Jump to content
  • Welcome Guest

    For an ad free experience on Online Baptist, Please login or register for free

GenevanPreacher, do you?


Recommended Posts

  • Members

First, I want to thank GP for taking the time and effort to present his reasoning. I certainly appreciate his inclusion of comparative scripture; whereby, he showed the similarities of some of the descriptive elements in Ezekiel chapters 27 and 28. However, though the descriptions are similar in some aspects, chapter 27 is in reference to the actual city of Tyrus; whereas, chapter 28 references two distinct individuals of leadership of the city...the second of which (the king) is described in a literal fashion rather than a comparative one. To me, the plain reading of scripture says that IS what he looked like...not LIKE what he looked like; therefore, the king of Tyrus must be someone other than a human, and all indications are that he is the individual we know as Satan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
4 hours ago, No Nicolaitans said:

First, I want to thank GP for taking the time and effort to present his reasoning. I certainly appreciate his inclusion of comparative scripture; whereby, he showed the similarities of some of the descriptive elements in Ezekiel chapters 27 and 28. However, though the descriptions are similar in some aspects, chapter 27 is in reference to the actual city of Tyrus; whereas, chapter 28 references two distinct individuals of leadership of the city...the second of which (the king) is described in a literal fashion rather than a comparative one. To me, the plain reading of scripture says that IS what he looked like...not LIKE what he looked like; therefore, the king of Tyrus must be someone other than a human, and all indications are that he is the individual we know as Satan.

NN,

As I do appreciate your response much more than Scotts and Alans, I do disagree with your final statement.

Thanks NN for atleast treating me in a positive tone.

My opinion of chapters 27 and 28 is that they are two different views of the same situation. That is the only difference that I can see. And what happens to the kingdom happens to the King.

4 hours ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Not really, since your "story" denies the Biblical definition for the word "cherub," whereas my "story" accepts the Biblical definition for the word "cherub."

Nor do I "let others determine what the Scriptures mean."  I have not quoted a single other individual, nor have I researched a single other individual for my earlier explanations of Ezekiel 28:11-19.  Rather, I have presented an explanation that follows the grammar and context of the passage.  Furthermore, I have provided Biblical evidence concerning the definition for the word "cherub" and for how an angelic "cherub" could legitimately be referenced as a "king."

Ah, here now is that denial for the Biblical definition and usage of the word "cherub."  Indeed, I do "think the cherub reference means an angelic being."  I do so because that is the meaning of the word in every other usage in God's Word (except Ezra 2:59 & Nehemiah 7:61, wherein the "Cherub" is the actual, given name of a human individual).  

 If you wish to engage in a consideration of the Hebrew word from which the English words "cherub" (singular) and "cherubims" (plural) is translated, I can do that also.

On the other hand, the word "cherub" most certainly is a "real" term.  Indeed, it is the very "real" term by which the Lord God Himself chose twice to describe the individual of Ezekiel 28:11-19.

You might want to consider Genesis 3:24 and all of the reference concerning the images of "cherubims" (plural) in relation to the tabernacle and temple.

Actually concerning the descriptions in Ezekiel, that should be "cherubims," as a plural reference, indicating that there is indeed more than one "cherub" in "heavenland." 

As far as the original appearance of the "anointed cherub that covereth," I know only as much as God's Word actually reveals.  Since God's Word appears to include wings in every other reference concerning "cherubims," I would conclude that "the anointed cherub that covereth" did indeed have wings.  Since God's Word does not indicate that "cherubims" had multiple faces in ever other reference concerning "cherubims," I choose not to speculate concerning "the anointed cherub that covereth" on this matter. 

As far as the usage of "pipes and tabrets with multiple wings and faces," if God's Word indicates that such is a fact, then I myself shall not in any way argue to the contrary.  Furthermore, I am quite certain that spiritual angelic beings are capable of things that would not be possible for us physical human beings.

Yes.  As I mentioned above, the word "cherubims" is plural, indicating more than one.

Scott?

As for the word cherubims being plural? Cherubim itself is the plural of Cherub. Thanks anyway.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
40 minutes ago, Genevanpreacher said:

Scott?

As for the word cherubims being plural? Cherubim itself is the plural of Cherub. Thanks anyway.

Indeed, I am aware that in the Hebrew the "im" suffix alone (without the inclusion of the letter "s") would indicate the plural.  However, throughout the King James translation, the translators chose to include the letter "s" in order to indicate unto an English reader that the word "cherubims" is plural.  In fact, the word "cherubim," without the inclusion of the "s," is not found even a single time within the King James translation.  (By the way, the inclusion of the "s" for the word "cherubims" is also found in the Geneva translation.)

You're welcome.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
1 hour ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Indeed, I am aware that in the Hebrew the "im" suffix alone (without the inclusion of the letter "s") would indicate the plural.  However, throughout the King James translation, the translators chose to include the letter "s" in order to indicate unto an English reader that the word "cherubims" is plural.  In fact, the word "cherubim," without the inclusion of the "s," is not found even a single time within the King James translation.  (By the way, the inclusion of the "s" for the word "cherubims" is also found in the Geneva translation.)

You're welcome.

You are quite correct. I am sorry. Guess I was looking for a way to make you look atleast a little bit ignorant.

Didn't work out that way now did it?

My apologies for my flesh rearing up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
5 hours ago, Genevanpreacher said:

Thanks NN for atleast treating me in a positive tone.

:th_tiphat:

I do sincerely appreciate that you've given your point of view/understanding. It goes back to my original purpose for asking my opening question...it helps me understand where you're coming from a little better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
18 hours ago, DaveW said:

I wish to counter a particular point that GP makes. (Note: I have far more than this, but let's take these things one a time).

Please note that if any one point of the description included in Ezekiel 28:11-19 can be comprehensively shown to not apply to a man (or city as per GP's claims), then this portion of Scripture MUST by necessity apply to something else.

I will address the particular claim regarding "Eden the city of God".

1.      It doesn’t say "Eden the garden of God" in 27:23, it just says “Eden” with no mention of the garden.

2.      It is a list of people (most likely people ‘groups’ rather than individuals), and often the names of the prominent man became the name of the region. These are names and/or regions that Tyre traded with, which means that there were populations in those regions.

3.      The name “Eden” is a name and is not necessarily that same Eden where the garden was. (It cannot be in fact as I will show later). For example, there is a “Paris” in Texas, and as a result the Texans mostly refer to the “real" Paris, as “Paris, France”. The same name does not make it of necessity the same place. HOWEVER, the use of the particular phrase “Eden the Garden of God” in Ezekiel 28:13 DOES indicate a particular place, just as "Paris, France" defines the particular places named "Paris" from others with the same name.

Now then, why can it NOT be the same Eden?

1.       Because God set a guard at the gate of Eden specifically to stop men from entering.     

Gen 3:23 Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken.

24 So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.

a.      This means that the garden COULD NOT HAVE BEEN A PLACE OF POPULATION, and therefore there would be no point trading with a place where no people were.

2.      The Flood, during which “were all the great fountains of the deep broken up”, covered the whole earth for “an hundred and fifty days” (See Gen 7). This time would have utterly destroyed any vegetation on the ground, and no garden would have survived intact.

3.      Where they landed on this flooded over and broken up ground could not have been certain, and with the breaking up of the fountains of the deep and the effect of the water flowing and moving over the land, the whole topography of the earth would have been changed, rendering recognition of landmarks impossible.

4.      With the garden destroyed by being underwater for more than six months, and the topography having changed in such a fashion, there would be no knowing where the Garden of Eden was before the flood and it no longer existed after the flood to find.

5.      Have you never wondered why it was that after God set the sword and the Cherubims to guard the garden of Eden that it is never mentioned again? If the garden still existed, then the tree still existed, and the need for the guardians still existed. When the garden was destroyed during the flood, there was no longer a need for the guards.*

 

Conclusion: The garden was destroyed in the flood, and therefore no man could go into that garden after the flood. Of course, there was a guard at the garden before the flood, and so no man before the flood could enter. Even if the destruction of the garden of Eden is rejected, there is no mention that God ever withdrew his guard that was designed and placed with the specific intent to keep men out, and therefore no population could have been in Eden, by God's command and design. 

In short, IT WAS NOT POSSIBLE FOR ANY MAN TO ENTER THE GARDEN OF EDEN, once Adam was cast out of the garden, and the guard was placed there.

The Eden of Ezekiel 27:23 could not have been “Eden the garden of God”, but was possibly named after it after the flood.

Finally:

2Ki 19:12, 2Ch 29:12 and other passages mention a man and a people named Eden - these are far more likely to be the reference of Ezek 27:23 than the Garden of Eden.

There is just so much that makes the Eden reference NOT equal to the garden of God, that it is actually a ridiculous task to try to equate the two.

Tyre traded with Eden, the people and region that came from the man named Eden.

The "King of Tyrus" had been in "Eden the garden of God" which is very specifically defined by that phrase to be the Garden spoken of in Genesis 2 & 3.

VERY different places, and no possible way to BIBLICALLY equate the two.

THEREFORE, if this "King of Tyrus" WAS in Eden the garden of God, then we are restricted as to men, for there were only two people who EVER walked in the Garden of Eden according to the perfect Word of God, Adam and Eve.

Was it Adam or Eve? No, because they both died long before the record of Ezekiel.

Who else could it be then?

The Bible only records 4 individual personalities as being in the Garden of Eden: The Holy Lord God Himself, Adam, Eve, and the Serpent. We assume other animals were also there, but none is mentioned in the way of a personality.

It was not Adam or Eve.

No man would ascribe the record of Ezekiel 28:11 - 19 to God, and that therefore, by process of elimination leaves only the Serpent.

Now if we accept that the serpent is not just a regular garden variety serpent but in fact something more, then we have a possibility.

Is that reasonable though?

Well, it is not without biblical precedent.

Rev 12:9  And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.

Rev 20:2  And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years,

So, based solely on the fact that this "King of Tyrus" was in Eden the Garden of God, and the Biblical record shows us only 4 possibilities, and only one of those possibilities is a valid possibility, we must conclude that the "king of tyrus" is the serpent from the biblical record of Genesis 3.

The names recorded in Revelation 12 and 20 indicate that Satan is known as "That old serpent", and what we know of the biblical record of the Messiah and Satan, and how that relates to the prophecy of Genesis 3:14-15, the obvious conclusion is that Satan is the "king of Tyrus" mentioned in Ezekiel 28:11-19.

This does not address any of the other supposed links that GP has presented, but a short study finds many of them are likewise tenuous at best, linking a word or phrase as proof of cross-reference with no real support for making such a link - just as we see here with the attempted linking of "Eden" with "Eden the garden of God." based on nothing more than a desired link.

Strike One for GP, and whilst that one is enough, there is more to come.

(* Please note: the "Destruction of the Garden of Eden" in this fashion is conjecture, because the Bible does not detail or even mention such destruction in particular, but as we can no longer in this day find the garden of Eden, and there is no place on earth that we have so far found where there is a flaming sword and a bunch of Cherubim, we must conclude that the garden doesn't exist today. The assumptions involved in my statements above are entirely reasonable, and not outside the scope of the Biblical record.)

Yes Dave. I agree that it was not the original 'garden of God', but what the locals equated with the 'garden of God'.

I know you will laugh at that one.

Notice that the Lord, speaking to the prophet didn't call it 'Eden, my garden'?

As for the garden of Eden being off limits to men? It never says the Cherubims were keeping the garden protected from man - just the way to the tree of life in the midst of the garden.

And since there was no way to tell how large the real garden was...or if the tree of life was, say, on a hill in the center and up one particular path that could only be accessed from the east side?

There are possibilities.

As for your serpent comments and verses calling the devil a serpent?

I think Satan is equated with the term 'serpent' because of what the serpent did to Eve in the garden. 

Besides, isn't the devil also equated to a roaring lion?

It's not because he IS a roaring lion...but because of how a lion was pictured as an attacker, I guess.

(And neither was Herod a fox btw.)

(Which also goes with - neither was the King of Tyrus a Cherub!)

 

Edited by Genevanpreacher
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
44 minutes ago, Genevanpreacher said:

Yes Dave. I agree that it was not the original 'garden of God', but what the locals equated with the 'garden of God'.

I know you will laugh at that one.

Notice that the Lord, speaking to the prophet didn't call it 'Eden, my garden'?

As for the garden of Eden being off limits to men? It never says the Cherubims were keeping the garden protected from man - just the way to the tree of life in the midst of the garden.

And since there was no way to tell how large the real garden was...or if the tree of life was, say, on a hill in the center and up one particular path that could only be accessed from the east side?

There are possibilities.

As for your serpent comments and verses calling the devil a serpent?

I think Satan is equated with the term 'serpent' because of what the serpent did to Eve in the garden. 

Besides, isn't the devil also equated to a roaring lion?

It's not because he IS a roaring lion...but because of how a lion was pictured as an attacker, I guess.

(And neither was Herod a fox btw.)

(Which also goes with - neither was the King of Tyrus a Cherub!)

 

I would like to point out the inadequacies of this answer.

GP first agrees that it is not the original Eden the garden of God, then tries to prove that it could have been.

GP tries to find a difference between "Eden the garden of God" and "Eden, my garden"...... "Eden the garden of God" could hardly be more specific.

GP tries to restrict the garding cherubims to only the tree of life, where the passage I quoted clearly states that they were "to the east of the garden" phrasing which indicates they were outside the garden.

GP then tries to muddy the waters by throwing in questions about the size, location of the tree etc, ehilst TOTALLY IGNORING the main point about the Garden of Eden: that it no longer exists, and even if his speculation was correct, Ezekiel must be talking of a pre-flood event, for the most likely scenario for the destruction of the Garden is the flood.

 

Then GP dismisses the Biblical correlation between the serpent and Satan because he thinks it is irrelevant.

His final statement then absolutely denies the Biblical record for the sole reason that he doesn't like what it says.

It says:

Ezekiel 28:14  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.

But it doesn't mean that according to GP.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
1 hour ago, DaveW said:

His final statement then absolutely denies the Biblical record for the sole reason that he doesn't like what it says.

No it does not deny Biblical record. But making up a story that fits NOWHERE in the record of scripture does.

Why, Dave, would the Lord wait til near the end of Israels statehood and existence as a free country, to reveal to men the 'true' origin of Satan?

What, 3500 years of existence of mankind, and THEN the Lord decided to tell mankind about the Father of all lies and how he became who he is?

AND then not really use a name that people would associate with the devil, but expect them to piece together info from more than one source to get the whole story?

You're right Dave.

According to that type of thinking, I don't like what it says.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Haran, and Canneh, and Eden (עֵדֶן-Eden), the merchants of Shebah, Asshur and Chilmad were thy merchants.

Thou hast beene in Eden (עָדַן-Aden) the garden of God; euery precious stone was thy couering, the Sardius, Topaze, and the Diamond, the Beril, the Onyx, and the Iasper, the Saphir, the Emeraude, 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.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The Hebrew uses two different words, but ancient English translated them as only one word.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
1 hour ago, Genevanpreacher said:

No it does not deny Biblical record. But making up a story that fits NOWHERE in the record of scripture does.

Why, Dave, would the Lord wait til near the end of Israels statehood and existence as a free country, to reveal to men the 'true' origin of Satan?

What, 3500 years of existence of mankind, and THEN the Lord decided to tell mankind about the Father of all lies and how he became who he is?

AND then not really use a name that people would associate with the devil, but expect them to piece together info from more than one source to get the whole story?

You're right Dave.

According to that type of thinking, I don't like what it says.

So the argument against my post is that YOU don't think God would wait that long to reveal it?

God waited various lengths of time to reveal various truths.

Yours is an Irrelevant argument that does not even TRY to use the Bible.

 

And when the BIBLE SAYS that the king of Tyrus is the anointing Cherub, then you are ABSOLUTELY denying the Biblical record.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...