Elle,

Although the interlinear versions are useful, you cannot rely entirely on them to determine the meaning of the original text. This is how the prefix lamed can be translated:

(1) to, towards
(2) until
(3) at, in
(4) of, about
(5) in (regard to), concerning
(6) according to, by
(7) in relation to, in the direction of
(8) namely
(9) for, because

http://www.biblicalheritage.org/Linguistic/HL/15-A/lamed.htm

So the correct translation in a given place is entirely a matter of context and of interpretation.

Roxanne you didn't make any significant point. I see no change of meaning in translating lamed for a "to" instead of a "for" or vise versa in Lev 16:8 or in Lev 16:10. Either usage of these english words would of kept the intended meaning to the text.

The point is the KJV and other version has added more words than just changing lamed into "to" or "for".

Let’s start from Lev 16:8 “Av Lv 16:8 And Aaron shall cast lots upon the two goats; one lot for the LORD, and the other lot for the scapegoat(Azazel).”

A. Let’s make a note for “the”. In Hebrew when they want to emphasize on a noun the will put the Hebrew letter Hey as prefix. The masoretic text have put a Hey before sa’iyr(H8163, Shaggy, a he-goat), however none is put in front of Y-hv-h(3068,self Existent) nor in front of azaz’el(5799, stout goat). However the KJV has added in each of these noun a “the” in the translation for the sake of easy English flowing sentences. That’s fine as long as the intended meaning is not distorted.

B. In this text, Lamed was only used in front of both Y-hv-h and azaz’el to mean “for”. Following the flow and the context in this sentences there was one sin-offering that was for the Lord, and the other was for Azazel(the stout goat). By preserving the name Azazel as a stout goat, we see here that the second goat (live one of the sin offering) is i)for the stout goat and ii)is not the stout goat itself. i) and ii) has two complete different meanings. We lost the intend meaning by translating it as ii). The way they did it is as followed:

• #1.First Srong has incorrect defined the origin of the word azaz’el. ".
  Originally Posted By: elle

  The Hebrew word “aza’zel” is best translated as “Azazel” and not as “goat of departure”.
  

  • i) Strong has erroneously defined it as deriving from ‘ez (h5795 – she goat ) and ‘azal (h235 – to go away). azal-ez does not fit together well and does not make up azazel.
    
    
  • ii)It better derives from ‘azaz (h5810 -- to be stout ) and ‘el (h410 – god) -- fitting together perfectly azaz-el meaning a goat god also known as Pan, by which the Isreaelites where worshipping also in all their high places.
  
  
• #2. The KJV and other version has added “the” in front of the incorrect definition of azaz’el, and voila, they have transformed the second goat of the sin offering into being Azaz’el instead of being sent To Azaz’el. This has totally distorted the intended meaning.
  
  
• #3. And we have not tested nor verified the soundness of this translation. Also we have disregarded other segment in Lev 16 that is in disharmony with this translation. Here’s how :
  i) the two goats were to be sin-offering (Lev 16:5)
  ii) All sin offering needed to be without blemish, that means the second goat cannot represent Satan because Satan is full of blemish.
  iii) it is not in harmony with the second witness of this law that the Lord provided in Lev 14.
  iv) it is not in harmony with the laws of liability
  v) It is not in harmony with other scriptures revealing the fulfillment of the day of atonement.
  

Now let’s look at Lev 16:10 again.

In Blue -- regular KJV.
[In red]-- incorrect KJV translation.
(In green) -- what the Masoretic text read.

Lev 16:10 "But the goat, on which the lot fell [to be the] (for) Azazel, shall be presented alive before the Lord, to make an atonement with him, and to let him go [for a ] (to) Azazel into the wilderness. "

To translate ...

• a)"to be the" Azazel ... instead of " for" Azazel,
  
• b)" for a " Azazel into the wilderness ... instead of "to" Azazel into the wilderness

...a) & b) in red changes the whole meaning. They have turn the 2nd goat of the sin offering into being Azazel instead of being sent To Azazel.

It is not a question of changing lamed to a different translation, it is a question that in a)

• 1. They incorrectly translated azaz’el into scapegoat
• 2. they have added the word “the” to go with “scapegoat”
• 3. and they have added the verb “be”
  
  “the” and “be” are added words and are not in the original text. 1. 2. And 3. has changed the whole meaning of the text.
  
  
• 4. Also in the section b) they have added the word "a" which again was not in the original text and have distorted the intended meaning with it.

I see no potential change of meaning in translating lamed for a "to" instead of a "for" or vise versa in any of these translation above. Either usage of these english words would of kept the intended meaning of the text. The problem lies in all the points that I have brought above.

I’m not saying that Strong or whoever wrote KJV and whoever else who wrote the other translations, had a malintent. They tried to translate as best as they knew and that’s how they understood the gospel in their days and personally. Translation cannot be totally devoided from personal biases or from the influences of the current understanding of the time. They try as much as they could, however, personal understanding does come out through the translation. That’s why there are many different translation today. Not one is that much better than the other. At times the original text needs to be verified, word studies needs to be done to extract G-d's true intended meaning, and we need to test all things with the Law and the manner of the law(Is 8:20).

Elle,

The presence or absence of a definite article before a word either in Hebrew or in Greek is no basis to define a point of doctrine, since it follows no consistent pattern (this reminds me of the JW and their "a God" in John 1:3).
Having said that, let me say that I agree that Azazel probably shouldn't be translated as scapegoat, but it is far from certain that it means "goat god." Even if it derives from ‘azaz ("to be stout") and ‘el, what relationship is there between "to be stout" and "goat"? None whatsoever. Pan was a Greek god, which has never been worshipped by Egyptians, Israelites, Canaanites or any other people of the Near East.
What seems certain is that, by the use of the same preposition in connection with Jehovah and Azacel, it seems natural to think of Azazel as a personal being who is in opposition to the Lord - i.e., Satan.
The preposition "for" is the correct translation in Lv 16:8 because it refers to the lots:

"Then Aaron shall cast lots for the two goats: one lot for the LORD and the other lot for the scapegoat [Azazel]."

This means one goat represents the Lord, and the other goat represents Azazel.

And in v. 10 it is correct to translate the phrase as "to send him away for Azazel into the wilderness". It doesn't have to mean, as you imply, that the goat is sent to Azazel, but it can perfectly mean that the goat is sent for Azazel.

The relationship between ‘azaz("to be stout") and “goat” is the following :

1) ‘azaz H5810 is the root word for aze H5795 ("kid, a she-goat(as strong)") used in Lev 16:5 “And he shall take of the congregation of the children of Israel two kids of the goats(aze H5795) for a sin offering. “ To be strong or stout is the characteristic of the goat. To prevail you need to be strong in resolution. Someone can be strong or stout to do G-d’s will or adversively to do our own will.
2) ‘azaz H5810 is the root word for ‘az H5794("strong, vehement, harsh")
3) ‘aze H5796 is the Aramaic correspondence of H5795 translated as "goat".
That’s not true Rosangela. It is very clear that the Israelites were worshipping the “devil” as a goat as written in Lev 17:7(for 40 years while in the wilderness) and openly did it without restraint for over 400 years as specified in 2Ch 11:15 when Jeroboam rule over Israel when they built high places all over the land and worship the "goat"-god everywhere. The word "devils" used for the KJV and other english translation in Lev 17:7 & 2Ch 11:15 is Sa’iyr(shaggy; as noun, a he-goat; by analogy, a faun). The word Sa’iyr was only used 2 times out of the 59 times to mean devils. 51 times it represented Jesus as the goat for the sin offering.

Here’s Lev 17:7 in 3 different translation :

AV Lv 17:7 And they shall no more offer their sacrifices unto devils (Sa’iyr), after whom they have gone a whoring. This shall be a statute for ever unto them throughout their generations.

CLV Lv 17:7 No longer shall they sacrifice their sacrifices to hairy goat-demons(Sa’iyr) after whom they have been prostituting. An eonian statute shall this become for them throughout their generations.

YLT Lv 17:7 and they sacrifice not any more their sacrifices to goats(Sa’iyr) after which they are going a-whoring; a statute age-during is this to them, to their generations.

The Israelites where long worshipping the counterfeit “goat god” which came way before the Egyptians time and probably originated from Nimrod’s time or even earlier. We do not know how early this form of worship stem back, but we have Biblical records that the Israelites had it as early as their 40 years in the wilderness.



The Bible doesn’t say “represents” even thought these two goats did represent Jesus. Here the "Lord" would signify the Father. Lev 16:8 plainly and simply says one sin offering for the Lord, and the other sin offering for Azazel. Both goats are sin-offerings as specified clearly in Lev 16:5. Both goats needed to be without blemish.

• -The first goat-sin-offering was for the Lord as Jesus did in His work of Justification when He presented Himself to the Father to become the blood sacrifice at the cross.
• -The second goat-sin-offering was for Azazel in being sent to azazel(Satan and all of us who worship the devil by making ourselves as him, strong stout little gods when we choose to follow our own will – which is the religion of Satan presented at the tree of knowledge). So Jesus is sent to war against the false religion of Satan that is deeply embedded in our hearts. That’s the work of Sanctification that Jesus is doing in our hearts to destroy the works of the devil.
  

The thing is we have Lev 14 that reveals the same law. The two doves both represented Jesus and His two works. And we have many other texts. It is just been a grave mistranslation error to imply that the second goat send alive in Lev 16 represented Satan.

It is time to correct this long past mis-translation and be scriptually in harmony with other texts and the truth of G-d.

Because the verb ‘azaz, “to be strong,” and the word used to refer to a goat may have had a common origin, this does not mean they are related in meaning. The 12 times the word is used in the Bible (Judges 3:10; 6:2; Ps 9:19; 52:7; 68:28; 89:13; Prov. 7:13; 8:28; 21:29; Ecc 7:19; Is 30:2; Dan. 11:12), it obviously has nothing to do with goats.


Animal worship was very common and several animals were worshipped at different times, but there wasn’t a god like Pan in Near East – partly human and partly animal.


All sin offerings must be for the Lord; there can be no sin offering for a demon.

Rosangela, that’s a silly argument. A verb is not a noun and it describes an action. Of course you will not see a verb saying “goat”. Goat is a noun. Hebrew nouns has its origin to verbs. ‘azaz is the verb for many nouns of goat 5796, 5795, 5799 because that verb defines the nature of the goat.

The Israelites were worshipping devils not animal goats, but those two texts made an equivalence to devils with the goats by using the word sayir. In the Jewish encyclopedia describes these as demons which they extrapolates many other words in the Bible describing different classes or ranks of devils. We cannot prove that the Greek Pan was not the same devil worshiped by the Israelites worship. All kinds of demons are recorded within different culture and historical time. Just because one culture calls it a name, it doesn’t mean it’s not the same as the other culture who named it by another name. The Jewish encyclopedia say that these devils(sayir) could manifest themselves in the flesh. There are lots of strange happenings even today that we cannot explain. Personally it is a subject I do not care to study, and it is diverting to the subject at hand.

Regardless if we are going to relate Azazel or Satan to the Greek’s “Pan” or not. It’s not my argument nor my point. The point was azaz’el means azaz =“to be stout”(goat) + el = “god” together meaning as a noun = “goat-god” or “stout-god” ---whatever you feel comfortable with. So azazel should be translated as Azazel and not as “goat of departure” as Strong erroneously had defined it.

Jesus was led by a fit man(Holy Spirit) to Satan in the wilderness!!! Jesus is sent in us --“stout-gods”-- to purify/sanctify us!!!

No, Elle, it's not a silly argument. Of course the verb describes an action, but it doesn't describe any action related to a goat, like, for instance, "to act as a goat." Therefore, saying that azazel means a goat god does not make sense. The argument that there were three goats involved in this ritual does not make sense. The word azazel could mean "a strong god," but not "a goat god." In fact, the Syriac Version (5th century) says Azzail, the "angel (strong one) who revolted." And, long before it, the book of Enoch (ca. 300 b.C.) applies the word to a fallen angel. So, it's clear to me the word refers to Satan, but I see no basis for the arguments you are presenting here (of a third goat, etc.).


I agree with this, of course.


This does not apply at all. A fit man led the goat to the wilderness after the atonement for the people and for the sanctuary had been made. Timing is extremely important here. And, as I said, the goats are said to be a sin offering, because a sin offering was going to be made with one of them. The second goat is never offered as a sin offering, much less to a demon.

Scapegoat is Satan and is also all the wicked - whose names went into the sanctuary and then who were rejected. Their sins come back out and are returned to themselves - they must suffer for their own debt of sin.

The scapegoat is not a sin offering - it is not a substitutionary sacrifice of any kind.

in Christ,

Bob

What happens to the goats in the wilderness? You lead a goat out to where another one is and guess what happens....
You have goat people!