Valerie wrote:
I honestly do not know where this comes from. I was taught this as a child and every Christian I grew up with thinks this. I was told the devil has many names. I remember being confused when I read the bible for myself.
I was also told the devil was the serpent in the garden of Eden. I remember asking as a child how the serpent in the garden was the devil. I was told the devil was controlling the serpent to make it deceive Eve because Satan is the great deceiver or something to that effect.
The scripture in Gen. 3 did not say all of that so, I am not sure where all of that came from.
Apostle John used some of the names in Revelations:
Revelation 20King James Version (KJV)
20 And I saw an angel come down from heaven, having the key of the bottomless pit and a great chain in his hand.
2 A
nd he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years,
3 And cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal upon him, that he should deceive the nations no more, till the thousand years should be fulfilled: and after that he must be loosed a little season.
He didn't mention the name "Lucifer" here but as you noted, many names are ascribed to 'satan' and from my understanding, (not my own private interpretation) but what has been taught to me by the East is that in the passage that GC mentions, the king of Babylon is not Lucifer, but is being compared to him- and I think that Matt (I use his name because I love that name, it's my son's name! Matthew) anyways he explained well the translation of the name itself-
when answering people's questions like this sometimes it can do more harm than good to claim to really 'know' the answer to something that is 'seemingly' obscure if in doubt- I can accept an answer such as 'there are many interpretations so it is something I feel unsure about. I'd rather hear that from a humble soul than to be led into a false interpretation or doctrine-out of a need to give an answer lest people assume I guess at things. Who can honestly claim to know it all? On this side, that is-[/quote]
The writer of the Revelation gives the names that are applicable, and it is quite revealing that he doesn't use the name of Lucifer. There is no indication in the original passage that the king of Babylon is being compared to Lucifer, but rather that he is being called Lucifer as a metaphor of his own imagination that he was the epitome of the realms of the earth, thinking to himself that he was the greatest. I suggest a reading of Nebuchadnezzar's experience in the book of Daniel (4:28-37)for more insight into what is going on in this passage. The passage here in Isaiah may be indeed a reference to Nebuchadnezzar or his heir Belshazzar. The allusion is much more probable than that of being applied to the adversary, who is no where in sight in the context of this passage.
Would scripture use the same metaphor for Satan that it also uses for the Son of God? Here Nebuchadnezzar as aspired to greatness, but been brought down low as a result.