Satan and his demons are real beings/entities (with personalities) not abstract evil within unregenerate man
- Thread starter WPM
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
There was a rebellion in heaven, some angels followed Satan, other angels continued to follow God.
Satan *fell,* along with the angels that followed him:
איך נפלח משמים הילל
"How you *fell* from heaven, Morning Star..." (Isaiah 14:12).
Last edited:
Grailhunter
Well-Known Member
I said the Bible do not use the phrase "fallen angels"
I did not say the angels did not fall.
The proverb addresses the king of Babylon, not a fallen angel some believe became evil Satan.
Isaiah 14:4 (KJV) That thou shalt take up this proverb against the king of Babylon, and say, How hath the oppressor ceased! the golden city ceased!
Isaiah is speaking this proverb against the king of Babylon likening him to a man who has fallen from heaven. Calling the king, Lucifer, son of the morning. When was Satan or a fallen angel ever called Lucifer, son of the morning? Lucifer is the sense of brightness and means morning star. That title belongs to none other except Christ Jesus our Lord. The morning star is given unto the churches, to whoever is an overcomer through faith. Christ alone is the bright and morning star. The king of Babylon is the MAN (human not spirit) the proverb is directed to. It is NOT written of a fallen angel who became Satan when he disobeyed God.
Isaiah 14:12 (KJV) How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!
Revelation 2:28-29 (KJV) And I will give him the morning star. He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches.
Revelation 22:16 (KJV) I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.
Isaiah 14:16 (KJV) They that see thee shall narrowly look upon thee, and consider thee, saying, Is this the man that made the earth to tremble, that did shake kingdoms;
Why would the proverb be directed to a man, the king of Babylon of the experiences that came upon the first man Adam when he and Eve were created in the likeness and image of God, without sin or death, blessed by God and given dominion over all that God had created? What does the line/kindred of mankind through Adam and Eve have to do with the king of Babylon?
The Bible never tells us that Satan was created an angel of God and became evil Satan! Nor does the Bible ever tell us that angels of God became angels of Satan. Angels are ministering spirits sent to minister to heirs of salvation. Devils/demons are also spirits used by Satan to fight against the Kingdom of God, trying to prevent the Kingdom of God from being built as the gospel is preached unto all the earth. Both spirits of God and spirits of Satan are 'messengers' that have been translated 'angels'. This has caused innumerable confusion and forces contradiction into the Word of God if we don't rightly understand, according to context, when 'messenger', which is translated 'angel' is a spirit for good/God, or spirit for evil/Satan.
Substantial liberties must be taken with the literal text to propose your "human messengers" variation of the "Sethite" view. (In data analysis, it is often said that "if you torture the data severely enough it will confess to anything.")
The term translated "the sons of God" is, in the Hebrew, B'nai HaElohim, "sons of Elohim," which is a term consistently used in the Old Testament for angels 1, and it is never used of believers in the Old Testament. It was so understood by the ancient rabbinical sources and by the early church fathers. Attempts to apply this term to "godly leadership" is without Scriptural foundation.2
The "Sons of Seth and daughters of Cain" interpretation strains and obscures the intended grammatical antithesis between the sons of God and the daughters of Adam. Attempting to impute any other view to the text flies in the face of the earlier centuries of understanding of the Hebrew text among both rabbinical and early church scholarship. The lexicographical antithesis clearly intends to establish a contrast between the "angels" and the women of the Earth.
If the text was intended to contrast the "sons of Seth and the daughters of Cain," why didn't it say so? Seth was not God, and Cain was not Adam. (Why not the "sons of Cain" and the "daughters of Seth?" There is no basis for restricting the text to either subset of Adam's descendants. Further, there exists no mention of daughters of Elohim.)
And how does the "Sethite" interpretation contribute to the ostensible cause for the Flood, which is the primary thrust of the text? The entire view is contrived on a series of assumptions without Scriptural support.
The Biblical term "Sons of Elohim" (that is, of the Creator Himself), is confined to the direct creation by the divine hand and not to those born to those of their own order.3 In Luke's genealogy of Jesus, only Adam is called a "son of God."4 The entire Biblical drama deals with the tragedy that humankind is a fallen race, with Adam's initial immortality forfeited. Christ uniquely gives them that receive him the power to become the sons of God.5 Being born again of the Spirit of God, as an entirely new creation6, at their resurrection they alone will be clothed with a building of God7 and in every respect equal to the angels8. The very term oiketerion, alluding to the heavenly body with which the believer longs to be clothed, is the precise term used for the heavenly bodies from which the fallen angels had disrobed.9
The attempt to apply the term "Sons of Elohim" in a broader sense has no textual basis and obscures the precision of its denotative usage. This proves to be an assumption which is antagonistic to the uniform Biblical usage of the term.
- Cf. Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7 (where they are in existence before the creation of the earth). Jesus also implies the same term in Luke 20:36.
- God simply refers to Israel as "my sons" and "my daughters." Indeed, all of Adam's race are termed God's "offspring" in Acts 17:28 (although Paul is here quoting a Greek poet).
- The sons of Elohim are even contrasted with the sons of Adam in Psalm 82:1, 6 and warned that if they go on with the evil identified in verse 2, they would die like Adam (man). When our Lord quoted this verse (John 10:34), he made no mention of what order of beings God addressed in this Psalm but that the Word of God was inviolate whether the beings in question were angels or men.
- Luke 3:38.
- John 1:11-12.
- 2 Corinthians 5:17.
- 2 Corinthians 5:1-4.
- Luke 20:36.
- This term appears only twice in the Bible: 2 Corinthians 5:2 and Jude 1:6.
Spiritual Israelite
Well-Known Member
Explain how you are not forcing contradiction into the Word of God yourself. The Bible tells us that everything God created was very good (Genesis 1:31), so explain how you think Satan and devils/demons became evil. It appears that you do believe that they are spirits or spirit beings, so they had to have been created by God. They can't have always existed as that is only true of God. Agree? I would hope so. So, do you claim that God created them to be evil? If so, how do you reconcile that with Genesis 1:31?
Grailhunter
Well-Known Member
You are correct.....
Isaiah 14:12 (KJV) How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!
Lucifer is a Latin word.....that did not exist in the Old Testament or New Testament periods. So the word could not be in a Hebrew text. So therefore, it is a corruption of the scriptures. One of dozens of errors in the King James Version of the Bible.
Lucifer is the Latin word for Venus.....the planet and or the goddess.
Isaiah 14:12 (NASV) How you have fallen from heaven, O star of the morning, son of the dawn! You have been cut down to the earth, You who have weakened the nations!
"star of the morning" The planet Venus is the morning and evening star....Not Satan. The storyline is about a king.
Rather, you're referencing Jerome's corrupt Latin Vulgate.
In pagan Roman mythology, Lucifer was vaunted as ‘the day star,’ Christ himself. The Roman Catholic church continued this myth in their Latin Vulgate bible by matching the word ‘lucifer’ in both Isaiah 14:12 (about the devil) and 2 Peter 1:19 (about Jesus Christ). Modern versions and lexicons continue this dangerous myth.
The word Lucifer means ‘light bearer.’ The word ‘star’ is not in the Hebrew Old Testament in Isaiah 14:12. New versions’ use of the word ‘star’ there is not a translation, but an interpretation, from lexicons that follow Roman mythology. - Alexander Murray, Dept. of Greek and Roman Antiquities, British Museum, Who’s Who In Mythology, N.Y.: Portland House, p. 168.
“Lucifer” is the etymologically correct rendering in Isaiah 14:12.
The public relations campaign required to transform the public's image of Satan, from his true evil character to one which would inspire worship, is monumental. It pivots upon the transformation of his identity.
Historically, Isaiah 14 has been used as the singular biography of Lucifer, shedding unique light upon the "mystery of iniquity." In verse twelve Lucifer is in heaven; in verse fifteen Satan is in hell. The intervening verses expose his pride in the five "I wills," each a rung in his descent into hell.
These passages must be the object of Satan's rancor and consequently his opposition. They reveal his arrogance (verse 13 and 14), his responsibility for much of the world's misery (verse 17) and his end (verse 15 and 16). He is indicted as soundly in Ezekiel 28, but is unnamed and designated "the anointed cherub."
His ambition is to be "like the most High" and these verses sweep away that illusion, presenting him transparently. To hold that he would not grapple with the word "Lucifer" until it was securely removed from such an unflattering context and replanted into a "like-the-most-High" context, is naivete. Fait accompli, the feat is accomplished in all new bible versions; the KJV remains uncorrupted.
Twentieth century versions have removed the name Lucifer, thereby eliminating the only reference to him in the entire bible. The word Lucifer then falls to the realm of the poets and writers of mythology and ceases to be an identifiable character of biblical origin. He is thereby divorced from the truth concerning himself. In John 8:44 Jesus said, "the devil. . .is a liar, and the father of it." He can now have whatever characteristics he desires.
Further, an examination of the original Hebrew will dispel any illusion that "morning star" is an acceptable substitute for the word "Lucifer." The Hebrew is "helel, ben shachar" which is accurately translated, "Lucifer, son of the morning." The NIV and NASB give an English translation as if the Hebrew said, ''shachar kokab, ben shachaf' or morning star, son of the morning (or dawn). Yet the word for star (kokab) appears nowhere in the text. Also 'morning' appears only once, as the KJV shows, not twice as new versions indicate. The word kokab is translated as 'star' dozens of other times by NIV translators; morning or dawn is likewise used hundreds of times. New version editors know boger kokab is 'morning star' since it is used in Job 38:7. If God had intended to communicate 'morning star', he could have repeated it here. The word he chose, helel, appears nowhere else in the Old Testament, just as "Lucifer" appears nowhere else.
The matching of Lucifer with the morning star rises not from the Hebrew bible but from classical mythology, a fount of bitter water not intended by God as our "fountain of living waters" (Jeremiah 17:13). Reference works concede that the switch is based on ". . .classical mythology for the planet Venus."* Just because Satan has convinced the heathen world to connect him with Venus, the morning star, is no basis for the repetition of that "myth" by Christian scholars.
* F. L Cross (ed.), Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church (N.Y.: Oxford University Press, 1974), p. 1002.
The first step in Satan's public relations campaign was to remove his name from the indictment in Isaiah 14, which is the only historical non-fictional documentation of his true nature. Evidently it was much easier to excise the one word "Lucifer," than to retain it and replace the remaining verses of chapter 14 with the compliments he has currently deceived New Age leaders into penning.
The second step has many traditional groups. Albert Pike issued the following instructions to the Masons. "Yes, Lucifer is God...The doctrine of Satanism is a heresy; and the true and pure philosophic religion is the belief in Lucifer...you may repeat it to the Brethren of the 32nd, 31st, and 30th degrees: The Masonic religion should be...maintained in the purity of the Luciferian doctrine." - Livesey, Understanding the New Age, p. 71.
Perhaps the most shocking aspect of Step 2, the alleged distinction between Lucifer and Satan, is its appearance in the majority of 'Christian' reference books. We would expect as much from New Age sources, but pseudo-scholarship and what appears to be much copying from each other, has Christians parroting the New Age line.
Lucifer has been removed from most bible dictionaries and commentaries. If he appears at all, the reference quickly assures the reader that Lucifer is not Satan.
There are several other steps of the New Age "initiation" process we can explore if they become relevant.
Last edited:
Grailhunter
Well-Known Member
Meaning of "Lucifer" in Latin
In Latin, lucifer literally means “light-bringer” or “morning star” Wikipedia+1. It is a noun formed from the Latin adjective lucifer, which combines lux (“light”) with ferre (“to carry, bear”) The Bible Made Plain+1. This construction directly reflects the astronomical sense of the name, as Venus in the morning sky was called lucifer in Roman times
Grailhunter
Well-Known Member
Grailhunter
Well-Known Member
Associating Isaiah 14:12 with the devil in any way or reason is a deception. For one Hebrew to English would be the correct way to translate this. No reason to look through other languages to deceive. Because of the corruption of the scripture the storyline gets forgotten and it has a meaning in itself.
Opinion without scriptural or linguistic support.
...which you haven't proven. You're building a castle of sand on a faulty premise.
I posted a sampling of verifiable documentation that shows otherwise.
BTW, who/what is the source behind your The Bible Made Plain+1 cite? And your Wikipedia cite is not a primary source.
Pls post verifiable primary or secondary research that corroborates your opinions.
From the OP:
...disembodied spirits of the (drowned) giants (the giants were the offspring of fallen angels mating with earthly women). They are "entities with personalities."
Last edited:
Grailhunter
Well-Known Member
Grailhunter
Well-Known Member
Proven what?
Proving words in the scriptures that are not there.
Besides sin, what would you call it?
Last edited:
Grailhunter
Well-Known Member
Life long formally educated Theologian, educated in five countries..
1. This story is not about a devil.
2. The word is Latin of which is not Hebrew or English.
3. There is no defined devil in the Old Testament..
4. That is why the Jews do not believe in a devil or Hell, then and today.
People like you are unlikely to accept any source but your own.
Grailhunter
Well-Known Member
@doctrox
You said--->...disembodied spirits of the (drowned) giants (the giants were the offspring of fallen angels mating with earthly women). They are "entities with personalities."
Other than they are entities with personalities, I do not agree with any of that.
1. We do not know who the sons of God were......never identified as angels.
2. It appears there were giants in the land before the sons of God married human women.
3. The offspring of the sons of God were mighty men of renown......that is a positive statement.
4. We do not know what made them renown, killing giants?
5. What did the sons of God do after marrying the women?
6. There are three species of giants in the Bible and apparently, they survived the flood.
7. Yahweh did not condemn the sons of God taking women as wives, no scripture.
8. It is a common belief that angels cannot reproduce.
There is not enough information to know exactly what happened, so sometimes you have to leave it at that.
You said--->...disembodied spirits of the (drowned) giants (the giants were the offspring of fallen angels mating with earthly women). They are "entities with personalities."
Other than they are entities with personalities, I do not agree with any of that.
1. We do not know who the sons of God were......never identified as angels.
2. It appears there were giants in the land before the sons of God married human women.
3. The offspring of the sons of God were mighty men of renown......that is a positive statement.
4. We do not know what made them renown, killing giants?
5. What did the sons of God do after marrying the women?
6. There are three species of giants in the Bible and apparently, they survived the flood.
7. Yahweh did not condemn the sons of God taking women as wives, no scripture.
8. It is a common belief that angels cannot reproduce.
There is not enough information to know exactly what happened, so sometimes you have to leave it at that.
Grailhunter
Well-Known Member
The Word of God calls Jews:
• liars,
• frauds,
• identity thieves,
• murderers,
• killers of the Prophets,
• killers of Jesus Christ,
• the children of the devil,
• Satan’s synagogue.
• Son’s of hell
• Antichrist
Similar threads
