Lucifer is not Satan

The only rule for this debate is that the 66 books of the Bible must be trusted as reliable sources of information, as truth. Now, onto my contentions. I believe there is good Biblical evidence that Lucifer is not Satan; I also contend there is not sufficient evidence to conclude that he is. The name Lucifer appears only in some Bible versions, and only in Isa 14:12. First, the Bible tells us things about Lucifer that do not fit Satan's description. (1) Isa 3-4 says: "And it shall come to pass in the day that the LORD shall give thee rest from thy sorrow, and from thy fear, and from the hard bondage wherein thou wast made to serve, That thou shalt take up this proverb against the king of Babylon, and say, How hath the oppressor ceased! the golden city ceased!" Notice these words to Lucifer are addressed to the king of Babylon. It tells us that when the Isrealites return from Babylonian captivity (from the hard bondage), is when they will say "how hath the oppressor ceased." Satan himself had not "ceased" at that time, for 1 Pet 5:8 shows he was still active long after that time. The king of Babylon though, had ceased, for he fell to the Mdo-Persian army under Cyrus the Great at that time. (2) Isaiah also says: "Hell from beneath is moved for thee to meet thee at thy coming," "Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit." (Isa 14:9, 15) The Bible never says the Devil will go to hell (Heb. Sheol; Gk. Hades), but it does describe humans as going there. In fact, Satan's end will be in the lake of fire, not hell. (Luke 16:19-31; Rev 20:1-10) Note that in Rev 20:1-10, the Devil is bound for 1000 years, after which he misleads men for a while, only to be cast into the lake of fire. There is no mention of a hell for him. (3) Isa 14:16 says: "They that see thee shall narrowly look upon thee, and consider thee, saying, Is this the man that made the earth to tremble, that did shake kingdoms." So Lucifer is described as being "the man," Satan is not a "man," but a spirit being. Verse 11 even talks about his grave where "the worm is spread under thee, and the worms cover thee." This pictures a human death, not that of a spirit. On the other hand, there are no good reason to think Lucifer is Satan: (1) Symbolic language: The "heaven" from which Lucifer is said to have fallen in verse twelve is no less symbolic than the trees rejoicing and singing in verse 8. In fact, Lucifer mean "light bearer," which obviously must be sarcasm anyway, for the wicked king of Babylon surely was no genuine "light" in the Biblical sense. It sure would not be a good term to associate with the prince of darkness Satan himself. so in both cases this is more sarcasic, than literal; but notice that the heaven mentions here says nothing about God and the angels. It isn't pictures as being the heaven where spirit beings reside. Men on the earth are depicted elsewhere in the Bible as being in similar "heavens," so this is no good reason to assume it must refer to some angelic being. (Lam 2:1; Eph 1:3) It must also be remembered that when Lucifer says "I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north: I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High," he didn't actually accomplish these things, he was merely saying these things "in his heart." (Isa 14:13-14) So we don't have to look for a being who did these things, for they were not fully done. No-one is "like the most High." This won't be the first time a mere human (or human organization) attempted to do things describe in such heaven-like language. The "little horn," an early political power, is said to do similar. "And it waxed great, even to the host of heaven; and it cast down some of the host and of the stars to the ground, and stamped upon them." (Dan 8:10) Getting great up to "heaven" and casting stars of "heaven" to earth in no way makes the little horn a spirit being, similarly comments could be made about Lucifer. Another human who had such desires "in his hearth:" "Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God." (2 Thess 2:3-4) And we could go on, but surely, human beings have outrageous desires in their hearts, doesn't mean those desires indicate some invisible spirit being is being referenced. (2) Double application: Those who argue in favor of Lucifer being the Devil claim that the text has a double application; but let me ask, on what basis do they do this? What criteria does con use to determine when a verse has a double application? The answer to this will be interesting. (3) Even if we were to agree that a wicked spirit is being called Lucifer in Isaiah 14, this does nothing to prove that that spirit person must be Satan himself, for there are many evil spirits in the Bible whom have rebelled against God; so how does Con know it must be Satan? (1 Pet 3:19-20; Jude 6; Rev 12:4 a third of the stars of heaven) So even if the the text had a second application to a spirit being, Con would need to show us how he knows this being is Satan and not some other spirit. Satan is never called Lucifer in the Bible, nor is Lucifer called Satan in Isaiah 14 (the only place where the name is used for him), so how does Con arrive at his conclusion? There is much more to mention, but I'll save it for after Con makes his first rebuttal, and presents his own evidence in favor of Lucifer being the Devil. In summary, I can confiently say that the identification of Lucifer as Satan is another tradition based purely one "speculation," or "assumptions," assuming that "only" the Devil could have the desires or was the only one to have the desires to ascend above the stars of God, and be like the most High, etc; and also assuming these things could not genuinely be said of men without needing further application, and so on. Sound Biblical doctrine is based on clear Biblical evidence, not doubtful speculation. I look forward to some clear evidence from Con in support of his case.