Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

70 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Piney
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Mr Walker said:

Actually the king of Tyre :) but the language  titles and descriptions used in that passage  go beyond describing  a human and extend at least metaphorically to Satan/lucifer 

"Lucifer" in Koine is a "adjective-adverb". Not a noun and "satan" wasn't a title/ name either but a descriptive term. 

But then again, nobody in your links knows Koine Greek.......

1 hour ago, Mr Walker said:

Ken Ham??????Really????? 

Yeaaaahhhhh.......

1 hour ago, Mr Walker said:

Stewart is about the same education level as Ham.......zero......

But he's got one thing right...which you got wrong

Quote

In the context of Isaiah, Helel is possibly used as proper name for the king of Babylon. Therefore his name would be translated as "day star," or "bright one."
 

But what he got wrong is "helel" is a adjective. 

Edited by Piney
Urantia is Dreck
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
Hammerclaw

The original Hebrew term sâtan (Hebrew: שָּׂטָן‎) is a generic noun meaning "accuser" or "adversary",[7][8] which is used throughout the Hebrew Bible to refer to ordinary human adversaries,[9][8] as well as a specific supernatural entity.[9][8] The word is derived from a verb meaning primarily "to obstruct, oppose".[10] When it is used without the definite article (simply satan), the word can refer to any accuser,[9] but when it is used with the definite article (ha-satan), it usually refers specifically to the heavenly accuser: the satan.[9]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satan

Lucifer (UK: /ˈlsɪfər/ LOO-si-fər; US: /-sə-/; 'light-bringer', corresponding to the Greek name Ἑωσφόρος, 'dawn-bringer', for the same planet) is a Latin name for the planet Venus in its morning appearances and is often used for mythological and religious figures associated with the planet. Due to the unique movements and discontinuous appearances of Venus in the sky, mythology surrounding these figures often involved a fall from the heavens to earth or the underworld. Interpretations of a similar term in the Hebrew Bible, translated in the King James Version as "Lucifer", led to a Christian tradition of applying the name Lucifer, and its associated stories of a fall from heaven, to Satan. Most modern scholarship regards these interpretations as questionable[citation needed] and translates the term in the relevant Bible passage (Isaiah 14:12) as "morning star" or "shining one" rather than as a proper name "Lucifer".[1]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucifer

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jujo-jo
On 2/23/2020 at 4:10 PM, E -Elle said:

So apparently people get confused about lucifer (never capitalize the name of the enemy, even if not literarily sound (!!!! Yes!!!!). Always capitalize God and any name of Him), it being still called as such, confusing it with (the) watchers, who was holding the flaming sword against in the garden's protection. But don't "ad-lib" opinion to be truth, gnostic or otherwise foolish. Whether you are happy to call satan lucifer, his former name, the bane should be called what it is, "adversary", the translation of satan. Obviously no one should fall to his idiot schemes no matter how "all" of it (and all is it) it is. 

Welcome to the forum:st

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker
Posted (edited)
6 hours ago, Piney said:

"Lucifer" in Koine is a "adjective-adverb". Not a noun and "satan" wasn't a title/ name either but a descriptive term. 

But then again, nobody in your links knows Koine Greek.......

Ken Ham??????Really????? 

Yeaaaahhhhh.......

Stewart is about the same education level as Ham.......zero......

But he's got one thing right...which you got wrong

But what he got wrong is "helel" is a adjective. 

Idont know the people from  the references.  I presented them as one pov.

It is a view shared by many biblical scholars and some parts (churches)  of christianity 

Seems you  have a prejudice against those writers .

Plus one can find and read similar explanations everywhere 

Basically it is a part o f the  story (which is all a made up narrative, anyway) that lucifer was the brightest angel of god That he rebelled against god.  That he then became satan.That he caused the fall of man

  People who deny this are generally trying to blame god for the evils of the world, when biblically it is clear that those evils come from the independent free-willed  acts of  lucifer/satan, and the temptation of humanity . (again a narrative to explain why and how humans are as we are, not an actual history of the world :) 

This is clear from  reading the bible from genesis to  revelations. Of course it is all a constructed storyline.  However if you  don't get the storyline and characters right, it is easy to misinterpret the lessons being told.  The way i understand it s that   Satan is an adjective which became a  noun/name  ie the adversary or deceiver  Lucifer, likewise, is an adjective which became a noun/name 

The story of lucifer/satan and his fall is  (probably) borrowed from  earlier (babylonian) religious beliefs, which the jews incorporated into their theology during their captivity in Babylon,   It is also  connected to other stories about Venus, and its cosmology, from the biblical period  

ps ijust looked up Ken Ham. He is technically as well educated as i am (Degree and postgraduate diploma  in science and education)

  When it comes to biblical studies and theology etc. I am not sure how much an education can help anyone.

  You read as widely as you can, gather facts and opinions, and form your own views.     I dont believe his creationist views, but his description of the narrative of the bible fits the general understanding i have seen among biblical  scholars. 

More significantly it is a perfect fit for an understanding  of the total narrative of the bible as a teaching story  

The bible simply makes no sense as a story if you see satan as an agent of god rather  than an adversary.   The story of   Lucifer explains the origins of satan, and how and why he behaved as he did . 

Edited by Mr Walker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Piney
4 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

Seems you  have a prejudice against those writers .

They aren't scholars who twist the Bible to fit their definition.

4 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

Idont know the people from  the references.  I presented them as one pov.

I do. 

Here, find me something from a actual translator

https://www.academia.edu/

https://www.jstor.org/

4 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

The story of lucifer/satan and his fall is  (probably) borrowed from  earlier (babylonian) religious beliefs, which the jews incorporated into their theology during their captivity in Babylon,   It is also  connected to other stories about Venus, and its cosmology, from the biblical period  

Probably but the Hebrews didn't use either of those terms for the leader of the fallen angels. It was Samael who fell and he were bound forever and cannot affect humanity.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker
10 hours ago, Piney said:

They aren't scholars who twist the Bible to fit their definition.

I do. 

Here, find me something from a actual translator

https://www.academia.edu/

https://www.jstor.org/

Probably but the Hebrews didn't use either of those terms for the leader of the fallen angels. It was Samael who fell and he were bound forever and cannot affect humanity.

No, the hebrews didnt use those terms, and had a slightly different concept of god,  which, in itself,  evolved over a couple of thousand of years, but the bible is the book of christian theology, and although it is just a story it should be read and interpreted as  such a book.  ie To explain christian beliefs, not any other. 

Judaism evolved from  earlier religions. Christianity evolved from  judaism, and continues to evolve  today. You can't understand the christian story (and thus the cause of christian beliefs)  unless you understand the nature of satan and  god ( in that story,) and their relationship in the beginning, the middle, and the end of the storyline. 

The specific translation  is actually irrelevant to the story and meaning, although generally there is a double intent, linking a human king to the heavenly counterpart,  and using one to illustrate the nature of the other 

Both satan and lucifer are adjectives describing the personality of the same being   (A celestial angel who fell from grace and rebelled against god, leading humanity into temptation; or so the story goes) but failing to tempt all the other worlds/people, under god's governance.   Hence we became the lost sheep, or the prodigal son, and of specific interest to god and the angels (in the story) 

 The descriptions became titles, and  gradually  became their names. 

Ps don't assume that because creationists are wrong, scientifically, that they can't be right in interpreting biblical texts. They have a strong interest in, and motivation for, seeking "the truth"

Scholarly interpretations and translations  are open to them, but to a believer the bible must be read in a spirit which allows one to find the meaning within it,   not just as a piece of literature that can be deconstructed technically to find the meaning.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
odas
On 2/24/2020 at 1:12 PM, E -Elle said:

Do you mean you trust polytheists to make your religion? Or to base your life?

??? Abraham was a polytheist. Abe, the father of the Hebrew, Christian and Islamic religions.

You trust him to make your religion?

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guyver
On 2/23/2020 at 9:39 PM, Mr Walker said:

Biblically satan WAS originally lucifer (The light bringer)  The leader of all the angels, the most beautiful and charismatic He literally radiated light and power  For reasons which are unclear  he rebelled against god taking a full third of the angels with him (in the narrative)

later he came to earth in the guise of a serpent  or deceiver and tempted mankind

He did the same for all the races of heaven, but mankind was the only one to be deceived   (This is how the writers explained present human nature )

Its true that the story evolved over time and the last chapter has lucifer/satan being crushed and destroyed along with his angels and the humans who still followed him

Its one of the  things which distinguishes christian belief from  judaism, and if you are christian it is part of christian theology 

If you  are jewish you also dont believe christ was the son of god or had the abilty to save all of humanity.  lucifer appears as the king of tyre in the OT   (Ezekiel 28) however the language  used strongly implies a double reference to both the king and to the angel lucifer 

quote

 

As the prophet continues his description of “the king of Tyre” some things just don’t fit a human person:

You were the anointed cherub who covers; I established you; you were on the holy mountain of God; you walked back and forth in the midst of fiery stones. You were perfect in your ways from the day you were created, till iniquity was found in you. (Ezekiel 28:14-15)

 

https://sharperiron.org/article/mysterious-king-of-tyre

 

copy

However, some of the descriptions in Ezekiel 28:11–19 go beyond any mere human king. In no sense could an earthly king claim to be “in Eden” or to be “the anointed cherub who covers” or to be “on the holy mountain of God.” Therefore, most Bible interpreters believe that Ezekiel 28:11–19 is a dual prophecy, comparing the pride of the king of Tyre to the pride of Satan. Some propose that the king of Tyre was actually possessed by Satan, making the link between the two even more powerful and applicable.

Before his fall, Satan was indeed a beautiful creature (Ezekiel 28:12–13). He was perhaps the most beautiful and powerful of all the angels. The phrase “guardian cherub” possibly indicates that Satan was the angel who “guarded” God’s presence. Pride led to Satan’s fall. Rather than give God the glory for creating him so beautifully, Satan took pride in himself, thinking that he himself was responsible for his exalted status. Satan’s rebellion resulted in God casting Satan from His presence and will, eventually, result in God condemning Satan to the lake of fire for all eternity (Revelation 20:10).

https://www.gotquestions.org/King-of-Tyre.html

You know what you do?  It’s called Gish Gallop.

Youre wrong, and what I said was right.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Piney
29 minutes ago, Guyver said:

Youre wrong, and what I said was right.

I already completely tore this theological silliness up and he still put up a "non-argument" using garbage links.

All I have to say is " Good Luck". I have him on ignore now..... 

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
drakonwick
2 hours ago, Guyver said:

 

I've never understood some people's one track mind when it comes to religion. Honestly, it's disturbing how people can lock themselves in that box!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bendy Demon
16 hours ago, drakonwick said:

I've never understood some people's one track mind when it comes to religion. Honestly, it's disturbing how people can lock themselves in that box!

Because it is comfortable. Religion, for the most part, offers a quick fix to everything, offers one liner explanations to life and the mysteries and challenges it entails.

Think of it, instead of researching, learning and thinking about something and being encouraged to alter your view, a religion tells you that their explanations are written in stone, no thinking, questioning or skepticism is needed..or allowed. You are told what to think and fell and believe.

I one time had an online discussion with someone who was quite knowledgeable about astronomy but this person was also highly religious and basically his attitude was something along the lines of "Yeah, I spent years in college learning about the universe, stars, planetary formations, etc but...the heck with it, god did it all".

So basically this person wasted a greater portion of their life learning about something then basically throwing it all away because thinking was too hard and believing that a beardy-guy in the clouds waved his magic wand and now we have the endless cosmos...wow, how simple, eh?

In short, being told/ordered what to think and believe is easy but learning what you can and formulating your own view even if some of it is wrong or a theory in the working can be scary even when everyone laughs at and rejects you for not blindly accepting mysticism.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker
On 3/21/2020 at 11:17 AM, Guyver said:

You know what you do?  It’s called Gish Gallop.

Youre wrong, and what I said was right.

Its not me saying this I am just following standard biblical understanding and teaching (but appreciate different parts of christianity have difernt ideas) .

Ps it is not gish gallop, it is just that there are SO MANY  evidences that my point of view is correct that you  might FIND them to be overwhelming  :) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
Mr Walker
Posted (edited)
On 3/21/2020 at 11:50 AM, Piney said:

I already completely tore this theological silliness up and he still put up a "non-argument" using garbage links.

All I have to say is " Good Luck". I have him on ignore now..... 

You have a theological pov about  the  biblical narrative.

I have a different one. Mine is well supported and documented by many academics and theologians including thise who don't believe  a word of the bible to be literal truth but study the linguistics and analogies being used     

Yours may well be supported by other academics, with a different interpretation of the narrative 

 It is not a matter of truth, but of deconstructing the narrative and working out what the original writers were talking about, and how this was later incorporated in later books of the new testament   

https://www.history.com/topics/folklore/history-of-the-devil

https://harvest.org/know-god-article/the-origin-and-fall-of-the-devil/

Lucifer (“star of the morning”) became Satan (“accuser”) when he fell to the earth. Jesus, speaking of this event, said, “I saw Satan fall like lightning from Heaven” (Luke 10:18).

 

Edited by Mr Walker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
larryp
On 2/23/2020 at 4:15 PM, Guyver said:

Lucifer is . . ."  It is a made up name by bible translators . . ."    In the original Hebrew, which is available for free online in the closest to original text....Lucifer does not appear.

Wrong:

In some translations the Latin Vulgate term “Lucifer” is retained. It is, however, merely the translation of the Hebrew word heh·lelʹ, “shining one.” Heh·lelʹ is not a name or a title but, rather, a term. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
larryp
On 2/23/2020 at 3:48 PM, sci-nerd said:

God is totally useless.

Clay talking back to the potter. LoL . . . LoL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sci-nerd
7 hours ago, larryp said:

Clay talking back to the potter. LoL . . . LoL

Glad you're having fun with your delusions :tu:

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
larryp

^^^ Soon we will see who is delusional!! 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jmccr8
9 hours ago, larryp said:

^^^ Soon we will see who is delusional!! 

Hi Larryp

The first time I heard that phrase was several thousands of years ago by a member of the world's oldest profession.

jmccr8

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guyver
On 3/28/2020 at 12:57 AM, larryp said:

Wrong:

In some translations the Latin Vulgate term “Lucifer” is retained. It is, however, merely the translation of the Hebrew word heh·lelʹ, “shining one.” Heh·lelʹ is not a name or a title but, rather, a term. 

Like I already said, you can check the Dead Sea Scrolls version of Isaiah- available for free online and see I’m right.

”Lucifer” aka “Bringer of Light” is a Latin word.  That language was not yet written at the time of the original Hebrew.

Check the facts for yourself.  I have no skin in the game because I don’t believe Satan exists.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Piney
On 3/28/2020 at 3:57 AM, larryp said:

Wrong:

In some translations the Latin Vulgate term “Lucifer” is retained. It is, however, merely the translation of the Hebrew word heh·lelʹ, “shining one.” Heh·lelʹ is not a name or a title but, rather, a term. 

It's a adjective and Isaiah was describing the King of Babylon. 

On 3/22/2020 at 7:48 AM, Mr Walker said:

 ........ very academic.......

..

On 3/22/2020 at 7:48 AM, Mr Walker said:

I have a different one. Mine is well supported and documented by many academics and theologians

You've only linked half baked apologists. Not academics. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.