According to Genesis 3: 16-19 what your take on these scriptures?

[bro.tan]

A few things in the passage strike me, mostly at the level of what the words actually say before any doctrine gets built on them.

The curse falls on the serpent and the ground, not on the man or the woman. Verse 14 says the serpent is cursed. Verse 17 says the ground is cursed. Neither Eve nor Adam is ever said to be cursed. Tradition speaks freely of "the curse on Eve," but the text distributes that word carefully, and the careful distribution looks deliberate. What the man and woman receive is a description of the conditions they will now live under.

The KJV renders itstsabon as "sorrow" in verse 16 and again in verse 17, which preserves what many modern versions blur. Her toil is in bringing forth life; his toil is in bringing forth food. In both cases the fruitfulness remains, and what changes is the cost of it. That parallel seems to me the interpretive key to the whole unit, and it is a textual observation.

Also worth naming: what is absent here. No hell, no transmitted guilt, no total depravity, no cosmic fall, no Satan. The serpent is introduced as a beast of the field.

As for the honest and Godly part of your question, here is what I actually find in the passage when I sit with it rather than analyze it. The sentences are all bounded. Hers ends, his ends "all the days of thy life," and the whole thing terminates in the dust. Nothing here is endless. They are not struck down where they stand. Two verses later God makes them coats of skins and clothes them, which is a strange thing to do to people you are finished with. And the barring of the tree of life in verse 22 reads to me at least as much like mercy as like punishment, since endless life in that condition would have been the worse outcome.

The mood of the passage, in other words, is not rage. It is more like a parent describing, in sorrow, the world a child has just chosen to live in, and then quietly making them something to wear.

Strange when you really process it.

Very strange, even from that time to now, how things change.

 

[bro.tan]

Greetings again bro.tan,

Your statement is a bit obscure

How? You disagree with the verses?

The Saints will be kings and priests and will rule over the mortal nations with Israel as the first dominion.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[Pierac]

No it's not! I just made clear who will be ruling with Jesus (Saint)"Here is the patience of the saints; here are they that keep the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus" (Revelation 14:12).....

14 And I said unto him, Sir, thou knowest. And he said to me, These are they which came out of great tribulation, and have washed their robes, and made them white in the blood of the Lamb.

I have been working through some issues, and I would like your thoughts on my studies. This is something I have been trying to work out in my mind. I have been writing a book, and this is part of my thoughts. I want you to process this with your own understanding and see how it fits or how it does not.

Election to the Kingdom: Rethinking Predestination

The sequence just described (in my book) raises a further question about salvation itself. If some are raised first and share in Christ’s reign, then election may concern not only who is saved, but when God calls a people and what he calls them to do. That is a different question from the one Chapter Eight (in my book) asked about the reach of mercy, and it deserves to be taken on its own terms. Scripture speaks plainly about God choosing certain people. What does that choosing appoint them to?

We cannot simply ignore the election passages. Paul says that God chose believers before the foundation of the world (NASB Ephesians 1:4). Jesus says (NASB John 6:44), “No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day.” He also says, (NASB Matthew 22:14) “For many are called, but few are chosen.” And Luke records, (NASB Acts 13:48) “When the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord; and as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed.”

The question is not whether these texts exist. The question is whether we have been reading them through the right framework. If salvation is understood mainly as rescue from everlasting condemnation, election will naturally be understood as God choosing who receives that rescue. But if salvation also includes resurrection, service, and a role in God’s Kingdom, election may involve more than deciding who goes to heaven.

The Calvinist tradition has developed the doctrine of election with particular care and consistency. That tradition deserves respect. It arose from a serious effort to remain faithful to difficult biblical passages that other Christians have sometimes softened. Calvinism generally understands election in saving terms: God chooses certain people for everlasting life. In its stricter forms, this means that before any human being is born, God has already determined who will and will not receive eternal life.

This picture creates a serious tension with the account of God developed earlier in this book. Chapter Three described God’s holiness, qodesh, as a holiness that moves toward creation and sets people apart for a purpose. Jesus reveals a God who moves toward sinners. He runs to meet the prodigal son while the son is still far away. Yet strict forms of predestination can appear to describe a God who eternally excludes people before they have taken their first breath. That tension is not subtle. And for many Christians it is not merely theoretical.

Many people feel it. Some have been told that a parent, child, or friend who died outside the faith was simply someone God had not chosen, and that faith required them to accept this as the just decision of a sovereign God. When they recoiled from that picture, they may even have been told that their discomfort showed a failure to submit to God.

But consider another possibility. Consider that the recoil was not rebellion at all. It may have been a response to a picture of God that does not resemble the God revealed in Christ. If a theological system produces a portrait of God that appears to conflict with Jesus’ movement toward sinners, the faithful response may be to return to Scripture and examine the system again.

What if the problem lies not in the election texts but in the framework used to interpret them?

The Westminster Confession directly describes election as God’s choice of some people for everlasting life. Yet the biblical passages often state election in terms of a purpose. Ephesians 1 says that God chose us before the foundation of the world “that we would be holy and blameless before him.” Romans 8 says that those God foreknew were predestined “to be conformed to the image of his Son.” These purposes are personal and saving, but they are also about becoming a particular kind of people who can share in God’s work.

Romans 8 continues through what is often called the “golden chain”: those God foreknew he predestined; those he predestined he called; those he called he justified; and those he justified he glorified. This movement certainly includes salvation. But it also moves toward God’s purpose of forming people in the image of Christ.

Ephesians 1:11 uses the Greek verb klēroō, often translated “we have obtained an inheritance.” The word carries the ideas of receiving an inheritance, being given a portion, or being appointed by lot. This Old Testament background may suggest that God gives a particular people a place within his purposes. However, the word alone does not prove that election is only about a Kingdom role and not about salvation. That vocational reading is a larger theological proposal. [1]

This pattern of being chosen for a purpose appears throughout Scripture. Abraham was chosen so that all families of the earth would be blessed through him (Genesis 12:3). Israel was chosen to be a kingdom of priests (Exodus 19:6), serving as God’s people among the nations. The apostles were chosen to bear witness to Christ (Acts 1:8). James calls believers a kind of firstfruits of God’s creatures (James 1:18). Revelation says that the saints will reign with Christ (Revelation 20:6).

Several of these passages show election serving a purpose larger than the private destiny of the chosen person. God chooses people not only to receive, but also to serve. This supports a vocational dimension to election, though it does not prove that election is only vocational.

Part 1

 

[Pierac]

Part 2

What Does It Mean to Reign with Christ?

Some interpreters believe that reigning with Christ is a special reward rather than the future experience of every believer. They point to 2 Timothy 2:12, where reigning is connected with endurance, and to Revelation 2 and 3, where authority is promised to those who overcome.

On this reading, belonging to Christ and receiving the privilege of reigning with him are related but not identical. Other interpreters understand the same passages as promises to all genuine believers rather than to a special group within the redeemed. The New Testament does not settle this disagreement in one explicit statement.

Whichever reading is correct, the question of who reigns cannot be separated from the question of over whom. The section above on who remains on the earth sets out what Revelation supplies on that point and what it withholds. Reigning means something concrete once there are subjects, and the promise of authority over the nations in Revelation 2:26-27 reads differently when the nations are in view.

Either way, the election passages can look different within a Kingdom framework. Election need not concern only the inclusion of some people in salvation and the exclusion of everyone else. Scripture repeatedly connects God’s choosing with transformation, service, witness, and participation in his purposes. If reigning is a special reward rather than the inheritance of every believer, however, election should not simply be equated with selection for rulership.

Scripture’s language of calling, predestination, holiness, and conformity to Christ can therefore be understood in both saving and vocational terms. God saves and transforms a community so that it can serve, exercise stewardship, and participate in the coming age.

What, then, can we say about the non-elect, or about those whose names are not written in the book of life (Revelation 17:8)? Honesty requires us to admit that Scripture does not give one complete explanation of their final condition.

Scripture says that judgment begins with the household of God (1 Peter 4:17). Those who belong to God are accountable in the present. God disciplines and shapes them rather than merely protecting them from every hardship. Paul makes a related point in 1 Corinthians 11. While correcting the Corinthians’ abuse of the Lord’s Supper, he says that when the Lord judges his people, he disciplines them so that they will not be condemned with the world.

This does not mean that believers necessarily suffer more than other people. Nor does it allow us to measure a person’s future reward by the amount of suffering in that person’s life. It means that belonging to God includes being formed now, learning to live like Christ and being prepared for service in the age to come.

The lake of fire and the second death are real biblical images and must not be dismissed. But Scripture does not fully explain what the second death accomplishes or whether anything lies beyond it. Christian tradition has generally understood it as everlasting exclusion from relationship with God. This book argues that the relevant passages leave more interpretive questions open than tradition has often acknowledged.

When Paul says that God will be “all in all,” panta en pasin, his words do not fit easily into a picture of creation forever divided between God and a large group that remains eternally opposed to him. The phrase pressures the idea of permanent, unresolved division. Yet it does not, by itself, tell us exactly how that division ends or what happens to every individual.

The election passages are real. The Kingdom framework allows us to see election as God’s choice of a people for transformation, service, and participation in Christ’s reign. This reading does not require us to conclude that, before creation, God deliberately arranged the everlasting condemnation of billions of people. Strict forms of double predestination must carry that moral and theological tension, and the tension deserves honest examination.

What about people who never heard the Gospel? Understanding election as including a role in the Kingdom does not answer every question about their final destiny. It does, however, move the question. It allows for the possibility that God’s preparation of a particular people for a particular purpose is part of a story larger than those people alone.

We still do not know everything that the second death accomplishes or whether anything lies beyond it. Traditionalists read Revelation 20 together with other judgment passages and conclude that the lost suffer forever. Annihilationists conclude that the lost finally cease to exist. Universalists conclude that judgment ultimately leads to restoration. Each view draws on a larger interpretation of Scripture. Revelation 20 by itself does not state any of these systems in full.

We know in part, and we prophesy in part. The part we know is that the God who chooses is the same God who moves toward his creation, the same God whose mercy endures, the same God who in the end will be all in all. This does not weaken the seriousness of judgment. It simply refuses to claim more certainty than the biblical text provides.

Sorry guys.... we are no longer in the milk of the word! I'm grilling a ribeye, the question is... did I overcook it?

---

[1]NET Bible, Full Notes Edition, translators’ note on Ephesians 1:11.

 

[Pierac]

The Relationship to the Traditional Framework

Many traditional Christian frameworks distinguish between an intermediate state after death and the final state after resurrection. In this view, a person enters a conscious condition after death, but bodily resurrection and final judgment still lie ahead. Resurrection completes the person, judgment publicly reveals God’s decision, and the person then enters the final state.

Within this framework, Revelation’s two resurrections and its millennium serve a different purpose from the one proposed in this chapter. They complete and publicly reveal destinies already decided rather than determining those destinies for the first time. The millennium is not meaningless in traditional theology, but its place and purpose differ among premillennial, amillennial, and postmillennial systems. The “second death” is then understood as the final form of a judgment that had already been anticipated in the intermediate state.

This traditional framework rests on several foundations. It draws on particular interpretations of New Testament passages. As Chapter Two discussed, it was also influenced by Greek philosophical ideas about the soul, especially the belief that the soul is naturally immortal and continues consciously after the body dies. The exact degree of this influence differs among Christian traditions. Even so, the framework often shapes how Revelation 20 is read.

When you set aside the natural immortality of the soul, you can read Revelation 20 differently. On the premillennial and unconscious-death reading advanced in this book, those outside the first resurrection remain dead until the second resurrection. Those raised first enter the life of the Kingdom and reign with Christ. The others are raised later and face judgment. The judgment is serious, but the passage does not answer every question about its final purpose or duration.

Paul and the Question Revelation Leaves Open

Revelation’s final chapters feel like the absolute end of the biblical story. They describe the great white throne, the lake of fire, a new heaven and new earth, the end of death, and the removal of the curse. Because Revelation also stands at the end of the New Testament, its closing vision carries a powerful sense of completion.

That sense of finality is justified. Yet another question remains: Does Revelation’s imagery fully explain the final state, or can other New Testament passages help us understand what it means?

Paul’s words in 1 Corinthians 15 may help. Paul does not necessarily describe another period after Revelation’s closing vision. Instead, his concentrated theological language may explain the deeper meaning of the same final reality.

Revelation’s closing vision still presents an ordered creation. God and the Lamb share a throne. Kings bring their glory into the New Jerusalem. The city has gates and walls. The river of life flows from the throne, and the tree of life stands beside it. God and the Lamb rule within the renewed creation. The Creator remains distinct from creation, Christ remains distinct from those who worship him, and the city remains distinct from those who enter it.

Now compare this vision with Paul’s words in 1 Corinthians 15:24-28:

“Then comes the end, when He hands over the kingdom to God the Father, after abolishing all rule and all authority and power, for He must reign until He has put all enemies under His feet. The last enemy to be destroyed is death.… When all things are subjected to Him, then the Son Himself also will be subjected to the One who subjected all things to Him, so that God may be all in all.”

Paul describes Christ abolishing all rule, authority, and power. He writes pasan twice, every rule and every authority, so the list is emphatic rather than partial, and the difficulty is worth feeling before it is eased. Even death, the final enemy, is destroyed. Christ then hands the Kingdom to the Father. This does not mean that Christ’s reign has failed. It means that his work of defeating every enemy has succeeded. Every enemy is subdued, the completed Kingdom is handed to the Father, and God becomes “all in all.”

A difficult question arises when we compare Paul’s statement with Gabriel’s words to Mary. Gabriel says that her son’s kingdom “will have no end” (Luke 1:33). The Greek phrase is ouk estai telos. But Paul says, eita to telos, “then comes the end” (1 Corinthians 15:24). Both verses use the Greek word telos, meaning “end” or “goal.” How can Christ’s Kingdom have no end if Paul says that the end comes?

 

[Pierac]

Four observations help explain the apparent conflict.

First, Paul says that Christ abolishes rule, authority, and power. He does not say that Christ abolishes his own Kingdom. Christ’s reign is the means by which the enemies are defeated. His reign is not included among the things destroyed.

The Greek words Paul uses, archē, exousia, and dynamis, can refer to different kinds of rule, authority, and power. In some passages, they describe powers opposed to God, as in Ephesians 6:12 and Colossians 2:15. In other passages, similar words describe powers created through and for Christ, as in Colossians 1:16. The words alone do not tell us whether the powers are good or evil. Paul’s context does. In 1 Corinthians 15, they are enemies that Christ must place under his feet.

Second, Paul does not say that the Kingdom is destroyed when “the end” comes. He says that Christ hands it to the Father. The Greek verb is paradidōmi, which means to hand over or deliver. Handing something over is not the same as destroying it. The Kingdom continues. What Paul does indicate is that the Son’s administration of that Kingdom reaches its goal and concludes. This offers one coherent way to read Paul and Gabriel together. Luke says that the Kingdom has no end, and Paul says that the Son hands the Kingdom over. Both stand if the Kingdom endures under the Father while the Son’s mediatorial reign is completed.

Third, Paul says that Christ must reign “until” every enemy is placed beneath his feet. The clause states the purpose of the reign: to subdue every enemy. Paul is drawing on Psalm 110:1, where David’s lord is told to sit at God’s right hand until his enemies become his footstool. Such clauses can mark a purpose reached without ending the state that came before, and in Psalm 110 the session at God’s right hand plainly continues. But Paul writes his own construction rather than quoting the psalm, and he places it inside a sentence about the end and about handing the Kingdom over. In that setting, the more natural reading is that the reign, understood as the campaign against every enemy, reaches its goal and concludes.

What Paul does not say is that the Son is dethroned, or diminished. He says the work is finished and the Kingdom is delivered up. Chapter Ten takes up what that conferral and handing over imply about the Son’s relationship to the Father.

Fourth, Revelation’s final vision speaks of “the throne of God and of the Lamb” in the renewed creation (Revelation 22:1, 3). Death has already been removed, yet the Lamb still shares God’s throne. That is worth noting, but it settles less than it appears to. Revelation is John, not Paul, and neither writer says where his own vision stands in relation to the other’s. Neither text states whether John’s scene falls before or after the moment Paul describes. Using one to fix the meaning of the other would be a synthesis, and this book will not make that synthesis on Paul’s behalf.

Paul still leaves some questions unanswered. He says that the Son will be subjected to the Father, but he does not explain exactly what this subjection means. It may describe an order between the Father and the Son that has always existed. It may instead describe the completion of the role the Son accepted in carrying out the work of redemption.

Later Christian theology tried to answer this question by distinguishing between the Son’s identity and his role. In simpler terms, theologians distinguished who the Son is from the work he carries out. That explanation may be correct, but Paul does not develop it in this passage. Chapters Ten and Eleven will address the related question of whether the New Testament presents the Son as existing before his human birth.

What Paul does give us is a clear movement: Christ defeats every enemy, hands the completed Kingdom to the Father, submits to the Father, and brings the whole work to its goal, with God becoming “all in all.”

Paul’s final phrase is astonishing: “that God may be all in all.” The passage moves beyond conflict and conquest to complete victory. No hostile power remains to be subdued, and no death remains to be defeated. On the reading presented here, God’s presence and life fill the renewed creation without opposition. The difference between God and creation does not disappear, but no rival power remains.

Does this mean that every estranged person is finally reconciled to God? That is a further conclusion, and the phrase “all in all” does not prove it by itself. Revelation’s final chapters still speak of the lake of fire and of people whose names are not written in the Lamb’s book of life (Revelation 21:8, 27). The previous chapter left the question of final reconciliation open, and this chapter does the same.

Read together, Paul and Revelation may be describing the same final reality from different perspectives. Revelation gives us the vision: a new heaven and new earth, God dwelling with humanity, death and mourning removed, and the throne of God and the Lamb at the center. Paul gives us a concise theological description: Christ’s mission against every enemy succeeds, every hostile power is abolished, and God becomes all in all. Revelation shows the picture; Paul helps explain its meaning.

This reading does not require another age of redemption after Revelation 22. Revelation already portrays the end of death, mourning, and the curse. Paul does not necessarily take the reader to a later point in time. Instead, his declaration that God will be “all in all” tells us more about the fullness of Revelation’s final vision.

The two passages therefore support rather than oppose each other. Christ reigns until every enemy is subdued, including death itself. He then hands the completed Kingdom to the Father, not because his reign has failed, but because his mission has succeeded. What remains is God’s unhindered presence and life filling the renewed creation without opposition or death. Whether this also means that all personal estrangement ends remains an open question.

Why, then, does 1 Corinthians 15:24-28 often receive so little attention in Christian accounts of the end? Revelation’s images naturally hold the imagination more strongly. Its position at the end of the Bible also makes its vision feel not only final but complete in every detail. When Revelation is treated as an exhaustive map of the end, Paul’s language may remain visible without being allowed to deepen our understanding of that vision.

A reader who feels the finality of Revelation has not misunderstood the book. Revelation truly presents the fulfillment of God’s purposes. Paul does not weaken that vision or necessarily add another stage after it. Instead, he helps us see its depth. The throne represents a creation in which no rival power remains. Christ’s reign is not merely endless government; it is the victory of divine life over every enemy, including death. God dwelling with humanity and God becoming “all in all” are not competing endings. They are the same ending seen from two angles: one in apocalyptic images and the other in concentrated theological language.

The biblical story may therefore be greater than any one image of its ending. Revelation shows the renewed creation in which God and the Lamb dwell with humanity. Paul names the reality that fills it: God, without rival, all in all.

 

[Davy]

Greetings again Davy,

No. I contribute to the Continuous Historic view of the Book of Revelation and Revelation 12 has been fulfilled. But the subject of a proper understanding of the Book of Revelation is a larger subject than can be properly discussed here, and is larger than the view held by many shallow Pentecostals and Evangelicals. The popular futurist view was started by two Jesuit Priests who wanted to deflect the Reformation view that the Papacy was the Antichrist.

Kind regards
Trevor

There's that seminary tether category mess again. I don't follow ANY of those seminary categories you mention in attempt to support your position. What God's Word says as written is what will be.

And the Revelation 12 Chapter contains both historical AND future prophecy still yet to happen, just as the Books of God's Old Testament prophets do also.

I was raised in a Preterist following Church, and only later did I begin to understand why they never taught Old Testament prophecy nor the Book of Revelation. That is 'man' toying with God's Word, so those who listen to seminary category doctrines of men deserve to be deceived about the end of this world.

 

[TrevorHL]

Greetings again Davy,

There's that seminary tether category mess again. I don't follow ANY of those seminary categories you mention in attempt to support your position. What God's Word says as written is what will be.

I suggest that the summary expression Continuous Historic view is very meaningful by comparison to many other views.

And the Revelation 12 Chapter contains both historical AND future prophecy still yet to happen, just as the Books of God's Old Testament prophets do also.

I doubt that we would agree concerning the understanding of Revelation 12.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[Eternally Grateful]

Genesis 3: 16 Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.

17 And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;

18 Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field;

19 In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.

Please give me your honest and Godly thoughts on this.

I think we take it as it says

1. Women will give birth in great sorrow (pain and suffering)
2. Man will need to work to eat. Anyone who has planted a garden knowsn. weeds are a gardens worst nightmare

 

[Davy]

Greetings again Davy,

I suggest that the summary expression Continuous Historic view is very meaningful by comparison to many other views.

I doubt that we would agree concerning the understanding of Revelation 12.

Kind regards
Trevor

Like I said, I don't do tethers set by men's doctrines. Historicism is just one of them. I have been accused of following all the seminary categories at one point or another, simply because of my staying in God's Word as written. Those seminary categories don't work if they don't have at least some Biblical truths supporting them, so that's why that happens. But still, they are tethers, which is like a rope tied to a center pole that stretches in length only so far.

Read your Bible first, saying a short prayer to The Father for understanding in the Name of Jesus Christ. And do it with discipline chapter by chapter, line upon line, all the way through. Then you won't have to depend upon men's seminary category doctrines to tell you what to think regarding God's written Word.

 

[stevesonthebay]

Genesis 3: 16 Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.

17 And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;

18 Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field;

19 In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.

Please give me your honest and Godly thoughts on this.

These conditions God is placing on Adam and Eve are the result of the fall and seem to have particular conditions according to the way in which each fell.

Man is the one who tills the ground. The ground itself has become corrupted with thorns and weeds to grow the food needed for life. It no longer produces the good fruit. The mans job is made harder just to live.

The womens now feels the pain of child birth in bring life for which there was no pain. Perhaps even pain the result of the fall and the greatest pain is in child birth.

But also she is subject to the man. Perhaps because as Paul said she was the first to fall and was made Adams helper and became a hinerance that led to the fall. Adam listening to the women and no God.

They were both given dominion over the animals and world and both now that has been severed.

This is reflected in the relationship between husband and wife and in Christ and His church.

It seems that these conditions were not meant to be and came about because of the fall. Like a virus in the software corrupting Gods program for life. So conditions had to be made to stop the program from crashing. Those conditions are lived out in this temporal world to keep Gods law and order. Like a sentence until Gods Kingdom comes.

 

[rwb]

I'm amazed that not many brethren have understood that the concept of 'death' existed before... Adam and Eve's sin.

Lucifer in the 'old world' before Adam is who did the very first sin, not Eve. And for that cause was Christ Jesus ordained to be born of woman to die on the cross, to defeat death for us (Hebrew 2:14; 1 John 3:8).

The verses you cite do not prove the doctrine you promote. According to the Bible all that was created by God in the heavens, the earth and the sea were created during the six days of creation, ending with God resting on the seventh day.

Exodus 20:11 (KJV) For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

John tells us only that the devil from the beginning (six day creation) committed sin, and for that purpose the Son of God being made known destroys the works of the devil. And in Hebrews we learn that the devil had power over death until the Son of God destroyed that power through His life, death and resurrection.

1 John 3:8 (KJV) He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil.

Hebrews 2:14 (KJV) Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;

Death, according to the Bible came as the result of the sins of mankind.

Romans 5:12 (KJV) Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

 

[rwb]

And I am surprised that you have not read the following verse...

Rev 12:9
9 And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.
KJV

Ah... so you're not just disagreeing with me, you are disagreeing with God's Word.

According to Rev 12 the war in heaven that ends with Satan and his demonic spirits being cast out of heaven occurred after the birth of Christ, not before. That's when salvation through Christ came with strength and the Kingdom of God.

Re 12:5 And she brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron: and her child was caught up unto God, and to his throne.
Re 12:6 And the woman fled into the wilderness, where she hath a place prepared of God, that they should feed her there a thousand two hundred and threescore days.
Re 12:7 And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels,
Re 12:8 And prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in heaven.
Re 12:9 And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.
Re 12:10 And I heard a loud voice saying in heaven, Now is come salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of his Christ: for the accuser of our brethren is cast down, which accused them before our God day and night.

 

[Davy]

The verses you cite do not prove the doctrine you promote. According to the Bible all that was created by God in the heavens, the earth and the sea were created during the six days of creation, ending with God resting on the seventh day.

Exodus 20:11 (KJV) For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

John tells us only that the devil from the beginning (six day creation) committed sin, and for that purpose the Son of God being made known destroys the works of the devil. And in Hebrews we learn that the devil had power over death until the Son of God destroyed that power through His life, death and resurrection.

1 John 3:8 (KJV) He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil.

Hebrews 2:14 (KJV) Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;

Death, according to the Bible came as the result of the sins of mankind.

Romans 5:12 (KJV) Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

From Genesis 1:3 God is renewing... His creation. His perfect original creation was at Genesis 1:1. And you've got a long, long ways to go with Bible Scripture you have obviously left out which reveals what I have shown about God's original perfect creation in the 'beginning'.

Jeremiah 4:23-28 shows God having destroyed that old world when cities and mountains existed, which uses that same phrase "without form, and void" as in Genesis 1:2, which is about the earth laying waste with waters from a flood covering it. You haven't explained that.

Romans 8:18-25, Apostle Paul said God placed His creation in "vanity", and in "bondage of corruption", and showed that the creation seeks a release from that bondage along with the manifesting of the sons of God (i.e., "creature" in the Greek is actually the word for 'creation'). You haven't explained that, because it means the creation had to have originally NOT been in that "vanity" and "bondage of corruption" state. It became that way because of Lucifer's rebellion.

By the time "that old serpent" (Satan) appears in God's Garden of Eden tempting Eve, he was already in his role as the 'adversary', showing he had already rebelled and fell. That's what his name Satan means, the Adversary. You have not explained just when he first rebelled in coveting God's Throne which originally was his job as a covering cherub to guard (per God's parable using the "king of Tyrus" in Ezekiel 28).