Jump to content
Online Baptist Community
  • Newest Sermon Entry

    • By 1Timothy115 in Devotionals
         11
      Psalms 119:1-8                                         Sep. 5 - Oct. 2, 2019
      1 ALEPH. Blessed are the undefiled in the way, who walk in the law of the LORD.
      2 Blessed are they that keep his testimonies, and that seek him with the whole heart.
      3 They also do no iniquity: they walk in his ways.
      4 Thou hast commanded us to keep thy precepts diligently.
      5 O that my ways were directed to keep thy statutes!
      6 Then shall I not be ashamed, when I have respect unto all thy commandments.
      7 I will praise thee with uprightness of heart, when I shall have learned thy righteous judgments.
      8 I will keep thy statutes: O forsake me not utterly.
      The following verse stood out to me...
      5 O that my ways were directed to keep thy statutes!
      At first glance it seemed to me this person’s soul is poured out with intense desire to have God’s direction in keeping His Word.
      I made a small wood fire in our backyard for my granddaughter, Julia, since she would be staying overnight with us. My wife and Julia stayed outside at the fire for about half an hour. Then, I found myself alone to watch the fire die out on a particularly lovely evening. So I took my verse from above and began to repeat it for memorization. As I repeated the verse, I tried to contemplate the words and apply them to what I was seeing around me. 
      The moon and stars were out now peering through the scattered clouds above.
      [Genesis 1:16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also. Genesis 1:17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth, Genesis 1:18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.]
      Thought 1         
      The moon has stayed his course since the day God created him, also the stars, obeying the statutes directed by God from the first day they were created. Can you imagine God’s direction to the Moon and stars, “moon you will have a path through the sky above the earth, stars you will occupy the firmament above the moon and be clearly visible in the cloudless night sky.”
      Then, the trees, grass, even the air we breathe obey the statues God gave them from the beginning. None of these creations have souls, none have hearts, none have intelligence, but they all observe God’s statutes, His instructions for their limited time on earth.
      Thought 2
      What if we were like the moon, stars, trees, grass, or the other creations which have no soul? We would be directed to keep God’s statutes without choosing to keep them. This is not the image of God, there would be no dominion over other creatures, or over the earth. We would not be capable of experiencing the joy and peace of learning the love of God
      Genesis 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
      Philippians 4:7 And the peace of God, which passeth all understanding, shall keep your hearts and minds through Christ Jesus.
      Thought 3 (October 2, 2019)
      Is the psalmist pleading God to force God’s statutes to become the man’s ways? No, he is speaking of his own failure in keeping God’s statutes and his desire to keep them, very much like Paul in Romans 7:14-25.
      God doesn’t work through force to turn men from their ways that they would desire His statutes or desire God Himself. Men must reject (repent) put aside his own ways and voluntarily seek God and His statutes.

GenevanPreacher, do you?

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
4 hours ago, No Nicolaitans said:

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

NN,

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

Thanks NN for atleast treating me in a positive tone.

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

4 hours ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Scott?

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

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
40 minutes ago, Genevanpreacher said:

Scott?

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

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

You're welcome.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
1 hour ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

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

You're welcome.

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

Didn't work out that way now did it?

My apologies for my flesh rearing up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
5 hours ago, Genevanpreacher said:

Thanks NN for atleast treating me in a positive tone.

:th_tiphat:

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
18 hours ago, DaveW said:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

Finally:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Who else could it be then?

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

It was not Adam or Eve.

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

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

Is that reasonable though?

Well, it is not without biblical precedent.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I know you will laugh at that one.

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

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

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

There are possibilities.

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

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

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

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

(And neither was Herod a fox btw.)

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

 

Edited by Genevanpreacher
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
44 minutes ago, Genevanpreacher said:

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

I know you will laugh at that one.

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

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

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

There are possibilities.

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

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

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

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

(And neither was Herod a fox btw.)

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

It says:

Ezekiel 28:14  Thou art the anointed cherub that covereth; and I have set thee so: thou wast upon the holy mountain of God; thou hast walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire.

But it doesn't mean that according to GP.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
1 hour ago, DaveW said:

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

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

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

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

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

You're right Dave.

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

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

Thou hast beene in Eden (עָדַן-Aden) the garden of God; euery precious stone was thy couering, the Sardius, Topaze, and the Diamond, the Beril, the Onyx, and the Iasper, the Saphir, the Emeraude, and the Carbuncle and gold: the workmanship of thy tabrets and of thy pipes was prepared in thee, in the day that thou wast created.

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

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
1 hour ago, Genevanpreacher said:

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

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

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

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

You're right Dave.

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

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

God waited various lengths of time to reveal various truths.

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

 

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

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
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 by DaveW
The verses formatted wrongly for some reason????
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

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. :lol:

 

Edited by No Nicolaitans
Fixed some mistakes...but probably missed more!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
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.

 


 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
On 8/14/2016 at 8:12 AM, Genevanpreacher said:

Now the BIG one - :o

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

kerûb

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.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...