bgk

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

“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.”  You are the one who first brought up Adam’s motives.

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

“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.”  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.

“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.”   God’s question to Adam regards Adam’s act of disobedience,  “…hast thou eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat?”

“Adam and Eve were to be justified by faith”  I didn’t know Adam and Eve needed to be justified before the fall.

” 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.”  TO US?  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.

“It was his heart motive that was tested by God, not the fact that he didn’t pluck the fruit himself.”  WHO is saying God is testing whether or not Adam plucked the fruit himself?

“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.”   I don’t excuse Adam’s sin either.  Saying Adam was influenced by his wife IS NOT EQUAL to excusing his sin.

“Adam (one who completely knew that the serpent was not telling the truth because Adam was not deceived)”  I say Adam (one who knew he was wrong when he ate the fruit because he was not deceived)

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

“I do think that we should lay blame where God lays blame and not blame the one who Satan attacked.”  Are you saying God does not lay blame on the one who Satan attacks?  All have sinned.  The wages of sin is death.

“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.”  I was not taught that.

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

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.

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.  My example was to back up my own point, not to answer your straw man. 
You seem to be arguing with me about Adam’s motives.  Bottom line,
Adam sinned.  I never said Adam’s sin was not willful.  I don’t have anything at stake with his motives.
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.  He willfully sinned.  I am not saying, I never said, he did not sin.   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.  Being influenced by someone else doesn’t absolve a person’s guilt.  I was not saying one way or the other about the state of his heart.  I don’t know why you think I was.  I must have touched a nerve there without realizing it.  Please don’t misunderstand me.  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.  We disagree.   
Are you saying aquatic plants are not edible because they are not upon the face of the earth? 
Pinklight, I take the phrase that Adam “was not deceived” to mean that his sin was willful.    
Don, my point was precisely that scripture does not contradict itself.  So we look at all of it, not parts.

“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.”
 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.  The Holy Spirit is not contradicting Himself, but we confuse ourself if we look at one scripture without the other.
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 am not saying God did not mention the exception.  He clearly mentioned the exception.  The recording of his mentioning the exception is in chapter two.
The Bible does not say, “The tree of knowledge has no seeds.”  Whether it does or not I don’t know.  Whether it’s relevant I don’t know.  But you are assuming that if God had put the restriction on eating from the tree of knowledge, he would have mentioned it, AND it would have been recorded in chapter one.  That’s faulty logic.  (Circular reasoning or something.)  I could just as easily say that “upon the face of the earth” indicates that the tree of knowledge was in existence, just not on the face of the earth until “God planted a garden in Eden.”  But I’m not saying that lest I be guilty of straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel.

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.   I can say “we” to refer to my husband without him being here.  Certainly someone could ask me about something my husband and I were told whether or not my husband is around.  I am not saying that the man was or wasn’t around during the time the serpent talked to the woman.  I don’t know.  But I will agree to disagree that we can prove at what point in time the man was with her.  I agree that it can not be proved that he was absent.  I do not agree that it can be proved he was present.  See the difference?  Obviously he was either there or not there, but I do not agree that we can prove he was there when the serpent spoke to the woman.

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 word men is the from the same word that Adam comes from.  It’s the same word used in Genesis 5:2 to refer to both the male and female human beings.  I never said the woman “coerced” the man.   I believe all mankind, and womankind if you want to word it that way, are sinful.  “There is none righteous, no not one.”   I don’t understand why you are saying that Hosea said that Adam [the first male] dealt treacherously.  And by no means am I saying that if Adam was influenced by his wife to take the fruit, he was not transgressing God’s law.
Sorry about sending 2 posts at once. (bg and bgk)  I didn’t realize the first one had gone through.

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.  I submit God can make whatever exception He wants. 
The way I see it is that chapter one has a lot of generalities that are described in further detail in chapter two, for example, the creation of man.  In chapter 1 God says that all animals and mankind are to be herbivores.  In chapter 2 He addresses the issue of a forbidden tree.
There is no reason to say that they could not eat of the tree of knowledge because it had no seeds.  The reason they could not eat was because God explicitly said, “Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:  But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it:  for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.” 
Also, we know that the man was with the woman when she ate of the tree of knowledge, but it is not an “indisputable fact” that he was with the woman when the serpent talked with her.  Nor can we assume that the man should/shouldn’t have been there.