What's the difference between Satan and Lucifer?

[GenemZ]

I never alleged "truths". I never claimed that the direction I was leaning was *fact* either. I have no idea what you are saying that I "made up" ? If you're talking about my own personal accounts that I witnessed and experienced, no I didn't make those up.

I do not know anything about your experiences. What you are stating about angels is not confirmed by the Bible. If you wish to throw ideas out to see what comes back, just say so. But, the way you are posting about "celestial beings and angels" is coming across that you are basing it upon some authority. Yet, no Scriptural justifications that I saw were coming your way for what you said. It was as if you were toying with an idea... but stating it as fact.

Again, you've flat out made accusatory statements, especially with the "you're just instigating". I don't usually talk to just hear myself talk. Make more empty accusatory statements and I won't even bother responding to you further in public threads. And if you have a personal issue with me for whatever-your-reasons, and you want to take it to the personal level, do so in private in PM or something, not in public.

The problem is, you are in a Bible Discussion forum. You have not offered a Biblical justification for your angelic claims. If you are trying to work things out in your thinking, you are not presenting it as such. But, instead you are presenting your ideas as if they are valid and have Scripture to back it up, but fail to show what those Scriptures are.

I'm saying that I believe a cherub is an angel, but I don't necessarily see where it specifically states that Satan was a cherub, nor do I see where Ezekiel 28 specifically points to the cherub being described as one and the same as Satan.

OK ... Its not yours to be had at this time. Faith is a gift from God. Faith is what we have come to believe from God's Word. You're not there yet. OK.

 

[TillICollapse]

I do not know anything about your experiences. What you are stating about angels is not confirmed by the Bible. If you wish to throw ideas out to see what comes back, just say so. But, the way you are posting about "celestial beings and angels" is coming across that you are basing it upon some authority. Yet, no Scriptural justifications that I saw were coming your way for what you said. It was as if you were toying with an idea... but stating it as fact.

I am usually very careful to not state ideas as facts ... although not always. If there is a question as to whether I was stating something was a fact or not, a person can usually seek clarification by asking me. When explaining an idea, however, if I lean in a certain direction with that idea (as in, I tend to favor one idea over another), I try to say so. If you read every post of mine in this thread, you'll hopefully see that there is a lot of "throwing ideas out there to see what comes back" from my direction going on, mixed in with personal accounts I use as evidence to understand things I *do* tend to stand by more as facts.

As far as what authority I'm basing something on ... if I come across as though I'm speaking with authority maybe you are seeing something in it.

To help you out, my POV is that:

* Satan is referred to as a dragon/serpent/snake in the scriptures, specifically. He parades around as other things, but I do not see where he is specifically mentioned as other types of angelic, or celestial, or spiritual being.
* I see where other passages can be inferred (like Ezekiel and Isaiah) that "Lucifer" and the cherub, for example, may be describing Satan when you draw parallels. But I don't see where that is definitive. Other passages where cherubim are described don't seem to parallel Satan's descriptions in Genesis, or other places in the scriptures that I see. Likewise, I can see more parallels in the account of "Lucifer", however there is still room to question if that is describing another being and not Satan specifically.
* The Sons of God, I am not yet convinced as to *what* they are, specifically. I view the term "angel" as generic and not specific enough. I am familiar with a lot of the arguments, however. I see why both sides would argue what they do (that they are angels/spiritual/celestial beings, or they are human beings from Seth or something, etc). I lean in the direction they are spiritual beings of some sort (I used the word celestial, I could have also used the word spiritual), but not like other "angels" (like cherubim, for example). I can read and I see where Satan appeared with them in Job, but I don't see where that necessarily makes him one of them.

The problem is, you are in a Bible Discussion forum. You have not offered a Biblical justification for your angelic claims. If you are trying to work things out in your thinking, you are not presenting it as such. But, instead you are presenting your ideas as if they are valid and have Scripture to back it up, but fail to show what those Scriptures are.

Firstly, I don't look to interpretations from the scriptures only. I consider them, because I trust the scriptures and have faith in them. However, I try not to confuse a person's scriptural understanding (or lack of it) with revelation, Spirit, etc.

Secondly, I didn't see where this was a Bible only discussion forum. I assumed we could draw from witness accounts, testimony, the Holy Spirit (of course), and anything else in reality for examination for that matter. Where does it say we are allowed only to reference the Bible ?

Thirdly, I could presume you are seeing things in what I'm saying that aren't there. It should appear quite obvious I'm trying to dig and work things out. As far as using scriptures to point to ... do I really need to point out scriptures where Satan is called the dragon/serpent/snake ? Or where cherubim are described as having four faces, etc ? I'm not being rhetorical by asking that ... as most of the scriptures I would point out are already listed in the thread and are typically listed ad nauseum. I'm not opposed to listing them, I just fail to see where it's necessary most of the time.

OK ... Its not yours to be had at this time. Faith is a gift from God. Faith is what we have come to believe from God's Word. You're not there yet. OK.

A baseless insult. I doubt you are in a place to accurately judge me, and I would hope that you stop.

If instead you are saying, "You have not had a *revelation* on this yet," ... that is something I would agree with. I have not had a revelation yet as to how certain passages coalesce, etc.

 

[whitebeaches]

Mod Hat On

This thread has undergone a mini clean up due to the violation of the Christian Only Rule: Do not post in the forums reserved for Christians only, unless you are truly a Nicene Creed, Trinitarian Christian (please see our Statement of Faith to know exactly what that is). If you wish to discuss unorthodox doctrines, you may do so in Unorthodox Theology.

Please remember the board rules when posting. Thank you and may you have a lovely day and a Happy New Year

Mod Hat Off​

 

[nephilimiyr]

I thought TillICollapse was clear that he was mearly stating where he was leaning towards on all this Satan/Lucifer stuff. I know he certainly isn't teaching from any point of view. In fact, this is why I'm taking the time to help him out in understanding what I believe about this. He wants to hear us out on this genez, give him time.

Anyway, I'm going to try and make a post that further explains the "shinning like brass" comments I made. The problem is that all the print outs that I used to have on the stuff I threw out years ago. The print outs were from a website that a scholar used to have on line for free. He's now selling them on line and I'm not a buyer. I'll be going through some old threads to see what I can dig up on what I wrote about it, so stay tuned but I can't promise anything.

 

[nephilimiyr]

During my search through old threads I found this. It's a post made by the member who also believes as I do. I remember this member, him and I used to talk but he has been absent for years now and don;t think he would mind me reposted his post. This is from 2004.


Now here, we agree.

There is another place where THE Satan, THE devil, is called "the shining one".

(Gen 3:1) Now the serpent was more subtle than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?​

Did it say when God made him? No.

"The Hebrew word rendered "serpent" in Genesis 3:1 is Nachash (from the root Nachash, to shine, and means a shinning one. Hence, in Chaldee it means brass or copper, because of its shining. Hence also, the word Nehushtan, a piece of brass, in 2Kings 18:4.


In the same way Saraph, in Isaiah 6:2,6, means a burning one, and, because the serpents mentioned in Numbers 21 were burning, in the poison of their bite, they were called Saraphim, or Seraphs.

But when the LORD said unto Moses, "Make thee a fiery serpent" (Numbers 21:8), He said, "Make thee a Saraph", and, in obeying this command, we read in verse 9, "Moses made a Nachash of brass". Nachash is thus used as being interchangeable with Saraph.

Now, if Saraph is used of a serpent because its bite was burning, and is also used of a celestial or spirit-being (a burning one), why should not Nachas be used of a serpent because its appearance was shining, and be also used of a celestial or spirit-being (a shining one)?

Indeed, a reference to the structure of Genesis 3 (on page 7) will show that the Cherubim (which are similar celestial or spirit-beings) of the last verse (Genesis 3:24) require a similar spirit-being to correspond with them in the first verse (for structure of the whole chapter is a great Introversion). The Nachash, or serpent, who beguiled Eve (2Corinthians 11:3) is spoken of as "an angel of light" in verse 14. Have we not, in this, a clear intimation that it was not a snake, but a glorious shining being, apparently an angel, to whom Eve paid such great deference, acknowledging him as one who seemed to possess superior knowledge, and who was evidently a being of a serperior (not of an inferior) order? Moreover, in the description of Satan as "the king of Tyre" 1 it is distinctly implied that the latter being was of a super-natural order when he is called "a cherub" (Ezekiel 28:14,16, read from verses 11-19). His presence "in Eden, the garden of 'Elohim" (verse 13, is also clearly stated, as well as his being "perfect in beauty" (verse 12) his being "perfect" in his ways from the day he was created till iniquity was found in him" (verse 15), and as being "lifted up because of his beauty" (verse 17)." - From The Serpent of Genesis 3.

As a supernatural entity, Satan might try physically overpowering people. But Christ gave us power over him (Luke 10:18-19).

So he must resort to deception, or enticement. There are many ways he can do this:

"I'm not the enemy to look out for. It wasn't me. Go after that angel, or that guy...so that I can finish my work upon you.

Your pastor said I'm not THE adversary, listen to him!

Blame it on Rio."

(I speak of Satan's work, not our sins.)

 

[TillICollapse]

Anyway, I'm going to try and make a post that further explains the "shinning like brass" comments I made. The problem is that all the print outs that I used to have on the stuff I threw out years ago. The print outs were from a website that a scholar used to have on line for free. He's now selling them on line and I'm not a buyer. I'll be going through some old threads to see what I can dig up on what I wrote about it, so stay tuned but I can't promise anything.

No worries ... I mean, I'm looking forward to what you can find, but at the same time, I won't take it personally if you don't find a whole lot or have time, or lose interest, etc. However ....

During my search through old threads I found this. It's a post made by the member who also believes as I do. I remember this member, him and I used to talk but he has been absent for years now and don;t think he would mind me reposted his post. This is from 2004.


Now here, we agree.

There is another place where THE Satan, THE devil, is called "the shining one".

(Gen 3:1) Now the serpent was more subtle than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?​

Did it say when God made him? No.

"The Hebrew word rendered "serpent" in Genesis 3:1 is Nachash (from the root Nachash, to shine, and means a shinning one. Hence, in Chaldee it means brass or copper, because of its shining. Hence also, the word Nehushtan, a piece of brass, in 2Kings 18:4.


In the same way Saraph, in Isaiah 6:2,6, means a burning one, and, because the serpents mentioned in Numbers 21 were burning, in the poison of their bite, they were called Saraphim, or Seraphs.

But when the LORD said unto Moses, "Make thee a fiery serpent" (Numbers 21:8), He said, "Make thee a Saraph", and, in obeying this command, we read in verse 9, "Moses made a Nachash of brass". Nachash is thus used as being interchangeable with Saraph.

Now, if Saraph is used of a serpent because its bite was burning, and is also used of a celestial or spirit-being (a burning one), why should not Nachas be used of a serpent because its appearance was shining, and be also used of a celestial or spirit-being (a shining one)?

Indeed, a reference to the structure of Genesis 3 (on page 7) will show that the Cherubim (which are similar celestial or spirit-beings) of the last verse (Genesis 3:24) require a similar spirit-being to correspond with them in the first verse (for structure of the whole chapter is a great Introversion). The Nachash, or serpent, who beguiled Eve (2Corinthians 11:3) is spoken of as "an angel of light" in verse 14. Have we not, in this, a clear intimation that it was not a snake, but a glorious shining being, apparently an angel, to whom Eve paid such great deference, acknowledging him as one who seemed to possess superior knowledge, and who was evidently a being of a serperior (not of an inferior) order? Moreover, in the description of Satan as "the king of Tyre" 1 it is distinctly implied that the latter being was of a super-natural order when he is called "a cherub" (Ezekiel 28:14,16, read from verses 11-19). His presence "in Eden, the garden of 'Elohim" (verse 13, is also clearly stated, as well as his being "perfect in beauty" (verse 12) his being "perfect" in his ways from the day he was created till iniquity was found in him" (verse 15), and as being "lifted up because of his beauty" (verse 17)." - From The Serpent of Genesis 3.

As a supernatural entity, Satan might try physically overpowering people. But Christ gave us power over him (Luke 10:18-19).

So he must resort to deception, or enticement. There are many ways he can do this:

"I'm not the enemy to look out for. It wasn't me. Go after that angel, or that guy...so that I can finish my work upon you.

Your pastor said I'm not THE adversary, listen to him!

Blame it on Rio."

(I speak of Satan's work, not our sins.)

.... hmmmmmmmmmmmmm ..... interesting

Okay I have more to say in response than this, but I'm getting ready to do the New Year's thing here in a bit. I'll be back ... till then, Happy New Year's everyone

 

[GenemZ]

During my search through old threads I found this. It's a post made by the member who also believes as I do. I remember this member, him and I used to talk but he has been absent for years now and don;t think he would mind me reposted his post. This is from 2004.


Now here, we agree.

There is another place where THE Satan, THE devil, is called "the shining one".

(Gen 3:1) Now the serpent was more subtle than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?​

Did it say when God made him? No.

"The Hebrew word rendered "serpent" in Genesis 3:1 is Nachash (from the root Nachash, to shine, and means a shinning one. Hence, in Chaldee it means brass or copper, because of its shining. Hence also, the word Nehushtan, a piece of brass, in 2Kings 18:4.

God made the firefly. There are animals that do shine today like the jellyfish. Take a gander at this - BBC NEWS | Asia-Pacific | Taiwan breeds green-glowing pigs

Back then they may have very well called a fire fly a shinning fly.

Apparently, God created the serpent with the ability to shine light. It may have even had a mirror like skin. We just do not know. But, we can know that this is the type of creature Satan would have a natural affinity for, having been Lucifer = bearer of light. Kind of like the tough guy that has an affinity for rottweilers or bulldogs.

 

[TillICollapse]

During my search through old threads I found this. It's a post made by the member who also believes as I do. I remember this member, him and I used to talk but he has been absent for years now and don;t think he would mind me reposted his post. This is from 2004.


Now here, we agree.

There is another place where THE Satan, THE devil, is called "the shining one".

(Gen 3:1) Now the serpent was more subtle than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?​

Did it say when God made him? No.

"The Hebrew word rendered "serpent" in Genesis 3:1 is Nachash (from the root Nachash, to shine, and means a shinning one. Hence, in Chaldee it means brass or copper, because of its shining. Hence also, the word Nehushtan, a piece of brass, in 2Kings 18:4.


In the same way Saraph, in Isaiah 6:2,6, means a burning one, and, because the serpents mentioned in Numbers 21 were burning, in the poison of their bite, they were called Saraphim, or Seraphs.

But when the LORD said unto Moses, "Make thee a fiery serpent" (Numbers 21:8), He said, "Make thee a Saraph", and, in obeying this command, we read in verse 9, "Moses made a Nachash of brass". Nachash is thus used as being interchangeable with Saraph.

Now, if Saraph is used of a serpent because its bite was burning, and is also used of a celestial or spirit-being (a burning one), why should not Nachas be used of a serpent because its appearance was shining, and be also used of a celestial or spirit-being (a shining one)?

Indeed, a reference to the structure of Genesis 3 (on page 7) will show that the Cherubim (which are similar celestial or spirit-beings) of the last verse (Genesis 3:24) require a similar spirit-being to correspond with them in the first verse (for structure of the whole chapter is a great Introversion). The Nachash, or serpent, who beguiled Eve (2Corinthians 11:3) is spoken of as "an angel of light" in verse 14. Have we not, in this, a clear intimation that it was not a snake, but a glorious shining being, apparently an angel, to whom Eve paid such great deference, acknowledging him as one who seemed to possess superior knowledge, and who was evidently a being of a serperior (not of an inferior) order? Moreover, in the description of Satan as "the king of Tyre" 1 it is distinctly implied that the latter being was of a super-natural order when he is called "a cherub" (Ezekiel 28:14,16, read from verses 11-19). His presence "in Eden, the garden of 'Elohim" (verse 13, is also clearly stated, as well as his being "perfect in beauty" (verse 12) his being "perfect" in his ways from the day he was created till iniquity was found in him" (verse 15), and as being "lifted up because of his beauty" (verse 17)." - From The Serpent of Genesis 3.

As a supernatural entity, Satan might try physically overpowering people. But Christ gave us power over him (Luke 10:18-19).

So he must resort to deception, or enticement. There are many ways he can do this:

"I'm not the enemy to look out for. It wasn't me. Go after that angel, or that guy...so that I can finish my work upon you.

Your pastor said I'm not THE adversary, listen to him!

Blame it on Rio."

(I speak of Satan's work, not our sins.)

Okay, this is going to be a long post, but hopefully you will bare with me:

So I can see the connection of Satan/serpent/snake to seraph/burning/brass/copper, but I don't see the connection to "shining one". I know it goes without saying that brass and copper "shine" lol ... but looking at Strong's lexicon cross references I don't see where "to shine" is given, specifically, in any of the definitions of the words or their roots. Here is what Strong's shows:

Nachash (Strong's 05175)
serpent, snake
serpent
image (of serpent)
fleeing serpent (mythological)

from the root:
Nachash (Strong's 05172)
to practice divination, divine, observe signs, learn by experience, diligently observe, practice fortunetelling, take as an omen
(Piel)
to practice divination
to observe the signs or omens
King James Word Usage - Total: 11
enchantment 4, divine 2, enchanter 1, indeed 1, certainly 1, learn by experience 1, diligently observe 1

So Strong's doesn't say the root means "to shine", interestingly it shows the root has to do with divination and fortunetelling and omens, etc. If you could find more threads/etc where this guy makes the "to shine" connection, that would be cool.

Concerning the Nehushtan and Numbers 21/etc, the direct link between seraph and serpent is made (as that old thread points out), and the fact that it's made of copper/brass/bronze/etc ... those metals shine obviously lol. But in Strong's breakdown of the words for Seraph and brazen, etc ... it still doesn't show "shining" in those words or their roots. The root for Seraph actually means "to burn". For the sake of post continuity and reference:

Saraph (Strong's 08314)
serpent, fiery serpent
poisonous serpent (fiery from burning effect of poison)
seraph, seraphim
majestic beings with 6 wings, human hands or voices in attendance upon God

from the root:
Saraph (Strong's 08313)
to burn
(Qal) to burn
(Niphal) to be burned
(Piel) burner, burning (participle)
(Pual) to be burnt up, be burned

So I can see the connection of the serpent in the Garden to a seraph or something burning or fiery, but not necessarily "shining". Since Yahweh told Moses to make the brazen one, I can see that connection to an appearance that may be like copper/brass/etc. However if we are going strictly off of God's commandments to Moses, they were not to make images of anything nor were they to worship them. And we see they end up burning incense to the Nehushtan, which Hezekiah in turn destroyed for such reasons. So one may question if the brass/copper/bronze was supposed to represent an actual appearance of a thing, or was for utility purposes or some other purpose instead, and thus that it was made of bronze/copper/brass (nekh-o'-sheth) for a reason other than attempting to accurately provide a suggestive quality. I mean, I could point to the Ark and say the same things and such questioning may not hold a lot of water lol ... I'm just saying. I'm not seeing precisely why the thing that Moses made was brazen and not something else. I can see parallels and reasoning, but not precise revelation as to the reasoning.

So I can see the connection between Satan and fiery burning divining seraphs specifically ... more than cherubim, or "Lucifer".

However I'm brought back to Genesis 3, and why it's said that this particular serpent was "... more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made." One could easily question if this serpent was made in similar fashion to the other beasts of the field. I mean, it's right there.

So how would one reconcile the connection to beasts of the field, with fiery burning seraphs ?

Breaking down Gen 3 quickly, "beast" comes from the word 'chay' (02416), and has a load of meanings:

adj
living, alive
green (of vegetation)
flowing, fresh (of water)
lively, active (of man)
reviving (of the springtime) n m
relatives
life (abstract emphatic)
life
sustenance, maintenance n f
living thing, animal
animal
life
appetite
revival, renewal
community
King James Word Usage - Total: 501
live 197, life 144, beast 76, alive 31, creature 15, running 7, living thing 6, raw 6, miscellaneous 19

But field comes from 'sadeh' (07704):
field, land
cultivated field
of home of wild beasts
plain (opposed to mountain)
land (opposed to sea)
King James Word Usage - Total: 333
field 292, country 17, land 11, wild 8, ground 4, soil 1

And interestingly, in Gen 1 where things are being created, I don't see where it uses the word "field". It continually uses the word "earth". Not until Gen 2 do we see "beasts of the field" in use, in Gen 2:5, and 19-20. And the first time the word "field" is used, it's in reference to plants of the field and herbs of the field and what I assume are referencing their *seed*, because it says it was before they grew and that rain had not yet come upon the earth. Once the mist comes up, THEN the man is made, then the Garden, then man is placed in that Garden. THEN the plants grow, including the Tree of Knowledge.

God then says that he is going to make a helpmeet for Adam, and this is the first time we see the term "beasts of the field" in use. After God says the statement about Adam being alone and such, we then see that God forms the beast of the field out of the ground (the man was made from the dust of that ground) and that they are brought to Adam so that he can name them, and whatever he called each living creature, that is what they were named. It was after all the creatures had been brought to Adam, that no suitable helper was found for him, and then we have Eve, etc.

So concerning the "beasts of the field" connection, here are my concerns and questions ... and I realize that contrasting Gen 1 creation account with Gen 2 brings up a book's worth can of worms, but I'm focussing on the "beasts of the field" connection for the moment (and I'm flying by the seat of my pants as I do this and thinking out loud because I am literally making these connections as I type out this post lol):

If I were to focus on the seraph/burning-one/serpent connection, I get a picture painted where I can view Satan as, at the very least, a celestial seraph type of being, who was in the Garden, etc. At the very least. If a person prefers to use the word "angelic" for seraphim, okay.

If I were to focus on the "beasts of the field" connection, I get an entirely different picture, yielding an entirely different set of connections and motives to Adam and Eve.

The picture I get, is that the serpent was created with these other living creatures/beasts of the field (in a manner different from Adam ... Adam was created from the dust of the ground and became a living soul, the beasts of the field were created from the ground and were living creatures), and that some were created with the intention of being Adam's helper, so that he was not alone, etc. All these living creatures were given names, based on what Adam named them (names are important). Thus, the serpent was created from the ground, not the dust of the ground ... was a living creature of some sort, not a living soul ... and was named by Adam. Furthermore, it was created AFTER Adam, with the possible intent of being a helpmate for Adam.

However it was not chosen as a helpmate for Adam ... Eve was created. And who was the first person that the snake attempted to deceive and manipulate ? The competition: Eve.

The picture one could paint, for the lack of a better comparison, is one of jealousy. Not the serpent's jealousy of God, but the serpent's jealousy of Eve and Adam's relationship and that Eve was created and chosen where as the serpent was not. It even tells us right there in Gen 3 that the serpent was craftier (subtle, shrewd, crafty, sly, sensible, prudent) than the other "beasts of the field". It could be more a matter of being "spurned" or "scorned".

Thus, if one were to read Genesis 1-3 by themselves, and pay attention to the order in which things are stated, one could infer what I just stated, which yields two wildly contrasting pictures.

The curse the serpent experienced involved eating dust all the days of it's life and going on it's belly. Of course drawing parallels to Jesus' words and Revelations ... the serpent gets cast to the earth, etc. Eating dust all the days of it's life is interesting, because if it was a beast of the field and made in a manner similar to the beasts of the field ... they were not made of dust. Adam was made of dust. And in Revelations, we do not see the serpent cast into the Lake of Fire until ALL human history is finished and complete at the White Throne judgement. We see the serpent bound and chained for 1000 years, etc and then released again ... but not until all human beings are basically "extinct" in the current order of things at the Gog-Magog battle. It appears that, in that battle, it's all of humanity against the Lord and His city. So, IOW, as long as their is "dust" on the earth, the devil/serpent/Satan exists, just as the curse alludes to. This would help to explain, perhaps, why this particular serpent is allowed longevity compared to other ways we commonly look at "beasts of the field" lol.

What is interesting about the curse on the serpent, is that it deals directly with enmity between the serpent and the woman, and their *seeds*. And I know the revelations that this prophetically deals with Jesus, the elect, the church, etc and so forth ... probably not necessary to go into that. But looking at it strictly from a "tit-for-tat" perspective: it immediately shows enmity/hatred between the serpent and WOMAN. Again ... drawing the parallels to possible motives, and comparing how the serpent was not chosen as a mate for the man who was made, but Eve was the mate. "Competition". And part of the curse ? Hatred for the woman.

When one looks at spurned relationships that involve other lovers/etc, it is easy to see hatred, jealousy, and the effects it has and how one "scorned" individual can seek to bring destruction to the other former lovers, etc. It is a common theme and human condition.

In looking at the Ezekiel 28 and Isaiah "Lucifer" accounts, it seems to show different motives for those being's respectively.

So my new questions are ... is the latter take on the serpent and it's origins/motives/etc a common view already expressed somewhere ? And regardless, how does one reconcile the direct mentioning of the serpent in context of "beasts of the field"? Could "beasts of the field" mean something other than cows and foxes ? Is a seraph originally a "beast of the field" ? Do you have any word studies (like your word study on seraph/snake/brazen/etc) concerning "beasts of the field" ?

I have a few more things I could say, but I'll cut it off for now because the post was getting long and touching upon a LOT of other concepts and directions ...

Thanks again dude !

 

[GenemZ]

Root words in the Hebrew take on entirely different meanings with the case modifiers when they were used. Some try to make a connection between the root meaning and the derived modified word's meaning.

It would be like saying running water has legs, and then use a dictionary to prove your point.

It can get into foolishness when that happens. False doctrines can find their foundation being created with such a misuse and misunderstanding of how the language in the Bible was intended to be understood by those who wrote it at the time of writing.