A recent question was posted by someone looking for essentially a bibliography. A strict reading of our FAQ would indicate that these are off topic since they're not properly about the Bible per se and do not fall under our seeming lone exception for the hermeneutical process itself.
That said, ...
I find that people with traditional Christian povs are apparently given the licence to be parenthetic in their questions.
However, when I ask my question with parenthetic explanation on my Jewish angle, the question is edited to make it "neutral".
This forum seems to be tacitly biased towards b...
@MarkEdward Yes. You state in the first section that to read the angel as Satan would be reading a late or post-exilic/second temple idea back into the Torah.
@FrankLuke His complaint makes it sound like my entire answer consisted of a defense of the traditional Christian view of Satan. The 'satan' question is only one part of my question, included because helps establish that the 'satan' in this passage is not the typical Christian version of Satan as a villain acting outside of God's will...
... and his complaint that my response doesn't address his original question just isn't true. I make a point of answering it on three separate bases.
@MarkEdward TL;DR>This reference to an angel as satan is not to be confused with the Christian tradition of Satan as an enemy of God. This satan acted as an agent of God and not from his own zealousness.
? :shrug: Added at the end of your answer or at the beginning.
I find that people with traditional Christian povs are apparently given the licence to be parenthetic in their questions.
However, when I ask my question with parenthetic explanation on my Jewish angle, the question is edited to make it "neutral".
This forum seems to be tacitly biased towards b...
The Library
The Library