How to explain 13.8 billion years?

[prodromos]

Lucifer is not a name, it is a word meaning "dawn star" or "bringer of the morn". In the Greek Septuagint it is "εωσφόρος".

 

[DamianWarS]

While it is true there is a tiny "hint" of truth in your statement - it concludes with gross error none-the-less.

As if you had never read Isaiah 14 in your life.

I prefer the actual Bible.

==================== Lucifer -- Satan-- the Devil
Isaiah 14

The Fall of Lucifer
12 “How you are fallen from heaven,
O Lucifer, son of the morning!
How you are cut down to the ground,
You who weakened the nations!
13 For you have said in your heart:
‘I will ascend into heaven,
I will exalt my throne above the stars of God;
I will also sit on the mount of the congregation
On the farthest sides of the north;
14 I will ascend above the heights of the clouds,
I will be like the Most High.’
15 Yet you shall be brought down to Sheol,
To the lowest depths of the Pit.

16 “Those who see you will gaze at you,
And consider you, saying:
‘Is this the man who made the earth tremble,
Who shook kingdoms,
17 Who made the world as a wilderness
And destroyed its cities,
Who did not open the house of his prisoners?’

18 “All the kings of the nations,
All of them, sleep in glory,
Everyone in his own house;
19 But you are cast out of your grave
Like an abominable branch,
Like the garment of those who are slain,
Thrust through with a sword,
Who go down to the stones of the pit,
Like a corpse trodden underfoot.
20 You will not be joined with them in burial,
Because you have destroyed your land
And slain your people.
The brood of evildoers shall never be named.

No doubt the Isaiah 14 text is figuratively referring to Satan and that is something I have never denied. Literally the text is talking about the King of Babylon which you will see in v4. The title of King of Babylon itself can also figuratively point to Satan.

The heading "The Fall of Lucifer" is a heading in the text for easier reading added by the translation (NKJV?). Most translations do this and there is nothing wrong with it but we must remember it is not part of the original text. The ESV closest heading is "Israel's Remnant Taunts Babylon" and that too is also not a part of the original text and has been added by the ESV. The NKJV has a previous heading "Fall of the King of Babylon" then they decided to add "The Fall of Lucifer" before verse 12 all of this is not in the original text.

The ancients in the OT viewed the afterlife as a very unknown mysterious place. "Sheol" is the word that is used as an indiscriminate place of the dead where all must pass through, it is not "hell", or a place for the damned. It is often used when in emotional despair or as a place of general death that all go to. It can also be used as a type of curse to your enemies basically wishing death upon them. Regardless the presentation of "Sheol" in the OT has no clear doctrine and it is largely unknown and we should not prop it up pretending it is Hell. We must contextually interpret what this word meant to it's audience.

"Lucifer" is a latin word which I have repeated countless times. People seem to get really uptight about the deconstruction of this word and think the word itself has been reserved exclusively for Satan since the beginning of time. Where is the foundation of such a claim? Surely not this text as I've said it's only a latin word that the KJV decided to include in its translation and on top of that decided to make into a proper noun. None of the words appear in the original text and the word in Hebrew is "heylel" The KJV was heavily influenced by the Latin translation (the Vulgate) which uses the word "lucifer".

Since the source is from the latin text we should look to the latin text to see how it uses the word rather than conjure up all these false ideas of what it actually means. The Latin Vulgate uses "lucifer" 3 times, Job 11:17, Isaiah 14:12 and 2 Peter 1:19. All of these passages use "lucifer" in reference to the Morning Star (or Venus). In Isaiah it is used figuratively as Satan and in Peter it is used for Jesus. There is nothing special about this word and it needs to be translated in context preferably from the originally text.

It surprises me after all this dialog there is still lot of push back into the origins of this word, just google the word and find out for yourself. Latin is a language that emerged in the 1st century yet somehow ignorance of this one word has people believing it was not only the name of Satan at the time of Isaiah but the proper name of him before the fall. If Satan has a proper name it is Satan which means "adversary". All Hebrew names have Hebrew meanings and it would be unlikely Satan had a special name without any meaning to the Hebrews from a language not even spoken yet.

This still proves my point that what we believe in or our "heart values" often trump actual details and fact. They can't be defended properly and often it just comes down to "it feels wrong so I know its wrong". This is why this subject of creation is so sensitive.

But all of this is a digressed topic and i've brought it up over and over yet no one has properly engaged my points. If you're that interested read my other posts but just don't stop at the stuff that gets your all fired up. Read it properly, find the points, find the context of the points, then comment on them with your own research otherwise this dialogue goes nowhere (hint if you still disagree that "lucifer" is not the proper name of Satan then prove me wrong but actually do a study on the text and the words being used; it will serve us both better)

 

[4x4toy]

Isaiah 14:12 ... And what was Lucifer's first estate before being cast down .. He can transform himself as a counterfit angel of light and seem so right , even quote scripture and deceive if you don't have knowledge and discernment from the Holy Spirit ..

 

[DamianWarS]

Isaiah 14:12 ... And what was Lucifer's first estate before being cast down .. He can transform himself as a counterfit angel of light and seem so right , even quote scripture and deceive if you don't have knowledge and discernment from the Holy Spirit ..

lucifer is not in the original text so why fight so hard defending it. It is Latin [full stop]. Not Hebrew and the language didn't even exist when Isaiah was around. The text absolutely refers to Satan and is talking about his fall from heaven; his name just isn't lucifer. Just because the KJV uses it and puts a capital letter on it doesn't make it his name.

 

[4x4toy]

lucifer is not in the original text so why fight so hard defending it. It is Latin [full stop]. Not Hebrew and the language didn't even exist when Isaiah was around. The text absolutely refers to Satan and is talking about his fall from heaven; his name just isn't lucifer. Just because the KJV uses it and puts a capital letter on it doesn't make it his name.

Who is this guy singing about

 

[DamianWarS]

Who is this guy singing about

I have no idea because I don't speak latin and it would be irresponsible of me to comment on it. This subject of "lucifer" is too much of a digressed topic and I feel it has hijacked this thread. Because of this I'm discontinuing talking about it unless it can directly be connected to the OP. Please start another thread if this topic is still of an interest to you.

 

[pat34lee]

You are describing a lying God. You are saying he has created a world that appears ancient but which has actually only been around 6000 or so years. IOW, a world designed to deceive us.

There is nothing ancient about how God created the world. He created it ready to use and to be filled by his creatures, including us. The only lying going on is that being told about appearance of age verses properly prepared.

 

[pat34lee]

So what? That's not the point. I have no issue with those verses. It's the verses that insinuate via genealogy that the earth is only about 6000 years old that I must insist not be taken literally.

The whole of history is a series of sevens, from the seven day creation, seventh day sabbath, 49 year jubilees, and overall, six thousand years, with a thousand year sabbath getting ready to begin.

 

[Meowzltov]

Take it up with God. Turns out... He is the author of those texts you have issues with according to Pope Peter - 2 Peter 1:20-21

I notice you truncated the quote, making it seem as though I took issue with those verses. I do not. I do not take issue with any verses. I stated specifically that my problem was in taking those verses literally. This was sly and deceitful on your part.

 

[Meowzltov]

There is nothing ancient about how God created the world. He created it ready to use and to be filled by his creatures, including us. The only lying going on is that being told about appearance of age verses properly prepared.

You haven't understood my argument. Go back, read it again, and try to UNDERSTAND what I've said before replying.

 

[4x4toy]

Romans 3:4

 

[Meowzltov]

The whole of history is a series of sevens, from the seven day creation, seventh day sabbath, 49 year jubilees, and overall, six thousand years, with a thousand year sabbath getting ready to begin.

Because that is the sort of thing you find in mythic reality. But not in sensory reality.

 

[Meowzltov]

Romans 3:4

Believing in Evolution is NOT the same thing as calling the Bible and Jesus a lie.

 

[pat34lee]

You haven't understood my argument. Go back, read it again, and try to UNDERSTAND what I've said before replying.

I understand the argument perfectly. Appearance of age. The problem is this: we either have a world ready to live in, or we have a rock, similar to the moon. In order to grow plants, there must be soil, which must contain the nutrients and carbon to feed them. The water in rivers, lakes and oceans must not be too alkaline or too acid, and must be properly oxygenated, or the fish die. As another on here argued, Adam and Eve, and probably all original animals, were created as adults, or post-juvenile. What you see as age is no more than what was necessary for this perfect garden to thrive immediately, not at some future date.

What we see today is something very different. A post-sin world winding down and preparing to collapse. Only direct intervention in the near future, which is prophesied (Matthew 24:22), will keep it going for the millennial reign of Yeshua. I know some pre-tribbers think Matthew 24 is only about the Jews, but it says "all flesh", not just Jews, Israel or even people.

 

[pat34lee]

Because that is the sort of thing you find in mythic reality. But not in sensory reality.

We will see, as the tribulation gets cranked up.

 

[pat34lee]

Believing in Evolution is NOT the same thing as calling the Bible and Jesus a lie.

Close. It denies the truth they told plainly, and multiple times.

 

[BobRyan]

Lucifer was Satan's name - given to him by God - before he became the devil.

This is an example of how folklore and myth can shape people's way they approach things. Here in this modern age with printed scripture for over 400 years and with the internet at our disposal people still cling to myth over knowledge that Satan's proper name is Lucifer.

Lucifer is a Latin word and in the Latin text it is used for both Satan and Jesus. It is just a regular word and it means light bearer but we would rather believe the myth and legend that it's Satan's proper name given to him before his fall. I would rather call Jesus Lucifer .

While it is true there is a tiny "hint" of truth in your statement - it concludes with gross error none-the-less.

As if you had never read Isaiah 14 in your life.

I prefer the actual Bible.

==================== Lucifer -- Satan-- the Devil
Isaiah 14

The Fall of Lucifer
12 “How you are fallen from heaven,
O Lucifer, son of the morning!
How you are cut down to the ground,
You who weakened the nations!
13 For you have said in your heart:
‘I will ascend into heaven,
I will exalt my throne above the stars of God;
I will also sit on the mount of the congregation
On the farthest sides of the north;
14 I will ascend above the heights of the clouds,
I will be like the Most High.’
15 Yet you shall be brought down to Sheol,
To the lowest depths of the Pit.

16 “Those who see you will gaze at you,
And consider you, saying:
‘Is this the man who made the earth tremble,
Who shook kingdoms,
17 Who made the world as a wilderness
And destroyed its cities,
Who did not open the house of his prisoners?’

18 “All the kings of the nations,
All of them, sleep in glory,
Everyone in his own house;
19 But you are cast out of your grave
Like an abominable branch,
Like the garment of those who are slain,
Thrust through with a sword,
Who go down to the stones of the pit,
Like a corpse trodden underfoot.
20 You will not be joined with them in burial,
Because you have destroyed your land
And slain your people.
The brood of evildoers shall never be named.

No doubt the Isaiah 14 text is figuratively referring to Satan and that is something I have never denied. Literally the text is talking about the King of Babylon

Well literally the King of Babylon was not named Lucifer. Whereas Lucifer's name really was Lucifer.

Literally the king of Babylon did not fall from heaven - whereas Lucifer did and was cast down to earth after literally losing the war in heaven.

But as you say "the local" application is the King of Babylon - whereas the literal application is to Lucifer without superlative or exaggeration.

 

[4x4toy]

Lucifer had a good job before he became ambitious

 

[BobRyan]

So what? That's not the point. I have no issue with those verses.

Hmmm the "judge of scripture"?

Which verses "do you have issues with"???

It's the verses that insinuate via genealogy that the earth is only about 6000 years old .

Take it up with God. Turns out... He is the author of those texts you have issues with according to Pope Peter - 2 Peter 1:20-21

I notice you truncated the quote, making it seem as though I took issue with those verses. I do not. I do not take issue with any verses. I stated specifically that my problem was in taking those verses literally. This was sly and deceitful on your part.

You are the one that divided the verses into two groups and you who let us know what group of verses you did not have an issue with.

Thanks for sharing.

 

[BobRyan]

Lucifer had a good job before he became ambitious

True.

And then as satan in Genesis 3 - he proposes a form of "evolution" to Eve - claiming she would evolve into a higher order of being if she ate the right - something ..