Satan? You mean THAT little imp...?

[cyberjosh]

When I was little my Dad in his wonderful and sometimes paraphrasing teaching style to teach me the word of God early on, I remember, one day told me, "You know Josh, one day we're gonna see that bad devil, and mock him and say "What? This little imp? He's the guy that caused all that trouble?". I took him at his word, but never quite actually understood the reference till I got older and read where it speaks of that in Isaiah. Isaiah chapter 14 speaks of the fall of Satan and his ultimate demise, and in verses 16-17 says:

"Those who see you will gaze at you, They will ponder over you, saying,
'Is this the man who made the earth tremble,
Who shook kingdoms,
Who made the world like a wilderness
And overthrew its cities,
Who did not allow his prisoners to go home?' "

Satan will have no more pomp:

"Your pomp is brought down to Sheol,
And the sound of your stringed instruments;
The maggot is spread under you,
And worms cover you." (vs. 11)

And all the people of God will rejoice over it, "When the righteous prosper, the city rejoices; when the wicked perish, there are shouts of joy" (Proverbs 11:10), and I know I sure will. Satan will indeed be mocked and notice that he will be made weak and powerless, mocked by the dead around him:

"They all shall speak and say to you:
' Have you also become weak as we?
Have you become like us? '" (vs. 10)

I tell you what, I get so mad at that 'bad devil' :D that I feel like cussin' him up sometimes, but in my righteousness in Christ I know that wouldn't be appropriate but I curse His name up and down as that "base, vile, loathsome, coniving, lying, cheating, decieving, defiled, accursed, infamous, wicked, outcast, accuser of the brethren" much like the angels of God did: "The LORD rebuke you, Satan! The LORD who has chosen Jerusalem rebuke you!" (Zecheriah 3:2) and "The Lord rebuke you!" (Jude 9) and I hope he burns in the lowest hell.

In the mean time I resist the devil that he might flee from me, and I seek to not leave a foothold or opportunity for the devil to tempt me, and rather draw near to God that He may draw near to me. But I don't know about you but I look forward to the day when I can mock that bad devil and say, "Who? THAT little imp...?" :D

God Bless,

~Josh

 

[Alabaster]

Amen!

I know a couple people who have actually seen demons. One especially was in our mother's room as she lay dying. The deliverer whom we know personally and is a family friend, said, " Oh, there's a demon in the room.'

I said, "What? Why would there be a demon in here? We are all Spirit-filled believers and mom is a giant in the Lord. How dare he come in here while we say goodbye to her!!" I was angry.

But our dear friend said, looking down by the wall's baseboard, "He's right here cowering, and he's in awe."

I asked him, "Is it that small?"

"Yes, he is little, as most of them are."

"Why is he in awe?"

"He was sent here to disturb the peace, but the peace of God is too heavy for him to do anything."

I praised my God even more at that! what a joyful going home my mother had! Even the demons were confounded by it!

 

[Vic C.]

That's good Josh.

But... that passage is about Nebuchadnezzar and his fall.

Isa 14:3 And it shall come to pass in the day that the LORD shall give thee rest from thy sorrow, and from thy fear, and from the hard bondage wherein thou wast made to serve.
Isa 14:4 That thou shalt take up this proverb against the king of Babylon, and say, How hath the oppressor ceased! the golden city ceased!


Hey, you put this in Apologetics; I though I'd add some "history" to the mix. :-D

 

[Alabaster]

That's good Josh.

But... that passage is about Nebuchadnezzar and his fall.

Isa 14:3 And it shall come to pass in the day that the LORD shall give thee rest from thy sorrow, and from thy fear, and from the hard bondage wherein thou wast made to serve.
Isa 14:4 That thou shalt take up this proverb against the king of Babylon, and say, How hath the oppressor ceased! the golden city ceased!


Hey, you put this in Apologetics; I though I'd add some "history" to the mix. :-D

It is a metaphor. It is regarding Lucifer as well.

 

[Vic C.]

It is a metaphor. It is regarding Lucifer as well.

It could be, but there is no references to Satan at all in this chapter. Did you know the name Lucifer appears only once in the Bible... and only in the KJV? The name Lucifer means, Bearer of light in Latin, bearer of dawn in Greek and son of the morning in Hebrew. This, as it turned out, is how Nebuchadnezzar viewed himself. We know from Daniel what became of the king of Babylon. (Daniel 4:31-34)


The Hebrews understood this proverb to be about Nebuchadnezzar.

http://jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp? ... ch=Lucifer

The reference to the "the stars of God" in verse 14:13 is a reference to God's people, the Hebrews.

The ties to Lucifer being Satan is more Christian folklore and tradition than it is proper Biblical exegesis. Adan Clarke puts it in proper historical perspective as does this gentleman. http://www.ao.net/~fmoeller/isa13-14.htm (Fred Miller)

Josh, I think you may like this man, check this out:

http://www.ao.net/~fmoeller/biograph.htm
http://www.ao.net/~fmoeller/

 

[Alabaster]

http://www.allaboutgod.com/story-of-lucifer.htm

 

[Vic C.]

Very Good. Thanks.

from the link

The context of this passage is a referral to the king of Babylon as presented in his pride, splendor and fall. However, it is to the power behind the evil Babylonian king that this is actually addressed. No mortal king would claim that his throne was above that of God or that he was like the Most High. The power behind the evil Babylonian king is Lucifer, Son of the Morning.

I agree that the source of all evil is from Satan. I would never deny that! My contention was/is that from a historical perspective, it was written about the fall of the Babylonian King and was realized as such when the prophecy came true.

No mortal king would claim that his throne was above that of God or that he was like the Most High.

But this is exactly what he did. This is why I mentioned Daniel. The King went as far as erecting a large statue, commanding the people bow down and worship it. :o Read the latter part of Jeremiah and the beginning of Daniel. Nebuchadnezzar was as bad as, if not worse, than Antiochus.

The study of Satan and his fall is interesting though.

 

[cyberjosh]

That's good Josh.

But... that passage is about Nebuchadnezzar and his fall.

Isa 14:3 And it shall come to pass in the day that the LORD shall give thee rest from thy sorrow, and from thy fear, and from the hard bondage wherein thou wast made to serve.
Isa 14:4 That thou shalt take up this proverb against the king of Babylon, and say, How hath the oppressor ceased! the golden city ceased!


Hey, you put this in Apologetics; I though I'd add some "history" to the mix. :-D

Ah ha, I thought someone might say something. Well what I was going to mention, but refrained from for the moment, was that Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28 are both non-explicit chapters that nonetheless have historically been interpreted by the Church and theologians as refering in some wise to Satan. Also notice that it is that chapter in Isaiah that even gives us the name "Lucifer" (as it has been historically understood - which actually may have been a self-imposed [and vain] title, rather than a proper name). Although it uses metaphorical/poetical language the references to Eden and being a cherub ring bells that speak of an ancient and powerful presence. As in Daniel, it most likely is addressing outwardly the ruler who is under the influence of the spiritual actor behind the scenes which the heart of the message is ultimately pointed at.

It is also not to far fetched to think that the ruler, as possessed or controlled by such a spiritual force, did indeed think himself to be God, etc. like the Ceasers and Pharaohs, and even our late Saddam Hussein thought quite highly of himself, to the point that he believed that he was the reincarnation of Nebuchadnezzar and felt that he should rebuild Babylon. That smacks to me of a familiar influence, perhaps one thousands of years old that influenced the original king of Babylon. This is a very ancient evil we are talking about, and Satan and other powerful demons can indeed influence rulers of nations. Thus it is not that far fetched to believe that a spiritual address could have been made through a physical avenue, when the two were working in tandem. It also wouldn't be the first time in Scripture where a seemingly straight-forward passage had dual or even multiple application (like the Psalms of David in some respects pointing ahead to Christ as "David"). Those are my thoughts on the issue.

God Bless,

~Josh

 

[Alabaster]

Like that, Josh!

 

[Vic C.]

Ah ha, I thought someone might say something. Well what I was going to mention, but refrained from for the moment, was that Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28 are both non-explicit chapters that nonetheless have historically been interpreted by the Church and theologians as refering in some wise to Satan. Also notice that it is that chapter in Isaiah that even gives us the name "Lucifer" (as it has been historically understood).

Haha, you should have known it would be me. You know I like to play the role of advocate sometimes. :-D

Lets explore this for a moment:

Why did the KJ translators and no one else, decide to use the word Lucifer? ;-)

 

[cyberjosh]

Ah ha, I thought someone might say something. Well what I was going to mention, but refrained from for the moment, was that Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28 are both non-explicit chapters that nonetheless have historically been interpreted by the Church and theologians as refering in some wise to Satan. Also notice that it is that chapter in Isaiah that even gives us the name "Lucifer" (as it has been historically understood).

Haha, you should have known it would be me. You know I like to play the role of advocate sometimes. :-D

Lets explore this for a moment:

Why did the KJ translators and no one else, decide to use the word Lucifer? ;-)

I'm well aware of the Hebrew issue behind that (meaning morning star), and better translations translate it's meaning. I cannot be sure of the original intention for it, perhaps it was for theological reasons, but the KJV also some times transliterates names of cities, people, and even locaions rather than actually translating them. Although I just looked it up again and it looks like it came from previous Latin translations, under the assumption that it was a name. As I said above 'morning star' seems to have been a self imposed title of pride, rather than a proper name (and Elohim is similarly a title and not a name), and suited the context of the passage that was talking about the pride that led the addressee to attempt to exalt their throne above God's. Stars are also thought to refer to angels. Either way, I'm not banking on Lucifer being a name for Satan because it probably isn't, unless he found it convenient thereafter to adopt it. :-D

And an interesting tidbit on the word halel in Hebrew is that it is believed to be a name for the North Star (and is translated as a verb as 'shine' in Job) and is the same cognate as the word halel meaning "praise" from which we get "halleluyah". Although most lexicons do not acknolwedge a connection, if one looks at the pictoral nature of the word in the original Hebrew letters (see also here & here) the two words seem connected in the sense of looking at something of great wonder and following it. The North Star is a constant guiding star, and one could rely on it for direction and would take awe at it's briliant light. In the same way halel as praise in the Hebrew mind was looking at something splendorous and pursuing it. Perhaps in this way Satan thought to set himself up as the North Star or the 'morning star' (which is rightfully Christ's title), and in such a way accrue worship and praise of himself and his own splendor rather than God's.

~Josh

 

[Vic C.]

And an interesting tidbit on the word halel in Hebrew is that it is a proper name for the north star (and is translated as a verb as 'shine' in Job) and is the same cognate as the word halel meaning "praise" from which we get "halleluyah". Although most lexicons do not acknolwedge a connection, if one looks at the pictoral nature of the word in the original Hebrew letters the two words seem connected in the sense of looking at something of great wonder and following it. The North Star is a constant guiding star, and one could rely on it for direction and would take awe at it's briliant light. In the same way halel as praise in the Hebrew mind was looking at something splendorous and pursuing it. Perhaps in this way Satan thought to set himself up as the North Star or the 'morning star' (which is rightfully Christ's title), and in such a way accrue worship and praise of himself and his own splendor rather than God's.

Are you sure It's North Star and not Venus? The north star is not very bright in comparison to other stars. But Venus was thought to be a star back then and it's usually the brightest star (excluding the Sun) on the morning horizon.

Venus has been known since prehistoric times. It is the brightest object in the sky except for the Sun and the Moon. Like Mercury, it was popularly thought to be two separate bodies: Eosphorus as the morning star and Hesperus as the evening star, but the Greek astronomers knew better. (Venus's apparition as the morning star is also sometimes called Lucifer.)

http://www.nineplanets.org/venus.html

You are correct Jerome used the word lucifer in the Vulgate and the KJV was influenced by the Vulgate. It literally means bearer of light.

THE ORIGIN OF LUCIFER

We have seen clearly then that the term translated as Lucifer in the King James is not being incorrectly translated in modern versions of the Bible. The question then becomes “where did the name Lucifer come from?†If it did not exist in the original Hebrew, at what point did it find its way into the Scripture? Dr. James White comments, “The term Lucifer…came into the biblical tradition through the translation of Jerome’s [Latin] Vulgate…â€Â[19] Jerome used Lucifer in his Latin translation because Lucifer literally means “light-bearerâ€Â. While this term does relate the idea of the “morning star,†it is less than satisfactory laguage to be used in modern English translations. The simple fact of the matter is that Mr. Daniel is horribly mistaken in his ascertain that Lucifer is indeed the correct translation. Further, speaking to the correct translation of the Hebrew phrase “Helel ben Schacharâ€Â, Dr. White declares that “star of the morning or morning star are perfectly acceptable translations of the Hebrew word.â€Â[20] With all the critical and scholarly information emphatically in favor of the modern versions’ translation of Isaiah 14:12, I believe we can have confidence in the following reading of this passage from the NASB: “How you have fallen from heaven, O star of the morning, son of the dawn! You have been cut down to the earth, You who have weakened the nations!â€Â[21]

DOES THIS APPLY TO SATAN?

As we have seen, the context, and the language usage does explicitly speak of a Babylonian king. But does it also implicitly speak of Satan? Tertullian, one of the early church fathers, was the first known commentator to interpret the Isaiah passage as being what Christ was referencing in Luke 10:18. Since that time, especially since Jerome’s translation, it has become tradition to interpret this passage as being directly about Satan.

While the passage is not directly about Satan we can certainly draw a parallel between the attitude of the king and that of Satan. Because this king is not specifically given an identity, it is quite possible that this is a prototype of a king that represents both Satan and a Babylonian leader(s). This passage is much like its parallel, Ezekiel 28:11-19. While not immediately about Satan, he is certainly implied. Because of this, we can view Satan as the power behind the Babylonian king in the Isaiah passage, as well as being the power behind the king of Tyre in Ezekiel 28. Therefore, Mr. Daniel is correct in his belief that this passage applies to Satan. However, he is incorrect to demand that it is the immediate contextual subject.

http://thejude3project.wordpress.com/20 ... d-the-kjv/

This topic makes a good Bible Study subject.

 

[cyberjosh]

Are you sure It's North Star and not Venus? The north star is not very bright in comparison to other stars. But Venus was thought to be a star back then and it's usually the brightest star (excluding the Sun) on the morning horizon.

Well as one of those links I provided above said, it was only a contextual guess, in that the scholar observed that it seemed to him that the reference was almost always toward the north. But that is a guess, so yes it could be Venus (is Venus often in the North or can it be anywhere?).

Anyway the other quotes you gave seems to line up with my original theory of the spiritual influence on the actual ruler. Thanks for the responses.

God Bless,

~Josh

 

[Vic C.]

Well as one of those links I provided above said, it was only a contextual guess, in that the scholar observed that it seemed to him that the reference was almost always toward the north. But that is a guess, so yes it could be Venus (is Venus often in the North or can it be anywhere?).

Anyway the other quotes you gave seems to line up with my original theory of the spiritual influence on the actual ruler. Thanks for the responses.

God Bless,

~Josh

No, Venus moves through the sky. (Remember our conversation about the planets aligning, in that thread where we were discussing the birth of Jesus?) Polaris, the current North Star, appears to be fixed in the sky and all constellations seem to revolve around it. Unfortunately the planet shifts on it's axis every several hundred of years and Thuban, a much fainter star, was most likely the North Star of Isiah's day.

from the link...

Just as the North Star is the shining light that guides the traveler, God is the shining light that guides us on our journey.

It appears the author is trying to make a connection between the guiding light of a north star to God's "guiding light". It may have nothing to do with the Hebrew word or the context of Isiah, but that's cool. 8-) I like it.

 

[Vic C.]

I do have another question, if you don't mind. 8-)

Other than the account in Revelation, where do we find the account of Satan being cast down from Heaven?

 

[cyberjosh]

I do have another question, if you don't mind. 8-)

Other than the account in Revelation, where do we find the account of Satan being cast down from Heaven?

What immediately came to mind was what Jesus himself said about him, "And he said unto them, I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven" (Luke 10:18). Jesus infact made several references to Satan during his ministry, but this one in particular refers to his fall.

God Bless,

~Josh

 

[Ret]

Re: Satan? You mean THAT little imp...?

Not so 'little' when compared to all the havoc and upheval that he causes.

There are some other NAMES that also denote the quality of Satan.
Taken from the KJV and NASU/NASB

Most common are...
....Satan
....Devil/s

....demon/s (common in NASU/NASB but none in KJV)

Less common are...
....evil one
....destroyer
....evil spirit

Ephesians 6:11-12
11 Put on the full armor of God, so that you will be able to stand firm against the schemes of the devil. 12 For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the powers, against the world forces of this darkness, against the spiritual forces of wickedness in the heavenly places. NASU

Peace...Ret

 

[Vic C.]

Here ya go Josh, maybe Ret would like to keep this thread going.

 

[Paidion]

...but I curse His name up and down as that "base, vile, loathsome, coniving, lying, cheating, decieving, defiled, accursed, infamous, wicked, outcast, accuser of the brethren" much like the angels of God did: "The LORD rebuke you, Satan!

So... you are bolder than Michael the archangel!

Jude 1:9 But when the archangel Michael, contending with the devil, disputed about the body of Moses, he did not presume to pronounce a reviling judgment upon him, but said, "The Lord rebuke you." RSV

 

[cyberjosh]

...but I curse His name up and down as that "base, vile, loathsome, coniving, lying, cheating, decieving, defiled, accursed, infamous, wicked, outcast, accuser of the brethren" much like the angels of God did: "The LORD rebuke you, Satan!

So... you are bolder than Michael the archangel!

Jude 1:9 But when the archangel Michael, contending with the devil, disputed about the body of Moses, he did not presume to pronounce a reviling judgment upon him, but said, "The Lord rebuke you." RSV

You, of course, are right in pointing out that should not be done to Satan himself, as we don't have ultimate authority over him - and I did not intend to imply I challenge Satan in such a manner. The seven sons of Sceva had no better luck with the demons. I just think I was a little riled up that day I wrote that though. I do still call him names though, such as "that sly, vile, deceiver" much like Christ called Herod a "fox" and Satan a "murderer" and "liar". I would not rebuke Satan to his face (in what ever way that might be possible), except to resist him as we are commanded in James, for that is God's right alone. All I have to cling to is "greater is He who is in me, than he who is in the world".

The main idea for the conversation in the thread though was the interpretation of that Scripture as applying to Satan (as it historically has been).

God Bless,

~Josh