Is the sepent in Genesis 3 Satan?

Ezekiel 28 mentions that the text was directed against "the king of Tyre" (verses 2 and 12). Verse 2 also continues to say that this king of Tyre was a man. I don't see any references to Satan or devil in this passage. The name "Lucifer" does not appear in my Bible.

Perhaps you can furher ellaborate on this link between the serpent in Eden and Satan. Or even the concept that Satan was "a fallen angel of the highest order".

I've heard these statements before, but I can't find evidence in scripture that clearly states these things.

Thanks. . .

. . . Glory Bound </font>[/QUOTE]I don't know what bible you are using but the NKJV does use the name Lucifer to describe satan.You can find this out by using the whole bible [Isaiah Chapter 14 Verses 12-15]Apostle Paul draws from these verses in his letter of 2 Thess- chapter 2.In Ezekiel 28,the Lord God is describing the fall of Lucifer in a parallel comparison to the king of Tyre.

 

The NASB uses "O star of the morning", not Lucifer. In fact, none of the modern translations that I know of use the word "lucifer".

The passage in Isaiah was written against the king of Babylon, who was called “a man” whose body was to be eaten by worms, but Satan, as a spirit, has no physical body. A lot of the language is figurative, showing the extent of the king's self deification and promised disgrace.

Esekiel 28 is addressed to the king of Tyre. Again, the passage reveals the king to be a man, not a god. He will die at the hands of strangers.

I realize a lot of people like to say that these passages are really about Satan and his fall. But a simple read provides no link to Satan. Most scholars admit the word "lucifer" was a bad choice of words, and not a proper name at all.

There are a lot of "verbal gymnastics" that have to be executed to make these passages refer to Satan. Most obvious to me is that "Satan" is never mentioned.

I think what you have is at best a "may refer to Satan". I see no way to be dogmatic.

 

That is correct. The word "Lucifer" is in some older English Bibles, because of the familiarity with the Latin Vulgate. The Vulgate has "lucifer" in this verse, and in Latin the word means "light bearer" and is a term for Venus when it appears as a star in the morning. In pre-English Bibles, it was not understood as a name of Satan, but as a title of Venus, the morning star. The Hebrew word in the verse is Heylel, which is the name of the ancient pagan god that ancient Babylonians believed was visible as the morning star. Isaiah was taunting the Babylonian king, saying that the king thinks he's as powerful as his own god, but really he's just a man and will brought low and die, to be eaten by worms. In about the 4th century A.D., some theologians thought the passage had some *secondary* implications for Satan, but never used the name "heylel/lucifer" as a name for Satan. Gradually, over the centuries, the idea that "Lucifer" is one of Satan's proper names evolved, and today this view has swung so far into mainstream Christianity, that the original meaning of the passage has become somewhat obscured.

Brian

 

And that, my friend, is a shame.

 

Several posts in this thread have said that satan has no physical body.Can anyone show me in scripture where this is declared.The verses in the beginning parts of Job chapters 1 and 2 imply that he does have have a body.Job 1:6-12 and Job 2:1-7 .He walks back and forth on the earth.In 2 COR 11:14 Paul warns us that satan can transform himself into an angel of light.Angels have the ability to appear as men.He is a fallen angel of the highest order.

 

Due to my read of Ezekiel chapter 28 I believe that satan appeared in the garden of Eden as the most beautiful angelic man with the most beautuful voice Eve had ever heard.
He is a master at deception and and also a master impersonator of Jesus.

 

There is no way at all to know the initial physical form of the serpent. All suggestions are only guesses.

Even after God's punishment of the serpent, making him crawl on his belly, doesn't really tell us much of his new form. Snake? Lizard? Alligator? Turtle? Something else?

One thing is sure... the serpent was held responsible for his part in the fall. If it was Satan who was really responsible, why didn't God make HIM crawl around on his belly instead of a possessed serpent?