by Jimmy-Joe (Leviticus 16:10) » Fri Apr 10, 2026 1:55 pm
**
See Chatroom #888 where this very topic is being discussed ...here: https://copilot.microsoft.com/conversat ... 3vRzz86zub
See Full-Color blog covering this indepth topic at this link: https://www.yorww.com/linearL16.htm
Here’s a clear, sourced explanation of what’s on the page you opened — yorww.com/linearL16.htm, which focuses on Leviticus 16:10 and the meaning of the live goat (Azazel goat) in the Day of Atonement ritual.
What the YORWW Article Argues About Leviticus 16:10
The page you opened presents a textual and theological critique of how most Christian groups — especially Jehovah’s Witnesses — interpret the live goat in Leviticus 16.
The author (Donald C. Burney) makes a very specific claim:
The Hebrew text shows that the live goat is “atoned for,” not that it makes atonement for others.
This is the core argument.
1. The Hebrew Interlinear Evidence
The article uses an interlinear transliteration (from Scripture4All) to highlight a key phrase in Leviticus 16:10:
Many translations say the goat is presented “to make atonement with him.”
But the literal Hebrew reads:
“to make atonement over him”
→ meaning the goat itself is atoned for.
The author emphasizes that the same Hebrew construction appears in Leviticus 16:18, where the altar is clearly the object being atoned for.
So the logic is:
Same Hebrew grammar
Same verb structure
Same preposition
Therefore:
The goat is the object of atonement, not the agent.
2. Why This Matters for the JW Interpretation
Jehovah’s Witnesses teach that:
The live goat = Jesus Christ
The goat “carries away sins” → symbolizing Jesus’ role as sin-bearer
But the article points out a contradiction:
If the goat represents Jesus,
why does the New World Translation itself say the goat is “atoned for”?
The New World Translation wording:
“...to make atonement for it, so as to send it away for Azazel...” — Leviticus 16:10, NWT
The author argues:
Jesus is sinless
A sinless figure cannot be “atoned for”
Therefore the goat cannot represent Jesus
This is presented as a major doctrinal inconsistency for Jehovah’s Witnesses.
3. Other Translations Agree
The article lists many translations that also render the goat as the object of atonement:
Septuagint
Masoretic Text
Hebrew Names Version
Complete Jewish Bible
Byington
World English Bible
New English Bible
ESV
NASB
NKJV
RSV
NRSV
Jerusalem Bible
…and more.
The point:
This is not a fringe translation issue — it’s mainstream.
4. The Theological Implication (YORWW’s View)
The YORWW framework uses this linguistic point to support a larger doctrinal claim:
The live goat is not Jesus
Instead, the goat represents a sin-bearing human entity that must itself be cleansed
This fits into YORWW’s broader teaching about:
The Scapegoat Covenant
The Modern-Day Servant (MDS)
The purification of a repentant remnant
The distinction between the two goats as two different roles, not two aspects of Christ
This article is one of the foundational pieces in YORWW’s reinterpretation of Leviticus 16.
If you want, I can also break down:
How YORWW applies this to the Male Child / Four Living Creatures framework
How this fits into the Written Indictment Pattern you referenced earlier
A side‑by‑side comparison of:
JW interpretation
Mainstream Christian interpretation
YORWW interpretation
A linguistic analysis of the Hebrew verb kippēr + preposition ʿal (“atonement over”)
Just tell me which direction you want to explore next.
A linguistic analysis of the Hebrew verb kippēr + preposition ʿal (“atonement over”)
Here’s the deep‑structure linguistic analysis you asked for — the Hebrew verb kippēr (כִּפֵּר) combined with the preposition ʿal (עַל) in Leviticus 16:10 and related purification texts. This is the exact hinge on which the YORWW argument turns, and it’s also one of the most misunderstood constructions in biblical Hebrew.
I’ll walk you through it the way a Semitic linguist would: morphology → syntax → semantics → ritual function → implications for interpretation.
1. The Core Construction
כִּפֵּר + עַל = “to make atonement over / upon [X]”
This construction appears dozens of times in Leviticus, and its meaning is consistent:
The object introduced by עַל is the thing being cleansed, purged, or decontaminated.
This is not a debated point in Hebrew linguistics — it’s standard.
2. What “kippēr” Actually Means in Priestly Hebrew
In the Priestly (P) source, kippēr does not primarily mean “forgive” or “redeem.”
Its core meaning is:
“to purge, decontaminate, remove impurity from a person, object, or space.”
This is why the verb is used on:
the altar
the sanctuary
the tent of meeting
the priests
the people
the goat (Lev 16:10)
None of these are “making atonement for others.”
They are having atonement performed upon them.
3. The Function of עַל (ʿal) in This Construction
The preposition ʿal has a broad semantic range (“on, over, upon, concerning”), but in the kippēr + ʿal construction it has a fixed ritual meaning:
ʿal marks the direct object that is being ritually purified.
Examples:
Leviticus 16:18
“He shall make atonement over the altar (וְכִפֶּר עַל־הַמִּזְבֵּחַ).”
No one argues the altar is “atoning for others.”
The altar is the recipient of purification.
Leviticus 16:10
“The live goat… to make atonement over it (לְכַפֵּר עָלָיו).”
Same grammar.
Same syntax.
Same preposition.
Same ritual function.
Therefore:
The goat is the object being purified, not the agent performing atonement.
This is the linguistic point YORWW Congregation emphasizes — and it is correct on strictly grammatical grounds.
4. Why This Matters: The Grammar Is Not Ambiguous
Some English translations obscure this by rendering:
“to make atonement for it”
“to make atonement with it”
But these are interpretive choices, not literal translations.
The Hebrew is unambiguous:
kippēr = purge
ʿal = marks the thing being purged
Thus:
“to purge it / to make atonement over it.”
This is why the NWT’s own rendering (“to make atonement for it”) actually undermines the JW interpretation — because it still acknowledges the goat is the object of atonement.
5. The Ritual Logic Behind the Grammar
In Leviticus 16, the two goats have opposite ritual functions:
Goat 1 — “for YHWH”
Slaughtered
Blood used to purify sanctuary spaces
Represents purification of sacred space
Goat 2 — “for Azazel”
Kept alive
Has sins placed upon it
Must be atoned for before being sent away
Represents removal of impurity from the community
The second goat is not holy.
It is contaminated by the sins placed on it.
Therefore it must be purged (kippēr + ʿal) before it can be released.
This is why the grammar works the way it does.
6. Why This Cannot Refer to a Sinless Figure
If the goat is:
atoned for
purged
ritually decontaminated
…then it cannot represent a sinless messianic figure.
This is the exact contradiction the YORWW article highlights.
7. Summary of the Linguistic Findings
1. kippēr + ʿal always marks the object being purified.
2. The goat in Lev 16:10 is the object of atonement, not the agent.
3. The grammar matches Lev 16:18 (atoning over the altar).
4. The ritual logic requires the goat to be cleansed because it carries impurity.
5. This is incompatible with identifying the goat as a sinless Christ figure.
Here is the link: https://copilot.microsoft.com/conversat ... 3vRzz86zub
**
[url=https://www.yorww.com/linearL16.htm][color=blue][b][u][size=200][center]An Indepth, Critical & Scientific Analysis Of Leviticus 16:10 ...[/u][/size][/url]
[size=150](A Close Analysis Of Leviticus 16:10)[/center][/size][/b][/color]
[size=125]See [b]Chatroom #888[/b] where this very topic is being discussed ...here: https://copilot.microsoft.com/conversations/join/7xPuJaXRrWW3vRzz86zub
See Full-Color blog covering this indepth topic at this link: https://www.yorww.com/linearL16.htm
Here’s a clear, sourced explanation of what’s on the page you opened — yorww.com/linearL16.htm, which focuses on [b]Leviticus 16:10[/b] and the meaning of the live goat (Azazel goat) in the Day of Atonement ritual.
[b]🕎 What the YORWW Article Argues About Leviticus 16:10[/b]
The page you opened presents a textual and theological critique of how most Christian groups — especially Jehovah’s Witnesses — interpret the live goat in Leviticus 16.
The author (Donald C. Burney) makes a very specific claim:
The Hebrew text shows that the live goat is “atoned for,” not that it makes atonement for others.
This is the core argument.
[b]🔍 1. The Hebrew Interlinear Evidence[/b]
The article uses an interlinear transliteration (from Scripture4All) to highlight a key phrase in Leviticus 16:10:
Many translations say the goat is presented “to make atonement with him.”
But the literal Hebrew reads:
“to make atonement over him”
→ meaning the goat itself is atoned for.
The author emphasizes that the same Hebrew construction appears in Leviticus 16:18, where the altar is clearly the object being atoned for.
So the logic is:
Same Hebrew grammar
Same verb structure
Same preposition
Therefore:
The goat is the object of atonement, not the agent.
[b]🐐 2. Why This Matters for the JW Interpretation[/b]
Jehovah’s Witnesses teach that:
The live goat = Jesus Christ
The goat “carries away sins” → symbolizing Jesus’ role as sin-bearer
But the article points out a contradiction:
If the goat represents Jesus,
why does the [i]New World Translation[/i] itself say the goat is “atoned for”?
The [i]New World Translation[/i] wording:
“...[b][u]to make atonement for it[/u][/b], so as to send it away for Azazel...” — Leviticus 16:10, NWT
[b]The author argues:[/b]
Jesus is sinless
A sinless figure cannot be “atoned for”
Therefore the goat cannot represent Jesus
This is presented as a major doctrinal inconsistency for Jehovah’s Witnesses.
[b]📚 3. Other Translations Agree[/b]
The article lists many translations that also render the goat as the object of atonement:
Septuagint
Masoretic Text
Hebrew Names Version
Complete Jewish Bible
Byington
World English Bible
New English Bible
ESV
NASB
NKJV
RSV
NRSV
Jerusalem Bible
…and more.
The point:
This is not a fringe translation issue — it’s mainstream.
[b]🧩 4. The Theological Implication (YORWW’s View)[/b]
The YORWW framework uses this linguistic point to support a larger doctrinal claim:
The live goat is not Jesus
Instead, the goat represents a sin-bearing human entity that must itself be cleansed
This fits into YORWW’s broader teaching about:
The Scapegoat Covenant
The Modern-Day Servant (MDS)
The purification of a repentant remnant
The distinction between the two goats as two different roles, not two aspects of Christ
This article is one of the foundational pieces in YORWW’s reinterpretation of Leviticus 16.
🧠 If you want, I can also break down:
How YORWW applies this to the Male Child / Four Living Creatures framework
How this fits into the Written Indictment Pattern you referenced earlier
A side‑by‑side comparison of:
JW interpretation
Mainstream Christian interpretation
YORWW interpretation
A linguistic analysis of the Hebrew verb kippēr + preposition ʿal (“atonement over”)
Just tell me which direction you want to explore next.
A linguistic analysis of the Hebrew verb kippēr + preposition ʿal (“atonement over”)
Here’s the deep‑structure linguistic analysis you asked for — the Hebrew verb kippēr (כִּפֵּר) combined with the preposition ʿal (עַל) in Leviticus 16:10 and related purification texts. This is the exact hinge on which the YORWW argument turns, and it’s also one of the most misunderstood constructions in biblical Hebrew.
I’ll walk you through it the way a Semitic linguist would: morphology → syntax → semantics → ritual function → implications for interpretation.
1. The Core Construction
כִּפֵּר + עַל = “to make atonement over / upon [X]”
This construction appears dozens of times in Leviticus, and its meaning is consistent:
The object introduced by עַל is the thing being cleansed, purged, or decontaminated.
This is not a debated point in Hebrew linguistics — it’s standard.
[b]2. What “kippēr” Actually Means in Priestly Hebrew[/b]
In the Priestly (P) source, kippēr does not primarily mean “forgive” or “redeem.”
Its core meaning is:
“to purge, decontaminate, remove impurity from a person, object, or space.”
This is why the verb is used on:
the altar
the sanctuary
the tent of meeting
the priests
the people
the goat (Lev 16:10)
None of these are “making atonement for others.”
They are having atonement performed upon them.
[b]3. The Function of עַל (ʿal) in This Construction[/b]
The preposition ʿal has a broad semantic range (“on, over, upon, concerning”), but in the kippēr + ʿal construction it has a fixed ritual meaning:
ʿal marks the direct object that is being ritually purified.
Examples:
[b]Leviticus 16:18[/b]
“He shall make atonement over the altar (וְכִפֶּר עַל־הַמִּזְבֵּחַ).”
No one argues the altar is “atoning for others.”
The altar is the recipient of purification.
Leviticus 16:10
“The live goat… to make atonement over it (לְכַפֵּר עָלָיו).”
Same grammar.
Same syntax.
Same preposition.
Same ritual function.
[b]Therefore:[/b]
The goat is the object being purified, not the agent performing atonement.
This is the linguistic point YORWW Congregation emphasizes — and it is correct on strictly grammatical grounds.
[b]
4. Why This Matters: The Grammar Is Not Ambiguous[/b]
Some English translations obscure this by rendering:
“to make atonement for it”
“to make atonement with it”
But these are interpretive choices, not literal translations.
The Hebrew is unambiguous:
kippēr = purge
ʿal = marks the thing being purged
[b]Thus:[/b]
“to purge it / to make atonement over it.”
This is why the NWT’s own rendering (“to make atonement for it”) actually undermines the JW interpretation — because it still acknowledges the goat is the object of atonement.
[b]5. The Ritual Logic Behind the Grammar[/b]
In [b]Leviticus 16[/b], the two goats have opposite ritual functions:
[b]Goat 1 — “for YHWH”[/b]
Slaughtered
Blood used to purify sanctuary spaces
Represents purification of sacred space
[b]Goat 2 — “for Azazel”[/b]
Kept alive
Has sins placed upon it
Must be atoned for before being sent away
Represents removal of impurity from the community
The second goat is not holy.
It is contaminated by the sins placed on it.
Therefore it must be purged (kippēr + ʿal) before it can be released.
This is why the grammar works the way it does.
[b]6. Why This Cannot Refer to a Sinless Figure[/b]
[b][i]If the goat is:[/i][/b]
atoned for
purged
ritually decontaminated
…then it cannot represent a sinless messianic figure.
This is the [u]exact contradiction[/u] the YORWW article highlights.
[b]7. Summary of the Linguistic Findings[/b]
1. kippēr + ʿal always marks the object being purified.
2. The goat in Lev 16:10 is the object of atonement, not the agent.
3. The grammar matches Lev 16:18 (atoning over the altar).
4. The ritual logic requires the goat to be cleansed because it carries impurity.
5. This is incompatible with identifying the goat as a sinless Christ figure.
Here is the link: https://copilot.microsoft.com/conversations/join/7xPuJaXRrWW3vRzz86zub
[/size]
