neologist yes i agree with you.....my point is that the name lucifer is given to be satan or the devil by christians........
neologist wrote:You all realize that the words lucifer, satan, and devil, are all titles, do you not? Just the same as god, lord, senator and dweeb.
That we have chosen to personify the title Satan (rebel, opposer) with the individual who became the Devil (slanderer) does not change their generic meaning.
We do not know and may never know the true name of the creature we refer to as Satan. No doubt his name will be stricken from the cosmic memory as his very life will likewise be destroyed in the lake of fire.
So Dweeb is a title? Who knew . . . Ladies and Gentlemen, please open up your hearts and give a warm welcome to Dweeb Richardson, our own hometown boy ! ! !
On the subject of the lake of fire, wouldn't it be a Hell of a lot hotter (pun intended) standing next to a light as of the light of ten thousand suns? The Throne of God ain't exactly gonna be a walk in the park . . .
There is a difference betwen light and heat.
Go stand next to one sun, Bubba, nevermind ten thousand, and then get back to me on the subject of the difference between light and heat.
The lake of fire is merely a symbol for complete destruction. And the title Dweeb should be reserved for the quintessential example, the typical representative, of dweebness. Any suggestions?
There seems to be a disjunct in this thread betwen the historical and spiritual.
Perhaps a more concise definition of dweebness is in order. Are dweebs necessarily harmless? Then, perhaps Regis would qualify.
One moment. I must consult my talisman.
Setanta wrote:Go stand next to one sun, Bubba, nevermind ten thousand, and then get back to me on the subject of the difference between light and heat.
Whoooaaaa, I see what ya mean
However, it was about the
light of the sun, not the temperature.
:wink:
I'm going to cede defeat to Kate, not least because I'd have to go to the British Library to find the information I need and that would take far too much time and money to achieve.
However, I cede defeat on one condition.
Kate, you do not make a post with a smiley in it or the acronym, LOL. You've been doing it throughout this entire thread and it's been getting on my nerves, not least because it makes you sound annoyingly smug, which makes agreeing with you seem like an act of humiliating submission.
Sorry wolf my intention wasn't smugness....I will stop using smileys' and lol's....Im just a happy person.......
ok ok that is the last one....and i honestly wasn't trying to be rude.....I've enjoyed this discussion......you're a worthy debater
I accept your apology. There's no need to stop using smileys. It's just you need to be more careful with them, as the position of your smilies tend to give the impression that you're being a smug unmentionable.
There is something that I'd like to point out, before I leave this discussion altogether. I was just going through my old posts and I realised I failed to mention something I had once found about the original Hebrew phrase in Isaiah 14:12.
I could have sworn I said something about it, but I didn't. Well, anyway in Isaiah 14:12, the phrase commonly associated with modern day Christians to Satan is "Oh, morning star, son of the dawn" is actually הילל בן שחר (heilel ben-schahar).
Heilel ben-schahar literally translates to "Helel, son of Shahar", not "Oh morning star, son of the dawn". Neologist once stated that Helel was a title. However, I've done a little bit more research (related to something entirely different) and found that Helel is actually the name of a Babylonian/Canaanite god and that Shahar is also the name of a Babylonian/Canaanite god.
Shahar was the God of the Dawn and he had a son, Helel, the God of the Morning Star. This explains why the translators put down "Oh, morning star, son of the dawn".
Now, if you know anything about Babylonian mythology, you'll know that the Babylonians had a huge pantheon of gods and one Chief God called Anu. One day, Helel sought to take the throne of the Chief God himself, but was caught and cast down to the abyss.
As the taunt in Isaiah 14:12 is directed at the King of Babylon, that bit of the taunt which refers to him as having his throne above heaven makes far more sense. God, in that verse, is asking his followers to taunt the Babylonian King by comparing him to a fallen pagan god, as the King of Babylon would only have understood references to his religion.
So, in summary. Helel is not a title. Isaiah 14:12 is referring to the King of Babylon, but also comparing him to two pagan gods that he believed in. The passage is commonly associated with Christians by Satan and may be a retconning of the original meaning, but ultimately it doesn't really matter.
interesting ....where can i look this up?
Thanks Wolf, i learned alot from that. Now when some of my Christian friends confront me with this verse i have something to say.
Wolf ....what is your belief...are you athiest, agnostic, another religion etc......?
kate4christ03 wrote:interesting ....where can i look this up?
All over the place. For the Helel ben Shahar thing, I first saw it in the Wikipedia article on Lucifer and am quite surprised to see that the Hebrew letters don't come out very well in these forums.
Wikipedia is normally very good, as the number of knowledgable posters far outweights the unknowledgeable ones. The Lucifer article, however, lacked any good references. Thus, as Wikipedia is open to vandalism and changes from people who don't know what they're talking about, I had to go to the following sites to cross check the allusion thing:
http://www.deliriumsrealm.com/delirium/articleview.asp?Post=184
http://www.bible.org/Netbible/isa14_notes.htm (search for the paragraph that starts sn. It's near the end of the paragraph).
Yes, but according to wikipedia the number of african elephants has tripled in the last 3 months, COLBERT REPORT!
