riddle kat† 0 Report post Posted April 18, 2011 I think that it makes sense. I did read through the beginning of the chapters and I would agree with you on that. Though now I am curious' date=' why does tradition have Lucifer associated with Satan? [/quote'] The Hebrew has helel ben-shakhar, (“Helel son of Shachar”). Helel was the name they gave to the planet Venus in the sky. When this was translated to Latin years later, they used one of the Latin names for the planet - Light Bringer, Lucifer. The wiki article on Lucifer is surprisingly balanced. A lot of times when we read the Bible, we're hundreds of years and thousands of miles separated from the local contexts that God used to communicate exactly what he wanted. So just looking "plainly" at the text, or importing our modern ideas into the text is a bad idea. This is the Word of God, and with some study, with the legacy of the Church and with the Holy Spirit, we can get to the meaning of the passage. So what is the deal for the imagery in verses here? Well the whole section is directed to the king of Babylon and it's pointed out and displayed that this king is most definitely a human ruler. Other kings talk to him, he is called "the man" and he has a physical body. But the imagery in those three verses have led some to see that more than "meets the eye" here. We may not realize it in the 21st century United States, but this passage draws almost exclusively from Canaanite mythology, and is an example of the "taunt song" of Ancient Middle East cultures. There's a myth of Helel, a demigod at best, who tried to take over Zaphon - the assembly of the gods that took place on their mountain. He failed and instead he was cast down into the Underworld. This king of Babylon is being being taunted for having similar aspirations and frustrations. It's only been tradition and our human desire to "explain" the devil that associated the Isaiah passage with him. But there's nothing immediately here, that says that this is the devils story. (Though given what we do know about him and his future judgment, and also given that associating this passage with the adversary happened very early in church history, something like this probably did happen in a way.) I think that makes a lot of sense. Thanks for explaining that. Do you have any links to further reading, or is the Wikipedia article enough, in your opinion (as you did reference it)? lol i couldn't really tell if you were being sarcastic or.. being serious. Also wikipedia is a terrible reference. Pretty much the worst in my opinion Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
HuskyDog† 0 Report post Posted April 18, 2011 Wikipedia isn't necessarily a terrible reference at all. You can think that it's unreliable, or you can consider it the most peer-reviewed reference material in existence. Truth is, studies have found it to be as accurate or more accurate than large encyclopedias like Brittanica. Smaller, less academic pages may not be as useful or trustworthy, but something like this probably would be fine. If anything, though, it's a good bibliographic source. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
riddle kat† 0 Report post Posted April 18, 2011 Wikipedia isn't necessarily a terrible reference at all. You can think that it's unreliable' date=' or you can consider it the most peer-reviewed reference material in existence. Truth is, studies have found it to be as accurate or more accurate than large encyclopedias like Brittanica. Smaller, less academic pages may not be as useful or trustworthy, but something like this probably would be fine. If anything, though, it's a good bibliographic source. [/quote'] meh... i hate wikipedia! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
