13754269_1133600426713090_8464009806930576905_n.jpg
13754630_1133600760046390_4615530522146278972_n.jpg
13754368_1133858000020666_8857451736116265731_n.jpg
13669819_1133858723353927_537280332051976589_n.jpg
13782112_954769824649826_6374204959606002439_n.jpg
szbvkpq.jpg
Lucifer is not the devil. The name invokes a mental image of a once beautiful and powerful angel that was cast out of heaven because of pride. However, the only place in the entire King James Bible where Lucifer is mentioned, is in the 14th chapter, 12th verse in the writing of Isaiah and Isaiah was actually writing about a fallen Babylonian king. Let's begin with the word actually used by Isaiah. It was the Hebrew word, "heylel" that was translated to the Latin word, "Lucifer" by St. Jerome. One thing people fail to realize, is that Latin was not a spoken language st the time Isaiah wrote about this. The writers of the King James Bible did not use the Hebrew transcripts, but instead used St. Jerome's translation of the Hebrew to Latin and then these writers translated this to English. If one begins to read the 13th chapter of Isaiah, they will see he is writing about Babylon. In the 14th chapter he is writing specifically of a Babylonian king that fell from power. Continue reading past the 12th verse and we see that Isaiah even asks, who is this man. There is no mention of an angel or supernatural being. The Hebrew word heylel was derived from halal, which means in the sense of brightness, bright morning star and son of the dawn. Was Halal Ben (son of) Sharar, the king Isaiah was writing about? We can look into the history of this in another post. But let's concentrate on the fact that St. Jerome used the word Lucifer which derives from lucem ferre, a Latin for bearer of light and in Roman astronomy the word Lucifer was the name given to the morning star, the day star, the bringer of light and is known to us as the planet Venus. In verse 16 of chapter 14 in Isaiah, it reads, "They that see thee shall narrowly look upon thee, and consider thee, saying, is this the man that made the earth tremble, that did shake kingdoms." If Lucifer was a supernatural being, a fallen angel, why use the word man in this verse? Throughout the chapter Isaiah is writing about a man, so why would he in mid paragraph switch to the idea of a fallen angel? The only thing that saddens me about this is, one of my favorite songs is by the Rolling Stones and it is called, Sympathy for the Devil and it uses the word Lucifer as being the devil. For people to understand this is not true, means many like myself that research this, still have a lot of work to do in conveying the true meaning.
pro-life.jpg
For all those who are keeping an eye on the Kashmir issue... I'm being as frank as I can here.
Disclaimer: I'm not against any Pakistani common man, there are lots and lots of nice people. I'm only against their government and possibly, their state-funded terrorism (which is harming themselves like a parasite).
All I wish for is world peace. I'm not speaking for anybody, just stating the facts.It's pure hypocrisy by the separatists. Everyone forgot the help the Indian Army lent during floods, everyone forgot the rescue operations. The army men provided them with supplies, and at some places they even laid down to make a man-bridge for the victims to cross over safely. The separatist leaders (I doubt that they have a secret alliance with either the Pakistan government or the terrorists or both) are sending their children to safe places like Britain and installing the feeling of hatred in the minds of the locals, making them pelt stones at public property and at the army men.
They say that they can survive without the aid from the Indian government, but as of now, it's far from reality. If it does happen, then they are the ones who will face the blow. Being a part of India, Kashmiris have very good facilities. For example, there is a separate quota for Kashmiri immigrant students in any Indian state. They are just being brainwashed by the above suspected groups.
There came a news some months ago that a woman was raped by a personnel from the Indian army. There was a lot of media coverage. But later, the woman herself admitted that the rapist was not a soldier, but a localite from her village. Our sold out prestitute media didn't cover this much.
There have also been speculations that Pakistan government or their army (which isn't totally controlled by the government) might be persuading the localites to protest in order to seek revenge against India for liberating Bangladesh (formerly East Pakistan) from Pakistan. If you aren't aware, Western Pakistan didn't take good care of Bangladesh...they were called names and insulted. If you ask today's old Bangladeshis, you'll come to know that they never felt like they were a part of Pakistan, but very isolated. India and Bangladesh are currently benifitting each other through trade relations (jute textile, gas pipeline connections, high speed internet - upcoming project etc.).
At the end of the day, International borders are only man-made boundaries. There should be no hate. By destroying public property, they are incurring a loss to themselves. I hope that these protestors realize the truth as early as possible and let this drama end.