posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 09:38 PM
reply to post by jackthenap
It's a good read, and an interesting diversion; however, let me put forth one argument I would have with it, and with the argument, it kind of
defeats the rest of the article...
In the article, they refer to "Luciferian Covenant", Luciferian agendas/races/so on.
They claim that the names for these groups have been in existence for millions of years, etc.
The problem is, Lucifer, as a proper name for the figure of the fallen angel, satan, was a mistranslation in approx the year 400 CE by Jerome, after
being ordered by the pope to create a bible, translated into latin, that would be the universal bible for the church. When he got to the Isaiah
passage, and came across the words "oh morning star", he translated it into latin as, "Oh Lucifer," giving it proper name status. And thus a
legend was born.
So, with that, the article becomes rather moot. There's a fair bit in there otherwise that could be debunked overall, but that one is a major one
that I glared out at me right away.
Basically, when it comes to theories, information, what have you, if it has anything in it regarding some figure named Lucifer, I immediately write it