Who created Satan?

[Free]

Okay... most notably you are not willing to deal with the other two verses.

It has nothing to do with not willing and everything to do with the fact that they have nothing to do with Isa. 14:12. Again, you are reading those two verses into Isa. 14:12 instead of letting it speak for itself.

In Context the case can be made as you state it

Exactly. Is that not precisely what we are supposed to look at, context? We can make the Bible say all sorts of things it doesn't if we ignore context and bring in other verses which have no bearing on the matter.

but Lucifer, the Bright Morning Star was cast out of Heaven and at the least,

See, here you are reading something back into the text. "Lucifer" is a carryover from the Latin Vulgate, if I remember correctly, and the KJ translators didn't correct it. It is not the name of a being; it is a reference to either Jupiter or Venus.

we know he had no good in his heart for God and a third of the other star, angels, were allied with him and all were cast down to the earth below Heaven and it is thus we get the Infamous Satan and his demons.

Sure, but that has absolutely no bearing on Isa. 14:12.

But Luke 10:18 And He said to them, “I was watching Satan fall from heaven like lightning. 19 Behold, I have given you authority to read on serpents and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy, and nothing will injure you.

Then in Rev 12:3 Then another sign appeared in heaven: and behold, a great red dragon having seven heads and ten horns, and on his heads were seven diadems. 4 And his tail *swept away a third of the stars of heaven and threw them to the earth. And the dragon stood before the woman who was about to give birth, so that when she gave birth he might devour her child.


Allegorical? Yes

Of course, but again, that has zero bearing on Isa. 14:12. What is worth noting is that you argue to the allegorical here but you won't let Isa. 14:12 be allegorical. Why is that?

and it is Lucifer, who is renamed Satan, and one third of the Angels being cast down. I forget the address but Lucifer is described by the Word of God as being the Bright and Shining Morning Star. In Heaven he was a Chief Angel and I can find no reason God would not have thought, metaphorically, as star, lesser, but also stars.

Here you are again reading things into the text. "Lucifer" is used only once in the entire KJV, in Isa. 14:12. There is absolutely nothing in the entirety of Scripture that suggests 1) Lucifer was the name of an actual being, 2) that Lucifer was "renamed Satan," or 3) was "a Chief Angel." Not one shred of evidence.

And I can't help but notice two things:

1) That you didn't address the fact that most translations don't use "Lucifer."
2) You didn't answer my question as to how Satan could be called "light-bringer."

 

[Edward]

Okay... most notably you are not willing to deal with the other two verses. In Context the case can be made as you state it but Lucifer, the Bright Morning Star was cast out of Heaven and at the least, we know he had no good in his heart for God and a third of the other star, angels, were allied with him and all were cast down to the earth below Heaven and it is thus we get the Infamous Satan and his demons. This is one more of the foolish points Satan uses to keep God's people off their mission but this is not a salvic matter and as I always like to point out, when we all are in Heaven, Jesus will jerk the knots out of the tails of every one of us,

But Luke 10:18 And He said to them, “I was watching Satan fall from heaven like lightning. 19 Behold, I have given you authority to read on serpents and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy, and nothing will injure you.

Then in Rev 12:3 Then another sign appeared in heaven: and behold, a great red dragon having seven heads and ten horns, and on his heads were seven diadems. 4 And his tail *swept away a third of the stars of heaven and threw them to the earth. And the dragon stood before the woman who was about to give birth, so that when she gave birth he might devour her child.


Allegorical? Yes and it is Lucifer, who is renamed Satan, and one third of the Angels being cast down. I forget the address but Lucifer is described by the Word of God as being the Bright and Shining Morning Star. In Heaven he was a Chief Angel and I can find no reason God would not have thought, metaphorically, as star, lesser, but also stars.

I found the address, Brother. It's 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!.../(KJV)

I do not have an address for Satan being a title of office rather than a name though, but I have it stuck in my head from somewhere, lol. Similar to like...Jesus is, the Christ, so is lucifer, the Satan (Great Satan?) that rings a bell I think...

 

[Edward]

1) That you didn't address the fact that most translations don't use "Lucifer."
2) You didn't answer my question as to how Satan could be called "light-bringer."

1. Is this point worth arguing about? His name or re-named...so what? The point is, He's evil, anti-Christ, hates us all and would see us die. The victory is won, Brother! O death, where is thy sting? We cling to our Lord Jesus and abide in Him...and shall give glory and praise to God through Jesus forevermore! Yay!! Glory to God!!


2. That ones in 2 Corinthians Brother.

2 Corinthians 11:14
And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.../

Hth...

 

[Edward]

Here you are again reading things into the text.

I notice that you say that a lot in different threads Brother. With all due respect...are we not to meditate upon the Word of God? (Joshua 1:8) To contemplate His Word. That's what he's doing here brother. He isn't adding to the scripture or taking away the Words...contemplating it (which is totally a commandment in my mind) ...which is what we do. Would you agree with Brother?

 

[Northman]

This is weird. If verses 12-14 were all by themselves then I might be able to see the argument for it being about satan. These verses aren't by themselves though and in both verses 11 and 15, directly before and after the verses in question, it talks about this character being in sheol. That's not where satan resides. This looks more like snippets to fit and idea rather than something attained from a fluid reading of Isaiah 14.

 

[th1b.taylor]

It has nothing to do with not willing and everything to do with the fact that they have nothing to do with Isa. 14:12. Again, you are reading those two verses into Isa. 14:12 instead of letting it speak for itself.


Exactly. Is that not precisely what we are supposed to look at, context? We can make the Bible say all sorts of things it doesn't if we ignore context and bring in other verses which have no bearing on the matter.


See, here you are reading something back into the text. "Lucifer" is a carryover from the Latin Vulgate, if I remember correctly, and the KJ translators didn't correct it. It is not the name of a being; it is a reference to either Jupiter or Venus.


Sure, but that has absolutely no bearing on Isa. 14:12.


Of course, but again, that has zero bearing on Isa. 14:12. What is worth noting is that you argue to the allegorical here but you won't let Isa. 14:12 be allegorical. Why is that?


Here you are again reading things into the text. "Lucifer" is used only once in the entire KJV, in Isa. 14:12. There is absolutely nothing in the entirety of Scripture that suggests 1) Lucifer was the name of an actual being, 2) that Lucifer was "renamed Satan," or 3) was "a Chief Angel." Not one shred of evidence.

And I can't help but notice two things:

1) That you didn't address the fact that most translations don't use "Lucifer."
2) You didn't answer my question as to how Satan could be called "light-bringer."

Look, I don't know but are you the Hippie I put in the hospital for spitting on me in the God forsaken city of Frisco or are you just nasty to everyone that attempts to engage you in conversation? You deny it every time but you do not have anything for me but trouble and it just glows when you post to me, that is never going to result in an intelligent conversation.

Reba, recently had a string where a number of us repented of exactly what you do every time you disagree with me, the same is not a good idea for the Moderators? I'm trying to be pleasant.

 

[th1b.taylor]

This is weird. If verses 12-14 were all by themselves then I might be able to see the argument for it being about satan. These verses aren't by themselves though and in both verses 11 and 15, directly before and after the verses in question, it talks about this character being in sheol. That's not where satan resides. This looks more like snippets to fit and idea rather than something attained from a fluid reading of Isaiah 14.

Northman, if he read my response, he knows that I did not come right out and cowtow to him but I conceded to his point just the same and now he is railing at me, the very thing he refuses to admit he does, the man hates Bill Taylor, period.

 

[chessman]

2. That ones in 2 Corinthians Brother.

2 Corinthians 11:14
And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.../

Hth...

2 Corinthians 11:14 (NASB) No wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light.

2 Corinthians 11:14 (ESV) And no wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light. ​

On the otherhand, the true light is Jesus:

Revelation 22:16 (NASB) “I, Jesus, have sent My angel to testify to you these things for the churches. I am the root and the descendant of David, the bright morning star.” ​

Venus is a planet (named for the highest Roman goddess). In reality though, it merely reflects the light of the Sun. One might say it disguises itself as a star. But in reality, it's no more a star than Earth or Mars. Just like some kings of the Earth (Babylonia/Assyrian especially) liked to think of themselves, a claimed to be, a god. But in reality, they died like all other men.

 

[th1b.taylor]

1. Is this point worth arguing about? His name or re-named...so what? The point is, He's evil, anti-Christ, hates us all and would see us die. The victory is won, Brother! O death, where is thy sting? We cling to our Lord Jesus and abide in Him...and shall give glory and praise to God through Jesus forevermore! Yay!! Glory to God!!


2. That ones in 2 Corinthians Brother.

2 Corinthians 11:14
And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.../

Hth...

Amen

 

[reba]

26 pages of this?

 

[Free]

1. Is this point worth arguing about? His name or re-named...so what?

Yes, it is worth discussing as people such as yourself believe that this small passage in Isaiah is speaking of Satan, when it clearly is not. So yes, the truth of what Scripture matters, at least to me.

2. That ones in 2 Corinthians Brother.

2 Corinthians 11:14
And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.../

Hth...

chessman has beaten me to it. There is a vast difference between being a "light-bearer" and disguising oneself as an angel of light. Not to mention that "light" in 2 Cor. 11:14 is likely metaphorical for goodness and/or wisdom.

 

[Free]

26 pages of this?

Going for at least 27.

 

[Free]

Look, I don't know but are you the Hippie I put in the hospital for spitting on me in the God forsaken city of Frisco or are you just nasty to everyone that attempts to engage you in conversation? You deny it every time but you do not have anything for me but trouble and it just glows when you post to me, that is never going to result in an intelligent conversation.

Reba, recently had a string where a number of us repented of exactly what you do every time you disagree with me, the same is not a good idea for the Moderators? I'm trying to be pleasant.

I have not in any way whatsoever been nasty. I am simply asking questions and pointing out where I think you have erred. Why is it that every time I do that you accuse me of being nasty? It's all in your head, and I don't know why. Is it that you have to be right?

Northman, if he read my response, he knows that I did not come right out and cowtow to him but I conceded to his point just the same

What point? Where you admitted that "In Context the case can be made as you state it"? But then went on to argue that I was wrong, stating, "most notably you are not willing to deal with the other two verses."

and now he is railing at me,

And then when I dealt with those two verses and ask you some questions, I am "railing" at you? Are you for real? Would you like me to put smiley faces and hearts everywhere so you know that I am just simply having a discussion?

the very thing he refuses to admit he does, the man hates Bill Taylor, period.

DO NOT make such false accusations, Bill.

 

[dirtfarmer]

dirtfarmer here

Might as well throw another cog in the disruptive blog: In verse 14 & 16 of Ezekiel 28 "stones of fire " are mentioned; what are the stones of fire?

 

[Free]

This "stuff" is apparently being taught at his church or by his very favorite televangelist.

Never have I once heard it in church and I do not listen to televangelists. The irony is that one would have to be taught that Isa. 14:12 is speaking about Satan and that "Lucifer" became Satan. A plain reading of the text shows quite clearly that it is only speaking of the king of Babylon.

 

[Free]

dirtfarmer here

Might as well throw another cog in the disruptive blog: In verse 14 & 16 of Ezekiel 28 "stones of fire " are mentioned; what are the stones of fire?

Could be a reference to verse 13:

Eze 28:13 You were in Eden, the garden of God; every precious stone was your covering, sardius, topaz, and diamond, beryl, onyx, and jasper, sapphire, emerald, and carbuncle; and crafted in gold were your settings and your engravings. On the day that you were created they were prepared.

 

[Northman]

Northman, if he read my response, he knows that I did not come right out and cowtow to him but I conceded to his point just the same and now he is railing at me, the very thing he refuses to admit he does, the man hates Bill Taylor, period.

Apologies. I thought there was an actual discussion. I'm always interested in where people get ideas from or how revelation is delivered.

 

[dirtfarmer]

Could be a reference to verse 13:

Eze 28:13 You were in Eden, the garden of God; every precious stone was your covering, sardius, topaz, and diamond, beryl, onyx, and jasper, sapphire, emerald, and carbuncle; and crafted in gold were your settings and your engravings. On the day that you were created they were prepared.

hello Free, dirtfarmer here

How could it have been in reference to the king of Tyrus in verse 12? Was he ever in Eden, the garden of God? Could it be a reference to the stars that God created? Would they be considered "stone of fire"?

 

[Northman]

hello Free, dirtfarmer here

How could it have been in reference to the king of Tyrus in verse 12? Was he ever in Eden, the garden of God? Could it be a reference to the stars that God created? Would they be considered "stone of fire"?

Not to butt in on Free, but if you skip ahead to Ezekiel 31, you will find the Nations in the surrounding area all described as trees in the garden of God. This entire book is loaded with colourful language. The whole thing is themed, prophecy against nation and ruler alike. Literal and not literal at the same time.

 

[th1b.taylor]

removed, it is wrong