Talk:Lucifer

Lucifer is satan, A true Christian Response

In context, the proverb IS addressed TO Nebuchadnezzar or whomever is King of Babylon at the time of the writing, as evidenced in Isaiah 14:4. However, the section in question is NOT written ABOUT Nebuchadnezzar.

Lucifer---translated the "light-bearer"---here is called "shachar", translated here "son of the morning". The same word is used in Job 38:12. Interestingly enough, it is also used in an Old Testament verse that Jesus quoted at the lowest point of His earthly life...

Psalm 22:1 [To the chief Musician upon Aijeleth Shahar, A Psalm of David.] My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? why art thou so far from helping me, and from the words of my roaring?

Remember, Nebuchadnezzar is not the first to wish to be "like the Most High", nor was he the last. Satan was the first to desire to be like the Most High. Satan---the one who is called an angel of light in 2 Corinthians 11:14. His rebellion paved the way for the Fall of Man. And it is not uncommon in the Bible for the individual exemplifying Satanic "delusions of grandeur" to be equated with Satan, as with Jesus' calling Peter down when Peter rebuked Him.

In Ezekiel 28, God is again addressing an earthly king, Tyrus, but the being He's describing could not be Tyrus. Tyrus was not in Eden with Adam and Eve. Tyrus was not an annointed angel. Tyrus was not perfect in all his ways from the day he was created, for we are ALL born into sin from Adam on down. And yet, this is the being that God is describing.

Tyrus and Nebuchadnezzar were Satan-like men---antichrists, if you will. Their rebellion was such that God equated them with the very first rebel. Note that Nebuchadnezzar in Ezekiel 26:7 and again in Daniel 2:37 is called "a king of kings". He is the only one in the Bible to be called that, save for Jesus Himself, being called "THE King of kings". And yet, Nebuchadnezzar is dead, one final prophecy concerning him remaining unfulfilled. He never ruled the whole world. Yet, how can God give a failed prophecy?

Unless the TRUE focus of the prophecy---the spirit of Satan that filled him---would one day fulfill it in the Son of Perdition, the coming Antichrist! I'm sorry, but all the evidence does seem to point to Lucifer being the same individual as Satan. 81.159.241.38 10:16, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Misunderstanding

I think calling the traditional Christian interpretation a misunderstanding isn't particularly NPOV. Also, the star which falls from the sky is also mentioned in Revelation (IIRC), although maybe not explicity called Lucifer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.109.250.xxx (talk) 11:13, 6 December 2001 (UTC)

It is a historical misunderstanding, due to misunderstanding translations.

Something is translated correctly but narrowly - someone reads the narrow translation and misinterpret it when translating to another language. The same thing happen if you tell someone a story, and they tell it on. If I translate a text from norwegian into english, and then someone else translates it from english to, say, spanish .. then the spanish translation wouldn't reflect the norwegian text as good as the english one, as information WILL have been lost along the way.

Of course, you could always rewrite it into "Some people think that this is based on a Christian misunderstanding", however I don't think you'll find anyone presented with the facts arguing for the medieval view. :)

--arcade 11:32, 6 December 2001 (UTC)

I think you are ignoring a long tradition within Christianity of giving prophecies multiple interpretations. In particular, many prophecies dealing with no longer relevant events were later reinterpreted to have broader, more universal significance. Often current events and the end of the world were merged into one, making it very difficult to determine what is talking about today and what is talking about the end of the world (see, for example, the passage in Matthew concerning the fall of Jerusalem). Maybe this kind of expansion was illegitimate, maybe it was not, but it was not unknown in ancient Judaism or Christianity, nor medieveal or modern Christianity for that matter. (Witness the pesher method of interpretation used by Qumran, or typology). So just because the passage originally referred to the Babylonian King, doesn't mean that Christians like Jerome interpreted it as solely doing so -- they may well have interpreted it as also talking about a more cosmic event -- the fall of Satan from heaven.

And even if the original text is talking about the king of Babylon, it is quite possibly using Venus as an allegory for the king. In which case, the later interpretation of it is perfectly legitimate. Alternatively, if they intepreted it as reffering to the fall of Satan, the translation may have been influenced by an independent tradition that Satan was the morning star. And look at Revelation, where you will find several references to falling stars, one of which may be Satan (I am no expert at interpreting Revelations) -- which might indicate a prior existence of a tradition to the effect that Satan is the morning star fallen from the heavens.

Anyway, to summarise -- there are other possible explanations than it being an inaccurate translation. It might be a perfectly accurate translation, according to the religious presuppositions of the translators. -- SJK — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.109.250.xxx (talk) 12:07, 6 December 2001 (UTC)

Also on the topic of translation and religious 'opinion'. Please don't think that the Latin translators of scripture were simple-minded or unconnected to a larger tradition. Jerome was not only working out of Greek and Hebrew scripture texts, but had access to contemporary (5th C. A.D.) Jews and their opinions. He read commentaries written by and for Rabbinic Jews on their own texts. That background may or may not (I have no immediate idea) have influenced this translation, but it must be taken into consideration; not do contemporary scholars think it's a mistranslation of the Hebrew, but what did 5th century Jews say the text meant. --MichaelTinkler 12:16, 6 December 2001 (UTC)

You both raise interesting points.

I'm not sure on how to formulate the article, I've done a bit searching, and found the following, quite interesting article on it:

http://www.lds-mormon.com/lucifer.shtml (which I based my entry quite a bit on)

http://freemasonry.bcy.ca/Writings/LuciferandSatan.html

http://web2.iadfw.net/~elo/news/venus.html

Any recomendations on how to type this out, to reflect it all from a NPOV ?

--arcade 12:30, 6 December 2001 (UTC)

Well, you're going to have to start by explaining that the websites you're drawing on are extremely tricky. I don't know that any of the people on the first one address the issue that I raised, for instance. They're all talking about 'just translating the Hebrew', as though there wasn't any discussion about what the words signified as well as what they meant. The Web is not always the best place to find information about difficult topics. --MichaelTinkler 12:38, 6 December 2001 (UTC)

Uhm, no. The first one does, which I based my initial expanding of the Lucifer article on. The two last are explaning it quite a bit better. Still reading other pages, though.

Also, I expect that people that know more about it, sure will add to the article. :)

--arcade 12:56, 6 December 2001 (UTC)

The second link cites one source after 1908. And the site is an apologetic site ditancing Freemasonry from accusations of Satanism - not the kind of place to find a dispassionate, scholarly discussion of Rabbinic Judaism and its interpretations of Hebrew. I'm still not impressed. --MichaelTinkler 13:03, 6 December 2001 (UTC)

Hmm. I know it's bad form to feel as angry as I do right now, Dr. Tinkler, but I'll try to hold back my ready-to-erupt bile and talk reasonably about the GLBC page which you refer to as "an apologetic site ditancing [sic] Freemasonry from accusations of Satanism." First, the site is not an apology, at least as defined by the dictionary I checked. It is not an excuse or explanation for behaviour, but rather shows people that the supposed behaviour never existed in the first place. You seem to have a distinct hatred for any work of scholarship related in any way to esotericism. Admittedly, there have been quite a few of these works in the past which have been poorly done. I'll concede "The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail," and "The Hiram Key," for example. You're not really answering any argument whatsoever when you claim that a GLBC page about anti-masonry is "not the kind of place to find a dispassionate, scholarly discussion..." why not? Or are you using rhetoric in the absence of facts to get across an argument you "know" to be right? That sounds a lot like the academic sin of which you claim the GLBC is guilty.

I have no qualms whatsoever about (what appears to me) your enthusiastically-held Catholicism. You have the right to worship whatever Supreme Being you wish in whatever fashion you wish. Yet, on the Freemasonry/Talk page, you presented a letter from the very anti-masonic and frankly libelous Cardinal Law as a resource for information on Freemasonry. Which way should we have it, Dr. Tinkler? Shall we accept anyone's opinion, based only on their ability to back up that opinion with evidence (a position I would be glad to agree with), or shall we accept only the word of "experts" when dealing with their field? You can't have it both ways. Or perhaps you think we should accept the word of Catholics, but not people of other faiths?

Since I have started contributing what I can to Wikipedia, I have had nothing but the utmost respect for your dedication to your field, although I have argued with you about a number of points... in many cases, you have been correct, and I incorrect. But in this case, it seems to me that your bias has gone too far, and that you have lost that passion for understanding that no doubt informs both our lives. I hope that I have merely misinterpreted what you have meant, because I shudder to think that an educated individual could be as bigoted as you appear to be. --User:Alex Kennedy post actually made by Conversion script (talk ;; contrib) on 15:43, 25 February 2002 (UTC)

And the third link! My gosh! Go to the top-page of that one! [1]. His 'upcoming articles' list promises:

Elvis and Jesus Spotted in Las Vegas Casino,

God Fixes Leaking Toilet,

Rain Occurs After Four Years of Prayer,

Burned Out Lightbulb Proof of God, and

Holy Ghost Ate Santa's Cookies.

This is not the kind of thing you want to rely on! Now this is not to say that this person is incapable of presenting facts, but his entire purpose makes him un-useful for an encyclopedia! Remember, NPOV. --MichaelTinkler 13:09, 6 December 2001 (UTC)

There is quite a bit of difference between what he presents as 'stories' and his editorials.

But as I've already said, I've expanded the original twoline article with more information. _I_ think I've done it from a NPOV, albeit I'm sure people with more knowledge about it should expand upon it.

I could always try to edit it a bit more. :)

--arcade 13:13, 6 December 2001 (UTC)

A better explanation provided by Yet Anoter Link. :-)

http://www.theosophy-nw.org/theosnw/world/christ/xt-ibel2.htm

Quite a good article, from what I can see.

--arcade 13:41, 6 December 2001 (UTC)

Before I even click on it, arcade, I note that they're Theosophists. Since that ipso facto identifies them as interested in the esoteric side of things, it undercuts anything they have to say about ancient texts - Madame Blavatsky claimed all kinds of things, including lots and lots of 'lost knowledge'. Again, this does not mean that they are incapable of getting something right, but they have predilecitons for 'underground' interpretations. There are mainstream scholarly opinions on this material. You are unlikely to find them on the web. Sorry to sound so pedantic. --MichaelTinkler — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.153.24.xxx (talk) 14:20, 6 December 2001 (UTC)

And I get the feeling i'm sounding quite luserish. :-)

Ahwell, if I can't find the material on the web, I think i'll let the current version stay - and if someone with better knowledge about it comes along, they're sure to edit it to reflect things better.

I did however find a quite amusing site rejecting the Theosophist view .. with Michael Drosnin's "Bible Codes". I didn't know wheter I should laugh or cry .. but ohwell :)

--arcade 14:28, 6 December 2001 (UTC)

The article seems slanted against a common Christian view that Lucifer is Satan, God's enemy, someone to be thwarted by doing good deeds rather than to be worshiped. But since I adhere to that Christian view, I might be reading bias where NPOV really is.

Some theological commentators have been challenged traditional (or common) interpretations of Bible verses, pointing to updated translations. The issue of Biblical interpretation (hermeneutics?) is crucial to innumerable points of contention, such as whether homosexuality is sinful.

Can we rewrite the article to reflect all points of view with equal weight?

--Ed Poor

I agree, Ed, the current article is (a) a mess and (b) tendentious. Join in. --MichaelTinkler 15:18, 6 December 2001 (UTC)

1. Thanks for moving my comment, which I inadvertently put in the article.

2. I think a simple re-ordering would do it. First, give the traditional pov, explaining who translated/interpreted it. Then, give the reasons for the dispute and mention the Voodoo deity thing.

--Ed Poor 15:58, 6 December 2001 (UTC)

The new article is much better than what I managed. :) Now, could someone please point out the errors I made, in my attempt at NPOV, so that I can improve what I write in the future?

--arcade 16:01, 6 December 2001 (UTC)

Yeah, please, a whole article specifically geared to NOPV "sinners" like myself who want to "repent" of their bias and have valid points to make. We are the Jugglers, the sophisticated Men of Tomorrow who repudiate neutrality yet seek to attain the NOPV. (See ha, ha, only serious in the Hacker's dictionary if you think I'm just being sarcastic.) --Ed Poor 16:44, 6 December 2001 (UTC)

Btw, after reading through the lucifer article again, I find it a tad tempting to comment on the Rev 12:5 introduction, as that cannot point to Is 14:12, as 14:12 is about a _specific king_, about a man. (See verse 16). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arcade (talk • contribs) 17:43, 6 December 2001 (UTC)

You're right, I just threw that in. It probably belongs in Christian Views of Satan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ed Poor (talk • contribs) 17:48, 6 December 2001 (UTC)

Hmm, a couple more links, just to add'em in:

http://www.cresourcei.org/lucifer.html

http://www.apologeticspress.org/rr/faq/r&r9810q.htm

Both seems to be christian resources.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Arcade (talk • contribs) 09:42, 7 December 2001 (UTC)

Eye In the Triangle

The infamous 'Eye in the Triangle' of the Rosicrucians, Freemasons and Illuminati, seems to have a deep connection with the Sirius star system (a trinary star system, as believed by the Dogons and later confirmed by science in 1995). The pentagram also bears connection to Sirius (it was a symbol for Sirius in Ancient Egypt, as well as in several other cultures).

The pentagram consists of five triangles, typically with either 3 points pointing up or 2 points pointing down. 2-3-5. I actually have a theory that much of the 23-5 archetype that arises all over the place has to do with fractal patterns. Carbon-based organisms tend to include pentagram-based formations (apples, starfish, human hands, flowers, etc.), and this has to do with the Golden Mean, which directly relates to the pentagram geometrically, and is the rate of exponential growth in most carbon-based organic systems, as well as several non-organic (in the sense of non-carbon-based) systems, such as the Stock Market.

Therefore 23 and 5 showing up all over the place directly relates to the Pentagram, which also directly relates to the Holy Chaos, which portays a pentagram in opposition to an apple. The inner pentagon of a pentagram can be seen in crystals, and the outer star formation in carbon-based organisms like the Apple.

23 and 5 perhaps have so much synchronicity surrounding them because of a sort of Pythagorean ratio that shows up in all systems based on Phi (1.6180339).

Obviously, the Pythagoreans were obsessed with the pentagram and Phi (tatooed the pentagram on their palms and did a secret vesica pisces handshake).

Pythagoras' name means literally 'I am the Serpent', and in his esoteric religion, he apparently spoke of Sirius as being in some way sacred.

Get this: the eye in the pyramid was thought to have been adopted by Pythagoras as a symbol whilst travelling through Egypt, learning the secret alchemies of Thoth.

Thoth was the Egyptian god of wisdom, and was sometimes metaphorically called 'The Serpent of Wisdom'. It is thought by some that Thoth and the Mayan god Kukulcan are actually the same entity...

The Eye in the Pyramid archetype actualy may have originated with the Triple-Goddess symbolism associated with Sirius. Sirius was referred to by some ancient sects as 'The Mother Star'... The Greek word for this Great Mother was either written as a single letter, Mu, or as two succeeding letters, MU MU. Mu Mu also denotes Light, which was said to emanate magnificently from SIRIUS (and it does, of course, in comparison to other stars besides the Sun).

Light was/is known as the Menstruum of the Red Dragon to alchemists and high-level Freemasons. This relates to the ISIS myths.

Believe it or not, the ancient Egyptians referred to ISIS as actually being Sirius at one point in their history, and related Orion to her husband, Osiris. She was said to be the 'Bringer of Light'...

Which is interesting, because the Eye of Horus, deeply associated with ISIS, was one version of the Eye in the Triangle archetype... And, to the Freemasons at the turn of the 19th century, the Eye in the Pyramid was called 'The Eye of Lucifer'. Lucifer means 'light bearer'... Light is the Menstruum of the Red Dragon. The Red Dragonn is ISIS. Red as a colour has also been associated with Sirius for thousands upon thousands of years because Sirius appears red when it is close to the horizon...

- Khranus 03:08, 27 October 2003

Heosphoros over PHOSPHORUS

I made the change in the text on the comment that the Roman Lucifer is analogous to the Greek Phosphoros for the reason that this is inaccurate. The Greek counterpart to the Roman deity Lucifer was Heosphoros, spelled in Latin Heosphorus. Justin L. Smith 02:43, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)

(The one Wikipedia entry is a redirect to the other. Little elucidation in this "change".) --Wetman 23:12, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Removed sentence

"In Christianity, Lucifer has become synonymous with Satan, nevertheless. F" This sentence was recently removed by someone. As long as no confusions result, that's okay, right? --Wetman 23:12, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The "Christian viewpoint" or "Christian mythology"

I have edited

From the Christian viewpoint, Lucifer was second in command to God himself

to read

From the viewpoint of the Christian mythology that developed after Jerome, Lucifer came to be seen as having been second in command to God himself.

Some Christianists object in principle to the very concept of Christian mythology, but a neutral Wikipedia must distinguish between what is in Scripture and what has developed since. --Wetman 22:57, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

"Lucifer" in Esoteric Hitlerism

I noticed that someone had added a section on the relevance of Lucifer to Esoteric Hitlerism. But, when I went to back to take a look at the links included in the section, it was gone. It merely says:

"Lucifer naturally makes appearances in fiction offering a suggestion of esoterica. In Miguel Serrano's Nos, Lucifer is identified as the King of the White Gods."  

This makes no sense. What is "naturally makes appearances" supposed to imply? It sounds P.O.V. to me. I question why the text was ripped out without so much as an explanation. I have a strong sense of an anti-esoterica bias throughout this article. I also assume there is a even more virulent anti-Hitler bias. Put the two together, and we have a hysterical reaction that led to the immediate removal of relevant text.

From the previous edit:

"Lucifer" in Esoteric Hitlerism In Miguel Serrano's Nos, Lucifer is identified as the King of the White Gods, "whom others have called" Apollo, Abraxas, Siva, and Quetzalcoatl, also Odin-Wotan (and to the Cathars, Luci-Bel). "He came down from the Morning Star, Venus." As leader of the losing side of a stellar battle, he descended to the North Pole where he founded Ultima Thule, the capital of Hyperborea. The Grail is identified as having been a jewel which fell from his crown (broken by the sword of the enemy during his battle in the heavens). "He is the God of the Losers in the Kaliyuga" and "the supreme Guide of the Pilgrims of the Dawn" who will be the victor "when the Golden Age returns."

On your edit summary line, you cited "(moving text relevant only to a novel [[Nos[[)) Move it to where? "Moved" suggests you changed its location, where in fact you simply deleted it a few hours after it was entered. This is deeply disturbing and not the type of behaviour I've learned to expect from conscientious individuals on Wikipedia who are dedicated to to the pursuit and dispensation of all knowledge. --Curtsurly 23:23, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

(A mere click on the highlighted Nos in the text as it is here would have got this aggrieved editor to the unimpaired text, with all of its list of fictional characters, etc etc (very marginal to this Lucifer entry) safely at the entry to the fiction, where they relate, unedited.)

Interesting. So, why is this narrative, which readily employs Lucifer in its structure, considered marginal? Curtsurly 06:27, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The uses made of the traditional figure of Lucifer in the essay/fiction Nos belong there at the book's entry, to help the reader understand the book, with a link to Lucifer. At the same time, a mention of the book at Lucifer provides a link. Understanding historical Lucifer adds depth to reading the book published in 1984. But the book is peripheral to this discussion of the career of the idea of Lucifer. Normal sense of proportion. A brief mention of the novel about Peter, Shoes of the Fisherman might be found at Peter, but not a whole paragraph. Lucifer also appears in the "South Park" movie....

Excellent. Points heeded. Thanks for clearing this up so promptly. Curtsurly 04:23, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

(whew!) --Wetman 05:45, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

"Better to reign in Hell than serve in Heav'n."

the correct line number in the 1667 edition is 263. --Wetman 05:10, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Sermonette

The following testimonial sharing, though heartfelt, is not part of a neutral report on Lucifer:

The literal definition of Lucifer as "Bringer of the Dawn" is an apt and succint definition of his role within Christian Doctrine. Light is a universal metaphor for knowledge and learning, that is, mathematics, science, medicine, and engineering (External truths) and philosophy and religion (Internal truths, such as the Kabbalah). Lucifer is God's Angel of "Scientific Progress" — as it were — and represents the positive and productive applications of knowledge (to bring about the Dawn of Man's Divine Destiny). Conversely, Satan represents the use of knowledge to destroy and defile and derail and thwart Man's Divine Destiny (as Satan caused the Fall of Man from Grace, or, consonance with Divine Providence). For this reason was "Satan" translated to Greek as "Diabolos" (Devil) — "dia-" (across) and "ballein" (to throw) — meaning "he who throws obstacles across your path". That is, as God tries to lead humanity forward towards perfection and divinity and destiny, the Devil tries to corrupt, coopt, usurp, defile and destroy that destiny — to replace cities of marble and alabaster with decadence and decay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wetman (talk • contribs) 08:04, 14 March 2005 (UTC)

Uninformed etymology

"It is also arguable that "ferre" comes from the Latin word "ferrum", or iron." I moved this here. Ferrum and the verb ferre are not directly connected in Latin, so it is not in fact "arguable". --Wetman 10:17, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I've just edited the "Lucifer in Astronomy" section to be a little more unbiased, and a little more clear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fishdinner (talk • contribs) 16:31, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Rebellion in Scripture

This article states that 'Scripture' does not mention the rebellion and fall of Satan directly. But Revelations 12 describes it quite explicitly. Many people would consider Revelations part of Scripture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.33.128.142 (talk) 20:22, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Distracting blank spaces

Formatting that encases the framed table of contents in text, in just the way a framed map or image is enclosed within the text, is now available: {{TOCleft}} in the HTML does the job.

Blank space opposite the ToC, besides being unsightly and distracting, suggests that there is a major break in the continuity of the text, which may not be the case. Blanks in page layout are voids and they have meanings to the experienced reader. The space betweeen paragraphs marks a brief pause between separate blocks of thought. A deeper space, in a well-printed text, signifies a more complete shift in thought: note the spaces that separate sub-headings in Wikipedia articles.

A handful of thoughtless and aggressive Wikipedians revert the "TOCleft" format at will. A particularly aggressive de-formatter is User:Ed g2s

The reader may want to compare versions at the Page history. --Wetman 19:52, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Intro

I find it a little puzzling that the most common cultural understanding of Lucifer- essentially, as a name of Satan/the Devil- is at the very end of the intro paragraph. My thinking is that this sense should be expressed before the several sentances of etymology. Thoughts? Kiaparowits 23:09, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Lucifer appears in Greek mythology as Prometheus: he who brings light to humanity; it is used by poets to represent the Morning Star at moments when "Venus" would intrude distracting imagery of the goddess.

This says Lucifer appears in Greek mythology as Prometheus, but there is no information about this in the body of the article. Shouldn't it just say Roman mythology as the Morning Star? Can this be made clearer?--Cuchullain 18:35, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Someone was confusing Eosphorus with Prometheus: a student of Mme Blavatsky no doubt. Thanks: I fixed the reference. --Wetman 20:55, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

The Hebrew scriptures NEVER mentioned a fallen angel or the name Lucifer (A latin name - there was no latin language when the hebrew scriptures were written). The passage refered to actually states a fallen babylonian king. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.80.204.67 (talk) 15:09, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Category:Rebels

So "Fictional rebels" is a category that's "just asking for trouble", but "rebels" isn't, even though the Category:Rebels stage specifically states "In addition, this category is meant to collect historical rebels; for rebels in fiction, see Category:Fictional rebels"? Pretty absurd. Lucifer is obviously not a historical figure (and isn't even clearly defined as a single "figure", since much of this article discusses the word and the various things that have been ascribed this term, not just the Miltonian fictional character from Paradise Lost), so if he's not a fictional character either, we'll have to remove him from both "rebels" and "fictional rebels". I'll do that now, until we can come to a conclusion as to where to place him, if anywhere. -Silence 23:26, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

All I did was revert your edit, I didn't read the line in the Rebels category. I personally don't care where he's put, I just think someone's going to get angry if we say Lucifer is fictional.--Cuchullain 23:37, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

.. Why do you think that? That seems profoundly silly. If someone ever does object to that (which seems about as likely as someone objecting to putting Jupiter (god) in Category:Roman mythology on the grounds that Jupiter really exists and thus is not mythological), we'll cross that bridge when we come to it. Re-adding "fictional rebels" categorization, as it's an appropriate and accurate designation—even if Lucifer is secretly a real individual, he's almost 100% known for his existence in works of fiction. -Silence 03:08, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes I am upset, how dare you call him fictional, I do believe that he once rebeled and became satan, I believe in the devil all right but I don't worship him, instead I stay away from him -Marc — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.187.129.4 (talk) 05:27, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

The wailing yell??

The section recently added about Heilel meaning "the yell" seems to be a spurious interpretation. Could we have a source of scholarship for this interpretation? It seems fairly clear that a Hebrew reader would interpret the text as Heilel, or the planet Venus, especially seeing as it's directly followed by "son of the morning" (Venus is the morning star). Perhaps, if you take a Qabalistic approach, you could derive some extra understanding from an inventive interpretation like that, just as you could interpret the word by its numeric value. However that would not detract from the fact that the word is primarily intended as Heilel (Venus). I don't think it's appropriate to give obscure alternative mystical interpretations unless such interpretations have some prominent historical importance. I'm reverting the passage, and if anyone wants to restore it, I think it needs a reference indicating the importance of this idea. The passage in question is as follows:

Heilel has come to be translated "morning-star," but in Hebrew, the letter ה often indicates singularity, much as the English "the," in which case the translation would be ה "the" ילל "yell," or "the wailing yell." Some say Heilel signifies the planet Venus.

Fuzzypeg 11:01, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

fero is a latin word, not a Greek — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.177.52.146 (talk) 21:06, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Lucifer was not Satan

I have copied all of the following here, so that it can be discussed before including it in the article. My primary objection to its inclusion (in its current form) is that it appears to violate Wikipedia's No Original Research policy through both its tone and content. It is unsourced, and indeed duplicates at least some of the content already present in the article. At the very least, it needs to be heavily re-written; at most, it should not be included at all. --PeruvianLlama^(spit) 11:33, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

It is important to note that Lucifer was not Satan. In fact in Revelations Jesus Christ refers to himself as the Morning Star. Lucifer became confused with Satan when incorrectly translated as such. Then popular culture - poets, and writers over the centuries - have cemented the mistake to be gospel.

A brief explanation is simply this - The Bible is the word of God, written by men, edited by men, over centuries. Even the King James version of The Bible was still written by men, edited by men, over centuries. The purest truth is this: gospels were mistranslated by King James's translaters, and who was going to fact check them? Until centuries later...Hebrew scholars show the first time Lucifer is mentioned in the Bible it is in reference to a Babylonian King.

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? 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. Hebrew scholars and theologians the world over now 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 King James I to translate the Bible into current English did not use the original Hebrew texts, but used versions translated ... 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."

How did the translation "lucifer" arise? This word comes from Jerome's Latin Vulgate. Was Jerome in error? Not at all. In Latin at the time, "lucifer" actually meant Venus as a morning star. Isaiah is using this metaphor for a bright light, though not the greatest light to illustrate the apparent power of the Babylonian king which then faded."

Therefore, Lucifer wasn't equated with Satan until after Jerome. Jerome wasn't in error. Later Christians (and Mormons) were in equating "Lucifer" with "Satan".

The definitive word on the ArchAngel Lucifer: Lucifer(Light Giver) Erroneously equated with the fallen angel Satan due to a misreading of Isaiah 14:12; "How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning," an apostrophe which applied to Nebuchadnezzer, king of Babylon. It should be pointed out that the authors of the book of the old testament knew nothing of fallen or evil angels, and do not mention them, although, at times, as in Job4:18, the Lord "put no trust" in his angels and "charged them with folly," which would indicate that angels were not all that they should be. The name Lucifer was applied to Satan by St. Jerome and other Church Fathers. Milton in Paradise Lost applied the name to the demons of sinful pride. Lucifer is the title and principle character of the epic poem by the Dutch Shakespeare, Vondel (who uses Lucifer in Lieu of Satan), and a principal character in the mystery play of Imre Madach, The Tragedy Of Man. Blake pictured Lucifer in his illistrations to Dante.George Merideth's sonnet "Lucifer in Starlight" addresses the "fiend" as Prince Lucifer. Actually, Lucifer connotes star, and applies (or originally meant to apply)to the morning or evening star (Venus). To Spenser in "An Hymne of Heavenly Love" Lucifer is "the brightest angel, even the Child of Light".

The present article as it stands does not begin with its conclusions in this way, but simply reports on the uses and connotations of "Lucifer." Are there any instances or quotes in the above text that aren't already dealt with? Are there any direct, natural inferences to draw that haven't already been made in the article? --Wetman 17:44, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I've already left a message on the poster's talk page explaining why his post has been repeatedly removed, and asking him in future to attempt to work his edits into the appropriate places in the article (which should make it much easier for us other editors to figure out what's new material and what isn't). Hopefully if he has any new material he will try to post it again following my suggestions – I for one don't feel like sifting through this material with a fine-toothed comb, and would prefer to wait a little and see if he does the work himself. He's right, of course, about Lucifer not originally being Satan, but I think the article already indicates this. Fuzzypeg 01:10, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Satan/Lucifer

Something that hasn't been answered as well as I'd like it to be is the issue over whether Satan and Lucifer are two names of the same being, or two different entities all together. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Killridemedly (talk • contribs) 02:57, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Answer: They're fictional/mythological characters that were originally distinct but were later conflated in the public imagination, like Jupiter and Zeus. There is no absolute answer as to whether they're the "same being" or not because they aren't "real": all that can be said is what different people at different times have believed, and right now there's an extremely prevalent (indeed, an overwhelming majority) belief that Lucifer and Satan are the same, hence the two names being used interchangeably in many references to Satan. Whether people are "right" or not in this belief is rather irrelevant; yes, the Lucifer/Satan association was originally the result of a simple error, but many widely-held associations and beliefs in modern times derive from an error or misunderstanding, and that doesn't make them "wrong" when dealing with mythological or religious topics, any more than a work of fiction can be "wrong". One could just as easily say that the Satan/Lucifer usage is drawing from Milton's Paradise Lost (where those names genuinely do refer to the same being), rather than to the Bible (where they don't); it doesn't make such beliefs any more or less authentic. Judging whether Satan and Lucifer are the same being is like judging whether God and Jesus are the same being: all we can do is say what different people have believed at different times, not make absolutist claims of either "yes" or "no". -Silence 03:21, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

"Protestant epic?"

"Lucifer is a key protagonist in John Milton's (1667) Protestant epic, Paradise Lost."

In what way is Paradise Lost a "Protestant epic"? No such thing is mentioned on Paradise Lost 's article, but I was unwilling to take "Protestant" out because there might have been good reason for it. - The Great Gavini_talk 12:28, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

And just how is Satan a "protagonist"? Unsupported claims. Should all be removed and have different mention.Aaрон Кинни (t) 21:01, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Babylonian King = Lucifer

If you read the actual verse from Isaiah, it describes things after Lucifer's fall that have obviously not happened: the end of all wars, eternal peace, etc. Obviously, this is meant to be a prophecy. Furthermore, similar events are described to happen in the Bible ONLY after the Revelation: at no other point is there "eternal peace". Seeing as Satan/Beast/AntiChrist is supposed to rule the Earth from Babylon during the Revelation...

Could it be that maybe the Christians aren't so confused about their own scripture after all? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.132.225.145 (talk) 03:39, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Is this really as cut and dry as the page makes it out to be?

By immediately concluding that the use of Lucifer to describe a fallen angel is a mistake and mistranslation, the article inherently ignores entire millenia of Christian theology and debate. The book of Isaiah is ripe with dual metaphors: Babylon is commonly considered by any theologian worth his salt to be indicative of both the physical kingdom on earth, and the kingdom of Hell. It's not necessarily an either-or statement; the term "Lucifer" could apply to both Nebuchadnezzer and to the fallen angel. It seems presumptuous to me to immediately discredit two thousand years worth of scripture (and there is a great deal of Christian scripture outside of the Bible; it is commonly known that the modern-day Bible is nothing more than an early Church-approved collection of texts) simply because Hebrew scholars claim that the origin of the word comes from a mistranslation. It just doesn't seem very scholarly or neutral to me. There are two sides to this debate, and the article makes it seem much more one-sided than it is. Unless there is a grammatical structure in Hebrew that I do not know about that somehow absolutely confirms that the line isn't open to interpretation whatsoever, we're starting the article off on the completely wrong foot. Shouldn't the conclusions of theologians have some weight, considering this is a religious text and religious character in question? --Spectheintro 20:26, 7 July 2006 (UTC)spectheintro

Equating Babylon with Hell is also an innovation (or a misconception, depending on your perspective), since the concept of Hell doesn't appear biblically until the relatively late Book of Revelations. Previously neutral words describing death or the grave (Hebrew sheol and Greek hades) are conflated with another word Gehenna, the name of a valley near Jerusalem, and to these words together are applied the new concept of an eternal pit of torment. This concept was alien to Judaism and shows clear influence from the Roman concept of Tartarus. It could be argued that this new meaning simply revealed a poetic truth in these words — that's the charitable approach — or it could be argued that this was a foreign concept introduced to Christianity and requiring substantial mistranslation of words to achieve any scriptural support. The name of the city Babylon is even further removed, as is the name Hölle adopted by Martin Luther as a German translation, which referred to the underworld of the old Germanic religion, and had little similarity to either Tartarus or to a valley near Jerusalem, or to the pit of eternal torture of the Christians. The fact that many theologians take it for granted that all these things express the same idea does not in the slightest increase its historical accuracy.

Now in terms of this article, I agree that the claim of "misconception" or "innovation" should not occur in the very first sentence. However it seems most informative to explain the origins of the word Lucifer and its breadth of interpretations sooner rather than later. The popular Christian interpretation, while being common, departs radically from the historical meaning, and is far from the only interpretation in use today. It might surprise you to know, for instance, that the first thing I think of when someone says "Lucifer" is the minor poetic figure from Roman mythology, not the Satan of the Christians.

Basically, a religious interpretation can't really be judged on the basis of historic or scientific accuracy. But this article is about more than just a religious interpretation. Fuzzypeg☻ 06:08, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Hell is probably the wrong term for it; I suppose "kingdom of worldliness" (and therefore darkness) is a more accurate expression. And while I think there are definitely academically viable ways to analyze the Old Testament, I think the realm of religion is far enough from academia to make any concrete suppositions somewhat presumptuous. We can draw historical trends and infer cultural influence as much as we like, but eventually we have to concede whether or not we are willing to believe if any of these scripts are supernatural, or not--and if we claim they aren't, then analyzing them is going to prove fruitless because we're accepting the documents as fundamentally untrue. Likewise, if we accept the claim, it's impossible to then claim neutrality on the issue. Really what I'm trying to get at is that ultimately we should endeavor to present evidence on both sides of the argument--the academic side (although considering much of the history is provided by Judaic scholars, I wonder how neutral they can be) and the theological side--and tell the reader that the debate concerns practically 60% of the world's population. I don't think presenting only the historical interpretation of the word Lucifer is the best way to approach the subject matter--especially when that historical interpretation essentially invalidates one of the core tenants of the world's largest religion. The strictly historical view is certainly important, but the theological conclusions--and their supporting arguments--deserve an equal amount of representation.

Thank you for changing the intro, though--it now sounds a good deal more neutral than it did before.--Spectheintro 19:27, 10 July 2006 (UTC)spectheintro

"By immediately concluding that the use of Lucifer to describe a fallen angel is a mistake and mistranslation, the article inherently ignores entire millenia of Christian theology and debate." - Incorrect. What Wikipedia currently says about Lucifer is in conformance with the modern consensus opinion among the overwhelming majority of Biblical scholars. Correctly analyzing scriptural evidence is not "ignoring entire millennia of Christian theology"; we do not have to dogmatically assume that medieval theologians were right about everything in order to not ignore them. Indeed, a historically critical view allows for better understanding of those centuries of theological debates, or at least of their origins.

"Babylon is commonly considered by any theologian worth his salt to be indicative of both the physical kingdom on earth, and the kingdom of Hell." - Even if most Christian theologians thought that Babylon is always a symbol for Hell (and they don't), Christian theologians did not write Isaiah. :)

"the term "Lucifer" could apply to both Nebuchadnezzer and to the fallen angel." - Cite a reputable source that asserts this and we'll add it to the article. We are prevented from adding our own speculation and interpretations to this article by Wikipedia's policies of WP:NPOV, WP:NOR and WP:V.

"I think the realm of religion is far enough from academia to make any concrete suppositions somewhat presumptuous." - An encyclopedia like Wikipedia is an academic resource, not a religious one (i.e., it deals with religious topics academically, not religiously). Are you saying that it's "presumptuous" for Wikipedia to include any information about religious beliefs? :/ That we're far removed from being a religious institution makes us more able to neutrally deal with the diversity of religious beliefs out there, not less. For example, I'd rather read a neutral, well-referenced, academic account of Scientologist beliefs than a Buddhist or Christian or Wiccan or Zoroastrian or Scientologist one!

"eventually we have to concede whether or not we are willing to believe if any of these scripts are supernatural, or not--and if we claim they aren't, then analyzing them is going to prove fruitless because we're accepting the documents as fundamentally untrue" - Nonsense. The father of history, Herodotus, had plenty of supernatural claims in his Histories, yet we are perfectly able to historically and culturally analyze them without assuming that they are 100% inerrantly true with respect to claims about deities, nymphs, etc. And even outside of the realm of historical analysis, there is a huge domain of literary analysis that is fruitful entirely regardless of how true or false the Bible is; asserting that we can't fruitfully analyze the Bible at all unless we assume that its supernatural claims are correct is like asserting that we can't analyze The Tempest unless we believe in magicians, sprites and witches. Something can be true in some respects, while still being false in others; something can be reliable in some areas, and unreliable in others. In fact, almost everything (and everyone) is.

By the way, I recommend that you reconsider the comments "simply because Hebrew scholars claim that the origin of the word comes from a mistranslation" and "although considering much of the history is provided by Judaic scholars, I wonder how neutral they can be" before you continue, as these comments can easily be interpreted as profoundly bigoted against Jewish scholars, and are certainly inflammatory misrepresentations. -Silence 21:03, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

"What Wikipedia currently says about Lucifer is in conformance with the modern consensus opinion among the overwhelming majority of Biblical scholars." - Which Biblical scholars? None of the ones I have spoken with have ever contended that the debate is closed. That's my point in its entirety: it's perfectly valid to say that there are two schools of thought, both of which claim different conclusions, but to come out and say "nope, those guys are wrong" is too strong of a statement for an NPOV.

"Correctly analyzing scriptural evidence is not "ignoring entire millennia of Christian theology"; we do not have to dogmatically assume that medieval theologians were right about everything in order to not ignore them. Indeed, a historically critical view allows for better understanding of those centuries of theological debates, or at least of their origins." -- It is ignoring Christian theology if we categorically assume that their interpretation is a mistake and has no basis in scripture (which is untrue to begin with--it only has questionable basis in canonical Jewish scripture predating 200 B.C., as there are clear references to this fall in the Apocrypha), and this conclusion is even more suspect when all of the sources quoted in this article reference only Jewish or Hebrew scholars. It is fairly obvious that a Hebrew scholar would have a different interpretation of the Old Testament than a Christian scholar; to assume otherwise is simply naive. I don't think either interpretation should be given more weight than another, period. If you can show me a large and verifiable body of Christian and Jewish Biblical scholars who claim that there is no reason whatsoever to conclude Lucifer and Satan are the same being, then this argument wouldn't be happening. But all I see in this article (or saw, as it is) was a statement that the medieval and modern Christian interpretation is wrong, the classical Hebrew interpretation is right, and a bunch of Hebrew sources confirming that their view was the right one. You don't see how that isn't NPOV?

"Cite a reputable source that asserts this and we'll add it to the article. We are prevented from adding our own speculation and interpretations to this article by Wikipedia's policies of WP:NPOV, WP:NOR and WP:V." -- I will look for one, preferably a book, since most websites dealing with this are slanted either way.

"Are you saying that it's "presumptuous" for Wikipedia to include any information about religious beliefs? :/" -- No, I'm saying we shouldn't include caveats to religious beliefs, i.e.: "Modern Christians believe this, but that's because they made a mistake in translating something." An NPOV would read as follows: "Modern Christians believe this, but there is considerable debate that this belief stems from a mistranslation." See the difference? My point is that we can only go so far on an academic site in analyzing religion. Once we start evaluating particular beliefs (such as the Lucifer one) if we try and make concrete presumptions (this is right, that is wrong, because of blah blah blah) we're treading on very thin ice. We should just avoid it entirely, and just present the facts as they appear. From where I'm standing, the debate is open and lively. Let's reflect that.

"The father of history, Herodotus, had plenty of supernatural claims in his Histories, yet we are perfectly able to historically and culturally analyze them without assuming that they are 100% inerrantly true with respect to claims about deities, nymphs, etc. And even outside of the realm of historical analysis, there is a huge domain of literary analysis that is fruitful entirely regardless of how true or false the Bible is; asserting that we can't fruitfully analyze the Bible at all unless we assume that its supernatural claims are correct is like asserting that we can't analyze The Tempest unless we believe in magicians, sprites and witches. Something can be true in some respects, while still being false in others; something can be reliable in some areas, and unreliable in others. In fact, almost everything (and everyone) is." -- You're misunderstanding my statement. I am not saying we can't fruitfully analyze the Bible academically; I'm saying we can't fruitfully analyze Biblical beliefs without drawing upon theology. This is not the same as Herodotus at all. Herodotus recorded historical events and then attributed supernatural causes to them (occasionally). His account of history and his account of the supernatural can easily be separated because no one in the modern world attributes their fundamental beliefs to Greek mythology. The Old Testament is the history of the Hebrew people and the foundation of a belief system for three separate religions. Certain lines in the Bible form the basis for multiple and interlinked systems of belief for billions of people. There's a world of difference between saying "this interpretation of Herodotus is wrong for the following reasons" and claiming to be neutral, and saying "this interpretation of the Bible is wrong for the following reasons" and then claiming to be neutral. Religion is far too touchy to try and make concrete conclusions about and still attempt to maintain neutrality. Which is, again, why I think we should endeavor to show that there is a debate, state each side, and leave it be afterwards.

"By the way, I recommend that you reconsider the comments "simply because Hebrew scholars claim that the origin of the word comes from a mistranslation" and "although considering much of the history is provided by Judaic scholars, I wonder how neutral they can be" before you continue, as these comments can easily be interpreted as profoundly bigoted against Jewish scholars, and are certainly inflammatory misrepresentations." -- Anyone who interprets them as bigoted or inflammatory is just being naive. Jewish scholars are going to be influenced by their own tradition when they study the Old Testament, and that by definition affects their neutrality. It is their Holy Book; I don't expect them to be neutral, any more than I expect a Christian to be neutral about the same subject. I take it as a given that we're not going to find NPOV coming out of any camp regarding religion. So in order for Wikipedia to maintain an NPOV, we should present all sides, maintain that neither is right or wrong, and then report as the debate continues. If you can show me verifiable proof that there is no debate and the only people that think the issue is still undecided are myself, the scholars to whom I've spoken, and random other crazies, then the wiki page should reflect that. But I don't think you're going to be able to show, conclusively, that the issue is closed, and as a result the page should not use language like "misinterpretation" because that inherently assumes one view is more correct than another. --Spectheintro 17:51, 12 July 2006 (UTC)spectheintro

Errors removed

• " (who was supposed to be very beautiful)": this is inane without a reference. By whom? When was this embroidered?

• " where he becomes known as "the god of this world" and the "prince of the powers of the air.". However, this common belief is not officially accepted by most Christian denominations, on the grounds that it exalts evil to an overly high position and is not clearly supported by any passage in the Bible." Unsourced contentions belong here at Talk.

• Illus. caption: corrected a sliding thought that seemed to identify Venus the goddess with Venus as morning star, therefore Venus as Lucifer.

• Cut i'm bsergi from the Latin quote: please watch this article more closely.

• The following needs to be sourced (who's saying this stuff?) and made to be less of a personal essay in Spiritual Self-Improvement etc if it is to be returned to the article:

"It was viewed that when Lucifer left/fell from Heaven, he kept his original radiance, but mixed with Darkness. When Lucifer arose not as Lucifer of Heaven, but Lucifer of Hell, he was Noctifer "Night Bringer." The process of fusing both Light and Darkness inside yourself is the main goal of Left Hand Path followers, the "Luciferians." It is even said that Luciferianism is not "Left nor Right...But Centered." Philosophical Luciferianism in the Luciferianism page, shines more on this subject."

"Shining" pages illuminate, it would seem.

• The following is not a report on writings or actions. Whose interpretation is this? Who are "they"?

"Naming Jesus the "Morning Star" was a way to "replace" the title of "Morning Star." Lucifer's title "The Morning Star" was becoming to synonymous with what Christian's called the Devil, so they tried to "undo" what they had done and "erase" Lucifer with said title."

(I have not viewed the cruft at the bottom.) --Wetman 05:08, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Lucifer's Deception: The Light that deceives the world.

" Lucifer was originally a Latin word meaning "light-bearer" (from lux, "light", and ferre, "to bear, bring"), a Roman astrological term for the "Morning Star", the planet Venus. The word Lucifer was the direct translation of the Greek eosphorus ("dawn-bearer"; cf. Greek phosphorus, "light-bearer") used by Jerome in the Vulgate. "

It is with great priviledge that I submit this to this encyclopedia.

Light, is a term that often referred to as Truth, as in Jesus Christ. However this is a paradox that might be easily solved.

Lucifer, satan, the devil deceived Adam and Eve into believing that by taking of a fruit from the tree of knowledge they would be like God to know The Truth in the infinite sense; they were deceived.

This original sin I propose is still with us. You see Truth can Lie, as half-truths an unknown dimension to Truth; a paradox.

In 1994 it was noticed that the current definition of half-truth was incorrect, and that the related logical implications to truth and lie were not identified.

So the term Lucifer, the light that deceives the world, can be identified in the deceptive world of half-truths, the light, the truths that deceive.

From the Jesus Christ Code.

I hope you can place a link to the site, and also place a reference to half-truths, to pages dealing with the devil.

http://jesuschristcode.com

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Caesarjbsquitti (talk • contribs) 17:16, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

An encyclopedia article is simply a report on what has been written and thought on a subject, clarifying origins and connections to other subjects. An inspirational talk isn't encyclopedic. But thank you for sharing. --10:37, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. I hope that your encyclopedia takes the comments and presents what they believe to be objective critical observations into the deception that has fooled mankind since perhaps the days of Adam and Eve; truth can lie, and that is not in our dictionaries. Thank you !

--Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 03:42, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

No. This encyclopedia does not incorporate "critical observations" of unknown individuals; it only presents information from reliable sources, which is information from well-know, respected authors. We don't include our own analyses, which would constitute original research. Unfortunately if you want to present a religious theory here, you need to find a well-known author who held that theory and quote him or her. Fuzzypeg☻ 06:12, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Is Helel a Canaanite or Babylonian deity?

The article says, "Helel was a Babylonian / Canaanite god who was the son of another Babylonian / Canaanite god named Shahar." What is the source of this? I can find mention that in Canaanite mythology, Shachar is the son of El, in the Deliriums Realm link at the bottom of the article, which quotes a Ugaritic poem. I can also find mention that Venus is part of the astrological region of Ishtar (http://home.comcast.net/~chris.s/assyrbabyl-faq.html#Ishtar). So, there should be a source for saying Helel is either of Canaanite or Babylonian/Assyrian mythology. Otherwise, the statement is speculative and not fact.

12.72.30.189 16:57, 4 September 2006 (UTC)cvcjr, 04 Sep 2006

Removed quote

I removed a long quote, only marginally concerning Lucifer, of a spurious letter purportedly "prophesying" WWII. --Wetman 16:03, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Freemasonry

I recently corrected some particularly scurrilous attacks against Freemasonry which were placed by someone who hadn't done the most basic research - the claims made have been exposed as a hoax for well over a century! More recently someone has changed my wording "despite the fact that Freemasonry is not a religion" to "despite the perception that Freemasonry is ostensibly not a religion" (i.e. implying that Freemasonry is a religion and is simply trying to pull the wool over people's eyes).

Firstly, the sentence is very wishy-washy. Wikipedia shouldn't operate by underhanded innuendo, but by saying things clearly. If that's what you really think, say so clearly and we can debate it.

However Freemasonry is not a religion. They employ elements of Christianity in their ritual (just as other groups do, for instance the US government, the Boy Scouts, etc, etc), but they have amongst their ranks Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindi, Buddhists, Bahaii, Wiccans, and the list goes on. No-one is required to renounce any aspect of their faith or their morality. One of the great things about Freemasonry is that it brings these people together and stresses the value of all humanity, regardless of race or religion.

If anyone wants to make claims against the morality of Freemasonry, please do so openly, rather than through veiled insinuations, and support your claims with reliable sources. Fuzzypeg☻ 01:28, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Photo and caption at top of page don't match

The caption says "Lucifer, as depicted in Collin de Plancy's Dictionnaire Infernal (1863)." The picture is of Lucifer beer. Kakashi64 14:22, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Jesus=Lucifer/Satan?

I find it intresting to know that "the morning" is one of the many epithets of God. So "Son of the Morning"(Lucifer/Satan) is equivilent to "Son of God"(Jesus Christ). As in the article, Lucifer was once a high archangel. And finally, the Morning Star hasn't set yet...

So, possibly

1. Lucifer=Christ after He "set"(fell)

2. Christ=Christ before He "set"(fell)

Oh, and btw - I don't mind posts on my user page calling me crazy :). Link hyrule5 19:12, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Splitting article / Fictional references

What do people think about giving the long list of cultural references its own page, eg. List of Minotaur references in popular culture? Sparsefarce 17:03, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I think the pop culture references to Lucifer is getting too long and should be moved to Lucifer (disambiguation). Is there any objections?

Xuchilbara 00:04, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I think there are too many generally-irrelevant items as it is: about 90% of those listings should be deleted right out (in my opinion, of course). --Bossi (talk ;; contribs) 04:15, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Further Disambiguation of term Lucifer

The introduction of this article begins nicely along this line of disambiguation, but I think a firmer stand is called for so as to differ from the common misconception of "Lucifer" as being the same being titled "HaSatan" (they are both titles). Most studied theological scholars that I have heard of agree that the two beings are different and there are now numerous works to support this. Isn't it time for the article to reflect this?

Lucifer - where did the wo...true meaning? and CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Lucifer.

Also, I have a copy of a massive encyclopaedic Bible, published I don't know when, circa 1980's, and is the first Bible that I have ever seen make an attempt to disambiguate:

Lucifer, in Is. 14:12 this word refers to the king of Babylon, not to Satan

Note also that most newer published Bibles do not even attempt add a definition of the word Lucifer, pointing to the non-relation with Satan. -- Kerowren (talk • contribs • count) 05:29, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Please read the policy page "No original research". This is not the place to get your own theories off your chest, but to discuss what reputable scholars have said about the subject. I happen to heartily agree with most of what you've said, but that doesn't really count for anything here. What would be really helpful is if you could find reliable sources who make these arguments, so we could work some of them into the article. Fuzzypeg☻ 21:00, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not a reputable Bible scholar? Derral K. Fuller ````

Trivia

I believe Anthony DiPierro was correct in removing the long lists of trivia.[2] The edit was undone by another good-faith editor. I would like to see anything of significance moved into the main prose of the article and the lists go away again. They just encourage others to add bits of trivia. Comments? ✤ JonHarder ^talk 12:12, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I strongly agree. Seeing that gargantuan, overgrown trivia (aka "Cultural references") section makes me cringe. nadav (talk) 13:55, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Persian tradition

I've added : This Islam related article is in need of attention from an expert on the subject.

I did this because I'm sure that what is posted under this headline is totally untrue from the Islamic point of view, but I am not sure what is the exact Islamic point of view of Lucifer or in arabic Iblees, so I simply asked for the assistance of an Islamic expert on the subject to revise this article.

I'm again sorry for not posting this the first time I'm a new wikipedian and I didnt know/wasn't sure about what I should do. nÅnNü 14:23, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi -- I don't really know how to address this because the section consists of an accurate quote (from Campbell) and a teaching from a specific person who I have no reason to believe didn't really teach this. I'm going to remove the assistance box and add a link to the article on Iblis (Islamic satan) with a comment that these ideas are not a part of mainstream Islamic belief. Yonderboy 00:02, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

King of Babylon

Isaiah 14:12 is obviously referring to the King of Babylon if you read the whole chapter. And the "covering cherub" mentioned in Ezekiel 28:14,16 is referring to the King of Tyrus.

And nowhere in the Bible does it say Lucifer is Satan. I believe those verses are implying the king of Tyrus and king of Babylon were "possessed" by 2 former angels. What this has to do with Satan, I don't know.

Luzbel

What is the deal with Luzbel? Is it another name for Lucifer? Is it only in Hispanic culture?7 --Error 22:51, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Google Books finds a passage in Yakov Malkiel's Romance Philology stating that Luzbel can be found only after 1511 and that Corominas explains it as being derived from Luciabel. Maybe there is more in Corominas' Diccionario crítico etimológico castellano e hispánico. 88.70.88.235 17:18, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Lucifer "the light" the deceives the world.

Original research lead....Light that deceives the world can be a metaphor for the 'half-truth'(2), a truth that lies.

The Jesus Christ Code.

Based on the logical continatuion of Alfred Whitehead treating truth as whole truth plays the devil.

Unfortunately people did not understand this to mean that truth can lie, when it is part of the whole truth.

--Caesar J. B. Squitti  : Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 23:03, 7 September 2007 (UTC)