An Indepth, Critical & Scientific Analysis Of Leviticus 16:10 ...

[Jimmy-Joe (Leviticus 16:10)]

**

An Indepth, Critical & Scientific Analysis Of Leviticus 16:10 ...
(A Close Analysis Of Leviticus 16:10)

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

[Jimmy-Joe (Leviticus 16:10)]

**

An Indepth, Critical & Scientific Analysis Of Leviticus 16:10 ...
(A Close Analysis Of Leviticus 16:10)

Part 2.

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

Question:

Is the YORWW Congregation alone in their teaching and understanding of Leviticus 16:10?

Short answer: Yes — the YORWW Congregation’s interpretation of Leviticus 16:10 is essentially unique. No mainstream Jewish, Christian, or academic tradition teaches that the live goat itself is “atoned for” because it represents a sinful human entity. That reading is distinctive to YORWW.

Below is the detailed breakdown, grounded in what scholars and traditions actually teach.

What Others Teach vs. YORWW

The search results show four major interpretive streams, and none match the YORWW position.

1. Mainstream Christian Interpretation

Most Christian sources teach that the live goat symbolizes Christ removing sin, not a sinful entity needing purification.

Example: A Christian exposition states the goat “helped complete reconciliation” and foreshadowed Jesus as sin‑bearer.

This directly contradicts YORWW, which argues the goat is purged because it symbolizes a sinful group.

2. Academic / Scholarly Interpretation

Scholars debate the meaning of Azazel, but they agree on the goat’s function:

It carries away impurity

It is not a sacrifice

It is not a Christ figure

It is not a purified human class

Scholarly summaries list four views of Azazel:

“goat that departs,”

“entire removal,”

a wilderness place,

a demon.

None of these views interpret the goat as a sinful human entity that must itself be atoned for, which is central to YORWW.

3. Jewish Interpretation (Rabbinic & Traditional)

Jewish sources view the goat as:

A symbol of removal of sin

Sent to a desolate place or cliff

Possibly connected to a wilderness demon in Second Temple literature

But no Jewish tradition teaches that the goat is atoned for because it represents a sinful remnant or prophetic class.

4. Modern Hebrew‑focused Christian Studies

Some modern writers emphasize that the goat is not punished, but banished, and that “scapegoat” is a mistranslation.

Even these more linguistically precise interpretations do not claim:

the goat is purified

the goat symbolizes a sinful human group

the goat undergoes atonement upon itself

This is again unique to YORWW.

So Is YORWW Alone?

Yes. Based on all available sources:

No Christian denomination teaches the YORWW view.

No Jewish tradition teaches it.

No academic scholar teaches it.

No major commentary interprets Leviticus 16:10 the way YORWW does.

The YORWW position — that the Hebrew phrase “to make atonement over it” means the goat itself is atoned for, proving it represents a sin‑bearing human entity — is not shared by any other known group.

Why YORWW Congregation’s View Stands Alone

Because YORWW Congregation builds its interpretation on:

A strict linguistic reading of kippēr + ʿal

A theological framework involving a modern prophetic remnant

A rejection of the idea that the goat symbolizes Christ

This combination is unique and not found in any mainstream or scholarly tradition.

***