Go back and read the chapter in Isaiah from the begins and looks at who the subject leading up to the falling is.
I believe the king of Babylon is who this passage is speaking of. If you want to read it as Lucifer then I believe you would have to read the kjv.
I would certainly believe that this is a type of satan, or a man influenced by satan.
Sort of like all of the chistophonies, Christ like peaple in the old testament, sush as Joshua.

Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28.
Two very good interpretations of Lucifer. Isaiah 14 refers to him as the King of Babylon and Ezekiel 28 refers to him as the Prince/King of Tyre. Certainly the king of Tyre was not in Eden.....,I take that as God referring to the evil power behind them.

Interestingly, I checked out Job, the oldest book of the Bible and it says Satan; not Lucifer. I'll have to pull out my Septuagint....good stuff.

I understand your belief. This is a popular teaching. I'm not saying it is wrong.
I am just saying after studying scripture it's not my understanding.
Lucifer is actually Latin for light bearer. It's a translation. I don't believe it was anyone's name but more of a description. It sure was not a Hebrew name for satan.

Nacash

Which in Hebrew means serpent; but can also mean something shiny or showy/bright........perhaps where the word Lucifer comes from? IDK.

This was a Revelation to the seven churches, this is about ( the Consummation of the new covenant)
And Jerusalem becoming desolate (70 AD)as prophesied in Daniel.

And not so much in the future. REV 22 : 6-7!


If you have a preconceived notions that Christ kindom has not come then this may not make sense to you.
Christ kingdom is a heavenly kingdom.
He even told Pontius Pilate , My kingdom is not of this world.
In this same passage Jesus reigns for a 1000 years, and Satan is bound for a thousand years.
If you take this 1000 years literally then it couldn't make sense that Jesus is now reigning.
Most of the Revelation is not literal language it is in Apocalyptic style language mostly from the old testament.
Such as God owning the cattle on a thousand hills . Does God only own the cattle on a thousand hills.

I would love to continue this conversation on a different thread. This is for Creation vs. Evolution. If you make a thread for the conversation we are having now, please let me know.

Yes , sorry I didn't mean to hijack your thread.
I'll have the start a thread about the Gospel of the kingdom.
I'm enjoying this creation vs evolution thread.

This is a debate that just won’t convince anybody, eventually it ends up with insults thrown around. Thankfully this one has been civil.

In regards to your first thought, in what way would believing evolution actually benefit “controllers” as you speak? On the other hand there are countless arguments that could be made for creation having been been whipped up by controllers as you call them, control and vast amounts of money being a couple. I personally think you’ve got it mixed up here in regards to which idea is controlling but also realize your mind isn’t changing any more than mine is.

The goal isn’t to change anyone’s mind on what they believe, it’s only supposed to show the facts from each side and compare and contrast them.

I like the little joke about a guy arguing with God over creating man from dirt. So a competition was set up to see who could create the best man the fastest. God begins to form His man. The guy says to God, give me some of that dirt. God says you make your own dirt !

One is in Texas (third from the L- Savell)
There you go Partner

You have to remember too that the Bible is translated from Hebrew and Greek which has a lot more descriptive words than the English language does. One example is the English word "Love". There are seven different words for that word in Hebrew and Greek with seven different meanings. Also the English language has "evolved" so that the meaning of a lot of words 500 years ago don't mean what they mean today. "Gay" would be a good example. 500 years ago it meant "happy" today it means, well you know what means. My point is our great grandkids will be arguing over the meaning of a Bible passage when they get to the word "gay".

I believe it was Plato that first reasoned that for there to be a 2nd and 3rd cause, there has to first be a first cause. That was is a time when philosophy ruled as the Spirit was withdrawn during that 400 yr period.
At that point perhaps Plato was thinking design.

I thought this was humorous

Exactly

Yes, I see now that you were correct. Thank you, ma'am. I'm thinking that my fingers would have been better employed cleaning my nostrils than tapping the keyboard. For all of the noise being made, speaking up on these topics is merely throwing words into the void.

In the words of the great poets:

"And in the naked light I saw
Ten thousand people, maybe more
People talking without speaking
People hearing without listening"

or:

"I saw ten thousand talkers whose tongues were all broken...
Heard ten thousand whispering and nobody listening"

I'm old enough to know better. Oh well, carry on gentlemen.

The creator does not have to be "religious" or a god.

They did find fossil record of those pictured.