Post Reply
Page 1 of 2  •  1 2 Next
6 years ago  ::  Oct 15, 2008 - 9:59AM #1
PassingTheTest
Posts: 1,144
All,

If Satan is not a person, how do you explain the following verses?
Job 1 - Satan's interaction with God and with Job...
Job 2 - Same thing
Matthew 4:10 - Jesus interaction with Satan

Peace,
Bob
Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Oct 23, 2008 - 11:11PM #2
Australian_Composer
Posts: 2,331
[QUOTE=PassingTheTest;827063]All,

If Satan is not a person, how do you explain the following verses?
Job 1 - Satan's interaction with God and with Job...
Job 2 - Same thing
Matthew 4:10 - Jesus interaction with Satan

Peace,
Bob[/QUOTE]
Satan IS a person at times. You abviously do not understand the use of Hebrew term.

Satan is merely a Hebrew metaphor to describe ANY ADVERSARY / OPPOSER / ENEMY either GOOD or BAD, Male or Female or Neuter Gender.

Context of each passage where the Hebrew transferred word is used must be discerned and some are more complex than others to determine.

Ho Satan or Ha Satan are NEVER proper names or titles and the misuse of the term as a proper name has perpetuated for centuries.

If one uses say the Young's Literal Translation you will never discover the term ' Satan '. It correctly interprets as ' ADVERSARY '

e.g Your quotes -

Job 1 =   And the day is, that sons of God come in to station themselves by Jehovah, and there doth come also the Adversary in their midst.  7  And Jehovah saith unto the Adversary, `Whence comest thou?' And the Adversary answereth Jehovah and saith, `From going to and fro in the land, and from walking up and down on it.'  8  And Jehovah saith unto the Adversary, `Hast thou set thy heart against My servant Job because there is none like him in the land, a man perfect and upright, fearing God, and turning aside from evil?'  9  And the Adversary answereth Jehovah and saith, . . . . (Job 1:6 - 9) YLT

Job 2 =    And Jehovah saith unto the Adversary, `Whence camest thou?' And the Adversary answereth Jehovah and saith, `From going to and fro in the land, and from walking up and down in it.'  3  And Jehovah saith unto the Adversary, `Hast thou set thy heart unto My servant Job because there is none like him in the land, a man perfect and upright, fearing God and turning aside from evil? and still he is keeping hold on his integrity, and thou dost move Me against him to swallow him up for nought!'  4  And the Adversary answereth Jehovah and saith, (Job 2: 2 - 4) YLT

Matt. 4:10 =   Then saith Jesus to him, `Go--Adversary, for it hath been written, The Lord thy God thou shalt bow to, and Him only thou shalt serve.' (YLT)

Let us for now examine the identity of the adversary of Matt. 4:10.

If Jesus had been confronted by a fallen angel the obviousness of the temptation would have vitiated its power.
Jesus "was in all points tempted like as we are" (Heb. 4:15), but who today is ever engaged in discussion by a fallen angel devil?

There is considerable evidence that the temptations were subjective, (i.e., that the conflicts within Jesus are presented in the narratives as if there was a dialogue between Jesus and Satan, when in effect Satan is only a personification1 of the pull of the desires of Jesus. - (cf. James 1:13-15). Consider the following:
Mark states that Jesus was "there in the wilderness forty days, tempted of Satan" (Mark 1:13), but at least one of the temptations is said to have taken place in the holy city - Jerusalem. If Jesus literally went to the holy city, then the accounts appear contradictory.
Where is the mountain in the wilderness which is high enough to view all the kingdoms of the world and their glory in a moment of time? (Matt. 4:8, cf. Luke 4:5). (Extract from WRESTED SCRIPTURES)


Fundamentals must be first established to understand how the Hebrew term ' Satan ' has been misused.

Are you for example currently of the opinion that a Serpent couldn't inherently speak and therefore a naughty spirit angel called Satan ' used ' the Serpent Creature (like a ventriloquist manipulates and uses a dummy? ' in order to deceive Adam & Eve?

I will for the time being accept that is the case unless you notify me otherwise (for that I am led to believe is the basic claim of orthodoxy)

To attempt to establish this gross error, my first point is this -

Do naughty satan spirit being believers agree that Adam knew the animals, creatures reasonably intimately or would have had at least some basic knowledge of their fundamental characteristics etc.?

I would say ' most certainly ' because God gave him the job of ' naming them all ' and to do that Adam would likely have chosen those names according to at least the fundamental characteristics of those creatures.

And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought [ them ] unto Adam to see what he would call them : and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that [was] the name thereof. {Adam: or, the man} 20 And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; . . . . (Gen. 2:19,20) KJV

The Lord God formed58 out of the ground every living animal of the field and every bird of the air. He brought them to the man to see what he would59 name them, and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. 2:20 So the man named all the animals, the birds of the air, and the living creatures of the field, . . . . (Gen. 2:19,20) NET

My initial question that so far ALL have ducked from answering was " Please demonstrate from the Genesis - Eden narrative how the earliest Christians who only had the Torah (1st 5 Books of the Bible) would have read that text and come to the conclusion that a naughty spirit angel being was involved as orthodoxy now claims? "

Thank you
Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Oct 23, 2008 - 11:11PM #3
Australian_Composer
Posts: 2,331
[QUOTE=PassingTheTest;827063]All,

If Satan is not a person, how do you explain the following verses?
Job 1 - Satan's interaction with God and with Job...
Job 2 - Same thing
Matthew 4:10 - Jesus interaction with Satan

Peace,
Bob[/QUOTE]
Satan IS a person at times. You abviously do not understand the use of Hebrew term.

Satan is merely a Hebrew metaphor to describe ANY ADVERSARY / OPPOSER / ENEMY either GOOD or BAD, Male or Female or Neuter Gender.

Context of each passage where the Hebrew transferred word is used must be discerned and some are more complex than others to determine.

Ho Satan or Ha Satan are NEVER proper names or titles and the misuse of the term as a proper name has perpetuated for centuries.

If one uses say the Young's Literal Translation you will never discover the term ' Satan '. It correctly interprets as ' ADVERSARY '

e.g Your quotes -

Job 1 =   And the day is, that sons of God come in to station themselves by Jehovah, and there doth come also the Adversary in their midst.  7  And Jehovah saith unto the Adversary, `Whence comest thou?' And the Adversary answereth Jehovah and saith, `From going to and fro in the land, and from walking up and down on it.'  8  And Jehovah saith unto the Adversary, `Hast thou set thy heart against My servant Job because there is none like him in the land, a man perfect and upright, fearing God, and turning aside from evil?'  9  And the Adversary answereth Jehovah and saith, . . . . (Job 1:6 - 9) YLT

Job 2 =    And Jehovah saith unto the Adversary, `Whence camest thou?' And the Adversary answereth Jehovah and saith, `From going to and fro in the land, and from walking up and down in it.'  3  And Jehovah saith unto the Adversary, `Hast thou set thy heart unto My servant Job because there is none like him in the land, a man perfect and upright, fearing God and turning aside from evil? and still he is keeping hold on his integrity, and thou dost move Me against him to swallow him up for nought!'  4  And the Adversary answereth Jehovah and saith, (Job 2: 2 - 4) YLT

Matt. 4:10 =   Then saith Jesus to him, `Go--Adversary, for it hath been written, The Lord thy God thou shalt bow to, and Him only thou shalt serve.' (YLT)

Let us for now examine the identity of the adversary of Matt. 4:10.

If Jesus had been confronted by a fallen angel the obviousness of the temptation would have vitiated its power.
Jesus "was in all points tempted like as we are" (Heb. 4:15), but who today is ever engaged in discussion by a fallen angel devil?

There is considerable evidence that the temptations were subjective, (i.e., that the conflicts within Jesus are presented in the narratives as if there was a dialogue between Jesus and Satan, when in effect Satan is only a personification1 of the pull of the desires of Jesus. - (cf. James 1:13-15). Consider the following:
Mark states that Jesus was "there in the wilderness forty days, tempted of Satan" (Mark 1:13), but at least one of the temptations is said to have taken place in the holy city - Jerusalem. If Jesus literally went to the holy city, then the accounts appear contradictory.
Where is the mountain in the wilderness which is high enough to view all the kingdoms of the world and their glory in a moment of time? (Matt. 4:8, cf. Luke 4:5). (Extract from WRESTED SCRIPTURES)


Fundamentals must be first established to understand how the Hebrew term ' Satan ' has been misused.

Are you for example currently of the opinion that a Serpent couldn't inherently speak and therefore a naughty spirit angel called Satan ' used ' the Serpent Creature (like a ventriloquist manipulates and uses a dummy? ' in order to deceive Adam & Eve?

I will for the time being accept that is the case unless you notify me otherwise (for that I am led to believe is the basic claim of orthodoxy)

To attempt to establish this gross error, my first point is this -

Do naughty satan spirit being believers agree that Adam knew the animals, creatures reasonably intimately or would have had at least some basic knowledge of their fundamental characteristics etc.?

I would say ' most certainly ' because God gave him the job of ' naming them all ' and to do that Adam would likely have chosen those names according to at least the fundamental characteristics of those creatures.

And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought [ them ] unto Adam to see what he would call them : and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that [was] the name thereof. {Adam: or, the man} 20 And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; . . . . (Gen. 2:19,20) KJV

The Lord God formed58 out of the ground every living animal of the field and every bird of the air. He brought them to the man to see what he would59 name them, and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. 2:20 So the man named all the animals, the birds of the air, and the living creatures of the field, . . . . (Gen. 2:19,20) NET

My initial question that so far ALL have ducked from answering was " Please demonstrate from the Genesis - Eden narrative how the earliest Christians who only had the Torah (1st 5 Books of the Bible) would have read that text and come to the conclusion that a naughty spirit angel being was involved as orthodoxy now claims? "

Thank you
Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Oct 24, 2008 - 1:55PM #4
PassingTheTest
Posts: 1,144
Hi AC,
[QUOTE=Australian_Composer;846819]Satan IS a person at times.[/quote]
I certainly can agree with this.  But the charactertistics of Satan are based upon a "person".  In the case of Job an angelic person.
[QUOTE=Australian_Composer;846819] You abviously do not understand the use of Hebrew term.[/quote]
We shall see...  I guess that is why we are having this discussion.
[QUOTE=Australian_Composer;846819]
Satan is merely a Hebrew metaphor to describe ANY ADVERSARY / OPPOSER / ENEMY either GOOD or BAD, Male or Female or Neuter Gender.[/quote]
Again only in certain instances, all because of the characterists of the original individual.  Look at the term "You've been BORKED".  Bork is a real person.  But due to the events that centered around Bork, bork now becomes a verb/  "Don't bork me around..."
[QUOTE=Australian_Composer;846819]Context of each passage where the Hebrew transferred word is used must be discerned and some are more complex than others to determine.

Ho Satan or Ha Satan are NEVER proper names or titles and the misuse of the term as a proper name has perpetuated for centuries.[/quote]
Please show a Ho moses or a Ha moses or a Ho Noah or a Ha Noah.  I guess by your definition of "proper name" Moses, Noah and Elijiah are in the same category as Satan.
[QUOTE=Australian_Composer;846819]
My initial question that so far ALL have ducked from answering was " Please demonstrate from the Genesis - Eden narrative how the earliest Christians who only had the Torah (1st 5 Books of the Bible) would have read that text and come to the conclusion that a naughty spirit angel being was involved as orthodoxy now claims? "[/quote]
Well, a quick answer would be to use the books that were available to all men at the time Moses wrote these 5 books.  Let's look at the book of Enoch, which was referenced by Jude in verse14 that actually references Satan and all his followers as Satans.  It is an interesting read and goes al log way in describing the "fallen angels"...  Is it conclusive?  I do not think we have a complete enough copy at this time, but it is extremely interesting nonetheless.

Peace,
Bob
Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Oct 24, 2008 - 8:05PM #5
Australian_Composer
Posts: 2,331
[QUOTE=PassingTheTest;847944]  Hi AC,

I certainly can agree with this.  But the charactertistics of Satan are based upon a "person".  In the case of Job an angelic person.

We shall see...  I guess that is why we are having this discussion.

Again only in certain instances, all because of the characterists of the original individual.  Look at the term "You've been BORKED".  Bork is a real person.  But due to the events that centered around Bork, bork now becomes a verb/  "Don't bork me around..."[/quote]
That is a metaphor. Bork doesn't actually do anything. It is a comparison.


[QUOTE=PassingTheTest;847944] Please show a Ho moses or a Ha moses or a Ho Noah or a Ha Noah.  I guess by your definition of "proper name" Moses, Noah and Elijiah are in the same category as Satan.[/quote]
Moses, Noah and Elijiah are proper names. However -

The term “Satan” is not a proper name, like Donald, for instance. (How the Bible became the Bible by Donald L. O'Dell - ISBN 0-7414-2993-4 Published by INFINITY Publishing.com)

EMPHATIC Diaglott Original Greek NT Text Interlinear ALPHABETICAL APPENDIX pp. 915- 916 renders: SATAN, is a transferred Hebrew word, and is derived from the verb which means to lie in wait, to oppose, to be an adversary. Hence the noun means an adversary or opposer.

[QUOTE=PassingTheTest;847944] Well, a quick answer would be to use the books that were available to all men at the time Moses wrote these 5 books.  Let's look at the book of Enoch, which was referenced by Jude in verse14 that actually references Satan and all his followers as Satans.  It is an interesting read and goes al log way in describing the "fallen angels"...  Is it conclusive?  I do not think we have a complete enough copy at this time, but it is extremely interesting nonetheless.

Peace,
Bob[/QUOTE]
http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/1enoch.html

The Book of Enoch was discredited by Christians. It was not regarded as inspired but Apocryphal and therefore spurious and that is why it was not included in the Bible.

Literal ' Fallen angels ' in the Bible always refers to mortals.

AC
Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Oct 27, 2008 - 10:13AM #6
PassingTheTest
Posts: 1,144
[QUOTE=Australian_Composer;848706]That is a metaphor. Bork doesn't actually do anything. It is a comparison.[/quote]
So if Bork is a real person, and his name can be used metaphorically, can the same thing be said of Satan?
[QUOTE=Australian_Composer;850724]Moses, Noah and Elijiah are proper names. However -

The term “Satan” is not a proper name, like Donald, for instance. (How the Bible became the Bible by Donald L. O'Dell - ISBN 0-7414-2993-4 Published by INFINITY Publishing.com)

EMPHATIC Diaglott Original Greek NT Text Interlinear ALPHABETICAL APPENDIX pp. 915- 916 renders: SATAN, is a transferred Hebrew word, and is derived from the verb which means to lie in wait, to oppose, to be an adversary. Hence the noun means an adversary or opposer.[/quote]
How does this preclude Satan from being a proper name?  Adam's name is derived from the noun "man".  Adam is also a proper name.
[QUOTE=Australian_Composer;850724]http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/1enoch.html

The Book of Enoch was discredited by Christians. It was not regarded as inspired but Apocryphal and therefore spurious and that is why it was not included in the Bible.

Literal ' Fallen angels ' in the Bible always refers to mortals.[/QUOTE]
Read carefully, it is discredited because of having only a single copy in a translated copy.  There is not enough evidence to show true 100% authenticy, but then again the book IS referenced over 300 times in canon (according to the link you provided).

Just because it is not canon, does not mean it is discredited as evidence.

Peace,
Bob
Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Oct 27, 2008 - 4:10PM #7
Australian_Composer
Posts: 2,331
[QUOTE=PassingTheTest;853124]    So if Bork is a real person, and his name can be used metaphorically, can the same thing be said of Satan?[/quote]
You have yet to demonstrate the literal existance of your Satan spirit being.

Satan is simply a Hebrew metaphor meaning ANY Adversary / Opposer / Enemy, Male or Female or Neuter Gender. Good or Bad.  It is never a proper name for anything.

[QUOTE=PassingTheTest;853124]  How does this preclude Satan from being a proper name?  Adam's name is derived from the noun "man".  Adam is also a proper name. [/quote]
The term “Satan” is not a proper name, like Donald, for instance. (How the Bible became the Bible by Donald L. O'Dell - ISBN 0-7414-2993-4 Published by INFINITY Publishing.com)

[QUOTE=PassingTheTest;853124] Read carefully, it is discredited because of having only a single copy in a translated copy.  There is not enough evidence to show true 100% authenticy, but then again the book IS referenced over 300 times in canon (according to the link you provided).

Just because it is not canon, does not mean it is discredited as evidence.

Peace,
Bob[/QUOTE]
Can't find the Book of Enoch in the NWT.

If it is so credible, then why didn't your bible include it?

AC
Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Oct 27, 2008 - 7:38PM #8
PassingTheTest
Posts: 1,144
Hi AC,
[QUOTE=Australian_Composer;853981]You have yet to demonstrate the literal existance of your Satan spirit being.[/quote]
Actually you stated that in your first response... "Satan IS a person at times."  So at this point we already agree that Satan is a person at times, then we need to discuss the individual in Job referred to as Satan.  One that can go to the earth walk the earth and then present himself again to God.
[QUOTE=Australian_Composer;853981]Satan is simply a Hebrew metaphor meaning ANY Adversary / Opposer / Enemy, Male or Female or Neuter Gender. Good or Bad.  It is never a proper name for anything.[/quote]
And this explains the others not defined by your "at times" discussed above.
[QUOTE=Australian_Composer;853981]The term “Satan” is not a proper name, like Donald, for instance. (How the Bible became the Bible by Donald L. O'Dell - ISBN 0-7414-2993-4 Published by INFINITY Publishing.com)[/quote]
Actually it is used as a proper name in Zech 3:2 - "O Satan"
[QUOTE=Australian_Composer;853981]Can't find the Book of Enoch in the NWT.

If it is so credible, then why didn't your bible include it?[/QUOTE]
I am not a JW so I could care less if it exists in the NWT.  One can't brush off the book of Enoch so easily.  It does present unique insight al throughout the book.  There a single place of mistransation wouldn't be enough to completely excuse the overall description of fallen angels and the like.

But when this is taken as a whole, Satan is certain talked about as a person IN PLACES, and as an adversary in other places.  Hence my Bork example seems to fit the usage - at times a person, at time metaphor.

Peace,
Bob
Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Oct 28, 2008 - 5:12AM #9
Australian_Composer
Posts: 2,331
[QUOTE=PassingTheTest;854498]  Hi AC,

Actually you stated that in your first response... "Satan IS a person at times."  So at this point we already agree that Satan is a person at times, . . . . [/quote]
Not correct. I never said Satan was a proper name (which it never is) and I also said that Satan is not a legitimate reference to ' fallen heavenly angel spirit beings '

The term “Satan” is not a proper name, like Donald, for instance. (How the Bible became the Bible by Donald L. O'Dell - ISBN 0-7414-2993-4 Published by INFINITY Publishing.com)

I gave examples such as Peter is referred to as an ADVERSARY. Let's look at the Interlinear rendering -

and he having turned, said to Peter, `Get thee behind  me, adversary! thou art a stumbling-block to  me , for thou dost not mind the things of God, but the things of men.' (Matt. 16:23) YLT

But I don't think even you would say that qualified Peter as being an ' evil fallen heavenly angel spirit being '.

Unless you do?

Peter here is acting as a Satan (ADVERSARY) but his proper name is ' Peter ' however he is behaving as an ' Adversary ' against the Lord Jesus.

[QUOTE=PassingTheTest;854498] . . . . then we need to discuss the individual in Job referred to as Satan.  One that can go to the earth walk the earth and then present himself again to God. [/quote]
For many reasons this ADVERSARY is likely a Holy angel taking the roll of the ADVERSARY to teach Job some lessons. We have another example of this with Balaam  (Numbers 22:21-35) KJV

[QUOTE=PassingTheTest;854498]
. . . . Actually it is used as a proper name in Zech 3:2 - "O Satan"[/quote]
O adversary. Doesn't sound like a proper name? which of course it isn't  -

  And Jehovah saith unto the Adversary: . . . . (YLT)

Can't see a person named Satan there?

[QUOTE=PassingTheTest;854498] I am not a JW so I could care less if it exists in the NWT.  One can't brush off the book of Enoch so easily.  It does present unique insight al throughout the book.  There a single place of mistransation wouldn't be enough to completely excuse the overall description of fallen angels and the like.[/quote]
I is an excellent example of Jewish myths and fancy and I didn't dismiss it, God did when He compiled the legitimate Bible.

[QUOTE=PassingTheTest;854498] But when this is taken as a whole, Satan is certain talked about as a person IN PLACES, and as an adversary in other places.  Hence my Bork example seems to fit the usage - at times a person, at time metaphor.[/quote]
You would need to present each Scripture for us to examine. (Some are much harder than others to attempt identify the adversary) But no matter which one you do or may present, the Hebrew term Satan is NEVER a legitimate name or title for any thing but constantly remains simply the Hebrew metaphor describing any ADVERSARY / OPPOSER / ENEMY, Good or Bad, Male or Female or Neuter Gender.

Thanks for your response.

AC
Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Nov 03, 2008 - 4:46PM #10
PassingTheTest
Posts: 1,144
Hi AC,
[QUOTE=Australian_Composer;855128]Not correct. I never said Satan was a proper name (which it never is) and I also said that Satan is not a legitimate reference to ' fallen heavenly angel spirit beings '


Like I said we agreed that at times Satan can refer to a person...  Which mean not all the time, like you Peter example pointed out.

Therefore I stated the following:

PassingTheTest]then we need to discuss the individual in Job referred to as Satan. One that can go to the earth walk the earth and then present himself again to God.


The IDEA here is that IF we can agree that SATAN refers to a person at times, let's take a closer look at those times.
[QUOTE=Australian_Composer wrote:

then we need to discuss the individual in Job referred to as Satan. One that can go to the earth walk the earth and then present himself again to God.


The IDEA here is that IF we can agree that SATAN refers to a person at times, let's take a closer look at those times.
[QUOTE=Australian_Composer;855128]For many reasons this ADVERSARY is likely a Holy angel taking the roll of the ADVERSARY to teach Job some lessons. We have another example of this with Balaam  (Numbers 22:21-35) KJV[/quote]
Balaam is a holy angel?  Maybe a prophet gone bad as Peter denotes in the following:

color=blue]2 Peter 2:15-16
15   Which have forsaken the right way, and are gone astray, following the way of Balaam the son of Bosor, who loved the wages of unrighteousness;
16  But was rebuked for his iniquity: the dumb ass speaking with man's voice forbad the madness of the prophet.[/color]


So it cannot be like Balaam who was a man hence the mentioning of his father Bosor...

"this ADVERSARY is LIKELY a Holy angel..."?  Boy and you think i am reaching with God's "very good" not being perfect...  :D

Let's take a closer look...
We both agree that this is a single individual - you say a single Holy angel, I only say a single spirit being for now, but a single being nonetheless...

So we have two points in agreement:

- Satan can be a person at times
- In Job, Satan specifically refers to an individual spirit based entity.

Let's continue...
- Satan is listed separately from the "sons of God" in Job 1:6 and 2:1...

If Satan is not one of the "sons of God" then who is left?
[QUOTE=Australian_Composer;855128]O adversary. Doesn't sound like a proper name? which of course it isn't  -

  And Jehovah saith unto the Adversary: . . . . (YLT)

Can't see a person named Satan there?


Then I think you are not looking close enough...

Zechariah 3:1-2
1  And he shewed me Joshua the high priest standing before the angel of the LORD, and Satan standing at his right hand to resist him.
2  And the LORD said unto Satan, The LORD rebuke thee, O Satan; even the LORD that hath chosen Jerusalem rebuke thee: is not this a brand plucked out of the fire?


How is Zechariah seeing this vision?  Is Satan a non-person here?

Whether it is said Ho Satan or Ho Adversary, means nothing here...  We see Peter referred to by 2 names in the NT.  Does that mean there is not a liter Peter?  Of course not...  It just depends on whether we are in the Greek or Hebrew toungue.
[QUOTE=Australian_Composer;855128]I is an excellent example of Jewish myths and fancy and I didn't dismiss it, God did when He compiled the legitimate Bible.


I think you are missing some words here...  Is Jude one to delve into a book of Jewish myths?  Again this is circumstancial evidence and not primary evidence like Job and Zechariah...
[QUOTE=Australian_Composer;855128]You would need to present each Scripture for us to examine. (Some are much harder than others to attempt identify the adversary) But no matter which one you do or may present, the Hebrew term Satan is NEVER a legitimate name or title for any thing but constantly remains simply the Hebrew metaphor describing any ADVERSARY / OPPOSER / ENEMY, Good or Bad, Male or Female or Neuter Gender.


I think we can stick with what we have so far with Job and Zechariah... 

You wrote quite a bit above and stated it with lots of authority...  But the bottom line in your whole argument is you think it is "likely" that Satan refers to a Holy angel in Job... 

Peace,
Bob

Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 1 of 2  •  1 2 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook