Is Lucifer Satan? A study of scripture...

[Osgiliath]

You do realize that in John chapter 8, Jesus is actually talking to the Pharisees, scribes, other Jews and His followers? You can't take a verse out of context and apply it wherever to try and make a point. This may not be your intent, but it sounds like you are saying "because of John 8:44, Satan is this..." There's also a whole truckload of other assumptions and speculations throughout your post. When talking about apologetics and history, be very careful about making assumptive/speculative statements.

My entire post is almost entirely composed with cut-and-pasted Scripture passages. There is nothing to assume or take out of context. They say what they say, and speak for themselves. Jesus said: "the devil was a murderer from the beginning." "Who" He was addressing is completely irrelevant! This statement by Jesus is absolute. You are simply being silly and adversarial for the sake of being adversarial, and quite frankly, wasting my, and everyone else's time with nonsense like this.

 

[Vanguard]

My entire post is almost entirely composed with cut-and-pasted Scripture passages. There is nothing to assume or take out of context.

You have the right to your opinions and beliefs, and I respect that. Nor will I turn this into a personal issue. What I do, I do not to be adversarial, but informative. You did make assumptions and speculations (if this...then that) but so be it. For the record I have had several people contact me in an effort to learn scripture, even if from a different perspective, or to explain something in layman's terms. Apparently it is not a waste of time after all...and it certainly is not nonsense.

 

[Osgiliath]

You have the right to your opinions and beliefs, and I respect that. Nor will I turn this into a personal issue. What I do, I do not to be adversarial, but informative. You did make assumptions and speculations (if this...then that) but so be it. For the record I have had several people contact me in an effort to learn scripture, even if from a different perspective, or to explain something in layman's terms. Apparently it is not a waste of time after all...and it certainly is not nonsense.

Well, be specific. What assumptions are you referring to? There is nothing but self-explanatory Scripture in the post. Break it down, be specific, document with Scripture, etc. Let's have an intellectually honest, and more importantly, strictly Scriptural discussion, with a principled commitment to Biblical accuracy (using the original languages to assist us - IF NECESSARY). Take your time and break it down piece by piece. I've been in forums since the WWW's "beginning" and more often than not, when someone simply criticizes with "general" statements, they are spinning their wheels merely because it doesn't line up with what they've been indoctrinated with - but they DON'T THOROUGHLY READ THE SCRIPTURES PRESENTED. Not even close. I don't have 'my own' beliefs, and I don't belong (never have) to any religious organization at all. I simply study the Scriptures and listen to what THEY SAY, and I listen to the HOLY SPIRIT when I study them. So please, be specific, and break things down. You're wasting space if you criticize without being specific, because it does NO GOOD, and it helps NO ONE!

 

[Osgiliath]

PS - Ace and Vanguard, I'm heading to the gym, so I'll be gone for a few hours. I'll continue this when I get home IF you want to. I do. Peace and God bless!

 

[Vanguard]

Break it down, be specific, document with Scripture, etc. Let's have an intellectually honest, and more importantly, strictly Scriptural discussion, with a principled commitment to Biblical accuracy...

Very well. Give me some time to work on it.

Know this...I do not quote from the KJV or its revisions. I use the NASB, which modern scholars agree is far more accurate. That will be my main source for scripture.

To be continued...

 

[Vanguard]

Note: use the NASB for greater clarity and accuracy. www.biblegateway.com

Satan was created as "The Adversary;" and he was created for God's purposes:

Isaiah 54:16 "Behold, I have created the smith that bloweth the coals in the fire, and that bringeth forth an instrument for his work; and I have created the waster to destroy."

Your quoting of Isaiah 54:16 is taken out of context. The entire chapter is talking about the "fertiity of Zion" and how nothing will bring it down. There is no mention of or reference to Satan.

When God speaks of "the beginning" He is speaking of the originating point of the subject in question. In this case the subject in question is "the devil." This is referring to "the devil's beginning."

An assumption.

JESUS said of Satan,

John 8:44 "You are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father you will do. He was a MURDERER (not an angel) 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."

Jesus is talking to the Pharisees in the temple at this point. Once again, you need to keep the verse in context of the chapter surrounding it. Furthermore you add in "not an angel" which is another assumption.

Putting this all together we see that Satan is that OLD serpent, that ANCIENT serpent, that ORIGINAL serpent, that PRIMEVAL serpent, the serpent of THE FIRST AGE, from the BEGINNING, who existed "as the serpent" right FROM THE COMMENCEMENT OF TIME (HIS time in existence).

Another assumption. You're trying to make 1+1=3. Genesis only mentions a serpent in the Garden of Eden. It does not mention a snake or reference it to Satan.

MAN says that Satan IN THE BEGINNING was perfect and sinless. But the apostle John also confirms Satan's origin

Another speculation. You follow it with...

1 John 3:8 "He that commits sin is of the devil; for the devil SINNETH FROM THE BEGINNING."

The chapter is referring to the nature of evil and how it is of the devil. There is no mention of Satan's origin. There is mention of evil in Cain's actions against Abel. Again, use it in context.

The serpent was in the Garden (obviously), and Revelation 12:9 confirms that the serpent and satan are one and the same

A very big (and incorrect) assumption. No passage about the Garden of Eden refers to the serpent as Satan. Revelation is 100% vision/dream interpretation, and very descriptive. You are taking a verse from the last book of the Bible and using it to support a verse in the first book of the Bible, that numerous scholars of today have stated that is an improper implication. There is no proof, only subjective interpretation of the KJV (which is in error).

An evil spirit from "Who" troubled Saul? Satan was created to do exactly what He is doing. Satan is "an evil spirit from the Lord," whom God sends out to tempt us, try us, test us, trouble our flesh to do evil things, etc.

Another assumption based off your philosophy of "If this, then that." The Bible never states who/what the evil spirit is. Demons (fallen angels) can also be evil spirits.

The beginning of Job is a parallel to the Garden of Eden and gives us much insight into God's plan in the beginning!

Irrelevant assumption.

But it was necessary for the Son to be PROVEN, to be made STRONG, to OVERCOME in these realms before proceeding on into His glorious ministry and the death of the Cross. And it is necessary for ALL OF US, just as it was for Jesus and Job, to be TESTED and PROVEN, to be made STRONG.

Opinionated assumption.

It is EACH OF US who tends to 'exalt himself to heaven':

Isaiah 14:13 "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."

The entire chapter 14 of Isaiah is talking about a king of Babylon (most likely Nebuchadnezzar II), how he saw himself as a god, his treatment of the Hebrews, his fall and his death. The Jewish writers are mocking him throughout the passage. Not sure what your purpose was in posting that verse, other than you took a snippet out of context to make some point that has nothing to do with the discussion.

I don't know what to tell you. You made a long post, some of it was factual, but some of it was highly opinionated, you took verses out of context of their surrounding chapter, you made assumptions of "if this then that," your source translation is the KJV (or a revision) that modern scholars say is not as accurate as the NASB (both are literal translations, but separated by 400 years of research...the KJV did not have the Dead Sea Scrolls), and you cleverly use "bold" to drive home a point that was based off something...wait for it...taken out of context!

You asked me to do this...there ya go.

 

[Osgiliath]

Vanguard, when you call EVERYTHING an assumption/speculation, even though you do this piece by piece, you are still making a sweeping "generalization" when you sum up the whole - especially when you do not provide any alternate explanations :bigfrown. This is far from an "honest" exegesis of Scripture, you are just throwing your own opinions out there. Anyway........

Originally Posted by Vanguard,

The entire chapter 14 of Isaiah is talking about a king of Babylon (most likely Nebuchadnezzar II), how he saw himself as a god, his treatment of the Hebrews, his fall and his death.

Well, yeah : Like I have stated repeatedly, I AGREE, and have said so many times. However, if you fail to also see the "types" given for our admonition, you miss the entire reason the king of Babylon was recorded in God's Word in the first place:

1 Corinthians 10:11 "Now ALL THESE THINGS happened unto them for ensamples: and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come."

ALL these things are written for OUR admonition! Is the word "ALL" and assumption as well; as is "for OUR admonition?"

Originally Posted by Osgiliath,

The serpent was in the Garden (obviously), and Revelation 12:9 confirms that the serpent and satan are one and the same.

Originally Posted by Vanguard,

A very big (and incorrect) assumption. No passage about the Garden of Eden refers to the serpent as Satan. Revelation is 100% vision/dream interpretation, and very descriptive. You are taking a verse from the last book of the Bible and using it to support a verse in the first book of the Bible, that numerous scholars of today have stated that is an improper implication. There is no proof, only subjective interpretation of the KJV (which is in error).

Well, if you miss that one, there is nothing I can do for you my friend unno. That's just flat-out ridiculous, to be blunt:

Revelation 12:9 "And the great DRAGON was cast out, that OLD SERPENT, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world."

Why would it matter if this was given to John in a vision? Christ gives several designations of identification in this verse to make it emphatically clear the OLD SERPENT, the DEVIL, the GREAT DRAGON, and SATAN are one and the same! To not see this must mean you are just in the mood to argue for the sake of arguing, or that you are Jewish, and do not believe in the New Testament. Are you?

Genesis 3:1 "Now the serpent was more subtle 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?"


"The SERPENT was more subtle than any BEAST of the field which THE LORD GOD HAD MADE." These words deserve pages of explanation, but it is quite clear that God MADE the serpent, God MADE him with a beastly nature, God MADE him subtle, God MADE him the Devil and Satan, God MADE him a liar and a murderer from the beginning!

 

[Vanguard]

"The SERPENT was more subtle than any BEAST of the field which THE LORD GOD HAD MADE." These words deserve pages of explanation, but it is quite clear that God MADE the serpent, God MADE him with a beastly nature, God MADE him subtle, God MADE him the Devil and Satan, God MADE him a liar and a murderer from the beginning!

You were going good until you added:

...God MADE him the Devil and Satan, God MADE him a liar and a murderer from the beginning!

Genesis does not mention Satan at any point during the Garden of Eden. As to the beast reference, we have no reason to believe that the serpent is anything other than some type of animal (speculation is a snake, but it can't be proven 100%):

NASB
Genesis 3:1 Now the serpent was more crafty than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made.

Genesis 3:14-15 The Lord God said to the serpent,“Because you have done this, Cursed are you more than all cattle, And more than every beast of the field; On your belly you will go, And dust you will eat All the days of your life; And I will put enmity Between you and the woman, And between your seed and her seed; He shall bruise you on the head, And you shall bruise him on the heel.”

What we can infer from these verses:

1. The serpent was the craftiest of all beasts.
2. Prior to this incident the serpent either had legs or wings.
3. After this incident the serpent was changed so that it had to crawl on its belly.
4. To eat dust [dirt] means you are at ground level.
5. Humans will have an innate fear of this serpent and vice versa [we do with snakes].
6. Humans will bruise [step] on its head.
7. The serpent will bruise [bite/injure] a human on the heel [ground level].

Logic would dictate that these verses are talking about a snake, but since it does not mention "snake," we have to go with serpent (which a snake is a type of). No where does it talk about, reference to or indicate Satan.

 

[felix]

I wish to know Felix's view. Where r u?

I have no idea you want an answer from me... I accidentally viewed this thread.

The monk Jerome, in the 4th century CE, was translating his Latin Vulgate for the Roman Catholic Church, and in the course of it he capitalized the word lucifer, as taken from the Greek heosphorus. The original rendering of lucifer simply means "day star, morning star, or dawn star," a reference to the planet Venus. Other translations include "light-bringing, and bringer of dawn." Why Jerome chose to capitalize the word lucifer and make it a proper noun, no one knows.

Because, it is referring to a man as in
Isa 14:16 They that see thee shall wonder at thee, and say, This is the man that troubled the earth, that made kings to shake;

I believe it may or may not be a name but it could be a title which God gives to the king or the power behind the king.

I also believe the true proper name of Satan is simply "Satan" [H7854 שָׂטָן satan] because, Christ referred Him as [G4567 Σατανᾶς Satanas] and the NT authors did not change but referred it as same in Hebrew. However, in LXXE, the greek word used to refer Satan is [G1228 διάβολος diabolos], except in 1Kgs 11:14. I think, when days went by, the name of Satan became so common to refer it to an enemy that it became a part of the language to refer an enemy (like allah in arabic).

If Christ spoke Aramiac or Hebrew and the NT authors are translating it, why didn't they translate Satan from Hebrew to Diabolos in greek ?

Beelzebub is another candidate for the name of Satan but it is just the name of deity as in 2Kgs 1:2.

I doubt Christ not knowing the name of Satan and just addressing as enemy.

 

[Classik]

I wish to know Felix's view. Where r u?

I have no idea you want an answer from me... I accidentally viewed this thread.

Yeah. You are one of our best, Felix

 

[Vanguard]

I have no idea you want an answer from me... I accidentally viewed this thread.



Because, it is referring to a man as in
Isa 14:16 They that see thee shall wonder at thee, and say, This is the man that troubled the earth, that made kings to shake;

I believe it may or may not be a name but it could be a title which God gives to the king or the power behind the king.

I also believe the true proper name of Satan is simply "Satan" [H7854 שָׂטָן satan] because, Christ referred Him as [G4567 Σατανᾶς Satanas] and the NT authors did not change but referred it as same in Hebrew. However, in LXXE, the greek word used to refer Satan is [G1228 διάβολος diabolos], except in 1Kgs 11:14. I think, when days went by, the name of Satan became so common to refer it to an enemy that it became a part of the language to refer an enemy (like allah in arabic).

If Christ spoke Aramiac or Hebrew and the NT authors are translating it, why didn't they translate Satan from Hebrew to Diabolos in greek ?

Beelzebub is another candidate for the name of Satan but it is just the name of deity as in 2Kgs 1:2.

I doubt Christ not knowing the name of Satan and just addressing as enemy.

Not sure who you are but thanks for supporting what I have been saying. I was saving the diabolos reference for later!

 

[Osgiliath]

I have no idea you want an answer from me... I accidentally viewed this thread.



Because, it is referring to a man as in
Isa 14:16 They that see thee shall wonder at thee, and say, This is the man that troubled the earth, that made kings to shake;

I believe it may or may not be a name but it could be a title which God gives to the king or the power behind the king.

I also believe the true proper name of Satan is simply "Satan" [H7854 שָׂטָן satan] because, Christ referred Him as [G4567 Σατανᾶς Satanas] and the NT authors did not change but referred it as same in Hebrew. However, in LXXE, the greek word used to refer Satan is [G1228 διάβολος diabolos], except in 1Kgs 11:14. I think, when days went by, the name of Satan became so common to refer it to an enemy that it became a part of the language to refer an enemy (like allah in arabic).

If Christ spoke Aramiac or Hebrew and the NT authors are translating it, why didn't they translate Satan from Hebrew to Diabolos in greek ?

Beelzebub is another candidate for the name of Satan but it is just the name of deity as in 2Kgs 1:2.

I doubt Christ not knowing the name of Satan and just addressing as enemy.

I agree with this as well. The proper name for Satan is Satan, not Lucifer. Lucifer is a mistranslation of the KJV.

Isaiah 14 is addressed to the king of Babylon, not Satan. Ezekiel 28 is addressed to the prince of Tyrus (a.k.a. - king of Tyre - all kings are princes before they become kings). Ezekiel 28 is not addressed to Satan.

The historical application of Isaiah 14 refers to the literal king of Babylon in the days of Isaiah - who though mighty in political power and an exalted ruler among nations - would fall even as other kings of the past.

I merely also addressed the notion of the present "spiritual application" as well, which is man's self-exalting nature. All of us rule over our own "kingdom" as it were, and we all exalt ourselves as "king" over our own kingdoms. My entire point (which you appear to have missed) is that the king of Babylon is in EVERY ONE OF US.

• I can't help thinking of Jackie Gleason: "I'm da king of this castle!" "One of these days Alice.....BANG-ZOOM......right to da moon!!!"

But yes, these Scriptures in the historical sense were specifically addressed to the king of Babylon and the king of Tyre, not Satan.




Vanguard, we agree on this, which is why I find it strange you missed all of this in my 1st and 2nd posts of this thread.

This brings me to a question for you.

Some people say they don't believe in a personal actual "spirit" being named "Satan." They rather believe Satan only exists within the hearts and minds of humankind. There are others who believe Satan is not just 'one' spirit, but is represented by 'legions' of spirits, through which he, as stated in the third clause of Revelation 12:9, "deceives the whole world." (which happens to be the way I see it in the Scriptures by the way).

Just out of curiosity, what is your view?

 

[Vanguard]

This brings me to a question for you.

Some people say they don't believe in a personal actual "spirit" being named "Satan." They rather believe Satan only exists within the hearts and minds of humankind. There are others who believe Satan is not just 'one' spirit, but is represented by 'legions' of spirits, through which he, as stated in the third clause of Revelation 12:9, "deceives the whole world." (which happens to be the way I see it in the Scriptures by the way).

Just out of curiosity, what is your view?

My current view is that Satan is a non-corporeal being that does exist. He is not like God, in that he is not omniscient, omnipresent or omnipotent. I believe that the angels that were cast out with him are demons that serve him, or at least serve the cause of sin/evil. However, I am not 100% convinced of this position. If other people want to interpret Satan as being a state of mind, that is their opinion.

By the same token, I have taken great interest in what both Orthodox Judaism and Messianic Judaism say about Satan. Under those beliefs, he is called HaSatan, which means "The Satan," which is a title, not a name. It is like calling someone rabbi, master, professor, etc. He has a specific job to do, as his title implies. His power and authority are granted by God. Anything he does is because God allows it. He is an angel that works for God, not against, and has a duty to perform. His job, his duty, his purpose is to tempt and test us. He carries out his orders as given to him by God, in an effort to see if we will succumb to temptations, or resist them and remain "Godlike" (or for Christians, "Christlike"). If you are Jewish and I am butchering this, please forgive me...this is what I understood from the texts I have been reading over the last couple of years.

Either way makes sense to me. However, Jews will tell you that Christianity has misinterpreted and/or mistranslated the Hebrew texts. There is some validity to that because you can't deny that Jews probably know the OT better than anyone.

 

[Vanguard]

Osgiliath

I wanted to address why I "picked apart" your posts. It seemed you took the position of post hoc, ergo propter hoc, which is to say your comments lean toward "if this, then that." While this type of position can be valid on some points, it is not a good idea to stand on it. As an example, you said "Revelation says this, therefore it refers to Genesis that says this." Earlier KJV scribes and translators did the same thing, and although the literal translations (KJV, NASB, ESV, etc.) agree on 95% of the material, it's that other 5% that is subject to debate and revision. Modern scholars have proven that 5% to be in err.

Think of it this way. The KJV was completed in 1611 CE. Keeping that in mind, if you were going to teach someone about astronomy accurately, would you use a text book that was written in 1611 or a text book that was written in 2011? Without a doubt the 2011 version all day. Why? Because we know so much more about astronomy than they did 400 years ago. Things have been discovered during that 400 year period, theories have been revised, and there is far greater validation. The same principle applies to theology, supported by archaeology. It is for that reason I use the NASB (actually I use a NASB-NIV parallel bible).

I am not saying the KJV is worthless, for it is not. It is beautifully written, God's message can be taken directly from it, and it is one of the greatest literary works of all time. However, I go deeper into religious research than the average Christian/person and that 5% means a lot to me in terms of accuracy and validity. The biggest thing (and my biggest pet peeve) is when someone cherry picks a verse, takes it out of context in its surrounding chapter, and applies it to an opinion or assumption. This goes back to the position of post hoc, ergo propter hoc. Clergymen do it all the time. I cringe when my pastor does it. I dare not say anything to him publically (that's just rude) but in private I might have a little "chat" with him!

 

[Savedbygrace3927]

Osgiliath

I wanted to address why I "picked apart" your posts. It seemed you took the position of post hoc, ergo propter hoc, which is to say your comments lean toward "if this, then that." While this type of position can be valid on some points, it is not a good idea to stand on it. As an example, you said "Revelation says this, therefore it refers to Genesis that says this." Earlier KJV scribes and translators did the same thing, and although the literal translations (KJV, NASB, ESV, etc.) agree on 95% of the material, it's that other 5% that is subject to debate and revision. Modern scholars have proven that 5% to be in err.

Think of it this way. The KJV was completed in 1611 CE. Keeping that in mind, if you were going to teach someone about astronomy accurately, would you use a text book that was written in 1611 or a text book that was written in 2011? Without a doubt the 2011 version all day. Why? Because we know so much more about astronomy than they did 400 years ago. Things have been discovered during that 400 year period, theories have been revised, and there is far greater validation. The same principle applies to theology, supported by archaeology. It is for that reason I use the NASB (actually I use a NASB-NIV parallel bible).

I am not saying the KJV is worthless, for it is not. It is beautifully written, God's message can be taken directly from it, and it is one of the greatest literary works of all time. However, I go deeper into religious research than the average Christian/person and that 5% means a lot to me in terms of accuracy and validity. The biggest thing (and my biggest pet peeve) is when someone cherry picks a verse, takes it out of context in its surrounding chapter, and applies it to an opinion or assumption. This goes back to the position of post hoc, ergo propter hoc. Clergymen do it all the time. I cringe when my pastor does it. I dare not say anything to him publically (that's just rude) but in private I might have a little "chat" with him!

One of the reasons people prefer the KJV is because it is based on the Textus Receptus and a lot of the newer translation are based on the Alexandrian manuscripts. Personally, I'm not educated enough on the matter to make an argument as to which one is better.

I prefer the KJV for a few reasons reason.

1) It is the translation that most people are familiar with, so its the translation I like to quote from.

2) Its is compatible with a lot of study tools I like to use.

3) It has stood the text of time and is tried and true, though not perfect.

I know some people are "KJV only" and demonize any newer translation. I think they have a cult like attitude toward the KJV.

 

[Vanguard]

One of the reasons people prefer the KJV is because it is based on the Textus Receptus and a lot of the newer translation are based on the Alexandrian manuscripts. Personally, I'm not educated enough on the matter to make an argument as to which one is better.

I prefer the KJV for a few reasons reason.

1) It is the translation that most people are familiar with, so its the translation I like to quote from.

2) Its is compatible with a lot of study tools I like to use.

3) It has stood the text of time and is tried and true, though not perfect.

I know some people are "KJV only" and demonize any newer translation. I think they have a cult like attitude toward the KJV.

I still use the KJV for research and then compare it to the NASB and other sources. Since the KJV does not contain a copyright (I'll get into that later), it can be paralleled with any other translation. A KJV-NIV parallel is awesome! It gives you the "Shakespearian" language and it's offset with the best selling, modern language version on the opposite page.

 

[Osgiliath]

Osgiliath

I wanted to address why I "picked apart" your posts. It seemed you took the position of post hoc, ergo propter hoc, which is to say your comments lean toward "if this, then that." While this type of position can be valid on some points, it is not a good idea to stand on it. As an example, you said "Revelation says this, therefore it refers to Genesis that says this." Earlier KJV scribes and translators did the same thing, and although the literal translations (KJV, NASB, ESV, etc.) agree on 95% of the material, it's that other 5% that is subject to debate and revision. Modern scholars have proven that 5% to be in err.

Think of it this way. The KJV was completed in 1611 CE. Keeping that in mind, if you were going to teach someone about astronomy accurately, would you use a text book that was written in 1611 or a text book that was written in 2011? Without a doubt the 2011 version all day. Why? Because we know so much more about astronomy than they did 400 years ago. Things have been discovered during that 400 year period, theories have been revised, and there is far greater validation. The same principle applies to theology, supported by archaeology. It is for that reason I use the NASB (actually I use a NASB-NIV parallel bible).

I am not saying the KJV is worthless, for it is not. It is beautifully written, God's message can be taken directly from it, and it is one of the greatest literary works of all time. However, I go deeper into religious research than the average Christian/person and that 5% means a lot to me in terms of accuracy and validity. The biggest thing (and my biggest pet peeve) is when someone cherry picks a verse, takes it out of context in its surrounding chapter, and applies it to an opinion or assumption. This goes back to the position of post hoc, ergo propter hoc. Clergymen do it all the time. I cringe when my pastor does it. I dare not say anything to him publically (that's just rude) but in private I might have a little "chat" with him!

First of all, how did you know I was an astrophysicist/astronomer. I don't believe I mentioned that in my profile, though it is true. I didn't mention it mainly because religious folk seem to have a prejudice against scientists, even though they "say" otherwise. As far as the KJV, I use it here because the javascript pop-up uses the 1900 KJV. I'm not a big fan of the KJV, and I have done much work on exposing the errors with respect to various manuscripts.

As far as me taking the "P.H.E.P.H." approach, I don't believe that is accurate. I simply post relevant Scripture passages, and it is others who add their commentary to the Scriptures I post. And unlike post hoc, I go out of my way to take into account other factors that might rule out the connection made with the multiple Scripture passages in question. In other words, instead of post hoc, which follows that "SOME" of God's Word is true, I follow the Scriptural approach, which follows that:

Psalms 119:160 "The SUM of Thy word is truth"

Originally Posted by Vanguard,

If you are Jewish and I am butchering this, please forgive me...this is what I understood from the texts I have been reading over the last couple of years.

You are not butchering that at all actually; I agree with much of what you say. However, I am more interested in your view of his origin. Do you agree with the traditional belief which says Satan was once a "holy angel" who went bad, or do you believe God created him the way he is, for the very purpose of being an adversary?

 

[Vanguard]

First of all, how did you know I was an astrophysicist/astronomer. I don't believe I mentioned that in my profile, though it is true. I didn't mention it mainly because religious folk seem to have a prejudice against scientists, even though they "say" otherwise.

Your occupation was in your profile. Don't worry about what people think of you. I am an Alabama born, gun toting, truck loving, tree stand sitting, camo wearing, white male that had to overcome being prejudice thanks to some redneck in-laws. I "grew up" during bootcamp (army infantry), completed a degree in criminal justice, currently a CSI officer, am working toward a PhD in theology with a minor in history, and I study law, politics, philosophy and linguistics! Whew! They don't have a name for me lol!

You are not butchering that at all actually; I agree with much of what you say. However, I am more interested in your view of his origin. Do you agree with the traditional belief which says Satan was once a "holy angel" who went bad, or do you believe God created him the way he is, for the very purpose of being an adversary?

I used to be a tried and true, conservative Southern Baptist and took the Christian bible literally in that Satan was a fallen angel. I now lean more toward the Judaism position on Satan. The jury is still out. That's one area that I have been trying to extensively research and gain as much knowledge as possible.

At this time, I can't give you a definitive answer.

 

[chakham]

Sin and Satan?

      In God's warning to Cain, sin is described as a wild beast that seeks to cause man to sin. When we sin, the beast lusts for us and tries to make us sin even more. But we always have the power to resist sin, no matter how great the temptation. Is sin really a beast of prey that lusts for mankind to sin or is this just a metaphor? Can we identify the sin beast of Gen 4:7 Satan? For that matter, is there really an angel named Satan that rebelled against God and who desires for men to join him in his unholy struggle? To understand the biblical concept of Satan we must of course look at how the Hebrew word translated as Satan is used throughout the Hebrew Scriptures. In the King James translation we find a character named Satan mentioned 19 times. However, the Hebrew word for Satan שׂ . ט . ן appears a total of 35 times in the Hebrew Scriptures. 2 It is immediately apparent that no understanding of the biblical concept of Satan can be attained without reference to the Hebrew text.

The Meaning of שׂ ןט satan

      The Hebrew word שׂ . ט . ן means "enemy, adversary". It is used in this sense numerous times in the Hebrew Scriptures to refer to human adversaries. For example, we read, "And YHWH raised up a satan (enemy) for Solomon, Hadad the Edomite, who was of the royal seed in Edom" (1Ki 11:14). And again, "(23) And God raised him up a satan (enemy), Rezon son of Elyada... (25) and he was a satan (enemy) to Israel all the days of Solomon..." (1Ki 11:23-25). We see that both Hadad the Edomite and Rezon son of Elyada were satans of Israel, that is, they were enemies of Israel. These two were not the only humans described as satans (enemies). The Philistine nobles warned Achish the Gittite that David should not be allowed to join them in their invasion of Israel, "that he not be for us a satan (enemy) in war" (1Sam 29:4), that is, they were concerned that David would turn against them in the middle of a battle and become their enemy. So King David, the anointed of YHWH, was a satan (enemy) to the Phillistines. King David himself accused the sons of Tseruya of being his satan (enemy) (2Sam 19:23). Any act of enmity can be described as being a satan (enemy). The psalmist complains to God about "those that repay me evil for good, and are satans (enemies) to me instead of seeking my well-being" (Ps 38:21). And again, "instead of loving me, they are satans (enemies) to me" (Ps 109:4). Ps 71:13 speaks of "those that are satans (enemies) to my 2 Gen 26:21; Nu 22:22, 32; 1Sam 29:4; 2Sam 19:23; 1Ki 5:18, 11:14, 23, 25; Zech 3:1 (twice), 2 (twice); Ps 38:21, 71:13, 109:4, 6, 20, 29; Job 1:6, 7 (twice), 8, 9, 12 (twice), 2:1, 2 (twice), 3, 4, 6, 7; Ezra 4:6; 1Chr 21:1 soul", Ps 109:20 of "my satans (enemies)... those that speak evil of my soul", and Ps 109:29 of "my satans (enemies)". Our forefather Jacob dug a well which he named הָנ ְ ט ִ שׂ sitnah (enmity) after his shepherds quarreled with the Shepherds of Gerar. The enemies of Israel sent king Nebuchadnezzar "a letter of הָנ ְ ט ִ שׂ sitnah (enmity) against the inhabitants of Judah and Jerusalem". We see that a satan is quite simply an enemy, someone who hates and seeks harm. A satan is not even necessarily evil since King David was a satan (enemy) to the evil Phillistines.

Angelic Satans

      Up till now we have only seen references to human satans, but what of angelic satans? The first angelic satan (enemy) to appear in the Hebrew Scriptures is in the account of the Gentile prophet Bil'am (Balaam). Bil'am had been invited by the Moabite king Balak to curse Israel but God instructed Bil'am not to agree to Balak's request (Nu 22:12). Bil'am would not take no for an answer and God eventually agreed that he may go to meet with Balak but not to curse Israel (Nu 22:22). Apparently Bil'am had other ideas and set off to curse Israel anyway. God was displeased by this and sent a satanic angel against Bil'am, "And the anger of God burned, for he (Bil'am) was going. And an angel ( ְ ךאַ ְ ל ַ מ) of YHWH stood in the way as a satan (enemy) to him (Bil'am)" (Nu 22:22). We see the angel of YHWH is called a satan (enemy). The account continues that the satanic angel of YHWH drew his sword to kill Bil'am. Seeing the angel, Bil'am's ass turned out of the way of the satanic angel three times until there was nowhere else to turn. Not knowing why the ass turned off the main path, Bil'am beat her. Eventually God revealed His satanic angel to Bil'am, "And YHWH revealed to the eyes of Bil'am and he saw the angel of YHWH standing in the path with his sword drawn in his hand... and the angel of YHWH said to him, why did you hit your ass these three times, behold I went out as a satan (enemy)... and the ass saw me and turned away from me three times; had she not turned away from me, I would have surely killed you and let her live." (Nu 22:31-33). Bil'am responds to the satanic angel with sincere remorse, "And Bil'am said to the angel of YHWH, I have sinned for I did not know that you are standing in front of me on the way, and now, if it is evil in your eyes, I will turn myself back" (Nu 22:24). Bil'am says to the satanic angel that if he has done evil by going with the Moabites he will readily stop what he is doing and go back home. The satanic angel responds, "And the angel of YHWH said to Bil'am, Go with the men, but only the word which I speak to you, speak to them" (Nu 22:35). Bil'am can continue on his mission but he must be certain only to speak that which God tells him.

      We see that the angel of YHWH is called a satan. This satanic angel is not out to win minions for his unholy war against God. On the contrary, he is God's angel. The Hebrew word for angel is mal'ach ְ ךאַ ְ ל ַ מ which means "messenger". The representatives sent by Balak to Bil'am are also called mal'achim םי ִ כאָ ְ ל ַ מ "messengers" (Nu 22:5). The satanic angel in the Bil'am Account is simply YHWH's messenger who does what YHWH sends him to do.

      That the satanic angel is YHWH's messenger is also clear from the fact that he speaks the message of God both as himself, and as if he were God. Thus we read, "And the angel of YHWH said to Bil'am, Go with the men, but only the word which I speak to you, speak to them" (Nu 22:35). The satanic angel refers to the words that YHWH will speak to Bil'am as "the word which I will speak to you". This is because the satanic angel is speaking the words that God told him to speak, which is after all the role of the messenger. The messengers of Balak did the same thing when they spoke to Bil'am, "And he sent messenger םי ִ כאָ ְ ל ַ מ to Bil'am... saying, Behold a people has gone out of Egypt, behold he covers the face of the earth and dwells across from me." (Nu 22:5). The messengers of Balak refer to Israel as a nation that "dwells across from me", the "me" being Balak. Thus they spoke the words of Balak in the first person (I/ me) as if Balak himself were saying them, in the same way as the satanic angel speaks the words of God in the first person as if God were saying them.

      While the satanic angel spoke the words of God, he was not himself God. When he says, "behold I went out as a satan (enemy)" (Nu 22:32) he is speaking about himself, the angel, not YHWH. It was the practice of the ancient messengers to freely switch off between speaking their message as if they were the sender and speaking it as themselves. The prophets of YHWH also spoke the message of YHWH in these two manners. For example, we read in the book of Hosea, "the offerings of My gifts they slaughter as meat and eat; YHWH shall not accept them, now he shall remember their iniquity and repay their sins" (Hos 8:13). Hosea, speaking the words of God, refers to the animals donated to the Temple as "the offerings of My gifts". Rather than bring these gifts to the Temple, the Israelites sin by eating them as meat. Hosea explains that "YHWH will not accept them, now he will remember their iniquity". We see that Hosea freely switches in mid-sentence between speaking as if he were YHWH ("My gifts") and speaking as himself ("YHWH will not accept"). In both instances Hosea is speaking the message of YHWH, he is simply presenting it in two different manners of presentation. The satanic angel in the Bil'am Account employs this same dual mannerism. He speaks about himself, the angel, in the first person, and in the next breath speaks the words of God in the first person. Just like Hosea and other prophets, the satanic angel switches between speaking as the messenger and speaking as the sender.

      The satanic angel that was sent to harm Bil'am did not desire for Bil'am to sin. He was not a tempter, and on the contrary, he ordered Bil'am not to defy God (Nu 22:35). The satanic angel in the Bil'am Account was simply a messenger of God, and like human messengers, could speak the words of God in first person as if he were God. Clearly this satan was not a rebellious angel seeking to establish a kingdom of evil. He was called a satan (enemy) because he was sent to slay Bil'am, as a punishment for defying God's explicit order not to go to Balak for the purpose of cursing Israel. We see that an angel sent to cause harm to human beings can be referred to as a satan (enemy). The satanic angel is not an enemy of God, but His messenger. An enemy causes harm so the angel that causes harm to human beings is called a satan (enemy).

A Satan on His Right Hand

      The next appearance of a satanic angel is in the book of Zechariah. The prophet Zechariah sees two angels standing near the high priest, "And he showed me Joshua the high priest standing before the angel of YHWH, and the satan (enemy) standing upon his right to be a satan (enemy) to him" (Zech 3:1). Zechariah sees a satanic angel standing on Joshua's right hand as his enemy. The vision continues, "And YHWH said to the satan (enemy), YHWH rebukes you satan (enemy), and YHWH rebukes you he who has chosen Jerusalem, is this one not as a brand saved from the fire" (Zech 3:2). The satanic angel wants to harm Joshua the high priest but God calls him off because it would also cause harm to Jerusalem. Joshua is likened to a brand saved from the fire, that is, a stick of wood about to be burnt up that is plucked out of the bonfire. Joshua was supposed to be burnt up by YHWH's wrath, but YHWH gave him a last minute reprieve, not for his own sake, but for the sake of Jerusalem. After saving him from his punishment, Joshua's soiled clothes are removed and he is dressed in fine robes (Zech 3:4). To wear "soiled clothes" means to be covered in sin and worthy of punishment (Ps 109:29). God has forgiven Joshua, cancelled his punishment, and removed his sin. We see that the satanic angel in Zechariah was sent to punish the high priest, just as the satanic angel in the Bil'am Account was sent to punish Bil'am. In both cases the satanic angel is sent when YHWH's wrath burns ("a brand plucked from the fire") and in both cases the satanic angel's mission to cause harm is canceled at the last minute.

 

[chakham]

      Why does YHWH rebuke the satanic angel? If he is no more than a messenger then why does YHWH not just recall him? Is the satanic angel there out of his own initiative? There is only one other place in scripture that speaks about a satanic angel on someone's right hand. In Ps 109:6 King David asks YHWH to punish those who have harmed him, "Appoint an evildoer over him, and a satan on his right hand" (Ps 109:6). King David prays that his enemies be punished by YHWH "appointing" an evil human to rule over them or a satanic angel who will harm them. We see that the satanic angel who comes on the right hand to do harm is "appointed" by YHWH. We should not be surprised that YHWH rebukes the very satanic angel that He Himself has appointed to harm Joshua the high priest. The ability to rescind His own decree of punishment is said to be one of the merciful traits of YHWH, "But He is merciful, atones sin, not destroying; He many times turns back his anger (וֹפּאַ בי ִ שׁ ָ ה ְ ל ה ָ בּ ְ ר ִ ה ְ ו) and does not stir up all his wrath" (Ps 78:38).

      YHWH can "turn back his anger" and forgive, canceling the punishment that he has already decreed. He did this for the Israelites after they worshipped the golden calf (Ps 106:23). He also did this for Joshua the high priest who was soiled in sin. Thus when YHWH rebukes the satanic angel this is an act of "turning back His anger". The satanic angel was "appointed" on Joshua's "right hand" to punish him for his sins. But God decided to forgive him for the sake of Jerusalem and recalled the satanic angel sent to execute His wrath.

A Satan that Incites to Sin

      From what we have seen so far, no connection can be made between the metaphorical beast that lusted for mankind to sin in the Cain and Abel Account and the biblical concept of satan. Yet we do find a number of instances in the Hebrew Scriptures in which a satanic angel fulfils the role of the wild beast that leads man to sin. The clearest example of this is the account of the census of King David. The Torah requires that every person participating in a census pay a half shekel of silver to the Temple as "an atonement for his soul to YHWH when they are counted, that there not be a plague when they are counted" (Ex 30:12). This is done by writing down the names of all the Israelites who pay the half shekel and then counting the number of names on the list (Ex 30:13; Nu 1:2). To simply send around census-takers to count the people is a grievous sin that will surely bring YHWH's wrath on the nation. Enter the satanic angel: "And a satan stood against Israel and he incited David to count Israel." (1Chr 21:1). David gave in to the satan's incitement and counted Israel which resulted in a devastating plague that killed thousands.

      Was the satan that incited David the mythical fallen angel locked in a never-ending war with God? David's census is also mentioned in a parallel account in the book of Samuel. Many of the accounts in the Books of Samuel and Kings are repeated in the Book of Chronicles, sometimes verbatim, other times with complementary information. In the case of the Davidic Census we find complementary information, "And the anger of YHWH continued to burn against Israel, and he incited David against them saying, Go count Israel and Judah." (2Sam 24:1). The book of Samuel informs us that the one who incited David was YHWH, while the book of Chronicles attributes this to a satan. We have already seen in the Bil'am Account that satanic angels are messengers of YHWH who do His bidding. They can even speak his words in the first person, like a human messenger or a prophet. So when we read in one book that YHWH incited Israel and in the other that a satan incited Israel, we must conclude that this satan was acting on YHWH's behalf. It is not unusual to attribute the actions of the messenger to the one who sent him. The book of Kings tells us that Solomon built the Temple, even though we can be certain that he never lifted a stone or cut a piece of wood (1Ki 6:1). But the sender is credited with the action of the messenger acting on his behalf. The satanic angel incited David on YHWH's behalf, so it can be said that YHWH incited David. Chronicles informs us that He did it by sending a satanic angel.

      It is worth noting that David was not tempted by the satanic angel, but incited. To incite (Hebrew: תוס) means to urge or otherwise influence someone to do something wrong. For example, "If your brother... incite you in secret saying, let us go and worship other gods" (Dt 13:8). We can only guess how the satanic angel urged David to count the people. From Joab's reaction (2Sam 24:3; 2Chr 21:3), it seems that David suffered from a sense of inferiority and wanted to know how many people he ruled so he could feel mighty. It may have been the satanic angel who planted this seed of inferiority in David's psyche at YHWH's behest. Like Cain, David could have controlled his desire to sin, but he chose to satisfy himself rather than obey God's commandment.

      Why did God incite David to sin? The book of Samuel tells us, "And the anger of YHWH continued to burn against Israel, and he incited David against them" (2Sam 24:1). God was angry at Israel so he sent a satanic angel to incite David to sin. We may recall that the satanic angel was also sent against Bil'am because YHWH was angry with him. When God is angry, he sends satanic angels to punish mankind. Bil'am was nearly punished by being struck down by the angel. When God was angry at Israel, rather than immediately strike them down, he incited David to cause them to further sin and thereby receive an even greater punishment. This also gave them an opportunity to resist sinning and receive forgiveness. This is precisely what God explained to Cain, "If you do good, forgiveness; but if you do not do good, sin crouches at the door, and its desire is toward you, but you can rule over it" (Gen 4:7). If he does righteousness he will be forgiven; but if he sins, he will be tempted to further sin by a beast of prey, a satanic angel, sent by God to cause him harm.

The Satanic Angel in Job

      The most detailed account of a satanic angel appears in the book of Job. In the first two chapters of Job we read about two encounters between YHWH and a satanic angel dubbed ן ָ ט ָ שּׂ ַ ה "the enemy". The fact that the angel is called ן ָ ט ָ שּׂ ַ ה proves that Satan was not its name. In Biblical Hebrew a proper noun (i.e. a name) cannot be preceded by the word "the". In Hebrew it is impossible to say "the David" or "the Jacob". The angel in Job is called "the satan", which tells us that satan is a description of the angel, not its name. The angel in Job is "the enemy", that is, the enemy that will be sent to harm Job.

      We read in Job, "And it was the time that the angels (literally: sons of God) came to stand before YHWH and the satan (enemy) also came among them" (Job 1:6). God is described as a king holding royal court. Instead of royal courtiers and officials, the heavenly court is attended by the "sons of God", the angels, including the satanic angel that would be sent against Job. The account continues with an exchange between God and the satanic angel. God boasts that Job is the most righteous man on earth and the satanic angel responds that this is only because God has protected him, "However", suggests the angel, "send your hand and smite all that he has and he will surely curse you to your face." (Job 1:11). God agrees and instructs the satanic angel, "Behold, all that he has is in your hand, only do not send your hand against him" (Job 1:12). The satanic angel is given permission to destroy all that Job has but not to touch Job himself. The satanic angel proceeds to kill Job's children and strip him of his property. The angel is called a satan not because he is an enemy of YHWH, but because he is an enemy who harms Job.

      In the second chapter of Job, we witness a second encounter between YHWH and the satanic angel. This time the satanic angel suggests that YHWH harm Job's body, "Send now your hand and smite his bone and flesh, he shall surely curse you to your face." (Job 2:5). God responds by giving the satanic angel permission to harm Job's person, "Behold he is in your hand, only preserve his life". Again we see that YHWH smites Job by giving him over to the hand of his satanic messenger.

      To what extent is this satanic angel an independent creature? Certainly he does not command armies of demons nor is he engaged in an unholy struggle against YHWH. He can only do what YHWH allows him to do. While Job is under YHWH's protection, the satanic angel is powerless to do anything to him. The satanic angel complains to God, "Have You not made a hedge around him, his house, and all that he has?" (Job 1:10). When God wishes to test Job He removes His protection and turns him over to the satanic angel, just as He did to Bil'am and David. Yet the actions of this satanic angel are said to be YHWH's actions. The satanic angel suggests to YHWH, "send Your hand and smite all that he has". YHWH sends His hand against Job's property by giving it over to the satanic angel.

      Again the sender is credited with the actions of the messenger. Like the sin beast in the Cain and Abel Account, Job's satanic angel lay in wait lusting for Job to sin. Thus this satanic angel's divine mission is not simply to punish mankind, but to get him to sin so mankind can receive an even greater punishment. The satanic angel does not do this on his own initiative. He is sent by YHWH to wander to and fro in the earth and tempt those who have sinned to sin further or to test those whom YHWH wishes to test.

Summation

      We have seen that satanic angels are not enemies of God, but of mankind. They are not waging an unholy war against God nor recruiting humans to join an army of darkness. They are simply messengers who do YHWH's bidding. Some satanic angels fulfill the role of a sin beast that crouches at the door, waiting to pounce on the sinner. When people sin they are given over to the sin beast who places them in compromising situations that can lead them to sin further. The satanic angel in Chronicles fulfilled this role and was sent by YHWH to incite David to sin. In Job the satanic angel was at first helpless to cause Job to sin, because God protected Job (Job 1:10). But when God wanted to test Job he did this by allowing the satanic angel to tempt him. Despite the horrific things that happened to Job he succeeded in ruling over the great temptation to sin. Although he was turned over to the hands of the satanic angel, by acting righteously he was able to rule the satanic angel rather than be ruled.