I have a question that has been plaguing my mind for some time now. I grew up hearing that Satan is a fallen angel and his name is Lucifer. However, when I tried to prove that belief, I ran into a few snags. I would like to have Biblical proof and not just opinions to answer my questions.

For instance, if Lucifer is another name for Satan (based on Isaiah 14:12), why don't versions like the NASB keep the name in the text? Also, why is it that we accept the Latin's insertion of this word in Isaiah 14:12 and convert it into a name for Satan but when the Latin Vugate also used the word "Lucifer" in II Peter 1:19, "And so we have the prophetic word made more sure, to which you do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star ("Lucifer") arises in your hearts.", we act like it didn't occur here? And why would Christians need to have "Lucifer" arise in our hearts? But if we take this to mean, Christ, and we take this similar meaning into the book of Isaiah (and read Isaiah 14 to literally mean the king of Babylon), then we end up seeing the King of Babylon becoming so arrogant, that he is taking on the names of God, the Messiah, and wanting people to bow down and worship him (very similar to what we read in the book of Daniel). But rather than take this easy interpretation of Isaiah, many people are trying to remove a few verses, from an otherwise straight forward passage (or perhaps I am wrong to believe it could be straight forward), to teach that "Lucifer" is a name for Satan, a fact that I can't find or prove elsewhere.

Another problem I have is trying to see that Satan is a fallen angel. If Satan is a fallen angel, how can this be harmonized with the teaching of II Peter 2:4 "For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but cast them into hell and committed them to pits of darkness, reserved for judgment;" and Jude 6 "And angels who did not keep their own domain, but abandoned their proper abode, He has kept in eternal bonds under darkness for the judgment of the great day"? Both of these passages speak of fallen angels as being bound, eternally, cast into hell (Gr. "Tartarus") and left there until the day of judgment. However, we read of Satan as roaming to and fro and in the book of Job, even going into the very presence of God. Why, is Satan is a fallen angel, is he allowed to roam the earth? How can II Peter and Jude be true and still allow Satan to roam as he does?

Is it possible for Satan to be another type of created spiritual being? Are there not cherubim and seraphim and the 4 living creatures and a host of other spiritual beings in heaven? Not all of these are referred to as angels. Ephesians 6:12 tells us that we struggle against "rulers", "powers", "world forces of this darkness", and against "the spiritual forces of wickedness in the heavenly places". Are all four of these things identical? Why are some of them in heavenly places (especially since the angels which lost their domain have been cast into hell to await judgment). Is hell/tartarus a heavenly place?

Although I have not been able to find even one passage that says specifically, "Satan is a fallen angel" or "Satan's name is Lucifer", I realize that it is still a possibility (just like the "Trinity" is indeed a Biblical concept without it ever being verbalized in the Scriptures). However, I haven't figured out what to do with II Peter and Jude, nor what to do about II Peter 1:19 in the Latin Vulgate. One thing that really bothers me is the Restoration Church's motto, "Where the Bible speaks, we speak and where the Bible is silent, we are silent". Is this motto true? If so, then don't we have to be silent on this teaching, allowing people to have their opinions but not necessarily teaching them as Biblical facts?

Wanting to grow, Malcam

-- Anonymous, March 14, 2000

Answers

Malcam.....

Just a few moments before I have a "meeting" to go to.

First, you are absolutely correct in pointing out that Isaiah 14 has NOTHING to do with the origin of Satan. That passage is clearly referring to the king of Babylon

Second, you are also absolutely correct in pointing out that Satan appears Scripturally to be a being other than an angel.

I would highly recommend that you take the home study courses offered by Summit Theological Seminary. One course is on the topic of "Angeology" and the other topic is on "Demonology."

I've taken and taught the "Angeology" course over a year ago.... (therefore I'm not "up" on things right now). However, it was very rewarding.

I've got the "Demonology" material and keep promising myself to get to it one of these days.

It is amazing once we start comparing "traditions" and Scripture.

Hope you find this helpful.

Respectfully,

-- Anonymous, March 14, 2000

Yes John and Mike,

But a proper hermeneutic of seeing a Scripture as prophecy (i.e., in its secondary sense) is when you have a N.T. writer who specifically states so (as in the case of the Isaiah 7:12 passage or any other Messianic prophecy).

What N.T. writer cites either the Isaiah or Ezekiel passage as containing a secondary meaning which refers to the fall of Satan??

-- Anonymous, March 15, 2000

For me Michael....it's much more than hermeneutics.

I am very uncomfortable with two common things that are done by some people today.

1) Seeing "typeology" where there is no N.T. precedent (i.e., an inspired writer) who sees it the same way. That is, I refuse to refer to something as a "type" that a N.T. writer does not specifically enjoin.

Now are there lessons that can be learned or similarities that can be seen? Abosolutely. But I refuse to call it a "type" unless I have precedent from a N.T. writer. (A perfect example of this is in "seeing the church in the tabernacle." Problem is....no N.T. writer does this. Are there similarities?? Possibly. Are there lessons?? Most definitely. But there is no precedent for calling the tabernacle a "type.")

2) The same can be applied to my view of Messianic prophecy. I do not consider a prophecy Messianic....unless precedent is set by a N.T. writer.

Call it hermeneutics or my own convictions....either way....I think at the least....it is safe.

-- Anonymous, March 15, 2000

John,

And the Jews completely missed the Messiah, didn't they??? Hmmmmmm.

-- Anonymous, March 16, 2000

And John,

We have the benefit of N.T. precedent now.

-- Anonymous, March 16, 2000

Connie...

If you "can't remember the references".....why bother posting...because it means nothing???

-- Anonymous, March 17, 2000

Well Malcam,

I'll give you my best shot at answering your questions.

The first thing I would do is throw away the Latin Vulgate and even the Greek Septuigent. Of course, I don't mean that literally, but you always have to keep in mind just what they are. They are translations of the text from the original languages. The first rule of good hermeneutics is to learn from the original text and language. It is kind of like cloning - a clone is not as good as the original and a clone of the clone is even further removed from the original. Look to the Hebrew & Greek.

The word "lucifer" for instance is a translation of the Hebrew word for "shining one". If you scratch out the proper name Lucifer from both the Isaiah & II Pete texts and substitute shining one or morning star, they both make more sense.

Your exegesis of Isaiah is good, the prophecy was about the king of Babylon who had set himself up as a god, a shining star to be worshipped. A secondary meaning of that text applied to the casting out of Satan could be made, but that has been much questioned by scholars. Remember the primary meaning of prophecy was almost always intended for events that affected the people hearing the original prophecy at that time.

When looking at the Hebrew, Satan's name may not even be Satan. The word itself means "adversary", so it is as much a description as it is a name. As far as we know Satan, or the Adversary, may not even have a name. The name God gave for Himself is "I exist"(YHWH)and since the Adversary is a spiritual being in nature, he too may have no formal name.

I do not believe Satan(?) to be a seraphim or cherubim as they are specifically mentioned in certain contexts, while angels (which most consider Satan to be) have a different name and function.

As far as resolving the conflicts between II Pete 2:4 and Jude 6 with such as Eph.6:12 - I really don't see a big conflict. I just consider the nature of God. He is all-knowing, all-seeing, and timeless. God knows all things at all times, so He knew that when Satan rebelled - his fate was sealed. God separated and cast him out of the heavenly places (that would be Hell enough for me) dooming him to rule in this physical plane until the plan for his ultimate defeat was completed in Christ.

And through Christ, Satan is defeated - has been for the last 2000 years. God has allowed him to continue wondering about spreading his lies & deceit for a period, but his fate was sealed by Christ and now we just wait until the Lord returns and slams the lid shut on the Pit forever. That even kind of explains the meaning of Satan being loosed for a brief time in chapter 20 of Revelation.

It's interesting to note that Hell was designed for Satan and his angels (demons) and not for people. {Chapter & verse for this currently escapes me but I'm sure someone will supply it}. But since God's righteousness & justice can not condone evil & sin, He is literally forced to cast those who would follow Satan's lies into the pit with him.

There's my take on things, which may or may not be in agreement with what others will post. That is where being silent when the Bible is silent comes in. I would not be dogmatic on anything I just said (except maybe the word definitions which are straight out of textbooks). But I still do feel the obligation to understand and teach ALL of God's Word to the best of my ability, so silence is a relative thing. I think "freedom" may be a better word than "silence" - I'm free to interpret matters like this, but I should not try to enforce it on others. While it is interesting to contemplate these sort of things, not a bit of it is a Salvation essential, and those type of essentials are about the only thing that we need to be dogmatic about.

I hope I haven't muddied the waters too much.

Happy contemplating, :~)

-- Anonymous, March 14, 2000

Food for thought: Ezekiel 28:12ff has traditionally (by both Jews and Christians) been thought to be a reference to "Satan." The chapter begins by talking to the ruler of Tyre, then goes on to describe the "king" of Tyre. Tyre had no king, it was a principality, so this then is the real ruler of Tyre, one of the "rulers of the darkness of this world," if not the ruler, "Satan" himself. The passage states that this being existed in the garden of Eden, was created "perfect in beauty", and is called "the guardian cherub." But pride in its own beauty and perfection became its downfall.

-- Anonymous, March 14, 2000

Malcam,

For what it's worth, I put together a short study on Angels and Demons and it can be accessed at this address:http://www.954access.net/users/jscott/AngelsandDemons.htm

There is a lot more to be said but this might help a little. Be warned. For some reason 3C's webpage does not like Netscape so it's best to use Explorer.

-- Anonymous, March 14, 2000

Amplified:

Isaiah 14:12-15

How are you fallen from heaven, O light-bringer and day-star, son of the morning! How you are cut down to the ground, you who weakened and laid prostate the nations [O blashemous, satanic king of Babylon!]

And you said in your heart, I will ascend to Heaven; I will exalt my throne above the stars of God; I will on the mount of assembly in the uttermost north;

I will ascend above the heights of the clouds, I will make myself like the Most High.

Yet you shall be brought down to Sheol [Hades}, to the inmost recessesof the pit [the region of the dead].

KJV:

Isaiah 14: 12-15:

How art thou fallen from Heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! How art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!

For thou hast said in thine heart: I will sit upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north;

I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the Most High.

Luke 10: 18:

[Amplified}

And He said to them, I saw Satan falling like a lightning [flash} from Heaven.

KJV:

And He said unto them, I beheld Satan as lightning fall from Heaven.

In the footnotes: [Amplified]

'Light-bringer' or 'Shining one' was originally translated 'Lucifer', but because of the association of that name with Satan, in spite of the long and confident teaching to that effect, is erroneous. 'Lucifer' the 'light-bringer', is the Latin equivalent of the Greek word 'Phosphorus', which is used as a title of Christ in II Peter 1:19 and corresponds to the name 'Bright Morning Star' in Revelation 22:16, which Jesus called Himself.

The application of the name has existed since the third century A.D. and is based on the supposition that Luke 10: 18 is an explanation of Isaiah 14: 12, which SOME authorities feel is not true.

Bible Dictionary, KJV:

LUCIFER (BRIGHTNESS);

The 'bright star', the morning star - Venus. Isaiah likens the glory of the king of Babylon to Lucifer which he calls 'the son of the morning' (14:12). In Revelation 22:16 Jesus describes Himself as the bright, the morning star.

From the time of Jerome the name has been applied to Satan, hurled from heaven. It arises probably from the fact that the Babylonian Empire is in Scripture represented as the type of tyrannical and self- idolizing power, and especially connected with the empire of the evil one in the Apocalypse.

It is also held that this application of the word is based on the erroneous supposition that Luke that Luke 10:18 is an explanation of Isaiah 14:12.

Since a new thread was started on, I guess what I said to Lee, it must have been really important.

It seems there is a difference of opinion even among experts, on the proper translations of words. (I knew that). I guess it's a miracle that we have gotten the message that God wanted us to get for our salvation. If the experts WHO REALLY KNOW A LOT disagree occasionally, who are we to say we are right on every interpretation?

I am thankful that my salvation does not depend on the above verse. But in reading them, without any preconceived notions, what would YOUR interpretation be?

As I stated early on in this forum, I read every translation I knew about, so that I could get a balanced view of what the Scriptures say.

I just thought of a funny little anecdote: (Funny to me)

Friends were discussing the attributes of the various translations of the Bible and each one was defending his/her favorite. The discussion became quite heated.

Finally, one who preferred the KJV, in exasperation, said: "Well, if it was good enough for St. Paul, it's good enough for me!"

Lee:

I discovered this evening that it would take me a VERY long time to respond to all of your references. Then you immediately deny everything I say. I think if people really want to know the truth or meaning of my words, they can go to the thread and page and read it for themselves.

There is one statement on page 119 in the middle of the page which I must bring to everyone's attention and will say is a lie:

'The fact that you are diametrically opposed to Christ is clear, Connie.' That is a lie.

-- Anonymous, March 15, 2000

The page 119 reference is to the 'Restoration Movement' thread - the long one.

-- Anonymous, March 15, 2000

By the way , I never said that Lucifer was Satan, and I knew (vaguely) that there was some difference of opinion among translators.

I simply said that Lucifer was cast out of heaven and that is what it says in the KJV.

-- Anonymous, March 15, 2000

I feel the suspect Isaiah text and the Ezekiel text have so many grammatical and syntax similarities that can not be ignored. A question for consideration: Are there examples in the prophets where there is a specific prophecy given for a specific people in a specific place and at a specific time that still has "long-range" value (in the sense that there is a message "in the message")? Do the prophecies pertaining to the Messiah have similarities?

I think that it is not only possible, but probable that the prophets Isaiah and Ezekiel were indeed "secondarily" refer to the Evil One himself in the texts.

-- Anonymous, March 15, 2000

Very good point. There are many such prophecies in scripture, a prophecy within a prophecy. For instance Isaiah 7:12, the virgin who would bear a son Immanuel. Obviously there was an immediate fulfillment for that time, but even though it is not directly indicated (i.e. "the Scriptures are silent"), the Jews correctly understood it to be a prophecy of the coming Messiah. I can think of many other such instances; in fact, it may be the rule rather than the exception.

(A side topic: can you take "where the Scriptures are silent, we are silent" too far?)

-- Anonymous, March 15, 2000

John,

You ask if we can take the "Where the Scriptures are silent..." hermeneutic too far? Exhibit A: The a capella churches of Christ.

-- Anonymous, March 15, 2000

Danny,

My question is simply this...who decided that was the "proper" rule for hermeneutics in the OT? Is not the possibility open that there can be validity to the fact that these passages do indeed to say something subtly about Satan himself?

We are so particular with our hermeneutic approach at times to the exclusion of accepting rational Biblical ideas.

Please don't think I am throwing out the baby with the bathwater in this response, but we are a "book, chapter, verse" movement and there is no "book, chapter, verse" for that approach.

I think of a passage like Isaiah 11:1-16 that is clearly Messianic, but not so clearly repeated in the NT. There are some subtle references to the "shoot of Jesse", we could even argue the root meaning of Nazareth (netzer) as meaning "shoot or twig", but it does not negate the fact that it isn't clearly repeated. But more than just that...why is there a need for that. If the prophecy does not contradict, and can have validity from other Scriptures then it is alright.

We turn hermeneutics into a science...and I am just as guilty as anyone, but it is much more art than science.

-- Anonymous, March 15, 2000

Michael, I was about to say the same thing. The Jews understood this as a Messianic prophecy before Christ, and they didn't have New Testament writers to set precedent. Hmmmmm ...

-- Anonymous, March 15, 2000

Can anyone give me their hermeneutics on Joel 2: 28?:

'And it shall come to pass afterward, that I will pour out my spirit upon all flesh; and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, your old men shall dream dreams, and your young men shall see visions.'

-- Anonymous, March 16, 2000

U-m-m? Joel 2:28, anyone?

-- Anonymous, March 16, 2000

Connie:

The quick answer is to look to Acts chapter 2, where Peter specifically says that what was happening on that day in Jerusalem (the speaking in other languages that the 12 were doing) was, at the very least, the beginning of the fulfillment of that prophecy in Joel -- "But Peter, standing up with the eleven, raised his voice and said to them, 'Men of Judea and all who dwell in Jerusalem, let this be known to you, and heed my words. For these are not drunk, as you suppose, since it is only the third hour of the day. But this is what was spoken by the prophet Joel:"

and so on. So Peter links the prophecy directly to the beginning of the church, and the church age.

-- Anonymous, March 16, 2000

Thank you to all of you who gave me your input. And thanks for being kind with your messages. Malcam

-- Anonymous, March 16, 2000

Then, Sam, are you a dispensationalist? I sincerely am wanting to understand.

From the context of those verses, Joel 2:28-32 it seems that he is referring to the end times, with the mentioning of the sun being turned into darkness and the moon into blood.

And of course, those signs are happening now.

Can someone give me the CoC's definition of dispensational teaching?

In 50 words or less. ;-)

I am up at this strange hour (for me) because I took a long nap last evening when I couldn't get on the 'Net. (As though anyone cares.)

-- Anonymous, March 17, 2000

The 'signs' I was referring to are concerning the prophesying, the dreams and the visions. To go on to Joel 3:1:

'For, behold, in those days,and in that time, when I shall bring back the captivity of Judah and Jerusalem, I will also gather ...etc.'

Now Israel had been returned to Jerusalem then (at the time of the Pentacost ~ but there was a second prophecy (I can't remember the reference) indicating a second return of the Jews to their homeland, which has occurred in this century. There are other fulfilled prophecies in this generation.

That is why it is unlikely that Israel will return the land as they have again agreed to do in July, especially any part of Jerusalem. Also why they will, in some miraculous way, even extend their borders further into Lebanon and Syria. The verse refer to 'extending her borders' - I can't remember the references. This is prophesied.

If they do give any land back, the way the have in Gaza, there will have to be another war to regain what God has promised to them. I know there is misunderstanding on prophecy, because the books were sealed by Daniel until 'the time of the end'.

Anything postulated before this generation, which witnessed the Jews' return to Israel has to be reevaluated. It is a stumbling block to understanding the prophesies.

And Mark Hillyard doesn't agree with me, either.

In Christ

-- Anonymous, March 17, 2000

Oh, I'm looking, Danny; I'm looking!

-- Anonymous, March 17, 2000

Connie,

Let me share a few comments on the interpretation of the prophet Joel's words.

First, a little Hermeneutics to ponder. As per the direct words of my current college Professor, when you see an Old Testament Prophet referring to the "Last or Final" days - they are not talking about the 2nd coming of Christ. They are referring to the 1st coming of Christ - as the end of days for the Old Testament peoples came with the appearance of Jesus on the scene.

Now, when New Testament personalities mention the "last Days" or "End Times" they are referring to their present situation. Jesus, John and Paul all spoke of "in these Last Days" in the present tense - not in the future tense. (If ALL Scripture is "God-breathed", then the tenses in the written text must be correct) Therefore the equation would read: Last Days = Last Chance. The Last chance to accept God's Salvation through Jesus Christ. Some references are made in the New Testament about things that are yet to come - but they are few and far between and usually left open: i.e. Jesus said even He didn't know the time and date of His return.

Now on to Joel:

Others who have shown you that the day of Pentecost was the final fulfillment of Joel 2:28-32 are correct. That was first a prophecy concerning Israel's return from captivity in Babylon and then also the events of Pentecost. When Peter, the first Pope (NOT !!), says what was happening fulfilled that prophecy - that ended it. There is no accepted principle or logical reason to extend that prophecy any further.

Now when I read Joel 3:1.....I see it referring to the people coming back from bondage in Babylon and how God was then going to execute His Judgment against Babylon for its wickedness. Everything mentioned in those verses are historically accurate to that time period. There is nothing there that would indicate a reference to the 2nd coming. There are some good analogies that we can apply to Christ gathering the people to Him through His church, but that is about as far as it goes.

Connie, there is a scientific and Hermeneutic prinicple that needs to be applied to ANY interpretation of prophecy - it's called Occam's Razor. Simply stated, the principle says that all things being equal - the simplest explanation must be the best explanation. This has been an accepted standard for a LONG time. It is easy to get carried away while looking at prophesy, but we need to keep our enthusiasm in check. God isn't Rod Serling, so making one of His prophesies sound like a "Twilight Zone" episode is probably not a proper interpretation of His Word.

And as far as the Land issue is concerned, don't worry about it because it doesn't mean a thing. The Bible says in the Old Testament that God had fulfilled every Promise He made to Abraham, Issac, & Jacob; and that included the land promise. In fact, Solomon extended the borders of Israel past what God had promised them. Jesus spoke many parables teaching that the Jews had been rejected of God as a nation because they had rejected God themselves, so he has no mind of what they do as a nation. In essence, the Jews "ran God out of town on a rail" when they crucified Christ, so he ain't planning on making a return trip.

You and Dragonslayer (I believe) have asked for an explanation of the Ammillienial view of Eschatology. I'm set for Sunday services now, so I will try to write and post something to that affect tonight (God willing).

-- Anonymous, March 17, 2000

Connie:

No, I would not call myself a dispensationalist; mostly because I reject most of the ideas that come along with the label, as I understand them.

I think that there is pretty much ONE dispensation, one long storyline. At different times the story is told in different voices, by different methods, to different people. But the story doesn't change -- God made us, we fell, God redeemed us. Everything revealed by God through direct contact, and then through the patriarchs, and then through the Law, and then through Jesus, and then through the New Testament writers, all tells the same story.

For instance: God has always had a "people", with whom He has a special relationship. The Jews were God's people, of course. (But not just because they were "Jews". Some of the Jews were decidedly NOT God's people, those who rejected His rule and His Law.) But God had His "people" even before then, and certainly after then.

Who are God's people? Those who place their faith, their trust, their lives in His hands, who obey His Word. These people have been around from the beginning, even until now. They are saved by the atoning sacrifice of Jesus on the cross -- even the ones who didn't know about it, those who lived before Christ, who obeyed in faith, who knew and accepted that God was God, and was THEIR God.

When that story changes, then we'll see a new "dispensation". Not until.

-- Anonymous, March 17, 2000

As Charles Miller points out, some won't believe it until the Nile dries up. Which could happen suddenly, if the four Dams along the Nile are turned off, ~ say if their nation's governments want to preserve the water for their own use.

Do you believe that Christ is coming a second time? In that passage in Joel 3: 1-3: has the sun's light been covered, or has the moon turned blood-red? Mr. Miller shows the results of Nuclear War studies and the results of the building of the dams in Egypt, which were supposed to solve their water problems. It is actually destroying their environment.

I've checked this out on the Internet, because I was trying to determine whether I could agree with him on his postulations or not.

Check out what it says about the Aswan High Dam. I have a videotape of Jacques Cousteau's 'Second Odyssey on the Nile' the re-issuing of which is being held up in litigation by Cousteau's heirs (as are all of his videos).

I have a copy belonging to Mr. Miller, which was taken off the TV ten years ago, (so no copyright infringement) which I am having a friend make copies of for our class. I tried to get copies at the various video stores, and that is where I discovered the facts of the current hold-up of production.

I also have a tape which Mr. Miller's substitute made (also from the Discover channel) on Nuclear War Studies and how TO THIS DAY, Russian missiles are pointed at our cities.

Jenny,

Yes, I am emotional, but I am also capable of logic. I don't know which makes me sadder to have: the emotion or the logic. I'm sure that in history, which my daughter teaches, just as much error has been committed by logic as by emotion.

'Til He comes

The end-times prophecies, some of which have been fulfilled, certainly have much to be completely fulfilled.

-- Anonymous, March 17, 2000

Connie,

Just like the "Land" issue I posted on earlier, why are you worried about the Nile River? There are No "End Times" prophecies made in the Bible that concern the Nile River.

Dispensationalists like your Charles Miller incorrectly use the Nile as a way of proving their ideas. They refer back to Genesis 15:18 when God tells Abram some of the boundaries of the Promised Land - "On that day the Lord made a covenant with Abram saying, To your descendants I have given this land, from the river of Egypt as far as the great river, the river Euphrates". (NASB)

They say that this promise was never fulfilled because Israel's territory never extended to the Nile River - therefore a lot more things have to happen in order for that to come about. This theory shows extremely poor scholarship on the part of the people who promote it. The text in Genesis Does NOT say the Nile River, it says the "brook" of Egypt - In Hebrew called the Wadi el-Arish, which is a tiny brook that is dry about half the time and is located well to the northeast of the Nile. Notice also that the Euphrates is called the great river - giving it preeminence over the "river" of Egypt. And yet, the Nile is larger and more important than the Euphrates both in size and in commercial importance - how one can miss this, I fail to understand.

As far as Russian missiles are concerned - big hairy deal. If you would like to see it, I have a map that shows the targeting areas of the Russian arsenal and what level of damage to expect from each explosive vehicle. Though the expected damage areas are guesswork because the Russian re-entry vehicles have a notoriously bad aim. Personally, I don't worry about 'em because Cape Canaveral is "Ground Zero" for several incoming warheads - I'll never know what hit me...... :~)

-- Anonymous, March 17, 2000