Matthitjah Posted August 2, 2011 Group: Royal Member Followers: 4 Topic Count: 1,285 Topics Per Day: 0.16 Content Count: 17,917 Content Per Day: 2.27 Reputation: 355 Days Won: 19 Joined: 10/01/2002 Status: Offline Share Posted August 2, 2011 I'm listening, make your point. My point is that I do not believe "Lucifer" is the correct transliteration of the word heylel. How can one Shine if there is no Light? But a mistranslation is still a mistranslation, even if it has similar characteristics. Why are you insisting that "Light-bearer" is the valid translation for heylel ? So the son of the dawn came to Shine? Or he was the shining son of the dawn? "Shining son of the dawn" is not the same as "Son of the Dawn, Light-bearer" and insisting that "Light-bearer" is his name. (And that the Latin version of "Light-bearer" is what he is called.) What is so hard about understanding that? I'm not insisting anything but I can see how the translation is consistent and just another way to say the same thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bold Believer Posted August 2, 2011 Group: Royal Member Followers: 2 Topic Count: 121 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 1,931 Content Per Day: 0.35 Reputation: 126 Days Won: 8 Joined: 01/22/2009 Status: Offline Birthday: 07/13/1955 Author Share Posted August 2, 2011 So, all good gifts are from God, doesn't imply that God cannot create potential for evil. You haven't answered my question, so no dodging. If God creates all things, and in the beginning there was just Him, where did evil come from? No dodging going on. Is there going to be evil in the new heaven and the new earth? I think you, sis, are into int Gods permissive will but what was being stated was that God created evil. Huge difference. If He did you all will have to come up with some scriptural references and Isaiah 45:7 isn't going to cut it. You will also have to show me some precedence and example in scripture because I certainly don't see where we are going to get off by blaming God for the evil that we do. If God created evil then we aren't to blame and the Gospel is the biggest sham in history. Might as well be a Universalist. As I have pointed out in another thread, there is a great difference between the principle of evil and evil deeds. God created the principle of evil in the beginning, just as He created the principle of good. God didn't create evil deeds. Satan was the first evildoer which Jesus pointed out in John 8:44, when He stated that Satan was a murderer from the arche or beginning. This is obviously a reference to the creation. (Jesus ought to know, He was there.) SO then, it is impossible for God to do evil. Only man is capable of evil. We can't blame God for our evil, nor can we blame Him for the creation of its principle. Until someone puts the principle of evil into motion, evil remains just that: a principle. Now we know that Satan put that principle into motion in the Garden by murdering Adam and Eve. This still doesn't answer the original question: Are Satan and Lucifer one and the same? Again, I am not convinced. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bold Believer Posted August 2, 2011 Group: Royal Member Followers: 2 Topic Count: 121 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 1,931 Content Per Day: 0.35 Reputation: 126 Days Won: 8 Joined: 01/22/2009 Status: Offline Birthday: 07/13/1955 Author Share Posted August 2, 2011 So, all good gifts are from God, doesn't imply that God cannot create potential for evil. You haven't answered my question, so no dodging. If God creates all things, and in the beginning there was just Him, where did evil come from? No dodging going on. Is there going to be evil in the new heaven and the new earth? I think you, sis, are into int Gods permissive will but what was being stated was that God created evil. Huge difference. If He did you all will have to come up with some scriptural references and Isaiah 45:7 isn't going to cut it. You will also have to show me some precedence and example in scripture because I certainly don't see where we are going to get off by blaming God for the evil that we do. If God created evil then we aren't to blame and the Gospel is the biggest sham in history. Might as well be a Universalist. As I have pointed out in another thread, there is a great difference between the principle of evil and evil deeds. God created the principle of evil in the beginning, just as He created the principle of good. God didn't create evil deeds. Satan was the first evildoer which Jesus pointed out in John 8:44, when He stated that Satan was a murderer from the arche or beginning. This is obviously a reference to the creation. (Jesus ought to know, He was there.) SO then, it is impossible for God to do evil. Only man is capable of evil. We can't blame God for our evil, nor can we blame Him for the creation of its principle. Until someone puts the principle of evil into motion, evil remains just that: a principle. Now we know that Satan put that principle into motion in the Garden by murdering Adam and Eve. This still doesn't answer the original question: Are Satan and Lucifer one and the same? Again, I am not convinced. What is the world is the principle of evil. This means that for God to create it He has it in Him. No, it means that God would have had to KNOW what it is. Since God is omniscient, that would be no problem. I can know about homosexuality for example, and not BE homosexual (for an extreme example). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nebula Posted August 2, 2011 Group: Royal Member Followers: 10 Topic Count: 5,823 Topics Per Day: 0.75 Content Count: 45,870 Content Per Day: 5.94 Reputation: 1,897 Days Won: 83 Joined: 03/22/2003 Status: Offline Birthday: 11/19/1970 Share Posted August 2, 2011 I'm not insisting anything but I can see how the translation is consistent and just another way to say the same thing. So you believe the "being" mentioned is named "Lucifer." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shiloh62 Posted August 2, 2011 Group: Royal Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 83 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 1,683 Content Per Day: 0.30 Reputation: 51 Days Won: 1 Joined: 11/14/2008 Status: Offline Birthday: 02/14/1962 Share Posted August 2, 2011 Maybe Lucifer was named before he was cast out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nebula Posted August 2, 2011 Group: Royal Member Followers: 10 Topic Count: 5,823 Topics Per Day: 0.75 Content Count: 45,870 Content Per Day: 5.94 Reputation: 1,897 Days Won: 83 Joined: 03/22/2003 Status: Offline Birthday: 11/19/1970 Share Posted August 2, 2011 Maybe Lucifer was named before he was cast out. Sure, but what reason is there to believe that was his name? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shiloh62 Posted August 2, 2011 Group: Royal Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 83 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 1,683 Content Per Day: 0.30 Reputation: 51 Days Won: 1 Joined: 11/14/2008 Status: Offline Birthday: 02/14/1962 Share Posted August 2, 2011 Maybe Lucifer was named before he was cast out. Sure, but what reason is there to believe that was his name? That is his name now, although he no longer lives up to it. I'm not sure I'm understanding the question correctly, is it that you mean he might have had a different name before he was cast out? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bold Believer Posted August 2, 2011 Group: Royal Member Followers: 2 Topic Count: 121 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 1,931 Content Per Day: 0.35 Reputation: 126 Days Won: 8 Joined: 01/22/2009 Status: Offline Birthday: 07/13/1955 Author Share Posted August 2, 2011 The most telling reason I think to believe that they are NOT the same is: Jesus never addresses Satan as Lucifer. He is always referred to as Satan or on occasion, the devil. You would think that if Lucifer were his name, Jesus would use it now and then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
other one Posted August 2, 2011 Group: Worthy Ministers Followers: 29 Topic Count: 599 Topics Per Day: 0.08 Content Count: 56,257 Content Per Day: 7.56 Reputation: 27,987 Days Won: 271 Joined: 12/29/2003 Status: Offline Share Posted August 2, 2011 I'm not insisting anything but I can see how the translation is consistent and just another way to say the same thing. So you believe the "being" mentioned is named "Lucifer." That's a really long crooked rabbit hold to go down Neb...... but from the things I've read outside the Bible I would say that it is speaking of both the King of Babylon, and that entity that rebelled against the Father that we call Lucifer or Satan. They were much the same and will face similiar endings. It speaks of the entity being at the garden of Eden and we know it's not possible for the kind of Babylon to have done so. It may well be that Satan himself decided to become fleshly like the watchers and actually was the King the scripture is talking about, but that's another really long crooked rabbit hole to go down. As sketchy as that short story is there are many possibilities. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shiloh62 Posted August 2, 2011 Group: Royal Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 83 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 1,683 Content Per Day: 0.30 Reputation: 51 Days Won: 1 Joined: 11/14/2008 Status: Offline Birthday: 02/14/1962 Share Posted August 2, 2011 The most telling reason I think to believe that they are NOT the same is: Jesus never addresses Satan as Lucifer. He is always referred to as Satan or on occasion, the devil. You would think that if Lucifer were his name, Jesus would use it now and then. Good point. Maybe what it is is that he was Lucifer before he was cast out, then lost the right to that title,and with the knowledge Jesus has, refuses to refer to him any longer by that name. He no longer deserves to be called "light bearer" so Jesus calls him by what he truly is now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts