Your satan is a myth
""But My people have forgotten Me, they have burned incense to what is false, and they have stumbled from their ways, from the ancient paths, to walk in bypaths and not on a highway."
Jeremiah 18:15 HS
The prophets point back to an ancient path, ancient to them, and so the OT should be all you need. The only other rules are respect with round five for closing statements
I'll just use this argument for acceptance and to post a definition:
Satan definitions from Dictionary.com
1.the chief evil spirits; the great adversary of humanity; the devil.
2.the devil, adversary of God, and tempter of mankind: sometimes identified with Lucifer.
Looking forward to your objections to the premise.
Let's look in scripture at the uses of satan and decipher what's being said.
1st and 2nd use of satan.
1) "But the displeasure of Elohim burned because he went, and the Messenger of YHWH stationed Himself in the way as an adversary (satan) against him. And he was riding on his donkey, and his two servants were with him."
2) "And the Messenger of YHWH said to him, 'Why have you beaten your donkey these three times? See, I have come out to stand against (satan) you, because your way is reckless before Me.' "
Numbers 22:22 & 32 HS
Adversary, stand against. Consider who it is standing in opposition to man. Consider that satan is not a name. If you study this out through Tanak, you can see the change as you reach the B'rit Hadashah (NT).
3) 1Sa 29:4 David an adversary (satan) to the Philistines.
4) 2 Sa 19:22 a man being adversary (satan) to David.
5) 1 Ki 5:4 David thankful for rest from all adversaries and evil.
6,7&8) 1 Ki 11:14, 23, 25 Father Yah raises human adversaries against Solomon.
9) 1 Ch 21:1 satan provokes David to number Israel.
"And again the displeasure of YHWH burned against Yisra'el and moved Dawid against them to say, 'Go, number Yisra'el and Yahudah.' "
II Samuel 24:1 HS
10-20) Job 1:6-9&12, Job 2:1-4&6,7 are all ha'satan ( the adversary ), not a name.
Considering that Job attributed his adversity to other men and Father Yah, the reaction of friends and family is understood.
"And all his brothers, and all his sisters, and all those who had been his friends before,came to him and ate food with him in his house. And they sympathized with him and comforted him for all the evil that YHWH had brought upon him. They each gave him a qesitah (money, unknown value) and each one a ring of gold."
Job 42:11 HS
21) Psalms 109:6 David is asking Father Yah to place an adversary, an evil man, at the right hand of his enemies. This is extremely interesting to me as it shows " a man after Elohim's own heart" asking for a satan to inflict evil upon his enemies and their families.
22&23) Zachariah 3:1&2 Ha'satan, the adversary. There is a reasonable belief that this scene, and the one in Job, are poetic descriptions of men standing in the temple as the term " before יהוה " is always used whenever men where there. Also, according to the various religious doctrines, our Creator can have no evil in His presence. This scene, as well as the one in Job, depicts satan in His presence. Now think about evil for a minute. If our Creator chooses evil in the education or discipline of His creation, who is it evil to? These righteous actions of our Creator are most defiantly seen as evil by those effected.
Considering the human heart is the most evil thing of all, and that satan in Tanak is not the christian boogeyman, I have to believe Isaiah and Jeremiah when they point back to Torah, a path ancient to them in their time. Not one of the scriptural (Tanak) greats mention an entity named satan.
The controversy from the very start is about the Shem (character, nature, name) of our Master Potter. Job got it right when his wife told him to curse Father Yah and die. Look what he says,
"But he said to her, 'You speak as one of the foolish women speaks. Indeed, should we accept only good from Elohim, and not accept evil?' In all this Iyob did not sin with his lips."
Job 2:10 HS
As agreed in the comments I am arguing that my satan, as shown in the Old Testament, is not a myth. I’ll for the most part agree with Con’s arguments and suggest that satan is normally a noun translated adversary or and briefly used as a metaphor for the adversity adversaries or God may cause/allow. In the context of the Old Testament satan is clearly not a myth.
A. The usage of the word adversary (satan) in the bible is not used in any way that would fit a definition of a myth. Con essentially conceded the debate in round one.
Con has rejected my round one definitions again reiterating that the debate is about the satan as seen in the Old Testament and I will not contest that this in this round. He and concedes that satan is not a literal being in the Old Testament. I will site Con’s bible references from round two.
In the modern definition of adversary the devil is mentioned (modern synonym for Satan) being the personification of ‘the adversary’ as seen in the first google result for adversary.
From Google (Con agreed to allow additional resources for definitions):
noun: adversary; plural noun: adversaries
one's opponent in a contest, conflict, or dispute.
"Davis beat his old adversary in the quarterfinals"
noun: the Adversary
another term for adversarial.
"the confrontations of adversary politics"
plural noun: personifications
"the design on the franc shows Marianne, the personification of the French republic"
"he was the very personification of British pluck and diplomacy"
-Con’s Biblical references 1) – 9)
In these references the adversaries are translated from the exact same Hebrew word is used to reference a personification of ‘the adversary’ in Con’s later references. In context of the first 8 references sited are men taking the form of an adversary often against the Israelites. That man normally being referenced as an adversary against God and Israel. Reference 9) was likely simply David making a bad call and not trusting God becoming an adversary. This is a major theme in the OT if this comes up later.
-An explanation for Con’s Biblical references 10) - 20) and Satan as the personification of God’s inflicted adversity.
Note that Con concedes satan is not a name or a literal being. I would say that in context it is a reference to ‘the adversary,’ as a symbol of the adversity in the world. I’m concluding this since it is a book of poetry and all other references do not have anything to do with a literal being.
I would disagree with Con here a little even though his interpretation supports my case quoting Con, “Considering that Job attributed his adversity to other men and Father Yah…” this only adds weight to the argument that the OT satan is a metaphor for earthly adversity which God clearly does not have a problem with and uses it repeatedly as a teaching tool such as the tower of babel, the plagues sent to Egypt, the 40-year march through the desert etc.
-Job as a book of poetry
In this book Satan is the personification of the adversary or the large amount of adversity that the God’s people go through. There may be other interpretations but satan is only used in a proper noun in the first two chapters of this book of wisdom poetry (not a work meant to be interpreted literally).
As Con points out the word used for satan is adversary and not a name. God is initially protecting Job’s property but stops and states, “Behold, all that he has is in your powe; only do not lay a hand on his person,” (Job 1). Con concedes that, “Job attributed his adversity to other men and Father Yah.”
This removal of protection is expressed as a series of tragedies such as Job’s loss of all his family, livestock, servants (we call them slaves now) and agonizing boils on his skin as if he wasn’t low enough already. Throughout the rest of the OT events like this are attributed to God with no mention of satan.
In chapter 4-27 the book goes full blown poetry. With three cycles of wisdom poems as speeches between Job’s three friends Eliphaz, Bildad and Zopher with Job’s response to each speech. This by another cycle of three in the form of poetic monologues. First a wisdom poem in Job 28, then Job’s closing monologue in chapters 29-31 followed by Elihu’s (a local frustrated with Job’s stubbornness) speeches in chapters 32-37.
At this point God steps in to close with two speeches where Job replies in each case (chpt 38:1-42:8). At this point Job is redeemed to even greater health and and prosperity in a conclusion or epilogue.
Job is widely considered as a poetic book as apposed to a literal account and Con agrees that satan is not a literal being and the book of poetry does not portray him like this. He is a personification of the adversity inflicted on good men in a book of poetry which attributes Job’s affliction ultimately to God.
-Psalms, Zechariah and Poetry
Psalms 109:6 (Cons reference 21) is another poetic book that uses the same word as satan (adversary) as a description of a man as Con concedes.
Zechariah is typically regarded as a book of wisdom poetry and He has a series of visions and messages from god (colloquially referred to as schizophrenia). These odd images or or events he interprets as references to events that will occur. For instance, he sees two olive trees and a golden lamp stand in chapter 4 which he interprets as Israel being a light to the nations.
He sees a 15x30 flying scroll interpreted as judgment against Israel 5:1-4, a woman in a basket symbolizing the wickedness of Israel and eventual redemption 5:5-11 and four chariots symbolizing wrath.
None of his eight visions are interpreted as literal by the angels who assist in interpreting the visions. In Zechariah 3 he sees a vision of God with the accuser at his right side to accuse The High priest Joshua. This is in context of the other metaphorical visions and includes dirty clothes as a symbol of sin and a stone with seven eyes.
This is clearly a poetic or metaphorical reference not the announcement of an evil being that does nothing but accuse everyone. Con concedes that Satan here is not a literal reference to a supernatural being.
B. Satan is not myth in the OT. The word simply references an accuser either literally or as a metaphor.
Satan is normally mentioned in the bible as simply a man that is in an adversarial role. He is personified as a being briefly in the prologue to a poem in the first two chapters of Job and and in one of Zechariah’s 8 metaphorical visions. In the first few centuries boy did the early Christians take these two poetic references literally.
The OT Satan is a simply a reference to an accuser as Con has conceded although we disagree a little on the poetic references. This exists as a modern concept and in any court of law or family holiday visit there are always plenty of accusers to go around. If Satan is only a reference to an accuser in a work of fiction than there is no reason to call Satan myth. Satan is a literary device or a reference to an adversary, a noun.
C. Alternate arguments
If I were to hold Con to the standard dictionary definitions of Satan he has already conceded that he is not portrayed as and adversary of God or mankind, is not the leader of evil spirits, a tempter or even a single literal being and Con has conceded this.
Con asked me to prove that ‘your’ Satan is not a myth. This leaves me a room (a loophole) to define Satan as anything I’d like that I can prove is not a myth using the Old testament. Ignorance or perhaps God as a metaphor would make better satans when considering satan in the OT is not the myth popularized by Christianity.
I essentially agree with Con’s case but not the conclusion. Since there are no references to a being called Satan there can be no myth of Satan based in the OT. Con said, “I would like someone to show me satan from the Tanak (OT of your bibles).” I think we both have and Satan is not a myth it is a word. An improper noun that is very rarely personified in poetry. My satan, based on a literal or figurative interpretation of The Bible (as appropriate) is definitely not a myth.
1) A usually traditional story of ostensibly historical events that serves to unfold part of the world view of a people or explain a practice, belief, or natural phenomenon.
2) A parable or allegory.
3) A: A person or thing having only an imaginary or unverifiable existence.
B: An ill-founded belief held uncritically especially by an interested group.
4) The whole body of myths.
On part 1), satan makes up "a traditional story", and in most is considered
"historical ", most definitely involving the world view of the religious many.
Satan is used to explain practice, belief, and natural phenomenon.
On part 2), satan involves allegory in the propagation of its myth. Pro gave definition of satan in the second round which involved lucifer. The Latin word lucifer was added to the Hebrew text and that it's interpreters purposely implanted pagan myth.
On part 3), the satan of the religious many is definitely imaginary and certainly unverifiable. Based on the Hebrew Scriptures, the doctrine of demons and devils, i.e. Satan, is an unfounded belief held uncritically by the religious masses.
On part 4), this doctrine, in part, helps to make up the larger dualistic religious myth propagated by the religious many.
Lucifer/ Latin/ lux fer/ or light, more light. / the morning star, a fallen rebel arch-angel, the Devil, light bearing.
1) the Devil
2) the planet Venus when appearing as the morning star. (I would point out Venus is a pagan "god ")
This Latin word is inserted into the Hebrew text because the Latin interpreters said so. They used it for the propagation of their allegory.
I think it's important to try and understand the idioms used within scripture and to realize these ancient men were much like us. As someone today may refer to their favorite hangout as heaven, I'd call it my sweet spot. In ancient Yisra'el this sweet spot was just inside the city gates. Just how sweet? Hebrew word for gates , sha'ar, as in city gates also means heaven. We need to know who or what according to scripture actually fell from heaven.
Lamentations 2:1-2 HS
"How YHWH in His displeasure Has covered the daughter of Tsiyon with a cloud! He has cast down from the shamayim (heaven) to the earth the comeliness of Yisra'el, And has not remembered His footstool in the day of His displeasure. 2 YHWH has swallowed up, without compassion, All the pastures of Ya'aqob. In His wrath He has thrown down The strongholds of the daughter of Yahudah. He has brought them down to the ground. He has profaned the reign and its rulers.
(If you continue reading you see Father Yah's right hand becoming their adversary)
So in this passage the fallen ones are Yisra'el, not lucifer or satan. In the next couple verses, we see who the stars are and what heaven is being spoke of.
Judges 4:13-16 HS
"So Sisera called all his chariots, nine hundred chariots of iron, and all the people who were with him, from Harosheth Haggoyim to the wadi Qishon. And Deborah said to Baraq, 'Rise up! For this is the day in which YHWH has given Sisera into your hand. Has not YHWH gone out before you?' And Baraq went down from Mount Tabor with ten thousand men after him. And YHWH destroyed Sisera and all his chariots and all his army with the edge of the sword before Baraq. And Sisera leaped from his chariot and fled away on foot. But Baraq pursued the chariots and the army as far as Harosheth Haggoyim, and all the army of Sisera fell by the edge of the sword, not one was left."R36;R36;
We see here the complete destruction of Sisera's forces with him fleeing on foot. So now when we read the poetry in chapter five,
Judges 5:19, 20 HS
"Sovereigns came, they fought, then the sovereigns of Kena'an fought in Ta'anak, by the waters of Megiddo, they took no spoils of silver. From the heavens they fought; the stars from their courses fought against Sisera."
"From the heavens they fought; the stars from their courses fought against Sisera."
The stars are Yisra'el and the heavens are the mountains of Yisra'el. We are shown many times in scripture Yisra'el being likened to the stars of heaven and I'm pretty sure pro needs no reminder.
There are many folks spoke of falling in scripture besides Yisra'el and the King of Babylon is one. The man Nebuchadnezzar had a very unique understanding of his creator, and council from Dani'el, leaving no question as to who he believed held true power. His son did not and so his power was given to another. Into this letter to the king, about his fall, is inserted pagan dogma to support religious allegory.
I am a U.S. Citizen and speak English. In English, the Hebrew word satan translates to adversary or against. I have had plenty of people and things stand in my way through life. I would suspect most folks would classify these as adversaries or adversities and few people would enunciate these instances "satan" in my day to day life. My truck breaks down and I have trouble getting to work limiting my ability to earn the money needed to acquire the parts. In English, this is adversity, there is no reason to use a Hebrew word with any connotation involving myth. You and I both deal with adversity, and tho I can't speak for you, I see my Creators Hand in all things.
Satan, as a word in Hebrew, exists to describe an action and has no other purpose in an English scriptural translation other than propagation of myth. Your "satan" is a myth, your adversity isn't.
We would not be talking about satan if it were not propagated as an individual by the religious. What I would point out is that a word used to describe action in Hebrew is personified, capitalized, and given preferential treatment, while our Creators Name lay mostly forgotten, being brought to nought before the masses. Satan is just one of the pillars holding up the various Babylonian, Egyptian, mystery religions those who study scripture read so much about. The bigger myth.
A. The usage of the word adversary (satan) in the bible is not used in any way that would fit a definition of myth.
Con’s second definition of myth is uncommon and not applicable in the context of this debate. Virtually any character in a work of fiction (which the old testament clearly is) can be thought of as a parable or an allegory for something.
Webster first presents a simplified definition of myth which corresponds to popular usage of the word [4.1]:
Other popular definitions do not include the extremely general definition as simply an allegory or parable:
From Google [4.2]:
noun: myth; plural noun: myths
1. a traditional story, especially one concerning the early history of a people or explaining some natural or social phenomenon, and typically involving supernatural beings or events.
2. a widely held but false belief or idea.
1. a traditional or legendary story, usually concerning some being or hero or event, with or without a determinable basis of fact or a natural explanation, especially one that is concerned with deities or demigods and explains some practice, rite, or phenomenon of nature.
2. stories or matter of this kind: realm of myth.
3. any invented story, idea, or concept: His account of the event is pure myth.
4. an imaginary or fictitious thing or person.
5. n unproved or false collective belief that is used to justify a social institution.
A traditional story, especially one concerning the early history of a people or explaining a natural or social phenomenon, and typically involving supernatural beings or events.
Also see [4.5], [4.6] and [4.7].
The words Allegory and parable (Con’s definition 2) are just too general and it are atypical of definitions for myth. They are not listed in each of the six typical definitions I sourced. A traditional story to explain phenomena, or a being or belief from drawn from these stories that no basis in reality but accepted as true by many who believe the is a common thread throughout the definitions I reference.
I will skip definition Pro’s definition 2) since I’ve already explained why it does not apply to this debate.
1) Satan is briefly referenced poetically in Job and Zechariah. Con concedes that these are not references to a literal supernatural being and attributes these instances to references to a man that is an adversary. This is true of every other reference to satan in the OT. Satan is not a myth by this definition although the noun is used in many myths in the bible.
3) Con has conceded that satan is not a reference to a single being but rather used as a label for an adversary of on multiple occasions in the OT as conceded by Con in round 2. It is a general term that even could be applied to multiple spirits. Satan is not used in this context as a reference to spirts but as a category of humans. As far as I know, satan is not applied to a literal spirit but if Con would like to argue this it is still just a general category applied to beings in general, supernatural or natural.
B. The noun satan is not used in any way to represent an uncritically held belief but as a label for an adversary as Con has agreed.
4) There is no basis to state that satan is a single supernatural being. Satan not part of a reference to a dualistic light v.s. dark world view from the Old Testament. He is not seen as one literal being just as concept applied to multiple people throughout the Old Testament. There are many gods in the Old testament such as Asherah, a Canaanite goddess Ex 34:13-14, Baal, a Canaanite and Phoenician god Jdg 2:10-13, Baal-Zebub of the Philistines Mt 12:24, Tammuz, a Babylonian god Eze 8:14, Molech, the chief deity of Ammon 1Ki 11:4-5 etc.
When satan is poetically personified as a being in Job he is seen reporting to the YHWH as subordinate in Job 1:6 and not as his opposition (he’s a reference to man’s adversary and adversities). There are many gods that do oppose YHWH and his people so there is no basis for a dualistic worldview when siting YHWH and one of the satans in the Old Testament.
Con concedes/argues that Lucifer is not a reference to satan as a literal being using Lamentations 2:1-2 HS, Judges 4:13-16 HS and Judges 5:19, 20 HS as a reference.
D. Con challenged me to show him My Satan from the Old Testament.
This implies a personal understanding of satan as referenced in the Old Testament. My interpretation is much more reasonable than modern the modern myth of Satan which has no basis in this context. Con has conceded that satan is used as a general label applied to people and not a word for a single supernatural deity.
E. Con is using modern Satan myth which is not the improper noun used in the Old Testament.
Con has referenced my modern colloquial definition of satan that in no way corresponds to the version of the noun satan as used in the Old Testament as Con conceded in round 2. See my section C where I argue that the modern myth of satan in no way references the noun as it is used in the old testament. In modern usage Satan is a Proper noun and a reference to a literal evil being. The descriptions of this myth correspond to the New Testament and not the Old Testament.
I would challenge Pro to find a scripture in the OT that references a being that has any qualities of the modern myth of Satan. I would ask Con to allow me to source scriptures in the New testament to show the contrast and the origins of the modern satan myth but as it stands the noun satan does not fit standard definitions for a myth.
I agree that in modern usage no one would say that another person is a satan. We have already agreed that satan corresponds to adversary in modern english.
Let’s say I write a story about an enemy of mine who happens to be an evil rabbit named frank that walks upright and prophesies about the future. I mention other enemies from work or the ghost of my aunt Cloe. There is no myth of enemy, this is just a descriptive label. I could talk about the myth of Frank or Cloe but it wouldn’t make any sense to talk about the myth of enemy. This is exactly what Pro is trying to do with the myth of adversary which is just a label.
Con did not ask me to show him that the modern version of Satan is not a myth and it clearly is. He asked me to show him my version of Satan in the Old Testament and explain why that is not a myth. There are many myths depicted in the Old testament. The myth of Job, YHWH, miracles etc but references to adversaries (satans) are not.
I'm unaware of giving pro any other definition for myth and am pretty confident my hard copy seventh edition Webster's collegiate dictionary sufficient and most applicable for any debate.
Pro and I will have to disagree about Tanak being fiction. Far to much of the people and places are proven history for this to be true. Best you can truthfully say is that it may be a collection of historical fiction and poetry. Neither can say for certain. Ancient Yisra'el became the number one socio-economic, military, religious power on earth.
For me, it is flat amazing that the ancient writings of this people, whom were utterly destroyed and scattered, did ultimately have their words spread to the whole world, by the hand of the beast no less. The same Word that prophesied their own demise by a deadly head wound also promised the wound would be healed. Apostate, pagan Israel has been restored by the hands of the money power elite but is counterfeit of true Yisra'el.
Pro believes ALL of what constitutes the bible to be fiction and so by this admission proves he has no satan. It is a fact the Yisra'elites battled the infusion of paganism from the very beginning of their exodus, and dualistic concepts came back with the Hebrews from Chaldea, at the time a Persian province. Zoroastrianism being the most popular belief in the empire. These people fought several brutal civil wars for control of the priest hood. They expelled one would be conqueror in Antiocous IV only to have Rome enter at the behest of the winning side. This group of paganized "rabbis" who canonized scripture, are the forefathers of today's rabbis, and on it goes. This is the central theme of the controversy in scripture.
I said, "your satan is a myth, show me your satan in Tanak." . Pro accepted the challenge but seemed to agree, So I clarified, "I am arguing against a cosmic boogyman. Does your satan whisper in your ear and tell you to do things? Is your satan responsible for evil? Do you believe angels fell from heaven and are now interfering in your life? This is the satan I am against." Pro believes the whole of the text to be fiction and doesn't have a satan to show me
At this point, we have exhausted any argument on satan and reverted to debating the definition of myth. Since we find ourselves here, I don't see any reason to restrict this discussion any longer. If you like, you may bring any reference in the bible to show satan, However, I'm more curious to know your understanding of the beast. I have been told by many a pagan that "the king of all prideful men", leviathan in Job, is satan. At this time, in the hope of education, I will insert leviathan into this conversation.
Iyob/ Job 41:30, 31 HS
"His undersides are like sharp potsherds. He sprawls on the mud like a threshing- sledge. He makes the deep boil like a pot, He makes the sea like a pot of ointment."
H8478 tahat/ beneath,flat, in, instead,place, under, underneath, underneath in the sense of being in place of something else .
H2303 chaddude / sharp, pointed, sharpened.
H2789 cheres / earthenware, clay pottery, shard, potsherd, earthen vessel.
H7502 rafad /to spread, spread out or support, comfort
H2916 tiyt / mud or clay; figuratively, calamity:--clay, dirt, mire.
H2742 charuwtz / sharp pointed things.
H4688 metsoola / deep sea, deep place (water or mud)
H7570 rathach / make boil
H5518 ciyer / pot, thorn, brier, fishhook
H3220 yam / sea, mighty river, Great Basin in temple court, seaside, westward
H7760 soom / put, place, set, appoint, make
Pot of ointment:
H4841 merkakah / seasoning, spice, pot of ointment
We see here the whole belly of the beast made up of sharp little potsherds that are moving (stirring) and spreading the dirt or clay, making it boil like a pot of goo. I have found that Job and Isaiah spoke about this same beast, and Isaiah does an excellent job explaining clay and potsherds.
Iyob / Job41:32- 34 HS
"He leaves a shining path behind him. One would think the deep to be grey-haired. No one on earth is like him - one made without fear. He sees all that is haughty. He is sovereign over all the sons of pride
Let's look what Isaiah has to say about this beast, the potsherds and clay.
Isaiah 27:1 HS " In the day YHWH with His severe sword, great and strong, punishes liwiathan the fleeing serpent, liwiathan that twisted serpent. And He slay the monster that is in the sea"
In my studies, I have found the twisted serpent and the fiery serpent are one and the same. This chapter is prophesying of Yisra'el's restoration, the healing of the deadly wound, after the death of the beast. Isaiah 27:7 & 8 mentions leviathan again saying that leviathan shoots forward and those reading would contend with it. It's rough, unrighteous, spirit would cease in Father Yah's day of the east wind. It's clear from the rest of the chapter, all idols are done away with, this is future. Also notice the idols are a practice of leviathan. Let's look at the clay and potsherds next.
Isaiah 45:9 HS
"Woe to him who strives with his Maker! ( a potsherd with the potsherds of the earth). Does clay say to him who forms it, 'What are you making?' Or your handiwork say, 'He has no hands'?"
The potsherds are men who disagree with their maker about his character, nature, Shem! Verses 7 & 8 point out, as Job does in 2:10, these men are like foolish women rejecting the truth their Creator does both good and evil. These are the men, and women, that make up the belly of the beast. The reason the whole world wonders about who and what the beast is, is because they can't see they're wrong, because the beast is them. If the king of all prideful men is satan then it is they and their fellows.
The beast is stirring the clay. Now I'm sure pro is aware Father Yah is the one said in scripture to hook the joules of the beast and lead it where He wills it. Dani'el, Isaiah, and Job are all describing the same beast system. Dani'el says these people, the deceived and deceiver, are Father Yah's, they are for the purpose of stirring the clay (humanity). This is a scripture wide theme and is referenced throughout.
He created us and knows our inclinations. He knew where this would all go. Water and mud flow the path of least resistance. This is a very applicable description of humanity. Scripture shows that it's the beast that loves the lie and so Father Yah feeds it more lies, leading it where He wills. Through this process He stirs loose His righteous. The enmity is between us and our Maker.
I’ll agree that the beast is possibly a reference to to mankind or their disobedience as Con has conceded. Revelation 20:10 points out, “The Devil, who deceived them, was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone where the beast and the false prophet are. And they will be tormented day and night forever and ever.” It could be that, in Job, the leviathan is a reference to a mythological being (a dragon?) but there is no connection to Satan.
Since the early Hebrews acknowledged several gods along side YHWH these could be metaphorical references or another rival God. The duality between God and Satan is only weakly established in the New Testament and in the OT an evil being could be a reference to any number of evil gods that vied for territory such as the five rival gods I mentioned last round.
My Old Testament Satan
Con asked me to show that the Satan in the Old Testament is not a myth and both of us agree there is no myth of a literal being called Satan in the text. There is a modern myth of Satan based on the New Testament. It’s not relevant if I believe the bible is accurate or that I do not believe that there is any such evil being.
It’s true that Con clarified that he objects to a literal evil being named Satan both in the comments and in the last round. This doesn’t change that this is a New Testament modern myth that is not referenced in the Old Testament.
Con has agreed to allow me to reference the New Testament for the rest of the debate.
Satan definitions from Dictionary.com
Note again that references to satan in the Old Testament have none of the features of typical definitions referring to the modern myth of Satan and are only references to men along with occasional a personifications of adversity in general. In the New Testament Satan is referred to several times as a literal being referenced around 40 times and embodying all the qualities of the modern myth of Satan.
Literal being: Satan is cast from heaven in Luke 1:18.
The Chief of evil spirits: Satan is said to have an army of Angels that follow him in revalation 12:7, 12:9 and Matthew 25:41
The Great Adversary/Tempter of mankind: He tempts and enters Judas as a literal spirit in Luke 22:3, and John 13:27 to tempt him to betray Jesus and tempts Peter to deny him in Luke 22:31. He is referenced as an instrument of darkness in acts 26:17-19 to turn men away from God. He is seen as a literal deceiver and tempter of man in 1Corinthians 5:5, 7:5 and 2 Corinthians 2:11, 11:14 and 12:7. He is predicted to empower ‘The Lawless One’ (often interpreted as The Antichrist) with the power to make signs and miracles to deceive mankind.
Adversary of God: While there is no reference to any being being as an adversary of the Hebrew God in the OT other than other local gods a character is referenced as tempting Jesus, the son of God, in Matthew 4:1/10, Mark 1:12/13, Luke 4:1/8. In Romans 16:20 there is a reference to God crushing Satan under his feet. He takes the place of God deceiving men to follow him instead of God Revelation 2:9, 3:9, 1 Timothy 5:15. God will chain Satan in hell for 1000 years for his sins Revelation 20:1-2. He poses as a servant of God to deceive his followers 2 Corinthians 11:14. He is the enemy of righteousness Acts 13:10. Jesus was sent to destroy the works of the Devil in 1 John 3:8.
All the qualities ascribed to the modern myth of Satan have come from The New Testament. Nothing close to this myth is presented in the Old Testament where Satan is simply a general reference to an adversary.
Even if you agree believe The Adversary is a literal being in the OT there is nothing that connects him to the NT version.
Poor translations for satans/Satan in Old Testament Hebrew vs New Testament Greek.
It’s important to remember that the OT is written in Hebrew and Con has conceded the word translated to add a label to the many satans in the old testament would more accurately be translated as adversary. There is no reference to a literal being and certainly not one that shares any characteristics with the modern myth.
John 3:13, 14 Halleluyah Scriptures
The first point I would make is NO ONE goes up and down from heaven but the Messiah. The second being Messiah likened to the bronze (fiery) serpent in Numbers 21:5-9 that's "lifted up" as a sort of banner or ensign.
Something lifted up, standard, signal, signal pole, ensign, banner, sign, sail.
Root H5264 nas
To be lifted up or displayed.
"You have given a banner (H5251) to those who revere You, That it might be lifted up Because of truth. Selah. That those You love might be rescued, Save with your right hand and answer me." Psalms 60:4, 5.
This theme permeates scripture.
;Isaiah 30 Shows out of the serpents root comes a venomous (lies and delusion) serpent (nature of men) whose fruit is the flying fiery serpent (the beast) who is brought forth and led by YHWH.
In my study of Isaiah 30, I came to the conclusion the chapter is pointing out this controversy yet again, and which in verse 6, points out there's no profit in this Egyptian religion. The very religion they were clinging to in that time. It's interesting to note that Babylon was established by a descendant of Ham and in the fashion of Egypt. Ham was, according to scripture, the father of Egypt, Mitsrayim (son of Ham).
In my distress I called upon YHWH, And to my Elohim I cried; He heard my voice from His Heykal, And my cry went before Him, into His ears. And the earth shook and trembled; Even the foundations of the mountains were troubled And they shook, because He was wroth. Smoke went up from His nostrils, And consuming fire from His mouth; Coals were kindled by it. And He bowed the shamayim and came down, And dense cloud was under His feet. And He rode upon a kerub, and flew; He flew upon the wings of the wind. He made darkness His covering; Around Him His booth, Darkness of waters, thick clouds of the skies. From the brightness before Him, His thick clouds passed, hail and coals of fire. And YHWH thundered in the shamayim, And the Most High sent forth His voice, Hail and coals of fire. And He sent out His arrows and scattered them, And much lightning, and confused them. And the channels of water were seen, And the foundations of the world were uncovered at Your rebuke, o YHWH,
And the blast of the breath of Your nostrils. He sent from above, He took me; He drew me out of many waters. He delivered me from my strong enemy, And from those hating me, for they were stronger than I. Psalms 18:6-17 HS
Fire and coal breathing? Being drawn out of the many waters? The Most High sends forth His voice (word?). Cherub means chariot or throne, and this one flies. Many of these passages seem to be referring to the beast and yet they attribute all to YHWH, which is exactly what Job, Isaiah, and the rest say. Job 12:6 explains the deceived and the deceiver are YHWH's. If your gonna bother to believe in an all powerful Creator then it would be silly to try and limit that power as men. This is the controversy between YHWH's path and those of the pantheons, of which were used in corruption of His Word. The interesting part of this process is who Tanak claims brought it all forward. While Job points out these silly people are His, look at the explanation of the process in Ezekiel 14:3-10. These men are coming before the prophets with many idols in their hearts asking for the Word of YHWH. HE says that He will answer them according to their many idols and that when the prophets are deceived, it's He that deceives them! Our Maker gives the lie to those who make Him their enemy.
Deuteronomy 29: 16-20 explains that these folks who embrace the lie live the curse. They embrace the ROOT that brings the venom (gall). Scripture wide theme!
Over and again scripture speaks to YHWH as the only deity and these others being the imaginations of men who's doctrines are wormwood. Those who choose to embrace this Egyptian, Babylonian lie are given their fill of it by their Maker.
Con’s interesting polytheist rabbit trail
“The second being Messiah likened to the bronze (fiery) serpent in Numbers 21:5-9 that's "lifted up" as a sort of banner or ensign.”
“These men are coming before the prophets with many idols in their hearts asking for the Word of YHWH. HE says that He will answer them according to their many idols and that when the prophets are deceived, it's He that deceives them! Our Maker gives the lie to those who make Him their enemy.”
Ad hoc rationalizations to explain the obvious Hebrew Polytheism. It would make an interesting debate that topic.
Con did not refute my argument that satan is not a myth from the Old Testament but rather a myth introduced in the New Testament. All attributes attributed to Satan are present in the NT but absent (at best references have the exact opposite traits) in the Old.
Any references to Satan as a proper noun in the OT are metaphorical and Con asserted they are references to men and certainly not a single being or myth.
The definition of myth as an allegory or metaphor is not common and can not be reasonably applied within the context of this debate.
Con restricted me to the Old Testament definition of Satan but the only myth he could come up with is a direct reference from the New Testament modern definition that I provided.
There is a polytheistic element of evil gods in the OT as opposed to a good vs evil dichotomy as presented in the NT. There is no dualistic light vs dark or God vs Satan until the NT.
Con argued my case
We both agree that there was no literal being called Satan when using the Hebrew word for adversary in The Old Testament. This is a concession that there is no myth of Satan in the Old Testament which was the focus of the resolution he presented in round 1. Con restricted me to the Old Testament definition of Satan but cannot connect the Old Testament to the modern Myth.
Con conceded Lucifer is not a reference to Satan in the Old Testament.
He suggested that The Leviathan or The Beast may be a references to A being called Satan without providing anything more than speculation without a link in the bible. He also agreed that these may likely be references to mankind and not an evil being myth.
Con has not refuted my case. For the most part he agreed with me and was unable to produce a Satan Myth from the Old Testament. There is clearly no evil being called Satan in the OT so there is definitely no myth of Satan until the New Testament.