Are Satan and Lucifer one and the same?

[Matthitjah]

So, all good gifts are from God, doesn't imply that God cannot create potential for evil. You haven't answered my question, so no dodging. If God creates all things, and in the beginning there was just Him, where did evil come from?

No dodging going on.

Is there going to be evil in the new heaven and the new earth?

I think you, sis, are into int Gods permissive will but what was being stated was that God created evil. Huge difference.

If He did you all will have to come up with some scriptural references and Isaiah 45:7 isn't going to cut it. You will also have to show me some precedence and example in scripture because I certainly don't see where we are going to get off by blaming God for the evil that we do.

If God created evil then we aren't to blame and the Gospel is the biggest sham in history. Might as well be a Universalist.

As I have pointed out in another thread, there is a great difference between the principle of evil and evil deeds. God created the principle of evil in the beginning, just as He created the principle of good. God didn't create evil deeds. Satan was the first evildoer which Jesus pointed out in John 8:44, when He stated that Satan was a murderer from the arche or beginning. This is obviously a reference to the creation. (Jesus ought to know, He was there.)

SO then, it is impossible for God to do evil. Only man is capable of evil. We can't blame God for our evil, nor can we blame Him for the creation of its principle. Until someone puts the principle of evil into motion, evil remains just that: a principle. Now we know that Satan put that principle into motion in the Garden by murdering Adam and Eve.

This still doesn't answer the original question: Are Satan and Lucifer one and the same? Again, I am not convinced.

As I've already said, your Theology is skewed. You will have to offer me scriptural support line upon line and precept upon precept for that position to hold any weight with me.

I have offered scriptural support for my position that God did not Create moral evil, neither does He commit it, nor does He have it within Him.

[Matthitjah]

I'm not insisting anything but I can see how the translation is consistent and just another way to say the same thing.

So you believe the "being" mentioned is named "Lucifer."

What shall we call that being then?

I really don't have a problem with the translation is all. I can see how it is consistent with the original meaning. It's another way to say the same thing and for those who care to look further into it as we have here. There will be enlightenment.

I disagree with those who think it is speaking of Adam though. It's in no way contextual and I'm not quite sure where that train of thought is coming from.

Maybe he's called son of the dawn because he was there when the earths foundations were fastened and the angels sang?

[nebula]

So you believe the "being" mentioned is named "Lucifer."

That's a really long crooked rabbit hold to go down Neb...... but from the things I've read outside the Bible I would say that it is speaking of both the King of Babylon, and that entity that rebelled against the Father that we call Lucifer or Satan. They were much the same and will face similiar endings. It speaks of the entity being at the garden of Eden and we know it's not possible for the kind of Babylon to have done so.

It may well be that Satan himself decided to become fleshly like the watchers and actually was the King the scripture is talking about, but that's another really long crooked rabbit hole to go down. As sketchy as that short story is there are many possibilities.

I know, but I wasn't arguing this case. I'm just concerned with what heylel means in English.

[nebula]

What shall we call that being then?

Why do we need to know what he was called before? Does it matter? Is it not enough to say it is Satan?

Is there a problem with the passage giving him titles and descriptions that were not his name?

I really don't have a problem with the translation is all. I can see how it is consistent with the original meaning. It's another way to say the same thing and for those who care to look further into it as we have here. There will be enlightenment.

I disagree. Shiloh made a good case for why heylel was never meant to be considered a name.

Shiloh knows a lot more about Hebrew than either of us, so what do you think about what he said?

And I have yet to hear how "bringer" is correctly drawn out of the word.

And again, "shine" is a different word from "light." Shine is verb. Light is a noun.

I disagree with those who think it is speaking of Adam though. It's in no way contextual and I'm not quite sure where that train of thought is coming from.

I most definitely agree with that!

Maybe he's called son of the dawn because he was there when the earths foundations were fastened and the angels sang?

I'm not talking about "son of the dawn". I'm talking about the one word heylel. Why do you keep bringing this up?

Is heylel a name, and does it mean "light-bringer"? That's all I'm concerned about.

[other one]

What shall we call that being then?

Why do we need to know what he was called before? Does it matter? Is it not enough to say it is Satan?

Is there a problem with the passage giving him titles and descriptions that were not his name?

I really don't have a problem with the translation is all. I can see how it is consistent with the original meaning. It's another way to say the same thing and for those who care to look further into it as we have here. There will be enlightenment.

I disagree. Shiloh made a good case for why heylel was never meant to be considered a name.

Shiloh knows a lot more about Hebrew than either of us, so what do you think about what he said?

And I have yet to hear how "bringer" is correctly drawn out of the word.

And again, "shine" is a different word from "light." Shine is verb. Light is a noun.

I disagree with those who think it is speaking of Adam though. It's in no way contextual and I'm not quite sure where that train of thought is coming from.

I most definitely agree with that!

Maybe he's called son of the dawn because he was there when the earths foundations were fastened and the angels sang?

I'm not talking about "son of the dawn". I'm talking about the one word heylel. Why do you keep bringing this up?

Is heylel a name, and does it mean "light-bringer"? That's all I'm concerned about.

The answer to that question is...... "It depends on who you ask" Whose right and whose wrong..... "Depends on who you ask."

did I say yet, "i don't know..."

I do know that dwelling on it for a long time can make one question the Word...

[nebula]

I do know that dwelling on it for a long time can make one question the Word...

I'm not questioning the word.

The only translation that uses Lucifer is the KJV.

The others use a descriptive word or words, which doesn't present it as if it is a name.

[nebula]

By the way -

In the NT, Jesus is called the Morning Star.

[other one]

I do know that dwelling on it for a long time can make one question the Word...

I'm not questioning the word.

The only translation that uses Lucifer is the KJV.

The others use a descriptive word or words, which doesn't present it as if it is a name.

i don't think you'll find the answer to your question in the Word becuase the term Lucifer is not Hebrew. My Bible translates that O star of the morning.

One would have to know Lucifer to understand why the KJV translators would choose that name from my point of view. i don't think you will find your answer without udnerstanding that principal. The translarots simply knew who he was and what to call him.

[other one]

By the way -

In the NT, Jesus is called the Morning Star.

i don't have a problem with that. The description of the King of Babylon in the Old Testament was basically talking about what the King thought of himself not reality. And the reality of it was quite different.

[Matthitjah]

What shall we call that being then?

Why do we need to know what he was called before? Does it matter? Is it not enough to say it is Satan?

Is there a problem with the passage giving him titles and descriptions that were not his name?

I really don't have a problem with the translation is all. I can see how it is consistent with the original meaning. It's another way to say the same thing and for those who care to look further into it as we have here. There will be enlightenment.

I disagree. Shiloh made a good case for why heylel was never meant to be considered a name.

Shiloh knows a lot more about Hebrew than either of us, so what do you think about what he said?

And I have yet to hear how "bringer" is correctly drawn out of the word.

And again, "shine" is a different word from "light." Shine is verb. Light is a noun.

I disagree with those who think it is speaking of Adam though. It's in no way contextual and I'm not quite sure where that train of thought is coming from.

I most definitely agree with that!

Maybe he's called son of the dawn because he was there when the earths foundations were fastened and the angels sang?

I'm not talking about "son of the dawn". I'm talking about the one word heylel. Why do you keep bringing this up?

Is heylel a name, and does it mean "light-bringer"? That's all I'm concerned about.

I understand what Shiloh said and I understand that it's not a name. However, it may also be a title and that's what I've been saying all along.

Shiloh stated that it was an improper noun used descriptively and in a mocking fashion. Something like, "Arrogant/Prideful Son of the Dawn."