It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


The history of Satan

page: 1

log in


posted on Mar, 20 2003 @ 12:58 PM
I'm not here to argue whether or not Satan exists - you'll all have your views depending on your religion and I respect that. I'm just curious about a few things.

1. Just did an online search of the King James bible and there are only 57 references to Satan overall, most of which are in the NT. Why does Satan not really feature at all in the OT and not much in the bible generally?

2. People frequently refer to satan as lucifer. When I did the same search lucifer is only mentioned the once, in Isaiah (OT)

[12] How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!

Now could this maybe be another name for Venus the morning star? I don't understand why if the author meant Satan, he didn't just say Satan.

So I'm a little curious as to how a fallen angel mentioned infrequently in the bible and then mainly in certain books, has risen to such prominence in some people's minds as the greatest evil ever.

posted on Mar, 20 2003 @ 02:30 PM
well of course satin is real there is no doubting it but people shouldnt be following his ways. shouldnt be worshipping him you see what im saying.


posted on Mar, 20 2003 @ 02:41 PM

I'm not here to argue whether or not Satan exists

you didn't understand me

can you shed any light on how satan grew from being a relatively minor biblical character into lucifer the prince of darkness?

posted on Mar, 20 2003 @ 02:44 PM
now look at such a bright answer...

I haven't much to comment on this, I am not a biblical scholar, I had heard before that satan wasn't mentioned as many times as one would expect in the bible, I myself think Satan came into history when people begun to doubt, I think also if you search for "hell" or "sulfer lake" you won't find many answers, IMO satan and hell were brought in to inspire fear and put people in the "right" (wrong) way, maybe they felt heaven's appeal (lie) was not enough to keep people believeing and behaving like religious leaders wanted them to.

About lucifer, I have read somewhere that lucifer was a God (a good God indeed) of the roman (or was it greek) pantheon, but maybe I can be wrong I really don't know


posted on Mar, 20 2003 @ 02:54 PM
I did find this article about who lucifer was on a masonic site. I'm just quoting the relevant part to this discussion as the article was primarily discussing Albert Pike and most of it is not relevant to this topic

"Lucifer makes his appearance in the fourteenth chapter of the Old Testament book of Isaiah, at the twelfth verse, and nowhere else: "How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! How art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!""

"The first problem is that Lucifer is a Latin name. So how did it find its way into a Hebrew manuscript, written before there was a Roman language? To find the answer, I consulted a scholar at the library of the Hebrew Union College in Cincinnati. What Hebrew name, I asked, was Satan given in this chapter of Isaiah, which describes the angel who fell to become the ruler of hell? The answer was a surprise. In the original Hebrew text, the fourteenth chapter of Isaiah is not about a fallen angel, but about a fallen Babylonian king, who during his lifetime had persecuted the children of Israel. It contains no mention of Satan, either by name or reference. The Hebrew scholar could only speculate that some early Christian scribes, writing in the Latin tongue used by the Church, had decided for themselves that they wanted the story to be about a fallen angel, a creature not even mentioned in the original Hebrew text, and to whom they gave the name "Lucifer.""

"Why Lucifer? In Roman astronomy, Lucifer was the name given to the morning star (the star we now know by another Roman name, Venus). The morning star appears in the heavens just before dawn, heralding the rising sun. The name derives from the Latin term lucem ferre, "bringer, or bearer, of light." In the Hebrew text the expression used to describe the Babylonian king before his death is Helal, son of Shahar, which can best be translated as "Day star, son of the Dawn." The name evokes the golden glitter of a proud king's dress and court (much as his personal splendor earned for King Louis XIV of France the appellation, "The Sun King")."

"The scholars authorized by the militantly Catholic King James I to translate the Bible into current English did not use the original Hebrew texts, but used versions translated from the Catholic Vulgate Bible produced largely by St. Jerome in the fourth century. Jerome had mistranslated the Hebraic metaphor, "Day star, son of the Dawn," as "Lucifer," and over the centuries a metamorphosis took place. Lucifer the morning star became a disobedient angel, cast out of heaven to rule eternally in hell. Theologians, writers, and poets interwove the myth with the doctrine of the Fall, and in Christian tradition Lucifer is now the same as Satan, the Devil, and - ironically- the Prince of Darkness."

"So "Lucifer" is nothing more than an ancient Latin name for the morning star, the bringer of light. That can be confusing for Christians who identify Christ himself as the morning star, a term used as a central theme in many Christian sermons. Jesus refers to himself as the morning star in Revelation 22:16: "I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.""

"And so there are those who do not read beyond the King James version of the Bible, who say "Lucifer is Satan: so says the Word of God," while others with knowledge of the Latin and Hebrew texts say, "No, Lucifer is the classical Roman name for the morning star, and now Jesus is the morning star." This discussion can only anger certain fundamentalists. (I have at hand an evangelical tract from a Baptist church that says, "I believe in the Infallibility and Preservation of God's Word, of which the King James 1611 authorized version is the God-guided faithful translation.")"

"Fortunately, this issue of errors in biblical translations is not one that we have to struggle with ourselves. Generations of biblical scholars of all faiths have been aware of the mistranslations and of the misunderstandings that arise from the use of archaic terms whose meanings have been lost, or have evolved into different usages. To address these problems a conference was held in October 1946, attended by delegates of the Church of England, the Church of Scotland, and the Baptists, Methodists, and Congregationalist churches. At another meeting four months later, delegates from the Presbyterians and Quakers joined the original group, along with representatives of various Bible societies. Still later, observers were sent as representatives of the Roman Catholic Church."

"The work on a new translation of the Bible, direct from the sources, stretched out over several years. The most distinguished biblical scholars and specialists in the world were invited to contribute, and every delegate was given the opportunity to review and express his own views on every verse, every word, as presented by the translators."

"The result of this prodigious joint effort was The New English Bible, of which the New Testament was published in 1969 and the Old Testament one year later."

"That does not mean that I have cast aside my King James version: I have them both. But I must recognize that while God may be the inspirational source of all the Old and New Testament scriptures, He is certainly not responsible for the imperfect translations from the language of the earliest surviving texts. To err is human, and men can become overzealous because of the emotional aspects of the subject."

"To the point, the verse in the King James version (Isaiah 14:12) that begins "How art thou fallen from heaven, 0 Lucifer..." has now been translated directly from the Hebrew in the New English Biible as "How you have fallen from heaven, bright morning star..." There is no mention of Lucifer, no reference to any disobedient angel plunging to hell, nor should there be."

another interesting site, this time on the history of Satan himself link

posted on Mar, 20 2003 @ 03:28 PM
Using the KJV can *not* be considered an accurate version of the Bible...King James commissioned this translation for *political* reasons, not religious reasons. Although there's more accurate methods of scholarship used to make corrections over the centuries, there's still a lot that's not been corrected yet...You were right to consult with a scholar, Arc.

More info is included about the inaccuracy in the KJV (Particularly, how the KJV views the concept of Hell) & the literal *conspiracy* behind the Doctrine of Bible Inerrency.


posted on Mar, 20 2003 @ 03:39 PM
I didn't realise that MD - thanks.

What would you consider the most accurate version of the bible to be? I used the KJV purely as it was the one available on and could be easily searched.

posted on Mar, 20 2003 @ 06:10 PM
From my research i believe that The passage in isiah where it uses lucifer is the descpiption of satans fall. Lucifer was an angel of some status and believed that he should have the power of God. He delcared war as i guess you could call it on God. he fouhg with God and was banished to the firery lake of sulfer aka hell. Along with him it is believed wen a good number of angels then called demons for following satan. The reason that he is prominent is because of the spiritual role that he fills as a tempter. The Jews believed that satan existed and since they were very influential in their time with other contries then their religion , including satan spread. this was then passed down through history and was maginfied at the crucifiction of christ and then satan is put in the spotlight as the enemy of christianity. Throughout the romam/medival/rennesence age many people were christian and therefore they knew of satan. That is how since the main population knew then that his infamy was spread. I hope this helped.

posted on Mar, 20 2003 @ 08:52 PM
There's more info about satan in the Qur'an then there is in the Bible

satan called Iblis in the Qur'an defied God. God ordered all angels to bow down to His creation, Adam. Iblis refused saying since God created him from fire and Adam from clay, he was superior to Adam and he refused to bow down. Then he was cast out of heaven.

posted on Mar, 20 2003 @ 08:59 PM
Obviously a myth not supported by the Koran, Illuminati, as God would never have anything bow down to anything other than Himself.
Did you actually read those particular verses yourself?

posted on Mar, 20 2003 @ 09:03 PM
Man, your really racking them up aren't you?

First of all, how do you know what God says or doesnt say

Whatever he says goes. Don't you understand God will ask you to do such stuff that is against your very belief to test your faith in Him?

Bowing down is not worshiping. People bow down to the Queen of England out of respect, not because they think she's the Mary incarnate.

Did you actually read those particular verses yourself?

No, I didn't. I was just thinking and the thought of there being a possibility of such a verse in the Qur'an popped into my head and I posted it for the kicks.

posted on Mar, 23 2003 @ 09:03 AM
One can gather under 2 categories the names associated with Satan:
Names describing its position:

ChÈrubin oint who covered - Ez.28:14

the head of this world - Jn.12:31

the head of the authority of the air - Ep.2:2

the head of the demons - Mt.12:24

the god of this century - 2Co.4:4

the angel of the abyss - Ap.9:11

Names describing its character and its actions

Lucifer (of Latin; carrier of light, that which shines) - Es.14:12, 2Co.11:13-16

Satan (of Hebrew ,Al-shatan; The adversary) - Za.3:1, 1Th.2:1-8

the devil (of the Greek Diaboolos: slanderer and accusing) Ap.12:9-10

the Ancient Snake, "tempting" forgery - Ap.12:9, 20:3 and 2Co.11:3

the destructor (of the Apollyon Greek and Hebrew Abaddon) Ap.9:11

the large red dragon - Ap.12:3

the malignant one - 1Jn.5:18-19

the tempter - 1Th.3:5 the spirit acting in rebellious wire, Ep.2:2

The Leviathan, The king of wild beasts (Job)

Rahab, The sea snake (Psaulms)

posted on Mar, 23 2003 @ 09:12 AM

Originally posted by arc
[12] How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!

Another version (from lutherian bible) :

How are you fallen from the sky, son of the Dawn, shining star of the morning.

In Job there are also mentionned :

"Where were you when shining stars where singing the morning ?"

The apocalyps book mentionned two other stars of the morning :

Absynthe who turn water to bitter
Abaddon who inflame great babylone and is the king of the locusts...

posted on Mar, 23 2003 @ 11:02 AM

Originally posted by arc What would you consider the most accurate version of the bible to be? I used the KJV purely as it was the one available on and could be easily searched.

The most accurate interpretation would be by knowing what the translating scholars know about the original Hebrew texts & by researching the *history* of the other translations through out the existance of the Bible.

I know, it's not easy to find the truth nowadays, isn't it? But that's because society itself is the enemy of truth...And it's been that way for as long as humankind has been "civilized".

Originally posted by NinjaoftheNight
From my research i believe that...

Everything in your post is "traditional teachings", not the scriptures themselves. The original Hebrews knew *nothing* of Hell. It wasn't added to canon until the Greek translations that mistook Sheol or Ghenna for Hades, then finally Hell as it's taught in modern times...In other words, the Church itself invented & propagated lies throughout the history of the Church itself as they say it was since the Crucifiction.

top topics


log in