The greatest trick ~~Satan~~ the adversary ever pulled was convincing the world that שָׂטָן is a name, instead of a noun.
#biblestr #hebrew #littleseason
Discussion
Care to elaborate?
:90percent: of Bible translation turn the noun "satan / ha satan" into the Name "Satan / Devil" which leads to very different conclusions and deceptive narratives that can be spun up.
❌ There was a third person "Satan" in the Garden who deceived Eve
:Check: Adam was the evil one, the deceiver, the slanderer, there were only two people there
❌ Satan and his demon fallen angles are running the world rn
:Check: There's a human group (enemy, adversary) deceiving us rn
:Check: Demons are inner torments / split off alters in your mind
Etc...
Many similar errors where Angel should have been messenger, Giant should have been mighty man, ...
All controversial stuff. But starting from an accurate translation matters and is the best starting point for figuring things like this out.
Some resources:
Deep → https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=owH2S5_XlKE
Bad take. Yes, true that “the satan” is better translation of that term, but Lucifer is a very real entity who has a will and makes war against the people of God all throughout the Bible. Trying to make this anti-supernatural take fit the Bible is to torture the text beyond recognition. Just take the Genesis passage with Adam and Eve. In this version you are espousing, Adam (the satan) would deceive Eve who then goes on to convince Adam to also eat of the fruit. But according to this theory, Adam convinced Eve… who then convinces Adam??? That makes no sense.
"... she ate, and she **gave**some to her husband with her and he ate ..." is the most accurate translation I know of.
Zero convincing in there.
Genesis 3:1-2 - Now the serpent was more crafty than any other beast of the field that the Lord God had made. He said to the woman, “Did God actually say…”
So Adam is also “the serpent?” Was Eve talking to his dick?
God also curses Adam and Eve and also the serpent separately. The serpent is clearly a third character in this story.
Adam and serpent have the same curse. God is talking to two people (very clear to me, if you read on after that).
The Lord God said to the serpent,
“Because you have done this,
cursed are you above all livestock
and above all beasts of the field; on your belly you shall go, and dust you shall eat all the days of your life.”
So humans are also livestock? Humans crawl on their bellies?
It does not say "livestock" or "beasts".
It says "living thing", twice.
KJV is full of sneaky little twists like this.
Looks like you need more proof of work and less trusting dubious sources.
Firstly, I was quoting ESV. KJV reads:
“And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life”
“Cattle” here is בְּהֵמָה. Which translates to “beast, cattle, or animal” according to Strong’s: https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon/h929/kjv/wlc/0-1/
“Beast” here is חַי and translates to “living thing, animal” and surely a beast is an animal: https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon/h2416/kjv/wlc/0-1/
KJV is the dubious source most other translations (like ESV) stem from.
Strong can be a useful tool but is very sus too imo.
That said, I appreciate the back and forths, thanks.
Will again look deeper in these lines.
I actually like KJV (poetic, helps my vocab!) and like ESV and feel they are both about as good and accurate as translations (rather than paraphrase versions). But, that's not how people talk today. And agree, Strongs is great for looking at the Hebrew or Greek words. I've always heard: don't try to interpret the Bible (huge danger), let the Bible interpret itself. That is, let the words speak for themselves, compare them to other passages throughout, and use the historical context/time in which they were written (phrases written 3000 years ago likely don't mean the same thing literally as if written today). :) I gotta get going, good convo, have a good day.
Yeah, same here. I like KJV. ESV is a solid modern translation.
And yes, danger in trying to interpret the Bible. Better to read it within the context of the writers and use other scriptures to help understand.
Good stuff!
Yes, glad to dig into scripture with you. No translation is perfect but KJV is quite beautiful in many places. I think it is wise to read several translations and also dig into the original Hebrew and Greek as well.
Scripture requires both law (this passage) and gospel. Like an airplane, both wings are required.
With this passage, it's important to remember the gospel (the first gospel message recorded in the Bible) that comes in the next verse. In the KJV: "And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel." Her seed is pointing to Christ, who defeated Satan and thus reconciled Adam/mankind with God.
This is what this passage is about. It's important to not get bogged down in man's translations which are errant and malleable as language is limited and malleable.
Lucifer is a made up character, that appears nowhere in the original text.
The word "Lucifer" appears in the Bible, but its usage is specific and context-dependent. In the King James Version (KJV) of the Bible, the term "Lucifer" is used in Isaiah 14, where it is translated from the Hebrew word "Helel," meaning "shining one" or "son of the morning".
What is that?
To be fair, a name is also a noun. I have heard that Satan was actually a title and not a name but I’m a bit rusty on my Hebrew.
The Bible is first and foremost a book of Law.
In the Law specific words mean specific things. To be, indeed, fair, grammatical forms cannot be interpreted away.
A Title is not a grammatical form.