Don,

I just do not want to claim more than the text says.

That is why I believe it is vital that we do not claim that Eve added to God’s word since the text does not say this.

The integration of the 3 origins stories in Gen 1-5 is non-trivial and open to alternatives, as they do not state everything we might wish they did.

I prefer to see Genesis 1 & 2 as looking at creation from two different directions for two different purposes.  One would be the big picture while Genesis 2 hones in on some very important specifics.  We need to consider all of the inspired words when we make a conclusion regarding the women’s purpose and whether she sinned against Adam or against God.  We simply cannot charge her with sin without a good foundation for that charge from scripture itself.

I agree that the early chapters of Genesis do not give us every detail that we would like.  These chapters also do not give us every conversation that God had with Adam and his wife including what God said to Adam when he brought the woman to him.  However we do know one thing for sure.  This is that the details that we do have are there for our instruction and for our correction.  I think we have everything we need to make wise decisions and proper judgments regarding the charge of sin.

trying to force fit an answer in this case goes beyond the text.

I certainly agree.  We should not force a restriction on the woman or a charge or guilt against Eve into the text when the text gives no indication of this addition.  If there is evidence for a view, then we should allow a conclusion on the evidence.  If there is no evidence then we can dismiss a forced view onto the text.

Of course we can use all the inspired text and grammar and comparisons with pagan origins stories to help us do our best to try to see what it meant to the original reader.

Historical sources are very helpful but they are not the word of God.  I believe that the word of God comes first and we can also consider other sources but never to allow them to contradict the word of God.  For example Jewish stories allow for a second creation of the woman.  Adam’s first wife, according to their tradition, was Lilleth who was not submissive to Adam and left him.  If I remember the story right, she flew away into the sky.  I think she was also created from the dirt as Adam was.  So God then created a woman from Adam’s side and this was Eve.  There is much more in that tradition that can be of interest, but it cannot come alongside of scripture, nor can it add to the scripture something that the scripture does not allow for.

Yes, you are right that there were two trees in the middle of the garden.  We do know that only one tree in the middle of the garden was forbidden.  We know this because God gave Adam permission to eat from every tree except for one.  We also know that God gave Adam and his wife permission to eat from every tree that had seed bearing fruit.  This must mean that the tree of life also had seed bearing fruit as Adam was given permission to eat from it before sin entered the world.

Fascinating topics and very lively discussions.  It gets my mind going and I love to discussion these things with people who also love the Lord Jesus as I do and highly respect the inspired word.  Thanks!

I am also going to reiterate what I wrote on an older comment stream.  Adam and Eve were, in our “books” at least were created “perfect” in our human way of measuring things.  In God’s books they were not perfect, of course, because no one and no thing is perfect except for God.  So both Adam and Eve were innocent, intelligent, without sin at their creation, and had no bodily or mental defects. We could call them “perfect” as they represented “human” perfection, the very highest that we could ever attain to.  We do know that when Jesus comes back we will be much better than that because we will be like him in his resurrected body which goes beyond our standard of human perfection.

I think it is time that we do not give a foothold to the hierarchists who insist on denigrating Eve with either a childlike inability to get a simple command right or who charge her with sin against God by importing into scripture a charge that Eve added to God’s words without one speck of evidence to support the claim and three witnesses (the serpent, Adam and God) who all were silent on any claim that Eve added to God’s words.

Paula,

But I disagree that she was “perfect”. Adam and Eve are never called perfect, but clearly they were created “innocent”– they did not yet know good from evil. They were also intelligent: their progeny could not have exceeded them, and look in the following chapters of Genesis for what they invented, especially knowing it was all truly new. So being innocent, intelligent people and with nothing to distract or confuse them, Adam and Eve could hardly be mistaken about anything God had expressly stated. We have to be careful not to project current conditions onto the pre-sin environment or people.

I would call this “perfect”.  It is “perfect” in our way of measuring things.  In God’s books they were not perfect, of course, because no one and no thing is perfect except for God.  So both Adam and Eve were innocent, intelligent, without sin at their creation, and had no bodily or mental defects. In our books, we could call them “perfect” as they represented “human” perfection, the very highest that we could ever attain to.  We do know that when Jesus comes back we will be much better than that because we will be like him in his resurrected body which goes beyond our standard of human perfection.

Good points, though, and I heartily agree.  I think it is time that we do not give a foothold to the hierarchists who insist on denigrating Eve with either a childlike inability to get a simple command right or who charge her with sin against God by importing into scripture a charge that Eve added to God’s words without one speck of evidence to support the claim and three witnesses (the serpent, Adam and God) who all were silent on any claim that Eve added to God’s words.

pinklight,

I am very impressed with you. You are reasoning from the scriptures using the inspired words and the inspired grammar.  You are then taking these inspired words and working through each one to come to a solid conclusion not adding to or taking away from scripture.  This is good and it is biblical.  The Christian Church has long taken the tradition of an accusation against Eve for granted without carefully mapping through the inspired accounts piece by piece, word by word and the inspired grammar as the verification point.

Bravo!

What is error?  If I have two choices of colleges to go to and I pick one over the other, is that an error?  Perhaps I missed the better opportunity but I don’t see this as an “error” but rather one is a better choice than the other.  Today we make many errors because we still struggle against the flesh.  We have temptations all around us to sin and so we make sinful decisions.

The question is whether Eve had any struggles against the flesh and had any limitations that would produce forgetfulness.  I don’t think that we can find an indication in scripture that she was in the category of a senior citizen’s forgetfulness.  God made Eve to be a “helper” to Adam, one who could provide what he needed.  Eve then was a strong woman who was able to rescue Adam in the areas where he needed help.  There is no doubt in my mind that if Eve had seen the things that Adam saw (the creation of the garden of Eden by God himself and the creation of the second “act” of animals after Adam’s creation), she would have been a successful defender of God’s character.  The fact that she started out as a defender but fell through her inexperience with God doesn’t lessen her strength at all but is a good example to show the absolute necessity of sound doctrine.  Sound doctrine can make the weak strong and the strong stronger.

Lastly I don’t think that Eve was any kind of a woman that needed to be watched to make sure that she didn’t forgetfully wander off into forbidden territory.  I believe that she was a strength for Adam in every way.  For centuries we have sidelined women’s strength believing that the strength of the man is all that we need for spiritual maturity.  But God has a different plan.  His plan is that we inherit the kingdom together and that each one’s gifts are to be valued as well as needed.  When we do “church” without the spiritual input of women, we miss out on some of God’s special blessings.  Together we are strong.  One gender alone is not so strong.  We need each other very, very much.

I have really been out of the loop for the last couple of days trying to get as much of the DVD done as I could to keep in line with my deadlines.

Great comments, everyone!

I will start with Charis.  Wonderful insight into the “keepers” from scripture.  This was a blessing to me and thank you for posting it.  For some reason my spam program thought it was suspect so I had to rescue it from the spam.  This takes the “keeper” theme to a much bigger view by researching it in the rest of the scriptures.  Marvelous insight and much appreciated!  Yes, we as women are to be “keeper” of the home too and that is protecting and guiding the home.

Greg,
That is quite an indictment from God, isn’t it, when we realize what a great responsibility the watchmen have.  It is helpful for us too to research God’s view of the appointed watchmen and see where he points out our failures.

Truthseeker,
I like how you brought out your thoughts out the early church and how they all contributed.  This is what is missing from our churches that has made us into pew warmers unable to defend our faith because we haven’t participated in our faith.  You are so right in that we can learn from other people’s questions.  When we hear the questions and hear the scriptural answers being presented, we are edified and that is what church should be all about. Good thoughts!

Lin,
I also appreciated your thoughts.  You are right in that we have missed some important things in scripture.  These missing things need to be brought out so that we are not misled by traditions of men.  I like what you said about the full counsel of God.  Amen!

Pinklight,
What can I say? In several different of my posts, you have pointed out some things that have really got my mind going!  I LOVE the interaction here on this blog and how we can all learn from each other.  There is so much to learn and when we allow “iron to sharpen iron” we spur one another on to excellence.

Paula,

It’s as if the serpent is still beguiling, only now it isn’t just to Eve. He whispers in the ears of all believers, “A loving God wouldn’t want you to say such bad things about those nice people.”

This is exactly what I have experienced too. No matter how nice one speaks forth the truth, one is still accused of being “negative”. When I was speaking to a woman once about how it was wrong for a person to speak to the dead as God had forbidden it, she put her finger almost right in my face and said how dare I say these things. A watchman not only dares, but they dare not speak out.

Don,

My take is we are to see that the woman’s reply to God is redemptive, she could only say she was deceived if she was NO LONGER deceived.  So there is hope for her.

This is exactly what I repeatedly communicated to the support group for ex-JW’s that I led.  I would ask them how one can know if one has been deceived?  The fact is that one cannot know unless one is no longer deceived.  Eve’s admission that she had been deceived proves that her eyes had been opened to the deception.  Eve was no longer believing that she wasn’t going to die and she would be wise like God.  She knew she had been had.

Yup, you are right it is stripping out the formatting.  Hmmmm….  I’ll look.

Paula,
I will look inside the program and see if I can find a way to fix the what is missing.

Okay,  jkllll
hjhhThis looks like it is working

Paula,
Great summary. I would add that Paul puts the blame on Adam primarily because God put only the blame on Adam because of his repeat offenses.  Paul doesn’t conclude anything that God had not concluded already first.  It be the same as a home owner hiring a guard to guard his house from thieves but instead the guard not only allows the thieves in but he holds the door open for them as they cart out the owner’s possessions.

We are not to be like Adam.  When God gives us truth, we are not to say nothing as the enemy takes our children by their hands and walks them away.  The alarm needs to go off and as Christians we all can be faithful watchmen.

Don,
You are exactly right. Most hierarchists see his sin as one sin and not two.

bgk #54,

The carageenan in my ice cream comes from seaweed, but I don’t know if it has seeds.

Very cute!  And a mighty fine sense of humor too!

“The bible says that Adam dealt treacherously against God”  The analogy in Hosea is about transgressing.  (I predict you will disagree.)

Nope, didn’t catch this one right, but I won’t hold it against you.  The comparison in Hosea 6:7 is not just about transgressing the law but how the transgressing is done.  The entire book of Hosea is quite interesting and goes along with the theme of sinning willfully with one’s eyes wide open.  It is about spiritual adultery and the picture that God paints for us is of his own pain because of the adultery.  God tells Hosea to marry a prostitute and Hosea’s experience with Gomer and her children born from adultery is given to explain God’s pain.  The chapter and verses are a back and forth account of willful sin and God’s great love that draws him to his wife.  One set of verses are about judgment and the pain that God experiences because he has been left for another.  God has been treated as if he is unworthy to be loved, cherished and to be faithful to.  Then God speaks about how he will bring her back and how he will marry her forever (Hosea 2:19, 20).

The continuing disgust of God’s regarding the sin of his people is because they are sinning with knowledge and purposely rejecting the knowledge of God.  They have rejected knowledge (Hosea 4:6)  This is exactly what Adam did when he chose to go against what he knew to be true.  It is interesting that God says he won’t judge the wives who commit harlotry because it is the husband’s themselves who have abandoned faithfulness first.  In those days it would be forced harlotry because when a man abandoned his wife the only work available to her was harlotry.  Clearly God is judging the original perpetrator in a way that he is not judging the “victim”.  The wives have been abandandoned for other women and the perpetrators have been unfaithful:

Hos 5:7  They have dealt treacherously against the LORD, For they have borne illegitimate children…

In chapter 5 of Hosea the sin is with eyes wide open.  Who are these oneswho have deal treacherously with the LORD compared to?  They are compared to specific people – those who willfully sin by removing a landmark.

Hos 5:10  The princes of Judah have become like those who move a boundary; On them I will pour out My wrath like water.

Then we come to the disputed verse.  First of all God says:

Hos 6:6  For I delight in loyalty rather than sacrifice, And in the knowledge of God rather than burnt offerings.

The Hebrew word that is translated “loyalty” means faithfulness and steadfastness.  God desires faithfulness from his people.  However they have been unfaithful and treacherous.  They have been unfaithful to their wives and abandoned them so that the women were forced to become prostitutes in order to live.

Then we come to Hosea 6:7

NASB Hos 6:7  But like Adam they have transgressed the covenant; There they have dealt treacherously against Me.

(Amplified)  But they, like [less-privileged] men and like Adam, have transgressed the covenant; there have they dealt faithlessly and treacherously with Me.

(ASV)  But they like Adam have transgressed the covenant: there have they dealt treacherously against me.

(ESV)  But like Adam they transgressed the covenant; there they dealt faithlessly with me.

(LITV) (Literal translation)  But, like Adam, they have broken the covenant; they have acted like traitors against Me there.

(MKJV)  But, like Adam, they have broken the covenant. They have acted like traitors against Me there.

(RV)  But they like Adam have transgressed the covenant: there have they dealt treacherously against me.

(WEB)  But they, like Adam, have broken the covenant. They were unfaithful to me, there.

(YLT)  And they, as Adam, transgressed a covenant, There they dealt treacherously against me.

Just as these men were unfaithful and treacherous to their wives, so they also treated God the same unfaithful way.  The original unfaithful one was Adam.  He sold his wife out to the serpent by being silent.  He allowed her to be taken away through deception yet he said not one word to defend her or God.  Adam knew the truth and was not deceived, yet he did nothing with his knowledge.

Now can the word “Adam” rightfully be translated “men” in this passage?  There are several things that make only the man “Adam” a fit.  First of all the Hebrew grammar is singular not plural.  Secondly the “likeness” cannot be to every man because not every human is unfaithful.  In Hosea, God is rebuking and exposing those who are unfaithful to their marriage covenant and who do their sin willfully and with knowledge of the truth.  While all “men” sin, not all are treacherous and unfaithful.  Also in the inspired words in scripture, God says “like Adam”.  He does not say “like sinful men”.  What is the comparison?  All sinners are like Ephraim and Israel?  No.  The comparison must be to a specific treacherous sin of unfaithfulness.  It cannot be generic man.  It is a single man called “Adam” and his sin is described by God as unfaithfulness and treacherous breaking of the covenant.  God created a special mate for Adam made from his own body and he gave her up to the serpent without a fight.  This is a great sin against his wife because Adam failed to protect his own flesh and blood from an attack that he recognized (remember he was not deceived).  His silence was equivalent to one who betrays their mate.  Spiritual betrayal is even more deadly than physical betrayal.  Adam was unfaithful.  Adam dealt treacherously with his own wife and with God because God is the one who gave the woman to the man.  God did not take this lightly and God punished Adam for his betrayal.

No, you are contending that the exception would have been recorded if it had been given.  Genesis was not written for the benefit of Adam and Eve.  It was written for us.

I am saying that if the exception is not recorded, then it makes God look like he is a liar since he gave permission for all seed bearing fruit to be eaten.  All scripture is written for our instruction and for our correction.  An exception to God’s word of permission (God is the faithful one who keeps his word) that is not recorded is not beneficial to us.

I didn’t know Adam and Eve needed to be justified before the fall.

No one will come to God without faith.  God’s original plan for humans is that we accept him by faith and we submit to him not by force but by free will.

I am not restricted to eating only plants with seeds.  I can eat seaweed whether it has seeds or not.  I eat meat as well.

I was talking about Adam and Eve.  God has subsequently added even more foods than he gave to the first married couple.  After Noah’s flood God added meat to our foods given us by permission.  There is more additions in the New Testament regarding what we are allowed to eat that was forbidden in the OT.  God can add permission as he wishes.  He does not take back permission without a noted exception.  For example Adam was given permission in chapter two to eat from the tree of life.  He was given permission to eat from every tree in the garden except for one.  That means that the Tree of Life was there for his consumption by permission.  Yet when Adam sinned God saw fit to remove his ability to eat from that tree so that a spiritually dead human would not physically live forever.

I say Adam (one who knew he was wrong when he ate the fruit because he was not deceived)

I think we are in agreement here.  I would add one thing.  Adam not only knew that it was wrong to eat the fruit but he knew that what the serpent was saying about God’s motives and the end result (no death) were not true.  He was not deceived.  He knew the truth yet did nothing about the truth.  Kind of like burying your treasure in the sand instead of using it for gain.

“ Adam also did not defend Eve from a spiritual attack that he identified.”  Are you saying it was his responsibility to?

Yes.

Eze 3:17  “Son of man, I have appointed you a watchman to the house of Israel; whenever you hear a word from My mouth, warn them from Me.
Eze 3:18  “When I say to the wicked, ‘You will surely die,’ and you do not warn him or speak out to warn the wicked from his wicked way that he may live, that wicked man shall die in his iniquity, but his blood I will require at your hand.

The one who knows the truth is always responsible to be his “brother’s keeper”.  We are all expected to be responsible for the truth that God has given us and to warn others.

Are you saying God does not lay blame on the one who Satan attacks?  All have sinned.  The wages of sin is death.

God treats the deceived and the victims differently than the deceivers and the unfaithful.  Although the wages of sin is the same, the punishment for the knowledge we have and for our motivation will be different.  God also has given himself the opportunity to step into one’s life and freely give mercy that is not deserved when one has not sinned with a “high hand”.  Paul said this well about his own situation.

1Ti 1:13  even though I was formerly a blasphemer and a persecutor and a violent aggressor. Yet I was shown mercy because I acted ignorantly in unbelief;

Notice the “because” in this verse?  God does not give mercy to the unfaithful and the ones who sin with a “high hand” (sinning in such a way that it represents a hand raised as a fist in defiance to God).  In Hosea we see that God does withholds his mercy from those who are unfaithful willful sinners.  They must repent and seek God and then he can give mercy.

I am not part of the Jehovah’s Witnesses and have never been.

I also have never been part of the Jehovah’s Witnesses, but I have a special love for these lost souls who think they have the truth but who have been gravely misled.  I have dedicated my life to help teach the truth of God’s word to Jehovah’s Witnesses and ex-JW’s who hoave left the organization so that they can unravel the deception and find true faith in Christ.  This has made me very sensitive for others who have been trapped within human tradition without even knowing that they have been deceived.  I sincerely desire to speak the truth in love in just the way that I would want someone to talk to me if I was deceived and following man’s tradition.  I believe that we show our love when we give up our lives to help others find the treasure of God’s words.  I have experienced many attacks for speaking the truth in love.  It has come from the cultists and from misinformed Christians.  Yet my greatest joy is knowing that some come free in Christ and when they do, they love and appreciate me for taking the time to care about them.  I teach the word of God because I love Christ first of all.  Also I teach the Word because I love my brothers and sisters in Christ and especially those cultists who will come into the family of Christ because of some seed that I may either plant or water.  God gives the growth, but it is a special joy to be used by God to serve.

Don, I do put Genesis 1 and 2 together.  I just trust that I’m a faithful person who has arrived at a different answer.

It is especially interesting to see how easy it is to disregard the inspired words and to do a quick harmonization that leaves off some of the most breath taking lessons for us to learn.  One of the biggest for me is Genesis 2:8, 19 where the inspired grammar is not past tense but a sequential ordering of the events.  It really helped me to see the wealth of privileges that Adam got to experience before Eve came on the scene and it opened my mind up to understand more fully why Adam was not deceived yet Eve was.  God’s word is so precious and so filled with details that we often miss.

That’s about all I have time for tonight.  I hope that I was somewhat of a worthy opponent and that I gave you a few things to think about.  Have a blessed weekend 🙂

bgk,
I had hoped to get back to you today regarding your comments about “men” instead of “Adam” in Hosea 6:7.  Video editing had to come first and I finally finished putting in more than a full day.  I will try to carve out some time tomorrow to give you my answer.  If not by the weekend for sure.  I would recommend that you read the chapters around Hosea 6 to get the context.  Perhaps you will see the things for yourself that I will be sharing with you.  Context is highly important especially when a word can have more than one meaning.  Context is King and will help to eliminate the confusion.

I am completely exhausted and I am going to bed.  Sorry again for the delay.

bgk,

Cheryl, you put up a straw man.  I did not say God gives permission and then withdraws it.  I said God can make exceptions and that not all exceptions are necessarily recorded in every place.

You have a big problem with what you have stated because God gave no exceptions.  God said that they were given permission to eat every plant that was seed bearing and every tree that had seed bearing fruit.  Every is the Hebrew word “kol” means totality, all in its entirety and the whole.  It cannot mean that there are exceptions unless they are specifically stated because the word in its normal meaning means everything with nothing left out.  If you have a specific biblical example where God said “everything” that is given by permission but he didn’t mean everything and the exception is not listed, then please instruct me.  Otherwise I will have to take the bible as it is written with the inspired words.

You seem to be arguing with me about Adam’s motives.

I can’t argue with you about Adam’s motives because I don’t read hearts and I know nothing about his motive except for what the scripture says.  The bible says that Adam dealt treacherously against God and that is the only thing that I can find anywhere that hints at what was in Adam’s heart.  I believe God that Adam dealt treacherously against God.  Any other “how come” questions will have to remain unanswered, I would suppose, until we get to heaven and can ask God.

You brought up Hosea to refute my suggestion that Adam was influenced by his wife to take the fruit.  Another straw man.   Being influenced by his wife (I did not say coerced.  I did not say she begged him.) did not make him guiltless.

The bible doesn’t say that Eve “influenced” Adam.  How could a woman who was completely deceived influence someone who was not deceived even a little bit?  Clearly Adam ate because he chose to eat and his excuse that she gave it to him (influenced him to take it) was rejected by God.  I don’t buy it either.

Please note that I said it SEEMS Adam was influenced by his wife.  That is what it seems to me.  It may not seem that way to someone else.  Adam took the fruit his wife gave him, not one he plucked himself.

I appreciate that you clarified that this is what it seems.  I like biblical facts to base my belief on and I find nothing in the text that supports the contention that Adam (one who completely knew that the serpent was not telling the truth because Adam was not deceived) was influenced by his wife.  Adam did not need to pluck the fruit himself.  It was his heart motive that was tested by God, not the fact that he didn’t pluck the fruit himself.

I must have touched a nerve there without realizing it.

Not that I know of.  I do think that we should lay blame where God lays blame and not blame the one who Satan attacked.  Adam did not defend God when the serpent attacked God’s motives and his loving source of supply for Adam and Eve.  Adam also did not defend Eve from a spiritual attack that he identified.  I know when I first brought this up to a seminary professor he was blown away because it was a thought that he had never considered before.  He said that he blamed Eve for things because this is what he was taught.  However looking carefully at scripture, he could see that what he had been taught was to be prejudiced against women and specifically against Eve.  I get great joy in my life to help people see what scripture actually says and to help them step outside of their bind spots that have come from tradition.  This is how I would want someone to treat me if I had blind spots that came from the tradition that was taught me.  I too was taught that Eve was to blame as she was the one who tempted the man, who disobeyed the man by making a spiritual decision without his approval and who was the weak one because she was deceived.  The inspired words and the inspired grammar have done much to open my own blinded eyes.

That has nothing to do with my contention that you are making an assumption when you say that scripture is bound to record in chapter one the exception to what was edible.

That is not what I was passionately contending for.  There is no doubt that Adam was given the exception to the fruit that he could eat.  What I was contending for was that there was no exception given to Eve regarding the full permission given to both her and Adam to eat any tree that had seed bearing fruit.  If the tree of the knowledge of good and evil did not have seed bearing fruit then there is no exception necessary, correct?  It is ONLY if the fruit on the tree of the knowledge of good and evil had seed bearing fruit that a specific exception MUST be given.  The fact that God told Eve that they (plural) were not allowed to touch the fruit made the acceptance that this particular tree did not have seed bearing fruit a matter of faith.  I happen to think that it is wonderful that throughout the entire bible, our actions are judged by faith.  Abraham was justified by faith.  We are justified by faith.  Adam and Eve were to be justified by faith if they only believed God and acted on that belief.

Are you saying aquatic plants are not edible because they are not upon the face of the earth?

I am not saying any such thing.  “Face” means on the surface.  It can also mean on the surface of the water. (See Genesis 1:2)  Earth can mean the entire globe not just the dry land.  I would think that most seed bearing plants are on dry land, but if they are in the water, that too would be given to us to eat.

I take the phrase that Adam ”was not deceived” to mean that his sin was willful.

I agree with you that Adam’s sin was willful, but “not deceived” means exactly that. The Greek word means not seduced into error.  Adam did not buy the lie that the serpent told Eve.  He understood the truth while his wife was being led away into seduction.  No wonder God was upset with Adam and cursed the ground on his behalf.  The one who knows the truth is responsible for doing something about that truth and not burying it in the ground.

Don, my point was precisely that scripture does not contradict itself.  So we look at all of it, not parts.

You are so right in that the scripture does not contradict itself.  This is why we need to verify what we understand and test scripture by scripture.  If what we believe to be true is contradicted by a part of scripture, we need to look to see what the problem is.  It isn’t scripture that will be the problem, but our misunderstanding of scripture.  When our view is without contradiction in the parts as well as the whole we can know that we have the truth.

Lots of people will say that we need to look at the whole of scripture.  They usually say this when I show them a scripture that contradicts what they believe.  I have had a lot of experience with this because of the support group that I led for to help former Jehovah’s Witnesses come to faith in Christ by learning sound doctrine and unlearning the error that the Watchtower teaches them.  I helped them to see that scripture is all true, but it must be taken in its context.  When they told me that their view was true in the big picture of the scripture, I told them that the big picture is also made up by the details.  If the details contradict one’s “big picture”, then the big picture is wrong.

Have a good night.  We can all check our teeth in the morning to see if any of us had a hankering for eating seaweed.  🙂

Pinklight,

I think you will find the next post on Adam and Eve very interesting.  That is when I find the time to get it together.  I am on doing a bit of the boring stuff today on the video editing project on the Trinity DVD.  I can hardly wait until I am done.  By the time I am finished it will be a full 9 month project.

Lin #44,

Great observation!  This is hitting the nail on the head.

bgk,

In the gospels, Jesus gives adultery as a grounds for divorce.  He doesn’t seem  to give any other grounds, but from Paul’s writing it appears that if an unbelieving spouse desires to leave, divorce is acceptable in that case also.

This is not what I asked of you.  I said that in God does not give permission for something and then take it away (after giving permission) without giving a reason for the exception.  What you are giving me is not permission that has been taken away.

What I’m saying is that God could have made the restriction on eating from the tree of knowledge without his saying so being recorded in chapter one.

I agree that God could have given his restriction to Eve.  In fact that is my point – that God spoke words to Eve along with Adam that are not recorded in scripture but are there by the testimony of Eve.  For example Eve said that God told them not to touch the fruit and those direct words are not recorded except for the testimony of Eve.

However any restriction that God gives in chapter one must not contradict God’s direct words.  God said that Adam and Eve were given permission to eat from every single seed bearing fruit.  This record of God’s permission is after the events of chapter two.  In chapter two God originally gives the prohibition to Adam alone before Eve was created.  Then in chapter one God gives permission regarding additional things to eat and this permission is given after Eve’s creation and hence must be after the prohibition given in chapter two.  Do you follow this so far?  Okay, we know that the prohibition has already been stated and is in effect when God gives the permission in chapter one.  He gives permission regarding every single seed bearing fruit.  He cannot now take away that permission without giving the exception.  This does not take away the prohibition, what it does is identify the fact that the forbidden fruit does not have seed bearing fruit.  It is a tree of death not a tree of life.  There is no life in it.  The facts from chapter two mesh with the facts of chapter one and there is no contradiction.  If the tree of the knowledge of good and evil has seed bearing fruit then God’s permission in chapter one contradicts with his prohibition in chapter two.  God now must take away his permission with exception and he does not do this.

The recording of his mentioning the exception is in chapter two.

The exception in chapter two says you may eat from every tree except one.  However the permission in chapter one is not exactly the same.  It is every tree that has seed bearing fruit.  Therefore if the tree of KG&E has seed bearing fruit, God must give an exception.  God is a God of details and he would not give permission to Eve (who had not been given the original prohibition) without an exception.  God cares very much about us and it is his desire that we do not sin.  In this respect God identifies sin and points it out so that we can be sure what the sin is and avoid it.  If God gave Eve permission to eat from every seed bearing fruit without exception, then God caused confusion about sin instead of making himself clear.

It is clear that God is not a God of confusion and when we put chapter two together with chapter one, we can be sure that the forbidden tree did not have seed bearing fruit.

The Bible does not say, “The tree of knowledge has no seeds.”  Whether it does or not I don’t know.

The Bible doesn’t say it directly, but with all the information that the bible does say, we can rightfully conclude that this is true otherwise there is a contradiction in scripture and we know that this can’t be.

If you’re saying that the serpent said to the woman, “what you (plural) may eat, and the woman replies with “what we (plural) may eat” proves that the man was present, that’s weak.

It is one of the evidences.  While one can use the word “we” and be alone, the fit is much better for more than one person to be there.  We also take into consideration that the scriptures say that Adam was together with her in fellowship.  There is no indication that he was apart from her and came later.  The most direct way to read the passage is that Adam was there with her.  The last evidence is that God gave Adam blame for listening to the voice of his wife and the conversation that he listened to is only given as the one where his wife talks to the serpent.  The bible doesn’t say that she begged him to eat the fruit.  She merely gave to him and this is what is recorded.  All of these things together are a strong case that Adam was there with her and complementarians have come a long way to admit that God punished Adam for both eating the fruit and being silent while he listened to his wife talking to the serpent.  I give comps great credit for admitting to the weakness of Adam.

I think the reference in Hosea is referring to Ephraim and Judah (the tribes collectively) as the ones who have dealt treacherously with God.  The comparison is that they have transgressed God’s covenant like men.

The reference is certainly to those who have been treacherous with God but it is comparing what they have done to what Adam did.  It isn’t transgressing God’s covenant like “men”.  The Hebrew is singular.  I can show you on line where you can see the Hebrew grammar and can verify that what I am saying is correct, if you would like.  Almost every single bible renders it as “Adam” because it is in the singular.  The KJV is wrong on this verse because the grammar is not plural and that is why modern translations have corrected the error.

I don’t understand why you are saying that Hosea said that Adam [the first male] dealt treacherously.

If you have a look at the NASB you will see it clearly there.  God is the one that tells us that Adam dealt treacherously with him.  He can identifiy this because he sees the heart of all men.  We do not know Adam’s motives and without God telling us that Adam dealt with him treacherously, we would not know anything at all about his heart attitude.

Sorry about sending 2 posts at once. (bg and bgk)  I didn’t realize the first one had gone through.

No problem at all.  I am just very glad that you stopped by to interact.  I have the posts set up so that a post from a new person must first be approved before the posts will get past moderation.  This has helped a whole lot to keep down the spam.  Your first post went into moderation so it is understandable why you didn’t see it and thought it didn’t go through.

Again, welcome!!  Your thoughts and your ideas are valued.  We can all learn from one another and these issues are worthy of being talked about as well as they are worthy of being challenged in a respectful way.  You have been most respectful.

Absolutely correct!  To have a full and correct understanding one must pay attention to the details because all scripture is inspired and useful for teaching and correction.

Don,
I am sure that you are right.  All I ask from those who have an opposing viewpoint is that they consider the text and test to see if what I am saying is in the text or not.  If it is there, they should be open minded enough to consider it.  If it isn’t in the text they should love me enough to correct me.

bgk,
By the way, I forgot to welcome you!  A hearty welcome and thanks for stopping by and sharing your thoughts.

37 bk,

You said:

Since the man was not deceived, it seems he gave in because of the influence of the woman which is reflected in his response to God, “The woman…gave me of the tree, and I did eat.

This is not what scripture says.  Adam used the woman as an excuse but God says in Hosea 6:7 that Adam dealt treacherously against God.  This cannot be explained by an coercion that the woman did to the man.  God is giving heart attitude but outside influence.

In other words, I am saying that it is not an indisputable fact that the man witnessed the serpent’s temptation of the one created to help man.
What seems relevant to me is that Satan uses whatever means is most effective to tempt an individual to sin.

I appreciate your opinion, but I beg to differ.  Adam was there with Eve and both the plural pronouns indicate this plus the word “with” means to travel with or to have companionship with.  It means he was there with her.

bgk #38
You said:

That the Tree of knowledge did not have seeds is an assumption.  You are assuming that God is not allowed to make exceptions to His instruction on what was edible.

It isn’t an assumption at all.  God already gave Adam and Eve complete freedom to eat from every single tree that had seed bearing fruit without exception.  He forbid them from eating only the fruit from one tree.  If God withheld from them what he had already given them permission to eat from, then God can not be trusted.  There is not one iota of evidence in the text that God made an exception regarding trees that have seed bearing fruit.  Otherwise God would have had to say that they were allowed to eat from every seed bearing fruit tree except for one.  Without giving them an exception and with nothing in scripture that even hints at an exception, then logically the tree of the knowledge of good and evil did not have seeds.  Since you have made the claim that this that God can make an exception to a permission without mentioning the exception, then I would like to ask that you prove your point from scripture.  Give one example where such a thing happened.

There is no reason to say that they could not eat of the tree of knowledge because it had no seeds.

God had already given them complete freedom to eat from every tree with seed bearing fruit.  Therefore this particular tree could have not have seed bearing fruit.  You have also missed the fact that God stated further details in chapter one that were not given in chapter two.  When the permission and the prohibition was given to Adam in chapter two there was more information added to what Adam and Eve could eat and could not eat, given in detail in chapter one.  Each chapter is very important.  Although chapter 1 of Genesis is the big picture, there are also details regarding Adam and Eve that are not given in chapter two so we are not free to disregard these details but must pay close attention so that we do not miss anything that God says.

but it is not an “indisputable fact” that he was with the woman when the serpent talked with her.

Scripture says that Adam was “with her”.  It doesn’t say that she gave the fruit to her husband “when with her” as the Jehovah’s Witness bible renders the passage in order to try to prove that Adam was not with Eve when she was being tempted.  It clearly says only that Adam was with Eve and God judges Adam for listening to the voice of his wife.  The only time that Eve is recorded speaking is when she was talking with the serpent.  This is why even complementarians such as John Piper have come out very strongly preaching that Adam was with Eve and he said nothing while she was being deceived.  He listened to the voice of his wife as she talked with serpent but he did nothing.  This is called the silence of Adam.

If Adam was not with Eve during the temptation, then what proof is there of his absence?  The serpent uses the plural form of “you” and the woman also uses the plural.

jbs,
This is not a justification of sin at all. It is allowing God to judge the heart motivation along with the action.

A heart motive of rebellion is called sinning with a “high hand”.  There were sacrifices in the OT that were to be offered for “unintentional sin” see Lev. 4:22.  If God can judge between those who sin willfully and with deliberate rebellion, and those who sin unintentionally then God can bring mercy to those who did not sin with malice.

This is what Paul claims when he was saved by Jesus.  Paul says in 1 Timothy 1:13 “even though I was formerly a blasphemer and a persecutor and a violent aggressor.  Yet I was shown mercy because I acted ignorantly in unbelief”

God has the opportunity to step in and give mercy even though we do not deserve mercy when the sin has not been done with a “high hand”.

Adam was not justified in sinning because he sinned willfully and with his eyes wide open to the truth.  Hosea 6:7 shows that Adam treated God in a treacherous manner and Paul said that Adam was not deceived.  The bible says nothing about Eve’s sexuality tempting Adam.  Adam had no excuse.

While Adam and Eve’s sin was the same in that both of them ate the fruit, their heart motives were not the same.  God judges the heart.

Paula #30,

I agree with your list.  I would add the other facts that we know.  We know that God spoke to Adam and told him that the fruit from one tree was forbidden.  We also know that God spoke to Adam and his wife (Gen 1:29) and told them both that they were given permission to eat from every tree in the garden that had seed bearing fruit.  If we add in these additional facts, we can sharpen up our focus regarding what Adam knew.

The truth that you have clearly pointed out is that Adam did not blame Eve for getting his direction wrong or is misrepresenting God.  He certainly could have shifted the blame further on to her if she had not been telling the truth.  The facts in this case show that neither Adam nor God blamed Eve for giving out wrong words.  If neither one of them charges her with error or with lying, then we have no reason either to believe that she wasn’t telling the absolute truth about her experience with God’s permission and non-permission.

Pinklight,
One thing that you will need to be aware of in your observations is that God alone can read the hearts of mankind.

1 Kings 8:39  then hear in heaven Your dwelling place, and forgive and act and render to each according to all his ways, whose heart You know, for You alone know the hearts of all the sons of men,

It is impossible for the serpent or Satan or any demon to read our hearts.  They have access to put thoughts into our minds, but they cannot read our hearts.

Lin,
Many believe that Genesis 1 & 2 are from different authors.  They believe this because there are a couple of things that seem to be contradictions in chapter 2.  However the contradictions are in our own eyes not in the text.  Once one understands the way what chapter 2 is saying and what it isn’t saying, there are no contradictions at all.

As far as who the author is of Genesis 1 & 2, the tradition is that Moses wrote Genesis.  However the information in these chapters especially that which happened before Adam was created could only be known by God and those that God revealed it too.  Because it is ultimately authored by God and because it contains information that no man could have without being given by God himself, there cannot be contradictions.  I think that in the past some have not worked hard enough to see the passages as they are without contradiction.  All we need to do is remove our preconceived ideas and come to the text to accept as it is written.  More on this later.

Pinklight,
Thanks for your observations! I will speak more about the consequences of the fall in my next post.

Paula,
If Adam was not deceived, he knew that God had told the truth and was not lying.  Therefore he also knew two things that God had said.  He knew that they were allowed to eat from every tree that had seed bearing fruit.  He also knew that only one tree was forbidden.  Therefore the only logical conclusion was that the fruit that was forbidden did not have seeds.  We also see that Adam made no attempt to look for the seeds but he silently ate.  He knew the truth, yet he disobeyed God with his eyes wide open. Again, shame on Adam.

Paula,
Adam wasn’t deceived that this fruit was good for them to eat nor that it would make them wise and they could become like God.   He was deceived in none of it.  Knowledge doesn’t equate faith in God though.  Knowledge plus obedience to that knowledge equates with faith.  What Adam knew, Adam didn’t practice.  Such a shame.