The “Lucifer” reference that you cite from Isaiah is derived from a Latin translation of the Hebrew word for the “morning star” i.e. the planet Venus. The passage in question is about the king Nebuchadnezzar and it compares him to the planet Venus in that it is briefly bright at dawn but then “falls” as the Sun rises. It’s a metaphor. It has nothing to do with Satan.
I repeat: there is no Jewish tradition of Satan or “Lucifer” as a fallen angel and Jewish tradition does not interpret your quoted cite as a reference to Satan.
This only holds if the books have the same author. I could write my own book of the Bible in which I assert that God is really a computer. That doesn’t mean that the whole Bible must now be reinterpreted in that light. The Bible is a collection of books composed over hundreds of years by dozens, if not hundreds, of different writers. Each book has to be evaluated independently as to the intent and belief of the author. Earlier books can sometimes illuminate later books but later books cannot tell us anything about the intent of earlier authors.
LOL. The planet Venus is an inanimate object. An inanimate object does not aspire to do anything, much less “say” anything in its heart:
This is a parallel between Nebuchadnezzar and Lucifer, not a parallel between Nebuchadnezzar and a planet.
Once again, do you believe that the King of Tyre was ever in the Garden of Eden (getting back to the Ezekiel reference that you are avoiding) and do you believe that the King of Tyre was a cherub?
Are we on the same planet? You are trying to compare a collection of stories separated by some thousand(s) of years, and comparing it to freaking Star Wars?
No, this holds because the books of the Bible are in a collection and they have been deemed canonical in their present form for about 1700 years. Your “computer God” addition would not be deemed canonical. The Friday the 13th movies mostly had different authors as well, but they are all taken into account when discussing aspects of the series. This is really elementary.
You are getting tiresome Roundguy with your ease of confusion. The Bible is viewed as a whole. It is all cannon. Do you understand what canon is? It doesn’t matter which specific collection of works I use in the analogy (Friday the 13th series, Star Wars series, etc.), the rules of discussion as it applies to works within a canon remain the same.
Okay, this is just foolishness. There is no dispute over what constitutes canon in regards to the Bible. There is Jewish canon, there is Catholic canon and there is Protestant canon but regardless of all that, the books that I have quoted from so far are deemed canon by all 3 groups. You want to know what else RoundGuy? You are not allowed to dispute what constitutes canon for the Bible no more than you are allowed to alter portions of the text or change the names of the books. Well, you can go ahead and try but it is not as though anyone will give a tinker’s dam and what you consider canon certainly has no bearing whatsoever on a biblical text based debate.
Canon is about what is officially accepted as relevant and supplementary works. You can’t change that.
It’s a satirical remark made to Nechadnezzar. Isaiah14:4 calls it a “taunt.” Saying planets can’t talk is just being obtuse. The metaphor is similar to calling a big guy a “mountain” or a little guy a “shrimp.” It calls Nebuchadnezzar “Morning Star” to illustrate his pride.
That’s impossible because no such tradition of “Lucifer” existed at the time this book was composed. Regardless of what you think, there is absolutely no Jewish tradition for interpreting this passage as having anything to do with Satan. That’s just Christians making stuff up.
I obviously don’t believe there was a Garden of Eden so this question is basically meaningless to me. As to the intent of the author in this passage-- as I said before, it could be a variation on the Genesis story or it could be an allegory for the fall of the King of Tyre. I doubt that the author intended to say the King was literally a cherub but since it’s all fiction it doesn’t really matter much to me. It says nothing about the intent in Genesis.
Your “canon” is the result of a hotly debated vote made by humans. Just because a bunch of people get together and make a decision as to what books they like and what books they don’t like doesn’t prove that those books have any unifying or “inerrant” composition. The canon is an artificial human construction. It proves nothing whatever about any book in it.
Finally. The first empirically accurate statement you have made so far in this thread.
This has been a fairly quick moving discussion, so let me see if I can quickly recap your argument:
The Bible says this
When the Bible says this, it really means that
The Bible cannot contradict itself
Even though the Bible seems to contradict itself, it can’t because it’s a “canon”
Roundguy is easily confused
A “canon” cannot be questioned, even under the most blatant evidence of error
That’s about it, right?
May I suggest that your debating tactics need a little improvement?
And I’m still waiting for your evidence that Isaiah 14 refers to Lucifer rather than (via a plain reading of the text) simply a “taunt” against the king of Babylon.
Nebuchadnezzar was never in heaven, in fact he wasn’t even one of God’s chosen people (he was Babylonian). To say that this is referring to Venus appearing to fall is absurd.
Now, according to you, this whole passage is about King Neb. with just a little name calling at the beginning in jest. How exactly would Neb. plan to “ascend into heaven”? What exactly do you even expect that he knew about heaven, being Babylonian and all? How would he plan to “sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north”?
Once again, “be like the most High”? Neb. didn’t even recognize the Hebrew God as “the most High”. As the passage progresses the details switch to more about Neb. than about Lucifer. This is a parallel between Lucifer’s actions and Neb.'s actions. This is not an entire passage about Neb. with a bit of name calling at the beginning.
Jewish tradition is not relevant, Biblical text is. It wouldn’t be the first time that Jewish tradition misinterpreted their own scriptures. There are several major Messianic Prophecies that they deny the clear meaning of today, such as the extremely descriptive Isaiah 53.
That’s right, he didn’t say that the King of Tyre was really a cherub, he was paralleling him with Lucifer, who was really a cherub. Also, whether you believe the text to be fictional or not, does not change the meaning of it. If he was not paralleling the King of Tyre with Lucifer, then who was he comparing him to? It certainly wasn’t a human that was being described for the whole passage in Ezekiel:
Is he talking about the King of Tyre here? Since there hasn’t been a perfect human created since Adam, I guess not. This is all redundant though, because the being that is used in this comparison is specifically stated to be a cherub (angel), ie: not a human by default. Also the being is stated to have been in the Garden of Eden which was long before the King of Tyre’s time and the only two humans ever in the Garden of Eden were Adam and Eve.
You mean in the way that you are using an erroneous Latin translation that is not supported by the Hebrew text in order to make your “Lucifer” claim or the way that you insert a period of creation and destruction that no one but you can see between Gen 1:1 and 1:2? Be careful that the prohibitions you give people are not more appropriately applied to your actions.
Plain reading of the text certainly shows that it is Lucifer and Neb. being referenced. I discussed that in my last post.
About your list. I never said that the Bible couldn’t “contradict” itself. Also, canon has nothing to do with whether it contradicts itself. I do wish that you would educate yourself on the meaning of “canon”. As for your #6, you once again display your lack of understanding about what “canon” means.
Why are the 66 books of the pretestant Bible canon? Because Church officials said so and it has been officially accepted as such. That is the only requirements needed. Canon does not necessitate any degree of truth, inerrancy, authority or anything other than its definition. What it does mean is that I can take a work from that Canon and apply it to other works within the canon. That is the nature of canonical works you see.
For example, if you have a trilogy that is deemed canonical and in the first work you have a passage that says “Event A happened followed by event B”. Then in the 3rd installment you have a passage that reads “In between the time of events A and B, event C happened.” Now if you only ever read part 1 you would have no knowledge of event C, but that doesn’t mean that it doesn’t apply to the story as a whole. Are you understanding this?
None of this matters. I am discussing the text in the way that it is known today. It has been known in the form of the KJV for nearly 400 years under the same compilation and that is the most obvious version to reference when discussing the text. What is with all of these straw man arguments anyway? I don’t care what it originally said, I don’t care what Jewish tradition thought that it said, I don’t care if it mentions Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy. I am discussing the Bible, as it is known today.
BTW, I am not validating your claims here (“Latin translation”, lol.) I am stating that it is irrelevant. I know the lineage of the KJV, do you?
Is that right? I feel like I am banging my head against a wall here. All canon is an artificial human construction. You know, like Star Wars or Friday the 13th? We are discussing the text of the Bible (in regards to what it has to say on the subject of “Creation”) as it is known to the English speaking world today. Knowing what is canon let’s us know what is applicable to the discussion and what is not; period.
If you want to argue about whether the Bible is fiction or not (God only knows why you folks keep trying to steer in that direction), please take that up with someone else.
“So any interpretation that does not include a time period there is by default, wrong. It is wrong in the context of the Bible itself.”
You are saying that any interpretation of one passage to another must insure that they are consistent.
So then I am free to take one passage out of context with another? See, this seems to be your whole argument, yet you go round and round in circles. As I said before, your proclivity and expertise at obfuscation is simply astounding.
So, can they contradict, or not? WTF?
I think the more appropriate question is, do you even understand your own philosophy?
