Subject: Where was satan when he first sinned? |
Bible Note: I am open. I have not concluded anything yet. But if in all instances where Mount of God occurs in the Bible it refers to the one in Jerusalem, then why would be a different Mount in Ezek 28 and if one decides that it is a different one what right or basis does he have to conclude this? In Ezek 20 Ezek referred to the mount and said... Ezekiel 20:40 0 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 ... so if the same Ezek later says Ezekiel 28:14 4 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. .. Would not this same prophet be still referring to the same mount he has mentioned in a previous prophesy. What right or basis would one have for calling this Eden a different Eden than the Garden of Eden where we all saw that satan was indeed in in Gen 3. So we know that satan was in THAT Garden of Eden, we have no knowledge of any other Garden of Eden. But let us consider the stones of Fire for clarity. One concept I utterly reject is that such descriptions are ever placed in the Holy Word of God for emotional emphasis or poetic language. I believe there is always a power truth and revelation and in this instance a literal application behind such descriptive words as stones of fire. I used to listen to other preachers repeat other preachers about satan falling ages before the garden. I want to see the verse now. I only have this one about when he was perfect and then he was found with iniquity. It distinctly says he was perfect while still in Eden and then he was found with iniquity. When he shows up in Gen speaking to Eve, we know he has iniquity. We never see him in Gen in his perfect state. So unless you can demonstrate how in other parts of the Bible the Heavenlies are called Eden then I only have a right to assume that Eden is the Garden of Eden and no other Eden since I know of no other Eden. Making up things about "we can call heaven Eden if we want to" is Bambi theology and I cannot have anything to do with it because I can only put faith in the Word of God and not in any "made up" explanations. Until I see a passage where a prophet calles heaven Eden and it does not refer to the Garden Adam was in then I cannot say Ezek meant anything but Eden the garden Adam was in. But back to the stones of fire? If I just say that "stones of fire" is just phrases to inspire awe then I am not any closer to an answer to "what is the mount of God here?" And "which Eden does he refer to?" But if the stones of fire have meaning and can be identified then maybe that will bring me closer to a revelation that God would want me to be seeking out, (since He did see fit to put the words in the Bible for our instruction in righteousness). Consider these verses Ezekiel 28:14 4 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. Ezekiel 28:16 6 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. Now look at Job 28 5 [As for] the earth, out of it cometh bread: and under it is turned up as it were fire. 6 The stones of it [are] the place of sapphires: and it hath dust of gold. 7 [There is] a path which no fowl knoweth, and which the vulture's eye hath not seen: |