<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1" http-equiv=Content-Type>
<META content="MSHTML 5.00.2919.6307" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY bottomMargin=0 leftMargin=3 rightMargin=3 topMargin=0>
<DIV>Lance, I have a little more to offer on Lucifer, having got some
perspective from the rabbi I mentioned. The quote from the New Testament you
pointed to is obviously a reference by Jesus to Isaiah 14:12. That verse is
itself often cited as authority for the rebellion of a portion of the angels
against G-d. I am informed that the original Hebrew for that verse, from the
scroll of the prophet whose name when he lived was Yishayahu is "Eich nafalta
mi-shamayim, heilel ben shachar; nigdata la-aretz, cholesh al goyim." That is a
transliteration into syllables, spelled out in Roman letters, which gives a good
approximation of how the text in Hebrew letters might be read.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>The translation into English would be ""How you have fallen from the sky,
bright one son of dawn; you have been cut down to the earth, dominator of
nations."<BR></DIV>
<DIV>Translating heilel into Latin, lucifer is not a bad equivalent, since it
comes from the Latin words <I>lux</I> (root <I>luci=</I>), "light" and <I>ferre
</I>"to bear." So it means "light-bearer." But it does not refer to Satan. It is
a prophecy of the fall of Nebuchadnezzar, King of Babylon.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Of course people could, and will, continue to argue the significance of
that verse. What this all means to me is that the Bibles most of us read are
worth reading because they are the closest we are going to get to the Word of
G-d, but, they are not what some churches call "the complete and perfect Word of
G-d." Why not? Because none of them are in the original language of the
revelations recorded, and, as far as the New Testament goes, the original
revelations were not even written down. A lot can get lost in translation, and
then a lot more can be created from what a translation seems to contain, that
were not in the original.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>For the Old Testament, the oldest available texts in Hebrew seem to me the
most accurate source for understanding what was said. For the New Testament,
what we actually have are Greek texts possibly derived from Aramaic texts that
we no longer have, or possibly written with the best intentions by Christian
writers long after the crucifixion. The broad flow of whole chapters, or entire
books, is more important than the details of each verse.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Of course, I could be wrong, but so could the most gifted teachers. Which
leaves each of us to come to terms with what we can really see and follow in our
own reading.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Siarlys</DIV></BODY></HTML>