of a parable, the application is certainly to be understood in the 'literal' sense. Isaiah's prophecy is being directed at the king of Babel. Note that in Hebrew 'Babylon' doesn't exist as a word, the word is 'Babel' (as the city and tower of the same name) and it means 'confusion'- so Isaiah's prophecy is directed at the 'king of confusion'.

POWELL:
Unless Isaiah said something else about confusion there then I think you overdo it. It would be like assuming that because you responded to a post by John, a name meaning "beloved of God," that you were meaning to say something about God's love.

RUNECROW:
But, more importantly, is what the symbol symbolizes. A parable is a form of allegory in which something 'earthy' is used to convey an idea that is 'heavenly'. So, while the parable concerns an earthly king, its intent is to illustrate something higher. Secondarily (and primary in understanding), this would be Satan. This is done constantly through the apocalyptic literature; take a king and use him as a symbol of something higher.

For instance, take the king of Tyre whom Ezekiel prophesied against. He says, "Son of man, take up a lamentation on the king of Tyrus, and say to him, Thus said the Lord GOD; You seal up the sum, full of wisdom, and perfect in beauty. You have been in Eden the garden of God; every precious stone was your covering, the sardius, topaz, and the diamond, the beryl, the onyx, and the jasper, the sapphire, the emerald, and the carbuncle, and gold: the workmanship of your tabrets and of your pipes was prepared in you in the day that you were created. You are the anointed cherub that covers; and I have set you so: you were on the holy mountain of God; you have walked up and down in the middle of the stones of fire. You were perfect in your ways from the day that you were created, till iniquity was found in you. By the multitude of your merchandise they have filled the middle of you with violence, and you have sinned: therefore I will cast you as profane out of the mountain of God: and I will destroy you, O covering cherub, from the middle of the stones of fire. Your heart was lifted up because of your beauty, you have corrupted your wisdom by reason of your brightness: I will cast you to the ground, I will lay you before kings, that they may behold you. You have defiled your sanctuaries by the multitude of your iniquities, by the iniquity of your traffic; therefore will I bring forth a fire from the middle of you, it shall devour you, and I will bring you to ashes on the earth in the sight of all them that behold you."

So, unless you believe that the king of Tyre was in the garden of Eden; the words are being directed at someone 'behind' the king of Tyre. The question is, who was in Eden? There was Adam, there was Eve and there was ... ?

In the same sense (it is used throughout apocalyptic literature) Isaiah's words are focused not only on the earthly king of confusion- but someone behind him.

POWELL:
I think this is one of the reasons that some Jews associate the serpent with Satan.

However, assuming your argument is a good one then unless you believe that Jesus is the planet Venus when seen in the morning (which is what Lucifer refers to), the words are referring to something beyond Jesus. The question is what is God trying to tell us about the planet Venus? Is He telling us about the atmospheric reflectivity or the surface features or the mass and radius or what?

Rather than that, it seems to me that the prophets Isaiah and Ezekiel are using poetic language to make their point which is directed against an earthly character. Isaiah likens the social position of his character as greatest among kings to Venus because Venus is the brightest of the starlike objects. Ezekiel likens his character's pleasant earthly condition to that of Eden.

Do you really think that every precious stone covered Satan while he was in Eden and that Satan was created to be a music maker? You're asking too much of a fallible source to expect the prophet's characterization of celestial things to be correct.

POWELL:
As an atheist, I agree with this skeptical view. Furthermore, I also see the serpent of Genesis 3 as just a talking animal, not intended by the writer to be Satan. Curiously, some of the Christians and Jews who reject the Lucifer = Satan association nevertheless accept the Talking Serpent = Satan association.

RUNECROW:
I don't agree that the 'serpent' was a talking snake anymore than I think Herod was a fox even though Jesus called him a fox, but that is beside the point. The serpent is identified as Satan plainly by John, which is why that concept is acknowledged a bit more easily. The fact that Ezekiel lamented the fate of a kerub who was in Eden should be a good indicator that there is more than a talking snake going on here.

POWELL:
Calling someone a fox for being cunning is very different than speaking about a talking animal that crawls on the ground and eats dirt.

I guess you'd believe a lot of extraordinary things if John had merely put them to writing.

Do you also discredit the literal meaning of Balaam's talking ass? Rather, do you believe it was really something else such as one of his human transporters or an angel?

POWELL:
Despite my conclusion concerning how Isaiah meant for his "shining one" to be understood, I see enough parallels and other issues between Isa 14 and Revelation to conclude that the writer of Revelation probably used Isa 14 as inspiration, as a scriptural basis for his book thinking of Isaiah's "shining one" as an earlier representation of the spiritual character he called Satan. Below I give details in support of this view.

RUNECROW:
Of course. It should come as no surprise that writers of the same ideology would inter-relate their work. Jesus spoke of the flood. Paul spoke of the serpent. Peter spoke of Mount Sinai. Why would one need to support an idea that later authors further built upon an already existing foundation?

POWELL:
It's important to note that much of Revelation is derived from the Old Testament (not just Isa 14).

POWELL:
1. Revelation calls Jesus the "the bright and morning star" (Rev 22:16) while Isaiah's character is called "the shining one, son of the morning" (Isa 14:12). Surely, John used a title for Jesus that appears to be taken from Isaiah 14:12 to point out that Jesus is the "true" bright and morning star, while Isaiah's character is a counterfeit, a wannabe, a weak claimant to the honor. John's Satan is the prime example of a counterfeit to God and is surely meant to be equated to Isaiah's character.

2. Another example of this counterfeit idea is where Revelation's city paved with gold is a holy city, the New Jerusalem (Rev 21:2,21) in contraposition to Isaiah's "golden city" of Babylon (Isa 14:4).

3. A third example of this counterfeit idea is where Lucifer says "I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne" (Isa 14:13) but John says "her [good] child was caught up unto God, and to his throne" (Rev 12:5).

RUNECROW:
Counterfiet is probably the best adjective that could be used to describe the relation between the king of Babel and the king of Jerusalem. The former is a counterfeit of the latter. This is why both bear the epithet "lucifer", but to the one it is applied derisively.

POWELL:
By "king of Jerusalem" you mean Jesus Christ, yes?

POWELL:
There seem to be enough parallels and other issues to justifiably conclude that the author of Revelation meant for his readers to associate Isaiah's "shining one" (what Jerome called "Lucifer") with his own "Satan."

What do you think?

RUNECROW:
Absolutely.

POWELL:
Thanks for participating.

John Powell

[John Powell]

DEAD HOBBIT:
Lucifer is a latin name.

The Latin language, let alone latin names, did not exist when the Hebrew Bible was written.

In other words, Lucifer never existed.

POWELL:
Sure, Dead Hobbit. In that case, "men" is an English word. English didn't exist when ancient men allegedly walked the earth so they never existed. D-u-H.

A CUP OF MYSTERY:
Not the crux of the question, DH: we already know "Lucifer" is not the best translation of Helel. What John's looking for is if the author of Revelations used Isaiah 14 as a source--or, in other words, if the "Helel = Lucifer" mistake started with Jerome, or before.

POWELL:
Perhaps it's not the best translation, but the latin word lucifer appears to be a good translation of the Hebrew word heylel. The translation per se makes no claims about it referring to some spiritual entity. The potential mistake would be making or implying such an association.

John Powell

[John Powell]

F.C. Julianus:
The Lucifer of Isaiah XIV seems like an earthly king to me.

POWELL:
Most people would agree that Isa 14 is referring to an earthly king. One debate is whether Isaiah ALSO meant to be referring to a spirtual entity. The survey question deals with a related issue: whether the author of Revelation meant for his readers to associate Satan with a spiritual version of Isaiah's Lucifer.

:
I maybe [may be] one of the few Christians who will say this but based on the text and style of the time it was the King of Babylon, plus the text says as much Isa 14.4.

POWELL:
On the contrary, most Christians will agree with you that Isa 14 is speaking of the king of Babylon. A point of disagreement is whether Isaiah is ALSO talking about a spiritual entity. Most Christians think yes.

John Powell

[John Powell]

POWELL:
That would complicate Christian Demonology.

SHUNYADRAGON:
It is already quite complicated.

POWELL:
Having one Devil with multiple names is less complicated than having separate entities: a Devil, a Satan, and a Lucifer.

POWELL:
Sure, just like God might be an analogy of a good parent or a good monarch.

SHUNYADRAGON:
It was brought up that Lucifer of Isaiah may refer to a bad king. Satan and Lucifer may both be ultimately analogies of evil, bad advice, insincerity, or deceit in the real world and not real entities as when Christ said, . . . get the[e] behind me, Satan! Mat 16:23.

POWELL:
Agreed. Continuing that line of reasoning (something you seem unwilling to do) God might ultimately be an analogy of good, good advice, sincerity, and honesty in the real world and not a real spiritual entity.

John Powell