Quote:
Originally Posted by Winman
Fredoheaven
I actually agree with you, there is no way to know for certain if Lucifer in Isaiah 14 is speaking of Satan. But the name of Lucifer has been associated with Satan by the church for centuries.
And besides, it is those that believe in the gap that claim Satan was cast to the earth between Gen 1:1 and 1:2. You don't find that in Ezekiel 28:
Eze 28:14 Thou art the anointed cherub that covereth; and I have set thee so: thou wast upon the holy mountain of God; thou hast walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire. 15 Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee. 16 By the multitude of thy merchandise they have filled the midst of thee with violence, and thou hast sinned: therefore I will cast thee as profane out of the mountain of God: and I will destroy thee, O covering cherub, from the midst of the stones of fire. 17 Thine heart was lifted up because of thy beauty, thou hast corrupted thy wisdom by reason of thy brightness: I will cast thee to the ground, I will lay thee before kings, that they may behold thee.
First of all, we do not know that this "annointed cherub" is Satan. Second, if you read carefully, if this is indeed Satan, he had not been cast down yet. All references to him being cast down are future.
That contradicts the gap theory that claims Satan was cast down between Gen 1:1 and 1:2.
It is the gappers that actually use Isaiah 14 to support their theory.
Isa 14:12 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! 13 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: 14 I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High. 15 Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit.
It is gappers that claim verse 12 supports their view that Satan was cast down between Gen 1:1 and 1:2, citing the word "fallen". But if you read down to verse 15 you will see that it is in the future that he will be brought down.
I personally do not believe Satan has been cast down yet. I believe he will be cast down in Rev 12 which is future.
Rev 12:9 And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.
There is no mistaking here, Satan is named. This is future. And we have scripture such as Job showing Satan in heaven long after the creation account.
Again, scripture contradicts the gap theory.
I have seen an inconsistency with those who believe in the gap. When it suits their purpose, they believe Lucifer is Satan. When it is shown to contradict the theory, then they argue otherwise.
I actually agree, Isa 14 may be only speaking of the King of Babylon.
|
Learning From the Apostle Paul
Acts 17:1 Now when they had passed through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica, where was a synagogue of the Jews:
Acts 17:2 And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days
reasoned with them out of the scriptures,
Acts 17:3
Opening and alleging, that Christ must needs have suffered, and risen again from the dead; and that this Jesus, whom I preach unto you, is Christ.
Acts 17:4
And some of them believed, and consorted with Paul and Silas; and of the devout Greeks a great multitude, and of the chief women not a few.
Ever notice how Paul preached and persuaded the people of Thessalonica where there was a synagogue of the Jews. V 2, Paul as his manner, reasoned with them
OUT OF THE SCRIPTURES. No doubt here that he(Paul) read them and quoted them as people listened. V. 3 Apostle Paul was about to expained and proved by "opening and alleging" Christ to suffer and rise again from the dead. The results of his
reasoning, opening and alleging is found in verse 4, that is some of the Jews
believed and consorted Paul and Silas, great multitude of devout Greeks and many chief women did in like manner.
Two(2) Points to Ponder so that People Might Believed
1. It must be
Scripturally based. It must be a Bible based. Well, the Bible is the Word of God and preserved to us in the form of KJV and it is said to be our final authority of faith and practice. Outside God's Holy Word is no longer an authority. Experience, feelings, or church creed, is not to be compared with the Word/s of God.
2. It must be Explained and must be proven. This is why we need to interpret them. Expound to understand.
Once again, I joined this forum in order to understand more about God's Word and I am not here for sure to
debate you as you do. I am of course, giving my own explanation and its either you reject it, nothings change. I am very willing to be of silence as warrant but what you want is to agree with your shallow explanation.You should have done more to convince me. You also said you are already tired of this but how true is that. In one of another thread on this forum, you seems to point us, well you should have give your best to prove your point. By the way, I just close my eyes to those so called
people know it all but appears no real conviction on God's Holy Word.
Winman, you said:
I actually agree with you, there is no way to know for certain if Lucifer in Isaiah 14 is speaking of Satan. But the name of Lucifer has been associated with Satan by the church for centuries.
Ok, you said you agree with me but then you insisted that the name of Lucifer has been associated by the church for centuries. My point is that you have shifted your authority from God's Holy Word to the church. Strange teaching, somehow you have borrowed that to the Roman Catholicism where the church and not God's Word is their final authority. I'm sorry to say but that's what you believed.
FYI, I don't believe in changing the text of our KJV is necessary. It is the interpretaion, that we may differ. You charged me with that by interpreting "was" as "became" was wrong. If that's wrong, then it's wrong but I do not alter the text of the KJV as as said in my other post. Here is a tip: When I defined the word "Eggplant" what did I mean? Do you think "eggplant" is literallly a plant with an egg?
Winman you said:
I actually agree, Isa 14 may be only speaking of the King of Babylon
You actually agree that Isah 14 may be only speaking of the King of Babylon?
Isah 14 was not only for the King of Babylon.
Isah 14:1-2 = the topic is about Isarel to be preserved
Isah 14:3-23 = the proverbs against the king of Babylon
Isah 14:24-28 = Assyria will be destroyed
Isah 14:29-32 = the warnings to Palestina
Like
i am more than willing to share it to you if you like...
