Cheryl Schatz

Mark,

so essentially you are saying that the command we have recorded given to Adam by God doesn’t really count, because at some other time which is not recorded, God gave them both another command which was similar to the first but with all this extra stuff?

Who said that God’s command to Adam doesn’t count? As far as the fruit permitted in the garden, the command to Adam allowed the exact same fruit as the command given to Adam and Eve.

I’m not sure whether Cheryl thinks this new command was given to both or to just Eve, perhaps she can comment?

Eve’s quote was the plural “you” so her testimony was that God spoke to both of them. It wasn’t a “new” command about what to eat. It was additional information about what they could eat outside the garden and the “old” command about what to eat and what not to eat spoken in a different way but which left the same fruit as permissible and the same fruit as not permissible as what was given to Adam.

Why do we even bother having the command given to Adam with such a view?

He needed to know what he could and couldn’t eat during the time that he was in the garden before Eve was created. If God had allowed Adam to eat from the forbidden tree without warning him and Adam died, whose fault would that have been?

This whole argument is based on theories of some conversation we do not even have recorded

You keep saying that the conversation was not recorded. That is not true. It is recorded by a female witness (Eve). The recorded words of God in chapter 1 are by a male witness (Moses). Some are willing to say that the male witness got the creation account wrong and some will only say that the female witness got it wrong. I choose to believe that God’s testimony by the record of the creation and fall is accurate as written down by Moses and spoken by Eve. I have yet to see any evidence that my faith in God’s record is wrong.

Lin,

Mark, if there is one thing I do know for a fact it is that most people do not really know what all CBMW is teaching. One reason is because many of their contributors teach in quite a few venues. And the list of legalisms for comp/pat is so long no one can keep up!

You have that one right!! Whew a long list indeed! The male headship in heaven really blew me away. But then it is consistent with the teaching that there are restrictions on women as long as men and women are descended from Adam and Eve. Since we will always be resurrected descendants from Adam and Eve, in essence they are teaching in RBMW that there are eternal restrictions on women. I just don’t get how godly brothers in Christ can swallow this and not see it as an addition to the Scriptures.

Mark,

Perhaps God did speak to Eve about it at another time, but there is no biblical record of that, so im more comfortable going with what’s there.

The problem with this Mark, is that the record is there through the female witness and in order to state that God did not speak to Eve at another time, one must accuse Eve of adding to God’s Word and/or completely distorting His Word. Are we allowed to accuse people of sin like this when God has not spoken about that alleged “sin”? I believe that this treads on dangerous territory and it sets a precedence that allows men to restrict women’s bible teaching when the Scripture does not give godly Christian women such restrictions.