“This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all” (1 John 1:5).
Apologies for the humorous depictions, intended as comic relief to precede my correction of a serious error that has ensnared virtually the whole Body of Believers.
“And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book” (Revelation 22:19).
The Latin Vulgate’s LVCIFER (English: ‘LIGHT-BEARER’) was apparently taken to be a translation of the Greek Septuagint’s ΕΩΣΦΌΡΟΣ (HEOSPHÓROS, English: ‘DAWN-BEARER’*), in turn apparently a translation of the Dead Sea Scrolls Hebrew הֵילֵ֣ל (HELÉL, English: ‘DAWN / MORNING / DAY STAR’). (See הלל [Hillel, rendered as ‘PRAISE‘]).
Thus is the Italian saying tradurre è tradire (‘translation is betrayal’) proved horrifyingly true, for we can clearly see how the original meaning was hacked away little by little through a succession of mistranslations by men who to my knowledge no one considers ‘prophetic’ or in any sense ‘inspired’. It’s every Bible student’s worst nightmare come true: an elaborate ‘modern folk-theology’, based on apparently source-blind translations, that started haunting the Christian West around 1830.
The equating of Lucifer to Devil and Satan (the latter two only being linked in the highly abstract Book of Revelation) seems to have begun not with Jesus, his disciples, any Church Father or anywhere in Eurasia, but rather in the nineteenth-century United States of America with Seventh-day Adventists (sic) and other King James enthusiasts (e.g., KJVO). It was then solidified by such pro-Lucifer esotericists as Albert Pike and Helen Blavatsky. (This was around the same time the Star of David [that wasn’t] emerged from esoteric circles in Prague into nationalist circles in Germany among Ashkenazi Jews).
It seems that the Hebrew scrolls contain the term that was originally used in Isaiah 14:12 (the only Biblical use of the term) as A KINGLY TITLE OF NEBUCHADNEZZAR II OF BABYLON (and no euphemism for any incorporeal being such as an angel), as all scholars (religious affiliation notwithstanding) agree.**
To be clear, then, nowhere does the Bible, in any manuscript or translation that I know of, say or imply that Lucifer refers to an ‘angel’ (fallen or otherwise), but rather a formerly successful king ‘who once laid low the nations’. Lucifer is nowhere mentioned by Jesus or by anyone in the New Testament (though there is the Apocalyptic Morning Star, which is the original thing Lucifer is a double-mistranslation of*). Even the Church Fathers (i.e. ‘Patristics’) nowhere mention Lucifer. Essentially, everything you know about Lucifer is pseudo-Christian folklore obsessing on a horrendously mistranslated nickname for Babylon’s King Nebuchadnezzar II.
Now having said all this, let’s just point out that Biblically Babylon has a lot of serious evil attached to it, culminating in the Apocalyptic Whore of Babylon***. And in medieval/modern Judaism, just look at all the brazen abominations contained in the Babylonian Talmud, the standard reference of most Ashkenazi Jews, even the underlying inspiration for such modern philosophies as Marxism and Zionism, which have jointly caused more senseless human death—not to mention irreligion (or rather statism as religion) and slave-class immorality—than anything before or since.
But going back to Scriptural trends, it is worth noting that the Latin Lvcifer is also imported (i.e. not translated into Ebut apparently treated like a proper name) into King James English, which helps explain why the English-speaking world is actually the most emphatic that Lucifer be thought of as a purely and spiritually evil term, apparently clueless as to the precise nature of its original and Biblical use.
All told, it may be that there is some wisdom to the Christian oral tradition on this matter, and cultural Christianity may have unveiled a covert meaning that is crucial for our times. I would say that perhaps this notion of Lucifer as a twisted and evil angel, that has hijacked our biblical comprehension these couple millennia, may now retain some place in the savvy Biblical commentary of the future.∎
* ΕΩΣΦΌΡΟΣ (HEOSPHÓROS, English: ‘DAWN-BEARER’) is just one Greek letter off from ΦΩΣΦΌΡΟΣ (PHOSPHÓROS, English: ‘LIGHT-BEARER’), a simple likeness of letters from which one typo by an overly abstract-minded scribe could be responsible for a massive degree of Biblical confusion! In conclusion, it should have be rendered AURÓRAFER or rather STÉLLA MATUTÍNA (which is a reference in Revelation 2:28, commonly thought to refer to Jesus [the ultimate Bible twist?] and a title of Mary in the Litany of Loreto; for other references see Order of the Golden Dawn) and not LUCIFER at all!
** As to the likely origin and context of the kingly title that the Hebrew renders הֵילֵ֣ל (HELEL), you had is the Babylonian cult for the Planet Venus (but only when this appears in the morning), whom the ancient Babylonians associated with the Babylonian Akkadian (ISHTAR [whence ‘EASTER’, English: ‘TO IRRIGATE’], a Mesopotamian goddess of love, beauty, sex, desire, fertility, war, combat, and political power, similar to ἈΦΡΟΔΊΤΗ [APHRODÍTE]).
*** Early Reformation Christians assumed Whore of Babylon referred to the Vatican City ‘of seven hills’, another instance of this persistent pattern of totally ignoring what the Bible is saying about Mystery Babylon generally and King Nebuchadnezzar II in particular! although I would add that Babylon and Italy are both historically notorious for their usury [or as we’re taught to call it ‘interest rates’], hence the popular Babylon-Rome parallel seems justified in terms of cultural morals.