Your satan is a myth

A. The usage of the word adversary (satan) in the bible is not used in any way that would fit a definition of myth. Con’s second definition of myth is uncommon and not applicable in the context of this debate. Virtually any character in a work of fiction (which the old testament clearly is) can be thought of as a parable or an allegory for something. Webster first presents a simplified definition of myth which corresponds to popular usage of the word [4.1]: an idea or story that is believed by many people but that is not true a story that was told in an ancient culture to explain a practice, belief, or natural occurrence such stories as a group Other popular definitions do not include the extremely general definition as simply an allegory or parable: From Google [4.2]: noun noun: myth; plural noun: myths 1. a traditional story, especially one concerning the early history of a people or explaining some natural or social phenomenon, and typically involving supernatural beings or events. traditional stories or legends collectively. 2. a widely held but false belief or idea. a misrepresentation of the truth. a fictitious or imaginary person or thing. an exaggerated or idealized conception of a person or thing. Dictionary.com [4.3]: noun 1. a traditional or legendary story, usually concerning some being or hero or event, with or without a determinable basis of fact or a natural explanation, especially one that is concerned with deities or demigods and explains some practice, rite, or phenomenon of nature. 2. stories or matter of this kind: realm of myth. 3. any invented story, idea, or concept: His account of the event is pure myth. 4. an imaginary or fictitious thing or person. 5. n unproved or false collective belief that is used to justify a social institution. oxforddictionaries.com [4.4]: A traditional story, especially one concerning the early history of a people or explaining a natural or social phenomenon, and typically involving supernatural beings or events. 2 A widely held but false belief or idea. 2.1 A misrepresentation of the truth. 2.2 A fictitious or imaginary person or thing. 2.3 An exaggerated or idealized conception of a person or thing. Also see [4.5], [4.6] and [4.7]. The words Allegory and parable (Con’s definition 2) are just too general and it are atypical of definitions for myth. They are not listed in each of the six typical definitions I sourced. A traditional story to explain phenomena, or a being or belief from drawn from these stories that no basis in reality but accepted as true by many who believe the is a common thread throughout the definitions I reference. I will skip definition Pro’s definition 2) since I’ve already explained why it does not apply to this debate. 1) Satan is briefly referenced poetically in Job and Zechariah. Con concedes that these are not references to a literal supernatural being and attributes these instances to references to a man that is an adversary. This is true of every other reference to satan in the OT. Satan is not a myth by this definition although the noun is used in many myths in the bible. 3) Con has conceded that satan is not a reference to a single being but rather used as a label for an adversary of on multiple occasions in the OT as conceded by Con in round 2. It is a general term that even could be applied to multiple spirits. Satan is not used in this context as a reference to spirts but as a category of humans. As far as I know, satan is not applied to a literal spirit but if Con would like to argue this it is still just a general category applied to beings in general, supernatural or natural. B. The noun satan is not used in any way to represent an uncritically held belief but as a label for an adversary as Con has agreed. 4) There is no basis to state that satan is a single supernatural being. Satan not part of a reference to a dualistic light v.s. dark world view from the Old Testament. He is not seen as one literal being just as concept applied to multiple people throughout the Old Testament. There are many gods in the Old testament such as Asherah, a Canaanite goddess Ex 34:13-14, Baal, a Canaanite and Phoenician god Jdg 2:10-13, Baal-Zebub of the Philistines Mt 12:24, Tammuz, a Babylonian god Eze 8:14, Molech, the chief deity of Ammon 1Ki 11:4-5 etc. When satan is poetically personified as a being in Job he is seen reporting to the YHWH as subordinate in Job 1:6 and not as his opposition (he’s a reference to man’s adversary and adversities). There are many gods that do oppose YHWH and his people so there is no basis for a dualistic worldview when siting YHWH and one of the satans in the Old Testament. Lucifer Con concedes/argues that Lucifer is not a reference to satan as a literal being using Lamentations 2:1-2 HS, Judges 4:13-16 HS and Judges 5:19, 20 HS as a reference. D. Con challenged me to show him My Satan from the Old Testament. This implies a personal understanding of satan as referenced in the Old Testament. My interpretation is much more reasonable than modern the modern myth of Satan which has no basis in this context. Con has conceded that satan is used as a general label applied to people and not a word for a single supernatural deity. E. Con is using modern Satan myth which is not the improper noun used in the Old Testament. Con has referenced my modern colloquial definition of satan that in no way corresponds to the version of the noun satan as used in the Old Testament as Con conceded in round 2. See my section C where I argue that the modern myth of satan in no way references the noun as it is used in the old testament. In modern usage Satan is a Proper noun and a reference to a literal evil being. The descriptions of this myth correspond to the New Testament and not the Old Testament. I would challenge Pro to find a scripture in the OT that references a being that has any qualities of the modern myth of Satan. I would ask Con to allow me to source scriptures in the New testament to show the contrast and the origins of the modern satan myth but as it stands the noun satan does not fit standard definitions for a myth. I agree that in modern usage no one would say that another person is a satan. We have already agreed that satan corresponds to adversary in modern english. Let’s say I write a story about an enemy of mine who happens to be an evil rabbit named frank that walks upright and prophesies about the future. I mention other enemies from work or the ghost of my aunt Cloe. There is no myth of enemy, this is just a descriptive label. I could talk about the myth of Frank or Cloe but it wouldn’t make any sense to talk about the myth of enemy. This is exactly what Pro is trying to do with the myth of adversary which is just a label. - Con did not ask me to show him that the modern version of Satan is not a myth and it clearly is. He asked me to show him my version of Satan in the Old Testament and explain why that is not a myth. There are many myths depicted in the Old testament. The myth of Job, YHWH, miracles etc but references to adversaries (satans) are not. [4.1] http://www.merriam-webster.com... [4.2] https://www.google.com... [4.3] http://www.dictionary.com... [4.4] https://en.oxforddictionaries.com... [4.5] http://www.thefreedictionary.com... [4.6] https://www.vocabulary.com... [4.7] http://www.yourdictionary.com...