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 -
Nephilim_Slayer

Was satan the chief musician in heaven?

103 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

hemet nesw weret
Serapis is also connected to the Apis bull as the Encyclpedia Britanica article confirms. You were the one who confused the Seraphim with Serapis, not me.

Serapis

(West Asian mythology)

The state god of Ptolemaic Egypt, the period of Macedonian rule (305–30 BC). Portrayed as a man with curly hair and beard, wearing a basket upon his head. Derived from the cult of the Apis Bull at Memphis, the main centre of Serapis worship was Alexandria, a centre of learning and commerce under the Ptolemies. The Serapeum there, accounted one of the wonders of the world, drew pilgrims from far and wide seeking miraculous cures. Serapis was primarily a healer of the sick, a deity who was superior to fate and who retained from Osiris the character of a god of the underworld. He had enormous influence among the Romans until his cult was overshadowed by that of the goddess Isis. Finally, the pious emperor Theodosius I (379–95) congratulated the Christians of Alexandria on their destruction of the Serapeum at the instigation of the patriarch Theophilus.

Currid says that the Egyptians revered the serpent for both the danger and protection it represented. An Egyptian coronation hymn, found in a Pyramid text, reads:

The doors of the horizon are opened, their bolts are slipped.

He (the king) comes to thee, O Red Crown; he comes to thee, O Fiery One (saraph).

and another hymn:

O Red Crown, O Inu, O Great One,

O Magician, O Fiery Snake! (saraph)

Let there be terror of me like the terror of thee.

Let there be fear of me like the fear of thee.

Let there be awe of me like the awe of thee.

As you can see, real Egyptologists consider these to be hymns, though I agree that many of the Pyramid texts are spells.

Any good book on Egyptian hieroglyphs mentions and illustrate the Serrif, a fiery flying serpent-dragon with four feet, wings, tail much like the Mushushu dragons. Some sources incorrectly call it a gryphon, becasue they are unaware of these hymns where it is clearly identified as a flying reptile, exactly as the Hebrew Seraph. This can hardly be a coincidence.

Oh, and if you get my book you will get to see original ancient Egyptian art of WINGED crocodile dragons, that may be the Seraph. If you ever visit Egypt you will see a lot more than what is in the mainstream books.

Care to tell me I am "mistaken" again?

:lol: Yep!

Firstly Serapis wore a grain-measure on his head not a basket. This was a representation of his role as a fertility god.

I agree that the Kemet revered the serpent, got no problem with that. It was a snake tho'.

As for the winged crocodile; it is exactly that. I already mentioned Soker come on!

:rolleyes::lol::D And finally here is a correct translation of the 'hymn',(it is a prayer) you used as an example:

Utterance 221.

TRANSLATION BY Samuel A. B. Mercer,(It's a beautiful version-read it sometime)

O Neith,(Crown of lower Egypt), O 'Inw(Crown of lower Egypt), O great one(Crown of lower Egypt).

O Great in magic(Crown of lower Egypt), O Nsrt(uraeus, i.e Wdjt)

Make thou the terror of Neferkare to be like the terror of thee.

Make thou the awe of Neferkare to be like the awe of thee.

Make thou the respect of Neferkare to be like the respect of thee.

Make thou the love for Neferkare to be like the love for thee.

Make thou that his Ba-sceptre be at the head of the living.

Make thou that his sm-sceptre be at the head of the spirits.

Make his blade be firm against his enemies.

O 'Inw-Crown, thou has come forth from him as he came forth from thee.

The Great 'Iut has given birth to thee, the 'Iut has adorned thee.

The 'Iut-wt.t has given birth to thee, the Great 'Iut-wt.t has adorned thee.

For as for thee, thou art like Horus, who fought in the protection of his eye.

This is a prayer for the protection of the Lady of Lower Egypt; Wadjet ,(the cobra, uraeus on the lower crown ) for the king in the battle with the underworld.

The first part invokes Neith to resurect Neferkare as a god. Calling on the magic powers of the crown and the goddess Wadjet, the prayer asks that Neferkare is made equal to these in his rule over the living and the dead.

The section that starts"O 'Inw-Crown" reaffirms Neferkare as a son of the crown therefore a son of wadjet.

The final part ,"For as for thee, thou art like Horus, who fought in the protection of his eye" is saying that Neferkare is protected as if he was Horus.

When a pharaoh died he was refered to as 'the Horus , insert kings name here'.

Prayers in the texts also identified the pharaoh as Osirus. He was said to sail in the solar-bark at night with Anubis and Re.

As you can see DC real Egyptologists don't just cut and paste. And still NO DRAGONS....... ;):lol:

My work here is done. B)

Edited by hemet nesw weret

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Moondoggy

Hemet, this is interesting information. I have based my argument with DC on language alone, because that is my major. However, I have given him the benefit of the doubt with his "knowledge" of ancient mythologies. But it seems that even that is now being dispelled by someone else who has higher education in that field. Thanks for the information.

Edited by Magikman
What exactly is the point in copying the entire text of the post which sits directly above your response?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
draconic chronicler

Sorry, but Archibald Sayce is a distinguished Egyptologist and you are just a "hobbyist" at best, much like moondog with his Hebrew fantasies that contradict the Jewish Encyclopedia. It was Sayce who said the Egyptian Seraph was a winged serpent, and the hieroglyph also gives it four feet.. So are you saying there is no hieroglyph for the Seraph? Or that it has not connection with flying serpents/dragons? To say so you will be contradicting many scholarly sources. It is understandable you might confuse the Seraph with the Uraeus, but Sacye wouldn't have. It is obvious your translation is incorrect.

"real Egyptologist"? Yeah, right.

Edited by Magikman
Removed redundant quote

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hemet nesw weret

I was referring to Samuel A.B Mercer as a real egyptologist DC. He identified the glyph as 'uraeus' not me.

I would not dream of calling myself a professional, but I have studied this subject in depth. :D Are you an expert?

In any case I AM NOT GOING TO BE PULLED INTO A 'APOLOGISTS VERSUS HIGHER CRITICISM' DEBATE. That stuff died 50 years ago.

Sayce was an excellent Assyriologst and linguist but he was NOT primarly a egyptologist,(yes I do know that he helped translate and verify the Armarna Letters).

I would much rather read Flinders Petrie on the Biblical view of egyptology.

I know what glyph you speak about, it translates as Tefnut not Serrif. Tefnut is the goddess that Gerald Massey believed was the Typhon-dragon and in the context of Utterance 221 translates as uraeus.(and therefore Wadjet).Please keep in mind the syncretic nature of gods and goddesses in Egypt, Hathor would also be identified with Tefnut as would Isis.

The composite beast you keep calling a dragon has the head of a crocodile, the forelegs and markings of a leopard. and the hind quarters of a hippo'. In common parlance she is refered to as the 'eater of hearts'.

What I don't understand about your stance on this is why you seem to follow Massey in the origins of the bible stories when it comes to dragons but you site Sayce as an expert? Sayce saw real problems with Massey's theories.

Sayce in his Babylonian Religions lectures states,"Apart from the general analogies which we find in all early civilizations,the Script, the Theology and the Astronomy of Egypt and Babylonia show no vestigies of a common source".

So do you think you know better than Sayce then?

Your belief in dragon-gods seems to be an article of faith, and as such I will refrain from further discussion on this matter with you. I do not disrespect another's faith.

Hemet nesw weret.

Edited by hemet nesw weret

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Moondoggy
Sorry, but Archibald Sayce is a distinguished Egyptologist and you are just a "hobbyist" at best, much like moondog with his Hebrew fantasies that contradict the Jewish Encyclopedia. It was Sayce who said the Egyptian Seraph was a winged serpent, and the hieroglyph also gives it four feet.. So are you saying there is no hieroglyph for the Seraph? Or that it has not connection with flying serpents/dragons? To say so you will be contradicting many scholarly sources. It is understandable you might confuse the Seraph with the Uraeus, but Sacye wouldn't have. It is obvious your translation is incorrect.

"real Egyptologist"? Yeah, right.

No fantasies here DC. I am 100% accurate on the meaning of "Saraph". Also why does the JE put the Seraphim in the 10 order of Angels? I never claimed to be specialist on things like puff the magic dragon or other such tripe. However, I am an expert in biblical language that is attested by the aramiac bible society.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
draconic chronicler
No fantasies here DC. I am 100% accurate on the meaning of "Saraph". Also why does the JE put the Seraphim in the 10 order of Angels? I never claimed to be specialist on things like puff the magic dragon or other such tripe. However, I am an expert in biblical language that is attested by the aramiac bible society.

The article has been posted here many times. Yes, some Medieval Jews in imitation of the Chritians did include Seraphim in the order of Angels. The editors would be remiss not to include this mythology. But then the go on to give what they say in their own words is the BEST explanation of the Seraphim and go into the fiery flying serpents, as virtually every other source recognizes except your Amateur Christian concordances with their own agendas.

If you were 100% accurate why do all the scholarly sources disagree with and recognize the word as a "heavenly winged serpent/dragon", including the Jewish Encylopedia, Encylopedia Mythica, Encylopedia Britannica, the Israeli armed forces, noted Biblical scholars?

Here is another article on the subject written by someone far more knowledgeable than you on the hebrew language:

Hebrew and Greek Word Study

The BDB lexicon acknowledges the clear mention by Isaiah of "flying serpents," but in keeping with their disbelief in biblical inerrancy, calls the animals fanciful. However, no less of an authority than E.J. Young maintained the real existence of such animals, Young being aware of some of the ancient pagan writers as well as Isaiah. In recent years P. J. Wiseman, wrongly, claimed there was no evidence for the existence of flying reptiles from the middle east in biblical times. That led the authors of TWOT to postulate a "metaphorical" use of the Hebrew word m'opheph Jpvfm that always indicates literal flying when used with any other animal (about 20x).

That Hebrew word, m'opheph Jpvfm, is a polal participle; a form used only by Isaiah when describing the reptilian saraph (14:29 and 30:6). The polal indicates an intensive of the root pvf ooph that means to fly or flutter. BDB, then, interprets it as meaning to "fly about, to and fro." The imperfect form of the polal is found in Gen. 1:20, "flying creatures that flutter to and fro" and Is. 6:2 "seraphim (the same word as the reptiles here used for angelic creatures) that fly to and fro." The meaning may be best illustrated by a polal infinitive construct in Ez. 32:10 "when I cause my sword to fly to and fro" or "when I brandish my sword." The rapid back and forth movement of the sword (brandishing) illustrates the emphasis of the polal intensive.

The idea of TWOT then, that m'opheph Jpvfm could indicate a serpent's swift bite, will not work since a serpent's strike is not a back and forth motion. The word indicates an animal with swift back and forth motion, like the flying of a humming bird.

It appears that the word saraph JrW was forgotten by the reign of Hezekiah. After being used four times by Moses in the Pentateuch, it does not appear in Scripture again until Isaiah, about eight centuries later. Moreover those animals did not apparently exist in Judah; just in Arabia, the Sinai, and Egypt to the south.

That could explain the hapax legomenon of Nehushtan Ntwhn, apparently a compound word of nahash whn (serpent) and tan Nt (translated 'dragon' by the Septuagint, Vulgate, ASV, and KJV). That would be an apt description of a reptilian quadruped with a snake-looking appearance (according to the appearance of a rhamphorhynchoid pterosaur). The compound word idea appears linguistically and archaeologically more probable than the often repeated interpretation 'a thing of brass.'

The "brass" idea is propounded because of the Hebrew word for copper; nehoshet twhn. Though it is similar to Nehushtan, the final nun there appears inexplicable if the word is based on the other word for copper. However, there is no problem like that for the compound word theory stated above. TWOT recognizes the common derivation of nahash whn (serpent) and Nehushtan Ntwhn.

The Septuagint word that is used, vneesqan, would argue for the compound word Nehushtan Ntwhn and against the copper idea nehoshet twhn. The second word, 'tan,' is present with both the Hebrew and Greek versions and the an at the end does not match the copper word idea. The first portion of the compound word is a reasonable match for 'nahash.' There is no 'h' in Greek, though that sound is sometimes indicated at the beginning of a Greek word by a rough breathing mark. Also, all the vowels match 'nahash.' If the word was 'nehoshet' the second e should be an o.

Finally, the compound word idea for Nehushtan during Hezekiah's reign, is similar to the compound word used in the Pentateuch, saraph nahash. The only difference is the substitution of tan for saraph, a reason for which will be given later.

Isaiah then resurrected the word saraph JrW for the angelic creatures that he saw at God's throne (6:2). Later he would qualify the word with m'opheph Jpvfm when indicating mere animals (14:29 and 30:6) so the audience would know that flying reptiles were intended, not angelic beings (who are qualified by the word standing, o'mdim Mydmf, not flying Jpvfm).

Saraph JrW may be related to the cuneiform word for a "serpent;" siru. Archibald H. Sayce says that the Egyptian word seref means "flying serpent." An Egyptian origin for the word appears plausible since there is archaeological evidence and ancient accounts of the presence of flying reptiles there. Since the Israelites had lived there for many years, it is not surprising that they adopted the Egyptian name for them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Moondoggy

Benzinger and Hirsch say the following: "...it may be CONCLUDED from the description that the seraphim were conceived as having HUMAN faces, HUMAN hands, and HUMAN voices..." That is from the JE commentary on the vision of Isaiah. If you bother to read the JE commentary on Jewish Angelology you will see that your concepts are preconcieved and grossly manipulated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
draconic chronicler
I was referring to Samuel A.B Mercer as a real egyptologist DC. He identified the glyph as 'uraeus' not me.

I would not dream of calling myself a professional, but I have studied this subject in depth. :D Are you an expert?

In any case I AM NOT GOING TO BE PULLED INTO A 'APOLOGISTS VERSUS HIGHER CRITICISM' DEBATE. That stuff died 50 years ago.

Sayce was an excellent Assyriologst and linguist but he was NOT primarly a egyptologist,(yes I do know that he helped translate and verify the Armarna Letters).

I would much rather read Flinders Petrie on the Biblical view of egyptology.

I know what glyph you speak about, it translates as Tefnut not Serrif. Tefnut is the goddess that Gerald Massey believed was the Typhon-dragon and in the context of Utterance 221 translates as uraeus.(and therefore Wadjet).Please keep in mind the syncretic nature of gods and goddesses in Egypt, Hathor would also be identified with Tefnut as would Isis.

The composite beast you keep calling a dragon has the head of a crocodile, the forelegs and markings of a leopard. and the hind quarters of a hippo'. In common parlance she is refered to as the 'eater of hearts'.

What I don't understand about your stance on this is why you seem to follow Massey in the origins of the bible stories when it comes to dragons but you site Sayce as an expert? Sayce saw real problems with Massey's theories.

Sayce in his Babylonian Religions lectures states,"Apart from the general analogies which we find in all early civilizations,the Script, the Theology and the Astronomy of Egypt and Babylonia show no vestigies of a common source".

So do you think you know better than Sayce then?

Your belief in dragon-gods seems to be an article of faith, and as such I will refrain from further discussion on this matter with you. I do not disrespect another's faith.

Hemet nesw weret.

If anyone is relying on "faith" here it is you...... claiming experts like Sayce are wrong and that you are right. I do not think I actually stated any beliefs here either. I am only showing that the original writers of the Bible acknowledged flying serpens/dragons are heavenly creatures as do many other cultures and theologies.

Again you demonstrate grade school Egyptology in your comebacks. I was never referring to the well known composite "swallower"/Devourer Ammut as a dragon, though I did say early Christian theology had these same beliefs that the heavely dragons devoured the wicked.. Nor have I ever seen Ammut depicted with wings. The Hierglyph for the Serrif is not Ammut, though admittedly, hierglyphs are not very detailed. The winged crocodile like creature I am referring to on a Stele most assuredly doesn't have the hind end of a hippo. Nor have I ever seen Sobek represented with wings.

So I'll ask you again, do you contradict Sayce, by going on the record claiming there is no such Egyptian glyph/word "Seraph" that refers to a winged serpent/dragon/monster?

To answer your question, there is no contradiction between Massey and Sayce concerning the acknowledgement that there is an Egyptian hieroglyph representing a winged, dragon-like monster called the Seraph, just as there is in Hebrew.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Adcox
If anyone is relying on "faith" here it is you...... claiming experts like Sayce are wrong and that you are right. I do not think I actually stated any beliefs here either. I am only showing that the original writers of the Bible acknowledged flying serpens/dragons are heavenly creatures as do many other cultures and theologies.

Again you demonstrate grade school Egyptology in your comebacks. I was never referring to the well known composite "swallower"/Devourer Ammut as a dragon, though I did say early Christian theology had these same beliefs that the heavely dragons devoured the wicked.. Nor have I ever seen Ammut depicted with wings. The Hierglyph for the Serrif is not Ammut, though admittedly, hierglyphs are not very detailed. The winged crocodile like creature I am referring to on a Stele most assuredly doesn't have the hind end of a hippo. Nor have I ever seen Sobek represented with wings.

So I'll ask you again, do you contradict Sayce, by going on the record claiming there is no such Egyptian glyph/word "Seraph" that refers to a winged serpent/dragon/monster?

To answer your question, there is no contradiction between Massey and Sayce concerning the acknowledgement that there is an Egyptian hieroglyph representing a winged, dragon-like monster called the Seraph, just as there is in Hebrew.

What is it with you i can't get on a topic which you don't bring up dragons

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
draconic chronicler
Benzinger and Hirsch say the following: "...it may be CONCLUDED from the description that the seraphim were conceived as having HUMAN faces, HUMAN hands, and HUMAN voices..." That is from the JE commentary on the vision of Isaiah. If you bother to read the JE commentary on Jewish Angelology you will see that your concepts are preconcieved and grossly manipulated.

You are fooling nobody. Yes, they explain the silly medieval angelogy mythology, but CONCLUDE the article saying the ORIGINAL, ANCIENT meaning of the word Seraphim were Fiery Flying Serpents. You know this, so why are you playing this silly game?

And Isaiah says nothing about the faces being human, or the hands being human. Dragons have both faces and hands. The book of Psalms even validates Isaiah, stating DRAGONS sing praises to God, not silly cartoon angels, Moondog, it says Dragons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
draconic chronicler
What is it with you i can't get on a topic which you don't bring up dragons

I ignore most of the topics here, so "get over it". But if you knew anything about the Bible, you would know this topic deals with dragons, becasue Satan is called a dragon. And dragons are the only creature the Bible says sings. So that is the "musician" part. See, that wasn't to difficult for you, was it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Moondoggy
You are fooling nobody. Yes, they explain the silly medieval angelogy mythology, but CONCLUDE the article saying the ORIGINAL, ANCIENT meaning of the word Seraphim were Fiery Flying Serpents. You know this, so why are you playing this silly game?

And Isaiah says nothing about the faces being human, or the hands being human. Dragons have both faces and hands. The book of Psalms even validates Isaiah, stating DRAGONS sing praises to God, not silly cartoon angels, Moondog, it says Dragons.

I am now convinced I am communicating with someone who resides in the looney bin. How do you type while you wear a staight jacket???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
draconic chronicler
I am now convinced I am communicating with someone who resides in the looney bin. How do you type while you wear a staight jacket???

I wanted to repost the Jewish Encyclopedia article again to show everybody you have no idea what you are talking about, but unfortuantely the site is down. Apparently you have a short memory, but maybe this will help. If you'll recall, even lil Gremlin looked at the article and agreed with me. In the summary, the authors state origin of the Seraphim in Isaiah were clearly winged reptilian creatures, and later on, Christians and Jews alike ignored the origins and turned them into the winged humanoid demi-gods/angels of classical Greece and Rome. And then the Christian "Hebrew Hobbyists" wrote their amateurish and biased concordances to support their mythologies. An this is what you are reading from, instead of from real Hebrew scholars who identify Seraph as an authentic Hebrew word meaning fiery flying serpents.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Gremlin

Id like to stress that my agreement in this issue with you was on the fact that seraphim have an earlier conception than that Isiah paints. That they were serpents-probably later winged (influence from egypt and babylonia.) Im not convinced that they were mushushu in form as you believe DC though i can conceed that at some point they may have come to look that way. I believe their conception has been subject to the same evolutions and influences detectable in other facets of their culture and religion.

On the matter of the JE article...i have posted all relevent info in the Dragons thread...where this discussion should be taking place.

the way i see it is this....the JE note a number of possibilities, and influences...one major one comming from babylonia (and ultimately sumaria) this is of a heavenly serpent (possibly winged) having its origin in serpent cults and totems....this concept is what they see as most likely.

to explain this they give references to the articles in the JE relating to Brazen Serpents, where the fiery serpents moses encounters in the wilderness were most likely poisonous snakes. and the Brazen Serpent itself a form of totem indicative of a serpent cult.

the article also gives references to another article in the JE about totems evident in early israelite culture....noting a serpent totem as one of the main ones.

This association with poisonous snakes is what the JE sees as the origin of the seraphim in the israeli context. (having the same origin in the Sumerian context. Serpent cults)

However i also have previously agreed with Moondoggy about the possible origin of the word....seraphim, which has its origins in 'fiery'. and has been used numerous times in the context of 'being fired', 'one who fires', 'has been fired'. this can relate to animals, people and objects....particularly in mettalurgy and ceramics. It probably came to relate to poisonous snakes (like the horned viper which inhabits these regions) because of the burning sensation caused by the venom as it destroys cells. 'fiery serpent' has also historically, and still today been used to refer to a parisitic worm which causes a burning sensation...these are to be found in arid areas where water is polluted by the parasite.....and can be transferred to other waters rapidly as the person bathes to relieve the burning sensation.....it has been historically removed by twirling it gently around a stick or rod to make sure it doesnt break during extraction.

DC your theory begins...' if we accept the existence of the creator god and the supernatural....' it is a caveat which takes religions litterally and at face value...instead of seeing mythology and theology as human constructs you are reduced to trying to plot the 'earliest version' and therefore 'true source', this is a mistake because it doesnt allow you to appreciate that the gods, their religions, the way they were seen and worshiped evolved and developed from various simple animistic sources; so your search ends at the earliest source of a creator myth and his pantheon....something which already had thousands upon thousands of years of evolution to reach that stage. Evolution of thought is linked intrinsically to evolution of society; and what we have evidenced in sumeria is one of the worlds earliest agricultural societies.

such caveats are annoying because they ignore and wont even contemplate things outside their strict boundaries.

for example how about this one.....and its thankfully back on topic of this thread....

...if we accept that lucifer is satan, the first angel who fell from heaven and god's grace, was he before his great sin of pride the chief musician in heaven?

now if we were to accept this caveat which conforms to the christian paradigm (which is where our present concept of Satan comes from) then everything you've said on this thread DC is irrelevent. Annoying isnt it.

:rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
draconic chronicler
Id like to stress that my agreement in this issue with you was on the fact that seraphim have an earlier conception than that Isiah paints. That they were serpents-probably later winged (influence from egypt and babylonia.) Im not convinced that they were mushushu in form as you believe DC though i can conceed that at some point they may have come to look that way. I believe their conception has been subject to the same evolutions and influences detectable in other facets of their culture and religion.

On the matter of the JE article...i have posted all relevent info in the Dragons thread...where this discussion should be taking place.

the way i see it is this....the JE note a number of possibilities, and influences...one major one comming from babylonia (and ultimately sumaria) this is of a heavenly serpent (possibly winged) having its origin in serpent cults and totems....this concept is what they see as most likely.

to explain this they give references to the articles in the JE relating to Brazen Serpents, where the fiery serpents moses encounters in the wilderness were most likely poisonous snakes. and the Brazen Serpent itself a form of totem indicative of a serpent cult.

the article also gives references to another article in the JE about totems evident in early israelite culture....noting a serpent totem as one of the main ones.

This association with poisonous snakes is what the JE sees as the origin of the seraphim in the israeli context. (having the same origin in the Sumerian context. Serpent cults)

However i also have previously agreed with Moondoggy about the possible origin of the word....seraphim, which has its origins in 'fiery'. and has been used numerous times in the context of 'being fired', 'one who fires', 'has been fired'. this can relate to animals, people and objects....particularly in mettalurgy and ceramics. It probably came to relate to poisonous snakes (like the horned viper which inhabits these regions) because of the burning sensation caused by the venom as it destroys cells. 'fiery serpent' has also historically, and still today been used to refer to a parisitic worm which causes a burning sensation...these are to be found in arid areas where water is polluted by the parasite.....and can be transferred to other waters rapidly as the person bathes to relieve the burning sensation.....it has been historically removed by twirling it gently around a stick or rod to make sure it doesnt break during extraction.

DC your theory begins...' if we accept the existence of the creator god and the supernatural....' it is a caveat which takes religions litterally and at face value...instead of seeing mythology and theology as human constructs you are reduced to trying to plot the 'earliest version' and therefore 'true source', this is a mistake because it doesnt allow you to appreciate that the gods, their religions, the way they were seen and worshiped evolved and developed from various simple animistic sources; so your search ends at the earliest source of a creator myth and his pantheon....something which already had thousands upon thousands of years of evolution to reach that stage. Evolution of thought is linked intrinsically to evolution of society; and what we have evidenced in sumeria is one of the worlds earliest agricultural societies.

such caveats are annoying because they ignore and wont even contemplate things outside their strict boundaries.

for example how about this one.....and its thankfully back on topic of this thread....

...if we accept that lucifer is satan, the first angel who fell from heaven and god's grace, was he before his great sin of pride the chief musician in heaven?

now if we were to accept this caveat which conforms to the christian paradigm (which is where our present concept of Satan comes from) then everything you've said on this thread DC is irrelevent. Annoying isnt it.

:rolleyes:

No, because those who actually "care", or "believe" accept the Bible as the word of God. And if we accept that premise as the basis for the argument, then that same bible is proof that this is a Christian misunderstanding and mistranslation. And then we come to the interesting question, "should Christians accept what the Bible actually says, or a new mythology founded on obvious mistranslations of the Bible?

And as to the Seraphim, the JE authors seemed reluctant to state the obvious. That the earliest surviving Jewish scriptures preserved in the Dead Sea Scrolls proves beyond a doubt that the priests and rabbis of that time translated the Hebrew word Seraphim to the Greek word Drakones, PROVING they acknowledged the winged reptilian meaning of Seraph, and it would not be until medieval times that the creatures would become the "cartoon" humanoids with wings. The hands faces wings and feet of the Seraphim in Isaiah can apply just as easily to the limbed and winged drakon in the Testament of Solomon, or the limbed and winged Drakons on the Temple Menorah as they can to Christian christmas card angels. And the dead sea scrolls prove this beyond any reasonable doubt. If the Priests thought the Seraphim were angels, they would have used the word "Angelos" instead of "Drakones". Which part of that don't you understand?

Edited by draconic chronicler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Gremlin

but the christian paradigm is an evolving thing...it is not as was recorded by the bible thousands of years ago...it was continuously formed, and still is....

it evolved in late antiquity....it evolved in the dark ages....it evolved in the medieval period...it evolved in the renaissance......can i stop now, do u get it?

the christian faith/paradigm is constantly evolving.

whilst looking at how it evolved is interesting to some folk, even non christians, the majority of christians have belief and faith which goes beyond what is literally written in the bible; most denominations recognise this and see genisis as an early attempt to conceptualise the 'creation'.

what you are doing amounts to fundimentalism, you are stepping into their paradigm and marking boundaries of faith and reality. and not accepting that belief changes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
draconic chronicler
but the christian paradigm is an evolving thing...it is not as was recorded by the bible thousands of years ago...it was continuously formed, and still is....

it evolved in late antiquity....it evolved in the dark ages....it evolved in the medieval period...it evolved in the renaissance......can i stop now, do u get it?

the christian faith/paradigm is constantly evolving.

whilst looking at how it evolved is interesting to some folk, even non christians, the majority of christians have belief and faith which goes beyond what is literally written in the bible; most denominations recognise this and see genisis as an early attempt to conceptualise the 'creation'.

what you are doing amounts to fundimentalism, you are stepping into their paradigm and marking boundaries of faith and reality. and not accepting that belief changes.

That is the non Christian view of Christianity. Most Christians will tell you that the Bible is reasonably accurate. One need not say the earth was created in six literal days, just six thousand years ago, now that's fundamentalism. But one can see the Genesis story that what was meant to be six vast periods of time were mistranslated as six physical days. In this account, life begins in the sea, after which there is a period when Tannin (dragons) and birds lived, just like the Mesozoic, then mammals replace the dragons, and men come last. It is hard to improve on this until the science of the 20th century.

No, the word dinosaur was not invented yet, but "dragon" (tannin) is a very reasonable attempt to describe what we call dinosaurs today.

I know all too well that belief changes. That is why Yahweh is no longer a dragon. But some people will be interested to learn that he was once though of as one. Then they can say, "oh, so that's why God spews smoke from his nostrils and fire from his mouth and consumes his enemies in the Old Testament."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lolly dama

.

Edited by lolly dama

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lolly dama

You lost all credibility in my mind when you include Kurt Cobain in this....his death was murder, not suicide.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nymphadora

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BigEd
You, IMO are clasifying THe spirit Brother Lucifer, from heresay , or what your interpretation of what someone elses belief from an other translation of what they have read.

You are OK to believe as you wish and Judge lucifer as you wish, but this does not make it so, and IMO, is only an way to blame ones transgressions on another instead of being accountable for their own.

Lucifer plays no part in the choices one makes while incarnate, and anyone can be Satan, depending on The choices he makes.

There will be alot of sad spirits who thought they would be blaming The spirit Satan for what they themsef have done, after this life when They become pure consciousness (Spirit) hfind it was freewill all the way, and the accountability of the individual spirit will fall on the Spirit, not God Or Jesus, or Lucifer, or even an entity which some call Satan.

Love Omnaka

Love Omnaka

You are one confused person IMO ofcourse..... God told you all of this? First of all little omnaka every person has a free will to do good or bad. People can blame anyone they want for their wrong doings but in the end it doesnt matter who they blame because they have a free will. Satan tempts us but it is our responsibility to shield his temptations. Falling into his temptations is called sin. Blaming him doesnt change anything its still a sin. So what are u getting at. Lucifer or as i believe "satan" is the tempter of the brethren. The Bible is the Holy word of God and you saying it is not so is blaspheme. Sure you can believe anything you want but if you dont believe that Jesus is the ONLY begotten son you will go to hell with satan. if your are saying the Bible is inaccurate than you are saying God is inaccurate because The whole Bible is written by God through people. There are no mistakes. 100% accurate.

2nd where did you come up with any1 wanting to blame satan. he is a liar and deseaver. What we do is our own responsibility. But he still tempts us just like he tempted Jesus.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BigEd
If anyone is relying on "faith" here it is you...... claiming experts like Sayce are wrong and that you are right. I do not think I actually stated any beliefs here either. I am only showing that the original writers of the Bible acknowledged flying serpens/dragons are heavenly creatures as do many other cultures and theologies.

Again you demonstrate grade school Egyptology in your comebacks. I was never referring to the well known composite "swallower"/Devourer Ammut as a dragon, though I did say early Christian theology had these same beliefs that the heavely dragons devoured the wicked.. Nor have I ever seen Ammut depicted with wings. The Hierglyph for the Serrif is not Ammut, though admittedly, hierglyphs are not very detailed. The winged crocodile like creature I am referring to on a Stele most assuredly doesn't have the hind end of a hippo. Nor have I ever seen Sobek represented with wings.

So I'll ask you again, do you contradict Sayce, by going on the record claiming there is no such Egyptian glyph/word "Seraph" that refers to a winged serpent/dragon/monster?

To answer your question, there is no contradiction between Massey and Sayce concerning the acknowledgement that there is an Egyptian hieroglyph representing a winged, dragon-like monster called the Seraph, just as there is in Hebrew.

the only thing you are doing is copying pasting and trying to use big words to make yourself seem smart....good job! what have you accompished??.........nothing...............

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ArchVile68

LOL, the ruler of Hell is only a mere muse.

owned....

Edited by Shadow Dweller

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Spiritualacender
There is no biblical reference specifically that points to satan being the chief musician in heaven before he was cast out. But I have heard it from a few people and was wondering if anyone else has also heard this as well? If you have heard of this as well what are your thoughts on it? Where did you get the info from? The only real passage that tells of satan's roll in heaven was that in Job 1-2 were satan is presented as the accuser of believers in a heavenly court. Personally I don't know for sure if he was the chief musician, but I think he just might of been. Also this if you are just going to come to this thread saying "satan doez not existz ok?" then why bother posting, i'm sure there are more interesting threads for you. Serious responses only please.

First off Satan is separate from Lucifer. Satan is a prince of hell one of the four princes which have eight sub princes under them and legions of demons under them as well. Lucifer had all the musical instruments of sound within his light or form we will call it. Also just because he was cast out he lost nothing he kept all he was including his true form of a bright beautiful light.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ebonyhasfavor

Hello there

A god place for you to start your research to your question is to check out the series " know your enemy" on you tube.. Its a very clear story of the life of the arch angel Lucifer who became Satan because of his pride.. Also read Ezekiel 28:13, if will give you a picture of all that Lucifer was to GOD and what God gifted him with before his fall... Hope this helps

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.