Seventh-day Adventists affirm "sola scriptura testing" AND The 1Cor 12 gift of prophecy

[Leaf473]

Indeed for example a great "sola scriptura testing" command is found in Isaiah 8:20
"20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them."

That was not a statement saying that Isaiah 8:21 cannot possibly be of God since it does not occur before Isaiah 8:20. Nor does it say every Bible text after Isaiah 8:20 provides no more information, no more detail than all of scripture up to Isaiah 8:20

Is that the complete test of a prophet?

Suppose someone here on CF asks for prayer about a a job interview later today. I write back saying that God will be with them during that interview.

Have I written something that does not conflict with but may expand on the Bible? Yes.
Am I then a prophet by SDA standards?

 

[ChetSinger]

I notice you left a few out Bob.

He sees that the day of atonement has a bearing on his life; that the scapegoat chosen to bear the sins of the people represents himself; that he must bear the sins of all who come to Jesus; and that those who continue in transgression must bear their own sins.

It was seen, also, that while the sin offering pointed to Christ as a sacrifice, and the high priest represented Christ as a mediator, the scapegoat typified Satan, the author of sin, upon whom the sins of the truly penitent will finally be placed. When the high priest, by virtue of the blood of the sin offering, removed the sins from the sanctuary, he placed them upon the scapegoat. When Christ, by virtue of His own blood, removes the sins of His people from the heavenly sanctuary at the close of His ministration, He will place them upon Satan, who, in the execution of the judgment, must bear the final penalty.


Christ's work for the redemption of men and the purification of the universe from sin will be closed by the removal of sin from the heavenly sanctuary and the placing of these sins upon Satan, who will bear the final penalty.

She says he must bear the penalty for the sins of God's people Bob, not just his own.

See, you want us to take her statements on the atonement as proof she didn't say the other. But she did say the other. And we all see it. And it indicates he bears all the sins of the those who come to Jesus, not just his own sin of temptation. Her statements on atonement are not consistent with her statement about satan bearing the sins of God's people. Jesus already did that.

Thanks again for the quotes. After all is said, it's Ellen White who speaks for SDA theology, not any individual church member.

 

[BobRyan]

Thanks again for the quotes. After all is said, it's Ellen White who speaks for SDA theology, not any individual church member.

failed to follow details again.

The church votes as a corporate body on its statement of beliefs every 5 years and this is published in the 28 fundamental beliefs. We cannot just "make stuff up" about other denominations .. facts matter.

 

[BobRyan]

Right, so Satan pays for his part.

true. but not as a 'sin offering" - so then not to "benefit" anyone by relieving their sin debt etc.

1. Christ paid for all the sins of all mankind in all of time on the cross.
2. The wicked suffer for their own debt of sin because they refuse the gospel
3. The suffering of the wicked is not salvific, is not substitutionary, and does not diminish the work of Christ.
4. Satan is a wicked being to whom that statement #3 applies in full -- whatever suffering he experiences is not done on anyone else's behalf and does not affect in any way the debt paid by Christ.

============================
At the trial of Christ – His opposers feigned outrage as they bent-and-wrenched is statement “destroy this temple and in 3 days I will raise it up”.

By bending Christ’s meaning they had an emotional whip to stir up the crowd supposedly in faithful affirmation of “the temple of God”.

That tactic has worked a few times in the past.

Hint: Adventists claim that Christ made a full and complete atoning sacrifice on the cross – as also Ellen White reminds the reader - #666

Statements made about suffering added to what is piled on Satan -- refer to “his own guilt” as the instigator of sin. #623

We've been talking at length recently about the role Satan has, if any, in removing sin from God's presence.

If Satan will at some time remove sin from God's presence, does that involve paying a penalty for that sin in some way?

His own guilt is paid for by his own suffering - God punishes the wicked as the final disposition for sin. But the suffering of the wicked does not relieve the guilt or suffering of any person. Only a sin offering can do that - which means only the blood of Christ can do that. Confusing the two clear teachings - is the work of those who sow confusion.

 

[BobRyan]

She says he must bear the penalty for the sins of God's people Bob, not just his own.

She says "the guilt of all the sins which he has caused " - his guilt in instigating those sins - (the full context you love to omit). #623

In real life - Lev 16 has this sequence
1. The sin offering selected -
2. The sin offering slain (Christ's atoning sacrifice on the cross - pays the debt of all sin in all of time) as also Ellen White reminds the reader - #666
3. The work in the sanctuary (those who accept that Gospel are identified and affirmed)

In all of that - the scapegoat plays no part at all.

Only when it is entirely completed do we have

4. sins confessed on the head of the scapegoat and it is sent away - defiling whoever it touches.

Even your own view adding even more suffering for satan- does not change anything about the atonement since the suffering of the wicked:

• is not a sin offering,
  
• does not relieve anyone's suffering,
• is not substitutionary

...all the details you are careful to skim past so far.
================
You have engaged in extreme bend-and-wrench efforts to spin a supposedly "adventist" view that first the scapegoat pays for the sins of the saints - then Christ pays something-or-other left over, then the work in the sanctuary is done. Thus "diminishing the work of Christ's atonement"

Or is your spin more like this very confusing format
1. Christ calculates some lesser payment diminished by whatever amount of suffering he plans to pile on satan in the future.
2. Christ’s work in the sanctuary then applies his own suffering plus the suffering of satan to pay debt of sin for others.
3. Christ then gets satan to suffer on behalf of other so as to pay their debt
4. Yet “inexplicably” you freely admit that the Adventists teaching is that Christ in fact paid the atoning sacrifice for all sins of all time 1 John 2:2 not just some diminished set and just for the saints

Were we simply "not supposed to notice"??

She says:

Much love to your dear father and to your sisters and brother. Tell them to be faithful to serve God. I have often prayed for them. Tell them to pray much that their sins may be confessed upon the head of the scapegoat and borne away into the land of forgetfulness.

this is the part where clicking on #623 - helps

Apparently you have in our mind some level of suffering that "satan is not allowed".

 

[Leaf473]

Here is another statement of EGW on the scapegoat. Note here they are to pray their sins would be confessed upon the head of the scape goat.

And there she sees them borne away to the land of forgetfulness.

Lt 8, 1850

Much love to your dear father and to your sisters and brother. Tell them to be faithful to serve God. I have often prayed for them. Tell them to pray much that their sins may be confessed upon the head of the scape goat and borne away into the land of forgetfulness.

Lt 8, 1850

Well now, that's an interesting piece of information.

It's not so much that I want to hold SDA folks feet to the fire regarding White. If they want to de-emphasize her, that's fine.

It's more like what the test is for a prophet or the gift of prophecy.

But how are her writings to be regarded? As authoritative and reliable? Or more as possibly having some good ideas?

 

[Leaf473]

Quoting White:

Then I had a view of Sister Minor and others with her that their visions were not true...

Hmmm... So prophecies against other prophets? Does this mean Sister Minor failed the test?

 

[tall73]

She says "the guilt of all the sins which he has caused " - his guilt in instigating those sins - (the full context you love to omit). #623

I did not ignore the context. I posted that statement in this thread before you did. And you omit what she said as well. She says he instigated every sin.


Since Satan is the originator of sin, the direct instigator of all the sins that caused the death of the Son of God, justice demands that Satan shall suffer the final punishment. Christ's work for the redemption of men and the purification of the universe from sin will be closed by the removal of sin from the heavenly sanctuary and the placing of these sins upon Satan, who will bear the final penalty.

She sees all the sins that are removed from the sanctuary are placed on him. And she says he is the direct instigator of every sin, as all sin caused the death of the Son of God. Ellen White thinks the devil made you do every sin you ever did Bob. And she sees him being punished for it.


He sees that the day of atonement has a bearing on his life; that the scapegoat chosen to bear the sins of the people represents himself; that he must bear the sins of all who come to Jesus; and that those who continue in transgression must bear their own sins.

It was seen, also, that while the sin offering pointed to Christ as a sacrifice, and the high priest represented Christ as a mediator, the scapegoat typified Satan, the author of sin, upon whom the sins of the truly penitent will finally be placed. When the high priest, by virtue of the blood of the sin offering, removed the sins from the sanctuary, he placed them upon the scapegoat. When Christ, by virtue of His own blood, removes the sins of His people from the heavenly sanctuary at the close of His ministration, He will place them upon Satan, who, in the execution of the judgment, must bear the final penalty.


Now I asked you earlier if you saw every sin from the sanctuary placed on him. So let's here again, does he bear only his part, or does he in fact bear all of them?

satan certainly tempts. But according to Scripture he is not the instigator of every sin.

Jas 1:14 But each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire.
Jas 1:15 Then desire when it has conceived gives birth to sin, and sin when it is fully grown brings forth death.

The devil didn't make you do it Bob. But she says this sins of God's people are placed on him.

So here Ellen White says pray that their sins may be confessed upon the head of the scape goat....not satan's sin of tempting, but the sins of the people Bob.


Lt 8, 1850
Much love to your dear father and to your sisters and brother. Tell them to be faithful to serve God. I have often prayed for them. Tell them to pray much that their sins may be confessed upon the head of the scape goat and borne away into the land of forgetfulness.

You accuse me of spinning. But you won't address her actual statements, other than to quote one line, which you actually take out of context. She sees him as responsible for all sin. And she sees him bearing the sin of the people of God.

You have engaged in extreme bend-and-wrench efforts to spin a supposedly "adventist" view

No wrenching is necessary to show that Ellen White thought satan must bear the sins of all who come to Jesus, or that she instructed people to pray much that their sins may be confessed upon the head of the scape goat.

She spells it right out.

Were we simply "not supposed to notice"??

We notice what she actually says. And we notice you and LGW can't quite seem to keep it straight. But as @ChetSinger noted, you don't have to. We see the statements.

 

[tall73]

She says "the guilt of all the sins which he has caused "

She does not say:


Much love to your dear father and to your sisters and brother. Tell them to be faithful to serve God. I have often prayed for them. Tell them to pray much that the part that satan played in their sins may be confessed upon the head of the scape goat and borne away into the land of forgetfulness.

She says:

Much love to your dear father and to your sisters and brother. Tell them to be faithful to serve God. I have often prayed for them. Tell them to pray much that their sins may be confessed upon the head of the scapegoat and borne away into the land of forgetfulness.

And yes Bob, we did notice.

 

[BobRyan]

But how are her writings to be regarded? As authoritative and reliable? Or more as possibly having some good ideas?

You realize of course - you are actually asking what the Bible teaches about the gift of prophecy... when it comes to Adventists.

 

[BobRyan]

She says:

Much love to your dear father and to your sisters and brother. Tell them to be faithful to serve God. I have often prayed for them. Tell them to pray much that their sins may be confessed upon the head of the scapegoat and borne away into the land of forgetfulness.

already addressed here -

Today at 9:44 AM #685

with all the details you skim past in your claim that Satan may suffer too much.

hint - even in the wildest imagine version of your would-be scenarios if Satan had the suffering for all sin in heaven and earth placed on his wicked soul - he could not be a spotless atoning-sacrifice sin offering or atone for anyone nor even himself - since he is still a wicked being.

You skip over this detail maybe 20 times so far.

The other huge gap in your model is that all your associates here suppose to themselves that Satan gets infinite torture - eternal torment for his part - and Adventist put it at infinitely less then that - being finite. Your "satan might suffer too much in the Adventist model I suggest" idea - is hiding that key detail from your own side.

 

[BobRyan]

Now I asked you earlier if you saw every sin from the sanctuary placed on him. So let's here again, does he bear only his part, or does he in fact bear all of them?

addressed here

hint - even in the wildest imagine version of your would-be scenarios if Satan had the suffering for all sin in heaven and earth placed on his wicked soul - he could not be a spotless atoning-sacrifice sin offering or atone for anyone nor even himself - since he is still a wicked being.

You skip over this detail maybe 20 times so far.

The other huge gap in your model is that all your associates here suppose to themselves that Satan gets infinite torture - eternal torment for his part - and Adventist put it at infinitely less then that - being finite. Your "satan might suffer too much in the Adventist model I suggest" idea - is hiding that key detail from your own side.

What is more you are stuck here

She says "the guilt of all the sins which he has caused " - his guilt in instigating those sins - (the full context you love to omit). #623

In real life - Lev 16 has this sequence
1. The sin offering selected -
2. The sin offering slain (Christ's atoning sacrifice on the cross - pays the debt of all sin in all of time) as also Ellen White reminds the reader - #666
3. The work in the sanctuary (those who accept that Gospel are identified and affirmed)

In all of that - the scapegoat plays no part at all.

Only when it is entirely completed do we have

4. sins confessed on the head of the scapegoat and it is sent away - defiling whoever it touches.

Even your own view adding even more suffering for satan- does not change anything about the atonement since the suffering of the wicked:

• is not a sin offering,
  
• does not relieve anyone's suffering,
• is not substitutionary

...all the details you are careful to skim past so far.
================

"You have engaged in extreme bend-and-wrench efforts to spin a supposedly "adventist" view that first the scapegoat pays for the sins of the saints - then Christ pays something-or-other left over, then the work in the sanctuary is done. Thus "diminishing the work of Christ's atonement"

"Or is your spin more like this very confusing format
1. Christ calculates some lesser payment diminished by whatever amount of suffering he plans to pile on satan in the future.
2. Christ’s work in the sanctuary then applies his own suffering plus the suffering of satan to pay debt of sin for others.
3. Christ then gets satan to suffer on behalf of other so as to pay their debt
4. Yet “inexplicably” you freely admit that the Adventist teaching is that Christ in fact paid the atoning sacrifice for all sins of all time 1 John 2:2 not just some diminished set and just for the saints​

Were we simply "not supposed to notice"??
this is the part where clicking on #623 - helps

Apparently you have in our mind some level of suffering that "satan is not allowed".

Where we see your two options so far - have lots of problems...

"You have engaged in extreme bend-and-wrench efforts to spin a supposedly "adventist" view that first the scapegoat pays for the sins of the saints - then Christ pays something-or-other left over, then the work in the sanctuary is done. Thus "diminishing the work of Christ's atonement"

"Or is your spin more like this very confusing format
1. Christ calculates some lesser payment diminished by whatever amount of suffering he plans to pile on satan in the future.
2. Christ’s work in the sanctuary then applies his own suffering plus the suffering of satan to pay debt of sin for others.
3. Christ then gets satan to suffer on behalf of other so as to pay their debt
4. Yet “inexplicably” you freely admit that the Adventists teaching is that Christ in fact paid the atoning sacrifice for all sins of all time 1 John 2:2 not just some diminished set and just for the saints​

 

[BobRyan]

A vision the Lord gave me October 23, 1850, at the house of Bro. Nichols in Dorchester, Mass. I saw that we must redouble our efforts now in this gathering time. I saw it was a shame for us to refer to the scattering time for examples to govern us now in the gathering time, for if God does no more for us now than He did then, we never shall be gathered. In the scattering Israel were torn and smitten, but now God will heal and bind them up. 1LtMs, Ms 15, 1850, par. 1...

Wow - more "All Ellen White all the time" posting on a thread about SDA doctrines and sola scriptura testing. There is really only "one source" here on CF for that sort of focus.

It works because non-SDA readers don't have the material or background and can be spun in almost any direction by those with an interest to do it.

So I stick with sola scriptura threads - like this one where I quote the Bible.

 

[ChetSinger]

failed to follow details again.

The church votes as a corporate body on its statement of beliefs every 5 years and this is published in the 28 fundamental beliefs. We cannot just "make stuff up" about other denominations .. facts matter.

Right. So the church voted that Ellen White's writings speak with prophetic authority. Ergo, her writings are considered to have authority from God. I understand if you're annoyed that her name keeps coming up. But as long as the SDA fundamental beliefs remain as they are, it will. I suggest your denomination remove her name from them so that it can pick and choose from among her words. Unless you really do believe that her writings speak with prophetic authority.

 

[Leaf473]

CF says this post is too long to do all at once. I'm breaking it into pieces.

Your response here...

This does not narrow anything down leaf but is simply avoiding and not addressing most of the content that you are responding to.

I believe it does narrow things down. I talk about the parts of your post that I disagree with.

This is a good example of what I posted earlier. Even after a full scriptural explanation has been provided you claim your confused but are not able to tell me why your confused or what you are in disagreement with.

I thought it was clear from my post what I was disagreeing with.

But no matter. Some of the highlights of where we don't agree are:

If the scapegoat isn't Jesus it must be Satan.

There is a strong link between the scapegoat story and Satan (I agree there is a link, I don't think it is compelling.)

Satan is in some way paying the price for our sin when he is finally destroyed.

So what is it that you do not agree on? I do prayerfully discuss the scriptures. How about you? This only works however if we are opened to be led by God's Spirit. Many simply think to close their eyes and ears to seeing and hearing Gods' Word according to Isaiah 6:9-10 which Jesus would quote to people in His day in Matthew 13:15-16 and Paul in Acts of the Apostles 28:26-27. We should not be afraid to come to the light of Gods' Word because it is only here we can find Jesus and know the truth of His Word as He guides us with His Spirit. Let's therefore pray that God will be our guide and teacher according to His promises and also pray that we do not close our eyes and ears to seeing and hearing Gods Word.

Sounds great! And then shall we each discuss what we feel God is teaching us?

 

[Leaf473]

I see. So you do not believe you need to prove your position from the scriptures? For me I do not think our discussion will go very far because for me only God's Word is true and we should believe and follow them (Romans 3:4; Acts of the Apostles 5:29).

No, it's not that I don't need to prove my position from the scriptures.

But I don't need to disprove your position until you have proven it. Otherwise, I believe that's called shifting the burden of proof. The burden of proof is generally considered to be on the person making the assertion.

So I don't have to prove that the scapegoat isn't Satan, until you have shown clearly that it is. (Again, you make a case for it, but it's not very strong imo.)

I don't have to prove that the scapegoat is Jesus until you prove that the only two possibilities for the scapegoat are Satan and Jesus.

This is another good example of how our discussions plays out. I have posted on this many times now as to what I believe but you still ask the same question over and over. As posted earlier throughout this thread your conflating atonement through blood sacrifice with atonement by paying the penalty of sin without blood atonement that results in the second death where all of the wicked pay the penalty for their own sins. That is what those EGW statements are referring to.

So you do believe that Satan pays the final penalty for our sin? Or you do not believe that? Or you believe that he pays some part of the final penalty of our sin?

I see that you talk a lot about atonement. And blood atonement and non-blood atonement. Does Satan perform a non blood atonement for our sin? If so, is that paying some or all of the penalty for our sin?

I don't think the above questions would require lengthy answers in a discussion format like this. Simple, concise answers would be most helpful imo.

It's fine if you believe I am misunderstanding White. But do you agree with your understanding of her?

And since this is an SDA thread, do you believe she passes the test for being God's messenger?

 

[Leaf473]

As posted earlier, there are two goats that are made for sin offerings (Leviticus 16:5). After casting lots the two goats are determined as "the Lords goat" and "the scapegoat". It is only "the Lords goat" that is sacrificed for sin atonement through blood sacrifice (Leviticus 16:8-10). Once the final atonement is made for God's people through blood sacrifice and the cleansing of the sanctuary by "the Lords goat" and the yearly ministration of the priesthood is completed for the final atonement and the forgiveness of the sins of all of God's people then the Great High Priest lays His hands on "the scapegoat" (Azazel - fallen angel) all sin is confessed by the Great High Priest (Jesus) which is transferred to "the scapegoat" (Leviticus 16:20-22).

The scapegoat is then led away "alive" by a strong man removing the all the sins from Gods people and the presence of God into the wilderness which is fulfilled at the second coming (see Leviticus 16:21-22; fulfillment in Revelation 20:1-3). Atonement for the sins of Gods' people has already been made by "the Lords goat" through blood sacrifice. This means that "the Lord's goat" as a sin offering dies and pays the penalty for our sins through death (the wages of sin is death - Romans 6:23).

At that point is the full penalty of our sin paid for? There is no penalty of our sin left for the scapegoat / Satan to pay later?

While blood atonement is made by the Great High Priest ministering the blood of "the Lords goat" before God so we can receive Gods' forgiveness of sins. At this stage Gods' people do not have any more sin as this has been purchase through blood atonement through "the Lords goat" (Jesus). All this is the work of Christ on our behalf.

The transferring and removal of all the sins...

The sins of God's people? Or the sins of other people? Or both?

...from the presence of God is for the final atonement with God *see Leviticus 16:10 in the yearly ministration of the Sanctuary (Day of atonement). This takes place only after all the sins of Gods' people have been atoned for and the Sanctuary has been cleansed through blood sacrifice.

Once atonement has been completed "the scapegoat" is then brought in before the Lord to make atonement with him (Leviticus 16:10) and the Great High Priest (Jesus) lays his hands on the head of "the scapegoat" (Azazel - fallen angel) and confesses all the sins of Gods' people transferring it to "the scapegoat" (Azazel - fallen angel)...

So it sounds like it is the sin of God's people that is placed on the scapegoat.

At this point blood atonement has already been made for the sins of God's people. But that blood atonement doesn't destroy the sin? The sin is left fully intact such that it can be then transferred to the scapegoat?

Is the role of the blood atonement basically to detach the sin from the people such that it can then be attached to the scapegoat?

...that is then led away by a strong man into the wilderness to remove all the sins of Gods' people from the presence of God. (Leviticus 16:20-22).

Then once in the wilderness does the sin cease to exist or dissipate in some way? Does the same thing happen in the abyss?

The transferring of all the sins of Gods' people to "the scapegoat" (Azazel - fallen angel)" represents all the sins of God's people being removed from the presence of God given back to satan as the originator of all sin...

Is the sin of the originator different from the sin of the perpetrator or are they the same?

...that was purchased by blood sacrifice from "the Lords goat" (Jesus). This is Gods' work through Christ who also represents our great high Priest. Leviticus 16:10 [10], But the goat, on which the lot fell to be the scapegoat, shall be presented alive before the LORD, to make an atonement with him,...

An atonement with God for sin? If so, which sins? Aren't the sins of God's people already atoned for?

Or is this the difference between the blood atonement and the removal atonement?

So the scapegoat is making a removal atonement for the sins of God's people? And the scapegoat does this with God?

But isn't the blood atonement also done with God?

Is it that there are two atonements, or two kinds of atonement, and they are both done with God?

...and to let him go for a scapegoat into the wilderness.

The scapegoat does not make blood atonement for sin in the yearly ministration of the Priesthood. All the wicked and Satan atone for their own sin...

So Satan atones for his own sin as the originator and tempter. But other people atone for their own sin as the perpetrators of those sins?

But at this point Satan is not performing a removal atonement for the sins of God's people but an atonement for his own sin by death?

...through the second death in the lake of fire is not the same as sin sacrifice through blood atonement in Jesus dying for the sins of the world for all those who believe and follow him. As the sins of God's people are all transferred to "the scapegoat" (Azazel - fallen angel) they no longer belong to Gods' people as they have been purchased through blood atonement from "the Lords goat" who then transfers then to "the scapegoat" (Azazel - fallen angel) who atones for all sin in the lake of fire.

Okay, now I'm not following you again.

Why is Satan making atonement for all sin? What kind of atonement is he making for all sin? Removal atonement? Or an atonement by death?

I thought the removal atonement was completed in the wilderness / the abyss?

 

[Leaf473]

I type of final burnt offering because the Lord...

Did you mean
"A type of burnt offering before the Lord?"

What would you like me to do in a case like this? Shall I ask you about it? Or should I just make my best guess?

I make plenty of typos myself. Me, I would prefer to be asked about it.

...and the final removal of all sin and death which is completed at the second coming as shown at the final atonement of "the Lords goat in Revelation 22:11-15 and the removal of all sin from the presence of God through "the scapegoat" (Azazel - fallen angel) in Revelation 20.

Wait, the final removal of all sin includes the removal of sin that was taken by Satan into the abyss? Does that sin come back with him when he returns after the 1,000 years?

Now does this make sense to you?

It might, if we can resolve the issues I talked about above.

 

[Leaf473]

Your response here...

No. Read Revelation 20:1-3 which has it's fulfillment in the removing of "the scapegoat" (Azazel - fallen angel) into the wilderness for 1000 years before being released for a short time before being destroyed in the Lake of fire (Revelation 20). Leviticus does not say that "the scapegoat" (Azazel - fallen angel) lives forever and does not return.

But the goat does not die for sin in the wilderness. It probably dies of natural causes. Whether it returns or not probably depends on how much it's enjoying the wilderness.

So I think that's different from Satan returning and dying for his own sin. Also that Satan doesn't have a choice in his return, it sounds like.

No. Sorry leaf, that is not the same resource and no it does not say the same thing. As posted earlier three different sources were provided that were all in agreement. These included a (1). Jewish commentary on the meaning of the name Azazel, (2). the Apocrypha book of Enoch and (3). the BDB and English Lexicon below.

When you say the BDB, I'm assuming you are referring to the Brown-Driver-Briggs. Yes?

Their definition is given in that link.

Strong's #5799 - עֲזָאזֵל - Old Testament Hebrew Lexical Dictionary - StudyLight.org

It says:
1b) meaning dubious

Are you able to find that?

Perhaps you are using a different version of the BDB? Or maybe it's laid out differently if you're using a desktop browser?

All three independent sources are in agreement.
Source (1) shows what the Jews thought the meaning of the name of Azazel was;

Jewish commentaries are famous for all kinds of wild ideas imo.

Source (2) refers to Azazel from the Apocrypha as the leader of the fallen angels;

The book of Enoch is probably written much later than Leviticus and probably represents whatever popular ideas were going around in Jewish culture at the time and place.

Source (3) provides the Hebrew meaning of Azazel as the "removal" "fallen angel" with context to the Day of atonement (Leviticus 16).
Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon, Unabridged - H5799
H5799. Azazel; עֲזָאזֵל noun [masculine] entire removal (reduplicated intensive (Ges§ 30 n. Sta§ 124 a), abstract, √ [עזל] = Arabic remove, see BährSymb. ii. 668 Winii. 659 ff. Me SchenkelBL. i. 256; > most, proper name of spirit haunting desert, Thes Di DrHastings, DB a fallen angel, Lev 16:8ff. being late, according to CheZAW xv (1895), 153 ff., Ency. Bib., who derives from עזזאֿל; compare BenzEncy. Bib.], as in Jewish angelology, where probably based on interpret. of 16:8ff.; name not elsewhere); — ׳ע 16:8, 10 (twice in verse); 16:26 in ritual of Day of Atonement, = entire removal of sin and guilt from sacred places into desert on back of goat, symbol of entire forgiveness.

It is the three independent sources used together the make the application the name Azazel (scapegoat) conclusive in my opinion.

Of the three sources, the BDB carries by far the most weight imo.

The scholars who wrote it would have known about the other two sources. They give several definitions.

Their primary one is "entire removal".

They also suggest "proper name of spirit haunting desert" and "a fallen angel".

Are all of those possible definitions? Yes. So, it's inconclusive imo.

Here's a different website with the BDB
Strong's Hebrew: 5799. עֲזָאזֵל (azazel) -- entire removal

I see that it doesn't have the "meaning dubious". Probably different editions or scanning techniques.

 

[Leaf473]

You might also find it interesting that "the wilderness" term used here was a reference to "the desert" and that Jesus when he began His ministry was tempted by the devil in the desert (Matthew 4).

Seems kind of vague. People went into the desert for lots of different reasons.

Also, the goat in the occult is a major symbol for Satan and Satanism. You could argue that on if there was only one string of evidence above is provided that "it is not conclusive but when you have all the evidence provided above and all the scripture support already provided is it still "inconclusive" in your view?

Yes. Things like this often build on one another. So someone interested in the occult reads the book of Enoch and takes ideas from it and incorporates them into their practices.

I suggest then perhaps you study up more in what the great day of atonement was all about. In the old covenant it was the final atonement and the cleansing of the Sanctuary from all the sins of the people of God before the new year. You are simply wrong here.

More study is always good!
Proverbs 2:10 For wisdom will enter into your heart. Knowledge will be pleasant to your soul.