Did Evil Exist Before Satan Rebelled Against God? (Adam and Eve, heaven, verse)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Would this suggest therefore that God is neither omniscient, nor omnipotent? This would seem to make sense, for "omniscience" and "omnipotence" are both humanly-created concepts, and are ascribed to God so as to fill in the gaps of reason and logic. What most don't realize is that it is impossible for "omniscience" and "omnipotence" to correlate; and that "omnipotence" is impossible in and of itself. This is why they are merely concepts.
DD
... you are talking to someone who does not even believe there is a god, let alone him being omni-anything.
Except you said that "the devil started with a Latin name"; whereas the term "Lucifer" originated with the Hebrew word "helel".
DD
That is the point. Fundamentalists continue to equate the Latin name "Lucifer" found in English translations of Isaiah 14:12 with the devil. Never do they stop to contemplate how this Latin name (if they even realize it's a Latin word) came to be found in what was originally a Hebrew text.
They also blissfully ignore the verses 1-11 and skip straight to verses 12-16 and then again blissfully ignore the rest of the chapter. Those skipped verses (especially when chapter 14 is read in context with chapter 13) specifically identify who "O morning star, son of the dawn!" is...and it isn't any devil....it was a man, the King of Babylon.
Well I don't think I'm quite ready for information like this...
Quote:
According to The Urantia Book, multi-colored human races originated suddenly in one generation and in one family, producing brothers and sisters that variously turned blue, yellow, red, green, orange, and indigo when exposed to sunlight. Their offspring subsequently favored the parent color. Later, Adam and Eve produced a violet race. In the book's account, the blue, yellow, and red races were considered "primary", and the green, orange, and indigo "secondary". The green and orange races were driven to extinction, and the rest mixed over time
They also blissfully ignore the verses 1-11 and skip straight to verses 12-16 and then again blissfully ignore the rest of the chapter. Those skipped verses (especially when chapter 14 is read in context with chapter 13) specifically identify who "O morning star, son of the dawn!" is...and it isn't any devil....it was a man, the King of Babylon.
Indeed it was; Nebuchadrezzar, to be precise. The prophet who wrote that passage (either the 2nd or 3rd "Isaiah"; not the first one) was mocking the "greatness" of the king by comparing him to Venus (as opposed to most kings of the time who had compared themselves to the sun).
Because Dubious Dub' opposes this view, I shall post the scriptures. FYI
Revelation 12:9And the great dragon was cast out, that oldserpent, 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.
Revelation 20:2And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years,
Anyway that would strongly suggests that his fall was before creation.
What you have not taken into consideration is that "St. John The Divine" has done precisely what man continues to do to this day - that of rhetorically defining the Serpent in the Genesis accounts as that of being "Satan". The bottom line is "Satan" was not introduced into the realm of Jewish thought until just a few hundred years before the supposed time of Jesus. The "Serpent" was originally introduced into the Genesis accounts in the attempts of undermining the Sumerian snake cults prevalent during the day.
If John had it wrong, what does that suggest as to the Book of Revelations?
Remember how the devil tempted Jesus in the wilderness? And yet after three rebukes, the devil repented not. It may be that he is incapable of repenting since he had fallen in a celestial state.
Interesting that you should bring this up. Were you aware that during polytheistic epochs pre-existent to the concept of monotheism, that multitudes of sun-worshipping cults told similar tales about how the sun (after passing through the House of Aquarius the water bearer) would start its initial climb northward into the horizon, and would be tempted by darkness to cease its climb northward? There's a brief 30-day period (between the winter solstice, and before entering into the House of Aquarius) wherein the sun remains still and low in the sky. Once it enters into the House of Aquarius, it begins its slow ascent into the northern horizon. Though the sun climbs, and the days get gradually longer, the days still remain frigidly cold. It was during this period that ancient cultures feared that the sun would not be able to endure its long journey into spring (40 days between passing into the House of Aquarius, and the advent of spring), and told tales about how the sun was tempted by darkness to quit its journey.
This is where the tale of Jesus' baptism and temptation originated.
30 years after being born, Jesus is baptized by John the Baptist, and begins his ministry.
compared to:
30 days after the winter solstice, the sun passes into the House of Aquarius (The Water Bearer), and begins it annual eliptic.
After being baptized, Jesus fasts for 40 days in the desert, and is tempted by Satan.
compared to:
After passing into the House of Aquarius (The Water Bearer), the sun begins an arduous 40 day climb into the northern horizon to guarantee spring time. The ancients feared that the sun would succumb to darkness during this most perilous part of the climb.
What you have not taken into consideration is that "St. John The Divine" has done precisely what man continues to do to this day - that of rhetorically defining the Serpent in the Genesis accounts as that of being "Satan". The bottom line is "Satan" was not introduced into the realm of Jewish thought until just a few hundred years before the supposed time of Jesus. The "Serpent" was originally introduced into the Genesis accounts in the attempts of undermining the Sumerian snake cults prevalent during the day.
If John had it wrong, what does that suggest as to the Book of Revelations?
It's too bad that some fool decided to insert all this poppycock in the bible. An angel is always an angel and there is nothing that will ever, ever make it fall. Period.
Therefore, the supremely idiotic scheme to insert the snakes, devil, satan and lucifer myths in the bible was just a way to scare the you-know-what out of people.
Substitute the word "evil" for all of those words and you have a more accurate depiction of what when down after Adam and Eve fell from grace... and they did this because of their high and mighty attitudes about who and what they thought they were. And it was no one's doing but their own... so the fact the bible uses a scapegoat is false. They weren't tempted by any outside force. It was their own puffed-up egos that did them in.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
