GenevanPreacher, do you?

[DaveW]

On 8/14/2016 at 8:12 AM, Genevanpreacher said:

1. What is this in reference to? -

    "Thou sealest up the sum, full of wisdom, and perfect in beauty."

What does chapter 27:3-4 say?

    "3 And say unto Tyrus, O thou that art situate at the entry of the sea, which art a merchant of the people for many isles, Thus saith the Lord GOD; O Tyrus, thou hast said, I am of perfect beauty.

4 Thy borders are in the midst of the seas, thy builders have perfected thy beauty."

Obviously the city itself was 'made' beauty when it was created by perfecting it.

 

Let us have a look at every passage that includes “Perfect” and “Beauty”.

 

 

Psa_50:2  Out of Zion, the perfection of beauty, God hath shined.

Lam_2:15  All that pass by clap their hands at thee; they hiss and wag their head at the daughter of Jerusalem, saying, Is this the city that men call The perfection of beauty, The joy of the whole earth?

Eze_16:14  And thy renown went forth among the heathen for thy beauty: for it was perfect through my comeliness, which I had put upon thee, saith the Lord GOD.

Eze_27:3  And say unto Tyrus, O thou that art situate at the entry of the sea, which art a merchant of the people for many isles, Thus saith the Lord GOD; O Tyrus, thou hast said, I am of perfect beauty.

Eze_27:4  Thy borders are in the midst of the seas, thy builders have perfected thy beauty.

Eze_27:11  The men of Arvad with thine army were upon thy walls round about, and the Gammadims were in thy towers: they hanged their shields upon thy walls round about; they have made thy beauty perfect.

Eze_28:12  Son of man, take up a lamentation upon the king of Tyrus, and say unto him, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Thou sealest up the sum, full of wisdom, and perfect in beauty.

 

So is it talking about the city Jerusalem, the city Tyre or something else?

No, IT IS TALKING ABOUT A KING, NOT a city at all…. Or at least so says Ezekiel 28.12

Two of those passages are talking about Jerusalem, three of them are talking about the city of Tyre, but in each instance the Bible clearly states it is talking about a city. Once it talks of Zion, and it indicates a particular place by it.

Ezekiel 28:12 is unique among verse that use these two words in that it specifically relates to “the king of Tyrus” and not a city.

There is no possibility that it is talking about a city in that verse.

Strike two for GP.

 

Edited August 16, 2016 by DaveW
The verses formatted wrongly for some reason????

[No Nicolaitans]

2 Kings 19:12
Have the gods of the nations delivered them which my fathers have destroyed; as Gozan, and Haran, and Rezeph, and the children of Eden which were in Thelasar?

2 Chronicles 29:12
Then the Levites arose, Mahath the son of Amasai, and Joel the son of Azariah, of the sons of the Kohathites: and of the sons of Merari, Kish the son of Abdi, and Azariah the son of Jehalelel: and of the Gershonites; Joah the son of Zimmah, and Eden the son of Joah:

2 Chronicles 31:15
And next him were Eden, and Miniamin, and Jeshua, and Shemaiah, Amariah, and Shecaniah, in the cities of the priests, in their set office, to give to their brethren by courses, as well to the great as to the small:

Isaiah 37:12
Have the gods of the nations delivered them which my fathers have destroyed, as Gozan, and Haran, and Rezeph, and the children of Eden which were in Telassar?

Amos 1:5
I will break also the bar of Damascus, and cut off the inhabitant from the plain of Aven, and him that holdeth the sceptre from the house of Eden: and the people of Syria shall go into captivity unto Kir, saith the LORD.

Now...those are just a few verses showing that "Eden" doesn't always mean the Eden that we think Eden means. First, let me draw your attention again to 2 Kings 19:12 (which is also repeated in Isaiah 37:12)...

2 Kings 19:12
Have the gods of the nations delivered them which my fathers have destroyed; as Gozan, and Haran, and Rezeph, and the children of Eden which were in Thelasar?

First we have "Gozan"...

Gowzan (go-zawn') n/l.
1. a quarry (as a place of cutting stones).
2. Gozan, a province of Assyria.

Next, we have "Haran"...

Charan (chaw-rawn') n/l.
1. parched.
2. Haran (Charan), the name of a man and also of a place.

Thirdly, we have "Rezeph"...

Retseph (reh'-tsef) n/l.
Retseph, a place in Assyria.

Finally, we have "the children of Eden which were in Thelasar"...

Tlassar (tel-as-sar') 
Telassar, a region of Assyria.

Deduction would naturally indicate that since three of the four are a province of, a place of, and a region of Assyria, then the fourth one (Haran) is also associated with Assyria. The children of Eden were part of Assyria. 

Now, let's look at the verse from Ezekiel 27...

Ezekiel 27:23
Haran, and Canneh, and Eden, the merchants of Sheba, Asshur, and Chilmad, were thy merchants.

First we have "Haran" again, which we deduced was...

 a place in Assyria.

Next, we have "Canneh"...

Kanneh (kan-neh') n/l.
Canneh, a place in Assyria 

Thirdly, we have "Eden", which we deduced was... 

a part of Assyria.

Fourthly, we have "Sheba"...

Shba' (sheɓ-aw') n/l.
Sheba, the name of three early progenitors of tribes and of an Ethiopian district.

Fifthly, we have "Asshur"...

Ashshur (ash-shoor') 
1. Ashshur, the second son of Shem.
2. (also) his descendants and the country occupied by them (i.e. Assyria), its region and its empire.

Lastly, we have "Chilmad"...

Kilmad (kil-mawd') n/l.
Kilmad, a place apparently in the Assyrian empire.

So, of those five, all but one is associated with Assyria. This "Eden" was part of the then modern-day Assyria...not the Eden associated with "the garden of Eden".

 

All of that to say this...the Eden of Ezekiel 27 was a place in Assyria...not the Eden that contained the garden of the LORD. Therefore, I believe that to associate the "Eden of Ezekiel 27" with the "Eden the garden of God of Ezekiel 28" (and to say they are the same) is wrong. 

...but that's me. 

 

Edited August 16, 2016 by No Nicolaitans
Fixed some mistakes...but probably missed more!

[DaveW]

On 8/14/2016 at 8:12 AM, Genevanpreacher said:

3. What about this? -

    "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:"

Read what chapter 27 says in the following verses -

"7 Fine linen with broidered work from Egypt was that which thou spreadest forth to be thy sail; blue and purple from the isles of Elishah was that which covered thee."

"16 Syria was thy merchant by reason of the multitude of the wares of thy making: they occupied in thy fairs with emeralds, purple, and broidered work, and fine linen, and coral, and agate."

"22 The merchants of Sheba and Raamah, they were thy merchants: they occupied in thy fairs with chief of all spices, and with all precious stones, and gold."

"24 These were thy merchants in all sorts of things, in blue clothes, and broidered work, and in chests of rich apparel, bound with cords, and made of cedar, among thy merchandise."

His covering was natural clothing 'broidered' with decorations as such described. Nothing 'angelic'.

 

First of all, I would like to point out that in GP's first point he clearly indicates the subject is a city, the city of Tyre, but in his second,third, fifth, sixth, and seventh points, he refers to the subject with personal pronouns, thus designating the subject as a man. His fourth point is unclear on this matter.

He is inconsistent in his application of the passage, changing the subject to fit his presuppositions. The subject is EITHER the king OR the city, for there is no change in the subject in this passage.

 

 

But to the actual point as stated by GP:

First of all, there are only two items LISTED specifically at Ezekiel 28:13 that are also listed in chapter 27: Gold, and Emerald - NOT ONE OF THE SPECIFIC ITEMS aside from these two is listed in ch 27.

But many of those specific items are listed, even grouped, in other passages of the Bible. Surely under GP's line of thought, there is more in common with the garments of the Priests (See Exodus 28) than with the city of Tyre. In fact if we read that passage we find pretty much EVERY LISTED ITEM from Ezekiel 28:13.

Exo 28:17-20
(17)  And thou shalt set in it settings of stones, even four rows of stones: the first row shall be a sardius, a topaz, and a carbuncle: this shall be the first row.
(18)  And the second row shall be an emerald, a sapphire, and a diamond.
(19)  And the third row a ligure, an agate, and an amethyst.
(20)  And the fourth row a beryl, and an onyx, and a jasper: they shall be set in gold in their inclosings.

By GP's logic and process we could easily say that it is the office of the Priest of God that is being referred to in Ezekiel 28 - there is FAR MORE COMMONALITY with that than the vague links that he is making.

 

The point I am making is that there are plenty of verses that list the items of Ezekiel 28:13, and many of them even more precisely than chapter 27.

GP is finding a link where there is none, simply because he WANTS IT TO BE THERE.

 

 

[DaveW]

On 8/14/2016 at 8:12 AM, Genevanpreacher said:

Now the BIG one - 

5.What about this verse? -

    "Thou art the anointed cherub that covereth; and I have set thee so:" 

The following verses will show that the 'covering cherub' reference was to the fact that many people 'got' their 'coverings' from Tyrus, and they were beautiful and desirous coverings, thus making the King of Tyrus the 'covering cherub'. The great one from whom all wanted their coverings to come from.

"16 Syria was thy merchant by reason of the multitude of the wares of thy making: they occupied in thy fairs with emeralds, purple, and broidered work, and fine linen, and coral, and agate."

"20 Dedan was thy merchant in precious clothes for chariots."

"24 These were thy merchants in all sorts of things, in blue clothes, and broidered work, and in chests of rich apparel, bound with cords, and made of cedar, among thy merchandise."

Yes, the King of Tyrus was a 'handler' in the finer things in life, such as 'coverings'. This has nothing to do with the throne of God.

First off – how about avoiding the PRIME POINT of this discussion – the Cherub issue!!!!!

GP concentrates on the “covering” aspect which in reality is somewhat incidental.

THIS PARTICULAR PASSAGE does NOT designate what was being covered – the term is used as a defining descriptor, a name if you will – not just any Cherub but a particular cherub defined as that particular cherub that covers – as such, WHAT is being covered must be determined from other passages.

The ACTUAL IMPORTANT PART OF THIS VERSE IS THE TERM CHERUB.

According to e-sword, the statistics are:

Cherub (partial match checked on, “search any of the words” in search type, Bible as the range) returns 69 verses and 95 matches.

All but one of these is OT and therefore from a Hebrew word.

The one OT reference that is not from a Hebrew word is actually added by the KJV translators (in italics of course) as it is implied in attachment to the measurement of 5 cubits. (See 2CHr 3:11)

The Hebrew word, according to Strong’s is:

H3742

 

 

כְּרוּב

k^erûb

ker-oob'

or imaginary figure: - cherub, [plural] cherubims.cherubOf uncertain derivation; a

Total KJV occurrences: 91

 

Twice it is 3743, designating a regional name, and is derived from 3742. Ezr 2:59, and Neh 7:61.

EVERY example from the OT is translated from the same Hebrew word.

The single example from the NT is Hebrews 9:5, and the Greek word is a transliteration of the Hebrew, coming directly from it.

 

Now, to the best of my investigation, aside from the two passages speaking of the region named “Cherub”, EVERY OTHER EXAMPLE OF THE ENGLISH WORD CHERUB is relating to either literal angelic beings, or artistic representations of angelic beings.

FURTHERMORE, every example of the Hebrew word translated as Cherub in the KJV is so translated – the Hebrew word is translated in no other way – EVERY TIME it is translated as Cherub.

Adding to this, there is NO VERSE that includes the words cherub and king specifically, and in fact, as far as I can tell, no verse that relates the term Cherub to any man in any context.

THERE IS THEREFORE NO JUSTIFICATION NOR PRECEDENT to associate the term “Cherub” with any man – no man has ever been called a cherub in the Bible, and the term is NEVER applied to any man in the Bible.

Unless you want to totally ignore the very precise way this term is used throughout the Bible, and arbitrarily in this one instance apply it to a man.

Finally, whilst the term Cherub is ONLY EVER SEEN in a covering sense as it relates to the two cherubims covering the mercy seat of the Ark of the Covenant, there are other instances of Cherubs who are not referred to as having this station. (Noting of course that the Cherubims in Ezekiel chapter 1 cover their bodies with two of their wings., but that doesn't seem relevant to this discussion.)

Without doing a comprehensive study on the subject of cherubims and covering, it would seem that there are cherubims who do cover, and cherubims who do not cover, and IN THIS PASSAGE there is no particular evidence to suggest this particular cherub covered the Mercy seat of God.

But that doesn’t mean the Cherub spoken of here is not an angelic being.

Every other instance of the term Cherub is speaking of an angelic being, and there is no indication that this one is different.

 

[DaveW]

On 8/14/2016 at 8:12 AM, Genevanpreacher said:

4. What about this? - 

    "the workmanship of thy tabrets and of thy pipes was prepared in thee in the day that thou wast created."

It is very probable that the things mentioned in this following verse are objects to be made into 'pipes' and 'tabrets' from 27:13&15 -

"Javan, Tubal, and Meshech, they were thy merchants: they traded the persons of men and vessels of brass in thy market."

"The men of Dedan were thy merchants; many isles were the merchandise of thine hand: they brought thee for a present horns of ivory and ebony."

 

Vessels of brass? the word means "an apparatus". There is no reason to think it was specifically a musical apparatus (although there is also no reason why it can't be.)

Horns of ivory and ebony? again there is no reason to assume this is specifically speaking of musical horns - in fact the prime meaning is talking about something which sticks out, like a tusk, or even a mountain peak. Again, a possible meaning is a musical horn, but it is one possibility out of many, and in fact the mention of ivory in this context would tend to indicate finework like scrimshaw rather than a musical instrument.

More important than some vague link between obscure terms is the phrase "in the day that thou wast created".

This workmanship of the pipes and tabrets was prepared IN THEE - as mentioned the subject is the KING OF TYRUS, not the city - so the workmanship of the Pipes and Tabrets was prepared IN THE KING OF TYRUS in the day that THE KING OF TYRUS was created. Not the city, not the city trading system, not the creation of the instruments themselves, but the creation of the KING OF TYRUS.

The Hebrew word for Created is used in only four ways "Created" (and variations) or "Made" or "Done"; "Cut down" (See Josh 17:15); or dispatched; with the overwhelming usage being created.

The obvious understanding from the context is the day this king of Tyrus was actually made or created.

These pipes and Tabrets were prepared (Established, set up, erected) in the DAY THAT THE KING WAS CREATED.

And remember that the passage makes it plain that the subject is the King of Tyrus, not the city of Tyrus.

[DaveW]

On 8/14/2016 at 8:12 AM, Genevanpreacher said:

6. What about this verse? -

     "...thou wast upon the holy mountain of God; thou hast walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire."

Once again, it is not improbable that the King of Tyre walked "upon the holy mountain of God". He DID do business with Jerusalem -

"17 Judah, and the land of Israel, they were thy merchants: they traded in thy market wheat of Minnith, and Pannag, and honey, and oil, and balm."

The "stones of fire" could be the valley of Achor as referenced in Joshua 7:24-26 -

"24 And Joshua, and all Israel with him, took Achan the son of Zerah, and the silver, and the garment, and the wedge of gold, and his sons, and his daughters, and his oxen, and his asses, and his sheep, and his tent, and all that he had: and they brought them unto the valley of Achor.

25 And Joshua said, Why hast thou troubled us? the LORD shall trouble thee this day. And all Israel stoned him with stones, and burned them with fire, after they had stoned them with stones.

26 And they raised over him a great heap of stones unto this day. So the LORD turned from the fierceness of his anger. Wherefore the name of that place was called, The valley of Achor, unto this day."

The valley of Achor is the northern boundary between Judah and Benjamin.

So it is very probable that the King of Tyrus was here also. Not the devil or Lucifer.

Well, well, I learned something interesting - but not from GP, because he couldn't be bothered to look it up, but instead just guessed.

Look at his argument in in regard to "the holy mountain of God" - He SAYS that Tyrus did business with Jerusalem, but actually offers no biblical link between "the Holy mountain of God" and "Jerusalem".

So I did a quick search and found several references similar to this one:

Dan 9:16  O Lord, according to all thy righteousness, I beseech thee, let thine anger and thy fury be turned away from thy city Jerusalem, thy holy mountain: because for our sins, and for the iniquities of our fathers, Jerusalem and thy people are become a reproach to all that are about us.

I asked the question about "a king walking in the holy mountain of God" earlier in the thread, and it was not answered. I asked it in such a way that I stated I had not looked into it.

I now have and found that in all likelihood many kings had walked in Jerusalem, which is here called "thy Holy Mountain", so in fact it IS entirely possible that the King of Tyrus at some stage walked in Jerusalem.

But it doesn't say "Not the devil or Lucifer" in respect to this.

The bit about the valley of Achor being the "Midst of the stones of fire" is another example of GP grasping at just about any reference to justify his position.

There are more than a few references to stones and fire, and many references to fire and brimstone. Some of those at least are just as likely to be relevant references in this case.

The valley of Achor simply means the valley of trouble, and the name itself has no real link to stones of fire, apart from the record listed above, but it was apparently named so before this event.

 

Note: Some of the conjecture of GP is possible, but I am pointing out that in many instances there are many other possible references which have at least as strong a claim to relevance, and often a far stronger claim to relevance.

[Genevanpreacher]

I appreciate your comments all.

Thanks for taking time to comment.

One subject I would like to comment back on is the city of Eden.

Something struck my mind today. (no jokes, please! :D)

Yes, I do now believe the two Edens are one and the same.

Why?

Because of the timing of the facts, of where the garden of Eden was located, in Genesis -

"And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed."

Moses wrote this. And Moses knew the area where the garden was. And he knew what people named that area, and used that name, by the leading of the Spirit of God, to let people know where it was. And all after the flood. I know the area might be different than it was before the flood, but Moses, lead by God's Spirit, did somewhat give the location in Genesis 2 -

"10 And a river went out of Eden to water the garden; and from thence it was parted, and became into four heads.

11 The name of the first is Pison: that is it which compasseth the whole land of Havilah, where there is gold;

12 And the gold of that land is good: there is bdellium and the onyx stone.

13 And the name of the second river is Gihon: the same is it that compasseth the whole land of Ethiopia.

14 And the name of the third river is Hiddekel: that is it which goeth toward the east of Assyria. And the fourth river is Euphrates."

Using then known names of land.

It wasn't called Eden before Adam and Eve. And probably wasn't called Eden for a long time. Just like the land of Nod where Cain married his wife? I agree that the land was named after someone called Eden, and really don't have an issue with that. Like most descriptions about early history in Genesis, places became what we know because later in that history those places got their names. And the authors knew the lands by those names in their time.

Hope that's understandable.

Edited August 17, 2016 by Genevanpreacher

[Genevanpreacher]

14 hours ago, DaveW said:

Well, well, I learned something interesting - but not from GP, because he couldn't be bothered to look it up, but instead just guessed.

Look at his argument in in regard to "the holy mountain of God" - He SAYS that Tyrus did business with Jerusalem, but actually offers no biblical link between "the Holy mountain of God" and "Jerusalem".

So I did a quick search and found several references similar to this one:

Dan 9:16  O Lord, according to all thy righteousness, I beseech thee, let thine anger and thy fury be turned away from thy city Jerusalem, thy holy mountain: because for our sins, and for the iniquities of our fathers, Jerusalem and thy people are become a reproach to all that are about us.

I asked the question about "a king walking in the holy mountain of God" earlier in the thread, and it was not answered. I asked it in such a way that I stated I had not looked into it.

I now have and found that in all likelihood many kings had walked in Jerusalem, which is here called "thy Holy Mountain", so in fact it IS entirely possible that the King of Tyrus at some stage walked in Jerusalem.

But it doesn't say "Not the devil or Lucifer" in respect to this.

The bit about the valley of Achor being the "Midst of the stones of fire" is another example of GP grasping at just about any reference to justify his position.

There are more than a few references to stones and fire, and many references to fire and brimstone. Some of those at least are just as likely to be relevant references in this case.

The valley of Achor simply means the valley of trouble, and the name itself has no real link to stones of fire, apart from the record listed above, but it was apparently named so before this event.

 

Note: Some of the conjecture of GP is possible, but I am pointing out that in many instances there are many other possible references which have at least as strong a claim to relevance, and often a far stronger claim to relevance.

Btw Dave - I am not "grasping at just about any reference to justify" anything.

And that is your opinion. Of which you have the right to have.

I am using what I understand from the scriptures to explain what I believe. I don't see the problem. Is there an area of the scriptures that says what you believe about the "king of Tyrus" and the creation of Satan before he fell?

I don't see it anywhere in any of my Bibles. (KJV's and Geneva's only btw.)

I know there are commentaries in my Bibles that 'say' what Ezekiel 28 says, but I have yet to see in those Bibles 'texts' any such thing. And just about everything you and Scott and Alan have said are in those commentaries.

Of course mine is not.

[DaveW]

3 hours ago, Genevanpreacher said:

Btw Dave - I am not "grasping at just about any reference to justify" anything.

And that is your opinion. Of which you have the right to have.

I am using what I understand from the scriptures to explain what I believe. I don't see the problem. Is there an area of the scriptures that says what you believe about the "king of Tyrus" and the creation of Satan before he fell?

I don't see it anywhere in any of my Bibles. (KJV's and Geneva's only btw.)

I know there are commentaries in my Bibles that 'say' what Ezekiel 28 says, but I have yet to see in those Bibles 'texts' any such thing. And just about everything you and Scott and Alan have said are in those commentaries.

Of course mine is not.

I have not referenced any commentary in any of my answers - I have ONLY used my e-sword KJV. If I have come to the same conclusion as someone else - anyone else, "common-tater" or otherwise,  then it is probably because that is what the Bible says.

Instead of sidetracking at statements, how about you answer ANY of the points that have been put up.

People have ALREADY SHOWN that angels were not created evil, and your silly idea about evil angels being the residue from the creation of good angels has no scriptural support at all.

How about you PROVE FROM Scripture that Eden the garden of God was NOT the literal garden of Eden in spite of the very specific and defined term used, or even that there is record of ANY PERSONALITY ASIDE FROM the four I listed who ever walked in the Garden of Eden?

How about you PROVE FROM SCRIPTURE that the word "Cherub" (or cherubims) is used in any way to relate to a man?

I have shown point after point using the Bible where you are non-scriptural in this and you just come back saying that it is only my opinion.

According to Ezekiel 28:11-19 we see a personality that CAN NOT BE A MAN, as shown by my answers to your "point questions".

According to Ezekiel 28:11-15 the one spoken of is a CHURUB, a term ONLY used to refer to an angelic being in the Bible (twice for a region, which is not relevant).

 

Instead of saying these are my opinion, maybe you should present BIBLICAL evidence to counter my points.

 

And by the way, as far as I  recall the only person in this thread quoting from men is you: the notes of the Geneva Bible, which are not inspired; John Bunyan, who was not inspired; and the KJV translators, who were not inspired.

So your veiled accusation of me following men is actually APPLICABLE TO YOU by the evidence of your own posts, but not to me.

 

[Genevanpreacher]

8 hours ago, DaveW said:

Instead of saying these are my opinion, maybe you should present BIBLICAL evidence to counter my points.

And by the way, as far as I  recall the only person in this thread quoting from men is you: the notes of the Geneva Bible, which are not inspired; John Bunyan, who was not inspired; and the KJV translators, who were not inspired.

I have quoted one note from the Geneva. And one note from the KJV.

And so what? These guys may not have been 'inspired', as you state it, BUT they were the ones the Lord let translate! If anyone would know more than anyone else it would be them.

And I will try and state this again, clearer if I can - I DO believe the word translated 'Cherub' means 'Cherub' - just like the word translated 'fox' means 'fox', and 'tree' means 'tree', when used to describe character traits, or actions of various people, or proverbs concerning them - like Herod and Pharoah and others. It just doesn't mean it physically or materially.

I gave these examples and references. You just aren't seeing them. 

Edited August 17, 2016 by Genevanpreacher

[DaveW]

1 hour ago, Genevanpreacher said:

I have quoted one note from the Geneva. And one note from the KJV.

And so what? These guys may not have been 'inspired', as you state it, BUT they were the ones the Lord let translate! If anyone would know more than anyone else it would be them.

Yes, and you are still accusing others of using men's ideas onstead of the Bible when YOU ARE THE ONLY ONE QUOTING MEN.

And you still ignore the fact that there is no reason to take the word Cherub as figurative. You take it that way so that you can make the passage mean what you want it to.

YOU are the one constantly making up stories and redefining the Bible and making vague links between unrelated passages, and all so that it fits with your own ideas.

Edited August 17, 2016 by DaveW
Phone spelling

[Genevanpreacher]

On 8/17/2016 at 6:08 AM, DaveW said:

Yes, and you are still accusing others of using men's ideas onstead of the Bible when YOU ARE THE ONLY ONE QUOTING MEN.

And you still ignore the fact that there is no reason to take the word Cherub as figurative. You take it that way so that you can make the passage mean what you want it to.

YOU are the one constantly making up stories and redefining the Bible and making vague links between unrelated passages, and all so that it fits with your own ideas.

Have you considered the word "Moreover" in verse 11?

And that the "prince" and "king" are one and the same?

That would make Mr. Cherub  a "man" as in verse 2.

Is that possible?

I think.

[DaveW]

41 minutes ago, Genevanpreacher said:

Have you considered the word "Moreover" in verse 11?

And that the "prince" and "king" are one and the same?

That would make Mr. Cherub  a "man" as in verse 2.

Is that possible?

I think.

So you are going to throw out EVERY SINGLE REFERENCE, 91 of them (barring the two about the region) to cherub as being angelic on one vague word, and with no indication from the passage it is not literal.

You show more and more your lack of understanding, and your faulty study methods.

By the way, would you care to let everyone know what the meaning of the Hebrew word translated as "moreover" in Ezekiel 28:11 actually is?

 

[Pastor Scott Markle]

4 hours ago, DaveW said:

By the way, would you care to let everyone know what the meaning of the Hebrew word translated as "moreover" in Ezekiel 28:11 actually is?

Actually, the Hebrew construction for Ezekiel 28:1 & Ezekiel 28:11 is EXACTLY the same, wherein the word "again" in verse 1 and wherein the word "moreover" in verse 11 is translated from the same Hebrew prefix at the beginning of both sentences respectively.

However, if Brother "Genevanpreacher" wanted to attempt to show from the grammatical and contextual construction that Ezekiel 28:11-19 is a continuation of God's pronouncement against the same human individual as in Ezekiel 28:1-10, it would have been better for him to make reference unto the construction of Ezekiel 28:2 in comparison to the construction of Ezekiel 28:12.  The construction of Ezekiel 28:2 indicates that the message of Ezekiel 28:1-10 is intended for the prophet Ezekiel to deliver directly "unto the prince of Tyrus."  Whereas the construction of Ezekiel 28:12 indicates that the message of Ezekiel 28:11-19 is intended for the prophet Ezekiel to deliver simply as "a lamentation upon [about] the king of Tyrus." 

On the other hand, that same difference in construction could be used to argue that it was possible for the prophet Ezekiel to speak directly "unto" the human individual that was designated as "the prince of Tyrus," but that it was not possible for him actually to speak directly "unto" the "cherub" that was designated as "the king of Tyrus."  Along this line, it could as be argued that the pronouncement "unto the prince of Tyrus" encompassed that present time; therefore, the prophet Ezekiel could have a direct relationship to it.  Whereas the "lamentation upon the king of Tyrus" (if actually about "the devil") would encompass a time period extending from the beginning of creation unto a far distant time from the prophet Ezekiel's existence; therefore, the prophet Ezekiel was only instructed to deliver a lamentation "upon" him.

[DaveW]

Thanks for that brother.

I did the research, since GP was hanging his argument on that one word to overrule the biblically established meaning of cherub and to ignore the difference of meaning between the words "prince" and "king".

Guessing at the meaning of a word whilst ignoring the clear meanings of other words in the passage is exactly what displays faulty study methods I mentioned previously.