Cool!,

Thanks for this wonderful teaching, I never gave this much thought! Now I see how it all fits together and with the way Paul taught! When the Woman states what God said… “In the Herbrew” it’s in the plural form meaning at some point this was told too both of them not too touch it!

With are english lauguage context/meaning can get lost but we just have to check out the Herbrew and the context and meaning become much clearer!

I’m printing this out! The most covincing part is the woman (Eve) using the plural form meaning BOTH were told not to touch! Then for me everything else fell into place after clearing that part up. That’s the part of the teaching that helped me the most, so I can soak up the rest of the teaching.

That is a nice insight about fruit inspectors, for most fruits, the seeds are hidden.

We do know that the woman was deceived, the key part about being deceived is that one believes something true that is false or false that is true.  As far as I can tell so far in my studies, we are not told exactly what this incorrect information was.  So I still see it as possible that the woman was mistaken, that is, her statement about God saying not to touch the fruit was mistaken.

If she cannot touch it and the seed in the fruit is hidden, how would she know whether it had seed or not?

Yes, there is a lot more to Genesis that people have been told– and this lack of proper teaching has gone on for centuries! I wonder how many teachers have seen these things but kept silent, like the story I read somewhere about a priest before Luther who made the same discoveries but hid a paper he wrote about it in a wall because he was afraid of persecution.

FWIW, I just blogged yesterday about two layers of sins and consequences in Gen. 3.

There is also a lot LESS to Genesis than people have been told.

Don,
You asked:

If she cannot touch it and the seed in the fruit is hidden, how would she know whether it had seed or not?

This is the one of the key points that I received insight about.  This is and always has been an issue of faith.  You see she would be required to believe God by faith that there was no seed in the fruit.  Everything in scripture has always been about having faith in God.  Yet the account in Genesis only seemed to be about one thing – obedience.  Where was the faith aspect?  But when one understands that they were given complete freedom to eat from every single tree that had fruit with seed but they were forbidden to inspect the fruit on the one tree that they were also forbidden to eat from, then we can understand that God was calling both the man and the woman to have faith in him.  They were to believe him that he was not keeping away from them something that he had already given them permission to partake of.  They couldn’t test what he said because they weren’t allowed to touch the fruit.  It was a matter of faith.  I will be posting my conclusions based on the subject of the permission by God and the issue of the prohibition and faith in my next post (when I have time to tear myself away from my editing to get my thoughts together).

There is also a lot LESS to Genesis than people have been told.

Good point, Don. Most of what people believe about Genesis isn’t there, and they don’t know what is.

I agree with your analysis given what the woman said God said IS what God said.  And I also admit I want this to be the case.  But, as I see it, it is also possible she is simply mistaken.

I believe the evidence after the fall will be the judge.  Did either Adam or God say that Eve was mistaken or that she lied or added to God’s words?  The evidence is that she was not charged with lying or adding to God’s words or of mere stupidity.  If this were the case that she was so naive that she couldn’t even get a simple command right, then God made women somehow defective and childlike and of course they should be led and their word should never be trusted.  This was the Jewish view.  Women’s word was never to be trusted.  I wonder how many trust what Eve said even today?  Our world view has been tainted because we mistrust her.  If we take her words at face value (since there is no evidence we should not trust what she said) then everything changes.

Also the thought that Eve got it wrong comes from the teaching that Adam was the one who instructed Eve.  Because of the teaching that Eve got God’s commands second hand, we can then assume that she got the message wrong.  Once we understand that God spoke to the woman directly and instructed her directly on what she could eat and what she did not have permission to eat, we can believe her when she gives God’s additional commands to them.  Eve’s testimony is that God gave additional instructions to both of them regarding not testing (touching) this one fruit.  How could she get this wrong?  Either God said it or he didn’t.  If he didn’t then she lied.  Why would God create a liar to help Adam?  This doesn’t make sense.

Another thing that we need to remember is that women like detail while men like the bottom line.  God gave the bottom line to Adam when he was alone and when Eve was there with him, God gave the details.  A woman is unlikely to get the details wrong because we are sticklers for detail.  Eve was the first woman just like other women but made perfect without sin.  To even think that she got the details wrong is….well….it’s thinking like a man.  Women know how we have been created to be detail people and we can recite details until the cows come home.  Eve did not get the details wrong at all.  She was deceived but she wasn’t senseless, unintelligent, an imbecile, a ditzy blond or dimwitted.  She was an intelligent, bright and useful mate for Adam.  Was she mistaken?  There is not an iota of evidence to base that on.  If I have missed a detail 😉 please let me know.

What I do not want to do is read into the text something (even a tiny thing) that is not there.  I want to be able to point out that others do this as appropriate, but I do not want to do it. I agree we can rule out her being a liar.  Einstein once divided by zero, so anyone can be mistaken.

NET Gen 3:2  The woman said to the serpent, “We may eat of the fruit from the trees of the orchard;
Gen 3:3  but concerning the fruit of the tree that is in the middle of the orchard God said, ‘You must not eat from it, and you must not touch it, or else you will die.’ ”

God says the man listened to the woman and that was 1 of the 2 reasons the ground was cursed and this is the only place she spoke, so this is where he should have not just listened or else there is more she spoke that is not recorded.

Don,
I agree with you!  That is exactly my point!  This is the only place that woman spoke so when God said that Adam listened to the woman, he should have done something about it.

The point that I am making is that we cannot add in the thought that Eve was mistaken when the text clearly gives her testimony as fact.  The facts are not disputed in any way so without a piece of evidence to dispute her claim that “God said”, we are obligated to believe a woman who had not yet sinned.  Those who say that she got her facts wrong are grasping at the wind.  We could also grasp at many other things that also have no evidence in the text.  My contention is that we need to stick with the facts and not consider that Eve was deceived by her own malfunctioning mind in the first place before she was deceived by the serpent.  Unless we have facts to base a belief that Eve was incompetent to know the details accurately, we give a foothold to the hierarchists who push us to distrust Eve.  It is distrusting Eve’s testimony that has caused us to disregard God’s equal treatment of both the man and the woman.

By the way, while I passionately fight for Eve’s accuracy, I still have great respect for everything you say!

I think the issue here is over an argument from silence.

To say why Eve said what she did is such an argument, because scripture is silent about it. There is absolutely nothing to go on for this. And this is precisely the kind of argument that the hierarchialists use extensively.

In contrast, for example, Adam’s alleged failure to keep the serpent out the garden has at least something to go on: his having been told to guard it.

Eve’s character is being maligned by hierarchists and yes they are using an argument from silence because scripture never attributes sin or stupidity to Eve’s actions.  We can only access the “why” of Eve’s arguments by allowing her own words to tell us the why.  Eve claimed that God said additional words that are not recorded in scripture other than her own testimony.  Yet this is how God’s words are rightfully recorded in scripture as a testimony that “God said”.

The issue is whether we can attach any fault to Eve by the text alone.  The fact is that we cannot find fault with Eve from the text.  Therefore any attributing to Eve of a sin by adding to God’s (when we know that he spoke more than once and he spoke directly to Eve herself), or a flaw in Eve’s argument that proved she “got it wrong” must be an argument from silence.  If we just believed it as it is written (and which is never contested in scripture) we can rightfully see more about God from Eve’s testimony.  If we distrust Eve without a reason from the text, then we miss out on what God has for us that is revealed through a woman.  God does reveal things through women too and not just through men.  God has chosen to reveal things through his word quoted by a woman.

I use an argument from silence in my marriage and divorce class, in discussing what Jesus did NOT say and what any Jew of the time assumed, but then go on to show what Paul said about it.  An argument from silence is a very weak form of argument.

God could have written more.  What God inspired is enough for our faith.

Don,
Amen!

Just a hypothetical scenario:

Serpent: “I’ve got to bring Adam down, but how?

God: “It is not good for the man to be alone.”

Serpent: “Ha! God has made a blunder in creating someone to help Adam, as if that will stop me!”

Serpent: “Yo, Adam!”

Adam: “Yeah, what?”

Serpent: “So you’re supposed to inspect the fruit but there’s one you can’t even touch, right?”

Adam: “Yeah. Bummer.”

Serpent: “I’ll show you how to inspect it without touching it! Are you game?”

Adam: “Sure!”

Serpent: “Here’s the deal. You take Eve over to that Tree, and I’ll trick her into opening it to be inspected. Then she’ll get in trouble but you won’t, but you’ll still get to know what’s inside the fruit!”

Adam: “Sheer genius! Let’s do it.”

Paula,
Your example is pretty far out as I am sure you meant it to be.  But what you are getting at has escaped me.

I’m saying that there must be some reason why Adam stood silently by as he watched the serpent tempt Eve. Perhaps he wanted to get her to open the fruit so he could inspect it without getting into trouble.

Adam’s motive has been one of the biggest mysteries.  The only thing we can work with is what is already there in scripture.  We do know that Adam did not defend God (when the serpent was accusing God of holding back) nor did he defend or protect Eve when the serpent was lying to her and Adam knew it was a lie.  We also know that God says that Adam dealt treacherously with him (Hosea 6:7).  Can we get his motive out of these facts?  I don’t think we can put Adam and the serpent developing a scheme together to find out what was in the fruit.  I think that Adam knew what was not in the fruit.  There were no seeds.  He wasn’t deceived and knew what God said.  I think the problem is not that Adam didn’t know the truth but that he didn’t act on that truth.  Why did he do that?  Perhaps there are more clues in scripture, but at this point, I don’t think that we can go further than what is already told to us.

I realize we aren’t told his motives, but then again, the scenario I presented can’t be ruled out.

I’m not presenting it as something scripture can directly support, but I simply offered it as a possible explanation for Adam’s silence and inaction.

PS:

What scripture tells us Adam knew whether there were seeds in the fruit? What scripture tells us Adam had faith in God about it?

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.

Right, but my point is that Adam only knew one thing: not to eat the fruit. Scripture doesn’t say he knew if it had seeds or not, or whether he assumed it didn’t.

So whatever theories we have about why Adam stood silently and watched as Eve was beguiled are all on the same level: conjecture. But we can say with assurance that scripture states he did stand there and silently watch, and that the serpent did not beguile him.

There is so much good stuff here from everyone! I could go on for days, and I might just come back and to that!

‘It is distrusting Eve’s testimony that has caused us to disregard God’s equal treatment of both the man and the woman.’

That’s it! It’s summed up right there! For me, everything that surrounds the her testimony, what God commanded, and what the serpent said, and the rest of the fall which gives us more info is most important. Truley, if the woman’s testimony is taken as true as it should be, then everything changes…the whole doctrine of male leadership collapses. I’ve been studying everything I can on this lately and will continue to do so…

When the serpent spoke the second time, the last part of his statement is not a lie. So he asked the woman a question and then continues to lie and twist what God said, but to top it all off, what he last said was not a lie. Obviously the serpent had knowledge that the humans did not have…’and you will be like God knowing good and evil.’ Compare that to Gen 3:21, ‘the man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil.’ My point is that the serpent knew things, perhaps even about themselves (motives?) that the only other person who would know would have been God…I’ve not finished my studies so I’m just throwing this out there…so it is to be taken with a grain of salt…

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.

“What we can see from this added information from Genesis chapter 1 and Genesis 3 is that God is capable of adding information regarding his permission to eat and he is not restricted from the words given originally to Adam alone. The information that is added in Genesis 1:29 to both the man and the woman is not a contradiction of the information given to Adam in chapter 2. God gave the basics to Adam and added to it later. ”

What do we know about Genesis 1. Was it written at the same time as Genesis 2? Is it supposed to be a macro version of creation or a different verison? I have never really understood this but I do know that too many (including me) have ignored it for too long. We can see this from all the riches you have mined from it that are right there in black and white!

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

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.

Cheryl,

That is certainly a plausible scenario. But the point I seem unable to get across is that scripture doesn’t say what Adam may have presumed about the forbidden fruit. If we build anything on a presumption, we weaken our own argument against the mountain of presumptions heirarchialists use against Eve.

The indisputable facts are these:

it was not good for the man to be alone
the serpent tempted the one created to help the man
the man witnessed this temptation and neither said anything nor did anything to stop it
neither Adam, nor the serpent, nor even God challenged Eve’s statement about what God had said
the man was not beguiled
Eve spoke truthfully and accurately when confronted by God
Adam passed blame to Eve and God, and never mentioned the serpent

And so on. If we stick to these sorts of indisputable facts and only use conjecture for our own curiosity and not to build arguments, we cannot lose. The hierarchialists rely upon conjecture to a great degree; it is 90% of their platform. They cannot stand against the plain facts of Genesis.

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.

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.

‘I’m saying that there must be some reason why Adam stood silently by as he watched the serpent tempt Eve.’

I agree, Paula. Why did he stand there but do nothing? I would think that there must be a reason why?
Imagine an opposite scenario if the woman had just stood by and said nothing. Why would she have done so?

I just think that there must be a reason why.

At the same time I question ‘why’, I also think that Adam did know what was not in the fruit because of all that God told him.

Here’s a ‘why’ question I have regarding Adam:

When the serpent asked the woman, ‘Did God really say, “(a)You must not eat from / (b)any tree in the garden’?”, why didn’t the man just say, no, God said, ‘You are free to eat from / (b)any tree in the garden; but /(a)you must not eat from…
Why didn’t the man just take the twist right out of the serpent’s words by quoting God, setting God’s words straight? The first thing the serpent did was obviously swapped God’s words around and turned them into a question.

God’s command of prohibition saying ‘you must not eat from’ was regarding the one tree not any tree in the garden as God commanded the man saying he was free to eat from.

For Adam to have untwisted what the serpent asked, would have been an easy thing for him to do…

This is what the man should have done, as I see it.  He knew the right answer.

From Genesis 3:6, we know that the woman gave the man the fruit when she was eating it.  We don’t know at what point he had arrived to where she was.  It is possible he was there while the serpent spoke to the woman.  It is possible he came up while the woman mulled over whether to eat of the tree.  It is also possible that the serpent came to the woman over a period of time on occasions when the man was not there.  (That is not to say, of course, that the man should have been there and was shirking duty.) 
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.”
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.

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.

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.

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

It might be that bgk has not heard this before, as many do not teach it so hearing it the first time may sound strange.

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.

Perhaps people have seen Genesis 1 and 2 as always being sequencial and have missed very important information.

“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.

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.

‘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 scripture proves that he was there.

How could Adam have not been deceived then as Paul says, if he wasn;t there? It wasn’t the woman who twisted the word’s God spoke to the man, it was the serpent. The woman did not repeate the serpent’s words for scripture does not say that. So how could he have not been deceived?

Lin #44,

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

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.

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.

bgk,
The Bible cannot contradict itself, but our (mis)understanding of what it says can.

If you take the verses of Matthew on divorce out of context (pericope and cultural) Jesus says divorce for only adultery.  Some teachers teach this is the only Biblical reason.  If you take the verses of Mark and Luke out of context, there is no exception given.  Some teachers teach there is NO Biblical reason for divorce.  If you take the verses of Paul in 1 Cor out of context, then he does not mention any exception for adultery but gives abandonment by an unbeliever as a reason.  I have not see any teachers teach only this, but they say it does not apply to believers.

But there was a cultural matrix that these teaching were made in, and if you do not know what Jews and Greeks thought in the 1st century, it is easy to make a hash of these verses.  And I have read many teachers who do just that.  And condemnation in the body of Christ and legalism is the result and I do not like that.

If you do not want to put Gen 1 with Gen 2 in terms of what was allowed to eat and what was not, then how can you put ANY verses from any books of the Bible together?  Your atomistic interpretation strategy in the limit means very few conclusions can be made about anything.  But very few people read any books that way.

I agree it is a challenge to integrate the 3 origins stories in Gen and that faithful people can arrive at some different answers.  But that is different than saying the 3 stories are just separate.

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.

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.

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.

bgk, ‘Pinklight, I take the phrase that Adam “was not deceived” to mean that his sin was willful.’

‘that his sin (action of eating) was willful’

bgk, you take the phrase which is a fact to mean an action (act of eating = sin) and descriptive of the action (willful)? bgk, I don’t see Paul tieing ‘Adam was not deceived’ into action of eating. That Adam was not deceived is just a simple fact (even if he connects it to another fact about Adam in the 1 Tim 2 passage). Paul did not say, ‘Adam was not deceived into eating’. And Gen 3, does say, ‘and he ate’. So his willful sin IS that he ate.

So I see in scripture that ‘Adam was not deceived’ (Paul) and ‘he ate’ (Gen 3) rather than the first meaning the second. Scripture then tells us two things therefore the one doesn’t mean the other. If ‘Adam was not deceived’ means ‘his sin (or that ‘he ate’) was willful’ then, there are no longer the two facts about Adam. So I think they have to be kept seperated.

‘We do know that the woman was deceived, the key part about being deceived is that one believes something true that is false or false that is true.’

Therefore, Adam who was not deceived, as Paul says, did not believe something to be true (the serpent’s word’s) that was false.

2 Cor 11:3:
3But I am afraid that just as Eve was deceived by the serpent’s cunning, your minds may somehow be led astray from your sincere and pure devotion to Christ.

When ‘he ate’ was Adam deceived? No.

Therefore that he ‘was not deceived’ (fact 1) when ‘he ate’ (fact 2) describes his state of mind rather than his action of eating itself, i.e., ‘he ate’.

Why was his state of mind not in deception when ‘he ate’? His wife’s was but his was not. He listened to the voice of his wife (Gen 3, God to Adam), but the only thing she said that we have recorded was what she said to the serpent. We cannot add that she repeated to Adam what the serpent said to her about them. We cannot add that she repeated the twisted serpent’s talk. After the woman tells the serpent what they may eat, and then what God said they could not eat, the serpent said that they would not die, (‘you’ is plural).
So he heard what his wife told the serpent. If he heard what she said to the serpent, then he heard what the serpent followed with. After the serpent follwed with ‘You (pl) shall not surely die’ (God told him though in Gen 2, ‘You will surley die’) then his wife saw the tree as desirable for gaining wisdom, then she ate and gave some to her husband who was with her, and he ate. Now we are right back at the beginning, his being ‘not deceived’ and ‘he ate’.
‘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.’

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.