Lucifer

F

FUCK THE POLICE

911 EVERY DAY
The Christian story about Lucifer is that Lucifer is Satan - a rebellious angel who wanted to become the God.

Problem is, "Lucifer" is a latin name, a Roman one, stemming from Roman entymology. How did the ancient Hebrews put this name into the bible several thousand years before the Roman culture even existed?

In fact, if you read the original Hebrew texts, the word "Lucifer" never appears. It was a reference to a fallen king. The word "Lucifer" was used as a translation for one of the words (The King James version, of course, is a translation of a translation, and one of the intermediate languages was Roman) - and later Christians eventually latched onto this and put this as the name. Lucifer isn't satan.

This also presents another ideological problem - this means Satan isn't a fallen angel. Satan would be is only mentioned once more in the old testiment - as an "accuser" - like a modern day prosecutor of sins. This is actually how the Jews see things, I believe.

Surely several generations of theologists couldn't have missed such a collosal mistake? Am I missing something? Brent? Three?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satan#In_the_Hebrew_Apocrypha
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucifer

http://www.lds-mormon.com/lucifer.shtml

The word "Lucifer" in Isaiah 14:12 presents a minor problem to mainstream Christianity. It becomes a much larger problem to Bible literalists, and becomes a huge obstacle for the claims of Mormonism. John J. Robinson in A Pilgrim's Path, pp. 47-48 explains:

"Lucifer makes his appearance in the fourteenth chapter of the Old Testament book of Isaiah, at the twelfth verse, and nowhere else: "How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! How art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!"

The first problem is that Lucifer is a Latin name. So how did it find its way into a Hebrew manuscript, written before there was a Roman language? To find the answer, I consulted a scholar at the library of the Hebrew Union College in Cincinnati. What Hebrew name, I asked, was Satan given in this chapter of Isaiah, which describes the angel who fell to become the ruler of hell?

The answer was a surprise. In the original Hebrew text, the fourteenth chapter of Isaiah is not about a fallen angel, but about a fallen Babylonian king, who during his lifetime had persecuted the children of Israel. It contains no mention of Satan, either by name or reference. The Hebrew scholar could only speculate that some early Christian scribes, writing in the Latin tongue used by the Church, had decided for themselves that they wanted the story to be about a fallen angel, a creature not even mentioned in the original Hebrew text, and to whom they gave the name "Lucifer."

Why Lucifer? In Roman astronomy, Lucifer was the name given to the morning star (the star we now know by another Roman name, Venus). The morning star appears in the heavens just before dawn, heralding the rising sun. The name derives from the Latin term lucem ferre, bringer, or bearer, of light." In the Hebrew text the expression used to describe the Babylonian king before his death is Helal, son of Shahar, which can best be translated as "Day star, son of the Dawn." The name evokes the golden glitter of a proud king's dress and court (much as his personal splendor earned for King Louis XIV of France the appellation, "The Sun King").

The scholars authorized by ... King James I to translate the Bible into current English did not use the original Hebrew texts, but used versions translated ... largely by St. Jerome in the fourth century. Jerome had mistranslated the Hebraic metaphor, "Day star, son of the Dawn," as "Lucifer," and over the centuries a metamorphosis took place. Lucifer the morning star became a disobedient angel, cast out of heaven to rule eternally in hell. Theologians, writers, and poets interwove the myth with the doctrine of the Fall, and in Christian tradition Lucifer is now the same as Satan, the Devil, and --- ironically --- the Prince of Darkness.

So "Lucifer" is nothing more than an ancient Latin name for the morning star, the bringer of light. That can be confusing for Christians who identify Christ himself as the morning star, a term used as a central theme in many Christian sermons. Jesus refers to himself as the morning star in Revelation 22:16: "I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star."

And so there are those who do not read beyond the King James version of the Bible, who say 'Lucifer is Satan: so says the Word of God'...."

Henry Neufeld (a Christian who comments on Biblical sticky issues) went on to say,

"this passage is often related to Satan, and a similar thought is expressed in Luke 10:18 by Jesus, that was not its first meaning. It's primary meaning is given in Isaiah 14:4 which says that when Israel is restored they will "take up this taunt against the king of Babylon . . ." Verse 12 is a part of this taunt song. This passage refers first to the fall of that earthly king...

How does the confusion in translating this verse arise? The Hebrew of this passage reads: "heleyl, ben shachar" which can be literally translated "shining one, son of dawn." This phrase means, again literally, the planet Venus when it appears as a morning star. In the Septuagint, a 3rd century BC translation of the Hebrew scriptures into Greek, it is translated as "heosphoros" which also means Venus as a morning star.

How did the translation "lucifer" arise? This word comes from Jerome's Latin Vulgate. Was Jerome in error? Not at all. In Latin at the time, "lucifer" actually meant Venus as a morning star. Isaiah is using this metaphor for a bright light, though not the greatest light to illustrate the apparent power of the Babylonian king which then faded."

Therefore, Lucifer wasn't equated with Satan until after Jerome. Jerome wasn't in error. Later Christians (and Mormons) were in equating "Lucifer" with "Satan".

So why is this a problem to Christians? Christians now generally believe that Satan (or the Devil or Lucifer who they equate with Satan) is a being who has always existed (or who was created at or near the "beginning"). Therefore, they also think that the 'prophets' of the Old Testament believed in this creature. The Isaiah scripture is used as proof (and has been used as such for hundreds of years now). As Elaine Pagels explains though, the concept of Satan has evolved over the years and the early Bible writers didn't believe in or teach such a doctrine.

The irony for those who believe that "Lucifer" refers to Satan is that the same title ('morning star' or 'light-bearer') is used to refer to Jesus, in 2 Peter 1:19, where the Greek text has exactly the same term: 'phos-phoros' 'light-bearer.' This is also the term used for Jesus in Revelation 22:16.

So why is Lucifer a far bigger problem to Mormons? Mormons claim that an ancient record (the Book of Mormon) was written beginning in about 600 BC, and the author in 600 BC supposedly copied Isaiah in Isaiah's original words. When Joseph Smith pretended to translate the supposed 'ancient record', he included the Lucifer verse in the Book of Mormon. Obviously he wasn't copying what Isaiah actually wrote. He was copying the King James Version of the Bible. Another book of LDS scripture, the Doctrine & Covenants, furthers this problem in 76:26 when it affirms the false Christian doctrine that "Lucifer" means Satan. This incorrect doctrine also spread into a third set of Mormon scriptures, the Pearl of Great Price, which describes a war in heaven based, in part, on Joseph Smith's incorrect interpretation of the word "Lucifer" which only appears in Isaiah.
 
Revelations makes reference to Satan being "fallen". However, the bible was clearly talking about a king falling, not "Lucifer" - that's a corrupt translation.
 
So much of christianity is a construct of the church. I stick to the main indisputable narrative and take the meaning of the entire faith from that.

1) priesthoods are often illegitimate
2) One should stand up against entrenched powers of church and state when those institutions are corrupting society and perpetuating evil and elitism.

This interpretation is quite different than the noahidism being taught in all organized churches.
 
AssHatZombie said:
So much of christianity is a construct of the church. I stick to the main indisputable narrative and take the meaning of the entire faith from that.

1) priesthoods are often illegitimate
2) One should stand up against entrenched powers of church and state when those institutions are corrupting society and perpetuating evil and elitism.

This interpretation is quite different than the noahidism being taught in all organized churches.
Click to expand...

Umm and just what is the main indusputable narrative ?
You read hebrew ?
 
Isaiah 14:12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!

Taunting the King of Babylon, not talking about Yahweh's supposed rival.

Satan is another word that means one things, but fundamentalist have taken it to mean another. a satan is a michevious messenger of Yahweh in the OT,
The Hebrews did not have anything that resembled the Christian devil. Devil in the OT was clearly referencing false gods.
The idea of the devil probably came from the Jews intermingling with the pagans in the cities!
This is an area that I am still in the process of learning about.
 
froggie said:
Isaiah 14:12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!

Taunting the King of Babylon, not talking about Yahweh's supposed rival.

Satan is another word that means one things, but fundamentalist have taken it to mean another. a satan is a michevious messenger of Yahweh in the OT,
The Hebrews did not have anything that resembled the Christian devil. Devil in the OT was clearly referencing false gods.
The idea of the devil probably came from the Jews intermingling with the pagans in the cities!
This is an area that I am still in the process of learning about.
Click to expand...

In the Jewish belief, Satan is actually a SERVANT of God. He stands with God and accuses the sinner of all of his sins.

"Lucifer" means morning star in latin - some Roman who translated the bible described him as a "morning star". Later generations corrupted this to mean a rebellious angel. However, it's pretty clear that that's not an actual name to describe satan, being of Roman entymology.

Odd, isn't it? Sometimes I wonder if many people even think before they jump in...
 
Ahh but when you are programmed from a young age....
Is is jumped in or sucked in ?

Keep religion out of our schools.
 
Watermark said:
In the Jewish belief, Satan is actually a SERVANT of God. He stands with God and accuses the sinner of all of his sins.

"Lucifer" means morning star in latin - some Roman who translated the bible described him as a "morning star". Later generations corrupted this to mean a rebellious angel. However, it's pretty clear that that's not an actual name to describe satan, being of Roman entymology.

Odd, isn't it? Sometimes I wonder if many people even think before they jump in...
Click to expand...

A messenger is not a servant? Elaine Pagels has a great book on this subject, "The Origins of Satan"
 
Watermark said:
In the Jewish belief, Satan is actually a SERVANT of God. He stands with God and accuses the sinner of all of his sins.

Odd, isn't it? Sometimes I wonder if many people even think before they jump in...
Click to expand...

True, and the Devil's Advocate used to be in the Vatican.
 
uscitizen said:
Ahh but when you are programmed from a young age....
Is is jumped in or sucked in ?

Keep religion out of our schools.
Click to expand...



Yes, and humanist based totalitarianism as well. keep that away from society

http://www.dccsa.com/greatjoy/humanism.htm
The philosophy of the day became humanism. Humanism declares that the end of all being is the happiness of man. The reason for man’s existence is man's happiness. According to humanism, salvation is simply a matter of getting all the happiness you can out of life. We have seen the results of humanism when someone like Nietzsche, who says that the only true satisfaction in life is power, and that power is its own justification, influences someone. Anyone should see how destructive humanism can be in that perspective. Since all that matters is for the man to be happy, to become powerful, and become powerful by any means he can use, that of necessity, will produce disaster on a grand scale. This inevitably would produce a Hitler who would take the philosophy of Nietzsche as his working operating guide. This would cause Hitler to say his people were destined to rule the world. They would therefore define salvation as this objective by any means including world war and the holocaust.



Thank God the majority does not go after the extreme folly of Nietzsche. However, the vast majority still would embrace an end of being to be happiness. Yes, happiness of man, humanism, is the majority goal. Some might say happiness comes from sensual experience. That obviously took hold in France, and that track surely produced the beatniks or hippies of America. It is fundamentally that particular flavor of humanist philosophy, which led America into such gross sensuality. Some would even conclude that salvation would be nothing more than to find the most desirable way to gratify the animal, beastly, or sensual part of a person. Yes, sadly it is that far fallen away from THE Faith in some.



That is where the flawed philosophy of humanism will lead in its more or less obviously destructive forms of expression. Humanism is the devils lie, that the end of all being is the happiness of man. American humanistic philosophers like John Dewy perverted the education system. They convinced and trained the teachers that there were no absolute standards. The end of education was simply to allow the child to express himself and expand on what he is. That he would find his happiness in being what he wants to be. This is how the culture of lawlessness developed. And it was not just the schools, but the churches also, with their ANTINOMIAN abominable dispensational theology. Love was reduced to simply tolerating what every man could do, as seemed right in his own eyes. Essentially, even in the churches, the rule of God over us, was ruled out.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Humanist basted totalitarianism.

AHZ I keep having trouble comprehending you speaking in conflicting labels.

but it does not bother me much, kinda like LadyT's janitor talking to herself....
 
Non-sequitor:

Humanism is a philosophy
What I have broadly labeled as humanism has lead to totalitarianism in some instances
Therefore, humanism is totalitarianism
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top