"In Isaiah 14 we find more information. This
chapter makes reference to the angelic
rebellion, identifying its ring leader. It gives
us important details we could learn of in no
"In verse 4 God addresses the "king of Babylon."
In Isaiah's time the city-state of Babylon was
emerging as the major power in that region of
the world. Its king was a war monger, expanding
his empire through brute force. He enslaved,
plundered and devastated the nations around him.
(In context, this passage has dual meaning, in
that it also refers to an end-time tyrant who
will rule over a final global empire referred to
in Revelation 17 and 18 as Babylon the Great.)
"The philosophy of the king of Babylon here is
satanic -- acquiring wealth and power at the
expense of others, gaining it through violence
and bloodshed. The king of Babylon thus
exemplifies Satan and his characteristics.
Indeed, as we will read more about later, Satan
is the real power behind the throne of the
world's kingdoms (compare
Revelation 12:9; 13:2).
"In verse 12 the subject shifts from the
physical king to a ruler who is yet higher. Many
scholars recognize that the original language of
this passage is in the form of a lament,
a reflection of God's mourning and sense of
great loss due to the events being described:
"How you are fallen from heaven, O Lucifer,
son of the morning! How you are cut down to the
ground, you who weakened the nations! For you
have said in your heart: 'I will ascend into
heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars
of God; I will also sit on the mount of the
congregation on the farthest sides of the north;
I will ascend above the heights of the clouds, I
will be like the Most High'" (verses 12-14).
"Who is this being who dares to exalt himself
above the other angels (stars symbolize angels,
Revelation 1:20) of God, to challenge God
Himself as ruler of the universe?"
these interpretations of Isaiah 14 correct? Is
Isaiah 14 REALLY discussing the role of Satan --
here called Lucifer?
is Isaiah chapter 14 all about, for we need to
understand that taking Isaiah 14:12 on its own -- as
a stand alone verse -- and attempting to interpret
it is only going to lead to numerous errors and
false teachings? What time periods or ages was
Isaiah alluding to? Is Isaiah 14 prophetic
symbolism? Is it really about Satan the Devil? Is it
about a king of Babylon, as mentioned in verse 4, or
is the intended subject matter something entirely
different? Who or what is Lucifer? Is the name Lucifer a complete fiction and/or
a Roman Catholic invention and yet another of their
devious corruptions of Scripture? Can the alleged
name "Lucifer" only be found once in the King James
Version of the Old Testament and not at all in the
King James Version of the New Testament? Is Lucifer
another name for Satan the Devil?
Before we delve into the above questions, let's take
a look at some more translations of Isaiah 14.
Transliteral) "How you-fell from heavens
howl you son of dawn you-were-hacked-down
to the earth one defeating over nations."
Isaiah 14:12 (CLV) "How you have fallen
from the heavens! Howl, son of the dawn!
You are hacked down to the earth, defeater of
Isaiah 14:12(YLT) "How hast thou fallen
from the heavens, O shining one, son of the
dawn! Thou hast been cut down to earth, O
weakener of nations."
Isaiah 14:12 (TAB) "How have you fallen
from heaven, O light-bringer and daystar, son
of the morning! How you have been cut down
to the ground, you who weakened and laid low the
nations [O blasphemous, satanic king of
Isaiah 14:12 (NRSV) "How you are fallen
from heaven, O Day Star, son of Dawn! How
you are cut down to the ground, you who laid the
nations low! 13 You said in your heart,
'I will ascend to heaven; above the stars of God
I will set my throne on high; I will sit on the
mount of assembly in the far north; 14 I
will ascend above the heights of the clouds, I
will make myself like the Most High.' 15
But you are brought down to Sheol, to the depths
of the Pit. 16 Those who see you will
stare at you, and ponder over you: 'Is this the
man who made the earth tremble, who shook
kingdoms, 17 who made the world like a
desert and overthrew its cities' who did not let
his prisoners go home?'"
Isaiah 14:12 (The Dead Sea
Scrolls Bible) "How you are fallen from the heaven, O day-star, son of
the morning! How you have been cut down to the ground -- you who laid low
Isaiah 14:12 (The Jerusalem
Bible) "How did you come to fall from the heavens, Daystar, son of
Dawn? How did you come to be thrown to the ground, you who enslaved the
Isaiah 14:12 (Tanakh) "How
are you fallen from heaven, O Shining One, son of Dawn! How are you
felled to earth, O vanquisher of nations!"
Notice here that none of these translations use the
word "Lucifer" -- why is this? Only the King James
Version and the New King James Version of the Old
Testament use the name "Lucifer."
Also notice that some of the
above translations have the word "heaven" in the plural, i.e., "heavens,"
which can have a considerable affect on the meaning of the verse. If the word is
singular, then it could possibly refer to the "heaven of YEHOVAH's abode." If in
the plural, the word could refer to the "heavens around us" -- or the universe!
So which is it? What is the correct meaning of the word "heaven" in Isaiah
14:12? In Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible the word
"heaven" in Isaiah 14:12 is #8064 -- which is explained as follows:
shaw-mah'-yim; dual of an unused sing. shameh, shaw-meh'; from an
unused root mean. to be lofty; the sky (as aloft;
the dual perh. alluding to the visible arch in which the clouds move, as
well as to the higher ether where the celestial bodies revolve):-
air, x astrologer, heaven (-s)."
When the Bible refers to the
"heaven" of YEHOVAH's abode, Strong's word # 8065 is used --
"8065. shamayin (Chald.), shaw-mah'-yin; corresp. to 8064 --
So clearly Isaiah 14:12 is
referring to the sky, or the celestial sphere -- NOT to the "heaven" of YEHOVAH
The True Meaning of "Lucifer"
we have listed nine translations with only one
translation, the KJV, using the Latin derived noun
'Lucifer', a word which originates from the Latin
term lucem ferre, and means 'light bringer'
or 'bearer of light'. This means it's referring to a
thing or a being. In Ancient Roman astrology and/or
astronomy 'Lucifer' was the name given to the
morning star i.e. the PLANET VENUS. Gleason Archer noted: "The title
Helel, which KJV (following the Latin Vulgate) translates 'Lucifer,' is
rendered Hesphoros in the Septuagint (meaning 'Dawn-bringer' and
referring to the morning star)" (Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties,
p. 268). This LXX rendering was said to be THE COMMON GREEK NAME FOR VENUS
as the morning star. Henry Thiessen affirmed that "this term [Lucifer] means the
morning star, an epithet of the planet VENUS" (Lectures in
Systematic Theology, p. 202).
Notice what John J. Robinson says
about 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 Helel, 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')" (A
Pilgrim's Path, pp. 47-48).
The International Standard
Bible Encyclopaedia has at its entry for Lucifer the following, "the
morning star, an epithet of the planet Venus" (p. 1934).
But is this
relevant to the original Hebrew meaning of this
Notice, too, that I say noun, because the Hebrew
word that 'Lucifer' is translated from is a verb.
Now in order for it to be a name, a noun would have
to be present in the Hebrew text, but it isn't,
there is no noun, nor any word that could be
translated as a name or a being from the Hebrew
text, so what gives?
how has a verb become a noun when the Hebrew word
involved is this: halal; hawlal'; heylel or hay-lale'?
Now some scholars say it means 'to howl' or 'howl
you' i.e. a shout or an exclamation. Others say it
means 'to shine' or 'shine forth' or to 'flash forth
light'. If we combine the two meanings we could have
'to shine' and 'to shout out boastfully' as if we
are dealing with someone who thinks he is superior to everyone else. All these descriptions though are
based, not noun based. Notice what Wikipedia
(the on-line encyclopedia) says about "Lucifer" --
Version rendering of the
This word, transliterated hêlēl
or heylel, occurs only once
and according to the KJV-influenced
'shining one, morning star,
Lucifer.' The word Lucifer is
taken from the
which translates הֵילֵל as
lucifer, meaning 'the morning
star, the planet Venus' (or, as an
adjective, 'light-bringing'). The
renders הֵילֵל in
as ἑωσφόρος (heōsphoros), a
name, literally 'bringer of dawn',
for the morning star. (In spite of the unanimous testimony of published
texts of the Septuagint, Kaufmann Kohler says that the Greek Septuagint
translation is 'Phosphoros'.)
of Enochic Judaism, the form of
Judaism witnessed to in
which enjoyed much popularity during
an expanded role, interpreting
Isaiah 14:12-15, with its reference
to the morning star, as applicable
to him, and presenting him as a
cast out of
tradition, influenced by
this presentation, came to use the
Latin word for 'morning star',
lucifer, as a proper name
('Lucifer') for Satan as Satan was
before his fall. As a result,
'Lucifer has become a by-word for
Satan in the Church and in popular
literature', as in
mythology, the morning
star is pictured as a god,
who attempted to occupy the throne
and, finding he was unable to do so,
descended and ruled the underworld.
The original myth may have been
about a lesser god Helel trying to
dethrone the Canaanite high god
who lived on a mountain to the
north. Similarities have been noted
also with the story of
descent into the underworld, Ishtar
and Inanna being associated with the
has also been seen as connected.
Eerdmans Commentary on the Bible
points out that no evidence has been
found of any Canaanite myth of a god
being thrown from heaven, as in
Isaiah 14:12. It concludes that the
closest parallels with Isaiah's
description of the king of Babylon
as a fallen morning star cast down
from heaven are to be found not in
any lost Canaanite and other myths
but in traditional ideas of the
Jewish people themselves, echoed in
the Biblical account of the fall of
Adam and Eve, cast out of God's
presence for wishing to be as God,
and the picture in
of the 'gods' and 'sons of the Most
High' destined to die and fall. This
Jewish tradition has echoes also in
Life of Adam
were influenced by the association
of Isaiah 14:12-18 with the
which had developed in the period
between the writing of the
also called the
were written. Even in the
itself, Sigve K. Tonstad argues, the
War in Heaven
12:7-9, in which the
dragon 'who is called the devil and
Satan…was thrown down to the earth',
derives from the passage in Isaiah
(184/185-253/254) interpreted such
Old Testament passages as being
about manifestations of the Devil;
but of course, writing in Greek, not
Latin, he did not identify the Devil
with the name 'Lucifer'.
(c. 160-c. 225), who wrote in Latin,
('I will ascend above the tops of
the clouds; I will make myself like
the Most High') as spoken by the
Devil, but 'Lucifer' is not among
the numerous names and phrases he
used to describe the Devil. Even at
the time of the Latin writer
'Lucifer' had not yet become a
common name for the Devil. But some
time later, the metaphor of the
morning star that Isaiah 14:12
applied to a king of Babylon gave
rise to the general use of the Latin
word for 'morning star',
capitalized, as the original name of
the Devil before his fall from
grace, linking Isaiah 14:12 with
('I saw Satan fall like lightning
from heaven') and interpreting the
passage in Isaiah as an allegory of
Satan's fall from heaven.
"However, the understanding of the
morning star in Isaiah 14:12 as a
metaphor referring to a king of
Babylon continued also to exist
Cyrus (c. 393-c. 457)
wrote that Isaiah calls the king
'morning star', not as being the
star, but as having had the illusion
of being it. The same understanding
is shown in Christian translations
of the passage, which in English
generally use 'morning star' rather
than treating the word as a proper
name, 'Lucifer'. So too in other
languages, such as French, German,
Portuguese, and Spanish. Even the
Vulgate text in Latin is printed
with lower-case lucifer
(morning star), not upper-case
Lucifer (proper name).
said: 'The exposition of this
passage, which some have given, as
if it referred to Satan, has arisen
from ignorance: for the context
plainly shows these statements must
be understood in reference to the
king of the Babylonians.'
also considered it a gross error to
refer this verse to the devil.
"Translation of הֵילֵל as 'Lucifer', as in the
King James Version, has been abandoned in modern
English translations of Isaiah 14:12.
Present-day translations have 'morning star' (New
New Century Version,
New American Standard
Good News Translation,
Holman Christian Standard
Common English Bible,
Complete Jewish Bible),
English Standard Version,
'shining one' (New
Life Version) or 'shining star' (New
Writes Dennis Bratcher:
term Lucifer was popularized in English from this King James translation.
However, the name does not come from the Hebrew or even from the Greek
translation (Septuagint), but from the fourth century AD Latin translation
of this verse:
"quomodo cecidisti de
caelo lucifer qui mane oriebaris corruisti
in terram qui vulnerabas gentes.
"But this is not quite as
obvious as it sounds even in Latin. The term Lucifer in fourth
century Latin was a name for Venus, especially as the morning star. The
Latin word Lucifer is composed of two words: lux, or in the
genitive form used lucis, (meaning 'light') and ferre, which
means 'to bear' or 'to bring.' So, the word Lucifer means bearer of light.
The same word is used in other places in the Latin Vulgate to translate
Hebrew terms that mean 'bright,' especially associated with the sky....There
is some debate about the exact origin of the original Hebrew word in Isaiah
14:12 (helel). The strongest possibility is that it comes from a
verbal root that means 'to shine brightly,' as well as 'to offer praise'
(where we get the phrase hallelu yah). In any case, the noun form is
the Hebrew term for the morning star, in most cases the planet Venus. Both
the second century BC Greek translation in the Septuagint, and the fourth
century AD Latin translation in the Latin Vulgate understand this to be the
meaning of the Hebrew word helel ("Lucifer" in Isaiah 14:12-17:
Translation and Ideology, Christian Resource Institute)."
The actual name, "Lucifer," goes
back to the Greeks -- before the Romans. Socrates and Plato talk about this "god
of light." However, they don't see it in the context of Eos (god of Dawn), but
-- as a morning star -- juxtaposed with the sun (Helios) and Hermes. This
information can be found in Plato's Timaeus (38e) and in Edith
A Disturbing Development
A disturbing development occurred
whereby KJV-only advocates started to imply that the King James Version
glorifies the Messiah more with its rendering "Lucifer" at Isaiah 14:12. Writes
"The ultimate blasphemy
occurs when 'the morning star' takes 'Lucifer's' place in Isaiah 14" (New
Age Bible Versions, p. 43).
Marty Braemer elaborates by
"When the NIV editors took 'Lucifer'
out of Isaiah 14:12 and put 'the morning star' in its place, they
substituted the Son of God for Satan" (This Little Light, p.
William Bradley asserts that "if
you have an NIV, your 'bible' teaches that it was Jesus Christ, not Lucifer, who
rebelled against God and was cast out of heaven" (To All Generations,
p. 75). Robert Baker states: "In the only passage which describes Lucifer's
iniquity and fall into hell, many new versions confuse his identity with Jesus
Christ" (Another Bible, p. 10). Finally, James Melton claims the
"In some new versions, Jesus
Christ and Satan are the same, because some versions have taken the liberty
to call Satan 'the morning star' in Isaiah 14:12" (Fighting Back,
So have these King James
Version-only advocates carefully checked the evidence before they made these
serious charges? I think not.
From "Venus" to "Lucifer"
How, then, did we get from VENUS,
the morning star, to Lucifer being associated with
Satan the devil -- especially since that term is used in positive ways in both
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 even a Roman language?! Some Hebrew scholars speculate that
some early "Christian" scribes -- writing in the Latin tongue used by the
Catholic 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)
to whom they gave the name "Lucifer."
Be that as it may, the
translation "Lucifer" arose from Jerome's Latin Vulgate. Later, the scholars
authorized by King James I to translate the Bible into the English current at
the time, used versions largely translated by Jerome in the fourth century
instead of the original Hebrew texts. Either by accident or intentionally,
Jerome had translated the Hebraic metaphor "Day star, son of the Dawn" as
"Lucifer" -- and over the centuries a metamorphosis took place. As a result,
Lucifer the morning star (Venus) 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.
At the time of Jerome the term
"Lucifer" actually meant the planet VENUS as a morning star, therefore Lucifer wasn't
equated with Satan until after the time of Jerome. In the original Hebrew text,
the 14th 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.
In The Oxford Companion to the Bible we find the
"Lucifer, a name for Satan
popularized in the Middle Ages, derives ultimately from the merging of the
New Testament tradition of the fall of Satan from heaven (Luke 10:18) with
an ORIGINALLY SEPARATE biblical tradition concerning the Morning Star (cf.
Isa. 14:12)" (Edited By Bruce M. Metzger and Michael D. Coogan. Oxford
University Press, 1993, p. 679).
In a similar vein Hard
Sayings of the Bible points us to the mythology of ancient Canaan -- notice!
"Some of the early church
fathers, such as Tertullian, along with Gregory the Great and scholastic
commentators, linked this prophecy in Isaiah [14:12] with Luke 10:18 and
Revelation 12:8. As a result, they applied the passage to the fall of Satan
or Lucifer. The expositors of the Reformation era, however, would have NO
PART of this exegesis, which they regarded as A POPULAR PERVERSION. The
passage, in their minds, discussed human pride, not angelic -- even
though the pride was monumental, to be sure. Which interpretation, then, is
correct? Is this passage a record of the time when Satan fell like lightning
from heaven? Or is it a description of the Babylonian king only?
"The key [Hebrew] word for
resolving this problem is helel, rendered at first as an imperative
of the verb signifying 'howl' ('Howl, son of the morning, for your fall').
Then it was connected with the verb to shine and made a derivative
denoting 'bright one', or more specifically 'BRIGHT STAR,' the harbinger of
daybreak. The Latin term for it became Lucifer.
"In Canaanite mythology from
Ugarit, the god Athtar seems to be connected with the morning star. At one
point, the gods attempted to replace Baal with Athtar, but he declined, as
he found that he was unsuited for the position. The throne was too large for
him. Athtar was the son of the Ugarit god El and his wife Asherah. Athtar
was the chief god in the South Arabic pantheon, known there as an astral
deity, THE PLANET VENUS. In the Ugarit world he was known as 'the terrible,
awesome one' or as 'the lion.' Some have translated the first epithet as 'a
flash [of lightning].' The Ugaritic text 49, column 1, tells how his greed
for power caused him to ascend the vacant throne of Baal, who had been dealt
a death blow by the god of death, Mot. Assisted by his mother, he attempted
to fill the vacuum left by Baal, but he was unable to do so. His feet did
not reach the footstool, and his head did not clear the top of the throne.
So he descended from the throne of Baal, stepping down so that 'he might
rule over the grand earth.' Like Isaiah's Lucifer, he had aspired to ascend
to a throne above the heavens but suffered a fall" (Walter C. Kaiser Jr.,
Peter H. Davids, F. F. Bruce and Manfred T. Brauch. InterVasity Press, 1996,
The early Catholic Church fathers
-- along with others -- have taken 2
Corinthians 11:14, Luke 10:18-19 and Revelation 12, lumped them together and
have come to the conclusion that Satan is somehow associated with light and the
sky. "By adding these three passages together," points out Dennis Bratcher,
"without regard to context, and read them as if they were all speaking in the
same way about the same thing to make the same point, we can conclude that we
have here a jigsaw picture of a long ago historical event described in great
detail (but of course we have to put the pieces together from various bits
scattered through literature written 800 years apart!)."
Continues Bratcher, "Then, if we
take that assumption about the meaning of all these texts, and the assumption
that adding texts together is the way to understand them (a drastic perversion
of the 'Scripture interprets Scripture' principle!), and bring that back to the
Isaiah text, then it is very easy to reach the conclusion that Isaiah is also
describing the same event....Now, if we look at the text of Isaiah 14 IN
CONTEXT, and without the assumptions we brought to it from the New Testament,
the meaning of the passage becomes MORE OBVIOUS and goes a radically different
direction" ("Lucifer" in Isaiah 14:12-17: Translation and Ideology, Christian Resource Institute).
The King of Babylon
In discussing Isaiah 13:1 through 14:27, the book
All Scripture is Inspired of God and Beneficial states the following:
"Pronouncing Babylon's doom.
Isaiah now looks past the Assyrian's day into the TIME OF BABYLON'S ZENITH.
Listen! The sound of numerous people, the uproar of kingdoms, of nations
gathered together! Jehovah is mustering the army of war! It is a dark day
for Babylon. Amazed faces flame and hearts melt. The pitiless Medes will
tumble Babylon, 'the decoration of kingdoms.' She is to become an
uninhabited desolation and a haunt of wild creatures 'for generation after
generation.' (13:19, 20) The dead in Sheol are stirred to receive the king
of Babylon. Maggots become his couch and worms his covering. What a
comedown for this 'shining one, the son of the dawn'! (14:12) He [the
king of Babylon] aspired to God's throne but has become a carcass thrown
out, as Jehovah sweeps Babylon with the broom of annihilation. No name, no
remnant, no progeny, no posterity are to remain!" (Watch Tower Bible and
Tract Society of Pennsylvania, 1963, p. 120).
We can see from the above that,
when taken in CONTEXT and without assumptions brought in from the New Testament,
the meaning of the Isaiah passage becomes more obvious and heads in a totally
different direction. "The book of Isaiah has spent the first chapters denouncing
the sins of Israel and its failure to be God's people. There have also been
expectations that God will work in new ways in the life of the nation to help
them recover their mission as God's people. One of those ways would be through a
new king to replace the corrupt Ahaz. Because of his pro-Assyrian policies, the
nation was teetering upon the brink of catastrophe as Assyria expanded to the
West" (Dennis Bratcher, "Lucifer" in Isaiah 14:12-17: Translation and
Ideology, Christian Resource Institute).
Isaiah 13 begins a section ending at Isaiah
23:18 where he prophesies against the nations. It is fitting for judgment to
begin at the house of YEHOVAH God, so the
Lord has first spoken to Israel
and Judah. But now, the Lord
speaks against the nations, beginning with Babylon. Written in a poetic and
highly figurative language, the Babylonian Empire is denounced by YEHOVAH God
for its arrogance and lack of compassion for other nations it has conquered. "It
is interesting," comments Dennis Bratcher, "that in 13:10, specific mention is
made of the failure of the Babylonian gods (constellations, sun, moon) to help
them when God calls them to accountability" (ibid.).
Isaiah 13 ended with the desolation and gloom that would come upon Babylon.
Since Babylon was Judah’s great enemy, any judgment on Babylon was an expression
of mercy on Israel. So, Isaiah follows the pronouncement of judgment on Babylon
with the Lord will have mercy on
Jacob, and will still choose Israel.
Chapter 14 follows with the promise of Israel's return from exile under the
Babylonians -- a theme that dominates the middle section of the book of Isaiah
(40-55). "Part of that return," notes Bratcher, " would involve the DOWNFALL OF
THE TYRANT KING OF BABYLON (v. 4; probably Nebuchadnezzar; for the same language
is used of a later Babylonian ruler, Belshazzar, see Dan. 5:20). In that
context, verses 12-21 are a poetic picture of that downfall" (ibid.).
When all of the above quotations are put together,
it becomes clear that the Isaiah passage is NOT linked -- either historically or
theologically -- with the New Testament verses regarding the devil or Satan. By
considering the Isaiah passage within its own context and on its own terms, it
becomes abundantly clear that Lucifer is NOT an Old Testament name for Satan.
"The passage in Isaiah 14:12-17 is directed," emphasizes Bratcher, "at the
downfall of the arrogant Babylonian rulers who took Israel into exile. By
beginning with the New Testament, by making assumptions not supported by a
closer examination of Scripture itself, and by using external theological
categories as a lens through which to read Scripture, we may end up badly
misreading Isaiah" ("Lucifer" in Isaiah 14:12-17: Translation and Ideology,
Christian Resource Institute).
Lucifer Cut Down
Now that we have seen proven that "Lucifer" in
Isaiah 14:12 does not refer to Satan or the Messiah, does this enigmatic passage
refer to some tremendous event in world history that left an indelible mark on
the collective memories of mankind? Immanuel Velikovsky thought so! Notice what
he says about Isaiah 14:12 --
"Since the days of Exodus and
Joshua, VENUS was dreaded by the peoples of the earth. For about seven
hundred years this terror hung over mankind like the sword of Damocles.
Human sacrifices were made to Venus in both hemispheres in order to
"Venus, which collided with the earth in the fifteenth century before the
present era, collided with Mars in the eighth century. At that time Venus
was moving at a lower elliptical velocity than when it first encountered the
earth; but Mars, being only about one-eighth the mass of Venus, was no match
for her. It was therefore a notable achievement that Mars, though thrown out
of the ring, nevertheless was instrumental in bringing Venus from an
elliptical to a nearly circular orbit. Looked at from the earth, Venus was
removed from a path that ran high to the zenith and over the zenith to its
present path in which it never retreats from the sun more than 48 degrees,
thus becoming a MORNING OR AN EVENING STAR that precedes the rising sun or
follows the setting sun. The awe of the world for many centuries, Venus
became a tame planet.
"Isaiah, referring figuratively to the king of Babylon who destroyed
cities and made the land into a wilderness, uttered his remarkable words
about Lucifer that fell from heaven and was cut down to the ground. The
commentators recognized that behind these words applied to the king of
Babylon must have been some legend about the MORNING STAR. The metaphor
regarding the king of Babylon implied that his fate and the fate of the
Morning Star were not dissimilar; both of them fell from on high. But
what could it mean that the Morning Star fell from the heights? asked the
"Significant are the words of Isaiah about the Morning Star, that it
'weakened the nations' before it was cut down to the ground. It weakened the
nations in two collisions with the earth, and it weakened the nations by
keeping them in constant fear for centuries" (Immanuel Velikovsky,
Worlds in Collision, Paradigma Ltd., 2009, pp. 258-259).
Venus Becomes the Morning Star
Earlier, in his book Worlds in Collision,
Velikovsky demonstrates how Venus became the Morning Star -- notice!
"Since the latter part
of the eighth century before the present era, Venus has followed an orbit
between Mercury and earth, which it has maintained ever since. IT BECAME THE
MORNING AND EVENING STAR. Seen from the earth, it is never removed more than
48 degrees (when at its eastern and western elongation) or three hours and a
few minutes east or west of the sun. THE DREADED COMET BECAME A TAME PLANET.
It has the most nearly circular orbit among the planets.
"The end of the terror which Venus kept alive
for eight centuries after the days of the Exodus was THE INSPIRATION FOR
ISAIAH when he said: '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! For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I
will exalt my throne above the stars of God.'
"Septuagint and Vulgate both translate 'Morning
Star' or 'Lucifer.' What does it mean, that the Morning Star was assailing
the heavens and rising high, and that it was cut down low to the horizon,
and would weaken no more the nations...?
"Why, it is also asked, should the beautiful
Morning Star, called Lucifer, the Light Bearer, live in the imagination of
peoples as an evil power, a fallen star? What is it in this lovely planet
that makes her name an equivalent of Satan, or Seth of the Egyptians, the
In answer to these questions, Velikovsky goes on to
"Lucifer was a feared prodigy
in the sky, and its origin...explains how it came to be regarded as a dark
power and a fallen star.
"After a great struggle, Venus achieved a
circular orbit and a permanent place in the family of planets. During the
perturbations which brought about this metamorphosis, Venus also lost its
valley of the Euphrates, 'Venus then gives up her position as a great
stellar divinity, equal with sun and moon, and joins the ranks of the other
planets' (A. Jeremias, The Old Testament in the Light of the Ancient
East, 1911, I, 18).
"A COMET BECAME A PLANET. Venus was born as a
comet in the second millennium before the present era. In the middle of that
millennium it twice made contact with the earth and changed its cometary
orbit. In the tenth to eighth centuries of the first millennium, it was
still a comet" (Immanuel Velikovsky, Worlds in Collision,
Paradigma Ltd., 2009, pp. 206-207).
The attributes and deeds of the Morning Star were
not invented by the peoples of the world: this STAR shattered mountains, shook
the globe with such a violence that it looked as if the heavens were shaking,
was a storm, a cloud, a fire, a heavenly dragon, a torch, and a blazing star,
and it rained naphtha on the earth. It was NOT, however, Satan falling to the
earth as some would imagine!
For more information about the role played by the
planet Venus in the history of the world, read Worlds in Collision
by Immanuel Velikovsky, and The Velikovsky Heresies: Worlds in Collision
and Ancient Catastrophes Revisited by Laird Scranton. Also, be sure to
read our companion articles, Lucifer's Fall -- Did It Really Happen?
and Just WHEN Did Satan Fall from Heaven?
|Hope of Israel Ministries
-- Preparing the Way for the Return of YEHOVAH God and His Messiah!
P.O. Box 853
Azusa, CA 91702, U.S.A.
||Scan with your