Malevolent Inheritance: Biola Professor on The Fall

[tabibito]

Myths aren’t conscious so can’t anticipate. If you meant the myths’ originators, you’ll have to clarify how you see this playing out circa 200BCE.

Technically correct, and noted to be avoided in future. In the local argot, "anticipate" was acceptable, but I abandon all attempts at defining it.

Except we have the boat and countless records. Not parallel.

Enough of a parallel to make the point - the fact that something appears in fiction or myth does not preclude the possibility of a very similar event occurring in actuality. To repeat what I posted many moons agone, the lack of evidence and witnesses that I prepared and ate a certain combination of food for my evening meal last week does not mean that I did not have that meal. And adding, the fact that that same meal was portrayed as consumed on a certain TV show last year (that I did not see until this month) does not mean that my meal was in any way related to the events on the TV show.

Don’t confuse dismissal with the reasonable conclusion that myths evolve. You can’t say only one is rooted in ontological, metaphysical fact while the others aren’t.

Nothing like what I was doing. I don't consider dismissing something as myth because there are mythical accounts of strikingly similar events to be reasonable. Nor do I dismiss the fact that myths evolve.

Check your chronology. The event in question originated centuries prior in oral tradition, was finally recorded in 100BCE, and was further fleshed out in Revelation. John Milton goes to town with the myth in the 17th century.

The Biblical record of the chronology is as I have stated: Satan's fall from heaven is recorded to have occurred during Logos sojourn on Earth as Jesus of Nazareth. But, if citations more precise than the first century or of Milton's evaluations were provided, I would check them.

[tabibito]

The planet Venus as a rebellious figure is also implied in Ugaritic texts.

The planet Venus is not mentioned in the Hebrew text - that mention happened with certainty only in the Latin translation, and possibly in the Greek.

Satan has nothing to do with Eve and any forbidden fruit. The serpent is not Satan.

Questionable. Dragons also qualify as serpents, so I am told.

[Sparko]

It is nothing of the sort
Lucifer (Latin: planet Venus) is not a name or title for Satan

It is a loose translation from the Hebrew ( הֵילֵל - someone or something of radiant splendour)
The Latin lucifer translates the Greek translation (εωσφορος) early light (dawn), (planet) Venus as the dawn star.
Lucifer is (in older English translations) used only once in the Old Testament. εωσφορος is thrice used: Job 11:17; 38:12 - early light (dawn), and Isaiah 14:12 - (son of the) dawn.

As an epithet, it is simply a term describing the position that the king had held with relation to God and God's favour.

φωσφορος is used in the NT. 2Peter 1:19, light bearer.carrier.

That is not an exhaustive investigation of the use and meaning φωσφορ~, εωσφορ~

Oh please. Isaiah 14 is referring to Satan. This is talking about both the fall of the king of babylon and of Satan. It has double meaning. It is using the story of the fall of Satan to refererence to the fall of the King of Babylon. It is using the story of Satan's hubris and fall to say that is going to happen to the King of Babylon.


Who else would the verses be referring to when it claims that he wanted to be greater than God, and fallen from Heaven, cast down to the earth?

How you have fallen from heaven,
morning star, son of the dawn!
You have been cast down to the earth,
you who once laid low the nations!
¹³ You said in your heart,
“I will ascend to the heavens;
I will raise my throne
above the stars of God;
I will sit enthroned on the mount of assembly,
on the utmost heights of Mount Zaphon.^[b]
14 I will ascend above the tops of the clouds;
I will make myself like the Most High.”

[Sparko]

The common Christian view is that Satan's fall occurred before Eden, setting up the narrative backdrop and flow of the story:

• Satan is a good and obedient servant
• Satan goes bad
• Satan is cast out of heaven as punishment
• Satan sabotages creation as revenge

You are inferring things that are not there again.
Nothing in the bible says Satan "goes bad" before the fall of man. It could be the act of rebellion that gets Satan booted.

Creation didn’t fall. You keep saying this without explaining what a fallen creation looks like. It’s an assumption based on Christianity’s inability to process predation, disease, and calamity.

Since we are discussing Christianity, using the bible and Christianity as the paradigm seem appropriate. According to Christianity, creation fell.

[whag]

Oh please. Isaiah 14 is referring to Satan. This is talking about both the fall of the king of babylon and of Satan. It has double meaning. It is using the story of the fall of Satan to refererence to the fall of the King of Babylon. It is using the story of Satan's hubris and fall to say that is going to happen to the King of Babylon.


Who else would the verses be referring to when it claims that he wanted to be greater than God, and fallen from Heaven, cast down to the earth?

How you have fallen from heaven,
morning star, son of the dawn!
You have been cast down to the earth,
you who once laid low the nations!
¹³ You said in your heart,
“I will ascend to the heavens;
I will raise my throne
above the stars of God;
I will sit enthroned on the mount of assembly,
on the utmost heights of Mount Zaphon.^[b]
14 I will ascend above the tops of the clouds;
I will make myself like the Most High.”

You really believe a creature in Heaven, who interacts with the ineffable Creator of the Universe, would delight in ascending to the troposphere?

[whag]

You are inferring things that are not there again.
Nothing in the bible says Satan "goes bad" before the fall of man. It could be the act of rebellion that gets Satan booted.

He’s already on earth in the form of a serpent.

Since we are discussing Christianity, using the bible and Christianity as the paradigm seem appropriate. According to Christianity, creation fell.

Which is utterly meaningless if it’s a pure faith statement. It’s like saying my car is fallen or this sandwich is corrupted.

I really hope you don’t proselytize this insubstantially.

[tabibito]

Oh please. Isaiah 14 is referring to Satan. This is talking about both the fall of the king of babylon and of Satan. It has double meaning. It is using the story of the fall of Satan to refererence to the fall of the King of Babylon. It is using the story of Satan's hubris and fall to say that is going to happen to the King of Babylon.


Who else would the verses be referring to when it claims that he wanted to be greater than God, and fallen from Heaven, cast down to the earth?

How you have fallen from heaven,
morning star, son of the dawn!
You have been cast down to the earth,
you who once laid low the nations!
¹³ You said in your heart,
“I will ascend to the heavens;
I will raise my throne
above the stars of God;
I will sit enthroned on the mount of assembly,
on the utmost heights of Mount Zaphon.^[b]
14 I will ascend above the tops of the clouds;
I will make myself like the Most High.”

According to the text, both before and after the extract posted above:

Who is being spoken of? (name or title)
Who is to be speaking the words? (the people he has oppressed)
In what literary form are the words couched? (it is a proverbial address)
What is he? (more than one term declares what he is)

Where is Satan mentioned? (there has to be an established link between "Lucifer" and "Satan" before Lucifer can be asserted to be Satan.)
Where does the text show that the addressee is other than a human? (it doesn't)

The person spoken of by the text is a man and a king who exalts himself. This king had destroyed his own land and so was to be denied an honourable burial - do the implications of this person dying fail to escape you?
The prophecy against the king of Babylon is the first of a series, then Assyria, Philistia and other places in the chapters that follow.
Nothing even hints at mentioning Satan (unless it can be shown that "the shining one, son of the dawn" is not a reference to the erstwhile favoured position of the king of Babylon).

[tabibito]

You really believe a creature in Heaven, who interacts with the ineffable Creator of the Universe, would delight in ascending to the troposphere?

The people who were to be saying in a proverb that he was expressing the intent to raise himself to heaven ... I missed that one.

[Sparko]

You really believe a creature in Heaven, who interacts with the ineffable Creator of the Universe, would delight in ascending to the troposphere?

Only you would take a clearly poetic passage literally.

I suppose when you get high as a kite, you are literally 50 ft in the air only tied by a string?

[Sparko]

He’s already on earth in the form of a serpent.

So? God and other Angels were on earth too.

Which is utterly meaningless if it’s a pure faith statement. It’s like saying my car is fallen or this sandwich is corrupted.

I really hope you don’t proselytize this insubstantially.

You and I both know what I am referring to when I say "fallen" and you know what Christians believe. If we are discussing what Christians believe (which is what this thread is about no?) then you need to stick within the bounds of the paradigm. It's like when we were discussing the bible with HA, and she brought it up. We showed her something that the bible said, and rather than argue with that she immedately started with "The bible is just a myth and not history" - well then don't argue about what the bible said if you are not going to accept any answers because "it is not history" or some other lame excuse.

So if we are discussing what happens in the bible regarding Satan and the fall, then you need to remain in that paradigm. If as soon as you get an answer you don't like immediately jump to "well the earth is billions of years old so the garden of eden and Satan never existed" as your argument then you have lost the argument.

[rogue06]

Only you would take a clearly poetic passage literally.

I suppose when you get high as a kite, you are literally 50 ft in the air only tied by a string?

Ironically, he frequently criticizes Young Earth Creationists for their rigid literalism.

[whag]

Ironically, he frequently criticizes Young Earth Creationists for their rigid literalism.

I also frequently criticize non-YECs for having no clue what these terms mean in the analogue. Sparko’s had ample opportunity to describe what “fallen creation” means going on 9 years. You, too, for that matter.

So here’s your opportunity: the first human caused the universe (creation) to fall. What does that mean? Be as metaphorical as you want.

[whag]

So? God and other Angels were on earth too.

Literally or figuratively?

You and I both know what I am referring to when I say "fallen" and you know what Christians believe. If we are discussing what Christians believe (which is what this thread is about no?) then you need to stick within the bounds of the paradigm. It's like when we were discussing the bible with HA, and she brought it up. We showed her something that the bible said, and rather than argue with that she immedately started with "The bible is just a myth and not history" - well then don't argue about what the bible said if you are not going to accept any answers because "it is not history" or some other lame excuse.

No, I don’t know. I’m asking what you, an evangelical, interpret “fallen creation” to mean according to your belief. 2 billion Christians populate the planet, some even with different canons, some who think Mary the Queen of the Universe. I can’t assume you all think along orthodox lines.

So if we are discussing what happens in the bible regarding Satan and the fall, then you need to remain in that paradigm. If as soon as you get an answer you don't like immediately jump to "well the earth is billions of years old so the garden of eden and Satan never existed" as your argument then you have lost the argument.

You’re dodging. We’re in the exact same paradigm, in the same universe, with the same eyes, with the same epistemological perspectives assuming you accept the natural history record. I’ll grant you, for the sake of argument, human beings fell from a perfect state, but “creation”” encompasses far more than one animal. Creation is trees, oceans, hurricanes, continental drift, planets, and galaxies.
.
Just say “fallen humanity” if that’s the entirety of your belief on the matter. That’s your out.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

The planet Venus is not mentioned in the Hebrew text - that mention happened with certainty only in the Latin translation, and possibly in the Greek.

Šaḥar in various Hebrew contexts, preserves some of its old mythological meaning as a feminine dawn goddess, and the original of this feminine dawn may well have been the Indo-European goddess Usas, the Hēos of Homer and Hesiod, perhaps blended now with Semitic Ishtar. Her son, Helel, may possibly be the sun itself, and indeed Šaḥar may mean the rising sun, according to an older school of thought, or Hêlēl may be an allusion to the planet Venus, as most modern commentators on the passage believe.

Whether or not the composer of the Isaiah passage made this explicit identification, the Greek translators of the Septuagint certainly did, since their translation of Hêlēl ben Šaḥar as Heōsphoros ho prōi anatellōn clearly combines the astronomical identification with Hesiod's, Heōsphoros son of Heōs, the dawn-bringer, Venus. The Greek was in turn rendered by the Latin vulgate as Lucifer, qui mane oriebaris, and the name has stuck to the rebel ever since.[Ibid]

Questionable. Dragons also qualify as serpents, so I am told.

You need to go back to a far earlier text with regard to serpents.

Genesis chapter three clearly states that the serpent was just another of the deity's creations, albeit more cunning than most.

[tabibito]

Šaḥar in various Hebrew contexts, preserves some of its old mythological meaning as a feminine dawn goddess, and the original of this feminine dawn may well have been the Indo-European goddess Usas, the Hēos of Homer and Hesiod, perhaps blended now with Semitic Ishtar. Her son, Helel, may possibly be the sun itself, and indeed Šaḥar may mean the rising sun, according to an older school of thought, or Hêlēl may be an allusion to the planet Venus, as most modern commentators on the passage believe.

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).

There is a postulated but not attested link between the Hebrew and the pagan record. (following this up revealed that the postulation is thoroughly well founded.)
Isaiah has it that other pagan kings address this pagan king in proverbial terms that draw on Canaanite beliefs.
This is taken by some Christians, it seems, to indicate a double entendre; which is to say that some Christians "would take a clearly poetic passage literally."
The problem remains that where, in the pagan mythology, a minor deity made a failed attempt to elevate himself and take over the mountain of the gods, but got cast down into Sheol, the text in Isaiah has the offender cast down to the ground. and subsequent to his death enters Sheol. The break with the Canaanite tale makes it apparent that the taunt uses the Canaanite myth as an allusion.

Whether or not the composer of the Isaiah passage made this explicit identification, the Greek translators of the Septuagint certainly did, since their translation of Hêlēl ben Šaḥar as Heōsphoros ho prōi anatellōn clearly combines the astronomical identification with Hesiod's, Heōsphoros son of Heōs, the dawn-bringer, Venus. The Greek was in turn rendered by the Latin vulgate as Lucifer, qui mane oriebaris, and the name has stuck to the rebel ever since.

This would be the first time I have encountered a claim that the translators were Greek. Until now, the translators have been uniformly stated to have been Greek speaking Jews.
However, you provided enough information to allow for further investigation, which in turn shows that my prior objections to claims that the passage calls on Canaanite mythology were incorrect.

You need to go back to a far earlier text with regard to serpents.

Genesis chapter three clearly states that the serpent was just another of the deity's creations, albeit more cunning than most.

Jewish beliefs would indicate that angels are just other creations; then there is Revelation 12:9 ... "the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan" ...