adversary of David B.C. 1017

[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]Satan An adversary of David B.C. 1017[/FONT]

The conflict of a fallen angel is solved by the following scriptures.Who provoked David? Answer: 2Sa12:11 the LORD

[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]H7854 [/FONT][FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]השׂטן [/FONT][FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]śâṭânΕαταναςΕαταν from G7853, an opponent, adversary, accuser, hater; 1Ch 21:1Satan [an adversary]stood up against Israel, and provoked David 1Ch 21:2=2Sa 24:1 and [an adversary] moveth David; Compare 2Sa12:11 Thus saith the LORD, Behold, I will raise up evil against thee[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]Who stood up with the sons of God? Answer: another son of God, an Angel to test Job in this parable. [/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]Job 1:6-2:6 And Satan [an adversary] stood up <H7854 [an adversary][/FONT][FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]&#1492;&#1513;&#1474;&#1496;&#1503; [/FONT][FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]the sons of God came before the LORD, and Satan [an adversary][/FONT][FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]&#1492;&#1513;&#1474;&#1496;&#1503; [/FONT][FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]came also with them. Pa 109:6 let Satan [an adversary][/FONT][FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]&#1492;&#1513;&#1474;&#1496;&#1503; [/FONT][FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]stand at his right Zec 3:1 angel of the LORD, and Satan [an adversary][/FONT][FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]&#1492;&#1513;&#1474;&#1496;&#1503; [/FONT][FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]standing at his right hand to resist him.[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]Interesting in the first NT usage it is noted by Strong's as Of the same Hebrew origin [H7854] [an adversary][FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]&#1492;&#1513;&#1474;&#1496;&#1503;[/FONT][/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]Mt 4:10Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written,G4567 &#917;&#945;&#964;&#945;&#957;&#945;&#962; Of Hebrew origin H7854 [an adversary][/FONT][FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]&#1492;&#1513;&#1474;&#1496;&#1503; [/FONT][FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]corresponding to G4566 36 verses found all using G4567[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]If the adversary Of the same Hebrew origin [H7854] was a fallen angel then how did it suddenly become a thorn?[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]2Co 12:7[/FONT] a thorn in the flesh, the messenger of Satan to buffet me G4566 &#917;&#945;&#964;&#945;&#957; Of Hebrew origin [H7854] thorn in the flesh; physical malady, a particular affliction [RWP]
[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]Lexicon Comparison with YLT [/FONT]

he-man said:

[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]Satan An adversary of David B.C. 1017[/FONT]

The conflict of a fallen angel is solved by the following scriptures.Who provoked David? Answer: 2Sa12:11the LORD

[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]H7854 [/FONT][FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]&#1492;&#1513;&#1474;&#1496;&#1503; [/FONT][FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]s&#769;a&#770;t&#803;a&#770;n&#917;&#945;&#964;&#945;&#957;&#945;&#962;&#917;&#945;&#964;&#945;&#957; from G7853, an opponent, adversary, accuser, hater; 1Ch 21:1Satan [an adversary]stood up against Israel, and provoked David 1Ch 21:2=2Sa 24:1 and [an adversary] moveth David; Compare 2Sa12:11 Thus saith the LORD, Behold, I will raise up evil against thee[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]Who stood up with the sons of God? Answer: another son of God, an Angel to test Job in this parable. [/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]Job 1:6-2:6 And Satan [an adversary] stood up <H7854 [an adversary][/FONT][FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]&#1492;&#1513;&#1474;&#1496;&#1503; [/FONT][FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]the sons of God came before the LORD, and Satan [an adversary][/FONT][FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]&#1492;&#1513;&#1474;&#1496;&#1503; [/FONT][FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]came also with them. Pa 109:6 let Satan [an adversary][/FONT][FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]&#1492;&#1513;&#1474;&#1496;&#1503; [/FONT][FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]stand at his right Zec 3:1 angel of the LORD, and Satan [an adversary][/FONT][FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]&#1492;&#1513;&#1474;&#1496;&#1503; [/FONT][FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]standing at his right hand to resist him.[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]Interesting in the first NT usage it is noted by Strong's as Of the same Hebrew origin [H7854] [an adversary][FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]&#1492;&#1513;&#1474;&#1496;&#1503;[/FONT][/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]Mt 4:10Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written,G4567 &#917;&#945;&#964;&#945;&#957;&#945;&#962; Of Hebrew origin H7854 [an adversary][/FONT][FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]&#1492;&#1513;&#1474;&#1496;&#1503; [/FONT][FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]corresponding to G4566 36 verses found all using G4567[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]If the adversary Of the same Hebrew origin [H7854] was a fallen angel then how did it suddenly become a thorn?[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]2Co 12:7[/FONT] a thorn in the flesh, the messenger of Satan to buffet me G4566 &#917;&#945;&#964;&#945;&#957; Of Hebrew origin [H7854] thorn in the flesh; physical malady, a particular affliction [RWP]
[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]Lexicon Comparison with YLT [/FONT]

Click to expand...

What does the parable of Job teach?

drstevej said:

it is not a parable

Click to expand...

Job 27:1 Moreover Job continued his parable, <H4912>
and said,
Job 29:1 Moreover Job continued his parable,<H4912> and said,
H4912 &#1502;&#1513;&#1473;&#1500; ma&#770;sha&#770;l nm. proverb, parable
Apparently from H4910 usually of a metaphorical nature; hence a simile (as an adage, poem, discourse): - byword, like, parable, proverb.

Now answer the question, IF you can. What does Job teach?

drstevej said:

it is not a parable

Click to expand...

Job 29:1 Moreover Job continued his parable,<H4912> and said,
H4912 &#1502;&#1513;&#1473;&#1500; ma&#770;sha&#770;l nm. proverb, parable
Apparently from H4910 usually of a metaphorical nature; hence a simile (as an adage, poem, discourse): - byword, like, parable, proverb.

Now answer the question, IF you can. What does Job teach?

Just like the story of the rich mam and Lazarus is without doubt one of the most misunderstood of all the stories in the Bible. Is it a parable, or an actual statement of facts concerning life beyond the grave? It is strenuously denied by most evangelists that this story, as told by Christ, could be a parable. They hold that this is not a parable because it starts out in narrative form. It is argued, because it reads, "there was a certain rich man, which was clothed in purple and fine linen, and fared sumptuously every day," that Christ is speaking here of an actual incident that took place. But in the parable of the prodigal son, in the fifteenth chapter of Luke, the narrative introduction is found also, for it says, "A certain man had two sons..." Yet it is generally conceded that the story of the prodigal son is a parable and all the fundamentalist preachers love to preach from its beautiful figures, thus applying it as a parable.

Jesus continually spoke in parables. A parable is an analogy - a simile, representation or analogous story - which could even be a fable, so long as it is used to illustrate certain essential points of TRUTH. An analogy is not necessarily the truth all by itself - but is analogous to the TRUTH which it helps to illustrate. For instance, a person might say, "My wife is a regular rabbit."

This is a metaphor, or a parable; but we would not conclude from this statement that his wife had two long ears and four feet and that she hopped about clad in fur, but would simply come to the conclusion that this lady is a great lover of vegetables perhaps even a vegetarian. If we were to push the parable to its ultimate analysis, the woman would cease to be a woman and would become an animal.

The disciples were curious as to why Jesus spoke in sometimes confusing parables. "And the disciples came, and said unto Him, Why do you speak unto them in parables? A parable, then, will confuse, bewilder and perplex the doubting and the unbelieving! It will enlighten only the quickened, true disciple of Jesus Christ! It is quite obvious, from the context, that the story of Lazarus and the rich man is in fact a parable!

Its setting is ignored. At the time the story was told Jesus had just eaten dinner with a Pharisee, at which time He not only healed a man with dropsy, but gave some pointed advice about how to give a dinner party.

At the beginning of Jesus' discourse in chapter fifteen of Luke the statement is made that "He spoke this parable unto them, saying," (Lk. 15:3). The Greek is very definite in making the word for parable clearly a singular noun. It is "the parable this.." This statement is followed by five separate stories, the first of which is the story of the lost sheep, and the last is the story of the rich man and Lazarus.

You see, the teaching in chapter sixteen is but the continuation of the discourse in chapter fifteen, without interruption. Now, which of the five stories He gave them in this sermon was called a parable? The only one of the five which is prefaced by the claim, "And He spoke this parable unto them," was the story about the lost sheep. Was the lost sheep the only one that could be called a parable?

And yet, any preacher or believer that I know will answer that the story of the lost coin, as well as the prodigal son, were also parables. Then why was the singular used - "this parable"? It should be clear to any thinking mind that all these stories were ONE PARABLE. It is a careless assumption and an unfounded assertion to argue that the story of the rich man and Lazarus is not a parable!

Suppose a mother from the heavenly regions could look across the fixed gulf and see her son in the torments of hell; suppose she could hear him crying day and night for a drop of water to cool his tongue because of the burning heat of those lower regions. Would not the mother be as much in torment as the son, and in fact, would it not be more a place of hell for the mother than it would actually be for that son?

Therefore, it would seem impossible for anyone to believe that in the parable of the rich man and Lazarus Jesus is depicting conditions exactly as they will be in that world to come.

Hoshiyya said:

Your posts are genuinely difficult to read, he-man.Learn to format, or face the fact that you won't reach anyone.

Click to expand...

How is this not formatted correctly?
Job 29:1 Moreover Job continued his parable,<H4912> and said,
H4912 &#1502;&#1513;&#1473;&#1500; ma&#770;sha&#770;l nm. proverb, parable
Apparently from H4910 usually of a metaphorical nature; hence a simile (as an adage, poem, discourse): - byword, like, parable, proverb.

Now answer the question, IF you can. What does Job teach?

Just like the story of the rich mam and Lazarus is without doubt one of the most misunderstood of all the stories in the Bible. Is it a parable, or an actual statement of facts concerning life beyond the grave? It is strenuously denied by most evangelists that this story, as told by Christ, could be a parable.

They hold that this is not a parable because it starts out in narrative form. It is argued, because it reads, "there was a certain rich man, which was clothed in purple and fine linen, and fared sumptuously every day," that Christ is speaking here of an actual incident that took place. But in the parable of the prodigal son, in the fifteenth chapter of Luke, the narrative introduction is found also, for it says,

"A certain man had two sons..." Yet it is generally conceded that the story of the prodigal son is a parable and all the fundamentalist preachers love to preach from its beautiful figures, thus applying it as a parable.

Jesus continually spoke in parables. A parable is an analogy - a simile, representation or analogous story - which could even be a fable, so long as it is used to illustrate certain essential points of TRUTH. An analogy is not necessarily the truth all by itself - but is analogous to the TRUTH which it helps to illustrate. For instance, a person might say, "My wife is a regular rabbit."

This is a metaphor, or a parable; but we would not conclude from this statement that his wife had two long ears and four feet and that she hopped about clad in fur, but would simply come to the conclusion that this lady is a great lover of vegetables perhaps even a vegetarian. If we were to push the parable to its ultimate analysis, the woman would cease to be a woman and would become an animal.

The disciples were curious as to why Jesus spoke in sometimes confusing parables. "And the disciples came, and said unto Him, Why do you speak unto them in parables? A parable, then, will confuse, bewilder and perplex the doubting and the unbelieving! It will enlighten only the quickened, true disciple of Jesus Christ! It is quite obvious, from the context, that the story of Lazarus and the rich man is in fact a parable!

Its setting is ignored. At the time the story was told Jesus had just eaten dinner with a Pharisee, at which time He not only healed a man with dropsy, but gave some pointed advice about how to give a dinner party.

At the beginning of Jesus' discourse in chapter fifteen of Luke the statement is made that "He spoke this parable unto them, saying," (Lk. 15:3). The Greek is very definite in making the word for parable clearly a singular noun. It is "the parable this.." This statement is followed by five separate stories, the first of which is the story of the lost sheep, and the last is the story of the rich man and Lazarus.

You see, the teaching in chapter sixteen is but the continuation of the discourse in chapter fifteen, without interruption. Now, which of the five stories He gave them in this sermon was called a parable? The only one of the five which is prefaced by the claim, "And He spoke this parable unto them," was the story about the lost sheep. Was the lost sheep the only one that could be called a parable?

And yet, any preacher or believer that I know will answer that the story of the lost coin, as well as the prodigal son, were also parables. Then why was the singular used - "this parable"? It should be clear to any thinking mind that all these stories were ONE PARABLE. It is a careless assumption and an unfounded assertion to argue that the story of the rich man and Lazarus is not a parable!

Suppose a mother from the heavenly regions could look across the fixed gulf and see her son in the torments of hell; suppose she could hear him crying day and night for a drop of water to cool his tongue because of the burning heat of those lower regions. Would not the mother be as much in torment as the son, and in fact, would it not be more a place of hell for the mother than it would actually be for that son?

Therefore, it would seem impossible for anyone to believe that in the parable of the rich man and Lazarus Jesus is depicting conditions exactly as they will be in that world to come.

Hoshiyya said:

I was referring primarily to the OP, which includes text like this:

Click to expand...

A passage, particularly striking, in which the word &#8220;Satan&#8221; occurs, is presented in Zechariah: &#8220;And he showed me Joshua the high priest standing before the angel of the Lord, and Satan standing at his right hand to resist him. And the Lord said unto Satan, The Lord rebuke thee, O Satan! even the Lord that hath chosen Jerusalem rebuke thee: Is not this a brand plucked from the fire? Now Joshua was clothed with filthy garments, and stood before the angel.

And he answered and spake unto those that stood before him, saying, Take away the filthy garments from him. And unto him he said, Behold I have caused thine iniquity to pass from thee, and I will clothe thee with change of raiment. And I said, Let them set a fair mitre upon his head. So they set a fair mitre upon his head, and clothed him with garments. And the angel of the Lord stood by,&#8221; Zech. 3v 15.

It should be remembered, in order to understand this passage, that the term &#8220;angel&#8221; means messenger. Joshua, the high priest, was in office in the reign of Darius, when Zerubbabel was the governor of Judah. Cyrus had given permission to rebuild the temple at Jerusalem, but the hired counsellors had prevented the realization of the purpose till the time of Darius-Artaxerxes, instigated by these adversaries (i.e., satans), having forbidden the continuance of the work.

Darius, having come to the throne, and the Jews going on with the work, &#8220;At the same time came to them Tatnai, the governor on this side the river, and Shethar-boznai, and their companions, and said thus unto them, &#8220;Who hath commanded you to build this house, and to make up this wall?&#8221; Then said we unto them after this manner, &#8220;What are the names of the men that make this building?&#8221; But the eye of their God was upon the elders of the Jews, that they could not cause them to cease, till the matter came to Darius: and then they returned answer by letter concerning this matter.

The copy of the letter that Tatnai, governor of this side the river, and Shethar-bomai, and his companions the Apharsachites, which were on this side the river, sent unto Darius the king,&#8221; Ezra 5v 3-6. Tatnai, the adversary to the building of the temple, who is here termed the Satan, standing at the right hand, to resist Joshua (till then, the temple not being completed, figuratively clothed in filthy garments manifested his adversative (satanic) state thus.

&#8220;They sent a letter unto him, wherein was written thus: Unto Darius the king, all peace. Be it known unto the king that we went into the province of Judea, to the house of the great God, which is builded with great stones, and timber is laid in the walls, and this work goeth fast on, and prospereth in. their hands. Then asked we those elders, and said unto them thus, Who commanded you to build this house, and to make up these walls? We asked their names also, to certify thee that we might write the names of the men that were the chief of them. And thus they returned us answer, saying, We are the servants of the God of heaven and earth, and build the house that was builded these many years ago, which a great king of Israel builded and set up.

This Tatnai therefore requests that the records may be searched to ascertain it such degree existed. The decree was found, and the permission was granted, notwithstanding Tatnai&#8217;s opposition, to go on with the temple. Thus realizing, &#8220;Take away the filthy garments from him,&#8221; Joshua; &#8220;So they set a fair mitre on his head, and clothed him with garments.&#8221;

Zechariah, therefore, in his vision, represents an actual event in the history of the Jewish Church, - &#8220;Satan&#8221; being Tatnai, and Joshua, the high priest, being at the same time, the functionary fulfilling the duties. Referring to this event, Jude remarks, &#8220;Likewise also these filthy dreamers defile the flesh, despise dominion, and speak evil of dignities.

Yet Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil (diabolos) he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, The Lord rebuke thee. But these speak evil of those things which-they know not; but what they know naturally, as brute beasts, in those things they corrupt themselves.&#8221; Jude v9.

Here Tatnai is represented as &#8220;the devil,&#8221; because he falsely accused the Jews and insinuated intentions to the ruling monarch quite contrary to their real intention. &#8220;The body of Moses&#8221; is merely the Jewish church, and the disputation regarding that body is the disputation regarding the building of the temple for the Mosaic system of worship, and thus this passage in Jude, which has been the cause of much perplexity, becomes easily intelligible, referring as it does to the vision of Zechariah; for in that vision we find that, like as in the argument of Jude against the railing accusers, Michael, the chief messenger, did not rebuke Satan, but said, &#8220;The Lord rebuke thee,&#8221; so it was in the case of Joshua.

Another passage in which &#8220;Satan&#8221; is used, but in which a human adversary is, without doubt, referred to, is, &#8220;And Satan stood up against Israel and provoked David to number Israel,&#8221; 1 Chron. 21v 1. David numbered Israel, not for the mere sake of ascertaining the number of the people, but for the purpose of pride: for the purpose of seeing his strength, thereby virtually forgetting the God of his strength. This was a state adverse to his happiness, and the individual who suggested it was a Satan, that stood up against Israel, whom David ruled over: and that he was an adversary is proved by the result that the conduct of David on this occasion caused a pestilence to be inflicted on his people.

From all the passages here quoted, it becomes perfectly apparent that the word &#8220;Satan,&#8221; so far as its use in the Old Testament is concerned, instead of meaning an invisible, supernatural being, means an adversary, and this adversary, a human being in a state of opposition: this conclusion being strengthened by the preceding collection of passages, in which satan in Hebrew is rendered &#8220;adversary&#8221; in the Common Version.

It may now be advantageous to examine this word &#8220;Satan,&#8221; as occurring in the New Testament, with the view of discovering whether there is any justification for the application of the word to an invisible, supernatural, unknown being.

After the memorable confession to Christ by Peter, &#8220;Thou are the Christ, the Son of the living God,&#8221; Jesus began to &#8220;show unto his disciples how that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the third day. Then Peter took him, and began to rebuke him saying, Be it far from thee, Lord: this shall not be unto thee. But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan,&#8221; Matt. 16v 16, 21-23.

&#8220;Satan&#8221; here is undoubtedly applied to a human being, namely, Peter: and Christ says to him, &#8220;Get thee behind me, adversary:&#8221; and the reason given shows that in applying the term to Peter it was to him, not as representing any supernatural being, but as representing a man opposing the course which the Saviour had marked out. "The Devil Exposed" authored by John Epps