God= divine Ogre analogy.

Isaiah 14:12 must be either symbolic or prophetic because the casting out of Satan from heaven was yet a future event at the time John wrote Revelation. (Revelation 12:9)

See post above.

I never hang out with the stars--i just don't do Hollywood.

Astrology

No, all Christians and Bible scholars do not believe this is a reference to Satan. The Bible itself states it is not a reference to Satan. I find it ironic that you say you take the Bible literally but you don't.

Isaiah is a literal prophecy against Babylon. I've shown you the verses that prove it, yet you don't want to believe it as a literal prophecy against Babylon. No, you want to believe it as being about Satan, even though no mention of Satan is made.

Shall I direct you to a Christian site that talks of the passage as being one directed against the King of Babylon? Not Satan?

http://www.newadvent.org/bible/isa014.htm

Shall I provide you with another source?

http://www.wrestedscriptures.com/b07satan/isaiah14v12-14.html

To say that all Christians and all scholars believe that the verse is a reference to Satan is a bare-faced lie with no proof to back it up. To say that Isaiah 14:12 is talking about Satan is also a stretch of the imagination.

Oh and Neologist... Of course Isaiah 14:12 is meant to be prophetic! It's a part of the Prophecy against Babylon that started in Isaiah 13! The thing is that it is very clear from the Bible that the passage is meant as a taunt for the King of Babylon.

I find it amusing that Kate claims to believe the Bible is inerrant, but when it tells her that a certain passage is referring to the King of Babylon, she insists that it refers to Satan, despite the fact that a reference to Satan would make no logical sense in the context of the prophecy.

Double-standards, Kate. Double standards.

Oh, and I've got one more link to prove you wrong about all Christians and scholar believing Isaiah 14:12 is in reference to Satan.

http://www.bible.org/page.asp?page_id=2091

Kate you cant just say all christians believe something b/c you do....you cant just take everything in the bible as fact b/c is alot is symbolism and parables and terms that where popular in there time just like ours.God is not battling satan, god battles greed. Satan is a created being god can smash him when ever he pleases, it greed that is god enemy. Also the thought that God would let the all evil being take control of Jobs life just to prove a point seams pretty barbaric for a "loving god" How would they even know what god had said to satan in heaven? Its mytholgy and has nothing to do with logic or truth.

I'd like to at least hear Kate admit that I'm right when I state that Isaiah 14:12 is referring to the King of Babylon.

She'll just cover hear ears and say that Jesus is the way, you know those christians.

Of course, here's a dilemma.

If Kate denies that I'm right, then she is stating one of two things...

1. She hasn't read that part of the Bible and knows very little about it.
2. She doesn't trust the Bible when it clearly states that something is a Prophecy against Babylon and a Taunt against the King of Babylon.

If she asserts that I'm right, then of course, she is admitting that one of her viewpoints is wrong.

I'll admit that Jesus did talk a bit about the Kingdom of God, but he also talked about how we got there. I'll also admit that the New Testament at least portrays Jesus as thinking of Satan as an adversary of sorts.

Let's see if Kate compromises and meets me halfway or whether she'll take the stereotypical fundamentalist route of wanting it all her way. (I say stereotypical, because I'm sure not all fundamentalists are that way and I cannot say that Kate is that way either, as I have no proof as of yet).

Wolf ..first off i never said that chp 14 isnt speaking of the king of babylon its obvious that it is...i stated that one verse is a reference to satan...ive checked out a few commentaries and reference books to see what christian scholars say...they say one of two things...that this is speaking specifically of satan...ie Schoffield, John Macarthur...or they say this is a rebuke by God to the king of babylon for being like satan ie Matthew Henry....which both fall in line with what i said...that its a reference to satan...secondly if your gonna send me to a site to prove your pt, make sure you read everything it says..here is one thing it says on that particular verse and the name lucifer......that i pasted from your site when i clicked on the name lucifer used in that verse we are discussing...so as i said "christians agree this is satan" notice it says "in christian tradition this meaning of lucifer prevails".... i will concede that some christians may not believe this is satan or a reference to satan but ive yet to meet any that dont...you dont have to agree wolf but i think that the bible is clear that satan is a fallen angel not just a pagan concept as you first stated ..and epi Im aware that the bible is filled with symoblism...but conservative christians believe that job is a true account. i happen to be one of those conservative christians...


and epi just because we dont agree on something in no way means you have to act childish

oh and wolf i couldnt get the second site opened but i checked out the third one also you didnt read it all...here is a post from that site you said proves me wrong...

that is from your site....

Helel, or lucifer is not a name but a title, meaning shining one. It would be used in the same sense as senator, lord, rebel, etc. It may be used to refer to the spirit creature we call Satan, (also a title) but its use would not necessarily identify the person so named.

Kate,

You go girl. I have never heard anyone Christian say that Satan was not an angel and cast out of heaven. I, at least, cannot recall anyone ever saying that.

Neo, your statement may be true technically, but I think that Lucifer is pretty much understood to be Satan by the majority, don't you?

I certainly would not name any of my kids Lucifer.

Neologist wrote

lol neo .........thats one name i wouldnt use also, Jezebel....lol

Ill have to search it up later but i have seen Jesus called Lucifer,

Lucifer means shining one or light holder, this was a name given to Venus the planet, which is the first thing you can seen in the morning sky, so it is Known as the Morning Star. Jesus is known as the Morning Star, therefore called Lucifer.

Which is why the fact that it is not a name makes sense.

Epinirvana wrote




i dont know about that , but either way the verse in isaiah couldn't be about Christ.......

Yep, 'cept I would replace "fact" with "symbol".

Lucifer is the name of a Roman God associated with light. It is not the name of Satan.

The site I posted to you was to prove you were wrong in that all Christians and all scholars believed that the verse was referring to Satan. Not the wording, "some scholars", and notice how flimsy the evidence is for that verse being a reference to Satan, and notice how it isn't given as much attention as the first meaning.

When I have to make a scholarly argument, I provide evidence for both sides to show I'm not biased and then if the evidence for one side is overwhelmingly in favour of that side, then I say that that is more true than the other.

Notice that the second meaning of the passage isn't as valid as the first. The first meaning, that of being a taunt against the King of Babylon, is valid, because the Bible says so. You can't argue against it. The second isn't as valid, because only fallible scholars say it.

Scholars think it means that, because the language Christ uses to describe Satan is similar? Well, that's not proof.

May I also state that Lucifer is a Latin word meaning light-bearer and was an astrological term for Venus and was the direct translation of the Greek word, phosphorus.

Only later interpretations, such as Dante's the Divine Comedy and Milton's Paradise Lost led to the common idea that Lucifer = Satan.

The original Hebrew text stated הילל בן שחר (heilel ben-schahar), meaning "Venus, son of the morning" or "Venus, the brilliant one".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucifer

Also, Jesus himself was also called Lucifer in II Peter 1:19. Technically, however, he was called phosphorus or morning-star, but translated into Latin it's Lucifer. Jesus himself says he is the morning star (Lucifer) in Rev 22:16, albeit in the Greek text phosphorus is not used.

All this proves is that the contention that Isaiah 14:12 refers to Satan is a very shaky one that isn't as solid as the contention that it refers to the King of Babylon.

Lucifer does not equal Satan.

If you insist on believing that the Bible is the literal truth, then you can't state that something like Isaiah 14:12 is metaphorically speaking about Satan as well as the King of Babylon. From someone who insists on having it one way or the other, never in between, you have a bizarre definition of literal.