pinklight

Hi Mark,

I am not saying that it is not theoretically possible that God gave a new prohibition to Adam and Eve. As i quoted Richard Hess, we don’t know.

But I thought that you said it’s “far safer” to go with the text we have? Eve’s testimony of God giving a different prohibition (though not a contradictory one) would be the text we have would it not?

My point though is quite simple, we do only have 1 recorded prohibition given to Adam only, therefore exegetically this is the prefered option. Yours (and Cheryl’s) relies on speculation rather than biblical proof. It is safer therefore to go with what we have, not with what we don’t have.

No, we also have the prohibiton given to Adam in Genesis 1. The prohibiton is encompassed in the permission to eat of more food because what’s he’s given in Gen 1 cannot contradict what he was already prohibited from in Gen 2. Different doesn’t mean contradictory.

We have food given to Adam to eat along with a command, the permission given to both of them to eat, and the woman’s testimony of God’s command. That IS what we have. It’s speculation to say that any of what we do have is not true. All are true but you are speculating that the woman’s testimony is false without anything to support the claim. That Adam, before woman was created, was given a command that Eve wasn’t doesn’t support a thing against her testimony since one does not contradict the other. You are only taking some of what we have and leaving off the rest – her testimony.

If Eve was correct in quoting God, why don’t her and Adam die when they ‘touch it’?

If you want to get technical, though I don’t think the intent of the author was to mean that when they touch it, that their touching of it would cause them to die, especially without also eating it since that’s what the text says anyway – touch and eat then die – then looking at Gen 3 technicaly combines their death with not only eating the fruit but also touching it. The author makes it a point of when BOTH TOUCH it and only then were their eyes opened. Notice the author doesn’t leave off that they both “touched it”.

When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she TOOK SOME and ate it. She also GAVE SOME to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it. 7 Then the eyes of both of them were opened,

The text explicitly states that their eyes are open after they ‘eat it’ and this is when they die, which is exactly what is for-warned by God to Adam in Gen 2. I hope you have an answer to this one?

The text explicitly includes the fact that both touched the fruit and ate and THEN their eyes were opened. The author could have left out this detail and only wrote about their eating of the fruit but instead he made sure to include it.

Why does Eve ‘covet’ for the fruit? All these little details are important.

The author made sure to show us when she became deceived and it was at the point that she saw the fruit as good for food. This is the point in time where the author lets us in on what’s going on in Eve’s mind. She has now become deceived because of the way she now sees the fruit. There is NO evidence before her perception changes that she was deceived when she was answering the serpent’s question about the garden trees and defending God’s command that was given to both of them.

When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it.

Mark,

Also there is another problem with Cheryl’s view namely that during God’s judgement on Adam God directly refers to the dialogue between himself and Adam in chapter 2. God said “of which I commanded YOU, ‘you shall not eat’. This is not said to Eve because God didn’t give her the direct command.

Eve already quoted God when she defended him to the serpent. She didn’t need a reminder of what God said, but Adam on the other hand while he was with her didn’t say a word about what God commanded. God calls him on what he had commanded him. And ofcourse God didn’t remind Eve of what he said to Adam when she wasn’t around because she wouldn’t have known about it.

The blame here is given to Adam as the one given the prohibition but who worse than Eve, still rejected it. Therefore we must conclude that God did not give a new command to Eve, or even if he did give one to both (see below for reason) Adam is still held as the major responsible partner. It is not good enough to assume something into the text which can not be supported.

The assumptions Mark that are being made are the ones you are making. You are assuming Adam must have told her. You are assuming that he was more responsible because God gave the command only directly to him by discounting Eve’s testimony. You assume that Eve started to look at God as being stingy when yet he gave her all trees on the planet that had seed. Amazing! You’re assuming she left off words of the command that was given to Adam. You assume she even knew the command that was given to Adam. Your argument is nothing but assumption.

Mark,
Those comments above are some of my responses to what you’ve said. I’d like to get to more of what you’ve said, and I will as I have time. I do hope you address them though. There’s just so much to cover! ;P

Next Eve adds ‘neither shall you touch it’ which is not in the recorded account we have of God’s actual words. This too is important for it now shows that God is crueller than before.

I think it’s pretty cruel to claim that Eve forgot that she could eat from every single tree that covered the planet by assuming she knew the very words of the command given to Adam when he was alone and she wasn’t even around.

So the serpent’s crafty question has begun to make Eve believe that God first of all is ‘stingy’ and second of all he is a harsh God, not even being allowed to touch the fruit.

Stingy? I doubt someone who’s given every single tree on the planet that has seed would look at the giver of food galore as stingy.

Since we have no recording of God speaking directly and only to Eve, it is far safer to go with the text we have.

The woman’s testimony doesn’t speak of God speaking only to her, but rather to both of them because of the plural “you”. And it is biblical to just go with the text:

but God did say, ‘You (plural) must not eat fruit

It is better to assume that Adam told Eve the prohibition not God.

Again why would Adam tell Eve what she could eat when God already told her and why would he tell her what she couldn’t eat when they were only given permission to eat fruit with seed? And why would Adam tell her when God told her, as she said God did?

Therefore we conclude that Eve did not quote the prohibition correctly. She dropped ‘any’ from “we may eat from the fruit of (any) tree in the garden… This is an important omission since it already shows that God seemingly isn’t as generous as he first was.

Let’s look at this again:
The woman said to the serpent,
A “We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden,
B 3 but God did say, ‘You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.’ ”

The woman says “God said” after she answers the serpent’s question about the garden trees. At this point she is not quoting God. And her answer was correct since she was told that she and her husband could have ALL trees with seed on the face of the earth which must include the garden trees. She was simply answering the serpent’s question on the trees of the garden. The serpent didn’t ask about all the trees on the face of the earth but rather about the garden trees.

She didn’t drop the word “any” since she was giving the information that she knew which was not what God gave to Adam to eat (trees of the garden). She knew that they could both eat from the trees in the garden since they were given all trees on the face of the earth.

If she dropped the word “any” then she surley left of the rest of the trees on the face of the earth outside of the garden! Now that’s a ridiculous notion. All she was doing was answering the serpent’s question about the garden trees, but she wasn’t quoting God at that point.

This is an important omission since it already shows that God seemingly isn’t as generous as he first was.

God was sooo generous that he gave her trees on the entire EARTH!! Do you really think she didn’t know this and just forgot how generous God was to her when he gave them both food to eat on the whole earth?

Do you really think that she forgot God gave her all trees on the earth and so now she thinks that she can only eat from trees in the garden? She was only answering the serpent’s question on the garden trees.

Next Eve adds ‘neither shall you touch it’ which is not in the recorded account we have of God’s actual words. This too is important for it now shows that God is crueller than before. So the serpent’s crafty question has begun to make Eve believe that God first of all is ‘stingy’ and second of all he is a harsh God, not even being allowed to touch the fruit. Now we know that it wasn’t the ‘touching’ of the fruit that caused the fall but the ‘eating’, (Gen 3:6-7) which is precisely what is predicted in Gen 2. So Eve was not correct by telling the serpent they couldn’t even touch it.

Problem-
1.we only have I recorded instance of God’s command not to touch the tree of knowledge. This was given to Adam only (Eve was not created). Therefore the question is raised, how did Eve know. Either Adam told her or God told her.

That’s right. We only have 1 recorded instance of God’s command not to TOUCH the tree of knowledge. And that record is the woman’s testimony.
Why would Adam tell her that she can eat from trees in the garden, when God told them both that they could eat from all the trees on the face of the earth? Why would Adam tell her that she could not eat from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil when God gave them both permission to eat from all trees (that had fruit with seed) which would have excluded the prohibited tree since the prohibition given to Adam when he was alone cannot contradict the permission (fruit with seed) they were both given to eat?

God couldn’t prohibit Adam from eating of one tree in the garden only to turn around later after the woman was created and give him (and her) permission to eat from all trees on the face of the earth that had seed without contradiction unless the prohibited tree had no seed.

How did the woman know what? How did the woman know what she could eat? She knew because God told her while she was with Adam what she could eat. How did she know what she couldn’t eat? She was only given permission to eat from trees on the face of the earth (which includes the garden) that had fruit WITH seed. How did she know what God prohibited her (and him) from eating? She said what God said.

but God did say, ‘You (plural) must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you (plural) must not touch it, or you (plural) will die.’ ”

it is therefore her opinion that Eve did not ‘misquote’ what was already given to Adam

The woman did not misquote what was already given to Adam (ONLY trees of the garden) because she did not even quote God in the first part of her answer (”We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden.”). Not only did she not misquote God since the first part of her response wasn’t a quote of God’s but she also got correct what was given for food to the both of them (all trees on the face of the earth which included the trees in the garden).

Cheryl believes that although Eve’s quotation of God’s words was a direct command given to her only, since Adam had already been told what not to eat (Gen 2:17), it is therefore her opinion that Eve did not ‘misquote’ what was already given to Adam.

Adam had already been told once what to eat (trees in the garden), before he was given more food (trees on the face of the earth). So God tells Adam twice what he can eat.

God could have prohibited Adam twice from eating of the tree of knowledge of good and evil since he twice told him what he could eat.

Cheryl believes that although Eve’s quotation of God’s words was a direct command given to her only, since Adam had already been told what not to eat (Gen 2:17), it is therefore her opinion that Eve did not ‘misquote’ what was already given to Adam.

The serpent asked the woman what God said to the both of them by using the plural “you”.

He said to the woman, “Did God really say, ‘You (plural) must not eat from any tree in the garden’?”

The woman’s quotation of God’s words was a direct command given to the both of them, not to her only, as shown by her quoting the words of God which have the plural “you”.

3:3
but God did say, ‘You (plural) must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you (plural) must not touch it, or you (plural) will die.’ ”

The woman is not quoting God in the first part of her answer (3:2). She is only quoting God in the second part of her answer (3:3) when she then says “but God did say”.

3:2 The woman said to the serpent, “We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden.”

Adam had already been told what not to eat when he was alone, prior to God giving them both permission to eat from all trees on the face of the earth. Adam originaly only was given trees in the garden for food, but after the woman was created he was then given permission (along with the woman) to eat from all trees on the face of the earth.

2:17 but you (singular) must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you (singular) will surely die.”

1:29 Then God said, “I give you (plural) every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food.

it is therefore her opinion that Eve did not ‘misquote’ what was already given to Adam

The woman did not misquote what was already given to Adam (ONLY trees of the garden) because she did not even quote God in the first part of her answer (“We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden.”). Not only did she not misquote God since the first part of her response wasn’t a quote of God’s but she also got correct what was given for food to the both of them (all trees on the face of the earth which included the trees in the garden).

So God’s first words about the future of the woman is God’s revealed will that places her on the right side of a spiritual conflict. There is no curse here in this verse at all. But what about the next direct words of God to the woman? Does the woman then suffer a special “punishment” from God? Let’s look at verse 16.

So next we should expect to read something like, “because you were deceived you cannot teach in church. ;P

God determines the same enmity, hostility or antagonism between the serpent’s seed and the Messiah (the seed of the woman).

That’s heavy.

There are only two acts by God that deal with guilt and curses and not three as tradition has taught us.

This is very important.

I’m going to bed now. 🙂

The case is closed.

God creates her with an identity that Adam does not originate,

I’m reminded of one of my previous comments a few days back or something – oh yeah #70 – *grose* Man ain’t God.

We are talking about the term “woman”. And if we were to deal with the idea of the mother of the living, God Himself identified that she would be the mother of the Messiah who we know as The Life so mother of the living would be God’s idea before it became man’s idea.

And gengwalls’ point “that no husband named his wife so there is no historical significance in a husband naming his wife.”, would apply as well here to this issue of her being named “Eve”! (I tried to get this point out that gengwall made before he did, but it came out introverted… lol)

The Bible does not say that God made a female and brought her to Adam to see what he would call her. We cannot assume that the bringing of the bride was for the same reason as the bringing of the animals. That would not make sense at all.

Absolutely!

Love that point!! 🙂

It is interesting that God never identified His bringing the woman to the man as having a purpose of seeing what man would call her. God already had an identity for the woman and a plan to cause the man to understand that she was to be considered his flesh and blood.

That’s right, Cheryl! The reason why he didn’t bring her to the man to see what he would call her while on the other hand he brought the animals to Adam to see what he would name them, is because he already gave her indentity! I’m glad you brought out this point! Excellent!!

Even if Adam had authority over the animals prior to Eve, Eve aquired that authority in equal measure upon her creation. Eve can’t be subject to an authority she herself possess.”

This is great, gengwall!!

1. So God didn’t name things in Gen 1, he just classified them aswell? God therefore should not be understood as having authority over his creation in your opinion?

As Creator he has authority over his creation. Naming is not necessary to show that the Creator has authority over his creation. This should be obvious.

gengwall,

I really like your idea of the list!
I also want to say that I think the most important points are the two below and the reasons being that they show 1) Adam didn’t even name the woman before the fall and rather she got her identity from God and 2) the cultural argument is bogus.

2. “There is no cultural naming convention between husbands and wives, so such an appeal to culture is an appeal to something that is non-existent”

If Adam had not spoken at the sight of her, she still would have been exactly what 1:22 says she was – a woman. She still would have been what God created – a woman. Adam’s recognition doesn’t change a thing and if he hadn’t said a word, that still wouldn’t have changed a thing because she was already identified in 1:22.

A “woman” is what she is, but her name is Eve.

Thanks for taking notice. And that’s a good way to put it. “Woman” is what she is not her name!

You can’t claim the culture sees an act as a demonstration of authority if that act is never actually carried out in the culture.

Thankyou! A fine statement right thar! Perfect!

I bet he did have authority over every woman (in comp line of reasoning) too as Papa! LOL!

Gazza,

If Adam “named” the first woman then I can gaurantee you that he named EVERY woman therefore if that “naming” is a mark of authority then Adam had authority over EVERY woman. Are you willing to argue that?

Gazza,
Also if Adam had authority over the woman for identifying her as “woman” then he HAD TO OF had authority over every other woman, since THAT became EVERY women’s title. Do you understand?

Naming in Hebrew culture was a mark of authority so the text is saying to the people it was written for that Adam is claiming authority over the animals and over the woman.

Gazza,

So Adam called the tiger “Tony”, the lion “Leo” and the elephant “Dumbo”? “Woman” is not even a proper name. Give me a brake. So what is your point? Is it that Adam displayed authority over the woman AFTER the fall by naming her “Eve”? IDENTIFICATION (as in the title “woman”) in Hebrew culture never marked authority. Now if there’s some evidence from Hebrew culture that you’d like to present where one human IDENTIFYING another is a mark of authority then I’d like to see it. Otherwise perhaps you have a different point to make?

1. Is the reference to ‘the man’ (in the banishment narrative) to include Eve aswell, regardless of whether one sees Adam as the head or not.

a. The reference is to “the human” and the pronouns are singular throughout. Eve is not a “him” and is never refered to as “the human” throughout the account, but Adam always is.

b. Adam sinned out of blatant rebellion knowing what he was doing. Eve was deceived into sinning.

c. The person who was driven out is singular and was made from the ground which could only be Adam.

d. Adam continued in rebellion when approached by God and blamed God and the woman whereas the woman came out of her deception and did not continue in her state of deception. This makes only Adam a threat to the tree because he alone continued in his rebellion.

e. there is no evidence in the text that Eve was banished from the garden.

2. Was Eve (now in her sinful nature) able to listen to God’s command and therefore not eat from the tree of life, or did she need to be banished aswell (i.e was she a threat or not). What does the bible say about sin and about the heart? Are we able to obey God as sinful people, therefore was Eve even able to obey God as a sinful person?

a) She did not have the same sinful nature that Adam had out of rebellion sinning knowing what he was doing and she was not Adam’s offspring therefore she did not inheret any sinful nature from Adam – sinner or not, this is the fact. She would have to be deceived again into eating from the tree. But since she already came out of her deception there’s no reason to think that she would fall for the serpent’s trickery again, while Adam on the other hand stayed in his state of rebellion.

b) What the bible says about sin and the heart pertains to Adam’s offspring of which Eve is not.
c) The text only shows that adam was a threat to the tree and therefore God knew that she would have been able to obey by not eating from the tree of life.

3. What is the true meaning of Eve’s desire for her husband? Is that really the reason she was not in the garden by chapter 4?

It’s the only information we have given in the text to go off of, so it had to be the reason why she left. There is nothing else the text offers to draw conclusions from.

Thanks for the questions!

Gen 2 19 Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them;

Pinklight
The animals are defined as beasts of the field and birds of the air before Adam names them. This is the same amount of identification as that given to woman except there are many different types of each category as opposed to just one woman.

19 So the Lord God formed from the ground all the wild animals and all the birds of the sky. He brought them to the man

Gazza,

They are called animals or beasts. Either is fine. The point is that the animals/beast are not given classification or names before they are brought to Adam and until Adam names them (he names them, lion, tiger and bear) whereas in the woman’s case she is given classification (“woman”, v22) before she is brought to Adam and then Adam doesn’t re-classify her but rather agrees with what v22 has already told us being that she is a woman.

As for using a different word when naming the animals the text here gives extra emphasis to the reasoning and intimacy behind Adam calling her woman. I would not for a second say that Adam had authority over the animals in the same way he had authority over Eve – so there is no surprise that there is a difference here.

Very simply, it is said that Adam was given authority over the animals, and it is said when. It is only after woman is created. Therefore Adam does not have authority over the animals when he names them. There needs to be proof that he had authority over them when he named them. There is already proof that Adam and the woman (who didn’t do any naming of the animals) had authority over the animals after the woman was created. So I believe that they both had authority after the woman was created. I expect the same kind of proof for your belief that Adam had authority over the animals when he named them and that Adam had authority over the woman when he agreed with God’s identification of her. If I provide proof for what I believe then I expect the same thing from you.

What was it about what Adam said that changed anything about who she already was?

Mark,

You never did answer my question on how Adam’s words (v23)added anything at all to her identification (v22).