Yes, Virginia There is a Hell -- Jesus Said So

You are wrong again. The "OT" was not even referred to as the OT until AFTER translation took place... : Changing the word "pĕriy" to "fruit" (Genesis 1: 11) would be equally unsatisfactory using the logic that you are attempting to enforce. But oh my goodness. That is what happens when languages are translated into other languages... words change.. Wow.

 

LOL! Don't try to twist this.

LUCIFER is NOT a TRANSLATION of HEILEL!

The word is not even a NAME!

LATER Hellenized Christians altered the Hebrew text using a LATER Pagan demon name = LUCIFER. - because they mistakenly thought this was the fall of Sa'atan - which it obviously isn't.

Did you bother to read the Clark's Bible Commentary I posted?

 

Argue that with the people who made that translation. Why bother checking Clark's when Strongs gives essentially the same information. So regardless which reference is considered, we are still confronted with the inevitable conclusion that substitute words are used in translations when the original will not pass on an adequate comparison of terminologies. Example. In the Korean language, there is no letter "R" or "r", so words in English (such as proper names) which contain the English letter "r" or "R" must be substituted with Korean letters which render (in the Korean language) indecipherable meanings and subsequently artificial meanings have to be given that will bear a similar meaning as the English meaning.... but they will never be the same in exact meaning. Only similar.

You say that the word "Lucifer" is not even a name. On the contrary. It is a name, has been accepted for centuries as a name, and subsequently it will remain a name, regardless of how strongly you protest that matter. The word "Lucifer" conveys the name of a 'devil' Helel. Oh Well. Lucifer is the English translation.... You are simply a few hundred years late in making your protest.

 

Chapter 12 does not mention Lucifer ..

No idea what his expertise is. What is the link between the verses in Revelations mentioning Satan and Lucifer ?

 

LOL! You need to take more time reading these.

I said HEILEL is not a NAME - therefore it cannot be translated as a name, such as Lucifer!

It can be translated "bright/shining," but it actually comes from ילל yalal, yell, howl, or shriek, and should probably be translated, "Howl/wail, son of the morning;" So - bright or howl/wail are ACTUAL meanings of the word - and "Lucifer" is NOT!

Isa 14:4 And thou take up this adage against/concerning the King of Babylon, and say thus, O how failed the Tyrannizer/Oppressor; failed the Golden City.

Babylon was called the Golden City.

Isa 14:5 The LORD hath broken the staff of the wicked, and the sceptre of the rulers.

Isa 14:11 Thus decends to Sheol thy pomp/pride, and the noise of thy psaltries; and for thee below, a bed of worms and a coverlet of maggots.

Isa 14:12 How art thou fallen from a great hight, O Heylel, son of the morning! or Bright son of the morning, or Wail, son of the morning how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!

Isa 14:13 For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend unto (the hights), I will exalt my throne above the "princes" of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north: (Mount Moriah)

Isa 14:14 I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High.

Isa 14:15 Yet thou shalt be brought down to Sheol, to the sides of the pit.

Isa 14:16 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;

Isa 14:17 That made the world as a wilderness, and destroyed the cities thereof; that opened not the house of his prisoners?

Isa 14:18 All the kings of the nations, even all of them, lie in glory, every one in his own house.

Isa 14:19 But thou art cast out of thy grave like an abominable branch, and as the raiment of those that are slain, thrust through with a sword, that go down to the stones of the pit; a carcass trodden under feet.

 

Clarks commentaries are from 1826 and could easily be reciting the standard beliefs of the day

 

So what? The one you cite "could easily be reciting the standard beliefs of the day."

See that key word emphasized in red text? Doesn't that word suggest that there is necessarily a missing ingredient called 'PROOF'?

 

Thats hilarious.

The quote I gave you is from a "Bible Dictionary" and it mentions the "beliefs" of previous Church Scholars and then corrects them.

Obviously it is not reciting the "standard beliefs" of the day.

If you have some proof that refutes the claims of this Bible dictionary's rational then feel free to present it.

 

Actually he is challenging the standard belief of his day - showing the base word - and explaining why they are wrong and the word is not Lucifer.

He will still attempt to twist it - and continue believing it is Lucifer. LOL

 

I could care less what Clark had to say or what the source that Giftedone had to say. The fact of the matter is as I explained before. Don't remember?? Look back a few postings.

No twisting involved. Just pure plain FACTS. Unfortunately for you, you cannot refute those FACTS that I have already pointed out.

 

LOL! You have shown nothing - nor proved anything!

You have been given the ACTUAL word (which is NOT A NAME) and ACTUAL meanings of that word!

And been given the commentary of well respected Biblical commentators!

1. It is quite funny that you think Hielel is a name.

2. The text tells us this is the King of Babylon!

3. SO we can assume you think the Kings name is Heylel/Hailel -

4. And that it is OK for LATER Christians to change that, and call him LUCIFER

LOL! Do I have that about right? LOL!

Do you see where I am going here?

5. "Lucifer" would be INCORRECT even if it was a name!

6. And YOU have been shown that it is NOT A NAME!

7. You have also been shown that this is about a KING - not some fallen devil/demon!

8. SO! You are wrong all the way around!

 

Where exactly did I say that "I think Hielel is a name" (other than immediately preceding)? Now you are presuming to KNOW what I 'think'? You have suddenly become a mind reader?

And your point? Did I deny such a fact? Did I state anything to the contrary? No?

You can assume whatever you desire, but just because you assume something does not make that matter a FACT.

Such changes have been an accepted practice for many centuries. Like I said before, your protest is a few centuries too late. The old law of 'custom and usage.' You lose on that one.

Nope! Not at all.

Yep! You are on that highway of making false representations of what I stated.

In your opinion, but your opinion and protest is a few centuries too late.

The opinion of someone today regarding a name that was coined several centuries ago, does not change the FACT that at the time it was coined, it was a name. Grammar 101. Always capitalize proper nouns.

More opinions from people of today who had nothing to do with that original writing. Just about like your opinion. Means next to nothing.

You have not proven me wrong. You have merely repeated your opinion on various things. No PROOF. Just opinion.

 

You said LUCIFER was CORRECT for HEYLEL! That means you think HEYLEL is a name!

My "point" is that common sense should tell you this Babylonian King is not being called a foreign demon name!

You said Lucifer was correct for Heylel/Hailel - Lucifer is a NAME!

That is not correct!

The foreign word can be translated into its equivalent in the new language!

HEYLEL - can therefore be translated, Bright, Shinning, Wail, cry, etc.

It can not be turned into a future Demon Name = LUCIFER!

Yes I obviously do.

LOL! I don't have to make false representations.

NO! LOL! Not in my opinion only! See above! HEYLEL is not a name!

LOL! It is not a name.

It is capatalized because they took a word that is NOT a name - and inserted a demon name - FROM THEIR LATER TIME - for it - and then we read it in English which capitalizes names. LOL!

"OPINIONS" LOL!

Isa 14:4 And thou take up this adage against/concerning the King of Babylon, and say thus, O how failed the Tyrannizer/Oppressor; failed the Golden City.

Would you like to tell me how it is "my opinion" when the text says it is concerning THE KING OF BABYLON? LOL!

LOL! Yes I have - again.

 

What brings the conclusion that if you want to be a good christian you must act as Tolstoi. In other words, anarchist.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tolstoy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tolstoyan_movement

 

The devil is given many names in the Bible, the idea that Christians changed his name deliberately is silly. Satan goes by many names, he is the father of lies after all.

As usually appears to be the case, atheists, who continualy make the case about how the concept of hell somehow singles them out for special mean treatment continuously demonstrate just how litte they actually know of Christian principles.

Lost in the discussion of experts argueing about the importance of whether a word is capitolized or not, but unable to discern Lucifer because he is listed by another name, is any discussion of sin, its origins, its effects, and its consequences.

Even better is the constant quotation of Isaiah from the Old Testament, clearly ransplanting Babylon for the devil, wven though Babylon features prominently is the History of the Middle East. Why anyone would continue to quote that bit of scripture after repeatedly being told their interpretation is inaccurate, and why, is beyond me.

It amazes me that atheists claim the mantel of expertise, but when we examone the case they actually make, what we clearly get are after the fact searches, evidence teisted from google to desperately fit preconceptions, and simple obstinance.

Yep, there is a Hell - Jesus Says So.

Yep, there is a Devil, he goes by many names - Jesus Says So.

Its in the Bible.

So please stop looking up obscure bits of minutia from pastors long gone to try ad caste doubt, and just read the Bible instead. If you read it, well, then maybe you could actually make an arguement against it - but is painfully clear that the atheists who scream the loudest about Hell know the least about it.

 

Apparently "Lucifer" is not one of them.

 

Once again, you do not possess the authority to determine what I think or what I can think or anything else regarding my psyche. Because you give your interpretation of someones statement in a manner that is twisted only shows how twisted your mind really is. If I agree with a given definition of a term, simply means that I agree with a given definition. You adding your little comments as additives to what I have expressed is simply a matter of your constant misrepresentations of what people state.

Back to the ignore list, before I get myself in trouble with the moderators.

 

Only if you are obtuse beyond imagination or simply obstinate.

The prupose of communication is to share ideas, and we all know exactly who we are talking about when we say Lucifer.

Again, when you play petty games like this, are you ate all shocked that people consider you an atheist?

 

You may think you know what you are talking about when you talk of Lucifer but the Bible dictionaries that I cited from disagree with you.

Just because one does not believe in your particular type of spirituality does not make them an athiest.

It is you that is obstinant beyond imagination for denying the evidence put before you.

 

Well, turning to the Catholic encyclopedia, we find this on the subject of Lucifer:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09410a.htm
"Lucifer

(Hebrew helel; Septuagint heosphoros, Vulgate lucifer)

The name Lucifer originally denotes the planet Venus, emphasizing its brilliance. The Vulgate employs the word also for "the light of the morning" (Job 11:17), "the signs of the zodiac" (Job 38:32), and "the aurora" (Psalm 109:3). Metaphorically, the word is applied to the King of Babylon (Isaiah 14:12) as preeminent among the princes of his time; to the high priest Simon son of Onias (Ecclesiasticus 50:6), for his surpassing virtue, to the glory of heaven (Apocalypse 2:2, by reason of its excellency; finally to Jesus Christ himself (2 Peter 1:19; Apocalypse 22:16; the "Exultet" of Holy Saturday) the true light of our spiritual life.

The Syriac version and the version of Aquila derive the Hebrew noun helel from the verb yalal, "to lament"; St. Jerome agrees with them (In Isaiah 1.14), and makes Lucifer the name of the principal fallen angel who must lament the loss of his original glory bright as the morning star. In Christian tradition this meaning of Lucifer has prevailed; the Fathers maintain that Lucifer is not the proper name of the devil, but denotes only the state from which he has fallen (Petavius, De Angelis, III, iii, 4). "

Some interesting stuff coming from that source.

What this shows is the fallibility of those working within the Vatican in using grammar. It would appear that they do not know or understand the rules of grammar. In the alternative, they did use the proper rules of Grammar and properly placed the capital letter "L" at the beginning of the word "Lucifer".

"Proper nouns are the names of individual people, places, titles, calendar times, etc..

eg: Janet; Simon; London; The President; Tuesday.

Proper nouns are always written with a capital letter. Nouns which are not written with a capital letter do not refer to the name of an individual person or thing and are called common nouns."

Like I said before,,, the fallibility of interpreters of ancient text.. the problems arising from substitute words, etc... Complicated further by the law of 'custom and usage'. Another interesting note from the Catholic Encyclopedia is their notation that the Hebrew word 'helel' represented a "metaphor" that was applied to the King of Babylon.

 

Yes we today associate the Pagan Lucifer with Sa'atan, however he has no actual connection, and the NAME is NOT in the Bible.

 

The name 'Lucifer' is in the Bible. English translation through the KJV.

 

The problem with the above is that this is not a "changing" of one of "Sa'atan's" name into another.

The whole verse is about a KING - NO "Sa'atan," "Lucifer," "Devil," etc, ANYWHERE!

They PURPOSEFULLY tried to make this into a "Fallen evil angel" verse, by TOTALLY SWITCHING one word - that isn't even a name - for another!

"BECAUSE" they were teaching the NEW, and pagan, - SATAN is an EVIL FALLEN angel, out to make you do evil for evil's sake!

Lucifer was a pagan demon.

 

I thought this needed further comment.

Revelation was written very late, using the already altered text.

 

What was the name of that 'pagan demon'?