Talk:Satan/Archive 3

I predict I'm going to be raged at for saying this but
doesn't this "or as an allegory for knowledge or the enlightenment of mankind." constitute a Satanist point of view, not an Abrahamic point of view? I'm pretty sure Abrahamic religions believe in a literal devil, and they certainly don't perceive him as bearing enlightenment. And before someone brings it up, yes, I know what Lucifer means, but Satan is an EVIL figure in most religions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.176.27.25 (talk) 00:47, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * No rage, but I'd say you're working from a narrow representation of religious beliefs. Many Abrahamaic religions view Satan as a literal figure of evil, but some branches view him as either a willing agent of God or simply as a metaphoric representation of human foibles. It's not necessarily a matter of "bearing enlightenment," but of human nature to question and disbelieve what is presented to him. In those sects, Satan represents the human choice to seek out knowledge themselves rather than simply being happy in obedience to God. Humans chose to serve themselves and take their will into their own hands; Satan, in that context, is a symbolic representation of that choice. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 01:53, 23 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Correction. There aren't many Abrahamic religions. There are only three that are considered to be Abrahamic in origin: Judaism, Christianity and Islam.--Holmes245 (talk) 06:33, 29 December 2009 (UTC)Holmes245

Correction: What about Druze, Mormons, Taiping, Rastafarians, Alawites, Bahai, etc? Are they not 'Abrahamic religions'? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.138.29.26 (talk) 05:34, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Mormons are a branch of Protestant Christianity. The Druze are "an Islamic Unist, reformatory sect". I'm not seeing a specific religion called "taiping." "Most Rastas do not claim any sect or denomination..." though it began as a cultural offshoot of Christianity. Alawites "describe themselves as a sect of Shī‘ah Islam." The Baha'i... well, I don't pretend to understand what their beliefs are, even after reading the article here. It appears to be a mix of various local faiths with Christian and Islamic tenets as well. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 12:50, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Mormons consider themselves to be part of an 'Abrahamic' religion. Origin-wise is another story. --63.226.104.225 (talk) 19:46, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Problem
Hi there, the Satan article is mostly really good and accurate but I have a certain problem with it. Its when the guy says "Before his alleged insurrection, Satan was among the highest of all angels and the "brightest in the sky." His pride is considered a reason why he would not bow to God as all other angels did, but sought to rule heaven himself." I would like a citation so I know where anywhere that it says that. I'm very pleased the article does not say Satan was an angel because thats simply not in the bible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.234.72.237 (talk) 05:39, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I removed the word 'alleged' from the above sentence because it was wildly out of place. First of all, Christianity alleges (or, more accurately, asserts) all of the information in that section and highlighting one specific instance strikes me as insane. Tonally it's way off, and it looks like a weird - albeit unintentionally hilarious - determination to maintain NPOV in the face of all reason. I understand the rationale behind NPOV, I'm on board with it, but come on: the Father of Lies is unlikely to sue for libel. As far as the citation looked for above goes, the usual sources are Isaiah 14:12-17 and, more pertinently, Luke 10:18-19. BlackMarlin (talk) 23:26, 6 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Is that mainstream really? In my Christian surroundings, it's a very common opinion that "Satan" is a symbol for evil, instead of being some kind of supernatural person with a personal history. I think there is a common outsider opinion that we Christians are much more literalist, than is really the case... ... said: Rursus (bork²) 15:11, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Rursus, how can a symbol come before God in an effort to tempt Job (Job 1:6-12)? If he's supposed to be a representation of evil, then how does evil come before God and communicate with him? How can a symbol come before Jesus during his wandering in the wilderness and tempt him (John 4:1-13)? What was going on if this was not a supernatural being communication directly to him? It makes passages like these much more difficult if you see Satan as a symbol. It's unnecessary. The text doesn't call for it. Satan is presented in these passages as a supernatural being. Jesus is talking to this "symbol". If this symbol is not a personal being, then who is Jesus talking to? Is this symbol a manifestation of....of what? This "symbol" communicated with Eve in the Garden (Gen. 3). Symbols or figurative representations don't present themselves in this manner. It would if it were just a simple faery tale, but if so, then you would have to treat the Bible as just that - a faery tale but the writings aren't written in that fashion. The problem with seeing is as an allegory is that this symbol is being treated as a real being. The simplest and direct interpretation of scripture is that this is a personal being, not allegory. Seeing Satan as an allegory is reading that into the text, not out of it. --Holmes245 (talk) 06:48, 29 December 2009 (UTC)Holmes245
 * That only holds up if you assume biblical inerrancy. Given that the authors were not present for any of the events described, we're reading stories that were originally handed down by word of mouth. In that context, it's quite easy to see Satan as an allegorical figure. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 13:55, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Another point of view
Not meaning to create a debate, but only offering a differing point of view, I don't find this article completely accurate. Satan (Heb. "Ha-Satan": the adversary) is not a totally evil creature in the sense most Christians and Jews believe. Hebrew tradition even declares that on the Day of Atonement (Yom Kippur) Satan is compelled to defend the children of Israyl. If Satan stood before someone as a truly totally evil entity, who in their right mind would follow. No, the way of Satan has always been a mixture of righteousness and evil (The tree of knowledge of righteousness AND evil). The way of Yahweh has always been a way of total righteousness, anything else, including ANY mixture of sin, no matter how seemingly small, innocent or insignificant pollutes it and is no longer considered righteousness at all. As the Messiah taught, "A little bit of leaven leavens the whole batch", leaven, here being used to represent sin. You might understand this better when you consider that the early believers in the book of Acts, were all gathered together in one accord, of a single purpose and mind, all following the teachings and example of the Messiah in unity. Today, despite the commonly held belief by Christians that there is ONE true faith, their are hundreds (possibly more) denominations all under the banner of Christianity, teaching different doctrines all proclaiming to be the one true faith. Well, it is easy to see that if their is ONE true faith and yet a hundred different faiths proclaiming a slightly different message, only ONE of them is the true faith. It leaves one in a quandry as to which to believe and follow.

I find it amazing that the only things Christian denominations have in common are the doctrines that define Christianity. It is no coincidence that these "unifying" doctrines of Christianity are the very doctrines formulated by the Roman Catholic Church and are actually not found in Scripture at all. They were discussed and bitterly debated upon by theologians and philosphers at various ecumenical councils over the years, where these doctrines were finally agreed upon (NOT unanimously). My, Oh MY!! How did the early believers EVER get along without these fools dictating to them what they should believe?! My, Oh MY!! How those beliefs are different now from what the early believers knew. It is also amazing, and shameful that in many cities, there are sometimes multiple churches at various intersections, across the street from one another and not one of them accepts the other as a true brother.

Forgive me for digressing. You can see why I left this "discussion" for this page rather than including it in the main article itself. That, and the fact that I will admit, I cannot cite my sources (other than the book at the end of my discussion which most definitely DOES cite its sources. I am sorry to say I no longer have this book in my possession at this time)

The article also doesn't mention the name of Satan being "Hillel" which is roughly translated as "light bringer" which was the job held by Satan until the "rebellion", teaching Yahweh's Laws to the rest of Creation. The Greek, "Lucifer" having the same meaning, is just the Greek equivalent of the Hebrew name. Although "Satan" is a title (not a name) usually attributed exclusively to "The Devil", it simply means "adversary" and can rightly be used for anyone in an oppositional relationship.

There are many things about Satan that are not generally accepted by Christianity or Judaism, despite their basis being found in the Holy Scriptures. Probably the most unusual belief is that Satan is a female creature (not a "woman" but female) and actually an estranged wife of Yahweh, the Heavenly Father and Creator. Satan's femininity is not a new concept. This was commonly held, widespread belief prior to the dark ages as evidenced by much of the surviving Christian artwork from the period. Many paintings depict Satan as a serpent with the torso and head of a woman and having breasts.

Although Hillel can be a man's name as well, it is feminine in gender.

In the Holy Scriptures, Satan is not described as "handsome" but "beautiful".

Some, particularly women, might find this view of Satan being a female offensive, saying that it portrays women in a bad light. I suggest that it puts women in a bad light no more than the teaching of Satan being male, puts men in a bad light. Remember, Yahweh trusted her with great responsibility before her fall and there are many examples of righteous women in the Holy Scriptures.

In the Holy Scriptures, in a passage in Isayah (Isaiah), Yahweh speaks on His marriage to Satan, saying "I married you on my holy mountain" and says she was perfect until sin was found in her. It also goes on to speak of Yahweh's children with her. If one thinks about it, the relationship between Yahweh and Hillel/Satan truly does reflect the adversarial relationship between a husband and his estranged, rebellious wife.

Recently (within the last 10 years) their was a Christian Conference held in Europe where Theologians and other Scholars revisited this concept of Satan and concluded that it was very likely. The Bible also describes Satan as "The ruler of the powers of the air" (erroneously translated as "prince of the powers of the air" in the King James Version and other similar versions. This seems to indicate that she has influence over "air waves" such as television and radio broadcast signals which influence peoples minds and decay their morals.

Finally, the Bible also describes Hillel/Satan as "the god of this world". Put another way, one could say that she is the god whom this world unwittingly worships. This is not such a far-fetched idea when you consider that the name, "Beelzebub" or more properly "Beelzebub" not only means "Lord of the Flies" but a more ancient meaning of this name is "Lord of the Heavenly habitation". This is basically the title given to the Creator by Christians and Jews alike today, "The Lord of Heaven". Just something to think about.

I would greatly suggest reading the book, Unveiling Satan: Her True Identity Revealed by, Yisrayl Hawkins. I'm sure you can find it by searching on line.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.14.30.117 (talk) 20:20, 13 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Neither is the name 'Satan'. 67.10.239.13 (talk) 14:10, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * There is really no place for this in the article. JuJube (talk) 03:37, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Give us some external source saying exactly this, then we maybe can use it for the article, otherwise this long discourse is pretty much a waste of effort for a discussion that really only treats the format, coverage and content of the Wikipedia article "Satan". ... said: Rursus (bork²) 15:17, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

For clarification purposes, "Abrahamic religions" should be changed to "non-Judaic Abrahamic religions"
In the second paragrpah of the article it says, "Originally, this figure was the one who challenged the religious faith of humans in the Hebrew Bible. Since then, the Abrahamic religions have variously regarded Satan as a rebellious fallen angel or demon that tempts humans to sin or commit evil deeds." Originally that was the case, and it still is for all of the modern branches of Judaism. So to write that all Abrahamic religions ever since Biblical times have viewed him as a "rebellious fallen angel or demon" is a gross misrepresentation. While this is clarified in the Judaism portion of the article, some form of clarification should also exist with the earlier reference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.47.151.139 (talk) 22:10, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Satan in popular culture
This article needs a section on Satan in popular culture, and in particular how his nature is completely misrepresented in most depictions. Think of Satan in South Park, for example, and in Rowan Atkinson's "welcome to Hell" sketch. In both cases Satan is depicted as a kind of jail-keeper, administering Hell as a place for the punishment of sinners, in other words as God's agent or employee. In fact of course, in Christianity Satan is God's enemy, leading people into sin and away from God. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 07:16, 1 March 2009 (UTC)


 * For the most part "Popular Culture" Sections are frowned upon. Especially with the extensive use of Satan, a Popular Culture section alone would be longer then this article as a whole. I would suggest against it. We should leave all pop. culture portrayals to their respective articles. ZgokE (talk) 00:09, 19 April 2009 (UTC)


 * What about an independent article on Books where the word "Satan" is mentioned? I think it would irrevocably crash the servers... ... said: Rursus (bork²) 15:44, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

image
the second image down was in our historry text book contrasts and connections and is said it was an early christian portrayal of muslims or something along those lines 88.107.37.252 (talk) 09:50, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Latter Day-Saints
I'm thinking that this article needs a section describing Satan as he is portrayed in the Book of Mormon, a holy book of the Church of Latter Day-Saints. I'm not entirely familiar with this depiction of Satan, but I will research it in the common weeks and add a section for it. I'm not sure if it should be added to the section Christianity or Other Religions. From what I know now, Satan interpreted by the LDS Church from the Book of Mormon and the Old and New Testaments is a bit different than Protestant/Catholic Christianity so it might find a good home in Other Religions, but there is also the issue that the LDS Church considers itself Christian and some other churches don't--leading to conflict. I don't want my addition of the information to lean one way or the other in the issue so I am wondering where information and Satan in the LDS Church should be placed. Thank you. Peter Napkin Dance Party (talk) 03:31, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Satan merged into Devil?
While Satan and the Devil is essentially the same deity, as is Lucifer arguably, these are different concepts and aspects (Jewish and Greek, respectively) of him. In my opinion, they should be kept apart just as they are. Erzsébet Báthory(talk 23:09, 16 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The article pretty much repeats the information in the Devil article. There is hardly anything about Satan that destingushes him from the Devil expect for Ha-satan in Judaism. Bobisbob2 (talk) 15:51, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't see why we couldn't create small sections describing the different cultural variations. This could easily be taken care of in one unified article. -- Nick Penguin ( contribs ) 20:37, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Devil is a general concept beyond Satan; many societes in the history have different versions of the concept. Satan or Shaitan is more specific regarding it is a term realted to Abrahamic religions. So, Satan should be kept as a sub-article of Devil. It is not weird to mention Satan in the Devil article and that the two articles have similarities to some extent. In sort, I believe the two articles should be kept apart. Obuli (talk) 23:29, 22 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Then shouldn't the article Satan in popular culture be changed to Devil in popular culture? Bobisbob2 (talk) 17:38, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think in modern depictions they are much more synonymous. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:13, 24 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Might be better to map out this proposal. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:15, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Support

 * 1) These are different but similar concepts. Separate articles will have a lot of duplication. A unified article will be more useful as it will offer scope to compare and contrast these.filceolaire (talk) 12:34, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) I tend to agree that there is a good deal of overlap between the two articles, and that most of that overlap should be concentrated in one article or the other, but do think that there is at least a reasonable amount of content regarding the Devil as opposed to Satan, probably enough for at least a comparatively short article. However, most of the content directly relevant to Satan should probably be placed in that article. John Carter (talk) 13:44, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose - The concepts are distinct enough that they need to be separate, just as Lucifer is. Nutiketaiel (talk) 19:18, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose - One concept is Greek in origin, the other is Israelite. They converge only after Christianity; their history is distinct. See This wikisource resource for further information about the early history of 'Satan' (as opposed to 'Diablos'/'Devil').Newman Luke (talk) 01:36, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose. You can compare and contrast by opening up two tabs in your browser. Sy n 06:47, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose - Satan is a distinct entity, while Devil is more conceptual, depending on the theology/religion. (talk)

Discussion
Note that a lot of the content in Devil is simply content that was added by the person who did the initial bold move that I reverted, i.e. it's content that was originally in this article, so if it seems like it's repeating itself, that would be why. Erzsébet Báthory(talk 22:24, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * This is what it looked like before the bold move. Erzsébet Báthory(talk 22:28, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Are there any scholars that say that the terms devil and satan generally refer to the same supernatural being? That might be justification for a single article. -- Nick Penguin ( contribs ) 03:38, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

The distinction between the terms Satan and devil have both etymological differences as well as historical. The term devil from the root diabolo was popularized in parallel to the the archetype of Satan as tempter, a term which is also a mechanism used to validate an anti-christ. The more ancient archetype of Satan is "adversary" not tempter, this morphological instance proves a sincere distinction within the terms devil and Satan. The word devil is essentially a generic term, so by this logic it wouldn't make sense to merge the Article of Satan with the article of demon or even a less obvious article like Apollyon/Abaddon, so unless there is a debate to merge Satan with demon the logic of this merger seems motivated by specifically christian users. Michael Blackson|contr.) 16:07, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The OED gives several meanings for "devil". The first meaning, as in "the Devil" (proper noun), is "Satan" (and many other synonyms), but the second and third meanings are generic, as in "a devil":


 * "1. the Devil: ... In Jewish and Christian theology, the proper appellation of the supreme spirit of evil, the tempter and spiritual enemy of mankind, the foe of God and holiness, otherwise called Satan.   ...   Besides the name Satan, he is also called Beelzebub, Lucifer, ...  [etc.]


 * "2. From the identification of the demons ... of the Septuagint and New Testament with Satan and his emissaries, the word has been used from the earliest times in English, as equivalent to or including DEMON1 (sense 2), applied    a. (in Scripture translations and references) to the false gods or idols of the heathen;    b. (in Apocrypha and N. Test.) to the evil or unclean spirits by which demoniacs were possessed;    c. in O. Test. translating Heb. she‘îrîm hairy ones, ‘satyrs’.    c. In plural applied to ‘the Devil and his angels’, the host of fallen and evil spirits for whom hell was prepared: see 3.


 * "3. Hence, generically, A malignant being of angelic or superhuman nature and powers; one of the host of Satan, as ‘prince of the devils’, supposed to have their proper abode in hell, and thence to issue forth to tempt and injure mankind; a fiend, a demon. Also, applied to the malignant or evil deities feared and worshipped by various heathen people (cf. 2a)."
 * Ecphora (talk) 11:10, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

IN RESPONSE TO THESE OED REFERENCES cited by User:Ecphora -

1.) The assumption of tempter as appellation within Jewish theology is incorrect. The inclusion of ha-Satan within the book of Job describes Satan as "the divine court's chief prosecutor". One other main inclusion in the Torah regarding Satan is the relation to the Israelites building the golden calf, neither of these prominent examples within a Hebrew context are strictly based on temptation. The OED in claiming Jewish theology to describe this term is viewing the appellation through the lens of christianity.

2.) The Old Testament translates hairy or she'irim - one "of two classes, the se'irim and the shedim. The se'irim ("hairy beings"), to which some Israelites offered sacrifices in the open fields, are satyr-like creatures, described as dancing in the wilderness, and which are identical with the jinn," - there is not a supreme title given here to a greater archetype known as ha-Satan. The satyr can be classed as a lesser form; etymology of satyr: woodland deity, companion of Bacchus, c.1374, from L. satyrus, from Gk. satyros, of unknown origin. In pre-Roman Gk. art, a man-like being with the tail and ears of a horse; the modern conception of a being part man, part goat, is from Roman sculptors, who seem to have assimilated them to the fauns of native mythology. In some Eng. bibles used curiously to translate Heb. se'irim, a type of hairy monster superstitiously believed to inhabit deserts. So one can deduce that the subsequent parallels connecting satyr and ha-Satan are born of the christian translation efforts to render a Hebrew term that might mean he-goat, but in essence means "hairy". Coupled with the myth of Pan the term satyr sits more prominently in the christian context of a "devil" as opposed to the Hebrew realization of ha-Satan.

3.) If we are to pluralize the term Satan to become Satans then the debate really becomes ridiculous... Where in Judeo-christian doctrines do we find the plural term "Satans"? The lack of a plural form is evidence that the appellation is unique, therefor the ownership is Proper and independent from the latter invention of daemon or diabolos. "In Vulgate, as in Gk., diabolus and dæmon were distinct, but they have merged in Eng. and other Gmc. languages." Michael Blackson|contr.) 15:57, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I frankly don't understand this response; the point addressed in this discussion is whether "Satan" is synonomous with "devil" and whether there should be two articles or one. The OED references indicate that devil has meanings apart from Satan, supporting two articles.  Ecphora (talk) 23:55, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm stating again that the aspect of temptation as a specific aspect of Satan is a late christian invention, that's the purpose of showing the fault in the first example a dictionary cites in attempting to describe Judaism's archetype through a christian context, the dictionary is using the common era context of Satan and applying it ad hoc. The next references go on to attribute the plurality of demons to the singularity of Satan. The Article of Satan is a singular form and by definition the generic interpretation of devil (daemon) can be attributed to plurality. By this logic one could describe all trucks by calling them Chevy assuming everyone would know what it means. Michael Blackson|contr.) 04:49, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

If you look to the differences within the See Also, Footnotes and References sections of each article you can get some insight as to how each article is digested by readers and the signifigance of their separate definitions within modern culture. I would bet that the initial motivation of a user searching the terms Satan and devil are vastly different and the end results of said user upon reading each article will differ greatly. By the logic of separation it's as if to say, "I already read about this Satan character when I was reading about the devil." To assume that knowledge is ingested ad hoc is an insult to the theological tool that research into Satan offers compared to the popular culture that has been associated with a term like the devil since the Victorian era. Michael Blackson|contr.) 16:14, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

'Satan' just means adversary, and like 'devil' used to need an article to refer to that specific being (Ha-satan.) I think that the association of the Devil with Ha-satan has existed at least since the writing of Revelation, it's not that new of a Christian development. I think that the article Satan should focus on the being and the article Devil should focus on devils, perhaps focusing on the differences between devils and demons. If there isn't enough to differentiate demons and devils, then that should be merged as well, but that's a somewhat different discussion. --Osho-jabbe (talk) 18:53, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

'Devil' is the anglicisation of 'Diablos' - the Ancient Greek concept. 'Satan' is the anglicisation (via Greek) of 'Shatan' - the Ancient Israelite concept. Its only because of the emergence of Christianity that the two concepts merged together in Western thought. They were previously very very distinct. See This wikisource article from an Encyclopaedia for further information about the early history of the concept of 'Satan' (as opposed to 'Diablos'/'Devil'). Newman Luke (talk) 01:38, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Possible Linguistic Origins of Satan
Two potentials are extra-Hebraic, one being Satanaya from the Nart saga cycles, wherefrom the femininity aspect could being given just another dose of patriarchal poison and mistrust; another being the Sattva aspects of Nāga those doughty serpent class of folk quite well equipped to speak up and mislead nearly anyone save a Gautama or Jesus. 71.51.74.151 (talk) 23:53, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Have you got a reliable source for any of this? &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 01:48, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure, just wait a few centuries, the evidence will possibly "turnip." In dealing with ideas about ancients, one must first establish an historical priority in time: do Nart sagas precede biblical ages in time or follow them... and then, do Hindu mythologies precede or follow biblical mythologies. There seems to be an almost equal reluctance for such traditions to recognize intercourse, bleed-through or cross-talk: general Hindu tradition seems as reluctant to accept Christ as an incarnation of Vishnu for example, as are the Christians: and virtually nobody wants to claim the original Satan, apparently not even Yahweh who as the story goes, demoted, dismissed and disowned him, and hardly uses him any more to confuse us. 71.51.76.150 (talk) 16:27, 19 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, Semitic etymologies generally proceed by abstract consonantal roots, so no proposed "etymology" will be taken at all seriously in scholarly circles until and unless it is based on a triconsonantal derivation, or very specific and concrete evidence is provided as to why (unusually) a triconsonantal etymology does not apply to this particular word. Further, there's zero valid evidence for Hindu influence on Biblical Judaism.  In fact, the main Indic influence on Judeo-Christian religion is the tale of St Barlaam (which post-dates the "Closure of the Eurasian Ecumene", unlike the great majority of the text of the Hebrew Bible). AnonMoos (talk) 15:15, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

semitic alphabets
Satan in non-Semitic languages, using Semitic alphabets==== Persian: شيطان Šeytân; Hindustani (Hindi/Urdu): शैतान/شيطان Shāitān.

i wanna change this because Hindi is neither semitic, nor an alphabet. It should be Urdu alone. Urdu is based upon Farsi, which is based upon Arabic. But Hindi, is definitely not semitic, being, not only like Farsi linguistically as something Indo-European (unsuprisingly) but also the script is its own ancient derivation from Sanskrit. It is a syllabry because each character may be a syllable, with over a thousand conjuncts. Eugene-elgato (talk) 22:38, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

satan and the devil
many people say the devil is diffrent to satan? what do you think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.11.49.170 (talk) 10:19, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I think you have no clue what you are asking. Ceoil (talk) 10:28, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Image?
Surely we can get an image to lead the article with.....in the thousands of years of Jadaism, Christianity, et al., I'm almost certain there must be respectable artistic depictions of satan in the public domain. --K10wnsta (talk) 08:16, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 22:02, 3 May 2016 (UTC)