What is "Original Sin"?

[Conservian]

@Measure_for_Measure

Maybe somebody more knowledgeable can pitch in, but I thought that Satan went by a number of names in the original Hebrew/Greek. For example in Lot, he is referred to as The Satan, indicating that it was a position and not a person that was being referenced. I interpret that character as a special prosecutor.

“For example in Lot, he is referred to as The Satan…” Who said that and where?

[Czarcasm]

@Conservian

Nothing to reconcile other than the fact that he is mentioned by name in both the Old and the New Testament.

And that he played entirely different roles in both.

[Czarcasm]

@Conservian

“For example in Lot, he is referred to as The Satan…” Who said that and where?

From What Jews Believe:

Now, of course, the Hebrew Scriptures tell of a character called The Satan. Every time the term is used in the Hebrew Scriptures, it reads, HaSaTaN, which means THE Satan. When the definite article, ‘the,’ is in front of a word it indicates a title, like ‘the rabbi,’ or ‘the reverend.’ So, in the Bible, the term ‘HaSatan,’ which means, ‘The Satan,’ is a title. The one with that title has a specific job, the same way it is used in speaking of ‘the rabbi,’ or of ‘the reverend.’
The concept of The Satan, or the job description, is radically different from that of the devil. For Christians, who erroneously use the two terms as if they are synonymous, the devil has power and authority in and of himself. However, in the Bible, The Satan only has power granted by Gd, and has no authority in and of himself. For the devil to have power and authority is to have more than one Gd, as we saw above concerning the Greeks and the Romans.
The Satan is described in only a few places in the Hebrew Scriptures. In every instance, he is an angel who works FOR Gd, not against Gd, and must get permission from Gd for everything that he does. Chronicles, Job, Psalms, and Zechariah are the only places where The Satan is mentioned. In each instance, the job description of The Satan is to act like what we now call a Prosecuting Attorney, or District Attorney, and accuse and show evidence against the defendant. Furthermore, like a D.A., The Satan must obtain permission from Gd, the Judge, to begin a sting operation.

[Measure_for_Measure]

@Conservian

“For example in Lot, he is referred to as The Satan…” Who said that and where?

Oops, I meant Job. My source is an annotation from the New Oxford Annotated Bible (1991):Job1:6-12: The scene is a meeting of the council of heavenly beings presided over by the LORD. In the book of Job, Satan is not yet the personal name of the devil, as in later Jewish and Christian literature. Rather, the Hebrew (with the definite article) simply means, “the adversary” or “the accuser” (see textual note b) a reference to one of the members of the divine council who served as a sort of independent prosecutor.

[Conservian]

@Czarcasm

From What Jews Believe:

Your contention lies within the incongruity of the OT & NT - the latter being wholly rejected by your own source here.
You are unable to reconcile you own concept of an Old/New Testament Satan from within its text.

This verse speaks for itself:

Revelation 12:9:
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.

You can offer any kind of religious opinion you like. But you can’t claim it as a teaching of Scripture unless it’s actually in there.

[Conservian]

[quote=“Measure_for_Measure, post:184, topic:670109”]

Oops, I meant Job. My source is an annotation from the New Oxford Annotated Bible (1991):Job1:6-12: The scene is a meeting of the council of heavenly beings presided over by the LORD. In the book of Job, Satan is not yet the personal name of the devil, as in later Jewish and Christian literature. Rather, the Hebrew (with the definite article) simply means, “the adversary” or “the accuser” (see textual note b) a reference to one of the members of the divine council who served as a sort of independent prosecutor. [/QUOTE

Keyword - Annotation - one which simply does not comport with how Job actually reads.

Job 1:6 Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan also came among them.

[Conservian]

[quote=“Czarcasm, post:182, topic:670109”]

And that he played entirely different roles in both.[/QUOTE

That’s just another canard.

[Latro]

@Conservian

Your contention lies within the incongruity of the OT & NT - the latter being wholly rejected by your own source here.
You are unable to reconcile you own concept of an Old/New Testament Satan from within its text.
…
But you can’t claim it as** a teaching of Scripture **unless it’s actually in there.

From this, I take it that you view the Bible as an innerly consistent work?
Not a collection of books, written over the course of some 5 or 6 centuries, in which views and concepts are bound to change and evolve.

[Larry_Borgia]

@Conservian

Keyword - Annotation - one which simply does not comport with how Job actually reads.

Job 1:6 Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan also came among them.

Is that how it reads in Hebrew?

[jsutter]

@jsutter

I think we agree it’s parable.

So would it be fair for me to parse the OP as: “Given that Adam and Eve are metaphors, what is ‘original sin’?”?.

If so, it’s easy. It’s all in your mind. Does that help?

Aloha

Still twiddling away.

[Czarcasm]

@jsutter

Still twiddling away.

If you’ve run out of things to contribute to this conversation, there are other threads out there.

[Czarcasm]

@Conservian

@Czarcasm

And that he played entirely different roles in both.

That’s just another canard.

Elaborate, please. Do you understand what the roll of The Satan was in Job, and do you not see any difference between that and the roll played in the New Testament?

[simster]

@Conservian

Your contention lies within the incongruity of the OT & NT - the latter being wholly rejected by your own source here.
You are unable to reconcile you own concept of an Old/New Testament Satan from within its text.

This verse speaks for itself:

Revelation 12:9:
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.

You can offer any kind of religious opinion you like. But you can’t claim it as a teaching of Scripture unless it’s actually in there.

You realize that none of the bible was written in english, right? and that translations into english are not always ‘exact’ when it comes to the author’s intent, right?

Further - the author of this passage (“John”) is not the author of Job - nor were they in the same langauge when written.

[Conservian]

@simster

You realize that none of the bible was written in english, right? and that translations into english are not always ‘exact’ when it comes to the author’s intent, right?

Further - the author of this passage (“John”) is not the author of Job - nor were they in the same langauge when written.

And you do realize that those who translated Scripture were not the “authors” but merely scribes, right? And that there is a threshold of authenticity for Scripture called the biblical canon too, right?

Further, you forgot that Job lived hundreds, maybe even thousands of years before John.
And all of that has nothing to do with the fact that Satan’s deceptive nature is consistent throughout the Bible.

[Conservian]

@Czarcasm

Elaborate, please. Do you understand what the roll of The Satan was in Job, and do you not see any difference between that and the roll played in the New Testament?

Zip, Zero, Nada. Satan’s role is consistent throughout the Bible - God’s arch enemy.

Satan’s role with Job was the same as with ‘believers’ from the Old/New Testament, and just as it is to this very day - the tempter and accuser of their Faith.

[Miller]

@Conservian

Zip, Zero, Nada. Satan’s role is consistent throughout the Bible - God’s arch enemy.

Satan’s role with Job was the same as with ‘believers’ from the Old/New Testament, and just as it is to this very day - the tempter and accuser of their Faith.

Any Jews out there are welcome to correct me on this, but my understanding is that Satan is not viewed as a particularly significant character in Jewish theology - certainly not any sort of “arch-enemy.”

Seems reasonable to assume that the same held true for the Jews who actually wrote that part of the Bible.

[simster]

@Conservian

And you do realize that those who translated Scripture were not the “authors” but merely scribes, right? And that there is a threshold of authenticity for Scripture called the biblical canon too, right?

Further, you forgot that Job lived hundreds, maybe even thousands of years before John.
And all of that has nothing to do with the fact that Satan’s deceptive nature is consistent throughout the Bible.

You continue to miss the point - the character ‘Satan’ does not exist thoughout the bible and is therefore inconsistent. You are attributing consistency instead of actually validating it.

John’s ‘Satan’ is a very different character than ‘Jobs’ - and Jobs ‘satan’ is not Satan -

To your (bolded by me) comment - that has absolutely nothing to do with the translation (if it did, there would be only ONE translation available) - it only deals with what books were accepted into the canon - and unless you are Catholic - you have disregarded part of the original canon as well.

re : Translation - czarcam’s post stands - the original word there meant ‘the satan’ as in a title - not a name - therefore it is not the specific character later referenced by that ‘name’.

[Measure_for_Measure]

@Conservian

@Measure_for_Measure

Oops, I meant Job. My source is an annotation from the New Oxford Annotated Bible (1991):Job1:6-12: The scene is a meeting of the council of heavenly beings presided over by the LORD. In the book of Job, Satan is not yet the personal name of the devil, as in later Jewish and Christian literature. Rather, the Hebrew (with the definite article) simply means, “the adversary” or “the accuser” (see textual note b) a reference to one of the members of the divine council who served as a sort of independent prosecutor.

Keyword - Annotation - one which simply does not comport with how Job actually reads.

Job 1:6 Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan also came among them.

Annotation provides help with the translation between Hebrew and English. In the original Hebrew, it was “The Satan”, implying a position, not a name. The Satan poses a question to G-d, who directs Satan to test out the question with Job. The Satan in Job is a subordinate to G-d, not an independent agent. There is no evidence in the story -none- that G-d was deceived by the Satan.

Bible Gateway passage: Job 1 - New International Version

[Conservian]

@Miller

Any Jews out there are welcome to correct me on this, but my understanding is that Satan is not viewed as a particularly significant character in Jewish theology - certainly not any sort of “arch-enemy.”

Seems reasonable to assume that the same held true for the Jews who actually wrote that part of the Bible.

Assumptions always seem reasonable, but in this case counter to what those Jewish Apostles were taught by a Jewish Messiah, and what those same Apostles wrote in the NT or the OT.

@simster

You continue to miss the point - the character ‘Satan’ does not exist thoughout the bible and is therefore inconsistent. You are attributing consistency instead of actually validating it.

John’s ‘Satan’ is a very different character than ‘Jobs’ - and Jobs ‘satan’ is not Satan -

To your (bolded by me) comment - that has absolutely nothing to do with the translation (if it did, there would be only ONE translation available) - it only deals with what books were accepted into the canon - and unless you are Catholic - you have disregarded part of the original canon as well.

re : Translation - czarcam’s post stands - the original word there meant ‘the satan’ as in a title - not a name - therefore it is not the specific character later referenced by that ‘name’.

You can call him “the Satan”, and add that to a long list of names and titles for Satan in Scripture. Such as: Leviathan, Wicked One, Tempter, Son of Perdition, Great Dragon, Father of Lies, Ruler of this world, Beelzebub.
Lastly, here’s another in the Greek and Hebrew tongue for you: and finally, one that covers both the Greek and Hebrew for you: “… the angel of the bottomless pit, whose name in Hebrew is Abaddon, but in Greek he has the name Apollyon.” Revelation 9:11

The character of Satan in consistent and that is proved by his deceptive works in both the Old and New Testament. Satan was allowed to test Job’s faithfulness through one catastrophic event after another, and also incited King David to sin against the Lord. The NT is full of Scripture both in the Gospels and Epistles speaking of Satan as the same evil and deceptive being that existed even in the Garden of Eden.
I’d say that’s “validating” the consistency of Satan’s evil nature plenty

“Czarcasm’s point stands” - corrected, as the main thrust of his point is that “The Satan” was another being, not the same and entirely independent of Satan.

[Czarcasm]

@Conservian

Assumptions always seem reasonable, but in this case counter to what those Jewish Apostles were taught by a Jewish Messiah.

Yeah…about that “Jewish messiah” thing. Declaring Jesus to be the “Jewish Messiah” is akin to holding a fishing rally and declaring the winner to be a box of Mrs. Paul’s Fish Sticks.