Luciferianism and Freemasonry

I see what you mean.

Ezekiel 28:12 The meaning of the Hebrew phrase is uncertain
Ezekiel 28:13 Or lapis lazuli
Ezekiel 28:13 The meaning of the Hebrew phrase is uncertain
Ezekiel 28:14 The meaning of the Hebrew phrase is uncertain
Ezekiel 28:16 Or banished you

Overal it does not influence the paragraph of the bible.
Not all are not without a meaning, it's "or" adding it or to it will have the same outcome of the frase. For example or Or banished you , it's the same thing really.

If it came to this then you are really trying to change it in your favour.
The text shows directly who the king is.

Originally posted by pepsi78
That text is in every version of the bible, it does not call satan lucifer,
what it does is it shows satan is the king and the king was named lucifer.

So satan=lucifer, it's simple.

The word Lucifer was translated into the Bible nearly 1000 years after the book of Ezekiel is hypothosised to be written. It thereofore can not be a translation of Satan since Satan was not the object of this verse, it was King Nebuchadnezzar. The only place that Satan is equated to Lucifer is in the King James version. You have yet to show me a source that differs from this.

No those are just links that take you to diffrent passages of the bible for
eizikel. Nothing to do with translation.I gave you a version from the english version of the bible, it's not even from KGV.

I already told you it is not from the King James version, it is from the English Standard which was based on a supposedly updated version of the King James.

It's not my job to research material, you post it , you make a point out of it.

It is called citing sources which you fail to do other then using the King James Bible.

And Nebuchadnezzar is satan, the bible says so, I did not make it up.

That is your interpretation, not accepted scholarly opinions, hence the reason I rpovided the link which you obviously did not read as you would have seen that the figure in the verse is King Nebuchadnezzar and not Satan although the parallels in the story are similar (which I stated earlier).

Satan apears in genesis at least 3 times. But you can argue the "NAME" does not show up but it's satan. Only you and your felows can makebeilive
that something that is there it is not.

Satan is also shown in the Bible not as an evil being but one who points out the inherent evil in Man to God. Remember, it is God who allows Job to be tested, not Satan. There is also much confusion when the names of demons or other angels are mentioned and trying to relate them to the historical Satan. What I said is correct, Satan only appears twice.

This is free masonry and people can see now how you are trying to twist it. What a shame.... No way out this time.

There is nothing to twist, anyone can fact-check what I said....even you if you had the motivation.

I gave you a pasage from the standard english bible, not the KVG

Which is the same thing.

You still have not provided evidence that satan is not lucifer.
All you did is provide a bunch of nonsense that I explained to you.

I provided a link but you obviously disregarded it. Here is another where the thesis is footnoted with other primary sources.




[edit on 6-12-2009 by AugustusMasonicus]

reply to post by pepsi78


The point was to show that translating a mutli-millenially old document from an ancient language, loaded with obsolete phrases and words, would never yield a true translation. Many of the meanings are lost to time and history and cursory perusal will not give a true translation.






[edit on 6-12-2009 by AugustusMasonicus]

hi i ma freemason 32ed degree and like know more ask me

reply to post by maya2929


Sure, what lodge do you belong to?

The word Lucifer was translated inot the Bible nearly 1000 years after the book of Ezekiel is hypothosised to be written. It thereofore can not be a translation of Satan since Satan was not the object of this verse, it was King Nebuchadnezzar.

But the name helel was there in the bible so what is your point if the translation happened later. It was translated later because at that time there was no need for a translation, your point is null, has no effect if the word translated means what it means, as long as I am concerned it could of taken 100 years, 1000 years a milion years, what is the difference and what point are you trying to make out of this, is it confusion?

Lucifer is a translation for satan and king Nebuchadnezzar is satan or the person that satan is in control. If you can show otherwise then provide evidence like I did.

It is called citing sources which you fail to do other then using the King James Bible.

I told you 1 milion times this was not from the King James bible, it's from
the standard english bible, even more the revised english bible makes out the diffrences and translates better, overall it's the same thing, same conclusion. You keep insisting it's from the KJV and I keep telling you it's not.

That is your interpretation, not accepted scholarly opinions, hence the reason I rpovided the link which you obviously did not read as you would have seen that the figure in the verse is King Nebuchadnezzar and not Satan although the parallels in the story are similar (which I stated earlier).

Please provide the material if you want to make a point.

Satan is also shown in the Bible not as an evil being but one who points out the inherent evil in Man to God. Remember, it is God who allows Job to be tested, not Satan. There is also much confusion when the names of demons or other angels are mentioned and trying to relate them to the historical Satan. What I said is correct, Satan only appears twice.

As in name you may be right, as in character it's all over the book, just because it has a diffrent name each time, snake, king, fallen angel it's really the same character, if you want to go beating around the bush that is your problem and if you want to vilify god go ahead it's your choise.

There is nothing to twist, anyone can fact-check what I said....even you if you had the motivation.

Facts on what?

I told you I did not post from KJV you insist otherwise.
I told you the character of satan apears lots of times in the bible you tell me it's twice as in NAME SATAN only? who cares as long if it's the same person, there is no confusion who the snake, the fallen angel is.
Is that your personal facts and notes ?

Which is the same thing.

Not really, the standard English bible was revised 86 in 95, then in 97 then an international version came that was revised again. The KJV is a difirent bible.

I provided a link but you obviously disregarded it. Here is

Please provide and make a point out of it here, I don;t like reading pdfs.
If you want to make a point then quote out of it here.

All I see from you is ...It took that long of a time to translate, satan apears X times, no real counter arguments, just stuff that does not bring any debunking at all. Just a deviation from the topic, I don't care how many time the name apears in the bible. Hey It's not on topic and it is irelevant to our point of discusion.


You failed to explain where god tells the king of tire what he is, what you did is try to pick on the translation, your last hope. There are revised bibles that will say the same thing.

You failed to explain the cannianite story, in stead you said it's not real but did not understand, it stated that there is no evidence helel did what he said(there is no evidence because he could not do it), but there was evidience that he said he would do it, take over the mountain and throw the chief god.

What is more ironic for you is that king tyre was named ball, you have all that piramids there with eyes and triangles just like ball had his. Of course you are going to protect the babilonian king since simbols of the masonic order resembles that of ball.

Originally posted by AugustusMasonicus
reply to post by pepsi78

 

The point was to show that translating a mutli-millenially old document from an ancient language, loaded with obsolete phrases and words, would neve yield a true translation. Many of the meanings are lost to time and history and cursory perusal will not give a true translation.




[edit on 6-12-2009 by AugustusMasonicus]

Ohhh boy just give up already, there are revised versions that will say the same o same o...




Here it is, 2007 revised.
www.biblegateway.com...

New living translation, the newest engliish bible.
Same thing just some words replaced.

11 Then this further message came to me from the Lord: 12 “Son of man, sing this funeral song for the king of Tyre. Give him this message from the Sovereign Lord:

“You were the model of perfection,
full of wisdom and exquisite in beauty.
13 You were in Eden,
the garden of God.
Your clothing was adorned with every precious stone[k]—
red carnelian, pale-green peridot, white moonstone,
blue-green beryl, onyx, green jasper,
blue lapis lazuli, turquoise, and emerald—
all beautifully crafted for you
and set in the finest gold.
They were given to you
on the day you were created.
14 I ordained and anointed you
as the mighty angelic guardian.[l]
You had access to the holy mountain of God
and walked among the stones of fire.

15 “You were blameless in all you did
from the day you were created
until the day evil was found in you.
16 Your rich commerce led you to violence,
and you sinned.
So I banished you in disgrace
from the mountain of God.
I expelled you, O mighty guardian,
from your place among the stones of fire.
17 Your heart was filled with pride
because of all your beauty.
Your wisdom was corrupted
by your love of splendor.
So I threw you to the ground
and exposed you to the curious gaze of kings.
18 You defiled your sanctuaries
with your many sins and your dishonest trade.
So I brought fire out from within you,
and it consumed you.
I reduced you to ashes on the ground
in the sight of all who were watching.
19 All who knew you are appalled at your fate.
You have come to a terrible end,
and you will exist no more.”

Goodluck taking this apart, no more translation for you to worry about

[edit on 6-12-2009 by pepsi78]

reply to post by pepsi78

Wow, ignorance is bliss....

Let me provide some 'light' here:

However, some contemporary exorcists and theologians such as Father Jose Antonio Fortea and Father Amorth in their experience and based on Biblical interpretations assert that Lucifer and Satan are different beings.[6]

If you'd like to read further please do:

Wikipedia

Originally posted by pepsi78
But the name helel was there in the bible so what is your point if the translation happened later. It was translated later because at that time there was no need for a translation, your point is null, has no effect if the word translated means what it means, as long as I am concerned it could of taken 100 years, 1000 years a milion years, what is the difference and what point are you trying to make out of this, is it confusion?

Because when the word needed to be translated and Lucifer was selected it did not mean Satan as the connotation of Lucifer and Satan being the same did no arise until more then a thousan years after this portion of text was translated. Still confused?

Lucifer is a translation for satan and king Nebuchadnezzar is satan or the person that satan is in control. If you can show otherwise then provide evidence like I did.

Here is a link by a Biblical scholar that explains the Satan/Nebuchadnezzar misconception. Here is also a link to the Oxford Dictionary which explains the origins of the word Lucifer.

I told you 1 milion times this was not from the King James bible, it's from
the standard english bible, even more the revised english bible makes out the diffrences and translates better, overall it's the same thing, same conclusion. You keep insisting it's from the KJV and I keep telling you it's not.

Once again, the English Standard is built upon the King James. If you have a faulty foundation and erect a second story atop it, does it make sense? The same applies with Bible translations. The further you get in language and time from the original, the more the meanings change. Here is an article critisizing the English Standard version and the methods used to produce the same.

Please provide the material if you want to make a point.

Fine, here is a portioon with footnotes.

It was in this context that Isaiah referred to the king of Babylon as “the morning star” (“son of the morning”; “son of the dawn”) to depict the once-shining-but-now-dimmed, once-lofty-but-now-diminished, status of the (soon to be former) ruler. In his Bible Commentary, E.M. Zerr observed that such phrases were “...used figuratively in this verse to symbolize the dignity and splendor of the Babylonian monarch. His complete overthrow was likened to the falling of the morning star” (1954, 3:265). This kind of phraseology should not be surprising since “[I]n the O.T., the demise of corrupt national powers is frequently depicted under the imagery of falling heavenly luminaries (cf. Isa. 13:10; Ezek. 32:7), hence, quite appropriately in this context the Babylonian monarch is described as a fallen star [cf. ASV]” (Jackson, 1987, 23:15).

Nowhere within the context of Isaiah 14, however, is Satan depicted as Lucifer. In fact, quite the opposite is true. In his commentary on Isaiah, Burton Coffman wrote: “We are glad that our version (ASV) leaves the word Lucifer out of this rendition, because...Satan does not enter into this passage as a subject at all” (1990, p. 141). The Babylonian ruler was to die and be buried—fates neither of which Satan is destined to endure. The king was called “a man” whose body was to be eaten by worms, but Satan, as a spirit, has no physical body. The monarch lived in and abided over a “golden city” (vs. 4), but Satan is the monarch of a kingdom of spiritual darkness (cf. Ephesians 6:12). And so on.

The context presented in Isaiah 14:4-16 not only does not portray Satan as Lucifer, but actually militates against it. Keil and Delitzsch firmly proclaimed that “Lucifer,” as a synonym, “is a perfectly appropriate one for the king of Babel, on account of the early date of the Babylonian culture, which reached back as far as the grey twilight of primeval times, and also because of its predominate astrological character” (1982, p. 312). They then correctly concluded that “Lucifer, as a name given to the devil, was derived from this passage...without any warrant whatever, as relating to the apostasy and punishment of the angelic leaders” (pp. 312-313).

REFERENCES

Barnes, Albert (1950 edition), Barnes’ Notes on the Old and New Testaments—Isaiah (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).

Coffman, James Burton (1990), The Major Prophets—Isaiah (Abilene, TX: ACU Press).

Jackson, Wayne (1987), “Your Question & My Answer,” Christian Courier, 23:15, August.

Keil, C.F. and Franz Delitzsch, (1982 edition), Commentary on the Old Testament—Isaiah (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).

Zerr, E.M. (1954), Bible Commentary (Bowling Green, KY: Guardian of Truth Publications).

As in name you may be right, as in character it's all over the book, just because it has a diffrent name each time, snake, king, fallen angel it's really the same character, if you want to go beating around the bush that is your problem and if you want to vilify god go ahead it's your choise.

No it is not, there are nemerous references in the Bible to beings or creature that may be misconstrued as Satan. They all must be viewed in context of the parable/anecdote they are presented in, not all of them represent Satan.

Please provide and make a point out of it here, I don;t like reading pdfs.
If you want to make a point then quote out of it here.

When I provide a link it is to the infomation at hand, it is not a PDF or does not require more then reading one page. Stop making excuses for not reading and researching.

You failed to explain where god tells the king of tire what he is, what you did is try to pick on the translation, your last hope. There are revised bibles that will say the same thing.

You need to stop taking the Bible literally and understand the metaphors that are being presented. The fallen one in Ezekiel is not Satan and you will be ahrd pressed to find any Biblical scholar to side with you. As a matter of fact, I think the reason you have not cited anything other then the King James/Standard Bible is because you can not find one reputable person to agree with your point that Satan and Lucifer are the same thing in the Bible and until you do your point is completely unfounded.

You failed to explain the cannianite story, in stead you said it's not real but did not understand, it stated that there is no evidence helel did what he said(there is no evidence because he could not do it), but there was evidience that he said he would do it, take over the mountain and throw the chief god.

Since their is no mention of Lucifer in that passage it is not germaine. It does not prove that Satan and Lucifer are the same, only that you do not understand the metaphor of Nebuchadnezzar.

What is more ironic for you is that king tyre was named ball, you have all that piramids there with eyes and triangles just like ball had his.

Stop getting of topic with issues that have no relation to the thread. Pyramids, eyes and triangles, while they may be frightening to you, have no relavance here.

Of course you are going to protect the babilonian king since simbols of the masonic order resembles that of ball.

Why would I defend any king? Death to tyrants is service to God.






[edit on 6-12-2009 by AugustusMasonicus]

Originally posted by Choronzon
reply to post by pepsi78

 

Wow, ignorance is bliss....

Let me provide some 'light' here:

However, some contemporary exorcists and theologians such as Father Jose Antonio Fortea and Father Amorth in their experience and based on Biblical interpretations assert that Lucifer and Satan are different beings.[6]

If you'd like to read further please do:

Wikipedia

And I will find another one that says it is. Wow big discovery you made there, and I will find X masons that got out that say masonry "it's not for me" so what is your point? The priest had an opinion just like Albert Pike?
Want me to go in to Alber Pike? Then you would say he does not speak for me. Historical and biblical refrence please.

reply to post by AugustusMasonicus


I think you'd have an easier time debating a brick wall. At least it would listen to what you're saying...

It's fairly obvious who is the ignorant one....no names of course...

reply to post by pepsi78


Sure why not Mr. Albert Pike himself:

"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."

If you would like to read more, please do:
www.masonicinfo.com

Since you like false information, you may like this false quote from Albert Pike on lucifer:
Taxils Hoax



[edit on 12/6/2009 by Choronzon]

Originally posted by pepsi78

New living translation, the newest engliish bible.
Same thing just some words replaced.

Goodluck taking this apart, no more translation for you to worry about

Wow, the newest version of a 2500+ year old book? How is your Hebrew? Tell me if this is the same.

Ezekiel Chapter 1

יְחֶזְקֵאל
א וַיְהִי בִּשְׁלֹשִׁים שָׁנָה, בָּרְבִיעִי בַּחֲמִשָּׁה לַחֹדֶשׁ, וַאֲנִי בְתוֹךְ-הַגּוֹלָה, עַל-נְהַר-כְּבָר; נִפְתְּחוּ, הַשָּׁמַיִם, וָאֶרְאֶה, מַרְאוֹת אֱלֹהִים. 1 ב בַּחֲמִשָּׁה, לַחֹדֶשׁ--הִיא הַשָּׁנָה הַחֲמִישִׁית, לְגָלוּת הַמֶּלֶךְ יוֹיָכִין. 2 ג הָיֹה הָיָה דְבַר-יְהוָה אֶל-יְחֶזְקֵאל בֶּן-בּוּזִי הַכֹּהֵן, בְּאֶרֶץ כַּשְׂדִּים--עַל-נְהַר-כְּבָר; וַתְּהִי עָלָיו שָׁם, יַד-יְהוָה. 3
ד וָאֵרֶא וְהִנֵּה רוּחַ סְעָרָה בָּאָה מִן-הַצָּפוֹן, עָנָן גָּדוֹל וְאֵשׁ מִתְלַקַּחַת, וְנֹגַהּ לוֹ, סָבִיב; וּמִתּוֹכָהּ--כְּעֵין הַחַשְׁמַל, מִתּוֹךְ הָאֵשׁ. 4 ה וּמִתּוֹכָהּ--דְּמוּת, אַרְבַּע חַיּוֹת; וְזֶה, מַרְאֵיהֶן--דְּמוּת אָדָם, לָהֵנָּה. 5 ו וְאַרְבָּעָה פָנִים, לְאֶחָת; וְאַרְבַּע כְּנָפַיִם, לְאַחַת לָהֶם. 6 ז וְרַגְלֵיהֶם, רֶגֶל יְשָׁרָה; וְכַף רַגְלֵיהֶם, כְּכַף רֶגֶל עֵגֶל, וְנֹצְצִים, כְּעֵין נְחֹשֶׁת קָלָל. 7
ח וידו (וִידֵי) אָדָם, מִתַּחַת כַּנְפֵיהֶם, עַל, אַרְבַּעַת רִבְעֵיהֶם; וּפְנֵיהֶם וְכַנְפֵיהֶם, לְאַרְבַּעְתָּם. 8
ט חֹבְרֹת אִשָּׁה אֶל-אֲחוֹתָהּ, כַּנְפֵיהֶם: לֹא-יִסַּבּוּ בְלֶכְתָּן, אִישׁ אֶל-עֵבֶר פָּנָיו יֵלֵכוּ. 9
י וּדְמוּת פְּנֵיהֶם, פְּנֵי אָדָם, וּפְנֵי אַרְיֵה אֶל-הַיָּמִין לְאַרְבַּעְתָּם, וּפְנֵי-שׁוֹר מֵהַשְּׂמֹאול לְאַרְבַּעְתָּן; וּפְנֵי-נֶשֶׁר, לְאַרְבַּעְתָּן. 10 יא וּפְנֵיהֶם, וְכַנְפֵיהֶם פְּרֻדוֹת מִלְמָעְלָה: לְאִישׁ, שְׁתַּיִם חֹבְרוֹת אִישׁ, וּשְׁתַּיִם מְכַסּוֹת, אֵת גְּוִיֹּתֵיהֶנָה. 11
יב וְאִישׁ אֶל-עֵבֶר פָּנָיו, יֵלֵכוּ: אֶל אֲשֶׁר יִהְיֶה-שָּׁמָּה הָרוּחַ לָלֶכֶת יֵלֵכוּ, לֹא יִסַּבּוּ בְּלֶכְתָּן. 12
יג וּדְמוּת הַחַיּוֹת מַרְאֵיהֶם כְּגַחֲלֵי-אֵשׁ, בֹּעֲרוֹת כְּמַרְאֵה הַלַּפִּדִים--הִיא, מִתְהַלֶּכֶת בֵּין הַחַיּוֹת; וְנֹגַהּ לָאֵשׁ, וּמִן-הָאֵשׁ יוֹצֵא בָרָק. 13
יד וְהַחַיּוֹת, רָצוֹא וָשׁוֹב, כְּמַרְאֵה, הַבָּזָק. 14 .
טו וָאֵרֶא, הַחַיּוֹת; וְהִנֵּה אוֹפַן אֶחָד בָּאָרֶץ אֵצֶל הַחַיּוֹת, לְאַרְבַּעַת פָּנָיו. 15
טז מַרְאֵה הָאוֹפַנִּים וּמַעֲשֵׂיהֶם כְּעֵין תַּרְשִׁישׁ, וּדְמוּת אֶחָד לְאַרְבַּעְתָּן; וּמַרְאֵיהֶם, וּמַעֲשֵׂיהֶם, כַּאֲשֶׁר יִהְיֶה הָאוֹפַן, בְּתוֹךְ הָאוֹפָן. 16
יז עַל-אַרְבַּעַת רִבְעֵיהֶן, בְּלֶכְתָּם יֵלֵכוּ: לֹא יִסַּבּוּ, בְּלֶכְתָּן. 17
יח וְגַבֵּיהֶן--וְגֹבַהּ לָהֶם, וְיִרְאָה לָהֶם; וְגַבֹּתָם, מְלֵאֹת עֵינַיִם סָבִיב--לְאַרְבַּעְתָּן. 18
יט וּבְלֶכֶת, הַחַיּוֹת, יֵלְכוּ הָאוֹפַנִּים, אֶצְלָם; וּבְהִנָּשֵׂא הַחַיּוֹת מֵעַל הָאָרֶץ, יִנָּשְׂאוּ הָאוֹפַנִּים. 19
כ עַל אֲשֶׁר יִהְיֶה-שָּׁם הָרוּחַ לָלֶכֶת יֵלֵכוּ, שָׁמָּה הָרוּחַ לָלֶכֶת; וְהָאוֹפַנִּים, יִנָּשְׂאוּ לְעֻמָּתָם, כִּי רוּחַ הַחַיָּה, בָּאוֹפַנִּים. 20
כא בְּלֶכְתָּם יֵלֵכוּ, וּבְעָמְדָם יַעֲמֹדוּ; וּבְהִנָּשְׂאָם מֵעַל הָאָרֶץ, יִנָּשְׂאוּ הָאוֹפַנִּים לְעֻמָּתָם--כִּי רוּחַ הַחַיָּה, בָּאוֹפַנִּים. 21
כב וּדְמוּת עַל-רָאשֵׁי הַחַיָּה, רָקִיעַ, כְּעֵין, הַקֶּרַח הַנּוֹרָא--נָטוּי עַל-רָאשֵׁיהֶם, מִלְמָעְלָה. 22
כג וְתַחַת, הָרָקִיעַ, כַּנְפֵיהֶם יְשָׁרוֹת, אִשָּׁה אֶל-אֲחוֹתָהּ: לְאִישׁ, שְׁתַּיִם מְכַסּוֹת לָהֵנָּה, וּלְאִישׁ שְׁתַּיִם מְכַסּוֹת לָהֵנָּה, אֵת גְּוִיֹּתֵיהֶם. 23
כד וָאֶשְׁמַע אֶת-קוֹל כַּנְפֵיהֶם כְּקוֹל מַיִם רַבִּים כְּקוֹל-שַׁדַּי, בְּלֶכְתָּם--קוֹל הֲמֻלָּה, כְּקוֹל מַחֲנֶה; בְּעָמְדָם, תְּרַפֶּינָה כַנְפֵיהֶן. 24
כה וַיְהִי-קוֹל--מֵעַל, לָרָקִיעַ אֲשֶׁר עַל-רֹאשָׁם; בְּעָמְדָם, תְּרַפֶּינָה כַנְפֵיהֶן. 25
כו וּמִמַּעַל, לָרָקִיעַ אֲשֶׁר עַל-רֹאשָׁם, כְּמַרְאֵה אֶבֶן-סַפִּיר, דְּמוּת כִּסֵּא; וְעַל, דְּמוּת הַכִּסֵּא, דְּמוּת כְּמַרְאֵה אָדָם עָלָיו, מִלְמָעְלָה. 26
כז וָאֵרֶא כְּעֵין חַשְׁמַל, כְּמַרְאֵה-אֵשׁ בֵּית-לָהּ סָבִיב, מִמַּרְאֵה מָתְנָיו, וּלְמָעְלָה; וּמִמַּרְאֵה מָתְנָיו, וּלְמַטָּה, רָאִיתִי כְּמַרְאֵה-אֵשׁ, וְנֹגַהּ לוֹ סָבִיב. 27
כח כְּמַרְאֵה הַקֶּשֶׁת אֲשֶׁר יִהְיֶה בֶעָנָן בְּיוֹם הַגֶּשֶׁם, כֵּן מַרְאֵה הַנֹּגַהּ סָבִיב--הוּא, מַרְאֵה דְּמוּת כְּבוֹד-יְהוָה; וָאֶרְאֶה וָאֶפֹּל עַל-פָּנַי, וָאֶשְׁמַע קוֹל מְדַבֵּר.

You need to stop taking the Bible literally and understand the metaphors that are being presented. The fallen one in Ezekiel is not Satan and you will be ahrd pressed to find any Biblical scholar to side with you.

What the biblical scolars say is that king of tire was a human but satan was in control of him, as in his body. The quote did describe satan becuse satan was in control of king tire. It's what the scolars say.
See you are not debunking anything, you just say the fallen one is not satan, but it's description is of satan, the only logical explenation was that satan was in control of king tire.

As a matter of fact, I think the reason you have not cited anything other then the King James/Standard Bible is because you can not find one reputable person to agree with your point that Satan and Lucifer are the same thing in the Bible and until you do your point is completely unfounded.

I don't see how it's unfounded, I have evidence the cannianite deity is the same as king of tire. He fell just like satan.

All I have to do is connect king of tire to satan and why king of tire was named the shining one, there is no other explenation.


Further more why don't you ask the people that worship lucifer directly?

In the Satanic Bible of 1969 Lucifer is acknowledged as one of the Four Crown Princes of Hell, particularly that of the East. Lord of the Air, Lucifer has been named "Bringer of Light, the Morning Star, Intellectualism, Enlightenment."

And you are wrong with biblical scholars, alot of biblical scholars put the puzzle toghether and know the name is well founded and that lucifer is the fallen angel.

Originally posted by AugustusMasonicus

Originally posted by pepsi78

New living translation, the newest engliish bible.
Same thing just some words replaced.

Goodluck taking this apart, no more translation for you to worry about

Wow, the newest version of a 2500+ year old book? How is your Hebrew? Tell me if this is the same.

Ezekiel Chapter 1

יְחֶזְקֵאל
א וַיְהִי בִּשְׁלֹשִׁים שָׁנָה, בָּרְבִיעִי בַּחֲמִשָּׁה לַחֹדֶשׁ, וַאֲנִי בְתוֹךְ-הַגּוֹלָה, עַל-נְהַר-כְּבָר; נִפְתְּחוּ, הַשָּׁמַיִם, וָאֶרְאֶה, מַרְאוֹת אֱלֹהִים. 1 ב בַּחֲמִשָּׁה, לַחֹדֶשׁ--הִיא הַשָּׁנָה הַחֲמִישִׁית, לְגָלוּת הַמֶּלֶךְ יוֹיָכִין. 2 ג הָיֹה הָיָה דְבַר-יְהוָה אֶל-יְחֶזְקֵאל בֶּן-בּוּזִי הַכֹּהֵן, בְּאֶרֶץ כַּשְׂדִּים--עַל-נְהַר-כְּבָר; וַתְּהִי עָלָיו שָׁם, יַד-יְהוָה. 3
ד וָאֵרֶא וְהִנֵּה רוּחַ סְעָרָה בָּאָה מִן-הַצָּפוֹן, עָנָן גָּדוֹל וְאֵשׁ מִתְלַקַּחַת, וְנֹגַהּ לוֹ, סָבִיב; וּמִתּוֹכָהּ--כְּעֵין הַחַשְׁמַל, מִתּוֹךְ הָאֵשׁ. 4 ה וּמִתּוֹכָהּ--דְּמוּת, אַרְבַּע חַיּוֹת; וְזֶה, מַרְאֵיהֶן--דְּמוּת אָדָם, לָהֵנָּה. 5 ו וְאַרְבָּעָה פָנִים, לְאֶחָת; וְאַרְבַּע כְּנָפַיִם, לְאַחַת לָהֶם. 6 ז וְרַגְלֵיהֶם, רֶגֶל יְשָׁרָה; וְכַף רַגְלֵיהֶם, כְּכַף רֶגֶל עֵגֶל, וְנֹצְצִים, כְּעֵין נְחֹשֶׁת קָלָל. 7
ח וידו (וִידֵי) אָדָם, מִתַּחַת כַּנְפֵיהֶם, עַל, אַרְבַּעַת רִבְעֵיהֶם; וּפְנֵיהֶם וְכַנְפֵיהֶם, לְאַרְבַּעְתָּם. 8
ט חֹבְרֹת אִשָּׁה אֶל-אֲחוֹתָהּ, כַּנְפֵיהֶם: לֹא-יִסַּבּוּ בְלֶכְתָּן, אִישׁ אֶל-עֵבֶר פָּנָיו יֵלֵכוּ. 9
י וּדְמוּת פְּנֵיהֶם, פְּנֵי אָדָם, וּפְנֵי אַרְיֵה אֶל-הַיָּמִין לְאַרְבַּעְתָּם, וּפְנֵי-שׁוֹר מֵהַשְּׂמֹאול לְאַרְבַּעְתָּן; וּפְנֵי-נֶשֶׁר, לְאַרְבַּעְתָּן. 10 יא וּפְנֵיהֶם, וְכַנְפֵיהֶם פְּרֻדוֹת מִלְמָעְלָה: לְאִישׁ, שְׁתַּיִם חֹבְרוֹת אִישׁ, וּשְׁתַּיִם מְכַסּוֹת, אֵת גְּוִיֹּתֵיהֶנָה. 11
יב וְאִישׁ אֶל-עֵבֶר פָּנָיו, יֵלֵכוּ: אֶל אֲשֶׁר יִהְיֶה-שָּׁמָּה הָרוּחַ לָלֶכֶת יֵלֵכוּ, לֹא יִסַּבּוּ בְּלֶכְתָּן. 12
יג וּדְמוּת הַחַיּוֹת מַרְאֵיהֶם כְּגַחֲלֵי-אֵשׁ, בֹּעֲרוֹת כְּמַרְאֵה הַלַּפִּדִים--הִיא, מִתְהַלֶּכֶת בֵּין הַחַיּוֹת; וְנֹגַהּ לָאֵשׁ, וּמִן-הָאֵשׁ יוֹצֵא בָרָק. 13
יד וְהַחַיּוֹת, רָצוֹא וָשׁוֹב, כְּמַרְאֵה, הַבָּזָק. 14 .
טו וָאֵרֶא, הַחַיּוֹת; וְהִנֵּה אוֹפַן אֶחָד בָּאָרֶץ אֵצֶל הַחַיּוֹת, לְאַרְבַּעַת פָּנָיו. 15
טז מַרְאֵה הָאוֹפַנִּים וּמַעֲשֵׂיהֶם כְּעֵין תַּרְשִׁישׁ, וּדְמוּת אֶחָד לְאַרְבַּעְתָּן; וּמַרְאֵיהֶם, וּמַעֲשֵׂיהֶם, כַּאֲשֶׁר יִהְיֶה הָאוֹפַן, בְּתוֹךְ הָאוֹפָן. 16
יז עַל-אַרְבַּעַת רִבְעֵיהֶן, בְּלֶכְתָּם יֵלֵכוּ: לֹא יִסַּבּוּ, בְּלֶכְתָּן. 17
יח וְגַבֵּיהֶן--וְגֹבַהּ לָהֶם, וְיִרְאָה לָהֶם; וְגַבֹּתָם, מְלֵאֹת עֵינַיִם סָבִיב--לְאַרְבַּעְתָּן. 18
יט וּבְלֶכֶת, הַחַיּוֹת, יֵלְכוּ הָאוֹפַנִּים, אֶצְלָם; וּבְהִנָּשֵׂא הַחַיּוֹת מֵעַל הָאָרֶץ, יִנָּשְׂאוּ הָאוֹפַנִּים. 19
כ עַל אֲשֶׁר יִהְיֶה-שָּׁם הָרוּחַ לָלֶכֶת יֵלֵכוּ, שָׁמָּה הָרוּחַ לָלֶכֶת; וְהָאוֹפַנִּים, יִנָּשְׂאוּ לְעֻמָּתָם, כִּי רוּחַ הַחַיָּה, בָּאוֹפַנִּים. 20
כא בְּלֶכְתָּם יֵלֵכוּ, וּבְעָמְדָם יַעֲמֹדוּ; וּבְהִנָּשְׂאָם מֵעַל הָאָרֶץ, יִנָּשְׂאוּ הָאוֹפַנִּים לְעֻמָּתָם--כִּי רוּחַ הַחַיָּה, בָּאוֹפַנִּים. 21
כב וּדְמוּת עַל-רָאשֵׁי הַחַיָּה, רָקִיעַ, כְּעֵין, הַקֶּרַח הַנּוֹרָא--נָטוּי עַל-רָאשֵׁיהֶם, מִלְמָעְלָה. 22
כג וְתַחַת, הָרָקִיעַ, כַּנְפֵיהֶם יְשָׁרוֹת, אִשָּׁה אֶל-אֲחוֹתָהּ: לְאִישׁ, שְׁתַּיִם מְכַסּוֹת לָהֵנָּה, וּלְאִישׁ שְׁתַּיִם מְכַסּוֹת לָהֵנָּה, אֵת גְּוִיֹּתֵיהֶם. 23
כד וָאֶשְׁמַע אֶת-קוֹל כַּנְפֵיהֶם כְּקוֹל מַיִם רַבִּים כְּקוֹל-שַׁדַּי, בְּלֶכְתָּם--קוֹל הֲמֻלָּה, כְּקוֹל מַחֲנֶה; בְּעָמְדָם, תְּרַפֶּינָה כַנְפֵיהֶן. 24
כה וַיְהִי-קוֹל--מֵעַל, לָרָקִיעַ אֲשֶׁר עַל-רֹאשָׁם; בְּעָמְדָם, תְּרַפֶּינָה כַנְפֵיהֶן. 25
כו וּמִמַּעַל, לָרָקִיעַ אֲשֶׁר עַל-רֹאשָׁם, כְּמַרְאֵה אֶבֶן-סַפִּיר, דְּמוּת כִּסֵּא; וְעַל, דְּמוּת הַכִּסֵּא, דְּמוּת כְּמַרְאֵה אָדָם עָלָיו, מִלְמָעְלָה. 26
כז וָאֵרֶא כְּעֵין חַשְׁמַל, כְּמַרְאֵה-אֵשׁ בֵּית-לָהּ סָבִיב, מִמַּרְאֵה מָתְנָיו, וּלְמָעְלָה; וּמִמַּרְאֵה מָתְנָיו, וּלְמַטָּה, רָאִיתִי כְּמַרְאֵה-אֵשׁ, וְנֹגַהּ לוֹ סָבִיב. 27
כח כְּמַרְאֵה הַקֶּשֶׁת אֲשֶׁר יִהְיֶה בֶעָנָן בְּיוֹם הַגֶּשֶׁם, כֵּן מַרְאֵה הַנֹּגַהּ סָבִיב--הוּא, מַרְאֵה דְּמוּת כְּבוֹד-יְהוָה; וָאֶרְאֶה וָאֶפֹּל עַל-פָּנַי, וָאֶשְׁמַע קוֹל מְדַבֵּר.

It's years of research with hebrew translators, with people that know hebrew. Latin also go's below 0 after Chirst, it is old but people can speak it, they teach it in class for kids. If they can read the characters on the pirtamids in Egypt then I don't see why it's not possible.

People still speak hebrew, it's not like a utipic langueage that is gone forever, you got your opinion I got mine.

I think I will call it a night.




[edit on 6-12-2009 by pepsi78]

Originally posted by pepsi78
What the biblical scolars say is that king of tire was a human but satan was in control of him, as in his body. The quote did describe satan becuse satan was in control of king tire. It's what the scolars say.
See you are not debunking anything, you just say the fallen one is not satan, but it's description is of satan, the only logical explenation was that satan was in control of king tire.

Controlling someone does not make you the person you are controlling, stop backpedalling and playing semantics, it was still Nebuchadnezzar.

I don't see how it's unfounded, I have evidence the cannianite deity is the same as king of tire. He fell just like satan.

It is called an analogy.

All I have to do is connect king of tire to satan and why king of tire was named the shining one, there is no other explenation.

Well then, maybe you should get started and prove all the Biblical scholars wrong.

Further more why don't you ask the people that worship lucifer directly?

In the Satanic Bible of 1969 Lucifer is acknowledged as one of the Four Crown Princes of Hell, particularly that of the East. Lord of the Air, Lucifer has been named "Bringer of Light, the Morning Star, Intellectualism, Enlightenment."

Now were are citing LaVeyist Satanists as a primary source? Who cares what or who they wroship, it does not change the historical conext of the word and its original usage. This is what you do not get, words change, meanings change, but the original intent does not. Objective people understand this and recognize that not all things are literal and intransient.

And you are wrong with biblical scholars, alot of biblical scholars put the puzzle toghether and know the name is well founded and that lucifer is the fallen angel.

Right, because the paganistic Romans believed in Judeo-Christian dogma prior to the conversion of the Empire. Your total inability to grasp history is astounding. Lucifer is not mentioned until 320 AD at the earliest. Milton does not make the Lucifer/Satan connection until a millenia later. What part are you missing? No one in Roman times equated Lucifer with Satan. You know why? They did not believe in Satan.

All this is ancillary however as you have not even come close to arguing my Original Post which is that Masons do not worship Lucifer.












[edit on 6-12-2009 by AugustusMasonicus]

Originally posted by pepsi78
It's years of research with hebrew translators, with people that know hebrew. Latin also go's below 0 after Chirst, it is old but people can speak it, they teach it in class for kids. If they can read the characters on the pirtamids in Egypt then I don't see why it's not possible.

Precisely, and they still get it wrong because no one in the present day completely understands Ancient Hebrew or Latin. There are numerous words that have no translation. Hell, there are even words in the Complete Sherlock Holmes that no one knows the meaning of and that was written in English, with no translations necessary, only a 100 years ago.

double post



[edit on 6-12-2009 by AugustusMasonicus]

triple post




[edit on 6-12-2009 by AugustusMasonicus]

Originally posted by AugustusMasonicus
reply to post by pepsi78

 

The point was to show that translating a mutli-millenially old document from an ancient language, loaded with obsolete phrases and words, would never yield a true translation. Many of the meanings are lost to time and history and cursory perusal will not give a true translation.

[edit on 6-12-2009 by AugustusMasonicus]

You WISH true meanings are/were lost in time...

Pepsi78 explained it to you 10/20 times? Yet you STILL DON'T GET IT???

Low iq or denial syndrome...