Lucifer as a name for Satan is Anti-Biblical

Because in Greek mythology the Morning Star was the son of the Dawn goddess Eos (Aurora to the Romans) the Greek Septuagint translators of Isaiah 14:12 chose to render the personage seemingly identified as a "son of the Dawn" as Heosphorus, the Morning Star.  Which became Lucifer in Latin versions like the Vulgate.

Repeatedly people will tell you that scholars believe Isaiah 14:12 and up references a Canaanite myth about the god of the Morning Star named Heylel who was the son of Shahar god of the Dawn rebelling against El Elown.  (Elown is the Hebrew title translated "Most High" or "The Highest".)

What they won't tell you is they have no actual text or inscription describing that myth with those names.  It's all conjectured from their assumption that Isaiah 14 must be drawing on some kind of Canaanite myth.  The rebel against El in the Ugaric Baal cycle was Baal.

Shahar is the Hebrew word for Dawn (morning in the KJV but that's unfortunate because it's not the standard word for morning, Dawn is more accurate) used in Isaiah 14:12.  That word is also the name of a pagan Caananite (assumed to be male) god associated with the Dawn, his brother Shalim being Dusk.  Shahar and Shalim were among the sons of El Elown.  But there are NO texts outside Isaiah 14 that identify Shachar as having a son named Heylel.

Attar (also rendered Ashtar, Ishtar, Astar, and Athtar) was a god affiliated with Venus the Morning star.  But he is not associated with the name Heylel nor is he ever refereed to as a son of Shahar. He was a male counterpart to Ashteroth/Astarte, who's name is similar and was also affiliated with Venus.  We don't know for certain his position in the mythological genealogy but I'd suspect he was like a brother maybe even twin of Ashteroth, or her son.  Astarte was a sister/wife of Hadad and daughter of El.  Hadad would probably be the father of any of her children.

So the morning star and the Dawn in Caananite mythology were siblings or maybe uncle/nephew but not father and son.  There was a Mesopotamia Dawn Goddess named Aya but none of her children were Stars or Planets, that's a Greek thing.

The insistence of scholars that the Greek tradition of the Morning Star as a son of the Dawn must also be paralleled in the Near East is a product of Western Chauvinism, our tendency to filter all other pagan mythology through the basic framework of Greek Mythology.  It's something I my myself have fallen into when studying the Shinto Pantheon to help me understand all the Anime I watch.  But at the end of the day the fact is Joseph Campbell was wrong, different cultures do have different ways of thinking about these things, they aren't all the same Hero with a Thousand Faces.

Isaiah 14:12 is the only verse to use the word Heylel.  But Heylel could be just the noun form of the verb Halal (Strongs number 1984), which has a variety of meanings, shine, boast, celebrate, glory, praise, rage, mad, all words the KJV has rendered it as.   Heylel could also be Yalal (Strong number 3213) with a definite article, making it possibly a title not a name.  It means Howl or Howling, so as a title would mean Howling One or Howler.  Isaiah uses Yalal elsewhere in this chapter and in the prior one and many other places, however Halal is a more rare word in Isaiah.

English Translations of the Peshita version of Isaiah 14:12 don't even interpret Heylel as a noun but as a verb saying things like "Wail at Dawn" or "Howl in the morning" with the entire "son of" part completely absent.  Given how ambiguous the grammar in Isaiah's poetic style can be, I'm starting to think the Peshita may be the correct reading and that this statement directly corelates to Revelation 12:15. 

Actually I have discovered that the Septuagint reading doesn't contain the Son of designation either, nor does the Vulgate, both saying "Rise in the Morning" or "Morning Rising", however the use of Ben the Hebrew word for Son is in the DSS Isaiah Scroll so it was there in the BC era.

This Website documenting the DSS Isaiah Scroll

http://dssenglishbible.com/isaiah%2014.htm

Classifies "Shining One" as an example of a spelling difference that doesn't effect the meaning, but I am skeptical given how disputed the word is.  It seems the Great Isaiah Scroll spelling of Heylel adds another Yot.  And that's a surprise because usually the DSS manuscripts use less Yots then the Masoretic because using Yots sometimes as Vowls wasn't a thing yet.

The standard Masoretic spelling is Heh-Yot-Lamed-Lamed but in the Isaiah Scroll it's Heh-Yot-Lamed-Yot-Lamed.  When I put the that DSS spelling into Google Translate it comes out as "The Praise" or "The Blasphemer", if that is correct it verifies a Halal based interpretation over Yalal.  However the last half of the word looks like Layil the Hebrew word for Night.

Other Isaiah Scroll differences in Isaiah 14:12 include the lack of a definite article before Heaven, and Nation being singular rather then plural, which better fits the early part of the Chapter where it's about an Oppressor of Israel specifically.

There are only three verses where Halal as a verb is translated Shine or Shined in the KJV, in each case it described an action of a Light or Light source where poetically the Praise or Praised meaning of Halal could in my view fit just fine.  Hillel is a Hebrew name derived from halal with the Yot between the Ls but not between the H and L.  That name is always interpreted as meaning Praising.  So no even if Halal is the basis of Heylel "Shining One" is not a valid translation.

I'm still unsure what the words used in Isaiah 14:12 exactly means, but no valid Hebrew etymology supports HYLL or HYLYL meaning Light-Bearer or Morning Star.

The KJV New Testament refers to Jesus as the Morning Star (Revelation 22:16) and the Day Star (2 Peter 1:19).  The Day Star reference used a poetic name for Venus "Phosphorus" which cosmologically referred to the same star Heosphorus did, and has the same meaning Lucifer has in Latin.  Phos=Lux=Light and Phorus=Ferus=Bearer/Bringer.  

I wonder what those Hebrew Roots people who think the entire NT was actually first written in Hebrew think Peter called Jesus here?  The Hebrew equivalent of Phos is Owr the same word for Light used in Genesis 1:3.  Phorus/Pheros as a word for "bear" means in the sense of to carry something and isn't ever used of say childbirth or pregnancy.  So it's best Hebrew equivalent is probably Nasa which first appears in Genesis 4:13, 7:17 and 13:6.  But there is no known Hebrew compound word like that in antiquity, this concept is from Greek astronomy and so it's presence in the Epistle in my opinion itself refutes the possibility of it originating in a different language.

The title of Morning Star is most often given to Venus but other planets can be visible as Morning Stars in the right circumstances including Jupiter.  I of course don't think the main purpose of either of these NT verses is to make a specific Star more symbolic of Jesus more then any others, I'm not arguing some type of Christian Astrology.  But I have decided the mystery of the Star of Bethlehem is in some way a Planet serving as either a Morning or Evening Star, but I don't have a final theory on it yet.

Psalm 110 is the most quoted chapter of the Hebrew Bible in the New Testament, always in ways that confirm it's subject is Jesus.  Verse 3 refers to Him as coming from the "Womb of the Morning" with the word for "morning" being a form of Shahar.  So even calling the villain in Isaiah 14 "Son of the Dawn" may be a title that rightfully belongs to Jesus, or at least can in different ways equally apply to both.

It's possible to argue that the Woman of Revelation 12 is being described with Dawn Goddess imagery.  Eos is frequently depicted in Greek art and poetry as wearing Saffron robes, Saffron is a shade of the color yellow that is commonly identified as being the Sun's shade of yellow.  And since the Sun rises as the Moon is setting one could also say the Moon is under her feet. 

There was no Pre-Adamic Fall of Satan.

One of the first posts I made on my old Prophecy Blog was about the timing of Satan being cast out of Heaven.  But now that my basic view of Revelation has changed to Post-Mil/Partial Preterist (with some Historicism elements) I can't simply copy/paste all that here.  Plus I did diverge onto some other tangents I don't want to be a thing on this Blog.

There are two views on the timing of the Fall of Satan that can be valid and I currently haven't made up my mind which I prefer, and one of those can be further sub divided based on how you interpret Revelation.  They are...

1. During the First Advent of Christ based on Luke 10:18 and/or John 12:31, 14:30 & 16:11.

2. Still yet future when Revelation was written.

But first I need to explain why the popular Pre-Creation or Pre-Adamic Fall of Satan view is 100% wrong and Anti-Biblical.

There is only one clear Hebrew Bible reference to this topic and it's in Isaiah 14 often viewed as starting in verse 12.  With a second passage that I do view as possibly relevant but not in a way that helps with the timing in Ezekiel 28:11-19 (the first 10 verses were about a human ruler of Tyre the "King of Tyre") where Satan is identified with Melqart it's patron deity who's name means King of the City.  In Isaiah 14 I don't view there as being any human ruler in mind, the King of Babylon is Satan from the start.

In Isaiah it is specifically something that happens contemporary with or soon after the Fall of Babylon that Isaiah started talking about in chapter 13 which was at least still future when Isaiah gave this Prophecy.  At the soonest it was the destruction Babylon suffered as a result of it's revolt agaisnt Assyria in 652 BC (which is 100% what I view Isaiah 21 as being about), or you could view it as the fall to Cyrus or a further fall under Darius, or some event of the Hellenistic era involving the Seleucids, or the same event Revelation 17-18 is talking about.  But certainly not Pre-Adamic.

Isaiah 14 also foretells this being who Fell from Heaven being imprisoned in "The Pit" that they will eventually be cast out of, that's obviously Revelation 20.

Revelation 12:9 and 20:2 confirm that the Serpent of Genesis 3 (that's the only thing "Old Serpent" could mean) is the same being as Satan, The Devil and The Great Dragon (which I view as Satan identified with Sobek in Ezekiel 29).  But it does not need an origin story, temping Eve was itself this creature's first act of rebellion against YHWH.  

Romans 5 and 1 Corinthians 15 are both clear that Sin and Death began with Adam's Sin, there was no prior rebellion having already messed things up.  At the end of Genesis 1 God says everything is Very Good, so still no Rebellion yet.

Job depicts Satan as still residing in heaven serving as God's prosecutor and Revelation 12 agrees, that's what calling it our Accuser means.

Pagan Mythologies like having a Cosmology where there were already Wars between the gods before Human History began.  Greek mythology has several from Kronos overthrowing Ouranos and then Ophion to the Titanarchy and the Gigantarchy and the war with Typhon.  Egyptian Mythology had the wars between Ra and Apep as well as Horus vs Set.  Babylonian mythology had Marduk overthrowing Tiamat, the Ugarit Baal cycle has Hadad rebelling agaisnt El and also in conflict with Yam and Mot.  Norse Mythology has the Aseir-Vanir War and Japanese Mythology had the War of the Heavenly Kami against the Earthly Kami and the evil Kami known as Amatsu-Mikaboshi, and also Susanoo's conflict with Amaterasu which cast him out of heaven.

Judeo-Christian adaptation of this theme do not begin with something that looks exactly like Paradise Lost.  We see it in Enochian Literature both in 1st Enoch and 2nd Enoch being tied to Angel-Human Hybrid Heresy.  Then Wisdom of Solomon said it was by the Enyy of The Devil that Sin entered the world, an idea I believe Paul was in part responding to in Romans 5.  Then we see it in Rabbinic Judaism.

"In the days before Creation, Rahab, Prince of the Sea, rebelled against God. When commanded: 'Open your mouth, Prince of the Sea, and swallow all of the world's waters,' he cried: 'Lord of the Universe, leave me in peace!' Whereupon God kicked him to death and sank his carcase below the waves, since no land beast could endure its stench." (Bavli Baba Bathra 74b; Numeri Rabba 18:22; Midrash Wayosha, 46.)

That's why Paul warned us not to regard "Jewish Fables" in Titus 1:14.

Then in Christian history some of it's first manifestations were Gnostic Heresies where YHWH is the Evil Rebel against the True Creator and Jesus is identified with the Serpent of Genesis 3.  The false Two-Seedline Theory is also sometimes connected.

But eventually the "Lucifer" as a Rebel Angel who became Satan was standardized with the modern default framework being John Milton's Paradise Lost, and then Tolkien and C.S. Lewis created their fictional variations and then even later came Anime/Manga like Angel Sanctuary.

Now to considering the two views I do consider Biblically Valid.

On my old Blog I firmly took a still yet future when Revelation was written view, I didn't much consider the John verses and dismissed Luke 10:18 as an example of when Prophets use past tense language to emphasize the certainty of something, indeed most of the Prophets I've cited here did that but it's the context that makes clear it's a Prophecy about what at least at that time was the future.  The context in Luke 10:18 is different however, the context is The Disciples returning from their Mission and Jesus saying this as if He saw it happening as an effect that was caused by their actions.

Honestly I'm starting to suspect the only way to make sense of all these passage is to take a view of Revelation that is more abstract in it's timing then I'd ever considered before.  A theory where Luke referred to when Satan was Cast out of Heaven and then John was talking about when he'll be Cast into the Abyss seemingly tying it to the Drama of His Passion and Resurrection.

This is a subject I'll have to return to since I don't know how to figure it all out right now, I need to think about it more.  But the key thing I want to make clear here is that there was no Pre-Genesis Fall of Satan.

The Symbolic Woman of Revelation

I have come to view The Woman of Revelation 12, the Harlot of Revelation 17, The Bride of Christ in Revelation 19 and The Lamb's Wife in Revelation 21 as the same Symbolic Woman

Most theologians who would say something like this are neither Futurists like I used to be or Post-Mill like I am now but more taking an Idealist view of Revelation like Peter Heitt.  Pre-Trib/PreWrath Dispensationalists tend to view there as being three women (everyone agrees that the Bride and the Wife are the same), while Post-Trib Futurists prefer to see the Bride and the Mother in Revelation 12 as the same but the Harlot as still an irredeemable enemy who simply dies when she is killed, and Full Preterism and even most forms of Partial Preterism are similar.

I believe in Universal Salvation, the Metanarrative of Scripture is that Israel was Widowed and Divorced because of her Adulterous Harlotry but YHWH is going to Redeem and Remarry her just like Hosea and Gomer, He will Restore Judah and Samaria and even Sodom as Ezekiel 16 clearly states, Ezekiel 23 returns to those themes, this cycle was first laid out in Deuteronomy 29-30 and is reaffirmed in Malachi chapter 3 and Romans 11.  Rachab from the book Joshua is another type of this theme.

The word "Wilderness" is used in the Book of Revelation three times, in the Greek it's also the same word all three times, even the same form of the word (Eremon rather than Eremos).  In Revelation 12 verses 6 and 14 it refers to the place where The Woman is taken to be protected.  But then in Chapter 17 verse 3, John is taken to The Wilderness to see a Woman sitting on a Beast.  And all three seem to use the definite article, The Wilderness, not a wilderness.  And in both cases the verses right before and after are also profoundly similar.  Jeremiah 6:24 is part of the reason we know the Woman of Revelation 12 is Israel.

Dispensationalists like to talk about the Woman of Revelation 17 boasting that she is not "widowed and divorced" as a contrast to Israel, described by The Prophets as widowed and divorced.  But others have interpreted that "boast" as being a denial.

And then there is Zachariah 5.  Some have long speculated that Woman is the Revelation 17 Woman.  But she's transported with parallel wing imagery to Revelation 12 which we overlook.  And in Daniel 7 the Lion representing Babylon has Eagle's Wings which are plucked.  Micah 4:9-10 seems to refer to the Daughter of Zion going to Babylon after travailing in Childbirth.

The Dispensationalist view on the Women of Revelation happens to resemble The Three Faces of Eve, which is an analysis of the concept that Patriarchal Society tends to see women in only 3 roles, a faithful Wife/Mother, a Harlotrous Seductress, or a Innocent Virgin/Child.  Of course my making all three the same woman can also be seen as an example of that.  Except that usually as stages in the character development of one character it goes in the opposite direction, you start as an innocent, then get sexually active, then settle down, The Woman of Revelation is introduced giving birth and ends the story as a Virgin.

As an Anime Weirdo, this reading of the Book of Revelation factors into why a number of my favorite Anime are shows where one of the principal Villains is also the Damsel in Distress at the same time, stories where saving the Villain may even be the Heroes' emotionally most important objective, the World being Saved in the process is just an added bonus, like how Ezekiel 16 frames the restoration of Sodom as being because it'd be unfair to save Israel but not Sodom, and Roman 11 clarified that it's not till the FULLNESS of the Gentiles are grafted into Israel that ALL Israel shall be Saved.

Pretear and a number of other Magical Girl stories fit this to varying degrees. SSSS.Gridman was one of the shows that first made me see this as a common theme. It's also a big part of Robotics;Notes and Chaos;Child and even in the end Higurashi, one could debatably see Utena and Princess Tutu as fitting too.  Oh and Future Diary counts as well, but be warned that one is an edgy and trashy ride to get there.  And Now after I finally watched it last year I can add Re:Creators to this list.  It would also be a massive over sight to fail to mention Fate/Stay night: Heaven's Feel III: Spring Song.

It would naturally spoil these shows a bit to go into detail, maybe you feel I've spoiled them by mentioning they do this at all, but I didn't say which characters this applied to.  SSSS.Gridman is a show that isn't good because anything was a surprise, if you're at all Genre Savvy it was clear from episode 1 where it was going.  In Robotics;Notes it is also clear early on that something like this was going on.

I'm sure there are stories that do this with a male character as well if you want to see these Gender norms subverted, it's just Anime Girls are who I'm most drawn to personally.

These are often exactly the Anime that lend themselves to Bring Me To Life AMVs.

But I should mention in some of these shows the character in question is not the only villain or even only major villain, there sometimes still is an Unrepentant Pure Evil Antagonist that an infernalsit viewer could view as representing the Reprobate or Satan.  But I can still just assume their Salvation comes later like all who die unrepentant.