Re: Could it beeeeee? Satan!(the church lady)
Originally posted by Phatboy, RE: Is.14:12-15
This title (Helal) is addressed to the king of Babylon, not so much as a specific human individual (like Belshazzar, for example), but as a representative or embodiment of Satan . . .
This is very weak exegesis based on little more than presumption. Most certainly the comparison made between the king of Babylon and the "day star" (Venus) is borrowed from Ugaritic mythology which originated from the apparent celestial motion of Venus.
This fact alone explains the nature of these (metrical) verses and it is only later stories (and the circular, retroactive attribution of the name "lucifer" to satan) that would allow it to appear otherwise.
Yet, not only is this a weak and circular exegesis, but we are also explicitly informed as to the nature of the personage in question.
You stopped your quote at the end of verse 15. And yet the very next verse says:
Is. 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 the kingdoms"
Thus, it can be shown that:
1) Your interpretation of Is. 14:12-15 is a very weak exegesis (more accurately, "eisegesis"). The adversary was never named "lucifer" and the verses are simply meant to compare the aspirations of the Babylonian king to the (mythological) celestial aspirations of Venus.
2) Is. 14:4 explicitly states that this poetic taunt is directed against the king of Babylon.
3) Is. 14:16 explicitly states that the recipient of the taunt is a man.
4) Is. 14:18-20 further describes the fact that the king of Babylon will not even be given the honor of "lying in state" as the kings of other nations do in their own house. But, rather, because he has caused the destruction of his own people and his own land, he will not join them (the other kings) in honorable burial but will be trodden as a carcass under foot.
So, since your exegesis of verses 12-15 can be demonstrated to be erroneous and virtually all of the surrounding context states explicitly that the subject of this taunt is, a man, a king, a carcass that won't get a royal burial, etc., it would seem quite apparent that the "devil" or "Satan" is not being referred to here.
|This message is a reply to:|
| ||Message 86 by Thugpreacha, posted 01-28-2004 12:08 PM|| ||Thugpreacha has not yet responded|