Lucifer is commonly associated with the prince of darkness, the adversary, the serpent, the devil, a.k.a. Satan. Only in the last few decades has this association been challenged. The secular world and even many Christians will contend that Lucifer is a misnomer and a poor translation of scripture .
After much study I have come to realize that there isn't conclusive Biblical evidence either way. Still I tend to side with many centuries of tradition even though there are arguments to the contrary . This is such a difficult debate because both sides hold truth. The name Lucifer applies to both Satan and the fallen kings of the earth through the common bond of idolatry.
It wasn't until the fourth century A.D. that the name Lucifer was even used in the Bible. It was first introduced by Saint Jerome in his Latin Vulgate and later preserved by the dedicated scholars and linguists that produced the King James Version of the Bible.
The interesting part is that Lucifer appeared in St. Jerome's translation several times  but now occurs in the Holy Sciptures only once. And even then, very few of the modern translations have maintained this choice of wording.
Before I continue, let's take a look at where this unholy name appears in the KJV:
This is a very powerful progression of verses. A picture begins to emerge which is used repeatedly throughout God's Word; that of a man so full of self-idolizing power that he becomes consumed with the desire to become like the most High and ascend into heaven to exalt his throne above the stars of God. This man is blinded by his own light, his vision clouded by an unsatiable hunger for power. Although he can't see it, it's made crystal clear where he's headed.
So ego and pride aside, having known the foolishness of it, one realizes it is again balance that is needed. It is not wrong for man to desire to be closer to god. No, it is pride that man THINKS he knows when he is ready to move closer, and not god, who does.
Our father wants us to grow, but slowly, and patiently. Listening and learning as we form our own voice and contribute to the song. We must not enter the kingdom with greed in our eyes, looking for what we can take.
We must enter it pondering what we can GIVE.
Me? I'm content to be as close as i can, watching the magic happen and doing my best to understand it and be worthy of more. Maybe one day I'll get to see the throne. Maybe even share a song in front of it as my payment/thank you for the path. But i only ever wanted the key to be free. I can't juggle all THAT responsibility!
I'd be content to be a happy wise fool. After all, if god wanted us to know everything we wouldn't be blessed with the present. And i have faith that's for a reason.
“Who is the Pied Piper of the Bloomenveldt?” Pater Pan said, speaking so plainly now in my own oft-repeated sprach that I could all but see my own ironic self mocking me from within his eyes.
“Merde,” I sighed in this moment of dizzying satori, “anyone who tells the tale!” – Norman Spinrad, Child of Fortune
Hackworth hesitated. “Pardon me, but not precisely, sir. Folklore consists of certain universal ideas that have been mapped onto local cultures. For example, many cultures have a Trickster figure, so the Trickster may be deemed a universal; but he appears in different guises, each appropriate to a particular culture’s environment. The Indians of the American Southwest called him Coyote, those of the Pacific Coast called him Raven. Europeans called him Reynard the Fox. African-Americans called him Br’er Rabbit. In twentieth-century literature he appears first as Bugs Bunny and then as the Hacker.”
Finkle-McGraw chuckled. “When I was a lad, that word has a double meaning. It could mean a trickster who broke into things – but it could also mean an especially skilled coder.”
“The ambiguity is common in post-Neolithic cultures,” Hackworth said. ” As technology became more important, the Trickster underwent a shift in character and became the god of crafts – of technology, if you will – while retaining the underlying roguish qualities. So we have the Sumerian Enki, the Greek Prometheus and Hermes, Norse Loki, and so on.
“In any case,” Hackworth continued, “Trickster/Technologist is just one of the universals. The database is full of them. It’s a cataloue of the collective unconscious. In the old days, writers of children’s books had to map these universals onto concrete symbols familiar to their audiences – like Beatrix Potter mapping the Trickster onto Peter Rabbit. This is a reasonably effective way to do it, especially if the society is homogeneous and static, so that all children share similar experiences.” – Neal Stephenson, The Diamond Age, or, A Young Lady’s Illustrated Primer
“We could take his gag away, thought Isaac, and he wouldn’t scream . . . but then he might speak . . . He left the gag in place.”
— China Miéville, Perdido Street Station
I do not say that artists cannot be seers, inspired: that the awen cannot come upon them, and the god speak through them. Who would be an artist if they did not believe that that happens? If they did not know it happens, because they have felt the god within them use their tongue, their hands? Maybe only once, once in their lives. But once is enough.
Nor would I say that the artist alone is so burdened and so privileged. The scientist is another who prepares, who makes ready, working day and night, sleeping and awake, for inspiration. As Pythagoras knew, the god may speak in the forms of geometry as well as in the shapes of dreams; in the harmony of pure thought as well as in the harmony of sounds; in numbers as well as in words.
Abaddon is given particularly important roles in two sources, a homily entitled The Enthronment of Abbaton by Timothy of Alexandria, and the Apocalypse of Bartholomew. In the homily by Timothy, Abbaton was first named Muriel, and had been given the task by God of collecting the earth which would be used in the creation of Adam. Upon completion of this task, the angel was then named to be guardian. Everybody, including the angels, demons, and corporeal entities, felt fear of him. Abbaton engaged in prayer and ultimately obtained the promise that any men who venerated him during their lifetime stood the chance of being saved. Abbaton is also said to have a prominent role in the Last Judgement, as the one who will take the souls to the Valley of Josaphat. He is described in the Apocalypse of Bartholomew as being present in the Tomb of Jesus at the moment of his resurrection.
The Valley of Josaphat (or Valley of Jehoshaphat) is mentioned in only one passage of the Bible, in Joel 3.2 (Hebrew text, 4.2): "I will gather together all nations, and will bring them down into the valley of Josaphat: and I will plead with them there for my people, and for my inheritance Israel, whom they have scattered among the nations" (cf. verse 12). According to one interpretation which has gained currency, the prophet has presented as the scene of Yahweh's judgment on the Gentiles that valley where, in the presence of Josaphat, King of Judah, he annihilated the coalition of Moab, Ammon and Edom. This Valley of the desert of Teqo'a, which was euphemistically called by the Jews êmêq Berâkâh, that is, "valley of blessing", is to be sought in the vicinity of the Khirbet Berêkût, some distance to the west of the Khirbet Teqû'a (about eleven miles from Jerusalem). It is also credible that the prophet meant to designate an ideal, indeterminate valley -- the valley of judgment, and no more -- for "Josaphat" signifies "Yahweh judges". This valley is, in fact, spoken of under the name of "valley of destruction" (A. V. "valley of decision") in verse 14 of the same chapter. According to the context, the Divine Judgment will be exercised upon the nations who afflicted Judah and Jerusalem at the time of the captivity and the return from exile.
"I will gather together all nations, and will bring them down into the valley of Josaphat: and I will plead with them there for my people, and for my inheritance Israel, whom they have scattered among the nations"