Black Spirituality Religion : The response to the Lucifer thread

Discussion in 'Black Spirituality / Religion - General Discussion' started by Radical Faith, Sep 13, 2005.

  1. Radical Faith

    Radical Faith Well-Known Member MEMBER

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2003
    Messages:
    1,818
    Likes Received:
    137
    Occupation:
    Operations Manager
    Location:
    North Carolina
    Ratings:
    +137
    For some reason I've not been able to post responses. So here is the answer the question "What is the difference between What is said that Jesus says in Revelation 22:16 and the description of Lucifer in Isaiah 14:12?"

    Jesus did not address him as Lucifer per say. First let us understand what is mean by certain words used.

    Isaiah 14:12

    How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!

    Revelations 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.

    Though subtle there is a difference between these scripture. In Isaiah this verse is part of a song that the Isaiah prophesied would be sung by the children of Israel to mock the King of Babylon after his defeat by way of the God of the Israelites. In Revelations what Jesus is saying to the both human and divine simultaneously. Let's go deeper and look at the words being used. The original Hebrew word for Lucifer is LLYH or HEYLEL which means "light bearer" or "shining one". Son of the morning is another way of saying Lucifer. When the King of Babylon is being called Lucifer it is a comparison to the Lucifer that was the first to have the ambition of becoming God. The song is not to be taken literally as if the King of Babylon was a Lucifer himself but metaphorically or comparatively. So let's replace the word Lucifer and the phrase son of the morning with messenger of truth and heavenly child of God, the scripture would read like this:

    How art thou fallen from heaven, O messenger of truth, heavenly child of God! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!

    By doing I don't take the meaning of the scripture away, I just clarify the meaning of a few words.

    When we look at the use of the word light in the Bible it oft time does not mean waves of energy that display brilliance or color. Light is a powerful substance with great literal and symbol meaning. Being that we are visual beings our perception of light is one of our greatest tools of understand. In Revelation Jesus calls himself the bright and morning star. Again let's break down the words. The word "bright" describes the intensity of the light, morning in this case means the first light and that word star means the source from which the light emanates. Essentially what this means is Jesus is calling himself the source of the light, the truth that dispels lies, the revealer of things hidden in darkness, the knowledge that eradicates ignorance. So with that said the difference is Jesus is saying he is the source of the light or the one who has ownership of the light of which it is his to give and a Lucifer is a bearer of the light that has been bestowed upon himself.


    Peace.......
     
  2. SAMURAI36

    SAMURAI36 Banned MEMBER

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2005
    Messages:
    4,762
    Likes Received:
    232
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Bay Area
    Ratings:
    +234
    PEACE RADICAL:

    You make this assertion:

    Immediately proceeded by this one:

    How do you draw the etymological correlation between this "light bearer" having such lofty ambitions? Where within Hebraic literature or canon is such a correlation made?

    Also:

    Revelations is (allegedly) written by JOHN, originally in Greek, yes? That being the case, what is the Greek term used for "Bright and morning star"?

    Since "Luficer" is not etymologically Hebrew in origin, it would bear a closer resemblance to Greek than Hebreew, wouldn't you agree?

    Since LUFICER itself means "light bearer" as you stated, wouldn't he be a self-emanating source of light as well?

    There is nothing within the definition of "LUCIFER" (certainly not etymologically) that would suggest otherwise.

    From where precisely does this interpretation come from? Is this actually in the Bible?

    All of this is mere speculation, as we are entertaining the loose translations of 2nd, 3rd, and even 4th party languages, several civilizations removed.

    But then, therein lies the entire issue with taking any translation of the Bible to heart.

    PEACE
     
  3. Deepvoice

    Deepvoice Well-Known Member MEMBER

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2005
    Messages:
    750
    Likes Received:
    4
    Ratings:
    +4
    Another spiritual thread, I wonder if this one will be as interesting as the other.
     
  4. river

    river Watch Her Flow MEMBER

    Country:
    United States
    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2004
    Messages:
    6,458
    Likes Received:
    1,282
    Gender:
    Female
    Occupation:
    Author
    Location:
    Where the Niger meets the Nile
    Ratings:
    +1,290
    Brotha Radical

    I understand your point that there may be a subtle difference between the bearer of the light and the source of the light.

    The bright and morning star is Venus. It emanates light but is not the source of light any more or less than the "light bearer" (Lucifer). A star is a created thing. It is made up of matter that bears light but where did that light come from? The star itself? No. It came from the Creator. It came from the same source from which Lucifer receved the light that he bears.

    The fact still remains that there's no scriptural evidene that Lucifer is a name for satan. How can that name correlate to anything else when it does not exist anywhere else? If Lucifer refers to the king of Babylon (a man) that is the only person he is referred to. All other references are mere conjecture and the traditions of men. In order to support these traditions you have to add stuff and turn things around and replace words as you did above.
     
  5. Radical Faith

    Radical Faith Well-Known Member MEMBER

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2003
    Messages:
    1,818
    Likes Received:
    137
    Occupation:
    Operations Manager
    Location:
    North Carolina
    Ratings:
    +137
     
  6. SAMURAI36

    SAMURAI36 Banned MEMBER

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2005
    Messages:
    4,762
    Likes Received:
    232
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Bay Area
    Ratings:
    +234
    PEACE RADICAL:

    Even if that is indeed the case, no texts (Bible included) are above maintaining contextual perameters.

    Meaning, where would they have gotten such a concept from when the concept of Lucifer was not indigenous to their theology (like much of the Hebraic legacy)?

    .

    This is a recurring problem, when looking at the Bible as a historical document.

    Fortunately for the studious, there is available, other avenues of retrieving such info:

    Lucifer is a Latin word made up of two words, lux (light; genitive lucis) and ferre (to bear, to bring), meaning light-bearer. Lucifer does not appear in Greek or Roman mythology; it is used by poets to represent the Morning Star at moments when "Venus" would intrude distracting imagery of the goddess. "Lucifer" is Jerome's direct translation in his Vulgate (4th century) of the Septuagint's Greek translation, as heosphoros, "morning star" or "Day Star," literally "bringer of the Dawn", of a phrase in from Isaiah 14:12 that originally intended no reference to Satan (see below). 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; he was the highest archangel in heaven, but he was motivated by pride and greed to rebel against God and was cast out of heaven by Archangel Michael. Lucifer was also followed by some angels. Then he became the Devil, and his followers were known as demons.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucifer

    Here, we learn that the concept of Luficer being synonymous with the Devel being derived from a source outside of the Bible.

    As we continue:

    "Lucifer" is used by Jerome in the Vulgate (4th century) to translate into Latin Isaiah 14:12-14, where the Hebrew text refers to heilel ben-shachar (הילל בן שחר in Hebrew). Heilel signifies the planet Venus, and ben-shachar means "the brilliant one, son of the morning", to whose mythical fate that of the King of Babylon is compared in the prophetic vision. The Jewish Encyclopedia reports that "it is obvious that the prophet in attributing to the Babylonian king boastful pride, followed by a fall, borrowed the idea from a popular legend connected with the morning star". Isaiah 14 starts out discussing the King of Babylon, and the reference "morning star, son of the dawn" originally applied specifically to that king's pride:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucifer#.22Lucifer.22_and_the_Hebrew_Bible

    Here, we see that the term HEYLEL that you mention, simply means "VENUS" in the scientific sense. A designation for the planet, and nothing more.

    The truth here, as with most things, lies in the etymology. Why would the Planet venus (and not the Goddess, which would have no bearing--supposedly--on Hebraic theology) be used as an allegory for pride and falling?

    The planet Venus has never "fallen" at any point from its celestial orbit.

    How then, is a truth to be gleaned from a work that has not been universally translated?

    This may be your belief, and you are certainly welcome to it.

    However, actually history denotes the fact that there was a specific agenda (a manevolent one) behind the whittling down and abridging of the Bible to the version that we have now, by Nicea in 325 AD.


    I agree with this; the latter moreso than the former.

    I disagree with this. There are layers and levels to the One Truth that are constantly being (and that need to be) unlocked.

    One such mystery is why "Isaiah" would choose the 2nd planet from the sun as a metaphor for a supposed despot.

    Further, since the Bible is notorious for abridging and omitting key aspects of actual history for the purpose of "a straight path to salvation", we thus know little to nothing of this king, other than the Jews' (often biased) perception of him.

    This is yet another issue, when we seek to place the Biblical testimony of histoy above actual historical accounts; we find in the Torah, that "Moses" paints a less that noble perception of RAMSES, when actual history (from several unconnected accounts) showed RAMASUSSEN EN AKHTE (Ramses the Great) to be a noble man, who cared greatly for his people.

    What then, of the King of Babylon? What do we know of him, outside of what the Bible says?

    If the Biblical account is then as questionable as has been previously, what this of this "true message"?


    I find it ironic, that you sought to supply an etymological perspective here, only when it comes to the Greek, but never once doing so, when it comes to the Hebrew, as per my original request.

    Nonetheless, let us examine your assertion:

    Your original assertion from your previous post alluded to a difference between the "son of the morning" and morning star" from these respective texts.

    However, we see through further etymological study, that the origins for both texts are synonomous: VENUS serving as the template for both of them.

    Why then would Jesus not be seen in the same "proud and boastful" manner as another individual who was compared as such to Venus?

    It is a transliteration, not a translation. But your point is nonetheless mutually recognized.

    However, what continues to be amiss, is the origins of the idea of comparing this Planet (which is not a "morning star" to begin with) to a person, in one aspect or another.

    Again, you are welcome to your beliefs, but that does not negate the wealth of info to be gleaned by way of etymology, which has proved useful in either validating or debunking beliefs in the past.

    How?

    Does does the mention of a Planet corelate to a disposition or character of a person?

    Is this message Astonomical in nature, or Astrological?

    If it is the latter, and ruling out the positive Astrological traits of Venus, then this allegory might be considered relevant to the Isaiah text:


    Venus: Planet of Love and Money
    Venus is all about pleasure, especially pleasure shared with someone else. This Planet concerns itself with love, romance and harmony in our emotional attachments, marriages, friendships and other unions (like business partnerships). Venus is content to spread happiness and tenderness, all the while teaching us how to love and appreciate others and the things that we possess.

    We appear attractive -- and we attract others -- thanks to Venus's energy. Socializing with and relating to others are important to this Planet.

    Beauty is also strongly associated with Venus. The arts (music, dance, drama and literature, to name a few) and a sense of the aesthetic fall within the realm of Venus. Venus beseeches us to indulge our senses and revel in the beauty of our world. This Planet is inextricably linked to refinement, culture, charm and grace.

    Venus also deals with the pleasure we derive from our possessions. Luxuries (jewelry, paintings, expensive cars), good food and drink, a beautiful home and a sense of refinement all please Venus's interests. This Planet asks us to appreciate the exquisite nature of things. It's a sensual -- though not necessarily sexual -- world as far as Venus is concerned.
    Venus takes 225 days to complete its orbit of the zodiac; it is never more than 47 degrees from the Sun. It is a feminine energy and rules both Taurus and Libra and the Second and Seventh Houses.

    http://www.astrology.com/aboutastrology/interpreting/planets/venus.html

    Not not really to the personification Jesus, nearly whatsoever.


    As referenced to my previous statement, can you prove such an assertion?

    The planet VENUS was close to God? :confused:

    We learn by way of history, that the concept of including Lucifer as a part of Angelic Canon did not occur till some centuries after this text was originally written.

    This is why I say that we must stay within etymological context of the chronology of these writings.

    OK, this I can agree with, but there is nothing negative about this, especially considering the "Babylonian" spiritual system--similar to the African proper, were King/Queenship is a divine act, part of a spiritual cosmology.


    Many of the angels, in the instances that you mention, appeared (within context) as men, and not light, as compared to your Burning Bush scenario.

    And even that scenario is questionable; since plants and animals are notorious for spontaneously combusting--from ancient times up to even now--that analogy remains inconsequential to this discussion.

    "Hearing God" notwithstanding, the course of this discussion is not necessarily any spiritual gleanings, but rather the eytmological root of the texts and their message.

    Men wrote these books, not "God". And unless you are willing to entertain the notion of the Oneness between God and Man, then whatever spiritual message you perceive from these verses is not pertinent to this discussion.

    It is God's intent to sow seeds of confusion by way of communication? :confused:

    This is a nice analogy, but wholly inapplicable. I am not looking at the scratches on the side of the TV, but rather its ineffectiveness at accuratly displaying a signal.

    While this may be the case, it is still not relevant here.

    Perhaps discussions like this one, of a historical and academic nature are not for you then, brother.

    It seems that when discussions such as these arise here, you entertain the academic aspects only momentarily, only to return to the realm of belief within which you feel most comfortable.

    What scholars and scientist do is not for the villification nor for the edification of this book, the beliefs therein, nor those who believe or disbelieve it.

    A truth is not such, simply because one believes or accepts it. It is such, because it can stand up to various scrutiny, minimally scaved, or not at all.

    I disagree; we are ALL within position to JUDGE (4th definition).

    Indeed, likewise.

    HOTEP.
     
  7. belzbug

    belzbug Active Member MEMBER

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2005
    Messages:
    36
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0

    this is real simple - a matter of putting the languages in perspective. When read in english alone, one can be misled into thinking these two are identical titles; son of the morning and morning star. However that is not the case. In revelation, the reference to "bright and morning star" is based on job's acct. Jesus comes from the order we read in job. Lets take a look...

    Job 38:7 When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?

    It is this order Jesus hails from. The author of revelation is basing the title on job's acct. The word "morning stars" is from the hebrew - Koukab_boker, a far cry from what we find in Isa 14.12. Lets see what isaiah says...

    Isa 14:12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! [how] art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!

    The word "son of the morning" is from the hebrew Ben_Shakar which literally means "son of dawn" as oppose to what we find in Job [koukab_boker] which means "stars of morning".

    Koukab_boker and Ben_shakar are not the same. Jesus's held title in revelation is Koukab_boker, not the same as Lucifer's - Ben_shakar. Anyone who is saying Jesus is lucifer based on the flimsy translated king's english is ill informed.
     
Loading...