LUCIFER

[Free]

You don't think using a translation that used corrupt Greek texts has no relevance to discovering the knowledge of the truth of Scripture?

Your claim of corruption is almost certainly a case of fallaciously begging the question. So, no, it has no relevance. The ESV is superior in accuracy to the KJV.

You don't think understanding words of Scripture in the original language has no relevance to understanding the knowledge of the truth of Scripture?

Never said that. That is reading into what I wrote.

QUOTE: Okay. This also shows that it is used as a noun, a proper name, at least some of the time in the OT. But it is also not the only word translated as "adversary."
RESPONSE: Well, that's a start.

You use a translation which used corrupt Greek texts, you think words are not relevant to understand Scripture and you think I'm reading into the text???

Nowhere is the flesh equated with Satan. Nowhere is a believer said to be Satan. That is reading into the text.

 

[eddif]

Nowhere is the flesh equated with Satan. Nowhere is a believer said to be Satan. That is reading into the text.

I thought when Peter rebuked the suffering of Jesus, and Jesus addressed Satan (that was Peters carnal person speaking) that caused the Rebuke. You can wiggle out of the issue, but that is pretty close to me.
Pretty close to having evil stand in the temple we are.

Tell the disciples and Peter.

Mississippi redneck
eddif

 

[Highway54]

Then man has no free will, he is not autonomous.
Your response is self-serving.
Christians are supposed to LET the Word of God tell them what to believe. Unbelievers instead tell the Word of God what to say.
Disappointed.

Examples are much better than opinion sir. So if you have an example, feel free to post it.

 

[Free]

I thought when Peter rebuked the suffering of Jesus, and Jesus addressed Satan (that was Peters carnal person speaking) that caused the Rebuke. You can wiggle out of the issue, but that is pretty close to me.
Pretty close to having evil stand in the temple we are.

Tell the disciples and Peter.

Mississippi redneck
eddif

There is a big difference between saying someone is Satan and, as Jesus did, speaking to the one (Satan) who was using someone (Peter) in an attempt to dissuade him from finishing his mission.

 

[jeremiah1five]

You don't think using a translation that used corrupt Greek texts has no relevance to discovering the knowledge of the truth of Scripture?

Your claim of corruption is almost certainly a case of fallaciously begging the question. So, no, it has no relevance. The ESV is superior in accuracy to the KJV.

You don't think understanding words of Scripture in the original language has no relevance to understanding the knowledge of the truth of Scripture?

Never said that. That is reading into what I wrote.

QUOTE: Okay. This also shows that it is used as a noun, a proper name, at least some of the time in the OT. But it is also not the only word translated as "adversary."
RESPONSE: Well, that's a start.

You use a translation which used corrupt Greek texts, you think words are not relevant to understand Scripture and you think I'm reading into the text???

Nowhere is the flesh equated with Satan. Nowhere is a believer said to be Satan. That is reading into the text.
____________________________
You seem to not know from what Greek texts the ESV was translated from.
Look into it.

EVERYONE has a fallen nature, a sinful nature. We are in TIME one-third saved. Our souls are still affected by the fall. Our human spirits that God created in us when we are born again is redeemed and unaffected by our sinful nature. Our bodies still need to be changed.

Our flesh is satan/adversary against God. Paul may teach this but although he doesn't use the word "satan" the idea is still there. This body of this death explains a lot. But although the concept of "satan/adversary" exists while we are still in this body the Scripture makes this clear elsewhere:

17 For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: Gal. 5:17.

"Contrary" [Strong's] from <G473> (anti) and <G2749> (keimai); to lie opposite, i.e. be adverse (figurative repugnant) to.

These are the English words this Greek word is translated to in the KJV: adversary, be contrary, oppose.

It is found here:

25 Agree with thine adversary quickly, whiles thou art in the way with him; lest at any time the adversary deliver thee to the judge, and the judge deliver thee to the officer, and thou be cast into prison. Mt 5:25.

And here:

3 And there was a widow in that city; and she came unto him, saying, Avenge me of mine adversary. Lk 18:3.

And here:

58 When thou goest with thine adversary to the magistrate, as thou art in the way, give diligence that thou mayest be delivered from him; lest he hale thee to the judge, and the judge deliver thee to the officer, and the officer cast thee into prison. Lk 12:58.

Here's the definition:

from <G473> (anti) and <G1349> (dike); an opponent (in a lawsuit); specially Satan (as the arch-enemy).

You stand corrected.

 

[jeremiah1five]

Examples are much better than opinion sir. So if you have an example, feel free to post it.

One example is found in Job.

Satan could do nothing to Job except the LORD grants permission.

He was always restricted. And Satan OBEYED EVERY restriction.

12 And the LORD said unto Satan, Behold, all that he hath is in thy power; only upon himself put not forth thine hand. Job 1:12.

6 And the LORD said unto Satan, Behold, he is in thine hand; but save his life. Job 2:6.

We good?

 

[grumix8]

Satan isn't Lucifer real name and Lucifer isn't Satan real name there is mistake but as time passes. He does have a real name but do not search for it. It said by jews that if you pronounce satan real name he will hear it and come searching for you.

Best to call him the adversary and keep it there no one likes him. I hate him a lot.

 

[Highway54]

One example is found in Job.

Satan could do nothing to Job except the LORD grants permission.

He was always restricted. And Satan OBEYED EVERY restriction.

12 And the LORD said unto Satan, Behold, all that he hath is in thy power; only upon himself put not forth thine hand. Job 1:12.

6 And the LORD said unto Satan, Behold, he is in thine hand; but save his life. Job 2:6.

We good?

I do agree that free will has it limits sir. People in the United States talk about freedom, but no freedom comes without limits. To say that you have no free will because of limits simply does not compute with me Jeremiah, your free will stops when it interferes with others free will. God intended even the first human parents to use their free will within the boundaries of His law. Unfortunately they chose to go outside those boundaries, and you have that right as well, however choosing to go outside the boundaries of the law, either God's or man's may interfere with your free will in the future sir.

 

[jeremiah1five]

I do agree that free will has it limits sir. People in the United States talk about freedom, but no freedom comes without limits. To say that you have no free will because of limits simply does not compute with me Jeremiah, your free will stops when it interferes with others free will. God intended even the first human parents to use their free will within the boundaries of His law. Unfortunately they chose to go outside those boundaries, and you have that right as well, however choosing to go outside the boundaries of the law, either God's or man's may interfere with your free will in the future sir.

Your freedom is relative. Just like you believe truth is relative.
Before God man has no free will in spiritual matters. TIME was created by God within the limits of eternalness of God Himself. Man is natural and has no authority over the spiritual realm. Man is dead before God until God quickens the person. And even after that have no authority over spiritual matters. Remember:

Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven. Mt 6:10.

God is Sovereign.
Not man.

 

[Free]

You seem to not know from what Greek texts the ESV was translated from.
Look into it.

I have; I'm aware.

EVERYONE has a fallen nature, a sinful nature. We are in TIME one-third saved. Our souls are still affected by the fall. Our human spirits that God created in us when we are born again is redeemed and unaffected by our sinful nature. Our bodies still need to be changed.

Which is not relevant to the discussion.

Our flesh is satan/adversary against God. Paul may teach this but although he doesn't use the word "satan" the idea is still there.

Exactly--the word "Satan" is never used of people, much less believers. In the NT and much of the OT, Satan is a proper name of a specific personal being who is opposed to God. To apply it to people, especially believers, is going beyond what the Bible states.

You stand corrected.

On the contrary, based on what you stated, you're reading into the text something that isn't there.

 

[jeremiah1five]

I have; I'm aware.


Which is not relevant to the discussion.


Exactly--the word "Satan" is never used of people, much less believers. In the NT and much of the OT, Satan is a proper name of a specific personal being who is opposed to God. To apply it to people, especially believers, is going beyond what the Bible states.


On the contrary, based on what you stated, you're reading into the text something that isn't there.

The Greek texts used to translate the ESV were Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, and a couple of others. Just a couple. Westcott and Hort held to Mariology and did not believe in the inspiration of the Scriptures.
In their own words in letters. They also allowed a Unitarian to among the committee that created the Revised Version.
In 1901 America had its own revised version. From there in both countries and around the world their translation spawned hundreds of translations.
Talk about confusion.
Like modern day Babel. But this time God didn't confuse the languages, man did.
Thousands of changes were made, words added, words, subtracted, verses removed and omitted. It's all history.
You want to hold to the offspring ESV of Westcott and Hort, two, at least, closet Roman Catholics.

 

[jeremiah1five]

I have; I'm aware.


Which is not relevant to the discussion.


Exactly--the word "Satan" is never used of people, much less believers. In the NT and much of the OT, Satan is a proper name of a specific personal being who is opposed to God. To apply it to people, especially believers, is going beyond what the Bible states.


On the contrary, based on what you stated, you're reading into the text something that isn't there.

It is used of people:

It is applied to a human adversary as a noun (e.g., 1 Sam 29:4; 2 Sam 19:22; 1 Kgs 5:4; 11:14, 23, 25).

 

[Free]

The Greek texts used to translate the ESV were Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, and a couple of others. Just a couple. Westcott and Hort held to Mariology and did not believe in the inspiration of the Scriptures.
In their own words in letters. They also allowed a Unitarian to among the committee that created the Revised Version.
In 1901 America had its own revised version. From there in both countries and around the world their translation spawned hundreds of translations.
Talk about confusion.
Like modern day Babel. But this time God didn't confuse the languages, man did.
Thousands of changes were made, words added, words, subtracted, verses removed and omitted. It's all history.
You want to hold to the offspring ESV of Westcott and Hort, two, at least, closet Roman Catholics.

If you say so. This is not the thread to discuss the differences between texts, the e superiority of the ESV, and the fallacious arguments of KJVOism.

 

[Free]

It is used of people:

It is applied to a human adversary as a noun (e.g., 1 Sam 29:4; 2 Sam 19:22; 1 Kgs 5:4; 11:14, 23, 25).

I was referring to the NT, as I had said previously and since you were arguing to what Paul said.

 

[jeremiah1five]

I was referring to the NT, as I had said previously and since you were arguing to what Paul said.

Nothing's changed.
Jesus called Peter the person "Satan."

 

[Free]

Nothing's changed.

No, it hasn’t.

Jesus called Peter the person "Satan."

Not really. See my post, #44.

 

[jeremiah1five]

No, it hasn’t.


Not really. See my post, #44.

Post #44 QUOTE: There is a big difference between saying someone is Satan and, as Jesus did, speaking to the one (Satan) who was using someone (Peter) in an attempt to dissuade him from finishing his mission.

RESPONSE: Jesus was teaching us that man, fallen or otherwise, that operate in the flkesh and oppose God is satan [adversary]
Do you deny this?

 

[Free]

Post #44 QUOTE: There is a big difference between saying someone is Satan and, as Jesus did, speaking to the one (Satan) who was using someone (Peter) in an attempt to dissuade him from finishing his mission.

RESPONSE: Jesus was teaching us that man, fallen or otherwise, that operate in the flkesh and oppose God is satan [adversary]
Do you deny this?

The flesh opposes God but we cannot call it Satan, since that word is not used to speak of the flesh and nowhere is it used of people in the NT. That is going beyond what the Bible states. The word “adversary” appears only six times in the NT, using two different words—five times referring to people and once to the devil.

 

[jeremiah1five]

The flesh opposes God but we cannot call it Satan, since that word is not used to speak of the flesh and nowhere is it used of people in the NT. That is going beyond what the Bible states. The word “adversary” appears only six times in the NT, using two different words—five times referring to people and once to the devil.

QUOTE: "The flesh opposes God but we cannot call it Satan."

RESPONSE: You say two things in one breath.
"opposes" "adversary." Synonyms. Same thing.

"The flesh is adversary to God but we can't call it Satan."

We sure can't call it friend.
Our bodies are the one thing not yet redeemed. We have to wait. Until then we will all die due to sin in this body of this death.

 

[Free]

QUOTE: "The flesh opposes God but we cannot call it Satan."

RESPONSE: You say two things in one breath.
"opposes" "adversary." Synonyms. Same thing.

"The flesh is adversary to God but we can't call it Satan."

We sure can't call it friend.
Our bodies are the one thing not yet redeemed. We have to wait. Until then we will all die due to sin in this body of this death.

As I have said previously, Satan is the name of specific, personal being in the NT (and at least some of the OT), not a general word meaning “adversary” that can be applied to anything or anyone else that is adversarial. The inspired writers of the NT didn’t do it and we shouldn’t either.