A good case can be made that the fit man represents the 144,000.

Johann and Alchemy, there's a very severe mis-translation that is replicated in many version of the Bible. The second goat of Lev 16 IS NOT Azazel which is also mistranslated as scapegoat(detail on this below). These mis-translations brought a lot of confusion to everyone for centuries.

Below is a Post done in the Is the Scapegoat Jesus or Satan? discussion. That will explain in detail the 4 aspects of mis-translations done in Lev 16.

======== Post # 13861 ===================

...
The point is the KJV and other version has added more words ...

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 on the word “the”. Highlited in red above is ADDED text. In Hebrew when they want to emphasize on a noun the Hebrew letter Hey is used as a prefix which is translated as "the". 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.

... 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).

Blessings glenm,

Welcome to Maritime 2nd Advent.

Well, I have never seen a good case for the 144,000. Please, feel free to show us here.

Welcome back!

Quite a point!

When will the 144,000 appear?

When will their cleansing take place as required by the Fit Man in Leviticus 16?

Will the 144,000 be chasing the devil into the "wilderness" at the beginning or close of the millenium?

Blessings Elle,

The scapegoat does represent Satan. I believe Strong's and the english/greek lexicon of the nineteenth century to be very reliable and accurate.

Well, other scholar differ from Strong's definition of Azazel. Then of course many scholar differ in translations(that's why we have many different translations). Actually, most of those translations of Lev 16 are not in harmony with the masoretic text. If I were to choose over a translation and the source text, I would choose the source text to be correct over a translation of the source text.


Also, if you speak to any practicing Jews who keep the law, they will tell you that the second goat is NOT Azazel. They can read Hebrew and know how the text obviously read. I have verified this with a rabbi and with a practicing Jew. Both said that Azazel was a mountain that the "fit man" brought the second goat to. And I have verified on a map if there was a mountain called Azazel...and there is one.

So our understanding and translation of that text is totally false on many levels, mainly we are not in harmony with the source text itself.

Elle,

Etymologically you have a point, and you emphasize a danger with Strong: Many unskilled Bible students use Strong as a final authority not realizing that Strong often gives but the "face" meaning of a word, often with little consideration to the Hebrew or Greek grammar, which is so different from regular English grammar.

As for the KJV you do have all these words in italics which show that these are words added by the translators to make the text comply with the [Catholic] teachings of the Church of England - or what the translators thought should be the right meaning.

By stating that I hold that God used the KJV as a mighty tool for the salvation of souls.

In this case your case is as strong as the KJV text, but it does not fully void the meaning given by the KJV. This is one more case where we cannot depend fully on the single text but we have to get our true meaning by comparing what is said by the teachings of the Bible and the symbolism used in this case.

??? I don't know what exactly what your refering to. I did not use Strong as a final authority in looking at the word Azazel. I did the opposite by challenging his definition. Maybe you mis that part.

Strong was not a linguistic. He had a large team working under him to produce that work. I'm not saying that Strong's work is all wrong. I think most of it is right. But I know that no scholar or man has it all right. That's why I will not take any scholar as an authority. However I do refer to many scholar's work with the guidance of the Holy Spirit.



I don't know what you mean with the teachings of the Church of England here. All I know is that many English Bible version does not comply with the original Masoretic text. The Tanakh(Jewish Bible that is also translated in English) has translated this text correctly, and some other English translations.


I personally prefer the KJV because that's the version I'm accustom to; however I do know its limitation and have seen many faults(errors) in that version as it is found in any versions. All English translation fall short of the correct translation for these are all done by men who fall short in understanding all of the plan of salvation. So there's always some trouble texts where personal view leaks thru the translation.



Well, 4 mistakes by comparing to the Masoretic text found in these 2 texts is strong enough; but yes I agree the translated text needs to be in harmony with other texts. Which I have brought the parallele given in Lev 14 that is in harmony with the Masoretic text translation of Lev 16, besides how Jesus fulfilled it, beside how Jesus fulfills (the atonement) with the Israelites and with us today. Basically Lev 14 and Lev 16 describe the cleansing process that takes place in the two works of Christ: the justification and sanctification work.

Let me outline some of the key points.

1. The fit man is distinguished from the high priest, and we know the latter is Christ.

2. The fit man doesn't seem to be an angel, based on the description in 16:21 and 16:26.

3. It can be shown in various ways that the scapegoat is Satan. See for example GC 658.1.

4. Given this, it's the role of the fit man (human) to bind Satan. In what way do the 144,000 enter into this picture?

5. Before going further, there are a couple of foundational points that need to be mentioned.

In the first place, the 144,000 are NOT he-men and he-women who stand up and throw their weight around in their own strength. Anything they do in the closing work is based on them first learning to depend fully on Christ.

Another foundational point here is how to answer the question,
"Does God need humans?" In some deep absolute sense the answer is "no". However, God has deliberately chosen to make humans integral to the plan of salvation, and thus He has chosen to need humans to complete that plan. We see this principle at work in stories like that of Job, and the SOP says that Job vindicated God by his actions (Ed 156.1).

6. So how do the 144,000 serve to bind Satan? One clue can be found in Revelation 7:1-4, which says that the 144,000 must be sealed before the great time of trouble commences. In other words, God is waiting on this sealing.

Why does the sealing matter? It matters in part because Satan's hold on this world is based on inducing men and women to sin (John 12:31), and Satan had no hold on Christ for the same reason (John 14:30).

The SOP directly applies this to the role of the 144,000:


The SOP goes on to say that Christ's honor in directly involved in bringing His people to perfection:


7. For Satan to be vanquished, his hold must be broken on at least some group of people in this world. It's not just a matter of the Father and Son arbitrarily binding him at some random point; this process requires the involvement of some group of redeemed humans.

8. There's a lot more that could be said here. However, it may be best to wrap up this post, and to do so there's another quite fascinating SOP quote that talks directly about the fit man:

I am in agreement with you on this point. Those were the orders King James gave to his translators, that their wording had to comply with the teachings of the Church of England. Many miss this point.

True, and yet we are now facing a strong point in connection with the 144,000 which I am not prepared to reject. I think this is a question we have to consider from various angles.