Sheep and Goats

Category: Satan/Demons

  • ”Pleased to Meet You, Hope You Guess My Name: What Name? (Isaiah 14)

    It wasn’t a bad move to label Isaiah 14 in terms of Mick Jagger’s ‘Pleased to meet you. Hope you guess my name’ song. You have to admit, certain passages of that chapter fit the Devil pretty well: 

    “You said in your heart, ‘I will ascend to the heavens. Above the stars of God I will lift up my throne, And I will sit down on the mountain of meeting, In the remotest parts of the north. I will go up above the tops of the clouds; I will make myself resemble the Most High.’ (vs 13-14) 

    Yeah, Satan did say things like that. He saw all that praise and worship going to Jehovah and said, ‘Hey—I’d like me some of that.’ There’s no reason to think that James verse about being ‘drawn out and enticed’ by one’s own desires that soon enough give birth to sin’ applies only to humans. (1:14-15) Satan’s desire was to be worshipped.

    In fact, Isaiah 14 is where the name ‘Lucifer’ comes from, a name used interchangeably with the Devil:

    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! (vs 12-KJV)

    Few Bibles say Lucifer these days. It is a Latin word that means “light-bringer” or “light-bearer. ” A quick search of Biblegateway*com (which compares translations) reveals that only 12 out of the 57 listed do it that way. In classical Roman usage, Lucifer referred to the planet Venus when visible as the morning star. It is closer to the sun than is the earth, hence it will always be seen in that direction. It’s the brightest object in the sky before dawn.

    The original Hebrew is “hêlēl ben šāḥar.” It means “shining one, son of the dawn” or “morning star, son of dawn.” Nobody is speaking of Venus here—that was a later Roman adaptation of the Hebrew term. But, like Venus, the king of Babylon shone brilliantly for a time, only to be overshadowed—scorched, really—by the rising sun. Twenty translations of the 57 say ‘morning star,’ with an equal number some close permutation. Five read ‘day star.’ There is much overlap. Even the five translations that say ‘king of Babylon,’ an application that is correct but not explicitly in the Hebrew Word, also expand it to shining one, morning star, or something of the sort. 

    The verse is a prophetic taunt against the king of Babylon, Nebuchadnezzar at its time of fulfillment. Other verses of the chapter make that clear. It is Babylon, the ax that chopped the ax, that will be axed itself.

    Verses 3-4, for example: “In the day when Jehovah gives you rest from your pain and from your turmoil and from the hard slavery imposed on you, you will recite this proverb against the king of Babylon: “How the one forcing others to work has met his end! How the oppression has ended!” It’s almost like a “Just you wait, enry iggins, just you wait!” isn’t it? “You’ll be sorry but your tears will be too late!” Verse 22 also specifically names Babylon.

    ‘Hêlēl ben šāḥar’ becomes ‘Satan’ only by the extension of those who like to do antitypes. It is a group that once included most everyone.  Figures like Tertullian and Origen, in the 2nd–3rd centuries, linked Isaiah 14:12–15’s imagery of a proud figure falling from heaven to New Testament passages such as Jesus’ pronouncement, “I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven.” (Luke 10:18)

    Jehovah’s Witnesses were as big as anyone on antitypes, were among the last to give them up, unless Scripture definitively makes the link, but they never fell for this one. The New World Translation renders 14:12 as, “How you have fallen from heaven, O shining one, son of the dawn! How you have been cut down to the earth, You who vanquished nations!” 

    It is thoroughly up to date in this regard. Modern translations (e.g., NIV, ESV, NRSV) render it as “morning star,” “day star,” or “shining one” to reflect the original Hebrew metaphor, avoiding the name “Lucifer” since it is not a biblical proper name for Satan. Also:

    New American Standard Bible (NASB) “How you have fallen from heaven, O star of the morning, son of the dawn!”

    Christian Standard Bible (CSB) “Shining morning star, how you have fallen from the heavens!”

    New Living Translation (NLT) “How you are fallen from heaven, O shining star, son of the morning!”

    New English Translation (NET) “Look how you have fallen from the sky, O shining one, son of the dawn!”

    – **New American Bible Revised Edition (NABRE) “How you have fallen from the heavens, O Morning Star, son of the dawn!”

    See? Nobody does Lucifer anymore. But Mick Jagger does his Bible study via the King James Version, probably. His ‘Sympathy for the Devil,’ after making humankind complicit into all the atrocities that he is behind, after each verse followed by the refrain, “Pleased to meet you, hope you guess my name,” follows up once with “Just call me Lucifer.”

    He doesn’t actually say Lucifer is the name, only “Just call me Lucifer.” So, maybe he does use a modern Bible after all for his intense studies. He just rolls with tradition, that’s all. And instinct. It’s only natural to want to know someone’s name. If the Devil’s name is not actually given, God’s name is. And most Bibles have taken it out, substituting the bland “the LORD!” In one of those early Charlton Heston blockbusters, the Israelites are downhearted, since they don’t even know their God’s name. Later on, they are pleased as punch. They have discovered it. It is ‘the LORD!’ Sheesh!

    Say what you want about the Jews declining to pronounce God’s name; they never REMOVED it. I don’t know why Mick doesn’t include THAT in his song of the things Satan boasts about.

    ***

    It was Rabbi Meir Kahane who took sharp offense at the Jewish avoidance of pronouncing God’s name being characterized a “superstition.” When questioned about it by Larry King—the name is right there in the Hebrew Scriptures, almost seven thousand times, but Jews substitute ‘Lord’ when they read it—he countered, “Would you call your father by his first name?” Larry said he would not. Alright, then. Case closed. The technical term for this kind of thing is “qere perpetuum,” substitution for a word deemed too sacred to pronounce. There’s no reason to think God wants his name unpronounced, but to call it superstition will not win you friends in the Jewish community.

    Actually, I did call my dad by his first name, for many years, and only stopped when a grandparent heard me do it and deemed it disgraceful. Pop never minded. Before my step-grandma, no one ever said not to do it. Mom always called him that, and he always called Mom by her first name, so it’s only natural the kids will do it, too. I did call my mother Mom, though, probably because she specifically said I should. Who can said why the folks called each other by first names and not ‘sweetie,’ ‘honey,’ ‘dear,’ and so forth? It was unusual back then, though not so much today. People work out their own issues in life, and at whatever stage they are when raising kids, that is what the kids pick up on and normalize.

    I remember well calling him ‘Shuck,’ since I couldn’t quite say ‘Chuck’ just then. I recall sulking in the corner, after being disciplined for something, along with my brother, who was also disciplined: “Do you like Shuck?” he said to me, or I do him. “No, I don’t like Shuck at all.” Or maybe it was that time he pulled his brand new Rambler in the garage and within a day I had dropped a plank on it from my overhead fort in the rafters. Wowwhee! was he mad about that! Did I fess up like George Washington who would never tell a lie? No. I lied and lied and lied and lied about not doing the deed but it was no good. However, I would have been calling him Dad by then, being about 12.

    ******  The bookstore

  • Cool Hand Luke: ‘He Beat You With Nothin!’ The Atheist Search for the Origen of Life, Part 6

    For best results, see Part 1:

    If you venture beyond the purely material realm to peer into the spiritual, if you venture there WITHOUT EVIDENCE, and so the scientism/atheist/philosopher/cheerleaders will forbid that course, but if you tell them to kiss off and do it anyway, you will discover a prime reason for worshipping God.

    “You are worthy, Jehovah our God, to receive the glory and the honor and the power, because you created all things, and because of your will they came into existence and were created,” says Revelation 4:11.

    What if you could demonstrate that God did not create all things? What if you could demonstrate that he actually caused nothing at all to come into existence, that it all happened by itself? Wouldn’t the prime reason for giving God the glory and the honor and the power vanish? Can we think of anyone in the supernatural realm who would love for that to happen? (Hint: he has horns.)

    No, he doesn’t have horns. It’s an image from medieval times, if not before; no where does the Bible depict him with horns. But as an opponent of God? Oh, yeah. Satan is a word that literally means ‘resister.’ Its Greek derivative ‘devil’ literally means ‘slanderer.’ He, the one who noted the glory and honor and power going to God, said, ‘Hey, I’d like me some of that,’ and maneuvered events in the garden to lay his claim. James 1:14 tells the power of each one being drawn out and enticed by their own desire.

    Granted that the origin-of-life scientists are good and honorable people, or at least they have the same mix of traits that typify the general population. They are not evil incarnate. Don’t go taking any nasty shots at them. But that does not mean they might not be pawns in a game much greater than they consciously play—the game that the Great Unhorned One cheers from his easy chair every bit as much as you cheer for the area sports team.

    Who are these origin-of-life scientists? Are they easy to track? Are there a lot of them? Surprisingly, no. In a move that is reassuring for the reputation of science as a reasonable endeavor, the Great Courses lecturer says they number only about 500. Why reassuring? Because it suggests that the vast majority of scientists are not comfortable holding Cool Hand Luke’s 4, 10, and deuce of clubs, jack of hearts, and 9 of diamonds, let alone try to bluff themselves and others that they really hold something. They stick to areas more amenable to the scientific method.

    “It’s actually pretty easy to keep track of the origins of life community because there’s one principle scientific society: the International Society for the Study of the Origin of Life. Or ISSOL.” Of that tiny number of scientists belonging to the society, worrisomely, by far the largest contingent is the United States, contributing over half the membership. Why worrisomely? It is in the same vein as what was said early on about Jesus: “Can anything good come out of Nazarus?” Of course, iPads come out of the United States, as well as Teslas—they’re certainly good—but this is applied science. When we get into pipe-dream science, watch out! as the ‘land of the free’ is also the land of the free thinkers, even the unhinged free thinkers who are the ones quickest to overturn the traces, convinced something better will emerge on the other side.

    “Most scientific societies have open memberships. but not ISSOL,” Dr. Hazen tells us. “Early on, when the society was small, there was a real concern that the membership could be taken over by crackpots and fringe scientists with their own agendas,” (as though the mainline itself has none) “The origins of life field has from time to time attracted people with ideas that are, to say the least, a bit odd.” (as though the mainstream one isn’t). “There’s one contingent, for example, that’s convinced that life on earth was planted by aliens and that we’re all just one big experiment.” Well, yeah, that is a little odd, but no odder than cutting-edge notions that currently permeate atheist society. For example, maybe we and all that we think we experience are merely bits on the hard drive of a superior intelligence! Hmm, yes, indeed plausible, nod the atheists—it comes from outer space—whereas if you mentioned anything about God to them, they’d hurl. The Matrix movies inspire them just as much as Star Trek did their forebears.

    Every year and a half for these 500 luminaries, there is the Gordon Research Conference to look forward to, apparently as Hollywood looks forward to the Emmys. Yet, says the professor, “these week-long meetings are restricted to about 120 scientists and they’re quite unusual in that everything said is strictly off the record. You actually have to sign a statement that you won’t reveal what was discussed.” Not even all 500 get in, only the elite 120! And once in, their doings are as hush-hush as a meeting of top Masons. (one of whom once confided to me what the G in the central figure stands for. It stands for—gasp!—God)

    “Our understanding of life’s origins and evolution probably has a better chance of getting into these journals [Nature and Science] than almost any other topic,” says Dr. Hazen in Lecture 1. Imagine! There’s only 500 of them at the time of the lecture series. Only 500! I have to refrain from calling them a cult. Yet they beat out all the rest of the world’s two million scientists when it comes to prestigious publication!

    They’ve just got a good gig going, they know it, and they’re plugging away at what they love to do—experiments and test tubes. No agenda beyond that, most likely. But a person could be forgiven for supposing they are tools of a Greater One, evil indeed, who does have an Agenda: prove God unnecessary and thereby his own claim to invisible godship is enhanced. I would never go there, of course, because I need EVIDENCE. But I could understand if you did.

    To be continued:  here

     

    ******  The bookstore