Sickness and disease. Does N.T. teach possession, part 4

[Bob corrigan]

It is important to remember that words have meaning; it is only from knowing the meaning of words that we can understand what is being communicated. It is also important to remember that culture determines word meanings. One of the big snags to correctly understanding the New Testament is forgetting that the Jewish culture in place during the time of Jesus is a Jewish culture, not our culture. That culture is as different from our culture as the ancient Japanese culture is from our culture today. Anybody familiar with ancient Japan knows how different that culture was compared to our culture today. No one would say or believe that the two cultures are identical, similar, or even have a close comparison.
Not only was ancient Japanese culture different, but their language was very different. They believed in different things, living and acting within their system of mythology and where nobility ruled. How they viewed people and considered who had value was different. Their perception of the world was different. Their way of thinking was other. Their worldview was different, etc. When a professor in college is going to teach a course on ancient Japan to students, would that professor teach their culture from the viewpoint of our culture? Of course not. The students wouldn't learn about true ancient Japan; they would learn an American view of ancient Japan.
Some today have studied ancient Japan and can explain it to the rest of us. What prompted these people to want to study ancient Japan? A burning desire to study, learn and know the subject. Did they begin their study with an attitude of, "Well, I just need to read some English books, what others have written, and that will make me an expert on the subject?" Of course not. They will read many books and articles on the topic. There is much to learn about ancient Japan. To effectively learn about a different, ancient culture, one must research five significant areas: history, culture, language, society, and religion. Their history, culture, language, society, and religion. They do not go in with the attitude of, "Well, I just need to compare it with our world and make it fit into our world."
The last sentence explains precisely how the bible is taught today. As if everything about the Jewish people in that day is a mirror image of our own. We have to go back into the culture and language of the Jewish people rather than bringing the Jewish culture into our world. While our faith and what we believe comes straight from Scripture, it is from Scripture written thousands of years ago. We must learn what Scripture teaches against the backdrop of when and where these things were taught. What the Gentile sheep believe and practice didn't start after Jesus ascended. It goes back to when God created the heavens and earth. Our English versions are not the source of Scripture. The Jewish people didn't learn from Gentiles. Gentiles did not write Scripture. The prophets were Jewish, not Gentiles. The Apostles were Jewish, not Gentile. All of Scripture is Jewish, not Gentile! Scripture must be understood from a Jewish mindset!

As I have pointed out, the concept of what we believe a "demon" is did not exist among the Jewish people. They didn't believe that "fallen angels" had transformed into "demons." They didn't call the angels that rebelled "fallen angels." None of the pagan cultures around the Jews, or the pagan cultures which had influenced the Jewish people, had any concept of our "demon." So, the idea of our "demons" does not come from Scripture or antiquity! It is a creation of a Gentile, Agustine of Hippo, in the fourth century! In the original texts, we find the Greek word "daimon" and the forms of the word. The word is also spelled daemon by others. It is easy to see where the word demon comes from. No one is exactly sure when the English word "demon" first appeared. I have seen a range from 800 AD to the 1200s. It is interesting to note that it wasn't until 1833 that a bible translation used the word "demon" That version was done by Noah Webster, the creator of Webster's dictionary. How many of you use Webster's version of the Bible or even know one existed?

If you can tolerate another quote about the word "demon," this one from Craig Stephenson, from the Encyclopedia of Psychology and Religion, pp 218-220
"The Middle English word "demon" derives from the medieval Latin demon and the Latin daemon, from the Greek daimon, meaning "deity," that is to say, A GOD OR GODDESS. Inherent etymologically and historically in the English word is an AMBIGUOUS MIXING of the ANCIENT NOTION OF SPIRITUAL BEINGS IN ADDITION TO GODS AND GODDESSES, NOT NECESSARILY EVIL, with the postexilic (the period of history between the end of the exile in Babylon in 538 B.C. and the 1st Century A.D.) Hebrew thought of harmful spiritual entities, the PERSIAN NOTION OF CONFLICT between light (Ahura Mazda) and dark (Angra Mainyu) forces...The contemporary use of the English word "demon" is mostly SKEWED NEGATIVELY to suggest one of an army of negative entities under the leadership of the devil or Satan."

A DAIMON IS NOT A DEMON! The word daimon/daemon should never be translated into "demon!" A daimon is different than a demon! They are not the same type of creature! The word daimon was used in Greek texts, not the English word demon! The concept of a "demon" did not exist in the 1st century! Did you notice that the word daimon means deity? A deity is a god or goddess. Jehovah is a deity. Are fallen angels' deities? Are demons defined as deities? NO!

There is no doubt that the idea of demons caught on quickly. Starting in 144 AD, with an early Catholic Church father, Marcion of Sinope, a movement to separate the Old Testament began, the idea being that the Old Testament was for the Jews, mainly a history and that the New Testament was for the Gentiles. Maricon preached that the benevolent God of the Gospel who sent Jesus Christ into the world as the savior was the true Supreme Being, different and opposed to the malevolent Demiurge or creator god, identified with the Hebrew God of the Old Testament. He taught that many of the teachings of Christ are incompatible with the actions of the God of the Old Testament. He completely rejected all of the Old Testament. While later Catholic Church fathers refuted him, his original teaching still permeates the Christian/Evangelical world today, in that the God of the Old Testament is a different God than the God of the New Testament, or that how God operated in the Old Testament changed into how He operates in the New Testament. (I used to believe that) The Catholic Church used to teach that all Jews were cursed and bound for hell. That the Jews practiced black magic, sacrificed, and ate children. That every Jew was the enemy of God and in league with satan.
But, despite Maricon's heresy, the idea of keeping the Testaments apart, with the Old Testament having very little to do with New Testament theology and turning the New Testament into a vehicle for only Gentile faith while excluding any taint of Jewishness, was kept alive. They did not want any teaching of the Old Testament, especially about how God operated, that He killed, sought vengeance, punished for disobedience, and especially that God caused sickness, disease, and mental illness, to be connected in any way to the New Testament. Because the New Testament God is all about love, mercy, grace, and kindness, right? The Catholic Church couldn't find a way to explain sickness, disease, mental illness, or destructive weather outside of God's sovereignty. Until Augustine created the idea of "demons!" The Catholic Church couldn't blame everything on the devil since he was only one individual. But an army of demons under his control? Well, that works! That will fly! Instead of the Scripture teaching, all these things could be attributed to the "demons!"
Most people aren't aware that the most influential leaders of the Reformation were originally Catholics. Martin Luther and others did not set out to start the Protestant church. They only wanted to reform the Catholic Church, not split from it. Much Catholic dogma is still being taught in "Protestant" church buildings.

So why is it when we look words up in Strong's Concordance or Thayer's Greek Lexicon that we see definitions that seem to support the idea of "demons?" Because these two authors bought into the idea and belief of "demons" and had to fit the beliefs into their reference works. Thayer's Lexicon came out in 1841, and Strong's Concordance in 1890. Now both of these gentlemen were expert linguists in biblical Greek. They knew what "daimon" meant! They knew the word didn't mean "demon."
If we look up daimon in Strong's, number 1142, here is what you read: from daio (to distribute fortunes); a demon or supernatural spirit (of a bad nature)-devil.

First, notice the root word daio means to distribute fortunes. When do you ever hear of "demons" distributing fortunes? Do you notice that the word demon is spelled in italics? When something is spelled in italics, it means that the word is not in the original text or is not the meaning! You will find this practice in some translations. While this practice is often helpful, in this case, Strong desired that people believe that this word means "demon!" Daimon does not, nor ever has meant demon! Strong knew this! Yet, because he believed in "demons," he wanted Scripture to show that there are "demons!" If Strong didn't believe in "demons," he would never have included this in his definition! You can also notice that Strong doesn't define the word as "a deity" here, which is also dishonest!
We have seen that to the pagans, a daimon/daemon could be either a good or a bad spirit. Yet, Strong doesn't use this as part of his definition. He puts in parentheses (of a bad nature), ignoring the complete definition of the word daimon! Anytime you see something in parentheses, it is a writer including his own information, or in this case, should I say propaganda? What daimon meant was well known in Strong's day. This was intentional on Strong's part!

Now, if we look at Thayer's definition of daimon, we read 1. a god or goddess. 1a an inferior deity, whether good or bad. 2. in the NT, an evil spirit. Origin: from daio (to distribute fortunes)

Here Thayer gets it right. He defines a daimon as a god or goddess, an inferior deity. By that, he means that some believed that daimons were supernatural beings not as powerful as gods but superior to humans, used as messengers to deliver a gods/goddess's word to a human or to fulfill the will/action a deity wanted to have done to a human. He doesn't use the word demon.

Then we have the word "daimonion."

Strong's number 1140: Neuter of a derivative of "daimon"; a daemonic being; by extension a deity: -devil, god.

First, he uses the word "neuter," which is helpful for this study. Neuter means neither masculine or feminine. Every time the word "angel," describing a supernatural being, is used in Scripture, it is ALWAYS MASCULINE! Old Testament or New! This means that even if a "fallen angel" turned into a "demon," it would still be described in the masculine tense! Then we see daemonic being in italics! Not a definition, something Strong put in there to promote "demons!" You might read "daemonic being," but in your brain this becomes "demonic being." Strong says, "by extension a deity." That's incorrect! It is defined as a deity. Notice, he spells deity in italics! Why? to mislead people.

Thayer's. daimonion: 1. the divine power, deity, divinity.
2. a spirit, a being inferior to God, superior to men.
3. evil spirits or the messengers and ministers of the devil.

Demons are "the divine power?" The divine power describes God, not any angel or demon! In definition number 2, he completely changes the proper meaning of a being inferior to the gods/goddesses to be restricted to being inferior to God alone! In definition 3, Thayer changes the pagan concept of good or evil spirits who are the messengers of the gods/goddesses into being evil only and being the messengers of the devil. The pagans never believed that daimons were the messengers of any devil. He also adds the Scripture word "ministers" to the definition. Again, another lie added to promote the false teaching of "demons."

Then we have the word "daimoniodes," only used one time in James 3:15.

Strong's number 1141: daemon-like:-devilish.
Sigh, another trick, all the words in italics.

Thayer's: resembling or proceeding from an evil spirit, demon-like.
Once again, ignoring the good or evil description. Here Thayer uses the word "demon."

Finally, we have the word daimonizomai.

Strong's: Middle voice from 1142; to be exercised by a daemon: -have a (be vexed with, be possessed with) devil (s).

Thayer's: to be under the power of a demon.

While I wish I were an expert on Konie Greek, I do have access to tools. I am positive that some of these words were made up and forced into the text. What is excellent about any smartphone is you can bring up a translation tool. I brought up English to Biblical Greek and did some translating.

I entered demon and daimonas came up. Close enough.

They say daimonizomai means "to be exercised by a demon." This comes out on my phone: "askeitai apo daimona." Not even close! Or it means "possessed with devils," the phone says, "kyrievmenos apo diavolos."

Or they say the word means "to be demonized." The phone reads: "na daimonopoiithei." It's not the same. is it?

They say damonion means "demonic being." The phone reads: "daimoniko on."

They say "daimoniodes" means "demon-like." I typed in demon-like and received: "daimonas san." Or the word means "devilish," The phone says "diavolikos."

I typed in "evil spirit" and was shown "kakos pneuma."
I typed in "unclean spirit" and was shown "akathartos pneuma."

We don't see any linguistic connection between "evil spirit" and "unclean spirit" in the original text. So, if "evil" or "unclean" spirits are not daimon, what are they? If "demons" are fallen angels, then where did evil spirits and unclean spirits come from? We have no record of God creating evil or unclean spirits. Or could it be just another Jewish way of describing a person with sickness, disease, or mental disorder?

Well, that is my two cents. I have posted the result of much study based on honest study, research, and a search for truth. As always, I don't expect anyone to believe what I say just because I say it. But you can't ignore that I have studied this subject. If anyone has read all four posts and still believes what the pastors say, more power to ya! I don't control what people choose to believe.

 

[David Kent]

It is important to remember that words have meaning; it is only from knowing the meaning of words that we can understand what is being communicated. It is also important to remember that culture determines word meanings. One of the big snags to correctly understanding the New Testament is forgetting that the Jewish culture in place during the time of Jesus is a Jewish culture, not our culture. That culture is as different from our culture as the ancient Japanese culture is from our culture today. Anybody familiar with ancient Japan knows how different that culture was compared to our culture today. No one would say or believe that the two cultures are identical, similar, or even have a close comparison.
Not only was ancient Japanese culture different, but their language was very different. They believed in different things, living and acting within their system of mythology and where nobility ruled. How they viewed people and considered who had value was different. Their perception of the world was different. Their way of thinking was other. Their worldview was different, etc. When a professor in college is going to teach a course on ancient Japan to students, would that professor teach their culture from the viewpoint of our culture? Of course not. The students wouldn't learn about true ancient Japan; they would learn an American view of ancient Japan.
Some today have studied ancient Japan and can explain it to the rest of us. What prompted these people to want to study ancient Japan? A burning desire to study, learn and know the subject. Did they begin their study with an attitude of, "Well, I just need to read some English books, what others have written, and that will make me an expert on the subject?" Of course not. They will read many books and articles on the topic. There is much to learn about ancient Japan. To effectively learn about a different, ancient culture, one must research five significant areas: history, culture, language, society, and religion. Their history, culture, language, society, and religion. They do not go in with the attitude of, "Well, I just need to compare it with our world and make it fit into our world."
The last sentence explains precisely how the bible is taught today. As if everything about the Jewish people in that day is a mirror image of our own. We have to go back into the culture and language of the Jewish people rather than bringing the Jewish culture into our world. While our faith and what we believe comes straight from Scripture, it is from Scripture written thousands of years ago. We must learn what Scripture teaches against the backdrop of when and where these things were taught. What the Gentile sheep believe and practice didn't start after Jesus ascended. It goes back to when God created the heavens and earth. Our English versions are not the source of Scripture. The Jewish people didn't learn from Gentiles. Gentiles did not write Scripture. The prophets were Jewish, not Gentiles. The Apostles were Jewish, not Gentile. All of Scripture is Jewish, not Gentile! Scripture must be understood from a Jewish mindset!

As I have pointed out, the concept of what we believe a "demon" is did not exist among the Jewish people. They didn't believe that "fallen angels" had transformed into "demons." They didn't call the angels that rebelled "fallen angels." None of the pagan cultures around the Jews, or the pagan cultures which had influenced the Jewish people, had any concept of our "demon." So, the idea of our "demons" does not come from Scripture or antiquity! It is a creation of a Gentile, Agustine of Hippo, in the fourth century! In the original texts, we find the Greek word "daimon" and the forms of the word. The word is also spelled daemon by others. It is easy to see where the word demon comes from. No one is exactly sure when the English word "demon" first appeared. I have seen a range from 800 AD to the 1200s. It is interesting to note that it wasn't until 1833 that a bible translation used the word "demon" That version was done by Noah Webster, the creator of Webster's dictionary. How many of you use Webster's version of the Bible or even know one existed?

If you can tolerate another quote about the word "demon," this one from Craig Stephenson, from the Encyclopedia of Psychology and Religion, pp 218-220
"The Middle English word "demon" derives from the medieval Latin demon and the Latin daemon, from the Greek daimon, meaning "deity," that is to say, A GOD OR GODDESS. Inherent etymologically and historically in the English word is an AMBIGUOUS MIXING of the ANCIENT NOTION OF SPIRITUAL BEINGS IN ADDITION TO GODS AND GODDESSES, NOT NECESSARILY EVIL, with the postexilic (the period of history between the end of the exile in Babylon in 538 B.C. and the 1st Century A.D.) Hebrew thought of harmful spiritual entities, the PERSIAN NOTION OF CONFLICT between light (Ahura Mazda) and dark (Angra Mainyu) forces...The contemporary use of the English word "demon" is mostly SKEWED NEGATIVELY to suggest one of an army of negative entities under the leadership of the devil or Satan."

A DAIMON IS NOT A DEMON! The word daimon/daemon should never be translated into "demon!" A daimon is different than a demon! They are not the same type of creature! The word daimon was used in Greek texts, not the English word demon! The concept of a "demon" did not exist in the 1st century! Did you notice that the word daimon means deity? A deity is a god or goddess. Jehovah is a deity. Are fallen angels' deities? Are demons defined as deities? NO!

There is no doubt that the idea of demons caught on quickly. Starting in 144 AD, with an early Catholic Church father, Marcion of Sinope, a movement to separate the Old Testament began, the idea being that the Old Testament was for the Jews, mainly a history and that the New Testament was for the Gentiles. Maricon preached that the benevolent God of the Gospel who sent Jesus Christ into the world as the savior was the true Supreme Being, different and opposed to the malevolent Demiurge or creator god, identified with the Hebrew God of the Old Testament. He taught that many of the teachings of Christ are incompatible with the actions of the God of the Old Testament. He completely rejected all of the Old Testament. While later Catholic Church fathers refuted him, his original teaching still permeates the Christian/Evangelical world today, in that the God of the Old Testament is a different God than the God of the New Testament, or that how God operated in the Old Testament changed into how He operates in the New Testament. (I used to believe that) The Catholic Church used to teach that all Jews were cursed and bound for hell. That the Jews practiced black magic, sacrificed, and ate children. That every Jew was the enemy of God and in league with satan.
But, despite Maricon's heresy, the idea of keeping the Testaments apart, with the Old Testament having very little to do with New Testament theology and turning the New Testament into a vehicle for only Gentile faith while excluding any taint of Jewishness, was kept alive. They did not want any teaching of the Old Testament, especially about how God operated, that He killed, sought vengeance, punished for disobedience, and especially that God caused sickness, disease, and mental illness, to be connected in any way to the New Testament. Because the New Testament God is all about love, mercy, grace, and kindness, right? The Catholic Church couldn't find a way to explain sickness, disease, mental illness, or destructive weather outside of God's sovereignty. Until Augustine created the idea of "demons!" The Catholic Church couldn't blame everything on the devil since he was only one individual. But an army of demons under his control? Well, that works! That will fly! Instead of the Scripture teaching, all these things could be attributed to the "demons!"
Most people aren't aware that the most influential leaders of the Reformation were originally Catholics. Martin Luther and others did not set out to start the Protestant church. They only wanted to reform the Catholic Church, not split from it. Much Catholic dogma is still being taught in "Protestant" church buildings.

So why is it when we look words up in Strong's Concordance or Thayer's Greek Lexicon that we see definitions that seem to support the idea of "demons?" Because these two authors bought into the idea and belief of "demons" and had to fit the beliefs into their reference works. Thayer's Lexicon came out in 1841, and Strong's Concordance in 1890. Now both of these gentlemen were expert linguists in biblical Greek. They knew what "daimon" meant! They knew the word didn't mean "demon."
If we look up daimon in Strong's, number 1142, here is what you read: from daio (to distribute fortunes); a demon or supernatural spirit (of a bad nature)-devil.

First, notice the root word daio means to distribute fortunes. When do you ever hear of "demons" distributing fortunes? Do you notice that the word demon is spelled in italics? When something is spelled in italics, it means that the word is not in the original text or is not the meaning! You will find this practice in some translations. While this practice is often helpful, in this case, Strong desired that people believe that this word means "demon!" Daimon does not, nor ever has meant demon! Strong knew this! Yet, because he believed in "demons," he wanted Scripture to show that there are "demons!" If Strong didn't believe in "demons," he would never have included this in his definition! You can also notice that Strong doesn't define the word as "a deity" here, which is also dishonest!
We have seen that to the pagans, a daimon/daemon could be either a good or a bad spirit. Yet, Strong doesn't use this as part of his definition. He puts in parentheses (of a bad nature), ignoring the complete definition of the word daimon! Anytime you see something in parentheses, it is a writer including his own information, or in this case, should I say propaganda? What daimon meant was well known in Strong's day. This was intentional on Strong's part!

Now, if we look at Thayer's definition of daimon, we read 1. a god or goddess. 1a an inferior deity, whether good or bad. 2. in the NT, an evil spirit. Origin: from daio (to distribute fortunes)

Here Thayer gets it right. He defines a daimon as a god or goddess, an inferior deity. By that, he means that some believed that daimons were supernatural beings not as powerful as gods but superior to humans, used as messengers to deliver a gods/goddess's word to a human or to fulfill the will/action a deity wanted to have done to a human. He doesn't use the word demon.

Then we have the word "daimonion."

Strong's number 1140: Neuter of a derivative of "daimon"; a daemonic being; by extension a deity: -devil, god.

First, he uses the word "neuter," which is helpful for this study. Neuter means neither masculine or feminine. Every time the word "angel," describing a supernatural being, is used in Scripture, it is ALWAYS MASCULINE! Old Testament or New! This means that even if a "fallen angel" turned into a "demon," it would still be described in the masculine tense! Then we see daemonic being in italics! Not a definition, something Strong put in there to promote "demons!" You might read "daemonic being," but in your brain this becomes "demonic being." Strong says, "by extension a deity." That's incorrect! It is defined as a deity. Notice, he spells deity in italics! Why? to mislead people.

Thayer's. daimonion: 1. the divine power, deity, divinity.
2. a spirit, a being inferior to God, superior to men.
3. evil spirits or the messengers and ministers of the devil.

Demons are "the divine power?" The divine power describes God, not any angel or demon! In definition number 2, he completely changes the proper meaning of a being inferior to the gods/goddesses to be restricted to being inferior to God alone! In definition 3, Thayer changes the pagan concept of good or evil spirits who are the messengers of the gods/goddesses into being evil only and being the messengers of the devil. The pagans never believed that daimons were the messengers of any devil. He also adds the Scripture word "ministers" to the definition. Again, another lie added to promote the false teaching of "demons."

Then we have the word "daimoniodes," only used one time in James 3:15.

Strong's number 1141: daemon-like:-devilish.
Sigh, another trick, all the words in italics.

Thayer's: resembling or proceeding from an evil spirit, demon-like.
Once again, ignoring the good or evil description. Here Thayer uses the word "demon."

Finally, we have the word daimonizomai.

Strong's: Middle voice from 1142; to be exercised by a daemon: -have a (be vexed with, be possessed with) devil (s).

Thayer's: to be under the power of a demon.

While I wish I were an expert on Konie Greek, I do have access to tools. I am positive that some of these words were made up and forced into the text. What is excellent about any smartphone is you can bring up a translation tool. I brought up English to Biblical Greek and did some translating.

I entered demon and daimonas came up. Close enough.

They say daimonizomai means "to be exercised by a demon." This comes out on my phone: "askeitai apo daimona." Not even close! Or it means "possessed with devils," the phone says, "kyrievmenos apo diavolos."

Or they say the word means "to be demonized." The phone reads: "na daimonopoiithei." It's not the same. is it?

They say damonion means "demonic being." The phone reads: "daimoniko on."

They say "daimoniodes" means "demon-like." I typed in demon-like and received: "daimonas san." Or the word means "devilish," The phone says "diavolikos."

I typed in "evil spirit" and was shown "kakos pneuma."
I typed in "unclean spirit" and was shown "akathartos pneuma."

We don't see any linguistic connection between "evil spirit" and "unclean spirit" in the original text. So, if "evil" or "unclean" spirits are not daimon, what are they? If "demons" are fallen angels, then where did evil spirits and unclean spirits come from? We have no record of God creating evil or unclean spirits. Or could it be just another Jewish way of describing a person with sickness, disease, or mental disorder?

Well, that is my two cents. I have posted the result of much study based on honest study, research, and a search for truth. As always, I don't expect anyone to believe what I say just because I say it. But you can't ignore that I have studied this subject. If anyone has read all four posts and still believes what the pastors say, more power to ya! I don't control what people choose to believe.

Two cents? More like a fist full of dollars.

 

[Der Alte]

It is important to remember that words have meaning; it is only from knowing the meaning of words that we can understand what is being communicated. It is also important to remember that culture determines word meanings. One of the big snags to correctly understanding the New Testament is forgetting that the Jewish culture in place during the time of Jesus is a Jewish culture, not our culture. That culture is as different from our culture as the ancient Japanese culture is from our culture today. Anybody familiar with ancient Japan knows how different that culture was compared to our culture today. No one would say or believe that the two cultures are identical, similar, or even have a close comparison.
***
A DAIMON IS NOT A DEMON! The word daimon/daemon should never be translated into "demon!" A daimon is different than a demon! They are not the same type of creature! The word daimon was used in Greek texts, not the English word demon! The concept of a "demon" did not exist in the 1st century! Did you notice that the word daimon means deity? A deity is a god or goddess. Jehovah is a deity. Are fallen angels' deities? Are demons defined as deities? NO!

If we look up daimon in Strong's, number 1142, here is what you read: from daio (to distribute fortunes); a demon or supernatural spirit (of a bad nature)-devil.

***
Now, if we look at Thayer's definition of daimon, we read 1. a god or goddess. 1a an inferior deity, whether good or bad. 2. in the NT, an evil spirit. Origin: from daio (to distribute fortunes)
***
Then we have the word "daimonion."
Strong's number 1140: Neuter of a derivative of "daimon"; a daemonic being; by extension a deity: -devil, god.
***
Thayer's. daimonion: 1. the divine power, deity, divinity.
2. a spirit, a being inferior to God, superior to men.
3. evil spirits or the messengers and ministers of the devil.
***
Then we have the word "daimoniodes," only used one time in James 3:15.
Strong's number 1141: daemon-like:-devilish.
Sigh, another trick, all the words in italics.
Thayer's: resembling or proceeding from an evil spirit, demon-like.
Once again, ignoring the good or evil description. Here Thayer uses the word "demon."
Finally, we have the word daimonizomai.
***

δαιμόνιον, ου, τό (substant. neut. of the adj. δαιμόνιος [s. 2 below δαιμόνιον πνεῦμα], quotable since Homer; OGI 383, 175; Herm. Wr. 10, 19; Ps.-Phoc. 101; En 19:1; TestSol; GrBar 16:3; Philo; Jos., Bell. 1, 373; 6, 429) in Gk. lit. the δαιμον-family refers in general to powerful entities that transcend ordinary experience. After Homer’s time, the adj. δαιμόνιος means anything ‘sent from heaven’ or ‘that which is divine’ and the subst. τὸ δ. comes to mean ‘divine manifestation’ or ‘heaven’, as in our expression ‘what heaven decrees’ (Hdt. 5, 87, 2; cp. SIG 601, 15; Jos., Bell. 1, 69); or simply ‘the divine’ (Eur., Bacch. 894); cp. SIG 545, 14 (of religious piety). In our lit. the subst. gener. denotes a malevolent force.
① transcendent incorporeal being w. status between humans and deities, daemon (as distinguished from demon, which in Eng. gener. connotes inimical aspect), semi-divine being, a divinity, spirit, (higher) power, without neg. connotation. The subst. was freq. used by Hellenes in a gener. sense esp. of independent numinous beings or divinities, as distinguished from a more personalized θεός, e.g. nymphs, Panes, and Sileni (Pla., Symp. 23 p. 202e πᾶν τὸ δαιμόνιον μεταξύ ἐστι θεοῦ τε καὶ θνητοῦ=‘every δ. is between a god and a mortal’; cp. Philo, Mos. 1, 276; UPZ 144, 43; 50 [164 B.C.]; Vett. Val. 355, 15; Ps.-Lucian, Asinus 24 p. 592 οὐδὲ τὰ δ. δέδοικας; ‘aren’t you afraid of the spirits [powers]?’ The term is common in adjurations, e.g., δαιμόνιον πνεῦμα, w. ref. to the spirit of the departed as possessing extraordinary powers: lead tablet fr. Hadrumetum [Dssm., B 26, 35 (BS 271ff)]; PGM 4, 3038; 3065; 3075). ξένων δ. καταγγελεύς a preacher of strange divinities Ac 17:18 (cp. Pla., Apol. 26b; X., Mem. 1, 1, 1 καινὰ δαιμόνια εἰσφέρειν).
② a hostile transcendent being w. status between humans and deities, spirit, power, hostile divinity, evil spirit, the neg. component may be either specific or contextual, and w. the sense commonly associated w. the loanword ‘demon’ (δ. φαῦλα: Chrysipp. [Stoic. II 338, 32, no. 1178]; Plut., Mor. 1051c. φαῦλ. δ.: Plut., Mor. 277a, Dio 2, 5. Vett. Val. 67, 5; 99, 7. Herm. Wr. 9, 3; PGM 4, 3081; 5, 120; 165; 170; LXX; En 19:1). Beings of this type are said to enter into persons and cause illness, esp. of the mental variety (GrBar 16:3 ἐν μαχαίρᾳ … ἐν δαιμονίοις as punishment; Jos., Bell. 7, 185 [of the spirits of deceased wicked people], Ant. 6, 166ff; 211; 214; 8, 45ff): δ. εἰσέρχεται εἴς τινα Lk 8:30; δ. ἔχειν Mt 11:18; Lk 7:33; 8:27; J 7:20; 8:48f, 52; 10:20. ἔχων πνεῦμα δαιμονίου ἀκαθάρτου who was under the control of an unclean power Lk 4:33. ῥῖψαν αὐτὸν τὸ δ. vs. 35; cp. ἔρρηξεν 9:42. Hence the healing of a sick person is described as the driving out of malignant forces ἐκβάλλειν (τ.) δ. (Jos., Ant. 6, 211) Mt 7:22; 9:34; 10:8; 12:24, 27f; Mk 1:34, 39; 3:15, 22; 6:13; 7:26; 9:38; 16:9, 17; Lk 9:49; 11:14f, 18ff; 13:32. Pass. Mt 9:33. ἐξουσίαν ἐπὶ πάντα τὰ δ. Lk 9:1. τὰ δʼ ὑποτάσσεται ἡμῖν 10:17. ἐξέρχεται τὸ δ. (s. ἐξέρχομαι 1aβב.—Thrasyllus [I A.D.] in Ps.-Plut., Fluv. 16, 2 ἀπέρχεται τὸ δαιμόνιον) Mt 17:18; Mk 7:29f; Lk 4:41; 8:2, 33, 35, 38. Some live in deserted places 8:29, hence a ruined city is a habitation of (malevolent) powers Rv 18:2 (cp. Is 13:21; 34:11, 14; Bar 4:35). Their ruler is βεελζεβούλ (q.v.) Mt 12:24, 27; Lk 11:15, 18f. Erroneous instruction is διδασκαλίαι δαιμονίων (subj. gen.) 1 Ti 4:1. The ability of such beings to work miracles is variously described J 10:21 and Rv 16:14. They are objects of polytheistic worship 9:20 (Dt 32:17; Bar 4:7; cp. Ps 95:5; 105:37; En 19:1; 99:7; Just., Tat.; SibOr Fgm. 1, 22. Likew. among Persians and Babylonians: Cumont3 305, 97) 1 Cor 10:20f (w. satirical reference to the secondary status of these members of the spirit-world relative to deity); B 16:7. On Js 2:19 s. φρίσσω.—Of the evil spirit of slander Hm 2:3; of vengeance Hs 9, 23, 5; of arrogance Hs 9, 22, 3.—The δ. can appear without a tangible body, and then acts as a phantom or ghost ISm 3:2.—JGeffcken, Zwei griech. Apologeten 1907, 216ff; JTambornino, De Antiquorum Daemonismo 1909; RWünsch, D. Geisterbannung im Altertum: Festschr. Univ. Breslau 1911, 9–32; WBousset, Z. Dämonologie d. späteren Antike: ARW 18, 1915, 134–72; FAndres, Daimon: Pauly-W. Suppl. III 1918, 267–322; MPohlenz, Stoa ’49 (index).—HDuhm, D. bösen Geister im AT 1904; GBarton, EncRelEth IV 1911, 594–601; AJirku, Die Dämonen u. ihre Abwehr im AT 1912; ALods, Marti Festschr. 1925, 181–93; HKaupel, D. Dämonen im AT 1930; Bousset, Rel.3 1926, 331ff; Billerb. IV 1928, 501–35; TCanaan, M.D., Dämonenglaube im Lande der Bibel 1929 1–20.—WAlexander, Demonic Possession in the NT 1902; JSmit, De Daemonicis in Hist. Evang. 1913; RBultmann, Gesch. d. Syn. Tradition2 ’31, 223ff; HEberlein, NKZ 42, ’31, 499–509; 562–72; FFenner, D. Krankheit im NT 1930; ATitius, NBonwetsch Festschr. 1918, 25–47; GSulzer, D. Besessenheitsheilungen Jesu 1921; HSeng, D. Heilungen Jesu in med. Beleuchtung2 1926; WWrede, Z. Messiaserkenntnis d. Dämonen bei Mk: ZNW 5, 1904, 169–77; OBauernfeind, D. Worte d. Dämonen im Mk-Ev. 1928; AFridrichsen, Theology 21, ’31, 122–35; SMcCasland, By the Finger of God ’51; SEitrem, Some Notes on the Demonology in the NT: SymbOsl, Suppl. 12, ’50, 1–60; JKallas, The Satanward View (Paul), ’66; GTillesse, Le Secret Messianique dans Mk, ’68, 75–111; RAC IX 546–797; RMacMullen, VigChr 37, ’83, 174–92; G. Francois, Le polythéisme et l’emploi au singulier des mots ΘΕΟΣ ΔΑΙΜΩΝ ’57 (lit.); GRiley, Demon: DDD 445–55. S. also the lit. s.v. ἄγγελος.—B. 1488. DELG s.v. δαίμων. M-M. TW.
William Arndt et al., A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000), 210.
Blue highlights indicate the sources the scholars consulted to determine the correct definition.