I will repeat, that it is very possible that the entity/Angel most famously known as “Lucifer” has never existed. And This is where it gets interesting. Throughout history, since the dawn of time, in most monotheistic religions, there have been a very clear-cut and defined definition of “good vs. evil”. If there is an all-seeing, all-powerful loving god, there must also be an all-corrupting, ever-present omnipotent destroyer, the devil. It has been a major topic of debate amongst the faithful for quite some time now. This is how it has been for many thousands of years, and this article won’t change that. However, I did come across something very intriguing, and I am going to share it with you: the entire identity of the Angel known as “Lucifer” may, in fact, be a scholastic error. That’s right, somewhere along the lines, someone screwed up. So, let’s begin to unravel why the name “Lucifer” may very well not even be a name for the devil at all. 

Many thousands of years ago, the holy scriptures were written. And they were not written in English, or even Latin. However, “Lucifer” was only brought into existence as late as the 4th century, anno domini. Most people and religions, mistakenly, use the name of “Lucifer” and “Satan” interchangeably, and this is in fact also incorrect. Another thing that should also be mentioned, is that  “Satan” and “Lucifer” are two different, distinct beasts. Most people do not understand what I mean by that, so briefly, I will just say that “Satan” is actually also an office, or title. For example, at one time, Azazel held the rank of Satan. He was known as Satan, much like a high-ranking officer in the military would be known simply as “General“. Even within the ranks of the demonic, and in the Islamic religion, the title of Shaitan is just that: a title. It doesn’t describe the actual entity, it describes their allegiance. All Djinn (Islamic equivalents ofdemons”) who were Shaitan were followers of Iblis (“Satan”), i.e., “evil djinn“. Their function was to tempt and put in peril mankind, etc, much like the demonic entities of the Judeo-Christian religions. At one point, Beelzebub, Belial, and a host of other demonic entities/rulers all held the title of Satan: because at the time when they were known by this title, they were the ones ruling Hell.

With that being said, Lucifer is not a title, Lucifer is an entity. Now, the name “Lucifer” is never actually mentioned in the verse of the Bible which everyone credits to the first “sighting” of Satan: Isaiah 14:12. Now, here is a rather interesting fact: “Lucifer” is never directly or indirectly called Satan, nor is the word Satan ever found in Isaiah 14. This supports my above claim that “Satan” is merely a title, and not an identifying name. The exact quote-in-question of which I am referring to is:

Isa 14:12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning!

Except, the word I am referring to that has been mistranslated is “Haylel” ( הילל), or another version, Hĕlĕl. This, literally, is the Hebrew word for “Morning star”.  Now, as you can see with most Angels of the Old Testament, this biblical reference to an Angelic entity uses the suffix “-el”. (for example, Micha-el, Gabri-el, Rapha-el, etc.) So, while it is logical to assume that this word, Haylel, refers to an Angelic being, it does not translate to the word “Lucifer”. For more on the “-el” suffix, one of our favorite authors, Michelle Belanger explained it quite eloquently in her book The Dictionary of Demons – Names of the Damned, ISBN 978-0-7387-2306-8, page 98:

If you pay close attention to a number of names in this text, you’ll find that there is a traditional convention to the spelling of most angel names. Nearly all angel names end in either -iel or -ael. The Semitic root el means “Lord” or “God,” and in the case of angels, it is usually read as meaning “of God.” Thus, the name of the angel Raphael is taken to mean “healing of God,” as the root raph means “to heal.” This is generally interpreted as a demonstration of that angel’s devotion to the Creator. However, the name could also be taken to mean “god of healing” – a reading suggestive of the possibility that all the angels were once members of an ancient pantheon that predates Jewish monotheism. Many demons began life as angels, and quite a few of them still retain their angelic-sounding names despite their fallen status. This of course raises problems with clearly discerning the fallen from the unfallen, as their names can be virtually identical. Even the magickal grimoires that endeavor to describe methods for calling up demons to make use of their skills acknowledge that these infernal beings are roguish and deceitful by nature and, unless properly bound and compelled, will seek to mislead people. The seventeenth-century scholar Dr. Thomas Rudd devised a solution: he outlined an extensive question-and-answer session intended to trick demons into revealing their infernal natures. It begins with getting the spirit’s name and ends by asking the spirit to agree that all the fallen have been justly condemned. The idea here is that a fallen angel will balk at this statement, and reveal itself by trying to argue the point.

So as you can see, much of religion is staked in the proper translation of the original texts. According to the Miriam-Webster dictionary online, the original of the word “Lucifer” is as follows:

Origin of LUCIFER:

Middle English, the morning star, a fallen rebel archangel, the Devil, from Old English, from Latin, the morning star, from lucifer light-bearing, from luc-, lux light + –fer -ferous — more at light

First Known Use: before 12th century

And, the definition of “morning star” as explained by the Google online dictionary is:

morning star n.:

A planet, especially Venus, visible in the east just before or at sunrise.

So, to the average person, even scholars, the definitions of “Lucifer” and “morning star” have a strikingly similar meaning, and most would agree that it is the same definition. Now, this is exactly where the problem lies: “Lucifer” is a translation, not a transliteration. As anyone out there who has ever worked in translation knows, genuine, real, proper names are transliterated. They are not translated. And this is the major issue.

According to this website, which this article borrows rather heavily from:

This is a simple indication that the word Haylel is not a proper name, nor was Lucifer intended to be viewed as a proper name in its original usage. Also, when we look in the Latin Vulgate’s version of 2 Pe 1:19, the Greek word for morning-star (phosphoros) is translated as lucifer, indicating that the word lucifer was never intended to be understood as a proper name:

2Pe 1:19 And we have the prophetic word made more certain, which you do well to heed as a light that shines in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts, (The Scriptures)

et habemus firmiorem propheticum sermonem cui bene facitis adtendentes quasi lucernae lucenti in caliginoso loco donec dies inlucescat et LUCIFER oriatur in cordibus vestris (Latin Vulgate – 405 ad)

Now, since many of us were predisposed to believe lucifer was hasatan, it may be shocking to see this word lucifer being used to describe the “prophetic word” (i.e. the morning star); but the context makes it clear, not only is “lucifer” NOT a proper name; it IS the latin word for morning star.

Adding further insult to injury, something else that I have come across in the past is that many people out there have equated the name “Lucifer” to the Greek “Eosphorus”. And, a quick search of this will show you the origins of this name as well. In the Wikipedia entry for “Hesperus”, in the first paragraph, it clearly lists:

In Greek mythology, Hesperus (Greek Ἓσπερος Hesperos) is the Evening Star, the planet Venus in the evening. He is the son of the dawn goddess Eos (Roman Aurora) and is the brother of Eosphorus (also called Phosphorus, and Lucifer), the Morning Star.

So obviously, this term gets around, no? While I could give you numerous citations and quotations from every possible source I own in regards to the name “Lucifer”, I strongly recommend that you do your own research. The reason for this is because too many people take for granted that what they are learning is correct when in fact it may very well not be. All bits of information have been passed on, verbally, literally, or fictionally, and in the end it is like playing one gigantic game of ‘telephone’, where the message is so distorted by the time it comes back around that it doesn’t always resemble what it did originally. And again, an excerpt taken from The Dictionary of Demons – Names of the Damned, written by Michelle Belanger, one of the best occult researchers I have found, includes a rather lengthy explanation in her entry for “Lucifer”:

Lucifer: Lucifer has come to be one of the most recognizable names for the Devil. He is depicted variously as Satan, the Serpent in Genesis, and the Dragon in Revelation. The name Lucifer itself is derived from a passage in Isaiah 14:12, translated in the King James Version of the Bible to read: 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 word translated here as Lucifer is the Hebrew helal, meaning “morning star.” The word Lucifer itself comes from the Latin Vulgate version of the Bible. In Latin, lucifer means “light-bearer.” At the time that the Latin Vulgate version of the Bible was being translated, the word lucifer referred specifically to the planet Venus in its capacity as the morning star. Saint Jerome, the translator of this passage, was not in error when he parsed the Hebrew helal for the Latin lucifer, as both words refer directly to an astrological phenomenon, not an individual. Later readings of the passage, however, interpreted Lucifer as a proper name. Notably, most modern biblical scholars assert that this passage in Isaiah referenced not the fall of an angel, but the fall of the king of Babylon. A few lines earlier, in Isaiah 14:4, the portion of the text that includes the reference to the fallen morning star is introduced as an extensive taunt to be taken up against the king of Babylon. Despite this, early Church fathers took Isaiah 14:12 as a direct reference to Satan, connecting it with Luke 10:18, where Jesus declares, “I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven.” The only real connection between these two passages, at least linguistically, is the reference to a fall. Saint Paul helps enable the association between Satan and the Light-Bearer with his passage in 2 Corinthians 11:14 that says, ” … even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light.” Through these three passages, plus the story in Revelation where the Devil is cast out of Heaven, a rich mythic history about Lucifer has evolved.

While I will not lie claims one way or the other, due to the fact that I am no linguistics scholar, I do have to state that in regards to this particular issue, it does hold a certain level of credence. It is plausible. It is also no secret that the devil exists throughout history, and that he has been known by many, many names. The article I have been mainly referencing above does seem a little bit biased to me, and it seems like they are trying to go out of their way to prove that “Lucifer” is not the proper name for the devil, but I’ll end this article by delivering this quote, and asking that you consider it’s meaning.

“A rose by any other name would smell as sweet.” – William Shakespeare, Romeo & Juliet


  1. Umbra Solis says:

    It’s not just the name that’s a problem, it’s the whole concept.

    • pj says:

      All of these examples of daystar, star of the morning etc. refer back to the/an evil beast, demon or fallen angel. I am concerned that the same language of …..daystar, sun of righteousness, morning star are attributed in translations as the Messiah ….how can both have the same titles. I REALLY need clarification here. This seemingly small detail is one of those that I can see being used to deceive even the elect. for messiah luke 1:78 malachi 4;2 numbers 15:38-41 this is upsetting to me and I want to get this resolved

  2. Uncle Tree says:

    Funny – that you should end this with a rose – the Rosicrucian’s symbol for Christ, the other Morning Star. It’s seems odd to me, like Christ should also be a title, but in the good side’s case, Jesus is the only One begotten by God to hold that holiest and highest of titles – a Son ship. So many bad guys against one good guy. Doesn’t seem fair. Isn’t Raphael somehow, or somewhere equated with Jesus or Christ? I can’t remember where I read that. No such thing as simple, eh?

    Jung said we shouldn’t succumb to neither good nor evil. Probably because we are not very good judges, and we have a hard time defining what is intrinsically good. It’s a matter of taste, or so it seems. Some actions, of course, are not healthy, and don’t promote the public good – whatever that means. It’s all those grey areas…but, lucky for me, my girlfriend is a psychic/medium. Last week she delivered some evil spirit from the midst of her niece. I wasn’t there, but I heard the EVP. Life on both sides of the track have come closer to my real-life existence. Literally…

    Carry on! We’ll get by. Cheerz, UT

  3. zxcv6279a says:

    This Reply is for Uncle Tree Boy I can see that you are in the right place ConFused. The rose is not the rosicrucians symbol for Christ. RosyCrucae is based on egyptian majic which has nothing to do with Him. The One good guy against all the Bad guys does’nt matter either. That was accomplished at Golgotha. And your right it isnt fair and I’m so Glad, that the Bad Guys cant ever win anything but temporary and brief sucessess with those who purposely or mistakenly give permission. Raphael has nothing to do with Christ, Its Michael who is considered by some to have been chosen to become man as the Christ But this is not Fact bu theological Conjecture. And as far as your psychic whatever girlfriend, She cant deliver anything except groceries to her own home, and some evil spirit has to have a name.. What was it. Possession’s evil or otherwise can be recorded On Video or Audio But only the Sounds of the Dead or shoud I say the Unquiet dead come out on E.V.P And Try to stay one one track in life there are more than 2 but we are only meant to be on one. Good Day. zxcv6279a

  4. Bravo says:

    “All bits of information have been passed on, verbally, literally, or fictionally, and in the end it is like playing one gigantic game of ‘telephone’, where the message is so distorted by the time it comes back around that it doesn’t always resemble what it did originally”

    And this is precisely why nothing in the christian bible is to be trusted.

    I agree with you though about Lucifer not being the actual name of the devil. I’ve been saying such for years now, though not as specifically.

  5. jacob joseph says:


  6. Maranatha says:

    I just read a whole book on this exact subject. It’s called “Deconstructing Lucifer”, and it goes into great depth to expel the Lucifer myth. You can download it on Amazon for free.

  7. Chris says:

    While I agree with the majority of what you said, and while satan and lucifer may even be two seperate demons, the main point is that the name Lucifer is more of the state of which the devil fell from, rather than an official name or title. It describes how far the devil fell from Grace, being the brightest and most perfect angels in heaven before the fall. It is also a metaphor for the king of Babylon, but it can be said that the fall from Grace was metaphorically the same for both. Lucifer is more of an insult now than an offical name or title

  8. The name Lucifer means light-bearer, or more poetically, light-bringer, since it refer to venus when it´s seen at dawn, from latin lux, light, and ferre, to carry.
    I don´t know how did it began to be attributed to “satan”, but I think that the general idea is that, like that one of Azazel being a “satan” (hebrew for ‘accuser’) in rank, and belonging to the nephilim, “fallen” (according to the Book of Enoch), that the once light-bringing, or light-abiding angels, fell from their holy state, which brings us again to venus, because that planet is also the evening star, or poetically, the bringer of darkness and cold. This is all metaphorical, and also the fact that venus, according to Theosophy, depicts poetically the dual nature of the spiritual mind (reminding me here of Kazantzakis’ “dual nature of Christ”, i.e., bestial and divine), and that it is none other than the seat or root of the human ego/individual consciousness (the sun being of course a metaphor for “god” here, apart from which can only the soul become “visible”).

  9. I just simply think that some want to get LUCIFER out of the way if make many ignore LUCIFER if he appearing before any of you and you hearing about some saying LUCIFER didnt exist it would be if there was law that made LUCIFER not able to do something without during certain thing first or giving information to few humans but no one wanting to listen if he said his name is LUCIFER if you say go away hallucination if i saw LUCIFER as you want to call it hallucination but i would think it was real i would do wonder what reason LUCIFER would have to appear before me in spiritual form
    if wanted to tell me something important about how to stop illuminati for sure for example if LUCIFER knew how illuminati would work if because LUCIFER did do lot of scheming in the past
    and if he created illuminati for good intentions but then the members turned on LUCIFER and then did evil actions and then put all blame on him and kicking him constantly while trying to keep GOD and his angels at bay if GOD would have hoped LUCIFER could have talked some sense in to the illuminati members and leaders to quit while still having chance and to repent for their sins before suffering the far worst fate any living soul could get if pain worse than hellfire or hellfire at worst if LUCIFER would give that as punishment for they betraying him and his trust wanting to use violence, killing and commiting evil actions to gain total power but it wouldnt work that easy if LUCIFER was used but if LUCIFER realised he was used and stopped or breaked free i guess that
    would say much if illuminati grew vulnerable without LUCIFER to use and not able to use LUCIFERs power against GOD and the others from heaven that would be positive if illuminati would begin to lose everything they have getting what they deserve if abandoning reason for why they were created for if was to help people not control them and want power even by killing and strike fear into innocent humans i think GOD would feel dissapointed with illuminati and LUCIFER feeling dissapointed too even furious i guess it would be funny if illuminati members rebelled if it reminding about rebellion all over again but in diffrent ways than before and more at stake than before those illuminati seeming worse when rebelled they sound much worse than LUCIFER would been in rebellion i do not hate LUCIFER i do think he exists there isnt proof illuminati knows that and uses fact that there arent solid proof in many cases when taking things to court or try free someone from prison it would seem impossible because illuminati can even plant false evidence and then arrest certain people like MICHAEL JACKSON and want to forbidd many things like incest so they, male politicans and male millionaires and billionaires can rape sisters,cousins, mothers and aunts to their evil black hearts content thats how reallity is its so messed up everything usa sucks if forbidding incest and goverment kicking many down and letting sexual abuse and at least 15 year-old boy up 17 year-old boy having sex with older woman isnt sexual abuse not even close to rape unless boy being so scared of women and cried much or being so depressed and had cold expressions if said he was hurt badly then it would be reason to give her little punishment i do not mean policemen gangraping woman like they want with sisters if finding some have incest then take her to police station and if some men over 40 or 50 joining in and messing her up so much the sister cant think straight thats how it would be girls and women are more vulnerable then men when it comes to sex
    and get changed for worse if raped only once by 5 to 12 men over 30 if was 17 then she would either cry so much, getting depressed and then try suicide or taking her anger out on many men becoming afraid getting raped again and instead maybe chosing to become a lesbian i would say
    it could make her feel little easier if loving woman if somone she spent much time was gentle with her and patient then i would not be standing in the way if i was GOD or LUCIFER i would feel happy for many women who loves eachother despite it seeming awkward to few and some trying to hurt lesbians and gays i would have felt like supporting gay relationships too, older women younger men relationships and support incest as everyone names it saying nothing of the things are wrong you just believe way too much about what they say well i have said all i wanted to say thats all bye GOD BLESS YOU AND MAY LUCIFER BLESS YOU TOO.

  10. Wendy says:

    This is my take: The name Lucifer does mean Light Bearer and belonged to a popular angel back before human beings existed. It is also the name of the angel who lead the fallen ones in rebellion against God. He was a powerful angel, full of cleverness and beauty. However, he wasn’t clever enough to avoid the pitfall of pride and believing his own PR. He thought his throne should be exalted above God’s, After the Fall, Lucifer’s name became Satan which means the Adversary. He was against everyone: God, who he hated, the Heavenly Host who he despised, and human beings he who wanted to destroy. I would argue that he is behind of the death of every one, given that his legions deceive human beings (through lying, negative thoughts) into emotional states of fear, anger, guilt, anxiety, stress, etc. all of which over time destroy the health and the mind. (Well, there are studies suggesting that dementia is an end product of years of extreme stress and fear.) At any rate, one day, he’ll probably be called the Defeated One which might be good for him and his pride issues.

  11. Shanie says:

    Lucifer’s favorite trick, is making man believe he doesn’t exist. So, please don’t be fooled, if you truly believe there’s a God, then you’ve also got to believe there’s a Devil. Makes no sense at all to believe in one and not thee other.

  12. There’s a tantric goddess (specifically a of the Hindu goddess group called the Mahavidyas) named Tara who is associated with Venus. Many religions use the word “Tara” as a word for star.

  13. Jake Hibrod says:

    Something or someone who is mentioned in almost every major religious book can not be just a fake myth. Be it Lucifer or Iblees or simply Satan, him or some version of him has some relevance.

    • Chris Z says:

      Religions often have an evil enemy, possibly because it makes it easier to direct the world’s ills towards that entity. Not to mention that “Lucifer,” “Iblis”, and “Satan” are all based in the same original Hebraic faith, so of course there’s overlap between the concept. Also, the issue at hand is not whether or not this entity exists, but rather that the generally held belief that the primary villain of the Christian faith was an angel named Lucifer. As biblical study shows, it’s extremely unlikely that it was named Lucifer and instead a reference to Venus (Lucifer a.k.a. light-bringer) was accidentally made into a proper noun and therefore became a name unintentionally. This then calls into question the legitimacy of the faith itself (sorry to say) if it can’t even get the name of its main antagonist right.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s