The Devil, the Serpent, Satan, and Lucifer,

[Ingledsva]

They might be speaking of the same war(if you're taking all Nebuchadnezzar's conquests as one war) too some extent; but one prophecy is for the king of Babylon and the other for the king of Tyrus. The thing both these pagan cities have in common is they would have had both a human ruler and a patron deity for their city that they would call the king/queen of their city as well. So in Babylon it was Bel Marduk and in Tyrus; although I don't know the name off the top of my head; he would commonly be called Baal by the Phoenicians.

Ezekiel 28 is actually split between two different prophecies. First it is to "the prince of Tyrus" (Ezekiel 28:2) and afterwards the "king of Tyrus". (Ezekiel 28:12) So, you're apparently claiming these are the same person. However, that's not a fact. It is only when prophesying about the "king of Tyrus" that the prophesy begins to sound like it's speaking of an angelic being. A "cherub" to be precise.

As I said, - their are several Tanakh books giving this same story from different angles.

It involved multiple Babylonian and ally cities.

They are all the same war - which is a real historical war - which historians agree on.

There is no Satan in any of the stories concerning this war.

*

 

[Rough Beast Sloucher]

Read back - I've already said this.

Tanakh is supposedly the God given source. All other later texts adding to what it says - are through their contact with other religions.

That is just FACT.

*

Supporting evidence please that the Jewish Apocrypha statements about Satan derive from other religions.If you wish you can start with this one.

Wisdom 2
23 For God created man to be immortal, and made him to be an image of his own eternity.
24 Nevertheless through envy of the devil came death into the world: and they that do hold of his side do find it.

EDIT: Forgot the link - The Apocrypha: Wisdom: Wisdom Chapter 2

The Jewish Encyclopedia (previously cited) sees a reference to the serpent in Eden in these verses. Can you find where that idea came from in some other religion? I am not saying it did not. I am asking if you know this from research or not.

Notice the similarity to some concepts of Paul. Apparently he read Wisdom.

 

[Ingledsva]

Supporting evidence please that the Jewish Apocrypha statements about Satan derive from other religions.If you wish you can start with this one.

....

I don't have to prove, or show anything, as it has already been shown by multiple scholars, even Biblical Archaeology scholars.

Also - We've been discussing such a book by a Christian. Read it.

Who Is Satan? - Biblical Archaeology Society

"It is perfectly clear, however, that by the first century C.E., Judaism developed a belief in the divine forces of darkness doing battle against the forces of light. This can be seen within the New Testament and other extra-Biblical writings such as those found among the Dead Sea Scrolls. There are likely several factors that inspired these developments, including the influence of Persian, as well as Hellenistic, religions."

"It is also in this period that we begin to see the development of the tradition of equating the talking serpent in the Garden of Eden with Satan (Life of Adam and Eve xi–xvii)." Biblical Archaeology

*

 

[osgart]

Who exactly is the serpent in Tanakh? Do we learn much about the serpent?

 

[dfnj]

One in the same or four different bad guys?
​

.​

God is responsible for every facet of his creation.

 

[dfnj]

I think our omnipotent God knew exactly what was going to happen to the apple in the garden with a naked woman prancing about.

 

[Ingledsva]

Supporting evidence please that the Jewish Apocrypha statements about Satan derive from other religions.If you wish you can start with this one.

Wisdom 2
23 For God created man to be immortal, and made him to be an image of his own eternity.
24 Nevertheless through envy of the devil came death into the world: and they that do hold of his side do find it.

EDIT: Forgot the link - The Apocrypha: Wisdom: Wisdom Chapter 2

The Jewish Encyclopedia (previously cited) sees a reference to the serpent in Eden in these verses. Can you find where that idea came from in some other religion? I am not saying it did not. I am asking if you know this from research or not.

Notice the similarity to some concepts of Paul. Apparently he read Wisdom.

As to Wisdom, - I don't need a link, - I have it on my computer.

And here is some info for you.

"... As far back as St. Jerome (Praef. in libros Salomonis), it has been felt that not Hebrew but Greek was the original language of the Book of Wisdom, and this verdict is so powerfully confirmed by the literary features of the entire Greek text, that one may well wonder that the theory of an ancient Hebrew original, or of any original other than Greek, should have ever been seriously maintained.

Of course the fact that the entire Book of Wisdom was composed in Greek rules out its Solomonic authorship. It is indeed true that ecclesiastical writers of the first centuries commonly assumed this authorship on the basis of the title of the book, apparently confirmed by those passages (ix, 7, 8, 12; cf. vii, 1, 5; viii, 13, 14, etc.) where the one speaking is clearly King Solomon. But this view of the matter never was unanimous in the Early Christian Church, and in the course of time a middle position between its total affirmation and its total rejection was suggested. The Book of Wisdom, it was said, is Solomon's inasmuch as it is based on Solomonic works which are now lost, but which were known to and utilized by a hellenistic Jew centuries after Solomon's death. This middle view is but a weak attempt at saving something of the full Solomonic authorship affirmed in earlier ages. "It is a supposition which has no positive arguments in its favour, and which, in itself, is improbable, since it assumes the existence of Solomonic writings of which there is no trace, and which would have been known only to the writer of the Book of Wisdom" (Cornely-Hagen, "Introd. in Libros Sacros, Compendium," Paris, 1909, p. 361). At the present day, it is freely admitted that Solomon is not the writer of the Book of Wisdom, "which has been ascribed to him because its author, through a literary fiction, speaks as if he were the Son of David" (Vigouroux, "Manuel Biblique", II, n. 868. ..."

"... Had the work originated in Palestine, its powerful arraignment of idolatry and its exalted teaching concerning the future life would have naturally secured for it a place within the Canon of the Jews of Palestine. But, as it was composed in Alexandria, its worth was fully appreciated and its sacred character recognized only by the fellow-countrymen of the author."

CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Book of Wisdom

*

 

[Ingledsva]

Who exactly is the serpent in Tanakh? Do we learn much about the serpent?

We don't know, - but Tanakh does equate him several times with the created earth creatures. This would include humans.

Gen 3:1 Now the serpent/nâchâsh was more subtil than any beast of the field which YHVH Elohiym had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?

It actually uses a word meaning "from out of," or "among." So he is one of the earth created creatures.

My personal opinion is that in this story - Adam and Chavvah represent the first - ancestral - followers of a new religion, and the serpent represents a Shamanic/Sorcerer type character from one of the so-called "Pagan" religions found around them.

The word for serpent is nâchâsh, - and it also means a Sorcerer.

*

 

[osgart]

We don't know, - but Tanakh does equate him several times with the created earth creatures. This would include humans.

Gen 3:1 Now the serpent/nâchâsh was more subtil than any beast of the field which YHVH Elohiym had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?

It actually uses a word meaning "from out of," or "among." So he is one of the earth created creatures.

My personal opinion is that in this story - Adam and Chavvah represent the first - ancestral - followers of a new religion, and the serpent represents a Shamanic/Sorcerer type character from one of the so-called "Pagan" religions found around them.

The word for serpent is nâchâsh, - and it also means a Sorcerer.

*

And yet the serpent is a beast.

 

[Ingledsva]

And yet the serpent is a beast.

Indeed, - humans are animals.

*

 

[Rough Beast Sloucher]

As to Wisdom, - I don't need a link, - I have it on my computer.

And here is some info for you.

"... As far back as St. Jerome (Praef. in libros Salomonis), it has been felt that not Hebrew but Greek was the original language of the Book of Wisdom, and this verdict is so powerfully confirmed by the literary features of the entire Greek text, that one may well wonder that the theory of an ancient Hebrew original, or of any original other than Greek, should have ever been seriously maintained.

Of course the fact that the entire Book of Wisdom was composed in Greek rules out its Solomonic authorship. It is indeed true that ecclesiastical writers of the first centuries commonly assumed this authorship on the basis of the title of the book, apparently confirmed by those passages (ix, 7, 8, 12; cf. vii, 1, 5; viii, 13, 14, etc.) where the one speaking is clearly King Solomon. But this view of the matter never was unanimous in the Early Christian Church, and in the course of time a middle position between its total affirmation and its total rejection was suggested. The Book of Wisdom, it was said, is Solomon's inasmuch as it is based on Solomonic works which are now lost, but which were known to and utilized by a hellenistic Jew centuries after Solomon's death. This middle view is but a weak attempt at saving something of the full Solomonic authorship affirmed in earlier ages. "It is a supposition which has no positive arguments in its favour, and which, in itself, is improbable, since it assumes the existence of Solomonic writings of which there is no trace, and which would have been known only to the writer of the Book of Wisdom" (Cornely-Hagen, "Introd. in Libros Sacros, Compendium," Paris, 1909, p. 361). At the present day, it is freely admitted that Solomon is not the writer of the Book of Wisdom, "which has been ascribed to him because its author, through a literary fiction, speaks as if he were the Son of David" (Vigouroux, "Manuel Biblique", II, n. 868. ..."

"... Had the work originated in Palestine, its powerful arraignment of idolatry and its exalted teaching concerning the future life would have naturally secured for it a place within the Canon of the Jews of Palestine. But, as it was composed in Alexandria, its worth was fully appreciated and its sacred character recognized only by the fellow-countrymen of the author."

CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Book of Wisdom

*

And those fellow-countrymen of the author of Wisdom would have been Jews in Alexandria since Gentiles would have no interest in the subject matter. Still Jewish.

 

[74x12]

As I said, - their are several Tanakh books giving this same story from different angles.

It involved multiple Babylonian and ally cities.

They are all the same war - which is a real historical war - which historians agree on.

There is no Satan in any of the stories concerning this war.

*

I know the history.

I believe Satan is alluded too in these prophecies. I'm not talking about taking away the obvious meaning of the prophecy. And the text obviously bears me out. In Ezekiel it even calls the "king of Tyrus" (not the prince) the "cherub that covereth". (Eze. 28:14) So it's definitely describing an angelic being. You could say it's figurative and not literal. That's really your only argument. Either way; whether it's literally talking about satan or it's likening the human king of Tyrus to satan. Yet, satan is at the very least alluded too. And it's the same for Isaiah 14.

 

[Ingledsva]

And those fellow-countrymen of the author of Wisdom would have been Jews in Alexandria since Gentiles would have no interest in the subject matter. Still Jewish.

They may or may not have been, - we don't know. All we know is that it likely was written in GREEK in Egypt.

And - as stated - they were LATER people influenced by other religions,- CHANGING what Tanakh says.

As I have said multiple times now.

*

 

[Ingledsva]

I know the history.

I believe Satan is alluded too in these prophecies. I'm not talking about taking away the obvious meaning of the prophecy. And the text obviously bears me out. In Ezekiel it even calls the "king of Tyrus" (not the prince) the "cherub that covereth". (Eze. 28:14) So it's definitely describing an angelic being. You could say it's figurative and not literal. That's really your only argument. Either way; whether it's literally talking about satan or it's likening the human king of Tyrus to satan. Yet, satan is at the very least alluded too. And it's the same for Isaiah 14.

I get a kick out of people not of the religion, claiming the texts have other meanings that only they know, - and the people that wrote it are just wrong.

Any of our Jewish members can tell you Satan is not in these war texts.

We have a couple of choices from what the text says.

1. the Jerusalem Temple is also a type of Garden of Eden, on a mount. You can find this in rabbinical writings.

Eze 28:13 Thou hast been in Eden the garden of God (Temple, or supposed Garden location, see 2.); every precious stone was thy covering, (These stones are specifically traded in Tyre.)(also the Urim and Tumim breastplate worn by the high priest) the sardius, topaz, and the diamond, the beryl, the onyx, and the jasper, the sapphire, the emerald, and the carbuncle, and gold: the workmanship of thy tabrets and of thy pipes was prepared in thee in the day that thou wast created.

Eze 28:14 Thou art the anointed cherub that covereth (anointed King protector of his people); and I have set thee so: thou wast upon the holy mountain of God (the Temple Mt.); thou hast walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire.

The imagery of the Garden, with its serpent and cherubim, has been compared to the images of the Solomonic Temple with its copper serpent (the nehushtan) and guardian cherubs

This "brazen serpent" became an object of adoration to Israel, and so remained until Hezekiah destroyed it by breaking it into fragments (II Kings xviii. 4). Jewish Encyclopedia (So the earthly Temple Eden even had a serpent.)

*
2. Tyre is a Phoenician port city. We have old sources naming Lebanon as part of the Garden of Eden.

So in choice two we have a city located in what they thought was the original Garden of Eden. An anointed King = covering his people, literally walking on the holy mount in the Garden of Eden, in a port city called Tyre, which we know was rich, and traded in Jewels, and ultimately fell through wars, etc.

"t appears that the Lebanon is an alternative placement in Phoenician myth (as in Ez 28,13, III.48) of the Garden of Eden",[16] and there are connections between paradise, the garden of Eden and the forests of Lebanon (possibly used symbolically) within prophetic writings.[17] Edward Lipinski and Peter Kyle McCarter have suggested that the Garden of the gods (Sumerian paradise), the oldest Sumerian version of the Garden of Eden, relates to a mountain sanctuary in the Lebanon and Anti-Lebanon ranges.[18]" Garden of Eden - Wikipedia

An interesting study on Tyre from a Christian site - Tyre - Hastings' Dictionary of the Bible - Bible Dictionary - StudyLight.org

"Old Tyre was destroyed (Ezekiel 26:7-12 ), but the Babylonian army in vain wearied itself in trying to subdue the island ( Ezekiel 29:18 ). It is probable that the city finally capitulated on favourable terms. The long siege, however, had ruined her commerce, and for 50 years Tyre was a poverty-stricken town. An attempt at a republic did not improve her fortunes. She was involved in the struggle between Nebuchadnezzar II. and Pharaoh-hophra ( Jeremiah 44:30 ). was for a time under Egypt, but finally fell to Babylon, and remained a dependency until the overthrow of the Babylonian Empire. Her humbled state did not change her people’s temper. Their pride ( Ezekiel 28:2 ), their contempt for the rights of man ( Amos 1:9 ), their slave-trading propensities ( Joel 3:4-8 ) are denounced by the Hebrew prophets."

So we get the whole story of Tyre. The king would be an anointed one, protector of the people, who actually walked on the holy mount, in what they consider the original Garden of Eden area, or visited the Temple mount in Jerusalem, and deals in all of the mentioned stones, etc. The stones could also refer to the Priests jeweled breastplate.

So No Satan anywhere. And two choices for a totally HUMAN reading of the text.

*

 

[74x12]

I get a kick out of people not of the religion, claiming the texts have other meanings that only they know, - and the people that wrote it are just wrong.

Any of our Jewish members can tell you Satan is not in these war texts.

This is thread was started by an apparent Christian. I am also of that persuasion. From a Christian perspective Jews can be very wrong. For example they fail to see Jesus in the prophecies. So I don't think you have a very good argument at all here. Besides, there is no rule of the universe or physics or anything stating that only a Jew can understand the scriptures. That's an appeal to authority actually. The early Christians were all Jews btw.

We do not believe the people who wrote it are wrong but those who come after whether Jew or whatever may seriously miscomprehend what is being spoken. Especially when we consider that these things were not just spoken by Isaiah/Ezekiel as they wished; but they claim to be delivering word for word an exact message from God.

We have a couple of choices from what the text says.

1. the Jerusalem Temple is also a type of Garden of Eden, on a mount. You can find this in rabbinical writings.

Eze 28:13 Thou hast been in Eden the garden of God (Temple, or supposed Garden location, see 2.); every precious stone was thy covering, (These stones are specifically traded in Tyre.)(also the Urim and Tumim breastplate worn by the high priest) the sardius, topaz, and the diamond, the beryl, the onyx, and the jasper, the sapphire, the emerald, and the carbuncle, and gold: the workmanship of thy tabrets and of thy pipes was prepared in thee in the day that thou wast created.

Eze 28:14 Thou art the anointed cherub that covereth (anointed King protector of his people); and I have set thee so: thou wast upon the holy mountain of God (the Temple Mt.); thou hast walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire.

The imagery of the Garden, with its serpent and cherubim, has been compared to the images of the Solomonic Temple with its copper serpent (the nehushtan) and guardian cherubs

This "brazen serpent" became an object of adoration to Israel, and so remained until Hezekiah destroyed it by breaking it into fragments (II Kings xviii. 4). Jewish Encyclopedia (So the earthly Temple Eden even had a serpent.)

Okay, first of all you should know that the temple and all that is in it was not God's actual throne but symbolic of the heavenly realities. As God Himself says (I just quote, so may not be exact word for word)

Heaven is my throne and the earth is my footstool, where is the house that ye build me and where is the place of my rest? Has not my hand made all these things?

So we should not think that the representative figures of cherubs in the temple are the real cherubs but they are representative of those actual heavenly beings.

This brings us back to Isaiah 14; in verse 13 it says "For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north:" This word "north" in Hebrew is Zephon and is the name of the mountain that the Canaanites believed was the dwelling place of none other than Baal. (Baal-zephon - Wikipedia)

In Ezek. 28:14 we see that the word used here is not "king(melech)" that covers but "cherub". The plain allusion is to the cherubs that cover God's throne in my opinion. Just as the figures of cherubs cover the mercy seat on the ark of testimony. Cherub's are always referring to some kind of heavenly being/thing rather than an earthly one. Even if it is figurative rather than literal, still the language is describing a heavenly being. Meaning it may figuratively be referring to Satan while literally referring to the king of Tyrus or it may literally be referring to satan. But the idea that it is not referring to a heavenly being at all is not to be accepted. Also, I found out that the Baal of Tyrus was named "Melqart" The name Melqart really meant Melek art or "king of the city". He was also called Baal Sur or Lord of Tyre. However his name is Melqart. This is very interesting because the prophecy is directed to "the Melek of Tyrus". (Ezek. 28:12) This definitely could be directed towards Melqart the "king of the city".

Old Tyre was destroyed (Ezekiel 26:7-12 ), but the Babylonian army in vain wearied itself in trying to subdue the island ( Ezekiel 29:18 ). It is probable that the city finally capitulated on favourable terms. The long siege, however, had ruined her commerce, and for 50 years Tyre was a poverty-stricken town. An attempt at a republic did not improve her fortunes. She was involved in the struggle between Nebuchadnezzar II. and Pharaoh-hophra ( Jeremiah 44:30 ). was for a time under Egypt, but finally fell to Babylon, and remained a dependency until the overthrow of the Babylonian Empire. Her humbled state did not change her people’s temper. Their pride ( Ezekiel 28:2 ), their contempt for the rights of man ( Amos 1:9 ), their slave-trading propensities ( Joel 3:4-8 ) are denounced by the Hebrew prophets."

So we get the whole story of Tyre. The king would be an anointed one, protector of the people, who actually walked on the holy mount, in what they consider the original Garden of Eden area, or visited the Temple mount in Jerusalem, and deals in all of the mentioned stones, etc. The stones could also refer to the Priests jeweled breastplate.

So No Satan anywhere. And two choices for a totally HUMAN reading of the text.

You say he might have visited the temple mount but he can't as a gentile be allowed into the holiest of holies or anywhere near even the inner court. At least not lawfully. So, he would not be regarded as anointed for doing this, but if he did do it he would be a desecrater and accursed.

Anyway, even if those are the locations of Eden(which is debatable); the garden is gone so this human could not be in the garden. However Satan could have been literally in the garden. As for the stones of fire, yes there may have been gems in the temple but they would have been symbolic of the actual stones that are in heaven as I pointed earlier.

Whether allegorically or literally Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28:12- definitely seem to be referring to heavenly rather than earthly beings. For example the name translated as "Lucifer" in Isaiah 14 is really literally heylel and can mean "morning star". This is very similar language to what is apparently describing angelic beings in Job 38:7 Which says they are "morning stars" and "sons of God". This of course is the whole reason they translated it as "Lucifer" Because Lucifer is another name for Venus the "morning star".

 

[Skwim]

This is thread was started by an apparent Christian.

Ah. . . if you check my avatar you'll see it was started by an obvious agnostic. My question: why do you think I'm an apparent Christian?

.

 

[Ingledsva]

This is thread was started by an apparent Christian. I am also of that persuasion. From a Christian perspective Jews can be very wrong. For example they fail to see Jesus in the prophecies. So I don't think you have a very good argument at all here. Besides, there is no rule of the universe or physics or anything stating that only a Jew can understand the scriptures. That's an appeal to authority actually. The early Christians were all Jews btw.

Christians have hijacked another faiths' text and twisted a lot of it's meaning.

We do not believe the people who wrote it are wrong but those who come after whether Jew or whatever may seriously miscomprehend what is being spoken. Especially when we consider that these things were not just spoken by Isaiah/Ezekiel as they wished; but they claim to be delivering word for word an exact message from God.

Right! and you don't find it in the least strange that REAL Biblical historians, - including Christian - say it is about a HUMAN and a real war?
And there is no Satan in the text. It says MAN. It says on an island Tsor/Tyre/Tyros.

Okay, first of all you should know that the temple and all that is in it was not God's actual throne but symbolic of the heavenly realities. As God Himself says (I just quote, so may not be exact word for word)

LOL! I just told you that all the flowery stuff is just symbolic. Perhaps you should reread it.

Heaven is my throne and the earth is my footstool, where is the house that ye build me and where is the place of my rest? Has not my hand made all these things?
So we should not think that the representative figures of cherubs in the temple are the real cherubs but they are representative of those actual heavenly beings.

You need to go up and reread that section.

1. the Jerusalem Temple is also a type of Garden of Eden, on a mount. You can find this in rabbinical writings.

Eze 28:13 Thou hast been in Eden the garden of God = (Temple, or supposed Garden location, see 2.);

This brings us back to Isaiah 14; in verse 13 it says "For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north:" This word "north" in Hebrew is Zephon and is the name of the mountain that the Canaanites believed was the dwelling place of none other than Baal. (Baal-zephon - Wikipedia)

No! We are told what and where it is! - - Psa 48:1 A Song and Psalm for the sons of Korah. Great is the LORD, and greatly to be praised in the city of our God, in the mountain of his holiness.

Psa 48:2 Beautiful for situation, the joy of the whole earth, is mount Zion, on the sides of the north, the city of the great King.

"Mount Zion (Hebrew: Har Tsiyyon; Arabic: Jabal Sahyoun) is a hill in Jerusalem just outside the walls of the Old City. The term Mount Zion has been used in the Hebrew Bible first for the City of David (2 Samuel 5:7, 1 Chronicles 11:5; 1 Kings 8:1, 2 Chronicles 5:2) and later for the Temple Mount, ..." wiki

In Ezek. 28:14 we see that the word used here is not "king(melech)" that covers but "cherub". The plain allusion is to the cherubs that cover God's throne in my opinion. Just as the figures of cherubs cover the mercy seat on the ark of testimony. Cherub's are always referring to some kind of heavenly being/thing rather than an earthly one. Even if it is figurative rather than literal, still the language is describing a heavenly being. Meaning it may figuratively be referring to Satan while literally referring to the king of Tyrus or it may literally be referring to satan. But the idea that it is not referring to a heavenly being at all is not to be accepted. Also, I found out that the Baal of Tyrus was named "Melqart" The name Melqart really meant Melek art or "king of the city". He was also called Baal Sur or Lord of Tyre. However his name is Melqart. This is very interesting because the prophecy is directed to "the Melek of Tyrus". (Ezek. 28:12) This definitely could be directed towards Melqart the "king of the city".

You say he might have visited the temple mount but he can't as a gentile be allowed into the holiest of holies or anywhere near even the inner court. At least not lawfully. So, he would not be regarded as anointed for doing this, but if he did do it he would be a desecrater and accursed.

Anyway, even if those are the locations of Eden(which is debatable); the garden is gone so this human could not be in the garden. However Satan could have been literally in the garden. As for the stones of fire, yes there may have been gems in the temple but they would have been symbolic of the actual stones that are in heaven as I pointed earlier.

Whether allegorically or literally Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28:12- definitely seem to be referring to heavenly rather than earthly beings. For example the name translated as "Lucifer" in Isaiah 14 is really literally heylel and can mean "morning star". This is very similar language to what is apparently describing angelic beings in Job 38:7 Which says they are "morning stars" and "sons of God". This of course is the whole reason they translated it as "Lucifer" Because Lucifer is another name for Venus the "morning star".

Eze 28:14 Thou art the anointed cherub that covereth (anointed King protector of his people); and I have set thee so: thou wast upon the holy mountain of God (the Temple Mt.); thou hast walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire.

The imagery of the Garden, with its serpent and cherubim, has been compared to the images of the Solomonic Temple with its copper serpent (the nehushtan) and guardian cherubs

Tor means hill - mount - etc. It can be the holy mountain, or the Temple, or as, said the area they thought was the Garden of Eden. And obviously - Psa 48:1 A Song and Psalm for the sons of Korah. Great is the LORD, and greatly to be praised in the city of our God, in the mountain of his holiness.
Psa 48:2 Beautiful for situation, the joy of the whole earth, is mount Zion, on the sides of the north, the city of the great King.

Anointed cherub that covereth - just means An Anointed King - that protects (that covereth) his people. Cherubim are protectors.

Here is more about this HUMAN KING in Isaiah, from a Christian scholar. -

"...and it is not only the last monarch, Belshazzar, who was slain on that night that Babylon was taken (Dan_5:30), who is here triumphed over, but the whole monarchy, which sunk in him;

"He made the world as a wilderness, as if he had taken a pride in being the plague of his generation and a curse to mankind, Isa_14:17. Great princes usually glory in building cities, but he gloried in destroying them; see Psa_9:6. Two particular instances, worse than all the rest, are here given of his tyranny: - [1.] That he was severe to his captives (Isa_14:17): He opened not the house of his prisoners; he did not let them loose homeward (so the margin reads it); he kept them in close confinement, and never would suffer any to return to their own land. This refers especially to the people of the Jews, and it is that which fills up the measure of the king of Babylon's iniquity, that he had detained the people of God in captivity and would by no means release them; nay, and by profaning the vessels of God's temple at Jerusalem, did in effect say that they should never return to their former use, Dan_5:3. For this he was quickly and justly turned out by one whose first act was to open the house of God's prisoners and send home the temple vessels. [2.] That he was oppressive to his own subjects (Isa_14:20): Thou hast destroyed thy land, and slain thy people; and what did he get by that, when the wealth of the land and the multitude of the people are the strength and honour of the prince, who never rules so safely, so gloriously, as in the hearts and affections of the people?"

"The golden city, which one would have thought might continue for ever, has ceased; there is an end of that Babylon. The Lord, the righteous God, has broken the staff of that wicked prince, broken it over his head, in token of the divesting him of his office. God has taken his power from him, and rendered him incapable of doing any more mischief: he has broken the sceptres; for even these are brittle things, soon broken and often justly." (2.) That he himself should be seized: He is persecuted (v. 6); violent hands are laid upon him, and none hinders. It is the common fate of tyrants, when they fall into the power of their enemies, to be deserted by their flatterers, whom they took for their friends."

"But this king of Babylon is cast out and has no grave (Isa_14:19); his dead body is thrown, like that of a beast, into the next ditch or upon the next dunghill, like an abominable branch, ... Thus he shall not be joined with his ancestors in burial, Isa_14:20. To be denied decent burial is a disgrace, ..." Matthew Henry's Commentary On The Whole Bible

If I missed something let me know.

 

[74x12]

Christians have hijacked another faiths' text and twisted a lot of it's meaning.

No, no. I'm part Jewish btw if it makes you feel better. I think you're using circular reasoning because you're assuming the scriptures are not divinely inspired. If they are of Divine inspiration then no humans can claim them alone. They're fore-mostly from God. So, what God has said should be explained by God rather than man.

Right! and you don't find it in the least strange that REAL Biblical historians, - including Christian - say it is about a HUMAN and a real war?
And there is no Satan in the text. It says MAN. It says on an island Tsor/Tyre/Tyros.

I don't nor did I disagree that it's about a real war. As I said, I know the history.

LOL! I just told you that all the flowery stuff is just symbolic. Perhaps you should reread it.

Yes, but you were pointing everything back to the physical temple of Solomon. I'm saying this very temple is also symbolic. Meaning, even if you're right it still could be talking about heavenly things.

No! We are told what and where it is! - - Psa 48:1 A Song and Psalm for the sons of Korah. Great is the LORD, and greatly to be praised in the city of our God, in the mountain of his holiness.

Psa 48:2 Beautiful for situation, the joy of the whole earth, is mount Zion, on the sides of the north, the city of the great King.

"Mount Zion (Hebrew: Har Tsiyyon; Arabic: Jabal Sahyoun) is a hill in Jerusalem just outside the walls of the Old City. The term Mount Zion has been used in the Hebrew Bible first for the City of David (2 Samuel 5:7, 1 Chronicles 11:5; 1 Kings 8:1, 2 Chronicles 5:2) and later for the Temple Mount, ..." wiki

Alright, I admit you got me there. I've read Psa. 48 many times but for some reason didn't make this connection.

I now think that although this is possibly literally about Nebuchadnezzar or some other Babylonian king; yet in spiritual sense directed too satan. Many verses have multiple meanings. One obvious, the others esoteric.

However, you still haven't admitted you're wrong about Ezekiel 28. It clearly uses the word Cherub and the word does not anywhere else in the Bible mean "king". It always means a heavenly being of some sort in the scriptures or at least sometimes a heavenly chariot for God to ride in. At the very least, it is referring figuratively to a human person but describing them as if they are a heavenly being. Which means it could in fact be figuratively about satan even if it is indeed referring to a human being. And as it transitions between addressing the "prince" and then the "king" there is reason to believe it's even more than figurative until proven otherwise. Also, I think it's interesting that the god of Tyre is called Melqart - "king of the city".

 

[Ingledsva]

...

I now think that although this is possibly literally about Nebuchadnezzar or some other Babylonian king; yet in spiritual sense directed too satan. Many verses have multiple meanings. One obvious, the others esoteric.

Tanakh does NOT say Satan is an evil autonomous being. Christians have to twist the verses, - and reason, - claiming things such as the verses have multiple meanings, so they can claim Satan in there.

If you did not have Christianity saying Satan is evil, and did not have the mistranslated "Lucifer," NONE OF YOU would be finding multiple meanings and Satan in that verse. You know this is true. You would have no reason to even pause on this war text without the errors.

...However, you still haven't admitted you're wrong about Ezekiel 28. It clearly uses the word Cherub and the word does not anywhere else in the Bible mean "king". It always means a heavenly being of some sort in the scriptures or at least sometimes a heavenly chariot for God to ride in. At the very least, it is referring figuratively to a human person but describing them as if they are a heavenly being. Which means it could in fact be figuratively about satan even if it is indeed referring to a human being. And as it transitions between addressing the "prince" and then the "king" there is reason to believe it's even more than figurative until proven otherwise. Also, I think it's interesting that the god of Tyre is called Melqart - "king of the city".

Why would I be admitting wrong, - when it isn't, - and I posted a quote from a CHRISTIAN Scholar?

It tells us specifically that it is about a Babylonian royal.

We know historically this is an actual war.

The other text says the bugs eat him.

It calls him A MAN.

It says he doesn't get a proper burial - like the other Kings.

Eze 28:14 Thou art the anointed cherub that covereth; and I have set thee so... This is metaphoric, - as the King is being compared to a covering cherub. In other words the King protects his people. it says he is ANOINTED. Kings are anointed. "I have set thee so" - all kings are considered by them to be placed (set) by God.

We get "Prince" and "King" because they are translating words meaning royal/ruler, etc.

Here is another Christian Scholar.

"Ezekiel 28:14


Cherub - For thy wisdom, power, and excellency, like a cherub, or angel; for the sacredness of thy person, and office, as the anointed of God; for the exercise of thy power, as a shield, as a protector of the weak. And I - I, whom thou forgetest have made thee so. Thou wast - Thou wast advanced to kingly dignity, (which David calls a mountain, Psa_30:7,) a sacred office, and of divine institution. In the midst - Surrounded with stones, that sparkle like fire." John Wesley's Explanatory Notes.

No Satan here.

*

 

[74x12]

Tanakh does NOT say Satan is an evil autonomous being. Christians have to twist the verses, - and reason, - claiming things such as the verses have multiple meanings, so they can claim Satan in there.

If you did not have Christianity saying Satan is evil, and did not have the mistranslated "Lucifer," NONE OF YOU would be finding multiple meanings and Satan in that verse. You know this is true. You would have no reason to even pause on this war text without the errors.

Yet we know that satan is an evil autonomous being. It's revealed as further revelation. In any case you're ignoring the so called "apocryphal writings". If you read those works you find out the Jews of those days knew of and often spoke of satan and various demons.

Even Jews believe verses have deeper meanings than just the surface meaning. The only argument is over who is right.

Cherub - For thy wisdom, power, and excellency, like a cherub, or angel; for the sacredness of thy person, and office, as the anointed of God; for the exercise of thy power, as a shield, as a protector of the weak. And I - I, whom thou forgetest have made thee so. Thou wast - Thou wast advanced to kingly dignity, (which David calls a mountain, Psa_30:7,) a sacred office, and of divine institution. In the midst - Surrounded with stones, that sparkle like fire." John Wesley's Explanatory Notes.

No Satan here.

John Wesley isn't always right. But, even if he is right; it's still figuratively referring to a heavenly being. John Wesley seems to be saying here that the king is being likened to an angelic being. An angelic being is certainly being referred to here either way. At least figuratively and I believe more than that.