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

[BobRyan]

I do NOT believe there is a strong link between the scapegoat and Satan.

I'm not sure where you got that idea. Maybe I made a typo somewhere earlier and left out the word "not"?

1. In Lev 16 - the scapegoat plays no part in the atoning sacrifice of the sin offering in Lev 16:15. By contrast Christ IS the sin offering.

2. In Lev 16 we are told anyone who touches the scapegoat after sins are placed on it "is defiled" by contrast coming into contact with Christ "never defiles".

3. In Lev 16 the scapegoat has none of its blood shed nor does it have blood sprinkled on it. It forgives no one in the sanctuary because the sanctuary work is over by the time anything is done with the scapegoat. By contrast Christ's blood is shed and is the first work prior to the start of the heavenly sanctuary service as we see with the "sin offering" in Lev 16.

4. Lev 17 - 6 The priest shall sprinkle the blood on the altar of the Lord at the doorway of the tent of meeting, and offer up the fat in smoke as a soothing aroma to the Lord. 7 And they shall no longer offer their sacrifices to the goat demons

Lev 16: 10 But the goat, on which the lot fell to be the ahazel (or Azazel), shall be presented alive before Avinu, to make an atonement with him, and to let him go for a ahazel (or Azazel) into the wilderness.

from: Azazel - Wikipedia
In the Bible, the name Azazel (/əˈzeɪzəl, ˈæzəˌzɛl/; Hebrew: עֲזָאזֵל‎ ʿAzāʾzēl; Arabic: عزازيل‎, romanized: ʿAzāzīl) appears in association with the scapegoat rite; the name represents a desolate place where a scapegoat bearing the sins of the Jews during Yom Kippur was sent. During the end of the Second Temple period, his association as a fallen angel responsible for introducing humans to forbidden knowledge emerged due to Hellenization, Christian narrative, and interpretation exemplified in the Book of Enoch. His role as a fallen angel partly remains in Christian and Islamic traditions.

It can only represent Satan in that case.

I typically use the ESV and NET bibles for reading. They both include the results of modern scholarship, and both say "for Azazel" in Leviticus 16:8.

One thing I like about the NET is the richness of the footnotes provided by the translators. The footnotes for a chapter are typically longer than the chapter itself, and Leviticus 16 is no exception.

So I looked up the verse in the NET and here is the footnote for the word "Azazel":
...

(3) The most common view among scholars today is that it is the proper name of a particular demon (perhaps even the Devil himself) associated with the wilderness desert regions. Levine has proposed that it may perhaps derive from a reduplication of the ז (zayin) in עֵז combined with אֵל (’el, “mighty”), meaning “mighty goat.” The final consonantal form of עֲזָאזֵל would have resulted from the inversion of the א (aleph) with the second ז. He makes the point that the close association between עֵז and שְׂעִירִים (shя’irim), which seems to refer to “goat-demons” of the desert in Lev 17:7 (cf. Isa 13:21, etc.), should not be ignored in the derivation of Azazel, although the term ultimately became the name of “the demonic ruler of the wilderness.” The latter view is supported by the parallel between the one goat “for (לְ, lamed preposition) the Lord” and the one “for (לְ) Azazel” here in v. 8. The rendering as a proper name has been tentatively accepted here (cf. ASV, NAB, NRSV, TEV, CEV). Perhaps a play on words between the proper name and the term for “goat” has occurred so that the etymology has become obscure. Even if a demon or the demonic realm is the source for the name, however, there is no intention here of appeasing the demons. The goal is to remove the impurity and iniquity from the community in order to avoid offending the Lord and the repercussions of such (see esp. vv. 21-22 and cf. Lev 15:31).
​

good point

 

[BobRyan]

I don't understand why you want to make the connection between the scapegoat in the two goats story and Satan in Revelation 20 and 22. It looks to me like there are so many issues with that.

So then -- 3 minutes ago #841

One thing I raised in a post you may not have gotten to when you wrote this is:
If Satan carries our sins into the abyss, what happens to our sins after that? Do they cease to exist while they are in the abyss? Or does Satan come back out of the abyss with our sins still on him?

As Lev 16 points out the sins of the saints are blotted out in the sanctuary based on sin offering of Lev 16:15 "alone" -- and that work is completed BEFORE anything is done with the scapegoat later on in Lev 16.

 

[BobRyan]

I typically use the ESV and NET bibles for reading. They both include the results of modern scholarship, and both say "for Azazel" in Leviticus 16:8.

One thing I like about the NET is the richness of the footnotes provided by the translators. The footnotes for a chapter are typically longer than the chapter itself, and Leviticus 16 is no exception.

So I looked up the verse in the NET and here is the footnote for the word "Azazel":

...

(3) The most common view among scholars today is that it is the proper name of a particular demon (perhaps even the Devil himself) associated with the wilderness desert regions. Levine has proposed that it may perhaps derive from a reduplication of the ז (zayin) in עֵז combined with אֵל (’el, “mighty”), meaning “mighty goat.” The final consonantal form of עֲזָאזֵל would have resulted from the inversion of the א (aleph) with the second ז. He makes the point that the close association between עֵז and שְׂעִירִים (shя’irim), which seems to refer to “goat-demons” of the desert in Lev 17:7 (cf. Isa 13:21, etc.), should not be ignored in the derivation of Azazel, although the term ultimately became the name of “the demonic ruler of the wilderness.” The latter view is supported by the parallel between the one goat “for (לְ, lamed preposition) the Lord” and the one “for (לְ) Azazel” here in v. 8. The rendering as a proper name has been tentatively accepted here (cf. ASV, NAB, NRSV, TEV, CEV). Perhaps a play on words between the proper name and the term for “goat” has occurred so that the etymology has become obscure. Even if a demon or the demonic realm is the source for the name, however, there is no intention here of appeasing the demons. The goal is to remove the impurity and iniquity from the community in order to avoid offending the Lord and the repercussions of such (see esp. vv. 21-22 and cf. Lev 15:31).
​

good point

 

[tall73]

Which is a hand-waive and in disagreement of even the post from the person you are quoting from...

In fact, it is not a hand-waive, or a disagreement from the person I am quoting from.

I stated the same view they state back in post 430 as one one of three possible views. And you continue to misunderstand it when they say it, as you did when I said it.


LGW quoted:

(3) The most common view among scholars today is that it is the proper name of a particular demon (perhaps even the Devil himself) associated with the wilderness desert regions.

compare with:

Tall73 said:
The third is that azazel is a demon in the wilderness. In this case Azazel would be a proper name, and as one goat is for the Lord and one for azazel. This view became more prominent after the book of Enoch which mentions a demon named azazel.

and:

And if you interpret azazel as a demon, then the goat is not the demon, but is FOR azazel, or sent to him.

That last part is the part you are not getting. Those scholars who see the azazel as a proper name are not saying the goat is azazel. They are saying the goat is FOR azazel, and sent to him in the desert. It therefore carries away the sins from the camp to his abode.

Levine has proposed that it may perhaps derive from a reduplication of the ז (zayin) in עֵז combined with אֵל (’el, “mighty”), meaning “mighty goat.” The final consonantal form of עֲזָאזֵל would have resulted from the inversion of the א (aleph) with the second ז. He makes the point that the close association between עֵז and שְׂעִירִים (shя’irim), which seems to refer to “goat-demons” of the desert in Lev 17:7 (cf. Isa 13:21, etc.), should not be ignored in the derivation of Azazel, although the term ultimately became the name of “the demonic ruler of the wilderness.”

Yes, in the wilderness.

Even if a demon or the demonic realm is the source for the name, however, there is no intention here of appeasing the demons. The goal is to remove the impurity and iniquity from the community in order to avoid offending the Lord and the repercussions of such (see esp. vv. 21-22 and cf. Lev 15:31).

Agreed, they see the sins sent back on the goat to the place of the demon, from the camp of God's people. But they do not see the goat as satan, or the sins confessed on his head, or him paying for the sins of God's people. Rather they send sin to his dwelling, and out of God's dwelling, by means of the goat.


This rules out the common interpretation of ‘aza,zel as "(e)scapegoat," referring to the goat itself. Obviously the goat would not be sent "to the scapegoat." C. D. Ginsburg, Leviticus The Handy Commentary

I mentioned that as one of the possibilities because it winds up very similar to the possibility that the combination of the goat and the removal points to, or even "total removal" points to, which is sin is loaded on the goat and taken out of the camp.

The end point here is to the desert, the abode of azazel, as a proper name.

So no, it is not a disagreement with them, and I already noted that view 9 days ago to you in my first post addressing the scapegoat in post 430

However, I also noted it is one of multiple views. The term has multiple possible etymologies. And even the one that sees it as a proper name derives it from terms related to removal. If the term means total removal it may not refer to an entity. But if it does, then that entity is not the goat, but the goat is FOR that entity, and that entity lives in the wilderness.

I also noted that while a number of scholars take this view, some see it as appeasement of a competing deity or rival, which we would not agree with. Some see it as from a second source and put alongside the other rite, or borrowed from other near-eastern removal rituals, etc. which we would also not agree with.

 

[tall73]

tall73 said:
Of course he didn't provide just an opinion. He quoted from the source you posted, but didn't understand.

Azazel doesn't mean "fallen angel." Some scholars think it is the PROPER NAME of a fallen angel, largely based on Enoch, but also because it is FOR azazel. You ignore this part of the text altogether, and don't get what the scholars actually argue.

I see you think your friend cannot speak for himself.

He has been speaking for himself. I am also speaking for myself, and we are all in the same forum conversation. So if you raise a point when speaking to him that I want to address, then I do.

If your the one claiming that the scapegoat is not Satan then the burden of proof is upon you to prove your claims or why you disagree that Satan is not "the scapegoat" (Azazel: "remove" "fallen angel")

Again, even your own source says the name does not mean "fallen angel" but some think it is the proper name for a demon or fallen angel, with the root being from remove.

And of course they say the goat is for azazel who lives in the wilderness. So they don't see the goat as the demon. They see the goat going to the wilderness where the demon lives, to azazel.

against the evidence that has been provided to the claim that Satan represents "the scapegoat"

When you say scapegoat you are referring to a different etymology than the one the scholars reference when speaking of it being a proper name. Scapegoat is not saying it is a proper name. I will quote from wikipedia not as authoritative, but just as a summary of the etymology:

Scapegoat - Wikipedia

Early English Christian Bible versions follow the translation of the Septuagint and Latin Vulgate, which interpret azazel as "the goat that departs" (Greek tragos apopompaios, "goat sent out", Latin caper emissarius, "emissary goat"). William Tyndale rendered the Latin as "(e)scape goat" in his 1530 Bible. This translation was followed by subsequent versions up through the King James Version of the Bible in 1611

This is also the same etymology that Strongs used:

עֲזָאזֵל
‛ăzâ'zêl
az-aw-zale'
From H5795 and H235; goat of departure; the scapegoat: - scapegoat.
Total KJV occurrences:

They read it as a combination of the words for goat, and for go away. Hence, the scape goat is the goat that departs.

So the KJV reads:

Lev 16:10 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, and to let him go for a scapegoat into the wilderness. KJV

This etymology sees the reference to the goat itself, being used for the purpose of a goat of removal. In other words, the goat takes out the sins.

But in the etymology preferred by the scholars who see it as a proper name the word is not referring to the goat. Rather, the goat is then sent TO azazel, which is the name of an entity. It is FOR azazel.

Lev 16:10 but the goat on which the lot fell for Azazel shall be presented alive before the Lord to make atonement over it, that it may be sent away into the wilderness to Azazel. NRSV

Lev 16:10 but the goat on which the lot fell for Azazel shall be presented alive before the LORD to make atonement over it, that it may be sent away into the wilderness to Azazel. ESV

(Azazel: "remove" "fallen angel"). Meanwhile you have already been provided proof that you are simply seeking to hand-waive away with your opinion.

Reading your sources for what they say is not hand-wiaving them. It is helping you to understand what they say.

 

[tall73]

@Leaf473 said: ↑

One thing I raised in a post you may not have gotten to when you wrote this is:
If Satan carries our sins into the abyss, what happens to our sins after that? Do they cease to exist while they are in the abyss? Or does Satan come back out of the abyss with our sins still on him?

As Lev 16 points out the sins of the saints are blotted out in the sanctuary based on sin offering of Lev 16:15 "alone" -- and that work is completed BEFORE anything is done with the scapegoat later on in Lev 16.

Which makes it rather strange that Ellen White says over and over that they are placed on satan and he must pay for them:

Satan bore not only the weight and punishment of his own sins, but also of the sins of the redeemed host, which had been placed upon him; and he must also suffer for the ruin of souls which he had caused.

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.

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.

That is the sticking point, Bob. And not surprisingly that is what keeps coming back as a question mark for the non-Adventists.

 

[LoveGodsWord]

In fact, it is not a hand-waive, or a disagreement from the person I am quoting from. I stated the same view they state back in post 430 as one one of three possible views. And you continue to misunderstand it when they say it, as you did when I said it.

(3) The most common view among scholars today is that it is the proper name of a particular demon (perhaps even the Devil himself) associated with the wilderness desert regions.

compare with:

Tall73 said:
The third is that azazel is a demon in the wilderness. In this case Azazel would be a proper name, and as one goat is for the Lord and one for azazel. This view became more prominent after the book of Enoch which mentions a demon named azazel.

and:

And if you interpret azazel as a demon, then the goat is not the demon, but is FOR azazel, or sent to him.

That last part is the part you are not getting. Those scholars who see the azazel as a proper name are not saying the goat is azazel. They are saying the goat is FOR azazel, and sent to him in the desert. It therefore carries away the sins from the camp to his abode.

Yes, in the wilderness.


Agreed, they see the sins sent back on the goat to the place of the demon, from the camp of God's people. But they do not see the goat as satan, or the sins confessed on his head, or him paying for the sins of God's people. Rather they send sin to his dwelling, and out of God's dwelling, by means of the goat.


This rules out the common interpretation of
‘aza,zel as "(e)scapegoat," referring to the goat itself. Obviously the goat would not be sent "to the scapegoat." C. D. Ginsburg, Leviticus The Handy Commentary

I mentioned that as one of the possibilities because it winds up very similar to the possibility that the combination of the goat and the removal points to, or even "total removal" points to, which is sin is loaded on the goat and taken out of the camp.

The end point here is to the desert, the abode of azazel, as a proper name.

So no, it is not a disagreement with them, and I already noted that view 9 days ago to you in my first post addressing the scapegoat in post 430

However, I also noted it is one of multiple views. The term has multiple possible etymologies. And even the one that sees it as a proper name derives it from terms related to removal. If the term means total removal it may not refer to an entity. But if it does, then that entity is not the goat, but the goat is FOR that entity, and that entity lives in the wilderness.

I also noted that while a number of scholars take this view, some see it as appeasement of a competing deity or rival, which we would not agree with. Some see it as from a second source and put alongside the other rite, or borrowed from other near-eastern removal rituals, etc. which we would also not agree with.

Sorry I respectfully disagree but allow me to show why from the scripture. The reason why I disagree with you here is that we are talking about the scripture application of the name Azazel not the etymology that has become obscure as specifically stated in the quote under discussion. What your missing here is that according to the scriptures the scapegoat is NOT FOR Azazel "the scapegoat" it IS Azazel translated scapegoat in the English applied to "removal" and "fallen angel". As posted in the quote that was provided; "The most common view among scholars today is that it is the proper name of a particular demon (perhaps even the Devil himself) associated with the wilderness desert regions." Is "the scapegoat" (Azazel: "remove" "fallen angel") of Leviticus 16 associated with the wilderness desert regions? Of course it is application here in the same quote (3) is to the scapegoat of Leviticus 16:20-22. Your mistake in here is in trying to highlight obscure etymology separate from the application to the scriptures which is giving you an incorrect interpretation of Azazel who you think is Jesus that does not fit or apply to the scriptures.

It does not say anywhere in the scriptures that the goat is FOR Azazel! The scripture says this....

Leviticus 16:10 [10], But the goat, on which the lot fell to be "the scapegoat" (עֲזָאזֵל H5799; (ʻăzâʼzêl | az-aw-zale'); Azazel: "remove" "fallen angel"), shall be presented alive before the LORD, to make an atonement with him, and to let him go for a scapegoat into the wilderness.

The scapegoat's name in the Hebrew here is Azazel application is to "remove" "fallen Angel". In scripture context to Leviticus 16:20-22 all the sins are transferred to the ""the scapegoat" (Azazel: "remove" "fallen angel") where he Azazel (scapegoat) is "kept alive" and led by a strong man into the wilderness removing all sin from the presence of God.

Leviticus 16:20-22 [20], And when he has made an end of reconciling the holy place, and the tabernacle of the congregation, and the altar, he shall bring the live goat: [21], And Aaron [the high Priest] shall lay both his hands on the head of the live goat, and confess over him all the iniquities of the children of Israel, and all their transgressions in all their sins, putting them on the head of the goat, and shall send him away by the hand of a fit man into the wilderness: [22], And the goat shall bear on him all their iniquities to a land not inhabited: and he shall let go the goat in the wilderness.

All scripture context here is that Azazel (עֲזָאזֵל; "remove" "fallen angel") IS "the scapegoat" not going to Azazel (the scapegoat) as your claiming. That view is simply not biblical.

Take Care.

 

[LoveGodsWord]

tall73 said: Of course he didn't provide just an opinion. He quoted from the source you posted, but didn't understand. Azazel doesn't mean "fallen angel." Some scholars think it is the PROPER NAME of a fallen angel, largely based on Enoch, but also because it is FOR azazel. You ignore this part of the text altogether, and don't get what the scholars actually argue. He has been speaking for himself. I am also speaking for myself, and we are all in the same forum conversation. So if you raise a point when speaking to him that I want to address, then I do.

Again, even your own source says the name does not mean "fallen angel" but some think it is the proper name for a demon or fallen angel, with the root being from remove.

And of course they say the goat is for azazel who lives in the wilderness. So they don't see the goat as the demon. They see the goat going to the wilderness where the demon lives, to azazel.

When you say scapegoat you are referring to a different etymology than the one the scholars reference when speaking of it being a proper name. Scapegoat is not saying it is a proper name. I will quote from wikipedia not as authoritative, but just as a summary of the etymology:

Scapegoat - Wikipedia

Early English Christian Bible versions follow the translation of the Septuagint and Latin Vulgate, which interpret azazel as "the goat that departs" (Greek tragos apopompaios, "goat sent out", Latin caper emissarius, "emissary goat"). William Tyndale rendered the Latin as "(e)scape goat" in his 1530 Bible. This translation was followed by subsequent versions up through the King James Version of the Bible in 1611

This is also the same etymology that Strongs used:

עֲזָאזֵל
‛ăzâ'zêl
az-aw-zale'
From H5795 and H235; goat of departure; the scapegoat: - scapegoat.
Total KJV occurrences:

They read it as a combination of the words for goat, and for go away. Hence, the scape goat is the goat that departs.

So the KJV reads:

Lev 16:10 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, and to let him go for a scapegoat into the wilderness. KJV

This etymology sees the reference to the goat itself, being used for the purpose of a goat of removal. In other words, the goat takes out the sins.

But in the etymology preferred by the scholars who see it as a proper name the word is not referring to the goat. Rather, the goat is then sent TO azazel, which is the name of an entity. It is FOR azazel.

Sorry dear friend but I strongly disagree with your teachings and this is more of the same repetition already answered in previous posts to you. A proper name of a fallen Angel is still a "fallen angel". Are you seriously going to try and argue that the name of a fallen angel is not a fallen angel? Your making a strawman argument here that no one is arguing about. Just because Azazel is the name of a fallen angel which I agree and have never said otherwise it does not mean that that name does not belong to a fallen angel. Also, the book of Enoch from the Apocrypha as already shown earlier in the thread shows that Azazel was the leader of the rebellion in Heaven and the fallen angels. It is you who is ignoring this this application and part of the texts applied to Leviticus 16 that "the scapegoat (Azazel; "remove" "fallen angel") is and represents Azazel according to the scriptures of Leviticus 16:10 and Leviticus 16:20-22.

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.

..............

(3) The most common view among scholars today is that it is the proper name of a particular demon (perhaps even the Devil himself) associated with the wilderness desert regions. Levine has proposed that it may perhaps derive from a reduplication of the ז (zayin) in עֵז combined with אֵל (’el, “mighty”), meaning “mighty goat.” The final consonantal form of עֲזָאזֵל would have resulted from the inversion of the א (aleph) with the second ז. He makes the point that the close association between עֵז and שְׂעִירִים (shя’irim), which seems to refer to “goat-demons” of the desert in Lev 17:7 (cf. Isa 13:21, etc.), should not be ignored in the derivation of Azazel, although the term ultimately became the name of “the demonic ruler of the wilderness.” The latter view is supported by the parallel between the one goat “for (לְ, lamed preposition) the Lord” and the one “for (לְ) Azazel” here in v. 8. The rendering as a proper name has been tentatively accepted here (cf. ASV, NAB, NRSV, TEV, CEV). Perhaps a play on words between the proper name and the term for “goat” has occurred so that the etymology has become obscure. Even if a demon or the demonic realm is the source for the name, however, there is no intention here of appeasing the demons. The goal is to remove the impurity and iniquity from the community in order to avoid offending the Lord and the repercussions of such (see esp. vv. 21-22 and cf. Lev 15:31).

................

As posted earlier, and all through this thread, the reason why I disagree with you here is that we are talking about the scripture application of the name Azazel not the etymology that scholars state has become obscure as specifically stated in the quote under discussion. What your missing here is that according to the scriptures the scapegoat is NOT FOR Azazel "the scapegoat" it IS Azazel translated scapegoat in the English applied to "removal" and "fallen angel". As posted in the quote that was provided; "The most common view among scholars today is that it is the proper name of a particular demon (perhaps even the Devil himself) associated with the wilderness desert regions." Is "the scapegoat" (Azazel: "remove" "fallen angel") of Leviticus 16 associated with the wilderness desert regions? Of course it is application here in the same quote (3) is to the scapegoat of Leviticus 16:20-22. Your mistake in here is in trying to highlight obscure etymology separate from the application to the scriptures which is giving you an incorrect interpretation of Azazel who you think is Jesus that does not fit or apply to the scriptures.

But in the etymology preferred by the scholars who see it as a proper name the word is not referring to the goat. Rather, the goat is then sent TO azazel, which is the name of an entity. It is FOR azazel.

Lev 16:10 but the goat on which the lot fell for Azazel shall be presented alive before the Lord to make atonement over it, that it may be sent away into the wilderness to Azazel. NRSV

Lev 16:10 but the goat on which the lot fell for Azazel shall be presented alive before the LORD to make atonement over it, that it may be sent away into the wilderness to Azazel. ESV

It does not say anywhere in the scriptures that the goat is FOR Azazel! The scripture says this....

Leviticus 16:10 [10], But the goat, on which the lot fell to be "the scapegoat" (עֲזָאזֵל H5799; (ʻăzâʼzêl | az-aw-zale'); Azazel: "remove" "fallen angel"), shall be presented alive before the LORD, to make an atonement with him, and to let him go for a scapegoat into the wilderness.

The scapegoat's name in the Hebrew here is Azazel application is to "remove" "fallen Angel". In scripture context to Leviticus 16:20-22 all the sins are transferred to the ""the scapegoat" (Azazel: "remove" "fallen angel") where he Azazel (scapegoat) is "kept alive" and led by a strong man into the wilderness removing all sin from the presence of God.

Leviticus 16:20-22 [20], And when he has made an end of reconciling the holy place, and the tabernacle of the congregation, and the altar, he shall bring the live goat: [21], And Aaron [the high Priest] shall lay both his hands on the head of the live goat, and confess over him all the iniquities of the children of Israel, and all their transgressions in all their sins, putting them on the head of the goat, and shall send him away by the hand of a fit man into the wilderness: [22], And the goat shall bear on him all their iniquities to a land not inhabited: and he shall let go the goat in the wilderness.

Slightly different Hebrew word is being used here for goat which is H8163 שָׂעִיר

Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew & Thayer Greek Definitions - H8163
(sâʻîyr | saw-eer') שָׂעִיר noun masculine hairy goat; satyr, demon (with he-goat's form, or feet; Late Hebrew id.; compare BaudStud. i. 136 ff.; hairy demons WeSkizzen iii. 135; Heid. 152 RSSemitic 113, 423: 2nd ed. 120, 441); absolute ׳שׂ Isa 34:14 inhabiting desolate ruins, so plural שְׂעִירִים 13:21; name for idols 2Chr 11:15 and (שְׂעִירִם) Lev 17:7 (H); probably also הַשּׂ ׳בָּמוֺת 2Kin 23:8 (הַשְּׁעָרִים ᵑ0) HoffmZAW ii (1882), 175 SS Kmp Klo Kit Benz Bur.

.................

Combined Word Definitions, BDB & Thayer - H8163
Original: שׂער שׂעיר Transliteration: Sa`iyr Phonetic: saw-eer’
Definition: adj 1. hairy n m 2. he-goat, buck a. as sacrificial animal b. satyr, may refer to a demon possessed goat like the swine of Gadara (Mat 8:30-32)

..................

Hebrew and Greek Dictionaries w/TVM, Strong - H8163
שָׂעִיר (sâʻîyr | saw-eer')
Derivation: or שָׂעִר; from שָׂעַר;
Strong's: shaggy; as noun, a he-goat; by analogy, a faun
KJV: devil, goat, hairy, kid, rough, satyr.

..................

Further evidence already provided...

These included a (1). Scripture; (2). Jewish commentary on the Torah and meaning of the name Azazel; (3). the Apocrypha book of Enoch; (4). the BDB and English Lexicon and (5). The occult and Satanism depicting Satan as a goat. Honestly, it seem Satanists no more about the scriptures then many Christians sadly. All five independent sources are in agreement.

• Source (1) scripture from the old and new covenant showing types and anti-types
  
• Source (2) Jewish Torah commentary showing the meaning of the name of Azazel was;
  
• Source (3) refers to Azazel from the Apocrypha (Book of Enoch) as the leader of the fallen angels;
• Source (4) Hebrew dictionary and Lexicon showing the meaning of the word translated "scapegoat" being Azazel meaning "removal" "fallen angel" with context to the Day of atonement (Leviticus 16).
• Source (5) The symbol of Satan in Satanism and the occult is the goat!

Collectively I believe this is strong evidence that as a whole cannot be simply hand-waived away by your opinion so we will agree to disagree on this one.

....................

All scripture context here is that Azazel (עֲזָאזֵל; "remove" "fallen angel") IS "the scapegoat" not going to Azazel (the scapegoat) as your claiming. That view is simply not biblical. I view your problem here if I am being honest with you is in trying to argue etymology, which which scholars say is not clear or obscure separated or outside of the scriptures which are clear in their application to Azazel. Sorry but for the reasons outlined above I do not believe you.

Take Care.

 

[pasifika]

@Leaf473 said: ↑

One thing I raised in a post you may not have gotten to when you wrote this is:
If Satan carries our sins into the abyss, what happens to our sins after that? Do they cease to exist while they are in the abyss? Or does Satan come back out of the abyss with our sins still on him?



Which makes it rather strange that Ellen White says over and over that they are placed on satan and he must pay for them:

Satan bore not only the weight and punishment of his own sins, but also of the sins of the redeemed host, which had been placed upon him; and he must also suffer for the ruin of souls which he had caused.

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.

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.

That is the sticking point, Bob. And not surprisingly that is what keeps coming back as a question mark for the non-Adventists.

This is what I don't get from these conversations is that @tall73 quote EG White writings "clearly" states that the "scapegoat" pointing to "Satan"...so I don't know why is @BobRyan seems to not agree with those writings??

The real question is, did EG White wrote this or Not? And why are Sda scholars seems not in agreement with her?

 

[tall73]

This is what I don't get from these conversations is that @tall73 quote EG White writings "clearly" states that the "scapegoat" pointing to "Satan"...so I don't know why is @BobRyan seems to not agree with those writings??

The real question is, did EG White wrote this or Not? And why are Sda scholars seems not in agreement with her?

They agree that satan is the scapegoat. But they use arguments from those who think the goat takes the sins TO azazel. So it doesn't always match up.

But also, they agree satan is the scapegoat. But then they say that the sins placed on him are NOT our sins, since those were already paid for.

But she says they are our sins, again and again, and says he must suffer and die for them.

If they are no longer our sins, why does she call them that?

If they were already atoned for why is there a need to pay the penalty for them?

She says Jesus' blood removes sins from the sanctuary, but then those sins, the sins of God's people, are placed on satan who must pay.

How do you pay for cancelled sins?

They want to distract from what she said because what she said doesn't make sense even in their own view of the type.

 

[tall73]

What your missing here is that according to the scriptures the scapegoat is NOT FOR Azazel "the scapegoat" it IS Azazel translated scapegoat in the English applied to "removal" and "fallen angel".

No, in fact the text has for azazel.

Lev 16:10 but the goat on which the lot fell for Azazel shall be presented alive before the LORD to make atonement over it, that it may be sent away into the wilderness for Azazel.

The goat is sent into the wilderness for azazel.

As posted in the quote that was provided; "The most common view among scholars today is that it is the proper name of a particular demon (perhaps even the Devil himself) associated with the wilderness desert regions."

Yes, which is why they see the goat for azazel as sent to azazel, who they see as in the desert regions. The goat (in the camp) is sent to azazel (out of the camp, in the desert).

Is "the scapegoat" (Azazel: "remove" "fallen angel") of Leviticus 16 associated with the wilderness desert regions? Of course it is application here in the same quote (3) is to the scapegoat of Leviticus 16:20-22. Your mistake in here is in trying to highlight obscure etymology separate from the application to the scriptures

No, my reason for highlighting "obscure" etymology is to show that the concept of the scapegoat is a different one, based on a different understanding of the etymology, than the view that azazel is a proper name for an entity that the goat is for, and sent to.

It does not say anywhere in the scriptures that the goat is FOR Azazel! The scripture says this....
Leviticus 16:10 [10], But the goat, on which the lot fell to be "the scapegoat" (עֲזָאזֵל H5799; (ʻăzâʼzêl | az-aw-zale'); Azazel: "remove" "fallen angel"), shall be presented alive before the LORD, to make an atonement with him, and to let him go for a scapegoat into the wilderness.

It says that in the KJV because they followed the etymology that reads the goat as a goat of departure. The goat is seen as carrying the sins. But more importantly the word goat is seen to be part of the etymology in this case, leading to the conclusion that they do.


But it says the other in the other texts because they are adopting the view you claim to be endorsing, but only partly, that it is for azazel, because goat is not included in this version of the etymology, and the reference is to a proper name that it is "for".

And in both cases the text does have an element that relates to "for". In fact, that is one of the primary arguments the scholars make in considering azazel to be an entity in the first place. They are debating whether to read it as one of two possibilities:

Lev 16:10 but the goat on which the lot fell for Azazel shall be presented alive before the LORD to make atonement over it, that it may be sent away into the wilderness for Azazel.

Lev 16:10 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, and to let him go for a goat of removal into the wilderness.

The scapegoat's name in the Hebrew here is Azazel application is to "remove" "fallen Angel". In scripture context to Leviticus 16:20-22 all the sins are transferred to the ""the scapegoat" (Azazel: "remove" "fallen angel") where he Azazel (scapegoat) is "kept alive" and led by a strong man into the wilderness removing all sin from the presence of God.

You are confusing two distinct concepts of what azazel means, and then combining them. But that is not what the scholars are doing. And it is reflected in their translations, and their articles discussing it.

 

[LoveGodsWord]

LoveGodsWord said: ↑ What your missing here is that according to the scriptures the scapegoat is NOT FOR Azazel "the scapegoat" it IS Azazel translated scapegoat in the English applied to "removal" and "fallen angel".

Your response here...

No, in fact the text has for azazel.
Lev 16:10 but the goat on which the lot fell for Azazel shall be presented alive before the LORD to make atonement over it, that it may be sent away into the wilderness for Azazel.

Sorry this is exactly what I have said to you. The casting of lots is to determine who will be Azazel (the scapegoat; "remove" "fallen angel" = Satan) and who will be "the Lords goat" (Jesus).

The goat is sent into the wilderness for azazel.

No! The goat IS Azazel. The Hebrew name for scapegoat here IS עֲזָאזֵל (ʻăzâʼzêl | az-aw-zale'). The casting of the lots was to determine who "the scapegoat" (Azazel) IS and who "the Lords goat" IS.

Leviticus 16:10, But the goat, ON WHICH THE LOT FELL TO BE AZAZEL ("the scapegoat" "remove" fallen angel") , shall be presented alive before the LORD, to make an atonement with him, and to let him go FOR A SCAPEGOAT (Azazel: "remove" fallen angel") into the wilderness.

Your confusing who the lots fall on to determine who IS Azazel (the scapegoat) and who the lots fell on to determine who "the Lords goat IS by separating obscure etymology from scripture that is not obscure.

Yes, which is why they see the goat for azazel as sent to azazel, who they see as in the desert regions. The goat (in the camp) is sent to azazel (out of the camp, in the desert).

Your explanation makes no sense when applied to the scriptures. How can Azazel who is Azazel be sent to himself who is in the wilderness. According to the scriptures, "the scapegoat" IS Azazel. As shown above and in the previous section and earlier posts, you are confusing who the lots fall on to determine who is Azazel (the scapegoat) and who the lots fell on to determine who "the Lords goat is by arguing obscure etymology against the scriptures which are not obscure. According to the scriptures your view does not work.

No, my reason for highlighting "obscure" etymology is to show that the concept of the scapegoat is a different one, based on a different understanding of the etymology, than the view that azazel is a proper name for an entity that the goat is for, and sent to.

I think you missed the point. Your trying to highlight etymology (history of word use) that scholars claim is obscure to argue against the scriptures which are not obscure yet the majority of scholars are in agreement that Azazel is a name representing the devil or Satan.

Take Care.

 

[tall73]

A proper name of a fallen Angel is still a "fallen angel".

And when you put it in quotations, you suggest that is what the word means, "fallen angel" and it is not.

The word is considered to be a possible proper name for a fallen angel, but it is from a root that by no means reads as "fallen angel."

Just because Azazel is the name of a fallen angel

That is a possibility from the etymology, and usage, and there are others. But one of the major arguments for them seeing it as a proper name is because it is FOR that proper name, which you are trying to dismiss.

LGW quoted:
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.

This possibility is the case even in the scapegoat model where it is not a proper name, but is a "goat of removal". But in either case the goat is the one who takes it out of the camp. The goat is for azazel, who is in the wilderness.

You are intepreting azazel as a proper name. Therefore, la ‘aza,zel to, or for, azazel is indicating that the goat goes to azazel in the wilderness. Which is why that is reflected in the translation:

Lev 16:10 but the goat on which the lot fell for Azazel shall be presented alive before the LORD to make atonement over it, that it may be sent away into the wilderness to Azazel.

It is sent into the wilderness for/to azazel, la ‘aza,zel, לעזאזל

As posted earlier, and all through this thread, the reason why I disagree with you here is that we are talking about the scripture application of the name Azazel

The scripture application says לעזאזל
It does not say עזאזל

And you are ignoring that.

It does not say anywhere in the scriptures that the goat is FOR Azazel! The scripture says this....

Leviticus 16:10 [10], But the goat, on which the lot fell to be "the scapegoat" (עֲזָאזֵל H5799; (ʻăzâʼzêl | az-aw-zale'); Azazel: "remove" "fallen angel")

Except it does say it both times in the verse in Hebrew.

It is for azazel.

 

[tall73]

The Hebrew name for scapegoat here IS עֲזָאזֵל

No, as your sources said, the presumed proper name of the demonic entity is azazel.

And the goat is la ‘aza,zel
For azazel

והשׂעיר אשׁר עלה עליו הגורל לעזאזל יעמד־חי לפני יהוה לכפר עליו לשׁלח אתו לעזאזל
המדברה׃

 

[Freth]

This article explains the scapegoat better than I could. It explains why Jesus can't be the scapegoat. Here's an excerpt, including non-SDA commentaries and quotes:

To say that the scapegoat, which played a part only after the atonement was complete, represented Christ is to blur the atonement, to suggest it is not sufficient, that something else was needed to complete it and make it effective. Such an idea is not biblical.

...​

We have an example of such a transfer in Leviticus (24:13,14). A young man blasphemed God and so was sentenced to be taken outside the camp and stoned to death. Before the stoning, witnesses to his words laid their hands on his head.

Two suggestions have been made as to the significance of this act. One, they were making solemn testimony that they had indeed heard his blasphemies and that he therefore merited his fate. Second, they were transferring back to him any guilt that had "rubbed off" on them by hearing him.

Both of these suggestions have merit. Christ, as no other, has been witness to the rebellion of Satan and can attest that he richly deserves his fate. And the sins Satan caused others to commit will be laid back upon him so that he will be required to bear the penalty for those sins. This is not to make him a propitiation for the sins.

A third suggestion, made by Dr. Roy Gane, based on Deut. 19:16-21, is that when one maliciously and falsely accuses another for some crime, he himself is to receive "the punishment intended for the one falsely accused." Thus, Satan, "the accuser of the brethren" (Zech.3; Rev. 12:10) receives punishment as a malicious witness.

That the scapegoat symbolized Satan is recognized by The Biblical Expositor. "In its substitutionary punishment it [the scapegoat] symbolized the sending back of sin to its demoniac author and thus the breaking of his claims over God's people (cf. Heb. 2:14,15;! John 3:8)."​

 

[LoveGodsWord]

And when you put it in quotations, you suggest that is what the word means, "fallen angel" and it is not.

As posted earlier that is the reference made in the BDB to the name of "the fallen angel" who was the leader of the rebellion in Heaven. The application of the name as posted earlier is to "the fallen angel" So to claim that the name does not represent who it belongs to (the fallen angel) simply does not make any sense.

The word is considered to be a possible proper name for a fallen angel, but it is from a root that by no means reads as "fallen angel."

As quoted earlier your making strawman arguments no one is arguing about. You were shown earlier the linkages from the book of Enoch showing the application to Azazel being the leader of the rebellion in heaven and why most scholars take this view.

That is a possibility from the etymology, and usage, and there are others. But one of the major arguments for them seeing it as a proper name is because it is FOR that proper name, which you are trying to dismiss.

LGW quoted:
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.

This possibility is the case even in the scapegoat model where it is not a proper name, but is a "goat of removal". But in either case the goat is the one who takes it out of the camp. The goat is for azazel, who is in the wilderness.

No not at all. It also has application to "the fallen angel" as shown in BDB and through the Book of Enoch which is what most scholars agree on. This is what your seeking to dismiss because it shows through the scriptures that "the scapegoat" (Azazel: "remove" "fallen angel") represents Satan and exposes your arguments here and application to your view that Jesus represents "the scapegoat" (Azazel: "remove" "fallen angel"). As shown earlier ...

(3) The most common view among scholars today is that it is the proper name of a particular demon (perhaps even the Devil himself) associated with the wilderness desert regions. Levine has proposed that it may perhaps derive from a reduplication of the ז (zayin) in עֵז combined with אֵל (’el, “mighty”), meaning “mighty goat.” The final consonantal form of עֲזָאזֵל would have resulted from the inversion of the א (aleph) with the second ז. He makes the point that the close association between עֵז and שְׂעִירִים (shя’irim), which seems to refer to “goat-demons” of the desert in Lev 17:7 (cf. Isa 13:21, etc.), should not be ignored in the derivation of Azazel, although the term ultimately became the name of “the demonic ruler of the wilderness.” The latter view is supported by the parallel between the one goat “for (לְ, lamed preposition) the Lord” and the one “for (לְ) Azazel” here in v. 8. The rendering as a proper name has been tentatively accepted here (cf. ASV, NAB, NRSV, TEV, CEV). Perhaps a play on words between the proper name and the term for “goat” has occurred so that the etymology has become obscure. Even if a demon or the demonic realm is the source for the name, however, there is no intention here of appeasing the demons. The goal is to remove the impurity and iniquity from the community in order to avoid offending the Lord and the repercussions of such (see esp. vv. 21-22 and cf. Lev 15:31).

You are intepreting azazel as a proper name. Therefore, la ‘aza,zel to, or for, azazel is indicating that the goat goes to azazel in the wilderness. Which is why that is reflected in the translation:
Lev 16:10 but the goat on which the lot fell for Azazel shall be presented alive before the LORD to make atonement over it, that it may be sent away into the wilderness to Azazel.

Absolutely not! The goat IS Azazel. The Hebrew name for scapegoat here IS עֲזָאזֵל (ʻăzâʼzêl | az-aw-zale'). The casting of the lots was to determine who "the scapegoat" (Azazel) IS and who "the Lords goat" IS.

Leviticus 16:10, But the goat, ON WHICH THE LOT FELL TO BE AZAZEL ("the scapegoat" "remove" fallen angel") , shall be presented alive before the LORD, to make an atonement with him, and to let him go FOR A SCAPEGOAT (Azazel: "remove" fallen angel") into the wilderness.

Your confusing who the lots fall on to determine who IS Azazel (the scapegoat) and who the lots fell on to determine who "the Lords goat IS by separating obscure etymology from scripture that is not obscure. Your explanation makes no sense when applied to the scriptures. How can Azazel who is Azazel be sent to himself who is in the wilderness. According to the scriptures, "the scapegoat" IS Azazel. As shown above and in the previous section and earlier posts, you are confusing who the lots fall on to determine who is Azazel (the scapegoat) and who the lots fell on to determine who "the Lords goat is by arguing obscure etymology against the scriptures which are not obscure. According to the scriptures your view does not work.

It is sent into the wilderness for/to azazel, la ‘aza,zel, לעזאזל

The scripture application says לעזאזל
It does not say עזאזל

And you are ignoring that.
Except it does say it both times in the verse in Hebrew.

It is for azazel.

No it is you misreading the scripture context here. The lots are to determine who IS "the Lords goat" and who IS "the scapegoat" Your ignoring the scripture context here where application to "FOR" is by the lots that are cast to determine who "IS".

Take Care.

 

[LoveGodsWord]

No, in fact the text has for azazel.

Lev 16:10 but the goat on which the lot fell for Azazel shall be presented alive before the LORD to make atonement over it, that it may be sent away into the wilderness for Azazel.

The goat is sent into the wilderness for azazel.

Not according to the scriptures. Your disregarding scripture context. The goat IS Azazel. The Hebrew name for scapegoat here IS עֲזָאזֵל (ʻăzâʼzêl | az-aw-zale'). The casting of the lots was to determine who "the scapegoat" (Azazel) IS and who "the Lords goat" IS.

Leviticus 16:10, But the goat, ON WHICH THE LOT FELL TO BE AZAZEL ("the scapegoat" "remove" fallen angel") , shall be presented alive before the LORD, to make an atonement with him, and to let him go FOR A SCAPEGOAT (Azazel: "remove" fallen angel") into the wilderness.

Your confusing who the lots fall on to determine who IS Azazel (the scapegoat) and who the lots fell on to determine who "the Lords goat IS by separating obscure etymology from scripture that is not obscure. Your ignoring the scripture context here where application to "FOR" is by the lots that are cast to determine who "IS".

No, my reason for highlighting "obscure" etymology is to show that the concept of the scapegoat is a different one, based on a different understanding of the etymology, than the view that azazel is a proper name for an entity that the goat is for, and sent to.

Which is what I said your trying to make arguments on obscure etymology against the scripture that are not obscure while interpreting scripture out of context from the lots that are cast to determine who "the Lords goat IS and who "the scapegoat" IS.

Leviticus 16:10, But the goat, ON WHICH THE LOT FELL TO BE AZAZEL ("the scapegoat" "remove" fallen angel") , shall be presented alive before the LORD, to make an atonement with him, and to let him go FOR A SCAPEGOAT (Azazel: "remove" fallen angel") into the wilderness.

Your confusing who the lots fall on to determine who IS Azazel (the scapegoat) and who the lots fell on to determine who "the Lords goat IS by separating obscure etymology from scripture that is not obscure. Your ignoring the scripture context here where application to "FOR" is by the lots that are cast to determine who "IS".

It says that in the KJV because they followed the etymology that reads the goat as a goat of departure. The goat is seen as carrying the sins. But more importantly the word goat is seen to be part of the etymology in this case, leading to the conclusion that they do.

But it says the other in the other texts because they are adopting the view you claim to be endorsing, but only partly, that it is for azazel, because goat is not included in this version of the etymology, and the reference is to a proper name that it is "for".

And in both cases the text does have an element that relates to "for". In fact, that is one of the primary arguments the scholars make in considering azazel to be an entity in the first place. They are debating whether to read it as one of two possibilities:

Lev 16:10 but the goat on which the lot fell for Azazel shall be presented alive before the LORD to make atonement over it, that it may be sent away into the wilderness for Azazel.

Lev 16:10 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, and to let him go for a goat of removal into the wilderness.

As posted above, context I think your not considering here in the scriptures is to the lots that are cast to determine who "the Lords goat IS and who "the scapegoat" IS.

Leviticus 16:10, But the goat, ON WHICH THE LOT FELL TO BE AZAZEL ("the scapegoat" "remove" fallen angel") , shall be presented alive before the LORD, to make an atonement with him, and to let him go FOR A SCAPEGOAT (Azazel: "remove" fallen angel") into the wilderness.

Your confusing who the lots fall on to determine who IS Azazel (the scapegoat) and who the lots fell on to determine who "the Lords goat IS by separating obscure etymology from scripture that is not obscure. Your ignoring the scripture context here where application to "FOR" is by the lots that are cast to determine who "IS".

Your applying the interpretation "for" to Azazel who is in the wilderness when "the scapegoat in Leviticus 16:10 IS Azazel. The scriptures do not say this. Your trying to argue obscure etymology in place of the scriptures which are not obscure here in my view.

Take Care.

 

[LoveGodsWord]

No, as your sources said, the presumed proper name of the demonic entity is azazel.

And the goat is la ‘aza,zel
For azazel
View attachment 309285

No. I did not presume anything at all as proven in post 848 linked. There is nothing here that disagrees with what I have already shared with you. It is the context your disregarding here in application to "FOR" which is to the lots that are used to determine who IS "the Lords goat" and who IS the scapegoat (Azazel: "remove" "fallen angel") that is in error as already shown through the scriptures.

Leviticus 16:10, But the goat, ON WHICH THE LOT FELL TO BE AZAZEL ("the scapegoat" "remove" fallen angel") , shall be presented alive before the LORD, to make an atonement with him, and to let him go FOR A SCAPEGOAT (Azazel: "remove" fallen angel") into the wilderness.

Take Care.

 

[pasifika]

They agree that satan is the scapegoat. But they use arguments from those who think the goat takes the sins TO azazel. So it doesn't always match up.

But also, they agree satan is the scapegoat. But then they say that the sins placed on him are NOT our sins, since those were already paid for.

But she says they are our sins, again and again, and says he must suffer and die for them.

If they are no longer our sins, why does she call them that?

If they were already atoned for why is there a need to pay the penalty for them?

She says Jesus' blood removes sins from the sanctuary, but then those sins, the sins of God's people, are placed on satan who must pay.

How do you pay for cancelled sins?

They want to distract from what she said because what she said doesn't make sense even in their own view of the type.

So Satan the "scapegoat" takes our sins to azazel? So those sins are not atone for are those sins that the "Satan" the scapegoat will take azazel...which means the blood sacrifice cannot always atone for All sins??

The other point is, those two goats belongs to the Lord, in which one is sacrifice and the other set free...so in that interpretation of Satan being the scapegoat means he also belongs to the Lord alongside Christ in taking our sins away...

 

[BobRyan]

This is what I don't get from these conversations is that @tall73 quote EG White writings "clearly" states that the "scapegoat" pointing to "Satan"...so I don't know why is @BobRyan seems to not agree with those writings??

Good point. In fact were it actually true that what he is quoting is some sort of "Adventists believe what I claim" then he could be posting it all day long on the SDA subform here and they would all be "thanking him for it".

But you will note that every single SDA on the forum so far objects to the way that Tall73 spins it. None of us believes what he claims.

He is stuck having to sell the idea that either SDAs believe whatever Tall73 spins -- and they just haven't talked enough to Tall73 to know it... or else he must claim he has a very accurate take on what Ellen White wrote and that SDAs are not the ones that actually believe what Ellen White published.

Both of those options are pretty hard to swallow in my POV.

The real question is, did EG White wrote this or Not?

That's like saying that all Christian differences would vanish if we could just confirm that Paul actually wrote the book of Romans. People "spin" what they find there - and then some accept and some object.

You and I have both read the book of Romans and yet we differ. Now suppose someone who has never read it comes in and I quote Rom 2:13 "it is not the hearers of the Law that are just before God - but the DOERS of the LAW will be justified"... -- and that is pretty much all the info he has on Paul. Well that is going to look "pretty convincing" to them that Paul must be teaching salvation by works. He will see you and I differ - but will then conclude "well I guess it depends on whether Paul really wrote Romans or not".

Now you could argue that reading the entire book of Romans is an option for the new guy - but can you seriously claim that reading that huge stack of published Ellen White volumes is "an option" for the new guy? This is why I don't like making all-Ellen-White-All-the-time arguments outside of SDA forums. It is not practical and it is not the way we teach our doctrines.

And why are Sda scholars seems not in agreement with her?

When you say "SDA scholars are not in agreement with her" what do you mean??