PDA

View Full Version : Satan - Angel or Cherub?



Soj
Dec 20th 2007, 09:06 AM
Note: this discussion is for those Christians who believe the Bible teaches the existence of a *literal* Devil, otherwise known commonly among us as Lucifer, Satan, the great dragon, the old serpent, the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that worketh in the children of disobedience, the accuser of the brethren, etc.


I hear time and time again from Christians that Satan is a "fallen angel" and yet the Bible describes him as a fallen "cherub". Angels in the Bible always appear as men (Revelation 21:17), yet cherubs are described as different creatures altogether. I know there is a teaching that equates an angel to a cherub but that is not scriptural.


This is what the Bible says about him...

Isaiah 14:12 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! 13 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: 14 I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High. 15 Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit.

Ezekiel 28:13 Thou hast been in Eden the garden of God; every precious stone was thy covering, the sardius, topaz, and the diamond, the beryl, the onyx, and the jasper, the sapphire, the emerald, and the carbuncle, and gold: the workmanship of thy tabrets and of thy pipes was prepared in thee in the day that thou wast created. 14 Thou art the anointed cherub that covereth; and I have set thee so: thou wast upon the holy mountain of God; thou hast walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire. 15 Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee. 16 By the multitude of thy merchandise they have filled the midst of thee with violence, and thou hast sinned: therefore I will cast thee as profane out of the mountain of God: and I will destroy thee, O covering cherub, from the midst of the stones of fire. 17 Thine heart was lifted up because of thy beauty, thou hast corrupted thy wisdom by reason of thy brightness: I will cast thee to the ground, I will lay thee before kings, that they may behold thee. 18 Thou hast defiled thy sanctuaries by the multitude of thine iniquities, by the iniquity of thy traffick; therefore will I bring forth a fire from the midst of thee, it shall devour thee, and I will bring thee to ashes upon the earth in the sight of all them that behold thee. 19 All they that know thee among the people shall be astonished at thee: thou shalt be a terror, and never shalt thou be any more.


This is the description that Ezekiel gave about the four cherubs he saw...

Ezekiel 10:9 And when I looked, behold the four wheels by the cherubims, one wheel by one cherub, and another wheel by another cherub: and the appearance of the wheels was as the colour of a beryl stone. 10 And as for their appearances, they four had one likeness, as if a wheel had been in the midst of a wheel. 11 When they went, they went upon their four sides; they turned not as they went, but to the place whither the head looked they followed it; they turned not as they went. 12 And their whole body, and their backs, and their hands, and their wings, and the wheels, were full of eyes round about, even the wheels that they four had. 13 As for the wheels, it was cried unto them in my hearing, O wheel. 14 And every one had four faces: the first face was the face of a cherub, and the second face was the face of a man, and the third the face of a lion, and the fourth the face of an eagle. 15 And the cherubims were lifted up. This is the living creature that I saw by the river of Chebar.


The only reference to Satan being an angel is in 2 Corinthians 11:14-15 where he is able to *transform* himself into an angel of light, which is his deception. This does not mean that he is an angel, it means that he can appear as an angel, and a righteous and holy angel at that!

So dear reader, the question I have for you is why do you call Satan an angel?

Duane Morse
Dec 20th 2007, 09:54 AM
Could you more clearly define an 'angel'?


(Going to sleep.
See you in a bit.)

Soj
Dec 20th 2007, 10:43 AM
Could you more clearly define an 'angel'?That's what I would like you to do! ;)

I'll give you a head start:

Every angel in the Bible is an appearance of something, and not necessarily a 'messenger.' There are many angels who bring no message at all. Eg. the children's angels in heaven are not messengers, they are appearances of the children.

Matthew 18:10 Take heed that ye despise not one of these little ones; for I say unto you, That in heaven their angels do always behold the face of my Father which is in heaven.

Angels are created beings, they seem to be innumerable, they are immortal. There are various ranks and orders of angels, Michael is called an archangel, there are principalities and powers, dominions, and thrones. They are greater in power and might than men, their present abode is in heaven, yet we know of some who fell from heaven. Jesus calls them "holy" angels, there are some called "elect" angels.

Every angel who appeared on earth in the Bible appears as a man:

The two angels at Sodom:

Genesis 19:1 And there came two angels to Sodom at even; and Lot sat in the gate of Sodom: and Lot seeing them rose up to meet them; and he bowed himself with his face toward the ground; 2 And he said, Behold now, my lords, turn in, I pray you, into your servant's house, and tarry all night, and wash your feet, and ye shall rise up early, and go on your ways. And they said, Nay; but we will abide in the street all night. 3 And he pressed upon them greatly; and they turned in unto him, and entered into his house; and he made them a feast, and did bake unleavened bread, and they did eat. 4 But before they lay down, the men of the city, even the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both old and young, all the people from every quarter: 5 And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them.


Jacob wrestling the angel:

Genesis 32:24 And Jacob was left alone; and there wrestled a man with him until the breaking of the day.

Hosea 12:2 The LORD hath also a controversy with Judah, and will punish Jacob according to his ways; according to his doings will he recompense him. 3 He took his brother by the heel in the womb, and by his strength he had power with God: 4 Yea, he had power over the angel, and prevailed: he wept, and made supplication unto him: he found him in Bethel, and there he spake with us;

Soj
Dec 20th 2007, 10:49 AM
(Going to sleep.
See you in a bit.)Me too. Good nyt, sleep tight, don't let the bed bugs bite!

Athanasius
Dec 20th 2007, 03:03 PM
Isn't a cherub a 'type' of angel? (of a higher order)?

Ayala
Dec 20th 2007, 03:13 PM
The cherubim are angels...Some argue otherwise but most believe them to be angels.

Duane Morse
Dec 20th 2007, 05:06 PM
Isaiah 14:12 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! 13 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: 14 I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High. 15 Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit.

Why did you stop there?
Because, if you go one more verse, Lucifer is called a man:

Isaiah 14:16 They that see thee shall narrowly look upon thee, and consider thee, saying, Is this the man that made the earth to tremble, that did shake kingdoms;

Soj
Dec 20th 2007, 07:56 PM
The cherubim are angels...Some argue otherwise but most believe them to be angels.Most may believe that, but what saith the scripture?

Soj
Dec 20th 2007, 08:01 PM
Why did you stop there?
Because, if you go one more verse, Lucifer is called a man:

Isaiah 14:16 They that see thee shall narrowly look upon thee, and consider thee, saying, Is this the man that made the earth to tremble, that did shake kingdoms;That's right, he can be transformed into an angel of light, which would be the appearance of a man. I believe Satan in the garden of Eden was transformed into the appearance of quite a gentleman when he spoke with Eve! Satan will be incarnate in the future as "the man of sin" too.

But these are not proofs that he is an angel. I would like to see you who believe Satan is an angel provide the scripture to prove it, otherwise the scripture isn't your authority for believing it.

Athanasius
Dec 20th 2007, 08:14 PM
That's right, he can be transformed into an angel of light, which would be the appearance of a man. I believe Satan in the garden of Eden was transformed into the appearance of quite a gentleman when he spoke with Eve! Satan will be incarnate in the future as "the man of sin" too.

But these are not proofs that he is an angel. I would like to see you who believe Satan is an angel provide the scripture to prove it, otherwise the scripture isn't your authority for believing it.

Just a question before I post something; if Satan isn't an angel, then what is he? Secondly, how is the appearance of a man that of an angel of light? Thirdly, how is the serpent metaphor then explained?

Soj
Dec 20th 2007, 08:31 PM
Just a question before I post something; if Satan isn't an angel, then what is he? Secondly, how is the appearance of a man that of an angel of light?My previous posts in this thread will answer those questions.


Thirdly, how is the serpent metaphor then explained?I don't believe it's a metaphor.

Athanasius
Dec 20th 2007, 08:42 PM
That's right, he can be transformed into an angel of light, which would be the appearance of a man. I believe Satan in the garden of Eden was transformed into the appearance of quite a gentleman when he spoke with Eve! Satan will be incarnate in the future as "the man of sin" too.

But these are not proofs that he is an angel. I would like to see you who believe Satan is an angel provide the scripture to prove it, otherwise the scripture isn't your authority for believing it.


My previous posts in this thread will answer those questions.

I don't believe it's a metaphor.

Sorry, I don't get what you're saying.
Satan was in the appearance of a gentlemen but you don't think the serpent was a metaphor? With the curse of God on the serpent, how does that work?

Soj
Dec 20th 2007, 08:46 PM
Sorry, I don't get what you're saying.
Satan was in the appearance of a gentlemen but you don't think the serpent was a metaphor? With the curse of God on the serpent, how does that work?I will answer you later today, it will take some time and I'm at work finishing up on our last day before holidays, but first why don't you post why you believe Satan is an angel? Thanks.

Ayala
Dec 20th 2007, 08:49 PM
Most may believe that, but what saith the scripture?

Scripture describes the Cheribum as beings with numerous faces, eyes, and wings. They serve to magnify the Lord's glory, to praise Him, to aid, and to guard. Theirs is a fearsome physical description, by comparison to any celestial creation of God.

markedward
Dec 20th 2007, 09:56 PM
Incidentally...

Can anyone give a good reason "Lucifer" is referring to Satan? As far as I know, Lucifer came from the Hebrew word "heylel" which wasn't even intended to be read as a proper noun, but rather as an adjective... I think, if I recall correctly, Jerome, when translating the Bible to Latin interpreted the Greek version of "heylel" ("shining one"), an adjective, as referring to Venus "the morning star" and thusly used the word "Lucifer" as a proper noun.

"Lucifer" was never originally meant to refer to Satan... it was an adjective referring to the King of Babylon. All Isaiah 14 depicts is a great king swelling full of pride before being cast down by God. Granted, the passage has slight similarities with what Jesus tells us about how He saw Satan falling like lightning, and what we see in Revelation 12, but Isaiah 14 is speaking of a man, plain and simple, not an angel and not Satan.

As for the passage in Ezekiel, it does constantly refer to how the King of Tyre is only a "man" (i.e., not an angel), so first and foremost we must recognize that the passage as a whole is referring to a human, not an angel. The part referring to being in the garden of Eden could be taken one of two ways, though, as simply metaphoric for the king's former majesty or as a metaphoric parallel to a cherub found with wickedness. But, most importantly, this passage, though also slightly similar to Jesus' words and Revelation 12, does not even mention Satan (or even a serpent), so we cannot, with any real certainty, say it is referring to Satan. For one, it was quite common for ancient kings to deify themselves, so such an instance doesn't mean it was referring to Satan trying to overthrow God. Just one of many ways to cast of traditional interpretations that only arose during Medieval Europe.

Soj
Dec 20th 2007, 10:33 PM
Incidentally...Hi Mark, you've explained why you think I am wrong, now would you kindly answer my original question, what do YOU believe Satan is? :cool:

markedward
Dec 20th 2007, 10:53 PM
Hi Mark, you've explained why you think I am wrongI wasn't targetting you, so there's no need to say I was saying you were wrong. My response was to the thread in general, not you.


now would you kindly answer my original question, what do YOU believe Satan is?I believe Satan [he] is what the Bible tells us he is. I believe is a literal entity, having once been a part of the heavenly host but became corrupt (Luke 10:18, 2 Corinthians 11:14, Revelation 12:4, 7-9). He was the original deceiver of Eve (Genesis 3, Revelation 20:2), and has often appeared to deceive and accuse and incite evil (1 Chronicles 21:1, Job, Zechariah 3:1). Satan may be called "god of this world" but he does not rule hell, but rather, will be just another sinner subject to its torment (Revelation 20:7-10).

We've seen demonic possessions in the Bible, and while I myself have not seen any, I've met a number of people who have seen possessions and even taken part in casting the demons out. And Revelation 12 depicts Satan (the dragon, per 20:2) having a third of the heavenly host as being on his side, in which case, those dark angels are more than likely demons, with Satan as "head" demon.

While I believe he is responsible for sin having entered the world, I do not believe we can attribute everything as "an attack from Satan" or as "Satan made me do it." I believe while he has certainly had a hand in causing deception and lies, he cannot force us to do anything, in which case, I think more people need to 'fess up to their own wrongdoings rather than assigning blame to Satan. We're capable enough of sinning on our own without his help.

Soj
Dec 20th 2007, 11:02 PM
I believe is a literal entity...So you don't believe he's an angel?

Soj
Dec 20th 2007, 11:05 PM
As for the passage in Ezekiel, it does constantly refer to how the King of Tyre is only a "man" (i.e., not an angel), so first and foremost we must recognize that the passage as a whole is referring to a human, not an angel.So who do you believe the "annointed cherub" spoken about in the passage is? Where is he now?

RogerW
Dec 21st 2007, 01:10 AM
Greetings Soj,

I too question the opinion that satan is a fallen angel. But I can't see him being called a cherub either. Cherub has been translated from the Hebrew word k@ruwb; of uncertain derivation; a cherub or imaginary figure:--cherub, (plural) cherubims. An imaginary figure?...that makes it hard to accept that satan is a cherub.

Another problem I find with satan being a cherub is that cherubims adorned the two ends of the mercy seat in the temple, and cherubims of twined linen of purple and blue were worked into the fabric of the curtains in the tabernacle. It seems odd that God would direct Moses to include a symbol of satan, the devil in the furnishings of His holy temple.

Finally we find that God placed a cherubim at the east of the garden of Eden with a flaming sword to guard the way of the tree of life. It would be especially odd that God would make satan, the devil the guardian of the tree of life.

Many Blessings,
RW

Steven3
Dec 21st 2007, 01:27 AM
Note: this discussion is for those Christians who believe the Bible teaches the existence of a *literal* Devil, otherwise known commonly among us as Lucifer, Satan, the great dragon, the old serpent, the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that worketh in the children of disobedience, the accuser of the brethren, etc.

http://chat.maktoob.com/userguide/users_gagged.gif (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?t=109845)

losthorizon
Dec 21st 2007, 01:40 AM
Incidentally...

Can anyone give a good reason "Lucifer" is referring to Satan? As far as I know, Lucifer came from the Hebrew word "heylel" which wasn't even intended to be read as a proper noun, but rather as an adjective... I think, if I recall correctly, Jerome, when translating the Bible to Latin interpreted the Greek version of "heylel" ("shining one"), an adjective, as referring to Venus "the morning star" and thusly used the word "Lucifer" as a proper noun.

"Lucifer" was never originally meant to refer to Satan... it was an adjective referring to the King of Babylon. All Isaiah 14 depicts is a great king swelling full of pride before being cast down by God. Granted, the passage has slight similarities with what Jesus tells us about how He saw Satan falling like lightning, and what we see in Revelation 12, but Isaiah 14 is speaking of a man, plain and simple, not an angel and not Satan.

As for the passage in Ezekiel, it does constantly refer to how the King of Tyre is only a "man" (i.e., not an angel), so first and foremost we must recognize that the passage as a whole is referring to a human, not an angel. The part referring to being in the garden of Eden could be taken one of two ways, though, as simply metaphoric for the king's former majesty or as a metaphoric parallel to a cherub found with wickedness. But, most importantly, this passage, though also slightly similar to Jesus' words and Revelation 12, does not even mention Satan (or even a serpent), so we cannot, with any real certainty, say it is referring to Satan. For one, it was quite common for ancient kings to deify themselves, so such an instance doesn't mean it was referring to Satan trying to overthrow God. Just one of many ways to cast of traditional interpretations that only arose during Medieval Europe.
You are correct – the passage regarding “Lucifer” (a transliteration of "son of the morning star" in the KJV) is a reference to the king of Babylon, not Satan (Isaiah 14: 4) and although Satan takes on the appearance of an “angel of light” (2 Corinthians 11: 13) he is never directly identified as an “angel” in either the OT or the NT. The Bible does suggest that Satan once resided in heaven and was allowed to be in the presence of God and there are other created beings identified in heaven, i.e., Seraphim, Cherubim and other "living creatures". The truth is the Bible doesn’t reveal exactly who or what Satan was before he rebelled against the Eternal…
"The secret things belong unto the LORD our God: but those things which are revealed belong unto us and to our children for ever, that we may do all the words of this law" (Deuteronomy 29:29).

Athanasius
Dec 21st 2007, 01:54 AM
I will answer you later today, it will take some time and I'm at work finishing up on our last day before holidays, but first why don't you post why you believe Satan is an angel? Thanks.

I never said Satan was, that's why I'm asking what he would be if he wasn't (as per the preconceived notion).

coldfire136
Dec 21st 2007, 01:55 AM
I started a thread about a week ago on the nature of Satan in the Old Testament, but I did not get much response. For now, I just want to mention that Satan is a creature that has evolved over Jewish and Christian history. Dr. Hartley, who has written one scholarly work on Job, believes that Satan was a kind of prosecuting attorney in the divine council. I have never read Hartley's commentary, but this is what he said in my Hebrew Poetry and Wisdom Literature class. Scholarship, as far as I can tell, agree with him. In an article by Elaine Engels, she argues that Satan also is a kind of prosecuting attorney.[1] If you want a copy of her article, you either have to have a subscription to JSTOR, or I can send it to you if you PM me.

The NT makes Satan seem much more like a cosmic adversary. Why the change? The answer, I think you will find, is quite complex, and requires a broad knowledge of early Jewish literature, prophetic literature, apocolyptic and extra-canonical literature, and a powerful understanding of the NT and the patristic fathers. I do not have this information (I know some basic outlines), but if someone knows more on the scholarship and the ancient texts themselves, their help would most definitely be welcome here.



__________________________________________________ ______________
[1] Elaine Engels, "The Social History of Satan, the 'Intimate Enemy': A Preliminary Sketch," The Harvard Theological Review 84:2 (Apr., 1991), 105-128

markedward
Dec 21st 2007, 02:28 AM
So you don't believe he's an angel?... Did I say that? No. I said I believe he is what the Bible tells us; a literal entity (i.e., a real being, not an allegory or metaphor), that he was once part of the heavenly host, and that he became corrupt. If you had read my entire you would know what I believe about him rather than having to ask questions.


So who do you believe the "anointed cherub" spoken about in the passage is?According to the Bible, the "anointed cherub" is the King of Tyre. Again, if you had read my post you would have the answer to your question. I already said that the "anointed cherub," as the Bible tells us, was the King of Tyre, who is identified in the Bible as man who wanted to deify himself, but it also makes the point direct, he was a man. I also said that it was likely that the "anointed cherub" statement could simply have been a metaphor for the King's majesty. Strictly Biblically speaking, the Bible does not say that the "anointed cherub" is Satan.


Where is he now?Dead, as the very same passage tells us.

Steven3
Dec 21st 2007, 03:06 AM
Hi Coldfire
Soj did say in the OP that he did not want any Christians who do not share his belief that
the Bible teaches the existence of a *literal* Devil, otherwise known commonly among us as Lucifer, Satan, the great dragon, the old serpent, the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that worketh in the children of disobedience, the accuser of the brethren, etc.participating on this thread, so I've replied to your post here (http://bibleforums.org/showpost.php?p=1478151&postcount=17)

Soj
Dec 21st 2007, 03:12 AM
... Did I say that? No.

...If you had read my entire you would know what I believe about him rather than having to ask questions.

...Again, if you had read my post you would have the answer to your question.Thanks for your input anyway Mark. :)

Soj
Dec 21st 2007, 03:16 AM
Hi Coldfire
Soj did say in the OP that he did not want any Christians who do not share his belief that participating on this thread...And guess who I had in mind when I started it! You've still managed to post twice in here though...:hug:

You know, I still havn't had any clear answers as to why people think Satan is an angel? Maybe he IS allegorical? Nah, just kidding.

Soj
Dec 21st 2007, 03:28 AM
It seems odd that God would direct Moses to include a symbol of satan, the devil in the furnishings of His holy temple.It would be odd if He did that, but He didnt, it was the likeness of the cherubim, not the likeness of Satan. Including Satan there are 5 cherubs mentioned in scripture, and they all have different features.


Finally we find that God placed a cherubim at the east of the garden of Eden with a flaming sword to guard the way of the tree of life. It would be especially odd that God would make satan, the devil the guardian of the tree of life.I believe it was two or more of the four cherubs we read about in Ezekiel and Revelation that God put in the garden to guard the tree of life, Satan was in the garden too but for an entirely different purpose. Cherubims is the plural so there was more than one.

Genesis 3:24 So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.

jeffweeder
Dec 21st 2007, 03:32 AM
Michael and his Angels fought satan and his Angels.


But Michael the archangel, when he disputed with the devil and argued about the body of Moses, did not dare pronounce against him a railing judgment, but said, "The Lord rebuke you!"

Is satan an archangel like Michael .?

Michael is called the great prince in Daniel 12, and satan is also a prince- of the powers of darkness.

markedward
Dec 21st 2007, 03:36 AM
he is never directly identified as an “angel” in either the OT or the NT. The Bible does suggest that Satan once resided in heaven and was allowed to be in the presence of God and there are other created beings identified in heaven, i.e., Seraphim, Cherubim and other "living creatures". The truth is the Bible doesn’t reveal exactly who or what Satan was before he rebelled against the EternalWell, while he may not be explicitly stated to be an angel, certain passages at least implicitly tell us; why would Paul tell us Satan could masquerade as an "angel of light"? As opposed to, say, an angel of darkness? And the Revelation 12 account tells us that "the dragon" (Satan) swept a third of the heavenly host to earth, and then it identifies Michael as the lead of the remaining two-thirds while Satan is the lead of the other third. Satan couldn't have always been evil, as, while God will redirect evil to bring about goodness, He does not create evil. In which case, if Satan wasn't always evil, he must have been good, and we see in the Bible that Satan fell from heaven, so chances are he was an angel of light but became an angel of darkness and lies.

Soj
Dec 21st 2007, 03:41 AM
Michael and his Angels fought satan and his Angels.

Is satan an archangel like Michael .?

Michael is called the great prince in Daniel 12, and satan is also a prince- of the powers of darkness.Two good comparisons there Jeff, but still no proof text.

Michael is the only one identified by name as an "archangel" in scripture. It's likely he is the archangel mentioned in 1 Thess 4:16.

losthorizon
Dec 21st 2007, 03:46 AM
Well, while he may not be explicitly stated to be an angel, certain passages at least implicitly tell us; why would Paul tell us Satan could masquerade as an "angel of light"? As opposed to, say, an angel of darkness? And the Revelation 12 account tells us that "the dragon" (Satan) swept a third of the heavenly host to earth, and then it identifies Michael as the lead of the remaining two-thirds while Satan is the lead of the other third. Satan couldn't have always been evil, as, while God will redirect evil to bring about goodness, He does not create evil. In which case, if Satan wasn't always evil, he must have been good, and we see in the Bible that Satan fell from heaven, so chances are he was an angel of light but became an angel of darkness and lies.
Satan may very well be the fallen angel of lore but the fact remains - nowhere in the Book is he ever specifically identified as an angel nor did God choose to reveal to mankind the nature of the Devil's pre-fallen state. This leads me to believe God did not want us to know those details.

jeffweeder
Dec 21st 2007, 03:49 AM
Two good comparisons there Jeff, but still no proof text.

Michael is the only one identified by name as an "archangel" in scripture. It's likely he is the archangel mentioned in 1 Thess 4:16.

Hmmm, ok , lets try this one-


They have as king over them, the angel of the abyss; his name in Hebrew is Abaddon[8][I.e. destruction], and in the Greek he has the name Apollyon[9][I.e. destroyer].

markedward
Dec 21st 2007, 03:57 AM
Hmmm, ok , lets try this one-Does it say that Satan is "Abaddon"? No.

jeffweeder
Dec 21st 2007, 04:04 AM
Does it say that Satan is "Abaddon"? No.

Who then is the king of the demon locusts?
Apollyon in the concordance is destroyer (ie satan)

He comes to steal to kill and to destroy---
satan hath led the rebellion..he is the father of lies.

Whatever he is, he is to be avoided.
One day he will be gone forever..........Amen to that

markedward
Dec 21st 2007, 04:07 AM
Who then is the king of the demon locusts?
Apollyon in the concordance is destroyer (ie satan)Satan is Hebrew for "accuser." Abaddon is Hebrew for "destruction," Apollyon is Greek for "destroyer" (essentially meaning the same thing). The Concordance's connection is merely a personal intepretation, not what Scripture says. Again, go with what Scripture says, not an added interpretation of what it says. If Revelation 9 said Abaddon was Satan, then he is. But it doesn't.

OT Scripture shows Abaddon as a place or concept, so considering the Revelation's way of giving us personified symbols (a red horseman symbolizing war, or Hades and Death treated as if they were people, riding the pale horse), we could interpret Abaddon (and the Greek equivalent Apollyon) as simply personified forms of an inanimate place or object or even an idea.

Steven3
Dec 21st 2007, 07:33 AM
Hello SoJ
And guess who I had in mind when I started it! You've still managed to post twice in here though...:hug:

You know, I still havn't had any clear answers as to why people think Satan is an angel? Maybe he IS allegorical? Nah, just kidding.

Does a http://chat.maktoob.com/userguide/users_gagged.gif (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?t=109845) smiley count? The odd thing is if you had allowed those like Coldfire and myself guilty of the wicked sin of allegory to participate then I would have agreed with you. The dragon has angels, the dragon disguises himself as an angel of light, but the dragon is not himself an angel, because he is not a ministering spirit sent out to serve for the sake of those who are to inherit salvation.

And besides I do believe in Lucifer:

2 Pe 1:19 (Vulgate) And we have something more sure, the prophetic word, to which you will do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and Lucifer rises in your hearts

God bless
Steven

markedward
Dec 21st 2007, 07:49 AM
The dragon has angels, the dragon disguises himself as an angel of light, but the dragon is not himself an angel, because he is not a ministering spirit sent out to serve for the sake of those who are to inherit salvation.So... you say the dragon is not angel, yet he has angels, and then you say the dragon isn't an angel because he is not a "ministering spirit"... so are you saying the dragon's angels are ministering spirit who serve someone that isn't a ministering spirit? The dragon has his own angels, but they aren't ministering spirits anymore than he is. They're fallen angels, having lost their place in heaven to their corruption.


And besides I do believe in Lucifer:

2 Pe 1:19 (Vulgate)You realize that the Vulgate was the source of the Lucifer-translation problem? As stated before, Jerome turned the Septuagint version of an adjective into a proper noun. The original Hebrew "heylel" was intended as an adjective meaning "shining one," while the Vulgate "Lucifer" is a proper noun based upon an individual's interpretation of the Greek translation of the word (and the Greek form that the Latin Vulgate was based upon was very distinctly an adjective). In the case of 2 Peter, the passage is referring to finding truth out of prophecies, "like finding a lamp shining in the dark, until dawn breaks, and a morning star arises." Peter is speaking of Christ, metaphorically. While "Lucifer" may be a proper word equivalent to "phosphoros," the problem lies with the Vulgate's changing what was intended as an adjective-metaphor into a proper noun, as if it were a name, when it's not.

Soj
Dec 21st 2007, 10:39 AM
Who then is the king of the demon locusts?
Apollyon in the concordance is destroyer (ie satan)

He comes to steal to kill and to destroy---
satan hath led the rebellion..he is the father of lies.

Whatever he is, he is to be avoided.
One day he will be gone forever..........Amen to thatYes amen to that, but I don't belive we'll be around to see him anyway...but that's another topic of argument, oops I mean godly discussion!

What Mark said is right about the meanings of the words Abaddon & Apollyon. This angel is the death angel, the "Destroyer", he is probably the star of Rev 9:1.

Revelation 9:11 And they had a king over them, which is the angel of the bottomless pit, whose name in the Hebrew tongue is Abaddon, but in the Greek tongue hath his name Apollyon.

Note that the locusts he is king over of Rev 9:3-10 can't be literal locusts because literal locusts have no king!

Proverbs 30:27 The locusts have no king, yet go they forth all of them by bands;

Sometimes God gives permission for Satan to take a life and sometimes He does not! The actual execution is carried out by one of the angels of Satan called "the Destroyer." This is a particular death angel entrusted with this job, it is not Satan himself.

Soj
Dec 21st 2007, 10:43 AM
Hello SoJ

Does a http://chat.maktoob.com/userguide/users_gagged.gif (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?t=109845) smiley count?Well it made me chuckle so it's allowed. :lol:


The odd thing is if you had allowed those like Coldfire and myself guilty of the wicked sin of allegory to participate then I would have agreed with you.Ok then you're free to participate, but only where you agree with me! :)

Duane Morse
Dec 21st 2007, 10:45 AM
And yet...

All things come from God Almighty.

Even evil - as well as good.
Because, an all-encompassing God - encompasses all.

Soj
Dec 21st 2007, 11:05 AM
Satan was in the appearance of a gentlemen but you don't think the serpent was a metaphor? With the curse of God on the serpent, how does that work?Explanation:

Genesis 3:1 Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?

This serpent does not look like a serpent when he appears, to the contrary, he appears as "an angel of light" (2 Cori 11:12-14). Since every angel in the Bible appears as a man, what Eve deals with is a nice, shining gentleman - halo and all! The serpent is not a 'snake' and when his animal counterpart is cursed to appear as a snake, it is cursed above all "cattle" in Gen 3:14. Why cattle?

1. Satan was a Cherub, and a Cherub is defined as a calf or Ox (Eze 1,10).

2. This Cherub was the fifth Cherub, representing the reptile class (Rev 4, Eze 28).

3. As a split-foot beast (see Rev 4:7; Eze 1:7) with two horns, he is represented in Egypt by a golden calf with the sun disk between his horns (Ex 32) and hence is classified with "cattle".

4. Thus Baal worshippers recognise the Ox and Serpent as sacred (Hos 13:2; 1 Kings 17-19).

The "beast" of Gen 3:1 is a reference to Rev 4:7. Moses writing, calls him a "Serpent" which is the correct terminology according to Rev 12:9.

Undoubtedly, when he appears to "Mother Eve" in the garden he appears as a shining "light bearer" (Lux-fero! Lucifer).

Soj
Dec 21st 2007, 11:07 AM
And yet...

All things come from God Almighty.

Even evil - as well as good.
Because, an all-encompassing God - encompasses all.You speak truth.

An earlier comment was made that God doesn't create evil, yet scripture says otherwise...

Isaiah 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

Duane Morse
Dec 21st 2007, 11:09 AM
Undoubtedly, when he appears to "Mother Eve" in the garden he appears as a shining "light bearer" (Lux-fero! Lucifer).


And who was the 'shining "light bearer"' to Eve at that point in time - except for - Adam?

Soj
Dec 21st 2007, 11:17 AM
And who was the 'shining "light bearer"' to Eve in that point in time - except for - Adam?I've discussed this before with my brethren...it's apparent in the Genesis account that Adam was not with Eve when Satan was tempting her, otherwise it would be written that he too was deceived by Satan. So what on earth was Eve doing so close to that tree which God had forbidden to eat of, without her husband, in the presence of that deceiver?

Duane Morse
Dec 21st 2007, 11:21 AM
I've discussed this before with my brethren...it's apparent in the Genesis account that Adam was not with Eve when Satan was tempting her, otherwise it would be written that he too was deceived by Satan. So what on earth was Eve doing so close to that tree which God had forbidden to eat of, without her husband, in the presence of that deceiver?
I beg to disagree...


Ge 3:6 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.

Soj
Dec 21st 2007, 11:34 AM
I beg to disagree...


Ge 3:6 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.I know that scripture is there, but I speculate that "with her" wasn't when Satan was deceiving her...like many cases in Genesis and throughout scripture the wording doesn't necessarily demand that the events happened chronologically. If Adam was present when the Devil was sweet-talking her, then he made no attempt to stop her from disobeying God, as the Bible says he was not deceived (1 Timothy 2:14). It is more likely that she partook first before he could stop her, then when it was too late Adam decided to 'die for his wife' displaying the typology of love that Christ has for His church, us!

Duane Morse
Dec 21st 2007, 11:42 AM
I know that scripture is there, but I speculate that "with her" wasn't when Satan was deceiving her...like many cases in Genesis and throughout scripture the wording doesn't necessarily demand that the events happened chronologically. If Adam was present when the Devil was sweet-talking her, then he made no attempt to stop her from disobeying God, as the Bible says he was not deceived (1 Timothy 2:14). It is more likely that she partook first before he could stop her, then when it was too late Adam decided to 'die for his wife' displaying the typology of love that Christ has for His church, us!
That is one way of looking at it.


I look at it another way, though.


I look at it in the way that Adam was the original serpent.

Soj
Dec 21st 2007, 12:07 PM
I look at it in the way that Adam was the original serpent.I'd be happy to read your hypothesis.

Duane Morse
Dec 21st 2007, 12:09 PM
I'd be happy to read your hypothesis.
Ya, but that would just create another 'controversial issue'.

Soj
Dec 21st 2007, 12:32 PM
Ya, but that would just create another 'controversial issue'.Sure Duane, but isn't "controversial" your middle name? ;)

markedward
Dec 21st 2007, 08:21 PM
You speak truth.

An earlier comment was made that God doesn't create evil, yet scripture says otherwise...

Isaiah 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.Actually, the word for "evil" many agree is most properly translated as "calamity," at least in this case. How can "evil" be the opposite of "peace"? Read the whole passage in context. If Isaiah 45 is God talking about natural things He creates, from the rising and setting of the sun to the formation of darkness and light, to peace and chaos. "Evil" in this case has nothing to do with moral evil, but material "evil" such as a tornado, or the destruction of a city. Again, this speaks of peace and non-peace, not moral evil. If you don't read passages in context, you wind up with a vast number of contradicting statements in the Bible.

markedward
Dec 21st 2007, 08:35 PM
And who was the 'shining "light bearer"' to Eve at that point in time - except for - Adam?You're speculating; you're adding words into the text that aren't there. Nothing in Genesis calls Adam as the "light bearer" for Eve. He wasn't described as her knight in shining armor. And, again, "heylel" means "shining one" not "light bearer;" "light bearer" is a twice-removed translation of the original word.

As for the serpent being Adam, that's also reading into the text, especially since they are treated as three separate characters in the text; Adam blames Eve, Eve blames the serpent. God curses Adam, God curses Eve, God curses the serpent. The reading since the time it was written was that it was three "characters" in the story, not two with one playing two parts. Unless you think God got confused and thought Adam was both himself and a serpent, and then God told Moses that there was a serpent with Adam and Eve. Everything in the account dictates to us that there were three individuals, Adam, Eve, the serpent.

Athanasius
Dec 21st 2007, 09:06 PM
You guys are playing loose with words.
Semantic redefinitions; explicit conjectures. . .



This serpent does not look like a serpent when he appears, to the contrary, he appears as "an angel of light" (2 Cori 11:12-14). Since every angel in the Bible appears as a man, what Eve deals with is a nice, shining gentleman - halo and all!

By your own words Angel's and Cherubs aren't the same thing. Part of the heavenly host, yes, but different entities altogether. Angels may appear in the Bible as men, but do Cherubs?


I know there is a teaching that equates an angel to a cherub but that is not scriptural.


How is it also then that a Cherub would possess the ability to alter its own appearance into an angel of light (Not 'Cherub of light')? It is the belief in Judaism that Satan is an angel doing the will of God (i.e. the Fall was necessary, temptation is necessary, trial is necessary--Satan is necessary). Without agreeing with the Judaic view that Satan is essentially a machine (as all angels apparently all), I'm going to have to agree that he's an angel. It's going to remain my opinion in this thread as scripture seems to be of relative interpretation.

Steven3
Dec 22nd 2007, 01:43 AM
Hi MarkEdward
So... you say the dragon is not angel, yet he has angels, and then you say the dragon isn't an angel because he is not a "ministering spirit"... so are you saying the dragon's angels are ministering spirit who serve someone that isn't a ministering spirit? The dragon has his own angels, but they aren't ministering spirits anymore than he is. I'm simply quoting the text as it stands, for each student of God's word to work the pieces into the jigsaw puzzle for themselves :)


You realize that the Vulgate was the source of the Lucifer-translation problem? Not directly, since the Old Latin and then Jerome translated "Day Star" perfectly correctly, and consistently, so parents were correct to name their children "Lucifer", and correct to sing hymns to "Lucifer". The source of the Is14 Lucifer derives from a gradual shift in fallen angel belief in the 3rd~5th century and the need to find a replacement 'origin' story as an alternative to the Jewish Watchers myth. In other words to replace the Jewish myth filling the fallen-archangel gap with a Christian myth doing the same job but not carrying the baggage which the Watchers myths had.
God bless
Steven

markedward
Dec 22nd 2007, 01:47 AM
Not directly, since the Old Latin and then Jerome translated "Day Star" perfectly correctly, and consistently, so parents were correct to name their children "Lucifer", and correct to sing hymns to "Lucifer". The source of the Is14 Lucifer derives from a gradual shift in fallen angel belief in the 3rd~5th century and the need to find a replacement 'origin' story as an alternative to the Jewish Watchers myth. In other words to replace the Jewish myth filling the fallen-archangel gap with a Christian myth doing the same job but not carrying the baggage which the Watchers myths had.
God bless
StevenAh, my mistake then. It seemed like, considering the topic of the thread, was that you were saying Lucifer was Satan, which in the context of either verse isn't well supported.

Steven3
Dec 22nd 2007, 02:10 AM
Ah, my mistake then. It seemed like, considering the topic of the thread, was that you were saying Lucifer was Satan, which in the context of either verse isn't well supported.No, my fault, I should have made it clearer that I was merely citing the OP :)

...incidentally, given this thread, what do people make of Ps18:10 (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?t=109978)?
God bless
Steven

markedward
Dec 22nd 2007, 02:31 AM
Well, given the context of the song (2 Samuel 22), David was singing a song of praise about God aiding him in his defeat of Saul and his enemies. The Psalm is using a large amount of non-literal imagery (God coming to earth with His feet on dark clouds, smoke coming from His nostrils, etc.), in which case we shouldn't take the Psalm itself too literally.

But, there are many passages that cite the cherubim/seraphim/living creatures as surrounding God's throne. We are told that the temple (including the ark of the covenant) were "shadows" of their true types in heaven. Considering the ark of the covenant served as God's physical "throne", and it was topped with cherubim, it does seem appropriate to say that that cherubim are constantly around God's throne... almost like, say, "royal guard," so to speak?

coldfire136
Dec 22nd 2007, 09:57 AM
God curses Adam, God curses Eve, God curses the serpent.

This is a tangent, but I would reconsider you words here. God NEVER curses man himself (i.e. Adam and Eve), he curses the ground and he curses childbirth. BIG theological difference.

coldfire136
Dec 22nd 2007, 09:59 AM
I have been looking through here, and have noticed that much of the talk has come down to the Serpent. If we are talking about Satan, shouldn't we stick to the passages that actually use his proper title? Most of our theology about Satan is non-canonical (as someone else mentioned the Book of Enoch).

John68
Dec 22nd 2007, 12:03 PM
since the Old Latin and then Jerome translated "Day Star" perfectly correctly
This is an eye witness account of the Tunguska event of 1908 from wiki
-"On the 17th of June, around 9 in the AM, we observed an unusual natural occurrence. In the N Karelinski village (200 verst (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verst) N of Kirensk) the peasants saw to the North-West, rather high above the horizon, some strangely bri"On the 17th of June, around 9 in the AM, we observed an unusual natural occurrence. In the N Karelinski village (200 verst (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verst) N of Kirensk) the peasants saw to the North-West, rather high above the horizon, some strangely bright (impossible to look at) bluish-white heavenly body, which for 10 minutes moved downwards. The body appeared as a "pipe", i.e. a cylinder. The sky was cloudless, only a small dark cloud was observed in the general direction of the bright body. It was hot and dry. As the body neared the ground (forest), the bright body seemed to smudge, and then turned into a giant billow (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Billow) of black smoke, and a loud knocking (not thunder) was heard, as if large stones were falling, or artillery was fired. All buildings shook. At the same time the cloud began emitting flames of uncertain shapes. This may have been the day star getting thrown to earth almost 100 years ago.:o

Duane Morse
Dec 22nd 2007, 12:14 PM
This is an eye witness account of the Tunguska event of 1908 from wiki This may have been the day star getting thrown to earth almost 100 years ago.:o

Sounds like it came from a drunkard, because there is so much repetition.

Something entered the atmosphere and exploded.

Natural? Probably so.

But a Revelation event?
Personally, I don't think so.

If you disagree, then post the relevant scriptures to support the idea - as well as intervening events and events that have happened as a result thereof.

Duane Morse
Dec 22nd 2007, 12:15 PM
Sure Duane, but isn't "controversial" your middle name? ;)
Yes, of course it is.:kiss:

Soj
Dec 22nd 2007, 05:29 PM
I have been looking through here, and have noticed that much of the talk has come down to the Serpent. If we are talking about Satan, shouldn't we stick to the passages that actually use his proper title?No I don't think it's necessary to only focus on the passages where the name Satan is mentioned, as scripture calls him by many names, and as pieces of a puzzle they all fit together to give us a knowledge bank about our most fierce enemy...

Revelation 12:9 And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.

Revelation 20:2 And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years,


Also Job chapter 41 & Isaiah 27:1 shed much light on this creature, Leviathan is Satan too...

Job 41:1 Canst thou draw out leviathan with an hook? or his tongue with a cord which thou lettest down?
Job 41:10 None is so fierce that dare stir him up: who then is able to stand before me?
Job 41:15 His scales are his pride, shut up together as with a close seal.
Job 41:19 Out of his mouth go burning lamps, and sparks of fire leap out.
20 Out of his nostrils goeth smoke, as out of a seething pot or caldron.
Job 41:24 His heart is as firm as a stone; yea, as hard as a piece of the nether millstone.
Job 41:33 Upon earth there is not his like, who is made without fear. 34 He beholdeth all high things: he is a king over all the children of pride.

Isaiah 27:1 In that day the LORD with his sore and great and strong sword shall punish leviathan the piercing serpent, even leviathan that crooked serpent; and he shall slay the dragon that is in the sea.


Unlike a crocodile or great whale (as many scholars incorrectly claim him to be), Leviathan has more than one HEAD, and in this respect he matches the dragon of Revelation 12...

Psalms 74:14 Thou brakest the heads of leviathan in pieces, and gavest him to be meat to the people inhabiting the wilderness.

Revelation 12:3 And there appeared another wonder in heaven; and behold a great red dragon, having seven heads and ten horns, and seven crowns upon his heads. 4 And his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven, and did cast them to the earth: and the dragon stood before the woman which was ready to be delivered, for to devour her child as soon as it was born.

markedward
Dec 22nd 2007, 06:12 PM
This is an eye witness account of the Tunguska event of 1908 from wiki This may have been the day star getting thrown to earth almost 100 years ago.Because meteorites are completely unheard of? First of all, "day-star" in reference to the epistle from Peter, is referring to Christ. Secondly, again, the word "heylel" means "shining one" not "day-star" and was referring to a man. The passage continually calls the person a man, not an angel and not Satan.

How many times are people going to ignore various parts of the passage simply because they get caught up in an a mistranslation of an adjective into a proper noun?

coldfire136
Dec 22nd 2007, 07:15 PM
Yes Soj.
This is something quite interesting. You quoted a number of scriptures about the Leviathan (from what I understand a large sea serpent in the ancient near eastern myths). BUT the New Testament, rather than calling the the adversary "Leviathan" calls him Satan, an adversary who most believe was part of the divine council. The biggest question for me is, why Devil and not Leviathan in the New Testament? Are they the same creature?

Soj
Dec 22nd 2007, 07:40 PM
Yes Soj.
This is something quite interesting. You quoted a number of scriptures about the Leviathan (from what I understand a large sea serpent in the ancient near eastern myths). BUT the New Testament, rather than calling the the adversary "Leviathan" calls him Satan, an adversary who most believe was part of the divine council. The biggest question for me is, why Devil and not Leviathan in the New Testament? Are they the same creature?
I think I made it clear that I believe that they are the same creature.

The very best method of Bible study is scripture with scripture comparison. I quoted the scriptures hoping that you would piece them together and realise that the crooked serpent of Isaiah 27:1 is the same creature talked about in Revelation 12:9 & 20:2 who is identified there as Satan.

There are many subjects in the scripture that will be unclear to the reader unless he studies it out, and that takes work (Eccl 12:12). Too often we want it all to be crystal clear and just fall into our lap without the least bit of effort, but God hasn't ordain it that way.

2 Timothy 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

Isaiah 28:13 But the word of the LORD was unto them precept upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little; that they might go, and fall backward, and be broken, and snared, and taken.

coldfire136
Dec 22nd 2007, 10:48 PM
I am no scholar of Revelation. If you give me some time I could study the whole book, but right now most of my study is going to Romans. I am trying to piece some things together about the overall theology of Pauline thought. I would love to have an intelligent discussion about this, but I just don't have the time right now. I have looked through some articles on the history of Satan over the last few days, but most of them deal with the Old Testament understanding of Satan. In my spare time I will continue to try and learn more about the history of Satan in the New Testament.

coldfire136
Dec 22nd 2007, 10:53 PM
Soj,
Let me ask you, and anyone else who wants to weigh in the matter. I just read Job 41 all the way through. Now, why would there be "the Satan" (adversary) at the beginning of Job, and then a Leviathan in the middle of Job. In the book, they seem to be two separate characters. What is the history of this Leviathan? In the book of Job, at the least, he is considered a character entirely different from the man who was part of the divine council.

John68
Dec 23rd 2007, 01:23 AM
How many times are people going to ignore various parts of the passage simply because they get caught up in an a mistranslation of an adjective into a proper noun? Many times Mark. Im just not as intelligent as you.:rolleyes:

Soj
Dec 23rd 2007, 05:26 AM
Now, why would there be "the Satan" (adversary) at the beginning of Job, and then a Leviathan in the middle of Job. In the book, they seem to be two separate characters.I havn't got all the answers. I do believe they are one and the same character, but Job 41 is dealing with the supernatural description of him. The description given is that of a water creature who breathes fire and smoke, is a multi-headed dragon, moving up and down through the universe, the "deep" (see Job 40:31-32 cf. Job 38:30, Genesis 1:2), leaving the Milky Way behind him. It is a detailed description of Satan, as God sees him.

Again, Isaiah 27:1 clearly identifies this Leviathan as our serpent and dragon we have been discussing in this thread.

coldfire136
Dec 23rd 2007, 06:30 AM
Hi Soj,
And I would argue that Job makes it clear that they are two different characters. I am no scholar on Job, from the classes I have taken on it, the Hebrew is incredibly difficult, so I want to be careful about all my conclusions. You claim that Leviathan is supernatural, but the Satan, as a member of the Divine council, seems much more "supernatural" to me. Am I mistaken that the Jews viewed the Leviathan as a sea monster? Also, consider the context of Job 41. Why is the Leviathan being mentioned in the first place?

lildave7777
Dec 23rd 2007, 03:44 PM
Hello all,

Having read through this thread i would like to throw out my belief on the subject for your consideration.

It is my understanding that Angel is derived from the Greek work for messenger, and in common usage in the bible it is infered that it is a messenger of God.

The words in the Old Testement (that became cherub, seraph etc.) that were translated into english were more specifically refereing to a specific kind of being.

What i have come to believe is that the New Testement writers and early church fathers (as well as most people today) referered to all (or most) of the beings in the heavenly planes as Angels as a generic term not as a specific label as to what kind of being they were. So to say that Satan is an angel or rather a fallen angel would be correct in as much as he is from that plane of existence.

Concerning Leviathon: i would like to offer that Leviathon very well may be used symbolically to describe Satan AND be a real creature. Just as we have serpents galore and Satan is described as a serpent, Satan is described as a Dragon, and if i remember correctly the word for Dragon in hebrew is used about 75 times in the Old testement leading me to believe they were a real beastie. You can't really use a comparison to describe something unless that creatures is known to the poeple who are being addressed.

Concerning The Devine Counsel: i do not want to move this thread away from the OP, so if someone would be so kind as to post a link i would appreciate it. i have not heard this theory, and with respect, i beleive it sounds rather extra biblical.

Happy Sunday!
dave.:)

coldfire136
Dec 23rd 2007, 09:21 PM
Hi Dave,
I can send you the article, but it is in PDF form so I can't repost it here (plus I believe it is copyrighted and I would probably get in trouble).

lildave7777
Dec 24th 2007, 02:29 AM
I would appreciate it. what would be the best way for you to send that file?