Lucifer = Satan?

[John Powell]

AntonS:
A snake is not only a long thing, but it is also an angel or angels who operate it, that is why snakes can talk and think.

POWELL:
I think serpent biologists, experts about such animals, would strongly disagree with you.

If you have a talking snake please share it with the rest of the world.

AntonS:
If you were a 3d-thing, you could not think, because a thought is material, but it is not seen on the earth by usual human eyes.

POWELL:
I am a 3 dimensional thing and I can think so I don't understand you.

AntonS:
Like cells in a 3d-body eat blood, people eat another blood, and when they get blood, the thought comes in their bodies.

POWELL:
Are you trying to argue that thoughts are transmitted in the blood?

AntonS:
Don't base on theory of chances.

POWELL:
Huh?

AntonS:
If you never saw how snake talks, it does not mean anything except that you never saw how a snake talks.

POWELL:
If nobody ever sees a snake talk then it's probably the case that snakes don't talk.

AntonS:
Humans themselves are angels, human bodies are like gloves for them.

POWELL:
I understand. Do you have any scientific-quality evidence for this extraordinary claim?

AntonS:
You can see angels by usual eyes too only if they want to show themselves or God wants to show them to you this way.

POWELL:
Can video cameras see them when humans see them?

AntonS:
Because angels are more material than any human bodies. They can move in different dimensions like Neo in "The Matrix", can take things so that they disappear into thin air from usual eyes.

POWELL:
Interesting. Do you have better evidence for your extraordinary claims than the similarity of the idea to a science fiction movie?

John Powell

[AntonS]

I think serpent biologists, experts about such animals, would strongly disagree with you.

The experts don't have a single mind, people are different, everyone has his own head.

I am a 3 dimensional thing and I can think so I don't understand you.

You are not only a 3-dimensional thing. If you were only a 3-dimensional thing, you could not think.

Are you trying to argue that thoughts are transmitted in the blood?

I meant another blood, but maybe, maybe human blood is not 3-dimensional, or it can be a part of the blood that can feed humans, animals and angels.

If nobody ever sees a snake talk then it's probably the case that snakes don't talk.

Maybe. But Eve saw a talking serpent. It was a beast and it could talk.

I understand. Do you have any scientific-quality evidence for this extraordinary claim?

Yes, I do. Remember that all evidences are conditional and refers to individual feelings. And the statement that "it exists because I see it and I heard that other people saw it" - is a conditional evidence too, because you assume that you know what you see, you assume that you can see things as other people can see them, you assume that other people are honest or they see things as they are, etc.

Here are a few evidences.

1. Christ can appear and disappear into thin air. (other angels also can do it) Therefore He is multidimensional, but he also can wear usual 3d-body. The body is similar to a glove for Him.
2. Angels can come into animal's and human bodies. So the body is inside the angel, and the angel is inside the body. Therefore the body is like a glove (or a rag-doll)
3. Angels can come in and out of the human bodies when taking drags, medicines. One medicine can have different effect on different persons, depending on what exactly is the damage or the hole that the angels use for affecting the ill person, it also depends on the angel who uses this damage or the hole. Therefore, people are like gloves for angels. If you have other angels in yourself, you can either drink suitable medicines or fight within yourself, or try anything else. Because when the damage is mended, they maybe will feel uncomfortable in you; know that if the angel has come out of you, another angel, who is different from that angel, can replace that angel, because, since he is different, he might feel comfortable in the mended damage, or he can find another place in you to live.

Can video cameras see them when humans see them?

Yes, of course. Everyone who is near could also touch them.

Interesting. Do you have better evidence for your extraordinary claims than the similarity of the idea to a science fiction movie?

Yes, I do.
When a human dissapears and you can't find that person, you maybe don't know where it is. And of course, maybe it is not on the earth. But those people who disappear and then you can find them, they are on the earth. (if you assume that you didn't depart from the earth to find them) So there is not any reliable evidences about where are the people who disapeared and have never been found on the earth. But there is another evidences that the Universe is not 3-dimensional, but rather multidimensional (and maybe the earth is not 3-dimensional, it is a flat hypersurface). It is usual in astrophysics to use 5-dimensional model of the Universe. But there are evidences that it is not even 5-dimensional, but 10- (or 11-) dimensional.
Elijah went to heaven with his body alive.
2Ki 2:11 And it came to pass, as they still went on, and talked, that, behold, there appeared a chariot of fire, and horses of fire, and parted them both asunder; and Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven.

[runecrow]

In that case, in your view was it God or Satan who inspired David to take the census that was followed by a plague?

Well, bear in mind that this doesn't hold much relevency to what I'm arguing. I'm arguing the use of theos with a definite article. It's as if I have a book telling me, "David is the king" and then later I read "the king did such and such" then I am inclined to understand "the king" as refering to David. In the same way, when I see "God" being used by Paul, I am inclined to understand the word as refering to God, and not to Satan.

Touching on the passage you mention, there is a different construct going on. The word 'satan' doesn't have a definite article (it isn't really a proper noun- i.e. the being's name isn't "Satan" even though it has linguistically evolved into such) so it isn't intending to denote a specific being. Note that even the angel of the Lord is called a 'satan' at Numbers 22.22 (in the translation one will usually find the word 'adversary' but in Hebrew it is 'satan').

I would say that it was the Lord who moved David through an adversary- probably a rival nation. That is, a situation of adversity was created by a rival nation which prompted David to take a census to calculate his number of available troops.

I don't yet trust that your methodology is consistent, so please apply it to explain the following:

Scripture Verse:

John 10:33-36 (KJV):
33 The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.

34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?

35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;

36 Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?

Well, theos is used to denote God, and theoi is used to translate the cited Psalm's use of 'elohim in application to Israel 'to whom the word of God came'.

It's a matter of you being unfairly selective. The majority is more often right than the minority. That's why two witnesses is generally better than one and three generally better than two.

Yet I could as easily state that the unfair selection was on your part. It is a matter of opinion alone, without any basis in actual fact (indeed, the statement is so general as to be entirely unknowable). Also, witnesses to events are one thing, interpretations of datum another altogether. It is the interpretation that I am speaking of.

So, if John Smith works as a cooper and Dick Cooper works as a smith and Letusha Green is black then John who-works-as-a-smith works as a cooper and Jack who-works-as-a-cooper works as a smith and Letusha who-is-green is black. Can you see why enlightened people merely use names as person identifiers rather than as having something significant to do with the etymology of the name?

I would say that 'enlightened people' is an oxymoron. At any rate, the two examples are not analogous as I have already made my position. When the name was originally used, "John Smith" would be a smith and not a cooper. The names have lost their meaning and have become nothing more than, as you cite, person identifiers with no etymological significance. But that is not the way that it was at the time of the writing in discussion. Therefore, you're use of Smith and Cooper isn't a true analogy since it doesn't take into account the different manner of application.

If Isaiah meant for his readers to think of the King of Babylon as a King of Confusion then he should have done more than merely call him by his name.

It's what his title was. King of confusion. Note that he did not call him the 'king of Babylon'- he called him the king of babel.

Right. Isaiah-somebody needed to give a better clue to his readers that he was trying to say that Letusha had green skin than to merely call her by her name Letusha Green. The name by itself isn't enough of a hint.

I'm still not sure how much more of a hint one needs than for the man to directly state, 'king of confusion'.

We disagree. I think the focus of Isaiah is in talking about the king of Babylon, not in teaching his readers about a planet that didn't fall or an angel that did fall.

Yet it's plainly cited as a parable. For you to maintain your argument, you have to dismiss that the passage directly states 'parable'. It's as if the passage states, "Tell this metaphor to him; you are a raincloud in the sky" and you're saying that the rules of metaphor aren't to be applied to what is said.

Actually, rethinking things, it would cause needless confusion like if I were to read about running bear (not a bear, but a person) who was running after walking bear (who knows whether walking bear was a bear or a person?). We use capital letters to identify them as proper names.

There aren't any 'running bears' in scripture. Again, you're creating an analogical relationship that doesn't exist. When something is given a name in scripture it is meant to apply both as a form of identification and as a form of qualitative understanding. Babel (i.e. confusion) was called such at Genesis 11 and the meaning of the name is relevant as more than a mere meaningless identifier.

Anthropology, archaeology and genetics indicates that human beings are not derived from a single couple who lived something like 6000 years ago.

That's true. But, this is where 'the majority are always wrong' comes back to haunt us. And, more true, is, just because one is trained to identify genetic markers or flint tools does not mean one is trained to reason correctly.

What if it was in the passage where Jesus says one with sufficient faith can do it?

Then, in context of the whole, the following verse must be taken into account:

“All these things spake Jesus unto the multitude in parables; and without a parable spake he not unto them:” (Mt 13:34)

Yet you said that a talking snake is more believable than an angel. Apparently, for you it's the reverse, a talking snake is LESS believable than an angel.

But you're taking what I said out of context. What I said was, "an angelic being is less credible in rational thought (from a standpoint of merely accepting an account without any extraneous reasoning) than a talking snake, and so the talking snakers seem to- at least superficially- have the side of easier believability (among the two choices) since snakes are easily demonstrated as existing while angelic beings are not".

In context of the whole, the angelic being is easier to believe as being meant.

[John Powell]

POWELL:
In that case, in your view was it God or Satan who inspired David to take the census that was followed by a plague?

RUNECROW:
Well, bear in mind that this doesn't hold much relevency to what I'm arguing. I'm arguing the use of theos with a definite article. It's as if I have a book telling me, "David is the king" and then later I read "the king did such and such" then I am inclined to understand "the king" as refering to David. In the same way, when I see "God" being used by Paul, I am inclined to understand the word as refering to God, and not to Satan.

Touching on the passage you mention, there is a different construct going on. The word 'satan' doesn't have a definite article (it isn't really a proper noun- i.e. the being's name isn't "Satan" even though it has linguistically evolved into such) so it isn't intending to denote a specific being. Note that even the angel of the Lord is called a 'satan' at Numbers 22.22 (in the translation one will usually find the word 'adversary' but in Hebrew it is 'satan').

I would say that it was the Lord who moved David through an adversary- probably a rival nation. That is, a situation of adversity was created by a rival nation which prompted David to take a census to calculate his number of available troops.

POWELL:
I see.

Since we've been talking Hebrew grammar, perhaps you'll indulge another question. It has to do with elohim. In Gen 1, shouldn't that be read as plural "gods"?

POWELL:
I don't yet trust that your methodology is consistent, so please apply it to explain the following:

Scripture Verse:

John 10:33-36 (KJV):
33 The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.

34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?

35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;

36 Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?

RUNECROW:
Well, theos is used to denote God, and theoi is used to translate the cited Psalm's use of 'elohim in application to Israel 'to whom the word of God came'.

POWELL:
So, was it referring to God or to someone other than God? Your position is that "god of this world" refers to God rather than someone other than God (such as Satan).

POWELL:
It's a matter of you being unfairly selective. The majority is more often right than the minority. That's why two witnesses is generally better than one and three generally better than two.

RUNECROW:
Yet I could as easily state that the unfair selection was on your part. It is a matter of opinion alone, without any basis in actual fact (indeed, the statement is so general as to be entirely unknowable).

POWELL:
If you were to take a random sample of propositions then the opinion of the majority would more often be right than the opinion of the minority. Do you dispute that?

Why would we seek the will of the majority if the will of the majority is more often wrong? In that case, shouldn't we seek the will of the minority? But that's absurd! When the majority came to choose the minority opinion it would then be the majority opinion!

RUNECROW:
Also, witnesses to events are one thing, interpretations of datum another altogether. It is the interpretation that I am speaking of.

POWELL:
Big deal. Witnessing requires some level of interpretation.

POWELL:
So, if John Smith works as a cooper and Dick Cooper works as a smith and Letusha Green is black then John who-works-as-a-smith works as a cooper and Jack who-works-as-a-cooper works as a smith and Letusha who-is-green is black. Can you see why enlightened people merely use names as person identifiers rather than as having something significant to do with the etymology of the name?

RUNECROW:
I would say that 'enlightened people' is an oxymoron.

POWELL:
I'm referring to people of our age.

RUNECROW:
At any rate, the two examples are not analogous as I have already made my position. When the name was originally used, "John Smith" would be a smith and not a cooper. The names have lost their meaning and have become nothing more than, as you cite, person identifiers with no etymological significance. But that is not the way that it was at the time of the writing in discussion. Therefore, you're use of Smith and Cooper isn't a true analogy since it doesn't take into account the different manner of application.

POWELL:
But hadn't Babylon existed long enough that when a Jewish merchant told his wife he was going there to trade his wares then he didn't likely mean to say he was going to confusion?

POWELL:
If Isaiah meant for his readers to think of the King of Babylon as a King of Confusion then he should have done more than merely call him by his name.

RUNECROW:
It's what his title was. King of confusion. Note that he did not call him the 'king of Babylon'- he called him the king of babel.

POWELL:
Just like "Smith" is someone's last name even if they don't work as a smith.

POWELL:
Right. Isaiah-somebody needed to give a better clue to his readers that he was trying to say that Letusha had green skin than to merely call her by her name Letusha Green. The name by itself isn't enough of a hint.

RUNECROW:
I'm still not sure how much more of a hint one needs than for the man to directly state, 'king of confusion'.

POWELL:
Because words like that are sometimes merely used as identifiers, he needs more than merely the word.

POWELL:
We disagree. I think the focus of Isaiah is in talking about the king of Babylon, not in teaching his readers about a planet that didn't fall or an angel that did fall.

RUNECROW:
Yet it's plainly cited as a parable. For you to maintain your argument, you have to dismiss that the passage directly states 'parable'. It's as if the passage states, "Tell this metaphor to him; you are a raincloud in the sky" and you're saying that the rules of metaphor aren't to be applied to what is said.

POWELL:
I think the focus of Isaiah is on the king, not on what the king is likened to.

POWELL:
Actually, rethinking things, it would cause needless confusion like if I were to read about running bear (not a bear, but a person) who was running after walking bear (who knows whether walking bear was a bear or a person?). We use capital letters to identify them as proper names.

RUNECROW:
There aren't any 'running bears' in scripture.

POWELL:
No, but there's a place called "confusion" even if there's no confusion concerning the location of the place.

RUNECROW:
Again, you're creating an analogical relationship that doesn't exist. When something is given a name in scripture it is meant to apply both as a form of identification and as a form of qualitative understanding. Babel (i.e. confusion) was called such at Genesis 11 and the meaning of the name is relevant as more than a mere meaningless identifier.

POWELL:
I think Biblical writers made that kind of tight association more than we do, but less than you suggest. I don't think that every time Mary called to her firstborn son that she was thinking of Yahweh's salvatory power any more than a modern mother calling her son John is likely to be thinking of the bathroom or of God's gifts.

POWELL:
Anthropology, archaeology and genetics indicates that human beings are not derived from a single couple who lived something like 6000 years ago.

RUNECROW:
That's true. But, this is where 'the majority are always wrong' comes back to haunt us. And, more true, is, just because one is trained to identify genetic markers or flint tools does not mean one is trained to reason correctly.

POWELL:
Trained scientists tend to reason better than the average person.

POWELL:
What if it was in the passage where Jesus says one with sufficient faith can do it?

RUNECROW:
Then, in context of the whole, the following verse must be taken into account:

“All these things spake Jesus unto the multitude in parables; and without a parable spake he not unto them:” (Mt 13:34)

POWELL:
Wasn't Jesus speaking to the disciples rather than to the multitudes when he spoke of the faith to move mountains?

POWELL:
Yet you said that a talking snake is more believable than an angel. Apparently, for you it's the reverse, a talking snake is LESS believable than an angel.

RUNECROW:
But you're taking what I said out of context. What I said was, "an angelic being is less credible in rational thought (from a standpoint of merely accepting an account without any extraneous reasoning) than a talking snake, and so the talking snakers seem to- at least superficially- have the side of easier believability (among the two choices) since snakes are easily demonstrated as existing while angelic beings are not".

POWELL:
I guess I misunderstood you.

RUNECROW:
In context of the whole, the angelic being is easier to believe as being meant.

POWELL:
So, which do you think is more believable: angels or talking animals?

John Powell

[AntonS]

In that case, in your view was it God or Satan who inspired David to take the census that was followed by a plague?

It was Satan and God, because -

Rom 11:36 KJV: For of him, and through him, and to him, are all things: to whom be glory for ever. Amen.

Satan is an adversary, fallen angels are like cells of cancer in God. Satan lives by God, through God, he is God's slave, but he is an adversary, he is against life.
All who sin can sin only by God, to God, through God.
If a loved by God human sins (=becomes like a cell of cancer), he provokes God to anger.

(Your finger and your hand belongs to you, they are parts of your body, when you take a thing by your finger, your hand also takes that thing, and you also take that thing. Satan is a part of God's body too.)

[runecrow]

Since we've been talking Hebrew grammar, perhaps you'll indulge another question. It has to do with elohim. In Gen 1, shouldn't that be read as plural "gods"?

No, it should be singular. The reason is that the suffix of the noun is over-ridden by numeric modifiers used in verb and adjective association. What I mean is, here is a transliteration of Genesis 1:3-

vayyo'mer 'elohiym yehiy eth 'or vayhiy 'or

Here is a direct translation and how it is derived:

va [AND:conjunction] yy [HE: third person singular masculine identifier] o'mer [IS SAYING: imperfect verb] 'elohiym [GOD: due to 'yy' the suffix is understood as non-numeric] yehiy [COME TO BE: verb] 'or [LIGHT] va [AND] yhiy [COME TO BE] 'or [LIGHT]

So, "and he said, God, come to be, light; and come to be, light" and arranging it into English so that it is the familiar "subject->verb->object" "and God, he is saying, 'Light, come to be' and light is coming to be"

It's refered to as majestic plural when something that is numerically singular (that is, the modifying verbs and adjectives don't agree with the noun they modify) doesn't agree with its modifiers. The same is true for words like 'behemoth' (in the book of Job) which acts the same way. What the construct intends to convey with the suffix is something numerically singular which is exceedingly 'majestic' in respect to others of its noun type.

So, 'elohim' used in majestic plural (the only elohim to be used in such a way- all others agree with their modifiers) is a way of stating that the numerically singular God is exceedingly more majestic than the 'lesser' of its noun type.

So, was it referring to God or to someone other than God? Your position is that "god of this world" refers to God rather than someone other than God (such as Satan).

If you're referring to the word translated as "God" in the cited passage, then it refers to God which is 'ho theos' which is what I am arguing. The use of the word and article intends to be understood as 'God'. The same applies to the Corinthians passage.

If you were to take a random sample of propositions then the opinion of the majority would more often be right than the opinion of the minority. Do you dispute that?

To tell you the truth, what was formerly stated as a form of cynicism is now being treated as a truth statement. That wasn't my intent. I can honestly state that the question is impossible to answer since it is so general. However, I still cynically maintain that- in my own experience- the majority is usually wrong in just about everything. This is pure opinion (as I maintain also is the opposite conclusion) and cannot possibly be demonstrated or validated in any meaningful way.

Why would we seek the will of the majority if the will of the majority is more often wrong? In that case, shouldn't we seek the will of the minority? But that's absurd! When the majority came to choose the minority opinion it would then be the majority opinion!

Simple. The majority are so foolish that they would never choose to acknowledge the correct minority stance[/cynicism]

I'm referring to people of our age.

I still call it an oxymoron.

But hadn't Babylon existed long enough that when a Jewish merchant told his wife he was going there to trade his wares then he didn't likely mean to say he was going to confusion?

No, he must say that. He is literally saying to his wife, "I am going to confusion". She has no choice but to hear him saying, "I am going to confusion" because that is what he would be saying. Granted, she would know he was talking about a city- but he would still be saying, "I am going to confusion" and, for all intents and purposes, the meaning of the name would apply and he would be understood as stating that he was going to the city where everything is confused.

Just like "Smith" is someone's last name even if they don't work as a smith.

You're still using the gradual lingusitic evolution and disassociation of the meaning of a name as having an analogical relationship with the first state of the name. The relationship isn't analogical. When the name 'smith' was first used, John Smith would have been a smith. Period. Not a cooper, not a cartwright, not a lamplighter- a smith.

I think the focus of Isaiah is on the king, not on what the king is likened to.

A parable takes something that is literally understandable and empirically knowable and uses that object to convey an understanding of something else, something 'more heavenly'. The king is the literal object of the parable. The nature of the way a parable works tells me that the literal king is not the real object of understanding- he is being used as a knowledge medium. It is simply a matter of understanding what (or who) the literal king and his literal city are being used to represent.

No, but there's a place called "confusion" even if there's no confusion concerning the location of the place.

The confusion isn't concerning the location, it is concerning what is going on at the locale.

I think Biblical writers made that kind of tight association more than we do, but less than you suggest. I don't think that every time Mary called to her firstborn son that she was thinking of Yahweh's salvatory power

Every time Mary called to her firstborn she was certainly thinking of Yahweh's salvatory power by obvious name association. It would be difficult to say, "Time for lunch, Yahweh's salvific power" and not think "Yahweh's salvific power" since you just said it. That is the purpose of names...

any more than a modern mother calling her son John is likely to be thinking of the bathroom or of God's gifts.

...except in modern day America where names have been totally disassociated with any form of meaning.

Trained scientists tend to reason better than the average person.

I seriously doubt that. But, like the former opinion, it is impossible to demonstrate one way or the other.

Wasn't Jesus speaking to the disciples rather than to the multitudes when he spoke of the faith to move mountains?

Yes, that's true. So, if it wasn't a parable or some figure of speech, then clearly one with no doubt could literally uproot a mountain and throw it into the sea. I would allow an entertaining of something else, however:

“Jesus answered and said unto them, Verily I say unto you, If ye have faith, and doubt not, ye shall not only do this [which is done] to the fig tree, but also if ye shall say unto this mountain, Be thou removed, and be thou cast into the sea; it shall be done.” (Mt 21:21)

“And the second angel sounded, and as it were a great mountain burning with fire was cast into the sea: and the third part of the sea became blood;” (Re 8:8)

Personally, I don't take such inter-relations as insignificant. The context of the whole must be applied.

So, which do you think is more believable: angels or talking animals?

It depends on my frame of reference.

It was Satan and God

I don't necessarily think that must be wrong, but I do know there is no definite article with 'satan' in the text. That leads me to understand the use as indefinite, 'a satan' or 'an adversary' and not 'the satan'. I still view this as speaking of a rival nation which threatened Israel. The word is often used indefinitley to refer to such rival nations.

1Ki 5:4 But now the LORD my God hath given me rest on every side, so that there is neither satan nor evil occurrent.
1Ki 11:14 And the LORD stirred up a satan unto Solomon, Hadad the Edomite: he was of the king’s seed in Edom.
1Ki 11:23 And God stirred him up another satan, Rezon the son of Eliadah, which fled from his lord Hadadezer king of Zobah:
1Ki 11:25 And he was a satan to Israel all the days of Solomon, beside the mischief that Hadad did: and he abhorred Israel, and reigned over Syria.

So, I take grammatic ramifications into account before applying a doctrinal philosophy.

[John Powell]

POWELL:
In that case, in your view was it God or Satan who inspired David to take the census that was followed by a plague?

AntonS:
It was Satan and God, because -

Rom 11:36 KJV: For of him, and through him, and to him, are all things: to whom be glory for ever. Amen.

Satan is an adversary, fallen angels are like cells of cancer in God. Satan lives by God, through God, he is God's slave, but he is an adversary, he is against life.

All who sin can sin only by God, to God, through God.
If a loved by God human sins (=becomes like a cell of cancer), he provokes God to anger.

(Your finger and your hand belongs to you, they are parts of your body, when you take a thing by your finger, your hand also takes that thing, and you also take that thing. Satan is a part of God's body too.)

POWELL:
Then God is responsible for everything that happens, good and bad, yes?

John Powell

[John Powell]

POWELL:
Since we've been talking Hebrew grammar, perhaps you'll indulge another question. It has to do with elohim. In Gen 1, shouldn't that be read as plural "gods"?

RUNECROW:
No, it should be singular. The reason is that the suffix of the noun is over-ridden by numeric modifiers used in verb and adjective association.

POWELL:
Don't writers tend to make fewer errors in the number of the noun or pronoun than in the number of the modifiers, so shouldn't it be assumed to be the opposite?

For example, if person say "my grandfather run home" isn't it more likely person mean "my grandfather runs home" rather than "my grandfathers run home"?

RUNECROW:
What I mean is, here is a transliteration of Genesis 1:3-

vayyo'mer 'elohiym yehiy eth 'or vayhiy 'or

Here is a direct translation and how it is derived:

va [AND:conjunction] yy [HE: third person singular masculine identifier] o'mer [IS SAYING: imperfect verb] 'elohiym [GOD: due to 'yy' the suffix is understood as non-numeric] yehiy [COME TO BE: verb] 'or [LIGHT] va [AND] yhiy [COME TO BE] 'or [LIGHT]

So, "and he said, God, come to be, light; and come to be, light" and arranging it into English so that it is the familiar "subject->verb->object" "and God, he is saying, 'Light, come to be' and light is coming to be"

It's refered to as majestic plural when something that is numerically singular (that is, the modifying verbs and adjectives don't agree with the noun they modify) doesn't agree with its modifiers.

POWELL:
Isn't it more likely that the writer was referring to the activities of a group of persons of which only the principal one spoke?

And the Gods, he (the principal one) is saying, "Light, come to be' and light is coming to be.

It would be rather odd to have the gods speaking in unison to do the work, yes?

RUNECROW:
The same is true for words like 'behemoth' (in the book of Job) which acts the same way. What the construct intends to convey with the suffix is something numerically singular which is exceedingly 'majestic' in respect to others of its noun type.

POWELL:
So the ancients thought that calling a hippo a hippos was a good way to characterize its greatness? Does that sound wise to you? Should we call that big mammal in the cage an ELEPHANTS to help people realize how big it is?

It's possible that this "majestic plural" idea came into vogue by the time of Job to try to explain why Genesis spoke of multiple gods after monotheism had replaced polytheism. We continue the tradition today when writing "We" when "I" is meant.

On the other hand, maybe writing in those days wasn't as restrictive as it is today.

Consider the following:

Behold now hippos, which I made with thee; he eateth grass as an ox.

What is the answer to the question: Who eats grass as an ox?

It could properly be "hippos" or "the hippo."

RUNECROW:
So, 'elohim' used in majestic plural (the only elohim to be used in such a way- all others agree with their modifiers) is a way of stating that the numerically singular God is exceedingly more majestic than the 'lesser' of its noun type.

POWELL:
That's foolish. It would be smarter to add an adjective like "supreme."

Ok, we're getting more off-topic, but perhaps we can carry this a little further. Consider the following.

Scripture Verse:

Gen 18
1 AND the LORD appeared unto him in the plains of Mamre: and he sat in the tent door in the heat of the day;

POWELL:
According to v 1, how many persons appeared to Abraham? It would seem one.

Scripture Verse:

Gen 18
2 And he lift up his eyes and looked, and, lo, three men stood by him: and when he saw them, he ran to meet them from the tent door, and bowed himself toward the ground,

POWELL:
According to v 2, how many persons appeared to Abraham? Either three or four. It depends on whether the "him" they stood by was Abraham or the Lord. To harmonize v. 1 with v. 2 one might argue that one of the 3/4 persons was the Lord, the most important.

Scripture Verse:

Gen 18
3 And said, My Lord, if now I have found favour in thy sight, pass not away, I pray thee, from thy servant:

POWELL:
Is Abraham talking to one person, the Lord, or to all of them? He seems to be addressing only the Lord.

Scripture Verse:

Gen 18
4 Let a little water, I pray you, be fetched, and wash your feet, and rest yourselves under the tree:

POWELL:
Is Abraham talking to one person or to all of them? It seems to be all of them.

Scripture Verse:

Gen 18
5 And I will fetch a morsel of bread, and comfort ye your hearts; after that ye shall pass on: for therefore are ye come to your servant. And they said, So do, as thou hast said.

POWELL:
Again it appears that Abraham is speaking to all of them.

Now, who said "So do, as thou hast said"? Was it one of them or all of them? The grammar implies they all said it. Due to the audio problems of such an interpretation it's more likely that one of them spoke for the rest and the others gave some kind of non verbal agreement.

My point in bringing this up is that merely because the Bible says "they said . . ." doesn't necessarily mean more than one person was speaking and because Abraham is written to have spoken to only one doesn't necessarily mean there weren't others being addressed. Similarly just because Genesis has a single person (one god) speaking doesn't necessarily mean that only one person (one god) was there. It should be reasonably clear to the reader there were multiple gods there.

Apparently, ancient writers were sloppier than modern writers about such things.

POWELL:
So, was it referring to God or to someone other than God? Your position is that "god of this world" refers to God rather than someone other than God (such as Satan).

RUNECROW
If you're referring to the word translated as "God" in the cited passage, then it refers to God which is 'ho theos' which is what I am arguing. The use of the word and article intends to be understood as 'God'. The same applies to the Corinthians passage.

POWELL:
I was referring to the word translated as "gods."

POWELL:
If you were to take a random sample of propositions then the opinion of the majority would more often be right than the opinion of the minority. Do you dispute that?

RUNECROW:
To tell you the truth, what was formerly stated as a form of cynicism is now being treated as a truth statement. That wasn't my intent. I can honestly state that the question is impossible to answer since it is so general. However, I still cynically maintain that- in my own experience- the majority is usually wrong in just about everything. This is pure opinion (as I maintain also is the opposite conclusion) and cannot possibly be demonstrated or validated in any meaningful way.

POWELL:
We can test whether you are correctly relating your opinion. We could observe your behavior when presented with the majority opinion and see if you usually go along with it or contrary to it.

For example, if you're at a business convention and it's time for lunch and you see most people heading down the north hallway with a small minority heading down the south hallway, which way you go. Given that you believe the majority is usually wrong, you should head down the south hallway unless you ask directions. If you ask three persons which way is the cafeteria and two say north while the third says south then you should go south because you believe the majority is usually wrong.

This is absurd. Given that the majority is usually wrong, the vast majority should have an even worse reputation and the unanimous opinion should be the worst guide of all!

POWELL:
Why would we seek the will of the majority if the will of the majority is more often wrong? In that case, shouldn't we seek the will of the minority? But that's absurd! When the majority came to choose the minority opinion it would then be the majority opinion!

RUNECROW:
Simple. The majority are so foolish that they would never choose to acknowledge the correct minority stance[/cynicism]

POWELL:
Such foolishness should have been weeded out of our gene pool long ago.

POWELL:
I'm referring to people of our age.

RUNECROW:
I still call it an oxymoron.

POWELL:
Try reasoning with an ancient person with a club in his hand and perhaps you'll see how much more enlightened we are today.

POWELL:
But hadn't Babylon existed long enough that when a Jewish merchant told his wife he was going there to trade his wares then he didn't likely mean to say he was going to confusion?

RUNECROW:
No, he must say that. He is literally saying to his wife, "I am going to confusion". She has no choice but to hear him saying, "I am going to confusion" because that is what he would be saying. Granted, she would know he was talking about a city- but he would still be saying, "I am going to confusion" and, for all intents and purposes, the meaning of the name would apply and he would be understood as stating that he was going to the city where everything is confused.

POWELL:
Sure. Not! Even the location, eh? People are confused as to where it is and how to get there.

POWELL:
Just like "Smith" is someone's last name even if they don't work as a smith.

RUNECROW:
You're still using the gradual lingusitic evolution and disassociation of the meaning of a name as having an analogical relationship with the first state of the name. The relationship isn't analogical. When the name 'smith' was first used, John Smith would have been a smith. Period. Not a cooper, not a cartwright, not a lamplighter- a smith.

POWELL:
Yes. But his son, also surnamed Smith may have been a cooper. Perhaps Babylon was so named because there were so many languages spoken in the city it was confusing, but I doubt that EVERYTIME that the Jewish merchant or his wife or their children spoke of Babylon they were thinking of the language problem.

POWELL:
I think the focus of Isaiah is on the king, not on what the king is likened to.

RUNECROW:
A parable takes something that is literally understandable and empirically knowable and uses that object to convey an understanding of something else, something 'more heavenly'. The king is the literal object of the parable. The nature of the way a parable works tells me that the literal king is not the real object of understanding- he is being used as a knowledge medium. It is simply a matter of understanding what (or who) the literal king and his literal city are being used to represent.

POWELL:
I see Isaiah using the "literally understandable and empirically knowable" brightness of Venus to convey understanding of the relative position of the King of Babylon. He used the imaginable falling of Venus from the sky to convey understanding of the fall of the King of Babylon. I don't think Isaiah was trying to teach his readers about Venus. Rather it was the opposite. He was using Venus to teach them about the King of Babylon.

When Jesus spoke in parables He was trying to teach them about heavenly things that they didn't understand by comparing those to earthly things they did understand.

POWELL:
No, but there's a place called "confusion" even if there's no confusion concerning the location of the place.

RUNECROW:
The confusion isn't concerning the location, it is concerning what is going on at the locale.

POWELL:
Perhaps the mix of different languages found there.

POWELL:
I think Biblical writers made that kind of tight association more than we do, but less than you suggest. I don't think that every time Mary called to her firstborn son that she was thinking of Yahweh's salvatory power

RUNECROW:
Every time Mary called to her firstborn she was certainly thinking of Yahweh's salvatory power by obvious name association. It would be difficult to say, "Time for lunch, Yahweh's salvific power" and not think "Yahweh's salvific power" since you just said it. That is the purpose of names...

POWELL:
Do you? Every time you hear someone's name like Smith, Cooper, Charity, Summer, etc. do you think of its other meaning?

POWELL:
. . . any more than a modern mother calling her son John is likely to be thinking of the bathroom or of God's gifts.

RUNECROW:
...except in modern day America where names have been totally disassociated with any form of meaning.

POWELL:
Many names continue to have English meanings.

POWELL:
Trained scientists tend to reason better than the average person.

RUNECROW:
I seriously doubt that. But, like the former opinion, it is impossible to demonstrate one way or the other.

POWELL:
The average Earthling hasn't completed high school or its equivalent. The average American hasn't completed college. I don't think you have a good appreciation for statistics.

POWELL:
Wasn't Jesus speaking to the disciples rather than to the multitudes when he spoke of the faith to move mountains?

RUNECROW:
Yes, that's true. So, if it wasn't a parable or some figure of speech, then clearly one with no doubt could literally uproot a mountain and throw it into the sea. I would allow an entertaining of something else, however:

“Jesus answered and said unto them, Verily I say unto you, If ye have faith, and doubt not, ye shall not only do this [which is done] to the fig tree, but also if ye shall say unto this mountain, Be thou removed, and be thou cast into the sea; it shall be done.” (Mt 21:21)

“And the second angel sounded, and as it were a great mountain burning with fire was cast into the sea: and the third part of the sea became blood;” (Re 8:8)

Personally, I don't take such inter-relations as insignificant. The context of the whole must be applied.

POWELL:
If Jesus caused the fig tree to wither by His faith then why don't you think He could have moved a mountain?

POWELL:
So, which do you think is more believable: angels or talking animals?

RUNECROW:
It depends on my frame of reference.

POWELL:
Given your frame of reference which do you think is more believable?

John Powell

[AntonS]

Then God is responsible for everything that happens, good and bad, yes?

John Powell

No, He is not responsible for sins of one of His parts; and God never sins. God does not sin, but only His parts can sin. He kills and makes alive, can hide something, can make mistakes, He can feel sorry about something, but He never sins (!), because He is the Lord, He hates sins.

Deu 32:39 KJV: See now that I, even I, am he, and there is no god with me: I kill, and I make alive; I wound, and I heal: neither is there any that can deliver out of my hand.

If the Lord says to you: "Don't kill anyone", then you should not kill anyone, but it does not mean that He should not kill too, He can do anything. It is like if you were a lord in your house and you would say to your slaves: "Do not come in the room". Then they should not come in the room, but you could come in every room in the house.

I don't necessarily think that must be wrong, but I do know there is no definite article with 'satan' in the text. That leads me to understand the use as indefinite, 'a satan' or 'an adversary' and not 'the satan'. I still view this as speaking of a rival nation which threatened Israel. The word is often used indefinitley to refer to such rival nations.

1Ch 21:1 (KJV) And Satan stood up against Israel, and provoked David to number Israel.

I think that it is about the Angel who sinned before anyone else began to sin. Even if the people didn't know how to translate this, only God is living, and sometimes even jokers, thinking they joke, say prophecies. So, I believe there is 'Satan' in this verse, it is Devil. It can be about anything that serve Devil, including a rival nation. So it could be a rival nation too, and I think that this verse says that it was the Angel Devil who provoked David to number Israel.

[runecrow]

Don't writers tend to make fewer errors in the number of the noun or pronoun than in the number of the modifiers, so shouldn't it be assumed to be the opposite?

For example, if person say "my grandfather run home" isn't it more likely person mean "my grandfather runs home" rather than "my grandfathers run home"?

It isn't really analogical to construct an English senyence and apply Hebrew grammar to it. But, given that, the use of elohim with singular modifiers happens consistently throughout the scripture, so I can be certain no error is going on.

Isn't it more likely that the writer was referring to the activities of a group of persons of which only the principal one spoke?

No, that isn't likely in the slightest.

And the Gods, he (the principal one) is saying, "Light, come to be' and light is coming to be.

It would be rather odd to have the gods speaking in unison to do the work, yes?

Well, those two statements don't follow from one another because you're applying an erroneous premise (the one stated above) to try to understand the verse. In Hebrew grammar the noun agrees with its modifiers. In essence, you're trying to create your own rules of Hebrew grammar and syntax but they aren't any more valid than trying to create new rules for English grammar and syntax.

So the ancients thought that calling a hippo a hippos was a good way to characterize its greatness? Does that sound wise to you? Should we call that big mammal in the cage an ELEPHANTS to help people realize how big it is?

I'm not sure you're appreciating how language works. By saying "calling hippo hippos" you're again applying your erroneous Hebrew grammar rules so it doesn't work. You're taking a singular word and making it numerically plural to try to create an analogical relationship, but that relationship isn't analogical because it's based on a bad understanding of the language being translated. That is, it's not being called hippos because a yud mem suffix doesn't always signify numeric plurality. If anything, I would say they are calling hippo hippo. (I don't agree that behemoth is a hippo, but it works for the argument).

I wouldn't think it grammatically correct for English speaking people to use a numeric plural to describe anything singular. I'm not sure that wisdom has anything to do with it- just the rules of grammar.

It's possible that this "majestic plural" idea came into vogue by the time of Job to try to explain why Genesis spoke of multiple gods after monotheism had replaced polytheism. We continue the tradition today when writing "We" when "I" is meant.

Job was written before Genesis. So, is it possible? Well, I suppose anything is possible. But it is so unlikely as to demand demonstration as a valid alternative.

Consider the following:

Behold now hippos, which I made with thee; he eateth grass as an ox.

What is the answer to the question: Who eats grass as an ox?

It could properly be "hippos" or "the hippo."

It would have to be 'hippos'. There is no 'the hippo' in the statement. The definite article in Hebrew doesn't work the same way it does in English. You're confusing yourself by trying to understand a foreign language by applying English grammar and syntax.

That's foolish. It would be smarter to add an adjective like "supreme."

Well, I'm not sure what to say to someone calling grammar and syntax 'foolish'. It's just the way it is. I suppose a Hebrew could call English 'foolish' for a superfluous use of 'is' as in 'John is a good boy'. Just say 'John good boy', the superfluous use of 'is' is foolish.

But that's just the way our language works. That's the way their language works. There are a lot of languages around the world that work differently, but I'm not sure I'd call simple grammar and syntax 'foolish'.

Using an adjective like 'supreme' doesn't create a difference in a noun group in and of itself. That is, I want to create a different in the very word when I'm talking about one in contrast to the others. That is what is being done in a non-numeric plural. You can add an adjective to any elohim, but only the biblical elohim uses singular modifiers and thus a basic difference is made in the very word itself applied to one specific being.

My point in bringing this up is that merely because the Bible says "they said . . ." doesn't necessarily mean more than one person was speaking and because Abraham is written to have spoken to only one doesn't necessarily mean there weren't others being addressed. Similarly just because Genesis has a single person (one god) speaking doesn't necessarily mean that only one person (one god) was there. It should be reasonably clear to the reader there were multiple gods there.

Again, you're trying to create an analagous relationship which doesn't really exist. It's true that the phrase, "they said" is used to convey a single consenting idea amidst a group of people but what you're not understanding is that the actual construct of the Hebrew isn't allowing what you want Genesis 1 to say while it is allowing what you want at Genesis 18. That is, at Genesis 18, "they said" is agreeing with a numeric plural "men". Now, after this agreement, you can say, "who was speaking? how many? one? two? three? it seems like one. perhaps it was three." and those are all legitimate questions and musings. But your questions and musings aren't the issue- the issue is that there is grammatic agreement in the passage. At Genesis 1, there is not a grammatic agreement; there is a plural word being modified by singular verbs. So, there is no relevance in what you're proposing. It's the construct of the language that my argument is concerned with- not the philosophical questions that arise from that construct.

I was referring to the word translated as "gods."

That refers to those 'to whom the word came' as stated in the passage. The word used isn't ho theos, it's theoi; so that doesn't have any relevance to the argument.

We can test whether you are correctly relating your opinion. We could observe your behavior when presented with the majority opinion and see if you usually go along with it or contrary to it.

Again, I've already stated that the statement is to be taken in the context of refering to interpretation of datum; so this analogy has no relationship to my opinion concerning majority interpretation of datum.

Try reasoning with an ancient person with a club in his hand and perhaps you'll see how much more enlightened we are today.

Take the club out of his hand and put in a leather briefcase and I'm willing to wager his powers of reasoning are equal to that of our present 'enlightened' age.

Sure. Not! Even the location, eh? People are confused as to where it is and how to get there.

No, the word is indicating the state of mind and action at the locale as is stated at Genesis 11 where the word-play finds its meaning.

I see Isaiah using the "literally understandable and empirically knowable" brightness of Venus to convey understanding of the relative position of the King of Babylon. He used the imaginable falling of Venus from the sky to convey understanding of the fall of the King of Babylon. I don't think Isaiah was trying to teach his readers about Venus. Rather it was the opposite. He was using Venus to teach them about the King of Babylon.

Every object in a parable relates meaning concerning something else. Not just one or two.

When Jesus spoke in parables He was trying to teach them about heavenly things that they didn't understand by comparing those to earthly things they did understand.

True.

Do you? Every time you hear someone's name like Smith, Cooper, Charity, Summer, etc. do you think of its other meaning?

How can I not? It's a word association. You can't say 'charity' without thinking 'charity'.

The average Earthling hasn't completed high school or its equivalent. The average American hasn't completed college. I don't think you have a good appreciation for statistics.

I have a very good appreciation of statistics. There are three kinds of lies: lies, damn lies- and statistics.

If Jesus caused the fig tree to wither by His faith then why don't you think He could have moved a mountain?

Sure. I think he could've made the universe start spinning, folding, whirling and boogying if he wanted to.

Given your frame of reference which do you think is more believable?

In general? Both are as easy to believe. Conveyed by Genesis 3? An angel.

1Ch 21:1 (KJV) And Satan stood up against Israel, and provoked David to number Israel.

I think that it is about the Angel who sinned before anyone else began to sin. Even if the people didn't know how to translate this, only God is living, and sometimes even jokers, thinking they joke, say prophecies. So, I believe there is 'Satan' in this verse, it is Devil. It can be about anything that serve Devil, including a rival nation. So it could be a rival nation too, and I think that this verse says that it was the Angel Devil who provoked David to number Israel.

Fair enough.

[Wookie]

Here is a link for an interesting take on the serpent in the garden. It also ties in nicely with the Isaiah passage.
http://www.thedivinecouncil.com/nachashnotes.pdf

Here's another link dealing with the word "elohim" and it's context.
http://www.thedivinecouncil.com/Intr...cil%20MTIT.pdf

[ZackMartin]

Is this a record for thread resurrection? Over six years later...

[showmeproof]

Since you specified Isaiah 14...No. This is taken from Canaanite literature. The Day Star is Athtar, who attempted to rise to Baal's throne.

In later tradition though...Yes Lucifer and Satan are equivocated.

[Daniel7:14]

Hello John Powell,

I tried to "find you" by trying to find a "member's list", I must be looking in the wrong place.

Anyway, can you contact me, I wish to speak with you.

Bless Daniel7:14

[Rushing Jaws]

Since you specified Isaiah 14...No. This is taken from Canaanite literature. The Day Star is Athtar, who attempted to rise to Baal's throne.

In later tradition though...Yes Lucifer and Satan are equivocated.

## Athtar the Terrible wasn't big enough to fit B.'s throne - his legs were too short.

It is amazing that anyone can mistake Helel-ben-Shachar for Satan - the text specifies that the lament is over the king of Babylon. Even if that means the Assyrian king who was the overlord of the Babylonian king, the lament is still over a human being.