Don

Luk 24:27

And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself.
Luk 24:44 
Then he said to them, “These are my words that I spoke to you while I was still with you, that everything written about me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled.”

Psalms is the largest and first book of the “Writings” or 3rd section of the Tanakh.
Joh 1:45

Philip found Nathanael and said to him, “We have found him of whom Moses in the Law and also the prophets wrote, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph.”

Yes, it is a good idea to see how one is like each of the characters in a Bible story.  When they fail, how do I fail like them?  In this case, when the man did not speak up, how do I not speak up when I should?

I agreed with your analysis about the sins of the man in the garden, it is mine also.  I was just pointing out that some aspects of sins of omission are debatable, where this is not the case with sins of commission.  The man was not guarding the front door when the serpent sneaked in the back door, they were all in the same place.  My door example was just to show there may not be a black and white ability to decide in all cases vis-a-vis sins of omission.

By judgment call, I mean a guard is meant to guard, but they might claim they are guarding (for example) by guarding the front door when someone sneaks in the back door.  Was the guard doing his job or not?  This is a judgment call, at least in some cases.

But if someone is told to NOT do something and they do it, they is no debate about whether they obeyed the charge, they did not obey.  So those are more black and white decisions.

My take is it is always a judgment call about a sin of omission, where this is not the case with a sin of commission.  The man was to guard the garden and failed, I agree.

Amen!

Here is my “iron sharpens iron” attempt.

Jon 3:4  Jonah began to go into the city, going a day’s journey. And he called out, “Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown!”

is the verse I was referring to being truncated in some sense, as it does not mention any possibility of escape.  I agree God gave them an escape.  But if you look JUST at what was said, there is no escape potential mentioned, it is just a judgment.
—
On the sign of Jonah, no sign
Mat 12:39  But he answered them, “An evil and adulterous generation seeks for a sign, but no sign will be given to it except the sign of the prophet Jonah.
Mat 12:40  For just as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the great fish, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.

Mar 8:11  The Pharisees came and began to argue with him, seeking from him a sign from heaven to test him.
Mar 8:12  And he sighed deeply in his spirit and said, “Why does this generation seek a sign? Truly, I say to you, no sign will be given to this generation.”

Luk 11:29  When the crowds were increasing, he began to say, “This generation is an evil generation. It seeks for a sign, but no sign will be given to it except the sign of Jonah.
Luk 11:30  For as Jonah became a sign to the people of Nineveh, so will the Son of Man be to this generation.

The question is why does Mark not mention Jonah?  My solution when I got from Instone-Brewer is that Mark truncated.  If we JUST HAD MARK, we would know nothing about any sign of Jonah, so I am glad there are 4 gospels.  Truncation is invalid as an operator in Greek logic, as you lose information, but it is fine in Hebrew thinking, you are supposed to know it is possible.
——-
I agree on checking to see if the woman might be telling the truth, this is possible and is even what I want to be true. But just cuz I want something does not make it true, it remains a possibility.  Your argument that she could not simply be mistaken in what she said seems to me to be an “argument from personal incredulity” which is a weak form of argument.  It might convince some, but does not (yet) convince me.
—–

I did not say being deceived equals being mistaken, I said if one is deceived then they are mistaken, but one can be mistaken without being deceived.  Being deceived takes a deceiver.  But given that she was deceived it is not such a stretch to consider the possibility that she was also mistaken.

One thing we need to be careful about is that Hebraic thinking is NOT the same as Greek thinking.  A Hebrew can truncate a statement and the truncated part remains implied, this is totally forbidden in Greek logic chains.  We see examples of this truncation in Jonah, where he gives no escape clause in his warning, yet they escape; and in Mark 8:12 where Jonah is not mentioned as an exception to the “no sign given” yet Mat 12:39, Mat 16:4, and Luk 11:29 DO mention the sign of Jonah.  Skeptics use such verses to claim the Bible contradicts itself and it DOES if only using Greek logic, but the problem is in the using of Greek logic, not the Bible as understood by a Hebrew thinker.

I agree there is no evidence that the woman in the garden was a liar or even childlike.  But anyone can be simply mistaken.  Being deceived means one is mistaken about at least one thing, but the sin did not occur until she ate.  And if she was mistaken about at least 1 thing, I do not see why it could not be more than 1 thing.  I am not saying it is, I am saying we do not know.

I said Pinklight says she is confused.

JUST from the above sentence what can we say?
Can we say Pinklight is confused?  No we cannot.  She may be or may not be.
Can we say Pinklight says she is confused?  No we cannot.  She may have said it or not.

All we can say is that I asserted what I said.

What you have written is a little confusing.

The basic thing is we have the woman ASSERTION about what God said (to them).  We do not KNOW what God said to them.  It is a gap.

Anon.,

The man is charged with 2 charges, listening to the voice of his wife and eating from the tree.  Listening to the voice of his wife was not forbidden and is normally a good thing, so one needs to try to discern how this could be 1) a bad thing and 2) violating a previous command.  My solution (and others including Piper and Cheryl I believe) is that this refers to the man JUST listening to the voice when he knew the serpent was wrong (as he was there with her) and this is violating a previous command as he was given the charge to guard the garden.

My analysis is that we are unsure about the woman, but sure about the man.  And this is enough.  We would like to know more perhaps, but we need to be grateful for what we have.

To me it is clear that the man knew the truth (directly from God) and did not guard the garden from the serpent.

Just to clarify, when I said “add to” I was not implying she somehow heard what God told the man.  It was just comparing the text and noting what she said God said was more than what God told the man.

In my understanding, truth was begun to be lost with the gentilization of the church by the early 2nd century, with the loss of Jewish context.  But God is restoring truth to his church, in roughly the reverse order it was lost.  One of the early losses was women leaders and this is being restored.

We are in a debate for hearts and minds and the model they choose makes a difference.  So we need to be extra careful.  We get to scrutinize the other side of the debate and they should be expected to return the favor.  Iron sharpens iron.

FWIIW, the serpent is asking a question.  We know the serpent is being tricky, but it is not a wrong thing to ask a question.  A question is not a statement.  It is a way to start to rope the woman in, but the question itself is not unfair.

We are to ask questions about what God said.  We are not to do so to try to trick someone.

The text does not say the woman added to God’s words and it does not say she did not.  This is where I see that the Bible is a mirror and whichever way you go shows something about you.  This is why I prefer to just point out that we do not know what we do not know.

I am egal, not a hierarchicalist.  I just do not want to claim more than the text says.  If I claim the hierarchicalists do this (and they do, they add to the text), I do not want them to come back and say I do the same or similar.

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.  That is, we have questions that the text does not answer, trying to force fit an answer in this case goes beyond 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.  As this discussion is a major tangent to the title of this thread, I will simply point out that there were 2 trees in the middle of the garden and mentioning a tree in the middle of the garden is true but ambiguous.

We do know the woman was deceived.  Being deceived means that you think something is true that is false or is false that is true.  However, it was not until she ate the fruit of the TOKOGAE that she sinned.

I do not think it is not really possible to be counterfactual about Spiritual things, as God is certainly in control.

We know Peter wrote that what Paul wrote was Scripture and that endorsement is good enough for me, Peter being one of the 3 that are one of the 12.  The apostles also endorsed Paul as being apostle to the gentiles, which was something like 98% “market share” of the people of the 1st century, so no wonder we find Paul having a huge influence.  And with the resulting gentilization of the church, his letters go to the front of the line in the Bible once they are no longer scrolls in a basket but a codex (book form).

I do not see any such term as secondary apostles in the Bible, there a some people who are simply called apostles, they include the 12 and some others.  Such people (apostles) can exist today, but we often call them missionaries.

I guess you see the woman being sinless as being errorless, but I do not see these as being the same.  One can make an error (in various ways) but it is not (necessarily) a sin.

I knew what you meant.

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.

The man’s reply to God on the other hand is anything but redemptive, blaming the deceived woman and then ultimately God.  Blaming God is not a redemptive reply, there will be more severe consequences.

Sin of omission and then deliberate sin of commission was what the man did.  These 2 sins resulted in the curse on the land.

The man was the paterfamilias of a family, as such he was in charge of his wife, kids and slaves.  Paul addresses comments to all 6 roles and puts the weaker of each pair first in his discussion, in the position of honor.  The cultural assumption would be you just tell the man and he can take care of the rest of the details, but Paul does not do that.  The man in that culture has effectively no limits over his household but Paul gives limits.  This was revolutionary, but may not seem so today, it may seem like Paul is just giving good advice, which he is doing, but he is doing a lot more than that.

This is why I consider it essential to know the 1st century context when interpreting these verses, so many so-called teachers do not do that and miss a lot.

Here is an insight into Titus that Kenneth Bailey had which I like.

Titus is charged to teach older men, older women (these might be the elders) and younger men, but the older women are charged to teach the younger women, per Titus 2:1-6.  Now WHY might Paul instruct Titus to not directly teach younger women?  I think the answer is because it would be cross-gender to a person of similar age.

A teacher is in authority while teaching (to maintain order).  So to avoid any appearance of impropriety in the 1st century, Titus should avoid directly teaching young women, as he is a young man.  It helps to know that adultery was just assumed when a man was along with 1 or more women, as the Jewish sages taught that they would seduce him.  This last from Instone-Brewer, not Bailey.

I am rereading Bruce Fleming’s book “Familiar “Leadership” Heresies Uncovered” (P.S. I think this is a very strange title but has great insights.).

On p. 268 he says Paul repeats a word from 1 Tim 2:9 in 1 Tim 2:15 (I deduced the word is sophrosune (sobriety).  He claims this is an anacoluthon connecting the 2:15b with 2:9.

bdg,
Gen 1:29  And God said, “Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the face of all the earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit. You shall have them for food.
Gen 2:9  And out of the ground the LORD God made to spring up every tree that is pleasant to the sight and good for food. The tree of life was in the midst of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
Gen 2:16  And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, “You may surely eat of every tree of the garden,
Gen 2:17  but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.”

How do you integrate these 3 verses?  As an example, the way I do it is that the TOKOGAE did not have seed but you do not want to draw that inference.

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

Yes, the man was charged with guarding the garden, this implies a threat; one does not guard something where there is no threat.  And the man blew it, this was the first sin, a sin of omission.