Is Satan, Lucifer and the Devil differing names for the evil one?

[convicted1]

I have always thought they were, but after talking to someone tonight via the phone, they confronted me with the idea that Lucifer wasn't Satan. That took me completely by surprise. I read in Isaiah 13-14, but I am still not convinced by what he told me. What are your thoughts?

 

[DrJamesAch]

I have always thought they were, but after talking to someone tonight via the phone, they confronted me with the idea that Lucifer wasn't Satan. That took me completely by surprise. I read in Isaiah 13-14, but I am still not convinced by what he told me. What are your thoughts?

It could be based on the Bible translation he is using. Most of the modern versions change the text in Isaiah 14:12 to read "day star" which matches the day star referring to Christ in 1 Peter 1:19.

But Lucifer was his name (light bearer) and Satan is more of a title (deceiver) but there is no question that he is both, Satan and Lucifer (in addition to a few other names, Beelzebub, Dragon. Leviathan [once my "fans" show up and make fools of themselves in trying to refute that Leviathan is Satan, I'll show the Biblical support for it] etc..).

But if you are already familiar with Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28, Revelation 12, then that's all you need. Paul said in 2 Cor 11:14 that it was no marvel that Satan himself is transformed as an angel of light, and since Lucifer means light bearer, doesn't take much to times one and one together.

***********
The Corrupt Modern Translations That Use The Same Title For Jesus And Satan

ASV
How art thou fallen from heaven, O day-star, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, that didst lay low the nations! Isa 14:12,

And we have the word of prophecy made more sure; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day-star arise in your hearts: 2 Peter 1:19

***********
ESV
How you are fallen from heaven, O Day Star, son of Dawn!How you are cut down to the ground, you who laid the nations low! ESV

***********
NASB
How you have fallen from heaven,O star of the morning, son of the dawn!
You have been cut down to the earth,You who have weakened the nations! Isa 14:12

o 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. 2 Pet 1:19
***********

NIV

How you have fallen from heaven, morning star, son of the dawn! Isa 14:12

We also have the prophetic message as something completely reliable, and you will do well to pay attention to it, as to a light shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts. 2 Peter 1:19

 

[preacher4truth]

Corrupt Modern Versions? Care to elaborate?

There is nothing corrupt about them. Lucifer means what they interpret it to mean, and they get the translation correct unlike the KJV.

He is only named Lucifer due to Christian tradition -- it's not his name thus you've gotten Satan and Lucifer backwards in your description. :wavey: :love2:

 

[preacher4truth]

I have always thought they were, but after talking to someone tonight via the phone, they confronted me with the idea that Lucifer wasn't Satan. That took me completely by surprise. I read in Isaiah 13-14, but I am still not convinced by what he told me. What are your thoughts?

There is ongoing disagreement over this. Traditionally it looks like this description (not name) was concerning Satan.

 

[Greektim]

I have always thought they were, but after talking to someone tonight via the phone, they confronted me with the idea that Lucifer wasn't Satan. That took me completely by surprise. I read in Isaiah 13-14, but I am still not convinced by what he told me. What are your thoughts?

Isaiah 14:12 has nothing to do with the devil. Context is king there.

And "satan" is not even a proper name. In the OT, it was used for "the satan" or "the adversary" (i.e. Job) always with the article.

Devil is just transliterated form of the word for "slanderer". So it too is not a proper name, just like "god" is not a name for God.

 

[kyredneck]

..once my "fans" show up and make fools of themselves.....

How vain can you be?

 

[Scarlett O.]

Both Jesus and the devil are called "lions". Jesus is the Lion of the Tribe of Judah. The devil is a roaring lion seeking whom he may devour.

They are both described as a "light". Jesus is the Light of the world and the devil masquerades as an angel of light.

Both Jesus and the devil, according to the Bible, have a gospel, a kingdom, prophets, teachers, and angels.

The devil, as we all know, is a counterfeit of all that is holy and righteous. A counterfeit is going to look as much as possible like the real things and deceive people. I have no problem with the Bible referring to both the devil and Jesus as a lion or light because I understand the distinction made.

I have no problem with the Bible calling the devil and Jesus "day star" because - again - there is a clear distinction made. The devil, as "O" day star or "O" star of the morning (morning star), is fallen and cut down. His day-star counterfeit status is exposed.

Jesus, who is described by Peter as "THE" day star or "THE" star of the morning (morning star) is exalted and His future appearance in glory is to be anticipated - so says Peter.

The distinction between the two is enough for me.

 

[Aaron]

I have always thought they were, but after talking to someone tonight via the phone, they confronted me with the idea that Lucifer wasn't Satan. That took me completely by surprise. I read in Isaiah 13-14, but I am still not convinced by what he told me. What are your thoughts?

The prophecy in Isaiah concerns Babylon, but as she was the instrument in the efforts of the devil to conquer, destroy, oppress, seduce and deceive the elect of God, it also gives us insight into the ways and means of hell.

So, yes, Lucifer is a name of the devil.

 

[DrJamesAch]

Both Jesus and the devil are called "lions". Jesus is the Lion of the Tribe of Judah. The devil is a roaring lion seeking whom he may devour.

They are both described as a "light". Jesus is the Light of the world and the devil masquerades as an angel of light.

Both Jesus and the devil, according to the Bible, have a gospel, a kingdom, prophets, teachers, and angels.

The devil, as we all know, is a counterfeit of all that is holy and righteous. A counterfeit is going to look as much as possible like the real things and deceive people. I have no problem with the Bible referring to both the devil and Jesus as a lion or light because I understand the distinction made.

I have no problem with the Bible calling the devil and Jesus "day star" because - again - there is a clear distinction made. The devil, as "O" day star or "O" star of the morning (morning star), is fallen and cut down. His day-star counterfeit status is exposed.

Jesus, who is described by Peter as "THE" day star or "THE" star of the morning (morning star) is exalted and His future appearance in glory is to be anticipated - so says Peter.

The distinction between the two is enough for me.

Satan is never called a lion, or the light.

There is a big difference in Jesus being THE light, and the Devil parading AS AN angel of light, as well as Jesus described as the Lion of the tribe of Judah, and Satan walking about AS A roaring lion. The former is descriptive of who Christ is, that latter is descriptive about what Satan does.

 

[DrJamesAch]

How vain can you be?

And yet here you are as predicted

 

[DrJamesAch]

Corrupt Modern Versions? Care to elaborate?

There is nothing corrupt about them. Lucifer means what they interpret it to mean, and they get the translation correct unlike the KJV.

He is only named Lucifer due to Christian tradition -- it's not his name thus you've gotten Satan and Lucifer backwards in your description. :wavey: :love2:

This is a rather pedantic argument. If you want to be that technical then every translation should read Heylel. When you say "Jesus" or "God" are you using the actual names that belong to them in Hebrew or Greek? No, it's a translation of the name converted to English based upon the names that were used to describe them in English or Latin -since Latin was still the dominant language in 15-16 century era- during the time of the translation.

 

[preacher4truth]

This is a rather pedantic argument. If you want to be that technical then every translation should read Heylel. When you say "Jesus" or "God" are you using the actual names that belong to them in Hebrew or Greek? No, it's a translation of the name converted to English based upon the names that were used to describe them in English or Latin -since Latin was still the dominant language in 15-16 century era- during the time of the translation.

Pedantic? Oh, so you don't like meticulous details unless the details support your erroneous conclusions? I see. :wavey:

It's a latin word transliterated. The KJV'ers made another mistake here. The MV's, what you call 'corrupt' cleaned up a lot of their messes including here.

They made mistakes also with transliterating 'deacon' and 'baptism' to save face against their practices.

Hmmm...using the Word sacrilegiously to avoid exposure. That's what these alleged 'double inspired' translators did. :type:

 

[HisWitness]

Isaiah 14:12 has nothing to do with the devil. Context is king there.

And "satan" is not even a proper name. In the OT, it was used for "the satan" or "the adversary" (i.e. Job) always with the article.

Devil is just transliterated form of the word for "slanderer". So it too is not a proper name, just like "god" is not a name for God.

:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup

Nowwhere in scripture can you find the event of a angel falling from God's abode with a 3rd of the angels of heaven---you will use scriptures like this post declares is about Kings,but to no avail--its not there

 

[preacher4truth]

Except perhaps for that pesky little verse in Revelation 12:4. :thumbsup:

 

[HisWitness]

Except perhaps for that pesky little verse in Revelation 12:4. :thumbsup:

that has nothing at all to do with an event so as is mentioned--since it sounds kinda like it--people latch ahold of it and say THERE!!!--but no--Revelation is for the most part symbolism and not literal--

another example is that some will say the serpent in the garden was this so called fallen angel--but where is the proof of this--in the new testament MEN are referred to as SERPENTS and VIPERS---could it be that Adam was indeed the Serpent in the garden--just God chose to word it a bit different because he was being wicked in that way that means Serpent ??I mean trying to get your wife to do something that God said not to do that was dis-obedience ?
sounds like a Serpent to me being slick and deceitful --this was just a thought--the same speculation which has more proof than that of a fallen angel from God's abode ??

 

[preacher4truth]

that has nothing at all to do with an event so as is mentioned--since it sounds kinda like it--people latch ahold of it and say THERE!!!--but no--Revelation is for the most part symbolism and not literal

Did I say it was the same as Isaiah?

got knee-jerk? :laugh:

Did you note that pesky little word I used 'perhaps' before you went 'THERE!!!'? :laugh:

There is also symbolic figurative language for Christ isn't there? Does that mean it's not Him? There is as well for Satan, does that mean it's not him? That being said your observation and conclusion is in a larval stage, being incomplete and doesn't prove a thing.

According to some scholars they see this verse as symbolic for Satanic attack upon Christ. Now, one could argue it was a man, country, nations, or whatever, but the thing is, the prince of the power of the air works in these people and is responsible behind the scenes. Eph. 6 for instance.

- Blessings

 

[DrJamesAch]

Pedantic? Oh, so you don't like meticulous details unless the details support your erroneous conclusions? I see. :wavey:

It's a latin word transliterated. The KJV'ers made another mistake here. The MV's, what you call 'corrupt' cleaned up a lot of their messes including here.

They made mistakes also with transliterating 'deacon' and 'baptism' to save face against their practices.

Hmmm...using the Word sacrilegiously to avoid exposure. That's what these alleged 'double inspired' translators did. :type:

You still don't get it. You are not applying the same standards to Lucifer and you should be applying to the names of everyone else. John is not John in Greek or Hebrew. James is not James in Greek or Hebrew. Jesus is not Jesus in Greek or Hebrew. God is not God in Greek or Hebrew.

And you describe Satan as the devil, and not even the devil is devil in Greek or Hebrew, its diabolos

In fact, virtually the entire English language is based off of some type of Greek or Latin derivative. Most of your English medical terms are all Greek terms, and most of your legal terminology still uses Latin phrase (nolo contendere, res judicata, et al, in camera, respondeat superior, etc..)

The word for God itself in Greek, theos, is based on the same word that they used to describe Zeus and other pagan gods, but yet neither you nor ANY MODERN VERSION TRANSLATOR has any problem with translating the word as "God" in English, because in English, it has a different meaning, just the same way that Lucifer in English conveys the same meaning as Heylel does in Hebrew, and in Greek, the meaning of Theos is derived from the context that separates it from the description of pagan gods.

For us ignorant Jews, we all know what Heylel means, and when we say it in English, we say LUCIFER because tradition or not, that's the best description in English of what the name conveys in Hebrew.

Again, it's a pedantic argument because virtually every word you have in English is based off of some type of traditional usage of Latin or Anglo-Saxon origin. That's simply how languages evolve and for you to isolate one word is absurd when that same argument could be served to attack every single word you say in English. Truly a sad analysis from you: English is my SECOND language and even I understand this.

 

[DrJamesAch]

that has nothing at all to do with an event so as is mentioned--since it sounds kinda like it--people latch ahold of it and say THERE!!!--but no--Revelation is for the most part symbolism and not literal--

another example is that some will say the serpent in the garden was this so called fallen angel--but where is the proof of this--in the new testament MEN are referred to as SERPENTS and VIPERS---could it be that Adam was indeed the Serpent in the garden--just God chose to word it a bit different because he was being wicked in that way that means Serpent ??I mean trying to get your wife to do something that God said not to do that was dis-obedience ?
sounds like a Serpent to me being slick and deceitful --this was just a thought--the same speculation which has more proof than that of a fallen angel from God's abode ??

P4T is actually right for once:

"And his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven, and did cast them to the earth: and the dragon stood before the woman which was ready to be delivered, for to devour her child as soon as it was born........And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him." Revelation 12:4,9

"And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years" Revelation 20:2

 

[HisWitness]

Did I say it was the same as Isaiah?

got knee-jerk? :laugh:

Did you note that pesky little word I used 'perhaps' before you went 'THERE!!!'? :laugh:

There is also symbolic figurative language for Christ isn't there? Does that mean it's not Him? There is as well for Satan, does that mean it's not him? That being said your observation and conclusion is in a larval stage, being incomplete and doesn't prove a thing.

According to some scholars they see this verse as symbolic for Satanic attack upon Christ. Now, one could argue it was a man, country, nations, or whatever, but the thing is, the prince of the power of the air works in these people and is responsible behind the scenes. Eph. 6 for instance.

- Blessings

didnt say you were saying that friend

furthermore in Eph 6 --I do hold that wrestling against powers and principalities in high places is talking about the High priest and the rulers under him(They were the supreme order of that age)and they were the high places(power and authority of that age)which were also the arch enemy of Christ and the Church in that age.

Men has always been the enemy against God.
Another example is that the scripture says that Christ came to destroy the works of the devil--what works ???
Through adam all DIE---through Christ all made alive ??
The works of Adam brought sin and Death by sin to all mankind--and the Work of Christ brought life and righteousness to all mankind.

So therefore the works of the devil that were destroyed by Christ was the Works of a MAN--ADAM--

and also it could have also meant the works of the High priest of that age in blinding the people and persecuting the Church and Christ--He was brought down at ad 70 and the temple and city destroyed and the power of that age was brought to nothing--cast down from heaven.

 

[HisWitness]

P4T is actually right for once:

"And his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven, and did cast them to the earth: and the dragon stood before the woman which was ready to be delivered, for to devour her child as soon as it was born........And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him." Revelation 12:4,9

"And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years" Revelation 20:2

yea the High priest and his angels under him were cast down from heaven(their throne of power)and were crushed under the Saints feet as paul told the Romans