Is Satan a fallen angel ?

[Sally Anne]

Hello all,

I have read a couple of conflicting positions on this subject.
One would have it that Satan was created evil by God in the beginning and essentially called the Old Serpent.

The other would have it that he was created as a beautiful angel and decided to rebel against God and as such was cast down.

I believe that the Scripture is a little confusing on this subject because there are passages in Ezekiel and Revelations which seemingly back up the cast down belief, yet there are passages which clearly state that he was created to be evil by God.

Anyone out there have some insight on this subject ?

[Beloved Servant]

http://www.kingdombiblestudies.org/serpent/Serpent.htm

[Beloved Servant]

http://www.godfire.net/Traducer.html

[Beloved Servant]

http://www.godfire.net/Lucifer.html

[Beloved Servant]

http://www.kingdombiblestudies.org/antichrist/antichrist1.htm

[Quaesitor]

There's also the position that satan is the hebrew word for adversity which is a power/spirit running through mankind and which is all desires which are agaisnt God, in other words : carnality; the spirit of carnality.

But for me the important thing to believe is that whatever satan is, it has been created with a purpose and will serve that purpose untill discarded or reconciliated.
I do not fear satan anymore because my God is working ALL things in accord with His plan, satan/demons/evil men/sufferings/etc. are part of this ALL THINGS and are thus in the hands of God.

:2c:

[Molly]

The Bible calls Satan a god [the god of this age] and a 'cherub' who wanted to ascend above the the stars of YHWH.  Who are the stars of YHWH?  See Job 38:7--the morning stars sang together and Rev 2:28 I will give that one the morning star.  This is the place reserved for Adam that Satan wished to usurp by becoming Adam's ruler.


"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!

13 For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north:
--Isa 14


We know Adam and Eve were naked in the garden of Eden.  But what did the nachash [Satan as enchanter] look like?  He must have been quite beautiful to behold.


Thou hast been in Eden the garden of God; every precious stone was thy covering, the sardius, topaz, and the diamond, the beryl, the onyx, and the jasper, the sapphire, the emerald, and the carbuncle, and gold: the workmanship of thy tabrets and of thy pipes was prepared in thee in the day that thou wast created.
--Eze 28:13

No wonder he turned Eve's eye!

[micah7:9]

There's also the position that satan is the hebrew word for adversity which is a power/spirit running through mankind and which is all desires which are agaisnt God, in other words : carnality; the spirit of carnality.

But for me the important thing to believe is that whatever satan is, it has been created with a purpose and will serve that purpose untill discarded or reconciliated.
I do not fear satan anymore because my God is working ALL things in accord with His plan, satan/demons/evil men/sufferings/etc. are part of this ALL THINGS and are thus in the hands of God.

:2c:

Well said my friend :bigGrin: :thumbsup:

[Cardinal]

 :cloud9:  Yes it is  :thumbsup:  And for my  :2c:, Lucifer mentioned in there is not Satan..... :msealed:

[Beloved Servant]

            "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! For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north: I will ascend above the heights of the clouds: I will be like the most High. Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit. They that see thee shall narrowly look upon thee, and consider thee, saying, Is not this the MAN that made the earth to tremble, that did shake kingdoms; that made the world as a wilderness, and destroyed the cities thereof; that opened not the house of his prisoners?" (Isa. 14:12-17). It should be clear to every enlightened student of God's Word that all truth has applications on different levels. It is my conviction that the inspired statements in the afore quoted passage may be applied on the historical level, the prophetical level, the spiritual level, and the personal level. In its first and historical application the one called "Lucifer" refers to the literal king of the Kingdom of Babylon in the days of Isaiah who – although mighty in political and military power and the most exalted ruler among nations – would fall just like other rulers of the past. The prophetical application points to the king of Mystery Babylon, the chief antichrist of the world's apostate church system, who is not recognized for what he is, but is lauded as the greatest religious leader in the world, by whom untold millions of those who name the name of Christ are deceived, as it is written, "And the whole world wondered after the beast." The spiritual application is found in the fall of man from his original position of glory, eminence and dominion. The message is clear – the subject of Isaiah's prophecy is a MAN – not an angelic spirit-being! "They that see thee shall narrowly look upon thee, and consider thee, saying, Is this THE M-A-N that made the earth to tremble...that made the earth as a wilderness: that opened not the house of his prisoners?" (Isa. 14:16-17).

"Lucifer," instead of being the name of an angel who became the Devil, was THE NAME THE ANCIENT'S GAVE TO THE MORNING STAR. Pliny, a noted historian of antiquity, says, "Before the sun revolves, a very large star...when in advance and rising before dawn receives the name Lucifer, being another sun and bringing the dawn..." Lucifer, the light-bringer, is the Latin equivalent of the Greek word PHOSPHOROS, which is used as a title for Christ in II Pet.1:19. Peter had been discussing the glorious experience that he, along with James and John, had had with Jesus on the mount of transfiguration. Speaking of the voice that spoke to them there, he said, "We have also a more sure word of prophecy whereunto ye do well to take heed... until the day dawn and the DAY STAR (Greek: phosphoros; Latin: lucifer) arise in your hearts." I do not have the ability to make this truth any plainer than Jesus Himself made it when He called Himself the PHOSPHOROS or the LUCIFER in Rev. 22:16, saying, "I AM... the BRIGHT AND MORNING STAR." In the messages of Christ to the seven churches in the book of Revelation a special promise was always given to him that overcometh, but to the church at Thyatira He gave a promise that is worthy to fill every page of this article. May our Lord give us the spirit of revelation to understand what He said: "And he that overcometh... 'I will give him THE MORNING STAR" (Rev. 2:26, 28). Just think of that! My beloved, ponder if you will – whether we call it "Day Star", "Morning Star", or "Lucifer" – it is all the same. This "rising of the Day Star" in our hearts is the out-raying of the Christ within, for, you see, HE IS the Day Star! It should be obvious to every spiritual mind that what is recovered through the redemption of Jesus Christ is WHAT ADAM HAD IN THE BEGINNING WITH GOD. Adam in the image and likeness of God was so indwelt by light, so a partaker of the Christ Life, that he was himself a DAY STAR – the shining one of creation!

Truly, Adam is the man who made the earth to tremble, who shook kingdoms, and made the earth a wilderness, for it was to him and him alone that these terrible words were spoken, "Cursed is the ground (earth realm) for thy sake" (Gen. 3:17). As we meditate upon these sobering words of judgment, we cannot imagine words that more exactly describe the tragic picture of the fall of man from his exalted position in God. Driven from the garden, the Kingdom of Heaven on earth; the whole earth realm (cursed) with sorrow, sin and death for his sake; no more could Adam hear the voice of God walking in the cool of the day – he no longer possessed spiritual ears. No more could Adam eat of the blessed fruit of the tree of life – he no longer possessed a spiritual mind. No more could Adam behold the glories of that heavenly realm – he no longer possessed spiritual eyes. He who had never known anything but the rest of God was to labor and toil in the earth. The heavens were closed, the communion with the spirit was broken, and Adam found himself stripped of the life and light and dominion that had been his – he no longer possessed a spiritual nature. What a loss! What unspeakable loss!

In its personal application the king of Babylon – Lucifer – is you and me and everyman by our first birth – the identity of old Adam. How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! When Adam fell, the loss was both his and upon every descendant of his – all were cast into a wilderness of spiritual desolation and shut up in the prison, house of sin, suffering, limitation and death. As one has written, "Now poor, sin-laden mankind darkened in mind and impoverished in spirit, is forever spending money for that which is not bread and laboring that which satisfieth not. Vainly they imagine that their thirst can be slaked by partaking of the stagnant waters of earth's fleshly cisterns. Like lost sheep they wander through the wilderness of life seeking satisfaction and finding none. Pace after place they roam in their pitiful search for the fountain that satisfies, but find it they never can until at last they come to Christ. They fill the bars and nightclubs to buy wine and strong drink that can do no more than dull their senses, unleashing their passions and rage. They throng the places of pleasure in their unending longing to satisfy the thirst that is within them. They fill their lives with the vanity of things and more things, only to find that all they have attained rises to mock them in the end." Ahh – how art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning!

When the Lord Jesus told his disciples that He beheld satan as lightning fall from heaven, He was saying that he had seen Satan FALL OUT OF HIS (JESUS) HEAVEN, or actually Jesus had seen Satan FALL BEFORE HIM, and become subservient to Him in the realm of the Spirit. So far as Jesus was concerned Satan was no longer in possession of any authority whatsoever. Jesus spake not of an historical event, but a living reality that He had seen occur within His own consciousness, life and ministry. THIS WE ALL MUST SEE AND KNOW if we are to have any sense of victory in our lives, if we are to truly walk as the sons of God. We must realize that if satan has fallen he is not the almost-almighty head of a kingdom, but he has been stripped and his kingdom has been broken. This must be embraced as a wonderful reality within ourselves. When we realize that satan has fallen before THE CHRIST WITHIN US, then we really will be set free! When this truly happens we are on our way – not to a rapture – but to that high and holy position that God has created for us and determined to bring us to.

To those who have Satan yet in their consciousness elevated to a position of power and who carry in their thinking an image of him, HE HAS NOT AS YET FALLEN. Such people have made a god of him, but in your life, precious one, He is to be cast down, and you are to know once and for all that THERE IS ONLY GOD WHO RULES ALL. If God is controlling a part of this world and Satan is running another part, may God indeed help us ! We would be under two governments and our lives would be a hell. But to some of us, at least, SATAN HAS FALLEN and has ceased to be a king in our domain. When this truth is revealed in power and glory within your deepest heart, for you, at last, THERE WILL BE NO DEVIL ANYMORE!

In closing this message I would share a beautiful and significant vision received by a sister in Argentina to whom the Lord has given abundance of revelations. I do not feel to comment, but leave it for the Holy Spirit to interpret this to your own heart. She relates...

"Rapping me in His love, He carried me away in spirit into the world of harmonic life and light. There, after His usual welcome of love and taking away my fears, He took me to look. When I did so, I saw what seemed to be dark, evil-looking teeth which were sharp, pointed, long and ugly. Coming out from these teeth was something very repugnant which He named "poison". Then God took something that was a part of His very own being and gave it to those ugly, hollow teeth that looked like great serpent fangs which were pouring out poison. This poison from the fangs flowed into that part of Himself which God had given to them, and in this way were fully satisfied. Flowing into the part which God had given, the poison was fully satiated. This part – which had come forth from Him and was a part of His own being – completely absorbed all the poison that these great Fangs poured forth" – end quote. What a Word!


http://www.kingdombiblestudies.org/Echoes/echoes31.htm

[micah7:9]

:cloud9:  Yes it is  :thumbsup:  And for my  :2c:, Lucifer mentioned in there is not Satan..... :msealed:

You got that right! Again, another less used affirmitive on this site :bigGrin: :happy3:

[micah7:9]

Somebody has got to first show me a "fallen angel" in the Bible other than mans assuming such. Its amazing to me the imaginatiion of mens minds, especiallly when some have come so far in His Word in understanding hell, and everlasting.

[Cardinal]

 :cloud9: @ Beloved.......AMEN

[Sally Anne]

Thank you all for your replies.
It would appear that:
1) Lucifer is man and not Satan.
2)Satan is not an angel...Satan was created by God...is evil, is the opposing force....is and always was a Murderer and a Liar from the beginning.
3) Evil is the necessary opposite of good as without it what would good be...or what would be good !!!
4) Satan is the Old Serpent.

Do you people also think he (Satan) is the Dragon in Revelation....and what of the losing army of Satan and his angels....who is Satan's father....what does all this mean ???
p.s. I have read Preston Eby's account and am looking for supporting or contradictory opinions and/or positions.
thanks.

[micah7:9]

Rev 20:2 And he lays hold of the dragon, the ancient serpent, who is the Adversary and Satan, and binds him a thousand years."

[Molly]

Lucifer:  a shining one
Original Word: הֵילֵל
Transliteration: helel
Phonetic Spelling: (hay-lale')
Short Definition: lucifer


"Lucifer"

H1966
הילל
hêylêl
hay-lale'
From H1984 (in the sense of brightness); the morning star: - lucifer.

H1984
הלל
hâlal
haw-lal'
A primitive root; to be clear (originally of sound, but usually of color); to shine; hence to make a show; to boast; and thus to be (clamorously) foolish; to rave; causatively to celebrate; also to stultify: - (make) boast (self), celebrate, commend, (deal, make), fool (-ish, -ly), glory, give [light], be (make, feign self) mad (against), give in marriage, [sing, be worthy of] praise, rage, renowned, shine.

[Molly]

Michael S. Heiser wrote:
Appearances Can Be Deceiving

It's probably not much of a risk on my part to assume that you've heard of or read the
story of the serpent and Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden. But have you ever
wondered why Eve wasn't scared witless when the 'serpent'
spoke to her? If you go back and read the account in Genesis 3, there's simply no indication that she did anything
but suppress a yawn but why would that be the case? And, more to the point, what
does that have to do with the unfolding drama the Bible began with the creation of
humankind? And why did I put 'serpent' in quotation marks? So glad you asked.

Did You Notice the Problem?

Now, you might be thinking, Well, maybe animals back then could talk. I've read this
sort of thing before. I hope you'll pardon me when I say that's absurd. This isn't
interpretation of the text; it's evasion of the issue. The only other instance where we
have an animal speaking to a human being in the Bible is that of Balaam's donkey in
Numbers 22:22-41. In that case the speech was prompted by an appearance of the divine
vice regent, the Angel of the Lord, and the text plainly tells us that it was God who
enabled the donkey to speak (v. 28). That certainly isn't the case in Genesis 3 with the
serpent.

I know calling something absurd might not sound kind, but it's actually nicer than saying,
If you want to take that view, then I hope you can live with contradictions between
passages in the Bible,since that's where this view ultimately leads.

There are two other passages in the Old Testament that most scholars would say have
something to do with what happened in Eden in Genesis 3: Ezekiel 28:1-19 and Isaiah
14:1-22.1 In those passages God taunts and pronounces judgment on the kings of Tyre
and Babylon, respectively. To drive the point home that these kings deserve judgment,
the inspired prophet compares them to the supernatural being (a spectacular cherub in
Ezekiel 28, and Lucifer, son of the dawn in Isaiah 14) whose contemptuous pride
resulted in a failed coup against God.

Notice that these passages refer to a divine being, not a serpent. And that gets to the
heart of the issue. In both these passages, the primeval enemy of God, the being who
causes the fall of humankind into sin, is not a snake but some sort of supernatural being.
And it is absolutely certain the event referred to in Ezekiel 28 is that of Genesis 3, since
Ezekiel 28:13 mentions Eden and the garden.

Those who wish to argue that Lucifer appeared as a snake must cope with the fact that
there isn't a single biblical text that says Lucifer (or any other divine being) can change
into an animal. At best, this solution is simply a convenient escape hatch. And even if
there was such biblical evidence, it still doesn't answer why Lucifer would need or
choose to speak to Eve as a snake, or why Eve wasn't surprised. Having Lucifer appear
or possess a snake actually complicates matters, since this view still means that prior to
this assumed appearance or possession snakes didn't talk. Put another way, if Lucifer's
presence in the snake is the explanation for its speaking ability, then snakes didn't talk
before this happened. Eve still should have been shocked when the alleged snake started
the conversation. So the question remains: Who or what spoke to Eve, a literal snake,
member of the animal kingdom, or a supernatural being?

Animal, Vegetable, Mineral Or Something Else?

Fortunately, there's a simple answer for all this, but you might want to sit down first.
The reason why Eve wasn't shocked that a snake was talking to her is because she wasn't
talking to a snake. She was talking to a luminous divine being and not an animal of any
kind. That being may have had some sort of serpentine appearance, but he was not a
snake from the animal kingdom. To make my case to you we'll need to do two things:
(1) recall the ancient backdrop for the descriptions of the garden of Eden that I noted in
the last chapter; and (2) look at Genesis 3, Ezekiel 28, and Isaiah 14 very closely. We'll
start with the ancient backdrop.

In the last chapter I briefly sketched how the descriptions of the Garden of Eden in the
book of Genesis match descriptions of the location where, in both the Bible and other
ancient Near Eastern texts, the divine council lived or met for business. 2 Council
gatherings took place on a cosmic mountain, the place where heaven and earth
intersected, where divine decrees were given, and kingship was exercised. The cosmic
mountain was not only described as a mountain, but was also a well-watered place, a
beautiful garden.3 I pointed out that Eden is described as both a well-watered garden and
a "mountain"and the place where Yahweh announced his decision to create humanity to
his divine council. The description of Eden as a divine mountain comes from Ezekiel
28:13-14. The same chapter refers to Eden as the seat of the gods (moshab elohim).
The word seat of course refers to the place of administration, even in our own language
(county seat). The imagery is quite consistent. The only significant difference is that
in Ezekiel the enemy of God is a shining divine being, whereas it is a serpent in Genesis.
I'm arguing, of course, that this difference is only apparent.

But what about the plain wording of Genesis 3? Isn't the chapter crystal clear that the
thing talking to Eve was a snake? Actually, the vocabulary is clear, but the meaning that
traditional interpretation has given it is not, and has in fact produced the snake problem
noted above. The Hebrew word translated serpent or snake in Genesis 3 is nachash
(pronounced, nakash). More specifically, the word is ha-nachash. The prefixed ha is
the way Hebrew denotes a definite article (the word for the). So ha-nachash may be
said to mean 'the nachash.'

The word nachash is a very elastic term in Hebrew. It can function as a noun, a verb, or
even as an adjective. When nachash functions as a noun it means snake, and so the
traditional translation is possible but it yields the contradiction with Ezekiel 28 and
Isaiah 14 noted above. When nachash serves as a verb it means to practice
divination.5 That meaning could also be possible in Genesis 3 due to the deception or
going on Lucifer claiming to have the real word from God. When a verb receives an
article attached to it, the action of the verb is then transformed into a person doing the
action. Hence the word ha-nachash would then best be translated 'the diviner'.
The third option the adjectival meaning of nachash is the solution to the contradiction
problem. When nachash serves as an adjective, it's meaning is shining bronze or
polished (as in shiny). By adding the definite article to the word, ha-nachash would
then quite easily mean 'the shining one.' Angelic or divine beings are elsewhere
described in the Bible as shining or luminous, at times with this very word, nachash.6
We often don't think about how common this vocabulary of shining brilliance is for
angels and other divine beings. The Bible abounds with descriptions of such beings as
flashing or as lightning, or uses the brilliance of jewels to describe the blazing
appearance of such beings. This has important ramifications for solving the snake
problem.

What's so significant about translating ha-nachash as 'shining one' and not 'snake' in
Genesis 3? Very simply, 'shining one' is the literal meaning of Lucifer. The name
Lucifer is actually Latin and comes from the Latin Vulgate translation of the Hebrew
Old Testament. In Isaiah 14:12, the Hebrew name of primeval conspirator against God is
Helel ben-Shachar, Shining One, son of the Dawn. Translating ha-nachash as
Shining One removes the contradiction of seeing a snake vs. a supernatural being in
Eden since it provides an explicit parallel between the two passages.

We have words like this in English if you think about it. The very same noun / verb /
adjective interplay is evident here:

(Noun): The cleanup is going to take a long time.
(Verb): We must clean up this oil spill.
(Adjective): The cleanup procedures need to be followed.

What results from this approach is that Eve was confronted by a member of the divine
council on the way to work, so to speak. She wasn't surprised, because she saw these
beings come and go with regularity. We get the flavor of this context in Genesis 3:22.
Following Adam and Eve's sin God laments that now the two have become as one of
us the same plural language as in Genesis 1:26. Eden was the place where council was
held. It just happened that on this day, one of them had a score to settle.

Personally, I think it quite possible that the choice of the word nachash in Genesis 3 was
designed as a double entendre. The enemy of God was a shining divine being that also
had a serpentine appearance. No, I'm not contradicting what I said above. Saying that
Eve was speaking to a divine being of serpentine appearance is different than saying she
was dealing with a snake from the animal kingdom. Ezekiel 28 supports this notion.

A Closer Look at Ezekiel and Isaiah

Neither the name Helel nor the word nachash appear in Ezekiel 28, but we do have a
corresponding description of Eden's villain. Note the underlined portions of Ezekiel
28:13-14:

13 You were in Eden, the garden of God; every precious stone was your
covering, sardius, topaz, and diamond, beryl, onyx, and jasper, sapphire, emerald,
and carbuncle; and crafted in gold were your settings and your engravings. On the
day that you were created they were prepared. 14 You were a shining7 guardian
cherub. I placed you; you were on the holy mountain of God; in the midst of the
stones of fire8 you walked.

The point of the description is the same as Isaiah 14 and Genesis 3. The appearance of
the supernatural rebel in the garden of Eden is described with brilliant, shining jewels.
The description of this shining being as shining, guardian cherub points to a serpentine
appearance for this divine being, and therefore another parallel to Genesis 3. It is
common among Bible scholars to suppose that the cherubim were sphinx-like creatures,
based primarily on some carved depictions of thrones from Egypt and Phoenicia. Certain
carvings portray thrones that are, as in Ezekiel 1, supported by creatures with wings and
four faces. This perspective, while possible, isn't terribly coherent in Ezekiel 28. It
cannot account for why the being in Eden and so parallel to the entity in Genesis 3
isn't described as sphinx-like, or leonine, or having four faces. The reality is that the
meaning and derivation of the Hebrew word for cherub is uncertain.9 The most likely
possibility is that the term refers to a spirit being who guards or blesses (praises), or
which serves as the gatekeeper to the divine throne room, without respect to physical
appearance.

Curiously and perhaps tellingly those beings whose station is in God's throne room
and who are portrayed in the Old Testament as praising God in the throne room do have a
serpentine appearance (Isaiah 6). These beings are known to us as seraphim. Decades
ago scholars believed that the word saraph (the plural is seraphim) meant burning one
or fiery one since there was a Hebrew verb of that spelling with that meaning.
However, the common Hebrew noun saraph means serpent. Numbers 21:8 is but one
of the more obvious examples of this word and that meaning. For our purposes,
seraphim were not mere snakes from the animal kingdom, they had hands, feet, and
wings, and could speak (Isa 6:2, 6). They were apparently something both human-like
and serpentine.10 If cherub is merely a generic term for a being whose appointment
was in the throne room of God, this would account for why the adversary of Eve in Eden
is described with that term and yet as nachash in Genesis 3.

But what about the curses of Genesis 3? Surely those rule out a translation of Shining
One and help us salvage the traditional view, despite its problems. This approach is a
bit misguided, since the curses describe the nachash in terms of what he would be after
he was punished, not before. In fact, the curses make far more sense if they are directed
at a fallen divine being than a mere snake. Why? Let me point out a couple of the most
apparent reasons.

First, consider the cursing of the nachash with respect to Eve. God tells the nachash that
there will be enmity or some sort of adversarial relationship between the offspring of
Eve (human beings, not necessarily female) and the offspring of the nachash. What are
we to make of this if the nachash is only a snake from the animal kingdom?

Commentators have danced around that issue for millennia. The fact is that all humans
do not hate or fear snakes, and snakes do not by nature exist to attack or harass humans.
In Gen. 3:14 we read that God curses the nachash to eat dust all the days of his life.
Snakes do not eat dirt as a means of sustenance, and so the curse is not meant to be taken
literally. This of course has given rise to the notion that before the Fall snakes were
upright animals, an idea for which I have even seen some Christian commentators
appeal to evolutionary biology! If this kind of literalism is brought to the passage, then
one is pressed to answer questions like: How do we know which parts of the curse are
figurative and which are literal? In what way is it the worst curse to crawl on the
ground? (cursed are you above all livestock). Other creatures crawl on their belly, and
so their fate is at least as bad. And there are worse fates in the animal kingdom. Some
creatures live only to be eaten by others. I would suggest that snakes were created by God
the way we know them today and that their method of propulsion has nothing to do with
what happened in Genesis 3.

Lastly, in case you're still stuck on the first verse of Genesis 3, I need to let you in on a
secret. Check a variety of English translations on Genesis 3:1. Many will have something
like, Now the serpent was craftier than any of the other beasts of the field . . . Surely
the fact that Genesis 3:1 says the other beasts means that the serpent was an animal,
right? I could agree with that, but the secret is that the word other isn't in the Hebrew
text! It's supplied by translators interpretively. The text literally says, Now the serpent
was craftier than any beasts of the field, to which I say, no kidding, he was a divine
being, so he ought to be smarter! Rather than argue in favor of the nachash being a
snake, a member of the animal kingdom, Genesis 3:1 implies that the nachash was a
superior being.

Frankly, I think a more serious question in all this should be put to those who want a
snake in the garden: How can this curse in Genesis 3:14 be reconciled with the
punishment of Eden's divine rebel described in Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28? A look at the
passages below will tell you immediately that there is nothing like what is traditionally
imagined in Genesis 3 in these other Eden passages. In Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28 the rebel
is punished by banishment to Sheol (the Hebrew place of the dead and punishment, see
below) or being cast to the earth. These descriptions are hopelessly irreconcilable with
Genesis 3 if one has an animal, a snake, in view. Note the specific underlined
punishments:

More here....

http://www.michaelsheiser.com/MHeiserChapter5Nachash.pdf

[micah7:9]

Amazing and this is now thinking. If satan/the adversary fell from someplace, please where was that from.  I had more to ask and add but Im afraid to mention the thoughts, I still have yet to find a "fallen angel" in the Book.

[Molly]

Start here:

Introduction to the Divine Council.

http://www.thedivinecouncil.com/Introduction%20to%20the%20Divine%20Council%20MTIT.pdf

[Molly]

Genesis 6:4

4There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.


"giants"

H5303
נפל    נפיל
nephı̂yl  nephil
nef-eel', nef-eel'
From H5307; properly, a feller, that is, a bully or tyrant: - giant.



H5307
נפל
nâphal
naw-fal'
A primitive root; to fall, in a great variety of applications (intransitively or causatively, literally or figuratively): - be accepted, cast (down, self, [lots], out), cease, die, divide (by lot), (let) fail, (cause to, let, make, ready to) fall (away, down, -en, -ing), fell (-ing), fugitive, have [inheritamce], inferior, be judged [by mistake for H6419], lay (along), (cause to) lie down, light (down), be (X hast) lost, lying, overthrow, overwhelm, perish, present (-ed, -ing), (make to) rot, slay, smite out, X surely, throw down.



The Nephilim: which means "Those who fell or the fallen ones."

[Molly]

16By the multitude of thy merchandise they have filled the midst of thee with violence, and thou hast sinned: therefore I will cast thee as profane out of the mountain of God: and I will destroy thee, O covering cherub, from the midst of the stones of fire.
--Eze 28



Luke 10:18
And he said unto them, I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven.

[Cardinal]

 :cloud9: @ Molly.....I have a problem on my computer getting pdf files to open. Any chance you could post at least the pertinent excerpts?

[CHB]

Hi,

Here is part of an article about Satan and the king of Tyre.   The article can be found here.
  It is a very interesting article. To get the full understanding of this I suggest one read the whole article.
http://www.askelm.com/temple/t000901.htm

The Two Cherubim with the Ark of the Covenant Had Personal Names

We now come to an interesting fact that many of you may never have seen before. Do you realize that the two Cherubs that made up the one image in the Holy of Holies had personal names and that the Israelites called them by those individual names? That is right. Those names are revealed in the Holy Scriptures. Recall that Jeremiah (according to the historical account from Second Maccabees) said that he took the Tent (or Tabernacle) that housed the Ark of the Covenant in the Holy of Holies. 1 This separate "Tabernacle" is mentioned in First Kings 1:39. This was a small Tent that became associated always with the Ark of the Covenant. This is the Tent that Jeremiah took along with the Ark to bury across the Jordan River east of Jericho. 2

These factors concerning the small Tent that accompanied the Ark of the Covenant becomes a major key in identifying the names of the two heavenly Cherubim that the two images (soldered together as one image) depicted on earth. That key comes from Amos chapter 5. Notice this scriptural indication.

"Have you offered unto me sacrifices and offerings in the wilderness forty years, O House of Israel? But you have borne the Tabernacle [the special Tent] of your Moloch and Chiun your images [there were two images], the star of your Elohim [the Star — a single "star" of your "gods"], which you made to yourselves."

Amos 5:25–26

What kind of a Tent (or Tabernacle) contained two images that were indeed a single "Star" (an image molded together into one image of two heavenly beings)? This was the special Tent that was erected over the Ark of the Covenant that contained the two Cherubim that faced one another with their wings outstretched toward each other over the Mercy [Covering] Seat that contained the sacred items within the Ark of the Covenant. In the plainest of language, we have the two Cherubim named by the Israelites. One of them was Moloch (which is the Hebrew word for "King" or "King Star" which was the name given to the planet Jupiter). The other was Chiun (which was another name for the planet Saturn, the furthest planet observable by the naked eye in our solar system).

Now note this. When the two Cherubim were first constructed at the beginning of the forty years wandering of the Israelite Exodus period, Moses was told to have the two Cherubs facing one another. This represented Jupiter (a closer planet to earth) facing Saturn (the furthest visible planet from earth) in a conjunction with each other in the sky. Now Jupiter takes about 12 years to traverse the path of the Sun (which means to orbit the Sun) while Saturn takes about 30 years to do the same thing. If the two planets are shown in conjunction with one another (that is, as the Cherubim were shown in the Tabernacle and Temple) facing one another, it will take just over 20 years for the two planets to be exactly in the same position of the sky together and in conjunction again.

It is interesting that the great Massing of the Planets in Taurus (the Bull) that happened on May 5/6 of this year (2000 A.D.), and which I mentioned last year in a Prophetic Report, was also a time when Moloch (Jupiter) and Chiun (Saturn) once again "faced each other" as they did in the time that Moses ordered the Ark of the Covenant to be placed in the Holy of Holies at the beginning of the Exodus. At that time in May of this year [2000], Jupiter and Saturn (as seen from earth) were about 2 degrees from each other, and both (of course) were in Taurus (the Bull) and very near "facing each other" after an absence of just over 20 years. But precisely on May 27, 2000, the two planets came to an exact "facing." They "faced each other in a marvelous conjunction" (only about one degree latitude separated them).

As just mentioned, this would have been how the two planets were situated when Moses had the Ark of the Covenant constructed. Then they had 2 times 20 years (or 40 years) for the period of the Exodus that Amos 5:25 mentioned. There was then to be a period of 480 years (1 Kings 6:1) for the start of Solomon building the Temple in Jerusalem (that is 24 times 20 years — a significant biblical number).

The next time in our modern period that Jupiter and Saturn (or Moloch and Chiun) "face each other" will be on December 21, 2020 when they appear at the very beginning of the sign Aquarius (not Taurus). So, in just over 20 years we find that Jupiter (Moloch) and Saturn (Chiun) "face each other" again to become like a "Single Star." 3

The early Israelites noticed this remarkable astronomical phenomenon of these two planets and they gave religious value to it. Indeed, they began to worship the two Cherubim (named Moloch and Chiun that symbolized Jupiter and Saturn) and they fell into an idolatrous worship of those two Cherubs (and their images in the Holy of Holies) for the whole period of the forty years wandering in the wilderness. They were even continuing the practice (and even with worse consequences) in the time of the prophet Amos (Amos 5:25–26). 4 Stephen even referred to the same practice in his discourse before the Sanhedrin in the year following Christ's crucifixion:

"Yea, you took up the tabernacle of Moloch, and the star of your god Remphan, figures which you made to worship them: and I will carry you away beyond Babylon."

Acts 7:43

Note that Stephen then called Saturn by the name "Remphan" which is a Greek translation of the earlier Semitic term "Chiun." Those images of Cherubs did great harm in Israel.

There are people today who are still enamored with this Ark of the Covenant (and its two Cherubs named Moloch and Chiun). Without doubt, if the Ark could be once again discovered, they would readily place the two Cherubs right back in any newly built Temple in Jerusalem. The human tendency is strong to do it. The fact is, however, Jeremiah saw the idolatry that had developed over the two Cherubs so he (under inspiration of God, in my view) took the special Tent of the Cherubs as well as the two images of the Cherubs molded into one image and hid it away. Then he wrote Jeremiah 3:14–18 that the true people of God would no longer require the Tent or the Ark of the Covenant in which to worship God.

And there was another reason why Jeremiah took those two images out of the Holy of Holies. That is because ONE OF THOSE VERY CHERUBS became a sinner of the first magnitude. That one Cherub had done such evil in heaven that he had been thrown out of his exalted position next to the throne of God and was in the time of Jeremiah and Ezekiel considered by God as an evil being — a Cherub that had gone wrong. Which of the two Cherubs was the one who went wrong? The prophet Ezekiel tells us.

One of the Cherubs Depicted on the Ark of the Covenant Had Fallen From Grace
Notice what Ezekiel had to say about one of the Cherubs who had formerly been a righteous spirit being of very high rank in the heavenly hierarchy of divine beings associated with the very Throne of God Himself. This particular Cherub had become rebellious and as a result God had rejected him. Which Cherub was it?

"Moreover the word of YHWH came unto me, saying, Son of man, take up a lamentation upon the king [Moloch or Melek] of Tyrus, and say unto him, 'Thus says the Lord YHWH;

you [Moloch] seal up the sum, full of wisdom, and perfect in beauty.
 
You have been in Eden the garden of Elohim; every precious stone was your covering, the sardius, topaz, and the diamond, the beryl, the onyx, and the jasper, the sapphire, the emerald, and the carbuncle, and gold: the workmanship of your tabrets and of your pipes was prepared in you in the day that you were created.
 
You are the anointed [Messianic] cherub that covers; and I have set you so:
 
you were upon the holy mountain of Elohim;
 
you have walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire [to mimic this, the Israelites caused their firstborn to "pass through the fire" 5].
 
You were perfect in your ways from the day that you were created, till iniquity was found in you. By the multitude of your merchandise they have filled the midst of you with violence, and you have sinned: therefore I will cast you as profane out of the mountain of God [Moloch would be jettisoned from God's Holy Temple in heaven and on earth]: and I will destroy you, O covering cherub, from the midst of the stones of fire [where the children sacrificed to Moloch were placed].
 
Your heart was lifted up because of your beauty, you have corrupted your wisdom by reason of your brightness [Moloch was a bright planet in the heavens at times]: I will cast you to the ground, I will lay you before kings, that they may behold you.
 
You have defiled your sanctuaries [both in Jerusalem and in Tyre] by the multitude of your iniquities, by the iniquity of your traffick;
therefore will I bring forth a fire from the midst of you, it shall devour you, and I will bring you to ashes upon the earth in the sight of all them that behold you [like the firstborn children of Israelites were burnt to ashes in sacrifice]. All they that know you among the people shall be astonished at you: you shall be a terror, and never shall you be any more.'"

Ezekiel 28:11–19

There you have it! It was Moloch (represented by the planet Jupiter) that was the sinning Cherub. The other Cherub was named Chiun (represented by the planet Saturn with the Sabbath being his day of consecration for worshipping him). But the Sabbath was made by God for His people to rest, and it was not made for Chiun (Saturn). The early Israelites took the command of God to make the images of the Cherubim and place them in the Holy of Holies as an example given by God to worship those Cherubim (named Moloch and Chiun). This was one of the commands that God gave to the Israelites in the time of Moses that WAS NOT GOOD for the Israelites because it led them into idolatry (Ezekiel 20:25–26). It would do the same today.

But with Ezekiel condemning the practice of having the Ark of the Covenant (and its two Cherubs named Moloch and Chiun) in an idolatrous form of worship, and with Jeremiah even hiding the Ark of the Covenant with its special Tent east of Jericho and across the Jordan River, that put an end to such false worship in the Temple built by Zerubbabel.

In the Temple of Herod (which was in existence in the time of Jesus), there was no Ark of the Covenant displayed in physical form in the Holy of Holies. Though the actual Ark of the Covenant is still in heaven (Revelation 11:19), it was not looked on as proper by God-fearing people to have the Ark again placed in a Temple at Jerusalem since we find Jeremiah and Ezekiel objecting to its placement in the Temple.

At our end of the age, however, we are told in the Book of Revelation that there will once more be an image of a wild beast (remember that the Cherubs are shown as having four faces: one of a man, an eagle, a bull and a lion — which equals a "wild beast"). This image of the wild beast (probably in the form of Moloch the King) will again be placed in a Temple in Jerusalem as described in Revelation chapter 11. This "Image of the Beast" (or, it means that one or both of the Cherubim will be replaced in a new Temple — remember that there were two images of the Cherubs but they were molded together to form one image) will be again placed in a new Temple in Jerusalem (Revelation 13:11–18). There will also be a "Mark of the Beast" associated with this new Ark of the Covenant. So, the rebellion to God of replacing the Ark happens at the End Time.

Questions to ask: Will this new Ark of the Covenant (which will be the Image of the Beast mentioned in the Book of Revelation) be the one that Jeremiah buried east of Jericho and across the Jordan River? That is possible. As far as Jeremiah is concerned, he stated that the ideal Temple in the future would NEVER AGAIN have an Ark of the Covenant in it (Jeremiah 3:16). This is the position that I personally take. In fact, God was honest in His statement in Ezekiel that His commands "were not good."

If anyone wants to replace the Ark of the Covenant back into a renewed Temple, what he or she will be doing is placing the Image of the Beast mentioned in Revelation 13 back into the Holy of Holies. While God did allow that to happen in the time of Moses — though remember that God said that command to put those images in the Temple, contrary to the Second Command of the Ten Commandments — it was one of those commands that Ezekiel 20:25–26 said God gave that "were not good." It led them directly (and quickly) right into idolatry of the most serious kind.

I am certain that if the Ark of the Covenant were once again found (or even a new one made by the Temple authorities), it would lead the people back into the kind of idolatry that the early Israelites engaged in, and what the Book of Revelation states this evil world will adopt when the Beast and the False Prophet are on earth.

Ever since I discovered that the Image of the Beast was indeed the reintroduction of the Ark of the Covenant into an End Time Temple (I came to this conclusion well over twenty years ago), I have turned away all my emotional connection with a physical Temple in Jerusalem (or even with a physical Jerusalem) and I now have more important things to be concerned about. True, I plan to give more information on the Temple site as it becomes available, but I have written my book (and with the other articles on our Internet Web Page), I believe I have done my duty to God and to my readers in this matter for the present.

As for me, I have no need for any Ark of the Covenant in my worship. I have only one mediator between the Father and me and that person is Christ Jesus (1 Timothy 2:4–6). As for Temples that are made by the hands of human beings, I have the express teaching of the Holy Spirit that came from the mouth of Stephen. Stephen boldly told the Sanhedrin in Jerusalem (and quoting teachings directly from the Old Testament): "the Most High dwells not in Temples made with hands [human hands]" (Acts 7:48). I have not the slightest need for a physical Temple (with its Moloch or Chiun — the two Cherubs that Moses placed in the Tabernacle). All I need (and I already have Him) is Jesus Christ and Him crucified.

Indeed, when one reflects upon the teaching of the Second Commandment of the Ten Commandments (and applies what the words state explicitly and without preconceived notions), it could be argued that even the building of a Temple is prohibited in the strict sense of the word. This is because the Temple represents an image or similitude of the House of God in which God resides in heaven. Do we not read in the Second Commandment that Israelites should not make an image of ANYTHING in heaven (or in earth or under the earth, Exodus 20:4)? That is right! Even the building of a physical Temple on earth is getting close to breaking the Second Commandment. Of course, it must be realized that God did in fact order Moses to construct the Tabernacle and later God told David to have the Temple built by Solomon. Yes, indeed, but still we are later told that God does NOT dwell in Temples made with human hands in an actual sense (Acts 7:48). Whatever the case, we Christians do not need a physical Temple in any manner whatever.

Ernest L. Martin, 2000
Edited by David Sielaff, March 2007

[Cardinal]

 :cloud9: I don't have any doubt that in their apostosy and rebellion they may have given the cherubim names and worshipped them, just like they did the brazen serpent. 

This is what I see of the originals they mimicked.

Moses--law Word--cold wind--pillar of cloud--bread   [in union with]
Elijah--Spirit Word--hot wind--pillar of fire--wine

-is the true communion that produces the Son in our midst, ie. when two of you are gathered in My name/nature there I AM in the midst of you.

Just as it takes a hot wind meeting a cold wind in the natural to produce a whirlwind (tornado-pillar of cloud), so too does it take both to form the mature Son in us. Note also, that the Father spoke when that pattern was upheld, just as He speaks to us today when we have communion with Him via the Word and the Spirit in union, ie. the bread eaten in the light of the candlestick.

They were told to meet Him in the cloud, and the pillar of fire and cloud over the mercy seat between the two cherubim IS that cloud. This is why at the transfiguration, they saw Moses and Elijah on either side of Him.

To take it a little further, they saw the two trees in the midst of the garden again. The way into the Most Holy was already opened, it was opened before He ever went to the cross.

The two on his right and on his left were joined as one in pattern in the Spirit, and they "covered" the tree of life in their midst. The same pattern is seen in the High Priest's garments, ie. the ehpod (made of the stones representing the 12 tribes = soul of man/female aspect) is the "covering" for the linen (speaks of His righteousness, His Spirit/male aspect of God) robe.

Jeremiah 31:21 Set thee up waymarks, make thee high heaps: set thine heart toward the highway, even the way which thou wentest : turn again , O virgin of Israel, turn again to these thy cities. 22 How long wilt thou go about , O thou backsliding daughter? for the LORD hath created a new thing in the earth, A woman shall compass a man.

The "woman" that shall compass or cover a man is 2 or more "virgin" (cleansed by the blood) souls joined in union of His Spirit, that becomes His covering, ie. the restoration of the High Priest position Adam (and He called THEIR name Adam) had in the garden. This is also why He sent them out in two's.

Every precious stone was Adam's covering, via the ephod stones, until iniquity was found in him. Eve, his stony (calcium is a mineral) heart, sinned. My  :2c: Blessings....

[WhiteWings]

:cloud9: @ Molly.....I have a problem on my computer getting pdf files to open. Any chance you could post at least the pertinent excerpts?

Reinstall Acrobat reader. Version X (10) was released a few weeks ago.

http://www.adobe.com/
You have to click to the download yourself because my direct download link likely doesn't work for your PC.
Look for the "Acrobat Reader" right of the 2 photos