>>13190179>It is impossible to describe when such an exchange of words would take place, I'm not asking for an absolute timeframe, but for what stage of the language with what stage of the language did the exchange occur. And I only asked because there exists none, for the etymology you give to Satan.
Again, I called Yahva-Yahweh plausible, I called Abraham-Brahman possible, I have not openly disagreed with the Jews come from India theory, rather I told you to use it as a base to corroborate your argument.
Theologically, it also makes little sense.
Again, I understand that the theory that "Jews twist truth and hate Aryans, so they twisted the ancient Aryan word for Truth to mean theological evil/their theological opponent" is prima facie very intriguing; but it makes little sense theologically as well:
Not only "Satan" is fully interpretable within the Hebrew language as "adversary", which as I already stated is the crucial difference between it and Yahweh-Yahva, but it is used in the Hebrew Bible in context both in its literal sense and in its theological context Ha-Satan, the heavenly accuser.
The Jews did not develop a dualist theology of Good vs Evil until way after their first contact with the dualist Zoroastrian Persians; and even then, even for Christians who actually developed the foundations for it (from Jesus speaking often of "Satan" in this sense), had to wait centuries before it solidified as a theological concept.
And during all of this theological development, the words "Satan" and "Ha-Satan" were already there in the Hebrew Bible.
I'm sure that if Satan already was the personification of absolute Evil within the Hebrew theology, they would have not lost the occasion to exploit the pun Sat-Satan to slander their enemies, as they always have done. But the occasion was not there, it presented itself coincidentally after the fact.
The burden of proof rests fully upon you. Maybe you are right, but with the evidence you present, it is not possible.
