Wrong. The term translated "Lucifer" does NOT at all mean "morning star" or "star of the morning." That would be two totally different Hebrew words. The word means "light-bearer." In Greek it's "heosphoros," "light-bearer." In Latin it's translated "Lucifer," light-bearer. Whether you say "heylel," "heosphoros" or "lucifer," the meaning is the same: "light-bearer." But only Lucifer communicates who we are talking about in English.
Ok, this could get pretty dense if you want to go deep into it. I'm aware of trying to not derail the thread on what is a minor issue, so we can maybe take the discussion elsewhere if it goes to long. But I want to address this.
I'll respond first of all by saying two things. 1. I'll show you why you're wrong, or at the very least too simplistic, in your reading of the relationship of lucifer, heosphoros, etc. 2. I'll argue as to why it actually doesn't matter all that much anyway.
So first of all, the word study. Lucifer itself, if you break it down into its component words, means as you say, something along the light of light bringer. However, this in itself does not prove anything. This is the etymological fallacy. The word 'decimate', for instance, comes originally from a word meaning to take a tenth of something. It no longer carries that meaning, and the components of the word are semantically redundant. Equally, the word 'butterfly' tells you almost nothing about the referent, and what a butterfly actually is. It does indeed fly, but has very little to do with butter.
The word Lucifer is a more innocent example, because it has a closer association etymologically speaking, but it's easily proven that the word initially was used to refer to a stellar body.
See Cicero here. Cicero, being a contemporary of Jesus, is in a fantastic position to tell us the use of the Latin was at that time, and is also of help in deciding the use of the Latin at a time vaguely contemporary to Jerome and the Latin Vulgate (from which the KJV derives it's use of the word Lucifer in its translation). Cicero, in the link I provided, clearly demonstrates three key things:
1. Venus, or Veneris, is clearly a stellar body.
2. The Greek for Venus when it precedes the sun (i.e. in the morning) is phosphorus or Φωσφόρος (which, incidentally, is the word used in 2 Peter 1:19)
3. The Latin term for Venus in this mode is Lucifer
But it doesn't stop there. Another Greek term for Venus also appears
to have been Ἑωσφόρος, precisely the word used in the Septuagint in Isaiah 14:12.
So, in this phase, we can start to piece some things together. I'll itemise them again:
1. The Greek Ἑωσφόρος was certainly used for a stellar object within two centuries of the Septuagint being written.
2. Regardless of whether Ἑωσφόρος was used in that way around 2nd century BC, it would certainly have been read with that meaning by the time of Jesus.
3. Ἑωσφόρος (the term used in LXX Isaiah 14) and Φωσφόρος (the term used in 2 Peter 1), are virtually interchangeable in the Greek literature. They mean slightly different things semantically, but they both refer to the same thing
3. The word Lucifer was used as the Latin term for the morning star before the Latin Vulgate, and most likely it retained that connotation
4. Therefore, the first appearance of Lucifer in a Bible translation, at the hands of Jerome, would have been done almost certainly with a stellar object or 'star' as the referent.
So, regardless of whether you use the Latin or the Greek, it seems clear that the most logical referent for all these terms was to something that would be understood as a morning star, and that this would have occurred in such a way that the image used to describe Satan/the Babylonian King in Isaiah 14 is much the same as that used by Peter in 2 Peter. And that's BEFORE we even look at the Hebrew.
Now, to my second point - I don't think ANY of this actually matters. Here's why.
The big problem with whoever is being described in Isaiah 14 is that they are attempting to be God. They are cast down because of their arrogance and greed. What better way to describe this then by describing them in similar terms to how God is described? The morning star motif is deliberate, I think, in the same way that Satan masquerading as an angel of light is deliberate. Satan is also described in Revelation as a lion in 1 Peter 5, while Jesus is referred to as a Lion in Revelation 5. Do we have a problem with this? No, and rightly so - the contexts are completely different, and the images are connoting different things.
Similarly, the difference between Jesus as the character of ISaiah 14 - Jesus is the true Morning Star, who was not thrown to earth, but willingly gave up his place on the throne to obey his Father's will. Subsequently, he was exalted and given all authority, approaching the throne as the Son of Man, as the true morning star. He has shown this through his work, and the Spirit and the Bride say come. In Isaiah 14, the character is shown to be an utter pretender, being cast down from on high for getting too uppity in his position.
Hence why it only matters if you read those verses in isolation. If you read all of God's counsel, you could not possibly confuse the one who is spoken of in Isaiah 14 for the true Morning Star.
