Lucifer is not Satan

My point 2 was that the Bible never has the Devil in hell. 2 Peter 1:19 merely uses the Latin "Lucifer" for the day star that rises in the hearts of "believers," not discussing the Devil or hell, so my point 2 stands unimpeached. 2 Pet 2:4 fails to put the Devil in hell for the following reasons. (1) "Hell" is a mistranslation in this verse. The Greek word for hell, hades, is not used here; rather, the text uses "tartarosas," which means "having cast into Tartus." So the text is talking about Tartus, not hades (hell). (2) The angels in Tartus are in "chains" (compare Jude 6), reserved unto the day of judgment; so they will continue to be in this prison until the day of judgment, unlike Satan the Devil who continues to be free in this world. (1 Pet 5:8) So the Devil is not among those imprisoned in Tartus, but is free for now to cause more havoc. (3) 2 Pet 2:4 doesn't mention Satan; Con is merely assuming Satan must have been among them, he hasn't proved this. If "all" demons were sent into the prison, weather it be hell, Tartus, or otherwise, there would be no demons in the world today; but Scripture says different. So 2 Pet 2:4 isn't inclusive of "all" evil spirits, and Con hasn't shown him to be among them. (4) 2 Pet 2:4 was talking about "angels," Con has not shown from the Bible that Satan was ever an "angel." How does he know he wasn't a Seraph, Cherub, or other spirit being? Our souls/spirits are not angels, so God is quite capable of creating spirits which are not "angels," and the Bible does "define" what angels are at Heb 1:14. Can he show Satan ever fit that description? (5) Revelations 20:7 is interesting because vss 1-3 show that Satan is "yet" to be imprisoned, (Revelation is about the future 1:1), so he obviously wasn't with those already locked up in Peter. John was writing about the future, Peter was discussing the past. Further, vss 1-3 say he will be cast into the "abyss," not into hades (hell). Let me add that none of these Scriptures Con uses ever say that Satan's name is Lucifer. Rev 12:7-9 doesn't mention anything about Satan being Lucifer; Lucifer isn't even mentioned in the text. Lucifer fell from heaven in Isaiah 14, true, but that was in the past in Isaiah's time; Revelation is a record of the things that are yet to come to pass. (Rev 1:1) So Rev 12 is talking about events after John wrote this book. Satan's ousting from heaven was still future, thus, in Job's time he still had access to heaven. (Job 1-2) But since Lucifer fell from heaven long before John was even born, the fall of Lucifer and that of Satan are separate events. Even if I were to grant the Apocalypsis of Moses place in the Bible canon, the passage he quoted from it still doesn't identify Satan as Lucifer. Con gives a lengthy quote from the CCC which still doesn't mention the word "Lucifer" or seek to identify him as Satan. Then he claims that once we identify devils as angels the passage in Isaiah becomes clear, but Con has not yet proven that Satan the Devil in particular was ever at anytime an angel. Please keep in mind that the CCC (whatever that means) is not the Bible, but an interpretation of the Bible. Interpretations can be wrong and are often debatable. "The power beyond the king of Babylon is being addressed the ephemeral powers that are in conflict with God (Eph 6:12)." Isa 14:3-4 says this proverb is against the king of Babylon; Con has not shown us where it says it was also addressed to some "power beyond" this earthly king. This is his assumption that he is yet to prove. Then he brings up Ezekiel 28 and asks: "What mortal king is an anointed cherub? What mortal king was in Eden covered in precious stones? What mortal king walks among the stones of fire?" (1) The king wore precious stones on his clothing. Does Con really believe that a spirit being wears jewelry? Hmmm…Please explain why Satan would be decked in emerald and gold; was he going to a fashion show? A king would walk up and down palaces overlaid in precious stones on the floor and walls, so he did walk up and down stones of fire. Sapphire is a firey stone. (2) Verse 13 immediately says after describing his jewelry that "and gold: the workmanship of thy tabrets and of thy pipes was prepared in thee…," (KJV) tabrets and pipes, in a spirit being? (3) The king was anointed, so what? So was Cyrus. (Isa 45:1) (4) Eden, or the "garden of God," is used figuratively to denote the prosperity and comfort in which some kings lived. The king of Egypt was also said to be in Eden (Eze 31:9-18), and from the way it is used here we can tell it's not meant to be literal anymore than in Eze 28. The meanings given for "Eden" the garden of God according to Strong's Concordance…. H5731 ay'-den The same as H5730 (masculine); Eden, the region of Adam's home: - Eden. H5730 ay'-den, ed-naw' From H5727; pleasure: - delicate, delight, pleasure. See also H1040. H5727 aw-dan' A primitive root; to be soft or pleasant; figuratively and reflexively to live voluptuously: - delight self. H1040 bayth ay'-den From H1004 and H5730; house of pleasure; Beth-Eden, a place in Syria: - Beth-eden. (DRB Translation of Ezekiel 28:13)…. "Thou wast in the pleasures of the paradise of God: every precious stone was thy covering…" The phrase "pleasures of the paradise of God" is correctly translated because it was taken from the meanings given for "Eden". The meanings of "Eden" imply it does not necessarily mean a location, but can simply mean a condition of delight or pleasure; such as a symbolic "house of pleasure" (H1040). Therefore it could simply be a symbolic "house of pleasure" that the King of Tyre symbolically dwelled in with all manner of delight (H5730) and every precious stone. (5) Other versions do not say the king was indeed a cherub, but that a cherub guarded him. Note how they treat Eze 28:14: "I appointed a winged creature to guard your home on my holy mountain," (Contemporary English Version) "I gave you your place with the winged one" (The Bible in Basic English) "I appointed an angel to guard you" (God's Word Translation) "I put a terrifying angel there to guard you" (Good News Bible) So the king may not have been called a cherub at all. (6) Even if I grant Con that Eze 28 points back to a spirit being beyond the king, he still hasn't shown me that this being is Lucifer or Satan. Nowhere does the Bible say Satan was a cherub, or that Lucifer is one, and how does he know there were not other spirit beings in Eden? So this is pure conjecture on Con's part. This is not proof. (7) Fact is that even if there is a double application here in Eze 28, it doesn't prove there is one in Isaiah 14. The king of Babylon had desires in his heart to ascend above the clouds etc, how does that make him not a man? Do not mere men have such desires? Nor has Con shown me the heaven he fell from was the same heaven angels reside in. Such language is used elsewhere in the Bible for purely human entities such as the little horn ascending to the host of heaven and bringing the stars to the earth in Daniel 8:10. "Pro's notion that "light bearer" is sarcastic has also been refuted. The title is used for Jesus, for Mary and for Lucifer in the same way." Jesus and Mary are righteous, so they can be light-bearers, the king of Babylon and Satan are not, so they could not truly be light-bearers, it was sarcastic no matter which one its referring to. "The broader evidence shows Lucifer as God's greatest angel who rebels and becomes Satan is supported by the Latin." Where does the Latin Bible say Lucifer was an angel? Where does the Latin Bible say Lucifer is God's greatest enemy? Con hasn't shown us any of this, so he hasn't built a good case that Lucifer is Satan. Nor has he refuted my evidence that Lucifer is not Satan, such as where Lucifer is called a "man." I look forward to the next round.