Louise Van Hine proves flipper is Satan
Philip A. Daigle (firstname.lastname@example.org) wrote:
: > I can make a bold statement - I can PROVE through dialectical and the
: > application of historical linguistics that Phil really IS Satan. Or, I
: > should say "Satan."
: Hmmm, that would be fun an entertaining but you must first tell me what
: "dialectical" means, my dictionary CD is dead and the pocket version
: does not have that word.
Dialectic is the discussion and reasoning by dialogue as a method of
intellectual investigation; otherwise, the postulation of a systematic
And before I go further, an MMPI has to be administered by a qualified
and experienced psychologist or psychiatrist - it's interactive - he's
the 'multiphasic' portion - it has more than one 'phase.'
As far as proving that you are 'Satan', let us first examine the origin
of the word 'Satan.' My Webster (and the Jewish scholars I first
discussed this with) show the earliest origin of the term to be in the
Old Testament - and the extant Masoretic
Hebrew texts do not contain any vowels - so the earliest use of the term
is represented by the Hebrew consonants Shin Teth Nun, translated as the
Hebrew word "shaytayn" (two long a vowels speculatively added) which fit
the context of the use with an article. The Hebrew translation according
to my Hebrew scholarly sources, is 'enemy' or 'adversary.' In many Old
Testament examples, the word is used to describe that so and so was an
enemy of the house of Israel. In New Testament documents - which as has
been discussed, there is a much more liberal use of the term, including
the famous one in which Jesus turns on one of his disciples and says to
him "Get thee behind me Satan" - now that makes sense if it were
translated, "Get thee behind me, you are my enemy" - meaning that at that
particular moment, his disciple had opposed him and thereby became his
enemy. The popular literalist notion that Satan, an independent
possessive agent, hops about and grips people at will, is a lot less
plausible than the deliberate mistranslation of a common Hebrew noun
meaning "adversary," one who is at war. But because the 2 measly Hebrew
scholars on the 70-person Septuagint who compiled the New Testament for
King James were not only woefully outnumbered in their vote on accurate
translation, but actually died before the translations were complete, it
is doubtful that any of the Greek Scholars would have during that period
(post Inquisition) have gone back to an earlier and less superstitious
interpretation of the Bible and said "this word means 'enemy'" it is a
not a name. In fact, there is only one place in the Torah (the Old
Testament) where "Satan" appears without an article which makes it a
common noun, and that itself could have been a means of amplifying the
noun to make the subject more threatening than 'average old adversaries'
indicating a great enemy. Everywhere else in verifiable Old Testament
resources, the word 'stn' appears with an article, indicating 'an enemy'
and not 'THE enemy.'
So when you make war with others, Phil, very simply, you are 'Satan.'
Isn't that simple? That is why I don't believe in Satan. From purely
logical, reasonable, and linguistic grounds.
Now in the book of Job there is an angel appointed by JHVH to try and
test Job's faith; but from this account, there is no indication that
there is a division of Heaven and Hell in which this angel presides over
a realm out of control of the Almighty - this mythology came into being
in the 17th century with Milton's poem. I am always amused that those
who are the most literal Bible thumpers are not aware that the
characterization and mythology of the Satanic realm is not Biblical at
all, but was invented by a Renaissance poet some 16 centuries after
Christ. Instead of calling you Christians, we should really call you
As far as Paul's commentary about Satan being 'prince of this world' - it
would be far more accurate in light of the above to translate his
commentary as meaning that the world had made itself an enemy and was at
odds with is Creator, by being misled into temptations of the flesh and
of idolatry. But I have never bought the 'some guy named Satan' theory -
it's a very advantageous and self-serving translation of the King James
court that brings us the modern Satan. You may also want to note that
James was contemporaneous with Milton. If you want some quotes from
Milton's poem to bolster the thesis, I've got that here. I don't have a
Bible here - I'm lost out on the Prairie without my library. That is why
I can't be specific about my "Satan" quotes - King James is 1600 miles away.
Louise Van Hine