The Devil - a misunderstood concept?

Andy Hamilton is a Cambridge graduate who used to play Satan in Old Harry`s Game on BBC Radio 4.
en.wikipedia.org...

He became inquisitive about Satan and made the following programme. Our concept of Satan seems to have changed over the era.

www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...

reply to post by dr treg


Your concept has changed as we have lost the one real truth about that particular entity. He is the deceiver of all men. That includes me, you and anyone else in this bloody forum. It us bloody useless for any of us to debate it as this would only result in more confoundery. Come on man, use the brain that God gave you and research, research, research!

The name Satan is derived from the Hebrew word for ''adversary.'' The Devil could very well have been taken from the french "d'evil" meaning "of evil." (It is also interesting how "evil" is "live" spelled backwards.) Lucifer, of course, means "the light bearer" (but that refers to him before the fall...assuming that they are one and the same; although many Masons will argue that they are different entities).

reply to post by CosmicCitizen


To debate the details of such an entity is as utterly pointless as you can possibly get. Is it so hard to understand that if Lucifer exists, that confirms the bible's teachings and as such, means that we, in our paltry human understanding, could never get even the vaguest grasp of the truth in such matters. So why bother.

NO debate i pointless. A meeting of the minds is a wonderrrful thing, and with an open mind you can actually gain insight into others thoughts and even broaden your own point of view.

reply to post by CosmicCitizen


Actually, "Satan" means adversary in Hebrew...but it wasn't derived from it. The term "Satan" is actually a derivative of an older word "Satya(n)" in Sanskrit, which meant TRUTH.

Satan means Truth

Sanskrit Dictionary

I have a thread on similar subject matter here

Perhaps the common perception of Satan has changed over time, but the Biblical description remains the same.
Some 'academic' with an alternative take should not be used to replace the Word of God