Message from @Chalin
Discord ID: 378342910782865419
Or the publication of Dantes Inferno
I can't figure out which
I'm not well versed in the subject
I just now that the name "Lucifer" itself seems to be something widely misused to the point that the fact that it's misused has become meaningless
Yeah, the only mention of the name "Lucifer" in the Christian Bible was actually in reference to Nebuchadnezzar II, oddly enough
The Babylonian king who conquered the holy land
I don't know jack shit about Islamic scripture, other than that much of it parallels other Abrahamic scripture
Oh wait I think I remember something. Iblees was used before his pride took over him, before he became evil
I really don't know enough details about the Bible version of him aside from stuff I've heard here and there such as him being a fallen angel and so on. And I know the Bible has been changed/reworded but that's it
Yea, upon a but more reading, it seems that it was at some point in the European medieval age that the word "Lucifer" generally came to be used as the name as the devil prior to his fall from heaven
It parallels it cause in the Quran, God says he sent the Torah to the Israelis through Musa (Moses), then the Bible through Issa (Jesus), the son of the virgin Mariam, but every time he sent a book, the people changed it eventually. We believe they were all sent by God through an angel named Jibrael, they're just changed/editted
Really? So Christians also used Lucifer as his name before he fell?
By some
It's kinda used all over the place
Depends on the source, I can't get a clear picture
I've read some of the Bible but I ought to sit down and read it through
Unless you read the King James version, I doubt you'd find much use of the name "Lucifer"
Hmm
I was considering KJV
Since that's the most common one, or so I've heard
Also, it's not explicitly said that the serpent in the Garden of Eden was actually the devil
Oh, we believe it was
The New International Version is also a common one
Though I'd have to recheck
It's basically assumed that the serpent is the devil
Who else would be leading God's creations astray
How could the devil have been in heaven
A preacher will tell you that it's pretty obvious that the serpent was the devil
You'd find that a lot of what is taught by Christian theologians is based upon assumptions and inferences made about the text, rather than litteral translation
Doesn't that increase inacurracy though?
That's a big issue, yes
It's one of the reasons why I do not believe in the Bible
Well
I agree with your standpoint in sticking to morals
Most modern Christians do not take the old testament as fact
Too much of it contradicts known science and history, and there's just too many contradictions
The new testament is less inconsistent, and better follows the beliefs of modern Christianity
There's some stuff that breaks science, like Jesus turning water into wine, but it's easier to accept that Jesus can defy the laws of creation from time to time than it is to accept the Creationist belief of how the universe was created based upon the litteral interpretation of genesis
When modern science is far more consistent than the old testament
That's a lot of contradictions. You know if the bible was never changed from how it was originally revealed, there would have been no need for the Quran, by Muslim beliefs at least