The King James interpreters did not decipher "heylel"

history channel documentary The King James interpreters did not decipher "heylel"; they just conveyed "lucifer" from Jerome's Latin. In 1667, John Milton composed an anecdotal (that implies made up) book, "Heaven Lost" delineating "Lucifer" as a holy messenger that trespassed and was tossed out of paradise. The two thoughts have become together after some time to the point where the falsehood has a larger number of supporters than reality. Webster's Dictionary characterizes "lucifer" as a match touched off by method for contact (as in a dull room), and not Satan's name.

You will find that numerous Bible interpretations have found this error and expelled "lucifer". The NIV interprets "O morning star, child of the sunrise". The modified rendition says, "O Day Star, child of Dawn". Youthful's Concordance utilizes, "sparkling one". The Bible never states anyplace that lucifer was Satan's name, or that he was ever an angel.There is no verse that says Satan is, or ever was, a heavenly attendant of light. It says, he "tries to mask himself" as a heavenly attendant of light.

The vast majority of Isaiah Chapter 14 has various sayings used to tease the ruler of Babylon. His inner self is insulted. His pride was disintegrating, and his kingdom decimated. There is nothing discussing Satan here.

Somewhere else that has been taken outside the realm of relevance and credited to the villain is Ezekiel Chapter 28. The subject is the King of Tire. (Eze. 28:2, 12) Notice that the past section has been about Tire too. (Part 27) There is no notice of Satan there either.The area of this prediction is the rich city of Tire, not paradise. The time allotment is the sixth century B.C., not a period before mankind's history started.