annie1speed
Senior Member
Wheeeee! Nicely put. I know this is a little late, but I just started reading this thread.
Welcome!
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Yes I have been doing a little catching up and reading the witty banter that goes on back and forth between the Trads and Progs, and it's apparent that there is mud-slinging on both sides. I have seen intolerance on both sides, so please, if you are going to point out the fault in one please be fair and point out the fault in both. No one side can claim that there hands are clean.
Ron, as a Christian, should I base my beliefs on the popular viewpoint (the wide path) or the viewpoint less traveled?
I understand this question was posed to Ron, but if I may make a comment. The Bible tells us strait is the way and narrow the path and few there be that enter into Heaven, so please understand I am not advocating taking the most popular position or just going along with the world.
However, as Christians we should base our beliefs on the Bible says - we should take the path because it is right - not because it is the road less travelled. There are many small religious groups today that can boast of not following the wide path.
Just a thought.
That isn't SDA tradition Ron, that's the whole of Christendom.
The text in Job does not say that the morning stars are angels either. That is circular reasoning. The commentaries show that there is a wide divergence of opinion as to the meaning of the verses in Revelation.
Ron, seriously, what actual star could sing? What do you suppose this verse is referring to?
That you think you have even made one good point is pretty funny.
Only to the simple minded.
Now in regards to Satan being Lucifer that was a very popular belief in the middle ages. popularized by Origen Jerome and Tertullian in about 300's AD.
Um, I would say even before that. Try the Gospels. Try Revelation.
Of course you method is to discount those other opinions as related in the commentaries I listed as worldly or people who are not following the narrow way. Which is typical of the SDA mindset of everyone is apostate but us. But I don't buy that if you are going to say the Bible says something then you should be able to show where the Bible says it.
Ron, go back over this post. I believe it is I and not you that likes to use the Bible to proove a point.
If you look at my article on Who is Lucifer (Satan Misidentified) you will see a lot of quotes from commentaries which are in agreement that Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28 are not about Satan. Certainly contextually they are not about Satan, certainly modern Bibles don't even use the old Latin word Lucifer. But since you don't go by context but go by tradition you continually plead to tradition as the basis of your beliefs. Not terribly logical but understandable because Christianity has become nothing but tradition to so many Christians. Which is why it is time for people to rethink their beliefs and assumptions.
No thanks Ron. I prefer a little truth and common sense in the articles I read.
Also Ron, there are plenty of scholars that rightly determine the allegorical nature of the scriptures, that scriptures have more than one meaning. Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28 are just two examples of that. Only the narrow-minded view would insist that these scriptures have only one meaning and are specific in there meaning.
Ron, seriously, what actual star could sing? What do you suppose this verse is referring to?
Also Ron, there are plenty of scholars that rightly determine the allegorical nature of the scriptures, that scriptures have more than one meaning. Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28 are just two examples of that. Only the narrow-minded view would insist that these scriptures have only one meaning and are specific in there meaning.
You are really funny. You ignore the poetic verses of Job and then say there is an allegorical nature to the scripture and act as if I am narrow minded by pointing out the different views of the stars drawn down by the various commentators yet I am narrow minded where as you are not because you say it can only mean angels.
Combine that with your inability to read things contrary to your presuppositions and we have nothing but a fundamentalist closed minded person. And that is by your own admission.
In any case I think objective people can see how EGW's assumption as an interpreter of Scripture leads to a very narrow and anti scholarship and intellectual mindset.
You are really funny. You ignore the poetic verses of Job and then say there is an allegorical nature to the scripture and act as if I am narrow minded by pointing out the different views of the stars drawn down by the various commentators yet I am narrow minded where as you are not because you say it can only mean angels.
Combine that with your inability to read things contrary to your presuppositions and we have nothing but a fundamentalist closed minded person. And that is by your own admission.
In any case I think objective people can see how EGW's assumption as an interpreter of Scripture leads to a very narrow and anti scholarship and intellectual mindset.
Great dodge Ron. Anything to not have to answer the question posed.
Great dodge Ron. Anything to not have to answer the question posed.
No dodge you are the one who refuses to hear the answers:
No thanks Ron. I prefer a little truth and common sense in the articles I read.
How you know that something has no truth or common sense before you even look at it I don't know and I am sure you don't know either but I do recognize the type of person who is afraid to look for truth.
How you know that something has no truth or common sense before you even look at it I don't know and I am sure you don't know either but I do recognize the type of person who is afraid to look for truth.
Wheeeee! Nicely put. I know this is a little late, but I just started reading this thread.
Welcome!
RC, I know something has no truth and no common sense when something offered has no basis in Biblical truth and understanding.
Tell me RC, where was Jesus when He beheld Satan fall from Heaven (Luke 10:18)? Was He still in Heaven before being born on Earth or, perhaps He was in the Garden.
Now, I ask you if Jesus talks about seeing Satan fall from Heaven is it possible that we can link this to other verses that say the same thing?
Rev 12:9
And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.
We already know Satan was cast out of heaven, we have agreement within the Bible for that fact.It does not come from the prophecies about surrounding nations found in Isaiah and Ezekiel. We also have agreement with other Bible verses that there are fallen angels.
You conflate things that are Biblical with things that are not. So those arguments have nothing to do with Satan being Lucifer or the idea that the dragon bringing down 1/3 of the stars is about angels thrown out of heaven.
How do you know they are wacky you won't even read the article?
So I will go ahead and post it here because I am getting tired of your lack of knowledge, especially when you treat it as wisdom.
First the quotes from Commentaries and etc.
CLARKE'S COMMENTARY THE OLD TESTAMENT, VOLUME 4 ISAIAH THROUGH MALACHI by Adam Clarke 1826References about Lucifer
Verse 12. O Lucifer, son of the morning The Versions in general agree in this translation, and render kkyh heilel as signifying Lucifer,
fwsfwrov, the morning star, whether Jupiter or Venus; as these are both bringers of the morning light, or morning stars, annually in their turn. And although the context speaks explicitly concerning Nebuchadnezzar, yet this has been, I know not why, applied to the chief of the fallen angels, who is most incongruously denominated Lucifer, (the bringer of light!) an epithet as common to him as those of Satan and Devil. That the Holy Spirit by his prophets should call this arch-enemy of God and man the light-bringer, would be strange indeed. But the truth is, the text speaks nothing at all concerning Satan nor his fall, nor the occasion of that fall, which many divines have with great confidence deduced from this text. O how necessary it is to understand the literal meaning of Scripture, that preposterous comments may be prevented! Besides, I doubt much whether our translation be correct. llqh heilel, which we translate Lucifer, comes from llq yalal, yell, howl, or shriek, and should be translated, "Howl, son of the morning;" and so the Syriac has understood it; and for this meaning Michaelis contends: see his reasons in Parkhurst, under llh halal.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MATTHEW HENRY'S COMMENTARY ON THE WHOLE BIBLE CONDENSED VERSION 1710
CHAPTER 14
The destruction of Babylon, and the death of its proud monarch. (1-23) Assurance of the destruction of Assyria. (24-27) The destruction of the Philistines. (28-32)
Isaiah 14:1 Vs. 1-23: The whole plan of Divine Providence is arranged with a view to the good of the people of God. A settlement in the land of promise is of God's mercy. Let the church receive those whom God receives. God's people, wherever their lot is cast, should endeavor to recommend religion by a right and winning conversation. Those that would not be reconciled to them, should be humbled by them. This may be applied to the success of the gospel, when those were brought to obey it who had opposed it. God himself undertakes to work a blessed change. They shall have rest from their sorrow and fear, the sense of their present burdens, and the dread of worse. Babylon abounded in riches. The king of Babylon having the absolute command of so much wealth, by the help of it ruled the nations. This refers especially to the people of the Jews; and it filled up the measure of the king of Babylon's sins. Tyrants sacrifice their true interest to their lusts and passions. It is gracious ambition to covet to be like the Most Holy, for he has said, Be ye holy, for I am holy; but it is sinful ambition to aim to be like the Most High, for he has said, He who exalts himself shall be abased. The devil thus drew our first parents to sin. Utter ruin should be brought upon him. Those that will not cease to sin, God will make to cease. He should be slain, and go down to the grave; this is the common fate of tyrants. True glory, that is, true grace, will go up with the soul to heaven, but vain pomp will go down with the body to the grave; there is an end of it. To be denied burial, if for righteousness' sake, may be rejoiced in, Matthew 5:12. But if the just punishment of sin, it denotes that impenitent sinners shall rise to everlasting shame and contempt. Many triumphs should be in his fall. God will reckon with those that disturb the peace of mankind. The receiving the king of Babylon into the regions of the dead, shows there is a world of spirits, to which the souls of men remove at death. And that souls have converse with each other, though we have none with them; and that death and hell will be death and hell indeed, to all who fall unholy, from the height of this world's pomps, and the fullness of its pleasures. Learn from all this, that the seed of evil-doers shall never be renowned. The royal city is to be ruined and forsaken. Thus the utter destruction of the New Testament Babylon is illustrated, Revelations 18:2. When a people will not be made clean with the besom of reformation, what can they expect but to be swept off the face of the earth with the besom of destruction?
Isaiah 14:24 Vs. 24-27: Let those that make themselves a yoke and a burden to God's people, see what they are to expect. Let those that are the called according to God's purpose, comfort themselves, that whatever God has purposed, it shall stand. The Lord of hosts has purposed to break the Assyrian's yoke; his hand is stretched out to execute this purpose; who has power to turn it back? By such dispensations of providence, the Almighty shows in the most convincing manner, that sin is hateful in his sight.
Isaiah 14:28 Vs. 28-32: Assurance is given of the destruction of the Philistines and their power, by famine and war. Hezekiah would be more terrible to them than Uzziah had been. Instead
of rejoicing, there would be lamentation, for the whole land would be ruined. Such destruction will come upon the proud and rebellious, but the Lord founded Zion for a refuge to poor sinners, who flee from the wrath to come, and trust in his mercy through Christ Jesus. Let us tell all around of our comforts and security, and exhort them to seek the same refuge and salvation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EASTONS BIBLE DICTIONARY 1897
LUCIFER brilliant star, a title given to the king of Babylon (Isaiah 14:12) to denote his glory.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN WESLEY'S NOTES ON THE WHOLE BIBLE THE OLD TESTAMENT by John Wesley 1765
12. Fallen From the height of thy glory. Lucifer Which properly is a bright star, that ushers in the morning; but is here metaphorically taken for the mighty king of Babylon. Son The title of son is given in scripturenot only to a person or thing begotten or produced by another, but also to any thing which is related, to it, in which sense we read of the son of a night, Jonah 4:10, a son of perdition, John 17:12, and, which is more agreeable, to the present case, the sons of Arcturus, Job 38:32.
13. I I will advance myself above the state of a weak man. Above Above all other kings and potentates; or, above the most eminent persons of God's church. North This is added as a more exact description of the place of the temple; it stood upon mount Moriah, which was northward from the hill of Zion strictly so called.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Eerdmans Bible Dictionary 1987 page 267 (heading Daystar, no listing of Lucifer)
"Another name for the morning star (cf. 2 Pet. 1:19; Rev. 2:28) or the planet Venus, which appears in the sky before the sun. At Isa. 14:12 the babylonian ruler is compared to a "Day star" (NIV "morning star"), which has fallen from heaven and has been felled like a stately tree. Though the Church Fathers associated this verse with the fall of Satan from heaven (cf. KJV "Lucifer"), it actually speaks of the end of tyranny rather than a prelude to it, as with Satan who after the fall still retained much power. Some commentators link this idea with an ancient myth about the banishment of a divine person from heaven.
The New Testament, which contains Jesus' remark about the fall of Satan (Luke 10:18), does not identify Lucifer with Satan. Instead, the author of 2 Peter suggest that the morning star" (Gk. Phosphoros "light bearer") refers to Christ's second coming, while the aged John possibly alludes to Christ, who will support the church at Thyatira (Rev. 2:28, Gk. Aster proinos; cf 22:16)."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Popular and Critical Bible Encylopedia and Scriptural Dictionary Vol 2. 1902 ed. Samuel Fallows pub. The Howard-Severance Co. page 1082
" Lucifer. A word that occurs once in the English Version in the lines--
How art thou fallen from heaven, Lucifer, son of the morning! How art thou felled to the ground, that didst weaken the nations! (Is xiv:12)
The Hebrew seems to mean 'brilliant,' 'splendid,' 'illustrious,' or as in the Septuagint, Vulgate, the Rabbinical commentators, Luther, and others, 'brilliant star;' and in this sense was the proper name among the Hebrews of the morning star. Tertullian and Gregory the Great understood this passage of Isaiah in reference to the fall of Satan; in consequence of which the name Lucifer has since been applied to Satan; and this is now the usual acceptation of the word. But Dr. Henderson who in his Isaiah renders the line, 'Illustious son of the morning!' justly remarks in his annotation: 'The application of this passage to Satan, and to the fall of the apostate angels, is one of those gross perversions of Sacred Writ which so extensively obtain, and which are to be traced to a proneness to seek for more in any given passage than it really contains, a disposition to be influenced by sound rather than sense, and an implicit faith in received interprtations. The scope and connection show that none but the king of Babylon is meant. In the figurative language of the Hebrews a star signifies an illustrious king or prince ( Num. xxiv:17; comp. Rev. ii:28; xxii:16). The monarch here referred to having surpassed all other kings in royal splendor, is compared to the harbinger of day, whose brilliancy surpasses that of the surrounding stars. Falling from heaven denotes a sudden political overthrouw--a removal from the position of high and conspicuous dignity fromerly occupied ( comp. Rev. vi:13; viii:10)."
You point is that there are many who accept tradition over context.
I understand that point and it is why people have to start to think instead of simply accepting tradition.
I long ago acknowledged that EGW's usage was based upon tradition. But tradition is often wrong.
Oh by the way did you know that one of the Early church Fathers was named Lucifer (Lucifer of Calaris) well of course that was before all the creative eisegesis by Origen et al was well accepted making Lucifer into the devil.
http://www.catholicculture.org/library/fathers/view.cfm?recnum=2257
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?