The Trees of Eden

[marie glen]

To just read over the Word without desiring a deeper understanding of the meaning would in my opinion not be a "better redeeming of the time" but exactly the opposite. After a certain point, it would be spending your time in vain. What purpose does it serve to read something over and over again, without understanding it. It becomes a vain repetition. God doesn't want that. He said so. When young Christians are just starting out it is normal for them to desire the "sincere milk of the Word". They should start with the first principles such as repentance, baptism, the laying on of hands as Paul taught. The obvious, simple things. Sure. But as they mature they must reach a point when the time for that "milk" is over. Hebrews 6:1. The end result being we must have our senses exercised in the discernment of  both good and evil. Hebrews 5:12-14. That has to do first and foremost with an understanding of the Word...

I absolutely agree! meditating upon His Word.. I was referring to folks in some 'denominations' which get so caught up in their own thoughts about the word, that they become dreamers, caught up in human reasoning supposedly upon the Word, where every tiny word becomes a mystic message and hidden knowledge for special more wise ones... Very subtle, yes.. I hope I didn't offend! not meaning to imply there is no 'deeper' meaning to many things, but I think it's a mistake to throw out simplicity..

I do feel the trees of Eden were trees, not governing powers, but I also think when God endowed thinking ability to angel and man(kind) a whole new world (or TREE) of possibilities and potential came about.. So of that tree in Eden, the one of knowing good from evil, I do see as symbolic. Not negating it as a real tree, in a very real original garden, the only one told not to eat from, representing disobedience and imperfection.

With thinking ability comes sooner or later the ability to make choices.. and so we have the hand reaching out towards the forbidden.. towards disagreeing with what God chooses (in any 'tiny' way) which makes one the opposite of life.

..Because God, surely, is Life. And also Perfection. A real paradox and Pandora's box, but what would be the other option? no rational creatures, ever?

The happiest thing of all, imo, is since God is Perfect, surely?! The 'end' result of all this (life as we presently know it, i.e. the TREE of chewing on the learning of good from evil/life from ?, and human history) can only be the utter best one possible...
                          :Peace2: God bless! :smile:

[marie glen]

Could you elaborate pls? "When God endowed thinking ability to angel and man, a whole new world (or tree) of possibilities came about, because with thinking ability, sooner or later, comes the ability to choose. And so.. life as we presently know it. But what was God's other option? No rational creatures ever?"

Seventeen years ago, when my son was 16 (it's his b'day today:) he asked me two questions, which i answered but I wasn't satisfied with my answers so i prayed to know the answers.. better. What came back to me knocked my socks off, changed my life and I was a pretty solid believer already.

He asked me "why was the tree of knowing good and evil in the garden?" and "isn't it great we get to be an ant farm?" (so cynical so young!)

The answers came back to me quickly, like bam! bam, bam! and ended with a question.

Simple summary: that's the 'problem'! we're noT an ant farm, tho aLL is firmly in only His Will. (please Lord, keep me short winded. :eek: )

Here's what seemed to come to me. God can only be perfect. Or He too would fade..

God Himself is life, the life force, the breath of life.. What else could or would be??

Before He began any creating, He could see all possibilities stretched out before him like a blanket spread out before his eyes, is the image i saw in my mind's eye. All possibilities and potentials he of course knew. And every single thing he has done he has chosen in just that way, in order to bring about the very best of all possibilities..

First, the straight out from Him one, the only Begotten-straight out from Him one, within which all others would live and have their being.. "This is the decree, You are my begotten Son" ps 2

You see? When He endowed thinking ability, which sooner or later, includes choice, tho limited, a whole new world (or tree) of possibilities came about. Because thinking ability includes being able to make choices.. albeit of course, limited. Once one chooses in any tiny thought, word or deed, aNy thing which disagrees with what He chooses, they become imperfect, the opposite of life.

And W/o the rescue/redemption built in from the beginning we all would fade away, perish. Period. This is a very strong support of UR. Since the Father opened the Pandora's box bringing all this (life as we know it, imperfection, suffering, death) about, Himself, of course he has engineered and built into all things from the beginning the rescue/redemption/life for all, seeing as he is the one who engineered all things just the way He did and opened the Pandora's box of rationality which includes the ability to make choices.

[Because He is Perfect, the 'end' result of all this, can only-be the best-one-possible.]

God, surely, is only able to be honest, so there was that tree in the garden.. ("why was the tree of knowing good and evil in the garden?")

Since He iS life, he lives through, suffers and experiences aLL sufferings which ever occur! Why would he put himself through all that? Because he's not creating robots or an ant farm, but His very own family, and an un-breakable paradise/perfection. Un-breakable, because the full understanding of good from evil (life from nonlife!) will be deeeeply, i believe, engraved upon eveRy heart, mind and psyche. The full knowledge that one simply cannot walk away from God/Life/Perfection in any teeny tiny way, for to do so can only ever result in a self destructive puff of smoke. Can't be done. Don't do it. Why bother. "Apocalypse" in its modern definition of collapse, is the unveiling of truth.

With thinking ability, sooner or later someone was bound to think, do we really have to do everything the way God says..? Or we'd be robots or an ant farm.

The question all this ended with, and which came to me in conclusion, was "Why did God wait so very long, and only create the universe and man&woman, not onlyafter the first bound to occur rebel thought occurred, but after that thought had matured into outright rebellion, sedition and trickery? Surely He knew what would occur?" - Of course He did! What patience! It seemed plain, how He waited a very long time.. what with there being 'only' the Father, the Son and the angels.. surely there wasn't that much to go astray about!

Why did He wait so long? So aLL would take this unavoidable journey and lesson all together, at once.. Or one would stray now.. another later.. and another later.. and on and on, taking virtually 'for ever'..

those were the answers i received that day..  I believed in UR before. But after those answers, insights, I knew that I knew, that I knew.. What peace!! all the pieces fit together, a total picture.. my socks are still knocked off. He is utterly Perfect. Everything is perfect, because it is all accomplishing His end/plan/blueprint/utter-perfection.
            :Peace2: :Peace2: :smile:

[TheVisitor]

EZEKIEL 28:13
  13    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.
EZEKIEL 28:14
  14    Thou [art] the anointed cherub that covereth; and I have set thee [so]: thou wast upon the holy mountain of God; thou hast walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire.
EZEKIEL 28:15
  15    Thou [wast] perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee.
EZEKIEL 28:16
  16    By 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.
EZEKIEL 28:17
  17    Thine heart was lifted up because of thy beauty, thou hast corrupted thy wisdom by reason of thy brightness: I will cast thee to the ground, I will lay thee before kings, that they may behold thee.

Take these verses as one in context. The numbers to the verses were added later. It is one story about this same "Covering Cherub". Now I don't see Covering Cherub in vs.7 either, it could mean that. But in these verses it does say Cherub.
Again... these kings of Babylon and Tyre had never been in Eden or the Holy Mountain of God. The Cherub had. Now lets look at the Isaiah verses.

ISAIAH 14:12
  12    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!
ISAIAH 14:13
  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:
ISAIAH 14:14
  14    I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High.
ISAIAH 14:15
  15    Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit.
ISAIAH 14:16
  16    They that see thee shall narrowly look upon thee, [and] consider thee, [saying, Is] this the man that made the earth to tremble, that did shake kingdoms;

Now I would agree the "hell" in this context is possibly neither an eternal destination or complete destruction "to the vanishing point".
I believe in this context hell is possibly the grave and the pit is a holding cell. That doesn't mean I'm ready to say there is no hell as a temporary place of torment and punishment. I dont believe that is an eternal place, because there is only one source of eternal life and thats God but the scriptures do quote the spirits that spoke to Jesus as saying; "have you come to torment us before the appointed time". So that sounds like a period of torment for some at least. Exactly what that means I don't think anyone knows. But that's a whole other issue. Back to this one, according to the scriptures the devil gets let out of the pit at some time in the future as so do some other creatures, so it is more like a holding cell where they put prisoners before judgement.

Isaiah uses the name Lucifer, and both Isaiah and Ezekiel say this one will be cast to the ground or the pit, and people will see them being defeated in their shame. Here Lucifer "did weaken the nations" and will be cast into the pit. In Revelation, Satan is cast into the pit...(Rev. 20:3) and when he is let out of the pit 1000 years later (Rev 20:7), the first thing he does is go out to "deceive the nations".

Looks like the same person doing the same things to me, just my opinion though.

[Seth]

Brother, I would read the provided article if were you...

[TheVisitor]

Brother, I would read the provided article if were you...

True, no where in the bible does it say hell is going to be eternal. The words "everlasting" or the phrase "for ever and ever" are both speaking of a period of time. They do not speak of eternity. That is what the White Throne judgement is going to be for. Every case will be carefully decided individually. There is no unmerciful God that throws every sinner into a hell of eternal torment as though they were all the same. The hardest thing every great move of God had to deal with, was for the movement to hold its head above all the fanaticism that followed it. I believe Martin Luther said that.
I am not qualified to say what it is completely, maybe no one is at this time. It do beleive it appears to be a place of temporary punishment for some and possibly a complete destruction "to the vanishing point" for others. But a place of eternal torment...I just don't see that.
But, like I said I'm not an expert on the subject either.

[Seth]

One of the things the article points out is that lucifer is not a name in the first place. You quoted Ezekiel and Isaiah, prophecies laden with metaphor. A metaphor is symbolism which does not use the term "like." So, when the prophecy aimed at a king, says "you are fallen from heaven" in simile form it would be "you are like one who has fallen from heaven." That's the very nature of a metaphor. It's like when Jesus said that he lays down his life for his sheep, that is a metaphor. The simile version would be "the people I lay my life down for are like my sheep."

I don't take the "thou" in Isaiah and Jeremiah to be directed to anyone other than it says it is directed to: the king. If the prophecy was addressed to Satan himself, then the "thou" statements would be about him. But I don't take the address of the prophecy to be completely different just because it incorporates metaphors. It's one thing to make that leap, as the church does, and it's another to make it a matter of official doctrine. I stop short of the latter.

[micah7:9]

EZEKIEL 28:13
  13    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.
EZEKIEL 28:14
  14    Thou [art] the anointed cherub that covereth; and I have set thee [so]: thou wast upon the holy mountain of God; thou hast walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire.
EZEKIEL 28:15
  15    Thou [wast] perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee.
EZEKIEL 28:16
  16    By 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.
EZEKIEL 28:17
  17    Thine heart was lifted up because of thy beauty, thou hast corrupted thy wisdom by reason of thy brightness: I will cast thee to the ground, I will lay thee before kings, that they may behold thee.

Take these verses as one in context. The numbers to the verses were added later. It is one story about this same "Covering Cherub". Now I don't see Covering Cherub in vs.7 either, it could mean that. But in these verses it does say Cherub.
Again... these kings of Babylon and Tyre had never been in Eden or the Holy Mountain of God. The Cherub had. Now lets look at the Isaiah verses.

ISAIAH 14:12
  12    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!
ISAIAH 14:13
  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:
ISAIAH 14:14
  14    I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High.
ISAIAH 14:15
  15    Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit.
ISAIAH 14:16
  16    They that see thee shall narrowly look upon thee, [and] consider thee, [saying, Is] this the man that made the earth to tremble, that did shake kingdoms;

Now I would agree the "hell" in this context is possibly neither an eternal destination or complete destruction "to the vanishing point". I believe in this context hell is merely the grave and the pit is a holding cell. That doesn't mean I'm ready to say there is no hell as a temporary place of torment and punishment. I dont believe that is an eternal place, because there is only one source of eternal life and thats God but the scriptures do qoute the spirits that spoke to Jesus as saying; "have you come to torment us before the appointed time". So that speaks for itself. Take it or leave it. But that's a whole other issue. Back to this one, according to the scriptures the devil gets let out of the pit at some time in the future and so are some other creatures, so it is more like a holding cell where they put prisoners before judgement.

Isaiah uses the name Lucifer, and both Isaiah and Ezekiel say this one will be cast to the ground or the pit, and people will see them being defeated in their shame. Here Lucifer "did weaken the nations" and will be cast into the pit. In Revelation, Satan is cast into the pit...(Rev. 20:3) and when he is let out of the pit 1000 years later (Rev 20:7), the first thing he does is go out to "deceive the nations".

Looks like the same person doing the same things to me, just my opinion though. Study to shown thine own self approved. Decide for yourself.

My friend as long as you continue to emphasize this word "lucifer" as your doctrine foundation, I cannot engage. You must first establish two witness's in scripture and you have not as yet shown one scripture and verse for your thought that lucifer was an angel. My  :2c:    Very good Seth :dsunny:

[TheVisitor]

One of the things the article points out is that lucifer is not a name in the first place.

Yes, I've wondered a thing or two about that myself. It does mean "light bearer" or "shining one" which both sound more titles than names. The scriptures do say Lucifer was the cherub in the garden that was cast out as "profane". Satan is said to be the "Old Serpent" I believe that creature was a man, not a snake. Whether both Lucifer and Satan were the names of the spirit using the man who was referred to as the Serpent or they were just titles, or...one was for the man and the other for the spirit is a little confusing to say the least. The main orthodox thinking of course is that the name Lucifer was the name of the angel before it fell and had it's name changed to Satan at that time. I'll go with that one, not because it's the most commonly held view but it's what looks the most likely to myself at this time anyway.

[Seth]

A snippet from the article:

Even such an eminent translator as Rotherham seemed to follow the Septuagint in this verse, however, from his comments within parenthesis, it is clear that he was fully aware of the fact that whatever this word meant, it was referring to none other than the context of these verses which is Babylon and not Satan:

"How has thou (Babylon—see context) fallen from heaven, O Shining One (O howl)—Son of the Dawn! (Babylon conspicuous as Venus). Hewn down to the earth, O crusher of nations."

Clearly the reference is to Babylon and none other. It was Babylon which was exalted to heaven (as conspicuous as Venus, the brightest star of the morning) in her wealth, power, and glory. Yet just as Capernaum, God says she is brought down to the earth, the one who was a "crusher of nations."

Next I will list the King James renderings of the word that is found in the "Hebrew" texts and transliterations of its various forms in every occurrence in the entire KJV Bible. Now you can be the judge. In all Hebrew or Aramaic texts of Isa. 14:12, the only word found is "heh-lehl," eill, which is a form of the Hebrew stem "yah-lahl," ill, meaning howl. Here is Kittel's Hebrew Text for the Hebrew Stem ill—"yah-lahl"—HOWL:

Isa. 13:6   eiliu   Howl ye
Isa. 14:31   eili   Howl
Isa. 15:2   iilil   shall howl
Isa. 15:3   iilil   shall howl
Isa. 16:7   iilil   Howl
Isa. 16:7   iilil   shall howl
Isa. 23:1   eililu   Howl ye
Isa. 23:6   eililu   Howl ye
Isa. 23:14   eililu   Howl ye
Isa. 52:5   eililu   make to howl
Isa. 65:14   eililu   shall howl
Jer. 4:8   ueililu   Howl
Jer. 25:34   eililu   Howl
Jer. 47:2   ueill   and shall howl
Jer. 48:20   eilili   Howl
Jer. 48:31   ailil   will I howl
Jer. 48:39   eililu   They shall howl (Howl ye)
Jer. 49:3   eilili   Howl (Howl ye)
Jer. 51:8   eililu   howl
Ezek.30:2   eililu   Howl ye
Hos. 7:14   iililu   They howled
Joel 1:5   ueililu   And howl
Joel 1:11   eililu   howl
Joel 1:13   eililu   And shall be howlings
Amos 8:1   ueililu   and howl
Micah 1:8   uailile   howl ye
Zeph. 1:11   aililu   Howl
Zech.11:2   eill   howl
Zech.11:2   eililu   howl
Isa. 14:12   eill   Lucifer (??)

I don't believe one has to be a Hebrew scholar to see at a glance that "Lucifer" is totally out of place in this list. The meaning of this word is clear; eill is a verb that means "HOWL", and not a noun than can be twisted into a personal name such as "lucifer"!

[TheVisitor]

You must first establish two witness's in scripture and you have not as yet shown one scripture and verse for your thought that lucifer was an angel.

True, I gave two examples of a cherub which is a type of angel being in the garden and the holy mountain and "Lucifer" as the "son of the morning" that fell from heaven. The two are not directly tied together here without some interpretation. But if you add Revelations where the Dragon who's tail cast 1/3 of the stars to the earth and is also cast down himself who is Satan...Then I'd say whether these are just titles or names you are talking about the same person. Still it is a little questionable with the scriptures we have to work with, so I will agree you have a valid point.

[micah7:9]

To TheVisitor, could you please tell me where your thoughts of "trees" and "lucifer" originated? I ask because I myself at one time looked into the "tree" teaching from articles and material I had read. As for your "lucifer" thinking well I do not believe you have much to go on to back it up but as EW said, other than, interpretation. :HeartThrob:

Quote from: micah7:9 on Today at 12:13:38 AM
You must first establish two witness's in scripture and you have not as yet shown one scripture and verse for your thought that lucifer was an angel.

True, I gave two examples of a cherub which is a type of angel being in the garden and the holy mountain and "Lucifer" as the "son of the morning" that fell from heaven. The two are not directly tied together here without some interpretation. But if you add Revelations were the Dragon who's tail cast 1/3 of the stars to the earth and is also cast down himself who is Satan...Then I'd say whether these are just titles or names you are talking about the same person. Still it is a little questionable with the scriptures we have to work with, so I will agree you have a valid point.

What is a cherub? What is a "type" of angel? And angel, although most fain from using it properly is a messenger.
You should do more research on your "lucifer" you have absolutely no evidence to tie the dragon to "lucifer" and satan(which is not a proper noun but means adversary)

[TheVisitor]

It was referring to none other than the context of these verses which is Babylon and not Satan:

Clearly the reference is to Babylon and none other. It was Babylon which was exalted to heaven...Yet just as Capernaum, God says she is brought down to the earth, the one who was a "crusher of nations."

"HOWL", and not a noun than can be twisted into a personal name such as "lucifer"!

Ok, good points...both of you. I will concede there is a lot of evidence that Lucifer is not a name and Babylon was thrown down like Capernaum. But, there is also a precedent in the scriptures for calling a person a city, especially a city they represent or are closely connected with. The Bride, the Lamb's wife is called New Jerusalem when it appears as a bride adorned for her husband. So with this in mind it is possible the same thing is going on here. Satan can be referred to as the king of Babylon while suffering a similar fate as that city by being cast down from heaven.

[Seth]

But it's not addressed to Satan in the first place

Ezekiel 28
The word of the Lord came again to me, saying, 2 "Son of man, say to the leader of Tyre, 'Thus says the Lord God,

"Because your heart is lifted up
And you have said, 'I am a god,
I sit in the seat of gods
In the heart of the seas';
Yet you are a man and not God,
Although you make your heart like the heart of God—
3 Behold, you are wiser than Daniel;
There is no secret that is a match for you.
4 "By your wisdom and understanding
You have acquired riches for yourself
And have acquired gold and silver for your treasuries.

We have here a clue as to why God uses the terminology of falling from heaven. The only reason he must fall from heaven is to show him "yet you are a man." Realizing that he is only a man is how the king falls from heaven, metaphorically speaking.

Essentially, God is being sarcastic with him like Elijah was being sarcastic with the prophets of Ba'al. In modern parlance it would be like saying, "you think you are a god, not a man? Well,you are about to fall from heaven. Your heart is lifted up, but I will make you fall and crash to the ground, Mr. Cherub."

[Seth]

From Isaiah
But you said in your heart
'I will ascend to heaven;
I will raise my throne above the stars of God,
And I will sit on the mount of assembly
In the recesses of the north.
14 'I will ascend above the heights of the clouds;
I will make myself like the Most High.'
15 "Nevertheless you will be thrust down to Sheol,
To the recesses of the pit.
16 "Those who see you will gaze at you,
They will ponder over you, saying,
'Is this the man who made the earth tremble,
Who shook kingdoms,

So the context here, again is of a man who God used to shake the kingdom of Israel, then he would turn his wrath from Israel to the king of Babylon. Why? For becoming proud. For thinking he can be ASCENDING to heaven. This is not addressed to someone who already was in heaven, in actuality but that is what he said to himself to "have his heart lifted up" to a high place. But his destiny would be a man, who will instead fall into the grave to be eaten by worms.

"For dust thou are and To dust you shall return"

[TheVisitor]

But it's not addressed to Satan in the first place...

That's where it gets a little tricky. I believe it is talking to the man, but its also talking to or about the spirit in the man. At least in type.
I believe this speaks of the rebellion. In Isaiah 14:13 where it says;"I will exalt my throne above the stars of God" this refers to the same stars spoke of in Job 38:7 "When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy" This is what Satan wanted to rule over. He was allowed to attend these meetings even after the fall. Job 1:6 "Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them."

We have here a clue as to why God uses the terminology of falling from heaven. The only reason he must fall from heaven is to show him "yet you are a man." Realizing that he is only a man is how the king falls from heaven, metaphorically speaking.
Essentially, God is being sarcastic with him like Elijah was being sarcastic with the prophets of Ba'al. In modern parlance it would be like saying, "you think you are a god, not a man? Well,you are about to fall from heaven. Your heart is lifted up, but I will make you fall and crash to the ground, Mr. Cherub."

And I totally agree the first part is talking to the man. And possibly being a little sarcastic. The first 12 verses. You did a good job of separating that out.
But then the second part from verse 13-16 is obviously not talking about a man.
EZEKIEL 28:13-16
  13    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.
  14    Thou [art] the anointed cherub that covereth; and I have set thee [so]: thou wast upon the holy mountain of God; thou hast walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire.
  15    Thou [wast] perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee.
  16    By 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.

This part is not sarcastically calling a man a Cherub, this is referring to or speaking to the actual Cherub the man is somehow tied to in type at least.

[micah7:9]

But it's not addressed to Satan in the first place...

That's where it gets a little tricky. I believe it is talking to the man, but its also talking to or about the spirit in the man.
This speaks of the rebellion. To "raise my throne above the stars of God" refers to the same ones in Job 38:7
  " When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy" This is what Satan wanted to rule over.

We have here a clue as to why God uses the terminology of falling from heaven. The only reason he must fall from heaven is to show him "yet you are a man." Realizing that he is only a man is how the king falls from heaven, metaphorically speaking.
Essentially, God is being sarcastic with him like Elijah was being sarcastic with the prophets of Ba'al. In modern parlance it would be like saying, "you think you are a god, not a man? Well,you are about to fall from heaven. Your heart is lifted up, but I will make you fall and crash to the ground, Mr. Cherub."

And I totally agree the first part is talking to the man. And possibly being a little sarcastic. The first 12 verses. You did a good job of separating that out.
But then the second part from verse 13-16 is obviously not talking about a man.
EZEKIEL 28:13-16
  13    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.
  14    Thou [art] the anointed cherub that covereth; and I have set thee [so]: thou wast upon the holy mountain of God; thou hast walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire.
  15    Thou [wast] perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee.
  16    By 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.

This part is not sarcastically calling a man a Cherub, this is referring to or speaking to the actual Cherub the man is somehow tied to in type at least.

IF your assumption has any validity at all then the "man" you are referring to would be Adam imo. Sir, it seems you are sticking with your doctrine, and that is yours to do, but I speak somewhat boldly, a good many of the servants on this forum have studied and are not swayed by unsound doctrine and teaching; you friend have offered speculation and interpretation as to what you believe....I do not believe you gain much ground. But that is just my opinion. :HeartThrob: :dsunny:

[Seth]

I am glad that at least we agree that the address of the prophecy is to a man. As far as anything else that is inferred beyond what is actually written, I take it as unsupported. That's my own view of it. It's a hypothesis, but not a proved one, to me. You and I can both prove with the text that it's addressed to a man, but neither of us can prove beyond hypothesis that it is addressed to anyone or anything else. I am not against hypothesizing, but I don't think it should be taught as a matter of solid doctrine like the church does.

[TheVisitor]

IF your assumption has any validity at all then the "man" you are referring to would be Adam. Sir, it seems you are sticking with your doctrine.

No Adam is not a Cherub. The verses from Ezekiel 13-16 don't use the word man one time. It plainly says there was a Cherub in the garden. And No, I am not sticking to any "doctrine" I am repeating the words straight from the book.

[rosered]

This is a really good article    if any one cares to read it




http://www.testimony-magazine.org/back/sep2006/green.pdf

[Seth]

IF your assumption has any validity at all then the "man" you are referring to would be Adam. Sir, it seems you are sticking with your doctrine.

No Adam is not a Cherub. The verses from Ezekiel 13-16 don't use the word man one time. It plainly says Cherub.
And No, I am not sticking to any "doctrine" I am repeating the word straight from the book.

Why isolate Ezekiel 13-16 from the rest of the prophecy? The prophecy is indeed referring to a man. God said to the judges of Israel "ye are gods." Did he mean that they were literally gods like him? I see no reason why God wouldn't refer to a man as a cherub when speaking metaphorically. And again, the prophecy is literally addressed to a man, and nowhere does God tell Ezekiel to go out and prophecy to Satan himself. That is the unsupported idea.

[micah7:9]

I am glad that at least we agree that the address of the prophecy is to a man. As far as anything else that is inferred beyond what is actually written, I take it as unsupported. That's my own view of it. It's a hypothesis, but not a proved one, to me. You and I can both prove with the text that it's addressed to a man, but neither of us can prove beyond hypothesis that it is addressed to anyone or anything else. I am not against hypothesizing, but I don't think it should be taught as a matter of solid doctrine like the church does.

For my clarification, is your post addressed to me Micah?

[Seth]

No, to TheVisitor. I think we posted at the same time.

[Seth]

This is a really good article    if any one cares to read it




http://www.testimony-magazine.org/back/sep2006/green.pdf

I particularly found the comparisons to the language of Adam in Genesis to be very interesting.

[TheVisitor]

Why isolate Ezekiel 13-16 from the rest of the prophecy?

I didn't, I thoroughly explained the dual nature of the scripture.

The prophecy is indeed referring to a man.

Not entirely, but you seem to have quite an interest in limiting it to that.

God said to the judges of Israel "ye are gods." Did he mean that they were literally gods like him? ...

Yes, in a manner of speaking He did. Jesus said "you call the ones the Word came to gods and they were"...Like these prophets of old, the elect are attributes of God's own self. From the only eternal source of life. They were gods in that sense, Jesus said so.

[Seth]

Why isolate Ezekiel 13-16 from the rest of the prophecy?

I didn't  I thoroughly explained the dual nature of the scripture.

The prophecy is indeed referring to a man.

Not entirely, but you seem to have quite an interest in limiting it to that. I'm starting to get curious why.

God said to the judges of Israel "ye are gods." Did he mean that they were literally gods like him? ...

Yes, in a manner of speaking He did. Jesus said "you call the ones the Word came to gods and they were"...Like these prophets of old, the elect are attributes of God's own self. From the only eternal source of life. They were gods in that sense, Jesus said so.

So they were gods in a SENSE. Exactly my point. If man can be a god in a sense, he certainly could be called a cherub in another sense.

You explained YOUR VIEW of the nature of Ezekiel/Isaiah prophecy being addressed to two sentient beings at once, I simply find that to be unsupported hypotheses in this case. Proof is in the eye of the beholder, but there is nothing in the prophecy to suggest to me that the prophets were speaking to anyone other than who God told them to speak to.