the name Lucifer

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 john j. robinson in a p. 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?, What hebrew name , 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 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").

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 , 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.

so why is Lucifer a far bigger problem ? they 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 in cluded 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 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.