GenevanPreacher, do you?

[Genevanpreacher]

On 7/22/2016 at 10:16 PM, Ronda said:

Again, certainly you don't entertain the thought that a mere MAN (a prince of Tyre) was in "Eden the garden of God"???
And certainly you don't ALSO entertain the thought that a mere MAN (a prince of Tyre) was  an "anointed cherub"???

When you read on in Isaiah 14, past your supposed subject change, it is very obviously talking about a "man". So yes, when you see the words in Ezekiel in the way it is written, it is speaking of a man. It is not a 'literal' passage, but a 'descriptive' passage about the type of man that he was.

[No Nicolaitans]

Speaking of Isaiah 14, did anyone ever notice that those trees from Lebanon had Southern accents?

Isaiah 14:8
Yea, the fir trees rejoice at thee, and the cedars of Lebanon, saying, Since thou art laid down, no feller is come up against us.

Get it? Feller...instead of fellow?  

The South...instead of the North?  

Get it? Southern accents?  

Feller! 

Yes, I know what "feller" actually means.  

[Genevanpreacher]

18 hours ago, No Nicolaitans said:

Speaking of Isaiah 14, did anyone ever notice that those trees from Lebanon had Southern accents?

Isaiah 14:8
Yea, the fir trees rejoice at thee, and the cedars of Lebanon, saying, Since thou art laid down, no feller is come up against us.

Get it? Feller...instead of fellow?  

The South...instead of the North?  

Get it? Southern accents?  

Feller! 

Yes, I know what "feller" actually means.  

You are truly witty. Thanks for the giggle.

[No Nicolaitans]

33 minutes ago, Genevanpreacher said:

You are truly witty. Thanks for the giggle.

Well...believe it or not, I was voted Wittiest in High School...I really was. Of course, that was long before I became a staunch, long-faced, outwardly-righteous, critical, Pharisaical-no-fun-allowed type.     

    

[Ronda]

On 7/23/2016 at 7:23 AM, Genevanpreacher said:

When you read on in Isaiah 14, past your supposed subject change, it is very obviously talking about a "man". So yes, when you see the words in Ezekiel in the way it is written, it is speaking of a man. It is not a 'literal' passage, but a 'descriptive' passage about the type of man that he was.

In both Isaiah 14 as well as in Ezekiel 28 God's word gives examples of a literal subject. He used a king and a prince as examples of characteristics of the literal subject matter... the devil. Jesus Himself did much the same thing when He gave parables.

Jesus Himself took God's word literally. Whenever He quoted the OT it was clear He believed in it's literal interpretation.

Deut 8:3 "...that he might make thee know that man doth not live by bread only, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of the Lord doth man live."
Matt.4:4 "But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God."

Jesus Himself gave many parables, when teaching He gave examples that people could relate to, so it would be easier to understand.
But there was another reason Jesus used parables...

Luke 8:9-10
"And his disciples asked him, saying, What might this parable be?"
"And he said, Unto you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of God: but to others in parables; that seeing they might not see, and hearing they might not understand."

Yes, there are many figures of speech, and examples given to explain literal subject meanings within scripture.
Rather than use those figures of speech and examples as a help to understand literal meaning, many prefer to discount ALL scripture as symbolic, figurative, and open to whatever interpretation best suits a theory. This also leaves the door wide open to twisting the parts which are obviously to be taken literally when one can't delineate between the examples given and the actual (literal) subject the examples were given to help explain.

Even though Jesus was speaking to Israel in Luke 8, we can see that these same parables and scripture are read today... and again, there were 2 reasons for the parables. Examples to be used as help to understand the literal subject, OR so that one might not see, hear, or understand.  

Growing up, I didn't understand how that could be... how could a person be told something, and then even shown examples to help them understand, and yet the person didn't understand the plain thing told them, much less the examples given? Would it just take repetition to learn? But as the years went by, and countless discussions occurred , I realized the examples or parables confused them rather than helped them. Someone could give a thousand examples to help someone understand a literal subject, but IF that literal subject is something they do not want to hear, see, or understand.... they willingly make the choice not to. I do have my own thoughts on why a person would chose that option, but I realized it's not up to me to determine WHY that is... God truly knows, God gave everyone free will. So the best thing I (myself) can do for the person then is to pray for them.  

 

Edited July 27, 2016 by Ronda

[2bLikeJesus]

You don't "create" darkness; darkness is simply the absence of light just as "cold" is nothing more than the absence of heat.  Evil is simply the absence of righteousness and good.  It is not created, but exists simply as a consequence of righteousness existing with God. 

[Genevanpreacher]

17 hours ago, 2bLikeJesus said:

You don't "create" darkness; darkness is simply the absence of light just as "cold" is nothing more than the absence of heat.  Evil is simply the absence of righteousness and good.  It is not created, but exists simply as a consequence of righteousness existing with God. 

Exactly! Thank you 2b! That's what I think about the existence of devils.

[Genevanpreacher]

18 hours ago, Ronda said:

In both Isaiah 14 as well as in Ezekiel 28 God's word gives examples of a literal subject. He used a king and a prince as examples of characteristics of the literal subject matter... the devil. 

And just where in scripture is this explained Rhonda?

Where is it told that God would give details of a 'Luciferian existence'?

And why would God want us to know these particular 'histories'? What is the purpose?

No, not as examples to us on how we shouldn't rebel against God...But somebody 'read between the lines' and created a 'Lucifer' and boy did it catch on!

Men who translated my Bible in 1560 knew to what the verses referred, and they didn't 'see' what people see today. Here's what they knew about 'Lucifer' -

"Thou that thoughtest thyself most glorious, and as it were placed in the heaven, for the morning star that goeth before the sun, is called Lucifer, to whom Nebuchadnezzar is compared."

Simple truth, and no spiritualizing and twisting the words of God.

[DaveW]

1 hour ago, Genevanpreacher said:

Exactly! Thank you 2b! That's what I think about the existence of devils.

Except that devils are actual things, not the lack of something.

Your statement makes absolutely no sense.

[Genevanpreacher]

10 hours ago, DaveW said:

Except that devils are actual things, not the lack of something.

Your statement makes absolutely no sense.

It does if you read the first few verses of Genesis 1 and focus on the light and darkness getting separated by God, with that being the creation of the Angels, with the devils being what the Angels were separated from, making the devils the residue left behind.

Sorry. Had to post and run!

[DaveW]

3 hours ago, Genevanpreacher said:

It does if you read the first few verses of Genesis 1 and focus on the light and darkness getting separated by God, with that being the creation of the Angels, with the devils being what the Angels were separated from, making the devils the residue left behind.

Sorry. Had to post and run!

The explanation was required for it to make any sense, but you are still wrong.

In your scenario you have both good and evil angels existing.

In 2blikeJesus post there is the positive which exists and the negative which does not exist but is simply the absence of the positive.

Your scenario has both positive and negative existing, which is totally NOT the concept 2blikeJesus was expressing.

Edited July 28, 2016 by DaveW

[Genevanpreacher]

9 hours ago, DaveW said:

The explanation was required for it to make any sense, but you are still wrong.

In your scenario you have both good and evil angels existing.

In 2blikeJesus post there is the positive which exists and the negative which does not exist but is simply the absence of the positive.

Your scenario has both positive and negative existing, which is totally NOT the concept 2blikeJesus was expressing.

At least I don't have to make up some grand story to explain a fallen leader of a band of fallen Angels by using verses that have nothing to do with such.

"Ye are all the children of light, and the children of the day: we are not of the night, nor of darkness."

"For they that sleep sleep in the night; and they that be drunken are drunken in the night. But let us, who are of the day, be sober, putting on the breastplate of faith and love; and for an helmet, the hope of salvation."

Darkness has been a great example of sin and evil. To me that makes more sense than the verses explaining a so-called Lucifer.

Now look at -

"And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness."

And what do devils want to look like to us -

"For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ. And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light. Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works."

Just my opinion. Or is it? -

"But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost: In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them. For we preach not ourselves, but Christ Jesus the Lord; and ourselves your servants for Jesus' sake. For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ."

We are children of the day.

Thanks. I am sure this will be torn apart soon. Have fun!

[DaveW]

1 hour ago, Genevanpreacher said:

At least I don't have to make up some grand story to explain a fallen leader of a band of fallen Angels by using verses that have nothing to do with such.

"Ye are all the children of light, and the children of the day: we are not of the night, nor of darkness."

"For they that sleep sleep in the night; and they that be drunken are drunken in the night. But let us, who are of the day, be sober, putting on the breastplate of faith and love; and for an helmet, the hope of salvation."

Darkness has been a great example of sin and evil. To me that makes more sense than the verses explaining a so-called Lucifer.

Now look at -

"And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness."

And what do devils want to look like to us -

"For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ. And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light. Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works."

Just my opinion. Or is it? -

"But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost: In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them. For we preach not ourselves, but Christ Jesus the Lord; and ourselves your servants for Jesus' sake. For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ."

We are children of the day.

Thanks. I am sure this will be torn apart soon. Have fun!

So apart from one that specifically references Satan (and him representing himself as an angel of light), what have any of those passages got to do with 2blikeJesus' point above, or indeed with origin of Satan?

Or are you now trying to avoid the corner you have painted yourself into by sidestepping to another subject?

You accuse others here of misusing Scripture but here you have used scriptures that make no reference to angels/devils to make some point about the origin of evil angels and Satan.

 

 

Edited July 29, 2016 by DaveW

[DaveW]

One thing is certain from this GP post: He believes that evil angels were created as evil angels.

 

14 hours ago, Genevanpreacher said:

It does if you read the first few verses of Genesis 1 and focus on the light and darkness getting separated by God, with that being the creation of the Angels, with the devils being what the Angels were separated from, making the devils the residue left behind.

Sorry. Had to post and run!

He tries to mask it by using the phrase "the residue left behind", but there are so many problems with this theory.

• This means there is evil before the sixth day is finished where God says:

Gen 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.

I know he has already argued against this, but the different phrasing between the other days and this day indicates more than just that God was happy with it - and even if that was the case - can we honestly think that God was happy with His creation that according to this understanding included evil from the beginning?

Not the God that I see in the Bible. Maybe some sort of half strength god like the Mormons or the Mohammedans have, but not the God of the Bible.

• God actively created everything that is, so there was no "residue left over" - at least not according to the Lord Jesus Christ:

Joh 1:1-3
(1)  In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
(2)  The same was in the beginning with God.
(3)  All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

Notice that it says "All things were made Him...." That includes angels - unless of course you are following Mormon teaching, which says the angels are minor gods.

 

I have to say that I have heard a similar argument when having discussion with Calvinists who don't like "double predestination" - they refuse to see the other side of the coin which is obvious - that if God chooses some to glory, then He must be default choose the others for eternal punishment.

Angles, whether good or evil, are created beings - there was nothing formed from any sort of "residue" that God did not actively create. To speculate otherwise is yet another example of straining at gnats and swallowing camels that this guy is doing throughout this thread.

To make such a fuss about a passage that most everyone here thinks has a dual application - literal of a real king, and indicative of Satan's situation (if I read most of the comments here correctly) and then to make an absolute speculative statement about evil angels being the "residue" of good angel creation with no scriptural backup for it, is astounding to say the least.

 

But we are now clear on the fact that GP believes that the evil angels were from their inception created as evil angels, although he somehow attributes their existence to some sort of "Side-effect" of creating good angels.

I don't really want a god who can't make things without making "mistakes on the side".

And I don't see that god in my Bible.

[OLD fashioned preacher]

Rather than risk this degenerating into --- "You have put your interpretation on my words", "No, anyone can see your implication", "That's a misrepresentation", etc. Let's do this:

GP - for sake of clarity:

1) Is Satan a real entity (person or being as opposed to an inanimate object or a nebulous power)?

2) Was Satan created wicked?

3) If #2 is "No", Did Satan choose darkness over light? Or did God withdraw the light from him, leaving him in darkness? If the answer is different from those 2 choices,please explain.

4) Was Satan created? If so, before day 1, sometime during days 1-6 or after day 7?

 

Yes, I realize I may very well know your answers to those questions. No, I'm not trying to make you look ridiculous. Maybe this will end some of the yah,yah by providing substantial, definitive answers (maybe, maybe not).