• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Calvin denied Lucifer is Satan

Status
Not open for further replies.
JonC

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
Dave G said:
I agree.
But in the Hebrew, which is what most of the "Old Testament" was written in, it is "helel" (הֵילֵל ) ...
Which has several meanings;
In the Latin, it is rendered as "Lucifer".
It means "lightbringer", or "son of the morning"...which is what the Lord created him to be.

In any case, the one who fell from Heaven, the one who ( in his arrogance ) claimed to want to be like the most High, was "Satan" ( which means "adversary" ).
..and whoever is being spoken of in Isaiah 14 here:

" 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!
13 For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north:
14 I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High."

To me is indeed the very same person who led a revolt in Heaven and took 1/3rd of the angels with him when he was cast out.
The reference of "Lucifer", right or wrong, is who I know to be Satan.

Regardless, it seems that we disagree... and it seems that we will have to stop there.
Click to expand...
I agree that it s both - the king because Scrioture says so AND Satan due to the symbolism

My point is that הֵילֵל is not Satan's name just as "bright and morning star" is not Jesus' name.
 
JonC

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
Dave G said:
Goodbye Jon.
Have a good evening.
Click to expand...
Thanks, you too.

The bottom line is people can believe some "fables fit for old women" and it does not affect important doctrine.

That is the case here.

The king is obviously called "Lucifer" (Latin), "הֵילֵל (Hebrew), "morning star" (English) because that is what the Bible says. BUT given the language I believe this is also referring to Satan.

The taunt to the king is about how he planned to be great and how far God will bring him down. This was true of Satan as well. He aspired to ascend to the Most High and was cast down.

I believe God intentionally does not name Satan and demons, but instead refers to "the Advesary" and his demons.

All that is lost is a understanding of history. It woukd be like denying the Exodus was a real event while acknowledging that the story points to Jesus freeing us from bondage.

The problem comes in when people try to make arguments to denounce God's Word (as KJVO people do often).
 
KJB1611reader

KJB1611reader

Active Member
JonC said:
?

Isaiah was a prophet. הֵילֵל referred to the king and I believe to Satan as well.

In ANE tradition the kings likened themselves to heavenly bodies. The taunt ridiculous the king by likening him to the morning star and saying how far he has fallen.

I believe this also speaks of Satan, that he aspired to ascend to the Most High and was cast out.

My point is that הֵילֵל is not a name for Satan.

Likewise, "morning star" is not the name of Jesus.
Click to expand...
I meant the Isaiah verse, not the person. Please understand my words.
 
JonC

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
KJB1611reader said:
I meant the Isaiah verse, not the person. Please understand my words.
Click to expand...
I thought so, but wasn't sure by how it was worded.

I do believe the taunt assessed the king (because that is "what is written" in God's Word).
BUT I also believe it was speaking about Satan.

My comment was simply that "Lucifer" isn't a proper name for the king (or Satan).

It was used, as the Bibke says, as a taunt.

It was a taunt because it used ANE paganism against the pagan king (calling him the "morning star") yet focusing on how God would lay him low.

The language is also what God did to Satan.


The only reason I find it valuable not to change it into a myth is that the historical context needs to be known in order to understand Isaiah.

That said, those uninterested in OT history will not be for the worse ti belueve the "old wives tale" that "Lucifer" is Satan's name. The only ones who may suffer harm are KJVO cultists who use the myth to speak against God's Word in English transkations other than the KJV.

It does, however, indicate a lack of taking the study of Gid's Word seriously.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top