Lucifer - fallen angel?

Isaiah 14 is what I have always heard in regards to that story.

Seems like maybe a story that is more a tradition of man than a Biblical account...

 

Isa 14:12 (KJV1611 Edition):

How art thou fallen from heauen, ||O Lucifer, sonne of the morning?
how art thou cut downe to the ground, which didst weaken the nations?

Error Doctrine:

The name is 'Lucifer', his role is Lead Devil, his title is
'Satan' (the accuser).

Margin note: ||OR, O day-
starre.

This shows that what is being compared here is the King of Bayblon
and the planet Venus, AKA /also known as/: Day Star,
Morning Star, Evening Star (according to when seen in the sky).

Blows that doctrine right down the tubes.
We don't know the name of Satan What'shisname, the Lead Devil.

-------------------------------

Except for 'by type' Isa 14:12 is about the King of Babylon.
(I.E. the 'King of Babylon' is like the Lead Devil)

Most of what we know about Angels & Demons comes
from semi-Catholic authors.

Satan is NOT the CEO (chief executive officer) of
Hell -- Hell was created for Satan as the chief prisioner.

 

Of course Daddy believes the Bible, that is why he is making sure she understands that the Bible doesn't always say what others believe it says and that she begins to understand that her teacher isn't perfect.

Also get her to understand that this why the Bible says to "study to show yourself approved".

I was also raised in the same tradition. Once I was grown I realized that maybe the Bible wasn't exactly talking about Satan in this place.

Umm, there is also something in Job, I think, that gets pulled into this subject. After church I'll see what I can find.

 

Ezekiel 28 is a prophecy against the King of Tyre using the historical event of Satan's fall in an analogous fashion to describe the King of Tyre's eventual fall.

Verses 11-15 are most revealing:

While the context of the prophecy is Ezekiel speaking to the King of Tyre it is quite obvious that the King of Tyre was not in the Garden of Eden, the Garden of God nor was he anointed as a guardian cherub. And like prophecy, events past are used to describe events future or events present or future are described by events past. In this case the historical reality of Satan's fall, (Lucifer in Isa), is used to describe the nature of the King of Tyre's arrogance, offense and judgment.

Again in Isaiah the prophecy against the King of Babylon is made in the same way.

The Bible really does say that. It is unfortunate your child is being introduced to an issue that involves textual understandings and renderings far beyond her level of maturity and placed in the position to make a determination.

 

What was your Hubbie's correction? Did he explain what the Bible does say?

 

The passage Alex quoted may be the one I was thinking of. Can't always trust my memory. There is still something hovering at the edges, but I can't quite get it to come clear. If I do, I'll be back.

 

I agree with Ed..........

 

It's a hard lesson for her to learn, but it's a valuable one that can greatly benefit her spiritual life. Neither her teacher or her daddy are evil and both probably believe the Bible. But her teacher has trusted the stories s/he was taught instead of carefully checking things out for herself. Of course, as a five-year-old, that's a huge lesson she might have difficulty processing.

If this situation is handled properly (by both her parents and the teacher), she can learn how to grow up as a person who will not easily be taken captive by the traditions of her religious background, but rather as a person who tests everything and takes the good and rejects the bad.

Yep... We have all sorts of systems just like it regarding the KJV, the use of alcohol, guidelines for women, end time scenarios, music preferences, dancing, "separation", etc.

And you can tell who are spiritually "five-years-old" by the way that they claim that those who might disagree with those traditions for scriptural reasons "don't believe the Bible!"

 

Do you know for a FACT the teacher DID NOT CAREFULLY check things out for him/herself? You don't so I don't find this a valid observation or conclusion. The fact is the passages are very easy to find and quite easy to understand. It sounds to me like the teacher isn't the one failing to do research.

Equating a serious theological issue and doctrine to that of issues of liberty or cultic ideology such as the KJVOnlyism sect is a sad comparison and failure to take serious a doctrine and theological issue central to the creation of humanity, sin and the eventual judgment of men and fallen Angels.

 

This is why I asked what the Father corrected. What exact part did he have disagreement with? From the OP.

If we break this down, Ezek says he ws the most beautiful, Is 14:13 says he wanted more glory than God, Is 14:12 says he is the fallen angel. So I wonder is Dad just saying this is not one passage of scripture and an assemblance of various passages?

 

Since it is not in scripture, I assumes it came from the same traditions that I have heard it from. You have to ignore the context of those verses to develop the popular Lucifer story. Be honest, did you hear the story first (or have the story told to you by someone else while you read that passage), or did you read that passage by yourself and develop that understand completely on your own?

Um, yeah...

When I was in college, I read the Bible several times through during one year when I was starting over in my faith. I kept my eyes open for scriptural support for a number of the traditions I learned as a child in Sunday School, and this is one of the ones I couldn't find support for... About a year later, someone told me this story and I asked for the scriptural basis, and they pointed me to this passage. The only problem is that when it is read in context, the Bible does not support the story.

I've been on the front lines of ministry to those explicitly involved in the occult and demonism through the years and it is amazing what superstitions Christians embrace instead of trusting God for power and deliverance from the evil one.

I take the theological reality of satan and the evil forces arrayed against God and humanity as so important that we don't have time for fairy tales, half-witted half-truths, and useless traditions regarding satan that distract us from our need to fully embrace the power of the Holy Spirit to fight the forces of evil and redeem people from destruction.

So don't assume I don't take seriously fundamental doctrines regarding these issues just because I disagree with your interpretation.

 

Oh, I see, so his disagreement is that there is no "direct rendering".

 

In my opinion, that's excellent guidance and parenting. :applause:

 

The only human beings recorded as being in Eden were Adam, Eve, when they were put out of the garden, the Word of God states that an angel was put in the garden to guard the entrance. Man had no way to get back in!

Now we know that Adam was not Lucifer. So Lucifer must have been either the serpent that beguiled Eve, or he was the angel that God placed there after driving man out.

I believe Lucifer was the former... the beguiling serpent. If he had been the latter, he would have allowed Adam entrance back into the garden to eat of the tree of life and live forever.

 

This passage is addressed to the King of Babylon (Isaiah 14:4) not the Adversary (satan).

No it does not:

"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!"

Where do you get the idea that this is an angel? Because he has "fallen from heaven"? Do you realize that "the heavens" is the atmosphere around us extended up to the farthest distance from the earth? "The earth" is what is below our feet. "Fallen from heaven" is simply falling from a lofty position down to a low position.

You distort the passage when you read the traditional Christian view of Heaven (as a specific location with God where we reside after the death of our bodies) back into a passage that is addressed to a man:

Isaiah 14:16

"Those who see you will gaze at you,
They will ponder over you, saying,
'Is this the man who made the earth tremble,
Who shook kingdoms..."

The passage specifically mentions that this is addressed to a man ("King of Babylon" (v.4) and "Is this the man..." (v.16)).

What is so hard to understand?

 

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)

When one searches the Scripture, one can see that the serpent is satan, the serpent is Lucifer, Lucifer fell from heaven.