Do JWs believe Lucifer is Satan, the Devil?

Advertisement

Viewed 1954 times

    cameo-d posted Mon, 29 Jun 2009 15:21:00 GMT(6/29/2009)

    Post 3674 of 6842
    Joined 7/30/2008

    Does WT teach that these are all names for the same entity and that this entity is actually a fallen angel creature?

    Please enlighten me.

    Thanks,

    Cameo-d

    Leolaia posted Mon, 29 Jun 2009 15:39:00 GMT(6/29/2009)

    Post 12896 of 16234
    Joined 9/1/2002

    Rutherford used to use the name Lucifer to refer to Satan in his pre-fall state. This was dropped after he died.

    hamsterbait posted Mon, 29 Jun 2009 15:40:00 GMT(6/29/2009)

    Post 2706 of 4884
    Joined 7/7/2004

    They used to in the Rutherford era.

    The entire teaching was what the RC church teaches - so of course they HAD to change it (HAHAHAHA). The passage now refers to the King of Tyre, and has no other secondary application (unlike all the other botched up interpretations.)

    In one fo the old books that teaches this Adam and Eve are shown in Eden, and there is a snake with legs apparently talking to them.

    HB

    F snowbird posted Mon, 29 Jun 2009 15:45:00 GMT(6/29/2009)

    Post 8282 of 23468
    Joined 5/2/2007
    The passage now refers to the King of Tyre,

    You're thinking of Ezekiel 28, Hamster.

    What is the answer to the movie question?

    "not yet, no, not yet"?

    Sylvi

    cameo-d posted Mon, 29 Jun 2009 15:45:00 GMT(6/29/2009)

    Post 3676 of 6842
    Joined 7/30/2008

    Does WT teach that Lucifer, as the King of Tyre, is a human being? an ordinary mortal?

    Is the name Lucifer no longer linked with "satan" or "devil"?

    bereanbiblestudent posted Mon, 29 Jun 2009 18:17:00 GMT(6/29/2009)

    Post 120 of 222
    Joined 12/17/2007

    It was used for Satan according to Russell as well, I think it is used for the Babylonian Dynasty at the moment.

    M Mastodon posted Mon, 29 Jun 2009 19:45:00 GMT(6/29/2009)

    Post 1064 of 1275
    Joined 9/30/2004

    I fail to see the relation between the name 'Lucifer' and Satan.

    F blondie posted Mon, 29 Jun 2009 19:46:00 GMT(6/29/2009)

    Post 26886 of 37602
    Joined 5/28/2001

    *** w02 9/15 p. 30 Questions From Readers ***

    • Is Lucifer a name that the Bible uses for Satan?The name Lucifer occurs once in the Scriptures and only in some versions of the Bible. For example, the KingJamesVersion renders Isaiah 14:12: "How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning!"

    The Hebrew word translated "Lucifer" means "shining one." The Septuagint uses the Greek word that means "bringer of dawn." Hence, some translations render the original Hebrew "morning star" or "Daystar." But Jerome’s Latin Vulgate uses "Lucifer" (light bearer), and this accounts for the appearance of that term in various versions of the Bible.

    Who is this Lucifer? The expression "shining one," or "Lucifer," is found in what Isaiah prophetically commanded the Israelites to pronounce as a "proverbial saying against the king of Babylon." Thus, it is part of a saying primarily directed at the Babylonian dynasty. That the description "shining one" is given to a man and not to a spirit creature is further seen by the statement: "Down to Sheol you will be brought." Sheol is the common grave of mankind—not a place occupied by Satan the Devil. Moreover, those seeing Lucifer brought into this condition ask: "Is this theman that was agitating the earth?" Clearly, "Lucifer" refers to a human, not to a spirit creature.—Isaiah 14:4, 15, 16.

    Why is such an eminent description given to the Babylonian dynasty? We must realize that the king of Babylon was to be called the shining one only after his fall and in a taunting way. (Isaiah 14:3) Selfish pride prompted Babylon’s kings to elevate themselves above those around them. So great was the arrogance of the dynasty that it is portrayed as bragging: "To the heavens I shall go up. Above the stars of God I shall lift up my throne, and I shall sit down upon the mountain of meeting, in the remotest parts of the north. . . . I shall make myself resemble the Most High."—Isaiah 14:13, 14.

    "The stars of God" are the kings of the royal line of David. (Numbers 24:17) From David onward, these "stars" ruled from Mount Zion. After Solomon built the temple in Jerusalem, the name Zion came to apply to the whole city. Under the Law covenant, all male Israelites were obliged to travel to Zion three times a year. Thus, it became "the mountain of meeting." By determining to subjugate the Judean kings and then remove them from that mountain, Nebuchadnezzar is declaring his intention to put himself above those "stars." Instead of giving Jehovah credit for the victory over them, he arrogantly puts himself in Jehovah’s place. So it is after being cut down to the earth that the Babylonian dynasty is mockingly referred to as the "shining one."

    The pride of the Babylonian rulers indeed reflected the attitude of "the god of this system of things"—Satan the Devil. (2 Corinthians 4:4) He too lusts for power and longs to place himself above Jehovah God. But Lucifer is not a name Scripturally given to Satan.

    Yet in 1950 and 1954

    *** w50 6/1 pp. 172-173 A Completely New World for This Globe ***But did it remain pure and virtuous in its integrity? Did that first world continue as a part of God’s universal organization, submissive to Jehovah’s sovereign domination? The tragic facts that followed and which are now a part of mankind’s woeful history show that it did not. Rebellion broke out. Covetousness and lawlessness entered the heart of the "anointed cherub", and since then he has been known by such names as the Devil, Satan, Dragon, Serpent and Lucifer.

    *** w54 3/15 p. 186 par. 7 Stability and Permanence ***Next, Isaiah’s prophecy tells us the form this expression of iniquity took in Satan’s (Lucifer’s) mind and heart thousands of years later when Babylon became the third world power: "For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: . . . I will belike [match, Ro] the Most High." (Isa. 14:13, 14) Those are the initial facts. Now what is the legal aspect?

    hamsterbait posted Mon, 29 Jun 2009 23:01:00 GMT(6/29/2009)

    Post 2707 of 4884
    Joined 7/7/2004

    Snowie -

    Yes I am ALSO thinking of Ez - in the old books the passages in Isaiah are concatenated with Ezekiel to produce the whole menagerie confabulation.

    I need to get out the old Rutherford books and find the relevant bits. No time right now unfortunately.

    HB

    cameo-d posted Tue, 30 Jun 2009 01:41:00 GMT(6/30/2009)

    Post 3678 of 6842
    Joined 7/30/2008

    Thank you Blondie very much for the research work.

    The problem is that I find WTspeak to be rather ambiguous at times. And this is one of those times.

    It appears that the name Lucifer was the name of a man but has also been used as a slander word for evil. Is that correct?

    Do JWs see Lucifer as being "good" or "bad"?

    What would a JW think if you mentioned "Luciferian principles"?

    Would they be indifferent to the word or react to it in some way?

    M mdb posted Wed, 01 Jul 2009 22:17:00 GMT(7/1/2009)

    Post 217 of 229
    Joined 8/16/2005

    In what Blondie wrote the WTS sure seems to contradict themselves (like usual). First they say Lucifer is a man then they say it's Satan.

    Lucifer is Satan. Jesus said He saw him fall from heaven like lightening (as indicated in Isaiah 14).

    Psychotic Parrot posted Thu, 02 Jul 2009 16:59:00 GMT(7/2/2009)

    Post 118 of 688
    Joined 3/10/2009

    Both are made-up names from disparate mythological stories.

    VoidEater posted Thu, 02 Jul 2009 17:22:00 GMT(7/2/2009)

    Post 1939 of 3065
    Joined 10/30/2007

    If you walk up to a typical dub (especially one, say, 40 years or older) they will typically equate Lucifer with Satan. This is due to the dogma that existed as they grew up. Most will not have read the New Light from 2002 and kept it in mind - in my experience, this would be a minor point that isn't important (partly due to the flip-flop that must be ignored to maintain peace of mind).

    There will be more younger dubs, and a few conscientious ones, that will have picked up on the new understanding, but they will be in the minority.

    M BurnTheShips posted Thu, 02 Jul 2009 17:40:00 GMT(7/2/2009)

    Post 11123 of 17945
    Joined 8/28/2006
    Jesus said He saw him fall from heaven like lightening

    The Hebrew word for lightning is barak, which means shining as well as lightning. An interesting double connection to the name Lucifer, the shining one.

    BTS

    Japster posted Thu, 02 Jul 2009 22:17:00 GMT(7/2/2009)

    Post 5 of 48
    Joined 7/7/2006

    According to Michael Jackson's "TRUE" wife, [named Lola Nona Seebub Akshersahifin Jackson] or somethin like that his reall name is Khalidad Lucifer and that is where MJ is now and all their children are from OL' Luce!

    Weird but true.....

    cameo-d posted Fri, 03 Jul 2009 00:19:00 GMT(7/3/2009)

    Post 3729 of 6842
    Joined 7/30/2008

    Void Eater:"

    If you walk up to a typical dub (especially one, say, 40 years or older) they will typically equate Lucifer with Satan. This is due to the dogma that existed as they grew up. Most will not have read the New Light from 2002 and kept it in mind - in my experience, this would be a minor point that isn't important (partly due to the flip-flop that must be ignored to maintain peace of mind)."

    --------

    Thanks. I think that's what I was looking for.

    I think this "Lucifer" thing is important because I think WT will slowly begin to introduce more luciferian doctrine; after all that is where the 'new light' comes from.

    Lieu posted Mon, 06 Jul 2009 07:22:00 GMT(7/6/2009)

    Post 256 of 416
    Joined 4/6/2002

    Yes ... and also smurfs.

    Just don't ask any what is Azazel.

    Lieu posted Mon, 06 Jul 2009 08:16:00 GMT(7/6/2009)

    Post 257 of 416
    Joined 4/6/2002

    .... and why is Satan's throne said to be in Pergamon (Greek Acropolis), known for being the birthplace of 'democracy'?

    M BluesBrother posted Mon, 06 Jul 2009 10:57:00 GMT(7/6/2009)

    Post 5274 of 8563
    Joined 10/29/2001
    What would a JW think if you mentioned "Luciferian principles"?

    They would probably think that you were some kind of nut and offer you a magazine about the New World...

    As far as I can see, the word does not appear in the NWT

    cameo-d posted Mon, 06 Jul 2009 12:18:00 GMT(7/6/2009)

    Post 3812 of 6842
    Joined 7/30/2008

    BluesB:"They would probably think that you were some kind of nut and offer you a magazine about the New World...

    As far as I can see, the word does not appear in the NWT"

    I do not have NWT but in the KJV the word is used in Isaiah 14:12.

    It is only used once in the Bible and this makes it a Unique Name.

    To my knowledge, Lucifer has always been another name for Satan, the Devil and has been taught as such in Christian belief.

    But the tides are beginning to turn. It is a name that has been interpreted for us and taught that way, although the origins of the word are conflicting with this dark entity.

    In Latin, the word "lucifer" means "day-star" or "morning star".

    In Roman astronomy, Lucifer was the name for the planet Venus.

    The Christian churches have recently begun to change their teachings about Lucifer being Satan the Devil and that is why I have posed the question on this board. This is an important doctrinal change.

    Here's what one christian website says about it:

    " However, the scholars who translate the perfect word of God into the English language are not perfect and are fallible."

    (The imperfect men excuse. Sounds awful familiar, doesn't it?)

    " The term “Lucifer” came into biblical tradition from Jeromes Latin translation of the Bible called the Vulgate. “Lucifer” does not appear in the original language of the scriptures. Shamefully, the New King James Version maintains “Lucifier” in its modern update of the KJV. ....Unfortunately, one can see where the false concept came from concerning Satans name being Lucifer who fell from heaven. Lucifer is not a biblical name for Satan." http://www.christianmonthlystandard.com/index.php/looking-at-the-bible-versions-kjv-1611/

    Christendom is beginning to retract some of their teachings...just like WT "updates" with the "new light" crap.

    All I can say is if Lucifer is the one bringing all this new light, then he certainly is Satan the Devil. No question!

    wiki says:

    This usage as a reference to a fallen angel stems from a particular interpretation of Isaiah 14:3-20 , a passage that speaks of someone who is given the name of "Day Star" or "Morning Star" (in Latin, Lucifer) as fallen from heaven. [2] 2 Peter 1:19 and elsewhere, the same Latin word lucifer is used of the morning star with no relation to the devil. However, in writings later than those in the Bible, the Latin word Lucifer has often been used instead as a proper name for the devil.

    Now, some christian doctrines are attempting to promote that Lucifer is actually Jesus.

    quote:

    Notice that Jerome correctly translated the Greek "phosphoros" into the Latin word "lucifer." Jerome obviously knew that this verse refers to Jesus Christ--yet he wrote "lucifer" with a small "l" and did not capitalize the word. He also knew that he had translated the word "phosphoros" perfectly into Latin.

    Jerome knew that in the New Testament "Lucifer" is a title for Jesus Christ; yet he still chose to also translate the less- clearly defined Hebrew word "Heylel" in Isaiah 14:12 as "Lucifer," knowing that this word referred to Satan--and here Jerome started the word with a capital "L,"... (http://www.israelofgod.org/lucifer.htm )

    ------------------

    Why is this important to me?

    Because the WT has always been ambiguous about the term Lucifer. The ambiguity is what allows them to continually change meanings as they begin to refine their goal. This is why they can "flip-flop" so easily and people take no note. They give themselves plenty of room to "change the meanings" by not having a definite concrete doctrine on it. They banter back and forth with "could be's" and finally leave the question kind of up in the air. I can see the seeds of Luciferian doctrine being very subtly planted through their literature and that is why I know there is a Freemason connection to their teachings.

    Now, unless a JW has a firm conviction at this point as to who exactly Lucifer is...it will make all the difference at a later date when they try to change it to a new meaning. If someone firmly believes Lucifer is Satan and is shown enough characteristics to prove that, then it will be very difficult to change their view point when the subtle changes begin to take place...as they so often do when 'new light' is presented.

    ----------------

      Close

      Confirm ...