Cohoon/Gary Debate on Satan

 
 
 Proposition:
The Scriptures teach that God created a ...being that fell...and 
now is the epitome of evil known as "Satan."

Affirm:  Bobby Cohoon
Deny:  James Gary

THIRD DENIAL:

Mr. Cohoon says, 
"We have no written account of God creating anything past the 
creation week in Genesis." 

But we do (Jonah 1:17; 4:6-8)! While it is another subject, I 
firmly believe the Bible shows that God is constantly creating 
His children to be what they are to be.  I see nothing in the 
Bible that would limit God's creating to Gen 1 & 2.

Mr. Cohoon states, 
"Brother Gary believes that there is no Satan."  

I must disagree!  I do believe there is a "satan" in the BIble.  
It seems Mr. Cohoon's response is typical of those who disagree 
with those of us who believe "satan" is something other than a 
fallen spiritual being.  While I do not believe in a fallen 
spiritual being, I do believe there is a "satan" and "satans" in 
the Bible.  It is very important that this is understood.  To 
claim that I do not believe in "satan" is not accurate and 
misleading.  I realize that Mr. Cohoon has "capitalized" the word 
"satan", but the pronunciation of "Satan" and "satan" is the 
same.

Mr. Cohoon says of myself, 
"He has quoted extensively from Young's Literal Translation of 
the Old Testament, but refuses to acknowledge that it is Young's 
that TRANSLATES the New Testament instead of TRANSLITERATING it."

Perhaps I was not clear, but I do admit that Young does translate 
the word "satanas" in lieu of transliterating it.  Mr. Cohoon 
seems to think that Mr. Young was somehow in error when he didn't 
transliterate the Greek word "satanas."  But I ask you, is he 
really?  Let's look at the definition of the Greek word "satanas" 
as per Strong:

G4567Satanas, sat-an-as'; of Chald. or. corresp. to 4566 (with 
the def. affix); the accuser, i.e. the devil:-Satan.

As you can see the Greek word "satanas" corresponds to:

G4566Satan, sat-an'; of Heb. or. [7854]; Satan, i.e. the devil:-
Satan.  Comp. 4567.

As you can see the Greek word "satan" is of Hebrew origin and has 
as its root the Hebrew word "satan" H7854":

H7854satan, saw-tawn'; from 7853; an opponent; espec. (with the 
art. pref.) Satan, the arch-enemy of good:-adversary, Satan, 
withstand.

As you can see the Hebrew word "satan" from which the Greek word 
"satanas" is derived is simply defined as "opponent."  You can 
also see that the root word is the same word:

H7853satan, saw-tan'; a prim. root; to attack, (fig.) accuse:-(be 
an) adversary, resist.

Yes the word "satan" simply means "adversary."  Please allow me 
to demonstrate what I am speaking of.

KJV 1 Chronicles 21:1 And Satan stood up against Israel, and 
provoked David to number Israel.

The above verse shows "Satan" provoking David to number Israel.  
The Hebrew word translated "Satan" is "satan."  It is, according 
to Strong a noun, masculine, singular, absolute and COMMON.  The 
very same word with the very same grammatical properties is used 
in these verses:

KJV 1 Kings 5:4 But now the LORD my God hath given me rest on 
every side, so that there is neither ADVERSARY nor evil 
occurrent.

KJV 1 Kings 11:14 And the LORD stirred up an ADVERSARY unto 
Solomon, Hadad the Edomite: he was of the king's seed in Edom.

(1 Ki 11:23-25 KJV)  "And God stirred him up another ADVERSARY, 
Rezon the son of Eliadah...{25} And he was an ADVERSARY to 
Israel..."

As you can see, the Hebrew "satan" is properly translated 
"adversary" and is not a proper noun.  Never is the proper name 
"Satan" ever translated from a proper noun in the Hebrew.  Not 
even once!   This alone, shows the bias of the translators in 
writing their own belief into their translations.

Not until the New Testament translators created the proper noun 
"Satanas" by adding "as" to the Hebrew word "satan" was there 
such a thing as the proper noun of "Satan."  What did they do?  
They transliterated the Hebrew word "satan" into the Greek word 
"satan."  That is Strong's # G4566.  It's is defined as :

G4566 Satan, sat-an'; of Heb. or. [7854]; Satan, i.e. the devil:-
Satan.  Comp. 4567.

If this word truly means a fallen spiritual being named "Satan", 
what need was there for the Greek word "Satanas" which is simply 
defined as "Satan?"  It's because the Greek transliteration of 
the Greek word "satan" is a common noun.  Therefore the adding of 
the "as" to "satan" created a proper noun where it never existed 
in the Greek Old Testament (LXX, Septuagint).  Don't you think if 
the Greek word "Satanas" is legitimate and it defines a fallen 
angel being, that being would be mentioned by name in the OT?  
Yet it's not used once in the Greek OT.  Not once!  Don't you 
find that a bit strange?

This is why Young translated the Greek word "satanas" in lieu of 
transliterating it.  Had the Hebrew word been translated as it 
should have been there would have been no confusing it with a 
proper name and therefore being transliterated into the Greek and 
then the English.

Mr. Cohoon speaks of the YLT's capitalization of the word 
"Adversary" saying 
"Young recognized the fact that it was a NAME and a PROPER NOUN."

I think this is very important.  As Young did believe in a fallen 
spiritual being just as Mr. Cohoon does.  However, Mr. Young was 
honest enough to properly translate the word in lieu of 
transliterating it because he knew it was made a proper noun by 
its creation, but that the root of the word which was 
transliterated from the Hebrew word "satan" was really a common 
noun.  Mr. Young also did this with the word "devil" as he 
capitalized that word where he felt it was actually speaking of a 
fallen spiritual being.  But that word not a proper noun.

I would like to counter Mr. Cohoon's implication that Mr. Young 
translated the word as a proper noun.  The word "adversary", in 
the English is never a proper noun unless someone or something is 
named "Adversary."  If one is named "Adversary" the definite 
article "the" is not used to modify it.  Just as Mr. Cohoon does 
not introduce himself as "the Bobby", neither would someone named 
"Adversary" introduce him or herself as "the Adversary" nor would 
anyone else write about a person named "Adversary" as "the 
Adversary."

The very fact that Mr. Young translated the Greek word "Satanas" 
as "the Adversary" and not simply "Adversary" shows this word 
isn't a proper name.  If you will check, you will see that the 
definite article is present but not translated in the Greek in 
the phrase "the Satan", but simply translated "Satan" in Mat 
12:26; Mar 1:13; 3:26; 4:15; Luk 10:18;11:18; 13:16; 22:31; John 
13:27; Acts 5:3; 26:18; Rom 16:20; 1 Cor 5:5; 7:5; 2 Cor 2:11:14; 
1 Thes 2:9, 1 Tim 1:20; 5:15; 18; Rev 2:9, 13, 24; 3:9; 20:2 & 7. 
Yet not once is this phrase translated as "the Satan."  Why not?  
Why did the translators refuse to translate the definite article 
that modified the Greek word "satanas?"  Could it be because such 
a translation would defeat the intent of making "satan" a proper 
noun?

Mr. Cohoon states, 
"...Mr. Gary's acumen is nothing more than a paradox: It is based 
on contradictory statements. Brother Gary suggests that God, not 
Satan as the "adversary" to Job and to all men in general 
including our Savior."

I must agree with Mr. Cohoon here.  I do believe that God is the 
adversary rather than a fallen spiritual being when that 
adversary is one of a Spiritual nature.  But this is what's 
spoken of in the Bible (Lam 1:17).  The case with Christ's 
temptation was His flesh as I have shown.

Mr. Cohoon continues to imply that this "satan" had "power" even 
though all the verses show that God was the one that caused Job's 
problems.  The only thing Mr. Cohoon can actually say the book of 
Job says was seemingly attributed to this "satan" was the boils 
that were given to Job.  However, the Bible shows that it was by 
God's hand that Job was stricken by (Job 19:21).

Mr. Cohoon seems to think God's hedge about Job was to protect 
Job from a fallen spiritual being. But is that what God's hedge 
is protection from?  I don't think so.  The word "hedge" is 
translated from the Hebrew word "suwk."  It is not a noun in this 
instance even though the translators translated it as one.  It is 
a verb and it is defined as " to entwine, i.e. shut in (for 
formation, protection or restraint):-fence, (make an) hedge 
(up)."  It would be more properly translated "hedged" or 
"fenced."

What does God say will be the result of obedience to Him?  That 
He will bless the obedient with blessing in the fruit of the 
body, ground and cattle  and an increase in possessions (Deut 
28:1-5).  That He will cause the adversaries of the obedient to 
be destroyed and to flee from him (Deut 28:7).

Is this not the situation we find Job in (Job 1:3)?  Was he not a 
man that perfect, upright, feared God and shunned evil (Job 1:1, 
8)? Therefore we can expect that God caused Job's adversaries to 
be at bay from Job according to God's promises in Deut 28:1-13.

However who is it the Bible says will bring enemies upon God's 
people? Is it a fallen spiritual being?  No, it's God (Deut 
28:48).  So the "hedge" God put around Job was the fulfilling of 
His promises for obedience.  In all of Deut 28 where the 
blessings and cursings are we never see even a hint of a fallen 
spiritual being as being the enemy or adversary of God's people.  
But we do see God causing enemies to come upon them.  The "hedge" 
is simply God's blessings for obedience.

That's why the adversary in Job said "Hast not thou made an hedge 
about him, and about his house, and about all that he hath on 
every side? thou hast blessed the work of his hands, and his 
substance is increased in the land.  But put forth thine hand 
now, and touch all that he hath, and he will curse thee to thy 
face." (Job 1:10-11).

In other words the adversary of Job's told God,  "if you will 
stop blessing him, he will curse you because he's only good for 
what he can get out of you."  The removing of the hedge was not 
removing protection from a fallen spiritual being but removing 
God's blessings for obedience.

Mr. Cohoon said "The "Fire of God" is nothing more than a 
metaphor for lightening" when countering my statement that the 
destruction on Job was of God and I gave Job 1:16 as evidence.  I 
suppose fire from God could be lightning, but the fire from God 
in 2 Kings 1:12 was, without doubt from God.  If it's from God 
it's not from a fallen spiritual being.

I don't quite understand why, but Mr. Cohoon seems to think I 
believe the "adversary" spoken of in Job was God.  I do not 
believe that.  I believe there was an adversary of Job's that 
"moved God's hand" against Job.   I do not believe God and the 
adversary in Job were the same being.

Mr. Cohoon says of my explanation of the temptation of Christ, 

"He has Jesus being tempted in Matthew 4 by his own self. In 
spite of the words that the Holy Spirit felt we were to have: 
"Then Jesus was led up to the wilderness by the Spirit, to be 
tempted by the Devil" (Matthew 4:1 Young's Literal Translation)."

I have already explained the situation of Christ's temptation.  
Mr. Cohoon has not shown how I was wrong in that explanation.  
He's simply implying that I'm saying that Christ was speaking to 
Himself.  Is there a person reading this that hasn't had to argue 
with himself over something in his lifetime?  What do you think 
you are arguing with?  Your flesh!  It's not a case of Christ 
simply carrying on a conversation with Himself, but a case of 
Christ fighting the flesh to do right.  Here's how Paul stated 
it:

(Rom 7:14-25 KJV)  "...I am carnal, sold under sin. {15}...what I 
hate, that do I...{18} FOR I KNOW THAT IN ME (THAT IS, IN MY 
FLESH,) DWELLETH NO GOOD THING...{19} For the good that I would I 
do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do. {20}...IT IS 
NO MORE I THAT DO IT, BUT SIN THAT DWELLETH IN ME. {21} I find 
then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me. 
{22} For I delight in the law of God after the inward man: {23} 
But I see ANOTHER LAW IN MY MEMBERS, WARRING AGAINST THE LAW OF 
MY MIND, and bringing me into captivity to the LAW OF SIN which 
is in my members. {24} O wretched man that I am! who shall 
deliver me from the body of this death? {25} I thank God through 
Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the 
law of God; but with the flesh the LAW OF SIN."

As you can see Paul clearly shows the "law of sin" WARRING with 
the law in his mind, the Law of God.  Paul is saying he has to 
fight himself to do what is right as per the Law of God which is 
in his mind or spirit.  The "law of sin" is in the flesh and wars 
with God's Law in the mind. Does this somehow make Paul crazy?  I 
don't think so!  It's what we all have to do if we're to overcome 
the desires of our flesh.  Christ was no exception since he was 
fully man tempted in all points as one is tempted (Heb 4:15).

Does it really take a fallen spiritual being to tempt someone to 
eat after a forty day fast?  I don't think so!

Mr. Cohoon did not comment on most of my presentation of the 
"Legion" which was quite lengthy because I was comparing all the 
Scriptures that had to do with it and showing how they 
complemented each other and showed how it was men talking and not 
fallen spiritual beings.  However he did say this of my 
presentation, 

"Brother Gary has suggested that those who have been delivered, 
cured, of unclean spirits were in fact not possessed by spirits 
at all...He went on to say 'Evil or unclean spirits are not 
spiritual beings but conditions of the heart or mind' To this I 
ask you brother Gary: How can the condition of ones heart or mind 
leave and go into a herd of pigs? 'Then went the deuils out of 
the man, and entered into the swine: and the herd ran violently 
downe a steepe place into the lake, and were choked' (Luke 8:33 
KJV 1611)."

I answered this in my post.  I will re-post that answer here:

(Mat 8:32 KJV)  "And he said unto them, Go. And when they were 
come out, they went into the herd of swine and, behold, the whole 
herd of swine ran violently down a steep place into the sea, and 
perished in the waters."

(Mark 5:13 KJV)  "And forthwith Jesus gave them leave. And the 
unclean spirits went out, and entered into the swine and the herd 
ran violently down a steep place into the sea, (they were about 
two thousand;) and were choked in the sea."

(Luke 8:33 KJV)  "Then went the devils out of the man, and 
entered into the swine and the herd ran violently down a steep 
place into the lake, and were choked."

While it may appear, because of the way these verses are 
translated that "demons" came out of the man and possessed a herd 
of pigs,  that is not what is actually said.  Remember, it has 
been established that there is only a single "unclean spirit" in 
each of the two men.  It has been established that Christ is 
speaking to the men as the previous verse shows.  To say these 
verses mean that a legion of demons was being addressed and went 
and possessed the pigs is to say the Gospel writers contradicted 
themselves.

Lets look at Lamsa's version of this same event and see how it is 
translated:

(Mat 8:30-32 Lamsa) "Now there was nearby them a large herd of 
swine feeding. [31] And the lunatics kept asking him, saying, If 
you are going to heal us, permit us to attack the herd of swine. 
[32] Jesus said to them, Go.  And immediately they left and 
attacked the swine, and the whole herd went straight over the 
cliff and fell into the sea and were drowned in the water."

(Mark 5:11-13 Lamsa)  "Now there was near the mountain a large 
herd of swine feeding. [12]And the lunatics begged him saying, 
Send us to the swine, that we may attack them. [13] And He 
permitted them.  And the lunatics went out and attacked the 
swine; and the herd ran to the steep rocks, and fell into the 
sea; they were about two thousand, and they were drowned in the 
water."

(Luke 8:29-33 Lamsa)  "For Jesus commanded the unclean spirit to 
go out of the man. For it was a long time since he was possessed 
and bound with chains and kept in fetter; but he would often 
break off his bonds and was driven into the desert by the demon. 
[30]  Jesus asked him, What is your name?  He said, Legion, 
because many demons had entered into him. [31]  And they besought 
him not to command them to go down into the abyss. [32] Now there 
was there a herd of many swine feeding on the mountain; and they 
besought him to permit them to attack the swine.  And he 
permitted them. [33]  Then the demons went out of the man, and 
they attacked the swine; and that whole herd went straight to the 
cliff, and fell down into the lake and were drowned."

As you can see Matthew and Mark show, very clearly that it was 
the lunatics and not fallen spiritual beings that requested they 
be allowed to go into the herd to attack them.  Understanding 
this, Luke's version must complement Mark and Luke or else we 
have a contradiction in the Bible.  As you can see in v.v. 29 & 
30 Jesus is speaking to a man.  So it would be the two men 
Matthew spoke of in Mat 8:28 who are being referred to in the 
next three verses. Verse 33 is saying, "when the demons went out 
of the man, the two lunatics or men attacked the pigs.  And so it 
is with the KJV version of these verses.

These verses are saying after the unclean spirit went out of each 
man, the men went into the herd of swine and ran them into the 
water.  Not possessed them!  And none of the accounts say the 
pigs were possessed with anything much less fallen spiritual 
beings.

What would fallen spiritual beings have accomplished by 
possessing pigs?  Especially pigs they could not control?  After 
all didn't the demoniacs or lunatics cut themselves and 
jeopardize their lives?  If fallen spiritual beings can do that 
to a flesh and blood man, why couldn't they control pigs?

And what would the end result be?  Would not Christ have been an 
accomplice in turning a "legion" of fallen spiritual beings loose 
on the public to possess them?  Who thinks fallen spiritual 
beings could be affected by pigs drowning?

This concludes my third denial of Mr. Cohoon's affirmative.

Thanks,
James Gary