[iluvlucy]

"Neither Baldur nor Lucifer are Biblical." Half right. Baldur is not Bibilical (at least in name) Lucifer is Biblical. Please look at the following: Isaias 14:12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, who didst rise in the morning? how art thou fallen to the earth, that didst wound the nations?

[babble-on]

well, that's from the Vulgate, not the original Hebrew, which certainly didn't mention Lucifer, but rather an obscure phrase to mean "the morning star" which is usually understood as a reference to Nebuchadnezzer.

As for Wiccans, I don't have much use for them, but if I had to choose I would rather have German Animists around than German Nihilists. At least the Wiccans believe in something, even if its peculiar.

[orionblamblam]

> Lucifer is Biblical.

Errr. Via wikipedia:
"Lucifer is used by Jerome in the Vulgate (4th century) to translate into Latin Isaiah 14:12-14, where the Hebrew text refers to heilel ben-shachar (äéìì áï ùçø in Hebrew). Heilel signifies the planet Venus, and ben-shachar means "the brilliant one, son of the morning", to whose mythical fate that of the King of Babylon is compared in the prophetic vision. ... Jerome, with the Septuagint close at hand and a general familiarity with the pagan poetic traditions, translated Heylel as Lucifer. This may also have been done as a pointed jab at a bishop named Lucifer, a contemporary of Jerome who argued to forgive those condemned of the Arian heresy."

"Lucifer" is Biblical only in that it was an apparent mis-translation from the Hebrew "Heylal". Seems unlikely there'd be a Bishop named "Lucifer" if that was the actual word used, don't you agree?