Gen1

Mar 24, 2008
1,034
227
83
75
SE Texas
www.photorepaired.com
Hi Bill! Are you having a good day today? I certainly pray that you are. Bless you, and may God keep you in the palm of His hand!
LOL! I see a grunt from up here but it looks like you're not in need of service right now. :) We are having storms today and the wound in my calf and all the arthritis is busy pitching fits but I'll bet yours hurts more than mine. I did some Graphics Work for a friend the other day and as payment he purchased a six channel R/C Transmitter and Receiver Combo to fit the WWII Fairey Swordfish I am building the upper wing for right now. I have the Out-runner Motor, the ESC and the 13g Servos so, maybe I'll get it off the ground before winter.

How are your babies and the sweet lady that puts up with you? My favorite grandbaby is marrying in March and graduates college the 13th of December. It seems like just a couple of weeks ago that she sat on my sholdiers and picked the youngest Okra to take home so my daughter could fry it for her.

TIME!
 
Mar 24, 2008
1,034
227
83
75
SE Texas
www.photorepaired.com
Pardon me? I am not an atheist, and I am not putting words in anyone's mouth or hiding behind anything. You have a mind, use it, what could I possibly say that could sway you from your beliefs?

Indeed using the term Lucifer was artist freedom incorporated into the Christian bible from the associations made with Satan and Fallen Angels by Milton.

Lucifer is not Satan
Now you change your attack because I refuse provocation? I and Major, both, have told you how to scripturally answer your question and still you seek a fight over? I did not accuse you of Atheism, I told you I was once and that the tactics you use are the tactics I perfected when I was and this chip on your shoulder is neither is neither attractive nor is it of Christ.
 
Sep 3, 2009
12,157
4,730
113
Florida
The word Lucifer in Isaiah 14:12, refers to Nebuchadnezzar the King of Babylon. Here Lucifer retains its Latin meaning "bearer of light" or "light bearer" designating the Morning Star.

The Vulgate employs the word (Morning Star) also for "the light of the morning" (Job 11:17), "the signs of the zodiac" (Job 38:32), and "the aurora" (Psalm 109:3). To the high priest Simon son of Onias (Ecclesiasticus 50:6), for his surpassing virtue, to the glory of heaven (Apocalypse 2:28). And finally, to Jesus Christ himself (II Petr. 1:19; Apocalypse 22:16; the
"Exulted" of Holy Saturday) the true light of our spiritual life.

The Syriac version and the version of Aquila derive the Hebrew noun helel from the verb yalal, "to lament"; St. Jerome agrees with them (In Isaiah 1:14), and makes Lucifer the name of the principal fallen angel who must lament the loss of his original glory bright as the morning star.

None of these examples IMO should be interpreted to represent the Roman deity Lucifer, the only references to a fallen angel named Lucifer comes from the Book of Enoch and this text is not fundamentally accepted as the Word of God.

My point is that Satan should never have been associated with Lucifer in the first place.

I here what you are saying Etu but that was NOT you question was it????

In comment #14 you said..........
"Then it is more like 'artistic freedom'? Because the name/title/word Lucifer is not mentioned in any versions I am aware of."

Now you know that the name LUCIFER is in fact found in the KJV. Now that answers your first question.

Now you are saying, even though the name LUCIFER is in the Bible, it does not apply to Satan but to the king of Babylon.

Now..........IF I was a skeptic, that is exactly what I would say too. The reference is without any doubt to Satan himself. The real issue then by your comment is of "interpretation" in this passage is whether Satan is to be viewed LITERALLY as the referent of the prophecy in these verses as the power behind the throne of the Babylonian king.

Since the fall of Satan is actually yet future as seen in Revelation 9:1, it seems clear that Isaiah is speaking in the present tense with the sure assurance of the future fulfillment of his prediction. That is a common way for prophets to speak. They did it believing so strongly in what they said it was as if it had already taken place.

Isaiah sees the rise of Babylon to a point of prominence that it had not yet achieved in its own day........yet beyond that he sees the fall of this same nation. He views her kings as trying to ascend into heaven by the divine claims that they would make for themselves and their kingdom........then he pictures them as falling from heaven JUST AS CERTAINLY AS LUCIFER HIMSELF shall one day fall under the judgment of God.

Therefore, it is accepted and understood that the words of verses 13-14 of Isaiah 14 are the attitudes of Satan/Lucifer himself.

Five times the personal pronoun "I" is used to show the selfish and prideful determination of Satan/Lucifer and those he empowers to replace God Himself as the rightful ruler of all the universe.

The name LUCIFER is actually the Roman designation for the "Morning Star. The Hebrew means..."The bright one".

Hence Paul's claim that Satan "may appear as an angel of light", but shall be banished to outer darkness by the coming of the Son of God.

As for the preposterous divine claim of the Babylonian kings, I suggest a reading of "Saggs, pp. 342-369". Certainly such claims were parallel to and are inspired by the ultimate claim of Satan himself!
 
Sep 3, 2009
12,157
4,730
113
Florida
LOL! I see a grunt from up here but it looks like you're not in need of service right now. :) We are having storms today and the wound in my calf and all the arthritis is busy pitching fits but I'll bet yours hurts more than mine. I did some Graphics Work for a friend the other day and as payment he purchased a six channel R/C Transmitter and Receiver Combo to fit the WWII Fairey Swordfish I am building the upper wing for right now. I have the Out-runner Motor, the ESC and the 13g Servos so, maybe I'll get it off the ground before winter.

How are your babies and the sweet lady that puts up with you? My favorite grandbaby is marrying in March and graduates college the 13th of December. It seems like just a couple of weeks ago that she sat on my sholdiers and picked the youngest Okra to take home so my daughter could fry it for her.

TIME!
Good stuff bro. Actually we have a grandchild 11 yrs old who has been sick now for a week and has lost 12 pounds. Drs. did a series of blood tests yesterday and I would appreciate you and your congregation praying for him. His name is Jacob.

My o my does time ever fly by!!!
 
Apr 22, 2013
984
356
63
Tahiti
Mornin' all

Etu,

If the reference to Lucifer in EZ 28 is the king of Tyre, then tell us how he, as a man, could of walked in the Garden of Eden, Thou hast been in Eden the garden of God; Ez 28:13, ...centuries before he was born?

Blessings,

Gene
 
  • Like
Reactions: Major
Oct 15, 2013
56
0
6
59
Well then.........why not tell us what your intentions are????
I have . . . and will again. Lucifer is not Satan, he is a Roman deity and is misrepresented in the KJV (which is a later version).
I'm proposing that Satan/Serpent take full responsibility as the adversary to man and the Abrahamic god.
 
Oct 15, 2013
56
0
6
59
I here what you are saying Etu but that was NOT you question was it????

In comment #14 you said..........
"Then it is more like 'artistic freedom'? Because the name/title/word Lucifer is not mentioned in any versions I am aware of."

Now you know that the name LUCIFER is in fact found in the KJV. Now that answers your first question.
My mistake, sorry, I should have said any "other" versions other than the KJV.

Therefore, it is accepted and understood that the words of verses 13-14 of Isaiah 14 are the attitudes of Satan/Lucifer himself.
Perhaps it is time to see things as they really are then?

As for the preposterous divine claim of the Babylonian kings, I suggest a reading of "Saggs, pp. 342-369". Certainly such claims were parallel to and are inspired by the ultimate claim of Satan himself![/quote]
The scholars authorized by King James I to translate the Bible into current English did not use the original Hebrew texts, but used versions translated ... largely by St. Jerome in the fourth century. Jerome had mistranslated the Hebraic metaphor, "Day star, son of the Dawn," as "Lucifer," and over the centuries a metamorphosis took place. Lucifer the morning star became a disobedient angel, cast out of heaven to rule eternally in hell. Theologians, writers, and poets interwove the myth with the doctrine of the Fall, and in Christian tradition Lucifer is now the same as Satan, the Devil.

"Lucifer" is nothing more than an ancient Latin name for the morning star, the bringer of light. That can be confusing for Christians who identify Christ himself as the morning star, a term used as a central theme in many Christian sermons. Jesus refers to himself as the morning star in Revelation 22:16: "I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star."

Lucifer is the Morning Star announcing daily birth of the sun. The Canaanites called him Shaher, the Hebrews Shaharit, “Morning Service” commemorating him. His twin brother, Shalem, the Evening Star, announced the daily death of the sun.
 
Mar 24, 2008
1,034
227
83
75
SE Texas
www.photorepaired.com
Good stuff bro. Actually we have a grandchild 11 yrs old who has been sick now for a week and has lost 12 pounds. Drs. did a series of blood tests yesterday and I would appreciate you and your congregation praying for him. His name is Jacob.

My o my does time ever fly by!!!
I have just sent the following prayer request and Jacob has my prayers.

A veteran friend of mine has requested prayer for one of his grandchildren. Jacob is 12, has been sick for a week, has lost twelve pounds and the doctors are still working ti diagnose the problem. Jacob and his doctors need the hand of our God, right now.

God bless each of you in your prayer efforts.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Major
Apr 22, 2013
984
356
63
Tahiti
I have . . . and will again. Lucifer is not Satan,
Okay Etu, I can live with that, if that's what you want to believe, ...when we get to Heaven we will all see who was right and who was wrong, so what do you say in the love of Christ and loving concern for His sheep, let's not discuss these kinds of controversial subjects that can stumble the children and young in the faith, but rather why don't you intercede for us in prayer so that Father will teach us your revelation.

Blessings,

Gene
 
  • Like
Reactions: Major and th1bill
Sep 3, 2009
12,157
4,730
113
Florida
Okay Etu, I can live with that, if that's what you want to believe, ...when we get to Heaven we will all see who was right and who was wrong, so what do you say in the love of Christ and loving concern for His sheep, let's not discuss these kinds of controversial subjects that can stumble the children and young in the faith, but rather why don't you intercede for us in prayer so that Father will teach us your revelation.

Blessings,

Gene
Gene........it really is not something new at all. I have encountered this before and it is a matter that I simply do not accept the thesis.

The Bible features Satan as a significant person from the beginning to the end. He is identified dozens of times in the Old Testament. In the New Testament, every single author mentions him: Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, the author of Hebrews, James, Peter, and Jude. Now that fact alone should tell anyone that the "person" of Satan is real and very important.

Our new friend has said and I quote him..............
"Lucifer" is nothing more than an ancient Latin name for the morning star, the bringer of light.
Lucifer is the Morning Star announcing daily birth of the sun. The Canaanites called him Shaher, the Hebrews Shaharit, “Morning Service” commemorating him. His twin brother, Shalem, the Evening Star, announced the daily death of the sun.

Well that is really not correct. Actually In Canaanite legend Shaher and Shalem were born of the great mother Asherah.

I believe that if you look closer at our friend Etu you will see that he has gotten his information from the web site:
http://www.themystica.com/mystica/default.html.

That does not concern me but it does confirm that this idea of Satan/Lucifer NOT being a real person is not new but very old.
Satan is not normally called by what could be considered his proper name; he is most often called by a title or description. More than 20 such titles exist for Satan. Knowing someone’s title sometimes provides insight into their character. In fact, the nature of Satan’s schemes is reflected in names such as Abaddon, Devil, and Serpent.
Last paragraph courtesy of https://bible.org/seriespage/satans-names

If we can somehow diminish the reality of Satan, we make his ability to corrupt and destroy much easier......IMHO.
 
  • Like
Reactions: th1bill

Banarenth

Sr Mod/Webmaster
Staff member
Senior Moderator
Oct 25, 2006
4,623
357
64
Orange City
There are so many theories regarding Satan, that I've lost track of them over the years. Faust believed that it was more of a job title than an actual individual. Others suggest that the Devil is behind all wickedness in the universe, and lurks behind every corner. At the end of the day, I don't really care if Satan was inside a snake, or if the snake acted on its own. I don't care if Satan is a powerful archangel that rejected Heaven's rule. In the end, when all is said and done, Satan isn't the real enemy, sin is the enemy. Satan, Lucifer, etc... is/are merely the one(s) that seek to rebel against God's authority and desire to enslave us to sin.
 
Apr 22, 2013
984
356
63
Tahiti
Major I totally agree with you, I was just saying, let him believe what he wants to believe, since this thread started we can now see his agenda, we know the Truth, you've given the correct Biblical response, ...so what's the point in arguing the point any further.

Blessings,

Gene
 
Oct 15, 2013
56
0
6
59
Gene........it really is not something new at all. I have encountered this before and it is a matter that I simply do not accept the thesis.
Of course it is not new, it is as old as when it was written into the gospels. What 'is' new is that people are beginning to accept it and understand it. In the dark there is no where to hide.

The Bible features Satan as a significant person from the beginning to the end. He is identified dozens of times in the Old Testament. In the New Testament, every single author mentions him: Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, the author of Hebrews, James, Peter, and Jude. Now that fact alone should tell anyone that the "person" of Satan is real and very important.
This vision of cosmic struggle, forces of good contending against forces of evil, derived originally from Jewish apocalyptic sources and was developed by sectarian groups like the Essenes as they struggled against the forces they saw against them. . Satan is a personification of the Judaic word ha-satan meaning "adversary". This was the term used when Jewish sects / tribes particularly the Essenes began referring to anyone who was not an Essene as 'ha-satan'.

Our new friend has said and I quote him..............
"Lucifer" is nothing more than an ancient Latin name for the morning star, the bringer of light.
Lucifer is the Morning Star announcing daily birth of the sun. The Canaanites called him Shaher, the Hebrews Shaharit, “Morning Service” commemorating him. His twin brother, Shalem, the Evening Star, announced the daily death of the sun.

Well that is really not correct. Actually In Canaanite legend Shaher and Shalem were born of the great mother Asherah.
I don't see what was incorrect?
"Heosphoros" in the Greek LXX Septuagint and "Lucifer" in Jerome’s Latin Vulgate were used to translate the Hebrew "Helel" (Venus as the brilliant, bright or shining one), "son of Shahar (Dawn)" in the Hebrew version of Isaiah 14:12.
True in Canaanite mythology Shaher and Shalem are children of Asherah, Shaher (Lucifer) coveted the superior glory of the sun god and attempted to usurp his throne, but was defeated and cast from the heaven like a lightening bolt.
Can you see where this is going? Confusion and confabulation by Jerome and his hasty translations.

I believe that if you look closer at our friend Etu you will see that he has gotten his information from the web site:
http://www.themystica.com/mystica/default.html.
Checked the link out, have never been there before, matter of fact I can't find what texts you are using to link me with.

That does not concern me but it does confirm that this idea of Satan/Lucifer NOT being a real person is not new but very old.
Personally, I don't find either Satan nor Lucifer to be objectively real.

Satan is not normally called by what could be considered his proper name; he is most often called by a title or description. More than 20 such titles exist for Satan. Knowing someone’s title sometimes provides insight into their character.
Interesting point! Indeed ancient Egyptian religion practiced something called Heka, which could be defined as high vibrational magick, it involved sound alchemy and words/incantations/affirmations, etc.
To the Egyptians, knowing the secret Ren (vibration/name) of a deity gave the person certain powers over that deity.
These names were created using a glossary of vowels (which were omitted from Egyptian language because of their supposed divine connections). This practice spilled over into Judaic mysticism and Gematria; as in YHWH.

In fact, the nature of Satan’s schemes is reflected in names such as Abaddon, Devil, and Serpent.
Last paragraph courtesy of https://bible.org/seriespage/satans-names
The idea of an Adversary/Satan/ha-satan has always existed, only under other names and guises as a powerful and primordial archetype of man's psyche.

This archetype is the reflection of how we perceive ourselves in relation to what we call the "others". Satan is the negative definition of what we believe is human. He is a social and cultural phenomenon and as old as humanity itself. There has always and will always, be essentially two worldviews consisting of oppositions and they are "Us & Them".

"A society does not simply discover its others, it fabricates them, by selecting, isolating, and emphasizing as aspect of another people's life, and making it symbolize their difference"
- William Scott Green (Professor of the history of religion - ancient Judaism, biblical studies, and the theory of religion).
 
Mar 24, 2008
1,034
227
83
75
SE Texas
www.photorepaired.com
Of course it is not new, it is as old as when it was written into the gospels.
Etu,
Your very concept is corrupted at the root and it is a Jesus taught us, good fruit does not grow from a bad plant. You, and I think, perhaps, without, even, realizing it, have progressively sought to diminish the power and scope of God. Your wording in this quote lends itself to the ¨man made¨ concept that the Bible was authored by men... not! Folded within this quote is also your basic concept of a, less than, all powerful god.

The truth is that you are placing yourself, directly, in the path of God's wrath and in need of, immediate, repentance. The very Universe sits in the hand of God, meaning, since He is Spirit, that nothing happens that is not allowed of controlled by God, That includes recording His message to His children. This includes the transcribing of His Word from one language to another. Three times, once in the, misnamed, Mosaic Law, once in the book of the Revelation of Jesus, the Christ and once I forget where, god has warned about adding or subtracting from His Word.

The incorrect, a.k.a.Not Inspired, translations do not last long. The current example of this would be the New World Translation by the JWs. As much as I prefer my word for word NASB, you will never see me speak against the thought for thought, homosexual authorized, KJV, God, the Omnipotent God has allowed to stand from the seventeenth century until now and I will never think to second guess the Father, the Son nor the Holy Ghost.

As Major has suggested to Gene, you are building a heretical theology, based, not on the Word of God, but on the words of men... dangerous.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Major
Sep 3, 2009
12,157
4,730
113
Florida
Oops . . . my bad :coffee: . . . I get carried away with my yapping!
Yep.............but IMO here is the real problem/concern.

You said............
"Personally, I don't find either Satan nor Lucifer to be objectively real."

No matter how we slice and dice it. No matter how much we show off what we know for others to see. When it gets right down to the nitty griddy there is the problem when we do not believe in Satan/Lucifer. When we do that, we have actively rejected the Word of God because it is the Word of God from which we find this person.....Satan/Lucifer/Devil.

1 John 3:8
"He the committeth sin is of the DEVIL, for the DEVIL sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested that He might destroy the works of the DEVIL".

There has always ben an effort to water down/liberalize the Word of God. John does not do that and I agree with John. Sin is of the
Devil/Satan/Lucifer. Christ came to destroy the Devils deeds. It is through the death, burial and resurrection that Christ overcame Satan and allowed the whole world to be saved from hell. But of course if the Devil is not real, then hell must not be real either.

So then, if we accept that there is no Satan/Lucifer, we can just take a pair of sissors and remove 1 John 3:8 from the Bible.

Then there is John 8:44 where God Himself said..........
"Ye are of your father the DEVIL and the lusts of your father ye will do. HE was a murderer from the beginning and abode not in the truth because there is no truth in HIM. When HE speaks a lie, HE speaks of HIS own; for HE is a liar and the father of it."

If I remember my English, I think that the words HE/HIS are personal pronouns which describe the subject of the verse which is
"Ye are of your father the DEVIL".

If that is not the case, then didn't Jesus, God in the flesh just tell a lie????

But wait.........since we can cut out that verse and remove it from the Scripture it will not apply..........I guess!

Although he has persuaded many people that he doesn't exist, Satan very definitely is a real, personal being, the source of all unbelief and of every kind of moral and spiritual evil in the world. If or when HE convinces anyone that HE is not real, the hardest part of HIS deception is over. From that point it becomes easy to SIN and live with it.

SATAN is called by various names in the Bible, including Satan which means “adversary”— in Job 1:6 and Romans 16:20.
HE is called the devil which means “slanderer”— in Matthew 4:1 and 1 Peter 5:8.
HE is called the serpent in 2 Corth. 11:3 and the Rev. 12:9.

The existence of Satan as a personal being is proved by the fact that the Lord Jesus Christ recognized him as such. Jesus referred to him frequently by name using personal pronouns to identify HIM in Luke 10:18 and Matthew 4:10.
Jesus went so far as to call HIM “the prince of this world” in not one but 3 places. John 12:31, 14:30 and 16:11.

So then.....to make Satan as you say........"Personally, I don't find either Satan nor Lucifer to be objectively real." we MUST change the Scriptures and remove a host of Gods Words.