The Mormon Doctrine of Jesus and Lucifer being brothers

First this is about LDS Mormonism specifically, groups like Temple Lot that reject the Cosmic Pluralism of Smith and Young's later teachings view Satan about the same as Protestants and Evangelicals who are KJV only do.

Here is a Mormon Website defending Mormonism against this accusation.

Yes it is true that this Mormon doctrine makes all Angels and Humans brothers of Jesus and Lucifer also.  And indeed The Bible also calls all Angels including Satan "Sons of God" in Job and Genesis 6.  And The New Testament calls Adam and all Believers "Sons of God".  And I thank this webpage for reminding me of Hebrews 12:9 and how that could be relevant to the Nephilim view vs Sethite view debate.  But also just like in The Bible, Satan has a certain seniority over the others besides Jesus who is the First Born.

My objection to the Mormon view of how Jesus and Satan are related is not so much that it elevates Satan (my view of Satan may well be a more powerful entity then the LDS view, he's the Archon of the Kosmos), it's that it subtly demotes Jesus.

On that very page, in it's answer to "Q. What about the Jesus and Satan being brothers claim?" They say "However, Jesus chose to honor and glorify his Father while Satan chose to rebel against and dishonor Him.  Jesus and Satan are polar opposites–literally as different as any two individuals can possibly be." Meaning they're arguing the difference between Jesus and Satan begins with the choices they made, they were equal in creation.  I believe Jesus is the ONLY Begotten Son of God, John 3:16, not just the First Born, though First Born of Creation is also one of his titles.  He is The Word made Flesh.

The LDS view of Jesus and Lucifer is not unlike Manwe and Melkor in Tolkien's cosmology.  All the Anuir were created from the thoughts of Eru Iluvatar, but Manwe and Melkor were twins essentially as the First Born of his thought, but it was the choices they made that made them opposites.

I doubt Tolkien was copying Mormonism specifically, he was drawing on mythological motifs that are common and Ancient.  From Thor and Loki as rival sons of Odin to Vishnu and Shiva of Hinudism.  And the Zurvanism form of Zoroastrianism has Zurvan in the Elohim role, and Ahura-Mazda and Angra Manyu as the good and evil rivals he created.

But the beginning of this motif is perhaps Enlil and Enki as the chief sons of Anu in Sumerian Mythology.  Just do a Google search with Enlil, Enki and either Satan or Lucifer as the main keywords and you'll find many websites and articles saying Enlil is like Yahuah/Yahweh (LDS Mormons believe Jesus is Jehovah while Elohim is God The Father) and Enki is The Serpent of Genesis 3.  Sometimes from Christians saying this is Satan's earliest corruption of the Biblical world view.  Meaning they're not saying it's okay to worship Enlil, but that Enlil was devised in some ways to reflect how Satan wants people to view Yahuah.  Rob Skiba has also talked about this subject.

There is definitely a subtext to the Sumerian myths that present Enlil as bad compared to Enki.  Also the earliest Temple of Eridu (the original Babel) was devoted to Enki.  Enki is presented as the one who gave Mankind knowledge and civilization.  Enlil is presented as sending the Flood while Enki warned the Noah figure.  In Akkadian and some other Semitic Mesopotamian texts Enki is called Ea.

I wonder if Tolkien's account of how Luthien puts Morgoth to sleep to take one of his Silmarils could be his puerile re-imagining of the myth of how Inanna obtained Enki's me.

In the Baal Cycle and other texts of Ugarit, the Enlil role seems to be played by Baal (sometimes also called Hadad/Hadar/Adad/Adar) and the Enki role by Yam and maybe also Lotan, scholars disagree on if Lotan is Yam or an instrument of Yam.  And the role of Anu is played by El.

Baal worship is probably the most frequently condemned false Worship in the Hebrew Bible.  But remember God dislikes being identified with a Pagan god just as much as being rejected altogether, we see that in the Golden Calf incident where they called the Calf Yahuah.

Hosea 2:16 refers to Baal as a name or title Yahuah has been called, but as one he doesn't like.  Of course the main context there is how Ish and Baal are both words for Husband (marriage is the major theme of Hosea) but Baal also means Lord while Ish is a word for man as in male gender that is introduced in Genesis 2.  So I see this as mainly being about how the marriage of Genesis 3 will be done away with in favor of the marriage of Genesis 2.

The devout Baal worshipers Ahab and Jezebel named at least three of their children YHWH theophoric names, Athaliah, Ahaziah and Jehoram.

Zachariah 12, I have already mentioned before as possibly using Hadad-Rimmon as a title or idiom of Christ Crucified.

The Tel Dan Stele was made either by Hazael of Aram-Damascus or by Jehu, both were anointed Kings by Elisha on instructions originally given to Elijah by Yahuah.  Both should have known full well that Yahuah made them King, but the author of the Stele says Hadad made him King.  Jehu did continue the Sins of Jeroboam.

 In Hebrew Lotan could come from putting a Lamed as a prefix before Tan, the basic root word for Dragon, which would mean "To the Dragon".  Some have connected the Ugarit Lotan to the Biblical Leviathan.  The name Lotan does occur in Genesis 36 in the Horite genealogy.

Isaiah 27:1 has a phrase translated "the dragon that is in the sea".  But in the Hebrew this is only three words.  "Tanyin asher Yam", Yam being the Hebrew word for the Sea.  It could be this whole phrase is a name or title of Satan and that we have a Biblical basis for using Yam as a name for Satan.   I notice this could parallel Ehyeh asher Ehyeh "I Am that I Am", maybe it could be "The Dragon that is Yam"?

Psalm 74:13 could also be interesting in this context, and also Ezekiel 29:3.  Or Ezekiel 32:2 where the word for Dragon is translated "Whale" in the KJV.

Some Canaanite texts call Yam Judge-Nahar (Nahar being interpreted to mean river) Nahar is a name that could easily be related to Nahash, the word for Serpent in Genesis 3 and 49 and other places.   Rivers are Serpent like in a sense.

There is some evidence that Chemosh and Moloch were just the Moabite and Ammonite forms of the same deity.  Since Chemosh seems to have been depicted as a Fish god I'd say they're more likely a Yam/Enki figure.  And that the Philistine Dagon is the same as them also, Dagon comes from the Hebrew word for fish.

In Egyptian mythology the rival brothers are Osiris and Set.

While we're used to thinking of Set as the Satan figure particularly thanks to Aquino's Temple of Set.  In the context of the mythical motifs I'm discussing here, it should be noted that Set slew the Egyptian Lotan figure, the coiling Serpent Apep.  And that the Hycsos who came from the Levant seemed to favor Set because he was the easiest to identify with Baal being a storm god, albeit of sand storms.  Perhaps the Genesis 36 name Shobal is a shortening of Seth-Baal?

Maybe originally Osiris and Apep were the same or linked, but in time the enemy of the heroic Set and the enemy of the villainous Set were separated.  Osiris is often depicted as having Green skin, scholars usually explain this as being because he was a Vegetation god.  But I know of no direct connection with vegetation besides that modern comparative mythology logic seems to see every "dying and rising god" as either a vegetation god if now a solar one.

The fact that Osiris and Horus are so firmly linked to the person of the Pharaoh himself, makes the possibly of Osiris as a Serpent god interesting in light of Ezekiel 29 and 32.  And Egypt is also mentioned in Isaiah 27.  And also how Rahab (who is unfortunately sometimes transliterated the same as Rachab) is often interpreted as both a Lotan figure and as a name for Egypt or whoever rules it.

Orisis also has overlooked aspects of being a Goat god, from his connection to The Goat of Mendes, to his name being connected to the Hebrew Seir/Sayir.  How does that fit with my having just argued he's a Sea Serpent god?  Well the constellation Capricorn is depicted as Half Goat and Half Fish, and it's been depicted that way for over 3000 years.  The History and Mythology section of it's Wikipedia page says the Babylonians viewed Capricorn as a depiction of Ea aka Enki.

That can be interesting in light of my argument that every use of "Lamb" in Revelation is perhaps really Goat.  We'd have the Second Beast having Goat like Horns but speaking with a Dragon's voice.

Horus could then be equated to Marduk, the son of Enki who in the Enuma Elis takes on the position previously held by Enlil in earlier myths.

However Egyptian mythology can be confusing, partly because it changed over time, and much of it was different tradition of the Upper and Lower kingdoms being fused together. As such another Enki/Yam figure could be Sobek, who was depicted as a Crocodile, and also viewed an an embodiment of The Nile (paralleling Yam as Nahar).  And came to be linked to the Pharonic power similarly to Horus and Osiris.  And another Enlil/Baal figure could be Amon, who in Carthage was identified with Baal as Baal Hamon, (and with Zeus by the Greeks as Zeus-Amon).  And another Anu figure could be Atum.

And then there is that one Masonic ritual where the secret word is JaBalOm which is a merging together of the names of Jehovah, Baal and Amon into a single name.

Geb/Seb/Keb is also sometimes depicted as a Crocodile or Snake. And he is also described as the Father of Snakes, like Nehebkau.  He was the father of Osiris and Isis and Set and Nebthet.  Geb is also considered a god of the Earth, and Enki means "Lord of The Earth".

Perhaps Geb and Sobek were originally the same.  Of the sons of Enki, Marduk who went on to take aspects of Enlil could be equated to Set.  Dumuzid/Tammuz father is never directly stated, but his sister Ngeshtin-ana is called a daughter of Enki and Ninhurshag.  Hislop derived mythology makes Tammuz sound like Horus, but he was actually more like Osiris.

In the Sumerian poem Inana and Bilulu, one figure Inana gets revenge on for being involved in the killing of Dumuzi/Dumuzid is Jirjire, the son of Bilulu. Jirjire is turned into a Desert god of bad weather, making him a lot like Set, a god associated with the Desert and Sand Storms and other bad whether, which is why the Greeks sometimes identified him with Typhon.  Marduk seems like a god we only know by the name the Semitic Mesopotamians called him, as if he doesn't go all the way back to Summer.  Perhaps Jirjire became Marduk?

Set has somewhat of a minor solar deity association via his riding in Ra's Chariot to battle Apep. Marduk too however is while not the main sun god a name that meant "Solar Bull".

Inanna's position in the Anunnaki genealogy is often confused.  And I think this comes from the attempts to give aspects of Enlil to Marduk.  She is both the direct daughter of Anu, fitting Ashteroth/Astarte of the Canaanite panethon.  And a daughter of Ningal and Nanna, perhaps explaining the Greek Asteria who has a name related to Astarte and is a daughter of lunar deities.  And her being a twin Sister of Utu may relate her to the Eye of Ra or other feminine solar deities.  And she's sometimes a daughter of Enki, making her a sibling possibly of Ngeshtin-ana and possibly Dumuzi, making her fit Isis relationship to Osiris.  But I think Isis isn't the only Egyptian goddess who's a reflection of Innana, I think so is Iusaaset and possibly Hathor.

Because Greek mythology (which the Romans copied) did a lot of splitting up mythological roles.  The Sea-god (Pontus, Oceanos, Nereus, Poseiden, Triton, Neptune) and the Dragon/Monster to be slain (Typhon, Ophion, Ladon, Hydra, Cetus) figures become firmly separated.  So that in Tolkien, Ulmo and Osse are separate from Morgoth, Glaurung and Ancalagon.  Meanwhile Enki's status as a god of Wisdom and Prophecy gets taken by Apollo/Asclepius and Hermes/Mercury.  Mercury seems to have also been the Planet that Enki was associated with in Sumerian astrology.  And Apollo has a surprising number of Serpent associations, like Python, the "Spirit of Divination" in Acts 16.

Zeus seems to be both the Anu/El role and Enlil/Baal role depending on the context of the myth, same with Cronos, and Ouranos is the one who's name has the same meaning as Anu, the Heavens.  The original from of Zeus/s name was Dios, which like El also becomes a word for god in various forms in various languages, including Theos and Deus.  This caries over to the Roman mythology, where Zeus is identified with Jove and Jupiter.  I've argued before that the name Jove may be a corruption of Yahuah/Jehovah.  Dionysus/Bacchus/Bromis descends from Hadad's vegetation and fertility god aspects.

Gnosticism takes this basic mythological pattern and further complicated it with Platonic Philosophical concepts.   Often by identifying Yahuah/Yahweh with the Demiurge/Ialdobath, and the Serpent of Genesis 3 with Jesus.

In Vedic mythology Enlil/Baal is Indra, Enki/Yam is Vaurna, Anu/El is Dyaus, and the Lotan figure is Vritra.

I've talked before about how in Shinto mythology Susanoo can be viewed as Baal.  In that context Orochi is Lotan, but I also think Yam can be equated to Ryujin, the Sea-Dragon god ruling from his undersea palace Ryugu-jo.  The theory about the Ningi-Jimmu genealogy that suggests it's based on Jacob and Joseph puts Ryujin in the position of the Egyptian Priest of On, father of Asenath.  Which could be interesting in light of Egypt's relevance so far.

Other Far Eastern mythologies have Dragon King gods as well.  From the Arabian Knights, the tale of "Abdullah the Fisherman and Abdullah the Merman" also involves an undersea civilization.  Job 26:5 says "Raphaim are formed under the waters, and the inhabitants thereof".  Which can be interesting to compare to Psalm 74:13.

Rob Skiba talks about understanding The Bible from a mythological POV.  Much of where he goes with that I disagree with, but perhaps we should consider that the Beast "rising out of the sea" might be more literal then we at first assume?

The Greek word translated Sea in Revelation 13:1 is Thalassa, which in mythology is the name of the wife of Pontus, the most primordial sea god.  Thalassa was identified with Tiamat by Berossus, in which context Pontus is equated to Abzu of the Enuma Elis, in which Tiamat is slain by Marduk son of Enki.  But originally Abzu was just the name for the Abyss, the Enki Temple in Eridu was called the E-Abzu.  Thorkild Jacobsen has hypothesized that Abzu was an early form of Enki.

Pontus happens to also be very phonetically similar to the name of a Kingdom in northern Turkey who's royal family in the Hellenistic and Greco-Roman period was mingled with the Seleucid Dynasty.

Most assume the "Seat of Satan" in Pergamon/Pergamos was the Altar of Zeus, but I've argued on this Blog it was the Temple to Serapis.  Serapis was a Hellenistic cult that combined the Egyptian gods Osiris and Apis.  But Samuel Noah Kramer argued that Serapis was Enki.

While this kind of comparative mythology research is fun, it's important never to forget that The Bible is strictly monotheistic.  God The Father and God The Son are the same Person along with The Holy Spirit. But Satan is merely a created being, the most powerful created being perhaps, but still merely created.

Update June 12th 2017: I'm aware that counterarguments can exist for identifying YHWH with Enki/Yam rather then Enlil/Baal.  I want to address those.

 Saying Enlil and Baal are Satan I am fine with in the sense that all false worship serves the interest of Satan, and Satan can appear as any god if that's the best god to appear as in a given situation.

My problem with arguing for Enki/Yam as being the Pagan names for YHWH is how I fear that could serve the interests of a deception predicated on claiming Jesus is Baal and the New Testament Satan is YHWH and the Old Testament Satan wasn't evil.  There are ways to misuse viewing Ezekiel 38 and Revelation 20 as describing the same invasion to back that up.

There could be two sides to that hypothetical deception.  One is a Gnostic like cosmology being Pro-Jesus with it. But it could also be a False Jewish Messiah Claimant seeking to vilify Jesus and The New Testament.

The argument might start with the Son of Rehoboam who succeeded him as King of Judah being named both Abijah ad Abijam, a Yah theophoric name and a Yam theophoric name.  Being used to support them being names of the same being.  Abijah I think was born while Solomon was king, maybe even in the first half of his reign before he started going off course, since Rehoboam was a year old already when Solomon started his 40 year reign.  So I think he was named Abijah at birth.  But he was an idolator during his reign as King and so may have changed his theophoric to Yam to reflect his Polytheism.

One Ugrarit text says Yaw in place of Yam, which seems to be a scribal error, yet people try to use this to support saying Yam was YHWH anyway.  And it's been argued the Akadian name of Enki, Ea, could be how Yah would be appear in the Akkadian alphabet.  But that's about as valid as the theory of connecting Yah to the Egyptian name for the Moon.

The Bible does call Yahuah the "Lord of The Earth" which can equate to the meaning of Enki, En meaning Lord and Ki meaning Earth.  (Baal of course also means Lord, Adonai and Baal could be used as synonyms).  But that is because The Bible is Monothestic and not Polytheistic. Yahuah is the ultimate Lord of everything, but the New Testament does depict Satan as the current Archon of the Kosmos, who offered the Kingdoms of the World to Jesus and will in Revelation 13 give them to The Beast.  Yahuah being depicted as riding on Clouds fits Canaanite Baal imagery and the meaning of Enlil, Lord of the Sky.

Ahab and Jezebel broke with most Northern Kingdom rulers by worshiping Baal under that name and Astarte.  But at the same time they also continued the Sins of Jeroboam, they didn't view that is in conflict with the Baal religion.

When Enki and Yam are depicted as Animals rather then Human, it's usually as Aquatic, Amphibious Serpentine or Reptilian creatures, rarely as any Mammals.  The only Biblical basis for YHWH being seen that way is Jesus using the Brazen Serpent as a symbol of himself in John 3.

Usually when Israelites worshiped the Name of YHWH in an Idolatrous and Polytheistic fashion, it was as a Calf or Bull.  The Golden Calf in Exodus, and then the Calf Jeroboam set up at Dan and Bethel.  I've come to agree with Jeroboam's Dan being Baalbek.  Showing that Idol had the name of Baal applied to it.  This Calf imagery also appears in the Baal cycle of Ugarit when Baal fakes his death using the body of a Calf.

I repeat, I am NOT!!! arguing for it being okay to worship Baal.  We worship YHWH only under that name or the YHW Theophoric name of Yeshua/Iesous/Jesus, "Yahuah is Salvation".

The point is the mythology of Baal is tied to Satan's desire to vilify God.  Even the Baal cycle of Ugarit ostensibly written by people who worshiped Baal as their Patron Deity, depicts him as a usurper, El meant for Yam to rule.  Plenty have talked about how Enlil looks bad in the Sumerian stories.  And Japanese mythology mostly vilifies Susanoo, at least compared to their Matron Megami Amaterasu.

The primary basis for identifying Satan with Enlil is Ephesian 2:2 saying "Prince of the Power of the Air".  Thing is, there is no proof that is about Satan, it takes more then just being apparently about an evil spiritual entity.  Revelation 12 verifies that Satan, The Devil, the Old Serpent, The Great Dragon, and the leader cast out of Heaven in Isaiah 14 are all the same.  I think that Belzebub for example is probably distinct, Belzebub is the chief of the Demon, entities without physical forms of their own which Satan doesn't qualify as.

A New Perspective on Isaiah 14

I did a major study on Isaiah 14 before.  I now have new insights that have forced me to reject the idea of it being relevant to the Death and Resurrection of the Antichrist.  Much of my insights there are still helpful, and I don't feel like repeating my adjustments to the Translation.  That post however also predates my changing my view on Daniel 11:36-45.

Isaiah 13:1-14:27 is all one Prophecy, remember that as you study this yourself.  I still feel this thematically connects Revelation 12 to Revelation 18.

As I was thinking about that again recently, it hit me how I really should have realized after talking about a possible allusion to the Abyss there that I had just discovered an Old Testament reference to Satan being bound in the Abyss.

Verse 19 was the main smoking gun to my reading Revelation 13 into it, "thrust through with a sword" but as I read it more carefully now, it's not Satan or the King of Babylon being described that way, just talking in general about people who have died violently because of this individual's evil deeds.

I also realized that when talking about the King of Babylon being sent to Sheol it never says this individual died at any point.  Another note I should mention is the word translated "dead" in verse 9 isn't a usual Hebrew word for dead but Raphaim.

The standard view of Isaiah 14 among the faithful is that it starts out talking about the King of Babylon then the subject switches to Satan.  I said in the prior post I felt verse 12's grammar justified that, but I now realize that was my bias talking.

Another view is that this is all just about a human King of Babylon and that the seeming references to someone falling from Heaven shouldn't be taken at face value.  One video on Youtube insists the term "Sides of the North" being used in Psalm 48 about Zion proves that term is about a Terrestrial location, Jerusalem.  However Psalm 48 could be the Heavenly Zion of Hebrews 12:22 and Revelation 14, the heavenly location that will become New Jerusalem and then descend after the New Heaven and New Earth are created.  The "Sides of The North" is where I believe the Heavenly Temple/Tabernacle is.  Interestingly Pagan Canaanite texts also use this same terminology of Heaven.

And the view of Bible skeptics is that Isaiah is just poetically comparing a human King of Babylon to a mythical god.  I have addressed that elsewhere.

I have considered a new option.  There is no Human King of Babylon in this chapter, this King of Babylon is never described as an Adam or an Enosh, he's never defined as human.  Just as Ezekiel 48 refers to Satan as the King of Tyre after talking about Tyre so here Satan is called the King of Babylon after talking about Babylon.  Because Jesus called him the Ruler of The World (Archon of the Kosmos) in John's Gospel, and Paul called him the "God of this Aion".  He offered Jesus all the Kingdoms of The World and will give them to The Beast in Revelation 13.

The beast is in conflict with Babylon in Revelation 17, but I think that plays into Satan's manipulations.  And it could be God's destruction of the City in chapter 18 is after The Beast conquers it and destroys it's system represented by the Harlot in chapter 17.

(Note, this does not change my view that the Prince of Tyre in Ezekiel 48 is a human ruler, but I'm less certain that has anything to do with The Antichrist).

It could be the Abyss is being idiomatically spoken of as his grave in verse 19.

In verse 20, the "thy" before both "land" and "people" isn't in the Hebrew. Even if their presence is grammatically justified somehow (I'm by no means a Hebrew expert), this could be going back to whatever Satan's intended role was before he started working against God's will in Genesis 3, that he's destroyed lands and people he was meant to be responsible for.

It could be the narrative jumps forward a thousand years, from when Satan is cast into the Pit to when he's cast out.

In that past Isaiah 14 study I talked about The Assyrian at the end.  This now gives me a new answer to that mystery.

Chris White has a video where he seeks to refute the view of The Antichrist being an Assyrian.  I basically agree on that but have differences, for one in the past I'd criticized that video for ignoring Isaiah 14.  But I completely agree on Isaiah 9-11, though I do think that could have an End Times second fulfillment, if so that Assyrian would be more likely a decoy Antichrist.

The key to it's relevance here is Micah 5 starting in verse 4.  I agree with him that the context of that Prophecy is Millennial, (I had even before this recent insight).  But I'm not so convinced of the argument that the hypothetical language means it's not something that will happen.  White himself uses hypothetical statements to build eschatological doctrine elsewhere, with John 5 which his False Christ book is dependent on, but I possibly have a different view on.

Now I'm thinking again of my argument that there may be more time between Satan being let out of the Abyss and the Gog and Magog invasion then people realize (I agree with Christ White that Ezekiel 38-39 is post Millennial).  What if Micah 5's Assyrian invasion of Israel is something that happens very soon after Satan is freed from the Abyss?  Satan's first act in the events leading up to the Gog and Magog War?  A detail Revelation 20 skips or glosses over?

In which case Micah 5 and Isaiah 14's Assyrian Prophecies could be the same event, an event soon after the thousand years expire.  And whether there is an individual being called "The Assyrian" or just about the nation and people of Asshur would be irrelevant.  This could also tie in with my thoughts on Isaiah 17 and Damascus.

Isaiah 14 has nothing to do with the Morning Star

Because in Greek mythology the Morning Star was the son of the Dawn goddess Eos (Aurora to the Romans) the Greek Septuagint translators of Isaiah 14:12 chose to render the personage identified as a "son of the Dawn" as Heosphorus, the Morning Star.  Which became Lucifer in Latin versions like the Vulgate.

Repeatedly people will tell you that scholars believe Isaiah 14:12 and up references a Canaanite myth about the god of the Morning Star named Helel who was the son of Shachar god of the Dawn rebelling against El Elown.  (Elown is the Hebrew title translated "Most High" or "The Highest".)

What they won't tell you is they have no actual text or inscription describing that myth with those names.  It's all conjectured from their assumption that Isaiah 14 must be drawing on some kind of Canaanite myth.

Shahar is the Hebrew word for Dawn (morning in the KJV but that's unfortunate because it's not the standard word for morning, Dawn is more accurate) used in Isaiah 14:12.  That word is also the name of a pagan Caananite (assumed to be male) god associated with the Dawn, his brother Shalim being Dusk.  Shachar and Shalim were among the sons of El Elown.

There are NO texts outside Isaiah 14 that identify Shachar as having a son named Helel.

Attar (also rendered Ashtar, Ishtar, Astar, and Athtar) was a god affiliated with Venus the Morning star.  But he is not associated with the name Helel nor is he ever refereed to as a son of Shachar. He was a male counterpart to Ashteroth/Astarte, who's name is similar and was also affiliated with Venus.  We don't know for certain his position in the mythological genealogy but I'd suspect he was like a brother maybe even twin of Ashtroth, or her son.  Astarte was a sister/wife of Hadad and daughter of El.  Hadad would probably be the father of any children of hers.

So the morning star and the Dawn in Caananite mythology were siblings or maybe uncle/nephew but not father and son.

There is a Canaanite myth about Attar rebelling against Baal Hadad but NOT against El, Hadad himself was the rebel against El.

Isaiah 14:12 is the only verse to use the word Helel.  But Helel is just the noun form of the verb Halal (Strongs number 1984).  Which has a variety of meanings, shine, boast, celebrate, glory, praise, rage, mad, all words the KJV has rendered it as.  The context of mentioning dawn implies shine works best, the YLT translates it Shining One.

A more accurate Greek rendering could be Phoibos/Phoebus which means bright or shining one which was an epithet of Apollo given to him after he became affiliated with the Sun (he originally was not).  Or Phainon, a Greek name for the planet Saturn which Cicero says in On The Nature of the Gods meant "Shining". 

However that Boasting is very much what this personage goes on to describe him doing suggests that "boastful one" would fit best.  Interestingly Bromius, a name for Dionysus, means "noisy", "roaring", or "boisterous", from βρέμειν, to roar.

Helel may also be Yalal (Strong number 3213) with a definite article.  Making it a title not a name.  It means Howl or Howling, so as a title would mean Howling One or Howler. English Translations of the Peshita version of Isaiah 14:12 don't even interpret Helel as a noun but as a verb saying things like "Wail at Dawn" or "Howl in the morning".  (Interestingly I've seen the name of the Shinto deity Susanoo interpreted as meaning Howler.)

The New Testament refers to Jesus as the Morning Star (Revelation 22:16) and the Day Star (2 Peter 1:19).  The Day Star reference used a poetic name for Venus "Phosphorus" which cosmologically refers to the same star Heosphorus does, and has the same meaning Lucifer has in Latin.  Phos=Lux=Light and Phorus=Ferus=Bearer/Bringer.

I've seen it described as though the Septuagint uses "Heosphorus" for the entire phrase "Helel ben Shahar".  So the Heosphorus being a son of Eos in Greek mythology is probably the origin of this mistake, since other mythologies don't make the Dawn a parent of any stars.  Interestingly the etymology of Heosphorus perhaps makes a better translation of the "Ben Shahar" part, meaning "Dawn-Bearer" or Born of Dawn.

I've been thinking however, what if Dawn isn't even an accurate translation of Shahar here?  It definitely means Dawn in many places, but a Hebrew word spelled the same also means "Black" or "Dark".  When Shulamith is described as being "black" like the tents of Kedar (Song of Solomon 1:5), Shachor is the word translated black.  Perhaps this similarity makes a certain kind of sense, "the Night is darkest just before the Dawn".  Maybe Satan is actually being called the "son of the Darkness".

So calling Satan the Morning Star fits his agenda quite well.  The Latin Vulgate indeed uses Lucifer in both Isaiah 14 and the NT Morning Star references.  Because of this there are some Latin Catholic hymns that call Jesus Lucifer which ignorant Protestants have had paranoid reactions to.

And maybe even identifying Satan as an offspring of the Dawn is dangerous.  Because one could easily argue if they wanted to that the Woman of Revelation 12 is being described with Dawn Goddess imagery.  Eos is frequently depicted in Greek art and poetry as wearing Saffron robes, Saffron is a shade of the color yellow that is commonly identified as being the Sun's shade of yellow.  And since the Sun rises as the Moon is setting one could also say the Moon is under her feet. 

Gnostics and certain other enemies of Christianity could make use of such arguments.

Does Revelation start over in Chapter 12?

Some people have Revelation completely non-chronological.  But among those who choose only one place to see it as Rebooting, the by far most popular place is the start of Revelation 12.

"We are back at the birth of Christ" they will say.  I no longer agree with that assumption, but even if John is seeing Signs that represent some already past events.  I believe these Signs will one day be seen in the Heavens, not just by John but by everyone.  Luke 21:25 foretells "And there shall be signs in the sun, and in the moon, and in the stars".

Matthew and Mark has Jesus refer to "The Sign of The Son of Man" being seen in the Heavens.  I have two theories on what that correlates to in Revelation. One I've said before is the Ark being seen in the Heavenly Temple in Revelation 11.  But another option is perhaps the Signs John sees in Revelation 12, the Birth of the Son of Man/Seed of The Woman.

Again, both the Chapter and Verse divisions are not in the original text. If you read Revelation from the sounding of the 7th Trumpet on till when The Dragon is cast down without letting the man made divisions effect your perception, I don't think it's possible to fail to see they're all one continuous sequence of events.  I will provide an easy way to do that at the end of this post.

Revelation 12:1 in the Greek text begins with Kai, Kai is translated in the KJV "and there" but in fact "and then" would be more accurate here, the word is translated "then" elsewhere in the KJV often.  It's also the exact same word that begins 12:3.  That word is how many verses in Revelation begin, including the last to chapter 11 and all of them in chapter 12 and most in 12.

Some defending the idea of Revelation starting over and showing us the same events from a "different angle" mention that we have Four Gospels, and that Chronicles repeats much of the history from Samuel and Kings.

Those are different books.  And when we do see different events from different angles within the same book on the subject of prophecy they're defined as distinct separate visions, usually given at different times.  Like the many visions Daniel has (or interprets for others).  And I indeed do believe we see most of what's in Revelation from different angles in other Prophetic books.

Revelation however is one continuous vision.  John was taken out of the Earth to the Heavenly Throne Room and is walked through everything that will happen step by step.  Revelation ceases to be confusing when people just accept that and interpret other Bible Prophecies chronology based on where John explicitly identifies them in Revelation.  Including that when the Son of Man comes on a cloud is in Revelation 14.

Even if some start over were the case, we're clearly caught up to the midway point and the Abomination of Desolation when The Woman flees as synchronization with Matthew 24 shows.  Her time in the wilderness is clearly the second half not the first.  It's generally the desire to justify putting the Trumpets in the second half that comes from this specific start over theory.  I've dealt elsewhere with why the Trumpets and Bowls being concurrent doesn't work.

Revelation 11:14-12:12

The second woe is past; and, behold, the third woe cometh quickly.

And the seventh angel sounded; and there were great voices in heaven, saying, The kingdoms of this world are become the kingdoms of our Lord, and of his Christ; and he shall reign for ever and ever.  And the four and twenty elders, which sat before God on their seats, fell upon their faces, and worshipped God, saying, "We give thee thanks, O Lord God Almighty, which art, and wast, and art to come; because thou hast taken to thee thy great power, and hast reigned. And the nations were angry, and thy wrath is come, and the time of the dead, that they should be judged, and that thou shouldest give reward unto thy servants the prophets, and to the saints, and them that fear thy name, small and great; and shouldest destroy them which destroy the earth."  And the temple of God was opened in heaven, and there was seen in his temple the ark of his testament: and there were lightnings, and voices, and thunderings, and an earthquake, and great hail.
And then a great wonder appeared in heaven; a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars: And she being with child cried, travailing in birth, and pained to be delivered.  And then appeared another wonder in heaven; and behold a great red dragon, having seven heads and ten horns, and seven crowns upon his heads.  And his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven, and did cast them to the earth: and the dragon stood before the woman which was ready to be delivered, for to devour her child as soon as it was born.  And she brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron: and her child was caught up unto God, and to his throne.  And the woman fled into the wilderness, where she hath a place prepared of God, that they should feed her there a thousand two hundred and threescore days.

And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels, and prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in heaven.  And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.

And I heard a loud voice saying in heaven, "Now is come salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of his Christ: for the accuser of our brethren is cast down, which accused them before our God day and night.  And they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of their testimony; and they loved not their lives unto the death.  Therefore rejoice, ye heavens, and ye that dwell in them. Woe to the inhabiters of the earth and of the sea! for the devil is come down unto you, having great wrath, because he knoweth that he hath but a short time."

The Resurrection of The Antichrist: Ezekiel 28

The other major Hebrew Bible passage on the Fall of Satan is in Ezekiel 28. Some people discuss how Ezekiel 28 starts out talking about a human ruler of Tyre and then goes on to discus Satan as if it's ambiguous where this change happens, but it's not.

 Ezekiel 28 begins with "The word of the LORD came again unto me, saying", which is a typical Sign of a new message being given, that might be in some way connected to the prior message, but might not. Verse 11 says "Moreover the word of the LORD came unto me, saying". It's after verse 11 it's talking about the "Anointed Cherub", the first 10 verses are about the human ruler.

The human ruler is the "Prince of Tyrus" the word for "Prince" here being Nagiyd, which is also translated Ruler, Captain, Leader, Governor and Noble. Satan is refereed to as the "King of Tyrus", the word for King being "Melek". The patron deity of ancient Tyre was Melqart, who's name was derived in part from Melek and means "King of the City". So part of the intent in referring to Satan this way may have been to link him to that false god. (Who the Ancient Greeks identified with Herakles/Hercules.)  Also the Hebrew word Melek for King is spelled the same as it's word for Angel, Malak,  M-L-K.  So the Holy Spirit could be doing some word play here.  Moloch is also spelled the same BTW.

Don't get over excited about an Antichrist passage seemingly calling him the "Prince of _____" or "King of _____". He will conquer and take over many Near Eastern locations, so none of these really tell us anything about his origin. Tyre may likely come under his control when he is victorious over the "King of the North" in Daniel 11:36-45. He'll also conquer Egypt (King of The South) which is important to remember later. This particular Prophecy is speaking of him in terms of his connection to Tyre because it spins off from Ezekiel's earlier prophecies of the contemporary conquest of Tyre by Babylon.

"Son of man, say unto the Ruler of Tyrus, Thus saith the Lord Yahweh; Because thine heart is lifted up, and thou hast said, "I Am A God, I sit in the seat of God, in the midst of the seas"; yet thou art a man, and not a god, though thou set thine heart as the heart of God: Behold, thou art wiser than Daniel; there is no secret that they can hide from thee: With thy wisdom and with thine understanding thou hast gotten thee riches, and hast gotten gold and silver into thy treasures: By thy great wisdom and by thy traffick hast thou increased thy riches, and thine heart is lifted up because of thy riches: Therefore thus saith the Lord Yahweh; Because thou hast set thine heart as the heart of God; Behold, therefore I will bring foreigners upon thee, the terrible of the nations: and they shall draw their swords against the beauty of thy wisdom, and they shall defile thy brightness. They shall bring thee down to the pit, and thou shalt die the deaths of them that are slain in the midst of the seas.  Wilt thou yet say before him that slayeth thee, "I am God"? but thou shalt be a man, and no god, in the hand of him that slayeth thee. Thou shalt die the deaths of the uncircumcised by the hand of foreigners: for I have spoken it, saith the Lord Yahweh."

Here we have a ruler explicitly thinking of himself as God-Like, and also being sent down to the Pit. The word for "pit" here is different in the Hebrew then in Isaiah 14, but the idea is still clearly the same.

We're also told specifically he will be killed, and his killer is refereed to as "the terrible of the nations". This figure is significant, to me since many of the False Prophecies I see as setting up Messianic Figures that I think The Antichrist could seek to identify himself with have what I like to call a "Decoy Antichrist" figure who will kill him setting the stage for his Resurrection. Messiah Ben-Ephriam is killed by Armilus and the Mahdi by Dajjal. There are also similar ideas in apostate Christians traditions, though they don't as specifically expect their hero to be killed. I'll return to this subject latter.

Some see "die the deaths of the uncircumcised" as meaning he is Jewish, and that dying like a Gentile is some kind of mystical disgrace. If that's the case then it certainly goes against seeing this as applying to Ithobaal III (Ethbaal) the Ruler of Tyre at the time of Nebuchadnezzar's conquest of Tyre. But others see it the opposite, as simply saying he's Uncircumcised.

I believe The Antichrist will die only one death, because of what I mentioned before about Revelation 19 and being cast alive into The Lake of Fire. Some see Daniel 7:11 as clarifying that "The Beast" is killed first. "I beheld even till the beast was slain, and his body destroyed, and given to the burning flame." While the Beast imagery in Revelation draws on Daniel 7 it's also different. In Revelation The beast is both the individual and his Kingdom, in Daniel 7 The Beast is only The Kingdom, the Little Horn is the individual who is The Antichrist. This detail of Daniel 7:11 is about Edom/Rome as a nation being destroyed, not an individual person being killed.

Chris White and some others like to diminish the Eschatological-Antichrist significance of this passage by saying it merely makes this ruler of Tyre a type. But the problem is none of this really fits Ithoball/Ethoball at all. I alluded to one possible problem already, but there are others.

 He was not killed by Nebuchadnezzar (who in a contemporary context is the only person "the terrible of the nations" could be, Ezekiel elsewhere gives this title him explicitly) or his armies, simply forced to abdicate. And there is no evidence he arrogantly deified himself, I don't know whether or not like in Egypt the ruler was ceremonially always viewed as a sort of avatar of the patron god, but that would be different from this Prophecy where someone really honestly believes he's divine in his own heart.

This prophecy appears to be about him before and up to his death. but since the Abomination of Desolation is clearly after his resurrection, isn't the focus on his deification a little out of place? This prophecy does not reference that specific event, it may not be a matter of not publicly proclaiming himself yet but believing it in his heart, and/or simply not silencing his supporters who deify him. In which case I think it might work well to see Herod Agrippa in Acts 12 as a type.

Acts 12:20-23 And Herod was highly displeased with them of Tyre and Sidon: but they came with one accord to him, and, having made Blastus the king's chamberlain their friend, desired peace; because their country was nourished by the king's country.  And upon a set day Herod, arrayed in royal apparel, sat upon his throne, and made an oration unto them.  And the people gave a shout, saying, "It is the voice of a god, and not of a man".  And immediately the angel of the Lord smote him, because he gave not God the glory: and he was eaten of worms, and gave up the ghost.

This is verified by Josephus in Antiquities of The Jews Chapter 8.

Now when Agrippa had reigned three years over all Judea, he came to the city Cesarea, which was formerly called Strato's Tower; and there he exhibited shows in honor of Caesar, upon his being informed that there was a certain festival celebrated to make vows for his safety. At which festival a great multitude was gotten together of the principal persons, and such as were of dignity through his province. On the second day of which shows he put on a garment made wholly of silver, and of a contexture truly wonderful, and came into the theater early in the morning; at which time the silver of his garment being illuminated by the fresh reflection of the sun's rays upon it, shone out after a surprising manner, and was so resplendent as to spread a horror over those that looked intently upon him; and presently his flatterers cried out, one from one place, and another from another, [though not for his good,] that he was a god; and they added, "Be thou merciful to us; for although we have hitherto reverenced thee only as a man, yet shall we henceforth own thee as superior to mortal nature." Upon this the king did neither rebuke them, nor reject their impious flattery. But as he presently afterward looked up, he saw an owl sitting on a certain rope over his head, and immediately understood that this bird was the messenger of ill tidings, as it had once been the messenger of good tidings to him; and fell into the deepest sorrow. A severe pain also arose in his belly, and began in a most violent manner. He therefore looked upon his friends, and said, "I, whom you call a god, am commanded presently to depart this life; while Providence thus reproves the lying words you just now said to me; and I, who was by you called immortal, am immediately to be hurried away by death. But I am bound to accept of what Providence allots, as it pleases God; for we have by no means lived ill, but in a splendid and happy manner." When he said this, his pain was become violent. Accordingly he was carried into the palace, and the rumor went abroad every where, that he would certainly die in a little time. But the multitude presently sat in sackcloth, with their wives and children, after the law of their country, and besought God for the king's recovery. All places were also full of mourning and lamentation. Now the king rested in a high chamber, and as he saw them below lying prostrate on the ground, he could not himself forbear weeping. And when he had been quite worn out by the pain in his belly for five days, he departed this life, being in the fifty-fourth year of his age, and in the seventh year of his reign;

The last part of Ezekiel 28 is about a judgment on Sidon. Which did not suffer any so epic Judgment in Ancient Times. I think it's possible to keep that passage in mind anytime tensions involving modern Lebanon are flaring up.

Ezekiel reuses some of the key themes of this passage in chapters 29-32. Another human ruler killed by "the terrible of the nations" and going down into Sheol. This time it's given new details like "and he shall groan before him with the groanings of a deadly wounded man." But there the human ruler is the Pharaoh of Egypt.

This time there definitely is a sense of near fulfillment in Ezekiel's own time, since "the terrible of the nations" is spoken of as synonymous with 'The King of Babylon" and Nebuchadrezzar is mentioned by name.

Along with this is a prophecy of Egypt being uninhabited for 40 years. Ussher believed this was fulfilled from about 572-532 B.C., but the documentation for that isn't solid. Some see in the text a possible allusion to this 40 year desolation beginning with the Aswan Dam being Nuked, with the references to a fire being set, and references to "the tower of Syene". Syene being where the Dam was build and no major ancient structure was built there.

Nebuchadnezzar is clearly only a type of The Antichrist's killer here. Many see him ironically as serving as a type of The Antichrist in Daniel 3. So I don't see this as definitive that the future "Terrible of the Nations" will be from or in Iraq. But Daniel 11:36-45 does refer to The Antichrist having trouble from the North and the East, after he's already conquered the King of The North (Syria). So that makes either Turkey and/or Iraq a likely candidate for this new adversary.

But if the King of Babylon detail is relevant, it seems awkward given it's The Antichrist who's the King of Babylon in Isaiah 14. After his Resurrection and return to power this enemy will quickly be taken care of. Armilus and Dajjal seem to be killed by the False Prophet figure in those false prophecies, but the heretical Christian traditions would rather see it be the Last Roman Emperor/Great Catholic Monarch who defeats the evil tyrant. Either way, it's likely The Antichrist will then take Rulership of Babylon, or whatever lands "the Terrible of the Nations" controls, for himself.

It's interesting to note that there are rival claimants to the Hashamite "King of Iraq" title right now. In addition to the proper claimants coming form two rival lines, there are those in the international community who'd rather give the title to someone of the Jordanian Royal Family.  But I'm no longer a fan of the Islamic Anitchrist view as I used to be.

That Nebuchadnezzar can be a type of The Antichrist to one Prophet, but a type of his killer to another, just further reinforces my belief that this individual will be a sort of "Decoy Antichrist". I've written elsewhere that I think there may be many potential Antichrists during the first half of the 70th Week, or perhaps even before the 70th week begins. And that no matter how convincing it might seem to view someone currently on the rise as The Antichrist, to remember that we will not know for certain who he is until the Abomination of Desolation happens.

The Resurrection of The Antichrist: Isaiah 14

Isaiah 13 and most of 14 is one Prophecy. 13 is talking about the Fall of Babylon, a prophecy that has not been literally fulfilled, an arguable near fulfillment exists in Isaiah's day, but it doesn't fit the full details even remotely. And attempts to make this fit the fall to Cyrus don't work at all. 14 begins with saying how Yaweh will choose Israel and give them the land.

I used to view The King of Babylon as not being The Beast, but as probably a decoy Antichrist the Beast will defeat, but I've changed my mind after only recently noticing aspects of this I repeatedly overlooked. Which is gonna cause me to have to go back and adjust some details of my older dissertations.

A note, I shall adjust the KJV rendering to better reflect The Hebrew, influenced by my own in depth study.

Now let's begin, verses 4-11 are talking about the human King.

That thou shalt take up this proverb against the king of Babylon, and say, How hath the oppressor ceased ! the golden city ceased ! Yaweh hath broken the staff of the wicked, and the sceptre of the rulers.  He who smote the people in wrath with a continual stroke, he that ruled the nations in anger, is persecuted, and none hindereth.  The whole earth is at rest, and is quiet: they break forth into singing.  Yea, the fir trees rejoice at thee, and the cedars of Lebanon, saying, Since thou art laid down, no feller is come up against us. Sheol from beneath is moved for thee to meet thee at thy coming: it stirreth up the demons for thee, even all the rams of the earth; it hath raised up from their thrones all the kings of the nations.  All they shall speak and say unto thee, "Art thou also become weak as we? art thou become like unto us?" Thy pomp is brought down to Sheol, and the noise of thy viols: the maggot is spread under thee, and the worms cover thee.

So this Human ruler has died and is now in Sheol, called Hades in the Greek and often by us Hell. But this isn't the Lake of Fire.

Now people assume what comes next is mentioned for the purpose of comparing these two personages. I feel the grammar justifies that a new character is in mind, but the person we were discussing will come up again latter. Isaiah 14:12-14

How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the Dawn ! how art thou cut down to the earth, 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: 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 Highest.

This is one of the core passages on the fall of Satan from heaven. The only one besides Revelation that could help us time it chronologically, but Revelation is far more precise.

Now I think we learn why these two come together in verse 15

Yet thou shalt go down to Sheol, to the sides of the pit.

They are now in the same place. In the New Testament "The Pit" is used of the Abyss. Given Hebrew poetic style however, I think this reference means a synonym of Hades. Though it could work either way if the Abyss is a specific part of Hades, or a location right next to it. This Hebrew word is also used of just literal cisterns and dungeons also.

The big translation issue I noticed is that the part of the usual translations that imply he's being brought there against his will, like his fall was, isn't in the Hebrew. It can be read that he went down there on his own, his fall was only to The Earth.

In the past I've been against viewing The Beast as possessed by Satan like Judas was, simply out of lack of direct reference. But here once both characters are in the underworld, the grammar of the text does seem to treat them as one.

Now verses 16-19 is the key really interesting part.

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; That made the world as a wilderness, and destroyed the cities thereof; that opened not the house of his prisoners? All the kings of the nations, even all of them, lay in glory, every one in his own house. But thou art cast out of thy grave like an abominable branch, and as the raiment of those that are slain, thrust through with a sword, that go down to the stones of the pit; as a carcase trodden under feet.

Generally we've considered the idea of the Beast's having his own Death and Resurrection merely implied by the "mortal wound" being healed in Revelation 13, and how Daniel 45 speaks of his end. But we miss how Isaiah here explicitly speaks of a King who'll go to Hell, but then be "cast out of his grave". And having some sort of wound from a sword.

Of the three ways the KJV translated that word throughout The Bible I chose "grave" because it most literally conveyed the idea poetically. It can also mean "sepulcher", and I do think as I explained elsewhere the Dome of The Rock could be his sepulcher. It's not Sheol however, which the KJV also often renders Grave, but I personally choose never to translate it that way.

Revelation twice when describing The Beast (both references timing wise I see as after his resurrection). Refers to him as ascending out of the Abyss. 11:7 "And when they shall have finished their testimony, the beast that ascendeth out of the bottomless pit shall make war against them, and shall overcome them, and kill them." 17:8 "The beast that thou sawest was, and is not; and shall ascend out of the bottomless pit, and go into perdition".

I also see here a possible description of his post resurrection state. See I don't think The Antichrist's resurrection will be one like Lazurus, just being returned to how he was before. Though he's certainly not like our promised Resurrection either. That he and The False Prophet are in Revelation 19 cast into the Lake of Fire without being killed first implies to me that they are early partakers of the Second Resurrection. I've written on my theory about The False Prophet's identity elsewhere.

Since we who will be of The First Resurrection will have bodies like The Angels. I think it's possible that the bodies of The Second Resurrection will be like the bodies of Fallen Angels. II Corinthians 5:2 "For in this we groan, earnestly desiring to be clothed upon with our house which is from heaven". The word translated "house" here is Oiketerion. A word used only one other time in The Bible, in Jude 6 where it's translated "habitation". "And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day." Like Chuck Missler I view this word as being a technical term for the Incorruptible bodies of Unfallen beings.

Does this tell us anything about the timing of other events in relation to his resurrection, mainly the destruction of Babylon that was discussed before?

That his mortal wound's healing is mid week is pretty indisputable from other references. This account is in the context of the yet future Fall of Babylon. But the context here is a semi change of subject, it could be looking back to explain how this King became what he is now, when Babylon falls. Or it could be this is going on to describe how this King after is judged Babylon is judged. Or maybe Babylon's End Times Judgment really happens in phases? Now to continue. Verses 19-23

But thou art cast out of thy grave like an abominable branch, and as the raiment of those that are slain, thrust through with a sword, that go down to the stones of the pit; as a carcase trodden under feet. Thou shalt not be joined with them in burial, because thou hast destroyed thy land, and slain thy people: the seed of evildoers shall never be renowned.  Prepare slaughter for his children for the iniquity of their fathers; that they do not stand, nor possess the land, nor fill the face of the world with enemy cities. For I will rise up against them, saith Yahweh of hosts, and cut off from Babylon the name, and remnant, and offspring, and posterity, saith Yahweh.  I will also make it a possession for the porcupines, and pools of water: and I will sweep it with the broom of destruction, saith Yahweh of hosts.

The subject of Babylon itself seems to be returned to, as if the process of destruction began earlier but hadn't ended yet. It's interesting that he's spoken of as slaying his own people.

What new does this understanding tell us?

It kind of directly links the counterfeit resurrection to Satan's fall. Daniel 11:45 and 12:1 are the same continuous message originally, (the Chapter divisions are modern), also place "Michael stand up, the great prince which standeth for the children of thy people" at the time the Willful King meets his end. Daniel 12:1 I also believe correlates to Revelation 12:7 "And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon" which is directly linked to when The Woman (Israel) flees to the Wilderness.

Verses 24-27 are still the same Prophecy, no "Word of The LORD came unto me saying" or any other indicator of it being a change in subject. None the less some Bibles include a new Chapter heading here as if it were different that calls it Judgment on Assyria. The text in the KJV says The Assyrian however.

The Assyrian here could be one of 3 or 4 things

1. The same King of Babylon we'd been discussing. I consider this the least likely since the other passages people cite as calling The Antichrist as The Assyrian I see as flawed logically also. Micah 5 is being hypothetical, saying how Israel can't be attacked once The Messiah reigns. And I've come to see Isaiah 9-11, if End Times at all (it could be easily just be about events form Isaiah's time when he gave this Prophecy) as linking The Antichrist to Ephraim rather then Assyria. Because I see Isaiah 9:14-15 "Therefore the LORD will cut off from Israel head and tail, branch and rush, in one day. The ancient and honourable, he is the head; and the prophet that teacheth lies, he is the tail." as being a rare outside Revelation reference to The Antichrist being paired with a False Prophet.

2. Perhaps the "Terrible of The Nations" from Ezekiel I'll discus when I study those Chapters later.

3. The "King of The North" from Daniel 11:40. Could be the same person as 2 or maybe not.

4. It could be a flawed Translation, and simply mean Assyria, or the Assyrian people. Which could maybe overlap with either 1 or 2 or 3.

When it's said of The Beast "and power was given unto him to continue forty and two months." The terminology could mean continue as in he should have ended already. I think specifically it's referring to the amount of time following his being cast out of Hades.

Problems I have with the Extended Day Theory and the Gap Theory

This is supplemental to my Fall of Lucifer post.

The Hebrew phrase translated in Genesis 1:2 "without form, and void" simply means it was unformed and unfinished. In Genesis 1:1 God Created all Matter as well as both Time and Space, but in verses 3 on He refined and perfected the details.

Chuck Missler likes to say the Gap Theory comes from Isaiah 45:18 "he created it not in vain" saying the "in Vain" part is one of key words in Hebrew of "without form and void". This is merely referring to when the 6 days are over however. When " God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good". To me that assessment would be absurd if Satan had already fallen and there had already been death.

Chuck also likes to claim that phrase is an expression of Judgment, but that's only based on later usages in different contexts.

Jeremiah 4:23-26 is however the real linchpin of the Gap Theory view of that phrase.

I beheld the earth, and, lo, it was without form, and void; and the heavens, and they had no light.  I beheld the mountains, and, lo, they trembled, and all the hills moved lightly.  I beheld, and, lo, there was no man, and all the birds of the heavens were fled.  I beheld, and, lo, the fruitful place was a wilderness, and all the cities thereof were broken down at the presence of the LORD, and by his fierce anger.

The word for 'man" used here is "Adam" so they take it as meaning Pre-Adamic, so there was a Pre-Adamic civilization. But all "there was no man" means here is these cities are now uninhabited because they've been judged and their populations are dead or gone.

Those who want to see this as being about some Ancient Pre-Adamic cataclysm are ignoring the rest of the Prophecy, which mentions, Jerusalem and Judah and Ephraim and Dan. This is an End Times prophecy about the future Judgment upon our Age. All the destructive imagery here is parallel to things said in Revelation.

Another issue is the use of the term "refill and replenish". We today are used to the prefix "re" meaning doing it again or doing it over, but it didn't always mean that in 1611. But more importantly that's not what the Hebrew says, the Hebrew phrase simply means to "fill and populate", no Hebrew equivalents to the "re" prefix are used.

My objection to both the Gap Theory and the Extended Day Theory and any Old Earth model is not simply about anything in Genesis, it's primarily New Testament.

Romans 5:12 "Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned"
I Corinthians 15:21 "For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead."

Meaning as I said when discussing Satan's fall, nothing bad ever happened before Genesis 3.

On the subject of the Extended Day theory, there are also those who like to suggest using all kinds of technical facts about the relativity of Time, (like that time has been slowing down) to claim that all the supposed Old Earth evidence from Secular Science is in fact completely compatible with a literal interpretation of Genesis.

There may indeed be some good insights to learn from studying those issues. But what's important to keep in mind is two things.

1. The claim made by secular science about history is different in more then just how much time passes, even the order things were created is different. The Big Bang Theory claims the Sun must've existed before The Earth. Also the development of Life on this Planet is incompatible, life didn't start in the ocean Biblically.  And Genesis even says the Moon was created before the Sun.

I personally get really annoyed when people making Extended Day Theory arguments go all "how could it be a 24 Hour Day if the Sun and Moon weren't there the first few days?". But even more annoyed when people who aren't even Christians say that just to mock Young Earth Creationists, because it betrays their own principles.

The Sun, Moon and Stars are only part of how we measure a Day, what a Day actually is is the Earth's rotation. "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." I believe right on Day One The Planet Earth existed, was already a sphere and was already spinning. If anything I might accept that days were shorter originally as the Earth's rotation has been slowing.

Some of you might want to argue this just means the Earth as in the element, and not specifically our planet. But Hebrew had different words for Earth (so did Greek and Latin actually), the Earth element is Adamah, which Adam was made from. Genesis 1:1 uses 'erets.  Erets can be used of Land as in land masses in addition to the planet.  But not of the element.

2. Really derives from 1, and I'd already talked about it anyway, but it's worth repeating. Any interpretation of how to fit Genesis with Science that has anything human or animal die before Adam's Sin is heretical. Meaning if your going to believe that Dinosaurs went extinct long before Man came into existence, your view is UnBibical.

To me all the supposed Evidence for Millions or Billions of years is all B.S. anyway, I honestly don't think I'd buy it even if I wasn't a believer. But addressing those things is for others more scientifically educated them myself.  I recommend Kent Hovind and Ken Ham, and also Creation Wiki.

Satan's fall and the War in Heaven is a Future event not a past one

It's amazing to me how many Un-Biblical ideas are casually believed even by many Fundamentalist Christians simply because Society has conditioned us to believe it.

The idea of a War in Heaven sometime before Adam's fall or even creation is a Gap Theory connected false Doctrine mainly popularized by secular western fiction.

When I say it's a Pagan idea it's because various Pagan mythologies have myths of various wars between the gods (Sometimes newer gods overthrowing older ones) or of a god being cast out. Greek mythology as the Titanarchy, the Gigantarchy, Cronos overthrowing Ophion, the brief usurpation of Typhon, and the casting out of Hēphaistos. Egyptian mythology has Amon's war with Apep and Set overthrowing Osiris to later be overthrown by Horus. Norse mythology has the war of the Vanir and the Aseir.  Japanese mythology has Susanoo being cast out of Heaven and then the war between the Heavenly Kami and the Earthly Kami.  And so on.  And for the Pagan Canaanites just look at the Baal Cycle.

But it's insertion into Judeo-Christian tradition somewhat begins with Jewish Rabbis attempting to incorporate the Mesopotamian Combat Myth of Marduk killing Tiamat before Creation into the Genesis narrative.

"In the days before Creation, Rahab, Prince of the Sea, rebelled against God. When commanded: 'Open your mouth, Prince of the Sea, and swallow all of the world's waters,' he cried: 'Lord of the Universe, leave me in peace!' Whereupon God kicked him to death and sank his carcase below the waves, since no land beast could endure its stench." (Bavli Baba Bathra 74b; Numeri Rabba 18:22; Midrash Wayosha, 46.)

Rahab is a name that does come from The Bible, Psalms 87 & 89, and Isaiah 51:9 (distinct in the Hebrew from the Rahab of Joshua which often looks the same in English).  It's used by many modern Christian Gap theorists combining their Gap Theory with Ancient Astronaut theories as the name for a Planet or Civilization in the supposed Pre-Adamic world that was destroyed by Satan's Rebellion.

The standard view among normal scholars is it was a nickname of some sort for Egypt.  I do think it plausible there was once a Planet where the Asteroid Belt is, but I think The Flood would be when it's destruction happened.  Even if it is another name for Satan, these are possibly all prophetic passages.  Isaiah certainly is, many Psalms are ambiguous on if they're prophetic or not.

Rahab is used in other passages actually, but in those the KJV translates it rather then treating it as a name.  Isaiah 30:7 is the basis for linking it to Egypt, there it is translated "strength".  Job 9:13 and 26:12 translate it "proud".

Pagan mythologies even already had the idea of a Pre-Adamic race.  In Sumerian mythology the Igigi were who the gods originally meant to be their slaves, but they stopped obeying so the Adamu were made instead.  Greek mythology has three races of Man made before the current one was made from the earth, Golden, Silver and Bronze.  The Fae of Celtic religion have been thought of this way sometimes too.  There is also some Extra-Koranic Islamic legends about Pre-Adamic races.  But before that, the Jinn are also treated as a Pre-Adamic race.

Now the use of it in modern Evolution comprise makes these people the "ape men" and "cave men" alleged from the fossil record.  While the more classical idea was the previous races were better then us, not unlike Tolkien's Eldar.  The way it attacks The Bible remains the same, Death before Adam's Sin.

The Gap theory also has ties to Gnosticism.

The Bible only ever discuses in detail the Fall of Satan is Prophetic books, Isaiah 14:12, Ezekiel 28:13, and Revelation 12.

Only one isolated verse appears to place it in the past, Luke 18:10 "And I beheld Satan as lighting fell from Heaven". But God often uses past tense language in reference to future events(commonly known as “prophetic perfect”; example, Isaiah 53; 21:1-10).  Jesus is God The Son made Flesh, He came from Outside time, He's seen all of History already play out. He know the beginning from the end and the end from the beginning.

Job demonstrates that Satan still has free access to Heaven, and he's still serving that function in The New Testament, hence why he's called the Accuser. The only difference Post-Cross is that now believers have an Advocate in Jesus. 1 John 2:1

The big problem with this false view to me is that it conflicts with the important fact that Adam's sin is the origin of Sin and Death. (Roman 5:12, 1 Corinthians 15:21). Genesis 3 is the origin of Sin, it's not just the first Sin Adam or Eve committed, I believe it's the Serpent's first open act of rebellion against God as well. We don't need a Prequel Trilogy to explain how The Serpent became a sinner.

The Fallen Angels did not all fall at once. The first group to fall are the ones from Genesis 6, who are now imprisoned in the Abyss. Then after the Flood more began to fall. I suspect there may be some not fallen now who will fall before the end.

Satan is also still the "Archon (Prince or Ruler) of the World" (John 12:31, 14:30, 16:11) as well as the "God of this World" (2 Corinthians 4:4). Some think the John verses mean he ceases serving as that at the Crucifixion (Preterist and Amillennial thinking), but the Corinthians verse shows he still is, and Ephesians also shows his servants still rule the World behind the scenes. Jesus did purchase the World with his Death and Resurrection, but he doesn't actually take it until His Return.

Isaiah 14 is a continuation of 13, it's still the same Prophecy. It affiliates Satan's final doom with the final Doom of Babylon, which is yet future, (Revelation 17 and 18). But the exact timing I feel requires Revelation 12 to figure out.

Revelation 12 presumably begins as a summery of all History (but I interpret it all as End Times), the Woman being Israel, the War in Heaven begins not only after The Man Child's birth but also after his ascension/rapture. after the Woman/Israel has fled to her hiding place in the Wilderness, which as we know from Matthew 24 is triggered by the Abomination of Desolation. When it says he caused a 3rd of the stars to fall from Heaven, I believe that's referring specifically to the Angels who fell in Genesis 6 who are now in Tartaros.

In other words it's the Final Week.

A lot of people believe Satan will indwell in "The Antichrist", but I see no Biblical basis for that either. Many End Times Christian movies and books like Left Behind and Revelation/Tribulation, and The Omega Code virtually make The Devil and The Antichrist the exact same character. But in my view Revelation 13 and 16:13 clearly paint The Dragon (Satan), The Beast of the Sea (Antichrist) and Beast of the Earth (The False Prophet) as three distinct individuals, acting as a sort of counterfeit Trinity, with the last leading the world to worship both of the other two.

Revelation 19 and 20 give The Antichrist and The False Prophet a very separate fate from The Devil, their cast into the Lake of Fire after the Battle of Armageddon, their the first individuals ever sent there.  Satan is then bound in the Abyss/Tartaros for 1000 years and then after sparking one last rebellion he's cast into the Lake of Fire.