h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Enoch has never really been properly part of the bible. The concepts like reincarnation of a human becomming an angel are to contradictory with the rest. There are a great many books that were considered for the bible that were rejected for a great many reasons(many like the gospel of Thomas for example couldn't be verified as being written in the time period claimed or by the supposed authors).

In regards to names yes the true name of a spirit gives you power over it. If you knew the true name of Satan(with all do respect to Dr Dee I don't think thats it) it would weaken them. That may not be the end of it depending on the spirit(some of the most powerful devils fall outside of any humans ability to cast out) but its an important step in getting there.

In regards to exorcisms the name used depends on the religion of the exorcist. All of the major religions and most of the minor ones have or at one time had rituals of exorcism based on there faith. The effectiveness depends both on the faith of the priest and on the faith of the afflicted. A catholic ritual won't do much good for a buddhist house hold and the reverse is equally true(as an off shoot of this all the investigators mentioned by name in the article will work happily with any religion that does not engage in demonolatry, Satanism or black magic).

The entry looks a lot better now that you've corrected all those spelling mistakes. While I don't believe in the existence of demons at all, I'm fairly sure this will be picked and will be included in the Guide eventually.

Excelent thank you and to every one else who's helped and complimented my work. I realize a lot of people don't believe in the subject which in fact makes it even cooler to hear people think I've done well with it.

If you don't mind my dropping in -- I can confirm that the entry in its present state is both highly interesting and highly legible. I'd just like to highlight a few linguistic points I don't think have been mentioned yet:

'Of these, several figures deserve special mention, none of whom more so then Ed Warren.'

I recommend changing 'whom' to 'them'.

'Blue in the fact' presumably ought to be 'blue in the face'. Also, there are a couple of principles that ought to be principals.

Kevin I have been meaning to comment again for a while.
The tone of this entry is much improved I haven't finished the whole entry but below are some suggestions for your consideration:

Names: Films, books and program titles would possibly be more easily comprehended if formatted with apostrophes eg 'Buffy', 'Key of Solomon the King', foreign/unusual names would be better in italics (though I realise you can't do this in a text formatted entry, you could indicate the need for italics, possibly by an 'i' in brackets) eg (i)Ahura Mazda, Ahriman, dybbuks, Nephillim, nephil,etc.

Sumaria > Sumer (‘Sumerian’ relates to the nation of Sumer not Sumeria - though until I checked in a dictionary I didn't realise this myself )

In Zoroastrianism (the chief religion of Persia), they held that the universe was ruled over by
>
In Zoroastrianism (the chief religion of Persia), it was believed that the universe was ruled over by ('they' has no referent)

While these rituals were solely intended for Solomon himself, he ultimately did copy the book for his descendents (while its true authorship is unknown we do know that references to the key go back as far as 1 AD even if the most well known copy only dates back to the 16th Century).
>
While these rituals were allegedly intended for Solomon alone, it is believed that he copied the book for his descendants. His authorship has not been proved, but, although the most well-known copy only dates back to the 16th Century, there are references to the Key that go back as far as 1 AD. (typo: descendants)

Some key events would probably be better Capitalised:
the flood > the Flood
the fall > the Fall
the last supper > the Last Supper

The legendary magician Merlin for example was supposedly the child of a witch and a demon Could you provide a source for this please?

the most famous form of demonology is that of Christianity ... > the most well-known source for demonology is from Christianity ... (Christianity is *not* equivalent to demonology )

Christians have probably spent the most time developing this branch of theology > Christian scholars have probably spent the most time developing this branch of theology (generally I don't think most 'Christians' develop theology)

Mathew 16:11 > Matthew 16:11

...they have lost none of the original power and authority, they held making it virtually impossible to exorcise them. > ...they have lost none of the original power and authority they held, making it virtually impossible to exorcise them.

he rarely if ever personally enters the physical world > he rarely, if ever, enters the physical world

The examples given of Satan entering the world are not at all convincing. The possession of Judas at the Last Supper is not unequivocal, and could simply be read as poetic licence 'Then entered Satan into Judas surnamed Iscariot' (Luke 22.3), not as possession but as a metaphor to explain why Judas betrayed Jesus. You might as well say Peter was possessed when Jesus said to him 'Get thee behind me, Satan' (Mark 8.33). The second example (from Revelations) surely refers to prophecy rather than something that has already happened. The third example has no references to follow up, so I don’t know what you are talking about.

Malleus Malleficarum and Compendium Mallefecarum – are these supposed to be spelled differently?
rituals preformed by these witches > rituals performed by these witches

Exorcism also was first formally structured with in the Roman Catholic Church > Exorcism was also first formalised by the Roman Catholic Church (perhaps easier to comprehend)

no exorcism should be performed with out evidence of multiple symptoms and even then, a priest had to > no exorcism should be performed without evidence of multiple symptoms, and even then a priest had to (no space in 'without' and comma moved)

You repeat the phrase ‘deserve special mention’ numerous times. It might be better to rephrase or remove some of these occurrences.

World wide only a handful of people are ever formally recognized > Worldwide only a handful of people are ever formally recognized (also who or what body is it that 'formally' recognises them?)

Of them through most of recent history, all have been clergy with the exception of Ed Warren (Ed is also the only one publicly known after years of study this researcher honestly does not know the name of any other modern person recognized)
> In recent times all of these have been members of the clergy, with the notable exception of Ed Warren. Ed is also the only recognised Religious Demonologist well-known to the public.

see The Lou Gentile Showfor > see The Lou Gentile Show for (space)

there methods do not involve magic spells > their methods do not involve magic spells

emf detectors (worth putting in a footnote to say what one of these is)

demonologists have certain methods to resort to provoke spiritual activity they will use > demonologists have certain methods they can use to provoke spiritual activity

father Malachi Martin > Father Malachi


Hope these prove useful, and not too picky

Pimms

Blimey you have a lot to say don't you pimms.

I have been researching the history of France recently and have found there was a group of anti Catholic rebels the Inquisition butchered called Cathars. They belived the world was created by the devil to torture mankind. They also belived that if you died you would go to heaven if you were absaloutly saintly in life. If you werent you would reincarnate as another creature on Earth to suffer some more of life's torture. An optimistic bunch wouldn't you say?!

'the most famous form of demonology is that of Christianity'

I haven't checked the context, but this doesn't seem to me to imply that Christianity is equivalent to demonology; it says that the most famous form of demonology is the demonology of Christianity, or Christian demonology, rather than that the most famous form of demonology _is_ Christianity. Admittedly, though, this could be made clearer.

Thanks again I've tried to edit in most of the changes(although I've kept Father Malachi Martin's name in full he's usually reffered to be all of it not just Father Malachi at least in sources I"ve seen). RE Merlin I'd have to check my books to find a single specific refference but the belief that he was of partly demonic ancestory is common to the legends that sorround him. I've seen it alternately stated he was the child of one of the ancient celtic deities(implying that it was changed to demons with the Christianization of Arthurian myth).

One small request given the size of my text. If at all possible could you give the sub headers the errors are under for remaining corrections its getting tricky to pin down exactly where things were.


In terms of the Cathars they're a fascinating bunch. Not properly speaking Christians(they held that Christ did not die on the cross and in fact was incapable of dying in the physical sense) but they had a lot of interesting ideas a few of which were later adopted by Catholicism or at least certain sects(they started championing poverty for members when the Church was at its richest which was one of the reasons they became so unpopular).

Don't have anything to add ATM, but I had a look at the newly reformatted entry and it looks really good. Nice going!

Here's a question: I read an entry on the Jinn, who according the Islam were created from fire, just as angels were created from light and humans from mud. Anyway, Jinn, like humans, seem to be constantly choosing good or evil. Does this mean that a demon could 'possess' a Jinn?

Jinn are an interesting case in general. They are some what akin to the Christian concept of demons although in Islamic tradition all spirits are ultamitely subserviant to Allah so the idea of a fallen angel is considered wrong at best. As to possessing one not exactly(possession implies the taking over of a physical body Jinn as I understand are spiritual in nature) but spirits can enter into a form of oppression where another spirit can controll them to some degree(this is common with certain human souls and there relation to demons).

Two points...

1) Is the soul destroyed or displaced by possesion?
2) Would it be aceptable to put programe titles in italics?

1)As far as I know, displaced, but Kevin knows more than me.
2)I'd say the editor will do that anyway.

As regards Jinn: According to Islam, every human has a guardian Jinn rather than a guardian angel, which is an interesting twist. Helen Blavatsky might say Jinn's bodies are 'subtler' than ours, but I am rather sceptical of her in any case.

If there are changes you can make to improve the entry, don't leave it to the editors (or sub-editors) to do them. You should do them yourself. The instructions on submitting entries say that you should try and get the entry as ready as possible, leaving as little as possible for the editors to do. This will make your entry more likely to be picked.

Ok exactly what parts do you mean by programe titles? I'll make the edit myself it doesn't take much. In regards to possession and the state of the human soul displaced is probably the best word for it. Some times both the soul and invader will cohabitat the body(the soul being dorment when the demon is in control) other times the soul is completely thrown out of the body.

Spirits are mostly immortal they can't be destroyed at least in the sense we think of. The closest scripturally speaking is the lake of fire in Revelation(not Hell they are two different things) which is called the second death.

'Programme title' means something like 'Buffy the Vampire Slayer.'

Ah ok I'll run through and do that.

How's it going?

I put the programme titles in italics. Is there any other specific suggestions on how I can improve this? I'm currently working on preparing a companion peice on exorcism.

The only improvements I can think of are the following:

The headers which are all in capitals should be in mixed upper/lower case. For example, instead of:

THE HISTORY OF DEMONOLOGY

you should have

The History of Demonology

"Deleware" should be "Delaware".