Jump to content
  • Welcome to Online Baptist

    Free to join.

No Nicolaitans

GenevanPreacher, do you?

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Brother "Genevanpreacher,"

The most foundational premise of my position on Ezekiel 28:11-19 concerns the designation of "the king of Tyrus" by the Lord God Himself as "the anointed cherub that covereth," with the Lord God indicating that He Himself had set this individual to be so.  Can you provide ANY Biblical evidence (excluding the very passage under question) that the descriptive designation of "covering cherub" does not refer unto an angelic being, but unto a human being? 

You see, if you can bring Biblical evidence against my most foundational premise, then you have some solid doctrinal ground upon which to stand.  However, if you cannot, then . . .

You really don't see the parallel with the description. It is a comparison - not a physical description.

Yes, I know what cherub means, but he is not using it to describe the actual creature here, but how the human he is talking about resembles in action. My biblical evidence is what you are reading. But I guess that means nothing. You also stated that the covering cherub covered the throne? That is not in scripture here either, and yes I know the description of the ark of the covenant has them, but that is not here in these verses to prove any such thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Genevanpreacher said:

You really don't see the parallel with the description. It is a comparison - not a physical description.

Yes, I know what cherub means, but he is not using it to describe the actual creature here, but how the human he is talking about resembles in action. My biblical evidence is what you are reading. But I guess that means nothing. You also stated that the covering cherub covered the throne? That is not in scripture here either, and yes I know the description of the ark of the covenant has them, but that is not here in these verses to prove any such thing.

love it - I have to keep quoting these to keep them for posterity.

 

So the Bible DOESN'T mean what it actually says?

Maybe you can show the mechanism whereby you get the idea that it is only a comparison and not an actual description?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a few question from the ACTUAL PASSAGE - you don't mind using the Bible do you? I wondered because you have not done much of it yourself in this thread.

But maybe you could answer these step by step and with Bible references?

Eze 28:1-19

Part 1, designated by the phrase “The word of the Lord came again unto me”.

 

(1)  The word of the LORD came again unto me, saying,

(2)  Son of man, say unto the prince of Tyrus, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Because thine heart is lifted up, and thou hast said, I am a God, I sit in the seat of God, in the midst of the seas; yet thou art a man, and not God, though thou set thine heart as the heart of God:

(3)  Behold, thou art wiser than Daniel; there is no secret that they can hide from thee:

(4)  With thy wisdom and with thine understanding thou hast gotten thee riches, and hast gotten gold and silver into thy treasures:

(5)  By thy great wisdom and by thy traffick hast thou increased thy riches, and thine heart is lifted up because of thy riches:

(6)  Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD; Because thou hast set thine heart as the heart of God;

(7)  Behold, therefore I will bring strangers upon thee, the terrible of the nations: and they shall draw their swords against the beauty of thy wisdom, and they shall defile thy brightness.

(8)  They shall bring thee down to the pit, and thou shalt die the deaths of them that are slain in the midst of the seas.

(9)  Wilt thou yet say before him that slayeth thee, I am God? but thou shalt be a man, and no God, in the hand of him that slayeth thee.

(10)  Thou shalt die the deaths of the uncircumcised by the hand of strangers: for I have spoken it, saith the Lord GOD.

 

This would be Part 2 by the same designation.

 

(11)  Moreover the word of the LORD came unto me, saying,

(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.

(13)  Thou hast been in Eden the garden of God; every precious stone was thy covering, the sardius, topaz, and the diamond, the beryl, the onyx, and the jasper, the sapphire, the emerald, and the carbuncle, and gold: the workmanship of thy tabrets and of thy pipes was prepared in thee in the day that thou wast created.

(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.

(15)  Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee.

(16)  By the multitude of thy merchandise they have filled the midst of thee with violence, and thou hast sinned: therefore I will cast thee as profane out of the mountain of God: and I will destroy thee, O covering cherub, from the midst of the stones of fire.

(17)  Thine heart was lifted up because of thy beauty, thou hast corrupted thy wisdom by reason of thy brightness: I will cast thee to the ground, I will lay thee before kings, that they may behold thee.

(18)  Thou hast defiled thy sanctuaries by the multitude of thine iniquities, by the iniquity of thy traffick; therefore will I bring forth a fire from the midst of thee, it shall devour thee, and I will bring thee to ashes upon the earth in the sight of all them that behold thee.

(19)  All they that know thee among the people shall be astonished at thee: thou shalt be a terror, and never shalt thou be any more.

 

Note the differentiation between “Prince” and “king” as already shown by Pastor Markle.

I would like you to answer the question as to when any king was in the Garden of Eden (see  vs 13), with Scripture reference please.

I can understand how someone would suggest that the “covering” was a coat, and the pipes and tabrets were instruments owned by a man, but the phrase “was prepared in thee in the day that thou wast created.” seems to indicate that this covering and these instruments were an actual part of the creature being spoken of. This would indeed be an amazing creature to have such things as a part of their being, but the descriptions of the Cherubim in Ezekiel 1 is an amazing and incredible description (note that Ezekiel 10:15 cross references the “living creatures” of Chapter 1 with the term “Cherubims”, and that chapter also includes more incredible description of these creatures.) Indeed, when reading such descriptions, it becomes entirely believable that the description of this “Being” covered in every precious stone and having pipes and timbrels prepared in him in the day he was created, and who is then called a “cherub” could be a literal physical description of an angelic being.

Then in vs 14 we have that specific designation of this one being a “cherub” which was sufficiently covered in Pastor Markle’s previous posts.

However, the description also here points out that this “person” was in the holy mountain of God. Please show, with Scripture reference when any earthly king walked in the holy mountain of God, and please also show, with Scripture reference that any particular mountain that an earthly king did walk upon qualifies as “the Holy mountain of God.

Vs 15 notes that this “person was perfect in (his) ways from the day that (he was) created.” (Parentheses in this sentence denotes my change from the earlier fully quoted passage).

Could you show, with Scripture reference where any man is said to have been created perfect?

(Note: I believe Adam was created perfect, but the Bible does not use that specific phrase in relation to Him.)

Vs 16 notes that this “person” will be cast out of the mountain of God, so if any king is found to have been in the mount of God, and if that instance can be verified as happening in the holy mount of God, that person ALSO has to be recorded as being cast out of the mountain of God.

Please supply Scripture reference to support these events as happening to any biblically recorded king.

That should be a good list to start with.

As I read the Bible, I find no earthly king that satisfies these verses literally, but I do see how they could relate to an angelic being.

Further, the “Part 1” and “Part 2” as shown above show a split of subject, but there appears to be no indication in this passage of a change from literal description in part 1 to figurative description in part 2.

 

 

Please note that my posing of these questions is genuine and there may for instance be a biblical record of a king "in the holy mount of God", but if ALL of these questions cannot be sufficiently answered, then the likelihood is that the Ezekiel 28:11 - 19 passage refers to an angelic being, and not to any earthly king.

For instance, Moses and Aaron are both noted as being in the mount of God in

Exo_4:27  And the LORD said to Aaron, Go into the wilderness to meet Moses. And he went, and met him in the mount of God, and kissed him.


But neither of them was a king, neither of them was ever in the Garden of Eden, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting exercise in statistics.

How has the Bible been used in this thread?

Those that according to GP are "paying heed to traditions, mostly perpetrated by scholars.......", talking "heresy against the word of the living God", and "teachings that lead to fantasy" have made reference by address (chapter and verse) to 18 passages, and provided full quotes 26 times (Prior to the posts of Pastor Markle's giving a full point by point explanation of Ezekiel 28). Some of these references and quotes included several verses, so these are not the number of actual verses referenced or quoted.

This gives a total of 44 passages either referenced or quoted in the arguments against GP's position.

 

To the best of my searching, GP has referenced only 1 passage by address, and quoted 7 passages without address references. Of these 7 passages, 3 make no reference at all to angels or Satan, and are not cohesively linked to the subject by GP. They are nonetheless included in this count for a total of 8 bible references.

Interestingly GP makes1 Reference to the NOTES OF THE GENEVA BIBLE for Isaiah 14:12 (without giving the reference), and references the writings of John Bunyan in his argument. That means that more than 20% of his "Biblical references" are to "scholars" and not to the Bible itself.

 

And this is from a man who in this thread constantly accusing others of not using the Bible properly, and at one time says "A verse somewhere that states that without making up a story?" when questioning a statement made by an opponent.

He uses less that a quarter of the number of Bible references as his opponents, and supports his argument with the writings of mere men once for every 5 Bible references.

His only defense appears to be that his opponents are misusing Scripture, but he refuses to answer direct questions about that accused misuse of Scripture.

(Please note that counting Scripture references int his way is difficult because of the quotes of people who have included Bible references. I may have miscounted, but have taken some care. I apologise if the numbers are not perfect, but I am confident that they are very close.

Please note further, that since I began my statistical count, there have been several posts including Bible quotes by the opponents of GP, thereby swaying the balance further away from GP.)

 

I found the numbers interesting in light of the accusations by GP. The Numbers suggest that GP is the one not using the Bible much, and the facts also bear out that GP has directly quoted from "Scholars" whereas I don't recall finding anything from his opponents directly quoting "Scholars".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, DaveW said:

love it - I have to keep quoting these to keep them for posterity.

So the Bible DOESN'T mean what it actually says?

Maybe you can show the mechanism whereby you get the idea that it is only a comparison and not an actual description?

Yes Dave it has in MANY places wording that does not mean what it says.

Your version of the verses in question are obvious examples.

As for your question -

"...whereby you get the idea that it is only a comparison and not an actual description?"

It is NOT in the scriptures that any such thing occurred. NOWHERE are there verses that state your version of a created being such as you imagine was created. Nor are there inferences that such a creature EVER existed.

That is the foundation to understanding this whole scenario.

Why believe these verses ARE talking the way they 'appear' when you cannot show just WHERE it happened?

Genesis covers history from the existence of all created things.

Why, Dave, would God leave out such an important thing such as this subject and insert it in two books YEARS, NO CENTURIES later? AND then make us guess as to 'where did this wonderful thing happen?' And not show us?

Don't you wonder Dave?

If I get time I will show verses for my support, I am sorry I lack the time. I do work a job with overtime and have many responsibilities and can only be online in early morning and late at night. Patience friend.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Brother "Genevanpreacher,"

The most foundational premise of my position on Ezekiel 28:11-19 concerns the designation of "the king of Tyrus" by the Lord God Himself as "the anointed cherub that covereth," with the Lord God indicating that He Himself had set this individual to be so.  Can you provide ANY Biblical evidence (excluding the very passage under question) that the descriptive designation of "covering cherub" does not refer unto an angelic being, but unto a human being? (Color emphasis by Pastor Scott Markle)

You see, if you can bring Biblical evidence against my most foundational premise, then you have some solid doctrinal ground upon which to stand.  However, if you cannot, then . . .

10 hours ago, Genevanpreacher said:

You really don't see the parallel with the description. It is a comparison - not a physical description.

Yes, I know what cherub means, but he is not using it to describe the actual creature here, but how the human he is talking about resembles in action. My biblical evidence is what you are reading. But I guess that means nothing. You also stated that the covering cherub covered the throne? That is not in scripture here either, and yes I know the description of the ark of the covenant has them, but that is not here in these verses to prove any such thing.

So then, the answer to my above question is -- No, you cannot.

10 hours ago, Genevanpreacher said:

You really don't see the parallel with the description. It is a comparison - not a physical description.

No sir, I "really don't see the parallel with the description."  If I had seen such, I would have communicated such through the precise grammar and context of the passage in my earlier explanation of the passage.  I certainly would not have simply made the claim without providing the grammatical and contextual evidence for that claim.

10 hours ago, Genevanpreacher said:

Yes, I know what cherub means . . .

You also stated that the covering cherub covered the throne? That is not in scripture here either, and yes I know the description of the ark of the covenant has them . . .

Yes, the Biblical evidence indicates that the word "cherub" refers to an angelic being (even as you have indicated above that you know).  Thus the Biblical evidence is on my side of the disagreement, and you even know that.

Yes, the Biblical evidence indicates that "cherubims," as angelic beings, cover the throne of God with their wings (even as you have indicated above that you know).  Thus the Biblical evidence is again on my side of the disagreement, and you again know that.

So then, what evidence do you provide for your side of the disagreement in contradiction to the Biblical evidence that I have provided?

10 hours ago, Genevanpreacher said:

Yes, I know what cherub means, but he is not using it to describe the actual creature here, but how the human he is talking about resembles in action. My biblical evidence is what you are reading. But I guess that means nothing. You also stated that the covering cherub covered the throne? That is not in scripture here either, and yes I know the description of the ark of the covenant has them, but that is not here in these verses to prove any such thing.

The ONLY evidence that you have provided is your own word of disagreement, and nothing more.  Certainly, such evidence is NOT human tradition, as you have made accusation against my position.  Rather, such evidence is self-exaltation, as if your word stands with final authority.  Please understand that as for me, such evidence will NEVER be worthy of my consideration for the formulation of the doctrine to which I will hold.

10 hours ago, Genevanpreacher said:

My biblical evidence is what you are reading. But I guess that means nothing.

Actually, the details of the passage that we are reading (that is -- Ezekiel 28:11-19) mean a great deal to me, even as the great majority of my earlier presentations have centered upon and been filled with point-by-point explanations of that very passage, with some comparison of Scripture-to-Scripture in order to maintain correctness in Biblical definition and doctrine.

10 hours ago, Genevanpreacher said:

Yes, I know what cherub means, but he is not using it to describe the actual creature here, but how the human he is talking about resembles in action.

So then, you appear to be asserting that the phrase, "Thou art the anointed cherub that covereth; and I have set thee so," is intended only to reveal how a particular "human king of Tyrus" resembled an angelic cherub.  Let us examine that assertion.

1.  Grammatically, the Lord God said, "Thou art."  He did not say, "Thou art like or as."  Yes, I recognize that this is not an absolute evidence in itself.  Yet it is an evidence.

2.  In His descriptive designation, the Lord God included three characteristics for this individual, as follows: (1) The characteristic of "cherub," which by definition is an angelic being.  (2) The characteristic of "anointed" cherub, which if actually referring unto an angelic being would indicate the anointing hand of God Himself.  (3) The characteristic of "covering" cherub, which if actually referring unto an angelic being would indicate the position of covering God's throne.  So then, you would be indicating that this human king resembled the angelic being of a cherub, that this human king resembled a being who was anointed by God's own hand, and that this human king resembled a being whose responsibility was to cover God's own throne with his wings.  Could you please explain HOW this king might have resembled a cherub in the latter two characteristics.  How did he resemble a being who was anointed by God's own hand?  How did he resemble a being who was responsible to cover God's own throne?

3.  In His declaration the Lord God also indicated that He Himself had set this individual in his position as "the anointed cherub that covereth."  Grammatically, the Lord God did not indicate that He had made this individual to be similar unto another.  Rather, the Lord God indicated that He Himself had set this individual in the very position that He Himself had previously described.

To me the evidence of the statement itself is obvious and "overwhelming."  The Lord God did not simply liken this individual unto a "cherub."  Rather, the Lord God provided characteristic upon characteristic in order to make clear unto us that He was indeed speaking concerning "the anointed cherub that covereth" himself.  In fact, in Ezekiel 28:16 the Lord God Himself refers unto this anointed cherub, not with a descriptive designation, but with a direct title; and that title is -- "O covering cherub."  As for myself, I am choosing to take the Lord God's statements literally.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Genevanpreacher said:

Yes Dave it has in MANY places wording that does not mean what it says.

Your version of the verses in question are obvious examples.

As for your question -

"...whereby you get the idea that it is only a comparison and not an actual description?"

It is NOT in the scriptures that any such thing occurred. NOWHERE are there verses that state your version of a created being such as you imagine was created. Nor are there inferences that such a creature EVER existed.

That is the foundation to understanding this whole scenario.

Why believe these verses ARE talking the way they 'appear' when you cannot show just WHERE it happened?

Genesis covers history from the existence of all created things.

Why, Dave, would God leave out such an important thing such as this subject and insert it in two books YEARS, NO CENTURIES later? AND then make us guess as to 'where did this wonderful thing happen?' And not show us?

Don't you wonder Dave?

If I get time I will show verses for my support, I am sorry I lack the time. I do work a job with overtime and have many responsibilities and can only be online in early morning and late at night. Patience friend.

The Bible always CLEARLY indicates when a passage is not to be understood literally - where is that indication in these passages?

As for "my version"...... My version is the KJV. You might note that I quoted the passage and noted the verses and cross referenced such descriptions of angelic beings that are clearly stated as angelic beings, thereby supporting the principle that it is a literal account, unlike yourself who says it is not literal simply because you don't want it to be.

Where is the literary indication that this is not literal?

You admitted it is not in the passage but insist it is not literal, even though the passage has no such indication. YOU ARE MAKING IT UP BECAUSE IT SUITS YOUR POSITION.

I used the BIBLE.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, DaveW said:

The Bible always CLEARLY indicates when a passage is not to be understood literally - where is that indication in these passages?

As for "my version"...... My version is the KJV. You might note that I quoted the passage and noted the verses and cross referenced such descriptions of angelic beings that are clearly stated as angelic beings, thereby supporting the principle that it is a literal account, unlike yourself who says it is not literal simply because you don't want it to be.

Where is the literary indication that this is not literal?

You admitted it is not in the passage but insist it is not literal, even though the passage has no such indication. YOU ARE MAKING IT UP BECAUSE IT SUITS YOUR POSITION.

I used the BIBLE.

Then please Dave, use the BIBLE.

Show me in the creation events in Genesis where it states Satan/Lucifer or the Devil were created -and follow up with a verse reference where a creature, such as described in Isaiah and Ezekiel, creation or existence occurred. 

Without that, you have no foundation to base the story someone concocted years ago.

Now, if you had those/that verse, then I would join in and say amen to the truth of Satans honorable position he held in the past, before he turned into the Devil he is now.

Gotta go.

Edited by Genevanpreacher

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quick note: as for Lucifer and who he was - the note in the original 1611 KJV states that "O Lucifer" means "O day star" in the gloss.

I know those guys were only the translators but could they have misunderstood?

Nope.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, Genevanpreacher said:

Then please Dave, use the BIBLE.

Show me in the creation events in Genesis where it states Satan/Lucifer or the Devil were created -and follow up with a verse reference where a creature, such as described in Isaiah and Ezekiel, creation or existence occurred. 

Without that, you have no foundation to base the story someone concocted years ago.

Now, if you had those/that verse, then I would join in and say amen to the truth of Satans honorable position he held in the past, before he turned into the Devil he is now.

Gotta go.

This is absolute rubbish.

There is no need to show the creation of Satan for it to be so.

The Bible doesn't specifically say that lions were created, but surely you don't deny that they were created. And in fact you don't deny that  Satan was created, you simply ascribe it to an accident left over when God created the angels.

These creatures DO EXIST because the bible describes them.

And you STILL REFUSE TO SHOW the literary indicator that these passages are not literal.

YOU EXPECT US TO ACCEPT your position, not because of ANY BIBLICAL EVIDENCE but simply on your own word.

You won't  answer my biblical explanation just you won't and Pastor Markle's BECAUSE YOU CAN'T ANSWER IT BIBLICALLY. 

My statistical list is swinging ever more against you, and yet YOU STILL REFUSE TO USE THE BIBLE IN YOU ARGUMENTS.

And you still accuse others of what you are doing throughout this thread.

That is called HYPOCRISY.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Genesis 1-2 does not make any reference unto the creation of hell (the judgment-place of "everlasting fire"), yet Matthew 25:41 indicates that it is a created place.

You beat me to it!  :verymad:  Though you said it better than I would have.  :nuts:  :thumb:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, DaveW said:

This is absolute rubbish.

There is no need to show the creation of Satan for it to be so.

The Bible doesn't specifically say that lions were created, but surely you don't deny that they were created. And in fact you don't deny that  Satan was created, you simply ascribe it to an accident left over when God created the angels.

These creatures DO EXIST because the bible describes them.

And you STILL REFUSE TO SHOW the literary indicator that these passages are not literal.

YOU EXPECT US TO ACCEPT your position, not because of ANY BIBLICAL EVIDENCE but simply on your own word.

You won't  answer my biblical explanation just you won't and Pastor Markle's BECAUSE YOU CAN'T ANSWER IT BIBLICALLY. 

My statistical list is swinging ever more against you, and yet YOU STILL REFUSE TO USE THE BIBLE IN YOU ARGUMENTS.

And you still accuse others of what you are doing throughout this thread.

That is called HYPOCRISY.

Since I explained my time restraint I thought you might understand just a bit.

Thanks anyway.

But a source for why you believe the "Biblical" account of Satans existence before he was evil would help for supporting your version of what the Ezekiel verses mean.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Genevanpreacher said:

Since I explained my time restraint I thought you might understand just a bit.

Thanks anyway.

But a source for why you believe the "Biblical" account of Satans existence before he was evil would help for supporting your version of what the Ezekiel verses mean.

All I did with the Ezekiel account was point out how, when read literally, it does not fit any description of any human king. In fact there is basically no way that it can refer to any human king.

And there is no indication in the passage that it should taken other than literally.

I also showed a cross reference of another description of beings positively identified as cherubim, which shows that such fantastic descriptions ARE positively ascribed to angelic beings,  and therefor the Ezekiel passage has Biblical precedent for application to an angelic being.

As to Satan's creation,  I have already quoted from John 1 where it says "All things were made by him, and without him was not anything made that was made. This verse totally destroys your premise of "evil angels" being mere "residue".

Nothing was made that Christ did not make.

As to time constraints - if you are too busy to use the Bible,  then at the very least you should not be accusing others of not using the Bible, especially when we are using a multitude of verses and passages and you are refering to non-biblical writers with almost a third of your quotations.

You find time to make such non-biblical references but cannot cut and paste verses?

Really........

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Genevanpreacher said:

Sheesh Dave.

Lighten up a bit.

I AM doing this on my phone. And I AM old. Give me a break.

This comes after the way you have constantly accused and berated anyone who dares question you own thoughts on this, in spite of the fact that everyone has quoted the Bible more than you.

You regularly use sarcasm and make false accusations, then complain when you are pressed to support your own personal doctrines with Bible references used properly and in context. 

Lighten up indeed.........

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎7‎/‎21‎/‎2016 at 10:00 PM, Genevanpreacher said:

But I will emphatically state that I don't believe there ever was an angel named Lucifer, that was perfect, and was the highest angel in God's multitude of angelic hosts, that decided he was suddenly jealous of God and moved a rebellion of the angelic host to try and take over the throne of God.

IMO that is heresy against the word of the living God.

Period.

Fairly strong accusation from someone who desires that we should "lighten up."

Edited by Pastor Scott Markle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

About the "king of Tyre" thing; is it possible and Biblical that God would address the Devil while speaking directly to a man?

But he turned, and said unto 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. Matthew 16:23

 

I guess so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/1/2016 at 2:19 PM, Pastor Scott Markle said:

4.  He was “the anointed cherub” that covered the throne of God. (Ezekiel 28:14)

How do you know he covered God's throne? Is it because cherubs covered the mercy on the ark? Exodus 25:20

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, MountainChristian said:

How do you know he covered God's throne? Is it because cherubs covered the mercy on the ark? Exodus 25:20

Actually, it is because of the joining of two Biblical truths, as follows:

1.  The truth concerning the images of the two "cherubims" covering the mercy seat of the earthly tabernacle-temple.
2.  The truth revealed in Hebrews that the earthly tabernacle-temple and its elements were "a pattern of things in the heavens." (See Hebrews 8:5; 9:8-9; 9:23-24; 10:1)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, MountainChristian said:

How do you know he covered God's throne? Is it because cherubs covered the mercy on the ark? Exodus 25:20

Whilst this is a legitimate question, it is incidental to the discussion not critical to it.

Can I suggest that it not be pursued vigorously in this thread, but a separate thread be started if Pastor Markle's answer is not deemed sufficient.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow.

After reading through all of this, that's about all I can say.  WOW!
 

Ok, look, GenevaPreacher, you have berated us up and down for holding to this "concocted" story, yet you have failed - miserably to persuade us otherwise.  You have given us assertions and claims, but have not really addressed the substance of the issue, as your antagonists have, namely DaveW and Pastor Markle.  Yet you continue with your assertions and claims as if no substantial arguments have been made.
I know what it is like to have limited time, having to work overtime, etc.  I get it.  But after all of your bellowing about this subject, you owe us an explanation and dissertation on the subject.  For as much noise as you have made, and with no substantial arguments made from Scripture, despite repeated calls to do so, you have failed miserably to provide any sound exposition of the subject.  

The arguments against you are overwhelming.  Pastor Markle did an excellent job (as always) of carefully expounding the Ezekiel passage.  I would encourage you to do likewise!

10 hours ago, heartstrings said:

About the "king of Tyre" thing; is it possible and Biblical that God would address the Devil while speaking directly to a man?

But he turned, and said unto 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. Matthew 16:23

 

I guess so.

Absolutely.  I believe the first part of the chapter is a "dual reference" applicable to both the physical prince of Tyrus, and the devil.  The second part is solely the devil, in my view.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/28/2016 at 4:55 AM, Genevanpreacher said:

And just where in scripture is this explained Rhonda?

Isaiah 14:12 "How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!"
Luke 10:18 "And he said unto them, I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven."
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."
Ezekiel 28:13-17
13 "Thou hast been in Eden the garden of God; every precious stone was thy covering, the sardius, topaz, and the diamond, the beryl, the onyx, and the jasper, the sapphire, the emerald, and the carbuncle, and gold: the workmanship of thy tabrets and of thy pipes was prepared in thee in the day that thou wast created."
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."
15 "Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee."
16 "By the multitude of thy merchandise they have filled the midst of thee with violence, and thou hast sinned: therefore I will cast thee as profane out of the mountain of God: and I will destroy thee, O covering cherub, from the midst of the stones of fire."
17 "Thine heart was lifted up because of thy beauty, thou hast corrupted thy wisdom by reason of thy brightness: I will cast thee to the ground, I will lay thee before kings, that they may behold thee."

What's the devil doing now? Same thing he's been doing since his fall from heaven (which Jesus Himself said He "beheld beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven"

1 Pet. 5:8 "Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour"

Job 1:6-7
6 "Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan came also among them."
7 "And the Lord said unto Satan, Whence comest thou? Then Satan answered the Lord, and said, From going to and fro in the earth, and from walking up and down in it."
 

On 7/30/2016 at 6:19 AM, Genevanpreacher said:

So I am not conjecturing at all, unless you believe they do with the fallen angels story?

What "STORY" are you referring to??? This "STORY"???

Jude 1:6 "And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day."

2 Pet 2:4 "For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment"

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."


 

On 7/30/2016 at 9:24 AM, Steve Schwenke said:

I would really like it if you could provide Scripture to support each point.

I agree, brother Steve.  "Genievan Preacher" is good at quoting mankind, though. And then claiming we (who quote God's word) are the ones following what we've (supposedly) been taught of mankind.?!?!?! 

 

On 7/30/2016 at 9:24 AM, Steve Schwenke said:

Did you know John Bunyun in "Pilgrims Progress" called devils ''all the satans in Hell..."? Interesting wording.

 

So I wonder: Where is the scripture to support this theory that God (supposedly) created the devil to be evil??? "GP"??? 

On 7/30/2016 at 9:24 AM, Steve Schwenke said:

Yes. He wasn't 'forced' to be, but his nature was to be evil. Not as confusing as it sounds.

And I also wonder why you feel the need to "look outside the box"??? Why not look inside the Book instead???

On 7/30/2016 at 6:19 AM, Genevanpreacher said:

SO many preach the same teachings that people will not bother to look 'outside the box'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

GP,

Snide remarks will not take the place of the Scripture that has been asked for by many on this board.

If you cannot, or will not provide the asked for Scripture that shows your position, then your "man made" arguments are exactly what you accused others of.

Based on Scripture provided by others and lack of the same by you, the only conclusion anyone could come to is that it is indeed your "story" that holds no credibility and is therefore "man made."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Who's Online   0 Members, 0 Anonymous, 31 Guests (See full list)

    There are no registered users currently online

×
×
  • Create New...