Straightforward, hard-to-answer-questions about the Bible/Christianity

Here's another issue.Satan is not a fallen angel. The OT does not support this idea.The word satan is nothing more than an adversary. It was personified in the story of Job. In normal usage, the word does not refer to a supernatural being battling God. Anyone can be an adversary. Sometimes angels were adversaries and sometimes people were.I feel that the influence of Zoroastrianism brought about the change in Judaism concerning the source of good and evil.

quote:

---

This chapter is God talking about the King of Babylon, who oppressed Israel.

---

Exactly! It isn't taking about a being named Satan. Satan: Early HistoryI showed in Message 91 that in Isaiah 45:7, the writer clearly states that God is the source of good and bad events. Isaiah is poetic and today the average person doesn't have access to all the stories and events that were meaningful to the audience of the time. The poetic phrasing was familiar to Isaiah's audience and I feel his audience knew he was referring to the human king of Babylon.

quote:

---

Verses 12-14 speak of "ascending to heaven", "set my throne of high", "ascend above the heights of the clouds", "make myself like the Most High". It does not make sense that a physical, earthly kind would have such desires. But it make sense that since Babylon was Israel's enemy, Satan would be for them and God is directly addressing satan in this chapter.

---

Now you can see that it does make sense given the story of the Morning Star. The poem is still talking about the King of Babylon.

---

Scripture is like Newton’s third law of motionfor every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
In other words, for every biblical directive that exists, there is another scriptural mandate challenging it.
-- Carlene Cross in The Bible and Newton’s Third Law of Motion

quote:

---

Indirectly it is.

---

There is no indirect reference to an evil angel in the text. It is all about the human king.This thread is supposed to be straightforward. You're writing fiction. The text does not support your position.

quote:

---

Taken in a broad context especially with regards to Israel and its history (which is what Isaiah's context is), we see that God is trying to tell Israel that He is great. That His enemies will be defeated. Does it make sense for the King of Babylon to be God's archenemy? No, it doesn't. The guy was human. Obviously, there's a supernatural power working through the King. And that power was once great, really great. Hence the morning star imagery.

---

I've shown you that the Satan/Lucifer association is a later creation. Edited by purpledawn, : Addition

---

Scripture is like Newton’s third law of motionfor every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
In other words, for every biblical directive that exists, there is another scriptural mandate challenging it.
-- Carlene Cross in The Bible and Newton’s Third Law of Motion

quote:

---

Thanks for showing me. But that doesn't make me change my view that Is 14 refers to God's archenemy, satan when taken in a non-literal, broad sense.

---

Then you lose the probability of accurately understanding the scriptures. You are no longer pulling information from the scriptures (exegesis). Instead you are reading meaning into the scriptures (eisegesis). This tells me you aren't interested in what the text actually says, but are more interested in supporting current dogma or tradition.The same problem occurs when you address the serpent in the A&E story. This is a very old story and the snake does not represent the later concept of Satan.The snake is a foil. The fact that the story has the snake talking tells us, as it does in any other story we read, that the story is not talking about an actual event or fiction has been added to an actual event. The A&E story is not about an actual event. Apologetics defends the doctrine, not the Bible. The problem in both these cases is that critical interpretation of the text doesn't support your additions to the meanings of the texts.IOW, you're putting the later concept of Satan where it doesn't belong. It's like putting the later practice of Lent in the NT.I have no problem with religions developing doctrines and traditions, but I do have a problem with trying to convince people that the Bible supports the changes. I think they should just admit the reality behind the additions and changes.That would be the truthful thing to do. No wool.Edited by purpledawn, : Added line

---

Scripture is like Newton’s third law of motionfor every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
In other words, for every biblical directive that exists, there is another scriptural mandate challenging it.
-- Carlene Cross in The Bible and Newton’s Third Law of Motion