Cheryl Schatz

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.