• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Who's Lucifer?

Putting my Jewish cap on:

Satan is the blessed accuser and hinderer, indeed the Hebrew word שטן simply means to provoke or oppose and is often used as a verb, it is later given a definite article when describing 'the prosecutor' or 'the hinderer' who is the 'Satan' that most know of, and he was created to be gods agent, to be his provocateur. His purpose, as traditionally understood, is to place challenges before people on behalf of God so that they might be tested, but not merely so that they can be punished but so that they may continue to grow. The Talmud says that all that Satan does, he does in the service of heaven and he certainly does not have agency. He is compared to the prostitute who is hired by the King to test the virtues of his son, he is an instrument, but he is only a tool in the hand of his master.

According to this perspective he cannot, and does not, 'capture souls' or stand as master over some hellish place, nor does he want to destroy god, and nor did he (or could he) rebel. He is an agent of the divine, and according to some interpretations is merely an extension of the divine itself.
 
ludin said:
questions are fine.

This forum is dedicated and limited to discussions of religion, faith, and spirituality. Threads/posts critical of religion and spiritual aspects are not allowed here and will result in a B/F/T Infraction + Thread Ban.
Click to expand...

I understand. I will do as you guys suggest.

I think what many religious people don't understand is that a lot of atheists - well, I'll just speak for me alone... sometimes I just want someone else's opinions. I've read the Bible many times, and the more I read it, the more flawed it seemed. I used to believe in God and want to now. I just can't because there's too many problems with all of it logically. And I think you'll find a lot of atheists WANT to believe in a god; it's more comforting to think there's someone who cares about you when you're in hard times.

But I will certainly take my issues to a different forum. I know you guys want to talk about your own stuff without non-believers throwing a wrench into things.
 
Brewdog said:
I understand. I will do as you guys suggest.

I think what many religious people don't understand is that a lot of atheists - well, I'll just speak for me alone... sometimes I just want someone else's opinions. I've read the Bible many times, and the more I read it, the more flawed it seemed.
Click to expand...

There's some things we don't understand but the more I read the Bible the more cohesive it becomes. No one has yet demolished the multiple, independent, historical accounts of the resurrection. It's solid as a rock.

What a lot of 'religious' people don't get is that you have to surrender your life to Christ and ask him to live through you. That is something I haven't seen them do. If they sincerely did that they would get the born-again experience, which is a life changer. Once you get that you never leave the faith because by then you have the spiritual evidence that astounds you. I seriously doubt those people who have left the church were ever really born again. Because if they were they would have known it was real.
 
grip said:
Did god really relegate that position to another besides himself? Did Jesus not say, "Father lead them not into temptation?" There is no devil except the one we create.
Click to expand...

Supposedly an angel that felt god was doing a crappy job and needed to be replaced.
 
Brewdog said:
Why would a benevolent God that loves us allow for a Devil that hates us and hates Him? Why would a God that wants us to choose honor and goodness allow a Satan to try and change our minds? Why would a God that loves us allow floods, famine, cancer, plague, tsunamis, and hurricanes? I saw an article today about a two-headed baby. Isn't that a bit cruel? And did the devil create that baby that will live a life of torment? The devil doesn't have that power. I've read the Bible cover to cover. And only God creates life. So why does He create babies with two heads

And it makes no sense whatsoever that Satan would torment sinners. If I'm a drunk atheist that snorts coke and sleeps with as many women as possible, why would I be Satan's enemy? Wouldn't I be his bro? If Satan is evil, then why would he go after sinners? If Satan were evil, it stands to reason that he would hate the non-sinners. If I'm a jerk and show up in hell, Satan should just high five me because I'm his boy.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure I understand your view of Satan. You seem to believe he is actively involved in all suffering. I don't believe that is an accurate view, nor one that is widely held within Christianity.

Brewdog said:
But whenever you try to reason with the religious with logic, they just say, "God works in mysterious ways!" How convenient to always have unwaivering faith without any counterargument.
Click to expand...

That you haven't encountered Christian intellectuals does not mean they don't exist. You seem to come from a church that specifically catered to non-intellectuals, so it's not a surprise you haven't encountered reasonable Christians who aren't afraid of intellectual pursuits, but we do exist.

As for your bigger question, the technical term for that question is "theodicy" or "the problem of evil". If you google either of those terms you will find a wealth of information on the topic that may be helpful in forming your own view.

Here are a couple of links on the topic:
The Problem of Evil (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
The Problem of Evil | Reasonable Faith
Theodicy Overview

The first of the links above is particularly good; in fact, that site is the gold standard when it comes to any philosophical topic you might be interested. However, it is written for philosophers so if you don't have any training in that discipline, it can be a bit difficult to understand. The second link above will take you to a website which is geared towards the kinds of intellectually oriented Christians you are interested in talking to; it also features a forum with a section specifically on the problem of evil. Although the forum seems fairly dead, any responses you do get there are bound to be better than any you will get here.
 
Last edited:
TheGoverness said:
Who's Lucifer? Lucifer's my homeslice.
Click to expand...
Lucifer is a Latin word in the King James version , Were one of the rules that was set up by King James was to use only the Greek translation for the source. Problem one, Lucifer is in the bible only once, and Lucifer means Rising star, Venus, morning star. It was used in early Catholic writing as the name for Jesus , he also was refereed to as the rising star. Problem 2.He was also the name of the King of Babylon, Some have said that the rising star( Lucifer) was the name of all Kings of Babylon, others say that it is only the name of one but there are two possibilities to which specific King. Hammurabi being one. I'm coming around to think that the devil was created in the first century as a reason to explain the horrible brutality as far as Jerusalem Jews and the brutality of Rome. In the old testament the Devil is not the same evil Protagonist of God, in fact he is one of Gods , Helpers . (helper isn't the right word but I'm tired and it may allow you to get the drift)
 
Sherman123 said:
Putting my Jewish cap on:

Satan is the blessed accuser and hinderer, indeed the Hebrew word שטן simply means to provoke or oppose and is often used as a verb, it is later given a definite article when describing 'the prosecutor' or 'the hinderer' who is the 'Satan' that most know of, and he was created to be gods agent, to be his provocateur. His purpose, as traditionally understood, is to place challenges before people on behalf of God so that they might be tested, but not merely so that they can be punished but so that they may continue to grow. The Talmud says that all that Satan does, he does in the service of heaven and he certainly does not have agency. He is compared to the prostitute who is hired by the King to test the virtues of his son, he is an instrument, but he is only a tool in the hand of his master.

According to this perspective he cannot, and does not, 'capture souls' or stand as master over some hellish place, nor does he want to destroy god, and nor did he (or could he) rebel. He is an agent of the divine, and according to some interpretations is merely an extension of the divine itself.
Click to expand...

That makes a lot of sense to me, when considering how most religions in the world categorize the more "evil" aspect of the faith. Evil is still part of God and is ordained to create trials and tests for us, which we apply our free will to. Without these trials we cannot go about the process of perfecting ourselves on a spiritual level and enjoy union with God. If we fail the tests we aren't damned forever but we do have to go through trials to purify ourselves. The idea that Satan rules over some kind of Hadic realm reminiscent of Dante's Inferno where people are sent forever for their mistakes, without ever recovering, is just a fictional fantasy.

There is nothing that is outside of God. Nothing. Just the illusion of it. I found that my spiritual path took on a whole new dimension when I realized that everything bad that happens in the world is part of the process of refinement that the human experience was created for.

Thanks for your post.
 
The word Lucifer means morning star, which was what they originally called Venus... and incidentally, that morning star was also associated with the God Apollo. So I think some bastardization has happened here, as is often the case with early Christianity. The Hebrew word for Lucifer is probably the most accurate reference, and it looks nothing like the word "Lucifer" that the Christians appropriated from the Greco-Roman period. I tend to refer to the Hebrew understanding of Lucifer and Satan because it is the most preserved. Christians have really been led astray in that department.

Kind of like how the Christian understanding of hell as being a fire and brimstone kind of place is actually based on a fictional story created by Dante Alighieri in the Middle Ages, whose inspiration came from the Greek imagining of Hades, the fire realm that the damned went to in Greek mythology. In the OT, Hell is merely the absence of God, which is self-imposed by the use of free will. When you turn away from God you suffer, when you align with God you tend to experience miracles and amazement. People who run contrary to their own nature, their own inner virtue, live in Hell.
 
Sherman123 said:
Putting my Jewish cap on:

Satan is the blessed accuser and hinderer, indeed the Hebrew word שטן simply means to provoke or oppose and is often used as a verb, it is later given a definite article when describing 'the prosecutor' or 'the hinderer' who is the 'Satan' that most know of, and he was created to be gods agent, to be his provocateur. His purpose, as traditionally understood, is to place challenges before people on behalf of God so that they might be tested, but not merely so that they can be punished but so that they may continue to grow. The Talmud says that all that Satan does, he does in the service of heaven and he certainly does not have agency. He is compared to the prostitute who is hired by the King to test the virtues of his son, he is an instrument, but he is only a tool in the hand of his master.

According to this perspective he cannot, and does not, 'capture souls' or stand as master over some hellish place, nor does he want to destroy god, and nor did he (or could he) rebel. He is an agent of the divine, and according to some interpretations is merely an extension of the divine itself.
Click to expand...
How do you then explain The Fall of Adam and Eve in Genesis and Isaiah 14?
 
jbander said:
Lucifer is a Latin word in the King James version , Were one of the rules that was set up by King James was to use only the Greek translation for the source. Problem one, Lucifer is in the bible only once, and Lucifer means Rising star, Venus, morning star. It was used in early Catholic writing as the name for Jesus , he also was refereed to as the rising star. Problem 2.He was also the name of the King of Babylon, Some have said that the rising star( Lucifer) was the name of all Kings of Babylon, others say that it is only the name of one but there are two possibilities to which specific King. Hammurabi being one. I'm coming around to think that the devil was created in the first century as a reason to explain the horrible brutality as far as Jerusalem Jews and the brutality of Rome. In the old testament the Devil is not the same evil Protagonist of God, in fact he is one of Gods , Helpers . (helper isn't the right word but I'm tired and it may allow you to get the drift)
Click to expand...

As a Christian, it only really matters what the Messiah has to say concerning this matter:
What Jesus said. Matthew 13:41-42, 49-50 “The Son of Man will send his angels, and they will gather out of his kingdom all causes of sin and all law-breakers, and throw them into the fiery furnace. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. So it will be at the end of the age. The angels will come out and separate the evil from the righteous and throw them into the fiery furnace. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.”
Mark 9:43, 48-49 “And if your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life crippled than with two hands to go to hell, to the unquenchable fire…where their worm does not die and the fire is not quenched.’ For everyone will be salted with fire.”
Matthew 22:13 “Bind him hand and foot and cast him into the outer darkness. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.”
Matthew 8:12 “while the sons of the kingdom will be thrown into the outer darkness. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.”
 
Northern Light said:
The word Lucifer means morning star, which was what they originally called Venus... and incidentally, that morning star was also associated with the God Apollo. So I think some bastardization has happened here, as is often the case with early Christianity. The Hebrew word for Lucifer is probably the most accurate reference, and it looks nothing like the word "Lucifer" that the Christians appropriated from the Greco-Roman period. I tend to refer to the Hebrew understanding of Lucifer and Satan because it is the most preserved. Christians have really been led astray in that department.

Kind of like how the Christian understanding of hell as being a fire and brimstone kind of place is actually based on a fictional story created by Dante Alighieri in the Middle Ages, whose inspiration came from the Greek imagining of Hades, the fire realm that the damned went to in Greek mythology. In the OT, Hell is merely the absence of God, which is self-imposed by the use of free will. When you turn away from God you suffer, when you align with God you tend to experience miracles and amazement. People who run contrary to their own nature, their own inner virtue, live in Hell.
Click to expand...
WHen it comes to the passage in Isaiah, it was the 'mocking' passage against King Nebuchadnezzar, and it was referencing a phonetician myth of Attar, who attempted to replace the dead Baal. He attempted to rise high above his station, and failed to fall. That is what Isaiah was saying would happen to King Neb.
 
LittleNipper said:
How do you then explain The Fall of Adam and Eve in Genesis and Isaiah 14?
Click to expand...

See my previous post about Isaiah 14..g(it has nothing to do with Satan, or the fall of Adan and Eve... if you read it in context, and also cultural context).

As for Adam and Eve, .. well, the snake is not 'satan' at all. The snake is an allegory for 'the urge to do evil' yetzer hara. If you read the story, Ha-Adam was not driven from the garden until he lied to go about eating the apple. Before he ate the apple, he was innocent, and did not understand good or evil. After words, he refused to accept responsibility for his own actions, and therefore was punished. It's a story to explain why there is death in the world.
 
RAMOSS said:
See my previous post about Isaiah 14..g(it has nothing to do with Satan, or the fall of Adan and Eve... if you read it in context, and also cultural context).

As for Adam and Eve, .. well, the snake is not 'satan' at all. The snake is an allegory for 'the urge to do evil' yetzer hara. If you read the story, Ha-Adam was not driven from the garden until he lied to go about eating the apple. Before he ate the apple, he was innocent, and did not understand good or evil. After words, he refused to accept responsibility for his own actions, and therefore was punished. It's a story to explain why there is death in the world.
Click to expand...

How can a sinless person have an urge to do what is evil without a push? Satan tells Adam and Eve that GOD is withholding power from them --- the power to be exactly like GOD! Satan believed the very same thing. As for Isaiah 14, there are some issues. The individual being referred to is being talked about as though he has been around since CREATION. Clearly, no human has lived that long.
 
LittleNipper said:
How can a sinless person have an urge to do what is evil without a push? Satan tells Adam and Eve that GOD is withholding power from them --- the power to be exactly like GOD! Satan believed the very same thing. As for Isaiah 14, there are some issues. The individual being referred to is being talked about as though he has been around since CREATION. Clearly, no human has lived that long.
Click to expand...

Well, until the fruit is eaten, they don't know what all that is. They are innocent and ignorant. As for the snake.. the snake is a snake, and not satan.. and you are trying to read too much from later ideas and concepts that just did not exist in the Hebrew religion when the story of the garden of Eden first entered Jewish culture. It wasn't until the first diaspora that contact with the concept of satan was brought into the religion. What you see is a retrofitting of later concepts into a much simpler story.
 
LittleNipper said:
As a Christian, it only really matters what the Messiah has to say concerning this matter:
What Jesus said. Matthew 13:41-42, 49-50 “The Son of Man will send his angels, and they will gather out of his kingdom all causes of sin and all law-breakers, and throw them into the fiery furnace. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. So it will be at the end of the age. The angels will come out and separate the evil from the righteous and throw them into the fiery furnace. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.”
Mark 9:43, 48-49 “And if your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life crippled than with two hands to go to hell, to the unquenchable fire…where their worm does not die and the fire is not quenched.’ For everyone will be salted with fire.”
Matthew 22:13 “Bind him hand and foot and cast him into the outer darkness. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.”
Matthew 8:12 “while the sons of the kingdom will be thrown into the outer darkness. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.”
Click to expand...
Well I don't know where this takes us exactly, It coincides with my premise that the devil was created in the first century , Mathew was written at the end of the first century. He was created at that time as a reason why the Jews were so horribly persecuted in the first century. With creating a opposite of God they could stand fast against this enemy , as in any enemy of God is a enemy of mine.. My remark was about Lucifer and thats where are opinions differ, we don't agree on who Lucifer is at all. Just one question, why would they call the devil the morning star considering---Job 38:7 (ESV), Jehovah claims that the cornerstone of the earth was laid

when the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy

implying that the morning stars were living beings.

In Revelation 22:16 (ESV), Jesus calls himself "the bright Morning Star":
 
LittleNipper said:
How do you then explain The Fall of Adam and Eve in Genesis and Isaiah 14?
Click to expand...

What do you mean? A challenge was presented and a choice was made. Also, pointedly, Judaism does not have the concept of original sin. As for Isaiah 14 we've always, and without controversy, known it to refer to the evils of King Nebuchadnezzar.

A summation of our views: In 14:12, Nebuchadnezzar is compared to the planet Venus whose light is still visible in the morning, yet vanishes with the rise of the sun. Like the light of Venus, Nebuchadnezzar’s reign shone brilliantly for a short time, yet, as the prophets foretold, it was eventually overshadowed by the nation of Israel whose light endured and outlived this arrogant king who tormented and exiled her.

He is one of the great villains of Jewish history. The destroyer of Jerusalem, the one who exiled Israel, the one who tormented its sages.
 
Lucifer is NOT another name for Satan the Devil...taken from' Questions From Readers'-Watchtower 9/15/2002; page 30...

Is Lucifer a name that the Bible uses for Satan?

The name Lucifer occurs once in the Scriptures and only in some versions of the Bible. For example, the King James Version renders Isaiah 14:12: “How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning!”

The Hebrew word translated “Lucifer” means “shining one.” The Septuagint uses the Greek word that means “bringer of dawn.” Hence, some translations render the original Hebrew “morning star” or “Daystar.” But Jerome’s Latin Vulgate uses “Lucifer” (light bearer), and this accounts for the appearance of that term in various versions of the Bible.

Who is this Lucifer? The expression “shining one,” or “Lucifer,” is found in what Isaiah prophetically commanded the Israelites to pronounce as a “proverbial saying against the king of Babylon.” Thus, it is part of a saying primarily directed at the Babylonian dynasty. That the description “shining one” is given to a man and not to a spirit creature is further seen by the statement: “Down to Sheol you will be brought.” Sheol is the common grave of mankind—not a place occupied by Satan the Devil. Moreover, those seeing Lucifer brought into this condition ask: “Is this the man that was agitating the earth?” Clearly, “Lucifer” refers to a human, not to a spirit creature.—Isaiah 14:4, 15, 16.

Why is such an eminent description given to the Babylonian dynasty? We must realize that the king of Babylon was to be called the shining one only after his fall and in a taunting way. (Isaiah 14:3) Selfish pride prompted Babylon’s kings to elevate themselves above those around them. So great was the arrogance of the dynasty that it is portrayed as bragging: “To the heavens I shall go up. Above the stars of God I shall lift up my throne, and I shall sit down upon the mountain of meeting, in the remotest parts of the north. . . . I shall make myself resemble the Most High.”—Isaiah 14:13, 14.

“The stars of God” are the kings of the royal line of David. (Numbers 24:17) From David onward, these “stars” ruled from Mount Zion. After Solomon built the temple in Jerusalem, the name Zion came to apply to the whole city. Under the Law covenant, all male Israelites were obliged to travel to Zion three times a year. Thus, it became “the mountain of meeting.” By determining to subjugate the Judean kings and then remove them from that mountain, Nebuchadnezzar is declaring his intention to put himself above those “stars.” Instead of giving Jehovah credit for the victory over them, he arrogantly puts himself in Jehovah’s place. So it is after being cut down to the earth that the Babylonian dynasty is mockingly referred to as the “shining one.”

The pride of the Babylonian rulers indeed reflected the attitude of “the god of this system of things”—Satan the Devil. (2 Corinthians 4:4) He too lusts for power and longs to place himself above Jehovah God. But Lucifer is not a name Scripturally given to Satan.
 
Elvira said:
Lucifer is NOT another name for Satan the Devil...taken from' Questions From Readers'-Watchtower 9/15/2002; page 30...

Is Lucifer a name that the Bible uses for Satan?

The name Lucifer occurs once in the Scriptures and only in some versions of the Bible. For example, the King James Version renders Isaiah 14:12: “How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning!”

The Hebrew word translated “Lucifer” means “shining one.” The Septuagint uses the Greek word that means “bringer of dawn.” Hence, some translations render the original Hebrew “morning star” or “Daystar.” But Jerome’s Latin Vulgate uses “Lucifer” (light bearer), and this accounts for the appearance of that term in various versions of the Bible.

Who is this Lucifer? The expression “shining one,” or “Lucifer,” is found in what Isaiah prophetically commanded the Israelites to pronounce as a “proverbial saying against the king of Babylon.” Thus, it is part of a saying primarily directed at the Babylonian dynasty. That the description “shining one” is given to a man and not to a spirit creature is further seen by the statement: “Down to Sheol you will be brought.” Sheol is the common grave of mankind—not a place occupied by Satan the Devil. Moreover, those seeing Lucifer brought into this condition ask: “Is this the man that was agitating the earth?” Clearly, “Lucifer” refers to a human, not to a spirit creature.—Isaiah 14:4, 15, 16.

Why is such an eminent description given to the Babylonian dynasty? We must realize that the king of Babylon was to be called the shining one only after his fall and in a taunting way. (Isaiah 14:3) Selfish pride prompted Babylon’s kings to elevate themselves above those around them. So great was the arrogance of the dynasty that it is portrayed as bragging: “To the heavens I shall go up. Above the stars of God I shall lift up my throne, and I shall sit down upon the mountain of meeting, in the remotest parts of the north. . . . I shall make myself resemble the Most High.”—Isaiah 14:13, 14.

“The stars of God” are the kings of the royal line of David. (Numbers 24:17) From David onward, these “stars” ruled from Mount Zion. After Solomon built the temple in Jerusalem, the name Zion came to apply to the whole city. Under the Law covenant, all male Israelites were obliged to travel to Zion three times a year. Thus, it became “the mountain of meeting.” By determining to subjugate the Judean kings and then remove them from that mountain, Nebuchadnezzar is declaring his intention to put himself above those “stars.” Instead of giving Jehovah credit for the victory over them, he arrogantly puts himself in Jehovah’s place. So it is after being cut down to the earth that the Babylonian dynasty is mockingly referred to as the “shining one.”

The pride of the Babylonian rulers indeed reflected the attitude of “the god of this system of things”—Satan the Devil. (2 Corinthians 4:4) He too lusts for power and longs to place himself above Jehovah God. But Lucifer is not a name Scripturally given to Satan.
Click to expand...

Please take no offense. I share this with you in love.
Cult Help and Information - Why Jehovah's Witnesses Leave the Watchtower
 
sailA said:
Please take no offense. I share this with you in love.
Cult Help and Information - Why Jehovah's Witnesses Leave the Watchtower
Click to expand...
Don't even listen to him, his ideas are put in his head the same way he saying that Jehovah witness but idea in your head, I see strange ideas in all religion and I see great ideas in all religion. King james when he put together the writing of the bible had a list of perimeters, that he insisted on. One is that it was to be from the Greek translation not the Latin translation. The Greeks have many words for the devil but for some reason the interpreters went against the King James perimeters on this one word, and used a Latin term. Rising star morning morning star, Venus or light-bringing. Either in King James interpretation or what it means exactly in the Vulgate. Now we can add the fact the Jesus was called these names also and that in early Christian writing Jesus was called Lucifer. I can also add that the King of Babylon was also given that term and I'll add that I've read that all kings of Babylon were given that name , that and the comment about early writing of the Christian church are totally unverified but have read it multiple times. I see no real source that can clear these things up. But we can also say that biblical experts are at the same level of disagreement. as much as we are in all aspects of all religions and all aspects of Christianity.
 
jbander said:
Don't even listen to him, his ideas are put in his head the same way he saying that Jehovah witness but idea in your head, I see strange ideas in all religion and I see great ideas in all religion. King james when he put together the writing of the bible had a list of perimeters, that he insisted on. One is that it was to be from the Greek translation not the Latin translation. The Greeks have many words for the devil but for some reason the interpreters went against the King James perimeters on this one word, and used a Latin term. Rising star morning morning star, Venus or light-bringing. Either in King James interpretation or what it means exactly in the Vulgate. Now we can add the fact the Jesus was called these names also and that in early Christian writing Jesus was called Lucifer. I can also add that the King of Babylon was also given that term and I'll add that I've read that all kings of Babylon were given that name , that and the comment about early writing of the Christian church are totally unverified but have read it multiple times. I see no real source that can clear these things up. But we can also say that biblical experts are at the same level of disagreement. as much as we are in all aspects of all religions and all aspects of Christianity.
Click to expand...

You sound confused. Do you honestly believe the Watchtower is a serious
scholarly biblical publication?
 
sailA said:
You sound confused. Do you honestly believe the Watchtower is a serious
scholarly biblical publication?
Click to expand...
I made that quite clear . That he takes information in the same way you do. with the same garbage ideas and the same good ideas, all mixed up into a holy stew. You want to think that you have the answers the same way that Jehovah witnesses think they have the answer. I've been interested in Lucifer Idea for decade. I find it compelling . This Term has been taken out of bibles through the years. Some have kept it. Neither one I'd guess for the reason of Lucifer being the devil. I'm guessing many people think that , its not that Lucifer is the Devil but in fact all of Isaiah 14 1-32 is about The king of Babylon- (28-32 is a prophecy against the Philistines. Don't just read Isaiah 14-12 read all of Isaiah 14.
 
jbander said:
I made that quite clear . That he takes information in the same way you do. with the same garbage ideas and the same good ideas, all mixed up into a holy stew. You want to think that you have the answers the same way that Jehovah witnesses think they have the answer. I've been interested in Lucifer Idea for decade. I find it compelling . This Term has been taken out of bibles through the years. Some have kept it. Neither one I'd guess for the reason of Lucifer being the devil. I'm guessing many people think that , its not that Lucifer is the Devil but in fact all of Isaiah 14 1-32 is about The king of Babylon- (28-32 is a prophecy against the Philistines. Don't just read Isaiah 14-12 read all of Isaiah 14.
Click to expand...


You would be correct...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom