Talk:Lucifer/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

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 portrays a pentagram in opposition to an apple. The inner pentagon of a pentagram can be seen in crystals,such as dimonds and the outer star formation in carbon-based organisms like an 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 actually 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.

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'

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 Dragon is ISIS. Red as a color 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

The above irrelevant rambling has been on this page for 5 years. I suggest we delete it. Sirius was the Dog Star, not the Morning Star. Tioumoutiri was the Egyptian Morning star, and an equivalent of the Roman Lucifer, both associated with Venus. The rest seems unrelated to Lucifer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.148.123.76 (talk) 22:13, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

A very interesting background on the relationship of the Bearer of Light as the name relates throughout history. Thanks for the education Khranus, what does that name mean? Aleister Wilson (talk) 15:17, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

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 November 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 November 2004 (UTC)

I would say it was alright except for the christians that do believe that Satan and Lucifer are the same thing. (Explaining ahead) Lucifer was the angel that rebelled against god and was cast out of heaven to live on earth, not hell. Satan was/is the ruler of hell, and in some interpretations the son of Lucifer, though I have never found a credible source for this last part. Not only this but Lucifer was fairly human, while Satan was more of a beastman, having in many translations a goats head and legs (Possibly derived from the fauns in Greek mythology).--Adunian Prophet 17:27, 5 Aug 2008 (CTC)

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 December 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 February 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 February 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)

Many people would not consider Jesus to be the Morning Star either. (Revelations 22:16) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.148.123.76 (talk) 22:05, 28 August 2008 (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)

Freemasonry fits all the criteria as a religion Its leader is a WORSHIPFUL MASTER (POPE) ;It uses holy books ( depending which country you're in); It has temples to meet in; songs are sung ; ITS MEETINGS ARE "REGULAR" ; there are "dues" (tythes). It has a membership roster ;it allows women and blacks etc ; It does NOT allow members to QUIT---"once saved , always saved" ; It has deacons (Tylers); It does "good works", it makes "good" men better ; It worships a higher being ; It believes in LUCIFER as the supreme being---ALBNERT PIKE at the supreme lodge counsil ; It has historians and a written history , Mackey et/al ; and on and on---to say Freemasonry is NOT a religion is to be IGNORANT ofthe craft , AND to contradict the grand secretary of the grand lodge of Ontario in Mississauga ONT.Can. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.120.179.7 (talk) 22:57, 11 September 2007 (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)

Yes, this article is missing the fact that Jesus called himself the Morning Star. Revelation 22:16 (New International Version): "I, Jesus, have sent my angel to give you this testimony for the churches. I am the Root and the Offspring of David, and the bright Morning Star." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.148.123.76 (talk) 21:49, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Satan aspired to be as God and to be worshipped as such.He was an angel of light but led a rebellion against God. Due to his disobedience he was cast out of heaven.He is also a liar and coniver. The Babylonian king in Isaias 14:12 also aspired to be above God and was therefore punished.In this verse he is referred to as Lucifer(the morning star or light bearer).Jesus is the true morning star and Heavenly Creator. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.17.152.8 (talk) 01:18, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of your POV, Jesus did state he was the Morning Star. If this article is going to co-opt the name of an ancient God in order to promote Christian POV, it could at least include the one and only quote on the subject from Jesus; I've heard his opinion is generally important in Christianity.

so you're saying that any of God's titles, characteristics can become invalid when the devil tries to use them ? God doesn't change but angels who have fallen have changed.

Also the Bible does not state that Satan was ever a "High Archangel" it says that Satan is 'the deceiver', and it also says the Morning Star (translated as Lucifer in Latin) was cast from heaven. The idea that Satan/the devil is a former Archangle is actually an Islamic idea. I'm not going to call hyrule5 crazy, but perhaps you should read the bible if you're planing on concocting theories about it's meaning.

An alternate perspective (not mine; I specialized in Religious History and so know a lot of bizarre things, so please don't turn this into a flame war) could be that Jesus was claiming to be the Morning Star / Jewish Devil, in order to relieve humanity from the original sin, as he knew he was going to be executed by humans. As in: Serpent in Garden caused humanity to die, humanity kills devil, and now things are even. He did promise his followers that they would not die, which is what the serpent told Eve. As they did die, that would also make Jesus a deceiver, on par with the Serpent / Jewish devil. Nevertheless, the Jewish people didn't seem to believe him, and are still guilt ridden about that apple incident. 68.148.123.76 (talk) 11:24, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

bible code for the suffering servant passage "Jesus is my name". this is a passage that Judaism takes the stance is not talking about the messiah. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grmike (talk • contribs) 11:14, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Nu 24:17 (NIV) "I see him, but not now; I behold him, but not near. A star will come out of Jacob; a sceptre will rise out of Israel..."

Isa 9:1 but in the future he will honor Galilee of the Gentiles, by the way of the sea, along the Jordan, The people walking in darkness have seen a great light; on those living in the land of the shadow of death a light has dawned. keywords LIGHT, DAWNED. This is who God uses to HONOR Galilee. The devil was cast out of heaven and is no longer a bright light, He can disguise himself though. another thing is that lucifer means morning star not satan. when the morning comes again, do you think satan is going to be up there as the 'bright morning star' ? no because he was cast down. that doesn't mean there won't be a star there bright and early in the morning when God comes back in all HIS GLORY in the BRIGHTNESS OF HIS COMING. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grmike (talk • contribs) 10:51, 6 October 2009 (UTC) It is interesting to note that the concept of the “morning star” is not the only concept that is applied to both Jesus and Satan. In Revelation 5:5, Jesus is referred to as the Lion of the tribe of Judah. In 1 Peter 5:8, Satan is compared to a lion, seeking someone to devour. The point is this, both Jesus and Satan, to a certain extent, have similarities to lions. Jesus is similar to a lion in that He is the King, He is royal and majestic. Satan is similar to a lion in that he seeks to devour other creatures. That is where the similarities between Jesus, Satan, and lions end, however. Jesus and Satan are like lions in very different ways.

The idea of a “bright morning star” is a star that outshines all the others. Satan, as perhaps the most beautiful creation of God, probably the most powerful of all the angels, was a bright morning star. Jesus, as God incarnate, the Lord of the universe, is THE bright and morning star. Jesus is the most holy and powerful “light” in all the universe. So, while both Jesus and Satan can be described as “bright morning stars,” in no sense is this equating Jesus and Satan. Satan is a created being. His light only exists to the extent that God created it. Jesus is the light of the world (John 9:5). Only Jesus’ light is self-existent. Satan may be a bright morning star, but he is only a poor imitation of the one true bright morning star, Jesus Christ, the light of the world. Grmike (talk) 10:57, 6 October 2009 (UTC)GRMIKE

this is like saying the lion of Judah (Israelite tribe that the messiah comes from) is satan because he's also called a roaring lion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grmike (talk • contribs) 11:11, 6 October 2009 (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.[1] 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.

Problem is Tyre didn't have a King, it was a City State it had a Prince who the first Section of Ezekiel 28 is talking about, but then the author makes it clear he's changing the subject to the King.

Isaiah is referring to the King when Babylon is totaly destroyed, an event that is sitll yet Future, the King he has in mind is obviously The Antichrist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.131.23.208 (talk) 13:53, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

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)

Thanks. DCECH quotes Cornu and mentions Luciabel as a caveat. --Error (talk) 22:16, 14 December 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 North 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)

Lucifer and the unnamed king of Isaiah 14

Lucifer and Satan are synonymous . The term Morning Star is a term Christ calls Himself. Son of the morning is Not a term Christ uses for Himself ,and is applied to LUCIFER ONLY in Isaiah 14. The majority texts make this plain. The MINORITY texts used by Edwin Palmer and Virginia Mollencott to "translate" MORNING STAR IN the N.I.V. version are given as a term used for christ. This is evident in the NIV study bible margin notes for Revelation 22, where Christ calls Himself the Bright and Morning Star. The margin notes in the NIV study bible give Isaiah 14 as the cross reference. This makes it look like Christ and Satan ( Lucifer) are brothers ; or at least related in some way. I submit that Edwin Palmer DELIBERATELY altered the Minority texts , IGNORED THE majority texts and put his own rendering on Isaiah 14. Isaiah , in chapter 14 is "dressing down" an "unknown "king , some say Nebuccadnessar, some say Tiglath-Pilaser III who extended the Babylonian Kingdom more than any other leader , and took Israelites captive , Isaiah among them. This is immaterial ;The main point is that Isaiah interrupts his dressing down of this king to compare him to Lucifers fall, and then continues his tyrade against the king ---and his prophesy came true The majority texts got it right the minority texts came close ; Edwins perversion is totally wrong. N.I.V. translation committee ignored the good work of Presbyterians ,Anglicans et/al because they opposed Edwins and Virginias lifestyle. (proven by their own words in other books they wrote.) Christ ALONE is the morning star---There is another star in Christs life which gives a clearer reference to what MORNING STAR is all about . The NATIVITY star was many times more bright than the 1st magnitude daystar we call Venus. The nativity star happened only once . It is best described as a super nova ; which supposedly happened March 4 BC. When compared to this star, ALL other daystars fade by comparison Christ is truly the Bright and Morning Star —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.120.179.7 (talk) 22:33, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Image from the Dictionnaire Infernal (1863)

An anonymous editor deleted this somewhat frivolous image. I thought deletion should be discussed here. I feel the Gustave Doré image lower down the page evokes the image of Lucifer far better. What do other people think? --Wetman (talk) 22:47, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I also like the Doré image over the Dictionnaire. The only problem could be that a fallen Lucifer is not universal across religions. --Error (talk) 21:57, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

The Dictionnaire's image is terrible, how about this one? [2] 24.138.193.63 (talk) 04:20, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Satan Means "Enemy"?

I thought it meant "the accuser." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.57.101.3 (talk) 17:41, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Wasnt Lucifer a unique angel who had TWELVE wings??? i remember reading thsi somewhere...can any1 verify -Sodomy 21st march —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.160.171.88 (talk) 05:03, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

The Septuagint is not translated from the Vulgate

This article is, at best, misleading in stating the relationship of the translations as:

The word Lucifer was the translation of the Septuagint Greek heosphoros, ("dawn-bearer"; cf. Greek phosphoros, "light-bearer"; itself the translation of the Hebrew Helel ben Shahar,[2] Son of Dawn), used by Jerome in the Vulgate,

This wording leads one to believe that the Septuagint was translated from the Vulgate. I know of one person who, on the basis of another's teaching, held the position that the Vulgate was the original text and the Greek versions were translations from it. Hopefully that wasn't behind the writing here.

The last phrase in the above quotation needs to be modified to be a separate sentence, perhaps as the following:

. Jerome also used the word Lucifer in his translation, called the Vulgate, which translated from the Hebrew to Latin.

Ref: Septuagint, Vulgate

Buchskj (talk) 22:24, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Video games?

I've noticed a great deal of change in this subject thanks to video games. Unfortunately people only believe what the see on the television and in fiction.

AM i being paranoid or are people here doing there job correctly. I am not trolling, i am seriously asking. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.211.208.156 (talk) 03:15, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

"In Modern Fiction" Section

Recently, the "In Modern Fiction" section was removed without discussion or a consensus decision being made about doing so. I therefore reverted the change. I have no objections personally to the removal of the section. I don't think the article could be damaged by this section remaining or being cut. What I do object to is essentially being "cut out of the deal," when editors make certain decisions like this and don't wait for a consensus decision. Boldness is all well and good. But cutting a section without discussion robs other editors of the chance to voice an opinion one way or the other. I don't believe that either myself or any other editor has the right to do that. And so I urge and encourage a discussion before this section is cut again. Should it be cut, or should it remain? And if it does remain, should it be changed at all? Thoughts? --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 23:37, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Surely this belongs here: "As heads are tails, just call me Lucifer, 'cause I'm in need of some restraint." DOR (HK) (talk) 01:23, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

On 23 June CyberGhostface cut this stuff, then called "Popular Culture", as "unsourced and unrelevant". His action was accepted by all editors until, on 25 August, two full months later, an editor at IP 69.225.46.107 who had not logged in put much the same stuff back in. It is still 1) unsourced, and 2) irrelevant to what the article is about. I suggest that it is the editor(s) who want it back in who should seek consensus before restoring it. Lima (talk) 04:18, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I removed it then and my opinion still stands. Personally, I think 90% of "in popular culture" sections are useless as they become little more than a dumping ground for people to list various times the character has been referenced in other media. Lucifer has become such an iconic figure that there is bound to be hundreds of various references to him in fiction. I really don't see the point in listing them all.--CyberGhostface (talk) 16:49, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

What has been discussed has been exactly what I've wanted on this issue, that is, a discussion that would help form a consensus decision. I would suggest holding off on the redeletion of this section until we can get more opinions. If the majority feels it doesn't belong, I have no objections to its removal. In the same breath, though, if the consensus decides it DOES belong, I have no objections to keeping it in, although I would agree that if it is to remain, these "facts" ought to be sourced individually. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 23:19, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree that we should allow more time to see if anyone will present reasons for overturning the consensus that, in my poor opinion, was established by the two months' acceptance of CyberGhostface's reasoned removal of this stuff. Not even Jgstokes now defends the new insertion. Lima (talk) 04:31, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

For the record, Lima, the reason for my not "defending new insertion" is two-fold.

First, for personal reasons, I have had to absent myself from WP for the last several days. So I have seen no so-called "new insertions" that I might reasonably be inclined to "defend".

Second, in case you've forgotten my position, I am neither for nor against the removal or remaining of this material at present. IF after a sufficient period of time, the consensus decides that this material does not belong, by all means, let us delete it and ensure that it never gets included again. If, on the other hand, after a sufficient period of time the consensus decides that the material DOES belong, I have no objections to its remaining, provided that it is sourced sufficiently and reworded for greater clarity. I will not venture to say what a "sufficient" period of time is.

This subject was only started by me five "WP days" ago, and since then there have been seven comments including this one: one from CyberGhostface, one from DOR HK, two from you, Lima, and three from me. So, essentially, if seven comments have been made by only four editors on this issue, it should be discussed more.

I agree that perhaps the section should not have been restored without consensus decision, and I may have been responsible for putting it back.

But I'm coming to this article to watch and contribute to it after a little more than a year of WP contributions, and seven years of this article's existence. In case my meaning in that last statement is unclear, what I was trying to say was that this article existed long before I joined WP, and longer still before I started watching it and contributing to it. As such, I am (for the most part) unaware of what has been done with the page in the past and what has been discussed about it. So, what it looked like to me was that a section that, though unsourced, seemed interesting and relevant, it got removed without discussion.

I hope that my telling you all this has cleared up where I stand. I don't care whether this section goes or stays. But what it looked like to me was that this section had been unilaterally removed without discussion. I think this bears more discussion, and I resent the implication that my lack of objection asserts my submission to a "consensus decision" that does not, to my knowledge, exist. If I'm barking up the wrong tree on this, I apologize.

But I would not attempt to characterize ANY WP editors silence in a similar situation as consent to the "consensus decision" that the editor may not have been aware of, and I hope that such an assertive assumption will not be made about me in the future.

For clarification on my position, please contact me on my talk page. In the meantime, I personally would like to see more discussion and feedback from other editors before another consensus decision is made one way or the other. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 23:22, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't really understand your objection to the section's removal. While it would be nice if all substantial edits went through the consensus process, it would be unnecessarily prohibitive to actually improving the encyclopedia. In a situation like this there is only the need to build toward consensus if editors disagree on the change, ie. if the change is reverted several times and an agreement cannot be reached. Now you might say that has happened, but it has happened only because you disagree with it being unilaterally removed without consensus; as you have said you don't actually care if the section stays or goes. So if you don't disagree with the substance of the edits, why revert them? CyberGhostface, Lima, and I have all given reasons why the content should be removed: mainly its being unsourced and of only trivial relevance to the article. Other than yourself, it has only been re-added by an IP with no explanation. So again, if you don't disagree with the reasons for removal, why revert? I respect your desire to build consensus, but in the absence of any voiced objection to the effect of "this section should remain because..." I think we can all reasonably assume tacit consent to its removal.

As to the section itself, my feeling is that all of the information in it is completely trivial and of little to no usefulness to an encyclopedia article about Lucifer. Looking at the section, it's nothing more than an unreferenced list of Lucifer's appearances in video games, comics, etc. This is Lucifer, after all. The devil. There are literally tens (if not hundreds) of thousands of direct and tangential "references" to him in fiction and literature. Of what encyclopedic value is a bullet-point list of his pseudo-"appearances" in recent video games and cartoons? My feeling is none, and it seems I'm not alone in that opinion. It is a disorganized and unselective list with an impossibly broad scope, and is not the best way to present this type of information. A referenced prose section on the presentation and impact of Lucifer on modern fiction would be fantastic, but as it is now it detracts from an otherwise well-written and well-referenced article. Even if the section were improved to be well-referenced and discuss the role and impact of Lucifer on modern fiction, I do not see any of these trivia tidbits remaining. Again, Lucifer has appeared or been referenced in tens of thousands of works of fiction, so a section describing this would likely not include mentions of specific appearances; rather, it would describe the topic in a general way using secondary source material. It is perfectly acceptable, in the articles about these individual works of fiction, to describe the role Lucifer plays in the work and link to this article. But in this article such trivial information is only tangential and almost entirely worthless. --IllaZilla (talk) 04:02, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

My so-called "objection to the section's removal" stems solely from the fact that it was once again removed after I got through saying that I felt this issue warranted more discussion from other editors one way or the other. Again, I started watching this article quite a while after its creation, which was quite a while before I joined WP. And I disagree with the removal of it without discussing other options. Again, ultimately, whether this section stays or goes is immaterial to me. I don't give a continental hoot one way or the other.

What I am trying to do, however, is to consider the rationale behind keeping it that came with the section's creation and prior edits before I stuck my foot in. While I don't care one way or the other, I can certainly see the rationale behind deleting it. On the other hand, I am also trying to understand the position of those who originally put in this section. I can see pretty clearly how the section COULD have merit and add a lot to the article IF the information that is "unsourced and trivial" WERE sourced. In short, a lot of work has gone into this section up to this point, and while I don't have an opinion one way or the other, I am trying to consider both sides of the issue so that I CAN form an opinion one way or the other.

On the one hand, it appears that those in favor of this section staying have stopped commenting on the issue. On the other hand, if this section could be sourced, it might prove to add a lot to the quality of the article. This section could be sourced with relatively little difficulty if we exercised some initiative and looked for sources.

On the other hand, the lack of comments in favor of retaining this section do not lend themselves to credibility. In short, I'm not altogether convinced that this section should go or stay.

What I think I'd like is some time to think about it, and maybe do some research to see just how feasible it would be to get this section sourced. I'm not asking for any special favors here. IF the consensus rules that this section doesn't belong, then by all means, let's get rid of it.

As of now, we have CyberGhost, Lima, and IllaZilla in favor of the deletion, DOR HK opposed to the deletion, and myself undecided at present. With only five editors commenting on the issue, and only three of those five in favor of deletion, that could hardly constitute a "consensus" as such is defined for WP purposes. So, I would say, if we can, it might be wise to wait for a few more comments on this issue from other editors.

In the interim, if time allows, I will attempt to do some research on this "trivia" as it now stands to see how feasible it would be to source. It could very well be that in the course of my research I will find that this section is not worth the trouble it will cause, in which case, I will back down and submit to its deletion as per the so-called "consensus."

At present though, because I am undecided, and there is at least one editor who has voiced an opinion in favor of retaining the section, I think this issue deserves further consideration. I promise you, though, that if and when I am convinced one way or the other, I will voice such an opinion, and then add my perspective to either those in favor or against deletion. For now, though, time alone will tell whether it will be feasible and appropriate to take action one way or the other, which is why I have been suggesting all along that this issue warrants more discussion and consideration. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 18:36, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'm actually not sure if DOR (HK)'s comment meant he/she thinks the section should stay. Rather, I think he/she is suggesting another bit of trivia that could be added to the section. "As heads are tails, just call me Lucifer, 'cause I'm in need of some restraint" is a lyric from "Sympathy for the Devil" by the Rolling Stones, so maybe he/she is suggesting that the song ought to be mentioned in the section. That's what I think the "Surely this belongs here:" means: not necessarily "the section surely belongs in the article"; rather, "surely some mention of this lyric belongs in the section." --IllaZilla (talk) 21:08, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

You know something? You're right. Just looked at DOR (HK)'s comment again. That colon means that what follows should be included in the list. But, by implication, if the user is suggesting content that should be added to the list, that means that the list should stay so that quote can be added. At least, that's what I got out of rereading his comments again. I'll tell you what: in all honesty, I think it would take quite a while to research and find sources for all the facts contained herein if I were doing it on my own. Additionally, anything I come up with while researching stuff on my own runs the risk of setting me up for accusations of a violation of the original research policy. So, to make my job, when I am finally able to undertake it, a bit easier, I am making a request for anyone who would like to and is able to to help verify/confirm or disprove portions of this trivia. So as to ensure that the work is not duplicated, I would suggest that as items are confirmed, they should be listed as confirmed here. For starters, I can tell you for sure that there IS a cat named Lucifer in Disney's Cinderella. So that is now confirmed. If/when the others are confirmed, that should be reported as well. These facts should be fairly easy to verify. All we'd need is ONE source for each. If we can't find any, then this section can be slimmed down or eliminated, with the relevant facts perhaps interspersed elsewhere in the article. With that said, thanks in advance for any help any of you can give me on this. Happy searching! --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 23:44, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Can someone please explain to me what purpose this list serves? Just because it's true doesn't necessarily mean it's encyclopedic or deserving of mention in this article.--CyberGhostface (talk) 23:53, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

That's a fair enough question. That is one of the things I will be considering as I research about this trivia and try to form a definite opinion of where, if anywhere, I stand on this issue. There ARE certain points on the list that ARE interesting, like the fact that the Cinderella cat named Lucifer acts true to the name. He started out as a nice enough kitty, but he moved on to become one of the antagonists of the film. THAT's where the relevancy lies--not only in the verification of the trivia as it now stands, but also in the connections this trivia has with the actual characteristics of the actual Lucifer as they are understood and accepted by those who believe in him as surely as they believe in God.

Lest that last sentence be misunderstood, I'll clarify: as a member of the LDS Church, I believe that Lucifer fell from grace in the premortal realm and that he now, as Satan, goes about as a spirit, seeking to overthrow men and women from the prospects of achieving their divine potential. I believe that Satan's power is just as real as God's is, but I believe that men have a choice as to who they follow.

With that sidetrack out of the way, as I said, in addition to studying the verifiability of these facts, I will also within the next few days be considering my viewpoint as far as its relevancy and appropriateness in this article. Until that time, I just respectfully ask that this material not be removed so that I might have a chance to do some research, consider what my position is on the issue, and state it, thus either adding an agreeing voice, or adding a dissenting voice. Hopefully all that was understandable. Thanks for the question. I hope I answered it. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 00:39, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Any progress? Can wwe make a move on this? P.S., for what it's worth, I'm pretty sure the cat in Cinderella is mean/evil right from the beginning. He's never portrayed as nice, he's always trying to eat the mice and sabotaging Cinderella's efforts. --IllaZilla (talk) 20:22, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Since we seem to be stalled, I'm going to be bold and cut the "in modern fiction" section. The only one who seems to object to this is Jstokes, and he admits he doesn't actually care whether the section stays or goes. He merely objects to its unilateral removal, and I think we've had enough discussion here to determine that general consensus is that the section has no value to the article. Jstokes, if you still feel strongly about it, by all means recover the information from the history, file it away in your userspace, and see if you can source it at your leisure. I just don't see any point on sitting on it any longer while you consider your viewpoint and decide if you even have an opinion. No disrespect intended, I just think a month is long enough to form an opinion one way or the other. --IllaZilla (talk) 18:48, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

For personal reasons, I have had to absent myself from Wikipedia for the last several weeks. I apologize for not getting back to you. Upon reflection, the "nice enough kitty" bit only really applied to the Lucifer before we knew him in the Cinderella story---no cat is born evil. But that's a side issue. The core issue is: where do I stand? And the answer to that is that I definitely now can agree the section should have been removed. I apologize for my apparent negligence. I didn't intend to stall. I've just had other things to deal with. I may not be appearing here at WP all that regularly anymore, but I will still resurface from time to time when I can. Sorry about the delay, and I hope this post has cleared things up between us. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 03:05, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Satanic POV

Lucifer was a Roman deity. That this article does not deal with Lucifer, but rather Christan and later misappropriation of the name. This article should be on Lucifer. If you want to write about the Christian POV of Lucifer, that should be it's own article. If I go to the Jupiter article, I don't find an article rambling on about how Jupiter was a "False god" from the Christian POV; the Jupiter article is on Jupiter. The Lucifer article should be on Lucifer; the Roman God/Star, and provide minor mention of the Greek and Egyptian equivalents, and the later Christian misappropriation of Lucifer's name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.148.123.76 (talk) 22:02, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Proposal for semi-protection

This article seems to be vandalised by anon IPs once every few minutes. I suggest semi-protecting it, at least for a short while. I'm looking forward to hearing your opinions. Raborg (talk) 19:50, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I have little or no tolerance for vandals. If they wish to test-edit, they should use the sandbox. Otherwise, they should just not sabotage the page. The only purpose it serves is to make more work for those of us who actually care about having good, quality articles. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 03:07, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

If it could be semi-protected for the remainder of the school year, responsible adults could address their energies to improving the article.--Wetman 06:35, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Proposal for creation of Lucifer_(god) page

I suggest we split this page in two, leaveing the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucifer for the Christians to argue theology on, and create a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucifer_(god) for the ancient Roman god. Currently the real Lucifer (ancient pre-Christian god) is not being documented.68.148.123.76 (talk) 01:57, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Do you mean the Roman personification of the morning star? Lima (talk) 05:37, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Too much Latin quoted

I read and translate Latin fluently, and I think there's a distracting and unnecessary amount of Latin quoted. The vast majority of those coming to this passage will be unable to read it, and should have no need to if the article is written properly. My feeling is that foreign languages should be used sparingly, under the following circumstances:

• a word or phrase representing a cultural concept that is hard to translate;
• a sentence that is aphoristic or expresses something in a manner that is stylistically distinctive;
• a passage that is vexed in its interpretation (this would mainly apply to articles that focus on more narrow specialized topics).

I think it's fine to offer relevant passages in the original language, but perhaps in footnotes, instead of making the article hard to read. In this case, the section on Lucifer in Latin literature fails to become an encyclopedia article; it's just a list of passages. It doesn't really discuss the male-female aspect of the Evening and Morning stars in Latin astronomy, nor does it understand the personification of celestial bodies in Latin poetry, which very much affects later traditions of the Lucifer figure. I added a locus classicus in paraphrase that was missing in this section (the one from the Phaethon section of Ovid's Metamorphoses), which was then rewritten to refer to Lucifer as "it" instead of "he"; this has now been corrected again, but it does seem to me that cherry-picking passages out of context fails to illuminate the relation of ancient astronomy and divine personification. Some secondary sources might help produce a succinct summary rather than a list of unmediated passages. (My interest came from having recently contributed an article on Guillaume Geefs' Lucifer statue, Le génie du mal, which is one of the article's illustrations.) Cynwolfe (talk) 13:35, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I absolutely agree: as we provide English translations, the Latin originals (still with citations) should drop into footnotes.--Wetman (talk) 14:05, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps we don't even need English translations of the texts in the body. It would be enough to have references in footnotes to sources that give the texts and/or translations of relevant works by the writers mentioned in the body. In the body we need only say that in poetry the name "Lucifer", while sometimes meaning, as in prose, the material star (as in Virgil and Lucan), is sometimes personified as a mythological deity.

I am puzzled by the reference to the "male-female aspect of the Evening and Morning Stars in Latin astronomy". This, I take it, is distinct from Latin mythology, in which both Hesperus and Lucifer are represented as male. I just don't understand what is meant by a male-female aspect in any kind of astronomy. Lima (talk) 15:12, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, me neither. But the short answer (all I have time to attempt today) lies in the quote from Pliny, that Vesper/Lucifer (masculine) are aspects of the planet Venus (identified with a feminine deity). The larger context has to do with the fact that astronomy, astrology, and "mythology" are not separate activities in antiquity. Their cosmological systems aren't disconnected from religious belief and ritual; all planets and other heavenly bodies were given masculine or feminine names because the sky was viewed as a divinely populated mirror of mortal earth, and celestial phenomena were gendered. Because we use the dismissive term "mythology," we tend to trivialize the theological implications of these belief systems. And indeed later rationalizing authorities in antiquity can take what we could call a scientific approach and regard these gender designations as conventional or grammatical; but if the view of Greco-Roman astronomy as developing from the Near Eastern tradition is correct, astronomy was originally the province of the intellectual-priestly class, who perceived the cosmos as a manifestation of divine order, full of gods. The Near Eastern (or Persian, or Indo-Iranian, or Semitic, or Yazidi ...) background is why the question of a shared origin for Lucifer the star and Lucifer the fallen angel isn't easily dismissed. My view is that the current article shouldn't even try to answer this question, which has no scholarly consensus; it should try to state the question clearly, along with succinct summaries of attempts to answer it. In encyclopedic writing, direct quotations should be used as needed, and not in the form of undifferentiated and unexplicated source passages. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:51, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Lima: See also Magi for some relevant background to the astronomical issue. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:14, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

The section of Latin passages has now been moved to footnotes, and the point made in a paragraph. I still think the paragraph misses the point of what "personification" means in ancient cosmology, perhaps because of the bias inherent in calling the religions of antiquity "mythology" (which properly refers to the narrative structures pertaining to religious and related matters), but it's a major improvement. Even the great 19th-century scholars couldn't escape their Christian preconceptions, and often treated Greek and Roman cults as not "real" religions because these weren't like Abrahamic religions. Cynwolfe (talk) 22:06, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Note on Lucan's Lucifer

I moved the passage from Lucan to the personification footnote. Lucan uses a form of the verb prospicio with Lucifer as the subject; this is a verb of active seeing ("look out over"). In English, we have an idiomatic usage that allows us to say "My house looks out over the San Fernando Valley", without really meaning to imply that the house is personified; Latin doesn't use prospicio that way, and in the OLD, there are no examples that would allow Lucan's verb to be read as anything other than a personification of Lucifer; i.e., a being or living thing with either eyes or inner vision. Lucan's cosmology is complicated, dynamic, and pretty malevolent, and I wouldn't venture any claims about what this means. Again, I would point out that one can't just cherry-pick passages without understanding the work as a whole, or the intellectual systems that shaped the work. Translations are often misleading. This is why I recommended that those active in writing this article try finding some secondary material for the classical section. Cynwolfe (talk) 22:06, 30 July 2009 (UTC)