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

[preacher4truth]

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.

Lucifer is merely the sound that comes via pronouncing the Latin word. This is called transliteration. Heylel is simply a Hebrew counterpart for it, but the actual transliteration came via the Latin word, not via the Hebrew. That's one of your mistakes in pulling out 'heylel' as proof when the name Lucifer isn't from that word at all.

The word means 'morning star' &c. The MV's nailed this and got it correct, the KJV not so much.

Based upon this we should be calling John not John, but pronouncing it out as this; Iōannēs (ee-o-an'-nace) but we don't. Therefore it's the bad tranlsation here that isn't applying the same standards elsewhere, but I am not let's say in shock that you've gotten it wrong from step one to my last point and completely backwards.

 

[preacher4truth]

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.

all except for that pesky part that says 'We wrestle not against flesh and blood but against spiritual wickedness...'

I like that word 'pesky' today. :thumbsup:

 

[HisWitness]

all except for that pesky part that says 'We wrestle not against flesh and blood but against spiritual wickedness...'

I like that word 'pesky' today. :thumbsup:

same meaning friend--we wrestle not(meaning a fight)
not against flesh and blood(wasn't the worldy sinners they were fighting)
Spiritual Wickedness(who was Spiritual--was the High priest and those under him--they were wicked even though Spiritual and the power of the age.

The Church arch enemy and FIGHT was against the ones supposing to uphold God's word(the Spiritual Wickedness of the High priest and his angels--which were blinding men unto the truth and doing wickedness)

 

[preacher4truth]

same meaning friend

Actually they're not the same meaning.

I already got your point and know what you're trying to get the text to say.

 

[HisWitness]

Actually they're not the same meaning.

I already got your point and know what you're trying to get the text to say.

tied with the rest of the new testament---I believe that is exactly what it means.

Have you any proof from scripture that the EVENT of a angel falling from God's abode for sinning even happened---can angels even sin is the question ???

 

[Van]

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?

Yes, there is scholarly debate as whether Isaiah 14:12 refers to "the Satan" the fallen angel, or is simply referring to one or the line of kings that opposed God,i.e. adversaries or satan with no article and no capital.

So just as there is "the AntiChrist" referring to a single entity, and many anti-Christs, referring to anyone who opposes Christ, we have "the Satan" referring to a single entity, the serpent in the Garden, and many satans, i.e. Peter, referring to those who oppose Christ.

Interestingly, an alternate translation possibility is "howling one." So rather than picturing a bringer of light, we have one who disturbs the peace. Much better in my view.

 

[Greektim]

Yes, there is scholarly debate as whether Isaiah 14:12 refers to "the Satan" the fallen angel, or is simply referring to one or the line of kings that opposed God,i.e. adversaries or satan with no article and no capital.

So just as there is "the AntiChrist" referring to a single entity, and many anti-Christs, referring to anyone who opposes Christ, we have "the Satan" referring to a single entity, the serpent in the Garden, and many satans, i.e. Peter, referring to those who oppose Christ.

Interestingly, an alternate translation possibility is "howling one." So rather than picturing a bringer of light, we have one who disturbs the peace. Much better in my view.

I don't think there is as much "scholarly" debate is you might think. Pretty much anyone who knows Hebrew and reads the context understands this to have NOTHING to do with Satan or a being called Lucifer (as pointed out above, a Latin transliteration).

 

[DrJamesAch]

Lucifer is merely the sound that comes via pronouncing the Latin word. This is called transliteration. Heylel is simply a Hebrew counterpart for it, but the actual transliteration came via the Latin word, not via the Hebrew. That's one of your mistakes in pulling out 'heylel' as proof when the name Lucifer isn't from that word at all.

The word means 'morning star' &c. The MV's nailed this and got it correct, the KJV not so much.

Based upon this we should be calling John not John, but pronouncing it out as this; Iōannēs (ee-o-an'-nace) but we don't. Therefore it's the bad tranlsation here that isn't applying the same standards elsewhere, but I am not let's say in shock that you've gotten it wrong from step one to my last point and completely backwards.

Once again, this is totally wrong. Translation is not based on how something sounds and certainly isn't based on transliteration. Transliteration is using the same letters that are equivalent in English as they are from another language.

For example, where you spelled out the Greek name for John, Ioannes is a transliteration of Ἰωάννης. You appear to have no understanding of what transliteration means. Heylel is a transliteration of הֵילֵל, not Lucifer.

Furthermore, there is no "J" in the Greek language. So your assertion that translation is based on pronunciation is erroneous. "J" is merely the equivalent of the Greek letter 'iota" but not because it is pronounced that way.

And just as in any language, some words have more than one meaning. Heylel has several different meanings, but when used to describe the title of the evil one, Lucifer was the closest TRANSLATION (not transliteration) that conveys the title of the name as used in Isaiah 14:12.

You really need to study how languages work before you attempt to debate issues like this.

 

[DrJamesAch]

I don't think there is as much "scholarly" debate is you might think. Pretty much anyone who knows Hebrew and reads the context understands this to have NOTHING to do with Satan or a being called Lucifer (as pointed out above, a Latin transliteration).

I have rebutted this in post 28. But to claim that "anyone who knows Hebrew" misunderstands this is crazy. Hebrew is my native language and there's not one person in Israel that would agree with you on this. Of course we wouldn't call it "Lucifer" in Hebrew, because we're speaking Hebrew, and would say Heylel or שָׂטָן (Satan).

Even when the name of God יְהֹוָה is transliterated it is STILL NOT pronounced Jehovah, the transliteration is pronounced Yehovah. Some of you arguing this need to take the time to study the difference between translation and transliteration.

 

[Robert Snow]

I don't think there is as much "scholarly" debate is you might think. Pretty much anyone who knows Hebrew and reads the context understands this to have NOTHING to do with Satan or a being called Lucifer (as pointed out above, a Latin transliteration).

I disagree. There is still debate and there always will be. I believe that in both Isa.14 and Eze. 28 Satan is the primary object who is behind the scene. The human king is just doing his bidding. Of course, I'm a Dispensationalist.

 

[convicted1]

Could Lucifer had been his name before he rebelled, and then ascribed the name "the satan"(heylel), of devil(diabolos) afterwards? This is what I believe to be the case, but I could be wrong.


God has been known to give other names to people such as Abram/Abraham, Jacob/Israel, and Saul/Paul. What do you think?

 

[HisWitness]

Could Lucifer had been his name before he rebelled, and then ascribed the name "the satan"(heylel), of devil(diabolos) afterwards? This is what I believe to be the case, but I could be wrong.


God has been known to give other names to people such as Abram/Abraham, Jacob/Israel, and Saul/Paul. What do you think?

There still is NO account or event in scriptures of this even taking place--why would it be so quiet about such a important event such as that taking place ???

 

[Greektim]

Could Lucifer had been his name before he rebelled, and then ascribed the name "the satan"(heylel), of devil(diabolos) afterwards? This is what I believe to be the case, but I could be wrong.


God has been known to give other names to people such as Abram/Abraham, Jacob/Israel, and Saul/Paul. What do you think?

Yes but "lucifer" was never a word or even name in English til it was transliterated from the Latin into English. To say that it was the enemy's formal name before the fall or any time is to commit anachronism.

 

[Greektim]

I disagree. There is still debate and there always will be. I believe that in both Isa.14 and Eze. 28 Satan is the primary object who is behind the scene. The human king is just doing his bidding. Of course, I'm a Dispensationalist.

I qualified it as "scholarly" debate. Yes fundies talk about things like this, but it is not an issue anywhere else where the KJV is not used.

 

[Greektim]

I have rebutted this in post 28. But to claim that "anyone who knows Hebrew" misunderstands this is crazy. Hebrew is my native language and there's not one person in Israel that would agree with you on this. Of course we wouldn't call it "Lucifer" in Hebrew, because we're speaking Hebrew, and would say Heylel or שָׂטָן (Satan).

Then I'm confused. If this is referring to an evil angel in Is. 14 (not conceding that in any way, btw), then are you saying his name is not Lucifer but actually Heylel???

Even when the name of God יְהֹוָה is transliterated it is STILL NOT pronounced Jehovah, the transliteration is pronounced Yehovah. Some of you arguing this need to take the time to study the difference between translation and transliteration.

I would actually like to talk to you about this further. Why would you advocate the Masorete vowel pointings knowing that the first syllable is almost certainly Yah and probably only a 2 syllable word, not to mention that they probably took the vowel pointings from Elohim or Adonai to indicate to the readers to avoid uttering the divine name? Yahweh seems to be the best rendering of YHWH. Another thread I guess.

 

[Van]

The issues:

1) Is the KJV tranlation, Lucifer, correct or should the Hebrew be translated as bringer of light, or howling one. KJV advocates will claim Lucifer is right and the other translations are corruptions. Now setting that aside....

2) Does the entity referred to as either Lucifer, or bringer of light, or howling one refer to "the Satan" the same entity that deceived Eve, or does it refer to an adversary (a king or line of kings), a human hindering godly living. This is the issue of scholarly debate, not the name issue.

 

[Van]

Here is the footnote from the NET concerning Helel, son of Shachar:

The Hebrew text has הֵילֵל בֶּן־שָׁחַר (helel ben-shakhar, “Helel son of Shachar”), which is probably a name for the morning star (Venus) or the crescent moon. See HALOT 245 s.v. הֵילֵל.

sn What is the background for the imagery in vv. 12-15? This whole section (vv. 4b-21) is directed to the king of Babylon, who is clearly depicted as a human ruler. Other kings of the earth address him in vv. 9ff., he is called “the man” in v. 16, and, according to vv. 19-20, he possesses a physical body. Nevertheless the language of vv. 12-15 has led some to see a dual referent in the taunt song. These verses, which appear to be spoken by other pagan kings to a pagan king (cf. vv. 9-11), contain several titles and motifs that resemble those of Canaanite mythology, including references to Helel son of Shachar, the stars of El, the mountain of assembly, the recesses of Zaphon, and the divine title Most High. Apparently these verses allude to a mythological story about a minor god (Helel son of Shachar) who tried to take over Zaphon, the mountain of the gods. His attempted coup failed and he was hurled down to the underworld. The king of Babylon is taunted for having similar unrealized delusions of grandeur. Some Christians have seen an allusion to the fall of Satan here, but this seems contextually unwarranted

 

[preacher4truth]

Once again, this is totally wrong.

Baloney. If what is purported doesn't adhere to your KJVONLYism then you twist all truth to defend your position.

What you've offered is ridiculous banter. No substance.

Go re-read what I offered. The reason you reject it is due to the fact it proves your KJV and translators wrong. You cannot have that or your entire platform is destroyed. And thus it is.

smh again.

 

[convicted1]

Yes but "lucifer" was never a word or even name in English til it was transliterated from the Latin into English. To say that it was the enemy's formal name before the fall or any time is to commit anachronism.

So do you see them as seperate? I am not for sure how you're putting it. I ask for clarification.

 

[Greektim]

So do you see them as seperate? I am not for sure how you're putting it. I ask for clarification.

I think "lucifer" was a word turned into a name when English Bibles started transliterating from Latin translations. But before Latin and long before English, it was never uttered on the lips of anyone. Therefore, it could not be a proper name of anyone, much less an evil angel often known as Satan.