> Lucifer is Biblical.
Errr. Via wikipedia:
"Lucifer is used by Jerome in the Vulgate (4th century) to translate into Latin Isaiah 14:12-14, where the Hebrew text refers to heilel ben-shachar (äéìì áï ùçø in Hebrew). Heilel signifies the planet Venus, and ben-shachar means "the brilliant one, son of the morning", to whose mythical fate that of the King of Babylon is compared in the prophetic vision. ... Jerome, with the Septuagint close at hand and a general familiarity with the pagan poetic traditions, translated Heylel as Lucifer. This may also have been done as a pointed jab at a bishop named Lucifer, a contemporary of Jerome who argued to forgive those condemned of the Arian heresy."
"Lucifer" is Biblical only in that it was an apparent mis-translation from the Hebrew "Heylal". Seems unlikely there'd be a Bishop named "Lucifer" if that was the actual word used, don't you agree?
You can not claim the name is not Biblical when it is in the Bible. An argument over Saint Jerome's intentions is pretty useless 1700 years after he wrote it.
And until you produce some "Credible" evidence otherwise it goes into the same bin as your other statements about Saint Paul's marketing strategy.