Results 1 - 20 of 60
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: drbloor Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Does Satan Really Exist? | Bible general Archive 3 | drbloor | 166178 | ||
This is really what I'm talking about - you have read the name Satan in Job and assumed, without assessing external evidence (at least in this answer), that this refers to a fallen angel/evil supernatural being. Of course Job says none of these things. The word Satan in and of itself does not mean "fallen angel" or "evil supernatural badguy", it means quite simply "adversary". I am certain that there was an adversary in Job, and I am certain that he was a person, but I find it impossible to conclude that he was an evil angel. What you need to be able to connect the word Satan with a fallen angel, is a passage of scripture that says "Satan is a fallen angel". This passage is not in The Bible. We are given the stories of many righteous men - Noah, Abraham, David, Jesus, Paul etc. and even the stories of many wicked men in the Bible - Cain, Pharaoh, Saul, Nebuchadnezzar etc. But we are not given such a story about a fallen angel Satan (unless we pervert chapters such as Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28, which are clearly prophesies regarding earthly kings which came to pass). Also, I do not understand the idea that the fallen angel Satan cannot do anything except with Divine permission. This conveys the idea to me that Satan is not a fallen angel, but an obedient one, carrying out tasks according to Divine permission. It also begs the question - why did God give Divine permission for Satan to attempt to overthrow him? Finally, it's interesting to point out that the Apostle James (quite possibly the brother of Jesus) does not believe in Satan: James 1:14,15 "But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed. Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death." That is the sum of temptation - we are drawn away by our own lusts and enticed into sin. We have no-one else to blame but ourselves. |
||||||
2 | Does Satan Really Exist? | Bible general Archive 3 | drbloor | 166195 | ||
Mark, Again, thanks for the quick answer! Without going into it again, please see my longer answer regarding Ezekiel 28, posted today. I have addressed the points you mentioned here, and it is evident that the remarkable leap you have to make to put Satan in Ezekiel 28 does not hold up under scrutiny. As for Revelation 20, I would argue that the Book of Revelation is a book of symbolic prophecy - not literal prophecy. I have, amongst others, a book written by Sir Isaac Newton "The Prophecies of Daniel and The Apocalypse" that puts this case very well. Newton, who actually wrote more about Scripture than about science, identifies the dragon of Revelation 12 with pagan Rome, and not Satan at all. If we believe that Revelation should be taken literally then we are all in enormous trouble, because actual stars are going to fall out of the sky onto the Earth (Rev 8:10, Rev 9:1 and Rev 12:4). If one is Sol, then it could arrive anytime soon, but the next closest star, Proxima Centauri could be a while, as it would take over 4 years to get here even if it began travelling at the speed of light immediately. However if Sol does decide to plunge into our planet anytime soon we will not, strictly speaking, be all that bothered about when the next one gets here. It does not make sense to begin picking and choosing what you decide is literal or figurative in Revelation, especially when a huge tracts of it can be categorically proved to be figurative. Furthermore, you have now created a direct contradiction now between Ezekiel 28 and Revelation 20. How can Satan "die", become "ashes on the earth" and not "be any more" in Ezekiel whilst at the same time be eternally tormented alive in a lake of fire in Revelation? The only way I can see to resolve THAT problem is that Ezekiel must be the false prophet joining Satan in the lake of fire...!! And finally, under no circumstance at all could Revelation 20 teach the creation and fall of Satan, as Revelation 1:1 tells us that the things of The Revelation are to happen after the Revelation, not before. So that would date any creation and fall you mention sometime after AD 70. Okay, it's late and I have posted far too much today! Good luck with all that and take care, Dr. B. |
||||||
3 | Does Satan Really Exist? | Bible general Archive 3 | drbloor | 166197 | ||
Dear Brad, Just a quick note as I'm signing off for the day - my purpose was to more fully understand why people believe the things they do about Satan. It never occurred to me that Ezekiel 28 could be warped so much that people could see Satan in it. I think that is also an answer as to why I have given such a long answer about Ezekiel 28 - it was a new subject for me, and one I felt I could really get my teeth into. I also didn't realise that some people do not understand the nature of the Book of Revelation. These things seemed so obvious to me that it hadn't occurred to me to question these chapters in the way I have in the past few days. And, as I think I mentioned in a post, I feel personally strengthened and edified by the study I have done. If this is all that I have achieved, it is enough, but it is also important to witness to the truth we have found. If you wish me to stop posting I will do so with no hard feelings. Thanks for all your comments. Yours in Peace, Dr. B. "He who hath ears to hear, let him hear." |
||||||
4 | Does Satan Exist Part III | Bible general Archive 3 | drbloor | 166198 | ||
Luke 20:36 "Neither can they die any more: for they are equal unto the angels." Romans 6:23 "For the wages of sin is death." I hope you see the point. If the wages of sin is death, and angels cannot die, then neither can they sin, or they would die, which they cannot do. At least, not according to Jesus. Shalom, Dr. B. |
||||||
5 | Does Satan Really Exist? | Bible general Archive 3 | drbloor | 166287 | ||
Dear CDBJ, Thanks for your post. Yesterday I was beginning to come to a decision which your post has confirmed for me, to wit, it is sometimes possible to generate more heat than light. My original intention in posting on this forum was to discover some views contrasting my own on the belief of a physical Satan. I did not know for example, that Ezekiel 28 could be interpreted any other way than to "take the plain meaning of the text as the intended meaning." After all, once we ignore the plain meaning of the words "King of Tyrus", where does it end? I now believe I was probably wrong to post my study on Ezekiel 28, however right I believe it to be. It seems to have generated a strange discussion leading off on tangents such as "I believe Satan is insane." To which I would reply, "You believe the devil fell because he was possessed of a demon!?" To which someone would reply, to which I would reply, and again we would have more heat than light. Which brings me back to your post regarding the Truth of Christ. I believe that if we cannot find a level of consensus on an issue like Satan, which to my mind is quite clearly and provably blasphemous (see previous note on the omnipotence of God) then we are probably not ready to move forward together to discuss the Truth of Christ or any other doctrinal issue. Suffice it to say that I follow the doctrine of John, as taught in 2 John and elsewhere. This is the doctrine that was forsaken and changed (historical fact, not opinion) nearly 300 years after Christ at Nicea and which overturned the Apostles Creed. John saw that this time would come and spoke of it, "If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed". But then you knew I was going to say that, didn't you? :) Anyway, I may continue to post on this forum, but I will restrict myself in future to non-doctrinal posts and, if I may, to doctrinal questions with which I will not attempt to engage in discussion. This is, I believe, the intention of the moderators and also the manner in which I should have restricted myself already. Thanks again for your post, and to all others who have posted. I really have appreciated it. Dr. B. |
||||||
6 | Does Satan Exist Part III | Bible general Archive 3 | drbloor | 166289 | ||
If the fallen angels were once angels of God in heaven, then Matt 22:30 still applies. If the angels of God in heaven can became fallen angels and then die, then that means the angels of God in heaven CAN die - by sinning and falling. This is in direct contradiction to Christs teaching. This verse on its own smashes the myth of Satan. As for Jude, the word "angels" as you probably know is also used repeatedly of men as messengers. There is no reason to believe the messengers of Jude 1:6 are fallen angels, especially in the context of Jude as an exhortation against the false doctrine of ungodly men. Indeed, if these are the fallen angels and they have been reserved in chains until the judgement of the great day, then you contradict your own translation of Revelation 12, where they have got out of the chains and into heaven to have a war! Anyway... as you may or may not have seen I have mentioned in a post to CDBJ that I am going to quit doctrinal discussion, because I agree that it is not what the creators and moderators of this site intended. This is my last post of debate. Thanks for all your input throughout - it has been quite revealing! :) Dr. B. |
||||||
7 | Does Satan Really Exist? | Bible general Archive 3 | drbloor | 166302 | ||
Hi, and thanks for the post! As you may see from other posts, (please do see my final posts to mark and CDBJ if you can, they say far more than I will here to avoid repetition). I am in the process of wrapping things up as far as doctrinal disputation goes. It does not appear that this is the place or time for it. As for the points in your post, I will answer them, and then shut-up and keep my postings to non-doctrinal, non-argumentative issues. I hope you understand the sentiment. 1. I may not have explained myself fully regarding "Is Satan a person". What I meant is that I fully believe that people have been Satan, but that Satan is not one individual supernatural fallen angel. The comparison of 1 Chron 21:1 and 2 Samuel 24:1 show that God can act as a Satan, Numbers 22:22 shows that an obedient non-fallen angel can act as Satan and Matthew 16:23 shows that Peter could act as a Satan. These are all different people, all acting as adversaries. a.) God acted as an adversary to Israel. b.) The angel acted as an adversary to Balaam and his ass. c.) Peter acted as an adversary to Christ. None of these Satans were referred to as fallen angels. 2. The answer to the point about Ezekiel is at the end of this post. It is quite long and cut and pasted from the full answer I gave regarding Ezekiel 28 which was restricted from view by the moderators (I fully agree with their decision by the way.). 3. I agree that God gives Divine permission for what befell Job. It is interesting to note who is held responsible for what was done to Job: Job 1:16 the fire of God (not the fire of Satan) Job 1:21 LORD gave and the LORD has taken away Job 2:10 accept good from the LORD and not trouble Job 19:21 the hand of God has struck me Job 27:2 Almighty, who has made me taste bitterness Job 42:11 all the trouble the LORD had brought on him It is clear that it is God that struck Job, and not Satan. As Isaiah says: Isaiah 47:7 "I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things." Okay, that sums it up for me. In future I will only be posting on non-doctrinal issues - I just felt it rude to leave this post unanswered. If you feel that I am trying to "get the last word in" as it were, by all means post in response and I will read it. I will not answer though. I hope you agree with this. Best regards, Dr. B. EZEKIEL 28 ANSWER: "He was in Eden. (Ezekiel 28:13). This appears to be a prosaic device, or for want of a better definition, a metaphor. There is clear evidence that Ezekiel uses this device elsewhere – in fact in chapter 31 Ezekiel describes Assyria as a tree in the Garden of Eden. Unless Assyria WAS in fact a literal tree in the Garden of Eden, and was somehow later transmogrified into a nation or person, this argument does not stand. It is more probable that Ezekiel is here comparing the fall of Tyre to the fall of Adam in Eden. This is borne out in verse 15: Ezekiel 28:15 "Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee." This verse exactly fits the fall of Adam, which is a historical event already recorded in The Bible, unlike the fall of Satan. If a verse in the Bible refers us to another part of Scripture, surely we must analyse this before we introduce an extra-Biblical conception. In other words, we must extrapolate Scriptural teachings from Scripture, not interpolate extra-Biblical teachings into Scripture. And you cannot back-up your argument that Ezekiel 28 refers to the fall of Satan by presenting Ezekiel 28 as corroborating evidence. If your best source of evidence for the fall of Satan is Ezekiel 28, and the only way you know it is the fall of Satan is "because it sounds like the fall of Satan" then yours is a circular argument. If we are told that this person was in the Garden of Eden and was perfect until iniquity was found in him, then the only logical step is to see who The Bible (not man) says was in Eden and was perfect until iniquity was found in him. There is only one candidate – Adam. This must therefore be a comparison between the fall of Tyre and the fall of Adam. In fact, the comparison between Adam and the king of Tyre runs throughout Ezekiel 28: Ezekiel 28:2 "thou art a man, and not God, though thou set thine heart as the heart of God". Genesis 3:5 "For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods" According to The Bible, this was the sin of Adam – that he set his heart as the heart of God. That he believed that he could become "as God". Note that this is NOT the sin of the serpent, at least not according to The Bible account." |
||||||
8 | Saved by belief or belief and baptism? | NT general Archive 1 | drbloor | 166621 | ||
Christ taught that "Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." This would indicate a physical (water) baptism and the spiritual baptism that you mention. If he had only meant spiritual baptism then he would have only mentioned spiritual baptism. The baptism of Moses was through the physical water of the Red Sea. The baptism of John was with the physical water of Jordan. The baptism of Christ is with physical water (as witnessed by Christ, his disciples and the apostles) and with spirit. Show me your faith without your baptism, and I will show you my faith by my baptism. |
||||||
9 | Elijah went where? | Genesis | drbloor | 171518 | ||
Dear Searcher, My apologies that the question on Heaven and Elijah was not posted under a verse, but it was a direct response in a discussion thread, not a new question. Thank you for directing me to those two answers, but I must admit that if those are the best answers that can be given then the answerers are grasping at straws. 1. "No man hath ascended up to heaven". The answer given to this is basically to dismiss the words of Christ because you disagree with them. That's unacceptable. Your claim is that "Jesus insisted that no one has ascended to heaven in such a way as to return and talk about heavenly things". I have no doubt that Jesus is stating his authority to talk about heavenly things, but he does so by explicitly stating that no-one else has ever ascended to heaven. Your Bible may well add the words "and returned to talk about it", but mine doesn't. Also, your argument about context is simply wrong. You claim that Jesus is refuting teaching that people went to heaven and returned with revelations. Yet that issue is not addressed once in the entire chapter, so your context doesn't exist! (In fact, I'm uncertain whether that issue is raised in the entire length and breadth of scripture.) If Jesus said that "no man hath ascended up to heaven" then you either agree with him or you call him a liar. 2. "A letter came to Jehoram from Elijah the prophet"... Again, the answer to this is to dismiss what is obvious in favour of the fantastical. The answer given to this is to claim that the letter was written before Elijahs disappearance. However, this would necessitate not only the foreknowledge of the specific particulars of the letter – events that had not occurred at the time of Elijahs disappearance, such as Jehoram murdering his brothers – but it would also require for God to have condemned Jehoram before he committed any sin and it would require Elijah to have allowed these murders to take place without attempting to stop them. That is an implausible reach. In addition, we are not told that the letter was written by Elijah, but that the letter "came ... from Elijah". If Elijah was in Heaven, then the letter came from Heaven! Your attempt to force 2 Chr 21 to fit your version of events is like hammering a square peg into a round hole. You are right to say that the Bible does not contradict itself, but respectfully that does not mean that the Bible does not contradict you. Yrs, Dr. B. |
||||||
10 | Was Cain the son of Adam? | Gen 4:1 | drbloor | 166702 | ||
Thanks - I believe Cain WAS the son of Adam - I was simply interested to see how widespread the alternate belief is. | ||||||
11 | Was Cain the son of Adam? | Gen 4:1 | drbloor | 166764 | ||
Hank, without getting too deep into the point, I would not agree with the sentiment of the first half of your last sentence. That is why I asked the question. I just wanted to know what the prevalent interpretation of the birth of Cain was, and I believe my question has been answered. Thanks! |
||||||
12 | what man was born but never died | Gen 5:24 | drbloor | 168951 | ||
Congrats Kalos, I don't believe that Melchisedec had neither father nor mother, nor do I believe that he lived for ever. Nor do I believe that Enoch and Elijah never died. These events are simply [not recorded]. Goodnight from here, Dr. B. |
||||||
13 | what man was born but never died | 2 Kin 2:11 | drbloor | 168823 | ||
We are not told that Enoch did not die - we are told that God "took him". In Hebrews Paul tells us that Enoch was not found because he had been "translated." Hbr 11:5 "By faith Enoch was translated that he should not see death; and was not found, because God had translated him" The original Greek word for "translate" is metatithemi which means to transfer, transport, exchange, or change sides. So put simply, it appears that Enoch was transported by God so that he wasn't killed by someone or some event. He wasn't found because no-one knew where he'd been transported to. He can't have gone to heaven because "No man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man" (John 3:13). And he wasn't the only person in the Bible to be "translated". Jacob was translated in Acts 7:16, but the word "metatithemi" is translated as "carried over" (i.e. transported). |
||||||
14 | what man was born but never died | 2 Kin 2:11 | drbloor | 168889 | ||
Hi Brad, I doubt that we will stand before the judgement seat and be divided based on what we believe happened to Enoch, but, for what it's worth, I do believe he was simply transported and died just like everyone else. If we are told that "No man hath ascended up to heaven" then I have to accept that. If Enoch didn't go to heaven then he must have gone somewhere else, and the language of Hebrews seems to back that up. When we are told that Enoch "walked with God", we know that's not a reference to his being in heaven because Noah also "walked with God" without being translated. Jacob was 'translated' because he was "metatithemi'd". Acts 7:16 says that Jacob was "carried over into Shechem", "metatithemi'd into Shechem" or "translated into Shechem". By comparing Acts to Hebrews I am trying to get a better understanding of what the word we read as "translated" actually means. And it seems to me that it just means transported in this case. If the Genesis account doesn't refer to Jacob being translated but Acts does, then either one is wrong or "translated" just means "transported". Finally, Enoch is mentioned amongst the righteous in Hebrews 11:5 and just a few short verses later Paul says in verse 13: Heb 11:13 "These all died in faith, not having received the promises,". He is at this point referring to Abel, Enoch, Noah, Abraham and Sara. Therefore I have to accept that Enoch died just like the others because Paul says he did. Personally I believe that the curse of death passed upon all men and that all of us (including Enoch, Elijah and Christ) had/have to die at some point. While we are on the subject of men whose deaths were not recorded, you did miss one: Which man is recorded as having never been born and never dying? Yrs Faithfully, Dr. B. |
||||||
15 | what man was born but never died | 2 Kin 2:11 | drbloor | 168923 | ||
Hi Brad and thanks for the answer, 1. I think this may be a point to agree to disagree on. I see that Jacob, being dead, was transported somewhere, not by his power, but by the power of someone else. That is how I see the translation of Enoch, Elijah and Jacob as being the same - a transportation not of their own power. As I've said, if you were reading it in the original Greek you'd be lead to believe that whatever happened to Enoch in Hebrews happened to Jacob in Acts. It's the translation from Greek to English that changes it for us. Translation may seem like mere semantics but it is important. For example, your translation of Hebrews 11 which uses the phrase "taken up". That phrase simply doesn't exist in the original Greek - it's the word we've discussed "metatithemi". And it doesn't mean "taken up" - that's an incorrect human translation based on a pre-conceived idea that Enoch went up to heaven. 2. The reason that we are not told explicitly that Enoch died in Genesis may actually be self apparent. The writer knew exactly how long every one else lived, so he records that age and notes that they died. But if no one could find Enoch after he was translated then it would be impossible for any human writer to know when he died. All that could be done was to record how long he lived until his translation. 3. Again, this may boil down to semantics. You believe that God translated Enoch so that he would never, ever experience death. I believe God translated Enoch so that he could temporarily avoid death – I would say that Enoch was threatened with death but because he walked with God, God took him away from that situation. Both of these stem from what we understand of the phrase "not see death." I suppose that could be argued either way. 4. I would however differ on the point in Hebrews 11. The phrase "these all" grammatically includes those who precede as well as those which follow - the relative pronoun embraces all those named in the list of the righteous. "These all" in verse 13 applies to those of the whole chapter, just as "these all" in verse 39 does. To say that it applies to some and not all is an arbitrary choice which ignores the grammatical and contextual setting. Anyway, it's late here and I really could do with getting home. I'll just leave you with a few things to ponder: 1. If Elijah was translated from Earth to Heaven how and why did he write a letter to the King of Judah nearly ten years later? (2 Chr 21:12) 2. How can Enoch or Elijah have been taken up to heaven if "no man hath ascended up to heaven but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven" (Jhn 3:13). 3. The person whose death is not recorded that you overlooked was Melchisedec, of whom it was written he was, "Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life." (Hebrews 7) Okay and as always, thanks, Dr. B. |
||||||
16 | drbloor, where is your Biblical support? | 2 Chr 21:12 | drbloor | 171634 | ||
Dear Searcher, I have already proved that Elijah did not go to Heaven, and that the letter was not just written, but came directly FROM Elijah, which would be impossible if he were in heaven. So your prophecy issue is moot. Dr. B. |
||||||
17 | drbloor, where is your Biblical support? | 2 Chr 21:12 | drbloor | 171645 | ||
Dear Searcher, Regarding the letter which you claim is prophecy, you have yet to prove that it is a prophecy. The context of the chapter and the proof I have given that Elijah did not go to Heaven render your discussion of prophecy pointless. Come back to me when you can prove that it is prophecy. Dr. B. |
||||||
18 | drbloor, where is your Biblical support? | 2 Chr 21:12 | drbloor | 171650 | ||
Dear Searcher, Quite the pedant. Let me rephrase. Please prove that the letter was written before Elijah departed, and that it was not written at the time. Yrs, Dr. B. |
||||||
19 | drbloor, where is your Biblical support? | 2 Chr 21:12 | drbloor | 171677 | ||
Dear Searcher, You say that you know the letter was not written at the time because "the BIBLE tells me so" in 2 Chr 21:12. Where in 2 Chr 21:12 does it say that Elijah wrote the letter before his chariot ride? You must have a different Bible to me. You keep saying that you have proved this already, but you have yet to provide a single verse that supports your argument. Yrs, Dr. B. |
||||||
20 | drbloor, where is your Biblical support? | 2 Chr 21:12 | drbloor | 171683 | ||
Dear Tim, In answer to your two posts on the timing of Elijahs exit: If you take the simple chronology that is set out in 2 Kings then Elijah left after Ahaziah died and about the time that Jehoram began to rule in Israel. If are not sure that the chapter has been placed chronologically then we can move on to 2 Kings 3, where we read this: 2 Ki 3:11 But Jehoshaphat said, Is there not here a prophet of the LORD, that we may enquire of the LORD by him? And one of the king of Israel's servants answered and said, Here is Elisha the son of Shaphat, which poured water on the hands of Elijah. This verse tells us that the principle prophet in the land was now Elisha, not Elijah, otherwise they would have called for Elijah. The King mentioned at the start of the verse is Jehoshaphat, the father of Jehoram of Judah who received the letter. Jehoram killed his brothers after Jehoshaphat had died and they were no longer under his protection, and as we have seen Elijah must have left before Jehoshaphat died because Elisha had already taken over his role. As the letter arrives after 6 years of Jehorams reign as King, Elijah must have been absent for at least 6 years, and quite possibly several more. As for your point that "it is quite possible that Elijah could have still been alive." - that's still perfectly true. We are not told that Elijah died, but merely that he was taken through the sky on a chariot. I hope this helps. Yrs, Dr. B. |
||||||
Result pages: [ 1 2 3 ] Next > Last [3] >> |