Is Lucifer a Biblical name for Satan?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Anna_Scott
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Cavaradossi said:
Sorry for being so late to respond to this. I was always under the impression that the reason why it’s so widespread in Anglophone countries is due to the KJV keeping Lucifer as a proper name rather than translating it literally.
Click to expand...
Cavaradossi,

I appreciate the clarification. It would seem to be the case. Lucifer is a Latin word and was not translated into English in the KJV, Douay-Rheims, and a few other English translations.

Peace,
Anna
 
If it be any help; the fallen Lucifer in the OT books of Ezekiel or Isaiah may carry a different meaning than what was revealed as a revelation about Christ in the NT.
 
Anna_Scott said:
Nicea325,

I’m not applying the word lucifer to Jesus.

The Latin Vulgate uses lucifer as a description of Christ as does the Roman Rite Lliturgy’s Exultet Chant. I’m not saying the Vulgate and the Exutet Chant are connecting Jesus and Satan.

My whole point is that lucifer is not a Biblical name for Satan. Lucifer and Satan became connected outside Holy Scripture.

Peace,
Anna
Click to expand...
I totally understand what you are saying and it is a good catch.
 
Nicea325 said:
I totally understand what you are saying and it is a good catch.
Click to expand...
Nicea,
Actually, I’m glad you asked, because I wouldn’t want anyone to misunderstand the point I’m trying to make.

Thanks, 🙂
Anna
 
Wesley7 said:
If it be any help; the fallen Lucifer in the OT books of Ezekiel or Isaiah may carry a different meaning than what was revealed as a revelation about Christ in the NT.
Click to expand...
Hi Wesley7,
Glad you joined the discussion; but I think you missed a few posts. 😉

Peace, 🙂
Anna
 
Morning Star is used in various context in Scripture. Between Revelations, Job, Peter and Isaiah we see this.

Did St Jerome described morning star as lucifer/satan? Does it fit the context of scripture in “Isaiah” [which I’m not debating]. What doesn’t change is the fact morning star translated doesn’t not have to mean Lucifer/satan, or as we see Christ. The usage of this same phrase in JOB gives us the clarity

So the issue is not lucifer or Christ, it is “Morning Star” which is an analogy of a supernatural entity. Yes it is used as Christ. In Isaiah it refers to a King of Babylon [another relation to evil?] who is essense was became linked to satan as lucifer. In Revelations it refers to Christ.

In Job we see that it refers to what? “Neither Christ” or lucifer/satan.

Job 38:7 When the “morning stars” sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy.

Its not Christ, its was not satan/lucifer. So who are the [plual] morning star in JOB? The point is that Lucifer become symbolic of the old serpent/satan, and the correct translation is taken out of context and wrongly applied.

Anyway…

Wouldn’t the reference be to a “powerful entity”? Equating to a Morning Star who’s strong enough to be seen in the daylight simply a reference to “the power of those or the one described”.

{Oh btw “Ladervijd” thanks for your link I do believe your right. I had read that arguement some time ago.} I digress with St Jerome in my estimation he did great work and he simply isn’t here to defend himself.

Here’s a partial part of the Wiki-pedia link of “Lucifer” {I know Wiki-pedia:rolleyes: }

In the Latin Vulgate, St. Jerome translated “הילל בן־שׁחר” (morning star, son of dawn) as “lucifer qui mane oriebaris” (morning star that used to rise early).

Already, as early as the Christian writers Tertullian and Origen,the whole passage [Isaiah] had come to be applied to satan. satan began to be referred to as “Lucifer” (Morning Star), and finally the word “Lucifer” was treated as a proper name. The use of the word “Lucifer” in the 1611 King James Version instead of a word such as “Daystar” ensured its continued popularity among English speakers.

So “lucifer qui mane oriebaris” which in truth is “morning star that used to rise early” or in Hebrew “הילל בן־שׁחר”, SI did St Jerome use the same context in all the hebrew context of הילל בן־שׁחר

Do we have St Jeromes actual work in all three situations to compare the use in the three phrase’s compare?

I don’t know for sure, interesting Anna.

Peace, Gary
 
GaryTaylor said:
Morning Star is used in various context in Scripture. Between Revelations, Job, Peter and Isaiah we see this.

Did St Jerome described morning star as lucifer/satan? Does it fit the context of scripture in “Isaiah” [which I’m not debating]. What doesn’t change is the fact morning star translated doesn’t not have to mean Lucifer/satan, or as we see Christ. The usage of this same phrase in JOB gives us the clarity

So the issue is not lucifer or Christ, it is “Morning Star” which is an analogy of a supernatural entity. Yes it is used as Christ. In Isaiah it refers to a King of Babylon [another relation to evil?] who is essense was became linked to satan as lucifer. In Revelations it refers to Christ.

In Job we see that it refers to what? “Neither Christ” or lucifer/satan.

Job 38:7 When the “morning stars” sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy.

Its not Christ, its was not satan/lucifer. So who are the [plual] morning star in JOB? The point is that Lucifer become symbolic of the old serpent/satan, and the correct translation is taken out of context and wrongly applied.

Anyway…

Wouldn’t the reference be to a “powerful entity”? Equating to a Morning Star who’s strong enough to be seen in the daylight simply a reference to “the power of those or the one described”.

{Oh btw “Ladervijd” thanks for your link I do believe your right. I had read that arguement some time ago.} I digress with St Jerome in my estimation he did great work and he simply isn’t here to defend himself.

Here’s a partial part of the Wiki-pedia link of “Lucifer” {I know Wiki-pedia:rolleyes: }

In the Latin Vulgate, St. Jerome translated “הילל בן־שׁחר” (morning star, son of dawn) as “lucifer qui mane oriebaris” (morning star that used to rise early).

Already, as early as the Christian writers Tertullian and Origen,the whole passage [Isaiah] had come to be applied to satan. satan began to be referred to as “Lucifer” (Morning Star), and finally the word “Lucifer” was treated as a proper name. The use of the word “Lucifer” in the 1611 King James Version instead of a word such as “Daystar” ensured its continued popularity among English speakers.

So “lucifer qui mane oriebaris” which in truth is “morning star that used to rise early” or in Hebrew “הילל בן־שׁחר”, SI did St Jerome use the same context in all the hebrew context of הילל בן־שׁחר

Do we have St Jeromes actual work in all three situations to compare the use in the three phrase’s compare?

I don’t know for sure, interesting Anna.

Peace, Gary
Click to expand...

Gary,
You are right. The Latin Vulgate does not use lucifer or luciferum as a proper name for Satan or Christ, or anyone. It is used as a description, just as you pointed out above.

What is odd about all of this is that the Douay-Rheims translated lucifer and luciferum into English, as day star, in every passage except Isaiah 14:12–where the Latin word lucifer is retained. The KJV does the same thing.

Douay-Rheims: Isaiah 14:12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, who didst rise in the morning? how art thou fallen to the earth, that didst wound the nations?

King James Version: Isaiah 14:12 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!

I added links to a great website for the Latin Vulgate and Douay-Rheims. The Latin Vulgate and Douay-Rheims appear side by side there.

**Latin Vulgate: 2 Peter 1:19 ** “et habemus firmiorem propheticum sermonem cui bene facitis adtendentes quasi lucernae lucenti in caliginoso loco donec dies inlucescat et lucifer oriatur in cordibus vestris”

**Douay-Rheims: 2 Peter 1:19 ** And we have the more firm prophetical word: whereunto you do well to attend, as to a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn and the day star arise in your hearts.
Link: latinvulgate.com/lv/verse.aspx?t=1&b=22

Latin Vulgate: Isaiah 14:12 “quomodo cecidisti de caelo lucifer qui mane oriebaris corruisti in terram qui vulnerabas gentes”

Douay-Rheims: Isaiah 14:12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, who didst rise in the morning? how art thou fallen to the earth, that didst wound the nations?
Link: latinvulgate.com/lv/verse.aspx?t=0&b=27&c=14

Latin Vulgate: Job 11:17 “et quasi meridianus fulgor consurget tibi ad vesperam et cum te consumptum putaveris orieris ut lucifer”

**Douay-Rheims: Job 11:17 **And brightness like that of the noonday, shall arise to thee at evening: and when thou shalt think thyself consumed, thou shalt rise as the day star.
Link: latinvulgate.com/lv/verse.aspx?t=0&b=20&c=11

Latin Vulgate: Job 38:32 “numquid producis luciferum in tempore suo et vesperum super filios terrae consurgere facis”

Douay-Rheims: Job 38:32 Canst thou bring forth the day star in its time, and make the evening star to rise upon the children of the earth?
Link: latinvulgate.com/lv/verse.aspx?t=0&b=20&c=38
 
While lucifer is not the given name for Satan, still he was a “lucifer” before his fall, and because of that the word became synonymous with Satan. And yes, it’s not strictly his biblical name, but since he had been a bright light and fell into darkness, it certainly applies to him, which is all we are saying. So, that being the case, there’s nothing wrong with associating the name Lucifer with Satan for that is the kind of being he was before his fall.

Besides this, many things we teach and hold true are not explicitly stated in the Bible, which is not a proof text, but the inspired writings of prophets, patriarchs, and apostles. Nor does the Bible stand alone, it is a part of Sacred Tradition from which we also get God’s word to man and most especially in Christ and his Church. I’m sure you know these things, but I’m mentioning it for the sake of our lurkers and seekers.

I’d also say that the things we hold true do not have to come strictly from the canon of Scripture, either. Even pagan sources were cited by the writers of the Bible to bolster their teaching. Whatever is true is true no matter who states it, whether it be strictly biblical or not. What I’m trying to say is that if an idea/tradition does not contradict Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium we are free to believe it. The Catholic faith is not a faith strictly of “the book”, it entails much more than that.
 
Della said:
While lucifer is not the given name for Satan, still he was a “lucifer” before his fall, and because of that the word became synonymous with Satan. And yes, it’s not strictly his biblical name, but since he had been a bright light and fell into darkness, it certainly applies to him, which is all we are saying. So, that being the case, there’s nothing wrong with associating the name Lucifer with Satan for that is the kind of being he was before his fall.

Besides this, many things we teach and hold true are not explicitly stated in the Bible, which is not a proof text, but the inspired writings of prophets, patriarchs, and apostles. Nor does the Bible stand alone, it is a part of Sacred Tradition from which we also get God’s word to man and most especially in Christ and his Church. I’m sure you know these things, but I’m mentioning it for the sake of our lurkers and seekers.

I’d also say that the things we hold true do not have to come strictly from the canon of Scripture, either. Even pagan sources were cited by the writers of the Bible to bolster their teaching. Whatever is true is true no matter who states it, whether it be strictly biblical or not. What I’m trying to say is that if an idea/tradition does not contradict Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium we are free to believe it. The Catholic faith is not a faith strictly of “the book”, it entails much more than that.
Click to expand...
Della,

Well said.

Discovering the history of the word lucifer, doesn’t change anything from a theological standpoint. It’s just one of those interesting things in the history of the transmission of Scripture.

Peace,
Anna
 
Anna_Scott said:
Della,

Well said.

Discovering the history of the word lucifer, doesn’t change anything from a theological standpoint. It’s just one of those interesting things in the history of the transmission of Scripture.

Peace,
Anna
Click to expand...
👍
 
This thread seems related to
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=726199&page=4

Yes of course Lucifer is a biblical name for the devil. It simply was his former rank before was condemned - still used when he was cast off heavens.

As to the name in the Bible: Biblical Verses contain the words Devil - Lucifer - Satan - Daemon - Snake - Dragon - the Bad Enemy, the evil one and surely one or two more. All for the very same person.

Morning-Star is as well used for Jesus Christ (in Revelation 22,6 and even in 2Peter 1,19) - as for Satan in Isaiah 14,12 (Though some say that’s the King of Babylon who fell meant here.) In Apoc (Revelation) 2,28, Jesus hands over “the Morning-Star” back to His Father - Here morning-star as sign of might and all power. Morning-Star was a metaphor for many things.
Lucifer however (meaning carrier of Light and also Morning-Star) is definitely Satan - it was his rank in heaven.

In the Catechism of the Roman Catholic Church under Nr 2851 we read three names: …. evil is not an abstraction, but refers to a person, Satan, the Evil One, the angel who opposes God. the devil (dia-bolos) is the one who “throws himself across” God’s plan and his work of salvation accomplished in Christ.

Yours
Bruno
 
No, Satan does not exist. It is only a concept to illustrate the evil inclination in man. Besides, God is absolutely One and there is no rival to Him. (Isa. 46:5) Lucifer is the name used by Isaiah in his prophecy about the king of Babylon when he fell from his opulence and arrogance to consider himself like God in his mowing down of the nations. (Isa. 14:12-21)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top