|
Post by leonardo on Feb 25, 2008 14:44:42 GMT
However you could point out that Lucifer /Satan was cast out of Heaven to he therefore can not be the Supreme being. That's presupposing the Bible is the only authority on what the Supreme being is.
|
|
|
Post by billmcelligott on Feb 25, 2008 16:18:41 GMT
Well as Satan and Lucifer seem to be derivatives of the old Testament it seemed logical.
But the point is pointed toward the fact that I had to agree believed in a 'Supreme Being' before I was allowed to be initiated.
Some Masonic orders do not have that requirement, most do.
|
|
|
Post by leonardo on Feb 25, 2008 18:19:38 GMT
Well as Satan and Lucifer seem to be derivatives of the old Testament it seemed logical. From that perspective I see what you mean. You say: Satan and LuciferAre they considered two separate entities?
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Feb 25, 2008 20:26:10 GMT
You say: Satan and Lucifer
Are they considered two separate entities? We read:Passage 14:12 from the Book of Isaiah ... ["Lucifer", i.e., "light bearer"] referred to one of the popular honorific titles of a Babylonian king; however, later interpretations of the text, and the influence of embellishments in works such as Dante's Inferno and Milton's Paradise Lost, led to the common interpretation in Christian belief that Lucifer was a poetic appellation of Satan. In a postive sense, the feminine "Lucifera," and its equivalent in other languages, was commonly an appellation of various female deities (sadly, this evocative title has also now been debased and demonised). Diana Lucifera See: Lynn Picknett's, 2005, The Secret History of Lucifer , Robinson, London Also see: Revelation 22:16, where Jesus is described as the "morning star," a.k.a., "Venus," a.k.a. "Lucifer."
|
|
|
Post by billmcelligott on Feb 25, 2008 21:16:28 GMT
The term Lucifer is not found in all the published Bibles here is an example
Isaiah 14:12-15 (King James Version) 12How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!
Isaiah 14:12-15 (New International Version) 12 How you have fallen from heaven, O morning star, son of the dawn! You have been cast down to the earth, you who once laid low the nations!
Isaiah 14:12-15 (English Standard Version) 12"How(A) you are fallen from heaven, O Day Star,(B) son of Dawn! How you are cut down to the ground, you who laid the nations low!
Lucifer was most likely an error in translation from the Vulgate. Isaiah 14 was about the demise of the king of Babylon.
|
|
|
Post by leonardo on Feb 25, 2008 23:05:36 GMT
Makes one wonder how many other errors there are in the Bible.
|
|
imakegarb
Member
One wee, sleeket, cowran, tim'rous beastie
Posts: 3,573
|
Post by imakegarb on Feb 26, 2008 2:47:58 GMT
One person's error is another person's faith. All in how you look at it. K. If we worship Lucifer (and I ain't admitting to anything) then how do we do it? Just wondrin'
|
|
|
Post by wayseer on Feb 26, 2008 4:40:51 GMT
Makes one wonder how many other errors there are in the Bible.
There are no errors in the Bible - unless you are using it for the wrong purposes.
|
|
|
Post by lauderdale on Feb 26, 2008 5:33:31 GMT
"Makes one wonder how many other errors there are in the Bible."
Plenty Bro Leo. Some of it may have been Divinely Inspired, but for the most part it is a human artefact and as such fallible as are all VSLs.
Not only has it been translated and re-translated over the centuries but parts have been added and taken away. As an example the Apocrypha , not in the main canon of the KJV but to be found in the RC Bible.
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Feb 26, 2008 7:09:24 GMT
There are no errors in the Bible - unless you are using it for the wrong purposes. Bro. John, Given your usual radical, historical doubt and robust skepticism, I find this dogmatic assertion of yours to be remarkably at odds with your character, as I had imagined it to be. See: Spong's, Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism: A Bishop Rethinks the Meaning of Scripture.
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Feb 26, 2008 7:35:52 GMT
K. If we worship Lucifer (and I ain't admitting to anything) then how do we do it? Given that "Lucifer," simply means "light bearer," which was a common appellation of Venus (and some other beneficent deities); the planet identified with her is also known as the "morning star;" and, given that Jesus was described as the "morning star," Christians need have no problem with the title in that context. A common religious tactic is to appropriate what one may from competitors and demonise the rest (no matter how benign or beneficent). As was done with the god Pan, so too was done with the title "Lucifer."
|
|
|
Post by billmcelligott on Feb 26, 2008 9:50:20 GMT
God has no errors, man can create many,
The three differences were:
O Lucifer, son of the morning!
O morning star, son of the dawn!
O Day Star, son of Dawn!
So , you have to answer is it what is written or what you read.
clearly we end up with
O Lucifer = O morning star or Lucifer = Morning Star [or Day Star]
Morning Star = planet (usually Venus) seen just before sunrise in the eastern sky [syn: daystar, Phosphorus] could coincide with the bring of light, or the bring of enlightenment.
Now the really interesting divert here could be: 2Pet 1:19 (NIV) And we have the word of the prophets made more certain, and you will do well to pay attention to it, as to a light shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts. Rev 2:28 (NIV) I will also give him the morning star.
Rev 22:16 (NIV) "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."
It is the KJV version that uses the term Bright morning Star. Plus as far as freemasonry goes that phrase is used in the 3rd degree.
Some ritual has been changed to 'luminary of nature' if memory serves me correctly.
but how these snips of facts can be pieced together , is up to you all.
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Feb 26, 2008 13:46:13 GMT
God has no errors, man can create many The question remains as to whether or not the Bible is the direct work of God or of man. There are layers upon layers of creative interpretation, in which the hand of man is apparent: There is the biblical exegesis of modern translations; There are the earlier translations into Greek, Latin and vernacular tongues, (which influenced subsequent understandings of the text); There was the redaction by Ezra (?) and others, in compiling the Torah; And there was the selective tradition of writings and earlier storytelling upon which the Redactor/s drew, all deriving from folk histories, Just-so stories , myths and both long redundant and contemporary geo-political propaganda, together with a smattering of religious insights (both superficial and profound), derived from different traditions and seen through differing historical and cultural perspectives.
|
|
|
Post by billmcelligott on Feb 26, 2008 14:02:42 GMT
I cant argue with that Philip, it is a bit like Albert Pike's observation on Freemasonry,
Morals and Dogma - 2nd - Fellow-craft
"The Onion was sacred to the Egyptians, because its different layers were a symbol of the concentric heavenly spheres. Of course the popular religion could not satisfy the deeper longings and thoughts, the loftier aspirations of the Spirit, or the logic of reason. The first, therefore, was taught to the initiated in the Mysteries. There, also, it was taught by symbols. The vagueness of symbolism, capable of many interpretations,"
|
|
|
Post by hollandr on Feb 26, 2008 22:07:01 GMT
>God has no errors, man can create many,
Bill
I wonder how we can know that.
Did God tell us?
On the basis of "as above so below" I might propose that God is on a learning curve.
That might resolve the philosophical problem of the existence of evil
|
|
|
Post by billmcelligott on Feb 26, 2008 22:59:53 GMT
Pure logic Russell, if one is a 'supreme being' one would not make a mistake.
But then again being supreme just means better than all the rest , so you have a point.
|
|
|
Post by leonardo on Feb 26, 2008 23:02:44 GMT
I suppose the fact that the Bible is so open to deliberate misinterpretation and misrepresentation by certain religious leaders it will always be viewed by some with a certain amount of skepticism. The following link advances the notion there 1001 errors found in the Bible: hometown.aol.com/abdulreis/myhomepage/index.html
|
|
|
Post by wayseer on Feb 27, 2008 1:09:04 GMT
Given your usual radical, historical doubt and robust skepticism, I find this dogmatic assertion of yours to be remarkably at odds with your character, as I had imagined it to be.
The problem is we are using the Bible, and all other holy relics of the past, in the wrong way. These books were designed for moral instruction, not historical accuracy.
The Bible, et al, were written by men (which may well be an 'event' - see my other thread) for men ....
"The Onion was sacred to the Egyptians, because its different layers were a symbol of the concentric heavenly spheres. Of course the popular religion could not satisfy the deeper longings and thoughts, the loftier aspirations of the Spirit, or the logic of reason. The first, therefore, was taught to the initiated in the Mysteries. There, also, it was taught by symbols. The vagueness of symbolism, capable of many interpretations,"
... which is closer to the point. In this respect the Bible is a self-creating event - it can change each time you read it. The determinates are important - that such interpretations (choices) might lead to argony and despair is acknowledged - but that's freedom for you!
|
|
|
Post by billmcelligott on Feb 27, 2008 7:42:07 GMT
Yes John I think that's right, the Bible is the 'Greatest Story ever told'.
But like all stories it will leave a different impression on each reader. Now isn't Freemasonry just like that.
|
|
|
Post by maat on Feb 27, 2008 23:33:51 GMT
These books were designed for moral instruction, not historical accuracy. How do you reconcile your morality with that in parts of the Bible. All the smiting, smoting, killing bits, whole towns, cities, women, children... etc etc. I actually feel a bit sorry for the children of Sodom and Gomorrah ... and Hiroshima and Nagasaki... You get my drift. Maat
|
|