UC Professor. No evidence in the Bible attributing Satan as being evil.

[David1967]

UCLA research professor Henry A Kelly
after a 40 year study.

2006 University article.........

What the Devil? Prince of Darkness Is Misunderstood, Says UCLA Author of New Satan ‘Biography’

Satan is not actually evil and is misunderstood.

When a person thinks about it, there's really not any evidence in the Bible that indicates Satan as actually being evil.

Thoughts or comments?

Depends on whether your talking Old or New testament. In the Old Satan seems to be portrayed as more of a tester of mans faith. Job for example. In the New however there is plenty of places he is portrayed as evil.

 

[1213]

Did the dead people feel compensated?

If they are righteous, they get eternal life, so I think they are compensated, unless they were evil and didn’t have right to live forever.

These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.
Mat. 25:46

You disagree that God told Satan what parameters could be used in the unwarranted attacks?

God gave Satan freedom to show his evilness in many ways, expect killing Job. And Satan well showed what kind of evil monster he is, if he is free to do things that he wants.

 

[dfnj]

I've never seen or met Satan. I've been around people who have evil behaviors at times. But I believe most people are inherently good and just behave badly from time to time.

Someone please explain to me where Satan exists?

 

[Ingledsva]

Ingledsva

If it is all nonsense to you, why are you on this thread?

Obviously because religious ideas cause problems for other people. Just ask gay people. Or people under ISIS control. Or women under most Islamic religions.

*

 

[Ingledsva]

It's not about what I accept as evidence or not.

I am questioning what you consider evidence. Because typically as you admitted you don't consider it as evidence. But all the sudden you want to use it as evidence. This is intellectually dishonest. Either you accept it as evidence or you do not. If you do, then present it.

We are discussing the Bible, and you think it "intellectually dishonest" to use what it says against you, when you folks quote it?

We can use, and show, both where you folks are in error concerning what the texts say, AND counter ridiculous texts with science, etc.

*

 

[Rough Beast Sloucher]

Obviously because religious ideas cause problems for other people. Just ask gay people. Or people under ISIS control. Or women under most Islamic religions.

*

Wanting to exclude the NT from the Bible is somehow relevant to that? Is the Tanakh nonsense as well?

 

[Ingledsva]

The character of Satan evolved over time. In between the Tanakh and the NT there was the Apocrypha.

"The evolution of the theory of Satan keeps pace with the development of Jewish angelology and demonology. In Wisdom ii. 24 he is represented, with reference to Gen. iii., as the author of all evil, who brought death into the world; he is apparently mentioned also in Ecclus. (Sirach) xxi. 27, and the fact that his name does not occur in Daniel is doubtless due merely to chance. Satan was the seducer and the paramour of Eve, and was hurled from heaven together with other angels because of his iniquity (Slavonic Book of Enoch, xxix. 4 et seq.). Since that time he has been called "Satan," although previously he had been termed "Satanel" (ib. xxxi. 3 et seq.). The doctrine of the fall of Satan, as well as of the fall of the angels, is found also in Babylonia (Schrader, l.c. p. 464), and is mentioned several times in the New Testament. Satan rules over an entire host of angels (Martyrdom of Isaiah, ii. 2; Vita Adæ et Evæ, xvi.). Mastema, who induced God to test Abraham through the sacrifice of Isaac, is identical with Satan in both name and nature (Book of Jubilees, xvii. 18), and the Asmodeus of the Book of Tobit is likewise to be identified with him, especially in view of his licentiousness. As the lord of satans he not infrequently bears the special name Samael. It is difficult to identify Satan in any other passages of the Apocrypha, since the originals in which his name occurred have been lost, and the translations employ various equivalents. An "argumentum a silentio" can not, therefore, be adduced as proof that concepts of Satan were not wide-spread; but it must rather be assumed that reference to him and his realm is implied in the mention of evil spirits of every sort (comp. Demonology, and Kautzsch, "Apokryphen," Index)."
SATAN - JewishEncyclopedia.com


References to Satan in the NT greatly outnumber those in the Tanakh. They can be seen to draw on the Apocrypha. This is especially the case with Revelation. Notice in the above quote from the Jewish Encyclopedia that in the Book of Wisdom Satan is portrayed as the author of all evil and apparently is the serpent in Eden.

Wisdom 2
23 For God created man to be immortal, and made him to be an image of his own eternity.
24 Nevertheless through envy of the devil came death into the world: and they that do hold of his side do find it.
The Apocrypha: Wisdom: Wisdom Chapter 2

Also from the above quote
"it must rather be assumed that reference to him and his realm is implied in the mention of evil spirits of every sort"

The 'later additions' you mention are Jewish additions.

What exactly do you NOT understand about LATER additions to the Satan character, not in Tanakh?

Exactly as I said.

Also - as I said, - the additions came LATER with exposure to other religions and their Gods.

You need to reread those links. They are just showing the changes made to Satan over time.

Apocrypha is NOT Jewish.

Apocrypha are works, usually written, of unknown authorship or of doubtful origin. Biblical apocrypha is a set of texts included in the Latin Vulgate and Septuagint but not in the Hebrew Bible. - Wiki

Just later people claiming things in error.

For instance your posted Apocrypha paragraph above is just showing changes over time, and shows their errors, such as, - "Satan was the seducer and the paramour of Eve, and was hurled from heaven together with other angels because of his iniquity."

Tanakh does NOT say the serpent is Satan. Tanakh does NOT have Satan thrown from heaven. SO, where are these later people coming up with this crap? They make it up when they encounter other religions' views on deity and evil.

Later people cannot just claim any reference to evil beings - means the Jewish Satan.

*

 

[Rough Beast Sloucher]

What exactly do you NOT understand about LATER additions to the Satan character, not in Tanakh?

Exactly as I said.

Also - as I said, - the additions came LATER with exposure to other religions and their Gods.

You need to reread those links. They are just showing the changes made to Satan over time.

Apocrypha is NOT Jewish.

Apocrypha are works, usually written, of unknown authorship or of doubtful origin. Biblical apocrypha is a set of texts included in the Latin Vulgate and Septuagint but not in the Hebrew Bible. - Wiki

Just later people claiming things in error.

For instance your posted Apocrypha paragraph above is just showing changes over time, and shows their errors, such as, - "Satan was the seducer and the paramour of Eve, and was hurled from heaven together with other angels because of his iniquity."

Tanakh does NOT say the serpent is Satan. Tanakh does NOT have Satan thrown from heaven. SO, where are these later people coming up with this crap? They make it up when they encounter other religions' views on deity and evil.

Later people cannot just claim any reference to evil beings - means the Jewish Satan.

*

You continue to insist that the Bible is only the Tanakh, period. And I see you do not believe the Jewish Encyclopedia that said "The evolution of the theory of Satan keeps pace with the development of Jewish angelology and demonology." (Bold added) References to Satan in the NT, especially in Revelation, are recognizable as based on Jewish demonology as seen in the Jewish Apocrypha as referenced.

 

[Ingledsva]

*

LOL! Not a member of the religions' of Abraham.

Exactly

And HOW exactly does not being a member of the religions of Abraham make me "intellectually dishonest?"

Intellectual honesty - Wikipedia

An exert:

• Facts are presented in an unbiased manner, and not twisted to give misleading impressions or to support one view over another;

You are failing to do this.

1. The serpent speaks to Adam and Eve. You cited in your own post.

2. You the say it means a literal snake.

You are twisting the word to say it means a literal snake. If you believe this, then you must also believes snakes speak. So either you have a weird view of reality, or you are being dishonest. I am going with dishonest.

That is the most ridiculous reasoning I have heard in a long time.

1. We are quoting Tanakh. - Tanakh DOES say the serpent speaks to Eve. I don't have to believe it to quote what it says.

2. It does mean a literal snake. The Hebrew word is NACHASH which means a serpent. Now what are you going to say???

If you were truly unbiased then it wouldn't matter to you would it?

Another ridiculous statement.

I am interested in religions because I studied archaeology, and am interested in the spread of language, philosophy, and religious ideas, with the spread and migrations of ancient humans. Also, - religions' ideas cause problems for other people, think kill gays, ISIS, women under most Islamic religion, etc., - thus we WILL discuss them!

*

 

[Enoch07]

1. We are quoting Tanakh. - Tanakh DOES say the serpent speaks to Eve. I don't have to believe it to quote what it says.

2. It does mean a literal snake. The Hebrew word is NACHASH which means a serpent. Now what are you going to say???

So snakes talk? You believe that Jewish people believe snakes talk?

Get real!

 

[Ingledsva]

You continue to insist that the Bible is only the Tanakh, period. And I see you do not believe the Jewish Encyclopedia that said "The evolution of the theory of Satan keeps pace with the development of Jewish angelology and demonology." (Bold added) References to Satan in the NT, especially in Revelation, are recognizable as based on Jewish demonology as seen in the Jewish Apocrypha as referenced.

When we talk about Tanakh - that is the only book me are discussing.

The Apocryphal books - the majority by unknown - are not accepted as canon - by either the Jews - or the Christians. Only the Catholics originally had some of these in their Bible, but no longer.

As I said - LATER people added to the Tanakh Satan. That is a fact.

*

 

[Ingledsva]

So snakes talk? You believe that Jewish people believe snakes talk?

Get real!

You have a twist the debate style, when you don't like an answer.

You just start picking at oddball crap in the hopes of throwing off the debate.

As stated, - we are discussing the serpent, and Satan, in Tanakh. I do not have to believe what Tanakh says, - to discuss what it actually says.

The Tanakh text uses the word for serpent - Nachash, and says it spoke to Chavvah (Eve).

Do YOU discuss what the Quran or other religious texts say? Are YOU "intellectually dishonest" for doing so?

Obviously not, so stop the crap and get back to the debate.

*

 

[Ingledsva]

Yet Revelations holds no weight with a direct reference?

Revelations 12:9

9 And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.

I mean you can't be any more clear than that.

And where does it say - in TANAKH - since Satan comes from TANAKH - that he was thrown out?

*

 

[Twilight Hue]

I've never seen or met Satan. I've been around people who have evil behaviors at times. But I believe most people are inherently good and just behave badly from time to time.

Someone please explain to me where Satan exists?

The discussion/debate is based on the narratives and the stories as they are written in the context that God and Satan of the Holy Bible actually exist.

It's not really intended to be a thread on the subject as to whether deities or gods exist or not exist, but rather focusing on the storylines and narratives with the premise of God and Satan as being truly alive and living regardless whether or not there's an actual belief or not involved in regards to the portrayals of Satan and God in the Bible as it applies to the storylines involving their actions, motivations. :0)

 

[Ingledsva]

I am not playing your game.

You made an assertion. Provide evidence to back up that assertion or drop the assertion.

Tanakh says YHVH murdered people having nothing to do with Pharaoh's decision, after he (YHVH) made it impossible for Pharaoh to let the Hebrew go. (Death of the Egyptian firstborn.)

Tanakh says YHVH murdered David's innocent infant son, - for the father's crimes, - and then makes the criminal David a hero.

Tanakh says YHVH caused a flood killing all but 8 people. Thus he would have also murdered all of the innocent, in this story.

These stories are what tell me that the God of the Bible is just a construct of men.

*

 

[Rough Beast Sloucher]

When we talk about Tanakh - that is the only book me are discussing.

The Apocryphal books - the majority by unknown - are not accepted as canon - by either the Jews - or the Christians. Only the Catholics originally had some of these in their Bible, but no longer.

As I said - LATER people added to the Tanakh Satan. That is a fact.

*

And the later additions are the NT, which is part of the Bible being discussed. As I have said repeatedly, you want to throw the NT out of the discussion. It is easy to prove a point if you discount all contrary evidence.

 

[Enoch07]

You have a twist the debate

No you just can't follow logic.

Genesis 3:1

3 Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?

See the "serpent" spoke here in Gem 3:1. The he I underlined is referring to the serpent.

You act like you have never heard a sneaky underhanded backstabbing person a "snake" before or " Yeah watch out that guy is a snake in the grass".

Otherwise how do you explain the serpent speaking in Gen 3:1? You have not offered any explanation of than the serpent is a literal snake but deafening silent on why it spoke.

 

[Enoch07]

Tanakh says YHVH murdered people having nothing to do with Pharaoh's decision, after he (YHVH) made it impossible for Pharaoh to let the Hebrew go. (Death of the Egyptian firstborn.)

Tanakh says YHVH murdered David's innocent infant son, - for the father's crimes, - and then makes the criminal David a hero.

Tanakh says YHVH caused a flood killing all but 8 people. Thus he would have also murdered all of the innocent, in this story.

These stories are what tell me that the God of the Bible is just a construct of men.

*

Your misunderstanding of scripture is remarkable. You should stop now because your just making yourself look bad.

 

[Ingledsva]

If they are righteous, they get eternal life, so I think they are compensated, unless they were evil and didn’t have right to live forever.

These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.
Mat. 25:46....

Since when is it OK to murder the innocent - because of a supposed future in heaven?

I guess I can assume you agree with the torture deaths of infants, by throwing them into turning barrels over fires? Turning so the torture lasted longer as the baby bounced away from the hot metal, - over and over.

The Christians that did this, used your words. If innocent they would go to heaven - so it is OK.

And of course they also used this idea when they decided to drown women accused of being witches, etc.

*

 

[Enoch07]

And where does it say - in TANAKH - since Satan comes from TANAKH - that he was thrown out?

*

Who is twisting the debate now eh? The thread is about the Bible. This thread is about the Bible, not the Tanakh. Deal with it.