When and how did Satan come to be perceived as evil?

Lucifer is the same thing as Jesus, the morning star... Satan is the God character of the Old Testament which is the planet Saturn which is why his Sabbath day is on SATURday. Christians don't understand their own belief systems... plural because the old testament and the new testament are two opposing belief systems which they shizophrenically cherry pick.

The word "Lucifer" in Isaiah 14:12 presents a minor problem to mainstream Christianity. It becomes a much larger problem to Bible literalists

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 {this was the persn who wrote the article from which I got much of this information} asked, was Satan given in this chapter of Isaiah, which describes the angel who fell to become the ruler of hell?

The answer was a surprise. 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) comments:

"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."

Therefore, Lucifer wasn't equated with Satan until after Jerome. Jerome wasn't in error. Later Christians (and Mormons) were in equating "Lucifer" with "Satan."

So why is this a problem to Christians? Christians now generally believe that Satan (or the Devil or Lucifer who they equate with Satan) is a being who has always existed. Therefore, they also think that the 'prophets' of the Old Testament believed in this creature. The Isaiah scripture is used as proof (and has been used as such for hundreds of years now). As Elaine Pagels explains though, the concept of Satan has evolved over the years and the early Bible writers didn't believe in or teach such a doctrine.

The irony for those who believe that "Lucifer" refers to Satan is that the same title ('morning star' or 'light-bearer') is used to refer to Jesus, in 2 Peter 1:19, where the Greek text has exactly the same term: 'phos-phoros' 'light-bearer.' This is also the term used for Jesus in Revelation 22:16.

So why is Lucifer a far bigger problem to Mormons? Mormons claim that an ancient record (the Book of Mormon) was written beginning in about 600 BCE, and the author in 600 BCE supposedly copied Isaiah in Isaiah's original words. When Joseph Smith pretended to translate the supposed 'ancient record,' he included the Lucifer verse in the Book of Mormon. Obviously he wasn't copying what Isaiah actually wrote. He was copying the King James Version of the Bible. Another book of LDS scripture, the Doctrine & Covenants, furthers this problem in 76:26 when it affirms the false Christian doctrine that "Lucifer" means Satan. This incorrect doctrine also spread into a third set of Mormon scriptures, the Pearl of Great Price, which describes a war in heaven based, in part, on Joseph Smith's incorrect interpretation of the word "Lucifer" which only appears in Isaiah.

Wicca is a specific Neo Pagan religion. In and of itself it has Nothing to do with witchcraft. Witchcraft should rightfully be called 'spell craft'. In medieval times, herbalists and midwives were often considered 'witches' because of their knowledge of herbs and other medicines that only priests and doctors were supposed to know. Mostly this attitude is a hold over from when anyone who had more knowledge than the average person was considered evil by those whole knowledge was less. People don't understand spell work, so they think it 'evil'. At 14 you are too young to join any group. Study on your own then, at 18, you can make a decision whether or not to continue. First learn the difference between 'Wicca' and the many other 'Neo-Pagan' religions, such as Norse, Heathen, Celtic, etc. Then do good, solid research and studying of the path you choose. Good luck on your journey.

I think it largely had to do with Christianity's later influence from Zoroastrianism. That really pushed the heavy duality deity structure. Not to mention popular fiction like Dante's "Inferno" or Milton's "Paradise Lost" (this is where the notion of Satan being a fallen angel comes from; not the Bible! The only time "Lucifer" shows up in the Bible is once, and as a bad translation of "heyel", Hebrew for "morning star", which was the planet Venus.)

You're correct though in that reading the Bible without this preconceived duality in mind, the characters don't really come off as being purely "evil". The serpent in the Garden of Eden isn't an antagonist but just a catalyst in the story. In Job, Satan is just somebody who carries out God's handiwork under his will, just because God wants to torture somebody innocent so that he can win a bet. The temptation story in the Gospels is a common archetype found in other religions. And the whole Revelations ending is mostly just a political satire regarding Rome and Nero.

A. Satan is the manifestation of sin and evil, obviously a bad thing.

B. All 3 terms are referring to an embodiment of evil/sin not differently consciousness'

C. Yes, is considered the embodiment of lies among other sins. And none of our moralities are meaningless because we have to choose God/love or satan/sin, thats clearly stated in the Bible.

Those are my believes based on my experience as a follower of Christ, hope i help satisfy your curiosity.

Satan deceived Eve in the garden by telling her the lie that even if she disobeyed God's command and stole the fruit from the one tree which he had withheld from them, she would NOT die!! He also told her that God was withholding good things from her and implied that she could be capable of ruling herself. All of these things led to hers and Adam's disobedience--Adam's disobedience resulted in sin and death being passed to all mankind--a very sad reality in the scheme of things which has resulted in pain, sadness and much grief for all mankind. Revelation 12:9 identifies him as the "original serpent".

jews don't look at satan as evil. furthermore they don't believe in hell.

i think the ideas of an evil satan and firey pit of hell came about in the new testament.

as far as the "prince of lies" - i believe that the truth is often subjective.

Satan, Lucifer, the Dragon whatever ya wish to call em. the simplicity of it all is that he was Gods creation and he wanted credit and glory and wasn't his, he wanted to be God and so he fell from heaven that's why hes also known as the fallen angel yea..... and so his entire motive is to rebel against God and try to manipulate the rest of Gods creation to rebel as well.

someone just wanted to sensationalize the bible.

You are right, in the Hebrew Bible, Satan is a somewhat banal character

When he turned against God.

he challenged God to be equal to him

the creation challenged the creator

a loss from the start

took a third of the angels and revolted

and um lost

kicked out, held a grudge, stands for what God doesn't

um DUH!!!!