Talk:Satan/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

christianity

i would simply like to point out that this article claims that satan is the one responsible for eve eating the forbiden fruit and this is not true at no point in genesis does it say that the serpant is satan it simply states that it is a serpant and once god finds out that the serpant was the one that tempted eve he curses the to crawl in the dust for all his days. i apologize if some of the spelling here is wrong but my information is in-fact accurate — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.10.101.75 (talk) 08:33, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Hebraic justice system

Ha-Satan is the name of the prosecuting attorney in the Hebraic justice system. This person is always presumed to be a liar until proof by two witnesses assures of the truth. Today's Israeli Supreme Court is modeled after this justice system. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.232.150.32 (talk) 04:19, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

"In Christianity the title became a personal name, and "Satan" changed from an accuser appointed by God to test men's faith to the chief of the rebellious fallen angels"

The Satan is clearly the Accuser in the Hebrew Scriptures (see Job), inciting God against His servant, Job. He was not "appointed by God to test men's faith". No where is that written. Not in the Hebrew Scriptures. Not in the New Testament. You should stick to the Scripture references in supporting such statements! Instead, your reference comes nearly 2,000 years later! — Preceding unsigned comment added by I.love.words2006 (talk • contribs) 17:08, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Hebrew Apocrypha

Is this referring to the Deuterocanonicals? the first sentence in the section makes it seem so (it is described as not accepted by jews and protestants) but the link does not refer to the Deuterocanonicals, I think. Is clarification needed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.191.87.42 (talk) 21:49, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

"Jewish apocrypha" includes ancient books well beyond those accepted in any version of the Bible. The term "Hebrew apocrypha" might be a little confusing, because many of those works were not actually written in Hebrew, or the Hebrew version doesn't survive to the present day... AnonMoos (talk) 09:38, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

"For Job, for [Job's] friends, and for the narrator, it is ultimately Yahweh himself who is responsible for Job's suffering; as Yahweh says to the 'satan', 'You have incited me against him, to destroy him for no reason.'" (Job 2:3) [7]

"For Job, for [Job's] friends, and for the narrator, it is ultimately Yahweh himself who is responsible for Job's suffering; as Yahweh says to the 'satan', 'You have incited me against him, to destroy him for no reason.'" (Job 2:3) [7] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yobwed (talk • contribs) 01:53, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Numbers 22:22

(The original Hebrew term, satan, is a noun from a verb meaning primarily to, “obstruct, oppose,” as it is found in Numbers 22:22,), i AM NOT SURE THE MEANING IN THE hOLY bIBLE IS sATAN IN THE READING OF numbers 22:22; My experience/and instruction from my Christian mentor I have the understanding that the identification of, "the angel of the Lord",(in Numbers 22:22), is Jesus, before he became flesh? Is there anyone who can help me on this understanding? I don't beilieve it was satan that the passage was writing about. -- 10:18, 20 May 2012‎ User:Dominickcolangelo

Christian demonology

Hi. Nowhere in the article does it mention that Ha-Satan is one of the Seven princes of Hell. Lacking such information can mislead the reader into an incoherence about Satan's role in religion.69.146.144.86 (talk) 03:03, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

The concept of the seven princes of hell is pretty much Fr. Binsfield's original thinking, and not a common idea throughout Christianity or any of the other Abrahamic religions. The absence of this information is not misleading, it is incomplete. This incompleteness is less misleading than presenting the Binsfield's thinking as universal in , or even the way to understand the Bible.

Demonology is inherently incoherent, everyone has their own view of how things are set up, even derivative works (such as the Lesser Key of Solomon) don't agree with their original sources (such as the Pseudomonarchia Daemonum). Ian.thomson (talk) 03:26, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Typographical Errors

There is a typographical error in the initial paragraph "woshipped" rather than "worshiped". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.246.26.106 (talk) 03:39, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Changed it to "worshipped" (the British spelling), though I'm not sure that the recent changes to the first paragraph are an improvement. AnonMoos (talk) 08:44, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Salpsan. Son of Satan

Should there be a section for Satan's family, or should it be added somewhere in the current article? In the Gospel of Bartholomew, Sataniel (Satan) had a son Salpsan, who he awoke after he defied God. Link: http://www.gnosis.org/library/gosbart.htm Twillisjr (talk) 20:44, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Should probably have a secondary source (to avoid being original research and undue weight on a single source text), and what would be added is "In the Gospel of Bartholomew, Satan mentions having a son named Salpsan." The only thing keeping the Gospel of Bartholomew from being dismissed as fanfiction is it's age and that it does provide insight into the beliefs of its era. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:02, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Gospel of Bartholomew

Alright, it seems the entire Wikipedia Community has a strong bias against the Apocrypha Book "Gospel of Bartholomew." I'm sure it has something to do with the brainwashing of Christianity in the 4th or 5th century, but this is getting ridiculous. If the Holy Bible section about Satan is smaller, it is for obvious reasons and it does not qualify as a right to vandalize this article page. I've noticed that two editors that have deleted these excerpts have no desire to improve the page or information, only to destroy' I would like a responsible party to assist in this ridiculous practice. It appears the Decretum Gelasianum is alive and well, but it is unnecessary. Twillisjr (talk) 21:40, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Once again, WP:Assume good faith from other editors.

Your latest attempt at revision was a step in the right direction. Some issues:

• There is no need for subsection headers for every book, when there's only one or two sentences on each book.
• The Ascension of Isaiah and the Life of Adam and Eve are more pseudepigrapha than apocrypha, as they are not accepted as canon by any Church (the Ethiopian Orthodox Church does accept the Book of Enoch, and Jubilees as I recall)
• Zoroastrianism is not a part of Judeo-Christian apocrypha
• Your first secondary source, The Poetics of Slavdom: The Mythopoeic Foundations of Yugoslavia, Volume 2, by Zdenko Zlatar, though discussing the Gospel of Bartholomew, is not a work primarily concerned with the Satan mythos, the Gospel of Bartholomew, or Abrahamic pseudepigrapha in general.
• Your other secondary source, Christ and Satan: A Critical Edition, by Robert Emmett Finnegan, is an acceptable source in general. However, it points out "these putative allusions lead nowhere: neither the Antichrist nor Salpsan is again alluded to in the more than 700 lines of the work." It also mentions that some manuscripts do not even mention Salpsan, and overall does not place much emphasis on what you have chosen to place WP:UNDUE emphasis on.

Keeping poorly sourced information out of an article is not the same as destroying good information. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:52, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I'll cite Willis Barnstone Yale University: http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=J9aKaGTOQDAC&oi=fnd&pg=PR17&dq=gospel+of+bartholomew&ots=O3pPeMLmeT&sig=9EJMeDpmfDu62YvyxXO_ffLYtGg#v=onepage&q=gospel%20of%20bartholomew&f=false and Dr. Leonard R.N. Ashley, Princeton University: http://books.google.com/books?id=NnMA_M9mDW8C&pg=PT87&dq=Salpsan&hl=en&sa=X&ei=aOfQUK71OIL40gHzsIDoDg&ved=0CGEQ6AEwCA as an example of my scholarly citations. Now that I have provided these sources, you may revert the digital Decretum Gelasianum. Thanks in advance. Twillisjr (talk) 22:25, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

The first book (as with Finnegan) may support the first part of the material you added. The second source supports mention of Salpsan, as in "The Gospel of Bartholomew claims that Satan has a son named Salpsan." In the face of that, I would have to cite Finnegan, to change that to "In certain manuscripts of the Gospel of Bartholomew, Satan is claimed to have a son named Salpsan, though little is mentioned of him." Ian.thomson (talk) 22:54, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Satan's testimony has been added to the Questions of Bartholomew article page. Now, what is the proper way to integrate his mention in the Apocrypha sub-section? Twillisjr (talk) 04:14, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

That's odd, my earlier posts discussing the matter are still there... Were they gone for some reason when you made your last post? Ian.thomson (talk) 04:41, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

It's confirmed. ian.thomson is a Wikistalker. I decided to "do it ian's way" and move all of my work to another article page, and you just can't seem to avoid removing my work. In addition, I ask if the information can be brought down to an incredible minimum in comparison to the original, and the mention of such an idea (as my work appearing) is completely impossible? I think you should review my efforts and locate a way to compromise. It is the right thing to do. Twillisjr (talk) 20:59, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Please present evidence or withdraw what amounts to a personal attack if there is no evidence. I never said "you have to move it to another page," I clearly stated that if you bring up Salpsan, Finnegan needs to be cited for the addition "Satan is claimed to have a son named Salpsan, though little is mentioned of him." I modified your addition to Questions of Bartholomew accordingly, which is within this site's polices (it is expected). More than one editor has explained to you time and again that additions need secondary sources, which would mean that the "3 of every 30,000" bit needs a secondary source, which you continued to fail to provide. Refusal to acknowledge repeatedly given advice from other editors is disruptive and rude. I have not followed you to the sort of pages that I normally would not go to to counter you without reason, I've stayed in the sort of pages I usually edit (spiritual topics), and changed edits that went against this site's policies and guidelines (providing a once-again-ignored explanation when I did so).

Once again, you refuse to assume good faith, refuse to listen to anything anyone says, and then make unevidenced and false accusations against others. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:24, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Belial in Polyglot Bible

In the Polyglot Bible, Belial is mentioned in various scriptures. Would this require a sub-section of the article for "Polyglot" or should it be added to an existing sub-section?: http://books.google.com/books?id=nnYNAQAAMAAJ&dq=The+devotional+and+practical+polyglott+family+Bible&source=gbs_navlinks_s Twillisjr (talk) 23:42, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

1) This is the talk page for Satan, not Belial.

2) The Polyglot Bible you link to is not one of the Polyglot Bibles discussed at Polyglot (book), but simply one of many translations of the Bible.

3) How one group of translators translated the standard Bible is up to secondary sources to assess. Whether their less colloquial translation of "men of Belial" instead of the more colloquial "troublemakers" matters is up to secondary sources to assess.

Also, you still haven't addressed your unevidenced accusation about me earlier. Either provide evidence or withdraw that attack. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:18, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Questions of Bartholomew

I not sure that I understand everything being discussed about this work above, but it appears to be semi-minor apocrypha, not accepted as Biblically canonical by any significant denomination, so it's unclear why it should be given major prominence in this article. AnonMoos (talk) 18:56, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

It shouldn't, especially without good academic secondary sources discussing how its views are important. Even then, it would still be WP:UNDUE for anything beyond a line or two. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:02, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 2 January 2013

there is no mention of a fallen angel in the hebrew bible. the information at the beginning of the page is incorrect. it only refers to the christian and islamic interpretations - not the original hebrew interpretation. in hebrew it simply means the accuser or the adversary - nothing more - no fallen angel or devil hocus pocus - someone needs to do their research.

24.76.92.75 (talk) 10:01, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Done, 24.76.92.75 is correct, that was a spectacularly wrong thing to have in lede... I wonder how long it's been sitting there..? While I was at it I bumped the Satan is good in Satanism content from lede down to Satanism section - per weight. Not notable enough to be in such a (now) very short lede. In ictu oculi (talk) 17:14, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

There is falling in Isaiah 14:12, as discussed in the article (though "Satan" is not mentioned in that passage). AnonMoos (talk) 16:57, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

The fallen individual in Isaiah is referencing Nebuchadnezzar, the original Hebrew context of the passage is often glossed by Christian scholars in attempts to validate the latter-day invention of the archetypal Lucifer. However, fallen angels are part of non-canonical apocryphal texts.Blackson (talk) 04:53, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 18 February 2013

Regarding Hebrew definition of satan and ha Satan. The article begins with Satan (Hebrew: הַשָּׂטָן ha-Satan, "the opposer,"[1]) Notice the usage of ha Satan and the Hebrew הַשָּׂטָן. However, the proper noun in this usage with the adjective does not correlate with opposition, this usage shows an ontology pointing to its appellative form "the accuser". When using the generic noun minus appellation or title the term becomes generic i.e., devils or satans; notice it can be used in plural. The article becomes misleading in this manner regarding Hebrew. Defining the generic noun satan (לְשָׂטָן) as an opposer is thoughtful, but the article is not about "devils" or "satans". This article is about the being ha Satan הַשָּׂטָן. I suggest the opening of the article be corrected as Satan (Hebrew: הַשָּׂטָן ha-Satan, "the accuser") to properly mirror Hebrew definition since the article begins with the usage of הַשָּׂטָן and not לְשָׂטָן. The latter section Hebrew Bible should also include the Hebrew for לְשָׂטָן (adversary) when referencing Numbers 22:22 and 1 Samuel 29:4, the term used when referencing an adversary in Psalms 109:6 is וְשָׂטָן. According to the Masoretic Text and the JPS 1917 Edition. Blackson (talk) 00:29, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I am closing the edit request solely on the basis that the requesting editor should not be blocked from editing the article. The {{edit semi-protected}} tag is only for use on the talk pages of articles that are semi-protected (which this article is) by editors who are blocked from editing the article (which the OP should not be). Feel free to continue this discussion to build consensus for the requested edit. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 15:56, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I've noticing a few chiming in on the Hebrew usage in the article. My intent with the edit is to steer into the correct Hebrew definition for title of "the Satan" in singular appellative as opposed to what the article is attempting to convey which is the generic "satan" or Hebrew for adversary i.e., devil. True this is arguably the etymological origin of ha Satan, but does not reflect the difference of the terms within the article's opening, nor is the differentiation attempted in the Hebrew Bible section of the article reflecting references to original Hebrew. The current references point to weaker and contested Hebrew translations of the Old testament based on Christian sources e.g. Young's Literal Translation for 1 Chronicles 21:1 and English Standard Version for Psalm 109:6; ESV being the translator's admitted "literal" translation. My point is these are not Jewish sources reflecting original Hebraic ontology. The ontology I've mentioned points to the difference of Satan's role as seen by Jews which is different than the archetype of Satan which Christians have come to adopt. If anyone has evidence of Judaic etymological or ontological sources describing "ha Satan" as an adversary of and not an agent of God, I would care to know and furthermore prefer such trustworthy sources be listed in the article.Blackson (talk) 04:37, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I am chiming in that all potential translations should be included, not just one chosen translation, for completeness. If someone's name could potentially be interpreted as "the opposer" versus "the accuser" it's better that all potential translations be fully documented, and none selectively eliminated - because eliminating alternative, but potentially correct, translations biases the meaning to what the author wants it to mean. Robwilkens (talk) 19:54, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

So long as those translations are cited to reliable sources, I would agree. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:15, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

The article opens with the Hebrew appellative title הַשָּׂטָן ha-Satan. It is incorrect in the article to define the term in its title form or rather as a proper noun to mean "opposer". Opposer and adversary are generic definitions applied to the earlier usage of the noun satan. Once the word is used in its title form ha-Satan e.g. the Satan in Hebraic context you must value the passage in which the term is used explaining why the title exists. Where else would you think the Hebrew understanding of the definition "accuser" comes from? In the verses the title הַשָּׂטָן ha Satan appears, the Satan is not opposing God, he is an agent thereof and in turn "accusing" humankind. The article's opening definition of the Hebrew הַשָּׂטָן as opposer is a gross misrepresentation of the Hebrew language and bias in that it attempts to use Christian dialectic to explain Hebrew language and orthography. If you want to include the Latin or Greek terms in the article for satan to include definitions like adversary and opposer please do, but the subtle ignorance of using opposer to define the Hebrew ha Satan is improper within the article. Currently the alleged definition for הַשָּׂטָן ha-Satan in the opening of the article cites dictionary.com and its Easton's 1897 Bible Dictionary so I will quote directly from the source (keep in mind this is a Christian source unreliable in defining original Hebrew):

adversary; accuser. When used as a proper name, the Hebrew word so rendered has the article "the adversary" (Job 1:6-12; 2:1-7). In the New Testament it is used as interchangeable with Diabolos, or the devil, and is so used more than thirty times. He is also called "the dragon," "the old serpent" (Rev. 12:9; 20:2); "the prince of this world" (John 12:31; 14:30); "the prince of the power of the air" (Eph. 2:2); "the god of this world" (2 Cor. 4:4); "the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience" (Eph. 2:2). The distinct personality of Satan and his activity among men are thus obviously recognized. He tempted our Lord in the wilderness (Matt. 4:1-11). He is "Beelzebub, the prince of the devils" (12:24). He is "the constant enemy of God, of Christ, of the divine kingdom, of the followers of Christ, and of all truth; full of falsehood and all malice, and exciting and seducing to evil in every possible way." His power is very great in the world. He is a "roaring lion, seeking whom he may devour" (1 Pet. 5:8). Men are said to be "taken captive by him" (2 Tim. 2:26). Christians are warned against his "devices" (2 Cor. 2:11), and called on to "resist" him (James 4:7). Christ redeems his people from "him that had the power of death, that is, the devil" (Heb. 2:14). Satan has the "power of death," not as lord, but simply as executioner.

My point is "opposer" is not mentioned once in the Easton Bible dictionary source... SO why does the definition appear in the article? Yet even the Easton source is incorrect in claiming the usage of proper name to define adversary in (Job 1:6-12; 2:1-7). Again I will explain the Hebrew understanding is that the Satan (ha Satan) is an agent of God not an adversary of God, ha Satan is accusing humankind. If you were to ask, "Well isn't ha Satan an adversary of humankind in that instance?" The answer would be yes if we are using "satan" in its generic form because in Hebrew we already understand satan/satans (devils) to be adversaries, yet in these verses where we speak of ha Satan, the Satan is not just defining a base usage as adversary to humankind, but as the extended definition of accuser and agent of God. If anyone can cough up citations for Hebrew sources הַשָּׂטָן ha-Satan to mean opposer please do so, otherwise I am going to make the simple change back to the article's long standing original definition of the Hebrew to "accuser", the Lost Worlds History of the Devil documentary quotes Rev. Tom Wright, Bishop of Durham in accordance with the Hebrew definition for the Satan as accuser.Blackson (talk) 13:12, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Summary - The article uses the title form of satan הַשָּׂטָן meaning "the Satan" and sources Easton's 1897 Bible Dictionary an unreliable source for Hebrew and nowhere in the source is the word "opposer" mentioned. The second paragraph of this article goes on to validate the Hebrew definition by stating: Satan is primarily understood as an "accuser" in the Hebrew Bible. As this article also states: Job ch.1–2 and Zechariah 3:1–2 when using the form of "the Satan" the context is accuser. I am editing a correct source for the Hebrew definition to the 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia, note the Jewish encyclopedia usage of a contextual opposer or opposition is only twice, yet the usage of accuse and accusation within the Jewish Encyclopedia's article is 12 times. Blackson (talk) 08:41, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Seth ?

Why no mention of the Egyptian God Seth / Set ? -- 15:43, 24 February 2013‎ 31.185.39.159

Because it's far from clear that there's any meaningful equivalence. Set is the "baddie" in late Egyptian versions of the Osiris story, but in some other contexts he's a revered god... AnonMoos (talk) 23:59, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

"Satan" in new testament

There seems to be a misconception in this article that satan is a demon in the new testament. Satan still means "the opposer" in the new testament, Jesus even calls one of his Disciples, Peter, Satan at one point, See:Mark 8:33 (NLT) (YouVersion Link) he was not accusing him of being some demon, he was saying he was opposing him in what Peter was saying. I think a lot of the problem is christian's don't always READ the bible, and simply follow along with stories they've heard. Robwilkens (talk) 19:35, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

It's not really a misconception in the article, it's a matter of doctrine. There are multiple interpretations of that passage. The most reasonable is, as you said, Jesus was simply pointing out that Peter was opposing him. However, there are others who interpret it as Satan directly influencing Peter, and Jesus catching onto it. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:14, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Agree, but doctrine is not necessarily a correct interpretation of what the "new testament" says. In other words, to say the new testament says something when it doesn't necessarily say it, is an incorrect or at minimum biased interpretation of the text. Reading this article as it is written it sounds like the new testament "got it wrong" when reality is it has been interpreted wrong over history, perhaps. At least in my best and most unbiased view. 67.82.232.160 (talk) 22:14, 26 February 2013 (UTC) -- update i wasn't signed in, correct signature: Robwilkens (talk) 22:16, 26 February 2013 (UTC) - Want to add, i think "doctrine" teaches jesus is the son of God, as an example, but the bible disagrees : Luke 3:23-38 says he is descended from (Josephs family tree traced back to..) adam who was the son of God (Created by God). Jesus elsewhere i believe implies we are all sons of God when he suggest "Call no Man father but..." God somewhere in matthew.. Which Doctrine, at least Catholic doctrine, also disagrees with as they suggest you call priests "father". I'm not citing directly because that's not relevant to the point here other than to say that doctrine is not always "the word of God" but of men who didn't have the internet as a reference.. Robwilkens (talk) 22:35, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

When was the Christian Satan/Devil myth constructed?

Is it true that the Catholic Church created Satan? That they added Satan as the Devil to the Bible LATER, and that Christianity originally had no "Devil"? When had Satan been added to the Bible, as Devil? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.70.202.28 (talk) 15:42, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Actually, ideas about demons and angels (other than angels in their literal etymological sense as divine messengers) largely developed in Judaism during the Persian and/or Hellenistic periods, and Christianity's ideas on the subject are based on those of the Judaism of that period. Both the words διαβολος and Σατανας are found in the original Greek text of the New Testament... AnonMoos (talk) 00:11, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Dedicated Section on how to recognize Satan and those who are working for him

One thing I see missing in this article is how to recognize Satan and his works. It is a question being asked a lot these days in Ireland and I imagine people expect to find the answer in an encyclopedia.

I think there is some clarity on this within Catholicism (so in keeping with the article policies, there would be no original research.) However, I have no idea if a unified view of this exists in the Abrahamic religions. Is there a common view on this (specifically how to recognize him), or - if not - could we include all the information in some structured way?

I will proceed with what I can on the Irish (Gaeilge) Satan page, but I would need help for other faiths. Thanks Mwee o (talk) 14:52, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a pulpit or Sunday school, and the problems with such a section would include:

• Presumption of Satan's existence, which goes against WP:CITE and WP:NPOV
• Presumption that we can empirically track his actions, which also goes against WP:CITE and WP:NPOV
• Inevitably lending more authority to one sect's claims over another's, going against WP:NPOV, WP:NOTSOAPBOX, and WP:UNDUE.

Ian.thomson (talk) 16:10, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Practical joke redirect

Someone set up a redirect so that "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord_of_This_World" redirects to "Satan." Some joker? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.169.71.4 (talk) 05:47, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm sure this has already been answered, but according to the New Testament, Satan is the Lord of this world. Editor2020 (talk) 02:03, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Sovereignty of God, agency of moral creatures

Any morally corrupt creature, such as Ha-Satan, man, or other such created being, is limited in it's choices by God. Therefore, knowing that man, at times, may be inclined to commit morally-corrupt behavior, and that possibly at all times, that Ha-Satan is inclined to commit morally-corrupt behavior, then the extent of immoral behavior exhibited by these will be limited by the strong, open arms of a loving God, Who identifies with the sorrows of the suffering. In conclusion, it is more accurate to say that the realization of Ha-Satan's morally-corrupt desires is limited by God's grace and justice, rather than that Ha-Satan is "under the control of" God. Thus, blame for Job's suffering may be attributed to Ha-Satan's accusatory, adversarial, and other identifying properties. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arclite811 (talk • contribs) 01:48, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Edits

User:Editguy111, I have again reverted back to User:Editor2020. When you are reverted do not keep pressing your edit through, that is edit warring. If you have a case to make for this edit (which doesn't appear needed) please make it here. In ictu oculi (talk) 16:05, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

User:Editor2020, User:Editguy111 says you have already resolved a conclusion. Is that so? Then great. In ictu oculi (talk) 16:24, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

I had asked if "adversary" was in the source provided. He indicated yes and restored it. I then changed it from upper case to lower case "a". He reverted, saying in his edit summary that it was a proper name and should be capitalized. I believe that is the edit you reverted. Other than that we have not discussed or resolved that issue. Editor2020 (talk) 01:52, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

ps It seems to be lower case as of now. I believe that lower case is correct as claiming it was the Devil or Lucifer or the Old Serpent, thus making upper case correct, requires wp:Synthesis.Editor2020 (talk) 02:00, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

User:Editor2020, yes that's as I saw it. Thanks for confirming. As of this point that edit should remain as you left it. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:09, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

שטן is a generic Hebrew term for devil or for purposes of the article "adversary", no need to capitalize, not a proper noun. The definitive article Ha Satan should be capitalized and considering the historic back and forth of the article, I suggest including both versions of Hebrew for satan and The Satan as well as Greek:

(Hebrew: שטן satan "adversary", השטן ha Satan "accuser", Greek: διάβολος diabolos "slanderer")

These definitions are based on the Hebrew from the Masoretic text and Greek Septuagint respectively. The Latin Vulgate shows "Satan" plainly, the archaic form being Satanas, although including archaic Latin or the ancient Greek Σατάν might be overdoing it, frankly redundant. The article does note both usages in Hebrew so the definitions should reflect the article's content. Including Greek and possible Latin variations would also be very encyclopedic. Blackson (talk • contribs) 07:19, 9 March 2014 (UTC) Blackson (talk) 07:20, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

This seems good comment, there's evidently an evolution from the generic Numbers 22 type "satan" to later Jewish/Christian/Muslim capital S. But as for the lead, it would be anachronistic to start with capital S, capital Adversary. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:17, 12 March 2014 (UTC)