Lucifer in Isaiah 14 can't be anyone else but Satan...

[CodyFaith]

Angels are "actual men"...

No. Men are men. Angels are male (and possibly female too, who knows) but they're not men or women. Mankind = men/women.

 

[ewq1938]

Okay there's no reason to continue here. Show me "gibbur" used anywhere as meaning "man"

lol, it's usually translated as man or men.


Deu 22:5 The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man H1397, neither shall a man H1397 put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God.

That's one of many many examples.

Anyways, this is too much of a derail to entertain any further. I am hoping someone will actually try to challenge the evidence in the OP that Satan and Lucifer are the same and want and desire and shall accomplish the same things.

 

[ewq1938]

No. Men are men. Angels are male (and possibly female too, who knows) but they're not men or women. Mankind = men/women.

That's not correct. All angels are men. Satan is a man as he is a former archangel. There are no females except in humanity and animals.

 

[John Hyperspace]

lol, it's usually translated as man or men.


Deu 22:5 The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man H1397, neither shall a man H1397 put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God.

That's one of many many examples.

I'm not asking you to show me a translation of gibbur as "man" you've already done that with your translation of the name Gabriel itself. Okay, look, if we go by your translation, Gabriel means "man of God" then Gabriel is a man. Not some supernatural being, but a man. Your very insistence on that translation proves it. And we all apparently know what a man is so case closed, true? But now you're going to say "a man, but not a man man"?

Anyways, this is too much of a derail to entertain any further. I am hoping someone will actually try to challenge the evidence in the OP that Satan and Lucifer are the same and want and desire and shall accomplish the same things.

The main point is that you're not proving anything, but begging the question. The Isaiah proverb is clearly against the king of Babylon. Isaiah 14:4. Case closed? Similar desires don't prove anything at all. Look at the prophecy of Obadiah:

Obadiah 1:1 The vision of Obadiah. Thus saith the Lord GOD concerning Edom; We have heard a rumour from the LORD, and an ambassador is sent among the heathen, Arise ye, and let us rise up against her in battle. 2 Behold, I have made thee small among the heathen: thou art greatly despised. 3 The pride of thine heart hath deceived thee, thou that dwellest in the clefts of the rock, whose habitation is high; that saith in his heart, Who shall bring me down to the ground? 4 Though thou exalt thyself as the eagle, and though thou set thy nest among the stars, thence will I bring thee down, saith the LORD.

If you want to say "all men who desire to exalt themselves are 'satan'" then yes, I would agree these passages are about "satan"; but I don't think that's what you're getting at.

 

[ewq1938]

I'm not asking you to show me a translation of gibbur as "man" you've already done that with your translation of the name Gabriel itself. Okay, look, if we go by your translation, Gabriel means "man of God" then Gabriel is a man. Not some supernatural being, but a man.

He is an angelic man as all angels are including Satan. The Hebrew word for man can mean human man or a male as opposed to a female and not limited to humans only.

Rev 21:17 And he measured the wall thereof, an hundred and forty and four cubits, according to the measure of a man, that is, of the angel.

Here an angel is called a man but is clear to make sure this man was an angel. They are synonymous terms.

 

[John Hyperspace]

He is an angelic man as all angels are including Satan. The Hebrew word for man can mean human man or a male as opposed to a female and not limited to humans only.

Rev 21:17 And he measured the wall thereof, an hundred and forty and four cubits, according to the measure of a man, that is, of the angel.

Here an angel is called a man but is clear to make sure this man was an angel. They are synonymous terms.

Right, but you're begging the question over "angel" now as "not meaning a man": meaning, you are saying "angel is a man" in one breath and then in another "angel is not a man": while I'm looking at that passage and saying "the angel/messenger is a man": look here:

Revelation 22:9 Then saith he unto me, See thou do it not: for I am thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren the prophets

The "messenger/angel" is saying he is "of thy brethren the prophets": this is a man. The angel is a man. I think what is going on here is that you and I are simply experiencing a massive communication breakdown because of the way we are understanding these words; so when we use them, we are meaning different things, then misunderstanding each other. I suppose this happens a lot in these cases. There's a language barrier between us that I'm not sure can be taken out of the way. So basically I've added nothing to your topic, and probably can't because of the words being employed. Apologies for the digression; maybe someone else can add to it.

 

[mcarmichael]

The thing from Ezekiel seemed specific enough, why the fuss over Isaiah?

 

[A Fellow Seeker]

If you read the whole chapter in Isaiah you will see they are talking about the King of Babylon who defied God.

Isaiah 14:4 NIV
you will take up this taunt against the King of Babylon: How the oppressor has come to an end! How his fury has ended!

The King had more riches than any ruler had ever had. His kingdom is the golden head of the statue in Daniel because of the amount of wealth it possessed.

Daniel 2:31-33 NIV
“Your Majesty looked, and there before you stood a large statue—an enormous, dazzling statue, awesome in appearance. The head of the statue was made of pure gold, its chest and arms of silver, its belly and thighs of bronze, its legs of iron, its feet partly of iron and partly of baked clay.

The King defied God and this is God basically saying I made you a star, the wealthiest and most powerful man on earth - and now I take it away - look at you now.

As far as it referring to Lucifer - there is no Lucifer in Jewish tradition. Lucifer is a Latin name - why would an Old Testament king of Hell have a Latin name? If you remove this verse as being about a fallen angel and back to the King of Babylon-which the Bible says it is for - then you have no all powerful rival to God. The Jewish tradition has Satan as the advisory to God and man - but he was never an arch angel second in power only to God.

Lucifer was kept in the KJ version from the Vulgate because by the time it was written the myth of Lucifer was too strong. Later translations correctly say "morning star". In other places in the Bible the phrase "morning star" is used and clearly refers to Jesus. Why in the world would a super powerful fallen angel have a Latin name in the Old Testament before the language existed? If it was a proper name translators would have been able to trace it to a Hebrew name in Jewish Tradition.

Yes there is a Satan in the Old Testament and Hebrew tradition - but Lucifer is a Christian creation. By attributing this verse to a fallen angel - Satan is elevated in power to second only to God and powerful enough to challenge him. When we do this we also make Satan an object of worship to many people - thinking he is more powerful than he is. Take away Lucifer and you destroy the foundation of Satanic worship and reduce Satan to a powerful demon but NOT king of Hell or second in power to God. Perpetuating the "Lucifer myth" just makes him a tempting target for the greedy and disillusioned to worship.

Yes to Satan - but No to Lucifer King of Hell.

 

[PastorFreud]

I am curious as to why it matters? It would seem unlikely that Isaiah, speaking to his audience in the text, would make reference to something that they were not meant to understand in their context. Would they have understood that Isaiah was expounding on theology, or would they have considered that this was a reference, in typical prophetic hyperbole, about the King of Babylon? It seems unlikely to me that this passage is about Ha-Satan. The Hebrews apparently missed it if it was.

Why is it so important to you to force this passage into your already determined theology?

 

[marawuti]

I never brought up the word "Gibbur"



Again, his name in the Hebrew mean "man of God"




A man as in a male being not a man as in a human man.

I'm fascinated by the concept that an angel might have gender. There is nowhere else that I can come up with that implies that this is the case.

 

[PastorFreud]

I'm fascinated by the concept that an angel might have gender. There is nowhere else that I can come up with that implies that this is the case.

These verses would indicate that angels are male and are especially tempted by females:
The sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose. ... The sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown. -- Genesis 6:2, 4

And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation ... giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh.... Jude 6-7

However, men apparently find angels attractive and desirable too:
And there came two angels to Sodom. ... And they turned in unto him, and entered into his house. ... The men of the city, even the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both old and young, all the people from every quarter: And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know (have sex with) them. -- Genesis 19:1-4

But by the New Testament, angels are celibate, at least those residing in heaven:

For when they shall rise from the dead, they neither marry, nor are given in marriage; but are as the angels which are in heaven. Mark 12:25
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/gen/19.html#1

 

[Deadworm]

In the third post of this thread, I posted a web article that expresses the unanimous scholarly consensus that "Lucifer" in Isaiah 14 must refer to the King of Babylon. ewq's decision not to engage that article shows that his claim is decisively refuted by it and his only possible response is a meek and humble "oh."

Angels lack male genitalia, male hormones, or any other male anatomy. So what can it possibly mean to label them "male."

 

[marawuti]

These verses would indicate that angels are male and are especially tempted by females:
The sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose. ... The sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown. -- Genesis 6:2, 4

Had that passage explained away long ago as not referring to angels YMMV.

And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation ... giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh.... Jude 6-7

Fascinating.

However, men apparently find angels attractive and desirable too:
And there came two angels to Sodom. ... And they turned in unto him, and entered into his house. ... The men of the city, even the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both old and young, all the people from every quarter: And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know (have sex with) them. -- Genesis 19:1-4

Not so fascinating. We are a fallen lot.

But by the New Testament, angels are celibate, at least those residing in heaven:

For when they shall rise from the dead, they neither marry, nor are given in marriage; but are as the angels which are in heaven. Mark 12:25

This has been my primary proof text when addressing Mormons about their doctrine of binding in marriage for eternity.

Thanks

 

[Sammy-San]

Yes he is. He is not a human man but he is very much a man. Gabriel is a man also as his name means "man of God".

Aren't cherubim living creatures and not men?

 

[Sammy-San]

Additionally I refer to this:

01966 heylel {hay-lale'}
from 01984 (in the sense of brightness); TWOT - 499a; n m
AV - Lucifer 1; 1

Lucifer = "light-bearer"
1) shining one, morning star, Lucifer
1a) of the king of Babylon and Satan (fig.)
2) (TWOT) 'Helel' describing the king of Babylon

Then proceed to show why and how this is accurate.

Aren't all angels shining beings?

 

[Anto9us]

I'm fascinated by the concept that an angel might have gender. There is nowhere else that I can come up with that implies that this is the case.

In Zechariah 5 is a case for "lady angels" -- the winged women in the vision carrying the wicked woman in a basket to Shinar/Babylon

What Zechariah saw does not sound like human females to me...

If the Sons of God in Gen 6 are fallen angels -- they do indeed have gender, sex organs, whole nine yards -- they impregnate the "daughters of men" and Nephilim/giants are the result

The Bible says that angels DO NOT MARRY in heaven -- the fallen ones violated this while on earth -- Bible never said angels don't have SEX/GENDER

 

[Anto9us]

Zec 5:5

Then the angel that talked with me went forth, and said unto me, Lift up now thine eyes, and see what is this that goeth forth.


Zec 5:6

And I said, What is it? And he said, This is an ephah that goeth forth. He said moreover, This is their resemblance through all the earth.

Zec 5:7

And, behold, there was lifted up a talent of lead: and this is a woman that sitteth in the midst of the ephah.

Zec 5:8

And he said, This is wickedness. And he cast it into the midst of the ephah; and he cast the weight of lead upon the mouth thereof.

Zec 5:9

Then lifted I up mine eyes, and looked, and, behold,

there came out two women, and the wind was in their wings;
for they had wings like the wings of a stork:

and they lifted up the ephah between the earth and the heaven.

5:10

Then said I to the angel that talked with me, Whither do these bear the ephah?

5:11

And he said unto me, To build it an house in the land of Shinar: and it shall be established, and set there upon her own base.

 

[Sammy-San]

In Zechariah 5 is a case for "lady angels" -- the winged women in the vision carrying the wicked woman in a basket to Shinar/Babylon

What Zechariah saw does not sound like human females to me...

If the Sons of God in Gen 6 are fallen angels -- they do indeed have gender, sex organs, whole nine yards -- they impregnate the "daughters of men" and Nephilim/giants are the result

The Bible says that angels DO NOT MARRY in heaven -- the fallen ones violated this while on earth -- Bible never said angels don't have SEX/GENDER

Weren't those evil spirits?

THE EVIL POWERS OF FEMALE ANGELS (Fallen Angels) | Paw Creek Ministries

 

[Anto9us]

I always took it, Superhero Sam -- that the woman IN THE BASKET was evil spirit (kinda like an OT forerunner of harlot of Babylon)

but that the 2 winged ones were lady angels acting on God's direction to fly the basket where it was to be set up

But I'll look at the Paw Creek stuff...

 

[ewq1938]

Aren't cherubim living creatures and not men?

They are angels that have a specific job and like all angels they are male.

H3742
כּרוּב
kerûb
BDB Definition:
1) cherub, cherubim (plural)
1a) an angelic being
1a1) as guardians of Eden
1a2) as flanking God’s throne
1a3) as an image form hovering over the Ark of the Covenant
1a4) as the chariot of Jehovah (figuratively)
Part of Speech: noun masculine
A Related Word by BDB/Strong’s Number: of uncertain derivation
Same Word by TWOT Number: 1036