Searching for the Truth in the King James Bible;
Finding it, and passing it on to you.

Steve Van Nattan




By Will Kinney

This is a discussion of the perverse blasphemy of making Jesus Christ into Satan, as demonstrated by the NIV committee of translators who blindly served Satan in doing just that.


Who is Lucifer? If he is the devil, then how can he be Jesus Christ in Isaiah 14?

Is Lucifer actually God?

"Iniquity was found in thee....." If Lucifer and Jesus Christ can be interchanged by Satan directed Bible translators, then Jesus Christ IS a devil.

This is exactly what modern Bible translations seek to do.

You need to read Will Kinney's article below very thoughtfully, for God will hold you accountable for your choices in this battle for truth.

We who believe and defend the King James Bible as being the preserved, pure and inspired words of the living God are often accused of not relying on facts to support our views. Such is the case with the name Lucifer as found in the passage of Isaiah 14:12-15. The KJB reads: "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: 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 most High. Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit."

The reason this passage is attacked by the modern bible version proponents is because the nasb and niv (per)versions have translated this section of Isaiah in a very different way, and they say that the KJB is wrong. Instead of "How art thou fallen from heaven, O LUCIFER..." the nasb and niv have: "How you have fallen from heaven, O MORNING STAR..."

There are several problems with the translation "O morning star", but first let me point out that if you look at the multitude of Bible commentaries there are as many opinions, as to who or what is being referred to, as there are bible versions. Some believe this passage refers to the king of Babylon, whom many identify as king Nebuchadnezzar, others believe it refers to Belshazzar, and still others as the kingdom of Babylon itself and not to any specific king. Many others see Isaiah 14:12 as referring to the spiritual power behind the king and kingdom of Babylon. The "facts" are that there is little agreement among the so called scholars as to who or what is addressed in this passage, let alone how to translate it.

The problem with the MORNING STAR of the niv, nasb and nkjv footnote is that the words morning and star are not found here in any Hebrew text. Morning is # 1242 boker and star is #3556 kokawb. The word for star is found in the very next verse of 13 where it says: "I will exalt my throne above the stars of God." The two words, morning and star, are found together in Job 38:7 where God is asking Job in verse 4 "Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth?... When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?" This seems to be a reference to the angles who rejoiced at God's creation.

Another serious problem with rendering this word #1966 Haylale as "morning star" is that Jesus Christ himself is called the morning star in Rev. 22:16 where he says: "I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star." The niv and nasb make it possible to identify Satan and Jesus Christ as one and the same persons. This is what Lucifer's ultimate game plan is, and the new versions have taken a giant step forward in advancing Satan's deception.

The word translated as Lucifer in the KJB occurs only one time in the Hebrew, just as the word Lucifer only occurs one time in the Holy Bible. It is a noun and it comes from a very interesting verb #1984 hawlal. This verb is used many times and has many very different meanings including: "to shine, to be foolish, to boast, to glory, to praise, and to be mad (insane or crazy). Isn't it interesting that Satan boasts and glories in his wisdom and power, wants to receive praise as god, shines as an "angel of light" to deceive, and his madness in wanting to be like the most High is ultimately the height of foolishness?


Here are the reasons I believe the King James Bible reading of Lucifer,
to denote the enemy of God and of our souls, is correct:

I have stepped off from Will Kinney's thoughts and expanded them:

First of all, if this passage is not referring to the fall of Satan, who is also known as the dragon, the old serpent, the devil, leviathan, Beelzebub etc., then we have no account in the Scriptures as to how he, who was originally created by God as good, became what he is today. In I Timothy 3:6 we are told that a bishop should not be a novice "lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil." Satan was busy attacking the early Church.

We are also told that Satan wishes to be worshipped. We see in the temptation in the wilderness that he came to Jesus Christ and said: "All these things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me." Where in Scripture can we learn of this desire of Satan to be like the most High God, and the pride that resulted in his condemnation, except here in Isaiah 14:12-15? They are not found anywhere else.

We find in Genesis that Satan is in the Garden tempting Eve, so we know that his fall from his office as the "anointed cherub" was before creation or thereabouts. Since the Gap Theory cannot be sustained by Scripture, we have no way to pinpoint the exact time he left heaven and fell. Partly, this is because if Satan fell before the creation of the world, there would be no space or time reference that could explain it to us because time started in Genesis 1. We know from Job that Satan could still come and go before the throne of God, as he went to and fro in the earth trying to find believers to accuse before God. We know he is in the earth now as we are warned by 1 Peter 5:8 Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour:

And we know from Revelation 12:10 that he is cast from heaven altogether in the End Times, but again, the precise moment is not told. After that "fall" he will not be back in heaven again. Also, though God does not have to tell us directly that Lucifer is Satan, we know that Satan was an angel of light, Lucifer's name is derived from a light concept (light bearer), and the things Isaiah's Lucifer claimed for himself, and several things Isaiah said of Lucifer, could not be fulfilled in any Babylonian king. More on this below.

We now consider the whole text under consideration:

Isaiah 14:9 Hell from beneath is moved for thee to meet thee at thy coming: it stirreth up the dead for thee, even all the chief ones of the earth; it hath raised up from their thrones all the kings of the nations. Hell did not meet Nebuchadnezzar for he repented, and God would receive his soul into heaven, not hell.

10 All they shall speak and say unto thee, Art thou also become weak as we? art thou become like unto us? To dwell in the earth, whether he be man or angel.

11 Thy pomp is brought down to the grave, and the noise of thy viols: the worm is spread under thee, and the worms cover thee. Lucifer experienced death. This fits human experience more than angelic unless this is what Satan experienced when he fell.

12 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! Hebrew word "llyh" heylel hay-lale' (Strong 1966) is derived from "llh" halal haw-lal' (1984), and the word (1984) is used to speak of brightness, exalting, praise of God, and many other uses. The word 1966 is only found once, and context tells us the subject is someone very evil.

This title, "son of the morning," is at the very least VERY awkward if we try to apply it to either Nebuchadnezzar or Belshazzar. The masculine is used in "son," and the morning star in Babylon was the goddess Ishtar. Isaiah would not refer to a male king as a goddess. This is too contradictory to make sense unless another "son of the morning" was implied, and the angels are masculine in the Bible, and Satan is an angel of light.

13 For thou hast said in thine heart,

I will ascend into heaven,- A Babylonian king could claim this since he was a manifestation of a deity. So, this is up for grabs and does not prove Satan is being spoken to here.

I will exalt my throne above the stars of God:- This is a very believable reference to Satan's office as a powerful angel. When Michael wrestled with Satan for Moses' body, Michael did not attack Satan head-on, for Satan had been an angel of high office. Michael said, "The Lord rebuke thee..." Jude 1:9

I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north:- What would Nebuchadnezzar of Belshazzar know about the "sides of the North?" This expression is used elsewhere in the Bible. Psalms 48:2 Beautiful for situation, the joy of the whole earth, is mount Zion, on the sides of the north, the city of the great King. "If the pain sense makes good sense, do not look for any other sense." Charles Feinberg

14 I will ascend above the heights of the clouds;- Again, other Bible language about heaven and God being above the clouds is the plain sense. Whether the Babylonian kings had a concept of rising above the clouds is suspect unless some epigraphic evidence proves it it so. My 4000 pages of research on the Middle Eastern god history from 300 sources lead to another conclusion. Part Nine of my book online, Allah, Who Is He, deals with this at length.

I will be like the most High.- The Hebrew implies the speaker is saying he will create himself over. Also, the "most High," for me anyway, closes the case on who Lucifer is and who he wanted to become. The Most High, El Elyon, was first used to describe God as he was served by Melchizedek in Genesis 14. Location was implied, and this fits the sides of the north and above the clouds. "Most High" was a very Jewish name for God and used by Abraham. The word for Most High in the New Testament was masculine. Again, the light bearer of Babylon was Ishtar and feminine. Satan would certainly get the gender right here when he aspired to be like God. Nebuchadnezzar, in my opinion, could not have made these statements in the context of his own position as the human manifestation of deity in Babylon. The confusion is extreme in that case, and the confusion in the listeners as Isaiah gave his prophecy in situ would have made him sound like a fool to Babylonians AND Jews.

15 Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit.- Again, if this was a human king, it had to be Belshazzar, not Nebuchadnezzar, a convert to worship of Jehovah. Damnation is inconceivable for a repentant king, a man who worshipped God. Furthermore, the kingdom was not destroyed during Nebuchadnezzar's reign. Archaeology tells us that his end reign was very peaceful and lacking in war zeal.

So, Lucifer was not Nebuchadnezzar for sure, and Belshazzar does not fit for many reasons. If Lucifer is not Satan, then who is he? This passage in Isaiah falls in the midst of a prophecy against Babylon. I believe, until someone can prove otherwise to me, that Lucifer is Satan. Medieval Rabbis abandoned the fall of Satan in Isaiah and expunged personality from evil. Thus, it is possible that the Roman Catholic Church picked this up from Jewish scholars, and the King James Translators reasserted Satan as Lucifer, a position Jewish Rabbis had taken since hundreds of years before the time of Christ. I go with the older conservative conclusions and the context with other Scripture and epigraphic evidences.


Secondly, I disagree with those that argue that only the king of Babylon is being referred to in Isaiah 14:12 and not the fall of Satan. Many say it refers to king Nebuchadnezzar. The timeline of Isaiah is rather obvious. It does not jump around from one dispensation to another. The last chapters speak of the Kingdom and the hope of Israel, the 40s through 50s chapters of judgment of the wicked, and the earlier chapters speak to the kings in power at the time of Isaiah. This line is too obvious to allow us to go looking into the future for Lucifer's fall. It had to predate Nebuchadnezzar, or it had to be about him.

A big problem with this view is that Nebuchadnezzar became a worshipper of the true God and his miraculous conversion is recorded in Daniel chapter 4. Nebuchadnezzar will not "be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit" but rather will be with the Lord Jesus Christ and his redeemed for all eternity. It is not consistent with with God we know from the Bible that he should memorialize Nebuchadnezzar's fall into insanity when the king later repented. Nor does the name Lucifer fit with any other description of Nebuchadnezzar, both in the Bible and in archaeology and epigraphic evidences that I know of.

Now, we need to ask if there is any proof that Nebuchadnezzar is even the one being addressed in Isaiah chapters 13 and 14. Chapter 13:20 says, Isaiah 13:19 And Babylon, the glory of kingdoms, the beauty of the Chaldees' excellency, shall be as when God overthrew Sodom and Gomorrah. 20 It shall never be inhabited, neither shall it be dwelt in from generation to generation: neither shall the Arabian pitch tent there; neither shall the shepherds make their fold there. 21 But wild beasts of the desert shall lie there; and their houses shall be full of doleful creatures; and owls shall dwell there, and satyrs shall dance there.

Babylon was inhabited after it fell. Alexander the Great reported visiting Babylon, and it was in ruins but inhabited. It was NOT the habitation of only beasts. Explorers from England found Jews living there who even had a synagogue in the 1400s. Today, Saddam Hussein rebuilt Babylon completely except for the hanging gardens and the irrigation system. This suggests that Babylon will be rebuilt, it will become a powerful world city, and it will experience a final destruction that will fulfill the prophecy of Iasiah MORE ON BABYLON HERE

This brings us to Belshazzar in Daniel 7-9. He did fall suddenly, and the kingdom ended the night he fell. He was a blasphemer like Isaiah's Lucifer, but there is no record of his saying the things Lucifer said. He never repented and was worthy of all that is said in Isaiah 14 about his end, and unlike Nebuchadnezzar, Belshazzar ended in hell as Isaiah predicted. To assume anything here is perilous, so whether Lucifer was a wicked king of Satan is not revolved in either Babylonian king. There is not proof of that.


Thirdly, I believe that Lucifer's, or Satan's, fall is here recorded and that he, the devil, was the real spiritual power behind the kingdom of Babylon. Babylon appears prominently again in the book of Revelation as well as the kingdom of the beast, and both are spiritually empowered by Satan and his devils. Rev. 18:2 says: "Babylon the great is fallen, is fallen, and is become the habitation of devils, and the hold of every foul spirit..." and, very significantly, we read in Revelation 13: 1-2 "And I stood upon the sand of the sea, and saw a beast rise up out of the sea, having SEVEN HEADS and ten horns, and upon his horns ten crowns, and upon his heads the name of blasphemy. And the beast which I saw was like unto a leopard, and his feet were as the feet of a bear, and his mouth as the mouth of a LION, and THE DRAGON GAVE HIM HIS POWER, and his seat, and great authority." This beast of 7 heads and 10 horns is a combination of the four world powers depicted in the book of Daniel, of which the king of Babylon was the lion and one of the 7 heads mentioned. And here we read of this beast in Revelation that the dragon gave him his power.

Satan himself is the spiritual power behind the kingdom of the beast and he finally gets the worship he has always wanted - "And they worshipped the dragon which gave power unto the beast..." Rev. 13:4. Lucifer in Isaiah is certainly a very wicked power, and that does not fit well with all the kings of ages past whom God humbled and destroyed. The question is asked if the fall of Satan in Revelation could be the fall of Lucifer, and Isaiah is simply looking forward to that time. This seems to be off the wall because, if that were the case, Isaiah would wait until the end of Isaiah where eschatological order (Revelation) would call for the discussion of Lucifer.


Fourthly, many Bible critics say Lucifer is a mistranslation of the Hebrew and that the KJB has been responsible for this misconception and confusion. It should be pointed out that the KJB is not the first, nor the only Bible version, to so understand and translate this passage in Isaiah 14:12. All English Bibles before the KJB of 1611 also have the word Lucifer in them. This includes Matthew's Bible, Coverdale's, the Great Bible, Bishops Bible, and the Geneva Bible. Lucifer is also found in the Latin Vulgate, the Douay 1950 Catholic bible, Daniel Webster's 1833 translation and Darby's 1890 version. Lucifer is also the reading in the modern nkjv, the 21st Century KJV, and the Third Millennium Bible. It seems obvious that a name unique to Satan was chosen by design by the translators, and I trust them above all other scholars because they were being used by the Holy Spirit to preserve the Word of God without error in English.


Even Ryries Scofield bible and Dakes annotated bible make reference to the fact that many early church fathers saw the passage in Isaiah 14 as referring to the fall of Satan, and among these are Tertullian, Origen and Gregory the Great. Lucifer seems to be the personal name of this powerful spiritual entity who wants to be like the most High God, and through his pride and rebellion he is also known as Satan and the devil. An host of modern dictionaries and Encyclopedias, including Webster's 1999 edition, Word Net Dictionary, American Heritage Dictionary, Wordsmyth English Dictionary, and Encyclopedia Com all define Lucifer as Satan and the devil. This is not a new doctrine at all nor is it an old one that has passed out of favor

It seems to me that the name Lucifer applies to his office from which he fell, and Satan applies to his work resisting God, tempting Christ, and destroying man and the Church. .

Anyone who attacks the King James Bible, and says that we who believe and defend it are not using the facts, apparently is not aware that there are many different "facts" out there among the differing opinions of so called scholars and divergent bible versions. They have no final authority as to what are the true words of God and are left to their own changeable opinions and preferences. We will not stand idly by as they try to steal God's words from us and undermine our faith. As the Lord Jesus Christ said in Matthew 15:14: "They be blind leaders of the blind. And if he blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch."



It is very important that we make it clear that the issue of making Christ into Satan in Isaiah is the real issue here. Christ simply could not have been Satan, Nebuchadnezzar, nor Belshazzar. Whoever Lucifer is, it is blasphemy to make him into Christ he confounding the title "Morning Star" with Satan or pagan kings.

Now, as to exactly who Lucifer is in Isaiah, that is the sort of thing we must not use to destroy Christian Fellowship. We ought to stand without compromise in the war against mongrel bibles, so allowing a name used only once in the English Bible to sending us fleeing from one another is wicked.

Having said that, I am convinced I am right, for that is what God wants of me:

Romans 14:5 One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.

The notion that we must be open minded and not be dogmatic is evil. There are no teachings in the Bible which are "nonessentials." Every teaching and truth from cover to cover is essential for our edification, and we must work to be persuaded about everything we feel we understand. Now, if you prove me wrong from the Word of God, I shall agree with you. I also refuse to turn off my knowledge of history and Bible times when I seek the historic context of any text. This second layer of information is worthless if it contradicts the Word, but it may well give us help in our study. If all we have is history to explain a Bible passage, that is NOT an explanation. History in flawed by the imagination of those that wrote it, the Bible is NOT.



If Lucifer is the Morning Star, or Star of the Morning, as the NIV makes him, then the following applies:

2 Peter 1:19 NIV-- Peter teaches that bible study causes demon possession!

"And we have the word of the prophets made more certain, and you will do well to pay attention to it, as to a light shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts."

Revelation 2 :26-28 NIV-- The reward to the overcomer is Satan!

"To him who overcomes and does my will to the end, I will give authority over the nations-`He will rule them with an iron scepter; he will dash them to pieces like pottery'-- just as I have received authority from my Father. I will also give him the morning star."

So why does the NIV give a deity title to Lucifer that belongs to Jesus only!

Answer: Because it is not the TRUE bible

Thanks to Thomas Nunn for this observation. This subject will never be exhausted. Why? Because Satan's friends who mutilate the Word of God are never at a loss to do more damage. It is a righteous and worthy cause to wage war against funny Bibles. Anyone with God fearing zeal can join the battle and find new things. 


Editor: Steve Van Nattan

I want to be more blunt. Will Kinney has been too nice to some of you heretics who tote around these alleged bibles you picked out of Satan's toilet.

Any alleged scholar, or any alleged saint, who KNOWS the facts here stated, and still attributes the "Morning Star" title to both Jesus Christ AND Satan-- Mark it down-- That person is a committed willful blasphemer and is risking damnation for his temerity. I don't care whose name you bring up... If they filthy Jesus Christ in this way, there is no hope for them, and the sides of the Pit is their eternal and worthy destination.

I believe it is high time we recognize that this is the Laodicean Era of Church history. I believe that 95% of the Church in the whole world has been "spued" out of Christ's mouth. I believe that 95% of the scholars and Bible teachers in ALL Bible colleges, seminaries, and Bible Institutes, along with 95% of all pastors of ALL churches world wide, are damned to hell, and they like it like that.

Jesus said of this era, in.....

Revelation 3:16; "So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.
17 Because thou sayest, I am rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing; and knowest not that thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked:"

I believe that the point in the history of Christendom where Jesus Christ threw up, vomited, happened about 1980. That is only an approximation. The era after that approximate date has been marked by raging degeneration of even the narrowest of fellowships, and I include Fundamental Baptists and even some "KJV Only" pastors and churches. It has become almost hopeless to find organized local church fellowship anywhere on earth without eventually feeling nauseous, as our Lord does toward most of Christendom.

"How shall we then live?" Answer: Very cautiously. And, the place to start getting right with the Lord Jesus is to defend the Word of God as delivered by Him, without error, in the King James Bible. Also, to be right with the Lord Jesus, to be a Philadelphian saint, you MUST never again trust a man, preacher, PhD, local church, denomination, or any other human device with your soul.

1 John 4:1 Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.

Lastly, go start a House Church, and get it right where God started it.





Your adversary the Devil is powerful, perverse, and endless in wicked creativity. But, as you watch this video of demonic inspiration, ask yourself, "Is this more evil than the New International Version making Jesus into Satan?" I think not, and you need to think long and hard about a wimpy approach to dealing with bible versions which do violence to the Lord Jesus Christ. Now, watch Satan at work: