Isn't Lucifer the Good Guy?

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Isaiah "may be" drawing upon imagery of a Canaanite myth? It "could be" then that Isaiah alludes to a lost Canaanite myth? If it was lost, how then does what was found have any credibility?

Probably because both הילל and שׁחר are known deities from Canaanite mythology. In other words, despite your scathing reply (matched in its dismissiveness only by the utter lack of anything remotely resembling an informed view), you've mistakenly equated speculation of a particular myth with speculation of references to Canaanite mythology. We know these are references to Canaanite mythology.

However, I'll try to make this simpler for you. Imagine a reference to Zeus in some ancient text. Imagine further that in this reference, Zeus is mentioned as "friend of Medea". So far as we know, there is nothing in Greek literature to suggest such a relationship, but if we discovered such a text we might hypothesize a particular myth/story about Zeus and Medea, yet be very sure that even if this hypothesis is wrong, it's BLATANTLY OBVIOUS that this text concerns Greek mythology.

But nice try. Disparagingly dismissive ignorance is always entertaining.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

And in order to head off further disparaging comments about a source you haven't read that you nevertheless dismiss after demanding (rather than simply educating yourself), I'll supply additional sources of different natures that you can dismiss for equally baseless "reasons".
"The names Day Star and son of Dawn draw on divine names known from Canaanite mythology. The name was translated as Lucifer in Latin, and the passage was later understood to refer to Satan’s fall from heaven. The taunt song apparently reflects mythological references to failed attempts by gods to challenge the rule of the chief god (see also Ezek 28; Ps 82)"
Coogan, M. D. (2010). The New Oxford Annotated Bible: New Revised Standard Version With the Apocrypha: An Ecumenical Study Bible (4th Ed.). Oxford University Press.

"From aspirations for divinity (compare Gen. 1..4-8), he falls to the anonymity of Sheol.Canaanite mythological background is reflected in Day Star and Dawn (Hebrew "Helal" and "Shahar," names of deities)..."
May, H. G. & Metzger, B. M. (1965). The Oxford Annotated Bible with the Apocrypha. Oxford University Press.

"Scholars agree that this passage [Isaiah 14:12-15], like Ezekiel 28, is probably based upon an older myth about the banishment of a divine being and at the very least incorporates older Canaanite mythology. "O Day Star, son of Dawn" (Helel ben Shachar) may have its roots in the Canaanite legend of Shachar (the Dawn) and Shalim (Dusk), two divine children born of the god El and a mortal woman. Some scholars have argued that "Shachar" retains some of its mythological significance as the name of a dawn goddess. The Greek translation of "Helel ben Shachar" in Hesiod is "Heosphoros," son of the dawn-bringer,V enus, which was in turn translated into Latin as "Lucifer."
Lee, J. (1997). Lucifer: A Fantastic Figure. Journal of the Fantastic in the Arts, 218-234.

I eagerly await your next set of excuses for ignoring these sources whilst refusing to give any basis or evidence yourself.

 

[ether-ore]

And in order to head off further disparaging comments about a source you haven't read that you nevertheless dismiss after demanding (rather than simply educating yourself), I'll supply additional sources of different natures that you can dismiss for equally baseless "reasons".
"The names Day Star and son of Dawn draw on divine names known from Canaanite mythology. The name was translated as Lucifer in Latin, and the passage was later understood to refer to Satan’s fall from heaven. The taunt song apparently reflects mythological references to failed attempts by gods to challenge the rule of the chief god (see also Ezek 28; Ps 82)"
Coogan, M. D. (2010). The New Oxford Annotated Bible: New Revised Standard Version With the Apocrypha: An Ecumenical Study Bible (4th Ed.). Oxford University Press.

"From aspirations for divinity (compare Gen. 1..4-8), he falls to the anonymity of Sheol.Canaanite mythological background is reflected in Day Star and Dawn (Hebrew "Helal" and "Shahar," names of deities)..."
May, H. G. & Metzger, B. M. (1965). The Oxford Annotated Bible with the Apocrypha. Oxford University Press.

"Scholars agree that this passage [Isaiah 14:12-15], like Ezekiel 28, is probably based upon an older myth about the banishment of a divine being and at the very least incorporates older Canaanite mythology. "O Day Star, son of Dawn" (Helel ben Shachar) may have its roots in the Canaanite legend of Shachar (the Dawn) and Shalim (Dusk), two divine children born of the god El and a mortal woman. Some scholars have argued that "Shachar" retains some of its mythological significance as the name of a dawn goddess. The Greek translation of "Helel ben Shachar" in Hesiod is "Heosphoros," son of the dawn-bringer,V enus, which was in turn translated into Latin as "Lucifer."
Lee, J. (1997). Lucifer: A Fantastic Figure. Journal of the Fantastic in the Arts, 218-234.

I eagerly await your next set of excuses for ignoring these sources whilst refusing to give any basis or evidence yourself.

What we have here are crossed purposes and conflicting perspectives. Distilling what you have said down to its essence; you seek to discredit scripture by equating it with mythology and thereby hope to prove the non-existence of God. I believe that we can not know anything about God unless God chooses to reveal it; and God only reveals Himself, His methods, and His plan of salvation through prophets. God cannot be discovered through any type of science, be it archaeology or whatever science. But of course that isn't the purpose of the atheists, There is no desire to discover God by any means. There only exists the desire to illustrate through various means those things which support the grinding of the atheist axe.

Instead of trying to look back through the wholly inaccurate lens of archaeology with its various scholars vying for attention. I prefer (admittedly) to read what the prophets have said. If therefore you consider my education to be lacking, I am unconcerned. Scripture is the best and only source material concerning God and only a prophet of God can expound the meaning of scripture. Scholars who do not have and make no claim of having revelations from God, are a distant second best source of information regarding God or anything having to do with Him.

I will tell you that the Books commissioned by Moses are abridgements of earlier scriptural records. I believe that scripture existed before Moses and had been passed down since the days of Adam and through the flood by Noah. Abraham's introduction to God came not from his father who was an idolator but through exposure to scripture in the possession of Melchizedek. If the stories contained in these records were corrupted (as is very likely... just look at what has happened to the Bible) and were turned into the myths of other cultures, I don't dispute that. What I do dispute is that those corrupted "myths" were the original stories. A belief in Jesus Christ was had in the days of Adam as is indicated by the fact that Abel sacrificed lambs which is the prescribed sacrifice meant to keep the people in mind of the ultimate sacrifice of Jesus Christ.

I therefore maintain that the story I presented of Lucifer being the same person as Satan as supported by scripture both ancient and modern is the more accurate story, rather than some myth which was a corruption of an earlier record and which "scholars" cannot accurately understand without a revelation from God or by having a prophet educate them.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

What we have here are crossed purposes and conflicting perspectives. Distilling what you have said down to its essence; you seek to discredit scripture by equating it with mythology and thereby hope to prove the non-existence of God.

I don't believe such a proof possible, let alone something I seek to attempt. And I generally understand/interpret mythology according to the semantic content of the lexeme μῦθος.

 

[ether-ore]

I don't believe such a proof possible, let alone something I seek to attempt. And I generally understand/interpret mythology according to the semantic content of the lexeme μῦθος.

I can appreciate the study of language. I don't know if you remember it. But there was on one of those documentary TV programs (I think NOVA... I'm not sure) a program titled "The Mother Tongue". A extremely interesting documentary tracing the development of English from its Celtic and Anglo-Saxon roots, through the influence of French from the Norman conquests in 1066 to the writings of Shakespeare and the King James Version of the Bible. Thence to the codifying of the language by an English professor and some poor American civil war Union officer who went mad and was imprisoned in a British mental hospital, whose work produced the Oxford English Dictionary. And then onward to the alterations in language by Canadians, Australians... etc... and finally to the Americans and the various dialects and inflections produced here. The program ended with an explanation of how after all of the changes over time by all these, that "Ebonics" (then in vogue) was a legitimate form of English.

My feeling is that while all of this may be interesting, it really says nothing of the accuracy of the stories told using language morphemes. If anything, it contributes to the corruption of a true story. For example, my Bible dictionary says that "Lucifer" means "light bearer". It seems to have the same root as the verb to "illuminate" or the unit of light called the "lumen". Lucifer in scripture was described as being a "Son of the Morning", meaning that he was one of the first of the spirit children born of God. That that was corrupted into Day Star (Venus) or Son of the Dawn by the Canaanites is not supersizing to me. I happen to believe that the Canaanites had the story told to them by prophets (significantly Balaam... who fell). But the story did not originate with the Canaanites. The event itself, from which the story is told, happened before Adam and Eve were even placed in the Garden of Eden; that is how old this story is. There is no explanation of how or why the Canaanites may have associated this name with some king in Babylon and a study of words will not tell you that.

 

[Desert Snake]

I do not worship the devil.

That's part of the problem. These are religious texts, not just 'stories'. If you aren't reading them in a religious context, whatever you think about the narrative is going to be your own perspective with no premise for the characters. As for the snake in the garden, that wasn't Lucifer.

 

[Jumi]

Prometheus might be better and more positive. His story is almost the same as the modern Christian Lucifer, but without the hint of evil.

 

[JoStories]

Distilling what you have said down to its essence; you seek to discredit scripture by equating it with mythology and thereby hope to prove the non-existence of Go

And yet the Bible is very much built on mythology. There are too many parallels to disavow that. You can believe it came from or rather, as you stated, was handed down from the time of Adam but that is simply your belief. Science has proven we evolved from primates or do you deny archeological evidence? Such as Lucy and more. It is simply genetically impossible that we evolved from two people.

 

[JoStories]

The event itself, from which the story is told, happened before Adam and Eve were even placed in the Garden of Eden; that is how old this story is.

If this is true, how did the story get told? You are going to tell me that God gossiped to Adam and Eve about things that happened before they were even made or that God actually personally wrote the story? Can you even begin to see how this sounds?

 

[Desert Snake]

If this is true, how did the story get told? You are going to tell me that God gossiped to Adam and Eve about things that happened before they were even made or that God actually personally wrote the story? Can you even begin to see how this sounds?

It doesn't matter how it sounds, that's the general idea. We know that the Bible is G-d inspired.

 

[JoStories]

It doesn't matter how it sounds, that's the general idea. We know that the Bible is G-d inspired.

We know? Prove it, scientifically please and with credible sources or admit that this is your opinion.

 

[Desert Snake]

We know? Prove it, scientifically please and with credible sources or admit that this is your opinion.

Prove that it isn't, scientifically. Yes it's my ''opinion''. I just stated it lol, of course it's my opinion.

 

[JoStories]

Prove that it isn't, scientifically. Yes it's my ''opinion''. I just stated it lol, of course it's my opinion.

You stated: "we know the Bible is God inspired". That is a statement of fact. I merely responded to that. Now, IMO, you are back pedaling.

 

[Desert Snake]

You stated: "we know the Bible is God inspired". That is a statement of fact. I merely responded to that. Now, IMO, you are back pedaling.

Huh? Yes I made a statement of fact. Are you able to disprove it?

 

[JoStories]

Huh? Yes I made a statement of fact. Are you able to disprove it?

You are the one with the onus to prove this. You would need to first prove there is a God and then prove that God inspired the people that wrote it. Unless you are trying to imply it was faxed down? There is no way to prove your position which is the one that would need to be proved first. Can you prove there is a God?

 

[Jumi]

We know that the Bible is G-d inspired.

You may believe it is inspired, but we don't know it.

 

[ether-ore]

You may believe it is inspired, but we don't know it.

How does one "know" of the existence of love? How does one convey a knowledge of that love to someone else? For example: Describe the quality of love one has for their mother. Then describe the quality of love one may have for anyone else... Being absolutely sure of eliminating any hint of sexual desire in the description. Are they the same? Describe the difference. Are there any difficulties in describing this knowledge of love. I would say that this activity is very similar to describing the confirmation of the love and knowledge of God by the Holy Spirit which is "inspiration" when reading the scriptures. One "knows" the confirmation of the Holy Ghost is there... unless you are passed feeling (as many are).

 

[JoStories]

How does one "know" of the existence of love? How does one convey a knowledge of that love to someone else? For example: Describe the quality of love one has for their mother. Then describe the quality of love one may have for anyone else... Being absolutely sure of eliminating any hint of sexual desire in the description. Are they the same? Describe the difference. Are there any difficulties in describing this knowledge of love. I would say that this activity is very similar to describing the confirmation of the love and knowledge of God by the Holy Spirit which is "inspiration" when reading the scriptures. One "knows" the confirmation of the Holy Ghost is there... unless you are passed feeling (as many are).

Love is an emotional state that can be quantified to some degree. Belief in God cannot by any means.

 

[Desert Snake]

You may believe it is inspired, but we don't know it.

That position is problematic for the person taking it. Once you present that argument, you have de facto assumed the position of /not proving==not knowing./ Theoretically, this position is ok, however, it is also self falsifying as an argument. Ie, from /0/, you are not presenting a position, hence there is no logic in asking for proof, etc., because there is nothing to compare it to as a standard.

This is why ''prove it'', in many if not most cases is not really an argument.

 

[Desert Snake]

Love is an emotional state that can be quantified to some degree. Belief in God cannot by any means.

I have no idea what this is supposed to mean. If you are talking about the Abrahamic G-d, He is generally believed to be hidden or ''invisible''; hence one might have evidence from other things that He exists. If one is referring to the Xian theistic stance, G-d infers 'Jesus', as well, so evidence of Jesus==evidence for G-d. Now, I'm syncretic, so I include other things besides the Abrahamic texts, etc., in my proposition. Your position of belief in G-d not being quantifiable is just incorrect. It's your personal perspective, hence not really my problem as to evidence or presenting a logical basis for my position. You are essentially presenting an argument from ignorance. or an argument from /0/, which is not actually an argument; /0/ is a position of not knowing, or contextually, not even having a position. A position from your perspective is therefore ''I think this is the case'', and nothing more. Asking me to prove something to you is not logical, as you have not proven your position, or rather have not proven the logic of your position.