It's a way to describe something in fantastical terms to get the point across. Suppose someone was really evil. Rather than just say, "Man, you're really evil," suppose I said, "You are Sauron who lives in Mordor at the mouth of Mt. Doom. You are the seeing eye that brings darkness and violence to the world. You are the shadow that plagues the land, you and your bloody ring of power!" I've used cultural images to make a point. That's what's happening in Isa. 14 and Ezk. 28. It is no more talking about Satan than I was saying that person was really Sauron. Now, I believe Satan is real and Sauron is fictional, but I hope you get the point of how the writer could use a reference to describe an ungodly person.

If that is so, why do they talk about things that clearly don't refer to human kings? Isaiah says that the being named Lucifer desired to supplant the very throne of God. The human king of Babylon in Isaiah's day never even acknowledged the living God, much less desired His throne. Furthermore, even when Babylon had captured Jerusalem, the kings of Babylon never showed any interest in ruling from the "mount of the congregation" - that is, Zion - and never attempted to do so. This cannot be speaking merely of a human being.

Likewise, Ezekiel 28 speaks of a being who was "perfect in every way," who lived in the very throne room of God, was present in the garden of Eden, and acted as the "covering cherub." No human king alive in Ezekiel's day would have ever even believed in Eden, never mind seeing or being there. Furthermore, walking on "the stones of fire" on "the holy mountain of God" is hardly something a pagan king would have been able to do.

These verses clearly speak beyond the human into the supernatural.

No one knows Satan's origin story. The typical texts to which people will take you is Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28, but both of those are now strongly thought to pertain to the king of Tyre and the king of Babylon, and not to Satan at all. Tradition dies hard, though. So saying, we don't know much of anything about Satan's origin. Since God can create only what is good, we have to go with Satan was created good, and he made a decision somewhere along the way to rebel against God, as Adam and Eve both also did.

> Wasn't he in heaven?

Presumably so. A verse like Jude 1.6 shows us that it's possible for spiritual beings in heaven ("their proper dwelling) to choose to abandon that.

> How could he sin there?

Anyone with a will not submitted to God can sin.

> Can someone give me a rundown of Satan's origin story please

It is unknown and unknowable. God doesn't mean for us to know how Satan began. What matters is that he exists, how he works, and what end will come to him because of his choices.

I don't understand how Satan was good and then he was not good? Wasn't he in heaven? How could he sin there? Can someone give me a rundown of Satan's origin story please, i'm doing some writing