Yes, there are two goats.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Three goats! Don't that beat all.

Now that you've said it, I'd like to see you support it.

I've been saying this since June -- see post #134586 page 1 of this discussion. And I have repeated it at least 3 times. It seems that I wasn't clear enough. Here is the proof that I have supplied in various form in the past posts.

In Blue -- regular KJV.
[In red]-- incorrect KJV translation.
(In green) -- what the Masoretic text read.

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

To translate ...

• a)"to be the" Azazel ... instead of " for" Azazel,
  
• b)" for a " Azazel into the wilderness ... instead of "to" Azazel into the wilderness

...a) & b) changes the whole meaning. They have turn the 2nd goat of the sin offering into being Azazel instead of being sent To Azazel. This is how the text erronously appears to have 2 goats when there are actual 3 goats -- 2 for the sin offering(the dead and alive one)both representing Jesus with his two works also represented with the 2 doves in Lev 14 and the 3rd goat is the stout goat or "goat god" called Azazel.

Here is how Scripture4all interlinear translation

In Blue -- regular KJV.
[In purple]-- Scripture4all literal translatin with Strong ref code
In green -- the key words in question that the literal translation by which the Masoretic text accounted for.

Lev 16:10 "But the goat, on which the lot fell over-him (5921) for-goat-of-departure (5799) shall be presented alive before the Lord, to make an atonement with him and to-send-away-of (7971) him (853) to-goat-of-departure (5799) the-wilderness-ward (4057)"

Notice the words in green. I have provided proof below that "goat-of-departure" is not a proper translation for Azazel. The Tenakh and some other translation agrees by translating the word azazel as "Azazel".

Here’s the Tenakh English translation of Lev 16:10 “10. And the he goat upon which the lot "For Azazel" came up, shall be placed while still alive, before the Lord, to [initiate] atonement upon it, and to send it away to Azazel, into the desert. » (quote and capitalization not added -- from the original Tenakh text. I have added the underline and the color texting. Please take note of the green Text)

I guess I had thought you were saying the goat went to the goat-god, not to a goat.

But whether it's a goat or a goat god, if being true, it is out in the wilderness and not part of the service. Only two goats are part of the service.

I also know you've repeated and emphasized that numerous times and it never has made any sense. Why wouldn't azazel be translated azazel? What's the difference?

Prepositional differences may not always be minor, but in this case, I don't see the difference, to be honest. It's a relatively simple matter of grammar. Each language has its own peculiarities with respect to grammar, and to say someone or something is going "to" something doesn't necessarily indicate a direction nor a destination.

For example, consider the popular phrase "...is going to pot." The "to" doesn't mean that the thing spoken of is on its way to a pot. We use the "to" in that particular phrase because it would sound quite odd to say "...is going pot." On the other hand, for other words, we might ordinarily leave off the preposition, such as for "...is going crazy" or "...is going mad." So the preposition may simply be part and parcel of a particular phrase or concept.

One of the most common mistakes of Asian learners of English is to say "share to." In a sense, it makes sense. When we share, we are giving something to someone, right? But in English, we simply never use the "to," as we have traditionally used "with." So with the phrase "to Azazel" versus "for Azazel," I think it would actually involve a pretty deep linguistic study to be able to arrive at any credible conclusions from such a slight change.

As another example, in Spanish, there are two prepositions which might be translated in English to the word "for."

[John works for his dad.]
Juan trabaja por su padre.
Juan trabaja para su padre.

However, those sentences have different meanings in Spanish, whereas in English they would be ambiguous. The first one in Spanish would say that John works to benefit his dad, which might be at any job and under any employer, whereas the second would say that John works under his dad (his dad is his boss). In English, our preposition "for" is less specific and can apply to both of the above. We would need additional clarification beyond that of the preposition to know which of the above were meant.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

You are playing with words. We are called to seek truth, for that’s where we will find Jesus.

All 3 goats are in this service.

The wilderness needs to be understood and define according to Biblical definition. Israel was in the wilderness for 40 years before they could enter the promise land. This illustrates the Sanctification work Israel went through before they could inherit the promise. The work of Justification was accomplish at Passover in Egypt for the Israelites and at the cross for the world. Justification is only one work and this work alone does not make us fit to enter the promise land.

The work of Sanctification can be a long work and it happens only in the wilderness before anyone can enter the promise land. God brings us in the wilderness(Hos 2:14) and from there does He teach us and mold us. It is interesting to note that Moses also was in the wilderness for 40 years for his training, and the church has gone 40 Jubilee cycle (also a wilderness journey) to have finally arrive at the door of the promise land.

So all the goats are part of the atonement service and the 3rd goat is as important because it also represents us by which Jesus(2nd goat alive) is sent to to make possible the atonement.

#1 goat – killed -- dead : Jesus 1st coming died on the cross = Justification Work
#2 goat – alive – Alive : Jesus work now in believers & 2nd coming alive to judge the world = Sanctification Work
#3 goat – stout god – goat god : Azazel = Satan and all of us that are stout gods (not submitting to G-d sovereignty)

The fact is that most leading translation (KJV, NKJV, NIV, NASB, YLT, WEB, HNV) has translatated it as “scapegoat” and not as “Azazel”. The problem with this translation is it implies the “goat goes away” when it should be the “stout goat”. These meaning are not even close nor similar. It changes the meaning of the text for the reader.

Strong made an error. Strong wasn’t a linguistic nor did he had much Hebrew background. Plus his compilation was done by a team of people that he supervised. All to say, errors are possible under such circumstances.

Thank you. I think I was trying to think of the idea, but couldn't quite come up with it. Well done!

You make no sense Green or should I say "you’re making up a straw man?" (did I say it correctly?)

There’s too much at state for you right now to even go to investigate and bring it to the Lord in prayers. I do know that eventually you will come around. Actually, everyone will for G-d “will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.” I am not the least concern for you nor anyone who reject this today.

Here is what I have brought up as support :

• i) 3 other Bible text that support that the second goat is Jesus and not Azazel.
  
• ii) I have brought up very clearly that there is a major difference in calling the 2 nd goat escape goat or goat-of-departure, as opposed to the correct form of having the 2nd goat is to be sent TO Azazel.
  
• iii) I have made it clear that there are not 2 goat in this service, but 3
  
• iv) I have provided 2 other Bible translation that has it correctly translated and differed from the KJV which I could of brought a third one.
  
• v) I brought up proof that Strong defined the word “azaz’el” incorrectly.
  
• vi) I have brought up the spiritual meaning of the atonement service which illustrate the two work of Jesus as illustrated with the two doves in Lev 14
  
• vii) I have layed up Biblical proof why sin cannot be layed on Satan according to G-d’s laws of liability.
  

I have other Biblical support to add to this list which I will bring later on.

The purpose of this is the Lord test(try) our faith so to show us our own heart who we really are loyal to.

Elle,

I have studied inspired writings which support my belief, and thus my view is in no danger of changing. I'm not trying to tell you what you should believe, only let you know that I'm standing firmly upon the position I have taken here.



The Bible says there were two goats.



One represents Christ. One represents Satan. Christ dies first. Satan dies last. Christ dies for our sins. Satan is punished for our sins. The distinction is clear between the two.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

No problem GC. I respect your choice to be loyal to the Church and wanting to take EGW writing to solve a doctrinal matter instead of turning to the word of G-d. However, it is not what Ellen has told us to do. I recommend you watch this video. FP782 - The Great Gulf Joseph Smith vs. Ellen White on the Relation of the Gift of Prophecy

http://betterlifetv.tv/watch_videos_now.php?ProgID=15

Your prefered English Bible translation erronously says there is 2 goats when there are actually 3. I have provided two Bible version with Masoretic text cross reference source as evidence, plus other evidences. I would counsel you to download free scripture4all tool that allows us to quickly verify the accuracy of any words including "to", "from" and etc...