Message from @Chalin

Discord ID: 378342983784726548


2017-11-10 00:25:01 UTC  

I'm not well versed in the subject

2017-11-10 00:25:44 UTC  

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

2017-11-10 00:28:01 UTC  

Yeah, the only mention of the name "Lucifer" in the Christian Bible was actually in reference to Nebuchadnezzar II, oddly enough

2017-11-10 00:28:26 UTC  

The Babylonian king who conquered the holy land

2017-11-10 00:30:12 UTC  

I don't know jack shit about Islamic scripture, other than that much of it parallels other Abrahamic scripture

2017-11-10 00:30:57 UTC  

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

2017-11-10 00:32:42 UTC  

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

2017-11-10 00:33:31 UTC  

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

2017-11-10 00:33:58 UTC  

Really? So Christians also used Lucifer as his name before he fell?

2017-11-10 00:35:46 UTC  

By some

2017-11-10 00:35:55 UTC  

It's kinda used all over the place

2017-11-10 00:36:13 UTC  

Depends on the source, I can't get a clear picture

2017-11-10 00:36:23 UTC  

I've read some of the Bible but I ought to sit down and read it through

2017-11-10 00:37:47 UTC  

Unless you read the King James version, I doubt you'd find much use of the name "Lucifer"

2017-11-10 00:38:36 UTC  

Hmm

2017-11-10 00:39:09 UTC  

I was considering KJV

2017-11-10 00:39:26 UTC  

Since that's the most common one, or so I've heard

2017-11-10 00:39:32 UTC  

Also, it's not explicitly said that the serpent in the Garden of Eden was actually the devil

2017-11-10 00:39:39 UTC  

Not in the Bible, at least

2017-11-10 00:39:55 UTC  

Oh, we believe it was

2017-11-10 00:39:56 UTC  

The New International Version is also a common one

2017-11-10 00:40:02 UTC  

Though I'd have to recheck

2017-11-10 00:40:10 UTC  

It's basically assumed that the serpent is the devil

2017-11-10 00:40:30 UTC  

Who else would be leading God's creations astray

2017-11-10 00:40:43 UTC  

How could the devil have been in heaven

2017-11-10 00:40:57 UTC  

A preacher will tell you that it's pretty obvious that the serpent was the devil

2017-11-10 00:42:54 UTC  

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

2017-11-10 00:44:34 UTC  

Doesn't that increase inacurracy though?

2017-11-10 00:44:56 UTC  

That's a big issue, yes

2017-11-10 00:45:32 UTC  

It's one of the reasons why I do not believe in the Bible

2017-11-10 00:46:39 UTC  

Well

2017-11-10 00:46:54 UTC  

I agree with your standpoint in sticking to morals

2017-11-10 00:47:20 UTC  

Most modern Christians do not take the old testament as fact

2017-11-10 00:47:46 UTC  

Too much of it contradicts known science and history, and there's just too many contradictions

2017-11-10 00:48:31 UTC  

The new testament is less inconsistent, and better follows the beliefs of modern Christianity

2017-11-10 00:50:03 UTC  

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

2017-11-10 00:50:51 UTC  

When modern science is far more consistent than the old testament

2017-11-10 00:51:04 UTC  

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

2017-11-10 00:51:35 UTC  

I believe his ability to turn water into wine was *supposed* to contradict science, to prove him

2017-11-10 00:52:34 UTC  

Along with his other abilities