Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
[
I don't think Satan is that important because the Bible represents Satan as a created being and a cherub (Ezekiel 28:14) which is an angel. The book of Job is arguably the oldest book in the Old Testament for those who can do higher criticism so he is revealed from the beginning and this book may be older than Genesis. I also feel guilty studying Satan because Jesus is much more important but that may be why Satan isn't the whole focus of the Bible.
[
Satan's name was Lucifer. If you look at names like Adam or Eve, some people think they are titles and not names because the word "name" in Genesis 3:16 can mean "reputation" and so on so when you look at the meaning of "Eve" it means "mother of all living" which could be a description instead of a name. The problem with language was all lost in the flood except for what came off the ark and stones that survived (the Rosetta stone) and inscriptions in caves and so forth. Satan can actually mean "advesary" and be a description just like his name could probably mean "slanderer" and so forth. My name is Chuck but then some people wanted to call me by other descriptions as I got older.
Here's the problem with the whole "Lucifer" angle. Lucifer is a latin translation of the Hebrew Word heylel , which only appears ONCE in the entire bible. In context, it compares the king of Babylon to the Morning Star which is "fallen".
[
If you read the book of Job, God gave everything back to Job that He lost and increased what Job had.
Again, that doesn't make me feel a lot better about it. No parent who has lost a child ever feels less of a loss. I can't believe that losing Ten Children would ever not make a person anything less than psychotic. Also, kind of had to be rough on Mrs. Job, having ten more kids in her 50's....
The video's premise is that the problem is that people think Satan exists and the title is "the evolution of Satan in the Bible" so the video basically asserts a different time line where Satan first appears to where his name changes instead of the time line where angels existed, Lucifer was lifted up with pride and his name or title gets changed based on Lucifer's behavior..
There really is no evolution except from their turn from good to evil. God created angels and Lucifer was filled by pride that he wanted God's position and as a result the angels rebelled and left their first estate.
This is all very nice and all, but as the Video guy points, out, this has a LOT more to do with Milton's Paradise Lost than it does with anything in the Bible.
I am also very wary of using bible quotes that are ambiguous, as most of the ones you cite are. Especially considering that they were translated from Hebrew to Greek to Latin to English.
As a fun expirament, Go to Babelfish or some other translation program. Translate the original from English to let's say, Greek. The translate the Greek to Italian as a stand in for Latin. Then translate the Italian back into English.
Betcha you won't get the thing you put in back out.
And that's without translators sticking in their own agendas as to which word to pick.
It's how we got hundreds of years of Witch-Burnings because someone translated "poisoner" as "witch".
[
I don't think Satan is that important because the Bible represents Satan as a created being and a cherub (Ezekiel 28:14) which is an angel. The book of Job is arguably the oldest book in the Old Testament for those who can do higher criticism so he is revealed from the beginning and this book may be older than Genesis. I also feel guilty studying Satan because Jesus is much more important but that may be why Satan isn't the whole focus of the Bible.
Job is probably not the oldest book. Most scolarship dates it somewhere from 500-300 BCE, which makes it one of the last books written. Also, the Jewish Bible puts it as one of the last books.
Book of Job - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I am also very wary of using bible quotes that are ambiguous, as most of the ones you cite are. Especially considering that they were translated from Hebrew to Greek to Latin to English.
As a fun expirament, Go to Babelfish or some other translation program. Translate the original from English to let's say, Greek. The translate the Greek to Italian as a stand in for Latin. Then translate the Italian back into English.
Betcha you won't get the thing you put in back out.
And that's without translators sticking in their own agendas as to which word to pick.
It's how we got hundreds of years of Witch-Burnings because someone translated "poisoner" as "witch".
Then it is apparent that the snakes you refer to and the one referred to in the Bible are not the same species. If I call you a weasel, will you sprout fur? If you and I are about to race, and I tell you to eat my dust, do you whip out a spoon? The snake God addressed in the Garden is the same one who tempted Christ on the top of the Temple. He didn't crawl there. He is also the prince behind the Kings. Here is His description before he challenged God:
Ezekiel 28:13
Thou hast been in Eden the garden of God; every precious stone was thy covering, the sardius, topaz, and the diamond, the beryl, the onyx, and the jasper, the sapphire, the emerald, and the carbuncle, and gold: the workmanship of thy tabrets and of thy pipes was prepared in thee in the day that thou wast created.
He was well thought of once. Envy was his undoing. He lost his footing.
Then it is apparent that the snakes you refer to and the one referred to in the Bible are not the same species. If I call you a weasel, will you sprout fur? If you and I are about to race, and I tell you to eat my dust, do you whip out a spoon? The snake God addressed in the Garden is the same one who tempted Christ on the top of the Temple. He didn't crawl there. He is also the prince behind the Kings. Here is His description before he challenged God:
Ezekiel 28:13
Thou hast been in Eden the garden of God; every precious stone was thy covering, the sardius, topaz, and the diamond, the beryl, the onyx, and the jasper, the sapphire, the emerald, and the carbuncle, and gold: the workmanship of thy tabrets and of thy pipes was prepared in thee in the day that thou wast created.
He was well thought of once. Envy was his undoing. He lost his footing.
Ezekiel 28:14 You were anointed as a guardian cherub, for so I ordained you. You were on the holy mount of God; you walked among the fiery stones.covereth—The imagery employed by Ezekiel as a priest is from the Jewish temple, wherein the cherubim overshadowed the mercy seat, as the king of Tyre, a demi-god in his own esteem, extended his protection over the interests of Tyre. The cherub—an ideal compound of the highest kinds of animal existence and the type of redeemed man in his ultimate state of perfection—is made the image of the king of Tyre, as if the beau ideal of humanity. The pretensions of Antichrist are the ulterior reference, of whom the king of Tyre is a type. Compare "As God … in the temple of God" (2Th 2:4).
http://www.blbclassic.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H5526&t=KJV(Qal) to hedge, fence about, shut in
to block, overshadow, screen, stop the approach, shut off, cover
(Qal)
to screen, cover
to cover oneself
protector (participle)
(Hiphil)
to screen, cover
to cover, defecate (euphemism)
(Qal) to cover, lay over
to weave together
(Qal) to weave together
(Pilpel) to weave, weave together
Authorized Version (KJV) Translation Count — Total: 23 AV — cover 15, covering 2, defence 1, defendest 1, hedge in 1, join together 1, set 1, shut up 1
I have set thee—not thou set thyself (Pr 8:16; Ro 13:1).
upon the holy mountain of God—Zion, following up the image.
in … midst of … stones of fire—In ambitious imagination he stood in the place of God, "under whose feet was, as it were, a pavement of sapphire," while His glory was like "devouring fire" (Ex 24:10, 17).
Then it is apparent that the snakes you refer to and the one referred to in the Bible are not the same species. If I call you a weasel, will you sprout fur? If you and I are about to race, and I tell you to eat my dust, do you whip out a spoon? The snake God addressed in the Garden is the same one who tempted Christ on the top of the Temple. He didn't crawl there. He is also the prince behind the Kings. Here is His description before he challenged God:
Ezekiel 28:13
Thou hast been in Eden the garden of God; every precious stone was thy covering, the sardius, topaz, and the diamond, the beryl, the onyx, and the jasper, the sapphire, the emerald, and the carbuncle, and gold: the workmanship of thy tabrets and of thy pipes was prepared in thee in the day that thou wast created.
He was well thought of once. Envy was his undoing. He lost his footing.
Hold that thought...
Ezekiel 28:14 You were anointed as a guardian cherub, for so I ordained you. You were on the holy mount of God; you walked among the fiery stones.
Ezekiel 28:14 Thou art the anointed cherub that covereth (h5526 סָכַךְ cakak ); and I have set thee so: thou wast upon the holy mountain of God; thou hast walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire.
A lot of the translations use the word covering while the Net Bible calls Lucifer the Guardian Cherub. The Doua-Rheims Bible uses the word "protecting" so I looked the word up in BLBClassic and it says:
Blue Letter Bible - Lexicon(Qal) to hedge, fence about, shut in
to block, overshadow, screen, stop the approach, shut off, cover
(Qal)
to screen, cover
to cover oneself
protector (participle)
(Hiphil)
to screen, cover
to cover, defecate (euphemism)
(Qal) to cover, lay over
to weave together
(Qal) to weave together
(Pilpel) to weave, weave together
Authorized Version (KJV) Translation Count — Total: 23 AV — cover 15, covering 2, defence 1, defendest 1, hedge in 1, join together 1, set 1, shut up 1
I think he liked the glory from the atonement or "covering" as protector and liked the reputation and eventually saw himself in God's place through his role:
I have set thee—not thou set thyself (Pr 8:16; Ro 13:1).
upon the holy mountain of God—Zion, following up the image.
in … midst of … stones of fire—In ambitious imagination he stood in the place of God, "under whose feet was, as it were, a pavement of sapphire," while His glory was like "devouring fire" (Ex 24:10, 17).
Ezekiel 28:14 You were anointed as a guardian cherub, for so I ordained you. You were on the holy mount of God; you walked among the fiery stones.
(underlining is mine).
The role was too great or too tempting for him and he wanted the position that was not His. I think he coveted the position that Jesus would have. Help me out here...
I guess this would explain the "I will"s of Satan and why he wanted to be like the most High:
Isaiah 14:13 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:
Isaiah 14:14 I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High.
Isaiah 14:15 Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit.
Then it is apparent that the snakes you refer to and the one referred to in the Bible are not the same species. If I call you a weasel, will you sprout fur? If you and I are about to race, and I tell you to eat my dust, do you whip out a spoon? The snake God addressed in the Garden is the same one who tempted Christ on the top of the Temple. He didn't crawl there. He is also the prince behind the Kings. Here is His description before he challenged God:
Ezekiel 28:13
Thou hast been in Eden the garden of God; every precious stone was thy covering, the sardius, topaz, and the diamond, the beryl, the onyx, and the jasper, the sapphire, the emerald, and the carbuncle, and gold: the workmanship of thy tabrets and of thy pipes was prepared in thee in the day that thou wast created.
He was well thought of once. Envy was his undoing. He lost his footing.
Hold that thought...
Ezekiel 28:14 You were anointed as a guardian cherub, for so I ordained you. You were on the holy mount of God; you walked among the fiery stones.
Ezekiel 28:14 Thou art the anointed cherub that covereth (h5526 סָכַךְ cakak ); and I have set thee so: thou wast upon the holy mountain of God; thou hast walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire.
A lot of the translations use the word covering while the Net Bible calls Lucifer the Guardian Cherub. The Doua-Rheims Bible uses the word "protecting" so I looked the word up in BLBClassic and it says:
Blue Letter Bible - Lexicon(Qal) to hedge, fence about, shut in
to block, overshadow, screen, stop the approach, shut off, cover
(Qal)
to screen, cover
to cover oneself
protector (participle)
(Hiphil)
to screen, cover
to cover, defecate (euphemism)
(Qal) to cover, lay over
to weave together
(Qal) to weave together
(Pilpel) to weave, weave together
Authorized Version (KJV) Translation Count Total: 23 AV cover 15, covering 2, defence 1, defendest 1, hedge in 1, join together 1, set 1, shut up 1
I think he liked the glory from the atonement or "covering" as protector and liked the reputation and eventually saw himself in God's place through his role:
I have set theenot thou set thyself (Pr 8:16; Ro 13:1).
upon the holy mountain of GodZion, following up the image.
in midst of stones of fireIn ambitious imagination he stood in the place of God, "under whose feet was, as it were, a pavement of sapphire," while His glory was like "devouring fire" (Ex 24:10, 17).
Ezekiel 28:14 You were anointed as a guardian cherub, for so I ordained you. You were on the holy mount of God; you walked among the fiery stones.
(underlining is mine).
The role was too great or too tempting for him and he wanted the position that was not His. I think he coveted the position that Jesus would have. Help me out here...
I guess this would explain the "I will"s of Satan and why he wanted to be like the most High:
Isaiah 14:13 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:
Isaiah 14:14 I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High.
Isaiah 14:15 Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit.
[
I don't think Satan is that important because the Bible represents Satan as a created being and a cherub (Ezekiel 28:14) which is an angel. The book of Job is arguably the oldest book in the Old Testament for those who can do higher criticism so he is revealed from the beginning and this book may be older than Genesis. I also feel guilty studying Satan because Jesus is much more important but that may be why Satan isn't the whole focus of the Bible.
Job is probably not the oldest book. Most scolarship dates it somewhere from 500-300 BCE, which makes it one of the last books written. Also, the Jewish Bible puts it as one of the last books.
Book of Job - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Joe,
There are some words in Job that are so old that scholars don't feel we have a correct translation of them. Archaeologically wise, the book of Job lines up with the line in Genesis:
Job 1:1 ¶ There was a man in the land of Uz, whose name was Job; and that man was perfect and upright, and one that feared God, and eschewed evil.
Gen 10:23 And the children of Aram; Uz, and Hul, and Gether, and Mash.
The other thing is that Moses wrote the book of Genesis so Job could have been older than the writing of Moses.
There are probably more reasons but you are dealing with things that are old.
This is higher criticism everyone.
Chuck
Joe, the bible is a closed book to you because you have set your heart against God and His Word.
( Jesus Christ ) But because others are reading, the Word of the Living God will once again expose "Satans lies " with the truth.
...
Joe, the bible is a closed book to you because you have set your heart against God and His Word.
( Jesus Christ ) But because others are reading, the Word of the Living God will once again expose "Satans lies " with the truth.
...
No, I've set my heart against liars who use an imaginary sky pixie to try to impose their will on me. They got away with it when I was a kid, but shit, I realized it was bullshit when I was 11.
You know when I started doubting the whole scam? Fifth grade, and this nasy old nun, Sister Mary Bonaventure, who must have been 90 then, was telling us the Story of Noah's Ark.
When I asked in a very innocent way why God drowned all the babies, the old nasty witched hissed, "They were WIIIIIIICKED Babies. WIIIIICKED!!!!"
Now, today, I know this woman was so mean-spirited, bitter and angry was because she was a self-loathing lesbian who joined a religious order and had to be locked up with a bunch of other self-loathing lesbians. Which is pretty much Hell on Earth. And they we exposed these old bats to children.
Oh, the closer for me was when another of these nuns showed up at my Mom's funeral. (My mom was the art teacher at this school) and said that God had a good reason for her to die.
She was very lucky God didn't have a good reason for me to slam her head into the nearest wall.
Pretty much done with religious assholes after that. Now I treat religion as something to be m ocked and debunked. It's a disease that needs to be expunged.
the very notion- that God gives man free will and then drowns all of them when they make choices he doesn't like - is not a God I would worship even if he does exist.
the very notion- that God gives man free will and then drowns all of them when they make choices he doesn't like - is not a God I would worship even if he does exist.
The argument of free will verses pre-determination by God is an old one...and as of yet has no definitive answers that I know of...yet the argument continues throughout the generations. Why? That is...other than the fact that people like to be right.
Job is probably not the oldest book. Most scolarship dates it somewhere from 500-300 BCE, which makes it one of the last books written. Also, the Jewish Bible puts it as one of the last books.
Book of Job - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Joe,
There are some words in Job that are so old that scholars don't feel we have a correct translation of them. Archaeologically wise, the book of Job lines up with the line in Genesis:
Job 1:1 ¶ There was a man in the land of Uz, whose name was Job; and that man was perfect and upright, and one that feared God, and eschewed evil.
Gen 10:23 And the children of Aram; Uz, and Hul, and Gether, and Mash.
The other thing is that Moses wrote the book of Genesis so Job could have been older than the writing of Moses.
There are probably more reasons but you are dealing with things that are old.
This is higher criticism everyone.
Chuck
There are also words in Job that indicate much later authorship, such as mention of "Hades", a concept that didn't exist in earlier Judaism, which didn't have a concept of an afterlife. There's also a mention of the Chaldeans as one of the tribes that raid Job's livestock, and the Chaldeans didn't really exist as a civilization until about the 7th century.
Quite the contrary, Job shows the existential frustration of folks in the middle Iron age with a God who allows evil things to happen to good people.
It's literary style is really vastly more advanced than that of the Torah, putting it a lot later.
I won't even go into the "Mosiac" authorship of Genesis, because that's just silly.
Book of Job - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaThe Talmudic tractate Bava Batra (15a-b) maintains that Job was written by Moses, although nowhere does it name its author.
[
You mentioned Wikipedia as a source putting the book of Job at the end of the cannon:
Book of Job - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaThe Talmudic tractate Bava Batra (15a-b) maintains that Job was written by Moses, although nowhere does it name its author.
That would give it early authorship.
Then it is apparent that the snakes you refer to and the one referred to in the Bible are not the same species. If I call you a weasel, will you sprout fur? If you and I are about to race, and I tell you to eat my dust, do you whip out a spoon? The snake God addressed in the Garden is the same one who tempted Christ on the top of the Temple. He didn't crawl there. He is also the prince behind the Kings. Here is His description before he challenged God:
He was well thought of once. Envy was his undoing. He lost his footing.
Hold that thought...
Ezekiel 28:14 You were anointed as a guardian cherub, for so I ordained you. You were on the holy mount of God; you walked among the fiery stones.
Ezekiel 28:14 Thou art the anointed cherub that covereth (h5526 סָכַךְ cakak ); and I have set thee so: thou wast upon the holy mountain of God; thou hast walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire.
A lot of the translations use the word covering while the Net Bible calls Lucifer the Guardian Cherub. The Doua-Rheims Bible uses the word "protecting" so I looked the word up in BLBClassic and it says:
Blue Letter Bible - Lexicon
I think he liked the glory from the atonement or "covering" as protector and liked the reputation and eventually saw himself in God's place through his role:
I have set theenot thou set thyself (Pr 8:16; Ro 13:1).
upon the holy mountain of GodZion, following up the image.
in midst of stones of fireIn ambitious imagination he stood in the place of God, "under whose feet was, as it were, a pavement of sapphire," while His glory was like "devouring fire" (Ex 24:10, 17).
Ezekiel 28:14 You were anointed as a guardian cherub, for so I ordained you. You were on the holy mount of God; you walked among the fiery stones.
(underlining is mine).
The role was too great or too tempting for him and he wanted the position that was not His. I think he coveted the position that Jesus would have. Help me out here...
I guess this would explain the "I will"s of Satan and why he wanted to be like the most High:
Isaiah 14:13 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:
Isaiah 14:14 I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High.
Isaiah 14:15 Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit.
You say, help me out here..there is one place I don't agree with you, Chuck. I don't believe satan wanted to take the place of Jesus Christ, Chuck. Satan wanted the very throne of God! He wanted to be like God the Father! Not God the Son! - Jeri
