Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
So you're saying that Satan and the devil are different beings?Lucifer was an angel. When he decided to rebel against God his name was changed to Satan. A devil is a fallen angel. Satan has the ability to alter his form so he appeared to Adam and Eve as a serpent. All one being.
.One in the same or four different meanies?
I think my post says "all one being". Satan and Lucifer are names. Devil is a description. Serpent is a physical appearane he assumed to appear to Adam and Eve.
Although I did not quote him, I was replying to Skwim above who asked whether Satan and the devil were different beings.
There is also debate over whether 'Lucifer' the morning star, is Satan or the King of Babylon. But I am not going there.
Lucifer was an angel. When he decided to rebel against God his name was changed to Satan. A devil is a fallen angel. Satan has the ability to alter his form so he appeared to Adam and Eve as a serpent. All one being.
.One in the same or four different bad guys?
I think my post says "all one being". Satan and Lucifer are names. Devil is a description. Serpent is a physical appearane he assumed to appear to Adam and Eve.
The name Lucifer is in question. Otherwise, the original dragon, original serpent, devil and satan all refer to one and same being. Two are somewhat translation dependent. Here are various translations showing us the most common choices..One in the same or four different bad guys?
it is all the same spirit.One in the same or four different bad guys?
The name Lucifer is in question. Otherwise, the original dragon, original serpent, devil and satan all refer to one and same being. Two are somewhat translation dependent. Here are various translations showing us the most common choices.
Revelation 12:9 So down the great dragon was hurled, the original serpent, the one called Devil and Satan, who is misleading the entire inhabited earth; he was hurled down to the earth, and his angels were hurled down with him. 10 And I heard a loud voice in heaven say:. . .This being and all the angels, including the fallen ones, are all older than our physical universe.
9 And the great dragon was cast down, the old serpent, he that is called the Devil and Satan, the deceiver of the whole world; he was cast down to the earth, and his angels were cast down with him.
9 And the great dragon was cast out, the ancient serpent, he who is called Devil and Satan, he who deceives the whole habitable world, he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.
9 And the great dragon was thrown down, that ancient serpent, who is called the devil and Satan, the deceiver of the whole world—he was thrown down to the earth, and his angels were thrown down with him.
.One in the same or four different bad guys?
There is not much reason, nor incentive, to discuss this with you. Since you also know what I say, yet reject this, when I say it, that too is empty.Tanakh does NOT say the serpent is Satan, - anywhere.
And obviously it calls Satan by his name everywhere else. Why the discrepancy if it was Satan?
Tanakh NEVER refers to Satan as a serpent.
Those are later additions tacked onto the Tanakh Satan.
*
There is not much reason, nor incentive, to discuss this with you. Since you also know what I say, yet reject this, when I say it, that too is empty.
However, if you pay a little attention to Relation, you would see that it says 'the orignial serpent' or the 'old serpent' referring obviously to Genesis whee the Serpent deceived Eve.
Why don't you discuss your religion instead, the creation of all means by means of your 'chaos god' !
If you are Jewish, the Tanakh be your only source.
If you are Christian, you have more than that, which by the way speaks of that which you object to.
If you are atheist, you have nothing but, ehh, nothing - which became something neither of the above believes in.
Looking into Strong's Concordance and an etymology dictionary I see it's simply an Old English rendering of the appellation "shining one, morning star" as it appears in Isaiah 14:12There is no Lucifer. - That was a mistranslation.
Yeah, I couldn't find that association either. So those here,Tanakh says NOWHERE - that the Genesis serpent is Satan.
Looking into Strong's Concordance and an etymology dictionary I see it's simply an Old English rendering of the appellation "shining one, morning star" as it appears in Isaiah 14:12
"12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning!
how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!"
Thank you for the laugh. I find you perspective funny, and you are welcome to it.OH MY! LOL! I don't have any God.
We have said over-and-over, that later add-ons to the Hebrew Satan character, means nothing. They are add-ons.
They did not understand the Angel Satan's roll, and turned him into an evil autonomous Satan.
"Christians have more than that," is rather funny, as they actually don't. They have their own NT - and a hijacked and misunderstood/mistranslated Jewish Tanakh.
Christians have hijacked another religion's texts, and then told THEM that you know better than they, what THEIR texts mean.
*
This one is even more funny - because this is also what I say - namely, that is says it is man that is being discussed; which I have pointed out before. Thus, the claim that satan is Lucifer is opposed by the scripture saying that this person is a 'man'. What I don't disagree with, however, is that many of the things said in that chapter might well be applied to satan, though there is no evidence for it.They are claiming Satan fell, from a mistranslation/misunderstanding of an Isaiah verse about a human King of Babylon. It says it is a MAN in that text.