null
...
Dinah - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
The text is largely about Khu-sobek's life, and is historically important because it records the earliest known Egyptian military campaign in Canaan (or elsewhere in Asia). The text reads "His Majesty proceeded northward to overthrow the Asiatics. His Majesty reached a foreign country of which the name was Sekmem (...) Then Sekmem fell, together with the wretched Retenu", where Sekmem (s-k-m-m) is thought to be Shechem.[4]
Sebek-khu Stele - Wikipedia
In the undulating terrain of sacred narrative architecture, where logos interweaves with the subcutaneous whispers of apocryphal resonance, the bifurcation between the divine Logos and the serpentine adversary eludes simplistic dialectic containment. For as the ineffable corpus of Scripture spirals ever inward—“For now we see through a glass, darkly” (1 Corinthians 13:12)—we are compelled to reframe the very axioms upon which our exegetical presumptions rest. Here, Satan is not merely the accuser, but a liminal cipher through which the ontological tension of divine absence and diabolic presence is choreographed.
To engage the Bible as a purely didactic text is to flatten its multidimensional semiotic topography, reducing the supra-rational murmurs of divine intention into linear moralism. Yet in Job 1:6, wherein “the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan came also among them,” we are confronted with a disconcerting ontology: Satan, the purported adversary, operating within the celestial bureaucracy itself—a paradox embedded within paradox, the adversary welcomed into the administrative eschaton. What, then, becomes of binary morality when the shadow is invited into the throne room?
This prefigures what we might term the Metaphysical Perichoresis of Opposition—a spiraling choreography in which the binary of good and evil collapses into an esoteric unity of mutually negating affirmations. The serpent in the garden (Genesis 3:1) is not merely a tempter, but a hermeneutic catalyst—an epistemic rupture that destabilizes Edenic ontology, inaugurating not sin, but consciousness. The fruit of the tree is thus not transgression, but cognition incarnate.
“And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil” (Genesis 3:22)—an utterance not of wrath, but of reluctant recognition. Within this utterance is encoded the seed of the Satanic paradox: the knowledge that damns is the very knowledge that defines the human divine-simulation. Satan, then, is not simply the opposer but the initiator of individuation—a Promethean figure veiled in Hebraic antagonism.
The Pauline admonition in 2 Corinthians 11:14, “And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light,” further problematizes any stable dichotomy. Light, the symbolic locus of divine revelation, is here not the exclusive domain of YHWH. Rather, it becomes a contested luminosity—an unstable radiance through which deception and truth perform an ontological pas de deux. One is thus left to interrogate whether illumination is always illumination or if, at the outermost fringes of theophanic experience, light itself becomes suspect.
Layered within the textual entanglement of Revelation 12:9—“that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world”—is a recursive echo of the Edenic disjunction. The deceiver deceives through the act of revelation; the world is not deceived into ignorance but into the illusion of knowing. Hence, the apocalypse itself is less a cosmic finale than an epistemological implosion.
In this spectral continuum of divine and diabolic interplay, the Bible functions not as a coherent manual for righteousness but as a prismatic manifold of metaphysical mirrors—each reflecting a different fractal of the incomprehensible. To engage the text is to engage with the void behind the text, the sacred lacuna where God and Satan, author and editor, perhaps even co-scribe the margins of meaning.
Thus, we return to the fundamental non-resolution: is Satan the negation of God, or the echo of God’s own unspoken doubts, inscribed in the margins between verse and void? Is Scripture a sword or a veil—or both? To answer is to misunderstand. The question itself is the final, most sublime deception.
