Results 61 - 80 of 88
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: drbloor Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
61 | What say you? | Mal 3:10 | drbloor | 166613 | ||
I appreciate that it might sound like a confusion to say that we live in a state of sinlessness, whilst yet sinning, and maybe I have not explained it clearly enough, for which I apologise. Your quote in 1 John 1 explains the dichotomy: "the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin". Jesus died once for ALL our sins, and we are told that if we repent and are baptised then we partake of this forgiveness. We are not told that we will be forgiven on Sunday morning, then again on Tuesday night, and then again next Wednesday - we are told that we are Forgiven. This is not an excuse to continue to sin, or a reason not to continually pray for that forgiveness. The first sacrifice was in Genesis 3, when the Lord God made coats of skins to clothe Adam and Eve - to provide a covering to their nakedness. In like manner, God has provided us a more perfect sacrifice, that we might be clothed with Christ and that only with his covering might we be presented before God as spotless, that "though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow" says Isaiah. This all comes back to the idea of Law, and why it was a curse. It was a curse because with Law came sin, and with sin came death. If God had not given the Law that Adam and Eve should not eat of the fruit of the Tree of The Knowledge of Good and Evil, they would not have sinned by eating it, and would not have been cursed with death. This example holds true with the Law of Moses, and is precisely WHY we needed Christ to remove that curse. If then we now live under Grace and not Law, then we no longer live under the sin which came by Law. This is obviously a complex idea, and one which Paul especially had to reinforce with the Romans, who believed that because they were under Grace, they could "continue in sin," which is not the idea at all! Romans 6 is a great place to examine this teaching in practice, and it contains an abundance of verses to prove the point: Verse 2. "God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?" If we are dead to sin, it is because we are dead to the law which cursed us with sin. Under the law of Grace we are no longer cursed. Verse 7. (Talking of the metaphorical death of baptism) "For he that is dead is freed from sin." Verse 14. "For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace. " I hope that this helps to present this idea - that in Gods eyes we are held as if we were sinless, even though we are not. Yet for the sake of emphasis: "What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? God forbid." |
||||||
62 | Gross or Net Income/ | Mal 3:10 | drbloor | 166552 | ||
Yet it is clear that Paul believed that the law was a curse: Galatians 3:13 "Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree:" I believe what he is saying is that all men were cursed under the law, because none could obey the law perfectly. Therefore men constantly lived in a state of sinfulness, requiring repeated sacrifices. Now that Christ has been made the perfect sacrifice, although we sin, we live in a state of sinlessness - not through our own righteousness, but by the covering of the perfect sacrifice of Christ. The law was perfect, but it had become a curse to imperfect mankind. Christ was perfect, yet the law cursed him, and this is the point at which the law was fulfilled that we might no longer live in the law, but live in faith. |
||||||
63 | Who is the ruller of darkness | Is 45:7 | drbloor | 166550 | ||
God. | ||||||
64 | How was the sin nature really created? | Matt 12:31 | drbloor | 166481 | ||
The Bible records that sin was first formed in Eden, in man, by man. God created the possibility for this to happen by creating a tree: Genesis 2:9 And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil. |
||||||
65 | 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." |
||||||
66 | 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. |
||||||
67 | 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. |
||||||
68 | The Fall of Satan | Rev 12:4 | drbloor | 166226 | ||
Hi Ocelot, And thanks for your post. A lot of my posts appear to have been sucked into the void for good or ill ... Either way, I'll certainly only make a non-doctrinal, non-argumentative point here. Revelation is a book of future prophecy, not a book of history. You can see this in the very first verse: Rev 1:1 "The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass." This indicates that the book of Revelation concerns future incidents which "must shortly come to pass." The book of Revelation was written somewhere between AD 67 and AD 96, which means that anything recorded in the Revelation must happen after this date. So whatever Revelation 12 is discussing, I don't believe that it could have occurred prior to the date of the Revelation, and so could not be the origin of the fall of Satan. That is something I am still searching for :). I think you may have made the same mistake I did, which is to assume that the fall of Satan was a physical fall from heaven, but I am now learning that the doctrine of this forum is actually that of metaphorical fall from a state of perfection/grace. Okay for now and thanks, Dr. B. |
||||||
69 | 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. |
||||||
70 | 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." |
||||||
71 | 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. |
||||||
72 | 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. |
||||||
73 | Does Satan Exist Part I | Not Specified | drbloor | 166168 | ||
PART I Dear BradK, (As the opposite of a P.S. note, I would like to mention that this answer has become a little longer than I had originally envisaged. I hope that you will approach it with an open mind and take it in the spirit with which it is intended – that Grace and Truth may abound. If I gain nothing else from this, it has been a useful study for myself, but as I say, I hope and pray it may help and encourage others to search out the things of Truth.) Thanks for your reply. I certainly believe in the Lord Jesus, but I have tremendous problems believing in a physical Satan, and your references are actually part of the problem with belief in a physical Satan, and not part of the solution. For example, Ezekiel 28. (Taken as a case study. As you can see a complete answer to all your points would take a very long time.) Ezekiel 28 is clearly a prophesy against Tyre, just as the previous chapters 26 and 27 are also prophesies against Tyre. If this is not true then you would have to accept that chapters 26 and 27 are also about Satan, which would indicate that: 1. Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon would fight against Satan and destroy him. (Ezekiel 26:7 onwards) 2. Satan will become a place for the spreading of nets in the midst of the sea. (Ezekiel 26:5) 3. Satan is in fact situated by the seaside. (Ezekiel 27:3) 4. Satan has ships made from the fir trees of Senir and the cedars of Lebanon. (Ezekiel 27:5) 5. The fact that Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon fought against Tyre, and that Alexander the Great scraped the dust from Tyre and made her like the top of a rock in direct fulfilment of this prophesy is all just a coincidence. There are obviously an abundance of examples such as these in chapters 26 and 27, and without covering all of them, I hope we can agree at least that these chapters concern literal Tyre. If chapters 26 and 27 concern literal Tyre, and the end of chapter 28 concerns literal Sidon (a city to the north of Tyre) it would seem out of place to include a pronouncement against the person of Satan in the middle of these prophecies against cities, especially when verses 2 and 12 of Ezekiel 28 explicitly state that the pronouncement is against Tyre. ------------------------------------- To answer specifically your points about Ezekiel 28: 1. 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. |
||||||
74 | Does Satan Exist Part I | Bible general Archive 3 | drbloor | 166212 | ||
PART I Dear BradK, (As the opposite of a P.S. note, I would like to mention that this answer has become a little longer than I had originally envisaged. I hope that you will approach it with an open mind and take it in the spirit with which it is intended – that Grace and Truth may abound. If I gain nothing else from this, it has been a useful study for myself, but as I say, I hope and pray it may help and encourage others to search out the things of Truth.) Thanks for your reply. I certainly believe in the Lord Jesus, but I have tremendous problems believing in a physical Satan, and your references are actually part of the problem with belief in a physical Satan, and not part of the solution. For example, Ezekiel 28. (Taken as a case study. As you can see a complete answer to all your points would take a very long time.) Ezekiel 28 is clearly a prophesy against Tyre, just as the previous chapters 26 and 27 are also prophesies against Tyre. If this is not true then you would have to accept that chapters 26 and 27 are also about Satan, which would indicate that: 1. Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon would fight against Satan and destroy him. (Ezekiel 26:7 onwards) 2. Satan will become a place for the spreading of nets in the midst of the sea. (Ezekiel 26:5) 3. Satan is in fact situated by the seaside. (Ezekiel 27:3) 4. Satan has ships made from the fir trees of Senir and the cedars of Lebanon. (Ezekiel 27:5) 5. The fact that Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon fought against Tyre, and that Alexander the Great scraped the dust from Tyre and made her like the top of a rock in direct fulfilment of this prophesy is all just a coincidence. There are obviously an abundance of examples such as these in chapters 26 and 27, and without covering all of them, I hope we can agree at least that these chapters concern literal Tyre. If chapters 26 and 27 concern literal Tyre, and the end of chapter 28 concerns literal Sidon (a city to the north of Tyre) it would seem out of place to include a pronouncement against the person of Satan in the middle of these prophecies against cities, especially when verses 2 and 12 of Ezekiel 28 explicitly state that the pronouncement is against Tyre. ------------------------------------- To answer specifically your points about Ezekiel 28: 1. 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. |
||||||
75 | Does Satan Exist Part I | Bible general Archive 3 | drbloor | 166179 | ||
PART I Dear BradK, (As the opposite of a P.S. note, I would like to mention that this answer has become a little longer than I had originally envisaged. I hope that you will approach it with an open mind and take it in the spirit with which it is intended – that Grace and Truth may abound. If I gain nothing else from this, it has been a useful study for myself, but as I say, I hope and pray it may help and encourage others to search out the things of Truth.) Thanks for your reply. I certainly believe in the Lord Jesus, but I have tremendous problems believing in a physical Satan, and your references are actually part of the problem with belief in a physical Satan, and not part of the solution. For example, Ezekiel 28. (Taken as a case study. As you can see a complete answer to all your points would take a very long time.) Ezekiel 28 is clearly a prophesy against Tyre, just as the previous chapters 26 and 27 are also prophesies against Tyre. If this is not true then you would have to accept that chapters 26 and 27 are also about Satan, which would indicate that: 1. Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon would fight against Satan and destroy him. (Ezekiel 26:7 onwards) 2. Satan will become a place for the spreading of nets in the midst of the sea. (Ezekiel 26:5) 3. Satan is in fact situated by the seaside. (Ezekiel 27:3) 4. Satan has ships made from the fir trees of Senir and the cedars of Lebanon. (Ezekiel 27:5) 5. The fact that Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon fought against Tyre, and that Alexander the Great scraped the dust from Tyre and made her like the top of a rock in direct fulfilment of this prophesy is all just a coincidence. There are obviously an abundance of examples such as these in chapters 26 and 27, and without covering all of them, I hope we can agree at least that these chapters concern literal Tyre. If chapters 26 and 27 concern literal Tyre, and the end of chapter 28 concerns literal Sidon (a city to the north of Tyre) it would seem out of place to include a pronouncement against the person of Satan in the middle of these prophecies against cities, especially when verses 2 and 12 of Ezekiel 28 explicitly state that the pronouncement is against Tyre. ------------------------------------- To answer specifically your points about Ezekiel 28: 1. 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. |
||||||
76 | Does Satan Exist Part II | Not Specified | drbloor | 166167 | ||
PART II 2. He was the anointed cherub of God "that covereth". Ezekiel 28:14. This is a clear reference to the carved golden cherubim that were situated at either end of the mercy seat above the Ark of the Covenant, whose wings "covereth" the mercy seat (Exodus 25:20) and which was "anointed" in Exodus 30:26. If the only other cherub in the whole of Holy Scripture that has been anointed and that covereth is on the Ark, and Ezekiel is alluding to the Ephod of the high priest (the only one who could approach the Ark), and discusses the "mountain of God" – the location of the Ark, then it is reasonable to take Ezekiel at his word and accept that he is clearly referring here to the cherub of the Ark of the Covenant. The reason that this is applicable to Tyre is that Hiram, king of Tyre, was great friends with King David and Solomon, and went so far as to help build the Temple of God where the Ark of the Covenant was located (1 Kings 5). In fact it was the timber that Tyre provided that made the roof (or covering!) of The Temple. I would therefore suggest that a more natural reading of this would be to again see this verse as a metaphor, depicting by "the covering" the nature of the previous relationship between Tyre and Israel – either of protection and friendship or of the provision of the covering of The Temple. Furthermore it is evident that Ezekiel is discussing things upon Mount Zion because he clearly refers to Mount Zion in Ezekiel 28:14,16 as the "mountain of God." "The mountain of God" in the days of Ezekiel is obviously Mount Zion. To construe the "mountain of God" as heaven or anywhere else is to ignore what is here explicitly stated. If we are in any doubt over what or where the mountain of God is, we can turn to an abundance of Scripture: Isaiah 2:2,3 "the mountain of the LORDs house shall be established in the top of the mountains ... And many people shall go and say, Come ye, and let us go up to the mountain of the LORD, to the house of the God of Jacob ... for out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the LORD from Jerusalem." Indeed Ezekiel himself talks of the mountain of God: Ezekiel 20:40 "For in mine holy mountain, in the mountain of the height of Israel, saith the Lord GOD, there shall all the house of Israel, all of them in the land, serve me: there will I accept them, and there will I require your offerings, and the firstfruits of your oblations, with all your holy things." Ezekiel himself locates the mountain of God in "Israel" where "the house of Israel, all of them in the land, serve me." It is inconceivable that this is anywhere other than Mount Zion. Further proof that Ezekiel 28 is discussing the Temple of Mount Zion, and articles inside that Temple follow: 3. He was adorned with precious stones. Ezekiel 28:13. Again, this is a clear allusion to Temple worship and to the Ephod that was worn by the high priest of Israel in the Temple on Mount Zion (Exodus 39). The twelve precious stones of the Ephod represent the twelve tribes of Israel and it is these stones or tribes that Tyre is said to have moved amongst in Ezekiel 28. The stones (or Israel) were a "covering" for Tyre because of the friendship between the nation of Israel and Tyre. Tyre covered Israel physically (see note on the Cherubim above) and Israel covered Tyre spiritually. ("I will bless them that bless thee, and curse them that curseth thee.") 4. He possessed great musical ability. Ezekiel 28:13. This verse does not say that anyone necessarily had musical ability, it speaks of the creation or "workmanship" of musical instruments – from your point of view, inside Satan. Unless Satan is somehow made out of musical instruments this argument does not hold. Tabrets and pipes were not used in the Temple, but they were used in the worship of God, (such as the anointing of Solomon and the bringing of the Ark to Jerusalem) so it is therefore perfectly plausible for these items to have been found in Tyre during the time of friendship between Tyre and Israel. |
||||||
77 | Does Satan Exist Part II | Bible general Archive 3 | drbloor | 166214 | ||
PART II 2. He was the anointed cherub of God "that covereth". Ezekiel 28:14. This is a clear reference to the carved golden cherubim that were situated at either end of the mercy seat above the Ark of the Covenant, whose wings "covereth" the mercy seat (Exodus 25:20) and which was "anointed" in Exodus 30:26. If the only other cherub in the whole of Holy Scripture that has been anointed and that covereth is on the Ark, and Ezekiel is alluding to the Ephod of the high priest (the only one who could approach the Ark), and discusses the "mountain of God" – the location of the Ark, then it is reasonable to take Ezekiel at his word and accept that he is clearly referring here to the cherub of the Ark of the Covenant. The reason that this is applicable to Tyre is that Hiram, king of Tyre, was great friends with King David and Solomon, and went so far as to help build the Temple of God where the Ark of the Covenant was located (1 Kings 5). In fact it was the timber that Tyre provided that made the roof (or covering!) of The Temple. I would therefore suggest that a more natural reading of this would be to again see this verse as a metaphor, depicting by "the covering" the nature of the previous relationship between Tyre and Israel – either of protection and friendship or of the provision of the covering of The Temple. Furthermore it is evident that Ezekiel is discussing things upon Mount Zion because he clearly refers to Mount Zion in Ezekiel 28:14,16 as the "mountain of God." "The mountain of God" in the days of Ezekiel is obviously Mount Zion. To construe the "mountain of God" as heaven or anywhere else is to ignore what is here explicitly stated. If we are in any doubt over what or where the mountain of God is, we can turn to an abundance of Scripture: Isaiah 2:2,3 "the mountain of the LORDs house shall be established in the top of the mountains ... And many people shall go and say, Come ye, and let us go up to the mountain of the LORD, to the house of the God of Jacob ... for out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the LORD from Jerusalem." Indeed Ezekiel himself talks of the mountain of God: Ezekiel 20:40 "For in mine holy mountain, in the mountain of the height of Israel, saith the Lord GOD, there shall all the house of Israel, all of them in the land, serve me: there will I accept them, and there will I require your offerings, and the firstfruits of your oblations, with all your holy things." Ezekiel himself locates the mountain of God in "Israel" where "the house of Israel, all of them in the land, serve me." It is inconceivable that this is anywhere other than Mount Zion. Further proof that Ezekiel 28 is discussing the Temple of Mount Zion, and articles inside that Temple follow: 3. He was adorned with precious stones. Ezekiel 28:13. Again, this is a clear allusion to Temple worship and to the Ephod that was worn by the high priest of Israel in the Temple on Mount Zion (Exodus 39). The twelve precious stones of the Ephod represent the twelve tribes of Israel and it is these stones or tribes that Tyre is said to have moved amongst in Ezekiel 28. The stones (or Israel) were a "covering" for Tyre because of the friendship between the nation of Israel and Tyre. Tyre covered Israel physically (see note on the Cherubim above) and Israel covered Tyre spiritually. ("I will bless them that bless thee, and curse them that curseth thee.") 4. He possessed great musical ability. Ezekiel 28:13. This verse does not say that anyone necessarily had musical ability, it speaks of the creation or "workmanship" of musical instruments – from your point of view, inside Satan. Unless Satan is somehow made out of musical instruments this argument does not hold. Tabrets and pipes were not used in the Temple, but they were used in the worship of God, (such as the anointing of Solomon and the bringing of the Ark to Jerusalem) so it is therefore perfectly plausible for these items to have been found in Tyre during the time of friendship between Tyre and Israel. |
||||||
78 | Does Satan Exist Part II | Bible general Archive 3 | drbloor | 166181 | ||
PART II 2. He was the anointed cherub of God "that covereth". Ezekiel 28:14. This is a clear reference to the carved golden cherubim that were situated at either end of the mercy seat above the Ark of the Covenant, whose wings "covereth" the mercy seat (Exodus 25:20) and which was "anointed" in Exodus 30:26. If the only other cherub in the whole of Holy Scripture that has been anointed and that covereth is on the Ark, and Ezekiel is alluding to the Ephod of the high priest (the only one who could approach the Ark), and discusses the "mountain of God" – the location of the Ark, then it is reasonable to take Ezekiel at his word and accept that he is clearly referring here to the cherub of the Ark of the Covenant. The reason that this is applicable to Tyre is that Hiram, king of Tyre, was great friends with King David and Solomon, and went so far as to help build the Temple of God where the Ark of the Covenant was located (1 Kings 5). In fact it was the timber that Tyre provided that made the roof (or covering!) of The Temple. I would therefore suggest that a more natural reading of this would be to again see this verse as a metaphor, depicting by "the covering" the nature of the previous relationship between Tyre and Israel – either of protection and friendship or of the provision of the covering of The Temple. Furthermore it is evident that Ezekiel is discussing things upon Mount Zion because he clearly refers to Mount Zion in Ezekiel 28:14,16 as the "mountain of God." "The mountain of God" in the days of Ezekiel is obviously Mount Zion. To construe the "mountain of God" as heaven or anywhere else is to ignore what is here explicitly stated. If we are in any doubt over what or where the mountain of God is, we can turn to an abundance of Scripture: Isaiah 2:2,3 "the mountain of the LORDs house shall be established in the top of the mountains ... And many people shall go and say, Come ye, and let us go up to the mountain of the LORD, to the house of the God of Jacob ... for out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the LORD from Jerusalem." Indeed Ezekiel himself talks of the mountain of God: Ezekiel 20:40 "For in mine holy mountain, in the mountain of the height of Israel, saith the Lord GOD, there shall all the house of Israel, all of them in the land, serve me: there will I accept them, and there will I require your offerings, and the firstfruits of your oblations, with all your holy things." Ezekiel himself locates the mountain of God in "Israel" where "the house of Israel, all of them in the land, serve me." It is inconceivable that this is anywhere other than Mount Zion. Further proof that Ezekiel 28 is discussing the Temple of Mount Zion, and articles inside that Temple follow: 3. He was adorned with precious stones. Ezekiel 28:13. Again, this is a clear allusion to Temple worship and to the Ephod that was worn by the high priest of Israel in the Temple on Mount Zion (Exodus 39). The twelve precious stones of the Ephod represent the twelve tribes of Israel and it is these stones or tribes that Tyre is said to have moved amongst in Ezekiel 28. The stones (or Israel) were a "covering" for Tyre because of the friendship between the nation of Israel and Tyre. Tyre covered Israel physically (see note on the Cherubim above) and Israel covered Tyre spiritually. ("I will bless them that bless thee, and curse them that curseth thee.") 4. He possessed great musical ability. Ezekiel 28:13. This verse does not say that anyone necessarily had musical ability, it speaks of the creation or "workmanship" of musical instruments – from your point of view, inside Satan. Unless Satan is somehow made out of musical instruments this argument does not hold. Tabrets and pipes were not used in the Temple, but they were used in the worship of God, (such as the anointing of Solomon and the bringing of the Ark to Jerusalem) so it is therefore perfectly plausible for these items to have been found in Tyre during the time of friendship between Tyre and Israel. |
||||||
79 | Does Satan Exist Part III | Not Specified | drbloor | 166166 | ||
PART III 5. He was the perfection of wisdom and beauty. Ezekiel 28:12. If we agree that Ezekiel 27 is a prophesy upon literal Tyre then this is clearly an echo of the language used in Ezekiel 27 and reinforces the notion that Ezekiel 28 is also a prophesy upon literal Tyre. This quote from Ezekiel 27 is clearly not about Satan: Ezekiel 27:3,4: "O Tyrus, thou hast said, I am of perfect beauty. Thy borders are in the midst of the seas, thy builders have perfected thy beauty." Tyre was also at one time wise, as we have seen – Tyre had a great friendship with Israel, with David and with Solomon. Tyre helped to build the Temple of the Lord on Mount Zion. Surely this sets Tyre apart from many other nations as "full of wisdom"? Indeed, Hiram king of Tyre made peace and a league with King Solomon, whose most famous attribute was... Wisdom. 6. He fell through pride. Ezekiel 28:17. This may be true, in a manner of speaking, but let us examine Ezekiel 28 to discover the source of this pride: Ezekiel 28: 4,5. "With thy wisdom and with thine understanding thou hast gotten thee riches, and hast gotten gold and silver into thy treasures: By thy great wisdom and by thy traffick hast thou increased thy riches, and thine heart is lifted up because of thy riches." Ezekiel 28:16. "By the multitude of thy merchandise they have filled the midst of thee with violence, and thou hast sinned." Ezekiel 28:17 "thou hast corrupted thy wisdom by reason of thy brightness" This "brightness" is clearly the "brightness" of "gold and silver", of "treasures" and "riches" which had been gained by "traffick" and "merchandise". The pride which is being talked about must be the pride of these monetary and physical possessions, none of which an angel in heaven would be concerned with, indeed not even Satan is supposed to be interested in these things but apparently with mens souls, power in heaven etc. It is only men who lust after gold and silver. And note Ezekiel 28:2 "yet thou art a man" – not an angel. Therefore, whoever fell through pride, it could not have been Satan. It would clearly make more sense, especially as this chapter is addressed to Tyre, that the great trading city of Tyre had accumulated these "riches" and "merchandise" and ESPECIALLY because they have already been specifically mentioned in Ezekiel 26:12 which you have to agree cannot possibly be about Satan. ------------------------------------- The original meaning of the word "Satan" in The Bible is "an adversary". Thus it is used to describe adversaries. This is, for example, why Jesus calls Peter a Satan, or "an adversary". This is why an obedient "angel of the LORD" is called Satan in Numbers 22:22. And this explains the apparent contradiction of 2 Samuel 24:1 and 1 Chronicles 21:1 – "the anger of the LORD" is an adversary (or Satan) to Israel. To say anything else is to ignore the explicit statement of 2 Samuel 24:1 – that God moved David against Israel. If, for the sake of argument, God did this through Satan (which this verse does not say), then Satan is obediently doing the will of God; therefore Satan is an obedient angel and not a fallen one. Okay, and so much for all that. As I said at the start, this answer has (of necessity) been longer than I had thought. And the more I think about it, the longer it will grow, so I will sign off now. After one last question...! Q. If we understand angels to be direct servants of God, indeed that some, most likely all have been in the presence of God, then they must know at least as much about God as we do, and almost by definition far more than we do. We know that God is all powerful – immortal, omnipotent and omnipresent – therefore angels must know this as well. However, if Satan is an angel that rebelled and attempted to overthrow God, he must have believed that he had a chance of succeeding. Therefore angels must not believe that God is immortal and omnipotent. And this conclusion, and by extrapolation, a belief in Satan as a fallen angel, I would put to you, is blasphemous. That is the essence of why I find this belief so troubling. I hope and pray that this will give you some food for thought. If nothing else may it lead to a careful consideration of The Word of God, which "is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness." Amen, Dr. B. |
||||||
80 | Does Satan Exist Part III | Bible general Archive 3 | drbloor | 166216 | ||
PART III 5. He was the perfection of wisdom and beauty. Ezekiel 28:12. If we agree that Ezekiel 27 is a prophesy upon literal Tyre then this is clearly an echo of the language used in Ezekiel 27 and reinforces the notion that Ezekiel 28 is also a prophesy upon literal Tyre. This quote from Ezekiel 27 is clearly not about Satan: Ezekiel 27:3,4: "O Tyrus, thou hast said, I am of perfect beauty. Thy borders are in the midst of the seas, thy builders have perfected thy beauty." Tyre was also at one time wise, as we have seen – Tyre had a great friendship with Israel, with David and with Solomon. Tyre helped to build the Temple of the Lord on Mount Zion. Surely this sets Tyre apart from many other nations as "full of wisdom"? Indeed, Hiram king of Tyre made peace and a league with King Solomon, whose most famous attribute was... Wisdom. 6. He fell through pride. Ezekiel 28:17. This may be true, in a manner of speaking, but let us examine Ezekiel 28 to discover the source of this pride: Ezekiel 28: 4,5. "With thy wisdom and with thine understanding thou hast gotten thee riches, and hast gotten gold and silver into thy treasures: By thy great wisdom and by thy traffick hast thou increased thy riches, and thine heart is lifted up because of thy riches." Ezekiel 28:16. "By the multitude of thy merchandise they have filled the midst of thee with violence, and thou hast sinned." Ezekiel 28:17 "thou hast corrupted thy wisdom by reason of thy brightness" This "brightness" is clearly the "brightness" of "gold and silver", of "treasures" and "riches" which had been gained by "traffick" and "merchandise". The pride which is being talked about must be the pride of these monetary and physical possessions, none of which an angel in heaven would be concerned with, indeed not even Satan is supposed to be interested in these things but apparently with mens souls, power in heaven etc. It is only men who lust after gold and silver. And note Ezekiel 28:2 "yet thou art a man" – not an angel. Therefore, whoever fell through pride, it could not have been Satan. It would clearly make more sense, especially as this chapter is addressed to Tyre, that the great trading city of Tyre had accumulated these "riches" and "merchandise" and ESPECIALLY because they have already been specifically mentioned in Ezekiel 26:12 which you have to agree cannot possibly be about Satan. ------------------------------------- The original meaning of the word "Satan" in The Bible is "an adversary". Thus it is used to describe adversaries. This is, for example, why Jesus calls Peter a Satan, or "an adversary". This is why an obedient "angel of the LORD" is called Satan in Numbers 22:22. And this explains the apparent contradiction of 2 Samuel 24:1 and 1 Chronicles 21:1 – "the anger of the LORD" is an adversary (or Satan) to Israel. To say anything else is to ignore the explicit statement of 2 Samuel 24:1 – that God moved David against Israel. If, for the sake of argument, God did this through Satan (which this verse does not say), then Satan is obediently doing the will of God; therefore Satan is an obedient angel and not a fallen one. Okay, and so much for all that. As I said at the start, this answer has (of necessity) been longer than I had thought. And the more I think about it, the longer it will grow, so I will sign off now. After one last question...! Q. If we understand angels to be direct servants of God, indeed that some, most likely all have been in the presence of God, then they must know at least as much about God as we do, and almost by definition far more than we do. We know that God is all powerful – immortal, omnipotent and omnipresent – therefore angels must know this as well. However, if Satan is an angel that rebelled and attempted to overthrow God, he must have believed that he had a chance of succeeding. Therefore angels must not believe that God is immortal and omnipotent. And this conclusion, and by extrapolation, a belief in Satan as a fallen angel, I would put to you, is blasphemous. That is the essence of why I find this belief so troubling. I hope and pray that this will give you some food for thought. If nothing else may it lead to a careful consideration of The Word of God, which "is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness." Amen, Dr. B. |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 5 ] Next > Last [5] >> |