significant Bible verses...

[PostmodernProphet]

so I was asked what I believe the Bible says that is true......I will tell you what I believe is one of the most significant Bible verses.....found in Exodus 3....

here you have the children of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.....who have been slaves in Egypt for about 400 years....about the same length of time since European settlers first landed in North America......and they probably know next to nothing about that God of Abraham apart from some vague stories told around the campfire about creation and floods and promises to Abraham.....a handful of stories that comprise what we call "Genesis" today......

and we have Moses standing in front of a bush that has caught fire....a bush telling him to grab his shepherd's staff and tell the king of the largest empire in the Middle East that if he doesn't let the Israelites go, he's gonna get his ass kicked.....

and when Moses says "and who exactly is it I am supposed to tell everyone is gonna do this ass kicking?".......

and God gives him the answer to the $64 million dollar question....the same question that people ask about God today......and he says "just tell them, I AM!".... and that's the only thing you have to decide today.....whether you believe he is or you don't believe he is......and if you believe he is, it makes sense to believe everything else that is said about him.....and if you think he isn't, it doesn't matter what else is said about him.....

I think that's the essence of the entire body of scripture.....

[bullypulpit]

Unquestioning acceptance and obedience...Just what any despot demands of his subjects.

[PostmodernProphet]

Unquestioning acceptance and obedience...Just what any despot demands of his subjects.

intersting.....




Main Entry:
des·pot Listen to the pronunciation of despot
Pronunciation:
\ˈdes-pət, -ˌpät\
Function:
noun
Etymology:
Middle French despote, from Greek despotēs master, lord, autocrat, from des- (akin to domos house) + -potēs (akin to posis husband); akin to Sanskrit dampati lord of the house — more at dome, potent
Date:
1585

1 a: a Byzantine emperor or prince b: a bishop or patriarch of the Eastern Orthodox Church c: an Italian hereditary prince or military leader during the Renaissance2 a: a ruler with absolute power and authority b: a person exercising power tyrannically


except for the last word of the least likely definition, looks like you were pretty close......

[5stringJeff]

Unquestioning acceptance and obedience...Just what any despot demands of his subjects.

Actually, there's pretty good evidence for the existence of God. Many people have indeed "questioned" God's existence, and concluded that He does, in fact, exist. So to call it "unquestioning acceptance" is a bit far fetched.

Not to mention, in the days of the Israelites, He proved His existence beyond any doubt.

[Noir]

Actually, there's pretty good evidence for the existence of God. Many people have indeed "questioned" God's existence, and concluded that He does, in fact, exist. So to call it "unquestioning acceptance" is a bit far fetched.

Not to mention, in the days of the Israelites, He proved His existence beyond any doubt.


Pretty good evidence?
Care to share?

[PostmodernProphet]

Pretty good evidence?
Care to share?

DNA is pretty good evidence that there was a creator.....far more credible than the theory that "shit just happens"......

[Missileman]

Actually, there's pretty good evidence for the existence of God. Many people have indeed "questioned" God's existence, and concluded that He does, in fact, exist. So to call it "unquestioning acceptance" is a bit far fetched.

Not to mention, in the days of the Israelites, He proved His existence beyond any doubt.

In the days of the Israelites, I'll wager the Greeks had no doubt about the existence of Zeus and his thunderbolt and no doubt that Apollo dragged the Sun across the sky with his chariot. That ancient people believed it is the most un-compelling argument one can raise.

[avatar4321]

Unquestioning acceptance and obedience...Just what any despot demands of his subjects.

Acceptence of faith is never done without questions. And Obedience comes only through living faith.

One who thinks otherwise doesnt know a thing about faith.

[Yurt]

In the days of the Israelites, I'll wager the Greeks had no doubt about the existence of Zeus and his thunderbolt and no doubt that Apollo dragged the Sun across the sky with his chariot. That ancient people believed it is the most un-compelling argument one can raise.

how do we know you graduated elementary school?

[PostmodernProphet]

In the days of the Israelites, I'll wager the Greeks had no doubt about the existence of Zeus and his thunderbolt and no doubt that Apollo dragged the Sun across the sky with his chariot. That ancient people believed it is the most un-compelling argument one can raise.

I would say that I would consider running across a burning bush that talked pretty good evidence of the existence of something supernatural.....the fact that you don't believe the person who tells you about it doesn't mean it wasn't evidence.....

[Missileman]

how do we know you graduated elementary school?

You have a great talent for coming up with stupid questions.

[Missileman]

I would say that I would consider running across a burning bush that talked pretty good evidence of the existence of something supernatural.....the fact that you don't believe the person who tells you about it doesn't mean it wasn't evidence.....

And the ancient Greek who points at the sun and says, "Look, there goes Apollo now!" should be believed?

Tell ya what...let me know when YOU run across a talking , burning bush and get a recording of it...then we can discuss evidence.

[5stringJeff]

Pretty good evidence?
Care to share?

The existence of something instead of nothing, to begin with. Then, the existence of order in the universe instead of disorder. Then, the existence of life instead of no life. Then, the fact that Jesus rose from the dead, as He said He would, proving His own divinity.

[PostmodernProphet]

And the ancient Greek who points at the sun and says, "Look, there goes Apollo now!" should be believed?

Tell ya what...let me know when YOU run across a talking , burning bush and get a recording of it...then we can discuss evidence.

why would I bother.....you wouldn't believe me anyway......I have experienced God in a physical way and I know others who have as well.....but you would never accept MY experience as YOUR evidence....

[Missileman]

why would I bother.....you wouldn't believe me anyway......I have experienced God in a physical way and I know others who have as well.....but you would never accept MY experience as YOUR evidence....

I don't accept other people seeing Elvis as evidence that he's still alive either.

[Yurt]

You have a great talent for coming up with stupid questions.

can't prove it with current documentation can you...

[Missileman]

can't prove it with current documentation can you...

Two in a row!

But in fairness, I'll answer your stupid question when you can provide a reasonable explanation of wtf it has to do with post #7...deal?

[Noir]

DNA is pretty good evidence that there was a creator.....far more credible than the theory that "shit just happens"......

I don't see how you can see one being more credible than another.

In one, lots of crazy physics happened, which if we can locate the Higgs boson (sp?) is certainly possible.

In the other an all powerful being who exists outside of physics itself, 'made shit happen'

The fact of the matter is that shit did happen, and in time it will be proved that it could happened without a creator, however, when this happens those who believe in creation will simply say that that is the way god created everything.

[PostmodernProphet]

I don't accept other people seeing Elvis as evidence that he's still alive either.

but then....if someone did see Elvis, it would in fact, be evidence.....

[Noir]

The existence of something instead of nothing, to begin with. Then, the existence of order in the universe instead of disorder. Then, the existence of life instead of no life. Then, the fact that Jesus rose from the dead, as He said He would, proving His own divinity.


The existance of something instead of nothing does not prove there is a creator, both side have this difficultly of what started it all of, what if there was a creator of the creator? I mean his existance would prove that, no?

As for order and disorder, who said the universe was in a state of order? It is pulling itself apart and constantly changing through super-novi, black holes ect ect, the universe is in a constant state of choas, and it is through chaos that theories such as String theroy and quantum machanics come into being, and far from supporting the idea of a creator they all but trash the idea.

As for life, there are signs that we are gonna find life on mars, I don't memo that being in the bible, aslong as you have a start you can have life, the problem here again comes from how the universe started, however once it did, the certainty of chance ensured there would be life.

I also don't recall it being a fact that Jesus rose from the dead, that is faith based. Ergo it's not evidence as you would suggest. I'm sure there are plently of stories dating back thousands of years of folk who were the chosen ones, who could do amazing things ect ect, but you ofciurse do not believe them I'm sure, not one, except this one guy called Jesus, sure he could walk on water, but some Chinese guy who was said to have walked over water in the year 234 BC is just that of myth, amiright?

[PostmodernProphet]

I don't see how you can see one being more credible than another.



/shrugs....I find it more credible to believe in a supernatural designer than to believe that one day a creature climbed out of the slime at just the right moment to meet a creature of the opposite sex and reproduce.....

[Noir]

/shrugs....I find it more credible to believe in a supernatural designer than to believe that one day a creature climbed out of the slime at just the right moment to meet a creature of the opposite sex and reproduce.....

It's no wonder you do if that's how you think things happened.

I on the otherhand put my faith in real physics, chemisty and biology that can be logicly developed, expanded and understood. Than the illogical existance of a Creator that is both within and seperate from physics.

[moderate democrat]

One can believe in God.... one can believe in Jesus Christ as the Son of God who walked on this earth and shared our common lot and told us how to live our lives, without believing that every single solitary word in the Bible is the absolute truth. How can everything written, let's say, in the New Testament be the absolute truth when Paul tell us that grace alone is sufficient and James tells us that grace alone without works is insufficient?

[Missileman]

but then....if someone did see Elvis, it would in fact, be evidence.....

Totally worthless without substantiation.

[PostmodernProphet]

It's no wonder you do if that's how you think things happened.


I hate to break the news to you Noir.....but if you believe in evolution it's what YOU think happened.....how do you think bisexual reproduction came about?.....

[Missileman]

/shrugs....I find it more credible to believe in a supernatural designer than to believe that one day a creature climbed out of the slime at just the right moment to meet a creature of the opposite sex and reproduce.....

Holy shit! You must be from Kansas. That's the kind of retarded bullshit I hear they teach there!

[PostmodernProphet]

Totally worthless without substantiation.

irrelevant.......the point is....truth will be truth, regardless of proof.....

[Missileman]

irrelevant.......the point is....truth will be truth, regardless of proof.....

So Elvis is alive?

[PostmodernProphet]

Holy shit! You must be from Kansas. That's the kind of retarded bullshit I hear they teach there!

don't be an idiot, Miss.....stop and think it through.....you believe bisexual reproduction evolved.....which means you needed differentiated sexes.....so you tell me, little wizard behind the curtain...who did the first male fuck?.......

[PostmodernProphet]

So Elvis is alive?

you tell me....does God exist?.......

[Noir]

I hate to break the news to you Noir.....but if you believe in evolution it's what YOU think happened.....how do you think bisexual reproduction came about?.....

I can't sit and type it all out, I'd be here for weeks!
I suggest you do some reading on the biology of evoloution, maybe then you will have an understanding of the process.

And it is a scientific process than can be traced, predicted and verified. Unlike the idea that some creator just instantly put everything in place.

[DannyR]

don't be an idiot, Miss.....stop and think it through.....you believe bisexual reproduction evolved.....which means you needed differentiated sexes.....so you tell me, little wizard behind the curtain...who did the first male fuck?.......Um, sorry, but based on your response, I have to ask if you've ever stopped and thought about it yourself. Your response really shows a complete lack of understanding of how evolution occurred.

Sexual differentiation happened extremely early in evolutionary development, before animal life even began. And no, there wasn't magically a male meeting his perfect female. There was however cellular species that gave DNA to each other, acting as both male/female. As time progressed, they evolved into more specific giver/receiver roles.

Even today however sexual identity isn't exclusive. There are a number of species that can still act as both male and female as the need requires.

[Missileman]

don't be an idiot, Miss.....stop and think it through.....you believe bisexual reproduction evolved.....which means you needed differentiated sexes.....so you tell me, little wizard behind the curtain...who did the first male fuck?.......

A hermaphrodite.

[Missileman]

you tell me....does God exist?.......

No on both counts.

[crin63]

Personally I believe that the Greek gods did actually, physically exist. I think the Bible deals with that issue as well.

[Yurt]

Personally I believe that the Greek gods did actually, physically exist. I think the Bible deals with that issue as well.

where? i find this fascinating...

[crin63]

Where it talks about the fallen angels having sex with human women and the giants that resulted.

[Yurt]

Where it talks about the fallen angels having sex with human women and the giants that resulted.

oh, for some reason i thought that was before the flood

edit, that is probably what you are talking about

[Yurt]

does the bible actually mention angels or we talking about the sons of God

[Missileman]

Personally I believe that the Greek gods did actually, physically exist. I think the Bible deals with that issue as well.

So you believe that for the ancient Greeks, the world stayed still and Apollo drove across the sky? Amazing! What about the god of ancient Egypt? The gods of all the other cultures around the world? Do you believe other gods still exist?

[PostmodernProphet]

I can't sit and type it all out, I'd be here for weeks!
I suggest you do some reading on the biology of evoloution, maybe then you will have an understanding of the process.

And it is a scientific process than can be traced, predicted and verified. Unlike the idea that some creator just instantly put everything in place.

you can type all you want but you can't ignore the fact that bisexual reproduction had to have a beginning point....a first male-female reproduction.....and in order for that to happen you need both a male and a female.....and, you are going to have to have them in the same place at the same time.......so, unless you are suggesting that there were all sorts of little male and female "whozits" roaming around who HADN'T figured out how to have sex yet who died off, you need to account for the mathematical miracle mystical meeting of the first male and first female......

[PostmodernProphet]

Um, sorry, but based on your response, I have to ask if you've ever stopped and thought about it yourself. Your response really shows a complete lack of understanding of how evolution occurred.

Sexual differentiation happened extremely early in evolutionary development, before animal life even began. And no, there wasn't magically a male meeting his perfect female. There was however cellular species that gave DNA to each other, acting as both male/female. As time progressed, they evolved into more specific giver/receiver roles.

Even today however sexual identity isn't exclusive. There are a number of species that can still act as both male and female as the need requires.

apparently I have thought it out better than you have.....yes, there was a magical meeting of a perfectly male "whozit" and a perfectly female "whozit" at whatever cellular level they were at or you would have continued to have single cell reproduction.....

I swear you folks take so much shit for granted that requires far larger leaps of faith than simple intelligent design does.....

[Noir]

you can type all you want but you can't ignore the fact that bisexual reproduction had to have a beginning point....a first male-female reproduction.....and in order for that to happen you need both a male and a female.....and, you are going to have to have them in the same place at the same time.......so, unless you are suggesting that there were all sorts of little male and female "whozits" roaming around who HADN'T figured out how to have sex yet who died off, you need to account for the mathematical miracle mystical meeting of the first male and first female......



You don't need males and females for all animals( from which you can then desend in multisex species) , I think starfish are both male and female, and Seahorses switch sex several times through their life, but as I said, if you want detailed answers I suggest you visit your local library.

[PostmodernProphet]

You don't need males and females for all animals( from which you can then desend in multisex species) , I think starfish are both male and female, and Seahorses switch sex several times through their life, but as I said, if you want detailed answers I suggest you visit your local library.

if you are going to argue that bisexual reproduction is an evolved trait you are going to have to deal with the necessity of the evolution of sexes.....screw the details and screw the library.....just open up your head to the broader perspective a moment and actually THINK about the repercussions of what you claim you believe......I get sick of seculars who wave shit off saying, "Oh, I don't have to think about the details, there are libraries with that shit in it and smarter people than me have thought it out and written it down".......so don't blow shit about starfish and seahorses when the issue is BISEXUALITY!

[Noir]

if you are going to argue that bisexual reproduction is an evolved trait you are going to have to deal with the necessity of the evolution of sexes.....screw the details and screw the library.....just open up your head to the broader perspective a moment and actually THINK about the repercussions of what you claim you believe......I get sick of seculars who wave shit off saying, "Oh, I don't have to think about the details, there are libraries with that shit in it and smarter people than me have thought it out and written it down".......so don't blow shit about starfish and seahorses when the issue is BISEXUALITY!

I was talking about starfish and so on because they show animals with asexual reporuction, and once you you have that then evolution can specialize into sexes.
As for the library, sorry but I'm not so stupid as to pretend that I can give you detailed answers.

[PostmodernProphet]

I was talking about starfish and so on because they show animals with asexual reporuction, and once you you have that then evolution can specialize into sexes.

which means you still have to go through the step I was talking about....in other words, your answer completely bypassed the issue......

[Noir]

which means you still have to go through the step I was talking about....in other words, your answer completely bypassed the issue......


Asexual animals specialize to become bi-sexual animals, some never did and remained asexual, most didn't and are now bi, if you want specifics on how a species could go from asexual to bi-sexual animals then you would have to look it up.

[crin63]

So you believe that for the ancient Greeks, the world stayed still and Apollo drove across the sky? Amazing! What about the god of ancient Egypt? The gods of all the other cultures around the world? Do you believe other gods still exist?

I don't believe they were actually gods. I believe men were deceived into thinking they were gods because I believe they had some type of powers beyond what normal men had through some type of crossbreeding of demons and humans. I also believe they were destroyed in the flood. As for gods of other cultures thats possible as well by the same means prior to flood.


There is now and has only ever been 1 true and living God, the God of the Bible.

All other gods are false whether created in the minds of men or the crossbreeding of demons or just demons themselves. demons want to be worshipped, the Bible declares that behind every idol is a demon.

[DannyR]

yes, there was a magical meeting of a perfectly male "whozit" and a perfectly female "whozit" at whatever cellular level they were at or you would have continued to have single cell reproduction.....

I swear you folks take so much shit for granted that requires far larger leaps of faith than simple intelligent design does.....Your understanding of biology makes further discussion about this pretty much impossible, so I'll leave you to it after this. But leap of faith? Not at all.

Examples of cells exchanging chemical information occurs so frequently its incredibly easy to understand how single cell organisms could evolve to make use of this to increase their genetic diversity. Pretty much every cell in our body absorbs and expels chemicals in some manner. A regular orgy of activity in your very body if you have to assume such means they are doing the deed. :laugh2:

The error you keep repeating is in assuming full sexual reproduction has to suddenly occur in one magical step. It never did.

The very first exchange of DNA would likely be as simple a step as one single cell organism eating the waste material expelled from another. Oh my, no magical male/female parts needed there despite your claim such was needed.



does the bible actually mention angels or we talking about the sons of God The verse in question says only "sons of god". Interpretations differ on if that means angels or just other humans. Many religions such as Catholics believe angels can't have sex, so they prefer to not interpret it as being angels, but I doubt anybody could argue either way with slam-dunk clarity. Its just pretty much one verse.



I don't believe they were actually gods. I believe men were deceived into thinking they were gods because I believe they had some type of powers beyond what normal men had through some type of crossbreeding of demons and humans.Why do supernatural demons have to be involved at all? In just the few hundred years our country exists, we have tall tales of Paul Bunyan and the Blue Ox, John Henry challenging the machine. Even well known historical figures have evolved to be larger than life. George Washington never told a lie, chopped down the cherry tree, etc. If such tall tales exist in modern times like today, how much easier are they to develop back in ancient times over the passage of far more time.

No magical demons/angels necessary.

[PostmodernProphet]

The error you keep repeating is in assuming full sexual reproduction has to suddenly occur in one magical step. It never did.

actually, it had to.....if these bisexually inclined mutants didn't reproduce at some magical single step, they would never have passed the ability along to future generations.....

[PostmodernProphet]

Why do supernatural demons have to be involved at all? In just the few hundred years our country exists, we have tall tales of Paul Bunyan and the Blue Ox, John Henry challenging the machine. Even well known historical figures have evolved to be larger than life. George Washington never told a lie, chopped down the cherry tree, etc. If such tall tales exist in modern times like today, how much easier are they to develop back in ancient times over the passage of far more time.



it can happen even faster...in one single election cycle we have the myth of a Democrat who believes in bipartisanship.......

[DannyR]

actually, it had to.....if these bisexually inclined mutants didn't reproduce at some magical single step, they would never have passed the ability along to future generations.....Wrong wrong wrong. Here goes one last time:

Cell 1 expels some waste as all such cells do, happens to contain some DNA. Cell 2 (same type of asexual organism as the first) absorbs same waste (perhaps because its natural source of energy was scarce at the moment), but this time incorporates it into his own body in a useful way, perhaps eliminating a previous harmful mutation that asexual reproduction can't eliminate. Divides asexually as it did before, but this time passes along the new better DNA to all his descendants.

Single step, no magic involved requiring completely separate male and female to appear suddenly, yet you have interaction between two separate organisms creating a unique 3rd.

Time progresses, and organisms that obtain DNA from other organisms are more successful in surviving than those that do not. Soon majority of organisms all do this. You now have asexual organisms depositing DNA purposely for same type of asexual organisms to obtain.

Time progresses further, and individual organisms begin to specialize in either producing the DNA or obtaining it. There is however still no need for separate sexes or for either producers/receivers to stop asexually dividing on their own.

Time progresses, and producers may stop reproducing on their own, leaving that only to the receivers. Since new children are still being born, the development of a specialized producer is not a problem. In fact, it probably increased the population even more as these "males" would likely not eat as much, leaving more for the true "females", proving it a valid survival trait. Thus finally achieving a true male/female role as we know it today.

Evolution: many small steps over vast amounts of time. Most arguments against evolution relying upon the need for a trait to appear all at once in one single step are usually wrong and based on a complete misunderstanding of how evolution works.

[PostmodernProphet]

Wrong wrong wrong. Here goes one last time:

Cell 1 expels some waste as all such cells do, happens to contain some DNA. Cell 2 (same type of asexual organism as the first) absorbs same waste (perhaps because its natural source of energy was scarce at the moment), but this time incorporates it into his own body in a useful way, perhaps eliminating a previous harmful mutation that asexual reproduction can't eliminate. Divides asexually as it did before, but this time passes along the new better DNA to all his descendants.

Single step, no magic involved requiring completely separate male and female to appear suddenly, yet you have interaction between two separate organisms creating a unique 3rd.

Time progresses, and organisms that obtain DNA from other organisms are more successful in surviving than those that do not. Soon majority of organisms all do this. You now have asexual organisms depositing DNA purposely for same type of asexual organisms to obtain.

Time progresses further, and individual organisms begin to specialize in either producing the DNA or obtaining it. There is however still no need for separate sexes or for either producers/receivers to stop asexually dividing on their own.

Time progresses, and producers may stop reproducing on their own, leaving that only to the receivers. Since new children are still being born, the development of a specialized producer is not a problem. In fact, it probably increased the population even more as these "males" would likely not eat as much, leaving more for the true "females", proving it a valid survival trait. Thus finally achieving a true male/female role as we know it today.

Evolution: many small steps over vast amounts of time. Most arguments against evolution relying upon the need for a trait to appear all at once in one single step are usually wrong and based on a complete misunderstanding of how evolution works.

Best tell your significantly other cell not to be passin out any cigars because you aren't talking about reproduction, you're talking about a virus.....a cell being altered by a chemical reaction with another cell.....no new cell was produced in your process, thus no traits were passed on to a new generation.....

[DannyR]

Best tell your significantly other cell not to be passin out any cigars because you aren't talking about reproduction, you're talking about a virus.....a cell being altered by a chemical reaction with another cell.....no new cell was produced in your process, thus no traits were passed on to a new generation.....Not certain where you get the idea that no new traits can be passed on, when I specifically described just that, such as the masking of a bad mutation.

And you do realize that the interaction between a sperm and egg is very similar to how a virus interacts with a cell right? Do you think those similarities are by chance?

[crin63]

it can happen even faster...in one single election cycle we have the myth of a Democrat who believes in bipartisanship.......

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to PostmodernProphet again.

I love it! :clap:

[PostmodernProphet]

Not certain where you get the idea that no new traits can be passed on, when I specifically described just that, such as the masking of a bad mutation.


a cell chemically altered, such as a virus is unable to reproduce the altered cell......thus there is no new generation to pass the trait on to.....



And you do realize that the interaction between a sperm and egg is very similar to how a virus interacts with a cell right? Do you think those similarities are by chance?
???...no, actually I am aware that these two interactions are completely dissimilar....a virus interacting with a cell alters the nature of a cell but leaves it a single cell incapable of even reproducing itself.....when an sperm and an egg join they form a new creature capable of forming different types of cells....

[DannyR]

a cell chemically altered, such as a virus is unable to reproduce the altered cell......thus there is no new generation to pass the trait on to.

...

a virus interacting with a cell alters the nature of a cell but leaves it a single cell incapable of even reproducing itself.....when an sperm and an egg join they form a new creature capable of forming different types of cells....ugh. Again wrong. There are numerous types of virii that interact with a cell, and leave the cell pretty much intact and perfectly able to continue reproducing! We use these all the time in introduce genetic changes into cells! Here, educate yourself a bit:

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

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

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

[PostmodernProphet]

interesting that your examples are all man-made (aka intelligently designed) retroviruses.......

[DannyR]

interesting that your examples are all man-made (aka intelligently designed) retroviruses.......eh? you obviously didn't read all of it. Of the three links, only the first one is man made. Retrovirus and provirus are quite naturally occurring. Our bodies are chunk full of their remnants.

[eighballsidepocket]

Every true Christian can claim this with confidence!

Galatians Chapter 2, verse 20.


20"I have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself up for me.

A mystery to those who are not in His/Jesus' sheep fold, a most glorious, and unburdening statement to those who have the Spirit of Christ dwelling in their souls. :)

[KSigMason]

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!


Revelations 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.

Lucifer, which means light bringer in Latin, was the morning star in astronomy and referred to the star that preceded the Sun rise. This star we know today to be the planet Venus.

I'm just curious what you all think.

[crin63]

Luk 13:23 Then said one unto him, Lord, are there few that be saved? And he said unto them,
Luk 13:24 Strive to enter in at the strait gate: for many, I say unto you, will seek to enter in, and shall not be able.

1Co 15:1 Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand;
1Co 15:2 By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.

[eighballsidepocket]

Lucifer, which means light bringer in Latin, was the morning star in astronomy and referred to the star that preceded the Sun rise. This star we know today to be the planet Venus.

I'm just curious what you all think.

Morning Star in the bible has been used not only for Lucifer but for other applications as well.

The connection between Morning Star and Lucifer also projected or communicated that Lucifer was a most beautiful being/angel. Beauty being often skin deep, Lucifer may have been overtly beautiful, but was overtly evil to the core.

Christ even proclaimed after His disciples came back from their first evangelizing trip to many areas of Israel, that He/Jesus saw Lucifer fall from the heavens to the earth. Of course that was in reference to Lucifer being rejected by God, along with 1/3 of the angelic host that sided with Lucifer. They then were referred to as demons, and Lucifer as the devil.

Some theologians speculate from scripture that Lucifer may have been one of the 3-paired winged Seriphans, or the angelic beings that stood/flew before God's throne.
:salute:

[DannyR]

The proper noun Lucifer only appears once in the bible and is actually a latin word, so obviously isn't what was written in the original Hebrew.

I've always been taught that the Isaiah reference refers to a Babylonian king of the day, and not the Satan of the New Testament. This is certainly logical, as the whole chapter is about Babylon. Tossing the devil in just doesn't make sense.

Not certain how the link to Satan even developed, as the verse clearly depicts someone who wanted to "ascend into heaven", not someone who was already there. Its just another tower of Babel type of story, of people who dreamed big, thought to challenge God, and were thrown down.

[crin63]

Morning Star in the bible has been used not only for Lucifer but for other applications as well.

The connection between Morning Star and Lucifer also projected or communicated that Lucifer was a most beautiful being/angel. Beauty being often skin deep, Lucifer may have been overtly beautiful, but was overtly evil to the core.

Christ even proclaimed after His disciples came back from their first evangelizing trip to many areas of Israel, that He/Jesus saw Lucifer fall from the heavens to the earth. Of course that was in reference to Lucifer being rejected by God, along with 1/3 of the angelic host that sided with Lucifer. They then were referred to as demons, and Lucifer as the devil.

Some theologians speculate from scripture that Lucifer may have been one of the 3-paired winged Seriphans, or the angelic beings that stood/flew before God's throne.
:salute:

I have also heard a view that maybe lucifer was the 1st angel created. That when he looked around and saw only himself and God that he questioned if maybe he was the 1st being and therefore higher than God or at least equal to God. I thought this was an interesting view.

[Abbey Marie]

Jesus is definitely the "bright and morning star" referred to in Revelation.

And only some translations refer to Lucifer as the morning star in Isaiah. KJV does not, for example.

[PostmodernProphet]

Jesus is definitely the "bright and morning star" referred to in Revelation.

And only some translations refer to Lucifer as the morning star in Isaiah. KJV does not, for example.

generally speaking, it would be a mistake to try to equate the interpretation of a Hebrew word meaning the first star you see in the morning and a Greek word meaning the first star you see in the morning and try to argue that the authors from two completely different cultures were using identical metaphors...

it would be like saying a person who made a pun in Cherokee meant the same thing as a person who made a pun in English because they both used a word that meant bear......