GenevanPreacher, do you?

[Genevanpreacher]

23 hours ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

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.

Interesting Scott. Thanks for that. And with your 'head knowledge', about the grammatical, I am no challenger. (Stating anything else would be my flesh rearing.)

I was just looking up the word "moreover" in English and noticed it actually means something of interest.

One definition says -

"(used to add information) also and more importantly"

Another says -

"in addition to what has been said"

But I know those to be the words of men...so I won't bother stating 'what' they imply.

And before anyone says it - I do know there are other definitions - and I make this statement knowing some here put more 'faith' in the 'traditional' - of which I do not.

I am an independent Baptist.

 

Edited August 20, 2016 by Genevanpreacher

[DaveW]

1 hour ago, Genevanpreacher said:

Interesting Scott. Thanks for that. And with your 'head knowledge', about the grammatical, I am no challenger. (Stating anything else would be my flesh rearing.)

I was just looking up the word "moreover" in English and noticed it actually means something of interest.

One definition says -

"(used to add information) also and more importantly"

Another says -

"in addition to what has been said"

But I know those to be the words of men...so I won't bother stating 'what' they imply.

And before anyone says it - I do know there are other definitions - and I make this statement knowing some here put more 'faith' in the 'traditional' - of which I do not.

I am an independent Baptist.

 

For posterity again.

 

And again, you are going to throw out biblical definitions of the word "Cherub" based only on the word "Moreover" which Pastor Scott has explained, but which you call "Head knowledge" in order to cast a shadow upon his information.

Need I remind you AGAIN that of the 95 times the word Cherub (or cherubims) is used in the Bible, TWO are talking about a region of land, and EVERY OTHER ONE refers to either an angelic being or an artistic representation of an Angelic Being.

You are going to throw out 91 references, so that you can redefine 2 references to suit your own ideas.

And you are going to make two different words (King and prince) to have equivalent meanings, again because it suits your own ideas.

And your reasoning and "support" for doing so, is one possible meaning of the word "Moreover".

Again, this is evidence of very poor study method, and it absolutely reeks of someone trying to fit the Bible into their own ideas, instead of getting their ideas from the Bible.

This is not comparing Scripture with Scripture, but ignoring Scripture in favour of "Private interpretations".

 

You need to PROVE FROM THE BIBLE that Cherub can be a reference to a physical mortal man if you are to have any Biblical basis for your position.

 

 

[Genevanpreacher]

20 hours ago, DaveW said:

For posterity again.

And again, you are going to throw out biblical definitions of the word "Cherub" based only on the word "Moreover" which Pastor Scott has explained, but which you call "Head knowledge" in order to cast a shadow upon his information.

Need I remind you AGAIN that of the 95 times the word Cherub (or cherubims) is used in the Bible, TWO are talking about a region of land, and EVERY OTHER ONE refers to either an angelic being or an artistic representation of an Angelic Being.

You are going to throw out 91 references, so that you can redefine 2 references to suit your own ideas.

And you are going to make two different words (King and prince) to have equivalent meanings, again because it suits your own ideas.

And your reasoning and "support" for doing so, is one possible meaning of the word "Moreover".

Again, this is evidence of very poor study method, and it absolutely reeks of someone trying to fit the Bible into their own ideas, instead of getting their ideas from the Bible.

This is not comparing Scripture with Scripture, but ignoring Scripture in favour of "Private interpretations".

You need to PROVE FROM THE BIBLE that Cherub can be a reference to a physical mortal man if you are to have any Biblical basis for your position.

There are instances like this -

31 The same day there came certain of the Pharisees, saying unto him, Get thee out, and depart hence: for Herod will kill thee.

32 And he said unto them, Go ye, and tell that fox, Behold, I cast out devils, and I do cures to day and to morrow, and the third day I shall be perfected."

Now, Dave, is the word really "fox"?

Does it say "fox"?

Is not a "fox" a critter with fur and four legs?

Isn't a "fox" a carnivorous canine type of animal?

Well yeah!

But the Lord is not talking about a real  "fox" is he Dave.

What about here Dave - (1 chapter after Ezekiel 28 mind you) -

Ezekiel 29 -

"2 Son of man, set thy face against Pharaoh king of Egypt, and prophesy against him, and against all Egypt:

3 Speak, and say, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, I am against thee, Pharaoh king of Egypt, the great dragon that lieth in the midst of his rivers, which hath said, My river is mine own, and I have made it for myself.

4 But I will put hooks in thy jaws, and I will cause the fish of thy rivers to stick unto thy scales, and I will bring thee up out of the midst of thy rivers, and all the fish of thy rivers shall stick unto thy scales.

5 And I will leave thee thrown into the wilderness, thee and all the fish of thy rivers: thou shalt fall upon the open fields; thou shalt not be brought together, nor gathered: I have given thee for meat to the beasts of the field and to the fowls of the heaven."

Was Pharoah really a "great dragon" Dave?

And looky here Dave in Ezekiel 31 - (a scant 3 chapters away from Ezekiel 28) -

"2 Son of man, speak unto Pharaoh king of Egypt, and to his multitude; Whom art thou like in thy greatness?

3 Behold, the Assyrian was a cedar in Lebanon with fair branches, and with a shadowing shroud, and of an high stature; and his top was among the thick boughs.

4 The waters made him great, the deep set him up on high with her rivers running round about his plants, and sent out her little rivers unto all the trees of the field.

5 Therefore his height was exalted above all the trees of the field, and his boughs were multiplied, and his branches became long because of the multitude of waters, when he shot forth.

6 All the fowls of heaven made their nests in his boughs, and under his branches did all the beasts of the field bring forth their young, and under his shadow dwelt all great nations.

7 Thus was he fair in his greatness, in the length of his branches: for his root was by great waters.

8 The cedars in the garden of God could not hide him: the fir trees were not like his boughs, and the chesnut trees were not like his branches; nor any tree in the garden of God was like unto him in his beauty.

9 I have made him fair by the multitude of his branches: so that all the trees of Eden, that were in the garden of God, envied him."

Was the Assyrian really a "cedar" tree Dave? Did he really have "boughs" for the "fowls of heaven" to be in?

Was it reall all the trees of Eden that envied him?

Does it not say "cedar"? Does not a "cedar" have branches Dave? Is not a "cedar" a tree Dave?

Look how this chapter ends -

"To whom art thou thus like in glory and in greatness among the trees of Eden? yet shalt thou be brought down with the trees of Eden unto the nether parts of the earth: thou shalt lie in the midst of the uncircumcised with them that be slain by the sword. This is Pharoah and all his multitude, saith the Lord GOD."

God using words that ONLY mean what they say, but really represent the characteristics of said subjects.

Fox - Herod had its characteristics.

Dragon - Pharoah had its characteristics.

Cedar - the Assyrian (to which Pharoah is once more compared) had its characteristics.

And here Dave - STILL in Ezekiel - chapter 32 -

"2 Son of man, take up a lamentation for Pharaoh king of Egypt, and say unto him, Thou art like a young lion of the nations, and thou art as a whale in the seas: and thou camest forth with thy rivers, and troubledst the waters with thy feet, and fouledst their rivers."

And down through the rest of that chapter.

There are plenty of scriptures showing, that when the Lord talks about someone for a reason, he sometimes uses 'creatures' and their characteristics to describe them.

In Ezekiel (once again) chapter 34 the Lord calls some men "shepherd" and the people "sheep"

The list CAN go on Dave, but I shall stop.

So yes Dave, I DO believe the Lord meant to say "Cherub" in Ezekiel 28 - (and all the OTHER descriptive critters in my other references) - and I know what a "cherub" looks like and 'does'.

But I believe the Lord was refering to a man and not an angelic being of some sort.

Also adds some insight into the time when the Lord Jesus said to Peter - "Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men."

He wasn't really talking to Satan, but letting Peter know just who he was acting like. You know, Satan's characteristics.

---

It's funny - just recently I heard a preacher refer to Ezekiel 28 along with Isaiah 14 to describe the "prophecy" about the devil's origin. He described it as 'prophetical' and that this is described for us to KNOW the beginnings of the devil. Yet my question is - IF it is 'prophecy', where is it EVER shown in scripture that a prophecy HAD ALREADY OCCURRED?Where does it ever have a prophesy 'looking backward'?

As far as I know, prophecy is about 'future' events to yet come to pass.

Never about the past occurring. 

Thanks Dave.

Edited August 21, 2016 by Genevanpreacher

[DaveW]

5 minutes ago, Genevanpreacher said:

There are instances like this -

31 The same day there came certain of the Pharisees, saying unto him, Get thee out, and depart hence: for Herod will kill thee.

32 And he said unto them, Go ye, and tell that fox, Behold, I cast out devils, and I do cures to day and to morrow, and the third day I shall be perfected."

Now, Dave, is the word really "fox"?

Does it say "fox"?

Is not a "fox" a critter with fur and four legs?

Isn't a "fox" a carnivorous canine type of animal?

Well yeah!

But the Lord is not talking about a real  "fox" is he Dave.

What about here Dave - (1 chapter after Ezekiel 28 mind you) -

Ezekiel 29 -

"2 Son of man, set thy face against Pharaoh king of Egypt, and prophesy against him, and against all Egypt:

3 Speak, and say, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, I am against thee, Pharaoh king of Egypt, the great dragon that lieth in the midst of his rivers, which hath said, My river is mine own, and I have made it for myself.

4 But I will put hooks in thy jaws, and I will cause the fish of thy rivers to stick unto thy scales, and I will bring thee up out of the midst of thy rivers, and all the fish of thy rivers shall stick unto thy scales.

5 And I will leave thee thrown into the wilderness, thee and all the fish of thy rivers: thou shalt fall upon the open fields; thou shalt not be brought together, nor gathered: I have given thee for meat to the beasts of the field and to the fowls of the heaven."

Was Pharoah really a "great dragon" Dave?

And looky here Dave in Ezekiel 31 - (a scant 3 chapters away from Ezekiel 28) -

"2 Son of man, speak unto Pharaoh king of Egypt, and to his multitude; Whom art thou like in thy greatness?

3 Behold, the Assyrian was a cedar in Lebanon with fair branches, and with a shadowing shroud, and of an high stature; and his top was among the thick boughs.

4 The waters made him great, the deep set him up on high with her rivers running round about his plants, and sent out her little rivers unto all the trees of the field.

5 Therefore his height was exalted above all the trees of the field, and his boughs were multiplied, and his branches became long because of the multitude of waters, when he shot forth.

6 All the fowls of heaven made their nests in his boughs, and under his branches did all the beasts of the field bring forth their young, and under his shadow dwelt all great nations.

7 Thus was he fair in his greatness, in the length of his branches: for his root was by great waters.

8 The cedars in the garden of God could not hide him: the fir trees were not like his boughs, and the chesnut trees were not like his branches; nor any tree in the garden of God was like unto him in his beauty.

9 I have made him fair by the multitude of his branches: so that all the trees of Eden, that were in the garden of God, envied him."

Was the Assyrian really a "cedar" tree Dave? Did he really have "boughs" for the "fowls of heaven" to be in?

Was it reall all the trees of Eden that envied him?

Does it not say "cedar"? Does not a "cedar" have branches Dave? Is not a "cedar" a tree Dave?

Look how this chapter ends -

"To whom art thou thus like in glory and in greatness among the trees of Eden? yet shalt thou be brought down with the trees of Eden unto the nether parts of the earth: thou shalt lie in the midst of the uncircumcised with them that be slain by the sword. This is Pharoah and all his multitude, saith the Lord GOD."

God using words that ONLY mean what they say, but really represent the characteristics of said subjects.

Fox - Herod had its characteristics.

Dragon - Pharoah had its characteristics.

Cedar - the Assyrian (to which Pharoah is once more compared) had its characteristics.

And here Dave - STILL in Ezekiel - chapter 32 -

"2 Son of man, take up a lamentation for Pharaoh king of Egypt, and say unto him, Thou art like a young lion of the nations, and thou art as a whale in the seas: and thou camest forth with thy rivers, and troubledst the waters with thy feet, and fouledst their rivers."

And down through the rest of that chapter.

There are plenty of scriptures showing, that when the Lord talks about someone for a reason, he sometimes uses 'creatures' and their characteristics to describe them.

In Ezekiel (once again) chapter 34 the Lord calls some men "shepherd" and the people "sheep"

The list CAN go on Dave, but I shall stop.

So yes Dave, I DO believe the Lord meant to say "Cherub" in Ezekiel 28 - (and all the OTHER descriptive critters in my other references) - and I know what a "cherub" looks like and 'does'.

But I believe the Lord was refering to a man and not an angelic being of some sort.

---

It's funny - just recently I heard a preacher refer to Ezekiel 28 along with Isaiah 14 to describe the "prophecy" about the devil's origin. He described it as 'prophetical' and that this is described for us to KNOW the beginnings of the devil. Yet my question is - IF it is 'prophecy', where is it EVER shown in scripture that a prophecy HAD ALREADY OCCURRED?Where does it ever have a prophesy 'looking backward'?

As far as I know, prophecy is about 'future' events to yet come to pass.

Never about the past occurring. 

Thanks Dave.

And you believe that ONLY BECAUSE IT FITS YOUR PRECONCIEVED IDEAS, not because there is any indication from the Scriptures.

There are good reasons to accept your other "examples" as figurative.

Your study methods are appalling, as evidenced by your continued.

And you wonder why people are short with you - the tone in this reply to me is all the evidence you ever need as to why anyone would be short with you.

You have not changed since you first got here - you just manage to keep it hidden most of the time - but it comes out when you get challenged.

[Genevanpreacher]

14 minutes ago, DaveW said:

And you believe that ONLY BECAUSE IT FITS YOUR PRECONCIEVED IDEAS, not because there is any indication from the Scriptures.

There are good reasons to accept your other "examples" as figurative.

Your study methods are appalling, as evidenced by your continued.

And you wonder why people are short with you - the tone in this reply to me is all the evidence you ever need as to why anyone would be short with you.

You have not changed since you first got here - you just manage to keep it hidden most of the time - but it comes out when you get challenged.

[A quick answer on your first comment above - Christianity, and preachers in general have all been loaded down with "preconceived" doctrine about this Ezekiel 28 reference as well as Isaiah 14. So don't get on me for showing preconceived thinking (in your opinion) at all.]

Yes Dave. The examples FROM SCRIPTURE that you asked for are in my previous post.

I have proved that the Lord does use other words to describe the characteristics of people he is upset with by using creature characteristics.

Using scripture, and most of that from the SAME book that the Lord called the King of Tyrus a cherub!

Disprove these other examples Dave, and you prove the king of Tyrus and Satan are one and the same.

Thanks.

* and Dave - you have suddenly made this about me, and yet have not given scripture to disprove me in  my preconcieved ideas.

Edited August 21, 2016 by Genevanpreacher

[Genevanpreacher]

23 minutes ago, DaveW said:

And you believe that ONLY BECAUSE IT FITS YOUR PRECONCIEVED IDEAS, not because there is any indication from the Scriptures.

And Dave, other than Ezekiel 28 and Isaiah 14, when a person has preconceived thinking, there are NO supportive verses for thinking they have anything to do with Satan's origin or fall from being an angel to a devil.

[DaveW]

You have not shown Cherub is legitimately used in the way you suggest - you have shown examples where figurative language is used in the Bible. No one here has denied that figurative language exists in the Bible, but WHENEVER IT IS USED it is clearly indicated in the passage.

There is no such indication in Ezekiel 28:11-18.

There is no justification to take that passage as figurative, and there is no need to prove that Herod was a fox.

YOU must prove that there is a justification to take the passage as figurative.

You can twist it all you like, but you are the one with something to prove, not me. The passage reads literally, not figuratively.

You don't like the consequences of that, so you refuse to accept what the bible plainly says.

And YOUR TONE is under question with your recent replies.

You are reverting back to the rude obnoxious GP that first registered here.

That is a legitimate observation.

 

 

[Genevanpreacher]

1 hour ago, DaveW said:

You have not shown Cherub is legitimately used in the way you suggest - you have shown examples where figurative language is used in the Bible. No one here has denied that figurative language exists in the Bible, but WHENEVER IT IS USED it is clearly indicated in the passage.

There is no such indication in Ezekiel 28:11-18.

There is no justification to take that passage as figurative, and there is no need to prove that Herod was a fox.

YOU must prove that there is a justification to take the passage as figurative.

You can twist it all you like, but you are the one with something to prove, not me. The passage reads literally, not figuratively.

You don't like the consequences of that, so you refuse to accept what the bible plainly says.

And YOUR TONE is under question with your recent replies.

You are reverting back to the rude obnoxious GP that first registered here.

That is a legitimate observation.

No Dave. I have not and am not being rude nor obnoxious. Just answering in the same spirit with which you are portraying. 

The text and other supportive verses do indicate figuritive and not literal. 

That is where we differ.

I believe the verse to be figurative and you don't.

What does that have to do with me? 

Yes, I happen to differ in my view with you and others on OB.

That has nothing to do with the quoted passages. (In the same book even!)

Just because I answer you in a personal way does not mean I am being rude and obnoxious. That's the problem with posting. You don't really 'hear' the way it is being said.

I apologize for any sharpness or perceived rudeness. It was not meant to be offensive, just defensive.

I know you know what I mean.

So let's move on to something else...

Dave? If the said verses are speaking about Satan, where are the other devils at in this situation?

If Satan, the anointed Cherub, fell, where is it told about the other devils?

Obviously where the Lord Jesus said he saw Satan fall from heaven, he was not referring to Satans fall, but the downfall of Satan's power over people from the use of the Lord's disciples when he sent them out and they cast out devils from the people.

Now in Revelation there is described a 'fall'. Is that it?

I shall look and comment.

Edited August 21, 2016 by Genevanpreacher
Typo

[Genevanpreacher]

Revelation 12 -

"3 And there appeared another wonder in heaven; and behold a great red dragon, having seven heads and ten horns, and seven crowns upon his heads.

4 And his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven, and did cast them to the earth: and the dragon stood before the woman which was ready to be delivered, for to devour her child as soon as it was born.

5 And she brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron: and her child was caught up unto God, and to his throne.

6 And the woman fled into the wilderness, where she hath a place prepared of God, that they should feed her there a thousand two hundred and threescore days.

7 And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels,

8 And prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in heaven.

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."

 

Now this is more like it!

 

Look at that! Satan being kicked out of Heaven!

What ya think Dave? Is this when the Cherub was cast down?

Well, first, he wasn't no Cherub was he.

He was just like the Lord said - he sinneth from the beginning.

He was, is, and always shall be, a dragon and serpent type of character.

And just how did his tail draw, (what some people say), a third of the angels of God?

And if "neither was their place found any more in heaven." - how could Satan have stood before the Lord among the 'sons of God' in Jobs time? (Of course that could be totally different than what we think there too.)

And doesn't the woman part put the casting out of the dragon way into the future from the supposed fall of the Cherub? 

Your turn. 

[Genevanpreacher]

1 hour ago, DaveW said:

but WHENEVER IT IS USED it is clearly indicated in the passage.

One more comment about this post of yours Dave -

It is "clearly indicated in the passage" of Ezekiel 28 that the King of Tyrus could not really have been in the garden of Eden during Adam and Eve's time.

Therefore him being called a cherub must be figurative. And the garden of God called Eden had to be a different place than the original garden before the flood? (Even though Moses placed it in the same land area.)

Isn't that how you conclude a verse on whether it's figurative or literal - by the impossibilities? Just like all the figurative examples I gave following Ezekiel 28? It was impossible that the things the Lord called various people were actually those creatures. 

I am home and sick today btw. Chest congestion and severe coughing and runny nose with sore throat.

Yuck!

[Jim_Alaska]

2 hours ago, Genevanpreacher said:

Christianity, and preachers in general have all been loaded down with "preconceived" doctrine about this Ezekiel 28 reference as well as Isaiah 14.

Did it ever occur to you that what you perceive as "preconceived" might just be saved people coming to the same conclusions because they are led of the Holy Spirit to understand Scripture the way they do?

With so many Christians believing the same thing, would it not be logical to think that the Scripture means exactly what they believe it to be?

I think it would be extremely interesting to know, perhaps in a poll, how many saved people believe that Satan was created as a lying murderer, as opposed to how many believe that he fell from his exalted position in heaven.

After all, the Scripture says that when the Holy Spirit comes, He will lead believers into all truth.  Joh 16:13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come. 

[Genevanpreacher]

55 minutes ago, Jim_Alaska said:

Did it ever occur to you that what you perceive as "preconceived" might just be saved people coming to the same conclusions because they are led of the Holy Spirit to understand Scripture the way they do?

With so many Christians believing the same thing, would it not be logical to think that the Scripture means exactly what they believe it to be?

I think it would be extremely interesting to know, perhaps in a poll, how many saved people believe that Satan was created as a lying murderer, as opposed to how many believe that he fell from his exalted position in heaven.

After all, the Scripture says that when the Holy Spirit comes, He will lead believers into all truth.  Joh 16:13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come. 

Good thinking Jim.

Wish things were like that, but they aren't that clear.

Evidently.

I say that, because the truth bears witness with actual words from the scriptures themselves.

And no matter how many Christians believe these verses say Satan, before he was evil, was an anointed Cherub, that stood over the throne of God himself, favored highly of the Lord in decorations of precious stones and given very high authority, became jealous and decided to over throw the throne of God, are standing upon an opinion of who these verses are talking about, and not about the actual words.

This chapter, and the others around it, are God's judgments against the kings and governments and people he is in opposition to. And that is all he is talking to. He is bringing proclamation of his judgments through his prophet Ezekiel to these nations. The nations who mocked Israel in her predicament. 

I don't claim to know it all, although some seem to take my comments as such, but clearly the Lord is talking to the king of Tyrus, just like he says.

God's words, not mine, are -

"Son of man, take up a lamentation upon the king of Tyrus, and say unto him..."

Seems cut and dried.

As for Satan being a lying murderer - the Lord Jesus said - (remember, not MY words but HIS) -

"Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning"

From the beginning. That means exactly that. There was no time for him to not be a murderer.

And -

"He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil."

He sinned from the beginning. That means there was no time he wasn't in sin. 

God's words on the page are the final authority, not how we perceive them. And God's Holy Spirit will confirm them if we will only listen. And if we deny what the text says, we will not learn more.

The Lord said - in Mark 4 -

"23 If any man have ears to hear, let him hear.

24 And he said unto them, Take heed what ye hear: with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you: and unto you that hear shall more be given.

25 For he that hath, to him shall be given: and he that hath not, from him shall be taken even that which he hath."

Reread this part - "And unto you that hear shall more be given".

If you do not value what the Lord actually says, he will stop showing you. And you will not be given more. And even that which you have will be taken away.

Once again - cut and dried.

Edited August 21, 2016 by Genevanpreacher

[Jim_Alaska]

"from the beginning" is when he became Satan, or the Devil. Satan had a beginning. Before that he was Lucifer. His beginning as Satan is exactly when he became Evil. Of course this is just my opinion, but everyone has one.

"And even that which you have will be taken away." Here is what this Scripture actually says:  Mr 4:25 For he that hath, to him shall be given: and he that hath not, from him shall be taken even that which he hath. 

The Scripture leading up to this statement was comparing the seeds being sown into differing types of ground. Some produced and some did not, typifying those that accept the truth and those that do not. Those that will not accept the truth will have the truth that they have rejected taken away from them.

Your reference is not valid to this conversation because you try to make it seem as though the saved will even have the truth taken from them. Misapplying Scripture is a dangerous game.

[Alan]

11 hours ago, Jim_Alaska said:

"from the beginning" is when he became Satan, or the Devil. Satan had a beginning. Before that he was Lucifer. His beginning as Satan is exactly when he became Evil.

Amen!

Very acute observation and the proper exposition of the phrase, "from the beginning."

11 hours ago, Jim_Alaska said:

Misapplying Scripture is a dangerous game.

Amen!

Methinks the wise man will ponder this thought and remember. Misapplying, incorrectly dividing, and incorrectly interpreting, and trifling with God's word is a dangerous game that every man will lose.

2 Timothy 2:15 - 16, "Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. But shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness. And their word will eat as doth a canker: of whom is Hymenaeus and Philetus."

Hymenaeus and Philetus (teachers of false doctrine in the church), could not, "rightly divide the word of truth," and afterwards Paul set matters straight. 

 

 

Edited August 22, 2016 by Alan
spelling

[DaveW]

8 hours ago, Genevanpreacher said:

Good thinking Jim.

Wish things were like that, but they aren't that clear.

Evidently.

I say that, because the truth bears witness with actual words from the scriptures themselves.

And no matter how many Christians believe these verses say Satan, before he was evil, was an anointed Cherub, that stood over the throne of God himself, favored highly of the Lord in decorations of precious stones and given very high authority, became jealous and decided to over throw the throne of God, are standing upon an opinion of who these verses are talking about, and not about the actual words.

This chapter, and the others around it, are God's judgments against the kings and governments and people he is in opposition to. And that is all he is talking to. He is bringing proclamation of his judgments through his prophet Ezekiel to these nations. The nations who mocked Israel in her predicament. 

I don't claim to know it all, although some seem to take my comments as such, but clearly the Lord is talking to the king of Tyrus, just like he says.

God's words, not mine, are -

"Son of man, take up a lamentation upon the king of Tyrus, and say unto him..."

Seems cut and dried.

As for Satan being a lying murderer - the Lord Jesus said - (remember, not MY words but HIS) -

"Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning"

From the beginning. That means exactly that. There was no time for him to not be a murderer.

And -

"He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil."

He sinned from the beginning. That means there was no time he wasn't in sin. 

God's words on the page are the final authority, not how we perceive them. And God's Holy Spirit will confirm them if we will only listen. And if we deny what the text says, we will not learn more.

The Lord said - in Mark 4 -

"23 If any man have ears to hear, let him hear.

24 And he said unto them, Take heed what ye hear: with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you: and unto you that hear shall more be given.

25 For he that hath, to him shall be given: and he that hath not, from him shall be taken even that which he hath."

Reread this part - "And unto you that hear shall more be given".

If you do not value what the Lord actually says, he will stop showing you. And you will not be given more. And even that which you have will be taken away.

Once again - cut and dried.

Again, for posterity before he changes any of it.

And it is patently clear that you do not value whatnthe Lord says.