QUESTIONS ABOUT LUCIFER

Posted on by BETH

The origin of the word “Lucifer” appears to be included in a literal translation in the Latin Vulgate which (word) Wycliffe {and/or others} transliterated and included in the first English translation of the Bible (published from 1382-1395 AD).

According to Webster’s dictionary the origin and etymology of “Lucifer” is from Middle English, and is defined as 1) the morning star, 2) a fallen rebel archangel, and 3) the Devil. The word ‘lucifer’ is originally a Latin word which is literally translated as “bright, shining or clear.”  It was first known to be used in English before the 12th century.

According to an article in Wikipedia under the title of “Fallen Angel,”[i] “The fall of Lucifer finds its earliest identification with a fallen angel in Origen (182-254 A. D.)… (in) the image of the fallen morning star or angel (and) was applied to Satan both in Jewish pseudepigrapha and by early Christian writers…”

Continue reading QUESTIONS ABOUT LUCIFER

ABOUT ANGELS – Part 3

Posted on by BETH

 

ANGELS CAN FLY BUT THEY DON’T HAVE WINGS

Dan. 9:21—Yea, whiles I was speaking in prayer, even the man Gabriel, whom I had seen in the vision at the beginning, being caused to fly swiftly, touched me about the time of the evening oblation.

ANGELS ARE GREATER THAN ANY HUMAN, EVEN GOVERNMENTS OR RULERS

2 Pet. 2:10-11—But chiefly them that walk after the flesh in the lust of uncleanness, and despise government. Presumptuous are they, selfwilled, they are not afraid to speak evil of dignities. 11 Whereas angels, which are greater in power (2479. ischus, is-khoos’; from a der. of  is (2479. Ischus  – force ; from 2192  echo – ability) and might (1411. dunamis, doo’-nam-is; from G1410; force (lit. or fig.); spec. miraculous power), bring not railing accusation against them before the Lord.

Continue reading ABOUT ANGELS – Part 3

ABOUT ANGELS (Part 2b)

Posted on by BETH

“For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works” (Matt. 16:27).

Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God. 30 For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven. 31 But as touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God, saying, 32 I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living (Matt. 22:29-32). 

ANGELS CAN CHANGE THEIR FORMS TO LOOK LIKE PEOPLE:
Heb. 13:2—Be not forgetful to entertain strangers: for thereby some have entertained angels unawares.

Remember Abraham, Gideon, Lot, Elisha and the chariots of fire, and many more.

Continue reading ABOUT ANGELS (Part 2b)

ABOUT ANGELS – Part 2a

Posted on by BETH

“For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works” (Matt. 16:27).

Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God. 30 For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven. 31 But as touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God, saying, 32 I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living (Matt. 22:29-32).

What a fascinating topic!  In the resurrection, we will be like angels!  Is that something to fear or something to which we look forward?  Dig deeply with me as I search the qualities of angels.

Continue reading ABOUT ANGELS – Part 2a

THE JUDGES CHRONOLOGY CONTROVERSY

Posted on by BETH

Several modern day scholars point to a problem for the chronology of the Judges in the King James Version of the Bible, but these assertions mostly come from denominational websites.  The best I can tell from these sources is that they believe there is an issue with the dates because of the genealogy.

Continue reading THE JUDGES CHRONOLOGY CONTROVERSY