Anything & everything else is SPECULATION, SUPPOSITION & CONJECTURE !!!

ECHAD equals the numeral ONE.
It does not mean THE ONLY ONE.

According to Scripture, "Michael" is - JUST - ONE OF the foremost princes.

& her children after them & Rachel & Joseph to the rear of them

RISHOWN primarily means FIRST in time.
It does not necessarily mean more significant.

According to Scripture, "Michael" is - JUST - ONE OF the FOREMOST princes.

GADOWL means GREAT in size or power.
It does not mean THE GREATEST.

According to Scripture, "Michael" is - JUST - ONE OF the first GREAT princes.

CHIEFS of thousands & CHIEFS of hundreds & CHIEFS of fifties & CHIEFS of tens

SAR means a HEAD person of any rank or class.
It does not necessarily mean THE HEAD.

According to Scripture, "Michael" is - JUST - ONE OF the first, great HEAD angels.

AMAD means to STAND in a formal manner & WAIT.
It does not mean to take up power & reign as king.
(If it did, the people in the above examples would have their heads cut off
-- by the reigning king they were STANDING in front of !!!)

According to (time-appropriate) Scripture,
"Michael" will STAND & is STANDING -- waiting -- not begin reigning.

• Scriptural evidence INDICATES that the name Michael applied to God's Son before he left heaven to become Jesus Christ & also after his return. (para. 2)
• "... Lord Jesus Christ... SUGGESTING that he is, in fact, himself the archangel." (para. 2)
• "There are also other CORRESPONDENCIES establishing that Michael is actually the Son of God." (para. 3)
• "... Jesus.... He also HAD the personal name Michael." (para. 5)
• "His RESUMING his heavenly name Michael...." (para. 5)

Trying to turn the LORD JESUS CHRIST (before whom EVERY knee shall bow - Phil. 2:10,11; Heb. 1:6)
into Michael the Archangel (before whom NO ONE should bow - Rev. 22:8,9)
has significant implications.

The WT's case is extremely weak & based on SUPPOSITION & CONJECTURE !

Is it lack of Scriptural evidence, or poor research / documentation, or deliberate twisting ?

Review the 12 facts above & the following 26 Conjectures & decide for yourself.

All major points & many phrases are, in fact, CONJECTURES.

A

{CONJECTURE #6: "This points to Michael" is the main point in this paragraph & is labeled "PRESUMPTION" by page 77 in the same book which reads: "he is PRESUMED TO BE the angel that led Israel through the wilderness." (Aid p.77 -- Angel)}

{CONJECTURE #7: "Lending support" is a conjecture, to support a conjecture labeled "presumption" (see #6 above).}

B

{CONJECTURE #8: "the name Michael applied to God's Son BEFORE he left heaven to become Jesus Christ". Where is the chapter & verse evidence?}

{CONJECTURE #9: "the name Michael applied to God's Son... also AFTER his return". Where is the chapter & verse evidence?}

{CONJECTURE #10: "This seems to imply there is BUT ONE" is contradicted by Scripture. Daniel 10:13 clearly states that Michael is just "ONE OF the foremost princes".}

{CONJECTURE #11: "SUGGESTING that he is, IN FACT, himself the archangel." Regardless of who says it, the words "suggesting... in fact" are incompatible. A police uniform may suggest that the person wearing it is a police officer, but in fact, the person may be a FRAUD!}

{CONJECTURE #12: "IT IS ONLY LOGICAL, therefore, is more conjecture.}

{CONJECTURE #13: "IF the designation "archangel" applied, not to Jesus Christ, but to other angels, then the reference to an "archangel's voice" would not be appropriate. The Kingdom Interlinear at 1Thess. 4:16 literally reads: "Because very (one) THE LORD in command, IN VOICE of ARCHANGEL & IN TRUMPET of GOD, HE will come down...."

• If JESUS is the ARCHANGEL, then He is the TRUMPET.
• KINGS don't ANNOUNCE or TRUMPET themselves. Those duties are assigned to others !!!}

{CONJECTURE #14: "IN THAT CASE it would be describing a voice of lesser authority than that of the Son of God. See #13 above.}

C

{CONJECTURE #15: "There are also OTHER correspondencies" is the extremely desperate conjecture that because Jesus SAT DOWN (Heb. 10:12), HE IS Michael who STOOD UP (Dan. 12:1).}

{CONJECTURE #16: "THAT IS will take up power or begin to reign as king" is a giant leap of conjecture that because Michael STOOD UP, that means he stood up "as KING".}

{CONJECTURE #17: "This implies that a period of being seated preceded his standing up" is obviously true. BUT it is DOUBLE-BARREL CONJECTURE to conclude that because Michael stood up:

• he stood up "AS KING"
• that implies he is Jesus the KING of kings. Two giant leaps of conjecture.}

{CONJECTURE #18: "In agreement therewith" is conjecture, offered to support conjecture.}

D

{CONJECTURE #19, 20, 21, 22: "mentions... & links... this would mean... which would logically be... it is only reasonable that" is conjecture, after conjecture, after conjecture, after conjecture.}

E

{CONJECTURE #23, 24 & 25: "He also HAD the personal name Michael... his RESUMING his heavenly name Michael... TIES HIM IN with his prehuman existence" is conjecture & blatant circular reasoning.}

{CONJECTURE #26: "POINTS TO" implies that the meaning of Michael's name links him to Jesus. This is just more conjecture.}

CIRCULAR REASONING

Q - How do you know this fossil is millions of years old?

A - Because the rock strata is millions of years old.

Q - How do you know the rock strata is millions of years old?

A - Because the fossils found in it are millions of years old.

Q - How do you know Jesus was CALLED 'Michael' in his prehuman existence?

A - Because he RESUMED that name in his posthuman existence.

Q - How do you know Jesus RESUMED the name 'Michael' in his posthuman existence?

A - Because he was CALLED 'Michael' in his prehuman existence.

SCRIPTURAL FACTS

Q - Do the Scriptures ever say Jesus was CALLED 'Michael' in his prehuman existence?

A - NO!

Q - Do the Scriptures ever say Jesus RESUMED the name 'Michael' in his posthuman existence.

A - NO!

Q - Does the WT's teaching on 'Michael' pass the TEST of AGREEMENT with the Scriptures ?

A - NO! 26 documented instances of SUPPOSITION & CONJECTURE = a failure to pass the test !

• The article on 'Michael' is, in fact, based on supposition & conjecture.

• But those words & expressions are linked by supposition & conjecture.

• Care wasn't exercised to distinguish between mere theory & clear fact re: 'Michael'.

• The article on 'Michael' fails to harmonize with the Bible account.

• Thought-provoking - yes.
• Factual - (in reference to the article on 'Michael') no.

• Trying to make Jesus into 'Michael' does not have Scriptural support.

• None of the 12 Bible Facts suggests JESUS is 'Michael'.

• The Bible Record itself wasn't applied to the article on 'Michael'.