The Devils Origin's?
“Where In The Devil Did Lucifer Come From..?”
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.
Hebrew scholar 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").
scholars authorized by ... King James “the first”, 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.
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 unto 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 our KJV original mosaic
text'...." Henry Neufeld; (a Christian who comments on difficult biblical issues) goes on to say;
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...
does the confusion in translating this verse arise? The Hebrew of this passage reads: "heleyl, ben shachar" which can be literally
translated "shining one, (or) son of the 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 that 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 had 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 (or who was created at or near the "beginning"). 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.
The irony for those who believe that "Lucifer" refers to Satan
is that the same title ('morning star' or 'light-bearer') is used to refer to Jesus, in 2 Peter 1:19, where the Greek text
has exactly the same term: 'phos-phoros' 'light-bearer.' This is also the term used for Jesus in Revelation 22:16- where Jesus
states; “I am the bright & morning-star!”
So why is Lucifer a far bigger problem to Mormons? Mormons
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 included
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 LDS 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 a new sun in the solar system which is correct since the new sun is a second 'morning star' of the 'original' 'light-bearing'
substance--not some evil being of religious mythology.