|
Post by chuck on Dec 2, 2020 1:29:13 GMT -5
Tell me more..... Strong's Number - H1966 Hebrew: הילל Transliteration: hêylêl Pronunciation: hay-lale' Definition: From H1984 (in the sense of brightness); the morning star: - lucifer. KJV Usage: Lucifer (1x). Occurs: 1 In verses: 1 chuck It would take too long. Look up Fall of Lucifer Derek Prince. one of my fav bible teachers Derek doesnt seem to acknowledge Isiah is talking about Nebuchadnezzar and not some literal angel called Lucifer(Satan) falling from the sky. He also does not acknowledge heaven does not mean "the sky" or "up there in space" in the context of Nebuchadnezzar and his excessive pride. Unless he teaches this elsewhere which I doubt because he seems bent on the Idea Lucifer fell from the sky before adam, which is not scriptural at all. Your going to have to explain how you arrive at your conclusion.
|
|
shushy
Royal Member
Warning
50%
Posts: 8,009
|
Post by shushy on Dec 2, 2020 6:55:33 GMT -5
Chuck I work in pictures. Lucifer was son of the morning. The most adorned and beautiful angel that led all the angels to worship around the throne. He got lifted up in pride and rebellion, became jealous of the worship given to the father. He convinced one third of the angels to rebel against god. Consequently lucifer and one third of the angels were thrown out of heaven cast down to earth. Their form was changed. Lucifer became satan, the devil. Prince of the power of the air. Dwells in the spiritual heaven around us. Principalities, powers,spirits of wickeness in high places all are part of the kingdom of darkness warring against the kingdom of light.
|
|
|
Post by intelchips on Dec 2, 2020 15:39:38 GMT -5
Why is it many on this forum fail to acknowledge that the early tribes of Jews had many Gods and no concept of a Devil? A few of us have offered facts to acknowledge this system of belief. As stated before there was no Devil until the Jews came home from exile. It is only shortly before the exile that some Jewish priests stated to think about a single God but had not yet spread the idea. This can be demonstrated by one of the most important differences between Jewish monotheism and Zoroastrian monotheism is that Jews recognize the one God as the source of both good and evil, light and darkness, while Zoroastrians, during all the phases of their long theological history, think of God only as the source of Good, with Evil as a separate principle. There is a famous passage in Second Isaiah, composed during or after the Exile, which is sometimes cited as a Jewish rebuke to the Zoroastrian idea of a dualistic God: "I am YHVH, unrivalled: I form the light and create the dark. I make good fortune and create calamity, it is I, YHVH, who do all this." (Isaiah 45:7) This passage, which is a major source for Jewish speculation on the source of good and evil in the world, denies the Zoroastrian idea of a God who is the source only of "good" and favorable things.
|
|
|
Post by nathan on Dec 2, 2020 16:25:02 GMT -5
Why is it many on this forum fail to acknowledge that the early tribes of Jews had many Gods and no concept of a Devil? A few of us have offered facts to acknowledge this system of belief. As stated before there was no Devil until the Jews came home from exile. It is only shortly before the exile that some Jewish priests stated to think about a single God but had not yet spread the idea. This can be demonstrated by one of the most important differences between Jewish monotheism and Zoroastrian monotheism is that Jews recognize the one God as the source of both good and evil, light and darkness, while Zoroastrians, during all the phases of their long theological history, think of God only as the source of Good, with Evil as a separate principle. There is a famous passage in Second Isaiah, composed during or after the Exile, which is sometimes cited as a Jewish rebuke to the Zoroastrian idea of a dualistic God: "I am YHVH, unrivalled: I form the light and create the dark. I make good fortune and create calamity, it is I, YHVH, who do all this." (Isaiah 45:7) This passage, which is a major source for Jewish speculation on the source of good and evil in the world, denies the Zoroastrian idea of a God who is the source only of "good" and favorable things. ** You atheists are too much! The Serpent/Lucifer is mention in the book of Genesis chapter 2 in the Garden of Eden. The Fall of Man Adam and Eve event pass down from one generation to the next for 6000 yrs. The Jews KNOW about it, even Jesus talks about The devil/Satan during His ministry.
|
|
|
Post by curlywurlysammagee on Dec 2, 2020 16:28:52 GMT -5
Why is it many on this forum fail to acknowledge that the early tribes of Jews had many Gods and no concept of a Devil? A few of us have offered facts to acknowledge this system of belief. As stated before there was no Devil until the Jews came home from exile. It is only shortly before the exile that some Jewish priests stated to think about a single God but had not yet spread the idea. This can be demonstrated by one of the most important differences between Jewish monotheism and Zoroastrian monotheism is that Jews recognize the one God as the source of both good and evil, light and darkness, while Zoroastrians, during all the phases of their long theological history, think of God only as the source of Good, with Evil as a separate principle. There is a famous passage in Second Isaiah, composed during or after the Exile, which is sometimes cited as a Jewish rebuke to the Zoroastrian idea of a dualistic God: "I am YHVH, unrivalled: I form the light and create the dark. I make good fortune and create calamity, it is I, YHVH, who do all this." (Isaiah 45:7) This passage, which is a major source for Jewish speculation on the source of good and evil in the world, denies the Zoroastrian idea of a God who is the source only of "good" and favorable things. What exile?
|
|
|
Post by intelchips on Dec 2, 2020 16:34:32 GMT -5
Why is it many on this forum fail to acknowledge that the early tribes of Jews had many Gods and no concept of a Devil? A few of us have offered facts to acknowledge this system of belief. As stated before there was no Devil until the Jews came home from exile. It is only shortly before the exile that some Jewish priests stated to think about a single God but had not yet spread the idea. This can be demonstrated by one of the most important differences between Jewish monotheism and Zoroastrian monotheism is that Jews recognize the one God as the source of both good and evil, light and darkness, while Zoroastrians, during all the phases of their long theological history, think of God only as the source of Good, with Evil as a separate principle. There is a famous passage in Second Isaiah, composed during or after the Exile, which is sometimes cited as a Jewish rebuke to the Zoroastrian idea of a dualistic God: "I am YHVH, unrivalled: I form the light and create the dark. I make good fortune and create calamity, it is I, YHVH, who do all this." (Isaiah 45:7) This passage, which is a major source for Jewish speculation on the source of good and evil in the world, denies the Zoroastrian idea of a God who is the source only of "good" and favorable things. ** You atheists are too much! The Serpent/Lucifer is mention in the book of Genesis chapter 2 in the Garden of Eden. The Fall of Man Adam and Eve event pass down from one generation to the next for 6000 yrs. The Jews KNOW about it, even Jesus talks about The devil/Satan during His ministry. Nathan, Nathan. Do you not think I can read? I have read Genesis and it does not say anything about Satan or a being known as Lucifer being in the Garden of Eden. Of course you know there are many creation stories known to the Jews. Perhaps you are thinking of one of the other ones. When someone quotes the Bible out of context they often misrepresent the argument being made in a effort to easier attack. If someone is arguing about events that happened 20 years ago and a quote from yesterday is offered to weaken the argument being discussed. By exaggerating, misrepresenting, or just completely fabricating someone's argument, it's much easier to present your own position as being reasonable, but this kind of dishonesty serves to undermine honest rational debate. If some but not all 2x2s have only data they learn from the workers and the believers around them it not easy for them to except new data that conflicts with what they believe. And there are those 2x2s who have had exposure to other data but think it can't be real because after all the workers view are correct. Anyway, misrepresenting some's argument to make it easier to attack is called the "strawman." Yes don't accept new data with verification. Never ever do that. But don't shove it aside without investigating. And don't try to counter it without some out of context strawman data.
|
|
|
Post by nathan on Dec 2, 2020 17:09:23 GMT -5
** You atheists are too much! The Serpent/Lucifer is mention in the book of Genesis chapter 2 in the Garden of Eden. The Fall of Man Adam and Eve event pass down from one generation to the next for 6000 yrs. The Jews KNOW about it, even Jesus talks about The devil/Satan during His ministry. Nathan, Nathan. Do you not think I can read? I have read Genesis and it does not say anything about Satan or a being known as Lucifer being in the Garden of Eden. Of course you know there are many creation stories known to the Jews. Perhaps you are thinking of one of the other ones. When someone quotes the Bible out of context they often misrepresent the argument being made in a effort to easier attack. If someone is arguing about events that happened 20 years ago and a quote from yesterday is offered to weaken the argument being discussed. By exaggerating, misrepresenting, or just completely fabricating someone's argument, it's much easier to present your own position as being reasonable, but this kind of dishonesty serves to undermine honest rational debate. If some but not all 2x2s have only data they learn from the workers and the believers around them it not easy for them to except new data that conflicts with what they believe. And there are those 2x2s who have had exposure to other data but think it can't be real because after all the workers view are correct. Anyway, misrepresenting some's argument to make it easier to attack is called the "strawman." Yes don't accept new data with verification. Never ever do that. But don't shove it aside without investigating. And don't try to counter it without some out of context strawman data. ** You are an atheist and nobody is going to change your mind ONLY God can. If you don't believe the Devil then that is your choice, we believers disagree with you. you are happy with your belief and we believers happy with our belief. You atheists are NOT going to change our minds on the existence of God, Christ, angels, Lucifer/Satan the devil, demons. We must agree to disagree.
|
|
|
Post by jetmech on Dec 2, 2020 17:16:56 GMT -5
Chuck I work in pictures. Lucifer was son of the morning. The most adorned and beautiful angel that led all the angels to worship around the throne. He got lifted up in pride and rebellion, became jealous of the worship given to the father. He convinced one third of the angels to rebel against god. Consequently lucifer and one third of the angels were thrown out of heaven cast down to earth. Their form was changed. Lucifer became satan, the devil. Prince of the power of the air. Dwells in the spiritual heaven around us. Principalities, powers,spirits of wickeness in high places all are part of the kingdom of darkness warring against the kingdom of light. Shushy this is quite interesting. Could you please give me some Bible references to what you've said here so I can research this some more? Thanks
|
|
|
Post by intelchips on Dec 2, 2020 17:16:59 GMT -5
Nathan, Nathan. Do you not think I can read? I have read Genesis and it does not say anything about Satan or a being known as Lucifer being in the Garden of Eden. Of course you know there are many creation stories known to the Jews. Perhaps you are thinking of one of the other ones. When someone quotes the Bible out of context they often misrepresent the argument being made in a effort to easier attack. If someone is arguing about events that happened 20 years ago and a quote from yesterday is offered to weaken the argument being discussed. By exaggerating, misrepresenting, or just completely fabricating someone's argument, it's much easier to present your own position as being reasonable, but this kind of dishonesty serves to undermine honest rational debate. If some but not all 2x2s have only data they learn from the workers and the believers around them it not easy for them to except new data that conflicts with what they believe. And there are those 2x2s who have had exposure to other data but think it can't be real because after all the workers view are correct. Anyway, misrepresenting some's argument to make it easier to attack is called the "strawman." Yes don't accept new data with verification. Never ever do that. But don't shove it aside without investigating. And don't try to counter it without some out of context strawman data. ** You are an atheist and nobody is going to change your mind ONLY God can. If you don't believe the Devil then that is your choice, we believers disagree with you. you are happy with your belief and we believers happy with our belief. You atheists are NOT going to change our minds on the existence of God, Christ, angels, Lucifer/Satan the devil, demons. We must agree to disagree. lol, I should know by now you will never engage on the data. You will go around it and keep on rolling. Slippery little Devil aren't you?
|
|
|
Post by nathan on Dec 2, 2020 17:31:46 GMT -5
** You are an atheist and nobody is going to change your mind ONLY God can. If you don't believe the Devil then that is your choice, we believers disagree with you. you are happy with your belief and we believers happy with our belief. You atheists are NOT going to change our minds on the existence of God, Christ, angels, Lucifer/Satan the devil, demons. We must agree to disagree. lol, I should know by now you will never engage on the data. You will go around it and keep on rolling. Slippery little Devil aren't you? ** You atheists are too much. It doesn't matter what we say you always have negative things to say about it. You Devil, you.
|
|
|
Post by chuck on Dec 2, 2020 17:33:09 GMT -5
Chuck I work in pictures. Lucifer was son of the morning. The most adorned and beautiful angel that led all the angels to worship around the throne. He got lifted up in pride and rebellion, became jealous of the worship given to the father. He convinced one third of the angels to rebel against god. Consequently lucifer and one third of the angels were thrown out of heaven cast down to earth. Their form was changed. Lucifer became satan, the devil. Prince of the power of the air. Dwells in the spiritual heaven around us. Principalities, powers,spirits of wickeness in high places all are part of the kingdom of darkness warring against the kingdom of light. You work in pictures?? Have you even considereded Isiah is talking about Nebuchadnezzar?. Where does the scriptures say Lucifer became Satan?. Isiah 14 is talking about Nebuchadnezzar, a failure to understand what was actually happening in history leads to some pretty fanciful ideas.......
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 2, 2020 17:36:08 GMT -5
** You atheists are too much! The Serpent/Lucifer is mention in the book of Genesis chapter 2 in the Garden of Eden. The Fall of Man Adam and Eve event pass down from one generation to the next for 6000 yrs. The Jews KNOW about it, even Jesus talks about The devil/Satan during His ministry. Nathan, Nathan. Do you not think I can read? I have read Genesis and it does not say anything about Satan or a being known as Lucifer being in the Garden of Eden. Of course you know there are many creation stories known to the Jews. Perhaps you are thinking of one of the other ones. When someone quotes the Bible out of context they often misrepresent the argument being made in a effort to easier attack. If someone is arguing about events that happened 20 years ago and a quote from yesterday is offered to weaken the argument being discussed. By exaggerating, misrepresenting, or just completely fabricating someone's argument, it's much easier to present your own position as being reasonable, but this kind of dishonesty serves to undermine honest rational debate. If some but not all 2x2s have only data they learn from the workers and the believers around them it not easy for them to except new data that conflicts with what they believe. And there are those 2x2s who have had exposure to other data but think it can't be real because after all the workers view are correct. Anyway, misrepresenting some's argument to make it easier to attack is called the "strawman." Yes don't accept new data with verification. Never ever do that. But don't shove it aside without investigating. And don't try to counter it without some out of context strawman data. being able to read is one thing understanding what you read is another...its quite clear to anyone who reads the bible that the serpent in the garden is the first reference to lucifer/satan or what ever you want to call him(he goes by many names and titles)...
|
|
|
Post by jetmech on Dec 2, 2020 17:39:59 GMT -5
** You are an atheist and nobody is going to change your mind ONLY God can. If you don't believe the Devil then that is your choice, we believers disagree with you. you are happy with your belief and we believers happy with our belief. You atheists are NOT going to change our minds on the existence of God, Christ, angels, Lucifer/Satan the devil, demons. We must agree to disagree. lol, I should know by now you will never engage on the data. You will go around it and keep on rolling. Slippery little Devil aren't you? I've always read and heard that satan wants us to believe he doesn't exist.
|
|
|
Post by chuck on Dec 2, 2020 17:41:51 GMT -5
Chuck I work in pictures. Lucifer was son of the morning. The most adorned and beautiful angel that led all the angels to worship around the throne. He got lifted up in pride and rebellion, became jealous of the worship given to the father. He convinced one third of the angels to rebel against god. Consequently lucifer and one third of the angels were thrown out of heaven cast down to earth. Their form was changed. Lucifer became satan, the devil. Prince of the power of the air. Dwells in the spiritual heaven around us. Principalities, powers,spirits of wickeness in high places all are part of the kingdom of darkness warring against the kingdom of light. Shushy this is quite interesting. Could you please give me some Bible references to what you've said here so I can research this some more? Thanks I would investigate who Isiah was talking about before running down the Lucifer/Satan path. Isiah 14, about the first 20 verses. Good luck getting references of Lucifer turning into Satan, it's just not there. It also pays to look at several translations as well.
|
|
|
Post by chuck on Dec 2, 2020 17:45:29 GMT -5
Why is it many on this forum fail to acknowledge that the early tribes of Jews had many Gods and no concept of a Devil? A few of us have offered facts to acknowledge this system of belief. As stated before there was no Devil until the Jews came home from exile. It is only shortly before the exile that some Jewish priests stated to think about a single God but had not yet spread the idea. This can be demonstrated by one of the most important differences between Jewish monotheism and Zoroastrian monotheism is that Jews recognize the one God as the source of both good and evil, light and darkness, while Zoroastrians, during all the phases of their long theological history, think of God only as the source of Good, with Evil as a separate principle. There is a famous passage in Second Isaiah, composed during or after the Exile, which is sometimes cited as a Jewish rebuke to the Zoroastrian idea of a dualistic God: "I am YHVH, unrivalled: I form the light and create the dark. I make good fortune and create calamity, it is I, YHVH, who do all this." (Isaiah 45:7) This passage, which is a major source for Jewish speculation on the source of good and evil in the world, denies the Zoroastrian idea of a God who is the source only of "good" and favorable things. ** You atheists are too much! The Serpent/Lucifer is mention in the book of Genesis chapter 2 in the Garden of Eden. The Fall of Man Adam and Eve event pass down from one generation to the next for 6000 yrs. The Jews KNOW about it, even Jesus talks about The devil/Satan during His ministry. Serpent/Lucifer Satan/Lucifer Not scriptural Nathan.
|
|
|
Post by chuck on Dec 2, 2020 17:53:12 GMT -5
lol, I should know by now you will never engage on the data. You will go around it and keep on rolling. Slippery little Devil aren't you? I've always read and heard that satan wants us to believe he doesn't exist. Well if human nature is Satan that would make sense wouldn't it. We make up all sorts of reasons why self comes first. Christ's nature on the other hand is the opposite. Remember self is deeply embedded in goals, if you have a goal, self comes before others. Makes you think on what Christ actually means about eternal...... Goal, Self, Heaven, Eternal Life...... No room for Character of Christ there, maybe there are different meanings to heaven and eternal life instead of the ones westerners have invented........
|
|
|
Post by nathan on Dec 2, 2020 18:19:59 GMT -5
** You atheists are too much! The Serpent/Lucifer is mention in the book of Genesis chapter 2 in the Garden of Eden. The Fall of Man Adam and Eve event pass down from one generation to the next for 6000 yrs. The Jews KNOW about it, even Jesus talks about The devil/Satan during His ministry. Serpent/Lucifer Satan/Lucifer Not scriptural Nathan. *** I gave the scriptures already Rev. 12:7-9. The great Dragon, the Ancient Serpent called the Devil or Satan, who leads the whole world astrayed.
|
|
|
Post by chuck on Dec 2, 2020 20:35:36 GMT -5
Serpent/Lucifer Satan/Lucifer Not scriptural Nathan. *** I gave the scriptures already Rev. 12:7-9. The great Dragon, the Ancient Serpent called the Devil or Satan, who leads the whole world astrayed. That's drawing a very very long bow Nathan. The Revelation 12:7-9 time frame is put into context in the next verse. Then I heard a loud voice in heaven say: “Now have come the salvation and the power and the kingdom of our God, and the authority of his Messiah. For the accuser of our brothers and sisters, who accuses them before our God day and night, has been hurled down. - Revelation 12:10 www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation12:10&version=NIVThe timing of this is at the cross. Couple this with Isiah is actually talking about Nebuchadnezzar. You have to ignore many facts to make the connection you are trying to make. You still haven't addressed Serpent/Lucifer Satan Lucifer. It is not scriptural unless you assume. Happy to be shown otherwise.
|
|
|
Post by intelchips on Dec 2, 2020 21:45:40 GMT -5
Serpent/Lucifer Satan/Lucifer Not scriptural Nathan. *** I gave the scriptures already Rev. 12:7-9. The great Dragon, the Ancient Serpent called the Devil or Satan, who leads the whole world astrayed. Okay Nathan lets start here, I admit that the meaning of the Hebrew term śārāph (plural, śerāphîm) is uncertain. Some scholars I have read claim that it is derived from the verb śārāph, which means “to burn completely.” The noun śārāph would then mean “the burning/fiery one.” Many believe that the term designates a serpent like creature, but this is far from certain. Have you examined the biblical evidence and the different uses of the term? While true there are a number of passages that associate śerāphîm with serpents. One such is a result of the Israelites’ rebellion in the wilderness the Lord sent “venomous [śerāphîm] snakes among them” (Num. 21:6).* After the people confessed their sin, the Lord ordered Moses “to make a snake [śārāph] and put it up on a pole” (verse 8). In this last verse the term śārāph refers back to the full phrase “venomous [śeraphîm] snakes.” In Deuteronomy 8:15 the wilderness is described as a “thirsty and waterless land, with its venomous snakes [nāchāš śārāph, literally, “seraph snake”] and scorpions.” So yes there is that. However, the question becomes, what is the meaning of the term seraph in these passages? Sometimes It is used as an adjective designating a specific type of serpent. Based on the meaning of the verbal form, śārāph would designate a snake whose bite causes a burning sensation, a severe inflammation of the skin that kills a person, i.e., a venomous serpent. But what about when the term śārāph is applied to heavenly beings such as found in Isaiah 6? Do you agree the term snake is not used in this chapter? Here I think we find the term is used as a noun and the form of this noun named being is fundamentally human. Of course I'm sure you noticed that the two seraphim had faces, hands, and feet, and were able to sing and communicate through language, i.e., they were rational beings (verses 2, 6, 7). They had six wings and could fly; they were angelic beings. And ontop of all this these beings seemed to have a specific function. They were “above” the throne of God; perhaps hovering over it, or standing around it as royal guards ready to serve the Lord. More specifically, it was their role to proclaim the holiness of the Lord and to minister on behalf of sinners in the heavenly temple (verses 3, 7). Their deportment expresses a spirit of humility and reverence in the presence of the Lord. So, Nathan with you knowing all this and not needing me to explain it to you do you still think a snake was in the garden of Edan talking to Eve or was it a humanly shaped son of God carrying out his work? Of course all this is a story, a work of fiction or myth. My point being if you are going to quote it please take the time to learn what the author is saying in the text and what his meaning was. Don't rely on what tradition claims it says.
|
|
|
Post by nathan on Dec 2, 2020 22:44:25 GMT -5
*** I gave the scriptures already Rev. 12:7-9. The great Dragon, the Ancient Serpent called the Devil or Satan, who leads the whole world astrayed. 1) Okay Nathan lets start here, I admit that the meaning of the Hebrew term śārāph (plural, śerāphîm) is uncertain. Some scholars I have read claim that it is derived from the verb śārāph, which means “to burn completely.” The noun śārāph would then mean “the burning/fiery one.” Many believe that the term designates a serpent like creature, but this is far from certain. Have you examined the biblical evidence and the different uses of the term? ~~ Lucifer was one of the highest angels from Cheribum Order of Angel. A Cherub, or known in the plural form as Cherubim, is a symbolical angelic figure repeatedly mentioned in the Bible. Cherubim are described as serving the will of God, performing divine duties in the earthly realm. Their initial responsibility was protecting the Garden of Eden as referenced in the book of Genesis.
What does śaph mean?
Based on the meaning of the verbal form, śārāph would designate a snake whose bite causes a burning sensation, a severe inflammation of the skin that kills a person, i.e., a venomous serpent. 2 . Śerāphîm as Heavenly Beings: In Isaiah 6 the term śārāph is applied to heavenly beings.
2) While true there are a number of passages that associate śerāphîm with serpents. One such is a result of the Israelites’ rebellion in the wilderness the Lord sent “venomous [śerāphîm] snakes among them” (Num. 21:6).* After the people confessed their sin, the Lord ordered Moses “to make a snake [śārāph] and put it up on a pole” (verse 8). In this last verse the term śārāph refers back to the full phrase “venomous [śeraphîm] snakes.” In Deuteronomy 8:15 the wilderness is described as a “thirsty and waterless land, with its venomous snakes [nāchāš śārāph, literally, “seraph snake”] and scorpions.” So yes there is that. However, the question becomes, what is the meaning of the term seraph in these passages? Sometimes It is used as an adjective designating a specific type of serpent. Based on the meaning of the verbal form, śārāph would designate a snake whose bite causes a burning sensation, a severe inflammation of the skin that kills a person, i.e., a venomous serpent. But what about when the term śārāph is applied to heavenly beings such as found in Isaiah 6? Do you agree the term snake is not used in this chapter? Here I think we find the term is used as a noun and the form of this noun named being is fundamentally human. Of course I'm sure you noticed that the two seraphim had faces, hands, and feet, and were able to sing and communicate through language, i.e., they were rational beings (verses 2, 6, 7). They had six wings and could fly; they were angelic beings. And ontop of all this these beings seemed to have a specific function. They were “above” the throne of God; perhaps hovering over it, or standing around it as royal guards ready to serve the Lord. More specifically, it was their role to proclaim the holiness of the Lord and to minister on behalf of sinners in the heavenly temple (verses 3, 7). Their deportment expresses a spirit of humility and reverence in the presence of the Lord. So, Nathan with you knowing all this and not needing me to explain it to you do you still think a snake was in the garden of Edan talking to Eve or was it a humanly shaped son of God carrying out his work? Of course all this is a story, a work of fiction or myth. My point being if you are going to quote it please take the time to learn what the author is saying in the text and what his meaning was. Don't rely on what tradition claims it says. ~~ Like I said in the past, Lucifer is a shape shifter! He can transform himself as an angel of light, humans or any kinds of animals like a Serpent.... In the beginning I read the animals in the Garden of Eden could communicate with Adam and Eve. We read Christ/God walked, talked and had fellowship with the animals and the humans.
|
|
|
Post by Dan on Dec 3, 2020 0:45:30 GMT -5
Lucifer was son of the morning. The most adorned and beautiful angel that led all the angels to worship around the throne. Isaiah 14:12He got lifted up in pride and rebellion, became jealous of the worship given to the father. Ezekiel 28: 13-19He convinced one third of the angels to rebel against god. Revelation 12:4Consequently lucifer and one third of the angels were thrown out of heaven cast down to earth. Their form was changed. Lucifer became satan, the devil. Lucifer pre-fallen, means shining one, light bearer, bright star.. Satan (post-fallen) just means adversaryPrince of the power of the air. Ephesians 2:2Dwells in the spiritual heaven around us. Principalities, powers,spirits of wickeness in high places all are part of the kingdom of darkness warring against the kingdom of light. Ephesians 6:12Shushy this is quite interesting. Could you please give me some Bible references to what you've said here so I can research this some more? Thanks
|
|
|
Post by Dan on Dec 3, 2020 1:25:01 GMT -5
chuck It would take too long. Look up Fall of Lucifer Derek Prince. one of my fav bible teachers Derek doesnt seem to acknowledge Isiah is talking about Nebuchadnezzar and not some literal angel called Lucifer(Satan) falling from the sky. He also does not acknowledge heaven does not mean "the sky" or "up there in space" in the context of Nebuchadnezzar and his excessive pride. Unless he teaches this elsewhere which I doubt because he seems bent on the Idea Lucifer fell from the sky before adam, which is not scriptural at all. Your going to have to explain how you arrive at your conclusion.
Many read (interpret) scriptures metaphorically, there's a literal reading in which the Jews relay, but Christians attach a prophetic meaning to. Isaiah doesn't mention Nebuchadnezzar, who was never directly described as 'morning star'. Just as Ezekiel 28 isn't really talking about the king of Tyrus, but Satan, who is also the prophetic subject of Isaiah 14. interpretation often assign a double entendre to the meaning of what's written. Surface reading does not reveal what's understood by examining "precept, precept upon precept; line upon line" (Isaiah 28:10). King Nebuchadnezzar like king Tyrus just embodies the great villain position of Satan in the bible.
God uses the title 'morning star' to indicate those He puts into authority to rule over men on earth. As people in the old days were led by the stars, especially ships at sea, so are people led by human, or angelic, leaders on earth. So you have a duel meaning where these men where really a comparison to Satan/Lucifer. Our image of Satan is developed from the fall of king Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon's evil human pride. The 'Babylon has Fallen!'... That's my take on it anyhow.
|
|
|
Post by chuck on Dec 3, 2020 5:05:55 GMT -5
Derek doesnt seem to acknowledge Isiah is talking about Nebuchadnezzar and not some literal angel called Lucifer(Satan) falling from the sky. He also does not acknowledge heaven does not mean "the sky" or "up there in space" in the context of Nebuchadnezzar and his excessive pride. Unless he teaches this elsewhere which I doubt because he seems bent on the Idea Lucifer fell from the sky before adam, which is not scriptural at all. Your going to have to explain how you arrive at your conclusion.
Many read (interpret) scriptures metaphorically, there's a literal reading in which the Jews relay, but Christians attach a prophetic meaning to. Isaiah doesn't mention Nebuchadnezzar, who was never directly described as 'morning star'. Just as Ezekiel 28 isn't really talking about the king of Tyrus, but Satan, who is also the prophetic subject of Isaiah 14. interpretation often assign a double entendre to the meaning of what's written. Surface reading does not reveal what's understood by examining "precept, precept upon precept; line upon line" (Isaiah 28:10). King Nebuchadnezzar like king Tyrus just embodies the great villain position of Satan in the bible.
God uses the title 'morning star' to indicate those He puts into authority to rule over men on earth. As people in the old days were led by the stars, especially ships at sea, so are people led by human, or angelic, leaders on earth. So you have a duel meaning where these men where really a comparison to Satan/Lucifer. Our image of Satan is developed from the fall of king Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon's evil human pride. The 'Babylon has Fallen!'... That's my take on it anyhow.
There is no connection between Satan and Lucifer. Isiah is talking about a mortal Man, most likely Nebuchadnezzar therefore indirectly referred to as the morning star. Lucifer is a title attributed to a man, that's it, Lucifer was inserted into scriptures in the 5th century, it was never used for Satan in any scriptures ever. No duel meaning at all. There is nothing scriptural at all linking Satan, morning star, Lucifer, Angel and falling. Religion made it up.
|
|
|
Post by intelchips on Dec 3, 2020 7:35:55 GMT -5
Many read (interpret) scriptures metaphorically, there's a literal reading in which the Jews relay, but Christians attach a prophetic meaning to. Isaiah doesn't mention Nebuchadnezzar, who was never directly described as 'morning star'. Just as Ezekiel 28 isn't really talking about the king of Tyrus, but Satan, who is also the prophetic subject of Isaiah 14. interpretation often assign a double entendre to the meaning of what's written. Surface reading does not reveal what's understood by examining "precept, precept upon precept; line upon line" (Isaiah 28:10). King Nebuchadnezzar like king Tyrus just embodies the great villain position of Satan in the bible.
God uses the title 'morning star' to indicate those He puts into authority to rule over men on earth. As people in the old days were led by the stars, especially ships at sea, so are people led by human, or angelic, leaders on earth. So you have a duel meaning where these men where really a comparison to Satan/Lucifer. Our image of Satan is developed from the fall of king Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon's evil human pride. The 'Babylon has Fallen!'... That's my take on it anyhow.
There is no connection between Satan and Lucifer. Isiah is talking about a mortal Man, most likely Nebuchadnezzar therefore indirectly referred to as the morning star. Lucifer is a title attributed to a man, that's it, Lucifer was inserted into scriptures in the 5th century, it was never used for Satan in any scriptures ever. No duel meaning at all. There is nothing scriptural at all linking Satan, morning star, Lucifer, Angel and falling. Religion made it up. Do you have an opinion why this is so hard to understand for many of the members? We often hear that God wrote the Bible and you need his spirt to understand it. (2 Timothy 3:16, 17) 16 All Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight, for disciplining in righteousness, 17 so that the man of God may be fully competent, completely equipped for every good work. But here within the Bible one finds it is written that God only inspired the writing. But here again the Bible would try to have us understand because the Bible is “inspired” by God, it would take God’s holy spirit to understand it. Without it, the words would be considered “foolishness”. Scholars who have studied the Bible for all their lives and you can not get a consensus among them what the scriptures are about. Each have their opinion, and it is hard for them to find a unified understanding. This is what I call Coppering your bet. More on this later have to leave the keyboard to get get the transportation worked on. Edit: Now let see if I remember what I was thinking prior to running out to get the Van worked on. The Bible was written, assembled, copied and translated by humans. That explains the flaws, the contradictions and the theological disagreements in its pages. Once a person comes to term with this and that is understood, it is possible to find out which parts of the Bible were not in the earliest Greek manuscripts, which are the bad translations, and what one book says in comparison with another. How often do members of this forum do that? Or is it easier and more comfortable to just fall back on the old adage that unless you have the spirit of God you will never understand the Bible? How often in a day do people reading the Bible use etymology to aid their understanding? Okay, Chuck I think I've preached long enough.
|
|
|
Post by nathan on Dec 3, 2020 11:43:22 GMT -5
Many read (interpret) scriptures metaphorically, there's a literal reading in which the Jews relay, but Christians attach a prophetic meaning to. Isaiah doesn't mention Nebuchadnezzar, who was never directly described as 'morning star'. Just as Ezekiel 28 isn't really talking about the king of Tyrus, but Satan, who is also the prophetic subject of Isaiah 14. interpretation often assign a double entendre to the meaning of what's written. Surface reading does not reveal what's understood by examining "precept, precept upon precept; line upon line" (Isaiah 28:10). King Nebuchadnezzar like king Tyrus just embodies the great villain position of Satan in the bible.
God uses the title 'morning star' to indicate those He puts into authority to rule over men on earth. As people in the old days were led by the stars, especially ships at sea, so are people led by human, or angelic, leaders on earth. So you have a duel meaning where these men where really a comparison to Satan/Lucifer. Our image of Satan is developed from the fall of king Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon's evil human pride. The 'Babylon has Fallen!'... That's my take on it anyhow.
There is no connection between Satan and Lucifer. Isiah is talking about a mortal Man, most likely Nebuchadnezzar therefore indirectly referred to as the morning star. Lucifer is a title attributed to a man, that's it, Lucifer was inserted into scriptures in the 5th century, it was never used for Satan in any scriptures ever. No duel meaning at all. There is nothing scriptural at all linking Satan, morning star, Lucifer, Angel and falling. Religion made it up. You are a very interesting and confusing non-exclusive 2x2, Chuck. The scripture is plain and clear who Lucifer is with many names and titles the Great Dragon, Ancient Serpent, called the Devil or Satan. Rev. 12:7-9. The great Dragon, the Ancient Serpent called the Devil or Satan, who leads the whole world astray.
|
|
|
Post by chuck on Dec 3, 2020 17:13:50 GMT -5
There is no connection between Satan and Lucifer. Isiah is talking about a mortal Man, most likely Nebuchadnezzar therefore indirectly referred to as the morning star. Lucifer is a title attributed to a man, that's it, Lucifer was inserted into scriptures in the 5th century, it was never used for Satan in any scriptures ever. No duel meaning at all. There is nothing scriptural at all linking Satan, morning star, Lucifer, Angel and falling. Religion made it up. You are a very interesting and confusing non-exclusive 2x2, Chuck. The scripture is plain and clear who Lucifer is with many names and titles the Great Dragon, Ancient Serpent, called the Devil or Satan. Rev. 12:7-9. The great Dragon, the Ancient Serpent called the Devil or Satan, who leads the whole world astray.
No connection Nathan. You take zero consideration of several things. "Lucifer" was introduced long after Christ, 5th century. Isiah was talking about a mortal man, most likely Nebuchadnezzar. John was talking about a mortal man, most likely Nero or Domitian. The fall was at the time of the cross not before Adam. Unless you take into consideration the language, concepts and culture of the day, what was actually happening at the time and why the writers wrote what they wrote you get mystical stuff like things falling from venus and gullible people swallow it because they dont want to go to hell when they die, telling people they will suffer eternal torture has a massive psychological effect.
|
|
|
Post by nathan on Dec 3, 2020 17:38:34 GMT -5
You are a very interesting and confusing non-exclusive 2x2, Chuck. The scripture is plain and clear who Lucifer is with many names and titles the Great Dragon, Ancient Serpent, called the Devil or Satan. Rev. 12:7-9. The great Dragon, the Ancient Serpent called the Devil or Satan, who leads the whole world astray.
No connection Nathan. You take zero consideration of several things. "Lucifer" was introduced long after Christ, 5th century. Isiah was talking about a mortal man, most likely Nebuchadnezzar. John was talking about a mortal man, most likely Nero or Domitian. The fall was at the time of the cross not before Adam. Unless you take into consideration the language, concepts and culture of the day, what was actually happening at the time and why the writers wrote what they wrote you get mystical stuff like things falling from venus and gullible people swallow it because they dont want to go to hell when they die, telling people they will suffer eternal torture has a massive psychological effect. *** I gave you the time line and many names and titles of the Serpent is KNOWN through the centuries... The great Dragon/ Draco come from the star system, Lucifer, Satan and the devil... Same guy with many different names and titles through the centuries. I have a long list of Lucifer names. I just tell you what God and His words said about Hades and hell or the Lake of fire/Second death= Eternal separation from God. These are NOT my ideas, imagination but from the words of God.
|
|
|
Post by chuck on Dec 3, 2020 17:43:27 GMT -5
No connection Nathan. You take zero consideration of several things. "Lucifer" was introduced long after Christ, 5th century. Isiah was talking about a mortal man, most likely Nebuchadnezzar. John was talking about a mortal man, most likely Nero or Domitian. The fall was at the time of the cross not before Adam. Unless you take into consideration the language, concepts and culture of the day, what was actually happening at the time and why the writers wrote what they wrote you get mystical stuff like things falling from venus and gullible people swallow it because they dont want to go to hell when they die, telling people they will suffer eternal torture has a massive psychological effect. *** I gave you the time line and many names and titles of the Serpent is KNOWN through the centuries... The great Dragon/ Draco come from the star system, Lucifer, Satan and the devil... Same guy with many different names and titles through the centuries. I have a long list of Lucifer names. Sure you have, but you have to blatantly ignore history to make the jump. That is ignorant.
|
|