Talk:Beelzebub
Page contents not supported in other languages.
 | This article is ratedC-class on Wikipedia'scontent assessment scale. It is of interest to the followingWikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
I don't think that that Cheyne link is right. That doesn't sound like the kind of observation that would be attributed to a notable Australian music sensation. Anyone want to fix that?(unsigned, but byUser:Mike Segal)
Can people stop removing this, the correct spelling of Beelzebub in Norwegian is Belsebub.
That's fine and all, since the article exists now. However, I would much rather appreciate it if someone adressed the problem below, and not something that was written long ago but that the author doesn't care about anymore. If you've got time to answer things like that, then you have time to answer the things below. Thank you for your attention.Satanael16:55, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I do find the request below far more important than what is written above, especially since the issue in question has been adressed and taken care of. Besides, with the low level of traffic here, it would be more desirable when someone first is here, to adress what is most important.And why in God's name did you restore the "ang" link, since it was incorrect from the start?Satanael18:27, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, it's fine, though I'm concerned about the bad continuity on the other language section for some articles. I'd edit it myself as well, but, unfortunately, I have too much on my plate as well. Perhaps I should put up a notice asking for someone to attend to the matter. I feel that the matter isn't covered enough in the info already present. I'd like it that a scholar of some sort would have been present and attended the matter at hand, unfortunately, that isn't so. The same can be said of the articles on various other demons and religious and mythical beings as well.Satanael21:18, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I think this article can use some improvement.
Someone should check out these links to get some general information.
The interwiki link toang:Wōdening was automatically added back. I removed it, and also removed all the interwiki links at the Anglo-Saxon article. (They were all to various translation of Beelzebub.) I also went and removed the corresponding links back toang:Wōdening, so hopefully that article is now completely dissociated from Beelzebub.
That question remains what, if any, English articleang:Wōdening should actually link to. As far as I can tell, it simply means "son ofWoden", and is also a fairly common surname. Maybe there should be an article on it atWodening, but currently that's a redlink. —Ilmari Karonen18:59, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm involved in this but I found this article while doing some RC Patrol. Please discuss your differences and not engage in edit warring or fork warring or whatever want to call it. --Woohookitty(cat scratches)12:45, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Simple... Right facing images need to be on the left per Wikipedia style guides... Trivial mentions that are nonnotable for the topic need to be removed...Beeelzebub in culture is completely unnecessary as an article and uses a title that doesn't conform to what it was intended to be about anyway. I also added the caption under the image and other cleanup. Blindly reverting it all just because the editor in question feels like he owns the page or something, first without any comment and then when he did comment he simply said "it sucks" with no logical explanation and made other rude comments. He also claimed I showed no interest in the topic previously, but I've edited these kinds of articles plenty of times, and he knows it as I have commented on this very talk page previously and edited the article, and have on more than one occasion had to remove his edits to multiple articles on similar themes as being unsourced, poorly written and thoroughly unencyclopedic. All in all, Satanael is up to his old tricks again.DreamGuy13:54, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
There are an awful lot of fluffy assertions made in this article, and especially many in the beginning. 'may', 'might', and so on. Just pointing this out- most of this subject matter is a point of ignorance in my case, so I do not feel qualified to fix the problem. →P.MacUidhir(t)(c)09:14, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
There's something incorrect anyway.SupernaturalSuperstar (talk)01:18, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've restored the link to the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica article on this subject, as well as the link to a reference source on the subject. Both were deleted by an editor using a false edit summary describing these as "spam".--Centauri06:58, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
First up, and most importantly, that link is NOT an "Encyclopedia Britannica lijnk" site but someone's knockoff site using public domain info that they do not own so that they can place ads on it and make money. This is clear, calculated spam. Information from that edition of the encyclopedia can, and by policyshould, be placed directly on this page if it's any good.WP:EL clearly states that sites to be avoided include "any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article here would have once it becomes an example of brilliant prose." As the info there is not covered by copyright, we can lift all of it of any value directly to Wikipedia. It is nonencyclopedic to link to some spammer's external site that has nothing more than what we already have here or can place here. In addition, also listed under sites to avoid linking to are "Links that are added to promote a site" and "Pages with advertising unless the page is the official home page of the organization, person, or other entity that is the subject of the Wikipedia article on which the external link exists." This site clearly fails as a valid link for multiple very important reasons.
Your list of sites that should be linked to explicitly do not apply to that site, as that site was NOT used as a source for this article, and, furthermore, if we use the Encyclopedia Britannica info, we can use it straight from the ORIGINAL source (the public domain text) and NOT the spammer's site.
And then to claim further that I was "deliberately misleading" when all I did was explain policy to you, policy that you clearly did not read or understand IN THE SLIGHTEST, violates theassume good faith policy, which you have been violating on a regular basis on more than one article when you declare that my edits are deceptive when they are not in any way, shape or form deceptive accept that you are either incapable or unwilling to follow along.
Furthermore, falsely calling my actions "trolling" when I am merely following site policy is a clear violation of theno personal attacks policy.
If you'd bother familiarizing yourself with our policies and how things are done here, you would know this. Instead you have made a habit of harassing edits directly aimed at me, and continue to do so even after you have been warned by an administrator to stop.DreamGuy09:56, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What exactly is wrong with these links?
On further consideration it occurs to me that the difficultiesDreamGuy akaVictrix has with the Britannica source material can be resolved by directly listing the references from the Britannica bibliography in the article itself. Until such time as that's done the external reference link should remain in place. --Centauri23:53, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've restored the cultural references blanked without explanation byDreamGuy. There is no obvious reason why these references should be deleted. --Centauri12:53, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there i'm new to this but was just wondering Tenaciuos D's latest album has a song called "Beelzeboss (the final showdown)" where jack and kyle have a rock off with the devil(or the devil's son maybe.... it's some form of demon thing I can't really remember). i was wondering if "beelzeboss" is a made up name or has it been used before?
"Zeboul might derive from a slurred pronunciation of zebûb; from 'zebel', a word used to mean 'dung' in the Targums; or from Hebrew zebûl found in 1 Kings 8.13 in the phrase bêt-zebûl"
Zebel is a word meaning rich and prosperous in ancient Hebrew texts the word is transformed to relate to dung much later in the evolution of the Hebrew language. It is used in the scripture to refer to something as rich and prosperous. This meaning coincides with much of the rest of the paragraph so I'd suggest striking out the translation to dung.—The precedingunsigned comment was added by89.0.183.234 (talk)10:38, 19 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
This was under a section titled "Common Parlance"
I think if anything like this is to stay, it needs to be rewritten. -furrykef (Talk at me)06:57, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The dab pageBeelzebub (disambiguation) which redirects toBeelzebub in popular culture has been nominated for deletion.John Vandenberg12:19, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In the intro it says "In ancient contexts, there appears to have been little, if any, meaningful distinction between Beelzebub and the polytheistic Semitic god named Ba‘al." This sounds like it was written by someone who thinks Beelzebub is a name for Satan and that the "ancients" didn't know what we know about Satan today, confusing him with a mere local idol. I'd like to request that someone with more knowledge on the subject rewrite this sentence.Yonderboy03:12, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The names Ba'al and BeelZebub are closely connected.The etymology of the name Beelzebub is Bel/Baal the son of Shiva ( Bel- Shiva- ben) which means that Ba'al or Bel is the son of Lord Shiva. Unfortunately nobody has tried to look into the Hindu mythology. The word Bel is derived from the word'VELA' the God who wields a spear. Baal the supreme god who was worshipped in ancient Canaan and Phoenicia and who was worshipped in the promised land during the reign of Ahab and Jezebel was actually of South Indian origin. He is worshipped in South India even to dAY by the name VEla ( the God who wields a spear in his hand. He is also called 'KUMARA ' ( the Son) and also 'Shanmukha' the six faced God.He is also worshipped as a Snake God (Lord of the snakes). According to the Hindu mythology he is the son of Lord Shiva, the Supreme God.His birth was engineered by Indra and other Gods for the specific purpose of killing an Asura king called Tarakasura (the Asura King who possessed a Starlet- which was given to him for his protection by Lord Shiva himself). He was made the Commander in Chief of the Army of Gods. During the battle with the Asura King it seems he had lost one eye and was wounded in one of his breasts. No wonder the great God was conveniently associated with the Devil.Banda.krishna (talk)08:06, 2 May 2017 (UTC) B.K.Satyanarayana[reply]
Someone added a line claiming it was the handle of a hacker who "is rumored to be one of the most powerful in the world". Removed for obvious and slightly comical reasons.—Precedingunsigned comment added bySolificus (talk •contribs)17:08, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The text quoted below was removed, as it has little if anything to do with the article. It's not written in the appropriate form or style, and cites only one source. Religious articles should reference established written texts, not personal belief.
"Note: Its worth considering the fact that Lucifer (satan) was indeed cast down from heaven with 1 third of the angels (his legion). (BAD) Angels have wings too, and he though not an opposite (in power) of GOD has nevertheless set himself up against GOD thus making himself an opposing entity thus continuing the rebellious attitude which got him thrown out in the first place. He is known as the father of LIARS because he said 'I will arise, I will sit on the throne of the Most High, I will be like the Most High' he could not have done that because he was not equal with God in position but lied about his ability to do so(become like the MOST HIGH GOD) His job was to take care of the Shekina Glory of God and the Throne.He was given a voice of many instruments and Lucifer means Bearer of Light(thus all satanic things need not be black, ugly, or horrible on the contrary music, strobe lights, beauty are also very much part of satans paraphenelia as when he was thrown out he got to keep what he had and bring it with him. This was counted as rebellion and he was then cast out of heaven and continues to lie about his powers and manipulate the TRUTH . It is vulnerable human mind (like EVE in the garden vis. the truth was manipulated) who are either gullible and open to his indwelling, or who willingly accept his lies and allow him presence in their lives either out of curiosity, ignorance or carelessness, thus giving him power over them. It is also known that a human can renounce him and have him leave as the human has the power and right over his own body. By the same token God will not indwell a human unless invited [4]John 3:16, respecting this same authority (free will) a human has over their body. When Satan comes in he comes in with a gang, therefore multiple problems are seen at one time. When the Spirit of God comes in He has the power to restore any losses 100 percent. Its interesting to note that when God comes in Satan leaves with his gang. It is nevertheless for the "strong man of the house" the owner of the body concerned to stay focused on keeping the right entity within him/herself to maintain homeostasis so to speak, relapes show either faltering decision or reverting to a negative state too soon after deliverance when the body is not yet healed and strong to stay closed to Satanic reindwelling. Jesus himself says that some times a person has to be in prayer and fasting to attain such spiritual strength and tenacity (faith)"
I added an "In Modern Culture" section and put a mention of Beezebub's name occuring in Call of Cthulhu(video game). But it was removed because it was "extremely trivial". I know it is extremely trivial but I don't see a point in removing it. Other articles have these kind of modern culture sections with same kind of extremely trivial mentionings.Skele (talk)11:30, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why isn'tGeorge W Bush somewhere in this article?— Precedingunsigned comment added by68.196.247.131 (talk)07:48, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Is there anything known about that Philistine god Ba'al Zêbul from anywhere outside the Bible? ... said:Rursus (bork²)15:27, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Related to this, "Lord of the High Places" probably does not refer to heaven. Heaven is not mentioned in the Bible up to this point. The "High Places" are where the worshipers of the Ba'als made their sacrifices, so if Ba'al Zêbul does mean "Lord of the High Places", it is probably a reference to these sacrificial places rather than a reference to heaven. --Bowiki (talk)02:39, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Larry Gonik pozits that when the Assyrians conquered the Babylonians, they invited all Ba'al worshipers to a feast, sealed them in the temple, burned it, then turned the ash heap into the barracks latrine. Thus Ba'al became Beelzebul, lord of feces. He illustrates this with a picture of a soldier making an "offering to Ba'al." Beelezebub, lord of flies would be of a kind. I imagine anyone with a copy of the Cartoon History of the Universe can look up Gonik's quotes and sources.—Precedingunsigned comment added by70.113.49.126 (talk)04:35, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Seven ashley? What's an ashley?--RossF18 (talk)13:32, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's vandalism. I'm reverting it now.Ian.thomson (talk)13:36, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Given the fact that throughout history persons (i.e. scholars or princes) used the titleBa'al - likeBa'al HaTanya,Ba'al Ha-Sulam orBa'al ha-Turim - that Baʿal Zəbûb was infact a human being, a person? Like some great scholar, a man of renown, an ancient (anti)hero or just an evil genius of some sort who was worshipped like a god or deity; a "man-god" so to speak. Any ideas? The title Ba'al was obviously used by persons for thousands of years. Adramelech, the son ofSennacherib also used the title Ba'al, and that was nearly 3000 years ago (more like 2500 years actually).178.201.23.62 (talk)05:04, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Lucifer was his name in heaven before he was cast to hell to become Satan.— Precedingunsigned comment added by68.217.3.152 (talk)21:49, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Dejumbled article per chronology. Not sure about theRas Shamra content, looks ORish but could be there in Saracino 1982?In ictu oculi (talk)00:49, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Currently, on the top of the article, the Arabic is transliterated as "Ba‘al az-Zubab". This is somewhat incorrect. It should be "Ba‘al aẓ-Ẓubāb, looking at the Arabic script.— Precedingunsigned comment added by71.126.224.104 (talk)01:09, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There are serious issues with the Arabic itself and the Arabic transliteration. The two Arabic phrases for Beelzebub aren't even the same. One ends in an alef and the other in a lam. Someone with a deeper knowledge of Arabic seriously needs to go through the two Arabic idhaafah phrases and transliteration and correct them. I am not familiar with this phrase in Arabic and there is more than one broken plural for flies so I cannot help. Amatullah169.1.183.246 (talk)10:36, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What does "is a contemporary name for the devil" mean? One thing is the contemporary of another, isn't it? A thing cannot be contemporary (just that), can it?86.132.223.160 (talk)17:07, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings,
I checked the Greek text of the Septuagint and Josephus and did not find (βααλζεβούβ) but only Ἀκκάρων θεὸν Μυῖαν - Josephus and Βάαλ μυῖαν θεὸν ᾿Ακκαρών - Septuagint.
Unless someone know it better I suggest the the phrase "The Septuagint renders the name as Baalzebub (βααλζεβούβ) and as Baal muian (βααλ μυιαν, "Baal of flies"), but Symmachus the Ebionite may have reflected a tradition of its offensive ancient name when he rendered it as Beelzeboul.[11]" to be corrected.
Best regards, Humberto Maggi
105.174.4.110 (talk)15:24, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Satan is the "lord of the flies" and the "lord of lies".SupernaturalSuperstar (talk)01:17, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link onBeelzebub. Please take a moment to reviewmy edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visitthis simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored byInternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other thanregular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editorshave permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see theRfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template{{source check}}(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot(Report bug)15:53, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
 | Thisedit request has been answered. Set the|answered= or|ans= parameter tono to reactivate your request. |
I want to write that it's called Mike Pence as wellHAMILTON-NOTREDAME (talk)22:36, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not done Seagull123 Φ23:06, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]Soul sellingShadaishalin (talk)22:46, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"In regard to the god of Ekron, the belief that zebub may be the original affix to Baal and that it is a substitute for an original zbl which, after the discoveries of Ras Shamra, has been connected with the title of "prince", frequently attributed to Baal in mythological texts."
With this punctuation, this sentence appears to be meaningless.
The redirectBaal-zebub In Rabbinical Literature has been listed atredirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets theredirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect atWikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 February 27 § Baal-zebub In Rabbinical Literature until a consensus is reached.Veverve (talk)16:09, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The lord of the flies does not indicate a fly, what it really means is ,the entity is a lord,king of everything that flies. So far our conception of them entities are from baseless movies and edited scrolls of the powerful who just wants everything for themselves. Don't believe everything you read.Wo609f (talk)07:40, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
