Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,808 Year: 3,065/9,624 Month: 910/1,588 Week: 93/223 Day: 4/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Serpent of Genesis is not the Dragon of Revelations
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 151 of 302 (295649)
03-15-2006 5:27 PM
Reply to: Message 141 by jaywill
03-15-2006 6:00 AM


Re: A False Statement
The serpent opposed God in Genesis.
you're right, that is a false statement.
the serpent does not oppose god in genesis. rather, he tells man that god was lying. there is no opposition -- no open fight. just two competing points of view.
in revelation, the fight is out in the open, all out war in the heavens.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 141 by jaywill, posted 03-15-2006 6:00 AM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 167 by jaywill, posted 03-16-2006 7:40 AM arachnophilia has replied

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 152 of 302 (295654)
03-15-2006 5:41 PM
Reply to: Message 148 by ringo
03-15-2006 2:21 PM


what is a satan?
As for what God "needs": I have said that the storyteller needed a character to be the "bad guy". In Genesis, the bad guy tempts Adam and Eve to eat from the tree. In Job, the bad guy tempts Job to turn against God. Both of them advance the plot. In both cases, the decision is in human hands. No adversary to God is needed or implied.
figuratively, the snake *IS* satan. in a manner of speaking. the snake is the figure in the story that provides an alternative choice, and who attempts to lead man astray from god. he is the tempting and testing force -- and that makes him satan.
the problem is that this is "satan" not "The Satan." it's not a centralized idea, he's merely the adversary in this particular story. he's the bad guy -- and that's all that a satan really is. the disagreement here comes from the fact that over time, a decentralized concept has become personified into a single entity: ha-satan, or the devil.
it is clear that it's just a snake in genesis 3. but some of the thematic elements are still there anyways.
So, are you saying that Sleeping Beauty and Goldilocks were the same person too? Look at the similarities - both female, both good-looking, both sleepy.... What about Snow White? Didn't she go into a deep sleep too? Maybe all of the fairy tales are really about the same young woman.
precisely. fairytale princess is an archetype in some of our stories. satan is an archetype in the bible.
I do not accept that there is an entity "behind" the serpent. And purpledawn does not accept that the dragon in the Revelation is supernatural. You are still just assuming your conclusion.
i can't actually find anything about fallen angels anywhere in the ot. can you? there's the nephilim (who's name comes from the word for "fall") but they are at best half-angelic, not angels themselves.
as for something behind the serpent -- why does he not speak up when god punishes him? adam is quick to blame eve (or rather, god for giving him eve), and eve is quick to blame the snake. all three are punished. so to say "the devil made him do it" is a fundamental misreading of the story. it is a lesson about PERSONAL responsibility for your own choices. the idea of inserting the idea of a devil into the story who takes the blame for adam's, eve's, and the snake's actions is utterly abhorrent to whole reason the story was ever written.
adam has free will. eve has free will. and so does the snake.
Now, where did I say anything about "plurals"?
I referred to different usages of the word. Your beloved Strong's Concordance will tell you that the Hebrew word means "an opponent" and the Greek word means "the accuser". Arachnophilia has discussed elsewhere the various usages, definite and indefinite articles, etc. You are welcome to refer to that discussion when you show us that every use of the word refers to the same entity.
just for fun, i have a plural or six. i'll direct them to jaywill.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 148 by ringo, posted 03-15-2006 2:21 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 153 by ringo, posted 03-15-2006 5:47 PM arachnophilia has replied
 Message 168 by ramoss, posted 03-16-2006 9:10 AM arachnophilia has replied

ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 153 of 302 (295659)
03-15-2006 5:47 PM
Reply to: Message 152 by arachnophilia
03-15-2006 5:41 PM


Re: what is a satan?
arachnophilia writes:
satan is an archetype in the bible.
Are you going to be the one to explain to Jaywill that an "archetype" and an "arch-villain" are not the same thing?

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

This message is a reply to:
 Message 152 by arachnophilia, posted 03-15-2006 5:41 PM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 155 by arachnophilia, posted 03-15-2006 5:59 PM ringo has not replied

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 154 of 302 (295662)
03-15-2006 5:51 PM
Reply to: Message 145 by jaywill
03-15-2006 12:22 PM


satanim
Show mean the plural "Satans" anywhere in the Bible please.
much obliged.
psalms 38:20, 71:13, 109:4;20;29
i'd post in hebrew, but the grammar's not very clear, because it contains the possessive endings of biblical hebrew. but check your concordance and translations. i bet it says "adversaries" plural.
For that matter show me the plural "Devils" in the Bible. The King James translates sometimes "devils" as in plural. But that is a poor translation. It is not the same word for Devil. Demons is a better translation. That's King James.
i'm sorry, shall we try this one again? the word in the greek that the kjv translates as "devils" is diablos. think about it for a second.
I'm curious to know who propogates this understanding that so many skeptics of the Bible like you love to parrot over and over again.
yes. they're called "jews." maybe you've heard of the group before?
I think this is not accurate a description of Satan. That is because Satan's accusations are mixed truths. They are in fact lies. They are lies with some apparent ground for fact. That makes him a rather malicious and slanderous attorney. God doesn't need Satan's lies to do his courtroom work.
so, presuming the snake in genesis is satan, where's the lie? where is the lie in job? satan makes a wager, and loses. but losing a bet is not the same as telling a lie. failing is not the same as deceit.
Thank God that Christ can defeat the conspiracy.
whoa whoa. wait a second. CAN defeat?
don't you mean DID defeat?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 145 by jaywill, posted 03-15-2006 12:22 PM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 157 by jaywill, posted 03-15-2006 7:05 PM arachnophilia has replied
 Message 160 by jaywill, posted 03-15-2006 7:44 PM arachnophilia has replied

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 155 of 302 (295667)
03-15-2006 5:59 PM
Reply to: Message 153 by ringo
03-15-2006 5:47 PM


Re: what is a satan?
Are you going to be the one to explain to Jaywill that an "archetype" and an "arch-villain" are not the same thing?
i'll leave that to the dictionary.
This message has been edited by arachnophilia, 03-15-2006 05:59 PM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by ringo, posted 03-15-2006 5:47 PM ringo has not replied

jaywill
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 156 of 302 (295683)
03-15-2006 6:32 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by Phat
03-05-2006 2:57 AM


Re: Snake or Satan?
So what is it about the bad vibes betwixt the offspring of a mere snake and the offspring of a woman?
Without spiritual overview of the Scriptures I doubt that anyone has the slightest clue.
The seed of the woman is the man who will come to destroy the works of the Devil. That seed is a woman's seed. A woman's seed probably refers to the virgin birth of Christ.
We are told in the Bible "For this reason the Son of God was manifested, that He might destroy the works of the devil" (1 John 3:8)
The Son of God was manifested to destroy the works of the Devil. If you're like Ringo and Purpledawn you will regard this as fanciful. Watch though to see if they provide a better alternative.
"Since therefore the children have shared in blood and flesh, He also Himself in like manner partook of the same, that through death He might destroy him who has the might of death, that is the devil" (Hebrews 2:14)
First John says the Son was manifested to destroy the works of the devil. Hebrews 2:14 says that the Son partook of human flesh like us in order that through His death He might destroy the one who has the might of death. That one is the devil. This obviously ties the serpent in Genesis to the devil who was intrumental in tempting man into an action that led to death for all men.
Just before His crucifixion Jesus tells His disciples:
"Now is the judgment of this world; now shall the ruler of this world be cast out" (John 12:31)
The ruler of the world here refers to Satan "the ruler of the authority of the air, ... the spirit which is now operating in the sons of disobedience..." (Eph. 2:2)
After leading man into death the Satanic spirit also operates in fallen mankind ruling the world by controling all sinners.
That Satan the Devil has the might of death and is a ruler of the world is reinforced by his temptations offered to Christ. He told Jesus that he would grant to Christ all the world if He would only bow down and worship him. Jesus did not deny that the world had been put into his hands:
"And he [the devil] led Him up and showed Him all the kingdoms of the inhabited earth in a moment of time. And the devil said to Him, To You I will give all this authority and their glory, because to me it has been delivered, and to whomever I want I give it. If You therefore worship before me, it shall be all Yours.
And Jesus answered amd said to him, It is written, You shall worship the Lord your God, and Him only shall you serve" (Luke 4:5-8)
The evil one who has the might of death and is the ruler of the world sought to tempt Christ to follow him as Adam followed. Christ prevailed. The defeat of the devil was secured by Jesus Christ in successive stages advancing all the way until the devil is tormented eternally.
Then enmity between the incarnated Son of God, the woman's seed and the ancient serpent last through human history. Christ was bruised in His death on the cross. But in His obedience unto death and resurrection Christ deals the death blow to Satan.
Without this understanding I doubt that its critics have the slightest clue what the enmity between the snake and the woman and their respective seeds means.
And why did God boot the humans out of the Garden and not the snake?
This is an interesting question.
I think it was Adam's responsibility to deal with the serpent. He failed to. So the fate of it is unknown. But Adam and Eve were to have dominion over every creeping thing which creeps upon the earth (Gen. 1:26). Instead of having dominion they came under dominion. The story emphasizes that they were expelled.
This message has been edited by jaywill, 03-15-2006 06:33 PM
This message has been edited by jaywill, 03-15-2006 06:37 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Phat, posted 03-05-2006 2:57 AM Phat has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 158 by arachnophilia, posted 03-15-2006 7:11 PM jaywill has not replied

jaywill
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 157 of 302 (295707)
03-15-2006 7:05 PM
Reply to: Message 154 by arachnophilia
03-15-2006 5:51 PM


Re: satanim
much obliged.
psalms 38:20, 71:13, 109:4;20;29
i'd post in hebrew, but the grammar's not very clear, because it contains the possessive endings of biblical hebrew. but check your concordance and translations. i bet it says "adversaries" plural.
An answer from Arach that gets my attention. But let's check it out.
Psalm 38:20 talks about David's advasaries. Okay, David had lots of advasaries. I don't dispute that David as well as many more people have multiple advasaries. Does this mean that all these advasaries of David were also God appointed prosecuting attorneys?
These appear to be human enemies of David (v.19) who are also his advasaries. There is not much to tie them to the angelic "sons of God" in Job.
Did God select one of these advasaries of David and have him work on Job in the book of Job? Did God select one of David's many advasaries and have them make accusations against the high priest clothed in rags in the book of Zechariah?
Psalm 71:13 are also David's enemies (v.10). Are you suggesting that throughout human history everybody's enemies or advasaries are all Satans? Then there are Satans who are advasaries of Satans! This doesn't make much sense.
You're embarking on an approach that whenever advasary is mentioned that would be a Satan. Then David is also a Satan to his own Satans.
Psalm 109:4 says that the advasaries are "wicked men" (v.2). So "wicked men" and an angelic son of God in Job are in two different catagories.
The same would hold for verses 20 and 29.
Thanks for a biblical answer. But I don't think this establishes that every advasary of all people in the world or of all God's prophets are mutiple Satans, in terms of the one who came with the sons of God to the angelic council to accuse Job and God.
At best I would say that among all the "advasaries" that you set forth as candidates there is one chief advasary who is mainly advasarial against God. You might count this one as the head advasary. And he is an angelic type being.
He may have hosts. But this Satan is the head and leader of all of those evil hosts.
This message has been edited by jaywill, 03-15-2006 07:06 PM
This message has been edited by jaywill, 03-15-2006 07:10 PM
This message has been edited by jaywill, 03-15-2006 07:11 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 154 by arachnophilia, posted 03-15-2006 5:51 PM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 159 by arachnophilia, posted 03-15-2006 7:24 PM jaywill has replied

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 158 of 302 (295709)
03-15-2006 7:11 PM
Reply to: Message 156 by jaywill
03-15-2006 6:32 PM


so much for "plain reading"
Without spiritual overview of the Scriptures I doubt that anyone has the slightest clue.
the voices in my head say the voices in your head are wrong. now let's stick to what we can discern about what the text actually says -- if you make arguments about how nobody has any clue without the help of god, don't expect us to take the rest of your arguments seriously.
The seed of the woman is the man who will come to destroy the works of the Devil. That seed is a woman's seed. A woman's seed probably refers to the virgin birth of Christ.
and the whole "plain reading" bit goes right out the window. eve, "the mother of all mankind..." now what could her seed be, do you think? in a book called "genesis?"
because there's a huge problem here if we go reading symbolism where none was ever intended. if the woman's seed is christ -- is the snakes seed the devil? i thought the snake was the devil? the shoe has to fit, if you're gonna wear it.
The Son of God was manifested to destroy the works of the Devil. If you're like Ringo and Purpledawn you will regard this as fanciful. Watch though to see if they provide a better alternative.
i have an alternative. a better one, too: it means exactly what it says. the son of god was manifested to destroy the works of the devil. except when i say that, i mean the works of the devil -- not a bunch of dogmatic assertions that have very little to do with what the bible actually says.
this is what we call "random quoting" or "random preaching." it's quite the standard practice among many fundamentalists. can't support an argument? talk about jesus. this bit has nothing to do with anything. jesus was great. i agree, and phat (i'm sure) agrees too. more than great, the guy gave his life for us, right?
but what does it have to do with a snake in a garden?
Just before His crucifixion Jesus tells His disciples:
"Now is the judgment of this world; now shall the ruler of this world be cast out" (John 12:31)
The ruler of the world here refers to Satan "the ruler of the authority of the air, ... the spirit which is now operating in the sons of disobedience..." (Eph. 2:2)
and when god gathers his council of gods/angels/kings/whatever in job, satan comes from where? the earth. this is nothing new -- and shows NOTHING about the snake in the garden of eden.
just to be a further thorn in the side of this point -- what ever happens to the snake in the garden? adam and eve are kicked out, but there's no mention of where the snake goes. if the story's an explanation of why snakes have no legs (and therefor it must be a snake and only a snake), then it must also have left the garden. if it's not, there's no reason to assume it didn't stay right there.
plain reading, and all.
Then enmity between the incarnated Son of God, the woman's seed and the ancient serpent last through human history. Christ was bruised in His death on the cross. But in His obedience unto death and resurrection Christ deals the death blow to Satan.
further proof that they cannot be the same -- if christ's sacrifice was the death blow to satan, as per genesis 3, then satan CANNOT be the great red dragon of revelation 12. because he's dead.
either he's there to put up a fight, or he's been beat. which is it?
Without this understanding I doubt that its critics have the slightest clue what the enmity between the snake and the woman and their respective seeds means.
when i was a kid, a friend of mine got a snake as a pet. he showed it off to his friends at a birthday party once. all the kids were scared of it. nobody wanted to hold it, or even touch.
you've honestly never seen people irrationally afraid of snakes? or people who just thought they were gross and slimey?
without some experience living in the real world, i doubt anyone can have the slightest clue what anything in the bible or any other text means.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 156 by jaywill, posted 03-15-2006 6:32 PM jaywill has not replied

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 159 of 302 (295715)
03-15-2006 7:24 PM
Reply to: Message 157 by jaywill
03-15-2006 7:05 PM


Re: satanim
someone missed the point.
Psalm 38:20 talks about David's advasaries. Okay, David had lots of advasaries. I don't dispute that David as well as many more people have multiple advasaries. Does this mean that all these advasaries of David were also God appointed prosecuting attorneys?
These appear to be human enemies of David (v.19) who are also his advasaries. There is not much to tie them to the angelic "sons of God" in Job.
and yet the word in question is "satanim." isn't it? actually, it's that, plus the personal possessive ending (no longer used in modern hebrew). but check your concordance.
while we're on it, provide me some evidence that the sons of god are divine, or angelic.
Thanks for a biblical answer. But I don't think this establishes that every advasary of all people in the world or of all God's prophets are mutiple Satans, in terms of the one who came with the sons of God to the angelic council to accuse Job and God.
but you really are missing the point. "satan" is just a word. it just means "adversary." it's actually something like a gerund, in english, derived from a verb of the same spelling. so yes, it appears in plural. it applies to various different things, including even david himself. anything can be a satan. anyone can be a satan.
in job, we have the use of a SPECIFIC satan, but there's no indication that it's a title. and it's definitally NOT a name.
now, it's tradition to read the satan in job as being angelic. but does it need to be that way? if the sons of god are human (there's never any indication otherwise) and satan is there also... maybe he's human too. he's given the power of god -- power he did not have before.
so now comes the part where you show that this satan, and the sons of god, are divine.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 157 by jaywill, posted 03-15-2006 7:05 PM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 161 by jaywill, posted 03-15-2006 8:08 PM arachnophilia has replied

jaywill
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 160 of 302 (295725)
03-15-2006 7:44 PM
Reply to: Message 154 by arachnophilia
03-15-2006 5:51 PM


Re: satanim
i'm sorry, shall we try this one again? the word in the greek that the kjv translates as "devils" is diablos. think about it for a second.
There are three terms related to the dwellers of the kingdom of darkness. And I cannot use Greek fonts here.
1.) ho diabolos which is never found in plural. The literal meaning is "the one who sets out variance," "the slanderer," or "malignant accuser."
2.) The angels of Satan as in Matthew 25:41.
3.) diamonia - used in plural and has translation of demons. Though the Revised Version corrected the KJV the American Committee protested over the correction. The RSV confirmed that "devils" was not a proper translation of the word.
Daibolos has no plural usage in the New Testament and the proper name for Satan the Devil. Diamonia has singular and plural usage and the best translation is demon/s.
In Matthew many were brought to Jesus who were possessed by demons who were also called evil spirits:
"When the even was come they brught unto him many that were possessed with demons; and He cast out the spirits with His word" (Matt.8:16)
Again in Luke we read "And the seventy returned again with joy, saying, Lord, even the demons are subject unto us through Thy name... [Jesus reponds] Notwithstanding in this rejoice not, that the spirits are subject unto you" (Luke 10:17,20)
[Beelzebul] is called the prince of the demons by the Jews in the New Testament. So there was in their understanding one chief leader of all the evil spirits. This is the Devil in my understanding.
One woman had seven demons (Luke 8:2,3). These demons were also called foul spirits (Mark 9:25). Over the many foul spirits was a chief evil spirit in the Jew's understanding.
"But the Pharisees, hearing this, said, This man does not cast out the demons except by Beelzebul, the ruler of the demons ... But knowing their thoughts, He said to them, Every kingdom divided against itself will not stand. And if Satan casts out Satan, he is divided against himself. How then will his kingdom stand?" (See Matt. 12:24-26)
Christ taught that Satan's kingdom is united. Demonic advasaries do not fight against one another. Furthermore there appears to be a head among them. Though his kingdom can collectively be called in some sense "Satan" - "... if Satan casts out Satan" what He really means is the aggregate kingdom of demons is Satan's kingdom.
Satan the Devil has many hosts which include angels who have followed him and demons as evil spirits, foul spirits. And I will not discribe the difference between them in this post.
This message has been edited by jaywill, 03-15-2006 07:48 PM
This message has been edited by jaywill, 03-15-2006 08:13 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 154 by arachnophilia, posted 03-15-2006 5:51 PM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 162 by arachnophilia, posted 03-15-2006 8:10 PM jaywill has replied

jaywill
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 161 of 302 (295730)
03-15-2006 8:08 PM
Reply to: Message 159 by arachnophilia
03-15-2006 7:24 PM


Re: satanim
while we're on it, provide me some evidence that the sons of god are divine, or angelic.
In the book of Job the sons of God are being who were created before man was created. This is proved by Job 38
"Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth? ... Onto what was its bases sunk, Or who laid its cornerstone, When the morning stars sang together and all the sons of God shouted for joy?" (See Job 38:4-7)
At earth's creation the sons of God were already there shouting for joy. Man was not created yet until the sixth day.
"Morning stars" should suggest that these sons of God were there in the morning of the creation of the universe.
One particular "Daystar, son of the dawn!" (Isa. 14:12) (Latin has it as Lucifer,) in Isaiah 14 made a thrust to usurp the throne of God. So there are the angelic morning stars as sons of God in Job. And there is a particular angelic "Daystar, son of the dawn" who was particularly aggressive:
"But you said in your heart: I will ascend to heaven; Above the stars of God I will exalt my throne. And I will sit upon the mount of assembly in the uttermost parts of the north. I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will make myself like the Most High." (Isa. 14:13)
The Latin "Lucifer" is Satan, the son of the dawn among the angelic morning stars who are called the "sons of God" who all were created before the foundation of the earth was laid and man was created upon it.
This "Daystar, son of the dawn!" must be the same superhuman figure called the anointed cherub who was perfect from the day of his creation in Ezekiel 28. Can you name any other being in the whole Bible that was made perfect from the moment of his creation?
He wanted to exalt himself above God and be like God. This is Satan the Devil. Revelation does say "the Devil" rather than "a Devil".
This message has been edited by jaywill, 03-15-2006 08:10 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 159 by arachnophilia, posted 03-15-2006 7:24 PM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 163 by arachnophilia, posted 03-15-2006 8:16 PM jaywill has replied

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 162 of 302 (295731)
03-15-2006 8:10 PM
Reply to: Message 160 by jaywill
03-15-2006 7:44 PM


Re: satanim
1.) ho diabolos which is never found in plural.
not even in 1ti 3:11, 2ti 3:3 or tts 2:3?
The literal meaning is "the one who sets out variance," "the slanderer," or "malignant accuser."
i bet we can find that in plural, can't we?
Satan the Devil has many hosts which include angels who have followed him and demons as evil spirits, foul spirits. And I will not discribe the difference between them in this post.
yeah, these guys were a real pain to beat:
but this guy took me forever:
i hear some people are pretty fond of hellboy:
although i think my favourite has to be tim curry. i mean, look at those horns!
but let's stick to what's actually in the bible, shall we?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 160 by jaywill, posted 03-15-2006 7:44 PM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 164 by jaywill, posted 03-15-2006 8:20 PM arachnophilia has replied

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 163 of 302 (295733)
03-15-2006 8:16 PM
Reply to: Message 161 by jaywill
03-15-2006 8:08 PM


Re: satanim
In the book of Job the sons of God are being who were created before man was created. This is proved by Job 38
"Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth? ... Onto what was its bases sunk, Or who laid its cornerstone, When the morning stars sang together and all the sons of God shouted for joy?" (See Job 38:4-7)
ok. you might have me there. now show that satan is one of the sons of god.
One particular "Daystar, son of the dawn!" (Isa. 14:12) (Latin has it as Lucifer,) in Isaiah 14 made a thrust to usurp the throne of God. So there are the angelic morning stars as sons of God in Job. And there is a particular angelic "Daystar, son of the dawn" who was particularly aggressive:
"But you said in your heart: I will ascend to heaven; Above the stars of God I will exalt my throne. And I will sit upon the mount of assembly in the uttermost parts of the north. I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will make myself like the Most High." (Isa. 14:13)
The Latin "Lucifer" is Satan, the son of the dawn among the angelic morning stars who are called the "sons of God" who all were created before the foundation of the earth was laid and man was created upon it.
that one you're going to have to look a little closer at. because it's still not applying to anything spiritual. a little more, erm, down to earth. who do we know that built a tower that went to the heavens?
mocking somebody for thinking they are divine, and calling them divine are not the same thing.
This "Daystar, son of the dawn!" must be the same superhuman figure called the anointed cherub who was perfect from the day of his creation in Ezekiel 28.
uh, no. that was the king of tyre. this one's the king of babylon. close though! i think you read a little too much into things...
He wanted to exalt himself above God and be like God. This is Satan the Devil. Revelation does say "the Devil" rather than "a Devil".
and job says "the satan" rather than "a satan." what's your point? it's just refering to a specific one (in hebrew, you use "the" to refer to the specific item in question. it doesn't mean that no other such item exists).


This message is a reply to:
 Message 161 by jaywill, posted 03-15-2006 8:08 PM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 166 by jaywill, posted 03-16-2006 7:26 AM arachnophilia has replied

jaywill
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 164 of 302 (295735)
03-15-2006 8:20 PM
Reply to: Message 162 by arachnophilia
03-15-2006 8:10 PM


Re: satanim
but let's stick to what's actually in the bible, shall we?
Uh ... that's okay with me.
Need time to study your objections more closely.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 162 by arachnophilia, posted 03-15-2006 8:10 PM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 165 by arachnophilia, posted 03-15-2006 8:38 PM jaywill has not replied

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 165 of 302 (295736)
03-15-2006 8:38 PM
Reply to: Message 164 by jaywill
03-15-2006 8:20 PM


Re: satanim
Need time to study your objections more closely.
well, i'll help a little.
my major objection is the conflation of disparate elemenents. while the concept of a satan, the snake in the garden, and a few other prophetic verses are related thematically, somewhat, they are not all directly referring to the same thing.
this is not your fault -- it's common christian doctrine. part of it is that john patmos strongly associates them in revelation. john draws imagery from multiples sources. he may have implied a bit of the snake in the garden, but he's also clearly using the imagery of leviathan. he uses the terms devil, and satan together. but as purpledawn pointed out, he's probably using religious imagery to refer to something very, very real.
the fanatical fundamentalist muslims, for instance, call the united states "the great satan." are we literally the devil, a big red guy with horns? is it possible that john is figuratively using language in the same way?
my other objection is the preaching. most of us here have heard it before. we've all read both genesis and revelation. we know the standard interpretation. we're not asking for it to be parrotted to us -- we're asking for some thought. not a sermon.
the problem is that there are devils in the old testament, too. lying spirits. there are demons mentioned (satyrs and azazel). there is no head of the devils/demons. there is satan, who by most accounts is a son of god. and there is leviathan, who is a great (mythical) beast, figuratively "king of the sons of pride." and there's a simple snake in a garden that misleads the first couple. and they are not the same things, until revelation. and that's a very, very questionable text, as far as what it means.
This message has been edited by arachnophilia, 03-15-2006 08:39 PM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 164 by jaywill, posted 03-15-2006 8:20 PM jaywill has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024