This is a continuation of a previous post See there for the first part of this discussion.
PERSON: thank you for such a long reply but i cant agree with you at all…. the King of Tyre IS NOT a mortal man, the king of Tyre is the Nachash that tempted Eve in Eden.
ME: Please support that statement with a passage from Scripture. We are interested in the word of God, not men’s opinions.
PERSON: wow you hypocrite… i just gave you scripture where the king of Tyre is called a cherub twice… it is you who has given mans opinion and said the scripture must be metaphor… you calling the scripture metaphor is your opinion buddy.
Nachash = bright shining.
The king of Tyre is bright in looks and stones.
both where cut down to the ground.
is clear if you open your eyes.
ME: Name-calling hardly makes for good debate etiquette, and doesn’t serve to bolster your point. Scripture says King of Tyre. Not Satan, not even “nachash.” Nachash does not mean “bright shining.” It means “serpent.” Scripture is full of metaphor, particularly the writings of the later prophets. Regarding the serpent, Scripture states: “upon thy belly shalt thou go” (Genesis 3:14). Regarding the King of Tyre Scripture states: “I will cast thee to the ground.” The terminology is not the same, and even if it were, does this mean they are the same individual? Hardly. Many were cast to the ground. Are they all the serpent? Furthermore, the serpent was already cast to the ground. If so, why would God tell Ezekiel to prophecy to the serpent that this will yet happen? Furthermore, if the passage in Ezekiel does not refer to a mortal king, why does Ezekiel have to go tell Satan this? Why can’t God tell Satan himself, since Satan is an angel? Furthermore, if Ezekiel is to tell Satan that he will fall, this implies he has not yet fallen. So Satan was not a fallen angel until after this prophecy was said? This simply does not compute.
PERSON: Ezekiel 28 says the king of Tyre was in Eden. YES or NO?
The Hebrew term “nachash” can mean serpent, but it can also mean “shiny one”. Who is the…
ME: Yes, it says the King of Tyre was in Eden. But the King of Tyre was NOT physically in Eden; rather metaphorically so, as the verse goes on to describe how his condition was paradise-like, full of precious stones and musical instruments. What you are missing is an understanding of Hebrew euphemistic language. In Hebrew, TO THIS DAY, a person would say, “I am in GAN EDEN (the Garden of Eden),” to express that they are extremely content, as though in paradise. It is similar to the English euphemism, “I am in Heaven right now!” meaning, “I am experiencing abundant contentment.” That is the metaphoric language that is being used here. It’s quite simple. Even if the King of Tyre WAS LITERALLY IN THE GARDEN OF EDEN, that doesn’t mean he is synonymous with the serpent. NOWHERE is the serpent described as covered in precious stones, or having musical instruments, as the King of Tyre is described here. The description DOES NOT FIT with the serpent. The serpent was not “anointed.” Kings are anointed, not angels. Your interpretation is contradicted even internally by the narrative, aside from the fact that it is not supported in any way. With all due respect.
PERSON: i think you need to look up the meening of Nachash, with all due respect… if you understood nachash you would understand why it is literal and why the description fits… you just need a better understanding of hebrew that is all.
ME: As far as the blog post above, it says: “The Hebrew term ‘nachash’ can mean serpent, but it can also mean shiny one’. ” This is simply false. I know of no context in which the term nachash means “shiny.” The word in the verse quoted there for “fiery serpent” is “saraph,” not “nachash” anyhow. “Saraph” is a Hebrew word indicating “burning.” And “fiery” is still distinct from “shiny.” The serpent image that Moshe fashions in the next verse is called “Nechash hNechosheth” or “Copper Serpent.” “Nechosheth,” a related word to “Nachash,” means “copper.” Copper may be shiny, but so are a lot of substances. “Copper” does not mean “shiny.” In any case, none of those words are used in the context of Ezekiel 28, so there is no relationship to speak of in the text. You would do well not to rely on shoddy Internet sites for your information about the word of God. As I suggested above, learn Hebrew, study from a Hebrew scholar, or get your hands on a scholarly Jewish translation like the ones I mentioned above.
PERSON: the king of Tyre was literaly in Eden, the king of Tyre was literaly a cherub, the king of Tyre is literaly a sinner…. read it again and pray about it. QUOTE “Tyre was a nation of master craftsmen who aided King Solomon in the construction of the Holy Temple”
free masons are a group of stone masons (craftsmen) who seek the light of lucifer (satan) (king of Tyre), freemasonry starts with hyram abiff,according to the “testament of Solomon” the holy temple was built by demons.
the king of Tyre is lucifer the light of the illuminarti and free masons… ITS SO CLEAR !
ME: The Testament of Solomon is not one of our books.
Oh, and your remark, regarding my understanding of Hebrew, or lack thereof, is just silly. I come from a Hebrew-speaking upbringing. I’ve been studying the Bible in Hebrew since I learned to read Hebrew at age 6.
Let’s return to Ezekiel 28. Perhaps it would make the context clearer to you to return to the beginning of the chapter. God tells Ezekiel to address the ruler of Tyre, called נְגִיד (“negid”) in Hebrew (verse 2). This is the same person addressed later in the chapter, in the passage you quoted, there specifically called King of Tyre. Unfortunately, the King James misleadingly translates “negid” as “prince,” which in English connotes the son of the king. This is not the connotation of the Hebrew word “negid,” which implies a ruler of any sort. The ruler (i.e. king) of Tyre is castigated for considering himself a god, saying, “yet thou art a man.” He is again called a man in verse 9, though the King James translation again messes with the Hebrew by translating in the future tense “thou shalt be man,” where the Hebrew is וְאַתָּה אָדָם (“v’atah adam”), meaning “and you ARE a man.” God is speaking to a man, not an angel. Furthermore, his punishment is to come by men (verses 7-8): “Behold, therefore I will bring strangers upon thee, the terrible of the nations: and they shall draw their swords against the beauty of thy wisdom, and they shall defile thy brightness. They shall bring thee down to the pit, and thou shalt die the deaths of them that are slain in the midst of the seas.” How could mortal men destroy a spiritual entity with physical weapons? What you are doing is called “eisegesis,” as I mentioned earlier. That is, you have a preconceived theology which you are imposing upon the text, rather than drawing meaning from the text itself IN CONTEXT. And without a working knowledge of Biblical Hebrew and its vernacular, you are absolutely lost in this regard. Zechariah 8:23: “Thus saith the LORD of hosts; In those days it shall come to pass, that ten men shall take hold out of ALL THE LANGUAGES OF THE NATIONS, even shall take hold of the skirt of him that is a Jew, saying, We will go with you: for we have heard that God is with you.” I wish you well.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s