Re: Evidences of God -- ZOROASTRIAN -- MOSES

Libertarius wrote in alt.atheism

> Ineedmoney wrote:
>> Libertarius wrote in message

>> <snip>

>> Libertarius, I've added your responce onto this post so it doesnt get
>> complicated.

>>>>>> You think Lucifer was a real person?

>>>>> ===>The planet Venus? A real "person"?

>>>> But Lucifer was a real person! The Bible has distorted the truth but
>>>> nevertheless he was real. Lucifer was a Babylonian prince, son of King
>>>> Shahar, and grandson of El.

>>> ===>Where in the world did you get THAT stuff?

>> Well Ba'al is said to have ruled in Ugarit sometime before 1400 BCE. This
>> puts him a couple of centuries before Moses' "Exodus"(alleged). He cared and
>> travelled with his mother all her life, so much for the "prince of
>> darkness", eh? It seems to me that most mythology is based on characters
>> that actually existed. Yeshua bar Yoseff (Jesus) and Krsna were probably
>> based on someone that actually existed, but who's lives had been exaggurated
>> to legendary proportions. So much so that you would hardly recognize the
>> original people. So I also think that Helel ben Shahar [Lucifer] probably
>> existed as well, as Isiah was talking about a popular Canaanite legend, one
>> that deals with the subject of a prince trying to seize command from his
>> father. Its an ancient and reoccurring theme, and its easy enough for me to
>> think it was based on an actual occurrence. Like all the kings they claimed
>> to have decended from gods. El had at the time 70-80 sons and Helel's
>> [Lucifer's] father Shahar [the Dawn] and his twin brother Shalim [the Dusk]
>> were 2 of them.

>> http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=Shahar%2BShalim&btnG=
>> Google+Search

>>>> In the Sumerian King List, where all the kings of the Mesopotamian
>>>> empire are listed in are listed in order all the way back to Alulim. Among the
>>>> names in this list are El, Gilgamesh, Sargon, Ba'al, [Beelzebub] Lucifer
>>>> son of the Dawn, and Ubar-tutu which most will know as Noah.

>>> ===>NONSENSE.
>>> EL and BAAL are SEMITIC deities, not Sumerian,
>>> BAAL being the son of EL and brother of YAHU (YHWH).
>>> You have never seen them on a "SUmerian King List".
>>> As for LUCIFER, that is a LATIN name for Venus.
>>> (Look it up in any dictionary).
>>> Latin was not spoken at the time of the Sumerian kings.

>> Sumer was semitic,

> ===>That is completely wrong.

I read recently that El was the name for Saturn according to a few
different ancient societies.  I don't have a very good picture in my
mind of what semitic, phoenician, arabic, babylonian, and sumerian
are, as far as being completely isolated cultures.  If you do, can you
help me out?

>> as were every Mesopotamian province were Semitic. The

There's another point of confusion in my mind.  Where exactly is
Mesopotamia in relation to Sumer?

>> Sumerian Gods are semitic deities. In a dictionary semitic is defined as:
>> Semitic (noun)  1. A member of a group of Semitic-speaking peoples of the
>> Near East and northern Africa, including (but not limited to) the Arabs,
>> Arameans, Assyrians, Babylonians, Carthaginians, Ethiopians, Hebrews,
>> Amharic, and Phoenicians. 2. A Jew. 3. Bible A descendant of
>>       --(Bartleby.com, Dictionary.com, and Merriam Webster)

Where do the Shemites fit in?  Was the above definition conveniently
hacked off before Shem was mentioned?  Which people are they supposed
to be these days anyway?

> ===>So, where does it say SUMER????
> You are obviously confused about the Sumerians, who were a
> Turanian people speaking a language similar to the Ural-Altaic
> languages. NOTHING "Semitic" about that.

None of those people considered themselves descendants of Shem?

>> Second, you are correct about the name Lucifer being the greek for
>> Venus.

> ===>LATIN, not Greek!

Aphrodite in Greek.   Ashtor, Ishtar, and Asherah, in other cultures.
I've read that even Isis was connected to Venus by some people,
and that Isis/Horus worship evolved into Mary/Jesus worship over
time.  The early Mary/Jesus artwork have them both being black
in skin color, but it didn't seem to bother the people of the time.
The white supremacists insist that it is merely "soot" caused by the
industrial revolution which turned the skin color to black, but
strangely didn't affect other parts of the paintings.

>> However, there is more to it than that. The Hebrew Bible doesnt say
>> Lucifer, it says Helel ben Shahar.

> ===>That is Hebrew.

The "ben" meaning "son," and Hel-el being the son of Shahar.  I've
even seen it spelled "Hillel" or Hilel" in different references.

Helios looks similar to hel-el, and was a Greek word for the sun
and some people suggest that the hel-el is actually talking about the
Sun instead of Venus.

What I can see is the idea of a "bringer of the sun" which Venus
was said to be, as a morning star, since Venus can be seen before
sunrise, on occasion.

Shahar, a god which seems to represent or explain the dawn, was
perhaps invented to explain the light that's visible before people can
actually see the sun on the horizon.  I've read of a twin brother
called Shalem, which was a god of the dusk, perhaps to explain the
light that's still visible after the sun sets and before things get
completely dark.

They both seem to be tied to the "morning star" name, and I think it's
impossible to claim to know the truth about the different references,
but based on the number of references I've seen, I'd bet on Venus
being the "morning star" or "bringer of the sun," instead of it being
a reference for the sun itself.

>> For "Helel" is the Hebrew word for the
>> planet Venus and "ben-Shahar" means "son of the dawn".

> ===>Correct.

Shahar perhaps being an explanation for why there's light before
anyone can actually see the sun in the sky.  From a flatland
perspective, it makes sense, imo.

>> Isiah 14 starts out
>> discussing the King of Babylon, and the reference to where 'Heylel' is the
>> Hebrew word for the planet Venus, and Ben-shachar means "son of the dawn."
>> Isaiah 14 starts out discussing the King of Babylon, and the reference
>> "morning star, son of the dawn" originally meant that king.  Later revisions
>> into Latin changed the name to Lucifer.

> ===>Getting closer.

He's trying to tie it to an actual person which existed, instead of
realizing that it's just a reference to a planet.  I see it all the
time.  It's hard for some people to imagine a planet talking and doing
the things that are attributed to them in the different stories, I
suppose.  Perhaps it's the same thing with regards to believing a
talking serpent existed who beguiled some ancient woman.

-- 
Elroy Willis
EAP Chief Editor and Newshound
http://web2.airmail.net/~elo/news