Here's something I got from another forum. Quite a shaking study.

--------- Post from another Forum Starts here --------------

Azazel -- The (misunderstood)Scapegoat of Leviticus 16
..........by Doug Goslin

This study is an attempt to help us understand the depth of the atonement in relation to the two goats of Leviticus 16. Please understand that this writer knows nothing yet as I should and yet I do know that I was meant to be one with God, at-one-meant which was made possible at the cross. The Day of Atonement was a shadow of the true atonement and that atonement was experienced by the apostles.



It was both the death and resurrection of Christ that makes us one with God, not just His death. Most believers understand the good news in the death and resurrection of the Son of God and understand that without the resurrection their can be no atonement.






For many years I unknowingly deceived many people that the death and the resurrection was not enough to make us one with God. For this I repent and ask those of you that I have deceived to forgive me. I believed this was taught in the types and shadows of the Levitical priesthood but I was wrong.

For example, the Passover was connected to the exodus from Egypt and the sacrificial lamb represented Christ. The feast of unleavened bread represented getting sin out of the life. Then there was the evening and morning sacrifices, the wave sheaf, Pentecost, etc. All of them had sacrifices connected with them and a specific meaning but the feast that had the most meaning of all the feasts was the Day of Atonement.

The Day of Atonement was the only day of the year that the High Priest put on the white linen garments and entered within the veil to the Most Holy Place.



The Day of Atonement happened one day in the year because this was the day that God the Father made His children one with Him. The priests entered many times during the year into the outer court and into the holy place but only once into the Most Holy that was within the veil and notice that he wore special white linen garments for this occasion.
Why Two Goats?



The two goats were kid goats or under a year old which depicts innocence and they were taken from inside the camp of Israel which at that time was considered a holy nation. The word "Israel" means to be an over comer with God. The fact that Aaron had to cast lots upon the two goats, means that both goats had to be innocent and without spot or blemish because the lot could have fell on either one. So the goats had to represent something pure and innocent.

But, if they both represented Christ, why did there have to be two goats?

We know that when an animal dies it has no resurrection. It's spirit goes downward. We have two goats in this "shadow" because there are two parts to the plan of redemption, the death and the resurrection. The sin offering and the atonement was a two-fold plan and one goat could not have represented twofold plan.

There was another service where two birds were required for the cleansing of a person with infectious disease. The priest was to take two birds, and slay one of them and the other was dipped in its blood and then released. Lev. 14:1-7. There are differences in the two services. For example the scapegoat was not dipped in the blood of the slain goat. However there are similarities, as one bird being slain and the other released. There is no doubt that the slain bird represented Jesus’ shed blood setting people free from the condemnation of sin and forgiveness through the shed blood. The bird set free represents Jesus removing the sins and setting people free from the penalty of sin which is death.

The two goats make a complete atonement as well as the two birds.



Step One -- The Sin Offering



This represented the cleansing of mankind from all his sin, Remember a most holy God must dwell in holy places.

Here we have the sin offering. The first kid goat that was innocent without blemish representing Christ. "He that knew no sin became sin for us." The blood was shed and brought into the most holy and an atonement is made before the mercy seat. The blood is sprinkled seven times representing completeness and perfection of the cleansing that took place.

Step Two -- The Atonement



The innocent Christ was raised from the dead where His offering was accepted by the Father. This is represented by the second (two-fold) goat which is like the first goat, an innocent victim in which the lot fell to be the live goat is taken and it is presented "before the LORD at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation. Aaron who represents the HIGH priest puts the sins of the people on the head of the innocent scapegoat (one who innocently takes the blame). A fit man, which means a man of opportunity sends the goat away into the wilderness (the land of forgetfulness) where the sins are deposited but the goat is left alive!

The man of opportunity we believe are the righteous from all generations represented by Joseph of Armathea (Joseph meaning the name of seven Israelites) who now because of the atonement made for us have the opportunity to come boldly before the throne of grace to receive mercy. The live goat did not see death but he did take the sin's of the camp of Israel into the wilderness or to the land of forgetfulness which is according to Psalms 88 the place of the dead. This is what God the Father does with our confessed sins. He forgets them sending them as far as the east is from the west. Our sins are dead only in Christ.







Nowhere in the Bible will you find any hint that Satan will bear the guilt or the sins of the people.





We believe that garments represents righteousness (white linen) or unrighteousness (filthy rags). At the cross Jesus was stripped of His garments and lots were cast for them. Lots were cast for the two goats. The garments worn by the priest during the day of Atonement were of white linen and were left in the Holy Place after the service. The cloth used to bury our Lord was white linen and these were left in the tomb when he was resurrected representing the garments of our sins which were left in the land of forgetfulness. Absolutely nothing in the whole book of Leviticus 16 nor anything at the death and resurrection of Christ do we find any clue that Satan was a sin bearer or involved in the plan of salvation.







The fit man or man of opportunity returns after getting rid of confessed sins on the head of Christ and now has the opportunity to cleanse his garments and be fit to come into the camp of God's people. Isn't this a perfect picture of the plan of salvation?

Since the cross we have the opportunity to come boldly to the throne of grace and confess our sins. We then rest from salvation by works in this Sabbath rest that we now live since the cross trusting that God has forgotten our sins and live our lives from that point on cleansing our garments in the Word of God by the blood of Jesus Christ to make us fit to be taken in to the promise land. This is what the weekly Sabbath is meant to teach us and remind us of. That we are resting from our own works and trusting in the Father to create in us a new heart and to finish the creation that He started in us.



--Doug Goslin

Some things it does say:
The goat is left.
The goat is not killed by anyone.

What it does not say:
The goat continues to live.

What normally happens to a domestic goat left in a land not inhabited?

If the live goat is taken to the place of the dead, what should one expect to happen?

Some implications from Doug which must be dealt with:
Christ takes the sins and does not die.
Where is satan represented in the service?

Good points, kland.

Some points also worth mentioning:

1) The grammatical construction of Lev. 16:8 in the Hebrew implies that there are two personal beings involved, because both "Lord" and "Azazel" appear as proper names;
2) The grammatical construction of Lev. 16:8 puts the two beings in opposition to one another: for Azazel and for JHWH;
3) The Siriac version has Azzail, the "angel (strong one) who revolted";
4) The whole Hebrew tradition says that Azazel is an evil being and a fallen angel; 1 Enoch 10:4-9 says:

"And again the Lord said to Raphael: 'Bind Azazel hand and foot, and cast him into the darkness: and make an opening in the desert, which is in Dudael, and cast him therein. And place upon him rough and jagged rocks, and cover him with darkness, and let him abide there for ever, and cover his face that he may not see light. And on the day of the great judgement he shall be cast into the fire. And heal the earth which the angels have corrupted, and proclaim the healing of the earth, that they may heal the plague, and that all the children of men may not perish through all the secret things that the Watchers have disclosed and have taught their sons. And the whole earth has been corrupted through the works that were taught by Azazel: to him ascribe all sin.'"

There's somewhere in the pseudopigrapha which speaks of the time period as being 10,000 years (piggy backing on the point about there being a Hebrew tradition).

Ellen White believed and clearly taught the scapegoat typified Satan. Here's how she explains it:

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. The scapegoat was sent away into a land not inhabited, never to come again into the congregation of Israel. So will Satan be forever banished from the presence of God and His people, and he will be blotted from existence in the final destruction of sin and sinners. {GC 422.2}

In the typical service the high priest, having made the atonement for Israel, came forth and blessed the congregation. So Christ, at the close of His work as mediator, will appear, "without sin unto salvation" (Hebrews 9:28), to bless His waiting people with eternal life. As the priest, in removing the sins from the sanctuary, confessed them upon the head of the scapegoat, so Christ will place all these sins upon Satan, the originator and instigator of sin. The scapegoat, bearing the sins of Israel, was sent away "unto a land not inhabited" (Leviticus 16:22); so Satan, bearing the guilt of all the sins which he has caused God's people to commit, will be for a thousand years confined to the earth, which will then be desolate, without inhabitant, and he will at last suffer the full penalty of sin in the fires that shall destroy all the wicked. Thus the great plan of redemption will reach its accomplishment in the final eradication of sin and the deliverance of all who have been willing to renounce evil. {GC 485.3}

Elle, the scapegoat didn't die, and that means that there's no salvivic action for us in its part of the day; especially as the scapegoat started its part once the sanctuary and people were atoned for, so judgement and salvation were complete, exclusively by the Lord's goat.
In reality, once Jesus has atoned for us by his life, death, resurrection, ascension and intercession in both phases of the sanctuary service in its heavenly original, the burden of judgement of eternal death for sin and sins confessed by the saints of all ages, already having been born for us by our Saviour, is then given rightfully back to the tempter who shouldn't have tempted in the first place.

Satan will bear his full part for sin, thus the scapegoat typifies the 1000 years Satan is bound on the earth with none to tempt after the 2nd Coming of Christ and his death following the final judgement. Rosangela's points are good, too, as I think I'm also repeating the SOP quotes' content from MM - yet my post is my own thoughts on the topic, not copying from MM's post.

I would like to bring a correction. At first I had misunderstood the meaning of the misunderstood scapegoat and thought that Jesus was Azazel, when according to the Masoretic Text, Jesus was the 2nd goat sent alive FOR Azazel(the scapegoat). Jesus is not the scapegoat. There's actually 3 goats in Lev 16.

This became clear to me of my misunderstanding when some months ago, I decided to check the Hebrew literal translation of Lev 16:10. Here is what I discovered.

The Literal Hebrew translation of Lev 16:10

Before hand, let me explain in brief that there are two works of Christ to atone for the sins of the world.

1. Justification : accomplish/symbolized by His death
2. Sanctification: accomplish/symbolized by His ressurection and His work in us and His work in destroying the works of the Devil.

The death and resurection of Jesus depicts this two works. This works was reveal in the TYPE with the 2 doves ritual(one dead, the other alive).(Lev 14) The same is depicted in the TYPE with the 2 goats ritual(one dead, the other alive) (Lev. 16).

First of all you have to acknowledge that these two goats were both without blemish for the lot could of fell on either. Right there one of these goats couldn't represent Lucifer, for he is filled with blemish. Both of these animals were without blemish because both represented Christ and His two works to atone for the world.

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

Notice what I have put in bracket and highlight in red the inaccuracy of the translation. What is in parenthese and in green is what the litteral translation in the original text would say. Do look at the masoretic text with strong code available at www. scripture4all.org. I have their free software download on my computer, which is more detail than the one online. So I'm referring to their software.

Basically the translation error(& bias) is that the second goat was for Azazel and not to be Azazel.

Let me paraphrase from the literal text by only giving the literal translation provided by this software where I will supply the strong codes with it. Please go check the Masoretic text yourself at Scripture4All Link if you really want to be objective about this and know the truth about God's plan of salvation.

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[/i] (7971) him (853) to-goat-of-departure (5799) the-wilderness-ward (4057)"

Above is the literal translation of the Hebrew are in bold and italic font. As you can see the goat that the lot fell on was FOR the scapegoat. It was not the scapegoat itself. And in the later half of the text, that goat (that the lot fell on) was sent away TO the scapegoat in the wilderness.

This was fufilled when Jesus was baptised(=death of 1st goat for the Lord) and then the Holy Spirit(the fit man) led him(live 2nd goat for Azazel

There's a quote I've found helpful in trying to understand the scapegoat transaction. It describes the sequence of events just after the close of probation.

I appreciate the gesture Glen in providing an EGW quote in the hope that it would clarify things for me, but for me, what the Bible says have authority over any of EGW writings.

According to Scriptures, the sin was confessed over the head of the goat that the lot fell on which was a sin offering. I acknowledge that the laying of the hand on the head is not specified in Lev 16, however, that was mentioned previously in details in Exodus 29 for the Burnt Offering of the daily, and the Sin offering for the priests, also in Lev 1, Lev 3 and Lev 4 for Burnt offerings, Sin offerings(which applies to Trepasses Offerings) and Peace offerings, for priest, congregation, kings or rulers, and common people.

There’s no mention that there is a laying of the hands on the head of the alive goat for it doesn’t fall on any of these category of offering(not a burnt, peace, or sin Offering). Neither is there any mentioned of the laying of the hand on the head on the 2 Doves rituals in Lev 14. However, the dove that represented the sin offering there was such things according to the manner of the offering.

Also, there’s nowhere in the TYPE any references that there is a transfer of all the sins on Satan. Is there any such things elsewhere in the Bible? Please bring me those texts if you know of some.

Therefore EGW interpretation in the quote provided is not in scriptures and also she erronously refers the 2nd goat that the lot didn't fall on “the scapegoat” which was the common mistakes made based on a mis-translation which still exist in most of our English translations today.

Here’s the Tenakh version on 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 original text)

See the above scripture here : http://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/9917/jewish/Chapter-16.htm

As this is what EGW “saw” in vision, thus a direct revelation, then I see it as unbiblical to not seek to harmonize it with the Biblical testimony. (1 Thess 5;19-21) It indeed could be further light by God to help us understand that obscure sanctuary symbolism for an eschatological, even prophetic understanding, i.e., prior to is antitypical fulfillment. Such added revelations are indeed intended to fill in ‘what has/had not been (explicitly) mentioned,’ or even injunctively institute or emphasize something “new”, i.e., for a new covenant context, now that Jesus has sealed Satan’s fate at the Cross. The passing away of the Old Covenant due to Christ’s victory, which most clearly came through a revelation to Paul highlights this dynamic/injunctive theological possibility.

The divine insight of “ it would take time to lead away the Scape Goat into the land of forgetfulness after the sins were put on his head” is prophetically quite enlightening to me.

Sometimes we place our selves in either or situations where the issue is not an either/or issue, we keep running into conflect with this as often both are the answer, and other times there are options that we have not considered yet. Also, there are 3 correct ways to use the Bible: Exegesis (what it meant to the original hearers) Analogy (Applying the principles from the exegesis over time to similar situations) and homoletical usage; the language just fits the stiuation even though it has nothing to do with the exegesis.

Examples of exegesis and analogy: Daniel 2 talks about 4 kings, Nebuchadnezzar is the first of these kings. The book of Danile mentions 4 kings: Nebuchadnezzar, Belshazzar, Darius and Cyrus. Deuteronomy 4 predicts that the exile could be the last days. In Daniel 7 by analogy it starts to be applied from the 4 kings to 4 kingdoms. In the time of Revelation the Flavian Emporers were doing things that sounded a lot like the book of Daniel, and later in the dark ages the Papacy was doing a lot of things that sounded like the book of Daniel that we still preach about. Daniel did not have the Flavian Emporers nor the pope on his mind, however we are correct to apply Daniel's prophecys to these situation.

Another exegesis and analogy application. In Isaiah a king was worried about a couple of other kings. Isaiah was trying to get this king to trust in God, and gave the king a prophecy that a child would be born indicating God with us (unclear whether with us for good or for bad results, depending on the condition of God's people) but that before the child was old enough to choose between right and wrong the other kings that this king worried about would no longer be an issue.

If Isaiah had Jesus in mind it would not make sense: "Your highness, I know that you are afraid of the king that are planing to have a war with us. But don't worry, in 500 years a baby will be born and before that baby can choose between good and evil these kings will no longer be an issue. So don't worry, in 500 years these kings will be history, just hold out for only 500 years king Ahaz and you won't have to worry any more."

No, Isaiah was talking about a child born in his day (probably his son that the text soon talks about)that was a child of promise (and based on the promises of Isaac to Abraham). However Matthew correctly draws analogy between those child of promises to the ultamate child of promise and applys it to the birth of Jesus.

As for the scapegoat, ultamately God takes care of our sins. He removes them as far away from us as the east is from the west (the two directions of the goats). The Canaanites celebrated the day of atonment centuries before Abraham. It was based on the agracultural cycle of the land of Canaan. Cities that were already in ruins by Abraham's day talks about it. Now they tended to include a lot of ugly things that were not taken over by the Bible, things people did to try to help out Baal and the gods of life gain victory over the gods of death and chaos. But they did other things that were taken over by the Bible including the two goats one going to the east into the most holy of the pagan temples and one to the west. God took this and made lessons to point the Hebrews into trusting him, that he will be with their agricultural cycles and that he will take care of the sin problem.

When we talk about the idea of the great controversy: The 3 aspects of God, the 3 lies Satan had developed against the 3 aspects of God and how this has played out through history, then it is approprate to apply the scapegoat to Satan. How all the questions are fully answered. Everyone has seen that God is correct and either choose to live with this type of God, or else choose to not live with this kind of God. Realizing that Satan's lies were responsible for the sin issue. Realizing that Satan played a part in all our sins. (How many people did Adolf Hitler kill? None that we know of, but yet he is responsible for the deaths of millions for the role he played in their deaths. How many people did Charles Manson kill? Non that we know of yet he is serving time for the role he played in what lead to people being killed.) So the great controversy ends with Satan bearing the cost for the role he played in the sin problem; raising the questions (that part was not sin) but insead of seeking for answers to his questions to just become proud of himself for having the ability to think up so clever questions and thus raisning the sin issue and playing a role in the sins we commit, not all correctly fall on him. So yes indeed, a proper application of the Scapegoat is Satan.

Yet, it is just as correct (not more correct, nor less correct, but equally correct) that it is God who has ultamately been delivering us from sin. God has been using the sin issue to answer Lucifer's questions. Isaiah has God in charge of weel and woe. God claims to be the God of milk and honey (they were ancient agracultural terms; honey, or preserved foods, being agriculturalble land, a perminant home, plenty of food -honey made from the left over food- a perminant house to live in, class distincitons of land owners and their workers, a life predictable, easy and exciting. Milk came from goats, out in the desert, moving around in tents, not knowing if you will harvest your garden or plow it under, everyone being poor. A life unpredictable, hard and lonely). God tells Job that He brought all those hardships on him. God also tells Job that it is God who tells the waves of chaos, pain and suffereing "thus far and no further" Jesus says that God pours out both the rain (showers of blessings) and sunshine (famine) upon both the just and unjust. God is in control of it all. Linguists have started to discover that when John the Baptist says "Behold the Lamb of God which taketh away the sin of the world." both the Hebrew (which it turns out not to have been a dead language in Jesus' day as so long thought and people with outdated information still think) and Aramaic, the only word that can be translated into the Greek as "Taketh away" is the word "Scapegoat" that John the Baptist said "Behold the Lamb of God that Scapegoats the sins of the world." (indicating that this occured on the Day of Atonement, and agreeing with our chronology of the 70 weeks of years).

Therefore we are having an inapproprate argument on this thread. When it comes to looking at the issues of the Great Controversy, it is approprate to apply the texts of the scapegoat to Satan. When remembering that it is God who is taking care of the sin problem them it is approprate to apply it to Jesus.

An interesting archaeological note from like the Mishna and I believe Dead Sea Scrools or other ancient soruses archaeologist have dug up: While in the wilderness and early years in the land, it was not a problem leaving the goat in the wilderness as they moved around. But once they settled in Jerusalem the goats had a tendency of returning (your sins will find you out???) so what the priests did from the Jerusalem temple did was take the goat to a clift, blind fold the goat and push it over.

I private messaged some of you, and put in a thread here about websites, but you might find this useful for this study. 2 nights ago I came across this website. I don't know who put it out but I thought you might like it. Different speakers on Ellen White, talking about correct ways of using her writings and what her core message was, please listen to all these speakers and I think it will make our discussions here a lot clearer. On the page I see is Jon Pauliene (althought I don't recognize him from my memories of meeting him) George Knight, and John Wood-McCall.

http://www.channels.com/episodes/5086006#/episodes/5086006

I hope this helps!

I agree with your potential double identity view Kevin H. I see this implied in the casting of lots for the roles of these goats. However I am currently seeing the wider Theological reason to be because, until Jesus was victorious it was not certain how this final sin bearing would antitypically work out. (That’s just my observational working thesis. I have not yet studied it through.) My view is that had Jesus failed, then God’s justice would concede that a Man could not fully obey God’s Law and with this demonstrative evidence, He would have allowed for the first covenant to atone for the sins of man. That is why I also so that so much care and detail was given for that covenant as it potentially be the prevailing one to redeem man. Ezekiel’s temple was also supposed to elevate that covenant service until Jesus came. And if Jesus had failed it would have been the system that would continue and prevail. However Israel was not even mindful to listen to Ezekiel and implement his revealed Temple plans.

In regards to your exegesis, analogy and homoletical approach (the latter being really “sermonic license”) = “midrash”, I think it is best and safest to make doctrinal understanding and future predictions/interpretation using the scientific approaches of exegesis and analysis. Only when an event has concretely transpired as with the advent of Jesus could “sermonic license” be taken. That is what I see Matthew retrospectively did. But it is not the forward looking rule.

Yes, Kevin I agree. This interpretation of the scapegoat by ascribing that Satan takes away our sins is gravely erroneous and definitely not in harmony with other scriptures.



I agree with the above. To sum it up “God is in control of it all”. I believe G-d never lost control for the Lamb was “slain from the foundation of the world”. A plan was in place and the fall was in the plan before creation.

It is not righteous for a Sovereign G-d to put all the blame on Satan, when G-d has created him. The ultimate fault of sin has to go on the owner as according to His laws. If a bull gores someone, then the owner of the bull is responsible of what happened. G-d created Satan whcih makes Him the full owner of him; therefore G-d is ultimately responsible for all of Satan's actions and the repercussion of it. Plus G-d was aware of Satan's dangerous dispostion as he had already made some angels fall before sending him to Adam's field(the earth). This makes G-d reliable for the fall of man.

I’m glad you brought up Job. Job understood that all this hardship came from G-d and never did he blame Satan for it, nor did G-d blame Satan for it. Job chapter 41 tells us that G-d is in total control of Satan. Other scriptures tells us that Satan cannot do anything unless G-d allows him first. So really, Satan is G-d’s servant, not a willing servant, but G-d knows how to handle him(Job 41).



This is very interesting linguistic observation. “taketh away” is from the Greek word airo which means “to lift up” which correlates to the root word ‘alah (H5927 – lift/ascend/go…up) of the Hebrew word ‘olah (H5930--burnt offering). Jesus was indeed the burnt offering that lifted up the whole world. However I don’t see the correlation with the Hebrew word ‘azal (h235 – to go away). I have further elaborated on this below.

Please look at the Mesoretic text in the Tenakh and Scripture4all interlinear tool. Both shows the same literal translation.

1. Basically Jesus is not the scapegoat or Azazel – Jesus(the live goat) was for Azazel to be sent to Azazel in the desert/wilderness.

2. The Hebrew word “aza’zel” is best translated as “Azazel” and not as “goat of departure”.

• i) Strong has erroneously defined it as deriving from ‘ez (h5795 – she goat ) and ‘azal (h235 – to go away). Please note that ‘azal does not mean “to take away” but “to go away” which are two different meaning. azal-ez does not fit together well and does not make up azazel.
  
  
• ii)It better derives from ‘azaz (h5810 -- to be stout ) and ‘el (h410 – god) -- fitting together perfectly azaz-el meaning a goat god also known as Pan, by which the Isreaelites where worshipping also in all their high places.
  
  So Azazel is the goat god which represent Satan and also anyone who are stout and wants to take the place of god. We all fall in that category. So Jesus is sent to us all little goat-gods to take away our sins. This is the second work of Jesus which is known as SANCTIFICATION. The work of sanctification is based on his first work --JUSTIFICATION done at the cross.
  

3. Jesus fulfilled this Type at the Day of Atonement when he got baptized (submission = death = the first goat died) in the river, then the Holy Spirit(the fit man) led Jesus(the live goat) in the desert to Azazel(Satan). This Type was not fulfilled at the cross as many says. For at the cross the Passover Type was fulfilled then. G-d fulfills the Type prophesied in the Law exactly on prophesied appointed time.

Sorry to disagree. "Bear sins" means assuming responsibility for sins. This does not mean at all that it is only for purposes of salvation; in fact, in most of the cases it meant the opposite. Those who disobeyed the Lord willfully should bear their own sin and die for it: Lev. 5:1, 17; 7:18; 17:16; 19:8; 20:17, 19, 20; 24:15, etc.

Besides, airo is not the verb used by the LXX to translate nasa. The LXX uses lambano.

It's interesting that Lev. 19:17 says, in the JPS (a Jewish) version:
Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thy heart; thou shalt surely rebuke thy neighbour, and not bear sin because of him.

Also the Darby version:
Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thy heart; thou shalt earnestly rebuke thy neighbour, lest thou bear sin on account of him.

IOW, one could share in the sin of another, or be responsible for the sin of another, and, thus, "bear sin because of him."

The sheep will be separated from the goats.

I don't recall a goat being used to represent something good.

Elle, Why do you hyphenate God?

Kland you haven't figure it out the obvious yet?? If not then send me a PM and I will spell it out for you.

??? I never mentioned anything about "bear sins"

??? see scripture 4 all

??? same comment as first above ???

You should study your Bible more. Many goats were used in the sacrificial services for sin offerings, peace offerings and trepasses offerings -- all represented Jesus.

You are correct, Elle.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Yes, I knew they were used in sacrificial services. But so were other animals. Bulls, pigeons, etc. all represented Jesus or did the sacrifice represent Jesus? Or is there a difference?

The scapegoat basically tells us that God will take care of the sin problem. Depending on the context it can be applied to either Jesus or Satan.

It applys to Jesus in the fact that it was what Jesus did for us that takes away sin and casts it as far away as the east is from the west (the two directions the goats were taken), and with this the text of John the Baptist saying "Behold the Lamb of God that taketh away the sins of the world" if you translate it into Hebrew (which was NOT a dead lanugage at the time and used in preaching) it would be "Behold the Lamb of God that Scapegoates the sins of the world" which is the only way John the Baptist could have said it. (and it indicated that he said it on the Day of Atonement, thus more evidence supporting the Seventh-day Adventist understanding of the 70 weeks).

However when you look at the theam of the Great Controversy, it was Lucifer not looking for answers to his questions and leading the rebellion by stating lies about God that needed to be answered. As all the questions are answered and Satan can no longer bother us, then the scapegoat correctly applys to Satan.

Elle, you said:

<<This interpretation of the scapegoat by ascribing that Satan takes away our sins is gravely erroneous>>

What the Bible says about the Scapegoat is the following:

Lev 16:22 And the goat shall bear upon him all their iniquities unto a land not inhabited

So your reference (and Kevin's) can only be to this. What I pointed out was that one can bear sin because of others when one is considered a partner in that sin.


The link doesn't work, so I don't know what you are referring to.

A goat symbolizes someone related to sin; kland is correct. That's why it was used for sin offerings. The fact that it represents Jesus is because Jesus was made to be sin for us (2 Cor. 5:21). In the same way that a serpent can represent both Satan and Jesus, a goat can represent both Satan and Jesus.

Some things were used as a symbol for both good and bad: leaven, lions, flesh, goats...

Here's how I presently see and would explain the scapegoat.

The scapegoat represents Satan.

Is that simple enough?

...


Ok...here's the reason for the above.

Whereas our sins cause Jesus' death, as represented in the Lord's goat being killed at our own hands, our sins do not cause Satan's death--though our sins may be placed upon him and he be punished for them. The scapegoat was led out into the wilderness to wander by himself. Satan will also at the end be alone in a barren earth for a thousand years.

Our sins get placed both on the Lord's goat, causing His death, and on the scapegoat, who is punished for them, but not by us.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

It's not only our sins that caused Jesus' death, it is mainly because G-d broke two major liability Laws :

#1. The owner of Satan must die : Ex 21:28 "If an ox gore a man or a woman, that they die: then the ox shall be surely stoned, and his flesh shall not be eaten; but the owner of the ox shall be quit. 29 But if the ox were wont to push with his horn in time past, and it hath been testified to his owner, and he hath not kept him in, but that he hath killed a man or a woman; the ox shall be stoned, and his owner also shall be put to death."

Jesus,in agreement with His Father's perfect plan, let Satan come on earth knowing that he was dangerous and had succeeded to make angels fall prior. According to the Law of liability, if you have knowledge that whatever you own kills and you don't do anything about it and it kills other people, then the owner must die. Jesus, fulfilled this prophecy, for He, by creation was the owner, and He did die at the cross.

#2. The tree of knowledge unhedged and unprotected. Deut 22:8 " When thou buildest a new house, then thou shalt make a battlement for thy roof, that thou bring not blood upon thine house, if any man fall from thence. "

Ex 21:33 " And if a man shall open a pit, or if a man shall dig a pit, and not cover it, and an ox or an ass fall therein; 21:34 The owner of the pit shall make it good, and give money unto the owner of them; and the dead beast shall be his. "

It was G-d’s responsibility to make the earth safe for Adam and Eve. G-d dug a hole (the tree of knowledge) and did not cover it; therefore the beast that fell in the hole belongs to G-d and it is His responsibility to make it good. So He did by redeeming the whole earth and making atonement via His two works :

i) His first work of JUSTIFICATION which was a death work done at His first coming(first goat dead, first dove dead); and

ii) His second work of SANCTIFICATION which is the live work (second goat & dove alive) through Jesus’ Second coming which Rev 19 describes (11) " And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war. … (13) And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God. … (15) And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God.” "

Take note that the second work is based on the first, and that is why the live dove in Lev 14 was dipped in the blood of the first dove. There is another TYPE given to us in the Bible showing this. Gen 37:31 " And they took Joseph's coat, and killed a kid of the goats, and dipped the coat in the blood; "

Notice also that the work of SANCTIFICATION is done via JUDGMENT with the WORD OF G-D… SHARP SWORD. This is figurative, it is not a real steal sword that comes out of Jesus mouth, but it is the Word of G-d. The Word of G-d is the sword that will smite the nations at His second coming with the Laws of G-d.

It is not written in scripture that the hands were layed on the second goat and the sins are transferred. This is SDAs and other denominations speculations to support what they understand not and supporting what they have assumed by adopting the erronous Hell doctrine that has been passed down since the 5th century.

Also, the second goat is not the scapegoat.

I think this said it good enough. I was mistaken and maybe, as one so put it, "need to read my Bible more". I had thought one was a goat and the other was a lamb. But reading back over it, there were two goats. One for the Lord. And one not.

If the scapegoat should represent Jesus, what did the other goat represent?

FYI:

Yes indeed. The sins were placed on both goats, just as our sins are to be placed on both Christ and on Satan.

The scapegoat (live goat) represents Satan, whereas the Lord's goat, which was sacrificed, represents Christ.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Both goats represents Jesus because both goats needed to be perfect without blemish to be the sin offering.

Notice that both are said to be sin offerings, Lev 16:5"And he shall take of the congregation of the children of Israel two kids of the goats for a sin offering, and one ram for a burnt offering."

Any of these goats cannot represent Satan as he is full of blemishes. Satan represent Azazel and none of these two goats.

Thx Kland....good studying !!! I stand corrected. I'm glad you found this as I didn't see it in the first section not checking the whole chapter. So I re-read the chapter seeing that the sin were only put on the live goat which was a sin offering without blemish representing Jesus.

Elle,

Which goat are you saying is the "live goat?" Is that not the same as the scapegoat?

From my reading of the passage, the live goat is the scapegoat, and it is distinct from the other goat, which the passage calls the Lord's goat.

I don't see how you would make the two goats to be equal, for it seems a clear difference is put between them, both in the way they are treated, and in the nomenclature used for them. The scapegoat is not called the Lord's goat. The one which becomes the "sin offering" is.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Both(dead goat + alive goat) are sin offerings according to scriptures and both had to be without blemish to be a sin offering.

There are 3 goats: #1. the dead goat, #2. alive goat and #3. Azazel. The alive goat is not Azazel. "Scapegoat" of "goat-of-departure" are erronous translation for Azazel. see details below. I did fix the link for Scripture4all below.

Honestly, that reasoning makes little sense to me. I recognize that Pan was a goat god. Modern cartoons, such as Peter Pan hark back to him. But you seem to be saying two things at once, and I cannot see how you reason it.

First, you equate the scapegoat with Azazel and say that it does not represent Jesus. Then you say Jesus was the live goat. The problem I have in understanding where you are coming from is that the live goat, as I understand it, must necessarily be the scapegoat. They are not two separate entities in the passage we are looking at.

Of course both goats are at the beginning "live." But only one of the two goats remains alive after the ceremonies are complete. That one is the scapegoat which is sent out into the wilderness.

If I'm misunderstanding your meaning, let me know.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

It looks like we both posted a respond at the same time and I think you didn't see mine. I believe I answered your question above your post.

My seeming like reasoning contradiction lies in the fact there is 3 goats in Lev 16(the 2 goats for the sin offering plus Azazel) by which todays english traduction implies only 2 by equating Azazel to the 2nd goat that is kept alive. You need to refer to the masoretic texts to see the errors in our Bibles translation.

Elle wrote: "It's not only our sins that caused Jesus' death, it is mainly because G-d broke two major liability Laws "

!?!?!? Are you saying Jesus died for God's sins ?!!?!?! God sinned and Jesus had to pay for it ???????

There are only two goats --
Lots are drawn, one is the Lord's the other for Azazel.

The Lord's goat is sacrificed. And while the priest enters the tabernacle to do the work of the atonement with the blood, the people are all outside afflicting their souls, praying for the atonement to be effective.
(See Lev.16:30; and 23:28,29)

All this time the Azazel goat stands at the door of the sanctuary staring out at the people -- he represents Satan the accuser of the brethern who accuses the people before God (see Rev. 12:10 and Zech. 3:1-5).

Satan has an accurate memory of the sins of those people and and he is accusing them before God that they do not deserve atonement.

But inside the priest, with the blood of the sacrifice, is making atonement and when he is finished making atonement for the people and the sanctuary he comes out and satan is silenced by having all the sins he's been busy accusing the forgiven people for committing, placed on his head, and he is sent out into the wilderness. Thus representing Satan's 1000 years in the abyss (see Rev. 21) which ends in his eternal destruction.

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...

Elle,

Although the interlinear versions are useful, you cannot rely entirely on them to determine the meaning of the original text. This is how the prefix lamed can be translated:

(1) to, towards
(2) until
(3) at, in
(4) of, about
(5) in (regard to), concerning
(6) according to, by
(7) in relation to, in the direction of
(8) namely
(9) for, because

http://www.biblicalheritage.org/Linguistic/HL/15-A/lamed.htm

So the correct translation in a given place is entirely a matter of context and of interpretation.

Roxanne you didn't make any significant point. I see no change of meaning in translating lamed for a "to" instead of a "for" or vise versa in Lev 16:8 or in Lev 16:10. Either usage of these english words would of kept the intended meaning to the text.

The point is the KJV and other version has added more words than just changing lamed into "to" or "for".

Let’s start from Lev 16:8 “Av Lv 16:8 And Aaron shall cast lots upon the two goats; one lot for the LORD, and the other lot for the scapegoat(Azazel).”

A. Let’s make a note for “the”. In Hebrew when they want to emphasize on a noun the will put the Hebrew letter Hey as prefix. The masoretic text have put a Hey before sa’iyr(H8163, Shaggy, a he-goat), however none is put in front of Y-hv-h(3068,self Existent) nor in front of azaz’el(5799, stout goat). However the KJV has added in each of these noun a “the” in the translation for the sake of easy English flowing sentences. That’s fine as long as the intended meaning is not distorted.

B. In this text, Lamed was only used in front of both Y-hv-h and azaz’el to mean “for”. Following the flow and the context in this sentences there was one sin-offering that was for the Lord, and the other was for Azazel(the stout goat). By preserving the name Azazel as a stout goat, we see here that the second goat (live one of the sin offering) is i)for the stout goat and ii)is not the stout goat itself. i) and ii) has two complete different meanings. We lost the intend meaning by translating it as ii). The way they did it is as followed:

• #1.First Srong has incorrect defined the origin of the word azaz’el. ".
  Originally Posted By: elle

  The Hebrew word “aza’zel” is best translated as “Azazel” and not as “goat of departure”.
  

  • i) Strong has erroneously defined it as deriving from ‘ez (h5795 – she goat ) and ‘azal (h235 – to go away). azal-ez does not fit together well and does not make up azazel.
    
    
  • ii)It better derives from ‘azaz (h5810 -- to be stout ) and ‘el (h410 – god) -- fitting together perfectly azaz-el meaning a goat god also known as Pan, by which the Isreaelites where worshipping also in all their high places.
  
  
• #2. The KJV and other version has added “the” in front of the incorrect definition of azaz’el, and voila, they have transformed the second goat of the sin offering into being Azaz’el instead of being sent To Azaz’el. This has totally distorted the intended meaning.
  
  
• #3. And we have not tested nor verified the soundness of this translation. Also we have disregarded other segment in Lev 16 that is in disharmony with this translation. Here’s how :
  i) the two goats were to be sin-offering (Lev 16:5)
  ii) All sin offering needed to be without blemish, that means the second goat cannot represent Satan because Satan is full of blemish.
  iii) it is not in harmony with the second witness of this law that the Lord provided in Lev 14.
  iv) it is not in harmony with the laws of liability
  v) It is not in harmony with other scriptures revealing the fulfillment of the day of atonement.
  

Now let’s look at Lev 16:10 again.

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) in red changes the whole meaning. They have turn the 2nd goat of the sin offering into being Azazel instead of being sent To Azazel.

It is not a question of changing lamed to a different translation, it is a question that in a)

• 1. They incorrectly translated azaz’el into scapegoat
• 2. they have added the word “the” to go with “scapegoat”
• 3. and they have added the verb “be”
  
  “the” and “be” are added words and are not in the original text. 1. 2. And 3. has changed the whole meaning of the text.
  
  
• 4. Also in the section b) they have added the word "a" which again was not in the original text and have distorted the intended meaning with it.

I see no potential change of meaning in translating lamed for a "to" instead of a "for" or vise versa in any of these translation above. Either usage of these english words would of kept the intended meaning of the text. The problem lies in all the points that I have brought above.

I’m not saying that Strong or whoever wrote KJV and whoever else who wrote the other translations, had a malintent. They tried to translate as best as they knew and that’s how they understood the gospel in their days and personally. Translation cannot be totally devoided from personal biases or from the influences of the current understanding of the time. They try as much as they could, however, personal understanding does come out through the translation. That’s why there are many different translation today. Not one is that much better than the other. At times the original text needs to be verified, word studies needs to be done to extract G-d's true intended meaning, and we need to test all things with the Law and the manner of the law(Is 8:20).

Elle,

The presence or absence of a definite article before a word either in Hebrew or in Greek is no basis to define a point of doctrine, since it follows no consistent pattern (this reminds me of the JW and their "a God" in John 1:3).
Having said that, let me say that I agree that Azazel probably shouldn't be translated as scapegoat, but it is far from certain that it means "goat god." Even if it derives from ‘azaz ("to be stout") and ‘el, what relationship is there between "to be stout" and "goat"? None whatsoever. Pan was a Greek god, which has never been worshipped by Egyptians, Israelites, Canaanites or any other people of the Near East.
What seems certain is that, by the use of the same preposition in connection with Jehovah and Azacel, it seems natural to think of Azazel as a personal being who is in opposition to the Lord - i.e., Satan.
The preposition "for" is the correct translation in Lv 16:8 because it refers to the lots:

"Then Aaron shall cast lots for the two goats: one lot for the LORD and the other lot for the scapegoat [Azazel]."

This means one goat represents the Lord, and the other goat represents Azazel.

And in v. 10 it is correct to translate the phrase as "to send him away for Azazel into the wilderness". It doesn't have to mean, as you imply, that the goat is sent to Azazel, but it can perfectly mean that the goat is sent for Azazel.

The relationship between ‘azaz("to be stout") and “goat” is the following :

1) ‘azaz H5810 is the root word for aze H5795 ("kid, a she-goat(as strong)") used in Lev 16:5 “And he shall take of the congregation of the children of Israel two kids of the goats(aze H5795) for a sin offering. “ To be strong or stout is the characteristic of the goat. To prevail you need to be strong in resolution. Someone can be strong or stout to do G-d’s will or adversively to do our own will.
2) ‘azaz H5810 is the root word for ‘az H5794("strong, vehement, harsh")
3) ‘aze H5796 is the Aramaic correspondence of H5795 translated as "goat".
That’s not true Rosangela. It is very clear that the Israelites were worshipping the “devil” as a goat as written in Lev 17:7(for 40 years while in the wilderness) and openly did it without restraint for over 400 years as specified in 2Ch 11:15 when Jeroboam rule over Israel when they built high places all over the land and worship the "goat"-god everywhere. The word "devils" used for the KJV and other english translation in Lev 17:7 & 2Ch 11:15 is Sa’iyr(shaggy; as noun, a he-goat; by analogy, a faun). The word Sa’iyr was only used 2 times out of the 59 times to mean devils. 51 times it represented Jesus as the goat for the sin offering.

Here’s Lev 17:7 in 3 different translation :

AV Lv 17:7 And they shall no more offer their sacrifices unto devils (Sa’iyr), after whom they have gone a whoring. This shall be a statute for ever unto them throughout their generations.

CLV Lv 17:7 No longer shall they sacrifice their sacrifices to hairy goat-demons(Sa’iyr) after whom they have been prostituting. An eonian statute shall this become for them throughout their generations.

YLT Lv 17:7 and they sacrifice not any more their sacrifices to goats(Sa’iyr) after which they are going a-whoring; a statute age-during is this to them, to their generations.

The Israelites where long worshipping the counterfeit “goat god” which came way before the Egyptians time and probably originated from Nimrod’s time or even earlier. We do not know how early this form of worship stem back, but we have Biblical records that the Israelites had it as early as their 40 years in the wilderness.



The Bible doesn’t say “represents” even thought these two goats did represent Jesus. Here the "Lord" would signify the Father. Lev 16:8 plainly and simply says one sin offering for the Lord, and the other sin offering for Azazel. Both goats are sin-offerings as specified clearly in Lev 16:5. Both goats needed to be without blemish.

• -The first goat-sin-offering was for the Lord as Jesus did in His work of Justification when He presented Himself to the Father to become the blood sacrifice at the cross.
• -The second goat-sin-offering was for Azazel in being sent to azazel(Satan and all of us who worship the devil by making ourselves as him, strong stout little gods when we choose to follow our own will – which is the religion of Satan presented at the tree of knowledge). So Jesus is sent to war against the false religion of Satan that is deeply embedded in our hearts. That’s the work of Sanctification that Jesus is doing in our hearts to destroy the works of the devil.
  

The thing is we have Lev 14 that reveals the same law. The two doves both represented Jesus and His two works. And we have many other texts. It is just been a grave mistranslation error to imply that the second goat send alive in Lev 16 represented Satan.

It is time to correct this long past mis-translation and be scriptually in harmony with other texts and the truth of G-d.

Because the verb ‘azaz, “to be strong,” and the word used to refer to a goat may have had a common origin, this does not mean they are related in meaning. The 12 times the word is used in the Bible (Judges 3:10; 6:2; Ps 9:19; 52:7; 68:28; 89:13; Prov. 7:13; 8:28; 21:29; Ecc 7:19; Is 30:2; Dan. 11:12), it obviously has nothing to do with goats.


Animal worship was very common and several animals were worshipped at different times, but there wasn’t a god like Pan in Near East – partly human and partly animal.


All sin offerings must be for the Lord; there can be no sin offering for a demon.

Rosangela, that’s a silly argument. A verb is not a noun and it describes an action. Of course you will not see a verb saying “goat”. Goat is a noun. Hebrew nouns has its origin to verbs. ‘azaz is the verb for many nouns of goat 5796, 5795, 5799 because that verb defines the nature of the goat.

The Israelites were worshipping devils not animal goats, but those two texts made an equivalence to devils with the goats by using the word sayir. In the Jewish encyclopedia describes these as demons which they extrapolates many other words in the Bible describing different classes or ranks of devils. We cannot prove that the Greek Pan was not the same devil worshiped by the Israelites worship. All kinds of demons are recorded within different culture and historical time. Just because one culture calls it a name, it doesn’t mean it’s not the same as the other culture who named it by another name. The Jewish encyclopedia say that these devils(sayir) could manifest themselves in the flesh. There are lots of strange happenings even today that we cannot explain. Personally it is a subject I do not care to study, and it is diverting to the subject at hand.

Regardless if we are going to relate Azazel or Satan to the Greek’s “Pan” or not. It’s not my argument nor my point. The point was azaz’el means azaz =“to be stout”(goat) + el = “god” together meaning as a noun = “goat-god” or “stout-god” ---whatever you feel comfortable with. So azazel should be translated as Azazel and not as “goat of departure” as Strong erroneously had defined it.

Jesus was led by a fit man(Holy Spirit) to Satan in the wilderness!!! Jesus is sent in us --“stout-gods”-- to purify/sanctify us!!!

No, Elle, it's not a silly argument. Of course the verb describes an action, but it doesn't describe any action related to a goat, like, for instance, "to act as a goat." Therefore, saying that azazel means a goat god does not make sense. The argument that there were three goats involved in this ritual does not make sense. The word azazel could mean "a strong god," but not "a goat god." In fact, the Syriac Version (5th century) says Azzail, the "angel (strong one) who revolted." And, long before it, the book of Enoch (ca. 300 b.C.) applies the word to a fallen angel. So, it's clear to me the word refers to Satan, but I see no basis for the arguments you are presenting here (of a third goat, etc.).


I agree with this, of course.


This does not apply at all. A fit man led the goat to the wilderness after the atonement for the people and for the sanctuary had been made. Timing is extremely important here. And, as I said, the goats are said to be a sin offering, because a sin offering was going to be made with one of them. The second goat is never offered as a sin offering, much less to a demon.

Scapegoat is Satan and is also all the wicked - whose names went into the sanctuary and then who were rejected. Their sins come back out and are returned to themselves - they must suffer for their own debt of sin.

The scapegoat is not a sin offering - it is not a substitutionary sacrifice of any kind.

in Christ,

Bob

What happens to the goats in the wilderness? You lead a goat out to where another one is and guess what happens....
You have goat people!

Kland: Since when settled in Jerusalem the scapegoat had a tendency of coming home and thus changing the symbolism from God has thrown my sins behind his back, they are as far away from me as the east is from the west, to the idea that your sins will find you out, when worshiping at the temple, they took the goat to a clift, covered it's eyes and pushed it over backwards to it's death.

I guess if the wilderness was a warm fuzzy, safe place - full of goat food and other goats -- you would be right. But that would be the "Wilderness of Disneyland" not the wilderness of Sinai at the time they were practicing that ceremonial rite.

in Christ,

Bob

Not to mention the fact that they didn't lead out a female on odd years and a male on even years to provide them companionship.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Ahhh, but of what sex is the goat god?

Ruprecht is the name for satan in the form of the horned-goat-beast - that pagan legend says Saint Nicholas captured and forced to be his servant.

This servant of St. Nic - supposedly slid down the the chimney and put candy in children's stockings if they were good - and switches in the stockings if they were bad.

Ruprecht was the one with the large sack "full of things" and following along after Saint Nic.

in Christ,

Bob

So not only are there two goats or more goats out there, there is also St. Nic!

Of course, still not saying any of it is Biblical....

• 1. We both agree that azazel refers to Satan.
  
• 2. You cannot deny that “to be stout” is a goat characteristic. Anyone who own a goat would confirm this. So for you to say there no relation between “to be stout” and a “goat” has no grounds. Plus the root word for 3 words for goats came from Azaz meaning “to be stout”.
• 3. In this sacrificial service there is two sin-offering goats: 1 for God, 1 for Azazel. Both these 2 goats represent Jesus, just as the 2 doves in Lev 14 represented Jesus.
  
  So if a goat can represent Jesus, it is not far fetch that a goat can represent Azazel/Satan. At time in the Bible Jesus and Satan were represented in similar form, eg angels, spirits, beast, red heifer (vs. golden calf), snake, etc. one the true one G-d, the other a counterfeit. These are biblical facts occurring in repetitious forms.
• 4. We have in Lev 17:7 the Israelites bringing their sacrifices to devils(this word is also used for goats). AV Lv 17:7 And they shall no more offer their sacrifices unto devils(sayir, goat), after whom they have gone a whoring. This shall be a statute for ever unto them throughout their generations. This text is not saying they are offering goats as sacrifines as you were implying. They were bringing their sacrifices(whatever it was, including their own children) TO devils. There is a bold equivalent of devil and goat here.

The work of the second goat/dove is based on the work on the first goat/dove. Just as the cross represent the dead sacrifice, is done, this doesn't mean the world or our "house" is cleanse right after the cross. We know that there was the pentecost to come and after 2000 years we are still standing here awaiting for the full measure of the spriit(the latter rain) to fall. So it is obvious the work of atonement(cleansing) is still going on. It is only the first work that was completed at the cross, but the second work is still not completed.

Jesus is the living sacrifice(live dove and live goat)that is sent to take care of the work of the devil as figured after his baptism when He was sent into the desert.

Let's compare with the two doves in Lev 14. It took both of them to atone and to cleanse the house. If we read in Lev 14:22 “ And two turtledoves….; and the one shall be a sin offering, and the other a burnt offering.” We both know a burnt offering normally is killed, however, here it is not or maybe it is and the sin offering is not. I don’t know which dove is the sin offering or the burnt offering, as it is not specified. In either case, sin offering or burnt offering, typically the animal is killed in other services. However, in this one, one of these doves are not killed. So your assumption that a sin offering has to be killed to be a sin offering doesn't stand facing with Lev 14. Plus the fact that both goats needed to be without blemish, so both of these goats only can represent Jesus.

Lev 16 & Lev 14 are only two services similar to each other, where there is a dead sacrifice and the other a live sacrifice. These reveal the dept of the living work of Jesus to destroy the work of the devil. Other sacrifices does not reveal this level of truth how Jesus will take care of sin.

The work of the devil is in our heart which is in our "house" that needs to be purified. Only Jesus can be sent to destroy the work of the devil and this is what these sacrificial services symbolizes. It is not something we can do as we cannot "change the color of our skin, nor the leopard his spots", it is something only Jesus can do.

Sorry dedication I missed this one. I know I said this and I’ve said it at least in two other threads. I wrote this in page 3 Post #137826. Here is what I explain in that post:


So yes Jesus died because He broke 2 liability laws. He fulfilled those laws also. One thing I have recently learn that Jesus came to fulfill all the laws which is wider that the scope of sacrificial laws that we typically refer to. For example, Jesus fulfill the laws of divorcement, by divorcing Israel. I'm coming to see many laws as such that Jesus fulfilled. These are all TYPES foreshadowing G-d's plan of salvation in great details.

Coming back to God breaking 2 of his liabilities laws. However, we need to understand when G-d sin --- he doesn’t miss the mark. Sin is define as missing the mark. So G-d in creating beings with “freedom” (not the same as freewill) and foreseeing the future, has set up the stage for the fall of man with full remedy and complete restoration(cleansing – atonement) of all mankind. That is why it is written that Jesus was slain before the foundation of the world.

And so the owner of the Bull has to die according to the law for the owner is ultimatly responsible for sin entering this world. That is why the blame cannot be put of Satan, for Satan is only a created being. God on the other hand is the Creator and is ultimatly responsible for whatever any of His beings does. He can stop anything and He allows everything that happens including all of Satans activities. Nothing that is happening is out of G-d's control and Sovereignty.

So Jesus died because of He set up the stage for the fall of man. This is one fulfillment of the law. Jesus also died for the sins of all mankind which is another fulfillment. And so forth for many other laws.

Human laws do not apply to the "all knowing" because then God "should never have made mankind" knowing that mankind would sin and should never make any intelligent being where He knows ahead of time that in the future they will "choose wrong".

Imagine that God did such a thing - "not making anyone that would ever make a wrong choice" but then called that "free will".

Not very impressive - and apparently not what God wanted.

God did not force Adam and Eve to sin - by giving them a super hard "test". In fact they had the easiest of all tests. No devil to harass them and no actual reason to go after forbidden fruit.

The odds were against the devil on that one.

And what is more - the devil did not get any other planets to sin on that basis - only this one. Possibly his chances were better here since we were the newest kids on the block.

in Christ,

Bob

kept - shamar, shaw-mar'

That sounds kind of like mars. Most likely this means the fourth goat went to mars.

------------
(Biblical interpretation through creativeness of similitudes in different languages)