Push for more faithlife interaction

Just wanted to push for more people to join the faithlife, and for those who have already joined to take advantage of the great website.

I started a discussion about Is 14 and the fall of "satan" or is it speaking about the fall of satan..

https://faithlife.com/christian-debate/activity

It would also be nice to see some more reformed theology discussions

https://faithlife.com/reformed-theology/activity

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Room4more

Just wanted to push for more people to join the faithlife, and for those who have already joined to take advantage of the great website.

I started a discussion about Is 14 and the fall of "satan" or is it speaking about the fall of satan..

Well Is.14, speaks of neither. So it might be a good discussion, but it seems just the intro from here is mis-leading.....satan is nowhere mentioned.....a simple delving into mythology explains the word.....maybe this will be a good start:

What is the background for the imagery in vv. 12-15? This whole section (vv. 4b-21) is directed to the king of Babylon, who is clearly depicted as a human ruler. Other kings of the earth address him in vv. 9ff., he is called “the man” in v. 16, and, according to vv. 19-20, he possesses a physical body. Nevertheless the language of vv. 12-15 has led some to see a dual referent in the taunt song. These verses, which appear to be spoken by other pagan kings to a pagan king (cf. vv. 9-11), contain several titles and motifs that resemble those of Canaanite mythology, including references to Helel son of Shachar, the stars of El, the mountain of assembly, the recesses of Zaphon, and the divine title Most High. Apparently these verses allude to a mythological story about a minor god (Helel son of Shachar) who tried to take over Zaphon, the mountain of the gods. His attempted coup failed and he was hurled down to the underworld. The king of Babylon is taunted for having similar unrealized delusions of grandeur. Some Christians have seen an allusion to the fall of Satan here, but this seems contextually unwarranted (see J. Martin, “Isaiah,” BKCOT, 1061).
NET Bible.

David Paul

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/386774#Comment_386774

Just wanted to push for more people to join the faithlife, and for those who have already joined to take advantage of the great website.

I started a discussion about Is 14 and the fall of "satan" or is it speaking about the fall of satan..

Well Is.14, speaks of neither. So it might be a good discussion, but it seems just the intro from here is mis-leading.....satan is nowhere mentioned.....a simple delving into mythology explains the word.....maybe this will be a good start:

What is the background for the imagery in vv. 12-15? This whole section (vv. 4b-21) is directed to the king of Babylon, who is clearly depicted as a human ruler. Other kings of the earth address him in vv. 9ff., he is called “the man” in v. 16, and, according to vv. 19-20, he possesses a physical body. Nevertheless the language of vv. 12-15 has led some to see a dual referent in the taunt song. These verses, which appear to be spoken by other pagan kings to a pagan king (cf. vv. 9-11), contain several titles and motifs that resemble those of Canaanite mythology, including references to Helel son of Shachar, the stars of El, the mountain of assembly, the recesses of Zaphon, and the divine title Most High. Apparently these verses allude to a mythological story about a minor god (Helel son of Shachar) who tried to take over Zaphon, the mountain of the gods. His attempted coup failed and he was hurled down to the underworld. The king of Babylon is taunted for having similar unrealized delusions of grandeur. Some Christians have seen an allusion to the fall of Satan here, but this seems contextually unwarranted (see J. Martin, “Isaiah,” BKCOT, 1061).
NET Bible.

The entire summation above is bogus, though increasingly popular among those who like to prick the "misunderstandings" of others. YHWH is in no way concerned about Canaanite mythology and He didn't inspire Isaiah to "borrow" from their pagan ramblings. The point which causes Martin's error is found in his phrase "contextually unwarranted"...by which he means, of course, the IMMEDIATE context. Prophetically, on the other hand, it is perfectly warranted to connect this passage to Satan. This thread is a providential gift, since I am in the middle of typing out a post in this thread that speaks to this exact prejudice among contemporary commentators, i.e. the inviolable idol of Immediate Context.

fgh

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/386794#Comment_386794

I believe the purpose of this thread was to have this discussion on Faithlife. If you want to discuss: go there!

Room4more

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/386794#Comment_386794

The entire summation above is bogus, though increasingly popular among those who like to prick the "misunderstandings" of others. YHWH is in no way concerned about Canaanite mythology and He didn't inspire Isaiah to "borrow" from their pagan ramblings. The point which causes Martin's error is found in his phrase "contextually unwarranted"...by which he means, of course, the IMMEDIATE context. Prophetically, on the other hand, it is perfectly warranted to connect this passage to Satan. This thread is a providential gift, since I am in the middle of typing out a post in this thread that speaks to this exact prejudice among contemporary commentators, i.e. the inviolable idol of Immediate Context.

David, I could almost agree – key English word here and the indentifier: Almost.

So I would have to ask:

Where In the chapter is there a reference to a satan figure?

TCBlack

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/386857#Comment_386857

Since this thread is about these issues being discussed on faithlife. Let's take the debates to that forum where it belongs.

Room4more

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/386864#Comment_386864

Since this thread is about these issues being discussed on faithlife. Let's take the debates to that forum where it belongs.

Thanks, TC,

But perusal of both the links provided have nothing to do with this thread……did you read the same as I? Yet, I believe that if those involved here would do their homework instead of conjective ramblings, then I believe that the Light will begin to shine, and possibly Brightly at that…..

Thanks again.