It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Satan is not Lucifer.

page: 15
6
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 30 2007 @ 11:04 AM
link   
reply to post by queenannie38
 



There is also a Seven Hills in Australia as well in Ohio.
Lisbon, Portugal is known as the 'City of Seven Hills.'


That was a very informative geography lesson. Thank you for the information........Whirlwind




posted on Aug, 30 2007 @ 11:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by whirlwind
reply to post by MikeboydUS
 



In Jeremiah G-d says the Earth Is in Chaos.

"I look at the Earth. It is Tohu Va'Bohu. At the Skies, and their Light is gone. I look at the mountains, They are quaking, and all of the hills are rocking."


Jere.4:23. I beheld the earth, and lo, it was without form......
24.I beheld the mountains....
25.I beheld, and, lo, there was no man.......
26.I beheld, and lo, the fruitful place was a wilderness......


I Beheld, not I Behold. This was from the first age.


So Moses turned Aaron's staff into an Angel? ....The Serpent Nachash is described as Chayah, a living creature. That is important. This is not a Spirit or one of the Hosts, but a living creature in the Garden. A creature with seed or offspring too.


Satan, the serpent, is a living creature. He had offspring, just as the fallen angels did.


Heres some bits on the Seven Heavens....www.ucalgary.ca...


Thank you for that link but it isn't scripture. The thoughts are those of men, traditions of men, that God warns us of. Jesus said that He foretold us of all things and as far as I know the only other heaven I know of is the 3rd heaven Paul told us he was taken to. That, to me, is the one that follows this age.



.......Whirlwind



I'm guessing your using something like a King James Commissioned Translation.

I'm going to stick with my Jewish Publication Society translation.

Your missing the Point about the Serpent creature. Its one of the many creatures of the Garden. Meaning there is most likley two in the Garden as the other Creatures all have mates and there are even more outside the Garden like everything in the Garden has more on earth. Its whole line was cursed by G-d.

Satan on the other hand is a Celestial, one of the Hosts of Heaven. Not a creature of the Garden.

Now do I think these Serpents are just any old snakes? No they are something abit different than any snake. Genesis says they are the most cunning of all the creatures in the Garden. That means even Adam is not as cunning. In other words these things are Sapient.

From various rabbinical commentary I have looked at, it appears these things are very Naga Like. Naga directly translates as Snake. If I were to translate Nachash into Sanskrit it would translate to Naga.

www.khandro.net...
en.wikipedia.org...(mythology)

Check out the Seven Headed Naga Raja "King"
www.btinternet.com...

In China Naga are also called Lung or Long, the Chinese Dragon.
en.wikipedia.org...

Keep in mind the Nachash isnt any little serpent creature. Were talking about something rather large. Not the little grass snake in medieval paintings.

Check out the similarities between Ladon of the Garden of Hesperides in Greek myth and the Serpent in the Garden of Eden.

en.wikipedia.org...

Now remember the part about the Seven Headed Naga King? Leviathan is a Seven Headed Tannim or Dragon. But Nachashim and Tannim are two different creatures, or are they?

In Exodus when Aaron's rod becomes a Nachash the Egyptians see it as a Tannim. That is from the Hebrew. The Tannim and the Nachash appear to be one and the same. In fact Leviathan is King over the Tannim like the Seven Headed King of the Naga.

Well consider this about the word translated as Heaven, its Shamayim which actually means: Heavens. An accurate translation of the Bible would say Heavens not Heaven. So one can gather that there are many just from the Hebrew.


[edit on 30/8/07 by MikeboydUS]



posted on Aug, 30 2007 @ 11:48 AM
link   
reply to post by queenannie38
 


But none of those places have any historical bearing on the subject I am talking about!!
I'm talking about the enemies of christians and the kingdom of Judah.the two biggest threats were Babylon and then Rome.

and you didn't answer my question



posted on Aug, 30 2007 @ 12:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by whirlwind
There is only one God and everyone will walk in the name of that one God, forever and ever.


Micah says, in chapter 4, verse 5:


For all people will walk every one in the name of his god, and we will walk in the name of the LORD our God for ever and ever.


It does not say EVERYONE. It says WE.


To not think that goes against all other scripture on that important subject.


If it makes a contradiction in your understanding, then there is an explanation in scripture. You can't throw one verse out because it doesn't fit in with what you believe.

I know you know this.



Would He allow other gods to be worshiped in the millennium or eternity when that is what He so warns us against throughout this age?


Obviously so. It says so right there in Micah! And also says:
for the mouth of the LORD of hosts hath spoken it.

God told Israel not to have any other Gods before him....not everyone else. True, in the end, every knee shall bow and every tongue confess - but this is going to be because of the witness of Israel.


But in the last days it shall come to pass, that the mountain of the house of the LORD shall be established in the top of the mountains, and it shall be exalted above the hills; and people shall flow unto it.
And many nations shall come, and say, Come, and let us go up to the mountain of the LORD, and to the house of the God of Jacob; and he will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths: for the law shall go forth of Zion, and the word of the LORD from Jerusalem.
Micah 4:1-2


In the meantime, however, no one will be forced and there will be NO MORE wars fought in the name of God for the sake of trying to force others to believe something they cannot yet believe...
(for whatever reason-more than likely because HATEFUL ACTIONS contradict GODLY WORDS.)

So far, throughout history, it has been the way of all three Abrahamic religions to kill each other and the rest of the world in an attempt to force worship of the Living God:


  • Crusades
  • Inquisitions
  • Missionary colonization (usually resulting in catastrophic decimation of the targeted population)
  • Wars over Palestine/Jerusalem
  • Jihad


The result:

  • FEAR
  • HATRED
  • ATHEISM
  • TERRORISM
  • GENOCIDE


These are NOT GOD's ways; they are man's ways. Man accuses man of heresy, infidelity, paganism, etc. Man kills man in the name of God for the sake of saving the other man's soul.

?!?!!?!?!? :shk:

Totally ILLOGICAL, captain. No way to live long and prosper going that route.
And certainly no way to lead others to the Living God of Israel by example!


Babylon, bable/confusion, is being void of the knowledge of God.


NO. Babel simply means 'confusion.'
What dictionary do you use?


The one that does that is the king of Babylon and that is Satan.


NO WHERE in the bible does it say that OR insinuate that.
In fact, Nebuchadnezzar ended up anything but void about the knowledge of God:


And at the end of the days I Nebuchadnezzar lifted up mine eyes unto heaven, and mine understanding returned unto me, and I blessed the most High, and I praised and honored him that liveth for ever, whose dominion is an everlasting dominion, and his kingdom is from generation to generation: And all the inhabitants of the earth are reputed as nothing: and he does according to his will in the army of heaven, and among the inhabitants of the earth: and none can stay his hand, or say unto him, What doest thou?
At the same time my reason returned unto me; and for the glory of my kingdom, mine honor and brightness returned unto me; and my counselors and my lords sought unto me; and I was established in my kingdom, and excellent majesty was added unto me.
Now I Nebuchadnezzar praise and extol and honor the King of heaven, all whose works are truth, and his ways judgment: and those that walk in pride he is able to abase.
Daniel 4:34-37



The ones in history are types for The King of Babylon, Satan.


Those are teachings of men. Satan means 'accuser.' He is NOT a serpent or a particular being or anything like that. Simply an adversary. I am being your 'satan' in this discussion, technically speaking.


God NEVER says that the King of Babylon is Satan; in fact, He calls the King of Babylon (Nebuchadnezzar, specifically) his servant. More than once!


  • Jeremiah 25:9
  • Jeremiah 27:6
  • Jeremiah 43:10


In Ezekiel 29:18-21, God tells him that Nebuchadnezzar served Him well and had no reward; and somehow, that has everything to do with the day that the house of Israel 'buds forth.'


All nations will be under him but we, as Christians, cannot "serve" him:


According to Jeremiah 27:7-8, ALL NATIONS were to serve King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon; until the time of 'his land come' and then still nations and kings will serve him...nothing is said at all about excluding Christianity (which of course DID NOT EXIST and was not EVEN foretold of the prophets).

There is one assembly that is God's elect - Israel (not the UN-sanctioned country but God's elect). If God tells us to do something, then I guess we better do what He says, right? WHATEVER it is...
If we are to be over-comers (prevail with God), that is.

Until you understand who/what the 'beast' is, your theology is going to be confused. The beast is man -the sons of men. Ecclesiastes 3:18

Worshiping the man Jesus is worshiping the beast. We are to worship God only. Who is pure spirit. Jesus said so, himself.


All nations will serve him (Satan), as there will be a one world system under his control.


There already is...this is going on right now and has been even since the days of Paul.

2 Thessalonians 2:7-12

The strong delusion.
It is the division that religions cause. The ONLY way to peace is to cease division. God is going to give us an expected end:


For thus saith the LORD, That after seventy years be accomplished at Babylon I will visit you, and perform my good word toward you, in causing you to return to this place.
For I know the thoughts that I think toward you, saith the LORD, thoughts of peace, and not of evil, to give you an expected end.
Jeremiah 29:10-11


On the other hand, what does the bible say about ONE?


That in the dispensation of the fullness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him:
Ephesians 1:10

For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,) But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.
1 Corinthians 8:5-6


Is not the Kingdom of God in the coming age going to be a ONE WORLD government? Indeed it will be.


  • Psalms 72:11
  • Psalms 82:8
  • Isaiah 2:2
  • Isaiah 66:18


Now, either God is going to do something very confusing and do the same thing in both a 'bad' way and a 'good' way (very confusing to the human mind); or there is really just ONE thing being foretold.

God is not the author of confusion.
Nothing new under the sun.



The daughter of Zion, will go to Babylon and be delivered from her enemies. How will that happen? God's elect will speak God's truth in Jerusalem (the Holy Spirit will speak through them) and "even the gainsayers cannot resist" Luke 21:15.


EXACTLY. Right now. These present days. The very days in which we wake and sleep day after day.



posted on Aug, 30 2007 @ 12:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by jakyll
reply to post by queenannie38
 


But none of those places have any historical bearing on the subject I am talking about!!


I know.
I was just pointing out something that so far, no one has realized.



I'm talking about the enemies of christians and the kingdom of Judah.the two biggest threats were Babylon and then Rome.


No doubt Rome (or rather NERO) was an enemy of early Christendom....Babylon, however, was sanctioned and ordered by God to do what it did, to Judah.


and you didn't answer my question

I'm sorry, I guess I didn't realize you were asking me a specific question; I will go back and give you an answer.



posted on Aug, 30 2007 @ 12:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by whirlwind
That was a very informative geography lesson. Thank you for the information........Whirlwind


Are you being facetious?



posted on Aug, 30 2007 @ 01:03 PM
link   
reply to post by queenannie38
 


S'aight.was just asking if,in later times,its possible that Babylon became Rome.as it has been used in such capacity on other occassions.just as places like hollywood gets called the new sodom and gomorah.


Its a well known fact that mankind uses holy scriptures to bend the will of others,and to start wars,and to commit atrocities etc.but you can't deny that sometimes they've took their cue from god,especially the god of the old testament!!
I think its time we had a new "nicea" meeting.get rid of the books and passages in the bible that have no bearing on jesus and christianity.get rid of all the violence and pauls insane attitude to women etc.and add the "missing" gospels of thomas,philip and mary magdalene.add the beautifully written book of enoch and the dead sea scrolls.and see what happens lol.


You never known,it might do the world good.people won't be able to pick out passages of violence in the bible and say,"well,god says its aight." if you just fill the bible with the words of jesus,god and messages of peace and love i don't see how you could go wrong!!






[edit on 30-8-2007 by jakyll]

[edit on 30-8-2007 by jakyll]



posted on Aug, 30 2007 @ 01:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by jakyll
Have you ever thought that the name Babylon has been used in the bible as a metaphor for Rome??


Well, no not really; I understand Babylon to be symbolic of something else entirely.

But now that you mention Rome, I can see what you are saying. Lately I have come to understand how the United States is much like the Roman Empire; mainly because of both being a conglomeration of many peoples with all their myriad ways and customs.


Babylon and then Assyria may have gone to war with the ppl of Judah,but under Cyrus the Great(called messiah by the jews.) of the Persian empire the jews were returned to their homeland.the kings who followed Cyrus did as he did;respected other ppl's gods!


I think all the kings of Babylon/Nineveh/Assyria did, didn't they? In fact, pretty much everyone did, back in those long-ago days. And really, the gods for each were really all the same but with different names because of the different languages and cultures. And also they morphed over time; later on many Kings created their own amalgamations of various gods to suit their purposes. One example is Serapis.


It wasn't until Roman rule that the province of Judah once more became a fighting ground.at this time Parthia ruled over the area that once was Babylons domain,and they were never in conflict with Judah,only Rome.
And,as you no doubt know,the Romans desecrated many holy sites,robbed Judah of its treasures and its ancient relics etc etc.


That was more before the Roman Empire rose to greatness, wasn't it? Specifically the Hellenistic Seleucid rulers right before the revolt of the Maccabees. Antiochus IV Epiphanes is the one who defiled the temple with a statue of Jupiter and the sacrifice of a pig on the altar.

The Roman government in Palestine was actually quite considerate of the Jewish population at Jerusalem; the Roman Legion was not allowed to fly their usual banners with the likeness of the Emperor and also special coins were minted as to not insult the Jew's sensitivity regarding iconic images.

And of course, Herod built the last temple which Titus destroyed.

It wasn't until the Jewish revolt of 68 BC began that things went bad (the result of a inner civil conflict within the Jewish population: between the Zealots and the Sicarii); and the destruction of the temple seems to be somewhat of a misfortune rather than a targeted persecution. Titus supposedly ordered that the temple NOT be destroyed, but in the melee and chaos, a Roman soldier sent a torch through a window, starting a blaze that ended up destroying it entirely. That is according to Josephus; there are other writers who say otherwise, but I tend to believe Josephus on this particular point.

Regardless of the cause, it is said that Vespasian (Titus's father) funded the building of the Colosseum with the spoils from the destruction of the temple.


In the time of Jesus,it was Rome who was the threat,Rome persecuted jews and the newly emerging christians.could not the emperor be the new "whore of babylon"?


Actually, in the time of Jesus, it was JESUS who was a threat; to the Pharisees who were afraid of losing the fraction of autonomy they had left, under Roman rule. They were afraid of any sort of threat of public riot or uprising; the Sanhedrin did not want to lose any further authority over the Jewish populace. As it was, they had lost the right to decide capital punishment; thus the reason Pontius Pilate had the final say in the judgment of Jesus.



posted on Aug, 30 2007 @ 01:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by jakyll
I think its time we had a new "nicea" meeting.get rid of the books and passages in the bible that have no bearing on jesus and christianity.get rid of all the violence and pauls insane attitude to women etc.and add the "missing" gospels of thomas,philip and mary magdalene.add the beautifully written book of enoch and the dead sea scrolls.and see what happens lol.


OH God forbid!
There's been ENOUGH of all that, already.


You never known,it might do the world good.people won't be able to pick out passages of violence in the bible and say,"well,god says its aight." if you just fill the bible with the words of jesus,god and messages of peace and love i don't see how you could go wrong!!


Pretty simple, already:

LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF.

That's all anyone need to remember out of the whole thing, really - as far as true reform for the world's state of affairs.

And that isn't even new to Jesus's time:


Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people,
but thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself:
I am the LORD.
Leviticus 19:18



posted on Aug, 30 2007 @ 02:20 PM
link   
reply to post by queenannie38
 


Cyrus the Great was the founder of the Persian empire,which came after the selucid empire.and,as mentioned,he paved the way of how future monarchs should act to other religions.mainly because it was great political stratergy,lol.

the Romans quickly learnt they had to acquiesce to many things in that province,because the people there were kinda like the french today.will riot if you piss them off,or if they can't get what they want,lol.i've always thought that jesus was a "threat" for 2 reasons.those who were romanized didn't want trouble,as you said.but also,the hebrew messiah was ment to be a warrior.a man who would lead them from the tyranny of rome.Jesus was a man of peace who preached that violence was wrong!

And the coliseum wasn't just built with jewish wealth,it was built by jewish people taken to rome as slaves.



posted on Aug, 30 2007 @ 04:56 PM
link   
reply to post by MikeboydUS
 



I'm guessing your using something like a King James Commissioned Translation. ...I'm going to stick with my Jewish Publication Society translation.


I use a Companion Bible, KJV, E.W. Bullinger.


Your missing the Point about the Serpent creature. Its one of the many creatures of the Garden. Meaning there is most likley two in the Garden as the other Creatures all have mates and there are even more outside the Garden like everything in the Garden has more on earth. Its whole line was cursed by G-d.....Satan on the other hand is a Celestial, one of the Hosts of Heaven. Not a creature of the Garden.


Mike, Satan is the serpent. He was there at the beginning and will be there at the end. He is who we fight against. Remember the first prophecy:

Gen.3:15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her Seed; It shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise His heel."

Satan bruised the heels of Christ on the cross but Christ will bruise his head - a killing blow.

Satan is the serpent, the dragon, the leviathan, the deceiver, the accuser, the morning star, Lucifer, etc., etc., etc.

A storm is coming up - I'll continue this later.

........Whirlwind

.



posted on Aug, 30 2007 @ 06:28 PM
link   
reply to post by MikeboydUS
 

The Bible I use, Companion Bible, has footnotes and appendixes written by E.W. Bullinger. He was the only Christian allowed to edit the Massorah for Ginsberg. It is a standard KJV and he has shown where words have been changed or added from the manuscripts. As I don't understand Hebrew or Greek I am able to use the Strong's Concordance to get the meaning of the original word.

In Appendix 19 Bullinger goes into depth on The Serpent of Genesis 3. I'll list a few of his thoughts. I don't know if it will change your mind or not but you may find it of interest.

In Gen.3 we have neither allegory, myth, legend, nor fable, but literal historical facts set forth, and emphasised by the use of certain figures of speech. (snip)

But for the figurative language of verses 14 and 15 no one would have thought of referring the third chapter of Genesis to a snake: no more than he does when reading the third chapter from the end of Revelation 10:2. Indeed, the explanation added there, that the "old serpent" is the Devil and Satan, would immediately lead one to connect the world "old" with the earlier and former mention of the serpent in Gen. 3: and the fact that it was Satan himself who tempted "the second man", "the last Adam", would force the conclusion that no other than the personal Satan could have been the tempter of "the first man, Adam".

The Hebrew word rendered "serpent" in Gen. 3:1 is Nachash (from the root Nachash, to shine), and means a shining one. Hence, in Chaldee it means brass or copper, because of its shining. Hence also, the word Nehushtan, a piece of brass, in 2 Kings 18:4.(snip)

The Nachash, or serpent who beguiled Eve (2 Cor.11:3) is spoken of as "an angel of light" in vs. 14. Have we not, in this, a clear intimation that it was not a snake, but a glorious shining being, apparently an angel, to whom Eve paid such great deference, acknowledging him as one who seemed to possess superior knowledge, and who was evidently a being of a superior (not of an inferior) order? Moreover, in the description of Satan as "the king of Tyre" it is distinctly implied that the latter being was of a supernatural order when he is called "a cherub" (Ezek28:14,16). His presence "in Eden, the garden of 'Elohim" (v.13), is also clearly stated, as well as his being "perfect in beauty", his being "perfect in his ways from the day he was created till iniquity was found in him" and as being "lifted up because of his beauty".(snip)

We cannot conceive Eve as holding converse with a snake, but we can understand her being fascinated by one, apparently, "an angel of light" (i.e. a glorious angel), possessing superior and supernatural knowledge.


He goes on in much greater detail but that tells us what he believes. An interesting footnote to the appendix is:

It is remarkable that the verb nachash always means to enchant, fascinate, bewitch; or of one having and using occult knowledge.

I'm sorry this was so long and I hope it was of interest to you.



.........Whirlwind



posted on Aug, 30 2007 @ 07:04 PM
link   
reply to post by queenannie38
 


If it makes a contradiction in your understanding, then there is an explanation in scripture. You can't throw one verse out because it doesn't fit in with what you believe....I know you know this.


I do. I also know that some things have been mistranslated. I don't know if this is one of those places or not but it is completly out of character from all His other words. In 4:2 it tells us, ....and He will teach us of His ways, and we will walk in His paths:". To go from teaching His ways, which have consistently been "Have no other gods before Me", to saying that "every one in the name of his god". just doesn't sound right.

You know, something that just came to mind about this...Ps.82:1 God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; He judgeth among the gods.
6.I have said, Ye are gods; And all of you are children of the Most High.


Perhaps the "gods" He is referring to in Micah are the elect that will teach His ways during the millennium. Those of Rev. 20:6 -

Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with Him a thousand years.

A priest teaches. Are they the "gods" teaching His children?



Babylon, bable/confusion, is being void of the knowledge of God......NO. Babel simply means 'confusion.'What dictionary do you use?


Bable is confusion and confusion about God is what has come out of Babylon.


NO WHERE in the bible does it say that OR insinuate that.
In fact, Nebuchadnezzar ended up anything but void about the knowledge of God:


True, he wrote the beautiful 4th chapter of Daniel. But, he was a "type" of Satan. Lessons run through his story for us about end times.



posted on Aug, 31 2007 @ 07:00 AM
link   
reply to post by queenannie38
 



posted on Aug, 31 2007 @ 11:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by whirlwind
reply to post by MikeboydUS
 



I'm guessing your using something like a King James Commissioned Translation. ...I'm going to stick with my Jewish Publication Society translation.


I use a Companion Bible, KJV, E.W. Bullinger.


Your missing the Point about the Serpent creature. Its one of the many creatures of the Garden. Meaning there is most likley two in the Garden as the other Creatures all have mates and there are even more outside the Garden like everything in the Garden has more on earth. Its whole line was cursed by G-d.....Satan on the other hand is a Celestial, one of the Hosts of Heaven. Not a creature of the Garden.


Mike, Satan is the serpent. He was there at the beginning and will be there at the end. He is who we fight against. Remember the first prophecy:

Gen.3:15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her Seed; It shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise His heel."

Satan bruised the heels of Christ on the cross but Christ will bruise his head - a killing blow.

Satan is the serpent, the dragon, the leviathan, the deceiver, the accuser, the morning star, Lucifer, etc., etc., etc.

A storm is coming up - I'll continue this later.

........Whirlwind

.


G-d puts enimity between its seed and humanity. Not metaphorical seed remember this is a living creature and so is Adam.

Leviathan is most assuredly not the Ha Satan of Job. Leviathan is not an angel, not in heaven, and mentioned in Job with no connection even with Satan.



posted on Aug, 31 2007 @ 12:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by whirlwind
reply to post by MikeboydUS
 

The Bible I use, Companion Bible, has footnotes and appendixes written by E.W. Bullinger. He was the only Christian allowed to edit the Massorah for Ginsberg. It is a standard KJV and he has shown where words have been changed or added from the manuscripts. As I don't understand Hebrew or Greek I am able to use the Strong's Concordance to get the meaning of the original word.

In Appendix 19 Bullinger goes into depth on The Serpent of Genesis 3. I'll list a few of his thoughts. I don't know if it will change your mind or not but you may find it of interest.

In Gen.3 we have neither allegory, myth, legend, nor fable, but literal historical facts set forth, and emphasised by the use of certain figures of speech. (snip)

But for the figurative language of verses 14 and 15 no one would have thought of referring the third chapter of Genesis to a snake: no more than he does when reading the third chapter from the end of Revelation 10:2. Indeed, the explanation added there, that the "old serpent" is the Devil and Satan, would immediately lead one to connect the world "old" with the earlier and former mention of the serpent in Gen. 3: and the fact that it was Satan himself who tempted "the second man", "the last Adam", would force the conclusion that no other than the personal Satan could have been the tempter of "the first man, Adam".

The Hebrew word rendered "serpent" in Gen. 3:1 is Nachash (from the root Nachash, to shine), and means a shining one. Hence, in Chaldee it means brass or copper, because of its shining. Hence also, the word Nehushtan, a piece of brass, in 2 Kings 18:4.(snip)

The Nachash, or serpent who beguiled Eve (2 Cor.11:3) is spoken of as "an angel of light" in vs. 14. Have we not, in this, a clear intimation that it was not a snake, but a glorious shining being, apparently an angel, to whom Eve paid such great deference, acknowledging him as one who seemed to possess superior knowledge, and who was evidently a being of a superior (not of an inferior) order? Moreover, in the description of Satan as "the king of Tyre" it is distinctly implied that the latter being was of a supernatural order when he is called "a cherub" (Ezek28:14,16). His presence "in Eden, the garden of 'Elohim" (v.13), is also clearly stated, as well as his being "perfect in beauty", his being "perfect in his ways from the day he was created till iniquity was found in him" and as being "lifted up because of his beauty".(snip)

We cannot conceive Eve as holding converse with a snake, but we can understand her being fascinated by one, apparently, "an angel of light" (i.e. a glorious angel), possessing superior and supernatural knowledge.


He goes on in much greater detail but that tells us what he believes. An interesting footnote to the appendix is:

It is remarkable that the verb nachash always means to enchant, fascinate, bewitch; or of one having and using occult knowledge.

I'm sorry this was so long and I hope it was of interest to you.



.........Whirlwind



Well Nachash appears in various places in the Bible and it means Snake or Snake like. Even in modern Hebrew it means snake.

In Exodus Moses turn's Aaron's rod into a Nachash.

The Nehushtan is a snake too, made out of Brass. Its not simply a piece of Brass.

The Cherub is a Guardian type being and not even high on the hierarchy of Celestials.

Nachash gets that meaning as verb related to the occult from its connection to Whispers or Hisses.

I can see youve made up your mind and have let other people think for you. The Nachash concept is blatantly obivious as a word for snake in the Bible and outside of it.

IF you think G-d cant make animals talk you might want to check Balaam and his Donkey. I personally think it wasnt just a regular animal but either way it fits. What doesnt fit is this Shining Angel of Light.

Right now I am studying Martin Luther in college. More people when it comes to the Bible should look at him. This German Theology Professor stood up to a Thousand Year old Institution and told them they were wrong and laid the Foundation for Protestant Christians. He wrote 95 theses or points of dispute based on the Bible. He wanted people to think for themselves. Study and research themselves not depend on so called authorities.

I dont depend on Rabbinical commentaries. I take them into account but there are lots of times I disagree with them based on what the Bible says. If the Bible is not real clear on something I am not going to go with anyone's interpretation since its all speculation.

By presenting my case against the idea that Satan is not Lucifer I am challenging people to go do the research and study.

Many of these concepts I have heard in reaction so far would of been Alien to Jesus. If an idea is created after the fact its not the fact. Its fiction.

Martin Luther encouraged people to disregard Dogma and extra Biblical teachings. Funny how after he fought for that the Protestants created their own Dogmas and extra Biblical ideas. Martin Luthers teachings about wealth and political inflcuence have greatly been ignored by Protestants.

I encourage you to take a class on Old Testament Literature and Introduction to Biblical Hebrew. When I say Nachash is Snake its not some controversial idea. Its like saying Bird means Bird. So look beyond the Accordances and Commentaries and find the truth for yourself.

[edit on 31/8/07 by MikeboydUS]



posted on Aug, 31 2007 @ 04:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by MikeboydUS
By presenting my case against the idea that Satan is not Lucifer I am challenging people to go do the research and study.


Why?

You ignore the results of everyone's findings (pretty much) if they aren't in line with what you have discovered (it seems to me BUT I AM guessing)

....an acknowledgment, AT LEAST, of legitimate sources, links, etc. which have been provided on your thread...




posted on Aug, 31 2007 @ 07:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by queenannie38

Originally posted by MikeboydUS
By presenting my case against the idea that Satan is not Lucifer I am challenging people to go do the research and study.


Why?

You ignore the results of everyone's findings (pretty much) if they aren't in line with what you have discovered (it seems to me BUT I AM guessing)

....an acknowledgment, AT LEAST, of legitimate sources, links, etc. which have been provided on your thread...



I dont ignore the results of everyone's findings I actually try to find if there is any merit to what they are saying.

Like the common mistake of taking verses out of context. I look at the whole chapter in context and usually go back and check the Hebrew as well. Then I go to see what kind of commentary exists on it to see what other people's interpretations are.

I'm often correcting myself as well. A recent example would be when Nachash and Tannim are connected in Exodus. I had no idea there was a connection between the two. Its caused me to rethink what exactly the Tannim are and dragon myths around the world. I know the Tannim are associated with water and in modern times its used for Whale or Crocodile, like Nachash is Snake. Yet in Exodus there is Nachash and Tannim as one.

To add fuel to the weirdness, There are also the Saraphs, the Fiery Serpents. An image of one in Bronze was made, the Nehushtan. That implies a connection between Saraphs and Nachash.



posted on Aug, 31 2007 @ 08:25 PM
link   
reply to post by MikeboydUS
 



Taking things out of context in the bible is one problem,the bigger one is mistranslation.I think too many people forget or don't realise that the books in the bible have been translated form different languages.they also don't realise that certain words or phrases in one language can not translate into another,as happens in this day and age.plus,when spending hours copying from one book to another,its easy to misspell words and not have the correct punctuation.
I've read many books about mistranslations in the bible and would urge others to do the same because it can be quite illuminating.for example,this extract from the book the selfish gene by richard dawkins....

""Several distressed correspondents have queried the mistranslation of 'young woman' into 'virgin' in the biblical prophecy, and have demanded a reply from me. Hurting religious sensibilities is a perilous business these days so I had better oblige. Actually, it is a pleasure, for scientists can't often get satisfyingly dusty in the library indulging in a real academic foot-note. The point is in fact well known to biblical scholars, and not disputed by them. The Hebrew word in Isaiah is (almah), which undisputedly means 'young woman', with no implication of virginity. If 'virgin' had been intended (bethulah) could have been used instead (the ambiguous English word 'maiden' illustrates how easy it can be to slide between the two meanings). The 'mutation' occurred when the pre-Christian Greek translation known as the Septuagint rendered almah into .... (parthenos), which really does usually mean virgin. Matthew (not, of course, the Apostle and contemporary of Jesus, but the gospel-maker writing long afterwards), quoted Isaiah in what seems to be a derivative of the Septuagint version (all but two of the fifteen Greek words are identical) when he said Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, 'Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel' (Authorised English translation). It is widely accepted among Christian scholars that the story of the virgin birth of Jesus was a late interpolation, put in presumably by Greek-speaking disciples in order that the (mistranslated) prophecy should be seen to be fulfilled. Modern versions such as the New English Bible correctly give 'young woman' in Isaiah. They equally correctly leave 'virgin' in Matthew, since there they are translating from the Greek.""


and,to do with this topic,this extract by the author frank neltte.


"In the English version of the Bible the name "Lucifer" appears only one time--in Isaiah 14:12. This reads:
"How are you fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning..."
"Lucifer" is not an English word, but a Latin word. The question is: who gave the world this Latin name?
In A.D. 382 Pope Damascus commissioned the scholar Jerome to make an official revision of the Latin versions of the Bible that were floating around in the Catholic Church. Jerome went off to a cave in Bethlehem where he proceeded to make his translation, supposedly based on the Hebrew text, but in practice based very largely on the Septuagint version (i.e. "LXX") that Origen had produced about 140 years earlier while in Caesarea. (The truth about the LXX is another subject that I have discussed in a separate paper.)
Anyway, by A.D. 405 Jerome had completed his work, which we today know as "The Latin Vulgate" Bible. It is far from an infallibly accurate translation of the original texts. Rather, it is an interpretation of thought put into idiomatic, graceful Latin!
For a thousand years this Translation was without a rival--and herein lies the problem!
Jerome had understood that Isaiah 14:12 is talking about Satan. There the Hebrew word "heylel" is used and Jerome translated this into Latin as "lucifer"!

This is a mistranslation!!!
The word "Lucifer" comes from 2 Latin words:
Lux (=light) + ferous (=to bear or carry). Thus the name "Lucifer" means:Light-bearer or Light-bringer.
But this is not what the Hebrew word "heylel" means! We'll see later exactly what this word does mean.

Anyway, as a result of this Latin Vulgate translation, which was almost the only version of the Bible in use throughout Europe for the next 1000 years, Satan popularly became known as Lucifer. It should be self-evident that when the first people who translated the Bible into English came along, one of their paradigms was that the name "Lucifer" applied to Satan. When they came to translate Isaiah 14:12 into English, they decided that rather than actually "translate" the word "Heylel," they would simply substitute it with the already well-known (originally) Latin name "Lucifer." And they could do this because on the surface this seems to be a reasonably accurate translation. But it isn't really!
I mentioned earlier that the word "Lucifer" appears only once in the English versions of the Bible. But in the Latin Vulgate translation of Jerome it appears twice! That's right, twice! Where else is this word used and who does it refer to? Jerome certainly knew who it refers to. This knowledge also casts a dark cloud over his intentional use in Isaiah 14:12!

Peter 1:19 reads : "...until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts." this is another mistranslation!!!
The two words "day star" are a translation of the one Greek word "phosphoros." This comes from the two Greek words:
Phos (=light) + phero (=to bear or carry). Thus the Greek word "phosphoros" means Light-bearer or Light-bringer.
Anyone who knows both, Greek and Latin, can verify that the Greek word "Phosphoros" and the Latin word "Lucifer" are absolutely, one hundred percent identical in meaning. "Lucifer" is the perfect translation into Latin of the Greek word "Phosphoros."
All of the English translators of the Bible know very well that the word "Phosphoros" in 2 Peter 1:19 can be perfectly accurately translated by the word "Lucifer." Instead they have chosen to deliberately obscure this fact. Why?

They knew very well that 2 Peter 1:19 refers without doubt to Jesus Christ. This verse calls Jesus Christ "Phosphoros" (in Greek) or "Lucifer" (in Latin). Yet the translators have hidden this fact behind the words "day star." The facts are that "Phosphoros" has absolutely nothing to do with either "day" or "star

[edit on 31-8-2007 by jakyll]



posted on Aug, 31 2007 @ 08:28 PM
link   
reply to post by MikeboydUS
 


(continuation of quote.)

"...The translators simply borrowed a term that is elsewhere used for Christ--namely "morning star" in Revelation 2:28 (Greek = proinos + aster) and in Revelation 22:16 (Greek = orthrinos + aster).

To translate "phosphoros" as "day star" is plain dishonesty!!!

Now let's look at Jerome. The phrases quoted under point #8 above are translated by Jerome into Latin as follows:

"...donec dies elucescat et lucifer oriatur in cordibus vestris."

Notice that Jerome correctly translated the Greek "phosphoros" into the Latin word "lucifer." Jerome obviously knew that this verse refers to Jesus Christ--yet he wrote "lucifer" with a small "l" and did not capitalize the word. He also knew that he had translated the word "phosphoros" perfectly into Latin.
Jerome knew that in the New Testament "Lucifer" is a title for Jesus Christ; yet he still chose to also translate the less- clearly defined Hebrew word "Heylel" in Isaiah 14:12 as "Lucifer," knowing that this word referred to Satan--and here Jerome started the word with a capital "L,"
So with Jerome Satan gets a name that refers to Christ with a capital letter--and Christ gets His own name only with a small letter...."""






[edit on 31-8-2007 by jakyll]



new topics




 
6
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join