Whoops that didn’t work! Can’t believe it quoted when I added the spaces lol!

Use the arrow key pointing to the left
type blockquote
Use the arrow key pointing to the rigth then forward backslash and type blockquote again

Pinklight, in #351. If you say, and I quote (I wish I knew how to do that nice blue quotation mark thing! It would be such a timesaver!:)

text

Try that but without the spaces that I’ve added

349, I don’t think having a ‘track record’, i.e. multiple sins, was necessarily what got Adam in hot water. It seems clear to me that it only took one sin to be in hot water; it just so happens he had several. I don’t see God mentioning or referring explicitly to a track record, but rather, simply, to sin.

truthseeker,

I agree. And I was using the words “track record” because Adam continued in rebellion by blaming God and his wife.

You say, ‘…having been deceived one time (sin once)’. Are you classifying Eve’s deception as sin?

Yes.

It is true that it says her desire shall be for Adam. Period. However, it does not say whether this is a pure desire or an impure desire. Both are possible. I can say my desire is for my husband. Period. But that doesn’t state why I have a desire for him. It is the ‘why’ that is critical here, and it is unstated. There is always a ‘why’ or a motive for desiring someone. The fact that it is unstated does not mean we can immediately conclude the reason is either pure or impure. We have to look at the whole context.

You mean a person (particularly Eve) couldn’t just want her husband like the text says? We have to guess that there’s a reason why she desired her husband being something other than her husband, but for a reason like for things? Why do that if the text simply says she desired her husband, period? We can’t just trust the text because we can’t trust that her desire was actually just for her husband, period? To say that her desire was for somehting other than just her husband is not going with just the text.

truthseeker,
Okay, how about continuous sinful acts since he just doesn’t quit?

His nature can still simply be his human nature. After all, at some point, he did his first sinful act, and so it would have to be said that this first sinful act came out of what-his sinful nature or his human nature?

I’d say that his first sinful act was made out of choice.

If we conclude however, that God only created Adam (and Eve) with a human nature, then we have to conclude that it is possible to choose to sin without having a sinful nature-that indeed, all we need to sin is a human nature and some free will.

Adam chose to sin when he did not have a sinful nature. But his continuing in rebellion is what makes me use words like “sin nature” because it is what he continued to do – rebel. First he eats, then he blames, then he won’t leave the garden, (has to get forced out literally) etc.

But with Eve I cannot find her continuously in anything (like deception) or continuously doing something (like rebelling).

As for Eve’s track record, all track records begin somewhere. Adam’s began earlier with his choices, Eve’s could be stated as having begun with her deception (the point at which she veered ‘of the path’)-which also bore consequences even though it was deception and not blatant willful rebellion.

Having been deceived one time (sin once) and coming out of that deception is not a track record. If her track record began with being deceived then her track recorded ended after she came out of her deception. She did not continue to do anything, to offend, rebel or be deceived therefore she has no track record.

She didn’t desire him to do things for her – the text says she desired him (the person). But I’m hearing things like she desired him more than God, or she desired him to do this. What is it about Eve desiring the very PERSON, a human being, her husband that makes us want to think she desires something MORE that just him? Looks to me like we are not reading about Eve in Genesis 3 but rather about today’s women.

I also continue to be surprised to see the term ’sin nature’ bandied about so freely, as though it were somehow explicitly or even implicitly stated in the passages we are addressing. It is no more explicit nor implicit than are the terms ’head’, ’headship’, ’authority over’, etc., as pertaining to Adam and Eve, as the comps try to say are ’right there in the context’. I can understand why it might be very tempting to think it is there, in either case, but it is NOT there, and that is what deserves our attention.

I agree. But what then should I call Adam’s continuous rebellion or fallen track record? If there’s a better way to convey it, so be it. How about fallen nature?

Many women desire for their husbands to protect, provide, entertain, be their comforter, etc., etc., to the exclusion-in varying degrees-of trusting in God for these things. That is, while all of these things are not evil in themselves, many women expect more of some or all of these things than their husbands can provide.

truthseeker,
Not only are you talking about Adam’s daughter and not Eve but also Eve didn’t desire “things” but rather she desired her husband himself, not things, like a rose garden, new skin clothing, or fig newtons.

That is, while all of these things are not evil in themselves, many women expect more of some or all of these things than their husbands can provide.

We are talking about Eve though, not Adam’s daughters.

Their rationale being that since Eve was deceived, Adam must now rule over her to compensate for her deceivability.

Difference is that she came out of her deception, speaking who had deceived her while Adam stayed rebellious and next blamed God and the woman out of rebellion.

I think it is interesting that God said to Eve that her desire “shall be ” rather than ‘will continue to be’.

truthseeker,

But her desire is connected to the increase in toil and pain is it not?

“I will greatly multiply Your pain in childbirth, In pain you will bring forth children; YET your desire will be for your husband,

I mean, if we are going to say ‘why not?’ to Eve’s desire being good, then why can’t we have the right to say the same about Adam’s forthcoming rule?

Someone needs to tell me how desiring one’s husband is a bad thing. Desiring a husband over God is different from just desiring one’s husband. Desiring to rule over a husband is also different from just desiring one’s husband. The object of the desire is the husband, not an action against the husband.

Adam ate out of rebellion
He didn’t protect his wife
He blamed God and his wife for his sin
He was going to take from the tree of life and so it had to be protected
He had to literaly be thrown out of the garden

He’s got a track record.

Where’s Eve’s record? Or what is there within the text to tell us that her desire was sin? I can find nothing.

Adam wasn’t given rule over his wife and it’s only mention after his rebellion that is, once he’s fallen. Eve didn’t stay deceived though.

If Adam ruled over Eve and she did not have a choice it would have to of been because he forced his rule onto her.

Eve had all the free will choices that Adam had except where they were different people. Eve didn’t desire to rule over her husband because she wasn’t like him. Adam didn’t desire his wife (at least the text doesn’t say he did) because he wasn’t like her.

The difference in desire between both Adam and Eve’s is that Adam desired to do something to his wife (rule over her, an action) whereas Eve desired her husband himself vs doing something to him (an action). Adam desired to do something to another, Eve desired another. I think the differences are important. Details, deatils! ;P

If Genesis had said that Adam merely desired his wife rather than rule over her then how could we conclude that his desire for her was sin? Same thing for Eve. If Genesis had said that Eve desired to _______ her husband then depending on what it was she desired to do to him we could conclude whether or not her desire was sin.

“Adam didn’t desire to rule over Eve either

I was implying that the text doesn’t say that he “desired to rule” her.

“Adam didn’t desire to rule over Eve either – he judt DID rule over her.”

pinklight,
I’m not following you – how do you think Adam could rule without the will/want/desire to do so?

Kay, what I’m saying is that there is a difference between Adam’s actions and Eve’s feeling (desire). Ofcourse Adam desired to rule Eve because out of that desire he would rule her, but the text is showing us his action vs. Eve’s emotion. What it comes down to then is that there is no way to pin down any sinful action she had done against Adam out of her desire for him whereas in Adam’s case he did do something to his wife.

Oh, my, pinklight – that sounds dangerously like Adam got all the free will choices and Eve got none.

Kay,
Well I’ve only been looking so far at the choices of Adam’s actions, not Eve’s and at Eve “choices” in regards to consequences of the fall for her, not Adam’s. Adam didn’t have choices when God told him how things were now going to be. He didn’t have a choice to but work the ground from which he came – outside of the garden, and die etc.

I can have cookies. Could Eve have (or be with) her husband lol! Was there something wrong with her having her husband?

Could sin have Cain? Bad idea.

I’m starting to feel like I cannot believe we are having a discussion on Eve desiring her husband as if it was wrong for her to desire (oh no!) her husband of all things! What a horrible thought lol!

It’s about who Eve desired – her husband. She didn’t desire to do something to him like rule over him. Adam didn’t desire to rule over Eve either – he judt DID rule over her. Two different things at play here. One is a feeling and the other is an action.

I desire cookies.

So?

Thinking…
We can know that when sin desires someone that it is negative because sin is sin, but when a woman (Eve) desires her husband why would we think it is negative unless she is like sin or can be compared to sin? I think such a comparison is completely ridiculous.

More thoughts-

Adam “ruling” over Eve is an action and not just some “desire” or “want” to rule over her.

God predicted Adam’s actions of rule over his wife, but he did not predict Eve’s actions based on her desire.

Eve has this “desire” for her husband in spit of the increased toil and pain, then what action does she then take towards her husband out of her desire for him? Well, for one she stays with him and has more children even after the pain! But what other action would Eve do towards her husband then based on her desire that would show that her “desire” is a sin? How can desire for one’s husband be a bad thing in and of itself anyway lol!

Did Eve have a choice in Adam ruling over her?

Did she have a choice in her increased toil and pain? No, because God said that such is what he himself would do.

Was her desire for her husband a choice? No, because it was her desire for him. She could not choose to desire him or not desire him. She just did desire him.

Did she have a choice in Adam ruling over her? In other words was there anyway that she could stop him from ruling over her when in fact God said that Adam would do so? We know it was Adam’s own will to rule over her since God did not give him rule over her, and God did not give him the choice to rule over her or not to rule over her. So it was his own will, not God’s. We also know that God allowed him to rule over her like he allowed him to eat from the TOKOGAE, but did Eve have a choice in letting Adam rule over her? That is the question! Was there anyway that she could have stopped him from ruling over her (if she wanted to) WHEN in fact God said that Adam would do so?

I’m just putting my thoughts out-

He wasn’t given the tree of KOGAE
He wasn’t given rule over his wife
He wasn’t given the tree of life after he rebelled (this tree was taken away)

But he’d certainly take all three if he was allowed to do so by God.

God allowed him to take from the tree of G&E (make a choice), and he allowed Adam to rule over his wife (another choice) but God did not allow him to eat from the tree of life (he had no choice because God SAID he would die if he ate from the tree of KOGAE…).

Everything Adam did was based on choice, except for one thing – eating from the tree of life after he rebelled.

Adam wasn’t given the fruit to eat of the tree, but he took and ate anyway. He also wasn’t given rule over his wife, but God predicts that he will (take) rule over her anyway. God also predicted that he would take from the tree of life so he sets up a watchman to protect the tree. It is apparent that Adam had a problem with taking what he wanted but taking that which he wasn’t given or allowed to have by God.

And he was given everything but he still had to take more!

He had all the food he wanted that covered the entire eart (given to him after woman was created)
He wasn’t alone, he had a wife
He had a garden to live in
He had work to do – care for the garden
He had God
He had rule over the entire earth along with it’s animals

What was he not given besides fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, rule over his wife and the tree of life once he rebelled? I just wonder why did he have to take more?

The inherited sin nature from Adam and femaleness that is passed down from female to female is seperate from the matter of whether or not Eve’s desire for her husband was a sin. I think we need to focus in on whether or not Eve’s desire was sin excluding what Adam’s daughters do or do not do in regards to sin against their husbands. The inhereted sin nature and femaleness are seperate arguments from Eve’s desire.

So no, I do not believe that Eve “transferred” anything sin wise to the sons or daughters of Adam. Sin comes through Adam. But femaleness does not come through Adam. That comes through Eve. If there is a sin inclination that is uniquely male, and Gen 3:16 testifies to that, why would we not think that there is some corresponding sin inclination that is uniquely female also testified to in that passage?

I find that not only groundless in scripture but devoid of reason. God is simply not that biased.

gengwall,

Why do we see Adam’s rule over his wife as a sin?

Adam wasn’t given the fruit to eat of the tree, but he took and ate anyway. He also wasn’t given rule over his wife, but God predicts that he will (take) rule over her anyway. God also predicted that he would take from the tree of life so he sets up a watchman to protect the tree. It is apparent that Adam had a problem with taking what he wanted but taking that which he wasn’t given or allowed to have by God.

But why do we see Eve’s desire/turning for her husband as a sin?

Put aside inherited sin nature for a moment!! The passage is directly speaking about Adam and Eve, not their sons and daughters. Please tell me then why you would think that Eve’s desire was sin? Her first sin was due to deception, not taking out of rebellion like Adam what wasn’t given to her. She is no longer deceived. So why is her desire for her husband considered sin by you? I cannot see how it can be sin. How can you see that it is sin?

The problem with this reasoning is that her choices were not sinful. It is like saying today that although we know for sure that our future children will have a sin nature, that we are sinful and to blame for producing these children.

There’s the reasoning I was “looking” for!

We rightly emphasize that those who teach women are to enable husbands by treating them as gods ARE chief sinners, but women who listen to such teaching are sinning too. Yes they are deceived in many cases, and we make egal known so they can open their eyes. But many are not; they know about us but hate us and call us names. They are in sin, oppressed or not, because idolatry is sin!

Lin,
I agree!

Turning requires both ‘toward’ and ‘away’, it is impossible to turn toward Adam without turning away from God. Eve surely regretted it later, but if you want to argue from silence, then you must allow it for others too.

If anything (as in turning away) Eve would be turning away from her increased pain, NOT God! That would be the context.

…Bushnell never said that desire/turning was sinful in itself, but only derives its meaning (good or bad) from the context. You know that context gives the meaning!

The context is void of her having a sin nature even though it’s the “fall” and there’s nothing to show that her desire was sinful.

To deny that Eve shares blame in the outcome of her choices is to deny the facts in the Word.

You mean she shares blame in populating the earth with Adam’s rebellious offspring? She’s at fault for not sinning against her husband by seperating from him? She’s at fault for desiring him? If she didn’t pass anything on to the race then how could she be to blame? It’s ALL Adam’s fault for the fallen race and none of the blame can be placed on Eve’s shoulders – not textually.