Louise Van Hine proves flipper is Satan

Louise wrote:

Philip A. Daigle (philipda@tiac.net) 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

thesis.

 

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

Miltonists.

 

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.

Ta.

--

Louise Van Hine

louisev@netcom.com