my dog earl

Whose side is the dragon on in that little story?

Magus55

The dragon is either the False Prophet, or Satan - will have to look that up for specifics - but the dragon is evil - hence why its fighting Michael and his legion of Angels.

mark9950

from myth and legend?

The movie legend with tom cruise was a good movie

Spaz

Yes, dragons are mythical (except for Hovind, who's an idiot), but when things in the bible are obvious myth they're metaphors remember?

Javaman

Wasn't there a thread around here where they said Lucifer was a local person (priest/vicar?) in England around the translation of the KJV and it was just a way to get back at him for something? I wish I could remember who the poster was... Maybe after the new server is up I can search it out...

Spaz

Well Lucifer was a Latin word and a Pagan god wasn't he?

Javaman

Ah, found it!. I wish the guy who started the thread had stayed around.

Evangelion

Yes.

No. "Lucifer" is the king of Babylon, against whom this prophecy was written. The facile "Lucifer is the devil" argument has been refuted time and time again by mainstream Christians.

As early as the 18th Century, the Methodist theologian Adam Clarke penned the following analysis in his Commentary:

• Isa 14:12 - O Lucifer, son of the morning -
  The Versions in general agree in this translation, and render הילל heilel as signifying Lucifer, Φωσφωρος, the morning star, whether Jupiter or Venus; as these are both bringers of the morning light, or morning stars, annually in their turn.
  
  And although the context speaks explicitly concerning Nebuchadnezzar, yet this has been, I know not why, applied to the chief of the fallen angels, who is most incongruously denominated Lucifer, (the bringer of light!) an epithet as common to him as those of Satan and Devil.
  
  That the Holy Spirit by his prophets should call this arch-enemy of God and man the light-bringer, would be strange indeed. But the truth is, the text speaks nothing at all concerning Satan nor his fall, nor the occasion of that fall, which many divines have with great confidence deduced from this text.
  
  O how necessary it is to understand the literal meaning of Scripture, that preposterous comments may be prevented! Besides, I doubt much whether our translation be correct. הילל heilel, which we translate Lucifer, comes from ילל yalal, yell, howl, or shriek, and should be translated, “Howl, son of the morning;” and so the Syriac has understood it; and for this meaning Michaelis contends: see his reasons in Parkhurst, under הלל halal.

Also John Gill (another 18th Century theologian) in his Exposition:

• Isa 14:12 - How art thou fallen from heaven,....
  This is not to be understood of the fall of Satan, and the apostate angels, from their first estate, when they were cast down from heaven to hell, though there may be an allusion to it;
  
  see Luk_10:18 but the words are a continuation of the speech of the dead to the king of Babylon, wondering at it, as a thing almost incredible, that he who seemed to be so established on the throne of his kingdom, which was his heaven, that he should be deposed or fall from it.
  
  So the destruction of the Roman Pagan emperors is signified by the casting out of the dragon and his angels from heaven, Rev_12:7 and in like manner Rome Papal, or the Romish antichrist, will fall from his heaven of outward splendour and happiness, of honour and authority, now, possessed by him:
  
  O Lucifer, son of the morning!
  alluding to the star Venus, which is the phosphorus or morning star, which ushers in the light of the morning, and shows that day is at hand;
  
  by which is meant, not Satan, who is never in Scripture called Lucifer, though he was once an angel of light, and sometimes transforms himself into one, and the good angels are called morning stars, Job_38:7 and such he and his angels once were;
  
  but the king of Babylon is intended, whose royal glory and majesty, as outshining all the rest of the kings of the earth, is expressed by those names; and which perhaps were such as he took himself, or were given him by his courtiers.
  
  The Targum is,
  
  "how art thou fallen from on high, who was shining among the sons of men, as the star Venus among the stars.''
  
  Jarchi, as the Talmud, applies it to Nebuchadnezzar; though, if any particular person is pointed at, Belshazzar is rather designed, the last of the kings of Babylon.
  
  The church of Rome, in the times of the apostles, was famous for its light and knowledge; its faith was spoken of throughout all the earth; and its bishops or pastors were bright stars, in the morning of the Gospel dispensation:

Also John Wesley (another 18th Century theologian) in his Explanatory Notes:

• Isa 14:12 - Fallen -
  From the height of thy glory.
  
  Lucifer -
  Which properly is a bright star, that ushers in the morning; but is here metaphorically taken for the mighty king of Babylon.

Also James Burton Coffman (20th Century) in his Commentary:

• We are glad that our version (American Standard Version) leaves the word "Lucifer" out of this rendition, because it was the cause of misunderstanding based on Luke 10:18 and Ezek. 28.
  
  Satan does not enter into this passage as a subject at all! Kelley approvingly quoted some scholars who believe that Isaiah here made use of a mythological story from Canaanite religion to illustrate the fall of the king of Babylon. This tale, largely an invention by critics, tells how a minor god of the Canaanites
  
  "sought to ascend to heaven and sit on the mount of the assembly of the gods, but was cast down to Sheol." (Broadman Bible Commentary (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1971), p. 239.)
  
  How ridiculous critical commentators make themselves when they resort to ancient mythology to explain Bible texts. This alleged Canaanite myth is an invention. Kidner flatly stated that,
  
  "If such a tale ever existed, it has not come to light." (The New Bible Commentary, Revised, p. 600.)
  
  The same author also pointed out that,
  
  "The idea of storming heaven, however, was certainly connected with Babylon, i.e., Babel (Gen. 11)." (Ibid.)
  
  It was the avowed purpose of the rulers of Babel (Babylon) to build a tower high enough to reach heaven itself (Genesis 11:4). Thus God's Word substantiates Babylonian ambition, and it needs no supplement from Canaanite mythology.
  
  Barnes pointed out that the true meaning of the passage in Gen. 11:4 is that,
  
  "the king of Babylon did not intend to acknowledge any superior either in heaven or earth, but designed that himself and his laws should be regarded as supreme." (Albert Barnes' Commentary, p. 272.)

Also the footnotes of the New English Translation (20th Century):

• 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 (see J. Martin, BKCOT, 1061).

You'd have to be a complete idiot to ignore the evidence against the popular interpretation.

Unfortunately, many fundamentalists are.

Doctor X

Greetings!

There is a wonderful book on the subject of Ol' Scratch from the humble origins of a stumbling block and myths of opposition to the Augustinian Bad Guy:

The Old Enemy: Satan and the Combat Myth

When I return "from the office" I will post what he states about "Lucifer."

--J.D.

[Edited to add change Amazon link to credit II]

Spaz

$40 for that book? Is there a whole lot of information that we can't find on the internet?

And to Evangelion: Yeah I know that wasn't what the passage was actually referring to, but I thought I heard somewhere on this board or somewhere else that there was a pagan god named lucifer as well.