IN THE BEGINNING

[Pastor Scott Markle]

1 hour ago, Invicta said:

Lucifer is only used once in the bible and I know you will all disagree with me, but I do not think this refers to Satan at all, but to the King of Babylon, Vs 4 and 22.  

Brother David,

Indeed, I do not agree with you on this; however, I am compelled to acknowledge that you DO have a significant contextual argument from Isaiah 14:4-ff.  The only substantial response that I might deliver would concern the opening statement of Isaiah 14:12 -- "How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning!"  This statement appears to assume, not that Lucifer (whoever he may be) was seeking to obtain a position in heaven, but that he already possessed a position in heaven, from which he then fell by his rebellion against the God of heaven.  I am not certain that there would be an equivalent for this with King Nebuchadnezzar.

[Ukulelemike]

Besides, from the Book of Daniel, it would appear that Nebuchadnezzar became a believer, and even wrote a chapter of the word of God. He was also referred to as the Lord's sword, when God used him to punish Judah, and the great gold head of the statue in his dream, God Himself stating that he was the greatest of the (worldly) kings on earth. Can't see him as being spoken of as being cast down, because even when he was, he was given back his glory and honor and throne, while at the same time fully accepting that Jehovah God was the one True God.

[Invicta]

Thanks, I have considered all your points, I have considered all your points in the past, but i still stay with the belief that this refers to the King of Babylon.  However it could also apply to Belshazzar,  

Dan 5:1 ¶  Belshazzar the king made a great feast to a thousand of his lords, and drank wine before the thousand.   At the time of this feast, the king knew that Cyrus and his armies were surrounding Babylon  I believe he also knew about the prophecy in Isaiah and this feast was a feast of defiance towards Cyrus but more against the God of heaven. `
2  Belshazzar, whiles he tasted the wine, commanded to bring the golden and silver vessels which his father Nebuchadnezzar had taken out of the temple which was in Jerusalem; that the king, and his princes, his wives, and his concubines, might drink therein.  3  Then they brought the golden vessels that were taken out of the temple of the house of God which was at Jerusalem; and the king, and his princes, his wives, and his concubines, drank in them. 4  They drank wine, and praised the gods of gold, and of silver, of brass, of iron, of wood, and of stone.  In this feast, they were not only defying Cyrus who was outside the wall, they thought they could withstand a siege for years.  They were also defying the God of Heaven by bringing his vessels

Meanwhile outside the walls, the engineers of Cyrus were busy diverting the great river which went through the centre of the city. God used Cyrus to fulfill his plan. Isaiah 44:27  That saith to the deep, Be dry, and I will dry up thy rivers:  Fulfilled. The troops of yrus marched up the river bed.   

5: in the  same hour came forth fingers of a man’s hand, and wrote over against the candlestick upon the plaister of the wall of the king’s palace: and the king saw the part of the hand that wrote. 6  Then the king’s countenance was changed, and his thoughts troubled him, so that the joints of his loins were loosed, and his knees smote one against another.  Belshazzar was the representative of Bel and like Pharaoh and Caesar would be considered a god,  BUT what a fall from his heaven,  We have  most graphic description of a king changing from utter defiance to one of utter terror, he became incontinent and his knees knocked together violently, smote against each other, all this before he had the interpretation of his dream. 9  Then was king Belshazzar greatly troubled, and his countenance was changed in him, and his lords were astonied.
n Isaiah 44 God is describing Cyrus, in chapter 45 God is addressing him.  Is 45:1 ¶  Thus saith the LORD to his anointed, to Cyrus, whose right hand I have holden, to subdue nations before him; and I will loose the loins of kings, to open before him the two leaved gates; and the gates shall not be shut;  When the Persian armies marched up the river be they found the gates to the city open and marched straight in.  
30 ¶  In that night was Belshazzar the king of the Chaldeans slain.

From 44:24 through chapter 45 God tells Cyrus who He is becaause Cyrus did no know HIM 5 ¶  I am the LORD, and there is none else, there is no God beside me: I girded thee, though thou hast not known me: 6  That they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the west, that there is none beside me. I am the LORD, and there is none else. 7  I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.  Cyrus was to publish God's command to build Jerusalem and the Temple.
Is 44: 28  That saith of Cyrus, He is my shepherd, and shall perform all my pleasure: even saying to Jerusalem, Thou shalt be built; and to the temple, Thy foundation shall be laid.  Here we have God's charge to Cyrus. and then the response of Cyrus. 2  Thus saith Cyrus king of Persia, The LORD God of heaven hath given me all the kingdoms of the earth; and he hath charged me to build him an house at Jerusalem, which is in Judah.

I don't think falling from heaven need mean literal heaven
 

[Pastor Scott Markle]

29 minutes ago, Invicta said:

I don't think falling from heaven need mean literal heaven

Brother David,

Indeed, if you choose to take the phrase, "fallen from heaven," as simply a figurative reference to falling from a very high position, then you are able to erase that one argument that I have presented.

However, at the present I myself am compelled to take that phrase literally.  Therefore, the reason for my position concerning Lucifer in Isaiah 14:12-15.  Yet I would NOT engage in a significant conflict with you over the matter, specifically because I am also compelled to acknowledge that the weight of the surrounding context from Isaiah 14:4-23 IS in your favor.

[Invicta]

1 hour ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Brother David,

Indeed, if you choose to take the phrase, "fallen from heaven," as simply a figurative reference to falling from a very high position, then you are able to erase that one argument that I have presented.

However, at the present I myself am compelled to take that phrase literally.  Therefore, the reason for my position concerning Lucifer in Isaiah 14:12-15.  Yet I would NOT engage in a significant conflict with you over the matter, specifically because I am also compelled to acknowledge that the weight of the surrounding context from Isaiah 14:4-23 IS in your favor.

Brother Scott  

Thank you. The king of Babylon is addressed in that portion and Babylon is also mentioned.  If Lucifer refers to Satan, it is the only place in the scripture.  I grant you if the king of Babylon is meant, that is the only place in the scripture, but it does address  the king of Babylon, Satan is not mentioned by name.  I know that almost 100% of all denominations take that to be Satan, but to me it just not gel. From vewrse one of Chap. 14, it is clear that it has to do with the return of Israel to his own land.

[Pastor Scott Markle]

19 minutes ago, Invicta said:

Brother Scott  

Thank you. The king of Babylon is addressed in that portion and Babylon is also mentioned.  If Lucifer refers to Satan, it is the only place in the scripture.  I grant you if the king of Babylon is meant, that is the only place in the scripture, but it does address  the king of Babylon, Satan is not mentioned by name.  I know that almost 100% of all denominations take that to be Satan, but to me it just not gel. From vewrse one of Chap. 14, it is clear that it has to do with the return of Israel to his own land.

Brother David,

I have just now read over the entirety of Isaiah 13-14 (for "the burden of Babylon" begins with Isaiah 13:1).  In so doing, I would probably contend that the King of Babylon who is referenced in Isaiah 14:4 is NOT King Nebuchadnezzar, but IS King Belshazzar; for Isaiah 13:17 indicates that this burden of judgment against Babylon would occur when the Lord God would "stir up the Medes against them."

Now, that does not directly impact our respective positions concerning Isaiah 14:12-15; but it might provide a more precise understanding for the entirety of Isaiah 13-14.

Edited February 2, 2016 by Pastor Scott Markle

[Invicta]

4 minutes ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Brother David,

I have just now read over the entirety of Isaiah 13-14 (for "the burden of Babylon" begins with Isaiah 13:1).  In so doing, I would probably contend that the King of Babylon who is referenced in Isaiah 14:4 is NOT King Nebuchadnezzar, but IS King Belshazzar; for Isaiah 13:17 indicates that this burden of judgment against Babylon would occur when the Lord God would "stir up the Medes against them."

Now, that does not directly impact our respective positions concerning Isaiah 14:12-15; but it might provide a more precise understanding for the entirety of Isaiah 13-14.

Brother Scott.  I did think of including chapter 13 but decided not to to avoid expanding the discussion too much, 

[Critical Mass]

On 2/1/2016 at 10:38 PM, wretched said:

he fell in the gap of course, whats wrong wit you boy, everybody know dat, HAR HAR, HARDY HAR HAR.

I wonder if Job knows?

 

Being a wise guy doesn't answer the question.

[Critical Mass]

On 2/1/2016 at 2:26 PM, Pastor Scott Markle said:

1.  Lucifer, who was created as "the anointed cherub that covereth," chose rebellion against his Creator God some time AFTER the end of the sixth day of the Lord God's creation work, as per the truth of Genesis 1:31 -- "And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good.  And the evening and the morning were the sixth day."

2.  Lucifer, who was created as "the anointed cherub that covereth," chose rebellion against his Creator God some time AFTER the creation of the Garden of Eden, as per the truth of Ezekiel 28:13-15 -- "Thou hast been in Eden the garden of God; every precious stone was thy covering, the sardius, topaz, and the diamond, the beryl, the onyx, and the jasper, the sapphire, the emerald, and the carbuncle, and gold: the workmanship of thy tabrets and of thy pipes was prepared in thee in the day that thou wast created.  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.  Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee."

3.  Lucifer, who was created as "the anointed cherub that covereth," chose rebellion against his Creator God some time BEFORE he engaged in the temptation of Eve, as per the truth of Genesis 3:1-ff.

The "Eden the garden of God" is not the same garden Adam tilled no more than the "mount of the congregation"  or "the holy mountain of God" (Isaiah 14:13) are Mt. Sinai or Mt. Moriah.  (Ezekiel 31:9)

Essentially, what you are saying is that Lucifer was created sometime during the first five days (though the "sons of God" were apparently already around before that-Job 38:7) and then a couple days later rebelled? 

[wretched]

7 hours ago, Critical Mass said:

Being a wise guy doesn't answer the question.

Very true and in all honesty I wasn't joking around necessarily to you. I think there are some mysteries being discussed in this thread that cannot be explained with certainly on any side of the argument. All sides are interesting and food for thought.

 

[beameup]

On ‎2‎/‎2‎/‎2016 at 9:48 AM, MountainChristian said:

 

Brother Scott answered that question

(loud buzzing sound) Eden the garden of God is not the same as the Garden of Eden,    (example: as there is a heavenly tabernacle [Heb 8:1-2] and (there was) an earthly tabernacle)

δέ εἰ τὶς ἀγνοέω ἀγνοέω                                                                                           1 Tim 5:1

Edited February 3, 2016 by beameup

[MountainChristian]

I don't know I've never thought about that. I had never seen the wording is different.

[Invicta]

On 03/02/2016 at 1:33 PM, beameup said:

(loud buzzing sound) Eden the garden of God is not the same as the Garden of Eden,    (example: as there is a heavenly tabernacle [Heb 8:1-2] and (there was) an earthly tabernacle)

δέ εἰ τὶς ἀγνοέω ἀγνοέω                                                                                           1 Tim 5:1

OK, so What is  Eden the garden of God ?

[Ukulelemike]

Since one is called the Garden of Eden, and the other is called Eden the garden of God, I see no reason, scripturally, to believe they are anything but one and the same. To assume anything else is just that-assumption to try to prove an otherwise improvable point.  Are the 144,000 Jews sealed by God in Rev 7, the same 144,000 male virgins as seen in Rev 14:1? I would say yes, but hey, maybe not! But most would assume that yes, indeed, they are.  (And they aren't JW's).  When we see the same reference in two places, unless theres a really good reason to believe otherwise, why would we assume them to be different, save to help make a point.

[Invicta]

1 minute ago, Ukulelemike said:

Since one is called the Garden of Eden, and the other is called Eden the garden of God, I see no reason, scripturally, to believe they are anything but one and the same. To assume anything else is just that-assumption to try to prove an otherwise improvable point.  Are the 144,000 Jews sealed by God in Rev 7, the same 144,000 male virgins as seen in Rev 14:1? I would say yes, but hey, maybe not! But most would assume that yes, indeed, they are.  (And they aren't JW's).  When we see the same reference in two places, unless theres a really good reason to believe otherwise, why would we assume them to be different, save to help make a point.

I would assume so, but it seems beameup may have another Idea and I would like to see his bible proof.