From MormonWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

There are several doctrinal problems on this page... the first is that the reference to Lucifer as a "son of the morning" in Isaiah 14 is NOT a reference to his being a Son of God. Things are further muddled in that Isaiah 14 most likely has reference to the King of Babylon and not Satan. The term "Lucifer" is the Latin translation of the Hebrew "hillel" or "shining one." Even in Latin, Lucifer is not a name for Satan, but means "light bearer" and is the Latin name for the planet "Venus." The "shining one, son of the dawn" is a reference to the planet Venus. Isaiah says that the Babylonian king was like Venus, a shining star, a light bearer, who tried to be God, but when the sun rose, he fell from the sky, just like Venus as the morning star falls from the sky when the sun rises. Of course the king of Babylon is a type of Satan, and this passage is therefore indirectly about Satan, but not directly about Satan. It is this indirect reference to Satan in Isaiah 14 that has caused the term "Lucifer" to become an English word that is synonymous with Satan while loosing its original meaning and reference to the planet Venus. Therefore to use this passage as evidence of Satan's sonship to God is misleading. A better argument would be to point out that Satan is a fallen angel, and that Angels are called "ben elohim" sons of God in the Old Testament. It might be wise to point out that Satan is a son of God, just like all angels are sons of God. Since Christ is also a "son of God" to call them brothers might be appropriate, HOWEVER, Christ is a Son of God in at least one way that Satan is not, namely God is also the father of Christ's body through the incarnation. God is the father of Satan in the way that He is the father of ALL the angelic pre-mortal spirit children of God. In this regard Christ and Satan are very different. Note, no distinction between pre-mortal spirits and resurrected angels is made in the Old Testament. --Jlc46 19:54, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Also problematic in this article is that God did not choose Christ's plan over Satan's plan. As I understand this, it was never Christ's plan, it was God's plan. God had a plan, Christ accepted that plan, and Satan rejected it and tried to impose one of his own. --Jlc46 19:54, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I think you make good points. --Seanmcox 18:47, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I made some edits to correct some of this. Hopefully, the dedicated searcher will peek at this discussion page to see your commentary on Isaiah 14. Gboyd 21:34, 6 December 2008 (UTC)