Bible Theories and Question on God Creation.

[Nehemiah6]

I thought the serpent was a beast not a talking snake. Also demon are capable possession animal. Remember the demon went to the pig.

SERPENT = CREATURE CAPABLE OF BEING SATAN-POSSESSED OR DEMON POSSESSED.

While the serpent (Hebrew nachash = serpent, snake or dragon) communicated with Eve, the one doing the communication was actually Satan, as other Scriptures confirm. And since the devil is also called that Great Red Dragon (Greek drakon = huge serpent), it is more than likely that this serpent was in fact a dragon. While the lexicons suggest that dragons are mythical, that may not necessarily be true.

 

[obedienttogod]

Perhaps it's just a description. It would seem to fit the angel that appeared to Joseph Smith and twisted scripture and developed the Book of Mormon and another false religion, pretending to be Christian.

That is a good guess, actually. Lucifer, the word itself, means what the passage of scripture in Isaiah speaks about. But what Isaiah is speaking about, DOES NOT mean the word, Lucifer...if this makes any sense.

It's like me saying, "the sky is blue." And someone else saying, "the sky is all of the colors it takes to make the color blue." In reality, we say the same thing. But ultimately, it makes the entire definition different from what I said compared to what someone else said.

To the RCC (Roman Catholic Church), the word Lucifer (Latin Vulgate Language) means "morning star."

Translations of morning star in LATIN

noun
Frequency

lucifer
lucifer, Morning Star, day, venus



eous
Morning Star




To the Hebrew's it means something else:
Morning star in Hebrew =

Translations of morning star

noun
Frequency

אַיֶלֶת הַשַׁחַר
morning star, daystar



עַמוּד הַשַׁחַר
dawn, morning star



בַּרקַאִי
morning star



The RCC took the meaning of a word MORNING STAR and translated it into their own Language = Lucifer.




But the Hebrew word for Morning Star is בַּרקַאִי, which in English means = "in the morning"

Translations of בַּרקַאִי

noun
Frequency

morning star
אַיֶלֶת הַשַׁחַר, עַמוּד הַשַׁחַר, בַּרקַאִי




For one, here is concrete evidence the RCC has messed with the translation and our Bible.
Secondly, if the RCC messed with the Book of Isaiah, it's safe to assume they messed with the New Testament as well!!

 

[Dino246]

That is a good guess, actually. Lucifer, the word itself, means what the passage of scripture in Isaiah speaks about. But what Isaiah is speaking about, DOES NOT mean the word, Lucifer...if this makes any sense. ... For one, here is concrete evidence the RCC has messed with the translation and our Bible.
Secondly, if the RCC messed with the Book of Isaiah, it's safe to assume they messed with the New Testament as well!!

Actually, what you have presented is not evidence of such at all.

It is evidence that the Latin translation for the Hebrew word(s) was brought forward into some English translations. That makes perfect sense, because Erasmus, on whose work many English translations (including the KJV) are based, was an RCC priest who referenced and even used part of the Latin Vulgate where he couldn't find manuscript sources in Greek.

 

[obedienttogod]

Actually, what you have presented is not evidence of such at all.

It is evidence that the Latin translation for the Hebrew word(s) was brought forward into some English translations. That makes perfect sense, because Erasmus, on whose work many English translations (including the KJV) are based, was an RCC priest who referenced and even used part of the Latin Vulgate where he couldn't find manuscript sources in Greek.

You know, if you were as smart as you believe you are, you would be in some sort of educational program teaching others rather than following me on a website. Half the things you post at me I ignore over your continued ignorance.


Evidence is... the word LUCIFER is not a Hebrew word.

Why is this evidence?

Because the Book of Isaiah is absolutely 100% Hebrew/Aramaic.

So, having a word from another language in a Book 100% full of Hebrew/Aramaic words, proves that WORD WAS ADDED!!

 

[calibob]

So a priest used the vulgate to fill in the missing Greek texts like using Bondo on a rusty hole in a door? That sounds like the RCC.

 

[Dino246]

You know, if you were as smart as you believe you are, you would be in some sort of educational program teaching others rather than following me on a website. Half the things you post at me I ignore over your continued ignorance.

Evidence is... the word LUCIFER is not a Hebrew word. Why is this evidence? Because the Book of Isaiah is absolutely 100% Hebrew/Aramaic. So, having a word from another language in a Book 100% full of Hebrew/Aramaic words, proves that WORD WAS ADDED!!

Your comments indicate that you either didn't carefully read what I wrote, or didn't understand it.

 

[obedienttogod]

Your comments indicate that you either didn't carefully read what I wrote, or didn't understand it.

I comprehend what you wrote and most likely agree.

My point is the Latin Vulgate word LUCIFER, is still in our Bible. And it's in a Book full of nothing but Hebrew/Aramaic words. So, it is obvious the word LUCIFER was added to our Canon.

Now, why or how the word LUCIFER became a word is not what I am pointing out, I am pointing out that the word ended up in our Bible. And better yet, that Latin Vulgate word ended up in a Book where Latin Vulgate was not used. So it provides clear and obvious evidence of adding to the Bible!!

 

[amberlynlover7]

SERPENT = CREATURE CAPABLE OF BEING SATAN-POSSESSED OR DEMON POSSESSED.

While the serpent (Hebrew nachash = serpent, snake or dragon) communicated with Eve, the one doing the communication was actually Satan, as other Scriptures confirm. And since the devil is also called that Great Red Dragon (Greek drakon = huge serpent), it is more than likely that this serpent was in fact a dragon. While the lexicons suggest that dragons are mythical, that may not necessarily be true.

.

I don't think that serpent was actually a snake. Instead it was actually a devil/satan/dragon or unknown creatures that we don't know of. Also we know that the serpent is crafted which God has made. The serpent is know to be male. We know that the Demon/satan/ancient dragon/serpent have angel that are like him. Satan is capable of going to heaven and can disguise himself as the angel of light. How was he able of go back to Heaven during the chapter of Job if he was basically kick out of heaven instead send to earth by God. He also said he was wonder back and forth the earth.

Also when Angel sin they are sent in to Hell not on Earth.

We also known that the Demon are sent to the enteral lake of fire where there sulfur after the world end.

We don't know if Angel are capable of transforming themselves as demon if they sin against God.

I think God made the Demon. But they were supposed to be good. I also think that Demon were actually cherub not angel.

According to what it said:

Ezekiel 28:16-17

Through your widespread trade
you were filled with violence,
and you sinned.
So I drove you in disgrace from the mount of God,
and I expelled you, guardian cherub,
from among the fiery stones.
17 Your heart became proud
on account of your beauty,
and you corrupted your wisdom
because of your splendor.
So I threw you to the earth;
I made a spectacle of you before kings.

 

[UnderGrace]

Actually, what you have presented is not evidence of such at all.

It is evidence that the Latin translation for the Hebrew word(s) was brought forward into some English translations. That makes perfect sense, because Erasmus, on whose work many English translations (including the KJV) are based, was an RCC priest who referenced and even used part of the Latin Vulgate where he couldn't find manuscript sources in Greek.

There is plenty of evidence that Erasmus was not sure how to translate the term in the old testament and did mistranslate and put a capital where there was none turning it into a proper noun.

 

[Dino246]

I comprehend what you wrote and most likely agree.

My point is the Latin Vulgate word LUCIFER, is still in our Bible. And it's in a Book full of nothing but Hebrew/Aramaic words. So, it is obvious the word LUCIFER was added to our Canon.

Now, why or how the word LUCIFER became a word is not what I am pointing out, I am pointing out that the word ended up in our Bible. And better yet, that Latin Vulgate word ended up in a Book where Latin Vulgate was not used. So it provides clear and obvious evidence of adding to the Bible!!

It might be in your Bible, but it isn't in mine. I don't primarily use the KJV.

Your earlier assertion was this: "For one, here is concrete evidence the RCC has messed with the translation and our Bible."

The presence of the word "Lucifer" in the KJV is not evidence that "the RCC has messed with the translation". Rather, it is evidence that a Latin version was used somewhere in the thread of sources leading to the KJV. While both are claimed by the RCC, neither Jerome nor Erasmus were, themselves, "the RCC". Though he was a priest, Erasmus' translation was an independent effort, not an RCC church effort. So, your assertion is refuted.

Your present assertion is that "the word Lucifer was added to our Canon".

It wasn't added; it is a transliteration from a language other than Hebrew. "Baptize" is a transliteration as well, in this case from Greek. For the word to be considered "added", there would have to be an absence of a corresponding word in Hebrew. An example of an actual addition is the word "unknown" in the KJV of 1 Corinthians 14:2, or the words, "the brother of" in the KJV of 2 Samuel 21:19. Those words have no correspondence in the source language manuscripts.

 

[amberlynlover7]

Exactly!! He was never the morning star, the passage is not about him.

The RCC, the organization that keeps on giving.

So there were never Lucifer? And Lucifer doesn't even existed in the bible? All we know that the moring star who happens to be son of dawn want to descend from the cloud and be like God.

So does that mean that Lucifer isn't Satan? Satan is the serpent/demon/dragon that God created in the garden of eden? Who must have been a guardian cherub who happens violence and sin against God? However he was know to be beautiful and has wisdom?

 

[UnderGrace]

So there were never Lucifer? And Lucifer doesn't even existed in the bible? All we know that the moring star who happens to be son of dawn want to descend from the cloud and be like God.

So does that mean that Lucifer isn't Satan? Satan is the serpent/demon/dragon that God created in the garden of eden? Who must have been a guardian cherub who happens violence and sin against God? However he was know to be beautiful and has wisdom?

It means there is no Lucifer only Satan.

It is a very popular misconception which many have turned into a fable. The only place in the Bible which names "Lucifer" is in Isaiah 14:12.

" How art thou fallen from heaven, o ( lucifer inserted by Erasmus) son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!" (KJV)

This verse is contained within a section that is discussing the king of Babylon. We can know this by looking at the entire chapter, and we find in vs. 4 that the text actually says "king of Babylon" and also calls him "the oppressor".

Then, in vs. 16 it identifies him as "the man"...

"They that see thee shall narrowly look upon thee, and consider thee, saying, Is this the man that made the earth to tremble, that did shake kingdoms;"

The entire section is one of prophetic judgment which was pronounced against the king of Babylon for his pride and conceit and claim to be like the most High.

 

[amberlynlover7]

It means there is no Lucifer only Satan.

It is a very popular misconception which many have turned into a fable. The only place in the Bible which names "Lucifer" is in Isaiah 14:12.

" How art thou fallen from heaven, o ( lucifer inserted by Erasmus) son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!" (KJV)

This verse is contained within a section that is discussing the king of Babylon. We can know this by looking at the entire chapter, and we find in vs. 4 that the text actually says "king of Babylon" and also calls him "the oppressor".

Then, in vs. 16 it identifies him as "the man"...

"They that see thee shall narrowly look upon thee, and consider thee, saying, Is this the man that made the earth to tremble, that did shake kingdoms;"

The entire section is one of prophetic judgment which was pronounced against the king of Babylon for his pride and conceit and claim to be like the most High.

Ok if Lucifer doesn't exist. Why do many people say that Lucifer is Satan then?

Also do you think that Satan was an actual an angel who rebel against God? Or was Satan was AKA the serpent that God has made in the garden of eden who is know to be the dragon who happens to be the one who fought against the angel in Heaven?

I always thought that were something odd about Lucifer and there was much information about him in the bible.

 

[adhidw]

I thought the serpent was a beast not a talking snake. Also demon are capable possession animal. Remember the demon went to the pig.

I did not mean the serpent as talking snake too, if there was any creature that time , surely it came from Him in the creation day , means a created being , actually He did not create any one which had already had a knowledge such the beast you mentioned above in Eden how could there be a such genius creature , so “ the beast “ surely a snake which was possessed by demon /Satan like “ devil who transformed to be the angel of light “ which by his power can send the fire coming down from the sky ( because God never created a creature with such power in this earth )
It was said as “beast” caused by it has “harm full intention” to human.

 

[UnderGrace]

Ok if Lucifer doesn't exist. Why do many people say that Lucifer is Satan then?

Also do you think that Satan was an actual an angel who rebel against God? Or was Satan was AKA the serpent that God has made in the garden of eden who is know to be the dragon who happens to be the one who fought against the angel in Heaven?

I always thought that were something odd about Lucifer and there was much information about him in the bible.

Since it appears in the KJV people think Lucifer is before the fall and then he became Satan, this has also been promoted by the Catholic church too.

I know more about Lucifer and Luciferians (as in the mythology of it) than Satan.

I do believe Satan was in the garden of Eden as a serpent, whatever this a serpent was as whether it was a snake or something else I am not sure.

There are many other references to Satan in scripture, like I stated the word in Isaiah was not translated properly.

I think that scripture does not tell us a lot about Satan so best to be careful.

And the great dragon was thrown down, the serpent of old who is called the devil and Satan, who deceives the whole world; he was thrown down to the earth, and his angels were thrown down with him. (Revelation 12:9)

 

[amberlynlover7]

Since it appears in the KJV people think Lucifer is before the fall and then he became Satan, this has also been promoted by the Catholic church too.

I know more about Lucifer and Luciferians (as in the mythology of it) than Satan.

I do believe Satan was in the garden of Eden as a serpent, whatever this a serpent was as whether it was a snake or something else I am not sure.

There are many other references to Satan in scripture, like I stated the word in Isaiah was not translated properly.

I think that scripture does not tell us a lot about Satan so best to be careful.

And the great dragon was thrown down, the serpent of old who is called the devil and Satan, who deceives the whole world; he was thrown down to the earth, and his angels were thrown down with him. (Revelation 12:9)

Since it appears in the KJV people think Lucifer is before the fall and then he became Satan, this has also been promoted by the Catholic church too.

I know more about Lucifer and Luciferians (as in the mythology of it) than Satan.

I do believe Satan was in the garden of Eden as a serpent, whatever this a serpent was as whether it was a snake or something else I am not sure.

There are many other references to Satan in scripture, like I stated the word in Isaiah was not translated properly.

I think that scripture does not tell us a lot about Satan so best to be careful.

And the great dragon was thrown down, the serpent of old who is called the devil and Satan, who deceives the whole world; he was thrown down to the earth, and his angels were thrown down with him. (Revelation 12:9)

OMG I just realized something after re-reading the verse u gave me in revelations. I realized that the ancient serpent, the dragon and Satan aren't the same
person. Instead they are different.

Demon are evil spirits that can possessive people.

The dragon is the one who fought the Angel in Heaven.

The devil is actually the serpent.

Satan deceives the world and was thrown the earth with his angel.

 

[UnderGrace]

OMG I just realized something after re-reading the verse u gave me in revelations. I realized that the ancient serpent, the dragon and Satan aren't the same
person. Instead they are different.

Demon are evil spirits that can possessive people.

The dragon is the one who fought the Angel in Heaven.

The devil is actually the serpent.

Satan deceives the world and was thrown the earth with his angel.

Well not sure how you derived this from the one verse, but not likely true, need far more extensive study to draw this conclusion.

 

[NayborBear]

So there were never Lucifer? And Lucifer doesn't even existed in the bible? All we know that the moring star who happens to be son of dawn want to descend from the cloud and be like God.

So does that mean that Lucifer isn't Satan? Satan is the serpent/demon/dragon that God created in the garden of eden? Who must have been a guardian cherub who happens violence and sin against God? However he was know to be beautiful and has wisdom?

Yanno? One of the best "slight of hand", "tricks", the adversary (insert devil, a more subtile beast, satan, lucifer) has ever performed is getting people to believe it doesn't exist!

Which seems to be where you are wanting to go.

 

[amberlynlover7]

Th

Well not sure how you derived this from the one verse, but not likely true, need far more extensive study to draw this conclusion.

I read some verse that are have different information about them online already.

 

[UnderGrace]

Th


I read some verse that are have different information about them online already.

Okay.