PDA

View Full Version : Who is Lucifer?



Fsbirdhouse
Apr 14th 2009, 07:19 PM
There seems to be an ongoing debate, or mis-identification about the true identity of Lucifer.
Many people believe him to be Satan, others claim he is Christ.
The first reference to him as Satan seems to have been in the middle ages, but modern thinking seems to identify him with Christ.
Our information about his identity hasn't changed over the centuries, so why would the opinions of medieval scholars who spent their entire lives studying such things intently, suddenly go out of fashion (so to speak), and the complete antithesis of his identity be adopted instead?
I had always thought of him as Satan, but was severely rebuked over it in another forum, although in the end, I only acknowledged a general change as who he is now accepted as (to let the furor die), I am not at all convinced he is Christ.

matthew94
Apr 14th 2009, 07:26 PM
How about neither?

The phrase 'morning star' is simply an image-metaphor. It can apply in some cases to a good person and in other cases to the supposed greatness of a bad person who is going to be brought down in judgment. Isaiah 14 can be referring to the judgment of a wicked King of Babylon (or, symbolically to Satan, perhaps) while Revelation 22 can be referring to Jesus Himself.

markedward
Apr 14th 2009, 07:57 PM
"Lucifer" isn't even a proper translation of what the original Hebrew says.

"Lucifer" isn't even a name, it's more of a descriptive title. Reading the surrounding context of the passage and the cultural background, I say it's referring only to the king of Babylon... turning it into a reference about Satan requires reading too much into the text, and not out of it.

David Taylor
Apr 14th 2009, 08:17 PM
However....with all of the above being said....and all of the above being correct and good information....

Realistically.....(and from time until imortum).....

Lucifer has become and will always be commonly known as a name for Satan.

It may be a wrong application.

It may be a poor translation or a misunderstood intent of Isaiah.

But nevertheless, Lucifer has become 'stuck' as a common name for Satan.

Just like cotton-swabs are commonly called "Q-tips", latex bandages are commonly called "bandaids", and tissue paper is commonly called "kleenex"....Lucifer will always be a common name for the Devil.

...Even if it doesn't have a very sound biblical reason for applying it that way.

THOM
Apr 15th 2009, 01:52 AM
There seems to be an ongoing debate, or mis-identification about the true identity of Lucifer.
Many people believe him to be Satan, others claim he is Christ.
The first reference to him as Satan seems to have been in the middle ages, but modern thinking seems to identify him with Christ.
Our information about his identity hasn't changed over the centuries, so why would the opinions of medieval scholars who spent their entire lives studying such things intently, suddenly go out of fashion (so to speak), and the complete antithesis of his identity be adopted instead?
I had always thought of him as Satan, but was severely rebuked over it in another forum, although in the end, I only acknowledged a general change as who he is now accepted as (to let the furor die), I am not at all convinced he is Christ.

"How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! [how] art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations! For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north: I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High. Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit. (Isaiah 14:12-15ff)"


"Lucifer" isn't even a proper translation of what the original Hebrew says.

So what is "a proper translation of what the original Hebrew says"? Please tell us.



'Lucifer' isn't even a name,If this is not "even a name", what is the purpose of the use of the word "Lucifer"?



it's more of a descriptive title.Kinda like, "son of the morning!", huh?



Reading the surrounding context of the passage and the cultural background, I say it's referring only to the king of Babylon...And just which of all the historically known kings of Babylon, would your specific, "the king of Babylon..." be? And please remember you have "the cultural background" to work with so that you can be very specific. So just which, SPECIFIC, one is/was it?

The passage, in its proper context, tells you what its about, ". . .thou shalt take up this proverb against the king of Babylon, and say,...(verse 4)"; and please don't miss that word, "proverb". In the Hebrew text, it is "a similitude, a parable". Now "a similitude" and/or "a parable", in Scripture, is a Spiritual Truism that, having already taken place in the Spiritual realm, now becomes law, and/or amen, Physically.

An excellent example of this is, "Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap. (Galatians 6:7)".

Another would be, "Blessed is the man that walketh not in the counsel of the ungodly, nor standeth in the way of sinners, nor sitteth in the seat of the scornful. (Psalm 1:1)"

The are just two examples of "done deals" in Heaven, which manifest themselves, physically, on earth and/or in the Physical.


turning it into a reference about Satan requires reading too much into the text, and not out of it.

So then, where do we find anybody, anyone, anywhere in all of Scripture, who has "fallen from heaven"?. . .other than "Satan"???

And remember, it is written, "And he said unto them, I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven .(Luke 10:18)"

Followtheway
Apr 15th 2009, 01:56 AM
Lucifer is Satan he was the angel of light a guardian cherubim and wanted to be like the Lord.

Ezekiel 28:13-15 (New International Version)

13 You were in Eden,
the garden of God;
every precious stone adorned you:
ruby, topaz and emerald,
chrysolite, onyx and jasper,
sapphire, [a] turquoise and beryl. [b]
Your settings and mountings [c] were made of gold;
on the day you were created they were prepared.

14 You were anointed as a guardian cherub,
for so I ordained you.
You were on the holy mount of God;
you walked among the fiery stones.

15 You were blameless in your ways
from the day you were created
till wickedness was found in you.

16 Through your widespread trade
you were filled with violence,
and you sinned.
So I drove you in disgrace from the mount of God,
and I expelled you, O guardian cherub,
from among the fiery stones.

17 Your heart became proud
on account of your beauty,
and you corrupted your wisdom
because of your splendor.
So I threw you to the earth;
I made a spectacle of you before kings.

apothanein kerdos
Apr 15th 2009, 01:56 AM
However....with all of the above being said....and all of the above being correct and good information....

Realistically.....(and from time until imortum).....

Lucifer has become and will always be commonly known as a name for Satan.

It may be a wrong application.

It may be a poor translation or a misunderstood intent of Isaiah.

But nevertheless, Lucifer has become 'stuck' as a common name for Satan.

Just like cotton-swabs are commonly called "Q-tips", latex bandages are commonly called "bandaids", and tissue paper is commonly called "kleenex"....Lucifer will always be a common name for the Devil.

...Even if it doesn't have a very sound biblical reason for applying it that way.


Common sense theology...such a breath of fresh air!

apothanein kerdos
Apr 15th 2009, 02:42 AM
"Lucifer" isn't even a proper translation of what the original Hebrew says.

"Lucifer" isn't even a name, it's more of a descriptive title. Reading the surrounding context of the passage and the cultural background, I say it's referring only to the king of Babylon... turning it into a reference about Satan requires reading too much into the text, and not out of it.


Keep in mind that most names in the OT are descriptive titles. Only until recently did we line up names and throw darts at them to see how we'd name our children. ;)

Likewise, the OT isn't afraid to throw around double meaning, which makes it extremely difficult. I like the historical-grammatical hermeneutic, but it's really hard to apply it to the OT. After all, if we did, then none of the claimed prophecies from it that we find in the NT actually qualify for prophecy. :)

So, I like it as a method, I recommend it in most cases, but it only goes so far. Most theologians up until the modern era (1700 on) interpreted these passages to generally refer to both the king of Babylon and Satan.

Fact is, we don't know much about Satan in the Scriptures - that's probably intentional.

crossnote
Apr 15th 2009, 05:36 AM
Keep in mind that most names in the OT are descriptive titles. Only until recently did we line up names and throw darts at them to see how we'd name our children. ;)


Would you name your child Lucifer? :rofl: No, not Lucy! :eek:

markedward
Apr 15th 2009, 05:48 AM
Coincidentally...

apothanein kerdos
Apr 15th 2009, 06:08 AM
Would you name your child Lucifer? :rofl: No, not Lucy! :eek:

Lucy, you got some 'splainin to do.

I wouldn't name her Lilith either. :)


Coincidentally...

Aren't you a bit old to be watching the Cartoon Network?

faithfulfriend
Apr 15th 2009, 12:18 PM
There seems to be an ongoing debate, or mis-identification about the true identity of Lucifer.
Many people believe him to be Satan, others claim he is Christ.
The first reference to him as Satan seems to have been in the middle ages, but modern thinking seems to identify him with Christ.
Our information about his identity hasn't changed over the centuries, so why would the opinions of medieval scholars who spent their entire lives studying such things intently, suddenly go out of fashion (so to speak), and the complete antithesis of his identity be adopted instead?
I had always thought of him as Satan, but was severely rebuked over it in another forum, although in the end, I only acknowledged a general change as who he is now accepted as (to let the furor die), I am not at all convinced he is Christ.

Lucifer refers to the king of Babylon at that time.

If you read a few verses before the passage that says "Lucifer":

Isaiah 14:4 That thou shalt take up this proverb against the king of Babylon, and say, How hath the oppressor ceased! the golden city ceased!

THOM
Apr 15th 2009, 12:56 PM
Lucifer refers to the king of Babylon at that time.

If you read a few verses before the passage that says "Lucifer":

Isaiah 14:4 That thou shalt take up this proverb against the king of Babylon, and say, How hath the oppressor ceased! the golden city ceased!

What is a "proverb"?

faithfulfriend
Apr 15th 2009, 01:57 PM
What is a "proverb"?

In Isaiah 14:12 it speaks of Lucifer falling from heaven, etc., and makes mention of his being "cut down to the ground" who DIDST weaken the nations.

To begin in the middle of a thought always does violence to the thought and causes one to miss the proper meaning. The thought here of which this 12th verse is only a part begins with the 4th verse of this chapter and continues through the 23rd verse. This puts the 12th verse down in the middle of the thought.

The 4th verse says, "That thou shalt take up this proverb against the king of Babylon, and say, . . ." This makes it clear that the remarks made here refer to the king of Babylon and to no other. The thoughts concerning the proverb against the king of Babylon are continuous from this 4th verse through the 23rd verse. I request anyone who does not agree with this interpretation of this Scripture to show where the line of thought changes and the remarks are directed to another person other than the king of Babylon. The 4th verse introduces the proverb against the king of Babylon and continues through the succeeding verses to tell of his violent acts in the earth against other nations and peoples for which the judgments of God are pronounced upon him and in the 22nd verse he mentions judgments against Babylon which show clearly that that subject is still under consideration.

Now, let us take a direct look at this 12th verse which mentions Lucifer who is said to have fallen from heaven as being cut down to the ground who DIDST weaken the nations. This, then, was some judgment upon him for something he had done before this came to pass. Could it then refer to the devil? Could he have weakened the nations while he was still in heaven and then later been cast out of heaven for having weakened the nations? Could he have done any evil work in the earth while he was still a pure angel in heaven? Of course not!

But, on the other hand, the king of Babylon did do these things and became so exalted in his heart that he said he had done all these things with his own hand. The Babylonish Kingdom was the first universal kingdom that history records, and her king subdued and weakened and brought under subjection all other nations. Hence the reference to him who DIDST weaken the nations.

The 4th chapter of Daniel, verses 12 and 13, will throw much light on this 14th chapter of Isaiah. In verses 10 to 16 is given a vision that Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, had. Let us read it: "Thus were the visions of mine head in my bed; I saw, and behold a tree in the midst of the earth, and the height thereof was great. The tree grew, and was strong, and the height thereof reached unto heaven, and the sight thereof to the end of all the earth: The leaves thereof were fair, and the fruit thereof much, and in it was meat for all; the beast of the field had shade under it, and the fowls of the heaven dwelt in the boughs thereof, and all flesh was fed of it. I saw in the visions of my head upon my bed, and behold a watcher and an holy one came down from heaven; He cried aloud, and said thus, 'Hew down the tree, and cut off his branches, shake off his leaves, and scatter his fruit; let the beasts get away from under it, and the fowls from his branches: Nevertheless leave the stump of his roots in the earth, even with a band of iron and brass, in the tender grass of the field; and let it be wet with the dew of heaven, and let his portion be with the beasts in the grass of the earth: Let his heart be changed from man's, and let a beast's heart be given unto him; and let seven times pass over him.' "

In the 19th verse Daniel begins to interpret his vision to him and refers to the tree, etc., and in the 22nd verse he says, "It is thou, O king, that art grown, and reacheth unto heaven, and thy dominion to the end of the earth."

This corresponds exactly with the 13th verse of the 14th chapter of Isaiah, which reads: "For thou has said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God," etc. Nebuchadnezzar was proud in heart and said the same thing in different words in the 30th verse of the 4th chapter of Daniel after he had subjected all the kingdoms of the world to himself. Listen to him: "The king spake and said, Is not this great Babylon, that I have built for the house of the kingdom by the might of MY power, and for the honour of MY majesty."

In Daniel 4:25 Daniel proclaims unto the king what is the decree of the most high concerning him. "That they shall drive thee from men, and thy dwelling shall be with the beasts of the field, and they shall make thee to eat grass as oxen, and they shall wet thee with the dew of heaven, and seven times shall pass over thee, till thou know that the most High ruleth in the kingdom of men, and giveth it to whomsoever he will."

In Daniel 4:31-33 we find that this judgment actually came on Nebuchadnezzar and just how serious it was because that in his heart he was lifted up with pride and exalted himself in his heart even unto heaven to the exclusion of the God of heaven and did not acknowledge Him but said he had done all this with HIS OWN HAND, etc.

Thus he fell from heaven (the exalted position he held and attributed this unto himself in his heart) and was cut down to the earth and humiliated beyond any other man that we have any record of.

Bladers
Apr 15th 2009, 02:09 PM
When we are attempting to understand the symbolism and language used in Isaiah 14, it is useful to also look at Daniel 10. When the heavenly messenger came in answer to Daniel's prayer, he was "withstood by the prince of the kingdom of Persia" (see verse 13) and helped by Michael, one of the chief princes, the prince of Israel (see verse 21). Verse 20 mentions the prince of Persia, and the prince of Greece. These are not the earthly princes named in history but the spiritual forces behind their kingdoms.

The things that are happening on earth visibly have forces behind them, that are happening on an invisible to us, spirtual level.

There was in the time of Isaiah the earthly kingdom of Babylon, but there was (and is) also the spiritual kingdom of Babylon.

Ezekiel 28:12-19 is another view of the same spiritual entity. There is an interesting thing to note, in verse 1, the prince of Tyre is addressed, and in verse 12 the king of Tyre is addressed.

Jewish literature is to be understood on more than one level. For example, there is "peshat" the simple, surface truth. Then there is "Remezh", a hint, a hidden truth under the surface.

Search the scriptures to find truth. Pray and seek the wisdom of God, it is greater far than the wisdom of man.

To gain a full understanding of Satan study these scriptures:

Ezekiel 28:12-19
Revelation 12: 7 ff
Isaiah 14:12-17
Job 1:6 ff
Rev 20:7-10

apothanein kerdos
Apr 15th 2009, 02:50 PM
Lucifer refers to the king of Babylon at that time.

If you read a few verses before the passage that says "Lucifer":

Isaiah 14:4 That thou shalt take up this proverb against the king of Babylon, and say, How hath the oppressor ceased! the golden city ceased!


The problem is the Bible often utilizes Babylon as a form of double-speak, to speak both of the kingdom of Babylon and the "kingdom" of Satan.

Revelation is a perfect example. It is written like an OT book, not as a NT epistle. In there, Babylon is used to indicate the power of the antiChrist.

So again, pointing out, "This refers to Babylon" could only be a half-truth. A straightforward reading, while nice and appropriate at times, doesn't really help us on texts such as these.

If we follow your interpretative method here, then we would actually nullify about 60% of the OT prophecies about Jesus, because those prophecies were meant for others and/or were fulfilled prior to Christ. So just because it's addressed to one person doesn't mean it's meant for one person. :)

THOM
Apr 16th 2009, 12:46 AM
In Isaiah 14:12 it speaks of Lucifer falling from heaven, etc., and makes mention of his being "cut down to the ground" who DIDST weaken the nations.

To begin in the middle of a thought always does violence to the thought and causes one to miss the proper meaning. The thought here of which this 12th verse is only a part begins with the 4th verse of this chapter and continues through the 23rd verse. This puts the 12th verse down in the middle of the thought.

The 4th verse says, "That thou shalt take up this proverb against the king of Babylon, and say, . . ." This makes it clear that the remarks made here refer to the king of Babylon and to no other. The thoughts concerning the proverb against the king of Babylon are continuous from this 4th verse through the 23rd verse. I request anyone who does not agree with this interpretation of this Scripture to show where the line of thought changes and the remarks are directed to another person other than the king of Babylon. The 4th verse introduces the proverb against the king of Babylon and continues through the succeeding verses to tell of his violent acts in the earth against other nations and peoples for which the judgments of God are pronounced upon him and in the 22nd verse he mentions judgments against Babylon which show clearly that that subject is still under consideration.

Now, let us take a direct look at this 12th verse which mentions Lucifer who is said to have fallen from heaven as being cut down to the ground who DIDST weaken the nations. This, then, was some judgment upon him for something he had done before this came to pass. Could it then refer to the devil? Could he have weakened the nations while he was still in heaven and then later been cast out of heaven for having weakened the nations? Could he have done any evil work in the earth while he was still a pure angel in heaven? Of course not!

But, on the other hand, the king of Babylon did do these things and became so exalted in his heart that he said he had done all these things with his own hand. The Babylonish Kingdom was the first universal kingdom that history records, and her king subdued and weakened and brought under subjection all other nations. Hence the reference to him who DIDST weaken the nations.

The 4th chapter of Daniel, verses 12 and 13, will throw much light on this 14th chapter of Isaiah. In verses 10 to 16 is given a vision that Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, had. Let us read it: "Thus were the visions of mine head in my bed; I saw, and behold a tree in the midst of the earth, and the height thereof was great. The tree grew, and was strong, and the height thereof reached unto heaven, and the sight thereof to the end of all the earth: The leaves thereof were fair, and the fruit thereof much, and in it was meat for all; the beast of the field had shade under it, and the fowls of the heaven dwelt in the boughs thereof, and all flesh was fed of it. I saw in the visions of my head upon my bed, and behold a watcher and an holy one came down from heaven; He cried aloud, and said thus, 'Hew down the tree, and cut off his branches, shake off his leaves, and scatter his fruit; let the beasts get away from under it, and the fowls from his branches: Nevertheless leave the stump of his roots in the earth, even with a band of iron and brass, in the tender grass of the field; and let it be wet with the dew of heaven, and let his portion be with the beasts in the grass of the earth: Let his heart be changed from man's, and let a beast's heart be given unto him; and let seven times pass over him.' "

In the 19th verse Daniel begins to interpret his vision to him and refers to the tree, etc., and in the 22nd verse he says, "It is thou, O king, that art grown, and reacheth unto heaven, and thy dominion to the end of the earth."

This corresponds exactly with the 13th verse of the 14th chapter of Isaiah, which reads: "For thou has said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God," etc. Nebuchadnezzar was proud in heart and said the same thing in different words in the 30th verse of the 4th chapter of Daniel after he had subjected all the kingdoms of the world to himself. Listen to him: "The king spake and said, Is not this great Babylon, that I have built for the house of the kingdom by the might of MY power, and for the honour of MY majesty."

In Daniel 4:25 Daniel proclaims unto the king what is the decree of the most high concerning him. "That they shall drive thee from men, and thy dwelling shall be with the beasts of the field, and they shall make thee to eat grass as oxen, and they shall wet thee with the dew of heaven, and seven times shall pass over thee, till thou know that the most High ruleth in the kingdom of men, and giveth it to whomsoever he will."

In Daniel 4:31-33 we find that this judgment actually came on Nebuchadnezzar and just how serious it was because that in his heart he was lifted up with pride and exalted himself in his heart even unto heaven to the exclusion of the God of heaven and did not acknowledge Him but said he had done all this with HIS OWN HAND, etc.

Thus he fell from heaven (the exalted position he held and attributed this unto himself in his heart) and was cut down to the earth and humiliated beyond any other man that we have any record of.

All this information, and you still didn't answer my question; and on top of all that you seem to have confused yourself in the process.

Can you and/or will you answer the question: According to Old Testament Scripture,


"What is a 'proverb'?"

markedward
Apr 16th 2009, 01:01 AM
In Isaiah 14, the word translated as "proverb" comes from the Hebrew root word mâshal, which means "to rule", "to have dominion", and "to have power". The word being used in Isaiah 14 has the inherent sense of gloating. Isaiah is essentially expressing "dominion" against the king of Babylon. It's not a proverb in the sense of "do to others as you would have them do to you".

Isaiah is being told to taunt the king of Babylon.

RedBird777
Apr 16th 2009, 01:08 AM
"What is a 'proverb'?"






http://lmgtfy.com/?q=proverb :rofl:Sorry, had to do that. Lessens the tension.

SO...a proverb is a short saying or teaching that is passed down form generation to generation. Basically, an adage.

But I must ask...why do ask about proverbs when we are on the subject of Lucifer?

THOM
Apr 16th 2009, 01:21 AM
In Isaiah 14, the word translated as "proverb" comes from the Hebrew root word mâshal, which means "to rule", "to have dominion", and "to have power". The word being used in Isaiah 14 has the inherent sense of gloating. Isaiah is essentially expressing "dominion" against the king of Babylon. It's not a proverb in the sense of "do to others as you would have them do to you".
Isaiah is being told to taunt the king of Babylon.

I'm afraid I don't find that to be the definition of the "proverb" that is used in Isaiah 14:4; Please note the following:

Lexicon Results
Strong's H4912 - mashal
משל
Transliteration

mashal

Pronunciation

mä·shäl' (Key) (http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H4912&t=KJV#)

Part of Speech

masculine noun


Root Word (Etymology)


apparently from H4910 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/Lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H4910&t=KJV) in some original sense of superiority in mental action

TWOT Reference


1258a (http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H4912&t=KJV#)


Outline of Biblical Usage
1) proverb, parable
a) proverb, proverbial saying, aphorism
b) byword
c) similitude, parable
d) poem
e) sentences of ethical wisdom, ethical maxims



Authorized Version (KJV) Translation Count — Total: 39
AV (http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H4912&t=KJV#) — proverb (http://www.blueletterbible.org/search/preSearch.cfm?Criteria=proverb*+H4912) 19, parable (http://www.blueletterbible.org/search/preSearch.cfm?Criteria=%20parable*+H4912) 18, byword (http://www.blueletterbible.org/search/preSearch.cfm?Criteria=%20byword*+H4912) 1, like (http://www.blueletterbible.org/search/preSearch.cfm?Criteria=%20like*+H4912) 1

Gesenius's Lexicon (Help) (http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H4912&t=KJV#)
http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/image.cfm?img=00224B5E263C0F5A5BC92414A50CC4F5C

Note the definitions just above; I don't find any "to rule", "to have dominion", "to have power", "gloating", "taunt", etc.

I do find, as I expressly stated in a previous post in this thread, "similitude" and/or "parable", of a "done deal", or happening in Heaven. . .that is a Spiritual done deal that has and/or will have a Physical manifestation/counterpart.

THOM
Apr 16th 2009, 01:36 AM
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=proverb :rofl:Sorry, had to do that. Lessens the tension.

SO...a proverb is a short saying or teaching that is passed down form generation to generation. Basically, an adage.

But I must ask...why do ask about proverbs when we are on the subject of Lucifer?

Good job RedBird:D:lol:!!!

The Scripture in question about the "proverb" order by GOD to be given to the king of Babylon (as what is going to happen to said king of Babylon), is a similitude of what had already happened, in the Spiritual Realm, when Lucifer attempted his coup d'etat against GOD, and lost his name ("Lucifer"), lost his beauty, lost his prestiege and delegated power, got booted out of Heaven, back to earth, and below it (down into Hell or Sheol). . .and as an aside, it is believed by some, including me, that this is what accounts for, "And the earth was without form and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep (Gen. 1:2a)." GOD certainly didn't Create the earth in a state of chaos ("without form and void") and in total "darkness".

But back to your question; There are those in this forum who don't believe that this Lucifer of Isaiah 14 is Satan. The same Satan that JESUS, HIMSELF declared, "I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven .(Luke 10:18)".

markedward
Apr 16th 2009, 02:14 AM
Note the definitions just above; I don't find any "to rule", "to have dominion", "to have power", "gloating", "taunt", etc.What I said was that the word used in Isaiah 14 is from the Hebrew root word, mâshal.

Besides, the definition you quoted above points to the exact same connotation that I was:


in some original sense of superiority in mental action

The word used in Isaiah 14 is:

Strong's H4912
mâshâl

As I said, the root word is:

Strong's H4910
mâshal = A primitive root; to rule: - (have, make to have) dominion, governor, X indeed, reign, (bear, cause to, have) rule (-ing, -r), have power.

The word used in Isaiah 14 has its origins in the word mâshal, which means "to rule", "to have dominion", and "to have power". Hence, when Isaiah is told to take up a "mâshal" against the king of Babylon, he is told to take up words that "rule", "dominate", and "have power" against the king of Babylon. Again, as you quoted before, the direct connotation of the Hebrew word is to have a "sense of superiority in mental action"... to sum this up in a single word, it's called a "taunt" or a "gloat".

The reason I don't believe "lucifer" is referring to Satan is: (a) nowhere in Isaiah 14 is Satan mentioned, unless you read him into the text, rather than reading him out of it; (b) nowhere in Scripture are "lucifer" and Satan mentioned in the same statement, let alone they are never mentioned to be the same individual; (c) nowhere in Scripture is Satan said to have lost a former name. On a further note, nowhere in Scripture does say that Satan (or "lucifer") was responsible for the earth being "without form and void". Scripture says God created the heavens and the earth, and that the earth was "without form and void". Nowhere in Scripture is Satan ever mentioned as having being involved in ruining God's initial creation process.

THOM
Apr 16th 2009, 03:21 AM
What I said was that the word used in Isaiah 14 is from the Hebrew root word, mâshal.

Besides, the definition you quoted above points to the exact same connotation that I was:



The word used in Isaiah 14 is:

Strong's H4912
mâshâl

As I said, the root word is:

Strong's H4910
mâshal = A primitive root; to rule: - (have, make to have) dominion, governor, X indeed, reign, (bear, cause to, have) rule (-ing, -r), have power.

The word used in Isaiah 14 has its origins in the word mâshal, which means "to rule", "to have dominion", and "to have power". Hence, when Isaiah is told to take up a "mâshal" against the king of Babylon, he is told to take up words that "rule", "dominate", and "have power" against the king of Babylon. Again, as you quoted before, the direct connotation of the Hebrew word is to have a "sense of superiority in mental action"... to sum this up in a single word, it's called a "taunt" or a "gloat".

The root word, "mâshal", is a verb (note the accent mark above the first letter "a"); And what you're attempting to define a verb in Isaiah 14:4 is, in reality, "mashal", a masculine noun (note the absent of an accent mark). The "proverb" of Isaiah 14:4, is a noun and not a verb.


The reason I don't believe "lucifer" is referring to Satan is: (a) nowhere in Isaiah 14 is Satan mentioned, unless you read him into the text, rather than reading him out of it; (b) nowhere in Scripture are "lucifer" and Satan mentioned in the same statement, let alone they are never mentioned to be the same individual; (c) nowhere in Scripture is Satan said to have lost a former name. On a further note, nowhere in Scripture does say that Satan (or "lucifer") was responsible for the earth being "without form and void". Scripture says God created the heavens and the earth, and that the earth was "without form and void". Nowhere in Scripture is Satan ever mentioned as having being involved in ruining God's initial creation process.a) Faulty reasoning; here's why: The word Lucifer is used; you say it refers to the king of Babylon, yet nowhere else in all of Scripture is "Lucifer" used period, let alone for any other king of Babylon or otherwise.
Lucifer = "light-bearer"
1) shining one, morning star, Lucifer
a) of the king of Babylon and Satan (fig.)
2) (TWOT) 'Helel' describing the king of Babylon


b) Nowhere in Isaiah is "Satan" mentioned at all. It was not "Satan" who began the fall from Heaven, it was "Lucifer"; During the fall (the process of falling) "Lucifer" left behind the name "Lucifer", and became "Satan". . .the one JESUS saw.


c) Who else then, fell from Heaven? You keep stating that Isaiah 14 is not about Satan, because Satan is not, nor was Lucifer. So then, who was it that fell from Heaven? "How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning!" Who did the falling???

How did the earth become "without form and void"? Where'd all the "darkness" come from? Does not Scripture state that "God is light, and in him is no darkness at all (1John 1:5).

Who ruined it for Adam and Eve in the Garden? Was it just a snake ("serpent") acting on its own volition? After all, "Lucifer", "Satan", "Devil", is never mentioned, huh?

Who besides Adam, Eve, and a Serpent was ever in Eden?

Who accused Job before GOD?

Who did JESUS CHRIST go into the wilderness to do battle with?

How is it that you do not seem to understand that all of Physical reality has a Spiritual Counterpart?

How is it that you do not seem to understand that All of Scripture is base on What Lucifer/Satan/the devil did, and how GOD is going about to undo it? Undo it to the degree that it never ever happens again?

markedward
Apr 16th 2009, 05:10 AM
The root word, "mâshal", is a verb (note the accent mark above the first letter "a"); And what you're attempting to define a verb in Isaiah 14:4 is, in reality, "mashal", a masculine noun (note the absent of an accent mark). The "proverb" of Isaiah 14:4, is a noun and not a verb.... From this, I must ask you: do you know what a "root word" is?

I've already said this twice: the word used in Isaiah 14.4, "mâshâl", comes from the root word, "mâshal".

If Word A is a root word of Word B, then Word B's inherent definition is rooted in Word A's definition.

Mâshal is a root word of mâshâl, so mâshâl's inherent definition is rooted in mâshal's definition.

[NOTE: I'm not trying to be demeaning in any sense here, but the manner in which you speak in this quote just above makes it seem like you think a word's definition is not related to its root word's definition.]


a) Faulty reasoning; here's why: The word Lucifer is used; you say it refers to the king of Babylon, yet nowhere else in all of Scripture is "Lucifer" used period, let alone for any other king of Babylon or otherwise.
Lucifer = "light-bearer"
1) shining one, morning star, Lucifer
a) of the king of Babylon and Satan (fig.)
2) (TWOT) 'Helel' describing the king of BabylonAnd the problem here is you're not using Scripture, you're using the condordance-author's assumed definition that "lucifer = Satan" to prove that I have "faulty reasoning".


b) Nowhere in Isaiah is "Satan" mentioned at all. It was not "Satan" who began the fall from Heaven, it was "Lucifer"; During the fall (the process of falling) "Lucifer" left behind the name "Lucifer", and became "Satan". . .the one JESUS saw.Yet, there isn't any Scripture you can provide that actually says that Satan "left behind" the name "lucifer". You're reading this into the text of the Bible, not out of it.


c) Who else then, fell from Heaven? You keep stating that Isaiah 14 is not about Satan, because Satan is not, nor was Lucifer. So then, who was it that fell from Heaven? "How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning!" Who did the falling???As faithfulfriend already showed, it was the "king of Babylon", and it perfectly parallels Nebuchadnezzar's own account. Isaiah 14 says that the king of Babylon "said in [his] heart" that he would ascend to heaven. First of all, if this is an angelic being we're talking about, why would he need to "ascend to heaven" if angels are already in heaven? Second, it says the king of Babylon said this "in [his] heart". That outright shows that what is being described is coming from a figurative point-of-view, not a literal one. Likewise, Nebuchadnezzar didn't literally "reach to heaven".


How did the earth become "without form and void"?That's how it was when God initially made it. On Day One of creation, God had not yet formed the skies and seas (that happens on Day Two), God had not yet formed the land masses and plant life (that happens on Day Three), God had not yet formed the animal life to inhabit it (that happens on Days Five and Six). A basic reading of Genesis 1 shows that, since God had not yet "formed" anything on the earth between the initial act of "God created the heavens and the earth" and "the earth was without form and void", but that everything on earth was "formed" on days 2,3,5,6, that would inherently mean that God initially created the earth "without form and void".


Where'd all the "darkness" come from? Does not Scripture state that "God is light, and in him is no darkness at all (1John 1:5).The problem here is you're applying the physical aspect of "light" and "darkness" to God, who is not physical. Unless you're trying to argue that God is a physical being, you must agree that 1 John 1.5 is not about physical light and physical darkness, it is about spiritual light and spiritual darkness. So it has absolutely zero application to the physical light and physical darkness spoken of in Genesis 1.


Who ruined it for Adam and Eve in the Garden? Was it just a snake ("serpent") acting on its own volition? After all, "Lucifer", "Satan", "Devil", is never mentioned, huh?What I said was that Satan/the devil/the dragon/the serpent (nor "lucifer") is ever mentioned as ruining the process of creation. It was only after God had finished creating everything that the serpent tempted Eve. But during the process of creation (that is, God's action of creating the heavens and earth over the course of six days), there is no Scriptural evidence that Satan/the devil/the dragon/the serpent (or "lucifer") had anything to do with creation initially being "without form and void".


Who besides Adam, Eve, and a Serpent was ever in Eden?As far as Scripture tells us, only God, Adam, Eve, and the serpent were in the garden of Eden.


Who accused Job before GOD?Satan. No Scriptural connection with "lucifer" here.


Who did JESUS CHRIST go into the wilderness to do battle with?Satan. No Scriptural connection with "lucifer" here.


How is it that you do not seem to understand that all of Physical reality has a Spiritual Counterpart?How could you possibly come to this conclusion about me? You must not know me very well, otherwise you would not make such an assumption about me.


How is it that you do not seem to understand that All of Scripture is base on What Lucifer/Satan/the devil did, and how GOD is going about to undo it? Undo it to the degree that it never ever happens again?Again, you're making assumptions about me. To correct your assumptions, you could simply ask me what my understanding is of Scripture, rather than accusing me of not having an understanding of it.

THOM
Apr 17th 2009, 02:29 AM
... From this, I must ask you: do you know what a "root word" is?
I'm going to pretend you meant this as a rhetorical question. Now then, do you know when to apply a "root word" to a text and when not to? And I assure you that I'm not being rhetorical.

I've already said this twice: the word used in Isaiah 14.4, "mâshâl", comes from the root word, "mâshal".And, "I've already said" that in Isaiah 14:4, he is not using it as your verb, but as a masculine noun. So then, "From this, I must ask you:" do you know the difference between a verb and a masculine noun?

If Word A is a root word of Word B, then Word B's inherent definition is rooted in Word A's definition.And so, If Word A, as a root word, is a verb, and Word B stems from Word A, but as a masculine noun, then Word B's "inherent definition" is no longer rooted in Word A's definition, because they are now two different parts of Speech.
Mâshal is a root word of mâshâl, so mâshâl's inherent definition is rooted in mâshal's definition.
A verb cannot/does not define a [masculine] noun.

[NOTE: I'm not trying to be demeaning in any sense here, but the manner in which you speak in this quote just above makes it seem like you think a word's definition is not related to its root word's definition.]It is "related" only as we (you and I) see it, and not as the Author may or may not have seen it. How did the Author use the word is the first and foremost important thing. . .because Isaiah, preceded Strong. . .and the AV KJV preceded Strong.
And the problem here is you're not using Scripture, you're using the condordance-author's assumed definition that "lucifer = Satan" to prove that I have "faulty reasoning".[/quote]
And what is it you use, when you tell us, "that in the Hebrew/Greek, this word means...", and/or "in the original text, the word used is..."? Is this not a somewhat double standard unfavorable to everyone else but...?

Yet, there isn't any Scripture you can provide that actually says that Satan "left behind" the name "lucifer". You're reading this into the text of the Bible, not out of it.You're absolutely correct! Except for one tiny thing, if "Lucifer" didn't "left behind" his name, why is it "there isn't any Scripture, outside is Isaiah 14, that, "you can provide that actually" shows us which king of Babylon your "Lucifer" just happens to be. . .and why are you about to refer to him as "Nebuchadnezzar"? Isaiah never mentions "Nebuchadnezzar". Does this mean that you're "reading this into the text of the Bible, not out of it"?

As faithfulfriend already showed, it was the "king of Babylon", and it perfectly parallels Nebuchadnezzar's own account. Isaiah 14 says that the king of Babylon "said in [his] heart" that he would ascend to heaven. First of all, if this is an angelic being we're talking about, why would he need to "ascend to heaven" if angels are already in heaven?The short answer is you "ascend to heaven", because you've either "descended from heaven", already, or you weren't in "heaven" to begin with. . .and your goal is to, as the Scripture states, "I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north: I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High."
You, like so many others, believe that Lucifer, Satan, the devil, resided (and/or had his headquarters) in Heaven, when no Scripture teaches us that. That is not to say that he didn't have access to Heaven, but we're never told to what degree (in Heaven).
You should have picked up on this when I asked you who besides, Adam, Eve, and the serpent had ever "been in Eden"? The short answer is Lucifer ("the anointed cherub that covereth"). This was his headquarters; this was where he led all the other praise and worship angelic host, to Praise and Worship GOD. And please remember this, In Scripture, The "stars" (first and foremost) represent "angels".

Second, it says the king of Babylon said this "in [his] heart". That outright shows that what is being described is coming from a figurative point-of-view, not a literal one.Wow! If your "the king of Babylon" is "literal", as you'd have us to believe, but yet what he "said this 'in [his] heart'" is a "a figurative point-of-view, not a literal one", you've got quite a bit of confusion to un-con-fuse, huh?

Likewise, Nebuchadnezzar didn't literally "reach to heaven".I'm still looking for him in Isaiah 14. But then again, I really don't want to be "reading this into the text of the Bible, not out of it". You have read him into Isaiah 14. . .but GOD forbid anyone else to, huh?

That's how it was when God initially made it. On Day One of creation, God had not yet formed the skies and seas (that happens on Day Two), God had not yet formed the land masses and plant life (that happens on Day Three), God had not yet formed the animal life to inhabit it (that happens on Days Five and Six). A basic reading of Genesis 1 shows that, since God had not yet "formed" anything on the earth between the initial act of "God created the heavens and the earth" and "the earth was without form and void", but that everything on earth was "formed" on days 2,3,5,6, that would inherently mean that God initially created the earth "without form and void".MarkEdward, how do you get formlessness, and/or confusion, which is what "without form" means, out of nothing? Do you not notice that after, "In the beginning GOD Created the Heavens and the Earth", that is was then, that "And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness [was] upon the face of the deep."?

Are you saying, that GOD, WHO IS NOT "the author of confusion", created "the earth" that way?
If there "is no darkness at all", in GOD, WHO "IS LIGHT", why would you believe that this is ONLY a Spiritual application to HIS BEING. . .and not one that would manifest itself Physically, as well? Would THE GOD OF LIGHT create a Phyical confused, chaotic, and dark earth?

The problem here is you're applying the physical aspect of "light" and "darkness" to God, who is not physical.So then, before HE Shows us physically what HE means/meant, HE would show us Spiritually first?

Unless you're trying to argue that God is a physical being, you must agree that 1 John 1.5 is not about physical light and physical darkness, it is about spiritual light and spiritual darkness. So it has absolutely zero application to the physical light and physical darkness spoken of in Genesis 1.Where in your Scripture is it written that, "God is" NOT "a physical being"? Oops there's goes JESUS CHRIST, huh? "As long as I am in the world, I am the light of the world ." or elsewhere, "I am come a light into theworld, that whosoever believeth on me should not abide in darkness." So then, was JESUS CHRIST, GOD, "a physical being", revealing "physical light and physical darkness" or was HE "a physical being", revealing ONLY "zero application to the physical light and physical darkness"?

What I said was that Satan/the devil/the dragon/the serpent (nor "lucifer") is ever mentioned as ruining the process of creation.That's only because you didn't answer my questions regarding this reiterated point of your's, in my last post to you.

It was only after God had finished creating everything that the serpent tempted Eve. But during the process of creation (that is, God's action of creating the heavens and earth over the course of six days), there is no Scriptural evidence that Satan/the devil/the dragon/the serpent (or "lucifer") had anything to do with creation initially being "without form and void".Go back to above!!!:hmm:

As far as Scripture tells us, only God, Adam, Eve, and the serpent were in the garden of Eden.Then who's this talking about, "Thou hast been in Eden the garden of God;. . .I have made him fair by the multitude of his branches: so that all the trees of Eden, that [were] in the garden of God, envied him. . . I made the nations to shake at the sound of his fall, when I cast him down to hell with them that descend into the pit: and all the trees of Eden, the choice and best of Lebanon, all that drink water, shall be comforted in the nether parts of the earth. . .etc."???

Satan. No Scriptural connection with "lucifer" here.
Satan. No Scriptural connection with "lucifer" here.
How could you possibly come to this conclusion about me? You must not know me very well, otherwise you would not make such an assumption about me.If there was no you ("me") then I couldn't make that "assumption", huh? Is your assumptions of others the only assumption/conclusions/inferrences that count?

Again, you're making assumptions about me. To correct your assumptions, you could simply ask me what my understanding is of Scripture, rather than accusing me of not having an understanding of it.Okay, but please don't cop out when you're asked questions. . .regardless of what you may think of the questions. And you can start by answering all my questions, to you, above!:D

apothanein kerdos
Apr 17th 2009, 02:50 AM
Mark,

The problem I'm having with your method is that if I apply the same method to the virgin birth prophecy in Isaiah, then I would have to "read into" the text that it's a prophecy concerning the Messiah. As the Hebrew word can both mean "young woman" and "virgin" and the prophecy was fulfilled during Isaiah's lifetime. There's no indication in the text that this is referring to some future Messiah.

Thus, I'm not sure if the hermeneutic method you're using is completely accurate as when we apply it to other texts that we know have dual meanings, your method would naturally cancel out the second meaning.

Do you have a way around this?

markedward
Apr 17th 2009, 03:42 AM
Thus, I'm not sure if the hermeneutic method you're using is completely accurate as when we apply it to other texts that we know have dual meanings, your method would naturally cancel out the second meaning.You're making an assumption that I believe there are not any accounts in Scripture in which there are "dual meanings". I didn't say that there aren't types/antitypes in Scripture at all. What I'm saying is that some cases just over-reach. What I am saying is that I find the evidence is lacking for this particular instance to have a "dual meaning" in it. That's all.


Now then, do you know when to apply a "root word" to a text and when not to?Well, since a word is always related to its root word, why do you think we should just discount the root words definition, just to define the word itself however we want to, to make it fit with our pre-existing ideas of what the text is saying?


And, "I've already said" that in Isaiah 14:4, he is not using it as your verb, but as a masculine noun. So then, "From this, I must ask you:" do you know the difference between a verb and a masculine noun?Seriously? What is your deal here? You're constantly quoting my words to try to turn them around me in order to condescend to me... why do you have to behave like this? We're engaging in a thoughtful discussion, and you have to "stick my words in quotes just to make fun of me". Like this:


if "Lucifer" didn't "left behind" his name"You're intentionally not conjugating the verb "leave" properly when you quote me here to make me appear like I can't use basic English. What is even the purpose of quoting me. Why can't you just type regular sentences without filling them up with quotes from what I said before?


You're absolutely correct! Except for one tiny thing, if "Lucifer" didn't "left behind" his name, why is it "there isn't any Scripture, outside is Isaiah 14, that, "you can provide that actually" shows us which king of Babylon your "Lucifer" just happens to be. . .and why are you about to refer to him as "Nebuchadnezzar"? Isaiah never mentions "Nebuchadnezzar". Does this mean that you're "reading this into the text of the Bible, not out of it"?Isaiah never mentions "Nebuchadnezzar", but he does specifically refer to "lucifer" as the "king of Babylon" a few verses earlier, which Nebuchadnezzar was the "king of Babylon". The manner in which Isaiah describes "lucifer" is incredibly close to how Nebuchadnezzar is described, so this makes Nebuchadnezzar a probable "candidate" for who Isaiah was prophesying about. Since Isaiah specifically mentions the "king of Babylon", and Nebuchadnezzar is, as a fact, a "king of Babylon", then the probable connection is entirely Scriptural. Since Scripture doesn't, however, say that Satan is the "king of Babylon", his connection to "lucifer" is severely lacking.


You should have picked up on this when I asked you who besides, Adam, Eve, and the serpent had ever "been in Eden"? The short answer is LuciferNo Scripture connects "lucifer" to Eden.


("the anointed cherub that covereth").This is from an entirely different book of the Bible. Nowhere in Scripture is "lucifer" called a cherub.


This was his headquarters;This is never stated in Scripture, of either "lucifer" or the cherub.


this was where he led all the other praise and worship angelic host, to Praise and Worship GOD.I can't find anything in Scripture that says either "lucifer" or a cherub led the angelic host in praise of God. It seems like you're referring to Ezekiel 28.13 (since that is what is mosted referred to in this claim by others), but nothing in that verse says that "lucifer" or the cherub led the heavenly host in praising God.


Wow! If your "the king of Babylon" is "literal", as you'd have us to believe, but yet what he "said this 'in [his] heart'" is a "a figurative point-of-view, not a literal one", you've got quite a bit of confusion to un-con-fuse, huh? This is pointless. If you're making fun of me because I can recognize the different between literal and figurative speech, what is the use in even having this discussion?

If I say that my friend Brandon was "scared half to death" because I snuck up behind him and said "boo", it's obvious that Brandon is a literal person, but that "scared half to death" is figurative. Yet according to the logic you use in this quote just above, you would claim that I'm confused because I mixed together something literal (Brandon) with something figurative ("half to death".

I ask that you please stop mocking me in such a disrespectful, antagonistic manner.


I'm still looking for him in Isaiah 14. But then again, I really don't want to be "reading this into the text of the Bible, not out of it". You have read him into Isaiah 14. . .but GOD forbid anyone else to, huh?Like I said before, Nebuchadnezzar is a probable candidate for the king of Babylon prophesied about in Isaiah 14. I did say Isaiah 14's description "perfectly parallels" the account of Necuchadnezzar, but I didn't actually say it was, for certain, him. (Based on the experience we've had up to this point, I think I can accurately guess that you're going to make fun of me here, too, that I'm "confusing" myself, or something? I would pre-emptively ask that you don't.)


MarkEdward, how do you get formlessness, and/or confusion, which is what "without form" means, out of nothing?So here you're just outright redefining "without form" as meaning "confusion".


Where in your Scripture is it written that, "God is" NOT "a physical being"? Oops there's goes JESUS CHRIST, huh?Could you please stop being so aggressive and rude?


"I am come a light into theworld, that whosoever believeth on me should not abide in darkness."This only proves my point: Jesus wasn't physically lighting up the world. Jesus physically illuminating the planet; he's not going to glow in the dark whenever the sun goes down. This is spiritual light, he is talking about, so you cannot apply such a statement to the physical light that was created in Genesis.


Then who's this talking aboutContextually: God is threatening the king of Egypt with the might of Assyria. Assyria, in Ezekiel 31, has been allegorized into a mighty "cedar", which all of the trees of the world, even the trees of Eden, envy. If you interpret Ezekiel 31.9 absolutely literally, then would you actually claim that trees are capable of emotion (envy)? I'm not so sure anyone would. Since, in Ezekiel 31.3, Assyria is being allegorized as a might "cedar" tree, then it should be obvious enough that even up to Ezekiel 31.9 that the allegory is being continued, and that these other "trees" are likewise allegorical for other nations, envying the power of Assyria.

THOM
Apr 17th 2009, 04:18 AM
You're making an assumption that I believe there are not any accounts in Scripture in which there are "dual meanings". I didn't say that there aren't types/antitypes in Scripture at all. What I'm saying is that some cases just over-reach. What I am saying is that I find the evidence is lacking for this particular instance to have a "dual meaning" in it. That's all.

Well, since a word is always related to its root word, why do you think we should just discount the root words definition, just to define the word itself however we want to, to make it fit with our pre-existing ideas of what the text is saying?

Seriously? What is your deal here? You're constantly quoting my words to try to turn them around me in order to condescend to me... why do you have to behave like this? We're engaging in a thoughtful discussion, and you have to "stick my words in quotes just to make fun of me". Like this:

You're intentionally not conjugating the verb "leave" properly when you quote me here to make me appear like I can't use basic English. What is even the purpose of quoting me. Why can't you just type regular sentences without filling them up with quotes from what I said before?

Isaiah never mentions "Nebuchadnezzar", but he does specifically refer to "lucifer" as the "king of Babylon" a few verses earlier, which Nebuchadnezzar was the "king of Babylon". The manner in which Isaiah describes "lucifer" is incredibly close to how Nebuchadnezzar is described, so this makes Nebuchadnezzar a probable "candidate" for who Isaiah was prophesying about. Since Isaiah specifically mentions the "king of Babylon", and Nebuchadnezzar is, as a fact, a "king of Babylon", then the probable connection is entirely Scriptural. Since Scripture doesn't, however, say that Satan is the "king of Babylon", his connection to "lucifer" is severely lacking.

No Scripture connects "lucifer" to Eden.

This is from an entirely different book of the Bible. Nowhere in Scripture is "lucifer" called a cherub.

This is never stated in Scripture, of either "lucifer" or the cherub.

I can't find anything in Scripture that says either "lucifer" or a cherub led the angelic host in praise of God. It seems like you're referring to Ezekiel 28.13 (since that is what is mosted referred to in this claim by others), but nothing in that verse says that "lucifer" or the cherub led the heavenly host in praising God.

This is pointless. If you're making fun of me because I can recognize the different between literal and figurative speech, what is the use in even having this discussion?

If I say that my friend Brandon was "scared half to death" because I snuck up behind him and said "boo", it's obvious that Brandon is a literal person, but that "scared half to death" is figurative. Yet according to the logic you use in this quote just above, you would claim that I'm confused because I mixed together something literal (Brandon) with something figurative ("half to death".

I ask that you please stop mocking me in such a disrespectful, antagonistic manner.

Like I said before, Nebuchadnezzar is a probable candidate for the king of Babylon prophesied about in Isaiah 14. I did say Isaiah 14's description "perfectly parallels" the account of Necuchadnezzar, but I didn't actually say it was, for certain, him. (Based on the experience we've had up to this point, I think I can accurately guess that you're going to make fun of me here, too, that I'm "confusing" myself, or something? I would pre-emptively ask that you don't.)

So here you're just outright redefining "without form" as meaning "confusion".

Could you please stop being so aggressive and rude?

This only proves my point: Jesus wasn't physically lighting up the world. Jesus physically illuminating the planet; he's not going to glow in the dark whenever the sun goes down. This is spiritual light, he is talking about, so you cannot apply such a statement to the physical light that was created in Genesis.

Contextually: God is threatening the king of Egypt with the might of Assyria. Assyria, in Ezekiel 31, has been allegorized into a mighty "cedar", which all of the trees of the world, even the trees of Eden, envy. If you interpret Ezekiel 31.9 absolutely literally, then would you actually claim that trees are capable of emotion (envy)? I'm not so sure anyone would. Since, in Ezekiel 31.3, Assyria is being allegorized as a might "cedar" tree, then it should be obvious enough that even up to Ezekiel 31.9 that the allegory is being continued, and that these other "trees" are likewise allegorical for other nations, envying the power of Assyria.

But according to your interpretation regarding Isaiah 14, your "the king of Babylon", cannot be "allegorized" into "Lucifer"?

I'm not "mocking" you, nor am I being "aggressive and rude" to you, "in such a disrespectful, antagonistic manner"; I'm merely debating you with your very own words and phrases, and your standards and beliefs.

crossnote
Apr 17th 2009, 05:38 AM
Lucy, you got some 'splainin to do.

I wouldn't name her Lilith either. :)



Aren't you a bit old to be watching the Cartoon Network?

Cartoon Network?
I was using Lucy as a feminized form of Lucifer...not Lewis' heroine.

manichunter
Apr 17th 2009, 04:08 PM
You know what trips me out is that there are other ruling evil spirits. Some are locked up until the end times in the Abyss. Satan is the prince of darkness, but there are others who will cause a great deal of damage who have yet to be unleased.

apothanein kerdos
Apr 17th 2009, 06:59 PM
You're making an assumption that I believe there are not any accounts in Scripture in which there are "dual meanings". I didn't say that there aren't types/antitypes in Scripture at all. What I'm saying is that some cases just over-reach. What I am saying is that I find the evidence is lacking for this particular instance to have a "dual meaning" in it. That's all.

I understand that. I'm wondering what criterion you use to determine what constitutes as sufficient evidence - because again, I'm not seeing how it could work for some of the prophecies (for instance, "I thirst" fulfilling a prophecy from Psalms?).

My contention is more that in prophetic literature there is always a dual meaning - one that addresses the situation of the time, and one that addresses a broader subject. This is different from the allegorical method, which is more neo-Platonic, but holds to a similar principle that in prophetic literature there's almost always a dual meaning.

Your Advert here


Hosted by Webnet77