The Ancients Codex Gigas (the Devil's bible)

[tesseract]

A long rant to agree with me. As I said to begin with stereotypically teachings and the bible two very different things.

As for your continued arguing about The Satan a human with basic education you should understand linguistics and the entomology of words.

This isn't a faith based thing, The word Satan comes from the Hebrew word Ha Satan which is in the original hebrew texts of the old testment. It's not some philosophical or religious debate. It's the study of language.

"Its because that's what biblical teachings have taught them they look like" and "what the bible says and what stereotypical christian teachings expunge are two very different things" are contradictory statements. On one hand you've initially stated that cherubim are perceived the way they are due to biblical teaching, then on the other you say that it's not a biblical teaching but rather what's stereotypically taught as Christianity (but is in reality false Christianity). You can't rightfully have it both ways.

The bible has to be the most scrutinized book of all time. "The Satan" hasn't been included in English bible translations in reference to Satan's name, even after translation after translation from many different and independent sources have gone over it shows that "The Satan" isn't and never has been a Christian teaching.

'Ha Satan" means "The adversary". It's referring to Satan by pointing out what Satan is to God - the adversary - not the calling upon of Satan by name. You're pushing a Jewish belief deliberately out of context. Hebrew to English translations don't include 'ha' or 'the' when referring to Satan by name because it isn't a Christian teaching. These linguists for translators seem to understand context better than you.

 

[Shane Hird]

My Jesus wears a tux t-shirt cause he likes to party.

 

[Sydney Bloods]

"Its because that's what biblical teachings have taught them they look like" and "what the bible says and what stereotypical christian teachings expunge are two very different things" are contradictory statements. On one hand you've initially stated that cherubim are perceived the way they are due to biblical teaching, then on the other you say that it's not a biblical teaching but rather what's stereotypically taught as Christianity (but is in reality false Christianity). You can't rightfully have it both ways.

The bible has to be the most scrutinized book of all time. "The Satan" hasn't been included in English bible translations in reference to Satan's name, even after translation after translation from many different and independent sources have gone over it shows that "The Satan" isn't and never has been a Christian teaching.

'Ha Satan" means "The adversary". It's referring to Satan by pointing out what Satan is to God - the adversary - not the calling upon of Satan by name. You're pushing a Jewish belief deliberately out of context. Hebrew to English translations don't include 'ha' or 'the' when referring to Satan by name because it isn't a Christian teaching. These linguists for translators seem to understand context better than you.

not contradictory at all. people get there faith from christian or bibical teachings are interchangable terms. the bible is a secondary source. sure you all bullshit and say you get the information from the bible but your not really interested in what the texts say. your interested in what you are TOLD they say. what narratives and ideas are espoused as a being "Christian" not whats in the texts.

what i stated ealier is an undeinable fact. the old testament the hebrew texts which translated say Ha Satan. likewise the context of the virgin marry wasn't not someone who never had a root but a "young bride". this also fits the customs of the culture at the time.

this has been analysed time and time again. Studied by people who's job it is to study language for a living and time and time again come to the same conclusion. and yet your response is "ï dont care about linguistics" you don't care the texts you care about "your teachings"

do you want to actually give you a list of verse which the entirity of Ha satan were removed from the old testament and actually replaced? or would i as usual be wasting my breath, because your "teachings" tell you otherwise?

 

[tesseract]

not contradictory at all. people get there faith from christian or bibical teachings are interchangable terms.

Your statements are contradictory, for on one hand you said the perception of cherubim is from "biblical teaching", then on the other you said "what the bible says and what stereotypical christian teachings expunge (remove completely) are two very different things". So, "two very different things" does not make for something interchangeable. Hence you've contradicted yourself.

the bible is a secondary source. sure you all bullshit and say you get the information from the bible but your not really interested in what the texts say. your interested in what you are TOLD they say. what narratives and ideas are espoused as a being "Christian" not whats in the texts.

You're making an assumption when you lump all who profess to be Christian in one category. It's true that to some denominations of Christianity the bible is a secondary source. These denominations hold aloft the traditions of men in place of the bible. This can't rightfully be said of all, though. To say it encompasses all Christians and denominations is either ignorant or disingenuous.

what i stated ealier is an undeinable fact. the old testament the hebrew texts which translated say Ha Satan. likewise the context of the virgin marry wasn't not someone who never had a root but a "young bride". this also fits the customs of the culture at the time.

this has been analysed time and time again. Studied by people who's job it is to study language for a living and time and time again come to the same conclusion. and yet your response is "ï dont care about linguistics" you don't care the texts you care about "your teachings"

do you want to actually give you a list of verse which the entirity of Ha satan were removed from the old testament and actually replaced? or would i as usual be wasting my breath, because your "teachings" tell you otherwise?

"Ha Satan" in itself isn't an issue, for the bible speaks of Satan as 'the adversary'. There's an issue if "Ha Satan" is replacing Satan's name rather than being a descriptor wrt Christian contextual use. Satan is viewed differently in Judaism to Christianity.

What I have pointed to is that the bible is the most scrutinized book of all time and, despite this, "Ha Satan" hasn't replaced the mention of the name 'Satan' with "Ha Satan" in the bible because the Jewish context is not the Christian context. If "Ha Satan" was Christian, a great many more translators and theologians would have a field day with this issue, but it's a non-issue due them knowing the difference between Judaic belief and Christianity.

You'd be wasting your time if you did cite those things because I'm already aware of your attempt to pass off Judaic belief as Christian. I've already got many a bible to reference from. Also, it's possible for translations to change "Ha Satan"/'the adversary', which is a descriptive reference to Satan, for directly using the name 'Satan' when referring to Satan without changing the context. Using the name rather than a descriptor would make for clarity.
But that isn't really the main issue with "Ha Satan". The issue is the differing view that Judaism has to Christianity about Satan's role.