The Real God, part 6. Satan is not in the book of Job.

[Bob corrigan]

I know that most people believe that "Satan" is actually a part of, what they believe is the "historical" book of Job. What is their belief based on? English translations and the "traditions of men," which are continually taught by "pastors." How do they know that what they believe is "true?" Because of the delusion that any "pastor," their "pastor" couldn't possibly be lying about what they teach the "Bible" is the inspired "word of God" and that English translations are 100% accurate and true to the original text.
Many "pastors" do lie, English translations are not accurate and the "Bible" does not mean "the accurate word of God. Did you know that the word "bible" is not found anywhere in Scripture? The Jews in the O.T. and the 1st century Jewish and Gentile believers never referred to Scripture as the "Bible. " The English word Bible comes from the Greek, "ta biblia," the books. The singular, "biblion" meant scroll and was later used as an ordinary word for book. What was originally called the "Canon" of Scripture began to be called "The Bible" in the 3rd Century, started by the Catholic Church. The "Bible" is a collection of the different scrolls (books) which contain, actual Scripture, the actual writing of the words God inspired, or spoke. Technically, there is nothing wrong with using the word "Bible" as a description, but to equate the word "Bible" with the actual words of Scripture is incorrect and misleading. I have been guilty of using the word "biblical" for many years, but from this point on, I will never use it again, as I have realized my error as I write this.
The original text is the pure word of God. English translations are not! English translations have damaged, twisted, and changed the original text in so many ways. In the book of Job, the translators, because of personal belief and bias, have forced the figure, known as "Satan," into the text.
Okay, in the English translations, the word "Satan" appears 14 times in Job. The word "Satan" is not found in the original text! What you will find, in all 14 instances the Hebrew,
"ha sa an, "sa an" is one word pronounced saw-tawn. Do you see any similarities with the pronunciation and the English word "Satan?" This is not the Hebrew word for "Satan," this is where the fictional name is derived from. How funny, rather than the word "Satan" stemming from an actual, written word, it comes from how a Hebrew word is pronounced!
"ha" is a definite article, thus, with the correct translation, where you read "Satan" in the English translations, they should read, "the adversary." Wouldn't you think that anyone who worked on translating the original Hebrew into English would have a duty to God and an obligation to man to correctly translate the original Hebrew?
Grammar doesn't lie, grammar is grammar. "sa an" is a noun, not a proper noun! This Hebrew word is never capitalized! A person's name is never, never preceded by a definite article! This little bit is enough to prove my point, for those interested in the truth, not relying on the traditions of men and English translations.
What was the theme of the T.V. show, "The X Files?" "The Truth is Out There." Yes, people, '..all of the Scripture truth is "out there," if one is willing to study and acknowledge that they haven't always been told the truth. I am not some minority voice of one. I have been studying the concept of Satan, yes, I said concept, for the last 8 years. Perhaps one day, I will post a study on Satan. There are hundreds of people, perhaps thousands who have looked at this subject of Satan in the book of Job. This has been studied for many years, years before our point in time. I am going to quote three articles, articles I just came across yesterday. I came to my conclusion years ago, concerning the book of Job, before I read these articles. They just validate what I already knew. I want you to see what three others have concluded.

From the Biblical Archaeological society; Bible History Daily, by Shawna Dolesky, July 28, 2022. (Not even a month ago!)

"...Satan does not make an appearance in Gen 2-3, for the simple reason that when the story (Gen 2-3.) was written, THE CONCEPT OF THE DEVIL HAD NOT BEEN INVENTED (Yes, she wrote "invented," something made up.) YET... In fact, while the word satan appears elsewhere in the Hebrew Old Testament (Not in the original text) it is never a proper name, since there is no "devil" in Ancient Israel's worldview, there could not have been a proper name for such a creature... Nothing else in the story, (1Chr 21-6-7, 27:4) or in any texts for another 300 years indicates that the idea of an evil prince of darkness exists in the consciousness of the Israelites.

From a different article on the same site,
"Who is Satan?" In the Hebrew Bible, God's greatest enemies are not "fallen angels" commanding armies of demons...but rather human beings. It isn't the Devil that spreads evil across the face of creation-it is mankind. Other than humans, God has no nemesis. God is behind the good and the bad, behind the blessings and the curses."

(Isa 45:7, I form the light, and create darkness; I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do these things.

Deut 32:39, See now that I...am he, and there is no god with me. I kill, I make alive; I wound and I heal; neither is there any that can deliver out of my hand.

1Sa 2:6-7, The LORD killeth and maketh alive. He bringeth down to the grave and lifted up. The LORD maketh poor and maketh rich...

Eze 14:9, And if the prophet be deceived when he has spoken a thing (prophecy),I the LORD have deceived that prophet, and I will stretch out my hand upon him, and will destroy him from among my people.

Amos 3:6, Shall a trumpet be blown in the city, and the people not be afraid? Shall there be evil in a city, and the LORD hath not done it?

Job 42:13, ...and comforted him over all the evil that the LORD had brought upon him.

This is why I am doing this series on the Real God!)

The article continues, It is perfectly clear, however, that by the 1st Century AD, Judaism developed a belief in the supernatural forces of darkness doing battle against the forces of light (dualism!) There are likely several factors that inspired these developments, INCLUDING THE INFLUENCE OF PERSIAN AS WELL AS HELLENISTIC RELIGIONS.
If there was an army of evil, spiritual forces make war on the righteous, they have to have a commander...If someone were looking for a name that PERSONIFIED EVIL in the O.T., it would be Belial, not Satan.
Over the course of several centuries of INFLUENCE from MANY DIFFERENT CULTURES, the defeated Accuser of the Christians would go on to appropriate (assume) aspects of various divine enemies, (Typhon, Hades, Ahriman, Hela to name a few) to become the complex MYTHOLOGICAL monster that was thrown out of heaven at the beginning of time to rule the fiery underworld and torment the souls of the dammed, (the writer is not saying that she believes that "Satan" was thrown out of heaven, she is stating what the common belief is.)
Such a character makes for great movies, ( and T.V. and cable shows) and Halloween costumes, but would have been virtually unknown to anyone in Bible times.

From the "World History Encyclopedia", an article written by Rebecca Denova.
" Satan, or the Devil, is one of the best-known characters in the Western TRADITION of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. (Islam is not as ancient as Christianity or Judaism. The Quran didn't appear until the beginning of the 600s AD.) Satan, as a totally evil being, is nowhere to be found in the O.T. (If something in the N.T. cannot be found in the O.T., it is a tradition of man, not Scripture!) He EVOLVED during the height of the Persian Achaemenid Empire, (beginning 550 BC) and was ADOPTED by Jews living under Persian rule at that time. The name "Satan" describes his eventual function as the opposer of God's creation. The CONCEPT of Satan emerged over time and in phases...Cyrus permitted the Jews to return to Jerusalem in 539BC...They took many elements of ancient Persian religion with them, and they MERGED the PERSONIFICATION of chaos with the earlier views of ha-satan. Now he was just Satan, or in Greek, diabolos, the Devil, and the Jews began assigning all evil to Satan instead of God.
One more. From "Learn Religions," by Ariela Pelaiz. "Satan is a CHARACTER that appears in the belief system of Christianity and Islam...In Judaism "Satan" is not a sentient being but a metaphor for the evil inclination, "yetzer hara," that exists in every person. The "yetzer hara," is not a force or being, but rather refers to mankind's innate capacity for doing evil in the world. References to "Satan" can be found in (Jewish) Orthodox and conservative prayer books, but they are viewed as a symbolic description of one aspect of man's nature.
The idea of Satan as a being with dominion over a metaphysical realm never caught on in Judaism.

You must keep in mind that historians and scholars who study the past use the same methods to research history. Any secular historians who has come to similar conclusions are not out to discredit Scripture, are ant'i-God or is an atheist. Documents are studied, and culture and history are included in the research. When many different historians and scholars of different nationalities, races and faiths, in different periods of time all come to the same or similar conclusions, must mean that what they have discovered is true! Are there not stories in the Evangelical/Church world about some individuals who set out to prove, historically, that Jesus, the resurrection, the Bible etc., are not true, but after researching things, all became convinced that these things were true?

One last point and I am done. We know the N.T. was translated into Koine Greek, which was developed by Alexander the Great, who wanted an easier version of Attic Greek, (Very hard to learn) made available to all people, thus, the common Greek. The Greek mythology did not include the Christian idea of "Satan," an evil, powerful fallen angel who opposed the gods, had millions of fallen angels (who somehow turned into evil, vile, grotesque 'demons') under his command, who opposed God, tried to overthrow God, tormented and caused people to sin, along with his "demons" and ruled the underworld and tormented souls for eternity. Since there was no "Satan" in Greek mythology, there would have been no Greek word for "Satan."
Yet, in some magical way, we do find a Greek word for Satan! How is this possible? There is only one way that I can figure it out. Just as the word "Lucifer," and "church" are "made up words" that have no Hebrew or Greek equivalent words, and were forced into the translations, so is "Satan" the Greek is "Satanas." Hmm, let's add "as" to Satan and we will have a new Greek word! My head hurts from looking at all of the different sites trying to legitimize the word "Satanas." It can't be grammatically done! There is no Greek root word for "Satanas." There is no "as" suffix in Greek! There is no Hebrew word that can be translated into the Greek word "Satanas!" Just about every explanation of the word states that the "Greek" word was actually a root word used by the Hebrew! HUH? The Greek language didn't appear for thousands of years after Hebrew was already in place! How could a Greek word be used as a source of a Hebrew word? The lengths people have gone to protect lies amaze me.
At some point in time, the made-up Greek word Satanas began to be included during the copying of the original text. Wow, in my years of study, I have found three made-up words that were forced into the English translations! When I started to study the original words, I was a novice. There were many things I missed. But since it doesn't take a genius to do word study, my skills in word study not only improved, I am now able to make connections that were over my head and unnoticed years ago. No, I cannot speak or write the original languages, but I can nail down meaning, context, and usage! I can parse the words!
Since God chose scripture to express Himself to believers in the form of the written word, a crucial factor in learning Scripture is learning what the words mean.

 

[Justin BT]

One last point and I am done. We know the N.T. was translated into Koine Greek, which was developed by Alexander the Great, who wanted an easier version of Attic Greek, (Very hard to learn) made available to all people, thus, the common Greek.

The idea that the bible was translated into Koine Greek from some previous version of Greek is an intriguing suggestion. I have never heard anyone make this claim before. I wonder where you read this, or who you learnt this from?

 

[Der Alte]

The idea that the bible was translated into Koine Greek from some previous version of Greek is an intriguing suggestion. I have never heard anyone make this claim before. I wonder where you read this, or who you learnt this from?

One way I side step these argumentative non-contributory posts is to refer to the Eastern Greek Orthodox Bible.
Greek has been the language of the Eastern Greek Orthodox church since its inception, 2000 years ago +/-.
Who better than the team of native Greek speaking scholars, translators of the Eastern Greek Orthodox Bible [EOB], know the correct meaning of the Greek words in the N.T.?
They are certainly more knowledgeable than an anonymous poster who gets their "knowledge" from Strong's.
Link to EOB free online:
The New Testament ( The Eastern-Greek Orthodox Bible) : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive
…..It is acknowledged that modern Greek differs from koine Greek but I am confident that the native Greek speaking EOB scholars are competent enough to know the correct meanings of old words which may have changed in meaning or are no longer used and translate them correctly. Just as scholars today know the meaning of archaic words which occur in the KJV and translate them correctly.

 

[TedT]

Grammar doesn't lie, grammar is grammar. "sa an" is a noun, not a proper noun! This Hebrew word is never capitalized! A person's name is never, never preceded by a definite article! This little bit is enough to prove my point, for those interested in the truth, not relying on the traditions of men and English translations.

A good thing we have the NEW TESTAMENT exposition of Satan's name then, eh? Revelation 12:9 And the great dragon was hurled down—that ancient serpent called the devil and Satan, the deceiver of the whole world. He was hurled to the earth, and his angels with him.

 

[timothyu]

that ancient serpent called the devil and Satan

It was an adversarial spirit then, as it remains so now and as it lives within all of us.

 

[Bob corrigan]

The idea that the bible was translated into Koine Greek from some previous version of Greek is an intriguing suggestion. I have never heard anyone make this claim before. I wonder where you read this, or who you learnt this from?

I did not say that and my apologies if what I posted seemed to suggest that. However, I am convinced, my opinion, that most, if not all of the N.T. was originally written in Hebrew by the writers and later translated into Greek. It's possible that Paul wrote in Greek, knowing that both the Jewish and Gentile believers he was writing to spoke and read Greek. But as far as the Gospels and the book of Hebrews, I am convinced that these were written in Hebrew first. There are actual copies of Matthew's Gospel in Hebrew in existence today. Beyond that, there is no historical proof, as of yet, that the rest of, or parts of the N.T. were originally written in Hebrew. I'm not the only person with this view. While the actual writing is in Greek, the form and style of the writing is definitely Hebrew, as a number of Hebrew scholars and linguists have pointed out. The books contain many "Hebrewisms," ways of writing and sayings that are definitely there when a Jew writes in Hebrew that are not found in normal Greek writing, using the Greek la

 

[Der Alte]

I know that most people believe that "Satan" is actually a part of, what they believe is the "historical" book of Job. What is their belief based on? English translations and the "traditions of men," which are continually taught by "pastors." How do they know that what they believe is "true?" Because of the delusion that any "pastor," their "pastor" couldn't possibly be lying about what they teach the "Bible" is the inspired "word of God" and that English translations are 100% accurate and true to the original text.
Many "pastors" do lie, English translations are not accurate and the "Bible" does not mean "the accurate word of God. Did you know that the word "bible" is not found anywhere in Scripture? The Jews in the O.T. and the 1st century Jewish and Gentile believers never referred to Scripture as the "Bible. " The English word Bible comes from the Greek, "ta biblia," the books. The singular, "biblion" meant scroll and was later used as an ordinary word for book. What was originally called the "Canon" of Scripture began to be called "The Bible" in the 3rd Century, started by the Catholic Church. The "Bible" is a collection of the different scrolls (books) which contain, actual Scripture, the actual writing of the words God inspired, or spoke. Technically, there is nothing wrong with using the word "Bible" as a description, but to equate the word "Bible" with the actual words of Scripture is incorrect and misleading. I have been guilty of using the word "biblical" for many years, but from this point on, I will never use it again, as I have realized my error as I write this.
The original text is the pure word of God. English translations are not! English translations have damaged, twisted, and changed the original text in so many ways. In the book of Job, the translators, because of personal belief and bias, have forced the figure, known as "Satan," into the text.
Okay, in the English translations, the word "Satan" appears 14 times in Job. The word "Satan" is not found in the original text! What you will find, in all 14 instances the Hebrew,
"ha sa an, "sa an" is one word pronounced saw-tawn. Do you see any similarities with the pronunciation and the English word "Satan?" This is not the Hebrew word for "Satan," this is where the fictional name is derived from. How funny, rather than the word "Satan" stemming from an actual, written word, it comes from how a Hebrew word is pronounced!
"ha" is a definite article, thus, with the correct translation, where you read "Satan" in the English translations, they should read, "the adversary." Wouldn't you think that anyone who worked on translating the original Hebrew into English would have a duty to God and an obligation to man to correctly translate the original Hebrew?
Grammar doesn't lie, grammar is grammar. "sa an" is a noun, not a proper noun! This Hebrew word is never capitalized! A person's name is never, never preceded by a definite article! This little bit is enough to prove my point, for those interested in the truth, not relying on the traditions of men and English translations.
What was the theme of the T.V. show, "The X Files?" "The Truth is Out There." Yes, people, '..all of the Scripture truth is "out there," if one is willing to study and acknowledge that they haven't always been told the truth. I am not some minority voice of one. I have been studying the concept of Satan, yes, I said concept, for the last 8 years. Perhaps one day, I will post a study on Satan. There are hundreds of people, perhaps thousands who have looked at this subject of Satan in the book of Job. This has been studied for many years, years before our point in time. I am going to quote three articles, articles I just came across yesterday. I came to my conclusion years ago, concerning the book of Job, before I read these articles. They just validate what I already knew. I want you to see what three others have concluded.

From the Biblical Archaeological society; Bible History Daily, by Shawna Dolesky, July 28, 2022. (Not even a month ago!)

"...Satan does not make an appearance in Gen 2-3, for the simple reason that when the story (Gen 2-3.) was written, THE CONCEPT OF THE DEVIL HAD NOT BEEN INVENTED (Yes, she wrote "invented," something made up.) YET... In fact, while the word satan appears elsewhere in the Hebrew Old Testament (Not in the original text) it is never a proper name, since there is no "devil" in Ancient Israel's worldview, there could not have been a proper name for such a creature... Nothing else in the story, (1Chr 21-6-7, 27:4) or in any texts for another 300 years indicates that the idea of an evil prince of darkness exists in the consciousness of the Israelites.

From a different article on the same site,
"Who is Satan?" In the Hebrew Bible, God's greatest enemies are not "fallen angels" commanding armies of demons...but rather human beings. It isn't the Devil that spreads evil across the face of creation-it is mankind. Other than humans, God has no nemesis. God is behind the good and the bad, behind the blessings and the curses."

(Isa 45:7, I form the light, and create darkness; I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do these things.

Deut 32:39, See now that I...am he, and there is no god with me. I kill, I make alive; I wound and I heal; neither is there any that can deliver out of my hand.

1Sa 2:6-7, The LORD killeth and maketh alive. He bringeth down to the grave and lifted up. The LORD maketh poor and maketh rich...

Eze 14:9, And if the prophet be deceived when he has spoken a thing (prophecy),I the LORD have deceived that prophet, and I will stretch out my hand upon him, and will destroy him from among my people.

Amos 3:6, Shall a trumpet be blown in the city, and the people not be afraid? Shall there be evil in a city, and the LORD hath not done it?

Job 42:13, ...and comforted him over all the evil that the LORD had brought upon him.

This is why I am doing this series on the Real God!)

The article continues, It is perfectly clear, however, that by the 1st Century AD, Judaism developed a belief in the supernatural forces of darkness doing battle against the forces of light (dualism!) There are likely several factors that inspired these developments, INCLUDING THE INFLUENCE OF PERSIAN AS WELL AS HELLENISTIC RELIGIONS.
If there was an army of evil, spiritual forces make war on the righteous, they have to have a commander...If someone were looking for a name that PERSONIFIED EVIL in the O.T., it would be Belial, not Satan.
Over the course of several centuries of INFLUENCE from MANY DIFFERENT CULTURES, the defeated Accuser of the Christians would go on to appropriate (assume) aspects of various divine enemies, (Typhon, Hades, Ahriman, Hela to name a few) to become the complex MYTHOLOGICAL monster that was thrown out of heaven at the beginning of time to rule the fiery underworld and torment the souls of the dammed, (the writer is not saying that she believes that "Satan" was thrown out of heaven, she is stating what the common belief is.)
Such a character makes for great movies, ( and T.V. and cable shows) and Halloween costumes, but would have been virtually unknown to anyone in Bible times.

From the "World History Encyclopedia", an article written by Rebecca Denova.
" Satan, or the Devil, is one of the best-known characters in the Western TRADITION of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. (Islam is not as ancient as Christianity or Judaism. The Quran didn't appear until the beginning of the 600s AD.) Satan, as a totally evil being, is nowhere to be found in the O.T. (If something in the N.T. cannot be found in the O.T., it is a tradition of man, not Scripture!) He EVOLVED during the height of the Persian Achaemenid Empire, (beginning 550 BC) and was ADOPTED by Jews living under Persian rule at that time. The name "Satan" describes his eventual function as the opposer of God's creation. The CONCEPT of Satan emerged over time and in phases...Cyrus permitted the Jews to return to Jerusalem in 539BC...They took many elements of ancient Persian religion with them, and they MERGED the PERSONIFICATION of chaos with the earlier views of ha-satan. Now he was just Satan, or in Greek, diabolos, the Devil, and the Jews began assigning all evil to Satan instead of God.
One more. From "Learn Religions," by Ariela Pelaiz. "Satan is a CHARACTER that appears in the belief system of Christianity and Islam...In Judaism "Satan" is not a sentient being but a metaphor for the evil inclination, "yetzer hara," that exists in every person. The "yetzer hara," is not a force or being, but rather refers to mankind's innate capacity for doing evil in the world. References to "Satan" can be found in (Jewish) Orthodox and conservative prayer books, but they are viewed as a symbolic description of one aspect of man's nature.
The idea of Satan as a being with dominion over a metaphysical realm never caught on in Judaism.

You must keep in mind that historians and scholars who study the past use the same methods to research history. Any secular historians who has come to similar conclusions are not out to discredit Scripture, are ant'i-God or is an atheist. Documents are studied, and culture and history are included in the research. When many different historians and scholars of different nationalities, races and faiths, in different periods of time all come to the same or similar conclusions, must mean that what they have discovered is true! Are there not stories in the Evangelical/Church world about some individuals who set out to prove, historically, that Jesus, the resurrection, the Bible etc., are not true, but after researching things, all became convinced that these things were true?

One last point and I am done. We know the N.T. was translated into Koine Greek, which was developed by Alexander the Great, who wanted an easier version of Attic Greek, (Very hard to learn) made available to all people, thus, the common Greek. The Greek mythology did not include the Christian idea of "Satan," an evil, powerful fallen angel who opposed the gods, had millions of fallen angels (who somehow turned into evil, vile, grotesque 'demons') under his command, who opposed God, tried to overthrow God, tormented and caused people to sin, along with his "demons" and ruled the underworld and tormented souls for eternity. Since there was no "Satan" in Greek mythology, there would have been no Greek word for "Satan."
Yet, in some magical way, we do find a Greek word for Satan! How is this possible? There is only one way that I can figure it out. Just as the word "Lucifer," and "church" are "made up words" that have no Hebrew or Greek equivalent words, and were forced into the translations, so is "Satan" the Greek is "Satanas." Hmm, let's add "as" to Satan and we will have a new Greek word! My head hurts from looking at all of the different sites trying to legitimize the word "Satanas." It can't be grammatically done! There is no Greek root word for "Satanas." There is no "as" suffix in Greek! There is no Hebrew word that can be translated into the Greek word "Satanas!" Just about every explanation of the word states that the "Greek" word was actually a root word used by the Hebrew! HUH? The Greek language didn't appear for thousands of years after Hebrew was already in place! How could a Greek word be used as a source of a Hebrew word? The lengths people have gone to protect lies amaze me.
At some point in time, the made-up Greek word Satanas began to be included during the copying of the original text. Wow, in my years of study, I have found three made-up words that were forced into the English translations! When I started to study the original words, I was a novice. There were many things I missed. But since it doesn't take a genius to do word study, my skills in word study not only improved, I am now able to make connections that were over my head and unnoticed years ago. No, I cannot speak or write the original languages, but I can nail down meaning, context, and usage! I can parse the words!
Since God chose scripture to express Himself to believers in the form of the written word, a crucial factor in learning Scripture is learning what the words mean.

Here is one paragraph from a nine paragraph article from the 1917ish Jewish Encyclopedia which disputes almost everything you posted. If you want information about the ancient Jews why not ask them?

Satan:In the Bible.
Term used in the Bible with the general connotation of "adversary," being applied (1) to an enemy in war (I Kings v. 18 [A. V. 4]; xi. 14, 23, 25), from which use is developed the concept of a traitor in battle (I Sam. xxix. 4); (2) to an accuser before the judgment-seat (Ps. cix. 6); and (3) to any opponent (II Sam. xix. 23 [A. V. 22]). The word is likewise used to denote an antagonist who puts obstacles in the way, as in Num. xxii. 32, where the angel of God is described as opposing Balaam in the guise of a satan or adversary; so that the concept of Satan as a distinct being was not then known. Such a view is found, however, in the prologue to the Book of Job, where Satan appears, together with other celestial beings or "sons of God," before the Deity, replying to the inquiry of God as to whence he had come, with the words: "From going to and fro in the earth, and from walking up and down in it" (Job i. 7). Both question and answer, as well as the dialogue which follows, characterize Satan as that member of the divine council who watches over human activity, but with the evil purpose of searching out men's sins and appearing as their accuser. He is, therefore, the celestial prosecutor, who sees only iniquity; for he persists in his evil opinion of Job even after the man of Uz has passed successfully through his first trial by surrendering to the will of God, whereupon Satan demands another test through physical suffering (ib. ii. 3-5).
SATAN - JewishEncyclopedia.com​

 

[ViaCrucis]

Satan is the hellenization of the Hebrew ha-Shaytan.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

However, I am convinced, my opinion, that most, if not all of the N.T. was originally written in Hebrew by the writers and later translated into Greek

What you're suggesting is like saying the works of Shakespeare were originally written in French before later being translated into English.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[tall73]

However, I am convinced, my opinion, that most, if not all of the N.T. was originally written in Hebrew by the writers and later translated into Greek. It's possible that Paul wrote in Greek, knowing that both the Jewish and Gentile believers he was writing to spoke and read Greek. But as far as the Gospels and the book of Hebrews, I am convinced that these were written in Hebrew first. There are actual copies of Matthew's Gospel in Hebrew in existence today. Beyond that, there is no historical proof, as of yet, that the rest of, or parts of the N.T. were originally written in Hebrew.

What you're suggesting is like saying the works of Shakespeare were originally written in French before later being translated into English.

-CryptoLutheran

Speaking of the Nazarenes:

They have the Gospel according to Matthew in its entirety in Hebrew. For it is clear that they still preserve this, in the Hebrew alphabet, as it was originally written.
—Epiphanius of Salamis, Panarion 29.9.4

Jerome also indicated a Hebrew origin for Matthew, but did not for other books:

I now speak of the New Testament, which is undoubtedly Greek, except the Apostle Matthew, who had first set forth the Gospel of Christ in Hebrew letters in Judea.
Letter from Jerome to Pope Damasus.

 

[TedT]

However, I am convinced, my opinion, that most, if not all of the N.T. was originally written in Hebrew by the writers and later translated into Greek.

Good luck with that....

 

[timothyu]

in the Hebrew alphabet, as it was originally written.

Aramaic

 

[Lulav]

Did you know that the word "bible" is not found anywhere in Scripture?

Of course it isn't , it only means book.

"...Satan does not make an appearance in Gen 2-3, for the simple reason that when the story (Gen 2-3.) was written, THE CONCEPT OF THE DEVIL HAD NOT BEEN INVENTED (Yes, she wrote "invented," something made up.) YET... In fact, while the word satan appears elsewhere in the Hebrew Old Testament (Not in the original text) it is never a proper name, since there is no "devil" in Ancient Israel's worldview, there could not have been a proper name for such a creature... Nothing else in the story, (1Chr 21-6-7, 27:4) or in any texts for another 300 years indicates that the idea of an evil prince of darkness exists in the consciousness of the Israelites.

It was not a concept. If so then how is it explained for the first prophecy in the word? You know the one about how the seed of the woman would crush the head of the serpents seed and he would bruise his heel? No concept need be, the LORD GOD knows the end from the beginning. If you don't accept that as a Messianic prophecy how can you accept the idea of a adversary?

"Who is Satan?" In the Hebrew Bible, God's greatest enemies are not "fallen angels" commanding armies of demons...but rather human beings. It isn't the Devil that spreads evil across the face of creation-it is mankind. Other than humans, God has no nemesis. God is behind the good and the bad, behind the blessings and the curses."

(Isa 45:7, I form the light, and create darkness; I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do these things.

Deut 32:39, See now that I...am he, and there is no god with me. I kill, I make alive; I wound and I heal; neither is there any that can deliver out of my hand.

1Sa 2:6-7, The LORD killeth and maketh alive. He bringeth down to the grave and lifted up. The LORD maketh poor and maketh rich...

Eze 14:9, And if the prophet be deceived when he has spoken a thing (prophecy),I the LORD have deceived that prophet, and I will stretch out my hand upon him, and will destroy him from among my people.

Amos 3:6, Shall a trumpet be blown in the city, and the people not be afraid? Shall there be evil in a city, and the LORD hath not done it?

Job 42:13, ...and comforted him over all the evil that the LORD had brought upon him.

Yet who was it that asked to be able to tempt Job into turning his back on GOD? It was allowed for him to do certain things but only up to a point.

 

[ViaCrucis]

More specifically, the word "bible" is simply the anglicization of the Latin biblia (itself a borrowing of Greek), and specifically means "books" plural. So "The Holy Bible" literally just means "the holy books". As the Bible isn't a book, but a library of books. A sacred library of books confessed and recognized within the Christian Church down through the centuries as being the divinely inspired word of God, for our edification, our correction, and our instruction. The Canon of Sacred Scripture is that collection of written works which the Church has received down through the generations as what is faithful and to be read in the liturgy (worship service). As the primary way Christians encountered and experienced God's word was by hearing it read out loud in worship (the same way the Jews did in the synagogue, which is the basis of Christian liturgy).

Prior to the invention of the moveable-type printing press in Europe, all books had to be meticulously hand-copied, which meant that even wealthy people rarely had access to books. After the advent of mass publication, books could be mass produced, and thus Christians could own their own copy of the Bible to read from.

And while it is a common myth today that before the Reformation Christians weren't allowed to read the Bible, the truth is that both Protestants and Catholics took advantage of the new technology. That's why Martin Luther could use Erasmus' Greek New Testament to translate the New Testament into German while at Wartburg Castle. And while we usually attribute the first English translation of the Bible to John Wycliffe, there were actually English translations of portions of the Bible into English centuries before Wycliffe. Valid criticisms can be made (and were made) of insisting on the use of Latin in the Mass, but not because reading the Bible was forbidden by church authorities; but because the common Christian without any knowledge of Latin (and even priests, who frequently had a low or insignificant understanding of Latin, and frequently lacked proper academic training in Scripture, theology, etc) were not hearing the truth of God's word to their own benefit. Which is why Luther personally worked on producing not only a German-language Bible for German Christians, but also reformed and translated the Mass (the Lutheran Mass or Divine Service, even today, looks a lot like the pre-Tridentine Catholic Mass of the 16th century). As the Evangelical Reformers had no desire to get rid of good Christian practices that faithfully promoted and proclaimed the Gospel; but rather were interested in removing bad practices which had largely crept in "modern" times, that is not long before the Reformation itself. So, for example, the Evangelical Reformers restored the practice of celebrating the Lord's Supper "in both kinds" at a time when it had become normative for laity to only receive the bread, and only clergy could receive the wine of the Eucharist. Likewise, the Evangelical Reformers chose to have the minister face the congregation when saying the Words of Institution, rather than facing the altar and speaking quietly--that the congregation could hear Christ's words and be bold in their faith in what Jesus said, and the Scriptures record and confess for us.

It is, therefore, noteworthy that at Vatican II many of the reforms of the Evangelical Reformers in the 1500's made were adopted by Rome. Mass in the common tongue, the priest facing the congregation, the celebration of the Lord's Supper in both kinds, etc. These were all reforms made five hundred years ago.

And while this is already off-tangent, it is worth noting: While such reforms have, in modern times, brought Rome and the Evangelical Church (aka "Lutherans") in many ways closer together. The major divide between Rome and the Evangelicals was always primarily about one thing and one thing only: Justification. Luther himself stated that if the Pope could say that sinners are justified by grace alone through faith in Christ alone, then he would happily bend his knee and kiss the Pope's ring. Everything beside Justification itself was a side-matter. The core question was always: How can the Christian confidently trust that they are forgiven and justified by and before God? The Evangelical Church has always answered this question with an uncompromising, "Christ has done it all, trust in Him." Which has always placed The Evangelical Church not only at odds with Rome, but with many other varieties of Protestants who were more interested in separating from Rome rather than confessing the Gospel of Jesus (the Evangelical Church never sought separation from Rome, but continued and continues to confess our faith in the same Holy Catholic and Christian Church that has existed from the beginning).

History lesson over.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[timothyu]

Yet who was it that asked to be able to tempt Job into turning his back on GOD? It was allowed for him to do certain things but only up to a point.

The Tempter was/is a creation by God to test His own. Even Jesus had to take His turn

 

[Lulav]

More specifically, the word "bible" is simply the anglicization of the Latin biblia (itself a borrowing of Greek), and specifically means "books" plural. So "The Holy Bible" literally just means "the holy books". As the Bible isn't a book, but a library of books. A sacred library of books confessed and recognized within the Christian Church down through the centuries as being the divinely inspired word of God, for our edification, our correction, and our instruction. The Canon of Sacred Scripture is that collection of written works which the Church has received down through the generations as what is faithful and to be read in the liturgy (worship service). As the primary way Christians encountered and experienced God's word was by hearing it read out loud in worship (the same way the Jews did in the synagogue, which is the basis of Christian liturgy).

Prior to the invention of the moveable-type printing press in Europe, all books had to be meticulously hand-copied, which meant that even wealthy people rarely had access to books. After the advent of mass publication, books could be mass produced, and thus Christians could own their own copy of the Bible to read from.

And while it is a common myth today that before the Reformation Christians weren't allowed to read the Bible, the truth is that both Protestants and Catholics took advantage of the new technology. That's why Martin Luther could use Erasmus' Greek New Testament to translate the New Testament into German while at Wartburg Castle. And while we usually attribute the first English translation of the Bible to John Wycliffe, there were actually English translations of portions of the Bible into English centuries before Wycliffe. Valid criticisms can be made (and were made) of insisting on the use of Latin in the Mass, but not because reading the Bible was forbidden by church authorities; but because the common Christian without any knowledge of Latin (and even priests, who frequently had a low or insignificant understanding of Latin, and frequently lacked proper academic training in Scripture, theology, etc) were not hearing the truth of God's word to their own benefit. Which is why Luther personally worked on producing not only a German-language Bible for German Christians, but also reformed and translated the Mass (the Lutheran Mass or Divine Service, even today, looks a lot like the pre-Tridentine Catholic Mass of the 16th century). As the Evangelical Reformers had no desire to get rid of good Christian practices that faithfully promoted and proclaimed the Gospel; but rather were interested in removing bad practices which had largely crept in "modern" times, that is not long before the Reformation itself. So, for example, the Evangelical Reformers restored the practice of celebrating the Lord's Supper "in both kinds" at a time when it had become normative for laity to only receive the bread, and only clergy could receive the wine of the Eucharist. Likewise, the Evangelical Reformers chose to have the minister face the congregation when saying the Words of Institution, rather than facing the altar and speaking quietly--that the congregation could hear Christ's words and be bold in their faith in what Jesus said, and the Scriptures record and confess for us.

It is, therefore, noteworthy that at Vatican II many of the reforms of the Evangelical Reformers in the 1500's made were adopted by Rome. Mass in the common tongue, the priest facing the congregation, the celebration of the Lord's Supper in both kinds, etc. These were all reforms made five hundred years ago.

And while this is already off-tangent, it is worth noting: While such reforms have, in modern times, brought Rome and the Evangelical Church (aka "Lutherans") in many ways closer together. The major divide between Rome and the Evangelicals was always primarily about one thing and one thing only: Justification. Luther himself stated that if the Pope could say that sinners are justified by grace alone through faith in Christ alone, then he would happily bend his knee and kiss the Pope's ring. Everything beside Justification itself was a side-matter. The core question was always: How can the Christian confidently trust that they are forgiven and justified by and before God? The Evangelical Church has always answered this question with an uncompromising, "Christ has done it all, trust in Him." Which has always placed The Evangelical Church not only at odds with Rome, but with many other varieties of Protestants who were more interested in separating from Rome rather than confessing the Gospel of Jesus (the Evangelical Church never sought separation from Rome, but continued and continues to confess our faith in the same Holy Catholic and Christian Church that has existed from the beginning).

History lesson over.

-CryptoLutheran

Yet the foundation of the 'Christian bible' is on the perfectly transcribed word that was handed down at Mt Sinai to the Hebrews. Even Paul admits this.

“Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God."

 

[timothyu]

Yet the foundation of the 'Christian bible' is on the perfectly transcribed word that was handed down at Mt Sinai to the Hebrews.

True. Volume 3 will be the best.