Lucifer. is there a Devil?

[Father]

Your posting definition of words out of context of the scripture. Basically your just randomly defining words for no reason. You might as well be typing, fjshdh jahsjek sjhfkeid bagdjd, because it amounts to the same thing when not in context.

the definition is not out of context. the definition is within context

in the context of Judaism. Hell and Sheol are not the same. I can link you 1000 sources from Jews stating the exact same thing.

what we are discussing is NOT the new testament. BUT the Old. in the perspective of JUDAISM the religion of the JEWS who wrote THE BIBLE

 

[Ingledsva]

Opinion noted. You people who somehow think you know Christianity better than Christ and Christians never cease to amaze me with your foolish thoughts.

LOL! That's a hoot!

We were discussing Tanakh texts, - not Christian texts.

Your ignorance is astounding. What's worse is it's willful ignorance. I don't listen to people like you who think they know it all when in fact you have zero intelligence about what you're talking about.

How many people do you convince to become heathen Alaskans like you by your anger without knowledge? Forget it, I don't want to know.

Continue to use these personal attacks against me - rather then the debate - and I will report you.

I am not ignorant, nor lacking intelligence because I trust the Jews concerning their own texts, over later Christian misinterpretation, and twisting of their texts.

And for your information, - I was raised Christian, have read the Bible many times, took Comparative Religion, and separate religious courses from the church. It is my STUDY of the Bible, and the actual Hebrew and Greek, and the things said and done in these texts, that made me realize this YHVH could not actually be God, nor the Bible be from any actual God.

*

 

[DavidFirth]

LOL! That's a hoot!

We were discussing Tanakh texts, - not Christian texts.


Continue to use these personal attacks against me - rather then the debate - and I will report you.

I am not ignorant, nor lacking intelligence because I trust the Jews concerning their own texts, over later Christian misinterpretation, and twisting of their texts.

And for your information, - I was raised Christian, have read the Bible many times, took Comparative Religion, and separate religious courses from the church. It is my STUDY of the Bible, and the actual Hebrew and Greek, and the things said and done in these texts, that made me realize this YHVH could not actually be God, nor the Bible be from any actual God.

*

Complete foolishness. How deep down the hole will such foolishness go?

 

[Father]

Complete foolishness. How deep down the hole will such foolishness go?

Not sure how you Christians have discussions but when Most do it they only throw out the term "Fool" after giving a mound of evidence for there claim. neither of you have given anything of worth other than attempted derailment or misunderstanding Hebrew and Judaism

by you i mean you and Enoch

 

[Ingledsva]

Your posting definition of words out of context of the scripture. Basically your just randomly defining words for no reason. You might as well be typing, fjshdh jahsjek sjhfkeid bagdjd, because it amounts to the same thing when not in context.

Baloney! Sheol for instance - is known even by your Christian scholars to be the place of the dead, the grave.

Look it up.

King James Bible - Gen 37:35 And all his sons and all his daughters rose up to comfort him; but he refused to be comforted; and he said, For I will go down into the grave (SHEOL) unto my son mourning. Thus his father wept for him.

*

 

[DavidFirth]

Not sure how you Christians have discussions but when Most do it they only throw out the term "Fool" after giving a mound of evidence for there claim. neither of you have given anything of worth other than attempted derailment or misunderstanding Hebrew and Judaism

by you i mean you and Enoch

This "mound of evidence" is rather foolish to use considering the fact that most Christians give it no credence as even being close to truth.

I called no one a fool but said the post itself was foolishness. Go back and check it if you disagree.

 

[DavidFirth]

Baloney! Sheol for instance - is know even by your Christian scholars to be the place of the dead, the grave.

Look it up.

King James Bible - Gen 37:35 And all his sons and all his daughters rose up to comfort him; but he refused to be comforted; and he said, For I will go down into the grave (SHEOL) unto my son mourning. Thus his father wept for him.

*

Has it occurred to you that I am no longer listening to you? Your posts directed at me are spitting into the wind, wasting your time except to expand your pride.

 

[Father]

Baloney! Sheol for instance - is know even by your Christian scholars to be the place of the dead, the grave.

Look it up.

King James Bible - Gen 37:35 And all his sons and all his daughters rose up to comfort him; but he refused to be comforted; and he said, For I will go down into the grave (SHEOL) unto my son mourning. Thus his father wept for him.

*

Ingled Ingled. you could literally resurrect the dead who wrote it. and they would still argue meaning with them.

im tapping out this is getting us nowhere I love endless debates as much as the next philosopher but even if we threw a library at them they would not touch a book let alone read.

 

[Father]

Im out.

This is getting us nowhere.

 

[Enoch07]

the definition is not out of context. the definition is within context

in the context of Judaism. Hell and Sheol are not the same. I can link you 1000 sources from Jews stating the exact same thing.

what we are discussing is NOT the new testament. BUT the Old. in the perspective of JUDAISM the religion of the JEWS who wrote THE BIBLE

Context matters. Take cloud for example.

Strong's Hebrew: 6051. עָנָן (anan) -- a cloud mass, cloud

Strong's Greek: 3507. νεφέλη (nephelé) -- a cloud

Strong's Greek: 3509. νέφος (nephos) -- a mass of clouds, a cloud

Look at how many meanings that single word can have depending on context. You have to examine the context to decipher the true meaning.

 

[DavidFirth]

The Christian hears the Spirit and is in tune with the Spirit. The Christian will not hear rants that war with truth, for the Spirit is truth.

Non-Christians and Christians alike do not like to hear the truth because the truth is glory to God and condemns humans in their sin.

 

[Ingledsva]

Your both completely out of your depth here.

It is funny how often people make statements like this when they can't rebut the rebuttal.

If you find what we say is wrong, - then prove it.

*

 

[Twilight Hue]

Satan first sinned before Eve when he tempted her.

The angels are spirits not related like men.

Angels don't die.

No, Adam didn't sin first.

Then why didn't God curse all of them?

 

[Ingledsva]

Has it occurred to you that I am no longer listening to you? Your posts directed at me are spitting into the wind, wasting your time except to expand your pride.

Actually you are trying to ignore mine - in an attempt to save your pride.

We have the texts in the original Hebrew and Greek, etc.

What we have said is accurate and any of our Jewish members can tell you that Sheol, for instance, means the place of the dead, the grave.

We and they can tell you there is no Lucifer in Isaiah.

No virgin birth in Isaiah.

etc.

*

 

[Enoch07]

It is funny how often people make statements like this when they can't rebut the rebuttal.

If you find what we say is wrong, - then prove it.

Why would we waste our time? Your not interested in debating scripture. Just trying to waste our time, with useless semantics. Trying desperately to push a narrative you so wish was true. Thats not debate, that's borderline proselytizing.

 

[Ingledsva]

Why would we waste our time? Your not interested in debating scripture. Just trying to waste our time, with useless semantics. Trying desperately to push a narrative you so wish was true. Thats not debate, that's borderline proselytizing.

LOL! We are giving you the actual Hebrew words. That is a real rebuttal

Just saying you're wrong, - is not logical debate rebuttal.

Saying "Non-Christians and Christians alike do not like to hear the truth because the truth is glory to God and condemns humans in their sin." - is not real rebuttal.

I only believe the Christian writings - is not rebuttal.

Rebuttal is an attempt to PROVE that what we are saying is wrong.

Merriam-Webster :the act of rebutting especially in a legal suit; also :argument or proof that rebuts
www.thefreedictionary.com/rebut

re·but (rĭ-bŭt′) v. re·but·ted, re·but·ting, re·buts v.tr. 1. To refute, especially by offering opposing evidence or arguments, as in a legal case:

You have not shown that.

You folks need to stop calling us names, and saying we don't have the spirit to discern, etc., and actually provide proof against our rebuttal.

*

 

[Enoch07]

LOL! We are giving you the actual Hebrew words. That is a real rebuttal

Just saying you're wrong, - is not logical debate rebuttal.

Saying "Non-Christians and Christians alike do not like to hear the truth because the truth is glory to God and condemns humans in their sin." - is not real rebuttal.

I only believe the Christian writings - is not rebuttal.

Rebuttal is an attempt to PROVE that what we are saying is wrong.

Merriam-Webster :the act of rebutting especially in a legal suit; also :argument or proof that rebuts
www.thefreedictionary.com/rebut

re·but (rĭ-bŭt′) v. re·but·ted, re·but·ting, re·buts v.tr. 1. To refute, especially by offering opposing evidence or arguments, as in a legal case:

You have not shown that.

You folks need to stop calling us names, and saying we don't have the spirit to discern, etc., and actually provide proof against our rebuttal

Because it's a waste of time. But here I'll do it anyways. This is basic stuff. 2+2=4.

Good evening. this is a discussion about the verse in the Old testament mentioning Lucifer by name.

the only verse stating Lucifer that I know of. or at least originally states him by name.

Isiah 14:12-17
“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!
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;
I will ascend above the heights of the clouds,
I will be like the highest.’
Yet you shall be brought down to Sheol,
To the lowest depths of the pit.

You are correct - Isaiah 14 is actually about a human. The king of Babylon.

Incorrect.

Isaiah 14:12 & Revelation 22:16 - Will The Real "morning star" Please Stand Up...

An exert explaining why.

The Hebrew word translated as "Lucifer" in Isaiah 14:12 in the KJV is heylel (hay-lale', Strong's #1966), and literally means "shining one", "morning star", "light bearer", etc. Isaiah 14:12 is the only place in scripture where this Hebrew word appears.

The use of "Lucifer" is ancient, in Latin where it was the term to refer to the planet Venus when it appeared as a star in the morning. Although some early Christian Latin writings refer to "Lucifer", it was the Latin Vulgate that is most responsible for its widespread use. The Vulgate was produced by Jerome (c. 347-420) by translating available Greek and Hebrew manuscripts into Latin. It was started in approximately 382 A.D. and was completed in approximately 405 A.D. It was the scriptures used by the Catholic Church for nearly 1000 years. Here's what the Vulgate says (note the lower case):

Isaiah 14:12 (Latin Vulgate) "quomodo cecidisti de caelo lucifer qui mane oriebaris corruisti in terram qui vulnerabas gentes"

Jerome understood the meaning of the Hebrew word heylel, and translated it into "lucifer", the Latin word meaning "light bearer" (from the Latin lux "light" and ferre "to bear or bring"). "lucifer", at the time of the Vulgate and even at the time of the KJV translation, meant "morning star" or "day star" in reference to Venus. Jerome (and some others before him) thought the passage was referring to Satan in addition to the king of Babylon, and because of this the use the word "lucifer" made the transition from a term referring to Venus to also refer to Satan. In other words, it was because of some peoples' interpretation of the passage that "Lucifer", the "morning star", began to be thought of as referring to Satan in addition to its existing meaning.[/QUOTE]

 

[Ingledsva]

Incorrect. An exert explaining why. ...

Jerome understood the meaning of the Hebrew word heylel, and translated it into "lucifer", the Latin word meaning "light bearer" (from the Latin lux "light" and ferre "to bear or bring"). "lucifer", at the time of the Vulgate and even at the time of the KJV translation, meant "morning star" or "day star" in reference to Venus. Jerome (and some others before him) thought the passage was referring to Satan in addition to the king of Babylon, and because of this the use the word "lucifer" made the transition from a term referring to Venus to also refer to Satan. In other words, it was because of some peoples' interpretation of the passage that "Lucifer", the "morning star", began to be thought of as referring to Satan in addition to its existing meaning.

Obviously you didn't read where we said it means the rising morning star, and obviously refers to a Babylonian King - IT SAYS SO, - and uses the word MAN!!!

Isa 14:16 They that see thee shall narrowly look upon thee, and consider thee, saying, Is this the man that made the earth to tremble, that did shake kingdoms;

That man - is 'ı̂ysh = a human male.

It does not matter to facts, that a later Christian decided morning star is a reference to Satan. It isn't.

It is very obvious from what you have posted that we are absolutely correct.

Satan is a Christian addition to the word. It is NOT the meaning of the word.

So thanks for proving us correct.

*

 

[Enoch07]

Obviously you didn't read where we said it means the rising morning star, and obviously refers to a Babylonian King - IT SAYS SO, - and uses the word MAN!!!

Isa 14:16 They that see thee shall narrowly look upon thee, and consider thee, saying, Is this the man that made the earth to tremble, that did shake kingdoms;

That man - is 'ı̂ysh = a human male.

It does not matter to facts, that a later Christian decided morning star is a reference to Satan. It isn't.

It is very obvious from what you have posted that we are absolutely correct.

Satan is a Christian addition to the word. It is NOT the meaning of the word.

So thanks for proving us correct.

Well yes as far as the Tanakh is concerned. Which if the OP had specified the Tanakh from the start, there would be no argument. I've have heard this argument before. The confusion comes from not specifying the subject. The thread is not tagged or labelled to indicate that. So that's on the OP. Who did much better tagging and labeling the other associated thread.

But as far as Christianity goes Lucifer is Satan, which the article explains why. So that's why you will get arguments from Christians. Hopefully that clears up any confusion.

 

[Ingledsva]

Well yes as far as the Tanakh is concerned. Which if the OP had specified the Tanakh from the start, there would be no argument. I've have heard this argument before. The confusion comes from not specifying the subject. The thread is not tagged or labelled to indicate that. So that's on the OP. Who did much better tagging and labeling the other associated thread.

But as far as Christianity goes Lucifer is Satan, which the article explains why. So that's why you will get arguments from Christians. Hopefully that clears up any confusion.

Baloney, I mentioned it . You knew exactly what we were discussing.

Also, Christians do not have the right to add things to Hebrew words.

It will never mean Satan. It specifically tells us it is a human man

*