The Origin of Satan and his demons

[Free]

Let's go the beginning your specious objections. In post #3 you asked:
What makes you think that Dan 10:13, Eze 28:5, 14-17, and Isa 14:13-20 and 41:21-24 are speaking about Satan?

Its bogus to cite the nature of inferential logic [its not explicitly stated] as reason against "probable" conclusions.

Others also think Satan is in those texts and so would Sherlock Holmes if he weren't fictional and was alive today:

Daniel 10:13
The unique title "prince of the kingdom of Persia" and the importance of stopping the rebuilding of God's Temple precludes Satan delegating this to a lesser demon.

"Since this prince opposed God’s angel, he may safely be assumed to have been an evil angel, that is, a demon. Leupold remarks: “Bad angels, called demons in the New Testament, are, without a doubt, referred to here.”31 (3) He is called the “prince of the Persian kingdom,” so Persia must have been his special area of activity. Therefore this demon was either a powerful angel assigned to Persia by Satan or possibly he was Satan himself.-Miller, S. R. (1994). Daniel (Vol. 18, p. 285). Broadman & Holman Publishers.

Ezekiel 28:5, 14-17

Ezekiel was not describing an ideal man or a false god in verses 11–26. But his switch from “ruler” to “king” and his allusions to the Garden of Eden do imply that the individual being described was more than human. The best explanation is that Ezekiel was describing Satan who was the true “king” of Tyre, the one motivating the human “ruler” of Tyre. Satan was in the Garden of Eden (Gen. 3:1–7), and his chief sin was pride (1 Tim. 3:6). He also had access to God’s presence (cf. Job 1:6–12). Speaking of God’s judging the human “ruler” of Tyre for his pride (Ezek. 28:1–10), the prophet lamented the satanic “king” of Tyre who was also judged for his pride (vv. 11–19). Tyre was motivated by the same sin as Satan, and would suffer the same fate.- The Bible Knowledge Commentary: An Exposition of the Scriptures (Vol. 1, p. 1283). Victor Books.

Isaiah 14:13-20

These words cannot apply to any mere mortal man. Lucifer (the light-bearer) is a created angel of the very highest order, identical with the covering cherub of Ezekiel 28. He was, apparently, the greatest of all the angel host and was perfect before God until he fell through pride. It was his ambition to take the throne of Deity for himself and become the supreme ruler of the universe. Note his five “I wills.” It was the assertion of the creature’s will in opposition to the will of the Creator that brought about his downfall, and so an archangel became the devil! Cast down from the place of power and favor which he had enjoyed, he became the untiring enemy of God and man, and down through the millennia since has exerted every conceivable device to ruin mankind and rob God of the glory due to His name. It is of him our Lord speaks in John 8:44. The Lord there shows that Satan is an apostate, having fallen from a position once enjoyed, and we know from other Scriptures how he ever goes about as a roaring lion, seeking whom he may devour.-Ironside, H. A. (1952). Expository notes on the prophet Isaiah. (pp. 88–89). Loizeaux Brothers.

Isaiah 41:21-24

This is God's challenge to all who claim to be gods, never said it concerned Satan only:

21 "Present your case," says the LORD. "Bring forth your strong reasons," says the King of Jacob.
22 "Let them bring forth and show us what will happen; Let them show the former things, what they were, That we may consider them, And know the latter end of them; Or declare to us things to come.
23 Show the things that are to come hereafter, That we may know that you are gods; Yes, do good or do evil, That we may be dismayed and see it together.
24 Indeed you are nothing, And your work is nothing; He who chooses you is an abomination. (Isa. 41:21-24 NKJ)

Endlessly you claimed "no bible dictionary" says Satan appears in those texts.

Have you really surveyed all the bible dictionaries to know if that is true? Or was it your "guess"?

You guessed wrong. As I didn't check them all, there could be others:

Satan may be conceived as addressed through the Tyrian, even as Christ rebuked that evil angel through Peter (Mt 16:23). Further, if “Eden, the garden of God” (Ezk 28:13) refers to a heavenly garden, inhabited by angels (note how the phrases, “mountain of God” and “stones of fire” v. 14 do not well fit the earthly Eden), then it could be Satan who is here addressed as an “anointed cherub” (v. 14) or an overshadowing cherub (cf. mimšaḥ), which is inapplicable to Adam.-Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament (electronic ed., p. 875). Moody Press.

Satan was one of the cherubim and was called “the anointed cherub that covereth” (Ezk 28:14). Thus he was one of the highest as well as most gifted of the heavenly host (Ezk 28:13–15) until he fell. See Satan.-The Wycliffe Bible Encyclopedia. Moody Press.

How does that answer my question? The question you quoted was: "What argument and what specifically is bogus?", but you didn't quote an argument, you quoted a question. Also, you didn't answer my other question, which was: What do you mean by “inferential logic”? I am asking that you define it.

 

[Alfred Persson]

What do you mean by “inferential logic”? I am asking that you define it.

Inferential logic, also known as deductive reasoning or logical inference, is a process of reasoning in which conclusions are drawn from premises based on logical principles. It involves deriving specific conclusions from general principles or from a set of premises. The conclusions reached through inferential logic are logically valid if the premises are true and the reasoning is correctly applied.

Inferential logic is used in various fields, including mathematics, philosophy, and computer science, to establish the validity of arguments and to make logical deductions. It is a fundamental aspect of logical thinking and problem-solving.

There are different forms of inferential logic, including:

1. Modus Ponens: If P implies Q, and P is true, then Q must be true.
2. Modus Tollens: If P implies Q, and Q is false, then P must be false.
3. Syllogism: A form of reasoning in which a conclusion is drawn from two given or assumed propositions (premises).

 

[Alfred Persson]

How does that answer my question? The question you quoted was: "What argument and what specifically is bogus?", but you didn't quote an argument, you quoted a question. .

Quoted from an earlier post. Other arguments start from page 1 on.

The phrase "ruler (08269 שַׂר sar) of the kingdom" occurs only here, "prince" is also translated as "ruler" 33 times in the KJV. The Rotherham Bible does it here, as does the Greek Septuagint "ὁ ἄρχων βασιλείας Περσῶν" (Dan. 10:13 BGT)

But, the ruler of the kingdom of Persia, withstood me twenty-one days, but lo! Michael, one of the chief rulers, came in to help me,--and, I, left him there, beside the kings of Persia. (Dan. 10:13 Rotherham)

In the New Testament Satan is "the ruler" ὁ ἄρχων" of the demons (Mt. 9:34; 12:24) " ; "the ruler of this world" (John 12:31) and "ruler of the air" Eph. 2:2).

As the archangel Gabriel "(warrior of God") spoke to Daniel in Dan. 8:16; 9:21 many commentators deduce it is Gabriel speaking here. No one lesser than Satan could delay Gabriel from his mission, and it required Michael the Archangel's help to overcome him.

Satan is the one who deceives the world to fight God (Rev. 12:9; 1 John 5:19) and he is influencing the entire kingdom of Persia in an attempt to stop the rebuilding of the Temple:

Thus the following will be the meaning of the passage: Now shall I return to resume and continue the war with the prince of Persia, to maintain the position gained (v. 13) beside the kings of Persia; but when (while) I thus go forth to war, i.e., while I carry on this conflict, lo, the prince of Javan shall come (הִנֵּה with the partic. בָּא of the future)—then shall there be a new conflict. This last thought is not, it is true, expressly uttered, but it appears from v. 21. The warring with the prince, i.e., the spirit of Persia hostile to Israel, refers to the oppositions which the Jews would encounter in the hindrances put in the way of their building the temple from the time of Cyrus to the time of Darius Hystaspes, and further under Xerxes and Artaxerxes till the rebuilding of the walls of Jerusalem by Nehemiah, as well as at a later time on the side of the Persian world-power, in the midst of all which difficulties the Angel of the Lord promises to guide the affairs of His people. שַׂר יָוָן is the spirit of the Macedonian world-kingdom, which would arise and show as great hostility as did the spirit of Persia against the people of God.-Keil, C. F., & Delitzsch, F. (1996). Commentary on the Old Testament (Vol. 9, pp. 774–775). Hendrickson.

None of the above can be the work of a minor demon prince, it’s the ruler of the demons Satan who is opposing God.

None of this requires the "ruler (prince) of the kingdom of Persia" to be also the "Prince of Greece", a clear qualitative element exists in the "Prince of the kingdom of Persia" which controlled Israel at that time, and any other "prince." Just as "ruler (prince) of the power of the air" implies Satanic power over the entire earth, so here the addition of "kingdom" to the phrase is meant to distinguish this "prince" from other demons.

 

[Free]

Inferential logic, also known as deductive reasoning or logical inference, is a process of reasoning in which conclusions are drawn from premises based on logical principles. It involves deriving specific conclusions from general principles or from a set of premises. The conclusions reached through inferential logic are logically valid if the premises are true and the reasoning is correctly applied.

Inferential logic is used in various fields, including mathematics, philosophy, and computer science, to establish the validity of arguments and to make logical deductions. It is a fundamental aspect of logical thinking and problem-solving.

There are different forms of inferential logic, including:

1. Modus Ponens: If P implies Q, and P is true, then Q must be true.
2. Modus Tollens: If P implies Q, and Q is false, then P must be false.
3. Syllogism: A form of reasoning in which a conclusion is drawn from two given or assumed propositions (premises).

What was your source for this? I cannot find a source that says "inferential logic" is deductive reasoning. Rather, it is the process used in deductive reasoning, inductive reasoning, and abductive reasoning to reach a conclusion or deriving new information. There is nothing in inferential logic itself that guarantees the truth of a conclusion. There is also nothing in deductive reasoning itself that guarantees that the conclusion is true, since even a valid deductive argument can have one or more false premises.

And, that is the problem with some of the passages in your OP--Dan 10:13; Isa 14:12-15; Eze 28:5, 13-17-- that you say are about Satan. Those conclusions can only be your opinion and cannot be reached by deductive reasoning, and so cannot be stated with any certainty. The issue is that one of your premises in each assertion that those passages are about Satan, includes the proposition that they're about Satan, which you then use to conclude that each passages is about Satan. That is circular.

There is nothing in those passages to suggest that they are about Satan because, as I pointed out 1) they do not mention Satan and 2) they clearly mention someone else. In order to claim they are about Satan, one must already presuppose they are about Satan, which, again, is a circular argument.

No one lesser than Satan could delay Gabriel from his mission, and it required Michael the Archangel's help to overcome him.



None of the above can be the work of a minor demon prince, it’s the ruler of the demons Satan who is opposing God.

Here are two examples of circularity. You begin by presuming certain qualities and abilities about Satan and presuming such a thing as "a minor demon prince," while avoiding the possibility of a range in hierarchical structure in which there could be some very powerful demons that are not Satan, and then use those to conclude that it can only be Satan being spoken of.

None of this requires the "ruler (prince) of the kingdom of Persia" to be also the "Prince of Greece",

I never said the two are one and the same.

a clear qualitative element exists in the "Prince of the kingdom of Persia" which controlled Israel at that time, and any other "prince." Just as "ruler (prince) of the power of the air" implies Satanic power over the entire earth, so here the addition of "kingdom" to the phrase is meant to distinguish this "prince" from other demons.

Possibly, but even if that is the case, it doesn't even imply that it is Satan in Dan 10:13.

 

[Alfred Persson]

What was your source for this? I cannot find a source that says "inferential logic" is deductive reasoning.

You aren't looking hard enough:


Inferential logic is commonly done through one of two ways:

1. Deductive reasoning: drawing implicit conclusions from the premises (i.e. Someone gives you a bag of coins and tells you it is full of pennies. Based on this, you expect every coin you pull from the bag to be a penny).

Inferences - The Decision Lab

Inferences are steps in reasoning which connect premises — which are propositions upon which an argument is based — with consequences.

thedecisionlab.com

Perhaps it requires a bit of inferential logic to find it.

 

[Free]

You aren't looking hard enough:


Inferential logic is commonly done through one of two ways:

1. Deductive reasoning: drawing implicit conclusions from the premises (i.e. Someone gives you a bag of coins and tells you it is full of pennies. Based on this, you expect every coin you pull from the bag to be a penny).

Inferences - The Decision Lab

Inferences are steps in reasoning which connect premises — which are propositions upon which an argument is based — with consequences.

thedecisionlab.com

That is one of the very pages I looked at that supports exactly what I said:

"Inferences are steps in reasoning.
...
Inferential logic is commonly done through one of two ways:

1. Deductive reasoning: drawing implicit conclusions from the premises (i.e. Someone gives you a bag of coins and tells you it is full of pennies. Based on this, you expect every coin you pull from the bag to be a penny).
2. Inductive reasoning: using various specific premises to draw a universal conclusion (i.e. You pull a penny from a bag of coins, followed by a second and third penny. You infer that all coins in the bag are pennies)."

The only thing they left out is the third way, abductive reasoning. Further down the page:

"Inference: The process by which people create information that isn’t explicitly stated, connecting the available information together."

Inferential logic is not deductive reasoning; it is the process used in deductive, inductive, and abductive reasoning.

Perhaps it requires a bit of inferential logic to find it.

Again, stop with the personal attacks. You should learn to show more humility, especially since you have just provided a source which states precisely the very things I stated while suggesting that I wasn't looking hard enough.

 

[Alfred Persson]

What was your source for this? I cannot find a source that says "inferential logic" is deductive reasoning. Rather, it is the process used in deductive reasoning, inductive reasoning, and abductive reasoning to reach a conclusion or deriving new information. There is nothing in inferential logic itself that guarantees the truth of a conclusion. There is also nothing in deductive reasoning itself that guarantees that the conclusion is true, since even a valid deductive argument can have one or more false premises.

Red herring, who was discussing a process?

Inference, in logic, derivation of conclusions from given information or premises by any acceptable form of reasoning. Inferences are commonly drawn (1) by deduction, which, by analyzing valid argument forms, draws out the conclusions implicit in their premises, (2) by induction, which argues from many instances to a general statement, (3) by probability, which passes from frequencies within a known domain to conclusions of stated likelihood, and (4) by statistical reasoning, which concludes that, on the average, a certain percentage of a set of entities will satisfy the stated conditions. See also deduction; implication.-Encyclopedia Britanica

 

[Alfred Persson]

Again, stop with the personal attacks. You should learn to show more humility, especially since you have just provided a source which states precisely the very things I stated while suggesting that I wasn't looking hard enough.

If my harmless joke is a personal attack, perhaps I'm just too insensitive to dialogue with you. Have a nice day. I don't want to upset you further.

 

[Alfred Persson]

Some allege Satan is never spoken of metaphorically. That a text that doesn't explicitly name Satan, cannot be about him.

However, scripture metaphorically calls Satan a number of things: In Revelation 12:9 he is called a "dragon, serpent." In 1 Peter 5:8 he is "a roaring lion". Jesus calls him the "father of lies" in John 8:443. Paul "an angel of light" in 2 Corinthians 11:14.

Therefore, to allege Isaiah 14:12-15 cannot metaphorically be about Satan is without foundation.

12 How you have fallen from heaven, morning star, son of the dawn! You have been cast down to the earth, you who once laid low the nations!
13 You said in your heart, "I will ascend to the heavens; I will raise my throne above the stars of God; I will sit enthroned on the mount of assembly, on the utmost heights of Mount Zaphon.
14 I will ascend above the tops of the clouds; I will make myself like the Most High."
15 But you are brought down to the realm of the dead, to the depths of the pit. (Isa. 14:12-15 NIV)

Everything said suggests it is Satan who "fell from heaven" and has been "cast to the earth". That cannot be said about humans.


Same in Ezekiel, Satan metaphorically is called the King of Tyre

12 "Son of man, take up a lament concerning the king of Tyre and say to him: 'This is what the Sovereign LORD says: "'You were the seal of perfection, full of wisdom and perfect in beauty.
13 You were in Eden, the garden of God; every precious stone adorned you: carnelian, chrysolite and emerald, topaz, onyx and jasper, lapis lazuli, turquoise and beryl. Your settings and mountings were made of gold; on the day you were created they were prepared.
14 You were anointed as a guardian cherub, for so I ordained you. You were on the holy mount of God; you walked among the fiery stones.
15 You were blameless in your ways from the day you were created till wickedness was found in you.
16 Through your widespread trade you were filled with violence, and you sinned. So I drove you in disgrace from the mount of God, and I expelled you, guardian cherub, from among the fiery stones.
(Ezek. 28:12-16 NIV)

Except for Adam and Eve, no human was in the garden of Eden. The text obviously is speaking about Satan.

 

[Free]

Red herring, who was discussing a process?

Inference, in logic, derivation of conclusions from given information or premises by any acceptable form of reasoning. Inferences are commonly drawn (1) by deduction, which, by analyzing valid argument forms, draws out the conclusions implicit in their premises, (2) by induction, which argues from many instances to a general statement, (3) by probability, which passes from frequencies within a known domain to conclusions of stated likelihood, and (4) by statistical reasoning, which concludes that, on the average, a certain percentage of a set of entities will satisfy the stated conditions. See also deduction; implication.-Encyclopedia Britanica

You’re the one who brought up inferential logic in the first place. I simply asked you to define it, but your definition incorrectly conflated inferential logic with deduction. When I asked for your source, you provided one that stated the very same thing I had—that inferential logic is the process used in deductive and inductive reasoning (it only left out abductive reasoning).

And, yet again, your quote from Encyclopedia Britanica above states the very same thing.

Where is the red herring?

 

[Alfred Persson]

You’re the one who brought up inferential logic in the first place. I simply asked you to define it, but your definition incorrectly conflated inferential logic with deduction. When I asked for your source, you provided one that stated the very same thing I had—that inferential logic is the process used in deductive and inductive reasoning (it only left out abductive reasoning).

And, yet again, your quote from Encyclopedia Britanica above states the very same thing.

Where is the red herring?

The red herring claimed something was wrong with the first definition---what you meant by that I won't try to decipher. Something about process and "is". You tell us.

Nothing wrong with the definition I first gave, which begins thusly:


Inferential logic, also known as deductive reasoning or logical inference, is a process of reasoning in which conclusions are drawn from premises based on logical principles.

By the way, my humility is none of your business or cause for comment. That is a personal attack.

 

[Free]

Some allege Satan is never spoken of metaphorically.

At least no one in this thread is saying that.

That a text that doesn't explicitly name Satan, cannot be about him.

If Satan isn’t mentioned then we should be very careful about claiming a verse or passage is about him. This is how false teachings come about.

However, scripture metaphorically calls Satan a number of things: In Revelation 12:9 he is called a "dragon, serpent."

Rev 12:9 And the great dragon was thrown down, that ancient serpent, who is called the devil and Satan, the deceiver of the whole world—he was thrown down to the earth, and his angels were thrown down with him. (ESV)

It also actually states that the dragon and serpent are “called the devil and Satan.”

In 1 Peter 5:8 he is "a roaring lion".

1Pe 5:8 Be sober-minded; be watchful. Your adversary the devil prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour. (ESV)

Peter tells us the roaring lion is the devil.

Jesus calls him the "father of lies" in John 8:443.

Jhn 8:44 You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father's desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks out of his own character, for he is a liar and the father of lies. (ESV)

Jesus first says their father is the devil.

Paul "an angel of light" in 2 Corinthians 11:14.

2Co 11:14 And no wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light. (ESV)

Paul also clearly tells us it’s Satan who is the angel of light.

Therefore, to allege Isaiah 14:12-15 cannot metaphorically be about Satan is without foundation.

Actually, you have helped prove my point. With each of the metaphors you listed, the context clearly tells us who the metaphor applies to—Satan, the devil.

To be consistent then, when we look at the context of Isa 14 and read that it is a “taunt against the king of Babylon” (v. 4), we should understand that all the metaphor of Isa 14 applies only to him.

12 How you have fallen from heaven, morning star, son of the dawn! You have been cast down to the earth, you who once laid low the nations!
13 You said in your heart, "I will ascend to the heavens; I will raise my throne above the stars of God; I will sit enthroned on the mount of assembly, on the utmost heights of Mount Zaphon.
14 I will ascend above the tops of the clouds; I will make myself like the Most High."
15 But you are brought down to the realm of the dead, to the depths of the pit. (Isa. 14:12-15 NIV)

Everything said suggests it is Satan who "fell from heaven" and has been "cast to the earth". That cannot be said about humans.

Except that there isn’t anything to suggest it is Satan. Everything else outside of those verses is clearly speaking about a man, the king of Babylon.

Do you think metaphor applies only to Satan and not humans? Why can’t this be metaphor (and sarcasm) about the incredible height of arrogance and pride of the king of Babylon, to the point of defying God and thinking he could be like Him?

Note also that chapter 13 is an “oracle concerning Babylon,” regarding its judgement, and that the rest of chapter 14 is the same but concerning Assyria and Philistia. Then there the many chapters after chapter 14 with oracles of judgement against many other nations, with the judgement of the whole earth in chapter 24.

Same in Ezekiel, Satan metaphorically is called the King of Tyre

12 "Son of man, take up a lament concerning the king of Tyre and say to him: 'This is what the Sovereign LORD says: "'You were the seal of perfection, full of wisdom and perfect in beauty.
13 You were in Eden, the garden of God; every precious stone adorned you: carnelian, chrysolite and emerald, topaz, onyx and jasper, lapis lazuli, turquoise and beryl. Your settings and mountings were made of gold; on the day you were created they were prepared.
14 You were anointed as a guardian cherub, for so I ordained you. You were on the holy mount of God; you walked among the fiery stones.
15 You were blameless in your ways from the day you were created till wickedness was found in you.
16 Through your widespread trade you were filled with violence, and you sinned. So I drove you in disgrace from the mount of God, and I expelled you, guardian cherub, from among the fiery stones.
(Ezek. 28:12-16 NIV)

Except for Adam and Eve, no human was in the garden of Eden. The text obviously is speaking about Satan.

Again, as with Isa 14, Satan is not only not mentioned, but it is clearly stated to be a prophecy against the prince of Tyre. Again, can metaphor only be about Satan or can it apply to humans as well, to describe the excesses and state of people in general or one person in particular?

On the one hand you claim it is metaphor, but in the other take certain details to be literal so that they can only apply to Satan. Imagery about Eden in no way means that either Tyre must have been in Eden or it must be speaking of someone or something else. The nature of metaphor and poetry is that nearly anything can be made to apply.

In this case, just as with the king of Babylon, extreme pride to the point of believing himself to be God or a god, will result in the prince of Tyre (perhaps also symbolic for Tyre itself) receiving God’s judgement.

Again note that chapter 25 contains prophecies against other nations, chapter 26 is a prophecy against Tyre, and chapter 27 is a “lamentation over Tyre.” Chapters 29-32 and similar but about Egypt.

 

[Free]

The red herring claimed something was wrong with the first definition---what you meant by that I won't try to decipher. Something about process and "is". You tell us.

Nothing wrong with the definition I first gave, which begins thusly:


Inferential logic, also known as deductive reasoning or logical inference, is a process of reasoning in which conclusions are drawn from premises based on logical principles.

Again, where is the red herring? You keep on using that phrase, but I don’t think it means what you think it means.

There is something wrong with that definition, which is why I asked you to define it in the first place. It begins, as you quoted:

“Inferential logic, also known as deductive reasoning.”

What I meant was very basic and clear, and required no deciphering. What I stated is that inferential logic isn’t “also known as deductive reasoning;” it is a process used in deductive, inductive, and abductive reasoning. That was even in the Decision Lab source you provided. To say that it is also known as deductive reasoning is to say that it is also known as inductive reasoning and abductive reasoning. But that makes no sense since those are three different types of reasoning, obviously.

By the way, my humility is none of your business or cause for comment. That is a personal attack.

Not at all. It’s an admonition to take care to watch oneself.

 

[Alfred Persson]

Again, where is the red herring? You keep on using that phrase, but I don’t think it means what you think it means.

There is something wrong with that definition, which is why I asked you to define it in the first place. It begins, as you quoted:

“Inferential logic, also known as deductive reasoning.”

What I meant was very basic and clear, and required no deciphering. What I stated is that inferential logic isn’t “also known as deductive reasoning;” it is a process used in deductive, inductive, and abductive reasoning. That was even in the Decision Lab source you provided. To say that it is also known as deductive reasoning is to say that it is also known as inductive reasoning and abductive reasoning. But that makes no sense since those are three different types of reasoning, obviously.


Not at all. It’s an admonition to take care to watch oneself.

The "Red Herring" is your redefining my use of "deductive reasoning" as a synonym for "inferential logic". I didn't say its "synonymous", I used at as a general noun for all types of deductive reasoning which I listed and gave examples.

Moreover, you ignored the bible Dictionaries that found Satan being referred to metaphorically, after implying such did not exist.

Specious argumentation rather than real discussion of the scripture text, is tiresome and boring.

 

[Free]

The "Red Herring" is your redefining my use of "deductive reasoning" as a synonym for "inferential logic". I didn't say its "synonymous", I used at as a general noun for all types of deductive reasoning which I listed and gave examples.

As I said, it was in the quote you provided after I asked you for a definition—“Inferential logic, also known as deductive reasoning.” You’re the one who provided your own (supposed) red herring. And, what do you mean by “all types of deductive reasoning”? Which examples?

Moreover, you ignored the bible Dictionaries that found Satan being referred to metaphorically, after implying such did not exist.

Where did I do that? Please link to the specific post(s).

Specious argumentation rather than real discussion of the scripture text, if tiresome and boring.

Did you miss my post #72? I gave a fair bit of discussion which included context.

 

[Alfred Persson]

As I said, it was in the quote you provided after I asked you for a definition—“Inferential logic, also known as deductive reasoning.” You’re the one who provided your own (supposed) red herring. And, what do you mean by “all types of deductive reasoning”? Which examples?


Where did I do that? Please link to the specific post(s).


Did you miss my post #72? I gave a fair bit of discussion which included context.

Straining out gnats, swallowing camels is tiresome and boring.

I provided more than enough proof, even finding dictionaries you implied didn't exist, that see Satan in those verses.

I have other things to do than endlessly argue minutia in your quest to "prove me wrong".

Why don't you find commentaries that expressly reject my interpretation, and I will answer THOSE.

That might be profitable to both of us, and other readers.

I insist you find scholarly rejection of my interpretation. I will gladly address their exegesis.

I am done with Red Herrings and Straw Man fallacies.

 

[Alfred Persson]

4 What is man that You are mindful of him, And the son of man that You visit him?
5 For You have made him a little lower than the angels, And You have crowned him with glory and honor.
6 You have made him to have dominion over the works of Your hands; You have put all things under his feet, (Ps. 8:4-6 NKJ)

6 But when He again brings the firstborn into the world, He says: "Let all the angels of God worship Him."
7 And of the angels He says: "Who makes His angels spirits And His ministers a flame of fire."
8 But to the Son He says: "Your throne, O God, is forever and ever; A scepter of righteousness is the scepter of Your Kingdom. (Heb. 1:6-8 NKJ)

Do you not know that we shall judge angels? How much more, things that pertain to this life? (1 Cor. 6:3 NKJ)

10 Of this salvation the prophets have inquired and searched carefully, who prophesied of the grace that would come to you,
11 searching what, or what manner of time, the Spirit of Christ who was in them was indicating when He testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ and the glories that would follow.
12 To them it was revealed that, not to themselves, but to us they were ministering the things which now have been reported to you through those who have preached the gospel to you by the Holy Spirit sent from heaven-- things which angels desire to look into. (1 Pet. 1:10-12 NKJ)

26 Then God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth."
27 So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. (Gen. 1:26-27 NKJ)

14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth. (Jn. 1:14 NKJ)

21 There is also an antitype which now saves us-- baptism (not the removal of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God), through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,
22 who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, angels and authorities and powers having been made subject to Him. (1 Pet. 3:21-22 NKJ)


Some find it impossible Satan and fallen angels be victims of their own pride, and irrationally believe they could prove God made a mistake, and as God is consistent, recuse Himself from dictating to Satan and his angels how they must live.


But its implied from man being in the image of God, from God's many theophanies as man in the OT and the Incarnation of the Word in human flesh, that man is not intellectually the inferior of angels. Therefore, if confirmation bias affects mankind, it also affects angels.

Angels are greater in power, but not intellect. Christ reigns over the angels in human flesh, in God's image which is not intellectually the inferior of angels.


Of course, because angels don't die they have progressed technologically far above mankind, but if things were equal, that would not be the case.

Its implied in Genesis the generation of humans before the flood of Noah's day conspired with Satan's angels, to cause the "sons of God" to fall into sin. But they acted as equals and evidently God blames mankind for the conspiracy against His angelic sons:

1 Now it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born to them,
2 that the sons of God saw the daughters of men, that they were beautiful; and they took wives for themselves of all whom they chose.
3 And the LORD said, "My Spirit shall not strive with man forever, for he is indeed flesh; yet his days shall be one hundred and twenty years." (Gen. 6:1-3 NKJ)

 

[Mark51]

Referring to the 6th paragraph of your post:

“Satan is more powerful than the Archangel Michael….”

Daniel 10:12, 13, 21; 12:1 and Jude 9 is referring to Jesus. These points to Michael as the angel assigned by God Almighty to lead the Israelites through the wilderness.-Exodus 23:20-23; 32:34; 33:2.

“…Satan was its ‘covering roof’ a ‘canopy over the Throne’”

This account is not directed to Satan. It is an analogy between Satan and the king (or line of kings) of Tyre.

This unknown king thought highly of himself. The account likens such a king as “a god,“ “cherub,” and reference to glory in the “Garden of Eden” that Satan initially enjoyed. Such a comparison is appropriate because, apparently, he developed an attitude and dealings likened to Satan-the “god of this system.”-2 Corinthians 4:4. Compare Isaiah 14:4-14.

 

[Alfred Persson]

Referring to the 6th paragraph of your post:

“Satan is more powerful than the Archangel Michael….”

Daniel 10:12, 13, 21; 12:1 and Jude 9 is referring to Jesus. These points to Michael as the angel assigned by God Almighty to lead the Israelites through the wilderness.-Exodus 23:20-23; 32:34; 33:2.

“…Satan was its ‘covering roof’ a ‘canopy over the Throne’”

This account is not directed to Satan. It is an analogy between Satan and the king (or line of kings) of Tyre.

This unknown king thought highly of himself. The account likens such a king as “a god,“ “cherub,” and reference to glory in the “Garden of Eden” that Satan initially enjoyed. Such a comparison is appropriate because, apparently, he developed an attitude and dealings likened to Satan-the “god of this system.”-2 Corinthians 4:4. Compare Isaiah 14:4-14.

In 1879 The Watchtower denied Jesus could be Michael the Archangel:

Hence it is said, "Let all the angels of God worship him"; [that must include Michael, the chief angel, hence Michael is not the Son of God] and the reason is, because he has "by inheritance obtained a more excellent Name than they."-The Watchtower, 1879, p. 4.

Many Christian commentators infer Gabriel is this angel from the fact elsewhere it is he who bring's God's answer to Daniel's prayer:

Daniel 10:12–14. Encouraging Daniel not to be afraid (cf. v. 8), Gabriel explained the reason for the delay in God’s answer to Daniel’s prayer.-The Bible Knowledge Commentary: An Exposition of the Scriptures (Vol. 1, p. 1366). Victor Books.

20 Now while I was speaking, praying, and confessing my sin and the sin of my people Israel, and presenting my supplication before the LORD my God for the holy mountain of my God,
21 yes, while I was speaking in prayer, the man Gabriel, whom I had seen in the vision at the beginning, being caused to fly swiftly, reached me about the time of the evening offering.
22 And he informed me, and talked with me, and said, "O Daniel, I have now come forth to give you skill to understand.
23 "At the beginning of your supplications the command went out, and I have come to tell you, for you are greatly beloved; therefore consider the matter, and understand the vision: (Dan. 9:20-23 NKJ)

In Daniel 10:13 Michael is the angel came to the assistance of this so it can't be Michael speaking:

12 Then he said to me, "Do not fear, Daniel, for from the first day that you set your heart to understand, and to humble yourself before your God, your words were heard; and I have come because of your words.
13 "But the prince of the kingdom of Persia withstood me twenty-one days; and behold, Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me, for I had been left alone there with the kings of Persia. (Dan. 10:12-13 NKJ)

No angel has ever been called THE Son of God therefore Jesus cannot be Michael the Archangel

For to which of the angels did He ever say: "You are My Son, Today I have begotten You "? And again: "I will be to Him a Father, And He shall be to Me a Son "? (Heb. 1:5 NKJ)

I do believe Gabriel was representing Jesus and He was there in this theophany/vision (Daniel 10:5-10, 16-18), described as "one having the likeness of a man" who isn't Gabriel, "suddenly a hand touched me" (Dan. 10:10) implying someone was touching him "through Gabriel" reviving Daniel. This is like Jesus being symbolized by the angel on a cloud in Revelation 14:14- 16 when the church is raptured.

14 Then I looked, and behold, a white cloud, and on the cloud sat One like the Son of Man, having on His head a golden crown, and in His hand a sharp sickle.
15 And another angel came out of the temple, crying with a loud voice to Him who sat on the cloud, "Thrust in Your sickle and reap, for the time has come for You to reap, for the harvest of the earth is ripe."
16 So He who sat on the cloud thrust in His sickle on the earth, and the earth was reaped. (Rev. 14:14-16 NKJ)

The angel of the LORD often speaks as Yahweh the Son, Genesis c. 18 but its still an angel speaking. God speaks through angels just as He can through men.

No human fits all the details in the Isaiah and Ezekiel texts, only Satan does.

13 You were in Eden, the garden of God...
14 "You were the anointed cherub who covers; I established you; You were on the holy mountain of God; You walked back and forth in the midst of fiery stones.
15 You were perfect in your ways from the day you were created, Till iniquity was found in you. (Ezek. 28:14-15 NKJ)