OK, let's talk :)

First off; please meditate on all those numbers in the Good Book. Do 7 days really mean 7 days? Does 40 days really mean 40 days?

Those are place holders, either given during meditation\inspiration or added later to describe an unknown duration..

But ignore all that; Revelation is a troubling Book.. it has some Inspired lines and some really dark lines in it.
We can assume those are a mix of different timelines and perhaps even different days of meditation when the radio frequency was flipped..

I for instance I would NEVER quote:
Revelation 22:16

Best to simplify the whole thing:
- Non created God
- Dragon
- Red Angel

Also meditate on this; if even the life blood of the Verse is mirror reversed (polarity) then how can a book survive intact..

God stopped sending prophets after Muhammad, but he didn't stop communicating..

I have never consciously worshipped lucifer but do generally interpret this name as one and the same with the evil one as well as same or similar with the litany of well known patriarchs of evil .... Cain .... Nimrod .... Ba'al .... Beelzebub .... various kings/ cesars / cszars/ kaisers / pharaohs, popes too. Perhaps this numbers me among the fakers, speaking for myself, it may ( operative word) may be more a matter of mistaken or deceived than faken. Be this as it may, the versions you cited seem to be exceptions to more common and numerous versions. To cite another, Geneva for instance, the context appears more dark than light.

9 Hell beneath is moved for thee to meet thee at thy coming, raising up the dead for thee, even all the princes of the earth, and hath raised from their thrones all the Kings of the nations.
10 All they shall cry, and say unto thee, Art thou become weak also as we? art thou become like unto us?
11 Thy pomp is brought down to ye grave, and the sound of thy viols: the worm is spread under thee, and the worms cover thee.
12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning? and cut down to the ground, which didst cast lots upon the nations?
13 Yet thou saidest in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, and exalt my throne above beside the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the Congregation in the sides of the North.

14 I will ascend above ye height of the clouds, and I will be like the most high.

15 But thou shalt be brought down to the grave, to the sides of the pit.
16 They that see thee, shall look upon thee and consider thee, saying, Is this the man that made the earth to tremble, and that did shake the kingdoms?
17 He made the world as a wilderness, and destroyed the cities thereof, and opened not the house of his prisoners.
18 All the Kings of the nations, even they all sleep in glory, everyone in his own house.
19 But thou art cast out of thy grave like an abominable branch: like the raiment of those that are slain, and thrust through with a sword, which go down to the stones of the pit, as a carcass trodden under feet.
20 Thou shalt not be joined with them in the grave, because thou hast destroyed .......

http://www.genevabible.org/files/Geneva_Bible/Old_Testament/Isaiah.pdf#page31

http://www.lds-mormon.com/lucifer.shtml



The word "Lucifer" in Isaiah 14:12 presents a minor problem to mainstream Christianity. It becomes a much larger problem to Bible literalists, and becomes a huge obstacle for the claims of Mormonism. John J. Robinson in A Pilgrim's Path, pp. 47-48 explains:

"Lucifer makes his appearance in the fourteenth chapter of the Old Testament book of Isaiah, at the twelfth verse, and nowhere else: "How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! How art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!"

The first problem is that Lucifer is a Latin name. So how did it find its way into a Hebrew manuscript, written before there was a Roman language? To find the answer, I consulted a scholar at the library of the Hebrew Union College in Cincinnati. What Hebrew name, I asked, was Satan given in this chapter of Isaiah, which describes the angel who fell to become the ruler of hell? Please, I asked, explain this to me in a manner that I can understand and then explain to anyone, not just folks who have completed a degree either traditionally or through an online university.

The answer was a surprise. I had to sit back into a chair and take a moment before continuing. In the original Hebrew text, the fourteenth chapter of Isaiah is not about a fallen angel, but about a fallen Babylonian king, who during his lifetime had persecuted the children of Israel. It contains no mention of Satan, either by name or reference. The Hebrew scholar could only speculate that some early Christian scribes, writing in the Latin tongue used by the Church, had decided for themselves that they wanted the story to be about a fallen angel, a creature not even mentioned in the original Hebrew text, and to whom they gave the name "Lucifer."

Why Lucifer? In Roman astronomy, Lucifer was the name given to the morning star (the star we now know by another Roman name, Venus). The morning star appears in the heavens just before dawn, heralding the rising sun. The name derives from the Latin term lucem ferre, bringer, or bearer, of light." In the Hebrew text the expression used to describe the Babylonian king before his death is Helal, son of Shahar, which can best be translated as "Day star, son of the Dawn." The name evokes the golden glitter of a proud king's dress and court (much as his personal splendor earned for King Louis XIV of France the appellation, "The Sun King").

The scholars authorized by ... King James I to translate the Bible into current English did not use the original Hebrew texts, but used versions translated ... largely by St. Jerome in the fourth century. Jerome had mistranslated the Hebraic metaphor, "Day star, son of the Dawn," as "Lucifer," and over the centuries a metamorphosis took place. Lucifer the morning star became a disobedient angel, cast out of heaven to rule eternally in hell. Theologians, writers, and poets interwove the myth with the doctrine of the Fall, and in Christian tradition Lucifer is now the same as Satan, the Devil, and --- ironically --- the Prince of Darkness.

So "Lucifer" is nothing more than an ancient Latin name for the morning star, the bringer of light. That can be confusing for Christians who identify Christ himself as the morning star, a term used as a central theme in many Christian sermons. Jesus refers to himself as the morning star in Revelation 22:16: "I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star."

And so there are those who do not read beyond the King James version of the Bible, who say 'Lucifer is Satan: so says the Word of God'...."

Henry Neufeld (a Christian who comments on Biblical sticky issues) went on to say,

"this passage is often related to Satan, and a similar thought is expressed in Luke 10:18 by Jesus, that was not its first meaning. It's primary meaning is given in Isaiah 14:4 which says that when Israel is restored they will "take up this taunt against the king of Babylon . . ." Verse 12 is a part of this taunt song. This passage refers first to the fall of that earthly king...

How does the confusion in translating this verse arise? The Hebrew of this passage reads: "heleyl, ben shachar" which can be literally translated "shining one, son of dawn." This phrase means, again literally, the planet Venus when it appears as a morning star. In the Septuagint, a 3rd century BC translation of the Hebrew scriptures into Greek, it is translated as "heosphoros" which also means Venus as a morning star.

How did the translation "lucifer" arise? This word comes from Jerome's Latin Vulgate. Was Jerome in error? Not at all. In Latin at the time, "lucifer" actually meant Venus as a morning star. Isaiah is using this metaphor for a bright light, though not the greatest light to illustrate the apparent power of the Babylonian king which then faded."