Satan was the one who taught the sons of men to practice divination
All the myths and legends that you read have distortions of GOD’s TRUTH running through them
Michael is Michael the archangel
Any other suggestions of Michael in ancient literature is simply the result of Satan tweaking the truth and feeding it to superstitious men who delved into spiritual realms and got an earful from lying whispering spirits
A portion and a distortion of the truth
Are you saying that anything that existed before the Israelite's is not truthful and was inherently made up by men? Interesting, then you miss a lot of facts in that statement.
1) The Israelite's come out of Canaan and originally are polytheistic (worship many Gods)
2) This then means that anyone before Abraham is not an Israelite, including Noah, hence by your standard Noah is "twisted truth"
3) Divination is similarly seen in the book of Revelations with John on Patmos. On Patmos a hippodrome was found, a hippodrome was used on Patmos for horse racing and horse gambling. John makes references to horseman of the apocalypse, this is called horse divination or hippomancy, a form of divination, are you then saying that John engaged in divination?
Please show evidences for "satan tweaking the truth", please show me the phraseology in the Bible wherein that exact statement is used.
Furthermore, in Christian mythology we see the character Satan as being Anglicized in early Israelite texts. Also, the noun "Satan" is improper usage in Christian mythos. Similar to references in Isaiah of "Lucifer" being an actual deity are lacking, as the two are conflated and tied as mythical creatures in Biblical epics. As you will see below in the epic of Balaam, YHWH appears as "satan". Also, Lucifer is a fatally mistranslated.
The origins of "Satan" comes from an Anglicization of the Hebrew common noun שָׂטָן and the noun has been related etymologically to a variety of geminate, third weak and hollow verbs in Hebrew and in the cognate languages. These proposals include verbs meaning 'to stray' (AI ~IT, Heb ~THtEth ~TY, Akk ,SG!U I and Syr ST ), 'to revolt/fall away' (Aram swr, Mandaean sWTand Heb swr), 'to be unjust' (Ar ~TI), 'to bum' (Syr swr and Ar ~YT) and 'to seduce' (Eth ~TY and Reb ~TH). These proposals require discounting the nun of the noun satan as part of the root, and attributing it to an *-an suffix which has been appended to a nominal base. There are two reasons why it is unlikely that the nun should be attributed to an *-tin suffix. Firstly, the *-an suffix when appended to a nominal base normally results in an abstract noun, an adjective or a diminutive. The noun 'satan' fits none of these categories. Secondly, in Hebrew *-an is typically realized as -on. There are exceptions, but among the standard conditions proposed to explain the atypical retention of *-an, none apply to the noun satan. Therefore it is preferable to regard the nun as part of the root and analyze satan as a noun of the common qatal pattern. The fact that the geminate, third weak and hollow verbs listed above have meanings that are arguably appropriate to Satan should be viewed as resulting from interaction between popular etymological speculation and developing traditions about Satan. The root *STN is not evidenced in any of the cognate languages in texts that are prior to or contemporary with its occurrences in the Hebrew Bible. KJ3 (918) incorrectly cites an alleged Akk satanu, but the fonns to which KB refers are St lexical participles of etemuJetenu (AHW, 260). Thus the meaning of the noun satan must be determined solely on the basis of its occurrences in the Hebrew Bible, where it occurs in nine contexts. In five it refers to human beings and in four it refers to celestial beings. When it is used of human beings it is not a proper name, but rather a common noun meaning 'adversary' in either a political or military sense, or 'accuser' when it is used in a legal context. In the celestial realm there is only one context in which. Satan might be a proper name. In the other three contexts it is a common noun, meaning 'adversary' or 'accuser'. [P.L.D.] Σαταν and Σατανᾶς are transliterations of the Hebrew satan (cf. 3 Kgdms 11:14.23; Sir 21 :27) or Aram satana and mean 'adversary'. In such instances 8HevXIIgr and the• LXX translate the Hebrew "expression with Diabolos ~Devil, meaning 'the Slanderer'. Ho Sataniis (rarely used without article) thus designates the opponent of ~God. In the NT Satanas and Diabolos can refer to the same supernatural being (cf. Rev 20:2) and can thus be interchanged (cf. Mark 1:13 and Luke 4:2). This highest evil being can also be referred to as ho poneros ('the evil one', cf. Matt 13: 19) and 110 peira:.on ('the tempter' - cf. Malt 4:3: I Thess 3:5). [C.B.l] Although the noun satan has no cognates in texts that are prior to or contemporary with the biblical texts in which it occurs, there are in Akkadian three legal terms meaning 'accuser' that can have both terrestrial and celestial referents. These terms are bel dababi, bel dini and akil karsi. Each can refer either to a human legal opponent or to a deity acting as an accuser in a legal context,and thus each term functionally parallels the noun satan even though there is no etymological relationship. For example, the deities Nanay and Mar-Biti are charged to guarantee an agreement sworn in their names. Should anyone attempt to alter the agreement, these deities were to assume the role of legal adversaries (EN.MES d;-n;-su [VAS I 36 iiiA». Standing behind this notion of deities playing legal roles with respect to earthly happenings is the wellknown idea of the divine -'council, acting as a judiciary body. The noun satan is used of a divine being in four contexts in the Hebrew Bible. In Numbers 22:22-35 Balaam, a non-Israelite seer, sets out on a journey, an act that incurs God's wrath. God responds by dispatching his celestial messenger, the malak YHWH, described as a satan, who stations himself on the road upon which Balaam is travelling. Balaam is ignorant of the swordwielding messenger but his donkey sees the danger and twice avoids the messenger, for which Balaam beats the animal. The messenger then moves to a place in the road where circumvention is impossible. The donkey lays down, and is again beaten. At this point Yahweh gives the donkey the ability to speak, and she asks why Balaam has beaten her. A conversation ensues and then Yahweh uncovers Balaam's eyes so that he can see the sword-wielding messenger, and Balaam falls down to the ground. The messenger asks why Balaam struck his donkey and then asserts that he has come forth as a satan because Balaam undertook his journey hastily. The messenger states that, had the donkey not seen him and avoided him, he would have killed Balaam. Balaam then admits his guilt, saying that he did not know that the messenger was standing on the road, and offers to tum back if the messenger judges the journey to be wrong. The messenger gives Balaam permission to continue, but adjures him to speak only as instructed. Prior to the work of GROSS (1974) most scholars attributed the above passage to the J source, which would have made it the earliest context in which the noun satan is applied to a celestial being. However, since Gross' study the tendency has been to date the passage to the sixth century BC or later. With the exception of the above story, which obviously ridicules Balaam, he is characterized in an extremely positive way in Num 22-24. Outside those chapters, the first clear indications that he is being viewed negatively are attributable to the P source (Num 31: 16) and Dtr 2 (Josh 13:22), both of which are typically dated to the sixth century. Thus the available evidence suggests that Balaam was viewed positively in earlier, epic tradition, but negatively in later sources. Given that the story under discussion views Balaam negatively, the story most likely stems from a later source. As can be readily seen, the heavenly being who acts as a satan in Numbers 22 has very little in common with later conceptualizations of Satan. He (satan) is Yahweh's messenger, not his archenemy, and he acts in accordance with Yahweh's will rather than opposing it. Indeed, Yahweh's messenger here, as elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible, is basically an hypostatization of the deity. Hence, as KLUGER (1967:75) has remarked, the 'real' satan/adversary in Numbers 22 is none other than Yahweh himself. The opening chapter of the book of Job describes a gathering of the -"sons of God', i.e. a meeting of the divine -'council. Present at this gathering is a being called "Hassatan": this is the common noun satan preceded by the definite nrticle. The definite article makes it virtually certain that satan is not a proper name (contra B. WALTKE & M. O'CONNOR, An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax [Winona Lake 1990] 249).
Lucifer does not exist until the stroke of a pen in 382 CE. The genealogy is straightforward to plot. First, the apparent name given in Isaiah 14:12 is not Lucifer, but Hêlēl Ben Šaḥar; this is transformed in the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible, into Ἑωσφόρος (Heōsphóros): dawn bringer. This is the specific Greek term for the god of the planet Venus when it rises. There is no ambiguity in its astral identification as the morning star. In Greek mythology, Heōsphóros was twinned with Hesperos; they are respectively morning and evening star. Even in identifying these as gods of the star, the planet Venus herself remained that of the love
goddess Aphrodite, a distinction which needs to be made. The Septuagint, with its rendition of Heōsphóros, was not, however, used as the basis for the Latin Vulgate, which replaced the earlier translations in circulation, collectively known as the Vetus Latina. The Latin Vulgate was the work of St Jerome in a project which commenced in 382 CE, and became the standard text in the Western Catholic Church for the next 1000 years. Instead of using the Greek Septuagint, Jerome went to the Hebrew texts themselves, and thence made the fatal translation ‘Lucifer.’
This is derived from the Latin lucem ferre, light bearer. Clearly this differs from the Greek, ‘dawn bringer,’ although it has the same basic meaning, that of Venus, the morning star. It is only when the Latin Lucifer is translated back into Greek that it becomes Φωσφόρος (Phōsphóros). Evidently, dawn-bringer is not a term that can be used interchangeably with phosphoros, which has the more general meaning of ‘light-bringing,’ and is applied to many gods and goddesses, such as torch-bearing Hecate. It does not identify the source or the character of the light. Though phosphoros can be applied as an epithet to Lucifer, it would be more accurate to specify heosphoros. The mystery of Lucifer is explicitly concerned with the light of dawn, and its attendant qualities – the reddening of the sky and the magical properties of the dew, an oft forgotten elixir.
