When Was Satan's Fall (continued)

[Paleouss]

Greetings @searchingtruths . Peace and Hope to you brother in our Lord Jesus Christ.

You had written in the previous thread, "all is still interpretations of what any interpreter interprets"

It seems to me that we, meaning Protestant Christians in general and Baptists specifically (since this is a Baptist board), have become lax in what is acceptable as "interpretation". We, imho, have wondered a little to far in our acceptance of what is reasonable "interpretation". Particularly regarding our topic, the fall of Satan (and its subsequent theological ramifications).

Logical Limits of "interpretation" for theological doctrine
A. Interpretation cannot contradict foundation concepts: Most everyone agree here.
B. Interpretation cannot alter the authors core grammatical meaning: One doesn't get to interpret words to mean what one wants (or what one feels like one has been inspired to think they mean). You have to know (1) the meaning, how is was used and understood, of the word in the original text, (2) the meaning of the word it has been translated into when it was translated (referring to the KJV and Old English problem here), (3) and the intended us of the word within context. This can be done by study of the source text AND a Scripture-interprets-Scripture method.

The Gap-theory you presented violates (B) frequently. Further it violates (A), the foundational concept of how the author intended Genesis 1:1-31 and how the Hebrews understood Genesis 1:1-31. The Gap-theory literally contradicts the original understanding of the text. The Gap-Theory isn't an alternative Original Fall View. It's a complete rewriting, a contradiction of the Original View and the texts meaning and violates the natural reading of the text to suggest "secret data".

I'll stop here on that topic.

Here are some irrefutable facts.
1. The ancient Hebrew and Patristic view of Genesis 1:1 "heavens and earth" is a creation of both the spiritual and physical realm.
2. The ancient Hebrew and Patristic view of Genesis 1:2 is that God's creation was at that point va-bohu, meaning disorganized and lacking order (No, the biblical text isn't suggesting that everything was created AND ordered in Genesis 1:1. It was never understood that way).
3. The Hebrew and Patristic view was that God then starts to organize it, bring order to it. The Hebrew and Patristic view was that the whole Genesis story, Gen 1:1-31,2:1 is God bringing order to His creation.
4. The ancient Hebrew and Patristic view understood that after organizing all creation by Gen 1:31, everything had order and was "very good". The point of the story is God created all things and brings order and life to all things.
5. After explicitly telling us in Genesis 1:31 and 2:1 that God's creation is now ordered and free from its initial disorder. Sin is now introduced into the biblical narrative, the story, in Genesis chapter 3. The story of Genesis 3 depicts a unified in-concert fall of all three of the characters at the same time. It uses descriptive language to describe Satan's only recorded fall with a first and only recorded curse (crawling on the belly and eating dust is an ancient poetic idiom for total defeat, absolute subjugation, and deep disgrace).

#5 is the biggest hurdle, let alone the other points, for anyone who wants to speculate on the fall of Satan. Genesis 3 is literally the story of "the fall". Three characters falling in-concert for the first time.


Peace to you brother

 

[Ascetic X]

The Gap-theory you presented violates (B) frequently. Further it violates (A), the foundational concept of how the author intended Genesis 1:1-31 and how the Hebrews understood Genesis 1:1-31. The Gap-theory literally contradicts the original understanding of the text. The Gap-Theory isn't an alternative Original Fall View. It's a complete rewriting, a contradiction of the Original View and the texts meaning and violates the natural reading of the text to suggest "secret data".

I'll stop here on that topic.

Here are some irrefutable facts.
1. The ancient Hebrew and Patristic view of Genesis 1:1 "heavens and earth" is a creation of both the spiritual and physical realm.
2. The ancient Hebrew and Patristic view of Genesis 1:2 is that God's creation was at that point va-bohu, meaning disorganized and lacking order (No, the biblical text isn't suggesting that everything was created AND ordered in Genesis 1:1. It was never understood that way).
3. The Hebrew and Patristic view was that God then starts to organize it, bring order to it. The Hebrew and Patristic view was that the whole Genesis story, Gen 1:1-31,2:1 is God bringing order to His creation.
4. The ancient Hebrew and Patristic view understood that after organizing all creation by Gen 1:31, everything had order and was "very good". The point of the story is God created all things and brings order and life to all things.
5. After explicitly telling us in Genesis 1:31 and 2:1 that God's creation is now ordered and free from its initial disorder. Sin is now introduced into the biblical narrative, the story, in Genesis chapter 3. The story of Genesis 3 depicts a unified in-concert fall of all three of the characters at the same time. It uses descriptive language to describe Satan's only recorded fall with a first and only recorded curse (crawling on the belly and eating dust is an ancient poetic idiom for total defeat, absolute subjugation, and deep disgrace).

“Free from its initial disorder”?

Did God create the universe as a huge mess that needed to be organized?

I Corinthians 14:33 “For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.”

Genesis 1:2 “And the earth was (became) without form…”

Hayah, the Hebrew word translated as "was" in most modern Bibles, but which can also mean "to become" or "come to pass" in specific contextual usages.

• Isaiah 45:18 records, "He created it not in vain [tohu], He formed it to be inhabited".
• Meaning of tohu: The Hebrew word means "formlessness," "chaos," "emptiness," or "waste".

Now some interpreters believe the earth became formless and void later, after the initial creation of the heavens and earth. They suggest a great cataclysm—such as the fall of Satan—destroyed an original, organized, perfect creation, and the six days of Genesis describe a restoration or re-creation. Opinions on this alternate translation differ widely among biblical scholars.

Genesis 3 says nothing about the fall of Satan, falling from heaven. It depicts an already fallen Satan, who tempts and deceives Adam and Eve.

 

[Paleouss]

Greetings to you @Ascetic X. Peace and hope to you, brother, in our Lord Jesus Christ.

“Free from its initial disorder”?

Did God create the universe as a huge mess that needed to be organized?

Well, your loaded question aside (the "huge mess" comment), yes, the ancient Hebrew understanding, and lesson, of Genesis 1 was that Genesis 1:2 described an initial state of creation as being disorganized (Gen 1:2) and it is God who brings order and meaning to His creation.

John H. Walton -- "The Hebrew words tohu and bohu... do not describe nonexistence, but rather a lack of order, purpose, and functionality. To the ancient mind, cosmic creation was not about bringing physical material into existence out of nothing, but about bringing order out of a disordered, chaotic, and non-functional state."
John H. Walton The Lost World of Genesis One: Ancient Cosmology and the Origins Debate (IVP Academic, 2009)

Your suggested counter verse is just the evidence that is needed to make my point. The Genesis 1 story is ONE story. It's not one story with hidden data. Its lesson, according to the ancient Hebrews, was that God is the author of order and life (which is shown throughout the Genesis 1:1-31 story and supported by the verse you presented).

Genesis 1:2 “And the earth was (became) without form…”

The meaning of the story of Genesis 1 and the meaning of the Hebrew tohu va-bohu in Genesis 1:2 is not how you are presenting it (i.e., "became"). The text pairs tohu and va-bohu together, btw.

What you are presenting contradicts the original understanding held for centuries and was created (yes created) around 1814. This throwing away of the original meaning was done specifically to support the Gap-Theory. It is a complete contradiction to the original view of the Hebrew people. Therefore, this new understanding cannot be said to be "progressive revelation".

This sudden shift in interpretation was not due to any Hebrew linguistic discoveries. What I mean by that is that the Gap-Theory isn't making a linguistic argument for "became" they are making a logical augmented for "became". This "became" started for the sole purpose of supporting a modern scientific frame that the earth is millions of years old.

Thomas Chalmers proposed the "became" translation specifically to harmonize the Bible with geological time presuppositions of billions of years. For the sake of this thread, the age of the earth doesn't matter at all. At least not for me. Inferring scientific presuppositions and frames onto the text only lead to error. The text needs to speak for itself and not have our theologies and philosophies forced upon it.

Hayah, the Hebrew word translated as "was" in most modern Bibles, but which can also mean "to become" or "come to pass" in specific contextual usages.

• Isaiah 45:18 records, "He created it not in vain [tohu], He formed it to be inhabited".
• Meaning of tohu: The Hebrew word means "formlessness," "chaos," "emptiness," or "waste".

Two points here.
1. Even in your presentation you write "in specific contextual usages". Then you go and suggest that tohu means "to become" without a specific contextual usage in Genesis 1:2.

In more other words, the context in Genesis 1:2 does not suggest your "became" while the context of your support verse (Isaiah 45:18) might suggest your "became". This is the same error the Gap-Theory uses when claiming that "darkness" means evil in the Genesis 1 story, i.e., using definitions of words even when specific contextual usage is absent just because there are specific contextual uses in other verses of the Bible. Darkness is used in the Bible as a creation and God's rest...not just evil.

And how, or why, does the Isaiah 45:18 verse suggest "became" contextually? When Isaiah 45:18 says God did not create the earth to be tohu, the context doesn't stop there. It says, God did not create the earth to be tohu and then pairs tohu directly as the opposite of "inhabited". In other words, it is saying God did not create the earth to be uninhabited. So tohu in context means "empty". God did not create the earth to be void of life. Not at all what the Gap-Theory wants to take to Genesis 1:2.

Side Note: I have a complaint about translators saying tohu means "waste". It's usually based on Jeremiah 4:23 as "evidence that tohu inherently means waste" which completely violates the mechanics of the Hebrew language. But I won't debate that here.

Now some interpreters believe the earth became formless and void later, after the initial creation of the heavens and earth. They suggest a great cataclysm—such as the fall of Satan—destroyed an original, organized, perfect creation, and the six days of Genesis describe a restoration or re-creation. Opinions on this alternate translation differ widely among biblical scholars.

Again, first introduced around 1814 to support the Gap-Theory. A modern scientific frame of an old earth looking for verses to support it.

The original Hebrew understanding of Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:31 dictates that this theory should not even get off the ground, i.e., it's false. The only way the Gap theory can survive is to ignore the Hebrew understanding of Genesis 1 and create a whole new frame...which the Gap-Theory did.

Genesis 3 says nothing about the fall of Satan, falling from heaven. It depicts an already fallen Satan, who tempts and deceives Adam and Eve.

I'll give my augment that Genesis 3 presents the first sinful act of Satan so you can critique it...and you give your evidence that "It depicts an already fallen Satan" and I'll critique it.

Genesis 3, Satan's first sinful act.
1. In order of presentation, meaning when reading the Bible from front to back, Genesis 3 is the first sinful act of Satan given in the biblical text.
2. The Genesis 3 story depicts the three characters as falling in-concert with one another. It does not say that anyone had previously fallen prior to the story. This is supported by the fact that each is given a first ever recorded curse for what happened in the garden.
3. Genesis 3:14 is the first and only curse recorded within the biblical text of Satan. It uses descriptive language to describe Satan's first fall (crawling on the belly and eating dust is an ancient Hebrew poetic idiom for total defeat, absolute subjugation, and deep disgrace). His first disgrace because one doesn't lose face unless one has not lost face before.
4. The ancient Hebrew understanding of Genesis 1:1 is that God created the spiritual realms both spiritual and physical and that God started ordering His creation from its initial state of tohu va-bohu (Gen 1:2).
5. The ancient Hebrew understanding of Genesis 1:31 is that God was now done ordering his initial creation and God was well pleased with all of it. No disorder, chaos, or evil unless God is the author of them.

Genesis 3 most certainly shows the first fall of Satan. Now your qualifier in your quote of "falling from heaven" is probably referring to another verse. But that's not evidence that Genesis 3 isn't Satan's first sinful act.


Peace to you brother

 

[Ascetic X]

It contradicts the entire nature of God to suggest that He created the universe in a disorganized state. Pagan religious mythologies often claim that chaos was primordial, the original condition of the universe,

Historic Christianity has always held that satan’s fall, and first sinful act, was rebelling against God, wanting to usurp His throne. This defiance caused Satan to be cast out of heaven, taking one third of the angels with him. So Satan was evil prior to his deception of Adam and Eve.

 

[searchingtruths]

Greetings @searchingtruths . Peace and Hope to you brother in our Lord Jesus Christ.

You had written in the previous thread, "all is still interpretations of what any interpreter interprets"

It seems to me that we, meaning Protestant Christians in general and Baptists specifically (since this is a Baptist board), have become lax in what is acceptable as "interpretation". We, imho, have wondered a little to far in our acceptance of what is reasonable "interpretation". Particularly regarding our topic, the fall of Satan (and its subsequent theological ramifications).

Logical Limits of "interpretation" for theological doctrine
A. Interpretation cannot contradict foundation concepts: Most everyone agree here.
B. Interpretation cannot alter the authors core grammatical meaning: One doesn't get to interpret words to mean what one wants (or what one feels like one has been inspired to think they mean). You have to know (1) the meaning, how is was used and understood, of the word in the original text, (2) the meaning of the word it has been translated into when it was translated (referring to the KJV and Old English problem here), (3) and the intended us of the word within context. This can be done by study of the source text AND a Scripture-interprets-Scripture method.

Yet there are thousands of different denominations within denominations simply because of their beliefs and what scripture is saying _ plainly said their interpretation.

The Gap-theory you presented violates (B) frequently. Further it violates (A), the foundational concept of how the author intended Genesis 1:1-31 and how the Hebrews understood Genesis 1:1-31. The Gap-theory literally contradicts the original understanding of the text. The Gap-Theory isn't an alternative Original Fall View. It's a complete rewriting, a contradiction of the Original View and the texts meaning and violates the natural reading of the text to suggest "secret data".

I'll stop here on that topic.

I don't believe in gap theory between Genesis 1 and 2 ........ I am an old Earth creationist. I believe the Earth is billions of years old and not 6,000.

Here are some irrefutable facts.
1. The ancient Hebrew and Patristic view of Genesis 1:1 "heavens and earth" is a creation of both the spiritual and physical realm.
2. The ancient Hebrew and Patristic view of Genesis 1:2 is that God's creation was at that point va-bohu, meaning disorganized and lacking order (No, the biblical text isn't suggesting that everything was created AND ordered in Genesis 1:1. It was never understood that way).
3. The Hebrew and Patristic view was that God then starts to organize it, bring order to it. The Hebrew and Patristic view was that the whole Genesis story, Gen 1:1-31,2:1 is God bringing order to His creation.
4. The ancient Hebrew and Patristic view understood that after organizing all creation by Gen 1:31, everything had order and was "very good". The point of the story is God created all things and brings order and life to all things.
5. After explicitly telling us in Genesis 1:31 and 2:1 that God's creation is now ordered and free from its initial disorder. Sin is now introduced into the biblical narrative, the story, in Genesis chapter 3. The story of Genesis 3 depicts a unified in-concert fall of all three of the characters at the same time. It uses descriptive language to describe Satan's only recorded fall with a first and only recorded curse (crawling on the belly and eating dust is an ancient poetic idiom for total defeat, absolute subjugation, and deep disgrace).

#5 is the biggest hurdle, let alone the other points, for anyone who wants to speculate on the fall of Satan. Genesis 3 is literally the story of "the fall". Three characters falling in-concert for the first time.

Refer to my initial statement on this particular reply, someone may read what you are saying and agree and others may read what I am saying and agree.

I am Baptist / from Protestants separated in the 17th century give or take - have been all of my life. Why that separation, I believe it had to do with baptism. I have many years behind me and have attended many Baptist Churches and what I write is what the ministers have preached. OUTDATED, I don't think so.

Peace to you brother

I am female, I would never put a gender on a person unless I'm absolutely sure, and do you have at least twice.

 

[Paleouss]

Greetings @Ascetic X. Thank you for your dedication to God's word and the pursuit of His truth.

It contradicts the entire nature of God to suggest that He created the universe in a disorganized state. Pagan religious mythologies often claim that chaos was primordial, the original condition of the universe,

This appears to be an attempt at philosophical logic, possibly because your attempt at using Isaiah 45:18 as support text failed. I have no objections, but it is not an attempt for clarity of Hebrew linguistics, nor is it an appeal of Scripture-interprets-Scripture...which my post #3 is filled with.

Please give me the translation that translates tohu va-bohu as "chaos" in Genesis 1:2 so as to make your point (btw, you won't find one). The biblical text doesn't say that the state of creation in Genesis 1:2 was "chaotic". It says that the state of creation was tohu va-bohu... "formless" and "empty".

You ignore the whole story, which the Gap-Theory requires to believe what it suggests, in order to cram a philosophical claim into one verse. The seven days of the story is structured symmetrically around forming domains and populating them with life. They include "dividing", "separating", "forming", ordering and "filling". The message of Genesis 1:1-31 is that God IS a God of order and life. There is no contradiction of the original Hebrew understanding of the Genesis 1 story, the whole story, and your claim that God is not a God of chaos.

Historic Christianity has always held that satan’s fall, and first sinful act, was rebelling against God, wanting to usurp His throne.

This is not evidence of your view, for even I, who claims that the original understanding is the correct understanding, holds this be true. What motivated Satan to commit his first act of disobedience in the Garden of Eden? He wanted to usurp God's throne.

This defiance caused Satan to be cast out of heaven, taking one third of the angels with him.

I agree...well, not with what you are trying to imply, i.e., the timeline.

So Satan was evil prior to his deception of Adam and Eve.

This doesn't follow.

You want to say
1. Satan wanted to usurp God's throne.
[but this isn't evidence of time]
2. Satan was cast out of heaven because he wanted to usurp Gods thrown, and took one third of the angels with him.
[The second part of Revelation 12:4 makes reference to "the woman" and "her Child". It would appear that Revelation 12:4 is making reference to Genesis 3:15. Further, it seems to imply that the dragon knows the prophecy of Genesis 3:15 (for he waits to devour this child that he could know nothing about prior to God informing him of His plans). If this is the case then Revelation 12:4 could be no sooner than after the giving of the prophecy by God in Genesis 3:15.]

3. So Satan was evil prior to his deception of Adam and Eve.

I want to point out that you previously claimed in the other post that Genesis 3 "depicts and already fallen Satan". You clearly haven't adressed this claim (probably because Genesis 3 depicts no such thing). Secondly, your first point, above, isn't evidence for your conclusion...further, your second point I have demonstrated doesn't support your claim but refutes it.

You still haven't presented any evidence that Satan fell before Genesis 3...and also...have not refuted my claim (in pot #3) that Genesis 3 gives us Satan's first act of disobedience. Further, you provided just the evidence I need to refute your claim (Revelation 12:4, the whole verse not just snippet sections in isolation).


Peace to you brother

 

[Ascetic X]

No Bible scholar or theological commentary agrees with the idea that Satan’s fall happened in the garden of Eden.

Genesis 3 says nothing about Lucifer’s fall. He fell from heaven. His fall did not occur in the garden of Eden.

Luke 10:18: Jesus notes, "I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven."

Isaiah 14:12–15: "How you are fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! How you are cut down to the ground... For you have said in your heart: 'I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God... I will be like the Most High.' Yet you shall be brought down to Sheol, to the lowest depths of the Pit."

Ezekiel 28 is about Lucifer’s fall. Many scholars believe that though there was a human “ruler” of Tyrus, the real “king” of Tyrus was Satan, for it was he who was ultimately at work in this anti-God city and it was he who worked through the human ruler of the city.

12 Son of man, take up a lamentation upon the king of Tyrus, and say unto him, Thus saith the Lord God; Thou sealest up the sum, full of wisdom, and perfect in beauty.

13 Thou hast been in Eden the garden of God; every precious stone was thy covering, the sardius, topaz, and the diamond, the beryl, the onyx, and the jasper, the sapphire, the emerald, and the carbuncle, and gold: the workmanship of thy tabrets and of thy pipes was prepared in thee in the day that thou wast created.

14 Thou art the anointed cherub that covereth; and I have set thee so: thou wast upon the holy mountain of God; thou hast walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire.

15 Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee.

16 By the multitude of thy merchandise they have filled the midst of thee with violence, and thou hast sinned: therefore I will cast thee as profane out of the mountain of God: and I will destroy thee, O covering cherub, from the midst of the stones of fire.

17 Thine heart was lifted up because of thy beauty, thou hast corrupted thy wisdom by reason of thy brightness: I will cast thee to the ground, I will lay thee before kings, that they may behold thee.

18 Thou hast defiled thy sanctuaries by the multitude of thine iniquities, by the iniquity of thy traffick; therefore will I bring forth a fire from the midst of thee, it shall devour thee, and I will bring thee to ashes upon the earth in the sight of all them that behold thee.

19 All they that know thee among the people shall be astonished at thee: thou shalt be a terror, and never shalt thou be any more.

 

[Paleouss]

Greetings @Ascetic X. Peace and hope to you on this glorious Wednesday God has made. May His name and truth reign throughout all the earth.

No Bible scholar or theological commentary agrees with the idea that Satan’s fall happened in the garden of Eden.

It might be time to start thinking, or researching, before making claims.

A. For an early example, Irenaeus of Lyons asserted that Satan fell in the garden of Eden.
B. For modern examples, Dr. Gerald Hiestand and his work with the "Center for Pastor Theologians"; Dr. Seth Postell, "Adam as Israel: Genesis 1-3 as the Introduction to the Torah"; Dr. M. Eugene Boring and Fred B. Craddock, "The People's New Testament Commentary".

I would go on but that would be redundant, for I have already shown your wild claim is false.

I do realize that Baptists like the Independent Fundamental Baptist tend to prefer the Scofield Reference Bible published in 1909 (not all but many). And I do realize that Scofield presented the Gap-Theory in the footnotes (not that you are forwarding it).

Scofield would seem to suggest that his purpose for forwarding the Gap-Theory was so that, as he wrote…“Relegate fossils to the primitive creation, and no conflict of science with the Genesis cosmogony remains.” (ref Scofield, Scofield Reference Bible, 4n1). This is also the observation of Ronald L. Numbers, i.e., Numbers suggests that “bypassing scientific conflict was a primary, driving motive” for Scofield’s forwarding the Gap-Theory (ref Numbers, The Creationists, 46).

By granting mainstream geologists of the his time their millions of years, dinosaurs, and strata layers. Scofield thought he could then just simply reply, all belongs to a “primitive” first creation that existed between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 and avoid the prevailing science vs biblical text conflict.

Suffice it to say, the biblical text, God’s inspired word, is not best understood when one forces their agendas into the text as Scofield did (with all due respect to Scofield and his other contributions). This is my point even if you don't believe in the Gap-Theory.

What I am forwarding is the removal of our presuppositions, agenda's, sacred theologies that rely on Satan's fall, and modern frames and a return to God's word and intent. One will always come away with a man’s narrative of Genesis 1 when we take our agenda's into the text and not God’s narrative of Genesis 1.

Genesis 3 says nothing about Lucifer’s fall. He fell from heaven. His fall did not occur in the garden of Eden.

In post #3 I presented the biblical data that supports the claim that Satan's first sinful act was in the garden of Eden. You have yet to address it and simply keep saying "Genesis 3 says nothing about Lucifer's fall". I had written...

Genesis 3, Satan's first sinful act.
1. In order of presentation, meaning when reading the Bible from front to back, Genesis 3 is the first sinful act of Satan given in the biblical text.
2. The Genesis 3 story depicts the three characters as falling in-concert with one another. It does not say that anyone had previously fallen prior to the story. This is supported by the fact that each is given a first ever recorded curse for what happened in the garden.
3. Genesis 3:14 is the first and only curse recorded within the biblical text of Satan. It uses descriptive language to describe Satan's first fall (crawling on the belly and eating dust is an ancient Hebrew poetic idiom for total defeat, absolute subjugation, and deep disgrace). His first disgrace because one doesn't lose face unless one has not lost face before.
4. The ancient Hebrew understanding of Genesis 1:1 is that God created the spiritual realms both spiritual and physical and that God started ordering His creation from its initial state of tohu va-bohu (Gen 1:2).
5. The ancient Hebrew understanding of Genesis 1:31 is that God was now done ordering his initial creation and God was well pleased with all of it. No disorder, chaos, or evil unless God is the author of them.

It seems clear that you are trying to avoid getting into the weeds of Genesis 3, for you have avoided other challenges of your Genesis 3 claims as well. I had written...

I'll give my augment that Genesis 3 presents the first sinful act of Satan so you can critique it...and you give your evidence that "It depicts an already fallen Satan" and I'll critique it.

You have not given one verse from Genesis 3 to support your view that Genesis 3 "depicts an already fallen Satan". I can only conclude that you made your wild claim without evidence (which is my overall point on this subject with everyone).

Luke 10:18: Jesus notes, "I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven."

It would seem that your main claim you are holding onto is the distinction of literally falling. In other words, you are not arguing, at least not by presenting this Luke 10:18 verse, on when Satan first sinned (which is what Genesis 3 tells us). You are focusing on the literal language of being cast out of heaven (physically).

First point, Luke 10:18 has no information regarding the garden of Eden event nor does it suggest that this event was before the garden of Eden.

Second very important point, Luke 10:18 has no indication of a time of the event (other than context).

One can only conclude, if one is impartial and reasonable, that you have yet to proved evidence of Satan's fall (his first sinful act). Luke 10:18 has no evidence of the "when".

Isaiah 14:12–15: "How you are fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! How you are cut down to the ground... For you have said in your heart: 'I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God... I will be like the Most High.' Yet you shall be brought down to Sheol, to the lowest depths of the Pit."

You throw out the Isaiah verse and make no comments or analysis of it. I see nothing in Isaiah that indicates that Satan sinned prior to the Genesis 3 story. Unless of course I come to the Isaiah verse with an agenda.

(A) "How you are fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning!

Nothing about when or whether this is about status or actual physical falling.

(B) How you are cut down to the ground...

A possible reference to Genesis 3:14 and the curse of the serpent cutting down the exalted place of stature that Satan held , "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".

In ancient Hebrew culture, kings and rulers were personified as massive, towering trees (like Eze 31:3-6). Isaiah uses the "cut down to the ground" imagery as a "mighty logger" of the ancient world who is chopped down like cheap timber by God.

(C) For you have said in your heart: 'I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God... I will be like the Most High.'

Nothing about "when".

In Hebrew gada’ (Eng. "cut down") means to "violently chop down, hack off, or shatter. It is the exact same word in Deu 7:5 for chopping down pagan poles or hacking off the hands of an enemy.

The Hebrew word lā-’ā-reṣ (Eng. "to the ground/earth") means "ground" or "earth" and the two Hebrew words paired together means a total loss of stature.

Ezekiel 28 is about Lucifer’s fall. Many scholars believe that though there was a human “ruler” of Tyrus, the real “king” of Tyrus was Satan, for it was he who was ultimately at work in this anti-God city and it was he who worked through the human ruler of the city.

It looks like this is a quote from somewhere and not your words. So I'll address it as apposed to you.

I disagree on some minor details regarding Ezekiel 28, but that shouldn't affect our debate so I won't address it.


Key Phrases of Exalted Status (Eze 28:12-19)

1. You [were] the seal of perfection, Full of wisdom and perfect in beauty.
2. 13 You were in Eden, the garden of God
3. Every precious stone [was] your covering:
4. The workmanship of your timbrels and pipes Was prepared for you on the day you were created.
5. 14 "You [were] the anointed cherub who covers
6. You were on the holy mountain of God;
7. You walked back and forth in the midst of fiery stones.

None of the above is about "when" Satan fell. All of it is about how Satan was once exalted.

Additionally:
(Eze 28:16). 16 By the multitude of thy merchandise they have filled the midst of thee with violence, and thou hast sinned: therefore I will cast thee as profane out of the mountain of God: and I will destroy thee, O covering cherub, from the midst of the stones of fire.

(A) In Hebrew law and vocabulary, ḥālal means to pollute, defile, or secularize something that was once holy. It is a priest term. Thus, to be "cast out" as profane means to be "stripped of ritual purity and administrative rights within God's Sactuary" -- Daniel I. Block, The Book of Ezekiel, Chapters 25–48, New International Commentary on the Old Testament p116–118.

You have still presented nothing that would suggest that Satan fell prior to the garden of Eden.

Peace to you brother