Talk:Satan

Should the hyperlink to "archnemesis" in this page be edited? It links to Yahweh too and I was thinking the archnemesis article would just apply to the adversary. Tiria Wildlough  Ee aye eeeh!! 23:01, July 9, 2014 (UTC)

Yes that is a good point. You or I could edit it.Thanks Superdadsuper Biblicalapedia Administrator User Talk:Superdadsuper 01:34, July 10, 2014 (UTC)

Rats. I can't edit it because the page is locked. Instead of "was" should it be "is" I wonder? Tiria Wildlough  Ee aye eeeh!! 21:39, July 13, 2014 (UTC)

Rename
This article should be re-named to Lucifer, because it was Satan's original name before falling from heaven and being kicked in the face by Michael (humor pun). Deutschlandkaiser (Talk) - Kaiser out! 00:45, July 30, 2014 (UTC)

Actually that was recently changed back to Satan when we set it to Lucifer. This was done because Satan is used more commonly rather than Lucifer.--Thanks Superdadsuper Biblicalapedia Administrator User Talk:Superdadsuper 03:17, August 2, 2014 (UTC)


 * I still however think it should be Lucifer, as for Satan is used as a term for devils too. However we could name the article Lucifer-Satan?Deutschlandkaiser (Kontakt) - Lernen Sie Ihre Station! 03:18, March 11, 2015 (UTC)

I think as the mainstream article name Satan would be better suited instead of Lucifer as the name "Lucifer" is actually only used once in the entire Bible in just one version. Satan on the other hand is by far the much more common name of Satan. There are redirects in place that redirect Lucifer to Satan but for the most common Bible name that is what he is called. What would be appropriate is for example use it occasionally in the article to be sort of an alternative pronoun Per say: "Satan causes many to sin. Satan will withdraw from you if you flee him. Satan did this, Satan is that..." Satan cause many to sin. Satan will withdraw from you. Lucifer did this. The Devil does that" Thanks, Superdadsuper, Biblicalapedia Administator and Bureaucrat


 * Okay in all honesty I see no sense in me or any KJV person using this encyclopedia, all of our work is taken away and changed to fit "modern" needs and perceptions. Deutschlandkaiser (Kontakt) - Lernen Sie Ihre Station! 11:51, March 12, 2015 (UTC)

I think the Page should say "Satan (formerly named Lucifer)". When God changed his name, he changed his nature too. (Eg. God also changed the nature of Abram when he changed his name to Abraham.) Satan isn't the same as he was when his name was Lucifer. Now, Satan is literally "the enemy". (Or maybe that's the meaning of "The Devil"... Satan is probably the best name for the Page. Dynaboom (talk) 14:10, March 12, 2015 (UTC)

@Deutschlandkaiser, the thing is this wiki is meant to be written in modern language and understandable for those who speak modern English. The Bible hasn't changed in meaning since it was originally written and compiled nor does it have anything new that will be added onto the Bible (other than unfulfilled prophecies that are revealed in the Bible, but no new ones). We have a List of Terms which is primairly KJV terms that you may be interested in perhaps taking on as a project. I don't know the status of the article in the longterm but someday it may be possibly be its own wiki.

@Dynaboom, what we can do is in the "Accounts" section have a section about Satan's creation etc and mention how he was called Lucifer and then after he was cast out of Heaven and onto the Earth renamed Satan.

Thanks,

Superdadsuper, Biblicalapedia Administrator and Bureaucrat


 * That is a good idea Super, however the references should still refer to King James Version, and as for Dyna, the Bible has been changed in meanings several times through corrupted translations used for the purpose of the establishment of the devil's order. And as for Lucifer, everything should be KJV referenced when speaking of him with the term "Lucifer".Deutschlandkaiser (Kontakt) - Lernen Sie Ihre Station! 20:44, March 12, 2015 (UTC)

I wasn't really talking about corrupted versions. I'm pretty sure KJV says it like that too. But Satan used to be Lucifer, Abraham used to be Abram, Paul used to be Saul before the Damascus Road (Acts 9)(Acts 13), and Israel used to be Jacob (Genesis 35:10). Just sayin' Dynaboom (talk) 05:04, March 14, 2015 (UTC)

Thats why most of the articles have redirects to them. The article itself uses the name that was most recenlty assigned. The original name is of importance if the article is about a person and so the previous name should be discussed as well as being given a new name. The only case listed that isn't like that is Jacob. That would be something to change if we found necessary.

Thanks,

Superdadsuper, Biblicalapedia Administrator and Bureaucrat

Concerns
Hi couple of things about the article I wanted to talk about:

A) I think that calling Satan the arch nemesis of God is giving him undue prominence, both from a spiritual and literary viewpoint. Do you think we should remove it?

My viewpoint for this is that when he is viewed in Job he clearly seeks Gods authority to do the things he does.

B) I think keeping the name of Satan for the article is for the best but I can expand it to explain how the name has evolved from Nakhash (Hebrew) in Genesis (which can mean Ligthbearer or Serpent depending on whether you take it as a verb or a noun) to the Devil in the NT.

The name Satan does mean adversary but I believe (I need to check the Hebrew) the literal meaning means "to stand in the way of ..". I think this makes it important given that the LORD is the Way (see what the Holy Spirit did there?).

Pinner.guest (talk) 19:17, October 23, 2014 (UTC)

If you would like to add it be my guest. Make sure to put it under a Etymology section though.

Thanks Superdadsuper Biblicalapedia Administrator User Talk:Superdadsuper 22:39, October 23, 2014 (UTC)

Defining Satan
This article needs a rewrite. "Lucifer" (Latin for "Light Bearer") is used but once, and may not actually be referring to the same being as "Satan" (Hebrew for "Accuser"). In the New Testament, the name "Satan" moves over to Greek while "Diablo" (Gr.: "one who pierces") is sometimes used (translated 'Devil'). .The KJV translates daemon as "devil" (usually in plural), which later translations transliterate as "demons."

A good definition, to go as the first sentence of the introduction, can be taken from Revelation 12:9. The prince of darkness is "the great dragon,...that old serpent,  called the Devil, and Satan." With this verse properly cross-referenced one can get to Genesis 3, then Job, and finally to the prophets. When checking the Greek behind the translation "devil(s)" we can find the "demons" over which Satan rules.

The way the author strung the "story" of Satan is entertaining, but too much assumption is taking place without background Biblical references. Most of the article presents a very good argument which needs to be supported with Scripture. If a point cannot be backed with Scripture, then it needs to be moved to discussion on this page.

SouthWriter (talk) 17:53, August 17, 2015 (UTC)

RE:Defining Satan
Your final point is the one of the most important things when creating study materials of the Bible. We need to be able have attributable facts and be able to point to a verse. The thing about a collaborative envrioment and the concept of a wiki, an article is never "done". As we are commanded not to give or take away from the Bible, I think there is a difference from purposely hiding or adding content that is in the Bible, and just have a misunderstanding or not having a citation.

I myself am not the best formal writer (as you have noticed yourself) so I am not suprised if the content needs a rewrite. I notice that Lucifer is used quite a bit often in the article (probably more than what it needs to be). It is true that Lucifer is only used once in one version (I have made this argument before). You can see in above discussions that many want Satan as "Lucifer". Their reasons are probably not rooted in the Bible in super-depth but as we both know many don't realize how Lucifer is only used once is one version and is really just describing Satan as a "light-bearer". [Superdadsuper]

Satan's redemption
Does anyone think Satan was incapable of redemption? He cannot redeem himself. [UnknownToBe888]


 * First, thanks for checking in with Biblicalpedia. I took the liberty of "signing" with your username, along with the one above it. It helps to keep track with who is posting.


 * Anyway, on to your question. The entity we speak of as "Satan" (mostly a description: the Adversary) has many names attributed to him/it. He appears to have been "Helel" (translated "Lucifer") before he rebelled. In rebelling, this spiritual being (we call them "angels," meaning angels) made its choice to separate from God. He is beyond redemption, as are all those that followed him in rebellion.


 * No being is capable of redeeming itself, for 'salvation is of the LORD' . Only God can redeem those who are in bondage to sin. And God does it at His own "pleasure," showing mercy to whomever He wants . The deliverance is certainly not going to come to the one who seeks the destruction of those whom God loves.  SouthWriter (talk) 19:26, October 2, 2015 (UTC)

Re
As SouthWriter said, only God can redeem indiviuals. We must keep in mind that Satan is an Angel, not a human. In Jude it specifically talks about Angels that have left God will be condemned on judgement day. In Revelation it talks about Satan's final judgement in being tormented forever and ever. So obviously it is difficult for us to even question if  he will be redeemed as God has said otherwise. As humans we are made in God's image, and the Angels are not. We as humans are born into sin and God has chosen to give us mercy. We as humans cannot help not to sin without Christ. The Demons, led by Satan willingly chose to sin and knew better. While the same can be said about humans, God has given us mercy and grace because we are made in His image and are born into sin, while Angels knew much better (they reigned in Heaven!) and chose to abandon God in His very prescence.

So its not whether or not Satan could've been redeemed, but it is if he will be redeemed, and the answer to that is no. We should love our enemies, but ultimately Satan is truly the enemy of God and should not be loved.

In Christ, Superdadsuper, Biblicalapedia Administrator & Bureaucrat

Son of Dawn?
Who is Dawn? If you're referring to his father or mother, I thought angels couldn't reproduce. So, who is (s)he?-- Annabeth and Percy ~The present is our future past, we've gotta make this moment last right now.  01:20, March 11, 2016 (UTC)

Re:It's a metaphor
Son of Dawn is an expression used in the Book of Isaiah the 12th verse of the 14th chapter. It is good to intrept the Bible literally, but you must anaylze the context of a passage to determine if a literal intrepration can be literally applied. I don't know the official science behind hermenutics but I believe that hermenutics does say that you should follow rules of logic. If the statement "Son of Dawn" is illogical in contradicting that Satan was not born but created than it must be a metaphor. This is the same passage where the name "Lucifer" comes from but is only used in the King James Version.

The Bible doesn't say Angels don't have the ability to reproduce, but they wouldn't have the need. Some suggest that the Nephilim are born of Angels because their parents the "Sons of God" saw attractive women and reproduced.

In Christ,

Superdadsuper, Bible Wiki Administrator & Bureaucrat


 * Is it "son of Dawn" or "son of the dawn"? And I just saw the part of the article that says "son of dawn" yesterday. And now I can't find it! I will have to do a search for it...  A Child of God (talk) 13:21, March 11, 2016 (UTC)

Something To Add
Nowhere in Scripture was Satan ever called Lucifer. It was wrongly assumed that Satan's name was so, due to "son of the dawn" and "Lucifer" being interchangeable terms referring to the Morning Star, Venus.

In fact, the term "satan" can mean a lot of things in Hebrew too. There are the earthly satans, Mashit, Hassatan, the Accuser, Satanael, Mastema, and the Serpent (Nahash).

~ Ασήμι Αρνάκι   Talk

Comment:Superdadsuper
This is indeed very true. Lucifer is only used in one translation and some ideas believe that the morning star being referred to contextually is Jesus. In Christ, Superdadsuper, Bible Wiki Administrator & Bureaucrat