Some people determine that the goat was for the Lord or for Azazel, the question is how to use the preposition?
"And he shall cast lots for the two goats: one for the Lord, and the other for Azazel;" 2 what is for the one and the other the goat or the lot? The text is clear the luck that is involved to each one. So the goat is the lord or goat of the azazel. And not that the goat is not the property of the Lord and the other is not the property of Azazel. According to the biblical term "???? H1486 ??? H259 ????? H3068 ????? H1486 ??? H259 ??????: H5799" 1 , - fortune (???? H1486) falls into duplicity and so it is clear that it is the luck that was involved determining that the goat is the master and another goat is Azazel. Now we see in sequence 3 that the preposition was linked to luck, again defining that the goat was determined to be someone's.
The construction in Leviticus 16:10 4 , "????? H7971 ??? H853 ?????? H5799 ??????: H4057" 4 , defining go (H7971), himself (H853), Azazel (H5799), desert (H4057). What we have in this construction and that the goat is of Azazel with his possession, or of him being part of itself (to himself (H853)). Now this was logical, for the lambs in sacrifice were of God, and not of God. This is based on the idea that the lamb of God is seen the text " For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life. " 5, were it not for the lamb of God the verse would be wrong, indeed the sinner uses the lamb to transfer his sin, but the lamb and God. Now God has no sin, so he could not offer the lamb as a sin offering man, so the lamb offered is not for the atonement of God but for man. In this way the lamb is of God and not for God. In this way the term of the preposition of the goat, is goat of God and goat of Azazel. In fact we have that Jesus is of God, but we could never say that Jesus is of Satan.
Now it is clear that the goat is intimately bound to God as possessor and in return the other goat is closely connected with the possessor who is Azazel. In fact the goat of Azazel, or using the term (to himself (H853)), goat of Azazel, places only two positions, that such is Azazel himself (to himself (H853)) that is the most strengthened because he owns a Hebrew term for such, or is it, as possession. In fact, in neither of these determinations such a goat could represent even a minimal setting the idea of ??being Jesus.
In fact, the use of the Azzel Bode for Jesus is an abomination to the meaning of Christianity, because it makes Jesus at least a servant of Azazel, by the term (himself) (H853) that is in the Hebrew verse.
Novidades, e respostas das perguntas de nossos colaboradores
Visite o nosso canal youtube.com/buscadaverdade e se INSCREVA agora mesmo! Lá temos uma diversidade de temas interessantes sobre: Saúde, Receitas Saudáveis, Benefícios dos Alimentos, Benefícios das Vitaminas e Sais Minerais... Dê uma olhadinha, você vai gostar! E não se esqueça, dê o seu like e se INSCREVA! Clique abaixo e vá direto ao canal!