It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

King Lucifer

page: 1
1
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 12 2006 @ 07:24 AM
link   
Hail King Lucifer! All will bow before his throne! Hiss! Devil! Evil!

...no seriouisly though.

Lucifer appears 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!"

First off. Lucifer is a latin name. In the original Hebrew text, the fourteenth chapter of Isaiah is not about a fallen angel named Lucifer or Satan. It was about a fallen Babylonian king, who during his lifetime, persecuted the people of Israel.

In Roman astronomy, Lucifer was the name given to the morning star (the star we now know by another Roman name, Venus).

We can now assume that the Roman priests probably changed the 14th chapter of Isaiah for certain reasons.

The only reason Lucifer was changed to Satan is because of misstranslation by late Christians while using the original hebrew text.

Misstranslation? The Hebrew passage reads: "heleyl, ben shachar" which can be literally translated "shining one, son of dawn." This phrase means the planet Venus when it appears as a morning star.

So whered "lucifer" come from? This word comes from Jerome's Latin Vulgate. In Latin, "lucifer" actually means Venus as a morning star. Isaiah is using this metaphor for a bright light.

Therefore, Lucifer wasn't equated with Satan until after Jerome. Jerome wasn't in error, later Christians were for equating "Lucifer" with "Satan".

Now that everyone knows that Lucifer/Satan.. W/E... was just some Babylonian King...
Will all the Satan churches please shut down?
Will all the dumb Satanists finally kill themselves and get over with it?
Will retarted redneck christians finally stop calling everyone Satan?
Will the insanity ever end???
No. It won't. So go on with life and Satanists go back to church, your King is calling you... or your goat, w/e you worship.





[edit on 12-9-2006 by Techsnow]




posted on Sep, 12 2006 @ 07:29 AM
link   
I belive that you are correct

But are you then saying that because Lucifer is a King and not Satan, then satan doesn't excist?

Who was it who took Jesus up into the mountains and asked if he worshiped him the whole kingdom would be he's?



posted on Sep, 12 2006 @ 07:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by DodgeG1
I belive that you are correct

But are you then saying that because Lucifer is a King and not Satan, then satan doesn't excist?

Who was it who took Jesus up into the mountains and asked if he worshiped him the whole kingdom would be he's?



Forgot to menion that.
I believe you are referring to Peter 1:19

The original Greek text was 'phos-phoros' which means 'morning-star.' It was later changed to Satan by King James I believe.



posted on Sep, 12 2006 @ 07:42 AM
link   

2Pet 1:19 (NIV) And we have the word of the prophets made more certain, and you will do well to pay attention to it, as to a light shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts.



Rev 22:16 (NIV) "I, Jesus, have sent my angel to give you this testimony for the churches. I am the Root and the Offspring of David, and the bright Morning Star."


It can be and is argued that Jesus was the bright morning-star... so how is this passage explained?


Isa 14:12-15 (NIV) How you have fallen from heaven, O morning star, son of the dawn! You have been cast down to the earth, you who once laid low the nations! You said in your heart, "I will ascend to heaven; I will raise my throne above the stars of God; I will sit enthroned on the mount of assembly, on the utmost heights of the sacred mountain. I will ascend above the tops of the clouds; I will make myself like the Most High." But you are brought down to the grave, to the depths of the pit.


Source: www.acts17-11.com...



posted on Sep, 12 2006 @ 07:47 AM
link   
Yes, that translation uses "Morning Star" which is correct but it still shouldn't be capitalized because Morning Star is exactly what it is... the star that appears in the morning aka the planet Venus (as we call it now) not a title. The morning star, nothing more.



posted on Sep, 12 2006 @ 07:49 AM
link   
I still don't understand. Is it just a comparison that's being made to the actual morning-star, Venus?



posted on Sep, 12 2006 @ 07:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by firebat
I still don't understand. Is it just a comparison that's being made to the actual morning-star, Venus?


IDK why the Roman priests picked the term Lucifer (aka morning star) if thats what your asking.



posted on Sep, 12 2006 @ 08:02 AM
link   
That's what I was asking.

So basically, there is the Morning Star and then there is the morning star?



posted on Sep, 12 2006 @ 08:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by firebat
That's what I was asking.

So basically, there is the Morning Star and then there is the morning star?


Originally, Rome called the morning star "Lucifer" but it was changed to "Venus"... probably because the title Lucifer was stollen by the priests but I'm not positive.



posted on Sep, 12 2006 @ 08:09 AM
link   
I should add too that what ever translation you were using is a newer version.
The original Christian versions didn't say "Morning Star", they said "Lucifer".
The reason it was probably translated to "Morning Star" is because it was eventually realized what Lucifer meant.



posted on Sep, 12 2006 @ 08:33 AM
link   
Excellent! Thank you for sharing this. Its been something I have always tried to explain to people, at least, that Lucifer was a Latin word and not a Hebrew word.

Hell, Satan is mentioned relatively little in the bible.



posted on Sep, 12 2006 @ 09:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Techsnow
I should add too that what ever translation you were using is a newer version.
The original Christian versions didn't say "Morning Star", they said "Lucifer".
The reason it was probably translated to "Morning Star" is because it was eventually realized what Lucifer meant.


Nice thread, Techsnow,

The strange thing is that Lucifer in latin is masculine not feminine and Venus in latin is very feminine.
The literal translation of Lucifer is "Bearer/Carrier of Light" (Lux+Fero)

Lucifer is the Latin translation of the Hebrew name Helel Ben-Shachar

"I will climb to the highest heavens and be like the Most High".
Helel, Ben-Shachar
Isaiah 14:14
All very baffling..



posted on Sep, 12 2006 @ 09:15 AM
link   
so what is the point of the change? what does it change? whats the name of the devil, the one who started all of this...the one who battled our creator in the heavens...in the garden and the one who will be the antichrist. the one who has been here for centuries taking on human form and other forms here and there. being kings and snakes he has to have a name. know your enemy because if you dont you'll be sorry.



posted on Sep, 12 2006 @ 09:46 AM
link   
Interesting to point out that Lucifer is not only a latin word but very used in the names of the time during the fourth century, 354AD, it was also the name of a Bishob in Sardinia named Lucifer Caritanus, he became very controvertial for following Arius a very important theologian that argued that Christ was not a godhead but only a mortal expression of it, later it became( Arianism) Arianism occupies a large place in ecclesiastical history and very importantly from where the Arian race mythical believes of the Nazis came to be..

www.newadvent.org...

They became the Luciferians a schismatic group within the Catholic Church., interesting that he was exile by the church also for bringing division of faith.

This was a time in which the bible was been redacted in latin and his book was called the Lucifer Gospel. But htis not the so called Gospel that are done about the mythical lucifer or satan but, The substance of Lucifer's controversial pamphlets consists of appeals to Holy Scripture, and they contain a very large number of quotations from both Testaments.

www.ccel.org...,%20bishhop%20of%20Calaris

ccel.org...

Please I may be wrong so if you got something else feel free to change it.

Is funny that the Lucifer and luciferus latin words happen to became an important issue during the early birth of the church.








[edit on 12-9-2006 by marg6043]



posted on Sep, 12 2006 @ 09:47 AM
link   
In reality, the quote from Isaiah indeed refers to a king of ancient Babylon, named Helal. He adorned his court and his person with much pomp and circumstance, and he was therefore referred to with words in Hebrew that can be translated as the “morning star” or the “son of the morning.” However, some would prefer the translation the “shining one.”

It is unfortunate that when the ancient Hebrew text was translated into Latin, the translator, St. Jerome, confused the Hebrew expression with the Latin expression of Lucifer, which in Latin means light bearer and was also the name for the planet Venus. This was simply a mistranslation, and I might add that it is far from the only mistranslation in the Bible.

When you recognize this as a mistranslation, you realize that there are no actual references to Lucifer in the entire Bible. The quote from Isaiah is literally the only use of the word Lucifer in the Bible. You therefore see that there is no actual biblical connection between Lucifer and the planet Venus.

Some scholars have correctly pointed out that the use of the word "Lucifer" is a result of a mistranslation. Yet they have used it to reason that there was never a being called Lucifer or that he was an entirely mythological creature. This is incorrect. There was indeed a being named Lucifer (or rather his spiritual name was close to the modern word “Lucifer”). Lucifer was created by God and he had a great spiritual potential. When God creates a being, God names that being according to his or her spiritual potential. Lucifer was given a name that means the one who has the potential to bring light, meaning that Lucifer had the potential to become the one who would awaken human beings to the light within themselves.

Lucifer chose not to fulfill this role, partly because he was not willing to serve human beings, whom he considered to be below him. He wanted to be the one who brought light instead of awakening people to the reality that the light of God is already within them, within this their spiritual selves.



posted on Sep, 12 2006 @ 10:36 AM
link   
TJ, as you seem to be fairly educated on the translation/mis-translation field of study in regards to the Bible, is there anything you could share regarding the whole 'elohim' thing?



posted on Sep, 12 2006 @ 11:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by TJ144
In reality, the quote from Isaiah indeed refers to a king of ancient Babylon, named Helal. He adorned his court and his person with much pomp and circumstance, and he was therefore referred to with words in Hebrew that can be translated as the “morning star” or the “son of the morning.” However, some would prefer the translation the “shining one.”

It is unfortunate that when the ancient Hebrew text was translated into Latin, the translator, St. Jerome, confused the Hebrew expression with the Latin expression of Lucifer, which in Latin means light bearer and was also the name for the planet Venus. This was simply a mistranslation, and I might add that it is far from the only mistranslation in the Bible.

When you recognize this as a mistranslation, you realize that there are no actual references to Lucifer in the entire Bible. The quote from Isaiah is literally the only use of the word Lucifer in the Bible. You therefore see that there is no actual biblical connection between Lucifer and the planet Venus.

Some scholars have correctly pointed out that the use of the word "Lucifer" is a result of a mistranslation. Yet they have used it to reason that there was never a being called Lucifer or that he was an entirely mythological creature. This is incorrect. There was indeed a being named Lucifer (or rather his spiritual name was close to the modern word “Lucifer”). Lucifer was created by God and he had a great spiritual potential. When God creates a being, God names that being according to his or her spiritual potential. Lucifer was given a name that means the one who has the potential to bring light, meaning that Lucifer had the potential to become the one who would awaken human beings to the light within themselves.

Lucifer chose not to fulfill this role, partly because he was not willing to serve human beings, whom he considered to be below him. He wanted to be the one who brought light instead of awakening people to the reality that the light of God is already within them, within this their spiritual selves.


Thats true that it was misstranslation. But still why didn't Jerome just say the real name of the Babylonian King? Why did he create this new name for him? Thats why I say it was changed more than it was misstranslated.

So please tell me what makes you so certain that Lucifer is not just a mythological being?

I know the story... Lucifer fell from heaven. That belief comes from Revelations when trying to understand the 1/3 of the stars that fell from heaven.

But if I were to say that I believe Revelations was just a story and there is no proof of anything written in it, could you give me another source that may proove that Lucifer, the Morning Star, Satan, was more than just a misstranslation?

Can you tell me why the Roman priests felt the need to chang the words of Phrophet Isaiah?



posted on Sep, 12 2006 @ 12:13 PM
link   
Like already mention the word Lucifer only appears on one chapter.

So Isaiah was not referring to the garden of eden. It can not be the Lucifer of heaven exile, he was actually a man.

So translation has faded the true self of the Human Lucifer the king. He was spoken off as a king among kings and a special one.

Many explanations as who this king may be Nebuchadnezzar.

This a great link I found out about Lucifer the king.

www.carelinks.net...



[edit on 12-9-2006 by marg6043]



posted on Sep, 12 2006 @ 12:24 PM
link   
Well, anytime you get into a theological discussion about Lucifer, it's important to realize that Lucifer is like an accountant. He/she/it takes account of our deeds. Another thing is that the original poster is certainly correct in stating that many mistranslations came about with St.Jeromes's translation into the vulgate.



posted on Sep, 12 2006 @ 12:25 PM
link   
As TJ144 said, " In reality, the quote from Isaiah indeed refers to a king of ancient Babylon, named Helal." (I believe the King was Helal although not positivie)

The original Hebrew text was about King Helal who waged war on Israel.

The Luciferians are another branch of Christianity, they do not worship Satan (aka Lucifer or the "Morning Star")

I am trying to understand what TJ144 meant by,"There was indeed a being named Lucifer (or rather his spiritual name was close to the modern word “Lucifer”). Lucifer was created by God and he had a great spiritual potential. When God creates a being, God names that being according to his or her spiritual potential. Lucifer was given a name that means the one who has the potential to bring light, meaning that Lucifer had the potential to become the one who would awaken human beings to the light within themselves." and how he can draw this conclusion.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join