Why was Satan a woman?
-
Navaros — 9 years ago(February 01, 2017 12:39 PM)
Even that says "possibly" and cannot affirm that Lucifer is indeed Satan
The authors of that text have erred by refusing to affirm Satan's pre-Fall (by that I mean pre-Fall for Satan, not pre-Fall for mankind) name.
However, God's prophet, Isaiah, does not err, by rightfully naming Lucifer as Satan's pre-Fall name.
"Science creates fictions to explain facts" Gilman -
Navaros — 9 years ago(February 01, 2017 12:45 PM)
And notice that they pertain to a human being who can die and have offspring and decedents.
And human kings were never in Heaven, much less did they fall from it. Ergo, your cherry-picking based dissembly cannot ever be anything other than epic fail.
Not to mention all of the other corroborating verses from other books that your cherry-picking based dissembly conveniently ignores because they further destroy the case you are failing to make.
"Science creates fictions to explain facts" Gilman -
Navaros — 9 years ago(February 01, 2017 09:15 AM)
Reading Isaiah will show you that passage is a taunt against the King of Babylon.
No, that is merely your evil dissembly that you do to promote lies in place of God's truth.
Here again is the systematic debunking from God of your evil dissembly:
http://www.chick.com/ask/articles/lucifer.asp
Question: Should the Bible say "Lucifer" or "morning star" in Isaiah 14:12? And does it refer to Satan?
Answer: The King James Bible is correct. Although "Lucifer" is the Latin version of the name, the passage is talking about Satan, not a mere Babylonian king.
Light-Bearer or Morning Star?
Throughout the world, if you ask people who "Heyleel" (hey-LEYL) is, most will not know what to answer. But if you ask them, "Who is Lucifer?" you will very likely get the correct answer. People know who Lucifer is. Ask the Luciferians, who worship Lucifer as a being of light. Ask the Satanists, who call their master Lucifer. No one is in doubt as to who Lucifer is.
What if you ask them, "Who is the morning star?" or "Who is the day star?" Most will know its Jesus. Look at these scriptures:
2 Peter 1:19: "We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:"
Revelation 22:16: "I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star."
Any translation that says "day star" or "morning star" or "star of the morning" in Isaiah 14:12, like most modern perversions, is bringing confusion. And God is not the author of confusion (1 Corinthians 14:33). Many people reading the modern perversions end up asking, "If Lucifer is the morning star and Jesus is the morning star, then is Lucifer Jesus?" The modern translations are simply not clear!
That is not all. The term translated "Lucifer" does NOT at all mean "morning star" or "star of the morning." That would be two totally different Hebrew words. The word means "light-bearer." In Greek it's "heosphoros," "light-bearer." In Latin it's translated "Lucifer," light-bearer. Whether you say "heylel," "heosphoros" or "lucifer," the meaning is the same: "light-bearer." But only Lucifer communicates who we are talking about in English.
And not only English uses the term. Look at these ancient translations of the word. They also use some form of "Lucifer."
Spanish Reina-Valera (1557 through 1909) Lucero
Czech Kralika (1613) lucifere
Romanian Cornilescu (to present) Luceafar
Going Deeper: the Example of Ezekiel
There is evidence that God is speaking through his prophet to someone other than the king, even though it starts out to that person. Ezekiel 28 is an excellent example. It begins by talking about a human being ruling as king of Tyrus (Tyre). Then the scene shifts and the devil behind the leader starts to take focus:
First God addresses the king, called the "prince of Tyrus":
Ezekiel 28:1-2: "The word of the LORD came again unto me, saying, 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"
Then to the devil behind the prince, called the "king of Tyrus" (note the more specific references that have nothing to do with the location or time of Tyre):
Ezekiel 28:11-17: "Moreover the word of the LORD came unto me, saying, 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. 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. 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. Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee. 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. 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."
There was no one in Tyre that was in Eden or the mountain of God. No one there was a cherub (a type of angel). No one there was "created." This is Satan, Lucifer, the serpent, the dragon, the devil. (And I'm sure he recognizes those names for him by now!) Sat -
mamu2 — 9 years ago(February 01, 2017 10:38 AM)
Apologetics tap dancing to try to excuse away the fact that Satan is never called by the name Lucifer in the Bible.
Isaiah presents textual evidence that the person being taunted is not an eternal being, but a human king utilizing allegory and metaphor and poetic language. As was certainly the style for many of the books of the Bible, and much literature in general.
Answer: The King James Bible is correct.
You do realize how heavily edited that version is, right? Edited by men with an apparent agenda. It is not the source material. -
Navaros — 9 years ago(February 01, 2017 12:27 PM)
Apologetics tap dancing
On the contrary,
you
are the one who tap dances around the facts that your acts of dissembly are always false.
Satan is never called by the name Lucifer in the Bible
Sure he is. As we've just seen, Isaiah does exactly that!
Satan is
generally
not called by the name Lucifer in the Bible because during the time-span that
most
of the Bible covers, Satan had
already lost
his name of Lucifer. Lucifer is a name of honor & glory and to call Satan by that name
now- as if he still owns that name - would be a grave spiritual error. That is why only Satanists who know they are headed straight for Hell do so, and why no one else does so.
Isaiah presents textual evidence that the person being taunted is not an eternal being, but a human king
You are continuing your dissembly which the article has already addressed. Isaiah is addressed at some times to a human king, and at other times to Lucifer/Satan. You dishonestly are pretending the the former is representative of the whole, even though you know full-well that it is not.
utilizing allegory and metaphor and poetic language.
Now you are just making crap up, crap which my previously-cited, God-approved article has already debunked.
Edited by men with an apparent agenda.
If they have an agenda, it is the the polar opposite of yours: theirs is to declare the truth of God accurately. Yours, however, is to pretend that Word of God says whatever you want it to say, and deceive others into believing that it does, based upon what your evil agenda wishes to be so.
"Science creates fictions to explain facts" Gilman
- as if he still owns that name - would be a grave spiritual error. That is why only Satanists who know they are headed straight for Hell do so, and why no one else does so.
-
mamu2 — 9 years ago(February 01, 2017 12:57 PM)
Satan is generally not called by the name Lucifer in the Bible because during the time-span that most of the Bible covers, Satan had already lost his name of Lucifer.
Yet you believe that Satan was the serpent in the Garden (despite Genesis not saying that), and Revelation is happy to throw out other old names and titles of Satan. But curiously, Lucifer is not one of them.
previously-cited, God-approved article
Pretty sure God isn't approving web articles. Lets keep this grounded in reality.
If they have an agenda, it is the the polar opposite of yours: theirs is to declare the truth of God accurately
If you do a little reading on the history of the King James Bible, you'd know it was specifically changed to emphasize the episcopal structure of the Church of England and the importance of an ordained clergy. Many verses were changed and there are several outright mistranslations contained within it. This is historical and easily looked up. -
marty-130-840283 — 9 years ago(January 16, 2017 05:14 PM)
Mamu, stop posting here and misleading people with your lies.
When you say something is unbiblical, people might read it and believe it.
To everyone reading this Mamu is wrong, - Satan was created as an Angel by God, who rebelled, was kicked out of Heaven, tempted Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden, and now lives on earth harassing people with his legion of followers (demons)
now THAT is a Biblical answer. Do not listen to incorrect ramblings of Mamu. -
Navaros — 9 years ago(February 01, 2017 09:09 AM)
The OP/thread title is a false premise. There is nothing in this film that says Satan is a woman.
The actress who played him is a woman, but that doesn't mean that the character is a woman.
Satan is not a woman in this film.
"Science creates fictions to explain facts" Gilman -
Destinata — 9 years ago(February 03, 2017 05:07 PM)
I didn't read down to all of the answers so maybe someone has already given it, but Gibson took this movie not from the Bible, but from "The Dolorous Passion of Our Lord Jesus Christ," by Sr. Anne Catherine Emmerich:
http://www.jesus-passion.com/DOLOROUS_PASSION_OF_OUR_LORD_JESUS_CHRIST.htm
. Where this movie veers sharply from the Bible version, chances are you can find those scenes in that book. Otherwise, they're usually from Gibson's own imagination.
But you're right, brightwhitehorses that is one of the many differences this movie has with the Bible. And yet people insist it's "biblical." Apparently, they don't know the meaning of the word.
When evil is viewed as good, righteousness is viewed as evil.