Originally posted by onefour1
View Post
Now, however, onefour1's account shifts: the sole referent of Isaiah 14:12-16 becomes Satan on his new account. This is very seriously problematic, however: there is a continuity of referent through later verses that indisputably refer to the temporal King of Babylon - see, for instance, Isaiah 14:17-20. Following onefour1's new logic, aren't verses 17, 19, and 20 just as interconnected with verses 12-16 as verse 16 is with verse 12? But verses 17-20 are utterly incoherent if their reference is restricted purely to Satan. Onefour1's argument, then, collapses even more quickly on his new account than it did on his previous one.
Note also that onefour1's points here do not even begin to address any of what I said about Satan not actually being in view here at all. And without a stronger, more exegetically rigorous case for that, onefour1's argument is a castle floating in the clouds.
Originally posted by onefour1
View Post
Comment