Exposing The Lucifer Lie Part 2

Introduction

In part one I proved unequivocally that the name Lucifer was, and is, a Cainite-Judeo-Roman Catholic corruption of the KJV of the Holy Scriptures. In doing so, this revealed many other anomalies in Isaiah 14 due to the previous erroneous Lucifer associations. This, in turn, created other problems for me as well, because Isaiah 14, due to the Lucifer nonsense, is linked closely with Ezekiel 28 where we will find reference to a covering cherub that is also supposed to be Satan before he allegedly fell, who again was supposed to be  Lucifer, who was supposed to be the morning star, and is now supposed to be a fallen cherub, but is this just more Cainite-Judeo-Christian Religious deceit and error? 

Right, before we move on to Ezekiel 28 there is one issue from Isaiah 14:12 that needs to be cleared up first and that issue is raised by The Amplified Bible version of this verse, as quoted in part one, where it states: “O blasphemous, satanic king of Babylon!” Now not surprisingly many Bible Scholars believe that Isaiah 14 is centred around a literal king of Babylon alone and possibly even King Nebuchadnezzar, but is this correct, or is it just symbolism for something or someone else? Let’s quote the earlier verse in Isaiah 14 that the translators of The Amplified Bible are referring to:

Isaiah 14:4 (KJV) That thou shalt take up this proverb against the king of Babylon, and say, How hath the oppressor ceased! the golden city ceased!

Now the meaning and message that this verse is imparting is not as straight forward as we might think. First of all we need to know the time frame involved here, we need also to know who and what this oppressor actually is and of course the identity of The Golden City:

Isaiah 14:1-4 (KJV) For the LORD will have mercy on Jacob, and will yet choose Israel, and set them in their own land: and the strangers shall be joined with them, and they shall cleave to the house of Jacob. 2 And the people shall take them, and bring them to their place: and the house of Israel shall possess them in the land of the LORD for servants and handmaids: and they shall take them captives, whose captives they were; and they shall rule over their oppressors. 3 And it shall come to pass in the day that the LORD shall give thee rest from thy sorrow, and from thy fear, and from the hard bondage wherein thou wast made to serve. 4 That thou shalt take up this proverb against the king of Babylon, and say, How hath the oppressor ceased! the golden city ceased!

This passage is referring to a future time when the descendants of Jacob/Israel i.e. primarily the Anglo-Saxon and Celtic peoples of Britain, Her Commonwealth and The USA along with the North Western Nations of Europe (The Scandinavian Nations) are restored to their lands after having been held captive as slaves under hard bondage by their oppressors, oppressors who are represented by this metaphorical king of Babylon and his descendants. Isaiah says the people of these same Israelite nations will eventually taunt or mock their defeated oppressors.

Second of all we need to know that during Isaiah’s life time Babylon had not become a great power, so these verses were written prior to Babylon’s ascendancy. This also confirms that it is prophetic in a two, even a three fold way. Assyria (Ancient Germany) was the great power of Isaiah’s time circa 800 – 710 BC who took the Northern Kingdom of Israel captive (725 BC). It wasn’t until King Nebuchadnezzar became king of Babylon that the Southern Kingdom of Judah (The Judahites, Benjaminites and The Jews) were taken captive in circa 585 BC. We then have the prophetic future captivity of the same peoples today.

Moreover, the word ‘proverb’ here would be better translated as ‘maxim’, as in a ‘maxim in law’, meaning to take up this authoritative unambiguous statement or maxim in law as a taunt against this symbolic king of Babylon. The thing is, who or what is this term ‘king of Babylon’ referring to; who or what does it symbolise? Let’s use Strong’s again:

H894 babel  baw-bel’  from H1101; confusion; Babel (that is, Babylon), including Babylonia and the Babylonian empire: – Babel, Babylon.

Notice the primary word here ‘confusion’ which now tells us we’re dealing with a king of confusion, but what, in a Biblical sense, does ‘confusion’ mean? Again we will refer to Strongs after I have quoted these verses from Leviticus:

Lev 18:23 (KJV) Neither shalt thou lie with any beast to defile thyself therewith: neither shall any woman stand before a beast to lie down thereto: it is confusion.

Lev 20:12 (KJV) And if a man lie with his daughter in law, both of them shall surely be put to death: they have wrought confusion; their blood shall be upon them.

Here we can see that ‘confusion’ in The Lord’s eyes is not as we would see confusion i.e. mental disorientation or a confused state of mind. The meaning of the word ‘confusion’ here is specific and bad blood or bad bloodlines caused by sexual perversions and bestial fornication are now in the picture, so let’s look at Strongs again:

Confusion: H8397 tebel  teh’-bel Apparently from H1101; mixture, that is, unnatural bestiality: – confusion.

Notice how Strong’s code number H1101 features again which is a reference to mixing or commingling of bloods, a mixture of bloods. This means we now have the king of mixed bloods or corrupted bloodlines, for this is precisely what the term ‘King of Babylon’ or ‘King of Babel’ in a general sense means here. So Isaiah is literally prophesying a laying down of the law by way of a taunt to the king of corrupt bloodlines, but who was that, for it could not have been solely a literal king of Babylon?

Moreover, let’s return to Isaiah 14:12 where it states that this king of corrupt bloodlines fell from the heavens: How hast thou fallen from the heavens, shine or boast you, son of the dawn!? Again, who could this shining boastful son of the dawn or morning be, for it’s certainly not Satan? He was a serpent from the beginning and more crafty than any other beast (living creature) of the field. Iniquity was never found in him, for he was always iniquitous right from the start. The Lord made him that way and He confirms this here:

John 8:44 (KJV) Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.

Gen 3:1 (KJV) Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made.

OK, I can now here and see in my mind a few detractors getting a little agitated about this and they will most likely be shouting verses from Ezekiel 28 at me. So let’s take a look at those verses now so that said detractors do not do themselves any harm:

Ezek 28:11-15 (KJV) Moreover the word of the LORD came unto me, saying, 12 Son of man, take up a lamentation upon the king of Tyrus, and say unto him, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Thou sealest up the sum, full of wisdom, and perfect in beauty. 13 Thou hast been in Eden the garden of God; every precious stone was thy covering, the sardius, topaz, and the diamond, the beryl, the onyx, and the jasper, the sapphire, the emerald, and the carbuncle, and gold: the workmanship of thy tabrets and of thy pipes was prepared in thee in the day that thou wast created. 14 Thou art the anointed cherub that covereth; and I have set thee so: thou wast upon the holy mountain of God; thou hast walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire. 15 Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee.

Let’s look at the last verse first: “From the day that thou wast created.” So was this king of Tyre created or was he born like the rest of us? Likewise was there ever a king of Babylon that was created? How could this king of Tyre ever have been perfect in his ways? Wasn’t he a sinner like us all who were, or are, lost and not saved? Was the king of Tyre ever anointed? Was he ever in the Garden of Eden? Was the king of Tyre ever a covering cherub i.e. an angel? I wouldn’t have thought so, and what is a covering cherub in the sense of these Holy Scriptures anyway – what’s this all about? 

Here are some more questions only, this time, a little more testing. Who does the king of Tyre actually represent? Could a man who was perfect in his ways be likened to a cherub? Yes, why not? Obviously not in a literal sense, because cherubs are a type of angel, but in a Spiritual sense, yes a man could be a cherub especially if he was perfect in he ways and doing the job of a cherub, which would be watching over, guarding and/or protecting something i.e. The Garden of Eden. We often here people refer to innocent babies as being little cherubs which is a reference to their vulnerable innocence. Could someone perfect in his ways be referred to as completely innocent? I reckon, so are you beginning to see the picture here? I do hope so.

But what about all that stuff about precious stones and pipes and tabrets and him being anointed and then last, but not least, walking up and down amidst stones of fire? Easy, they all apply to Adam, and to him in particular, but Eve obviously features as well – she being made from one of his ribs – Adam’s flesh. So you see folks this business about iniquity being found can only apply to Adam and Eve, for they were both perfect in their ways until iniquity was found in them and they were both in the Garden; the king of Tyre was not, nor was any king of Babylon. Furthermore, Adam & Eve had hearts of flesh until their hearts turned to stone. This is the core issue of the fallen condition or state of man in his lostness, and to prove what I am saying is true, we will refer once more to Strongs:

H6865 tsor, tsor or tsore, tsore The same as H6864; a rock; a place in Palestine: Tyre, Tyrus.

H6864 tsor or tsore From H6696; a stone (as if pressed hard or to a point); (by implication of use) a knife: – flint, sharp stone.

Notice the references to stone here and these can only apply to Adam’s fallen condition – his metaphoric and catastrophic Spiritual fall from the heavens – his now stony heart after his fall from being the perfectly innocent shining pinnacle of the Godhead’s creation, hence the precious stones reflecting the Light of the Godhead. Adam and Eve would have shone in the Garden with the Light of God. None of these attributes could ever be applied to the Devil, for his heart was stony from the beginning. 

So where does this king of confusion fit in I hear you ask? Well, for an explanation of that you will need to read my articles: “Did Eve Have Sex With The Devil or Did She Just Eat Some Fruit – parts 1-4.” for all the details, because it’s here that the mixed blood issues start i.e. with Cain. Abel was Adam’s son and after Abel’s death, Seth. Seth, like Abel, being Adam and Eve’s son and Cain being the Devil’s son through Eve. Always remember Eve is the mother of all living. Adam is the father of mankind alone. The Lord would later be known as The Son of Man to let us know that He was descended from Adam and Eve, not the Devil and Eve.

Right, now we know the identity of the king of Babylon i.e. the originator of sinful mixed blood results or the confusion caused by Adam and Eve’s sin in the Garden. OK, Adam’s blood is not directly involved here but indirectly it is through Eve who had Adam’s blood. This means Adam has to take responsibility for Eve’s and his own transgressions in the Garden. He was the Son of the dawn in the Garden before he fell i.e. he shone with the light of the favour of the Godhead. He was raised up symbolically to the heavens from the dust of the ground to be the perfect pinnacle of the Godhead’s creation. He was made in the Godhead’s image and The Lord is The Light, so Adam would have shone like a light as that pinnacle in the Garden – hence the stones of fire.

Next we have this statement from verse 12: Defeater of the nations or weakener of the nations. What does this mean? Well first we must understand what this verse is alluding to when it says ‘nations’ because when we analyse the Hebrew we find it’s more specific; from Strong’s:

H1471 goy goy  go’ee, go’ee Apparently from the same root as H1465 (in the sense of massing); a foreign nation; hence a Gentile; also (figuratively) a troop of animals, or a flight of locusts:- Gentile, heathen, nation, people.

So what do we have revealed to us here? What is this telling us? Quite plainly it is telling us that Adam’s descendants would weaken and/or defeat the Gentile nations. So who were Adam’s descendants? Let’s refer to Strong’s again:

H121 adam  aw-dawm’ The same as H120; Adam, the name of the first man, also of a place in Palestine:- Adam

H120 adam  aw-dawm’ From H119; ruddy.

H119 adam  aw-dawm’ To show blood (in the face), that is, flush or turn rosy:- be (dyed, made) red (ruddy).

Adam was of a ruddy complexion and could turn red in the face. What does this tell us? It tells us plainly that Adam was white and his descendants were white. OK, so where did the yellow, brown and black skinned people come from I hear you ask? Some came from Eve’s relationship with The Devil; the Cainites, others from the mixed bloods of Adam’s daughters and the fallen angels:

Gen 6:1-2 (KJV) And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, 2 That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.

So here we can see where the confusion continued from Adam and Eve’s original sin with the Devil when the fallen angels took white women to wife and bore mixed blood offspring. By the time of the flood with Noah and The Ark he had three sons who had wives, Shem was white, Ham was brown and Japheth was yellow. How did Noah produce sons of different colours? Through Naamah, his wife, who was a Cainite – the sister of Tubal-Cain.

Now am I introducing some form of racism here? No, because there was nothing wrong with this arrangement in The Lord’s eyes, for this is what He had planned and had given His blessing too – He accepted and saved or redeemed all eight of these people out of the flood – white, brown and yellow, but at the same time we have to accept that the descendants of Shem were white and that Abraham was a descendant of Shem. Furthermore, all was well after the flood until Ham lay with his mother Naamah, and that perverted union again reintroduced the mixed blood (confusion) through Canaan into the post-flood world.

However, the thing we must not lose sight of here is this; that Adam and Eve’s fall was all about sexual perversions causing mixed bloods through interbreeding with the Devil. This is the sole reason for their expulsion from The Garden of Eden. With the birth of Cain they could not be allowed to reside in the heavenly realm upon earth – The Garden of Eden.

So to finish up, who were these kings i.e. the king of Babylon and the king of Tyre? They were both representations of Adam, one king the king of Tyre being Adam before he fell i.e. the covering cherub and the other the king of Babylon being a representation of the accursed confusion he had caused through his and Eve’s sin with the birth of Cain.

In part three I will tidy up the loose details that I have not covered in parts one and two.

http://isthefathercallingyoutohisson.wordpress.com/