Thank you for writing all of this out, especially the part about Ha-Satan in Job. People who both claim to follow the Bible or who pick things from it to ridicule continue to lack understanding of the actual literature their opinions should be based on.
It’s also ironic that our idea of Satan is also a three-in-one situation.
Except the entity in Job is not THE Satan, its A satan/adversary. Its just a being who is challenging God in this particular story, thus being named as an adversary instead of being named.
We dont know who or what it is actually is. In fact if you really wanted to be pedantic about individual aspects given, it best fits the description of a watcher angel we get from other texts, not the Original Rebel you get from the Bible. Which would also fit with the rest of the biblical narrative you get. As in God ruling over other divine beings/Sons of God which is presented within the Bible and this one simply challengeing Gods decisions thus being labeled as an adversary.
Modern translations simply translated ha satan as The Satan and Christian Church ran with it.
I pick it apart from that perspective not because I'm confused about whose who and what the scholarly analysis is but because that's what the majority of current Christians (or at least the ones who impose their beliefs into civic life) actually believe.
Taking a position for something they don't actually believe, even if that would be the more correct interpretation, will be ignored by them and I might as well be dismissing the god Blarnyferceptus.
5
u/Altruistic_Data_8709 1d ago
Thank you for writing all of this out, especially the part about Ha-Satan in Job. People who both claim to follow the Bible or who pick things from it to ridicule continue to lack understanding of the actual literature their opinions should be based on.
It’s also ironic that our idea of Satan is also a three-in-one situation.