LUCIFER - Biblical Mis-translation! Very interesting!

page: 1
2
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 27 2004 @ 09:01 PM
link   
In a text written about Albert Pike, a "legendary" Mason who wrote a very fat book called "Morals and Dogma", there is a note about the mention of LUCIFER in the Bible, and the fact that it never existed in the original Hebrew version. This is indeed interesting...

Taken from:

www.masonicinfo.com...

----------------
"Nothing thrills the anti-Mason as much as Pike's references to Lucifer. Most Christians reading this will immediately recognize Lucifer as the fallen angel, as Satan, the ruler of hell. Why then, does Pike express his surprise in the words "Lucifer, the light-bearer! Strange and mysterious name to give to the Spirit of Darkness! Lucifer, the Son of the Morning! Is it he who bears the Light, and with its intolerable light blinds feeble, sensual or selfish souls?" He is upset, referring at one point to "the false Lucifer of the legend." What false legend?"

"I set out to learn for myself, and what I learned may upset many Christians, who have to be told that the King James version of the Bible, which they revere as the literal, precise, correct work of God, is not always so. Some of the error in it was quite deliberate, including the biblical designation of Lucifer as Satan, along with the concordant story of a fallen angel. It is difficult to anticipate the reactions of some believers on being told that there are gross mistakes in the King James version, but, please, do not throw this book across the room in disgust until you have read a bit more."

"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 the militantly Catholic King James I to translate the Bible into current English did not use the original Hebrew texts, but used versions translated from the Catholic Vulgate Bible produced 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," while others with knowledge of the Latin and Hebrew texts say, "No, Lucifer is the classical Roman name for the morning star, and now Jesus is the morning star." This discussion can only anger certain fundamentalists. (I have at hand an evangelical tract from a Baptist church that says, "I believe in the Infallibility and Preservation of God's Word, of which the King James 1611 authorized version is the God-guided faithful translation.")"

[Edited on 27-2-2004 by lilblam]




posted on Feb, 27 2004 @ 09:40 PM
link   
I do wonder what Colonel would have to say on the subject, and of course any other Christians... does this change your views, why or why not?



posted on Feb, 27 2004 @ 10:05 PM
link   
yett another great post by lilblam...

great job on this one!!!




posted on Feb, 27 2004 @ 10:14 PM
link   
what are you trying to say lilblam im not understanding??? are u saying (based on this read ONLY and not ure own theorys) that there is NO HELL because satinwas never thrown into hell it was that king??? and are u saying that Jesus is the devil or sumthing???

explain more clearly in a christian's point of view please...




posted on Feb, 27 2004 @ 10:14 PM
link   
yes. lucifer is not satan. so, the question i have is, where does all this elaborate myth of lucifer being the first and most beautiful angel, getting jealous and falling out with heaven, and then with the pentagrams and pitchforks and fiery pits.
and, is it possible that lucifer is a name of jesus, and he has been demonised so that he will be unrecognisable to his flock when he comes to seperate the wheat from the chaffe.
imagine a being of obvious divine qualities(who is actually the 'real jesus') coming and pronouncing himself to be lucifer, here to save mankind. pretty funny.
the power of propoganda.



posted on Feb, 27 2004 @ 10:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by they see ALL
what are you trying to say lilblam im not understanding??? are u saying (based on this read ONLY and not ure own theorys) that there is NO HELL because satinwas never thrown into hell it was that king??? and are u saying that Jesus is the devil or sumthing???

explain more clearly in a christian's point of view please...



No, I'm not saying that. It simply looks like the NAME Lucifer is NOT part of the Bible, and is simply a mistranslation. However, my question now is, WHO then was "cast out" in the original Hebrew version, or who FELL from heaven etc... is there such a FALLEN ONE in the original Hebrew text or not?

And no, morning star means bringer of the dawn, bringer of LIGHT, and LIGHT is knowledge.. it is TRUTH. So Jesus is bringer of knowledge.



posted on Feb, 27 2004 @ 10:25 PM
link   
thanks lilblam...

ure right... Jesus is the MAN!!!




posted on Feb, 27 2004 @ 10:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by billybob
yes. lucifer is not satan. so, the question i have is, where does all this elaborate myth of lucifer being the first and most beautiful angel, getting jealous and falling out with heaven, and then with the pentagrams and pitchforks and fiery pits.
and, is it possible that lucifer is a name of jesus, and he has been demonised so that he will be unrecognisable to his flock when he comes to seperate the wheat from the chaffe.
imagine a being of obvious divine qualities(who is actually the 'real jesus') coming and pronouncing himself to be lucifer, here to save mankind. pretty funny.
the power of propoganda.


Well, Jesus simply means Morning Star, which is something that brings light after darkness, and light represents KNOWLEDGE (truth).

However, Lucifer is a Latin name that obviously could NOT be in an original HEBREW text...

Since the name Lucifer is associated with morning star, and so is Jesus, it wouldn't surprise me if they are one and the same... and later changed by the CHURCH propaganda....

So yeah if someone shows up claiming to be Lucifer (and he is actually the REAL Jesus), imagine the IRONY of the situation as ALL the Christian followers (of who they THINK is the real Jesus) attack him and possibly CRUCIFY HIM again... hahaha... ok sorry the irony is just unbearable!
-----------

In all seriousness, since Lucifer was added to the Bible LATER, on the whim of the English translators, Lucifer cannot really be Jesus... he's not part of the real Bible, and doesn't belong at all.

Jesus may have had a different name, but it's NOT the Latin name Lucifer.

Also, I have my suspicions that Jesus was never crucified, and the entire crucifixion idea IS a propaganda lie that was established to create GUILT (of original sin) in people, and entice worship to clear the sin etc...

[Edited on 27-2-2004 by lilblam]



posted on Feb, 27 2004 @ 10:34 PM
link   
Interesting, I just finished a page about Lucifer. I too found the appearent intended combination of the two.

www.veritastruth.com...



posted on Feb, 27 2004 @ 10:41 PM
link   
Wow what a great read....I think they have found the new script for "INDIANA JONES 4" bet Lucas will like this one..


But seriously no, that was a very interesting read,and very informative,I defiately think a lot of the ancient texts for sure have had the true information deteriorate through translations,as do generally most translations there are no equivalent word to the original so others get used that are similar or sometimes totally different as substitute.

The "Chinese whispers" concept I guess in laymans terms...



posted on Feb, 27 2004 @ 10:41 PM
link   
And Light of course means knowledge, as in such phrase as "Can someone please shine some light on the subject" etc or...

"Hmm I'm really in the dark here" meaning LACK of knowledge...



posted on Feb, 27 2004 @ 10:47 PM
link   
lilblam sory---what r u saying...that the Jesus in the Bible was NOT the real Jesus??? i dont understand sory...i also want info on "jesus was not crucified" and densities please... u are probly the SMARTEST person on ATS cause u keep ure mind open to EVERYTHANG!!! thats great!!!




posted on Feb, 27 2004 @ 10:51 PM
link   
dont think i have a specific religion i kind of believe in all of them...i celebrate christmas and all kinds of junky holidays

so my point of view is this that there is a connection between jewish religion and christian religion as many people say jesus was a jewish person himself



posted on Feb, 27 2004 @ 11:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by they see ALL
lilblam sory---what r u saying...that the Jesus in the Bible was NOT the real Jesus??? i dont understand sory...i also want info on "jesus was not crucified" and densities please... u are probly the SMARTEST person on ATS cause u keep ure mind open to EVERYTHANG!!! thats great!!!



Well first, I'm not saying anything... everything is "said" by the author to whom the work is attributed, and the scholars he contacted, and the research he had done.

Now that that's out of the way...

The confusion is that since Lucifer means morning star in Latin, and Jesus called himself morning star in the Hebrew Bible, and that the translators thought a passage about morning star was actually about Satan, people now think that LUCIFER is Satan. Lucifer did not exist in the original, and "bringer of light" certainly is NOT Satan, as Light is knowledge, not lies!

Let me see if I can make this clear...

There was a passage in the original Hebrew bible that mentioned "morning star" or "light bearer". That passage did NOT refer to Satan in ANY WAY, directly or indirectly. However, the translators decided that it is about Satan, and instead of translating it as "morning star" they just said the name Lucifer. Why Lucifer? Here's part of the explanation:

"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."



posted on Feb, 28 2004 @ 03:30 AM
link   
Lucifer according to the Catholic encyclopedia

Ezek. 28:15 tells us that Lucifer was perfect in his ways from the day that he was created, until iniquity was found in him.

Lucifer was a created being. He was perfect until iniquity (lawlessness) was found in him.

Lucifer had free moral agency. He would think and reason but somewhere along the line his reasoning became dark and twisted. He thought he could rule better than his Creator.


When he would be a kind he wouldn't think he would be better then his creator.

The Nature of Satan

A. He is a created angelic being. He was created as part of the angelic realm (Eph.6:11,12; Ezek.24:18) and was the highest in rank of them all (Ezek.28:12-14).

B. He is an enemy of righteousness. He is a murderer (John 8:44), a liar (John 8:44), and accuser (Rev.12:10) and our adversary (1 Pet.5:8).

C. He is a limited creature. He is limited by God (Job.1:12). He is not God’s equal (1 John 4:4). He is not omniscient, omnipotent or infinite in any way. Believers with God’s help can resist him (James 4:7).


If the kind would have been called Lucifer then he wouldn't be the highest in rank of the angels... nor would he have gotten 1/3th of the angels behind him.

Satan

Satan is distinguished form the human ruler of Tyre in 28:2 (“prince/ruler”) and called a “king” in 28:12 (Not even Israel’s rulers were called “King”). Though Tyre had a human “ruler”, Satan was the real “King” behind that wicked kingdom.


That king which is described could very well be, but then still Satan was also called king. So there is a big chance there is still meant Satan and Lucifer with being the king.

Next to this it isn't that obvious that it is just Venus, then we could also say God is just Sirius, when refering to the Rephaim and Koran chapter the star (53).


Just wanted to say this.



posted on Feb, 28 2004 @ 03:45 AM
link   
The fact that Lucifer isn't mentioned in the Bible even one single place, is old news. Heylel is, and it is he who the prophet says has fallen. It all has to do with some astrology chart. The prophet had studied the courses of the stars for the king of Babylon and found the time of his defeat. As simple as that. It has nothing to do with either devils or gods. It's an astrology thing.

Blessings,
Mikromarius



posted on Feb, 28 2004 @ 04:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by LeenBekkemaa
The Nature of Satan

A. He is a created angelic being. He was created as part of the angelic realm (Eph.6:11,12; Ezek.24:18) and was the highest in rank of them all (Ezek.28:12-14).


Hehe. Nope. Satan is not the prince of Tyre, nor is he the king. Satan is a generic term, not a person in himself. It is one of the most shameful principles of law God recognises. Satan means simply (false) accuser. In the court of Law the Satan is the prosecutor, representing the police. His/her job is to stand there and lie until the oposite has been prooven. Many innocent people have lost everything because of Satan. His guilt is enormous. Many of you here on ATS could have been successful satans.


B. He is an enemy of righteousness. He is a murderer (John 8:44), a liar (John 8:44), and accuser (Rev.12:10) and our adversary (1 Pet.5:8).


Exactly.


C. He is a limited creature. He is limited by God (Job.1:12). He is not God’s equal (1 John 4:4). He is not omniscient, omnipotent or infinite in any way. Believers with God’s help can resist him (James 4:7).


Just like I said.

Blessings,
Mikromarius

[Edited on 28-2-2004 by Hamilton]



posted on Feb, 28 2004 @ 10:08 AM
link   
Alright, but Satan didn't have the name Lucifer till the translators decided to give it to him apparently...

Also, Jesus DID say about himself that he was the morning star.

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."

Jesus was the bringer of Light, but Satan could only be bringer of Darkness...

However, if they are talking about a high king, they could very well praise him or something and attribute "morning star" to him... but this doesn't mean it is indeed Satan..

But interesting points



posted on Feb, 28 2004 @ 10:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by lilblam
Alright, but Satan didn't have the name Lucifer till the translators decided to give it to him apparently...

Also, Jesus DID say about himself that he was the morning star.

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."

Jesus was the bringer of Light, but Satan could only be bringer of Darkness...

However, if they are talking about a high king, they could very well praise him or something and attribute "morning star" to him... but this doesn't mean it is indeed Satan..

But interesting points


God has many Morningstars. It's a rank of angels. It is also an astrological term. And Jesjuah isn't the bringer of light, he is the Light. There's a great difference.

Blessings,
Mikromarius

[Edited on 28-2-2004 by Hamilton]



posted on Feb, 28 2004 @ 10:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by lilblam

Originally posted by billybob

Since the name Lucifer is associated with morning star, and so is Jesus, it wouldn't surprise me if they are one and the same... and later changed by the CHURCH propaganda....

So yeah if someone shows up claiming to be Lucifer (and he is actually the REAL Jesus), imagine the IRONY of the situation as ALL the Christian followers (of who they THINK is the real Jesus) attack him and possibly CRUCIFY HIM again... hahaha... ok sorry the irony is just unbearable!
-----------

In all seriousness, since Lucifer was added to the Bible LATER, on the whim of the English translators, Lucifer cannot really be Jesus... he's not part of the real Bible, and doesn't belong at all.

Jesus may have had a different name, but it's NOT the Latin name Lucifer.

Also, I have my suspicions that Jesus was never crucified, and the entire crucifixion idea IS a propaganda lie that was established to create GUILT (of original sin) in people, and entice worship to clear the sin etc...

[Edited on 27-2-2004 by lilblam]


the crucifixion could very well be a huge act of propoganda, ive always had suspicions too. or, it could simply be blown out of proportion, much like the old testament's fables. who's to say that the new testament arent just fables too?

[Edited on 2-28-04 by Scat]





new topics




 
2
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join