Why is the bible a Great Light of FreeMasons

[Anonymous]

Something that has always perplexed me is why the masons consider the bible a Great light of freemasonry. I should also mention that St John is revered by the Masons as well.

I discover this puzzle while reading the builders and Morals and Dogma

http://www.sacred-texts.com/mas/bui/index.htm

http://www.sacred-texts.com/mas/md/index.htm

here the masons tell the bible is so important

http://www.lostword.com/bibles.html

there are 3 great lights - the holy bible, the compass, and Square

seems like a strange thing for Luciferians

Time is a river, and books are boats. Many volumes start down that stream, only to be wrecked and lost beyond recall in its sands. Only a few, a very few, endure the testings of time and live to bless the ages following. We pay homage to the greatest of all books - the one enduring Book which has traveled down to us from the far past, freighted with the richest treasure that ever any book has brought to humanity. What a sight it is to see men gathered about an open Bible - how typical of the spirit and genius of Masonry, its great and simple faith and its benign ministry to mankind.- R.W. and Rev. Joseph Fort Newton

I believe the answer lies in the math that is hidden in the bible.

Those who believe the Bible has an essential message to tell will know something of the problems posed by its final Book, Revelation. Our purpose here is to focus on what many will consider to be the most intriguing of these, viz the 'riddle' of 13:18. However, before setting off along this track it is appropriate that we remind ourselves of the provenance of this Book, and of the wider context in which the riddle appears:

Its contents proceed directly from the heavenly throne by way of the Lord Jesus Christ and 'his angel' to the Apostle John (1:1). Thus, for the believer it possesses supreme authority.
Blessed are they who read it, hear it and keep its words (1:3).
Cursed are they who add to it, or subtract from it (22:18,19).

and the answer to the riddle

"Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is Six hundred threescore and six."

http://freespace.virgin.net/vernon.jenkins/





from what I can surmise, the foundations of geometry are encoded in the bible and St John is the key reveals it

The scriptures are full of allegorical references to masonry and building with stone. For example in Mark 12,10, Jesus says, "The stone which the builders rejected is become the head of the corner". In John 1,42 Jesus makes Simon Peter a stone, a foundation stone of a spiritual Church. The Freemasons likewise labour on the construction of a spiritual version of Solomon's temple, and not a physical one. In Mark 6,4 Jesus is himself described as Ο τεκτων : this has always been mistranslated as 'carpenter' in the English Bible, but its truer meaning is Builder (cf. architect).

http://www.masoncode.com/Jesus%20Christ ... 0Mason.htm

[joeblow]

Though I consider myself one of the biggest anti-Talmudists, I wish people would please understand that the New World Order structure is held together by Freemasonry.

[Anonymous]

Though I consider myself one of the biggest anti-Talmudists, I wish people would please understand that the New World Order structure is held together by Freemasonry.

Are you asking me to understand that?

[joeblow]

Obviously not, since it was you posted this good information concerning Satanic Numerology.

[GordZilla]

Though I consider myself one of the biggest anti-Talmudists, I wish people would please understand that the New World Order structure is held together by Freemasonry.

But is not Freemasonry held together by the Kabala? Which, of course, is the foundation of the Talmud. Your first instinct was correct (being anti-Talmudist). Freemasonry comes much later, but they both serve the same 'god'.
The importance of the bible to them is also easily discerned, in a simple way;  'you can't have one without the other'. Not to mention is does hid their ill intent, much like putting the 'G' there in the center of their symbology and telling people it stands for God. It lowers their guard, makes them less suspicious, more trusting and more tolerant of the secret organization. But in the end, they pray downwards to their god, this is the glue that keeps them all together in their secret; they serve the same master.

So yeah freemasons 'hold it together' but blindly for the most part, and all the while serving something much darker. Something most of them are not even aware of, but all Talmudic Jews are.

-Gord

P.S. 666 = the six sides, six angles and six verticies of the star of David (which of course has nothing to do with David, it's purpose is much like that of the 'G' in Freemasory)

[Canard]

Though I consider myself one of the biggest anti-Talmudists, I wish people would please understand that the New World Order structure is held together by Freemasonry.

But is not Freemasonry held together by the Kabala? Which, of course, is the foundation of the Talmud. Your first instinct was correct (being anti-Talmudist). Freemasonry comes much later, but they both serve the same 'god'.
The importance of the bible to them is also easily discerned, in a simple way;  'you can't have one without the other'. Not to mention is does hid their ill intent, much like putting the 'G' there in the center of their symbology and telling people it stands for God. It lowers their guard, makes them less suspicious, more trusting and more tolerant of the secret organization. But in the end, they pray downwards to their god, this is the glue that keeps them all together in their secret; they serve the same master.

So yeah freemasons 'hold it together' but blindly for the most part, and all the while serving something much darker. Something most of them are not even aware of, but all Talmudic Jews are.

-Gord

P.S. 666 = the six sides, six angles and six verticies of the star of David (which of course has nothing to do with David, it's purpose is much like that of the 'G' in Freemasory)

All very good analysis, especially about can't have one without the other.

[Anonymous]

I think it is easy to just label something Satanic, without ever fully understanding it. The point of this post is not point out what is Satanic, but to gain wisdom of the bizzare anomolies that just don't make sense.

In John the Evangelist, therefore, we discover the same zeal as John the Baptist, and superior abilities displayed to perfect the improvement of man; copying the example of his predecessor we view him arranging and ably digesting, by his eminent talents, the great doctrine which had been issued into the world; and transmitting by his writings, for the benefit of posterity, the influence of that doctrine to which the zeal of his predecessor had given birth. As parallels in Masonry, we rank these two patrons and class them as joint promoters of our system; to their memory in conjunction with Solomon, we are taught to pay due homage and veneration.

Thus, we define the two great characters to whom we owe the establishment of our tenets, and the improvement of our system; while, in the ceremony of dedication, we commemorate the virtues and transmit them to latter ages, we derive from their favor, patronage and protection.

http://www.geocities.com/athens/oracle/ ... johnb.html

Establishing the connection from the Grand Lodges to Lucifer

Grand Lodges are the authorities of Freemasonry.  Grand Lodges recommend that Masons read Masonic literature that they might realize all that Freemasonry holds for them.  While encouraging the membership to study, Masonic leadership knows that the majority will not.  The man who does begin to study Masonic literature might begin by reading his Masonic Monitor.  A statement contained in the Indiana Monitor and Freemason's Guide recommends a Masonic book known as The Builders, with the words:

WHEN IS A MAN A MASON? The following was written by Brother Dr. Joseph Fort Newton, as the closing paragraph of his widely read book "The Builders." It bids fair to become a Masonic classic. . . . (Indiana Monitor and Freemason's Guide, page 172)

The Builders is an especially good book with which to start a study of Freemasonry.  Henry Wilson Coil stated that The Builders was written at the express request of the Grand Lodge of Iowa.  Coil states that the book is in widespread use among Masons. He wrote:

Dr. Newton was an active Freemason and lectured widely to lodges in Iowa, delivering especially a lecture called The Men's House. At the request of the Grand Lodge of Iowa, he wrote The Builders, a copy of which was presented to every candidate raised in that State. It has also become one of the most widely read Masonic books of modern times. It has been translated into several foreign languages and, after the first edition in 1914, it appeared in editions as follows: 1915, 1916, 1920, 1921, 1922, 1924, and 1926. A revised edition was published in 1930, 1945, and 1946, and a revised and enlarged edition was issued in 1951 (315 pages), . . .

(Coil's Masonic Encyclopedia, page 445)

The book is currently available from Masonic sources.  The publisher described the book in a recent catalog as "The outstanding classic in Masonic literature of all times.  Many Grand Lodges present a copy to each newly raised Mason."

On page 57 of the builders, in the chapter entitled The Secret Doctrine, and continuing through page 59, is a glowing tribute to Arthur Edward Waite.  It contains the following:

Perhaps the greatest student in this field of esoteric teaching and method, certainly the greatest now living is Arthur Edward Waite, to whom it is a pleasure to pay tribute.

(The Builders, page 57)

Speaking of Waite's books, Newton wrote:

And the result is a series of volumes noble in form, united in aim, unique in wealth of revealing beauty, and of unequalled worth. Beginning as far back as 1886, Waite issued his study of the Mysteries of Magic, a digest of the writings of Eliphas Levi, to whom Albert Pike was more indebted than he let us know.

(The Builders, page 59)

The Mysteries of Magic contains the following on page 428:

What is more absurd and more impious than to attribute the name of Lucifer to the devil, that is, to personified evil,  The intellectual Lucifer is the spirit of intelligence and love; it is the Paraclete, it is the Holy Spirit, while the physical Lucifer is the great agent of universal magnetism.

To personify evil and exalt it into an intelligence which is the rival of God, into a being which can understand but love no more-this is a monstrous fiction. To believe that God permits this evil intelligence to deceive and destroy his feeble creatures is to make God more wicked than the devil. By depriving the devil of the possibility of love and repentance, God forces him to do evil. Moreover a spirit of error and falsehood can only be a folly which thinks, nor does it deserve indeed the name of spirit. The devil is God's antithesis, and if we define God as He who is we must define His opposite as he who is not.

(The Mysteries of Magic, page 428)

Masonic literature, such as this work of Eliphas Levi and Arthur Edward Waite, often does not contain what Christians would consider a conventional understanding of Lucifer, or the devil.   This work declares Lucifer to be God, if we view the statements from the perspective of someone who believes in the Trinity.  Levi and Waite have blasphemed the Holy Spirit. The Reverend Dr. Joseph Fort Newton has commended them for it.   Notice that they claim also that the devil does not exist.  Masonic literature does not embrace a conventional understanding of Jesus, God, the Holy Spirit, or Satan.  

We have linked the Grand Lodges of Iowa and Indiana to a book which clearly states that Lucifer is the Holy Spirit.

Notice the path here.  It does not involve the "higher degrees" of Freemasonry.

The path begins with the Grand Lodges, which promote The Builders.
The Builders points to The Mysteries of Magic, which states that Lucifer is God.
The path from the Grand Lodges to Luciferianism and/or Satanism is quite short.

Many Freemasons would dispute the fact that Freemasonry is Satanic, claiming that Lucifer is not Satan, or the devil.  They often point out that the Roman name, Lucifer, appears in the KJV translation of Isaiah 14:12.  The original text is Hebrew and does not contain the Roman name, Lucifer.  That is true.   We have heard this defense from so many Freemasons that it seems obvious that the argument is being taught within the Masonic system, as a defense of Masonic literature which lifts up Lucifer.  Some Masons we have debated have considered Lucifer to be one of the "good guys."   Obviously, Levi, Waite and Pike thought so.    Pike wrote on page 321 of Morals and Dogma that, "Lucifer is the Light Bearer."  Freemasonry is said to be a search after light.

Grand Lodges cannot directly tell Freemasons that Lucifer is God without scaring a lot of them off before they are sufficiently ensnared.   Grand Lodges obviously want their members to find this material, yet they also want to be able to claim, "We have never taught any such thing."  When the documentation is on the table, such denials are seen to be just another Masonic lie.

Masons should ask themselves why they would remain a member of an organization which promotes literature which declares Lucifer to be God?

http://www.ephesians5-11.org/gllink.htm

[Anonymous]

the two Saints John

http://www.freemasons-freemasonry.com/ward.html

[GordZilla]

Masons should ask themselves why they would remain a member of an organization which promotes literature which declares Lucifer to be God?

Well, if this was a forum that did allow religious debate I'd say this;  

The name 'Lucifer' undoubtedly has its origins in the Bible. 'The light bringer', this we all know.

We also know;
Lucifer=Satan (a rose by any other name)
Freemasonry =Satan worship
Kabala gave birth to the Talmud
Kabala gave birth to Freemasonry
Talmud=Satan worship

 Why do I keep attempting to bring the focus back to Talmudic Judaism? It's simply because Masonry would be nothing without guidance and funds, Talmudic Judaism is what drives it and funds it (as it does with virtually everything detrimental to the welfare of good natured people). Masonry is a headless snake once you side step it and expose the evil of the Talmud. Why bother spending time studying its inner workings? Keep your eyes on the head of the beast. Sure I guess to those just waking, they may want to spend some time there, studying their symbology, history etc. However I'd say just know this; the oldest obelisk is near Mecca, it is pelted with stones once a year as it's seen as the fallacy of Satan. The reflection pool underneath's Washington's obelisk is there to taunt God, to reflect up to Him the image of Lucifer's penis, his manhood , fully erect and complete. Sound far-fetched? Sure it does, until you know the story of Lucifer being cast from heaven. Seems God took the extra time to smash Lucifer's 'manhood', it was broken into fourteen pieces. The top was said to be never recovered, rendering Satan as never fully whole again, never what he was before.
The top piece, as with the missing top of the pyramid, is always the point of focus, whether missing, replaced by a torch or flame (Lucifer) or complete.

  That is just my spin on some of what I've read and discovered thus far on the topic. I won't go quoting scripture, respecting the forum rules and to invite you to investigate my claims yourself.  I will say this though; I do think it goes a long way to explain 'Why is the bible a Great Light of FreeMasons'  and a little ways to explain why we shouldn't concern ourselves with the masons too much, just concern yourself with their masters. Well that's my opinion, anyways.

-Gord

[Anonymous]

I would have to say that knowing their symbols and signs is helpful uncovering their agents and knowing what is the work of the Jackals

[Anonymous]

Gord how do we know this?

We also know;
Lucifer=Satan (a rose by any other name)

Gord what did you think of Vernon's Work?
http://freespace.virgin.net/vernon.jenkins/

to me as I see it the 3 great lights all have to do with building
the compass
the Square
the bible decoded with Math laying down the instructions.

to me these are bird of a feather.

Gord Said

I do think it goes a long way to explain 'Why is the bible a Great Light of FreeMasons'

you lost me. Luifers missing phallic tip is why the bible is a great light of Freemasony? could you explain to me why the bible is a great light.


Gord said

P.S. 666 = the six sides, six angles and six verticies of the star of David (which of course has nothing to do with David, it's purpose is much like that of the 'G' in Freemasory)

but why this symbol what is the reason behind it?

[K-Sensor]

The fact is the Bible is an historical account.  Next if the stories surrounding the history are faked then BLOODY HELL, we have bastards in higher power playing out the prophecies and standing for the dark faction!

We need to be aware of Biblical knowledge and wisdom, including faith, else we will be treated like cattle.

The freemasons stand for the gnosics, the group that tries to taint the original message of the bible.  They mainly accept the Celestrial-Jesus and other heavenly star orders.   They know there was a man form but they avoid telling people, let they be lost.

[GordZilla]

Gord how do we know this?
We also know;
Lucifer=Satan (a rose by any other name)

 

Lucifer is the fallen angle of the bible, however if you don't believe or trust the bible then , no I guess you wouldn't know this.  Except to say the name 'lucifer' came from no where else.

to me as I see it the 3 great lights all have to do with building
the compass
the Square
the bible decoded with Math laying down the instructions.

to me these are bird of a feather.

I agree, except maybe the bible coded with math bit, I'm not to sure on that count (excuse the math pun   ) but I've heard it said before ... so... I won't argue that.

Gord Said
I do think it goes a long way to explain 'Why is the bible a Great Light of FreeMasons'

you lost me. Luifers missing phallic tip is why the bible is a great light of Freemasony? could you explain to me why the bible is a great light.

Light, Lucifer, the great Light, they need the bible as it's the first source to describe him, along with other ancient scripture, the Qu'ran etc.  How else could they learn of their 'god'?  It's not 'his tip is missing' that explains the quote but rather 'lucifer the lightbringer' and why the bible is a 'great light' to them ...that was the connection I was illustrating.  Lucifer losing his tip, was to illustrate the connection of their symbology to God's story, and to that which we see everywhere.

Gord said
P.S. 666 = the six sides, six angles and six verticies of the star of David (which of course has nothing to do with David, it's purpose is much like that of the 'G' in Freemasory)

but why this symbol what is the reason behind it?

That I'm not entirely sure of, I know it fits the math.
But why they originally chose it or even if it was chosen for them I don't know.
I heard once in passing (one day I'll  look for a source to this   ) that;  one  triangle represents the hand of God coming down, and the other the tongue of Satan lashing upwards, a ying yang thingy of good and evil, heaven and hell.


-Gord

[Anonymous]

Lucifer is the fallen angle of the bible, however if you don't believe or trust the bible then , no I guess you wouldn't know this.

but the bible does not say Lucifer is equal to Satan, is that correct? I understand that Lucifer is a fallen Angel, but I have never heard that the bible said Lucifer is equal to Satan.

[GordZilla]

Lucifer is the fallen angle of the bible, however if you don't believe or trust the bible then , no I guess you wouldn't know this.

but the bible does not say Lucifer is equal to Satan, is that correct? I understand that Lucifer is a fallen Angel, but I have never heard that the bible said Lucifer is equal to Satan.

Yeah, 'Satan' is a name attached to Lucifer later in history, which is what I meant by a 'rose by any other name'. Undoubtedly they are the same entity, I think 'Satan' came later but it is only another name for the same fallen angel.
There can only be one to rule in hell, when I get there (as I'm most assuredly going    ) I will ask how he addresses himself. And, if they have internet down there, I will post my findings here   .

-Gord

[Anonymous]

The only time "Lucifer" in the English appears is once, as previously mentioned in a quote from a source Savage posted, Isaiah 14:12:

Isa 14:12  How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!

H1966
הילל
hêylêl
hay-lale'
From H1984 (in the sense of brightness); the morning star: - lucifer.

If someone can't see that this is astro-theology, read it again.  The "morning star" is also the "evening star", Venus.

If you want to go with "brightness" or the greatest "light" vs "morning star", then it is Sirius, which also goes back to Egyptian symbolism.

Now, the bible has many problems in translation from Hebrew, which ties into the hidden meanings of words such as Kabbalistic cryptic meanings which can be hidden and only knowable to those who know how to read words given the appropriate training to derive the hidden meanings.  Given how ancient Hebrew did not have vowels, and so the meaning had to be derived given the context of the passage, the Bible can also have hidden meanings that is to be derived by the initiated.  There are many examples in the Old Testament where letters are dropped from Hebrew in making it into an English word, I will give an example related to this current discussion of Lucifer.

As you see above, Isa 14:12 is where the only English translation of Lucifer exists, derived from the Hebrew הילל.

Now this word: Hei(H) Yod(Y) Lamed(L) Lamed(L) is also found in another place exactly the same way in Hebrew: הילל, in Zec 11:2.  But for some reason, when it is translated, they drop the Hei(H) from the transliteration as they do many many times in going from Hebrew to English.  The word is now "Howl" in English:

Zec 11:2  Howl, fir tree; for the cedar is fallen; because the mighty are spoiled: howl, O ye oaks of Bashan; for the forest of the vintage is come down.

H3213
ילל
yâlal
yaw-lal'
A primitive root; to howl (with a wailing tone) or yell (with a boisterous one): - (make to) howl, be howling.

So this is the only time the same word appears that was Lucifer in one translation, but now is not.  Satan is not attached to Lucifer as far as I can tell, it is astro-theological!  

And a fair warning to GordZilla.  Since you don't like me, if you respond to me with some statements like: "You have nothing but a load voice.", "I'm just a little beyond you my friend", "Man you're blind." or any other dismissive jargon, I give you warning that you will be gone from this board.  Discuss the information only.  Thank you.

Peace.

[Anonymous]

These are all the passages in the English where Satan is found:

(1Ch 21:1)  And Satan stood up against Israel, and provoked David to number Israel.

(Job 1:6)  Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them.

(Job 1:7)  And the LORD said unto Satan, Whence comest thou? Then Satan answered the LORD, and said, From going to and fro in the earth, and from walking up and down in it.

(Job 1:  And the LORD said unto Satan, Hast thou considered my servant Job, that there is none like him in the earth, a perfect and an upright man, one that feareth God, and escheweth evil?

(Job 1:9)  Then Satan answered the LORD, and said, Doth Job fear God for nought?

(Job 1:12)  And the LORD said unto Satan, Behold, all that he hath is in thy power; only upon himself put not forth thine hand. So Satan went forth from the presence of the LORD.

(Job 2:1)  Again there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them to present himself before the LORD.

(Job 2:2)  And the LORD said unto Satan, From whence comest thou? And Satan answered the LORD, and said, From going to and fro in the earth, and from walking up and down in it.

(Job 2:3)  And the LORD said unto Satan, Hast thou considered my servant Job, that there is none like him in the earth, a perfect and an upright man, one that feareth God, and escheweth evil? and still he holdeth fast his integrity, although thou movedst me against him, to destroy him without cause.

(Job 2:4)  And Satan answered the LORD, and said, Skin for skin, yea, all that a man hath will he give for his life.

(Job 2:6)  And the LORD said unto Satan, Behold, he is in thine hand; but save his life.

(Job 2:7)  So went Satan forth from the presence of the LORD, and smote Job with sore boils from the sole of his foot unto his crown.

(Psa 109:6)  Set thou a wicked man over him: and let Satan stand at his right hand.

(Zec 3:1)  And he shewed me Joshua the high priest standing before the angel of the LORD, and Satan standing at his right hand to resist him.

(Zec 3:2)  And the LORD said unto Satan, The LORD rebuke thee, O Satan; even the LORD that hath chosen Jerusalem rebuke thee: is not this a brand plucked out of the fire?

(Mat 4:10)  Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.

(Mat 12:26)  And if Satan cast out Satan, he is divided against himself; how shall then his kingdom stand?

(Mat 16:23)  But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.

(Mar 1:13)  And he was there in the wilderness forty days, tempted of Satan; and was with the wild beasts; and the angels ministered unto him.

(Mar 3:23)  And he called them unto him, and said unto them in parables, How can Satan cast out Satan?

(Mar 3:26)  And if Satan rise up against himself, and be divided, he cannot stand, but hath an end.

(Mar 4:15)  And these are they by the way side, where the word is sown; but when they have heard, Satan cometh immediately, and taketh away the word that was sown in their hearts.

(Mar 8:33)  But when he had turned about and looked on his disciples, he rebuked Peter, saying, Get thee behind me, Satan: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but the things that be of men.

(Luk 4:  And Jesus answered and said unto him, Get thee behind me, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.

(Luk 10:18)  And he said unto them, I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven.

(Luk 11:18)  If Satan also be divided against himself, how shall his kingdom stand? because ye say that I cast out devils through Beelzebub.

(Luk 13:16)  And ought not this woman, being a daughter of Abraham, whom Satan hath bound, lo, these eighteen years, be loosed from this bond on the sabbath day?

(Luk 22:3)  Then entered Satan into Judas surnamed Iscariot, being of the number of the twelve.

(Luk 22:31)  And the Lord said, Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat:

(Joh 13:27)  And after the sop Satan entered into him. Then said Jesus unto him, That thou doest, do quickly.

(Act 5:3)  But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost, and to keep back part of the price of the land?

(Act 26:18)  To open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith that is in me.

(Rom 16:20)  And the God of peace shall bruise Satan under your feet shortly. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you. Amen.

(1Co 5:5)  To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.

(1Co 7:5)  Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency.

(2Co 2:11)  Lest Satan should get an advantage of us: for we are not ignorant of his devices.

(2Co 11:14)  And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.

(2Co 12:7)  And lest I should be exalted above measure through the abundance of the revelations, there was given to me a thorn in the flesh, the messenger of Satan to buffet me, lest I should be exalted above measure.

(1Th 2:18)  Wherefore we would have come unto you, even I Paul, once and again; but Satan hindered us.

(2Th 2:9)  Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders,

(1Ti 1:20)  Of whom is Hymenaeus and Alexander; whom I have delivered unto Satan, that they may learn not to blaspheme.

(1Ti 5:15)  For some are already turned aside after Satan.

(Rev 2:9)  I know thy works, and tribulation, and poverty, (but thou art rich) and I know the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews, and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan.

(Rev 2:13)  I know thy works, and where thou dwellest, even where Satan's seat is: and thou holdest fast my name, and hast not denied my faith, even in those days wherein Antipas was my faithful martyr, who was slain among you, where Satan dwelleth.

(Rev 2:24)  But unto you I say, and unto the rest in Thyatira, as many as have not this doctrine, and which have not known the depths of Satan, as they speak; I will put upon you none other burden.

(Rev 3:9)  Behold, I will make them of the synagogue of Satan, which say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie; behold, I will make them to come and worship before thy feet, and to know that I have loved thee.

(Rev 12:9)  And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.

(Rev 20:2)  And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years,

(Rev 20:7)  And when the thousand years are expired, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison,

[GordZilla]

The only time "Lucifer" in the English appears is once, as previously mentioned in a quote from a source Savage posted, Isaiah 14:12:

Isa 14:12  How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!

H1966
הילל
hêylêl
hay-lale'
From H1984 (in the sense of brightness); the morning star: - lucifer.

If someone can't see that this is astro-theology, read it again.  The "morning star" is also the "evening star", Venus.

If you want to go with "brightness" or the greatest "light" vs "morning star", then it is Sirius, which also goes back to Egyptian symbolism.

Now, the bible has many problems in translation from Hebrew, which ties into the hidden meanings of words such as Kabbalistic cryptic meanings which can be hidden and only knowable to those who know how to read words given the appropriate training to derive the hidden meanings.  Given how ancient Hebrew did not have vowels, and so the meaning had to be derived given the context of the passage, the Bible can also have hidden meanings that is to be derived by the initiated.  There are many examples in the Old Testament where letters are dropped from Hebrew in making it into an English word, I will give an example related to this current discussion of Lucifer.

As you see above, Isa 14:12 is where the only English translation of Lucifer exists, derived from the Hebrew הילל.

Now this word: Hei(H) Yod(Y) Lamed(L) Lamed(L) is also found in another place exactly the same way in Hebrew: הילל, in Zec 11:2.  But for some reason, when it is translated, they drop the Hei(H) from the transliteration as they do many many times in going from Hebrew to English.  The word is now "Howl" in English:

Zec 11:2  Howl, fir tree; for the cedar is fallen; because the mighty are spoiled: howl, O ye oaks of Bashan; for the forest of the vintage is come down.

H3213
ילל
yâlal
yaw-lal'
A primitive root; to howl (with a wailing tone) or yell (with a boisterous one): - (make to) howl, be howling.

So this is the only time the same word appears that was Lucifer in one translation, but now is not.  Satan is not attached to Lucifer as far as I can tell, it is astro-theological!  

And a fair warning to GordZilla.  Since you don't like me, if you respond to me with some statements like: "You have nothing but a load voice.", "I'm just a little beyond you my friend", "Man you're blind." or any other dismissive jargon, I give you warning that you will be gone from this board.  Discuss the information only.  Thank you.

Peace.

I was, and your feelings for me were shared as well - dismissive jargon went both ways. I'm not making this personal, in fact what you posted here I don't have much problem with at all.  

-Gord

[Anonymous]

Good to hear

If you can show how Satan is attached to Lucifer, that would help any claims that they are associated, but I cannot make those associations.

The Freemasons where in search of the "light", Lucifer, the light of knowledge, wisdom.  Yes that can be seen as a "cover", but nonetheless it is how the "club" is sold as a noble establishment to enter, since it does favor knowledge and understanding things to attain wisdom.  They have and surely continue to do bad things, although without the hindsight looking back on history perspective, we cannot say how important the Freemasonic brotherhood is in influencing our worldly affairs, we can only attempt to find them by their symbolism and other methods they expose themselves by those who can see it, as Savage pointed out.  I still see Freemasons as important in this conspiracy, although it appears to be reduced in importance from previous centuries.

[GordZilla]

Well a quick search at wiki, shows some ties, however they aren't concrete;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucifer

However, I'm sure if you search it you will certainly find other explanations as to how they are tied. To me it's not that important, I already see them as one and the same.

 I know Lucifer, as The Stones alluded to, comes with many names. He's been around since the beginning. I personally believe he was very busy at first. God warned us not to bother to dabble in astrology to practice prediction and sorcery. He, God, stated He created the stars so man would not feel lonely, and it works like a charm. The devil, though, has spent his time in the early days appearing as a god or gods to many different peoples in many different forms, but his 'signature' always appears; the pyramid (both sides of the world), the serpent, and the multi-headed gods of times past. For Satan to tell people to worship the sun, or stars or Zeus etc., is a fairly small feat for someone specializing in lying. And a natural one for someone jealous of God, and angry at God (he was, after all, cast out).

 In the first days of the bible, we were offered a choice between the 'tree of life' or the 'tree of knowledge'.God warned us not to take the fruit from the 'tree of knowledge' (the tree of 'light'). He wanted us to eat from the tree of life, up to then we were ignorant of most things but lived hundreds of years –very joyfully. Satan, the serpent, tricked us to eat from the tree of knowledge, and instantly we were ashamed of our nakedness, and our lives began to get shorter.
Now you could say 'thank God we ate from the tree of knowledge' (or thank Satan, whatever). But really what ultimately do we use knowledge for? What is always the ultimate goal of science? Even beyond disproving God, the goal, above all others, is to find a way to live longer than before. Ultimately it's to cure everything, to be immortal. A vain pursuit to say the least, but ultimately it is science's goal. However look at what it reaps; more death, more destruction and disease and finally (and most notably) more unanswered questions. With every 'answer' we discover another 20 questions appear – ultimately it's a vain course. It's a dead end road, or never ending and forever widening one.
 
 If we stayed in ignorance, if we ate from the tree of life, we'd be like children unto God. We would 'feel' (as we wouldn't 'know' it) the reality of the expression; 'ignorance is bliss'. After all, our childhood years are always our fondest memories, it would be like this full time living as 'Children of God' and knowing nothing else but love and Joy.

 Believe it or not, knowledge is Satan's tool, love and life are God's. We are not natural 'creators', we are not natural 'architects'. Satan is the one who's been trying to convince us that threw technology you can live without the need for God. Satan also tries to convince us that threw science all ills can be removed, all questions answered and a utopia can be reached. And as with all Satan says, none of that is true.

  The Kabala, mysticism in general, also conforms well to math (go figure   ). Astrology does as well. However they are illusions, there is no 'magic', just lies and deception. This is Satan's way, he's played it out on civilization after civilization – 'Here I'll show you the light, I am the light bringer, I can show you how you don't need another god but me or even how to be gods yourselves' (check 'scientology' for example, does that 'religion' not also have Satan's hands all over it?) . No man has magical powers, regardless of all their dogma and rituals, there is only miracles and illusion. (One is God's 'magic' and one is Satan's).

Again, just my opinion on it but there is plenty out there that supports this view.

-Gord

[Anonymous]

Hmmm I have a question.

1: In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
2: And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
3: And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
4: And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.

If god is the light bringer would not that make him Lucifer?

[GordZilla]

Hmmm I have a question.

1: In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
2: And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
3: And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
4: And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.

If god is the light bringer would not that make him Lucifer?

Light bringer is a title, God created light, the physical thing. The 'light' in the title 'light bringer' is equated with knowledge, not physical light. Although often symbolized by a light source, Lucifer is a 'light bringer' of a different sort.

"4: And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. "

The light was good, not the 'light bringer' and God is no more and no less than the 'everything bringer' ...we could also just assume to call Him 'the dirt bringer', 'the sky bringer', 'life bringer', 'death bringer' etc. But this would be silly, no?
Again God is not titled, nor named, nor known as; 'the light bringer'. Bringing light was just one of His many accomplishments.

Surely you know the conclusion you reached above can only be derived at by using a play on words. As your example points simply don't state God is the 'light bringer', they demonstrate only that one could title Him this, however that was never commonly done. We all know that Lucifer has many other names and he also goes by the title 'The Light Bringer'. Your conclusion suggests either you hadn't thought it threw, or you believe it's all fantasy and don't take it seriously (which is fine, by why bother then?), or you are grasping to make a point, or trying to 'get my goat'-so to speak.

God is NOT the light bringer And  He can't be Lucifer for both would cease to exist (in a paradoxal implosion of the universe    ).  Not to mention Lucifer is a fallen angel, God didn't throw Himself out. We could go on and on, but in short; there are many things Lucifer is that God could never be and there's even more Lucifer could never be that God is. This is given that we're accepting what the ancient scriptures have to say as the truth, if not than to continue with this is pointless. How can you argue God is, or isn't, Lucifer if you don't even believe in the book?  Certainly your heart wouldn't be in it, it could only be done facetiously.

The answer to your question above is 'no'.

-Gord

[Anonymous]

Ok Thanks Gordy

Another Question
the Hebrew version of Genesis use the term elohim which the plural of el or eloah, which would lead me to believe that more than one god. God being singular and gods being plural.

and just an interesting thing not that it has any relevance.
the lost word in Freemasonry is Jabulon which is a combination of 3 gods and Israel is a combination as well. But what that means I do not know. Just an observation.

Gordy what is you take on the dead sea scroll and the lack of their publication other then John Allegro's portion of the Dead Sea Scrolls.

I find it interesting that it was the Rockefeller foundation that took control of them until they were handed over to Israel after the 6 day war as a conquest of war.

1967     -- [June 5-10] Israel defeats Arabs in 6 Day War & occupies Palestine to the Jordan, gaining control of Khirbet Qumran, the Rockefeller Archaeological Museum & all the scrolls (except the Copper Scroll & some fragments from Cave 1 that had been sent to Amman, Jordan).

If I was a Christian I guess I would have to ask myself why would they Gate Keep the Dead Sea Scrolls for so long.

[GordZilla]

Ok Thanks Gordy

Another Question
the Hebrew version of Genesis use the term elohim which the plural of el or eloah, which would lead me to believe that more than one god. God being singular and gods being plural.

It is a good question, one that perplexes me too. I know in the beginning of the book  He says that He is a God amongst Gods, but that He is the God of Gods. This could very well give legitimacy to many other religions from Buddhism to the Native American's belief in the Great Spirit. Often it's assumed that the monolithic religions do not tolerate other religions, that they do not see legitimacy in them (even by some Christians, and certainly amongst Catholics and Muslims). However in reality, I don't think that is the case, I think there is room for all in God's plan - except maybe those who, again, pray downwards.

and just an interesting thing not that it has any relevance.
the lost word in Freemasonry is Jabulon which is a combination of 3 gods and Israel is a combination as well. But what that means I do not know. Just an observation.

Gordy what is you take on the dead sea scroll and the lack of their publication other then John Allegro's portion of the Dead Sea Scrolls.

I find it interesting that it was the Rockefeller foundation that took control of them until they were handed over to Israel after the 6 day war as a conquest of war.

1967     -- [June 5-10] Israel defeats Arabs in 6 Day War & occupies Palestine to the Jordan, gaining control of Khirbet Qumran, the Rockefeller Archaeological Museum & all the scrolls (except the Copper Scroll & some fragments from Cave 1 that had been sent to Amman, Jordan).

If I was a Christian I guess I would have to ask myself why would they Gate Keep the Dead Sea Scrolls for so long.

 

 I have not fully read the Dead Sea scrolls, and I don't much trust anything that's come out of Israel in the last few hundred years. To me it's not too important, I came to God threw the discovery of this very conspiracy that we (collectively) are on pursuit of now. I realized the things unfolding before us, were also predicted for us, and explained to us in the book –with uncanny insight. I was all atheist up to that point. I still don't believe in church, the Vatican etc. I know God is real by the proof on the ground, it scares the hell out of me too as I spent many years working against Him- and I'm still a huge sinner today. I don't think the Dead Sea scrolls will do much to change that for me.  

 It is interesting that Rockefeller took control of them, that I never heard of before ...Interesting indeed ... maybe there is something revealing encoded in them ... but again ..I'm no expert on those scrolls, I could only speculate.

-Gord

[Anonymous]

Claiming "God" bringing light to the world and making a title called "light bringer" is a play on words, is as accurate as a word play on Lucifer being a "light bringer" using the Bible, since no where is that title appropriated to Lucifer either.  Also, if no title should befit "God", then the term "God" itself shouldn't be applied.

How can you argue God is, or isn't, Lucifer if you don't even believe in the book? Certainly your heart wouldn't be in it, it could only be done facetiously.

You don't need to believe in a book to argue the points therein.  Dismissing someones ability to make points using passages from a book just because they don't accept it as an actual account of anything that happened is erroneous.  Spiritual or faith believers are not the only ones capable of reading the book and giving interpretations.  Bible believers do not have absolute reign over the exact meaning of any passage, they cannot dictate to everyone what it means, as if only their interpretation is the accurate one.  To claim a religious person is the only one capable or rightfully able to interpret scripture is arrogant and bigoted.

As for light being knowledge, it is based on an interpretation that light is actually knowledge, correct?  Can it be shown the Lucifer or Satan is directly associated with knowledge?  I don't see where, other than a fallacious interpretation of the serpent.  Furthermore, the serpent is not declared as Satan or Lucifer in Genesis, it is an association made based on his being cast out, just as Adam and Eve were.  But Satan or Lucifer was supposed to be an angel cast out of heaven, no?  Then he can't be cast of out the garden as well.

Allow to make some associations between light, knowledge, and "God".

Here we have Lucifer as son of the morning (Venus or Sirius) cast down:
Isa 14:12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!

Here we have Satan as lightning falling:
(Luk 10:18) And he said unto them, I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven.

So there can be interpretations to associate them both together based on the commonality of lightning and a star... not precise but the interpretation can be made...

Here Satan is darkness, but "God" is light:
(Act 26:18) To open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God,

Here is Satan is of light:
(2Co 11:14) And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.


Sure you can make apologetic interpretations to rationalize how the light is different and that they are not the same for "God" or Satan, but just look at the words used.  To claim by interpretation that "God" is not a light bringer or bearer even though he brought light or is light, while associating Satan or Lucifer as light bringers or bearers based on interpretation is a pick-and-choose method of deciding what phrases can be negated to be interpretable as brining light or not, simply to remove any association between one and the other when it favors a view or perception of "God" or Satan.  Such as the analogy of going to the dark side, or going to the light, being a dichotomy of evil vs good, such as described in Act 26:18.  There are contradictions like this in the Bible, like when you attempt to determine who is what in a polarized sense, such as one is absolutely light or dark while the other cannot be what the previous one is.

If "God" is supposedly all knowing, and all knowing would mean you have all knowledge, then knowledge surely isn't evil, as all knowledge would come from "God".  This is another doublethink fallacy that is omitted when people attempt to associate knowledge with Satan or Lucifer, and not with "God".  Many twisting appologetic excuses can be created to again attempt to separate them, but it will only be wishful creative thinking that brings forth contradictions and conflict between certain passages in scripture.

All the many interpretations, apologetics, and conflict that can arise from someone saying it means this versus someone else saying it means that is ONE reason why "Bible talk" is not desired on the forum.  No one has authority to say their interpretation is the right one, especially when doctrinal apologetics or interpretations are used with bias fallacies to prevent any other acceptable interpretation from being acceptable.  And when I say you, it is not specific to (you) GordZilla, it is to anyone reading this, be it a Bible believer or not, specifically whoever accepts or fits into any of the mentioned beliefs/interpretations.

Let me provide some definitions of fallacies:

Ad ignorantiam The argument from ignorance basically states that a specific belief is true because we don't know that it isn't true.
i.e. "God"

Argument from authority Stating that a claim is true because a person or group of perceived authority says it is true.
i.e. the Bible was written by "God", the authority, so everything in it is true

Argument from final Consequences Such arguments (also called teleological) are based on a reversal of cause and effect, because they argue that something is caused by the ultimate effect that it has, or purpose that is serves.
i.e. God must exist, because otherwise life would have no meaning.

False Dichotomy Arbitrarily reducing a set of many possibilities to only two.

Inconsistency Applying criteria or rules to one belief, claim, argument, or position but not to others.

Non-Sequitur In Latin this term translates to "doesn't follow". This refers to an argument in which the conclusion does not necessarily follow from the premises. In other words, a logical connection is implied where none exists.

Special pleading, or ad-hoc reasoning This is a subtle fallacy which is often difficult to recognize. In essence, it is the arbitrary introduction of new elements into an argument in order to fix them so that they appear valid. A good example of this is the ad-hoc dismissal of negative test results.

Tu quoque Literally, you too. This is an attempt to justify wrong action because someone else also does it.
i.e. "My evidence may be invalid, but so is yours."

[GordZilla]

Claiming "God" bringing light to the world and making a title called "light bringer" is a play on words, is as accurate as a word play on Lucifer being a "light bringer" using the Bible, since no where is that title appropriated to Lucifer either.  Also, if no title should befit "God", then the term "God" itself shouldn't be applied.

How can you argue God is, or isn't, Lucifer if you don't even believe in the book? Certainly your heart wouldn't be in it, it could only be done facetiously.

You don't need to believe in a book to argue the points therein.  Dismissing someones ability to make points using passages from a book just because they don't accept it as an actual account of anything that happened is erroneous.  Spiritual or faith believers are not the only ones capable of reading the book and giving interpretations.  Bible believers do not have absolute reign over the exact meaning of any passage, they cannot dictate to everyone what it means, as if only their interpretation is the accurate one.  To claim a religious person is the only one capable or rightfully able to interpret scripture is arrogant and bigoted.

Yes but again, your heart wouldn't be in it and it would only be done facetiously. Yes you don't have to be a believer to argue the points, but that is not what I was saying. I was stating I don't see the point in debating it with someone who, off the get-go sees it as fiction. (and again nothing wrong with that opinion)
 We're not debating the legitimacy of the bible itself but rather some points within, if it was about the legitimacy of the bible itself, than I know your hearts would be in it. We all have strong opinionson that, one way or the other.
I don't agrue against the faith of science from an absolute stance of the Bible as truth, the reverse should not be done either. However science can fit in God's plan, but God's word cannot fit into science. This will always be the case ... even though both are technically faiths.
And again, many references can be made to God with the word 'light' but the point is He is no where titled or named 'the Light Bringer', Lucifer is. That's the point, nothing further. This also cannot take away the fact that the two are diametrically opposed in so many other ways too. They are obviously two different entities.

And for the rest, your description of fallic arguments, let me add my little spin to them;

Let me provide some definitions of fallacies:

Ad ignorantiam The argument from ignorance basically states that a specific belief is true because we don't know that it isn't true.

i.e. "Science"  

Argument from authority Stating that a claim is true because a person or group of perceived authority says it is true.

i.e. the journal was written by "Doctors", the authority, so everything in it is true and cancer cannot be prevented by using vitamin B17.

Argument from final Consequences Such arguments (also called teleological) are based on a reversal of cause and effect, because they argue that something is caused by the ultimate effect that it has, or purpose that is serves.

i.e. Evolution must be real, because otherwise life would not exist.

False Dichotomy Arbitrarily reducing a set of many possibilities to only two.

-God or No God?

Inconsistency Applying criteria or rules to one belief, claim, argument, or position but not to others.

- I do my best not to be inconsistent.  

Non-Sequitur In Latin this term translates to "doesn't follow". This refers to an argument in which the conclusion does not necessarily follow from the premises. In other words, a logical connection is implied where none exists.

-an example of which was given by John in his original 4 points and his conclusion.

Special pleading, or ad-hoc reasoning This is a subtle fallacy which is often difficult to recognize. In essence, it is the arbitrary introduction of new elements into an argument in order to fix them so that they appear valid. A good example of this is the ad-hoc dismissal of negative test results.

Or an ad hoc dismissal of uncanny predictions and descriptions of the Talmudic Jew in a book which -for argument's sake - is at least 1000 years old.

-Gord

P.S. I can drop this at anytime, we are going down the religious route again and we're not supposed to be   ... and frankly we're just spinning our wheels here. Neither of us are likely to drop our opinions.  I only jumped into this thread as it was arguing why the Masons used the bible, I thought perhaps this thread is a good spot to share my two cents. I don't want to re-open this particular can of worms, otherwise we'll be here all day.

[GordZilla]

P.S.S.

Lucifer  

O.E. Lucifer "Satan," also "morning star," from L. Lucifer "morning star," lit. "light-bringing," from lux (gen. lucis) + ferre "carry" (see infer). Belief that it was the proper name of Satan began with its used in Bible to translate Gk. Phosphoros, which translates Heb. Helel ben Shahar in Isaiah xiv.12 -- "How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning!" [KJV] The verse was interpreted by Christians as a reference to "Satan," because of the mention of a fall from Heaven, even though it is literally a reference to  the King of Babylon (cf. Isaiah xiv.4). Lucifer match "friction match" is from 1831.


Source dictionary.com

Ah but what's in a name anyways?

-Gord

[Anonymous]

Well three last things.

And again, many references can be made to God with the word 'light' but the point is He is no where titled or named 'the Light Bringer', Lucifer is.

I agreed "God" doesn't have that title, but also stated neither does(did) Lucifer.  That was my point.  It is a latter interpretation that did not exist in scripture (original first language Hebrew), and cannot be scripturally applied to it from the original readings, just as the claim that light bringer cannot be applied to "God" as it is not a title given to him, and a word play.  It goes both ways  For later version of Isa 14:12 the word changes meaning to have additional components to it, it was altered.  The term light bearer is never explicitly used to describe helel or satan, it was later added as new languages were used to transliterate the text.

Strong's concordance has הילל as brightness or morning star.  No where is light bearer stated as it's meaning.  Isn't Hebrew where it started?  So we start with it only being brightness or morning star.

ἑωσφόρος is phosphorus
English phosphorus: "one that shines or glows in the dark"
Greek ἑωσφόρος: phos phero = light bear/carry

So we go from Hebrew of brightness and morning star, to Greek adding the compound words of phos and phero to give it additional meaning as light bearer, and then when the English comes along we get Lucifer (from the Latin lucifer) which is a new word based on the Grek phos+phero.  So you see how later additions were made to the term, which gave additional meaning when it previously did not exist?  That is the point I am making with Lucifer as light bearer/bringer being a latter interpretation based on religious theological interpretation that relates light bearing to Satan on the premise that this morning star also fell as Satan is believed to.  phosphorus: "one that shines or glows in the dark" comes from Merriam Webster dictionary on my computer, and it doesn't have the religious connotations of being a light bearer.

But if someone wants to argue that emitting light, as a morning star, is a light bringer/bearer, then I have this to say.  Wasn't light also the composition of "God" and Jesus?  You cannot look at "God" because he is too bright to see, he will blind you?  I cannot find the passage but I recall this from somewhere.  Also, Jesus was shining as well in some passage as I recall.  So they are both light bearers in their "true forms", no?  Oh and the burning bush as fire, light... there are many places I recall where "God" is alluded to being light.

And I don't have to accept the book as "truth" in order to analyze it in a way that makes sense (logic).  To remove logical analysis from interpretation of the Bible would make it into an illogical belief based on however anyone wants to see or perceive one or more passages without looking at everything together.  Taking the premise that there is a certain accepted overall message and meaning of scripture (orthodoxy), and then encountering contradictory information, and then ignoring that information or creating apologetic rationalization to uphold the dogmatic prejudicial previously rationalized perception is not a proper way to logically analyze the information in any book.  If indeed the book is the inspired word of "God", it all has to fit together.

And I agree with your examples of logical fallacies, except for your use of Science in the place of argument ad ignorantiam.  Generally, people who adhere to scientific pronciples will not have a proof based on "a specific belief is true because we don't know that it isn't true."  They have evidence of it in the tangible material world.  It is not a "belief" based on not knowing it isn't true, it is an understanding that something is true because there is evidence to support it.  You did not use that example properly, but the rest are accurate, evolution isn't proven 100%, it is merely a more acceptable belief based on some evidence that supports it.  There could be a "God", and there could be no evolution, all possible, but lack evidence, which is the whole premise of an argument ad ignorantiam.  Science changes all the time, new evidence counters previously dogmatic "proofs", new evidence specifies a more accurate understanding of something... etc. etc.

I could have chosen not to respond, just as I could have ignored and not responded to your threads on Off Tangent shows.  But here, I wanted to show how interpretations can vary from one person to the next, and how Freemasons can indeed find scriptural passages to support "God" as light, not that only Satan has the exclusive right to be of light.  I did not think only having the Biblical perspective as being an accurate portrayal of the issue brought up.

An important aspect to biblical interpretation is philological word changes and the meanings that go with them.  If people are arguing from two different perspectives that use different time periods and languages to prove their respective claims, the likelihood of an agreement is minimal, and so it becomes rather pointless until a common ground can be agreed upon to base claims on.

Peace.

**EDIT**
**"I did not think only having the Biblical perspective as being an accurate portrayal of the issue brought up."**

Should be religious, not biblical, wrong word

[GordZilla]

Ok fine, I'll concede; you could call God a 'Light bringer' but again, this would NOT mean Lucifer and God are the same. And that was the original question, to which I still believe I provided more than enough explanation as to why that can't be true, and there is so much more to had there too;

God named him, or at least first called him, 'Lucifer'  - was He talking to himself, in the mirror before throwing Himself out of Heaven? (or whichever realm you perceive Him to reside in) -(Just one example)


And 'science' fits, once you understand that even the imperial proof used to prove any theory to be fact is often flawed in itself. At a time, the modern 'science' had said the world is flat, the sun revolves around the earth, etc. Science is accepted as fact up to the point where one piece of evidence turns the whole theory on its head, which has happened and is still happening repeatedly. Therefore the 'proof' in any imperial scientific method is only as good as it's general acceptance to be the 'truth'. So a statement like;  "a specific belief is true because we don't know that it isn't true." Could just as easily apply to science as it does to the belief in God, this is all I was suggesting. Science, as with man, will forever be plagued by errors, this is the one constant. (and as a side note; The evolution theory is losing some major ground lately) Science is a working belief system, in that we can use tools based on (and created by) its theories – it's a practical belief. I would argue believe in God's word is also a working belief system. We can use its tools to comfort us in dire times, we can use its tools to help guide us in our day to day decisions, but most importantly we can use its tools, in a practical way, to really get to know our common enemy and to be able to spot'm in a heartbeat. (Hence, once again, why the bible and true belief in God's word, is always their first and highest priority target. So much so that they spent countless years re-writing and re-inventing the bible and churches so that they will not only cover their tracks but also will serve to protect them. –Masons, ironically enough, had played a great part in this process.) The 'common ground' we can come together on is the fact the bible totally paints these bastards out for what they are, in any of the first three languages of translation and right up to the KJV. The finer details, I admit, can be lost in translation and debated upon from many different perspectives of interruption.

-Gord