Help Me Understand About King and Prince Tyre In Ezekiel

KAM · Jul 9, 2018

Hi, I've been studying the bible for a little while and something has really been bugging me, so I joined this forum. I do not understand Ezekiel's orders from God in his visions about prince and king Tyre.

First, God orders him to address the prince, that he's just a man who got rich and proud, and then said he was a god though he was not. Then he tells Ezekiel to address the king, saying he was in the Garden of Eden, mountain of God, walked across fiery stones, etc., then God burned him to death in front of everyone.

Is it that king Tyre was a fallen angel that God killed? Was prince Tyre the son of a fallen angel? It says he was wiser than Daniel and that no secret was hidden from him. Then wouldn't that make him part divine, or something like the Nephilim, who had access to angelic knowledge? If so, then why would the bible say he was just a man?

Also, if Hiram king of Tyre allied with king David because he knew David was formidable, then it would logically go that king David never became as great as king Hiram? Was it because David was of manly origin and not divine origin?

By the way, what is "the pit" referred to when Ezekiel talks about prince Tyre?

Helen · Jul 9, 2018

Ha! Of all the rich and wonderful things to study in the bible..that would not be top of my list.

Bless you...Helen

FHII · Jul 9, 2018

I sincerely doubt anyone will agree with me... But the Prince and/or King of Tyre were not fallen angels. They were mere mortal men.

I have been in debates and discussions about this plenty of times. Never has anyone convinced me otherwise and I don't know that I have convinced anyone of my point of view either.

They key thing is that he is called a "man". Well... God became a man and Adam fell to a mortal state, but I don't remember any fallen angel becoming a man. Much less a powerful king. Keep in mind that everything in the prophecy of Eze 28 is historically backed by sources outside the Bible. Nebuchazzer was the one who brought tyre down which is ironic for reasons you will see if this thread develops the way I think it will.

Folk use the imagery given (the garden of eden, perfect being, etc) to point out that Eze was talking about Satan. Thus, they say Satan was at one time the most beautiful angel and chief of Heaven's music. I obviously disagree. Again, he was called a man and he would die... Be killed, in fact. As far as I am concerned... Satan is still alive.

What of the imagery? Either it is a metaphor OR the Eden spoken of was a real place. You are in Eze 28. Back up one chapter to 27:23. There was a region of Eden that had mechants.

I am not saying it was a metaphor Or that it was the Eze 27:23 Eden. I believe it was one of the two. But I don't believe the King of Tyre was the sepent in Gen 3. Perhaps the same annointing. But no... Not the same being. Human or angel.

I understand there will be a lot of counterpoints and questions. But for brevity sake I will not try to answer them before asked.

And for Pete's sake... If we are going to debate this... Let it be done with respect as gentlemen and ladies.

Helen · Jul 9, 2018

FHII said:
I sincerely doubt anyone will agree with me... But the Prince and/or King of Tyre were not fallen angels. They were mere mortal men.

I have been in debates and discussions about this plenty of times. Never has anyone convinced me otherwise and I don't know that I have convinced anyone of my point of view either.

They key thing is that he is called a "man". Well... God became a man and Adam fell to a mortal state, but I don't remember any fallen angel becoming a man. Much less a powerful king. Keep in mind that everything in the prophecy of Eze 28 is historically backed by sources outside the Bible. Nebuchazzer was the one who brought tyre down which is ironic for reasons you will see if this thread develops the way I think it will.

Folk use the imagery given (the garden of eden, perfect being, etc) to point out that Eze was talking about Satan. Thus, they say Satan was at one time the most beautiful angel and chief of Heaven's music. I obviously disagree. Again, he was called a man and he would die... Be killed, in fact. As far as I am concerned... Satan is still alive.

What of the imagery? Either it is a metaphor OR the Eden spoken of was a real place. You are in Eze 28. Back up one chapter to 27:23. There was a region of Eden that had mechants.

I am not saying it was a metaphor Or that it was the Eze 27:23 Eden. I believe it was one of the two. But I don't believe the King of Tyre was the sepent in Gen 3. Perhaps the same annointing. But no... Not the same being. Human or angel.

I understand there will be a lot of counterpoints and questions. But for brevity sake I will not try to answer them before asked.

And for Pete's sake... If we are going to debate this... Let it be done with respect as gentlemen and ladies.

..
Ha! Do you think that there will be many 'takers' for this.

Like you..this is nothing 'new'..and old one.
I've also heard that 'Lucifer' was actually Adam. I've had that one before.
Trying to 'be God' on his own.

I will "watch this space" as they say..

Bless you....H

FHII · Jul 9, 2018

"ByGrace" said:
Ha! Of all the rich and wonderful things to study in the bible..that would not be top of my list.

Bless you...Helen

It doesn't surprise me that you said this. I agree... Definitely not the most pertinent topic in the Bible. But to me and obviously to KAM, its interesting. In studying this I have been blessed to see extrabiblical history and geography tied into bible prophecy... And the geography of Tyre is pretty important.

Spiritually it tells us something about God. He sets up even Heathen kings and brings them down when they try to claim they are God. He did the same thing to Nebuchanezzer. (However its spelled). And in this case he used one heathen to bring down another.

I'm sorry, but I find that pretty interesting!

By the way... Welcome to the forum KAM. Bygrace isn't really that gruff. She is a sweetie! She just doesn't like endless bickering and heated debates over small issues. And this is a topic that has been just that in the past.

FHII · Jul 9, 2018

"ByGrace" said:
Ha! Do you think that there will be many 'takers' for this.

Wait.... We will see.

Helen · Jul 9, 2018

FHII said:
By the way... Welcome to the forum KAM. Bygrace isn't really that gruff. She is a sweetie! She just doesn't like endless bickering and heated debates over small issues. And this is a topic that has been just that in the past.

Haha! Like APAK told me the other day..."you can be feisty "

I don't mean to come across like that...but I must if they say so. lol

Philip James · Jul 9, 2018

My opinion, Tyre is England..

Peace!

KAM · Jul 10, 2018

Thanks FHII for your reply and your interest in the subject. I think the bible is a divine book that shows things to different people at different times, so whether someone thinks it's interesting or not, that does not concern me. This is a very troubling chapter because I have read much about it all over the Internet and Youtube videos, and it seems it is too nebulous and taken for granted. Some people say it talks about the fall of Satan, etc., but I do not see that in the scripture. I've even read some people who are apparently theologians who say it talks about the fall of "Lucifer," but to my understanding, the name Lucifer is actually mistranslated in the KJV. That name is only mentioned once, and only in the KJV.

However, I digress. The point is that I have not been able to find anyone who can really put things together in a way that really makes sense. I read what you said about chapter 27, but there are some very specific things that I see in ch. 28 that stand out. To save time, I'll just list them - and forgive me if I don't articulate it correctly as I'm still a novice:

I. The first thing God instructs Ezekiel to do is address the prince of Typre."
I.i "yet you are but a man, and no god"
I.ii "you are indeed wiser than Daniel; no secret is hidden from you"
II. The second thing God instructed Ezekiel to do was raise lamentation over the king of Tyre.
II.i "You were the signet of perfection, full of wisdom and perfect in beauty."
II.ii "You were in Eden, the garden of God."
II.iii "On the day that you were created they were prepared."
II.iv "You were an anointed guardian cherub."
II.v "you were on the holy mountain of God; in the midst of the stones of fire you walked."
II.vi "so I cast you as a profane thing from the mountain of God"
II.vii "I exposed you before kings"
II.viii "you have come to a dreadful end and shall be no more forever."

So here he's addressing two people. The first is the prince (a man), who can be assumed to be the son of the king (an angel). Therefore, if he's the son of an angel, then he must be some kind of hybrid. The idea of that seems supported by the facts that it says he was wiser than David, and no secret was hidden from him. Therefore, since David was a very gifted and blessed king, then only someone of a more divine nature would be greater than any king. Only someone of a divine nature would have access to the secrets of the heavens. Also, David was so great that even the King of Tyre allied with him because he was so formidable. He must have only been greater than David because he was an angel.

Then, he specifically talks about the king. He talks about the day he was created, not born or begotten. When God created the heavens and Earth, he created the angels (correct me if I'm wrong on that). He was exposed before kings, so it must have been that God wanted the rulers of the Earth to get the message that no heavenly creature is beyond his wrath. Then God killed him, and he was forever no more. Therefore, the argument that he was talking about Satan can't be right because he didn't kill Satan, and revelations says that Satan will eventually be thrown in the lake of fire, not killed and forever no more.

You mentioned chapter 27 talking about traders in Eden, but this says "the garden of God." As far as I know, there are merchants in the garden of God. Didn't God kick Adam and Eve out of Eden and not allow them to re-enter? Perhaps Eden in ch. 27 refers to some other place nearby that had natural resources that could be mined and traded?

That's what's troubling about chapter 28. I've only read Ezekiel mostly with a plain vanilla KJV bible with no commentary or cross references, so I find Ezekiel a very confused sounding chapter. This isn't the only thing that I want to figure out. There were some things when God talked to Ezekiel that were confusing. On top of that, he describes the holy being as some kind of machine, but again I digress.

Also, Hiram I king of Tyre is the son of Abibaal, also known as "Baal'," a Phonetian diety. Correct? Therefore, that would further confuse matters wouldn't it? In Numbers 23 it says "So Israel yoked himself to Baal of Peor. And the anger of the Lord was kindled against Israel." Could this have anything to do with Baal worship?

Anyway, maybe this sounds dumb since I'm just a novice, but I'd really like to get some answers on this subject. I don't study the bible just to read all the "wonderful things" because I also want to be vigilant and understand the ways of evil so that I can recognize it and guard against it. I think the lamentation of Tyre is a very important subject in the bible, and apparently overlooked, because it talks about a lot of really profound things, links a lot of ancient history, calls into question things like hybrids or Nephilim, and Ezekiel is one of the most confounding chapters I've read so far. In fact, Ezekiel seems to go into a sci-fi, extraterrestrial kind of thing. Anyone with knowledge on the subject, I'd appreciate it. Thanks.

FHII · Jul 10, 2018

The first thi g that jumps out at me is that you seemed to have confused David with Daniel. Eze 28:3 mentions Daniek, not David. David and Hiram were indeed contempories, but in around 1000 BC. Ezekiel was contemporary with Nebuchazzer as well as Daniel sometime in the mid 600's BC. So its not really a prophecy about Hiram since he lived and died long before Ezekiel.

Next, do you believe that Pharaoh, King of Egypt was the great dragon? Neither do I, but that's what he is called in Eze 29. To boot, it says he lived in the river. My point is that Ezekiel's writing style uses metaphors like this. Just as Isaiah used the metaohor of Lucifer or "morning star" to describe Nebuchanezzer (or whomever was the king Isaiah was speakin of).

KAM · Jul 10, 2018

FHII said:
The first thi g that jumps out at me is that you seemed to have confused David with Daniel. Eze 28:3 mentions Daniek, not David. David and Hiram were indeed contempories, but in around 1000 BC. Ezekiel was contemporary with Nebuchazzer as well as Daniel sometime in the mid 600's BC. So its not really a prophecy about Hiram since he lived and died long before Ezekiel.

Next, do you believe that Pharaoh, King of Egypt was the great dragon? Neither do I, but that's what he is called in Eze 29. To boot, it says he lived in the river. My point is that Ezekiel's writing style uses metaphors like this. Just as Isaiah used the metaohor of Lucifer or "morning star" to describe Nebuchanezzer (or whomever was the king Isaiah was speakin of).

Well I was in a hurry and did get that part mixed up. Yeah, it was talking about Daniel. However King David was the one who slew Goliath, became king, and then angered God because he let himself get seduced by (or seduced) Bathsheeba and orchestrated her husband's death. I'm pretty sure he's the one who, along with Solomon, was a contemporary of king Tyre wasn't he? As for the metaphors, I think there are some odd things that may actually be quite literal. If you've ever studied ancient alien theories or checked out scientific stuff like how the marching and trumpets could have brought down the walls of Jericho, then I think some things aren't all metaphorical. There are such things as USO (Unknown Submerged Objects) which have been pictured and videoed worldwide coming out of the water, and some ancient cultures have described them as flying serpents and dragons. In any case, there are still a lot of things in question.

FHII · Jul 10, 2018

KAM said:
I'm pretty sure he's (David) the one who, along with Solomon, was a contemporary of king Tyre wasn't he?

First, there was no "king Tyre". Hiram I was the king of Tyre when David and Solomon were kings. Again, because their reign was several hundred years before the prophecies of Ezekiel, I don't see how they are relevant.

KAM said:
As for the metaphors, I think there are some odd things that may actually be quite literal.

Well ok. I'm fine with that. I gave a couple of different possibilities but I don't have a solid answer as to why these imageries are used. Perhaps they are literal... I tend to believe they are metaphorical. The Prince and King of Trye are called men and Pharaoh was a man. Furthermore while the Lord was taking credit for bringing the bringing them down, he used Nebuchanezzer to do so: another man. I therefore, don't believe they were dragons or fallen angels.

Thats just my take on it...

Enoch111 · Jul 10, 2018

KAM said:
I do not understand Ezekiel's orders from God in his visions about prince and king Tyre.

KAM,

Hello and Welcome.

Ezekiel 28:1-19 (King of Tyre) and Isaiah 14:4-20 (King of Babylon) are complementary and should be studied together. Some of the verses pertain to Satan (formerly Lucifer) while others pertain to these human kings. Therefore it would be reasonable to conclude that (a) these kings were possessed by Satan and displayed his attributes, and (b) therefore they are types of Satan, while Satan is being addressed through them. Just as Satan (a spirit being) possessed (entered into) Judas Iscariot, he entered into these men.

Enoch111 · Jul 10, 2018

KAM said:
I've even read some people who are apparently theologians who say it talks about the fall of "Lucifer," but to my understanding, the name Lucifer is actually mistranslated in the KJV. That name is only mentioned once, and only in the KJV.

There is no mistranslation of "Lucifer" in the KJB. The Hebrew word helel (hay-lale) which has been thus translated literally means "shining one" (not "son of the dawn" or "son of the morning", or "morning star", which are all interpretations).

The etymology of the Latin "Lucifer" is "light bearing" (genetive lucis from lux = light + ferre = to carry = bearing). Which is equivalent to "Shining One", and is appropriate for the cherub who radiated light in the presence of God until he sinned and became ha Satan (the Adversary).

Here is how the Latin Vulgate has Isa 14:12 - quomodo cecidisti de caelo lucifer qui mane oriebaris corruisti in terram qui vulnerabas gentes.

Translation in Vulgate: How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, who didst rise in the morning? how art thou fallen to the earth, that didst wound the nations?

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! (KJB)

אֵ֛יךְ נָפַ֥לְתָּ מִשָּׁמַ֖יִם הֵילֵ֣ל בֶּן־שָׁ֑חַר נִגְדַּ֣עְתָּ לָאָ֔רֶץ חֹולֵ֖שׁ עַל־גֹּויִֽם

Brown-Driver-Briggs
הֵילֵל Isaiah 14:12 see below הלל.
הִים see הוּם.
הֵילֵל noun masculine appellative shining one, epithet of king of Babylon, בֶּןשָֿׁ֑חַר׳אֵיךְ נָפַלְתָּ מִשָּׁמַיִם ה Isaiah 14:12 how art thou fallen, shining one, son of dawn ! i.e. star of the morning. (compare Assyrian muštilil, epithet of (Venus a) morning-star III R Isaiah 57:60 OppJAS 1871, 448SchrSK 1874, 337 COTad. loc.)

JesusIsFaithful · Jul 10, 2018

KAM said:
Thanks FHII for your reply and your interest in the subject. I think the bible is a divine book that shows things to different people at different times, so whether someone thinks it's interesting or not, that does not concern me. This is a very troubling chapter because I have read much about it all over the Internet and Youtube videos, and it seems it is too nebulous and taken for granted. Some people say it talks about the fall of Satan, etc., but I do not see that in the scripture. I've even read some people who are apparently theologians who say it talks about the fall of "Lucifer," but to my understanding, the name Lucifer is actually mistranslated in the KJV. That name is only mentioned once, and only in the KJV.

Lucifer is just a Latin reference added about Venus, the morning star. One's popularity had risen to such a point that it is seen and thus known all over the world is what I had gathered from that; thus metaphorically speaking and not literally in referring to his fame as liken to the morning star.

Goes to show how believers, Freemasons, and sinners as some of those sinners are Satanists, can go astray over reading that chapter as if that was about the fall of Satan when Lucifer was never his name in the first place.

However, I digress. The point is that I have not been able to find anyone who can really put things together in a way that really makes sense. I read what you said about chapter 27, but there are some very specific things that I see in ch. 28 that stand out. To save time, I'll just list them - and forgive me if I don't articulate it correctly as I'm still a novice:

I. The first thing God instructs Ezekiel to do is address the prince of Typre."
I.i "yet you are but a man, and no god"
I.ii "you are indeed wiser than Daniel; no secret is hidden from you"
II. The second thing God instructed Ezekiel to do was raise lamentation over the king of Tyre.
II.i "You were the signet of perfection, full of wisdom and perfect in beauty."
II.ii "You were in Eden, the garden of God."
II.iii "On the day that you were created they were prepared."
II.iv "You were an anointed guardian cherub."
II.v "you were on the holy mountain of God; in the midst of the stones of fire you walked."
II.vi "so I cast you as a profane thing from the mountain of God"
II.vii "I exposed you before kings"
II.viii "you have come to a dreadful end and shall be no more forever."

So here he's addressing two people. The first is the prince (a man), who can be assumed to be the son of the king (an angel). Therefore, if he's the son of an angel, then he must be some kind of hybrid. The idea of that seems supported by the facts that it says he was wiser than David, and no secret was hidden from him. Therefore, since David was a very gifted and blessed king, then only someone of a more divine nature would be greater than any king. Only someone of a divine nature would have access to the secrets of the heavens. Also, David was so great that even the King of Tyre allied with him because he was so formidable. He must have only been greater than David because he was an angel.

Then, he specifically talks about the king. He talks about the day he was created, not born or begotten. When God created the heavens and Earth, he created the angels (correct me if I'm wrong on that). He was exposed before kings, so it must have been that God wanted the rulers of the Earth to get the message that no heavenly creature is beyond his wrath. Then God killed him, and he was forever no more. Therefore, the argument that he was talking about Satan can't be right because he didn't kill Satan, and revelations says that Satan will eventually be thrown in the lake of fire, not killed and forever no more.

You mentioned chapter 27 talking about traders in Eden, but this says "the garden of God." As far as I know, there are merchants in the garden of God. Didn't God kick Adam and Eve out of Eden and not allow them to re-enter? Perhaps Eden in ch. 27 refers to some other place nearby that had natural resources that could be mined and traded?

That's what's troubling about chapter 28. I've only read Ezekiel mostly with a plain vanilla KJV bible with no commentary or cross references, so I find Ezekiel a very confused sounding chapter. This isn't the only thing that I want to figure out. There were some things when God talked to Ezekiel that were confusing. On top of that, he describes the holy being as some kind of machine, but again I digress.

I believe the reference to the Garden of Eden was for the last time God was close to man and it is in that mindset of how close that "not two people but one person", the King of Tyre, was with God until iniquity was found in him.

Also, Hiram I king of Tyre is the son of Abibaal, also known as "Baal'," a Phonetian diety. Correct? Therefore, that would further confuse matters wouldn't it? In Numbers 23 it says "So Israel yoked himself to Baal of Peor. And the anger of the Lord was kindled against Israel." Could this have anything to do with Baal worship?

I believe you are correct to question the King of Tyre as being the son of Baal, a Phonetian deity. Abibaal and Baal cannot be the same thing.

Anyway, maybe this sounds dumb since I'm just a novice, but I'd really like to get some answers on this subject. I don't study the bible just to read all the "wonderful things" because I also want to be vigilant and understand the ways of evil so that I can recognize it and guard against it. I think the lamentation of Tyre is a very important subject in the bible, and apparently overlooked, because it talks about a lot of really profound things, links a lot of ancient history, calls into question things like hybrids or Nephilim, and Ezekiel is one of the most confounding chapters I've read so far. In fact, Ezekiel seems to go into a sci-fi, extraterrestrial kind of thing. Anyone with knowledge on the subject, I'd appreciate it. Thanks.

I may be wrong in what I am sharing but the one thing each believer should do is confer with Him at that throne of grace as our Good Shepherd to help us find the answers we seek in His words as well as help us prove or reprove what other believers try to teach us or what others share from their experiences with us by the scripture as kept in the KJV.

James 1:5 If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.

1 Thessalonians 5:21 Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. 22 Abstain from all appearance of evil. 23 And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. 24 Faithful is he that calleth you, who also will do it.

Hebrews 4:12 For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. 13 Neither is there any creature that is not manifest in his sight: but all things are naked and opened unto the eyes of him with whom we have to do. 14 Seeing then that we have a great high priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our profession. 15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin. 16 Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need.

Enoch111 · Jul 10, 2018

JesusIsFaithful said:
Goes to show how believers, Freemasons, and sinners as some of those sinners are Satanists, can go astray over reading that chapter as if that was about the fall of Satan when Lucifer was never his name in the first place.

As I already pointed out Helel = Shining One = Lucifer.

And the fall of Satan is clearly shown in those passages.

How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer...
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:
I will ascend above the heights of the clouds;
I will be like the most High...
Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit.

KAM · Jul 10, 2018

FHII said:
First, there was no "king Tyre". Hiram I was the king of Tyre when David and Solomon were kings. Again, because their reign was several hundred years before the prophecies of Ezekiel, I don't see how they are relevant.

Well ok. I'm fine with that. I gave a couple of different possibilities but I don't have a solid answer as to why these imageries are used. Perhaps they are literal... I tend to believe they are metaphorical. The Prince and King of Trye are called men and Pharaoh was a man. Furthermore while the Lord was taking credit for bringing the bringing them down, he used Nebuchanezzer to do so: another man. I therefore, don't believe they were dragons or fallen angels.

Thats just my take on it...

I did mention it was Hiram in my opening post, but was just shortening the phrasing. In my ESV bible it says "king of Tyre," not Hiram, so in any case, I get what you're saying. As far as the fallen angel, I was only speaking of Hiram (king of Tyre). Was he not a fallen angel that was cast out of God's place and burned to ashes?

Enoch111 said:
KAM,

Hello and Welcome.

Ezekiel 28:1-19 (King of Tyre) and Isaiah 14:4-20 (King of Babylon) are complementary and should be studied together. Some of the verses pertain to Satan (formerly Lucifer) while others pertain to these human kings. Therefore it would be reasonable to conclude that (a) these kings were possessed by Satan and displayed his attributes, and (b) therefore they are types of Satan, while Satan is being addressed through them. Just as Satan (a spirit being) possessed (entered into) Judas Iscariot, he entered into these men.

Speaking of kings, what actually happened to king David? Some things I've looked up in the bible about him are confusing. Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Peter or one of the other apostles write that king David did not ascend into heaven? However, there seems to be some controversy from what I've looked up about whether anyone gets immediately gets judged and goes to heaven upon death. I was reading some passages that suggest there is sort of an intermediate area called Abraham's Busom or something, I haven't memorized many things yet, so could it be that David was sent there because he would be forgiven?

Enoch111 said:
There is no mistranslation of "Lucifer" in the KJB. The Hebrew word helel (hay-lale) which has been thus translated literally means "shining one" (not "son of the dawn" or "son of the morning", or "morning star", which are all interpretations).

The etymology of the Latin "Lucifer" is "light bearing" (genetive lucis from lux = light + ferre = to carry = bearing). Which is equivalent to "Shining One", and is appropriate for the cherub who radiated light in the presence of God until he sinned and became ha Satan (the Adversary).

Here is how the Latin Vulgate has Isa 14:12 - quomodo cecidisti de caelo lucifer qui mane oriebaris corruisti in terram qui vulnerabas gentes.

Translation in Vulgate: How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, who didst rise in the morning? how art thou fallen to the earth, that didst wound the nations?

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! (KJB)

אֵ֛יךְ נָפַ֥לְתָּ מִשָּׁמַ֖יִם הֵילֵ֣ל בֶּן־שָׁ֑חַר נִגְדַּ֣עְתָּ לָאָ֔רֶץ חֹולֵ֖שׁ עַל־גֹּויִֽם

Brown-Driver-Briggs
הֵילֵל Isaiah 14:12 see below הלל.
הִים see הוּם.
הֵילֵל noun masculine appellative shining one, epithet of king of Babylon, בֶּןשָֿׁ֑חַר׳אֵיךְ נָפַלְתָּ מִשָּׁמַיִם ה Isaiah 14:12 how art thou fallen, shining one, son of dawn ! i.e. star of the morning. (compare Assyrian muštilil, epithet of (Venus a) morning-star III R Isaiah 57:60 OppJAS 1871, 448SchrSK 1874, 337 COTad. loc.)

I understand that, and pardon me for the term "mis-translation," but from what I've read, it's only used in the King James version which uses it. I read it was translated with a Latin term that fit closest to the Hebrew word, so apparently wasn't the best choice of words to use. That's all I know, but like I said, I'm saying nothing here with any authority or qualification. Just mentioned it to convey that in researching this subject, it seems that people who are supposed to be highly knowledgeable theologians seem to have their own spin on things which further confuses the subject.

JesusIsFaithful said:
Lucifer is just a Latin reference added about Venus, the morning star. One's popularity had risen to such a point that it is seen and thus known all over the world is what I had gathered from that; thus metaphorically speaking and not literally in referring to his fame as liken to the morning star.

Goes to show how believers, Freemasons, and sinners as some of those sinners are Satanists, can go astray over reading that chapter as if that was about the fall of Satan when Lucifer was never his name in the first place.

I believe the reference to the Garden of Eden was for the last time God was close to man and it is in that mindset of how close that "not two people but one person", the King of Tyre, was with God until iniquity was found in him.

I believe you are correct to question the King of Tyre as being the son of Baal, a Phonetian deity. Abibaal and Baal cannot be the same thing.

I may be wrong in what I am sharing but the one thing each believer should do is confer with Him at that throne of grace as our Good Shepherd to help us find the answers we seek in His words as well as help us prove or reprove what other believers try to teach us or what others share from their experiences with us by the scripture as kept in the KJV.

James 1:5 If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.

1 Thessalonians 5:21 Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. 22 Abstain from all appearance of evil. 23 And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. 24 Faithful is he that calleth you, who also will do it.

Hebrews 4:12 For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. 13 Neither is there any creature that is not manifest in his sight: but all things are naked and opened unto the eyes of him with whom we have to do. 14 Seeing then that we have a great high priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our profession. 15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin. 16 Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need.

Yes, the Garden of Eden was another interesting aspect of Ezekiel that I mentioned. First of all, it seems it must not have been destroyed by the great flood because wasn't Noah's era like 2000 years before Hiram I? If Adam and Even were kicked out, then later on Hiram kicked out, then who still dwells in the Garden of Eden with God? It would seem that the Garden of Eden still exists, or is there somewhere in the bible that says it's no more? If the flood wiped out all living things, then that wouldn't mean that it would have wiped out Eden because after Adam and Eve, only God and angels could be there correct?

Enoch111 · Jul 10, 2018

KAM said:
I did mention it was Hiram in my opening post, but was just shortening the phrasing. In my ESV bible it says "king of Tyre," not Hiram, so in any case, I get what you're saying. As far as the fallen angel, I was only speaking of Hiram (king of Tyre). Was he not a fallen angel that was cast out of God's place and burned to ashes?

These prophecies in Isaiah and Ezekiel were given long after David and Hiram passed away, and they have nothing to do with Hiram. Nor was Hiram a fallen angel. The Freemason's have legends about Hiram as the one who began Freemasonry, but that's another matter.

KAM said:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Peter or one of the other apostles write that king David did not ascend into heaven? However, there seems to be some controversy from what I've looked up about whether anyone gets immediately gets judged and goes to heaven upon death.

It is really important to focus on the context. This is what Peter said on the day of Pentecost: For David is not ascended into the heavens: but he saith himself, The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, Until I make thy foes thy footstool. (Acts 2:34,35).

What was Peter stressing? The unique resurrection,ascension and exaltation of Christ, which has not been matched by any human being.

Which does not mean that David is not in Heaven with the OT saints. But David -- like every other OT saint -- had to wait patiently in Sheol/Hades in *Abraham's bosom* (the region of the righteous dead) until Christ took all these saints to the New Jerusalem in Heaven after His resurrection. On the other hand, Christ arose within three days of being crucified, ascended to the Father, then descended back to earth for 40 days before His final ascension (which was in th presence of the holy angels). So this was a unique ascension. However, David has nothing to do with the prophecies pertaining to Lucifer/Satan.

JesusIsFaithful · Jul 10, 2018

Enoch111 said:
As I already pointed out Helel = Shining One = Lucifer.

And the fall of Satan is clearly shown in those passages.

How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer...
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:
I will ascend above the heights of the clouds;
I will be like the most High...
Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit.

Yet when we read on, it was never about Satan.

Isaiah 14:16 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; 17 That made the world as a wilderness, and destroyed the cities thereof; that opened not the house of his prisoners? 18 All the kings of the nations, even all of them, lie in glory, every one in his own house. 19 But thou art cast out of thy grave like an abominable branch, and as the raiment of those that are slain, thrust through with a sword, that go down to the stones of the pit; as a carcase trodden under feet. 20 Thou shalt not be joined with them in burial, because thou hast destroyed thy land, and slain thy people: the seed of evildoers shall never be renowned.

It was a man that made that boast in his heart for why God punished him when he had said "For thou hast said in thine heart,..." for surely Satan never had a terrestrial body that was slain nor had he ever ruled the kingdoms of this world in the flesh before he had died. Just something to reconsider in context, brother.

Enoch111 · Jul 10, 2018

JesusIsFaithful said:
Yet when we read on, it was never about Satan.

Quite the opposite. It was always about Satan. You must have missed my first post in this thread. Here is what I said:

"Ezekiel 28:1-19 (King of Tyre) and Isaiah 14:4-20 (King of Babylon) are complementary and should be studied together. Some of the verses pertain to Satan (formerly Lucifer) while others pertain to these human kings. Therefore it would be reasonable to conclude that (a) these kings were possessed by Satan and displayed his attributes, and (b) therefore they are types of Satan, while Satan is being addressed through them. Just as Satan (a spirit being) possessed (entered into) Judas Iscariot, he entered into these men."

Help Me Understand About King and Prince Tyre In Ezekiel

New Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads