posted on Feb, 5 2009 @ 01:19 PM
While this may not relate DIRECTLY to what you have given, information wise, I believe that it will cut to the heart of your theory... bear with me,
I have been trying to point out this whole lucifer confusion for years now, and it's just nigh on impossible to get people to "see" it. They're
just too trained to get rid of it, even in light of perfect evidence.
For instance... The whole confusion stems because of ONE translation, the latin vulgate version of the bible, written by Jerome around the year 400
He was commissioned by the Pope to do a translation of the bible into Latin. At the time there were many churches using different translations, and
some people were getting confused by it all. There's more to it than that, of course, but that's one of the reasons.
So Jerome did his translation, which became known as the Latin Vulgate version of the bible, and it became the "official" bible of the catholic
And there's the issue's beginning. In the Isaiah passage, where we see the proper name Lucifer, it was, perhaps by accident, perhaps not, a
mistranslation of the words. The phrasing became a proper name, instead of just words (o morning star, etc).
Perhaps it was unintended, perhaps it was intended... who knows for sure? It's interesting to note the other places in the new testament where those
same words are being used to refer to Christ, the original phrasing is kept, and is not given the "proper name status" of Lucifer. That is one
reason it may have been intentional.
2 Peter 1:19
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
Here in the context of the verse its referring to Christ, and yet the exact same words could be, and were in isaiah, translated "lucifer", and given
proper name status.
Going on... The word Lucifer as a name appears in only the latin vulgate, and the old king james versions of the bible. The king james version was
translated from the latin vulgate, and it's obvious that they left it in... likely because at that point the name "Lucifer" had grown to its
mythological status as a demonic being, syonymous with Satan. ALL OTHER versions of the bible do NOT CONTAIN the word Lucifer, and are translated
correctly, INCLUDING the NEW King James Version.
That should be VERY interesting to note to people, but again, as i said at the beginning, when you speak to people about these evidences, they will
just gloss over them and give their reasons for still holding on to this legend.
I am not saying satan does or does not exist, nor the devil, or anything else. I am arguing the fact that LUCIFER is NOT one of the names for him, and
it's become totally ingrained into people that it is, and they are being decieved all along.