Who created Satan?

[for_his_glory]

Right. So the KJV and a few other translations are wrong in using Lucifer as a proper name. Again, this supports what I have been saying.

Why make a hugh fuss out of something that truly does not matter as giving it a name is not going to change what or who he is.

 

[JohnDB]

But the question I have is:
Have you ever personally met Satan?
Have you personally run into a being trying to get you away from your relationship with God?

Or have you just been tempted by what is common to all.

 

[JLB]

So you can accept that God makes us go through what we go through and allows evil to exist just so He knows if we pick Him or satan?

God makes us go through, what we go through?

Most of "what we go through" is the result of us not obeying God, and is brought on by the enemy.

So you can accept that God makes us go through what we go through and allows evil to exist just so He knows if we pick Him or satan?

Does that sound like an all-good being to you?

Not to me. He sounds very harsh, in fact. Putting us through all this just to give us a choice!

The result of the harsh things we "go through" is by not choosing Him.

Beloved, do not imitate what is evil, but what is good. He who does good is of God, but he who does evil has not seen God.
3 John 3:11



JLB

 

[Free]

Why make a hugh fuss out of something that truly does not matter as giving it a name is not going to change what or who he is.

As I have made abundantly clear, it matters because it is about accurately handling the Scriptures and not making them say more than they do. To say that a passage of Scripture refers to Satan when it doesn't, is to make Scripture say more than it does. It truly does matter to anyone interested in truth and interested in an accurate understanding of Scripture.

 

[Free]

I did show you the various version that either say morning star or day star for Isaiah 14:12. Was both these kings an anointed cherub, no, were both these kings the day star or morning star, no................process of elimination and you see the symbolism of Satan in these verses as only Satan can tempt us, but it is our choice to walk away from Gods will to follow self will which will be our downfall.

There is no "process of elimination." There is no reference to Satan in those passages. They refer to their respective kings only.

 

[FreeGrace]

It is a big deal precisely because Satan's name was not Lucifer. There is no such being with the name Lucifer in Scripture. That is a misreading of the text based on the error of KJV to leave a Latin word untranslated.

So it is agreed that "Lucifer" is a Latin word. So there still isn't a problem. Lots of people have Latin names.

Whether a translation translates the word into "son of the dawn" or untranslated as Lucifer makes no difference.

 

[Free]

So it is agreed that "Lucifer" is a Latin word. So there still isn't a problem. Lots of people have Latin names.

Whether a translation translates the word into "son of the dawn" or untranslated as Lucifer makes no difference.

Ideally, no, it shouldn't matter. The problem is that centuries later "Lucifer" became the name of Satan, with no warrant whatsoever, and then people read that back into the single verse found in the KJV and conclude that part of Isa. 14 is speaking about Satan, when it isn't.

 

[FreeGrace]

Ideally, no, it shouldn't matter. The problem is that centuries later "Lucifer" became the name of Satan, with no warrant whatsoever, and then people read that back into the single verse found in the KJV and conclude that part of Isa. 14 is speaking about Satan, when it isn't.

What name does the Bible give to the first fallen angel before the Bible calls him Satan?

 

[chessman]

As I have made abundantly clear, it matters because it is about accurately handling the Scriptures and not making them say more than they do. To say that a passage of Scripture refers to Satan when it doesn't, is to make Scripture say more than it does. It truly does matter to anyone interested in truth and interested in an accurate understanding of Scripture.

I, for one, want to accurately know;
1) Who's staff/scepter it was that Yahweh broke (Satan's/Lucifer's or the kings of Babylon/Assyria)??? And if it was Satan/Lucifer, what's he doing ruling/oppressing this world right now since the Text say he was laid down???
2) Who it was that those trees rejoiced over their entry into Sheol???
3) What that sounded like when the trees rejoiced.

Isaiah 14:5-8 (LEB) Yahweh has broken the staff of the wicked, the scepter of rulers, that struck the peoples in wrath, a blow without ceasing, that ruled the nations in anger with unrestrained persecution. All of the earth rests and is quiet; they break forth into singing. Even the cypresses rejoice over you, the cedars of Lebanon: ‘Since you were laid down, no wood cutter comes up against us.’ ​

 

[Free]

What name does the Bible give to the first fallen angel before the Bible calls him Satan?

I don't know if it does give a name prior to Satan.

 

[for_his_glory]

There is no "process of elimination." There is no reference to Satan in those passages. They refer to their respective kings only.

That's because you see the literal as in the two kings, but not the Spiritual. I see both. By the Latin definition of Lucifer being a son of the morning star Venus that we agree on then it would stand to say Isaiah is speaking of a star that has been cut down to the ground and how can a star have a heart or even a thought process to exalt itself or even be like God for by the Latin definition this is what that verse would means

Isaiah 14:12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations! 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, in the sides of the north: 14 I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High.

 

[Free]

That's because you see the literal as in the two kings, but not the Spiritual. I see both. By the Latin definition of Lucifer being a son of the morning star Venus that we agree on then it would stand to say Isaiah is speaking of a star that has been cut down to the ground and how can a star have a heart or even a thought process to exalt itself or even be like God for by the Latin definition this is what that verse would means.

There is no "spiritual" meaning.

 

[for_his_glory]

There is no "spiritual" meaning.

That is your choice to believe there is not, but not everyone sees things that others see in the symbolism of certain scripture.

 

[Free]

That is your choice to believe there is not, but not everyone sees things that others see in the symbolism of certain scripture.

There is no other meaning or symbolism. It is not a matter of me not seeing something that you see. Using your very dangerous reasoning, one could make any passage say whatever they want and just claim that it is a spiritual meaning. You have absolutely no biblical basis for reading Satan into that passage. If the KJV had not left "Lucifer" in there, we wouldn't even be having this discussion. But because the translators decided to leave it in there and someone decided centruies later that "Lucifer" was a name of Satan, then there is a supposed dual meaning to this passage. Really?

 

[Mike]

Wow. In catching up with this thread, now 11 pages long, I had a lot of clean up to do. I deleted 14 posts that lent nothing to the conversation. This is not the place to get into personal spats or nag about the nature of forums. Members need to realize which forum they are in when they are posting. When you post in the A&T, you adhere to the Guidelines for Posting in the A&T. This isn't the place to snap back with "Are you serious?" or " " as the extent of your response. Assume other members are serious, that they do understand scripture, and that they have thoughtfully interpreted scripture in a way that might differ from the way you have.

Please focus on the topic of this thread and direct your posts to the topic; not the person.

 

[Jim Parker]

But because the translators decided to leave it in there and someone decided centruies later that "Lucifer" was a name of Satan, then there is a supposed dual meaning to this passage. Really?

The KJV is only 400 years old. So "centuries later" is off by centuries.
Many passages, especially prophetic ones, have more than one meaning.
It is quite easy to see why that passage in Isaiah could be interpreted as being about the devil or the King of Babylon.

 

[for_his_glory]

There is no other meaning or symbolism. It is not a matter of me not seeing something that you see. Using your very dangerous reasoning, one could make any passage say whatever they want and just claim that it is a spiritual meaning. You have absolutely no biblical basis for reading Satan into that passage. If the KJV had not left "Lucifer" in there, we wouldn't even be having this discussion. But because the translators decided to leave it in there and someone decided centruies later that "Lucifer" was a name of Satan, then there is a supposed dual meaning to this passage. Really?

All I can say is you believe as you will and I will believe as I will and I will let it at that.

 

[smaller]

What I asked you to show. You stated: "There were limited characters in the Garden of Eden and only one of them was an angelic messenger." Show this in Genesis.

Adam, Eve, God and the tempter.

Care to add any more?

What then do you mean by "in man"? You use Mark 4:15 and 1 John 3:8 more than any other verses to backup your position, yet neither says what you have made them say.

They say what they say. I haven't altered the statements.

Unregenerate man can be possessed by demons, that is without question, but those demons can be cast out, and not all unregenerate persons are possessed by demons.

Sin is of the devil. The god of this world blinds the minds of unbelievers. It has nothing to do with head spinning vomit spewing possession. Mark 4:15 and all the seed parables, Acts 26:18, Romans 11:8, 2 Cor. 3:14, 2 Cor. 4:4, Eph. 2:2, 1 John 3:8

And yes, Paul did have a messenger of Satan in his own flesh. 2 Cor. 12:7

 

[smaller]

Wow, no one and certainly not me is blaming God for anything because blame is saying putting off on another something went wrong and this is not the case. I am aware and was told there are a lot of misunderstanding about what God did and before anyone can say this or that one must ask the right questions to get the right answers otherwise there will be a lot of assumptions. The question could be why did God create Lucifer in the first place.

God quite purposefully created the spirit of disobedience and bound all of mankind to same precisely to demonstrate His Mercy.

Mark 4:15, Acts 26:18, Romans 9:18-24, Romans 11:8 & 32, 2 Cor. 3:14, 2 Cor. 4:4, Eph. 2:2, 1 John 3:8, 1 Tim. 1:15, 2 Tim. 2:20-21 etc. etc. Not rocket science.

 

[Hospes]

-
The bible is the beginning and the end....the complete history of God dealing with "man".
So, had Michael or Gabriel decided to follow Lucifer, then we would know it because our Bible would show it.
So, no Heavenly Being transgressed after they witnessed what happened to those who tried it.
Had they, your bible would tell you..

Sorry I was not clearer. What I was asking is not if Michael or Gabriel has in the past rebelled, but rather - given your view of angels having a free will to choose evil - what prevents Michael and/or Gabriel from deciding in the distant future to rebel against God just as Satan did?