Talk:Yetzer hara

Talk

If this is a Biblical phrase (as it is categorised), could a biblical reference for it please be provided? The phrase is (unsurprisingly) unfamiliar to me a Christian. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:36, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

What about Yetzer ha tov, its opposite? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Totnesmartin (talk • contribs) 18:54, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

There is a serious issue of inter-religious debate through the use of "Lucifer" as an angel in Isaiah 14. This is a primarily Christian interpretation of the passage using a translation based heavily on the Latin Vulgate of Catholicism, and subsequent Christian translations such as the King James Version. The term הילל used in the Hebrew means, simply, Morning Star, or the planet Venus, as we now know it. This is, in fact, the same meaning that the Latin word lucifer had prior to the Christian connotation assigned to it. The term, as used in Isaiah, references a Babylonian king. Please consult <en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucifer>the Lucifer article for more information. The term is entirely unrelated to Yetzer HaRa, and should be removed, as, I feel, should any references contained within regarding angels. Ruyn13 (talk) 05:41, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

So yetzer hara is roughly, but not equally, the same as the Christian concept of original sin?Danwaggoner (talk) 01:36, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

No; unfortunately Christian theology has no similar concept. Though Islam does have one that borders on similarity under the variations of 'Jihad' as pertaining to inner-struggles exclusively. External struggles associated with 'Jihad' are not similar. Although it appears even the concept of Jihad, or the theology behind its external inception are closely entangled with Christianities teleo-philosophy of 'Lucifer'...most likely stemming from mutual early conscription of local deisms. In either case the concept of 'Yetzer HaRa' is only valid in the presence of laws...as how can there be an evil action if Evil is not clearly defined? The similar concept in Judaism to 'Original Sin' is called 'living life'. Judaism recognizes that every event that happens today is a result of 'original sin' and therefore there's no special attributes assigned to it other than the daily struggle. 'My Struggle' being the translation of 'Israel'. --CheskiChips (talk) 11:23, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Of course Y.h. is a not a christian term, but I think that viewS on human nature that entered catholicism via Augustine of Hippo indeed feature the notion of 'internal evil of men' . The absence of relevant amount internal evil in humans is a key feature of protestant denominations which then led to Feuerbachs atheistic tenets. At this moment I have no relevant sources covering these topic and i think its only of a 'see also'-like relevance. Maybe someone else has some good sources. 212.34.164.210 (talk) 11:06, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

'Lucifer'

Since this is a Jewish topic there's no reason to interject Christian theology. The following has been removed; "However, Job 15:15 implies otherwise, as does Isaiah 14 which suggests that Lucifer was cast down from heaven for willing to be like God." Job 15:15 ' הֵן בִּקְדֹשָׁו, לֹא יַאֲמִין; וְשָׁמַיִם, לֹא-זַכּוּ בְעֵינָיו." "Behold, He putteth no trust in His holy ones; yea, the heavens are not clean in His sight." Makes no mention of anything that could be translated to "Lucifer". Further...if it DID it would still be irrelevant since the statement is made by Eliphaz the Temanite...a non-Jew. The different theological perspectives of the book of Job are not meant to be a unified theology...rather an outline of misunderstandings and common mistakes. So even if this excerpt proved evidence of a "Lucifer" it wouldn't inherently be a part of Jewish philosophy.

There is again no evidence of a "Lucifer" in Isaiah 14. I am going to assume the citation is of 14:9 "שְׁאוֹל, מִתַּחַת רָגְזָה לְךָ--לִקְרַאת בּוֹאֶךָ; עוֹרֵר לְךָ רְפָאִים, כָּל-עַתּוּדֵי אָרֶץ--הֵקִים מִכִּסְאוֹתָם, כֹּל מַלְכֵי גוֹיִם." "The nether-world from beneath is moved for thee to meet thee at thy coming; the shades are stirred up for thee, even all the chief ones of the earth; all the kings of the nations are raised up from their thrones."

In both cases assuming (which is wrong to do) a figure termed 'Lucifer' was of discussion...it's irrelevant. Since "יצר" means literally "urge" or "propensity" or in the more 'archaic term' "Create". Thus a Yetzer Hora is the propensity to create evil.

Neither of the given citations are evidence of this. --CheskiChips (talk) 10:57, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Isaiah 14:12 12 "How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!" (KJV) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.76.200.117 (talk) 04:03, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

satan

im not in the mood to go sourcesearching right now, but when the article states that jews equate the yetzer hara with satan, it neglects the fact that the satan of the jews is barely simmiolar to the satan of the christians, the satan of the jews is not evil per say, ill elaborate on this more later probabely but almost any good jewish knowledge base will discuss it —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gavrielyosef (talk • contribs) 04:12, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Yetzer-Ra

Put in plan term when one has this spirit Cholmes6011 (talk) 06:35, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

I think there may be a major typo.

"The implication is that each man is capable of overcoming sin if he really wishes to do so. This may not be difficult and may require some reconditioning, but it is still possible."

This "may not be difficult" doesn't make sense in light of "but it is still possible."

I think it was probably intended to be either, "may be difficult" or "may or may not be difficult."

 Done