I am not a grammar specialist but there are 15 verses where satan is used as a noun H7854.

H7854
שׂטן
śâṭân
BDB Definition:
1) adversary, one who withstands
1a) adversary (in general - personal or national)
2) superhuman adversary
2a) Satan (as noun proper)
Part of Speech: noun masculine
A Related Word by BDB/Strong’s Number: from H7853

H7853
שׂטן
śâṭan
BDB Definition:
1) (Qal) to be or act as an adversary, resist, oppose
Part of Speech: verb
A Related Word by BDB/Strong’s Number: a primitive root

1Ch 21:1
Job 1:6 through 1:12
Job 2:1 through 2:7
Psa 109:6
Zec 3:1
Zec 3:2

Zec 3:1 And he showed me Yehoshua the high priest standing before the messenger of יהוה, and Satan standing at his right hand to be an adversary to him.
Zec 3:2 And יהוה said to Satan, “יהוה rebuke you, Satan! יהוה who has chosen Yerushalayim rebuke you! Is this not a brand plucked from the fire?”

Shalom

Hi Mike,   Tks

I have been trying to remember and relearn English grammar and at the same time attempt to learn some Hebrew grammar.

S7853 satan ( to attack ) is a verb

S7854 satan ( an opponent) is a noun. The person doing the attack, could be anyone.

Both Hebrew words spelled the same  שָׂטַן satan. ( small letter "s" not capital letter "S"

What I am trying to figure out is how we get a "Proper noun, Satan " from the "verb, satan" using proper grammar.

Does anyone know if the "Proper noun, Satan " is used in the TP&P ???

Hi James
I don't think you are correct in your example

Obama ( proper noun ) the liar( noun)


A proper noun is a noun that in its primary application refers to a unique entity, such as London, Jupiter, Sarah, or Microsoft, as distinguished from a common noun, which usually refers to a class of entities (city, planet, person, corporation), or non-unique instances of a certain class (a city, another planet, these persons, our corporation

A distinction is normally made in current linguistics between proper nouns and proper names. By this strict distinction, because the term noun is used for a class of single words (tree, beauty), only single-word proper names are proper nouns: Peter and Africa are both proper names and proper nouns; but Peter the Great and South Africa, while they are proper names, are not proper nouns.

In Zachariah 3 "satan" is used as a  noun and a verb, the word satan is not used as a proper noun in the Hebrew language.


Joshua ( Part of Speech,proper masculine noun )
http://www.blueletterbib...?Strongs=H3091&t=KJV

Yahowah (Part of Speech, proper noun with reference to deity)
http://www.blueletterbib...?Strongs=H3068&t=KJV



The Hebrew word "satan " is not a "proper noun" and is not referring to the devil. The devil only exists in Christianity. 

Why is satan not capitalized in the Hebrew language like the other proper nouns in the same verse or anywhere else in the TP&P?

A Proper noun always begins with a capital letter,
such as John or London - those that NAME specific things, people or places

A Common noun always begins with a small letter (unless it is at the beginning of a sentence). A common or general word. An example of the common noun - A girl and her dog played in the park.



The Hebrew word "satan " is not a "proper noun" and is not used as a proper noun in Zac 3 or anywhere else in the TP&P

The Hebrew word satan is not being used as a title in Zac 3. The word satan S7853 satan ( to attack ) is a verb and S7854 satan ( a opponent) is a common noun.  ( see above common noun " a girl" same as " a opponent" )

You would be errant in grammar to make up Satan ( with a capitol letter S ) however it does exist in Christianity. 


heylel ( Part of Speech masculine noun. ) (in the sense of brightness,shining one, morning star)

ben   ( Part of Speech masculine noun. ) (son, grandson, child, member of a group)

shachar (Part of Speech masculine noun. )  (dawn, at dawn (as adverb)

heylel ben shachar    
All common nouns, no capitals, NOT a proper noun and in context is referring to a king of Babylon.

 Satan " proper noun" is not used


James, 
I was unable to find in the Examples of English Language & Grammar & Eight Parts of Speech where " a title is a proper noun "
Could you show me where to find that??  Tks

satan is a transliterated word, so my question was about the capital and small letters in the transliteration.

Why is satan not capitalized in the Hebrew language transliteration  like the other proper nouns in the same verse or anywhere else in the TP&P?


Note the the capital Y in Yĕhowshuwa` Transliteration ( proper noun )
http://www.blueletterbib...?Strongs=H3091&t=KJV


Note the small s in satan Transliteration (common noun )
http://www.blueletterbib...?strongs=H7854&t=KJV



The word used in Zac 3 is a small s  (common noun )  translation (adversary, one who withstands) or transliteration ( satan ) verb or noun with the definite article.  

Zac3 is a verse or sentence or paragraph and is not the title of a book, movie, music,ect and satan is not a title or a proper noun in the structure of the verse.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/title

First transliterations are man made affairs.

Second, not all lexicons capitalize the transliteration of names, i.e. TWOT, Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, and DBL, Dictionary of Biblical Languages. So the decision to capitalize or not capitalize a transliteration is purely arbitrary.

Third If I were to hazard a guess as to why Yĕhowshuwa` would be capitalized in it's transliteration, and satan not I would say it's simple. You are comparing a name, which is always a proper noun, to a word which is only a proper noun when used as a title. The same is true for the word melek, king, it is not capitalized in it's transliterations. King can be a word or a title, and is only a proper noun when used as a title, i.e. King James, versus that country has a king.



JamesH is trying to argue that satan is not a proper noun, and therefore not a title, and therefore there is no adversary. This goes back to the same debate we had a while back were he tried to argue that the serpent in the garden was a literal serpent and not a metaphor for the adversary. This boils down to the same disagreement I and others have been debating him over for some time, he just keeps changing his tack on it.

Thanks James.

It seems that JamesH is always trying to convince us
that he and his thoughts are right. Have you read his
take on (mashal – rule?
Yada Yahweh Forum » Topics » In the Beginning » Bare’syth / In the Beginning / Genesis 3:16
He skipped ba'eth and went to some kind of human rule crap.
His ideas are absolutely insane sometimes.
I used the above example because it was my post but,
he has answered others with the same absurdity.(don't know
if that's a word or not) but don't know if he's trying to
convert us to his ways or not either.

I believe he has used the Blue letter Bible as reference.
Isn't that a revised KJV?

Glad you're back. Get some real answers now.



Had to edit my thoughts. All JamesH wants is argue.

One of the definitions of a title is: A descriptive name; an epithet. An epithet is: A term used as a descriptive substitute for the name or title of a person, such as The Great Emancipator for Abraham Lincoln.

If I say Abraham Lincoln was a great emancipator, it is not a title, if I say The Great Emancipator Abraham Lincoln it is, and if I just say The Great Emancipator it is.

Anything can be a title if used as a title.

Yada has a regular caller who we call William the Elevator Man, in that case it is a title which we have given him.

transliterations are completely arbitrary because there are often times several ways to convey the sounds in a different language, look at more than one lexicon and you will find more than one transliteration. Translations on the other hand you are correct they follow grammar rules, which is what we are debating right now.

As I study Scripture I see that their is a being that Yahowah gave the title the Adversary or ha satan too, his name is Halal ben Shachar. This is not a belief, but my understanding based on study of Scripture, it is subject to change based on evidence, but not based on you stating your position over and over while ignoring the evidence.

needhelp, based on my interactions JamesH is not interested in intellectual debate whereby we examine evidence, he has drawn his conclusions and now wish to convince us that he is right. He has even twisted scripture through his own unfounded translations. And JamesH this is not ad-hominem since I have demonstrated in a number of threads, using evidence, how you have done this. I don't engage with him because I think enough evidence and reason will persuade him, but for the benefit of others who are reading who may become confused by his misinformation.

Thankx James. I value yours and other ideas greatly.
I seem to recallJamesH doing this same thing a while
back to you, dajstil and a couple of others. Changing
the topic to suit him and his agenda whatever it may
or may not be. I believe the subject was "metaphors."

Mike answered your question(#2 & #3 above)accurately
with proof so you changed the question.Sound familiar?

As for ad-hominem JamesH what do you call mispelling
a word to change it's meaning purposely? I may be slow
but I'm not plum stupid. The "s" is childish.
If you are seeking the truth in Yahowah's word then
use Yahowah's word not King James

In English we capitalize a word when it is being used as a proper noun. Hebrew does not have this. When a noun is used rather it is proper or not is determined solely by the context in which it is used.

As for how your point on Hebrew dictionaries not labeling it a proper noun, look up the word melek/king and it is not listed as a proper noun either. So is king never used as a title in Scripture? No it would be absurd to assert that since we read of the King of such and such and King so and so all over Scripture and there is no denying that melek is being used as a title there. There are many instances where melek is not used as a title and thus is not a proper noun. So if I had to guess the dictionaries and lexicons only list as a proper noun words that are always proper nouns regardless of their context, i.e. names.


So when we read ha satan in Scripture we have to examine the context in which it is being used to determine rather or not it is being used as a title or just as a word, and then translate accordingly.

In the context of Zechariah 3:1 and 3:2 there is no other way to view satan then as a title. (For ease I will use the ISR translation modified. “And he showed me Yehoshua the high priest standing before the messenger of יהוה, and ha satan standing at his right hand to be an adversary to Him. And יהוה said to ha satan, “יהוה rebuke you, ha satan! יהוה who has chosen Yerushalayim rebuke you! Is this not a brand plucked from the fire?”

Once again translating the Hebrew words. “And he showed me Yehoshua the high priest standing before the messenger of יהוה, and the adversary standing at his right hand to be an adversary to Him. And יהוה said to the adversary, “יהוה rebuke you, the adversary! יהוה who has chosen Yerushalayim rebuke you! Is this not a brand plucked from the fire?”

He chose the words the adversary, not an adversary, not my adversary, not your adversary, but The Adversary.

In your earlier example you said



So here you would say that I am you satan on this topic, but you would not say that I am the satan on this topic, and if you did it would be being used as a title which you have given me.

Also I would still like to know which king of Babylon you think fell from heaven since you say that Halel Ben Schachar is just a description of some Babylonian king.

This is completely unrelated to the use of satan in Zechariah. My only point in bringing up adam was to show that not all proper nouns are identified as such in dictionaries and lexicons. All this demonstrates is what I have been saying all along that words can be nouns or proper nouns depending on the context.

Melek/king would be a much more apt comparison then adam, since adam is only a proper noun when it is someones name. Melek/king being a title would be a fair comparison to satan as a title, since both words have meanings and exist as both proper and and normal nouns depending on the context.





You might want to take a look at 14:12 again, which clearly states, "you have FALLEN from the heavens."

Also if you read 14:4 it says to take up this masal (parable or proverb) against the king of Babylon. A discourse type of a short narrative with a symbolic meaning, in other words what is being said is to be said to the king, and therefore not about the king. In the context Helel Ben Schachar is being presented as a name, a name with meaning as most names in Hebrew, but still a name. The story being told to this king of Babylon is of one who attempted to raise his throne above God's and fell from heaven for doing so.




It is not a title in it's use in Isiah 14:4, but it is used as a title in many other places, usually presented with the definite article The before it. As in The King said,...."

I have read every word you have said, most of it multiple times since you just keep repeating yourself rather than addressing what I have written.

It seems you have not read what i have said since i have not once said that Satan is a name I have continuously said that ha satan at times is used as a title, Big Difference. As for adam, it appears in Scripture both with the ha, and with out, one being the name of a specific person and the other being a Hebrew word for man, though what relevance this has to the current topic I fail to see.

The question at hand is: Is ha satan a title and thus a proper noun? I have argued that in the context of Zechariah 3, that it is being used as a title, and thus is a proper noun. You have failed to provide any evidence or reason to the contrary, instead you have resorted to using a straw man argument.




Here we go again with your ignoring the word which was written shamaiym because it doesn't suite your needs. We have been over this TIME and TIME again. You can not replace the word that was written with it's root word. It doesn't work that way. The root word informs us as to the meaning of the word, and is important, but they are not the same word. Shameh is the root of Shamaiym, but there is a reason shameh was not written, because that is not what was intended shamaiym was intended. And anyone who knows anything about Hebrew knows what shamaiym means, it's one of the first words in the Towrah, it means Heaven, or more accurately Heavens. I know this little fact gets in the way of your point, but as you pointed out below Yah instructed us not to add to or take away from His Word, and I would say that removing shamaiym and replacing it with shameh is both. So since I have done nothing but examine and comment on the words which were inscribed, and you have removed and word and replaced it with another, on more than one occasion now, I would say that makes you a hypocrite.

At this point you have become a distraction not worth tolerating. You have shown over and over that you are not interested in discussing facts to come to a conclusion, you have come to your conclusion and only wish to convince others. The forum guidelines clearly state that this is not a place to spread false agendas. So at the urging of many forum participants I am going to ban you. i have been putting this off and putting it off hoping that you would listen to reason, but it has proven futile. Since I have taken over as moderator I have not banned anyone, other than advertisers, but I have had numerous request both public and private to ban you, and since dispelling your misinformation is becoming a full time job I have no choice. I can not continue to invest the time to correct you, and I can not let misinformation be disseminated on the forum.