It is a great stretch to read “rebel” or satan into this passage - to the point of misreading, I believe. What is the basis for interpreting the tree as satan? Your claim means God created satan and evil. Yet God looked upon His creation and saw that it was good - that could not have included evil...ergo satan was not fallen at that moment.
Isaiah 45:18 For thus saith the LORD That created the heavens; God Himself That formed the earth and made it; HE hath established it, He created it NOT in vain, He formed it to be inhabited: "I am the LORD;
and there is none else.
No stretch at all if one knows the Scripture. Isaiah 14:12- and Ezekiel 28:12- both describe the 'rebellion' and the 'overthrow/casting down of the first rebel. The rebellion took place before this flesh age. Just as Peter describes in IIPeter 3 and Jeremiah references in Jeremiah 4:22-28
God did not create Lucifer 'evil', but God did give Lucifer free will and Lucifer loved himself more than he loved the Creator. Lucifer was the first narcissist and sinner. Consider what the devil offered Christ called the temptation of Christ, not that Christ was tempted, but a lesson for what the tribulation of deception will be.
I’m sorry - I still don’t follow your reasoning. Just because God created Lucifer does not make the devil present at creation.
Nothing in II Peter 3 describes the rebellion.
Neither does Jeremiah 4:22-28
Your other two citations simply describe the fall of Lucifer - evidently you are arguing against something I haven’t said: I have stated in this thread that 1) Lucifer was an angel of light. 2) Lucifer was cast down 3) Lucifer as satan, the serpent, was in the Garden of Eden
What I contest are: 1) that the devil or satan is mentioned on the first page of the Bible. 2) That the tree of knowledge of good and evil was an allegory for the devil.
No scripture that you have cited support this view.
No commentaries I have read (about 10) support your view.
You seem to have created a private interpretation of this particular passage. I don’t find it particularly dangerous theologically, neither to I find it helpful or instructive.
I don’t argue the declaration of the pope that the devil is real, I just question his statement about the devil appearing on the first page of the bible. My reading has him appearing for the first time in Gen 3:1. You may draw some conclusions regarding a timeline and when Lucifer fell and when Adam was created and so forth. But to say that the devil is on page 1 is just false.