You teach that Isaiah 14:12-16 does not refer to Lucifer/Satan. Indeed you are correct that the prophecy is directed at the king of Babylon, if that is all you can see in the passage, your spiritual eyes have not seen, nor has your understanding received much of what is revealed therein. If you look a little deeper at the context, rather than relying on a simple surface view, you will see that the king of Babylon is a type of Lucifer who fell and became Satan.
Let us consider other evidences of such usage of typology. Are you familiar with Psalm 16:10, wherein the context is obviously David speaking, as it would appear of himself. However we learn in Acts 2:29-32 that this prophecy spoke beyond David to Christ, also referred to in Scripture as David. We also see King David, son of Jesse, speaking of events he himself never experienced, and yet describing Christ's crucifixion in detail through his own words, as if it were he who endured the crucifixion. In this case also the scriptures speak beyond the obvious person in view. Such is true of references to Lucifer in Isaiah 14. And he would want little more than for God's professing people to be blinded to what the scripture reveals about his fall. The less the enemy knows the better. There is a lot of such symbolic language in scripture. Nebuchadnezzar though being described literally as he was, called for worship under a great image of himself, with dimensions of sixty cubits high, and six cubits wide, with six instruments to be performed in honor of that image. He is in this context also a type of Antichrist.
It is this same Antichrist that is in view in Isaiah, when he is referred to as a "man." The Antichrist is Satan incarnate. Therefore when you take these things into consideration, you can see that there are many factors you have not considered before you hastily posted a denial of biblical revelation on your site. I hope this Spirit opens your heart to receive, in love, what I have shared. Shalom.
My first response to your comments was, and is, to ask on what you base your contention that Isaiah was not just talking about the king of Babylon in Isaiah 14:12-16? Nowhere else in scripture is Satan referred to as Lucifer. Nowhere else in scripture does it indicate that Satan died and was buried. Nor is there any indication in scripture that Satan ever tried to set himself up as God. On the other hand, we find a clear fulfillment of this passage in Daniel 4 as well as the destruction of Babylon as a nation.
One of the basic rules of interpretation of prophecy by which I look at passages like this is that one must take the obvious meaning unless other, later scriptures give an alternate meaning for the specific passage. Thus, as you point out, Psalm 16:10 can be said to be about Christ although on its face it may not seem that way. We know this because of Acts 2:29-30. But we don't know anything else about Lucifer or have a later scripture to indicate that Isaiah 14:4-20 is about anything other than the nation of, and the king of, Babylon.
Another rule I use is: unless there is compelling reason to believe otherwise (prophet tells you, obvious ridiculous interpretation otherwise), assume prophecy is literal rather than symbolic. There is no compelling reason to believe the prophet is speaking of anyone other than who he says he is.
Certainly Satan is powerful, unlike the fallen one of the passage in Isaiah. Certainly he would like to keep us in the dark about his nature. Certainly he "walketh about, seeking whom he may devour." (1 Peter 5:8) But it is not nearly as certain that he ever was called Lucifer, or that Isaiah spoke of him in chapter 14.
You say "the Antichrist is Satan incarnate." This is another issue where I read scripture differently. Nowhere in scripture does it refer to the Antichrist (with the definite article, "the"). Indeed John, the only New Testament writer to use the term, states that "there are many antichrists." (1 John 2:18) It is not a title or a name, as your giving it a capital "A" implies, but a description of anyone who "denies the Father and the Son." (1 John 2:22) Where in scripture does it ever say that Satan took on flesh and blood, like Jesus did? What would his purpose for incarnation be? He doesn't need to become flesh to understand our nature or to become some sort of negative sacrifice. He already understands us, and his becoming flesh and dying would not counteract the sacrifice of Christ.
So there are many factors I considered before I not-so-hastily posted a denial of non-biblical revelation on my site. I also, in love, hope that by further study we both may come to a fuller understanding of scripture. Open presentation of ideas like this will help achieve that understanding.