The Origin of Satan and his demons

[LeviR]

Job realized that all the evil which came upon him was the result of God allowing it. The Lord gives and the Lord takes away, he said.
It seems to me that the Lord uses Satan(evil)as a device to either prove who He is, or as a device to discipline.

 

[LeviR]

I don't agree, Eve is deceived by Satan and God cursed him personally for it, at the very beginning of the Bible:

13 And the LORD God said to the woman, "What is this you have done?" The woman said, "The serpent deceived me, and I ate."
14 So the LORD God said to the serpent: "Because you have done this, You are cursed more than all cattle, And more than every beast of the field; On your belly you shall go, And you shall eat dust All the days of your life. (Gen. 3:13-14 NKJ)

God called Satan to account, blaming him for deceiving Eve.

But I would agree the NT revelation unveils everything Satan is, which didn't happen in the OT. Nothing strange about that, with Christ came the True Light on everything, including evil.

The text does not say Eve was deceived by Satan but by the serpent. We know from Revelation that the Red Dragon is called that old serpent, but how was the serpent identified as Satan early on in Scripture?

 

[Alfred Persson]

Job realized that all the evil which came upon him was the result of God allowing it. The Lord gives and the Lord takes away, he said.
It seems to me that the Lord uses Satan(evil)as a device to either prove who He is, or as a device to discipline.

I disagree. Satan's role can be seen in the role of Pharoah's magicians. They did counter miracles to those Moses did, and that "hardened" Pharoah's heart so he would reveal his inner desire, to rebel against God.

Then the magicians of Egypt did so with their enchantments; and Pharaoh's heart grew hard, and he did not heed them, as the LORD had said. (Exod. 7:22 NKJ)

Satan tempts men to do evil, and his children reveal themselves now, during this lifetime. No one wants them to enter God's kingdom, and then reveal how evil they are like Satan did.

 

[Alfred Persson]

The text does not say Eve was deceived by Satan but by the serpent. We know from Revelation that the Red Dragon is called that old serpent, but how was the serpent identified as Satan early on in Scripture?

Scripture interprets scripture. The Dragon, that "crooked serpent" is revealed throughout scripture as Satan the Devil:

He laid hold of the dragon, that serpent of old, who is the Devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years; (Rev. 20:2 NKJ)

In that day the LORD with his sore and great and strong sword shall punish leviathan the piercing serpent, even leviathan that crooked serpent; and he shall slay the dragon that is in the sea. (Isa. 27:1 KJV)

 

[LeviR]

I disagree. Satan's role can be seen in the role of Pharoah's magicians. They did counter miracles to those Moses did, and that "hardened" Pharoah's heart so he would reveal his inner desire, to rebel against God.

Then the magicians of Egypt did so with their enchantments; and Pharaoh's heart grew hard, and he did not heed them, as the LORD had said. (Exod. 7:22 NKJ)

Satan tempts men to do evil, and his children reveal themselves now, during this lifetime. No one wants them to enter God's kingdom, and then reveal how evil they are like Satan did.

But the text does not say it was Satan’s role working through the magicians. One could just as easily say it was God’s role as Satan’s

plus, many Old Testament figures such as Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and any others who had the faith as they would be saved just as any New Testament faithful believer.
One would assume Satan would act upon them just as well .

 

[Alfred Persson]

But the text does not say it was Satan’s role working through the magicians. One could just as easily say it was God’s role as Satan’s

plus, many Old Testament figures such as Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and any others who had the faith as they would be saved just as any New Testament faithful believer.
One would assume Satan would act upon them just as well .

Elementary deduction is a requirement for learning what is implicit, implied by the data. Satan's role in inspiring evil was documented in the garden of Eden. That establishes the premise for all scripture.

in which you once walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit who now works in the sons of disobedience, (Eph. 2:2 NKJ)

...the whole world lies under the sway of the wicked one. (1 Jn. 5:19 NKJ)

 

[LeviR]

Elementary deduction is a requirement for learning what is implicit, implied by the data. Satan's role in inspiring evil was documented in the garden of Eden. That establishes the premise for all scripture.

in which you once walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit who now works in the sons of disobedience, (Eph. 2:2 NKJ)

...the whole world lies under the sway of the wicked one. (1 Jn. 5:19 NKJ)

Certainly the connection can be made by examining New Testament scripture, but it cannot by examining the Old Testament.

4Then they journeyed from Mount Hor by the Way of the Red Sea, to go around the land of Edom; and the soul of the people became very discouraged on the way. 5And the people spoke against God and against Moses: “Why have you brought us up out of Egypt to die in the wilderness? For there is no food and no water, and our soul [c]loathes this worthless bread.” 6So the Lord sent fiery serpents among the people, and they bit the people; and many of the people of Israel died.

7Therefore the people came to Moses, and said, “We have sinned, for we have spoken against the Lord and against you; pray to the Lord that He take away the serpents from us.” So Moses prayed for the people.


8Then the Lord said to Moses, “Make a fiery serpent, and set it on a pole; and it shall be that everyone who is bitten, when he looks at it, shall live.” 9So Moses made a bronze serpent, and put it on a pole; and so it was, if a serpent had bitten anyone, when he looked at the bronze serpent, he lived.(Num 21:4-9)

The Lord was angry with the people because they complained and spoke against God, so it was the Lord who sent the fiery serpents among the people.
No connection can be made here with the serpents and the idea of a fallen angel Satan working to destroy the people.

 

[Alfred Persson]

Certainly the connection can be made by examining New Testament scripture, but it cannot by examining the Old Testament.

4Then they journeyed from Mount Hor by the Way of the Red Sea, to go around the land of Edom; and the soul of the people became very discouraged on the way. 5And the people spoke against God and against Moses: “Why have you brought us up out of Egypt to die in the wilderness? For there is no food and no water, and our soul [c]loathes this worthless bread.” 6So the Lord sent fiery serpents among the people, and they bit the people; and many of the people of Israel died.

7Therefore the people came to Moses, and said, “We have sinned, for we have spoken against the Lord and against you; pray to the Lord that He take away the serpents from us.” So Moses prayed for the people.


8Then the Lord said to Moses, “Make a fiery serpent, and set it on a pole; and it shall be that everyone who is bitten, when he looks at it, shall live.” 9So Moses made a bronze serpent, and put it on a pole; and so it was, if a serpent had bitten anyone, when he looked at the bronze serpent, he lived.(Num 21:4-9)

The Lord was angry with the people because they complained and spoke against God, so it was the Lord who sent the fiery serpents among the people.
No connection can be made here with the serpents and the idea of a fallen angel Satan working to destroy the people.

I checked more than a dozen commentaries, not one of them said these fiery serpents symbolized Satan or demons.

The following is a plausible explanation of the symbolism:

7–9. As an antidote to the snake-bites Moses was instructed to make a snake,13 and he decided to make it out of ‘copper’. Though the English versions generally translate nĕḥōšet as brass or bronze (i.e. copper alloys), it certainly can mean the pure metal (Deut. 8:9). In the light of the discoveries at Timna, ‘copper’ seems the best translation here. But why make a serpent at all, and why make it out of copper?

The text is not explicit, but various explanations have been offered. Among Israel’s neighbours the serpent seems to have been a symbol of life and fertility, and in Egypt model serpents were worn to ward off serpent-bites.14 But neither of these explanations seems very appropriate here. In Israel snakes were unclean and personified sin (Lev. 11:41–42; Gen. 3). Here, too, the serpent is a cure for those bitten, not a protection against bites. I suggest that the clue to the symbolism should be sought in the general principles underlying the sacrifices and purificatory rites in the Old Testament. Animals are killed, so that sinful men who deserve to die may live. Blood which pollutes when it is spilled can be used to sanctify and purify men and articles. The ashes of a dead heifer cleanse those who suffer from the impurity caused by death. In all these rituals there is an inversion: normally polluting substances or actions may in a ritual context have the opposite effect and serve to purify. In the case of the copper serpent similar principles operate. Those inflamed and dying through the bite of living snakes were restored to life by a dead reddish-coloured snake. It may be that copper was chosen not only because its hue matched the inflammation caused by the bites,15 but because red is the colour that symbolizes atonement and purification.16

Finally it should be noted that in every sacrifice (e.g. Lev. 1–4) the worshipper had to lay his hand on the animal’s head. In purification rituals the worshipper had to be sprinkled with the purifying liquid (Lev. 14; Num. 19, etc.). Without physical contact the sacrifice or cleansing ritual was ineffective. In the case of the copper serpent there is a similar insistence on the affected person appropriating the healing power of God through looking at the snake set up on the pole. The importance of seeing the copper snake is brought out by the command to set it on a pole (8–9) and the twice-repeated comment everyone who … sees it shall live. In other words, contact between the saving symbol and the affected person was still required, but in the special circumstances here described visual contact was all that was necessary.

If this is the right way to interpret the story of the copper snake, it is clear how our Lord could use it as an apt picture of his own saving ministry. Men dying in sin are saved by the dead body of a man suspended on the cross. Just as physical contact was impossible between those bitten by snakes and the copper snake, so sinners are unable to touch the life-giving body of Christ. Yet in both situations the sufferers must appropriate God’s healing power themselves: by looking at the copper snake or ‘believing in the Son of man’ (John 3:15).


13 Here the Hebrew word śārāp stands alone, apparently designating the species of snake involved (cf. Deut. 8:15). The NEB, following some of the ancient versions, has clarified the term by paraphrasing, ‘serpent of bronze’.

14 See K. R. Joines, JBL, 87, pp. 251f.

15 Luther’s suggestion quoted by Keil, pp. 140f.

16 Cf. the reddish materials used for the water of purification in ch. 19, red heifer, cedar wood and scarlet cord. There may also be a play on words: the snake’s (nḥš) bite (nšk) was cured by copper nḥšt.

Wenham, G. J. (1981). Numbers: an introduction and commentary (Vol. 4, pp. 176–178). InterVarsity Press.

 

[LeviR]

I checked more than a dozen commentaries, not one of them said these fiery serpents symbolized Satan or demons.

The following is a plausible explanation of the symbolism:

7–9. As an antidote to the snake-bites Moses was instructed to make a snake,13 and he decided to make it out of ‘copper’. Though the English versions generally translate nĕḥōšet as brass or bronze (i.e. copper alloys), it certainly can mean the pure metal (Deut. 8:9). In the light of the discoveries at Timna, ‘copper’ seems the best translation here. But why make a serpent at all, and why make it out of copper?

The text is not explicit, but various explanations have been offered. Among Israel’s neighbours the serpent seems to have been a symbol of life and fertility, and in Egypt model serpents were worn to ward off serpent-bites.14 But neither of these explanations seems very appropriate here. In Israel snakes were unclean and personified sin (Lev. 11:41–42; Gen. 3). Here, too, the serpent is a cure for those bitten, not a protection against bites. I suggest that the clue to the symbolism should be sought in the general principles underlying the sacrifices and purificatory rites in the Old Testament. Animals are killed, so that sinful men who deserve to die may live. Blood which pollutes when it is spilled can be used to sanctify and purify men and articles. The ashes of a dead heifer cleanse those who suffer from the impurity caused by death. In all these rituals there is an inversion: normally polluting substances or actions may in a ritual context have the opposite effect and serve to purify. In the case of the copper serpent similar principles operate. Those inflamed and dying through the bite of living snakes were restored to life by a dead reddish-coloured snake. It may be that copper was chosen not only because its hue matched the inflammation caused by the bites,15 but because red is the colour that symbolizes atonement and purification.16

Finally it should be noted that in every sacrifice (e.g. Lev. 1–4) the worshipper had to lay his hand on the animal’s head. In purification rituals the worshipper had to be sprinkled with the purifying liquid (Lev. 14; Num. 19, etc.). Without physical contact the sacrifice or cleansing ritual was ineffective. In the case of the copper serpent there is a similar insistence on the affected person appropriating the healing power of God through looking at the snake set up on the pole. The importance of seeing the copper snake is brought out by the command to set it on a pole (8–9) and the twice-repeated comment everyone who … sees it shall live. In other words, contact between the saving symbol and the affected person was still required, but in the special circumstances here described visual contact was all that was necessary.

If this is the right way to interpret the story of the copper snake, it is clear how our Lord could use it as an apt picture of his own saving ministry. Men dying in sin are saved by the dead body of a man suspended on the cross. Just as physical contact was impossible between those bitten by snakes and the copper snake, so sinners are unable to touch the life-giving body of Christ. Yet in both situations the sufferers must appropriate God’s healing power themselves: by looking at the copper snake or ‘believing in the Son of man’ (John 3:15).


13 Here the Hebrew word śārāp stands alone, apparently designating the species of snake involved (cf. Deut. 8:15). The NEB, following some of the ancient versions, has clarified the term by paraphrasing, ‘serpent of bronze’.

14 See K. R. Joines, JBL, 87, pp. 251f.

15 Luther’s suggestion quoted by Keil, pp. 140f.

16 Cf. the reddish materials used for the water of purification in ch. 19, red heifer, cedar wood and scarlet cord. There may also be a play on words: the snake’s (nḥš) bite (nšk) was cured by copper nḥšt.

Wenham, G. J. (1981). Numbers: an introduction and commentary (Vol. 4, pp. 176–178). InterVarsity Press.

And that’s the point I’m making. Serpents in the OT are never referred to as Satan or some personal being outside the human race.
It is only til the NT we begin to make the connection with the serpent in Eden to Satan.
If examining only the OT one would not come to the same conclusion as has been made from the NT

 

[Free]

Among my points is you have not disproved Satan most definitely is in those verses:

1. The Hebrew, the Greek and the entire context in the light of NT revelation about Satan
2. Satan wouldn't trust a lesser demon to stop the rebuilding of God's Temple
3. A lesser demon could not withstand the Archangel Gabriel for 21 days.

Again, these are all fallaciously begging the question. You are reading certain ideas into those passages that simply are nowhere to be found. We must stick to what the passages clearly state without going beyond them by introducing foreign ideas.

As for Bible dictionaries, what made them better than scripture?

I never said they were. But, once again, you’re begging the question by presuming that your understanding of the passages you have given is correct and the dictionary is not entirely incorrect for excluding those passages. Given that Bible dictionaries are written by very well learned people, with significant knowledge of the original languages, historical contexts, etc., they are much more likely to be correct in excluding those passages.

Which do you think is correct? Those produced by the Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Scientologists?

Please ask a real question.

Where did you get the notion these will go beyond the consensus of their particular theological persuasion and can be trusted?

Does it matter? Is your own personal consensus better and more worthy to be trusted? Besides, it’s not in them I am basing my position, but on what I am personally understanding about those passages. It just happens that my position agrees with the dictionary quote you provided.

 

[Alfred Persson]

Again, these are all fallaciously begging the question. You are reading certain ideas into those passages that simply are nowhere to be found. We must stick to what the passages clearly state without going beyond them by introducing foreign ideas.

If Sherlock Holmes deduced from the dog not barking, that it knew the thief, would that be fallaciously begging the question as to the identity of the thief? Is it introducing foreign ideas to suppose dogs bark at strangers, but not those it knows?

 

[Free]

If Sherlock Holmes deduced from the dog not barking, that it knew the thief, would that be fallaciously begging the question as to the identity of the thief?

No, but he his conclusion could be wrong if he didn’t bother to consider and eliminate all other possibilities for the dog not barking.

Is it introducing foreign ideas to suppose dogs bark at strangers, but not those it knows?

It would be if there was no evidence. It wouldn’t be if it is known to be general dog behaviour based on numerous observations. But, that is only generally speaking and may not apply to all dog breeds or even a specific dog.

 

[Alfred Persson]

No, but he his conclusion could be wrong if he didn’t bother to consider and eliminate all other possibilities for the dog not barking.


It would be if there was no evidence. It wouldn’t be if it is known to be general dog behaviour based on numerous observations. But, that is only generally speaking and may not apply to all dog breeds or even a specific dog.

Then no mystery will ever be solved by you. Enigma, riddles are beyond your ability to decipher.

In contrast, Sherlock Holmes would commend my piecing together details to a plausible reason why the details exist.

Continue to be satisfied with the consensus opinion, which dares not reason beyond what is explicitly stated.

I like to know "why" things happened, and for that Sherlock Holmes like inference is required.

You objection is specious. You haven't disproved any conclusion I have drawn. You focus instead on the fact they depend upon inferential logic, reasoning on the details and not explicit statements. I freely admit that is true, but it does not disprove any conclusion I have drawn.

Its as though we both see a man seated in a car, and I infer he opened the car door to sit down in it. And you object I have no proof, he could have went through an open window. Yes, that is true, but its more likely he went through an open door. I didn't introduce foreign concepts, cars have doors and they are used to enter them.

 

[Free]

Then no mystery will ever be solved by you. Enigma, riddles are beyond your ability to decipher.

Stop with the personal attacks.

In contrast, Sherlock Holmes would commend my piecing together details to a plausible reason why the details exist.

Continue to be satisfied with the consensus opinion, which dares not reason beyond what is explicitly stated.

I like to know "why" things happened, and for that Sherlock Holmes like inference is required.

But, that is far different than making the Bible say something it doesn’t, or likely doesn’t. We should never go beyond what is clearly stated or proclaim “truths” of Scripture when there simply is no clarity or something cannot be known with certainty. We can give our opinion about things that aren’t clear, but we cannot say our opinions are the truth. That is why that dictionary didn’t include those passages; there simply is no evidence they’re about Satan. More than that, they each tell us who they’re about.

Is it possible that those passages are about Satan? Sure, but that isn’t likely since there is no evidence that they are. There are many things that are logically within the realm of possibility, but yet are highly unlikely to be true.

 

[LeviR]

Stop with the personal attacks.


But, that is far different than making the Bible say something it doesn’t, or likely doesn’t. We should never go beyond what is clearly stated or proclaim “truths” of Scripture when there simply is no clarity or something cannot be known with certainty. We can give our opinion about things that aren’t clear, but we cannot say our opinions are the truth. That is why that dictionary didn’t include those passages; there simply is no evidence they’re about Satan. More than that, they each tell us who they’re about.

Is it possible that those passages are about Satan? Sure, but that isn’t likely since there is no evidence that they are. There are many things that are logically within the realm of possibility, but yet are highly unlikely to be true.

When one reads the OT scripture there is not even a hint that the evil occurring among peoples can be attributed to fallen angels or to a leader of them as if there was a power greater or equal to that of God Himself.
Instead, most Jewish scholars have attributed that evil to an evil inclination in man whereby he rebels against the will of God.

Somehow the understanding of the OT was lost by commentators of the NT.
They have replaced the responsibility of evil onto an external personal being operating among the people rather than it being responsible to an evil inclination in man himself.

The bridge from the old to the new has been torn down and replaced by a new bridge that ignores what was happening during OT times in favor of the new idea.
So it seems to me.

 

[hawkman]

When one reads the OT scripture there is not even a hint that the evil occurring among peoples can be attributed to fallen angels or to a leader of them as if there was a power greater or equal to that of God Himself.
Instead, most Jewish scholars have attributed that evil to an evil inclination in man whereby he rebels against the will of God.

The demonic is in the OT . Familiar spirits .

Leviticus 19:31 Regard not them that have familiar spirits, neither seek after wizards, to be defiled by them: I am the LORD your God.

Deuteronomy 18:11 Or a charmer, or a consulter with familiar spirits, or a wizard, or a necromancer.

2 Kings 21:6 And he made his son pass through the fire, and observed times, and used enchantments, and dealt with familiar spirits and wizards: he wrought much wickedness in the sight of the LORD, to provoke him to anger.

2 Kings 23:24 Moreover the workers with familiar spirits, and the wizards, and the images, and the idols, and all the abominations that were spied in the land of Judah and in Jerusalem, did Josiah put away, that he might perform the words of the law which were written in the book that Hilkiah the priest found in the house of the LORD.

The demonic can get up close and personal NOW in the time we live in . Jesus was not casting bad thoughts into the swine .

 

[Free]

When one reads the OT scripture there is not even a hint that the evil occurring among peoples can be attributed to fallen angels or to a leader of them as if there was a power greater or equal to that of God Himself.
Instead, most Jewish scholars have attributed that evil to an evil inclination in man whereby he rebels against the will of God.

Well, there is Job 1-2, where Satan inflicts evil on him and his family, as well as other references in the OT, such as 1 Ch 12:1. But nowhere is Satan ever said to be or thought of as equal to, never mind greater than, God. Satan and fallen angels are created beings and are necessarily inferior to God. And, yes, humans have a sinful nature that also does evil.

Somehow the understanding of the OT was lost by commentators of the NT.
They have replaced the responsibility of evil onto an external personal being operating among the people rather than it being responsible to an evil inclination in man himself.

Who do you mean by the "commentators of the NT"? Certainly you don't mean the inspired writers of the NT who wrote what God wanted them to write, do you? Nowhere in the NT has any responsibility of evil been removed from people, but neither has it been removed from Satan. The NT is perfectly consistent with the OT in this. Jesus's ministry both makes much more clear the presence and influence of Satan and evil spirits, as well as the evil in men's hearts.

The bridge from the old to the new has been torn down and replaced by a new bridge that ignores what was happening during OT times in favor of the new idea.

So it seems to me.

I don't see anything that has changed. The NT simply makes many things more clear than the OT, but has in no way ignored anything that happened in the OT. Indeed, the NT relies heavily on the OT and we cannot even understand the gospel without understanding the OT.

I am curious as to why you think that way about this topic when it seems to me that this is one of those clear topics in Scripture.

 

[Alfred Persson]

Stop with the personal attacks.


But, that is far different than making the Bible say something it doesn’t, or likely doesn’t. We should never go beyond what is clearly stated or proclaim “truths” of Scripture when there simply is no clarity or something cannot be known with certainty. We can give our opinion about things that aren’t clear, but we cannot say our opinions are the truth. That is why that dictionary didn’t include those passages; there simply is no evidence they’re about Satan. More than that, they each tell us who they’re about.

Is it possible that those passages are about Satan? Sure, but that isn’t likely since there is no evidence that they are. There are many things that are logically within the realm of possibility, but yet are highly unlikely to be true.

Not a personal attack. Deciphering enigma and riddle requires inferential logic. You reject it, you reject any possibility of knowing anything that isn't "explicitly taught".

Unfortunately for your argument, if applied to Sherlock Holmes it immediately is revealed as specious, bogus. Of course Sherlock's conclusions weren't explicitly revealed by the facts left behind, that's why he employed inferential logic.

The events surrounding Job make it clear it was God on trial, not Job.

8 Then the LORD said to Satan, "Have you considered My servant Job, that there is none like him on the earth, a blameless and upright man, one who fears God and shuns evil?"
9 So Satan answered the LORD and said, "Does Job fear God for nothing? (Job 1:8-9 NKJ)

Satan contradicted God, not Job. Because this was a legal case before the heavenly court, it had to play out. Job proved Satan wrong and was restored. And none of his family was eternally lost, they will all be in God's kingdom.

Satan brought his case to the heavenly court and he lost. God never makes mistakes, that is why He is God and no one else can be.


That is the likely cause of the entire event. Not just some pointless letting Job suffer because Satan wanted to make him to suffer.

 

[Free]

Not a personal attack.

Yes, it was.

Deciphering enigma and riddle requires inferential logic. You reject it, you reject any possibility of knowing anything that isn't "explicitly taught".

No on both counts. What do you mean by “inferential logic”? Please define it.

What I reject is making Scripture say things it doesn’t. This is why anyone studying Scripture should stick to accepted methods and rules of hermeneutics. It helps to avoid making connections where there are none.

Unfortunately for your argument, if applied to Sherlock Holmes it immediately is revealed as specious, bogus. Of course Sherlock's conclusions weren't explicitly revealed by the facts left behind, that's why he employed inferential logic.

It’s a good thing for me then that Sherlock is fictional. What argument and what specifically is bogus?

 

[Alfred Persson]

What argument and what specifically is bogus?

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.