Paula

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.