3 Statements...Just True or False
- Thread starter Cameron143
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
I listened in on a discussion on the way home from work about the world taking everything that God teaches and, after turning it on its head, teaches that as 'the answers to utopia (paraphrasing).' I.e., do not be fruitful and mulitply but rather population control is the key to life. Do not take dominion over the earth, submit your rule over to it, etc. etc. etc.
-
1
-
1
- Show all
It's good to think about all these things, so lets keep digging.
Thinking through these ideas:
1.) "Rather she was merely a 'tool' by which Adam's access to the fruit was made more convenient."
Nothing was required to make the fruit more "convenient." It was right there in the garden, easily accessible to all. Adam could have grabbed some fruit any time..
* So... this angle doesn't quite work.
2.) "My current position is that Eve had nothing to do with Adam's desire to eat,"
Well, the bible specifically says Adam, who had access to the fruit day and night, never took a bit till Eve offered him a piece.
God even mentions specifically.
Gen 3:17 "And to Adam he said, “Because you have listened to the voice of your wife..."
* So... this angle doesn't quite work.
3.) "And I supposed Adam had to know that, at the least after he ate the fruit, that his eating only sealed the destiny of all mankind to suffer death,"
This might be reading too much into it.
Adam didn't have the full scripture as we do now; all he was told was that he would die... that's all we're told he knew.
In fact, since he was innocent, and sin didn't exist, he would have had no comprehension of sin, or what it was, or it's many ramifications, or it's consequences on his progeny, unless God specifically told him of this. And we aren't made aware of any such conversation, so we shouldn't presume it.
It's ok to carefully parse the scripture, but we need to draw the line when we run out of both explicit and implicit information.
* So... this angle doesn't quite work.
4.) "He (Adam) is the pattern of the One to come (Romans 5:14)
We have to be careful what we do with this verse.
The word pattern here is also translated "type" or "figure."
This does not mean Adam was a blueprint for Christ, it just means he symbolized Christ, as a type, in some way. And symbolism, an analogy, is never a perfect or exhaustive representation; it is always limited - it usually only refers to a few particular aspects. And if we check the scripture carefully, we can find the particular corollaries between Adam and Christ... and it has nothing to do with Adam being any kind of messiah or savior, for either Eve or anyone else.
* So... this angle covers important doctrine, but it doesn't relate much to our topic at hand.
-----------
Conclusion - Where Does This Story Go?
1.) It seems to me, from scripture, that Adam had full access to the fruit, but he never had any particular inclination to eat it until AFTER his wife offered it to him, and spoke to him about eating it.
2.) Why? Why would Adam NEVER touch the fruit before, but suddenly be willing to eat it, and risk death, the MOMENT HIS WIFE OFFERED IT???
WHY?
WHY NOW?
WHY ONLY FROM HER?
3. Well, God says very clearly, Adam was not deceived in any of this. Whatever he was doing, he seemed to do it willing, and with full understanding it was wrong.
1Ti 2:14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.
(The implication here isn't that Eve was more sinful because she sinned first. It simply means Eve sinned while also being deceived, but Adam wasn't deceived in any way.)
4.) We can presume that Eve probably even LOOKED different, after she ate... and Adam would have noticed this change.
They both knew only innocence, but now Even knew GUILT, REMORSE, DECEPTION, DARKNESS, and a PALPABLE SEPARATION FROM FELLOWSHIP WITH GOD.
This would have been instantly visible: in her face, her demeanor, her voice... it would have been very noticeable to Adam, it would have screamed out to him.
5.) So Eve came to him with the fruit, said she'd eaten it (which was a death sentence from God), and she was visibly changed in all kinds of terrible and terrifying ways. Adam knew the gravity of what she did, and Adam could see the change in her... and because sin never existed before... the change in her would have SCREAMED out to him. The entrance of sin into the world... the first entrance of sin... right in front of Adam... right in the body and soul of the one he loved... this would probably have been terrifying.
6.) Adam understood what she'd done, and he could see it's effect, and he remembered it came with a death penalty.
7.) But Adam also knew God's power to create... he was there when God created Eve. Adam knew God created Eve. Adam knew God could do anything... even make people. Adam must have understood, at some level, that God was capable of making him a new wife if he felt the need to do so. Adam must have known, must have realized, on some level, that if his wife died, or literally destroyed herself, that God was capable of making him a new wife. Maybe Adam stopped to think about this, and maybe he didn't... but it must have been an understanding he carried within him at some level... as he well knew God's power to create wives.
8.) So what does this leave us with?
9.) The takeaway:
- Adam never had any inclination to eat the fruit before, not until Eve offered it to him... he wasn't walking around lusting after the fruit. He never had any interest in the fruit.
- When she offered it to him, he could SEE what had happened to her: she was not only under the penalty of death, but she had visibly changed in terrible ways, her whole person was suddenly altered, suddenly changed under the weight of sin, and guilt, and corruption.
- Adam knew God had power to create, and perhaps God would NOT give him a new wife, but Adam at least knew God COULD make him a new wife if he wanted to... it was possible... and it was easy for God if he chose to do it.
- Adam also knew that if he ate the fruit, he'd change as Eve did, in all the strange and terrible ways he'd seen her change... and he would also be under the penalty of death.
- So what did he do? What did he do knowing that Eve destroyed herself, and was under penalty of death, and she had no future... and God could easily just make him a new wife if he felt like it.... and that if he ate the fruit he'd end up just like Eve? What did he do?
- He ate the fruit.
- Why? Why, under these circumstances? Why would he do this? Why?
- There is only one answer with the explanatory scope to account for his action in the face of all these circumstances... only one answer.
- He loved her.
- He loved her so much he would rather die WITH her, than be separated from her.
- And so... he chose to die with her.
It is indeed a love story.
I know of no other way to account for Adam's actions in the face of all the details.
If we follow the evidence, that is the only place it seems to lead.
I know this was painfully long... but I couldn't sleep.
: )
.
" You will not surely die "
He also creates a whole context of God keeping something valuable and useful to them , from them as if God is just keeping something good from them he truly is if you examine what he did is truly subtle and crafty
The lie is where death came from transgression of what God said would surely bring death , used the same creative power as when he said" let there be light "
Satan knew the power of Gods word that's why he caused them to transgress that particular point he's devious used Gods word to bring death on man
He also creates a whole context of God keeping something valuable and useful to them , from them as if God is just keeping something good from them he truly is if you examine what he did is truly subtle and crafty
The lie is where death came from transgression of what God said would surely bring death , used the same creative power as when he said" let there be light "
Satan knew the power of Gods word that's why he caused them to transgress that particular point he's devious used Gods word to bring death on man
-
1
- Show all
Thank you for going through the trouble and offering this very convincing line of reasoning which agrees with Posth and all the other hopeless romantics like John146, I think, and maybe Shakespeare. But only if we assume the premise as we can only speculate upon that which we aren't told, and it is Bruce' Leiter position to refrain from speculation so maybe he has it the most right? Maybe. Maybe not, but I can't seem to help it. As you pointed out being a type of Christ refers somehow to at least one aspect of Christ and I believe this is that his actions affect the rest of mankind. What I do not know, because we are not told it, is whether he possessed any fruit of the Spirit that is inherent in Jesus, such as love. Yes, Adam may have possessed a lesser? degree of it and misplaced it in Eve, hence the commandment, "if you love mother or father, etc. more than Me..." or he may have inspired the commandment, "value others more than yourselves."
Yes, we should not forget that Adam was innocent before proven guilty, but neither forget that Jesus cannot be proven guilty of anything.
Yes, we should not forget that Adam was innocent before proven guilty, but neither forget that Jesus cannot be proven guilty of anything.
-
1
- Show all
It is peculiarly interesting that it is written in scripture when God told Adam, "...for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die (Gen2:17 KJB for the peculiarity)," but when Eve answers the serpent in Gen3:3, she answers with the 'ye -plural', "Ye shall not eat of it...lest ye die."
Will Power:
Adam would not have understood anything about will power.
Up to this point, there were no "struggles of the will", and no understanding of sin.
Adam and Eve, and God, were in perfect communion.
There is only one thing understood about sin at this time, "If we eat the fruit, we die."
That was all they knew of sin, or sin's consequences, or of their own independent will.
Eve's Claim - God said not to touch the fruit:
Adam would not, and could not, have lied by adding more information to God's command.
Adam could not have said, "God also said don't touch it," because that would have been an intentional lie, and sin did not yet exist.
If he lied about what God said, the fall would have already occurred.
So when Eve claims that the proposition "do not touch it" is a statement that came from God himself, she is personally adding this, as Adam could not have changed God's words like this prior to the fall.
- It is possible Adam asked her not to touch it.
- It is possible Eve was confused when confronted by the serpent, and she mixed two ideas together out of some kind of confusion.
- It is debatable whether she made up the "do not touch it", or got it as extra instruction from Adam... but it is clear that, at the least, her attribution of this to God was her own addition... Adam could never have said, "God said don't touch it". He could never have said this prior to the fall.
- It is also debatable as to WHY Eve attributed this proposition to God himself, when it did not come from God, and when it also did not come from Adam.
Millennia of Study:
Many things in the story are clear, either explicitly or implicitly... many things can be logically inferred.
But there are a few things which are less clear, and are still debatable.
Please remember that this passage has been studied, and thoughtfully considered, and debated, for thousands of years by millions of Christians and Jews.
Every possible question has already been asked, and every tangential view has already been considered, measured and weighed.
Every question has already been fully considered, for thousands of years.
And through all of this... there remains a traditional view of the fall, and the fall story.
The reason it's traditional is because Christians have all been thinking about it, collectively, for millennia... and coming to the same basic understanding.
Nothing we're talking about is new.
.
Adam would not have understood anything about will power.
Up to this point, there were no "struggles of the will", and no understanding of sin.
Adam and Eve, and God, were in perfect communion.
There is only one thing understood about sin at this time, "If we eat the fruit, we die."
That was all they knew of sin, or sin's consequences, or of their own independent will.
Eve's Claim - God said not to touch the fruit:
Adam would not, and could not, have lied by adding more information to God's command.
Adam could not have said, "God also said don't touch it," because that would have been an intentional lie, and sin did not yet exist.
If he lied about what God said, the fall would have already occurred.
So when Eve claims that the proposition "do not touch it" is a statement that came from God himself, she is personally adding this, as Adam could not have changed God's words like this prior to the fall.
- It is possible Adam asked her not to touch it.
- It is possible Eve was confused when confronted by the serpent, and she mixed two ideas together out of some kind of confusion.
- It is debatable whether she made up the "do not touch it", or got it as extra instruction from Adam... but it is clear that, at the least, her attribution of this to God was her own addition... Adam could never have said, "God said don't touch it". He could never have said this prior to the fall.
- It is also debatable as to WHY Eve attributed this proposition to God himself, when it did not come from God, and when it also did not come from Adam.
Millennia of Study:
Many things in the story are clear, either explicitly or implicitly... many things can be logically inferred.
But there are a few things which are less clear, and are still debatable.
Please remember that this passage has been studied, and thoughtfully considered, and debated, for thousands of years by millions of Christians and Jews.
Every possible question has already been asked, and every tangential view has already been considered, measured and weighed.
Every question has already been fully considered, for thousands of years.
And through all of this... there remains a traditional view of the fall, and the fall story.
The reason it's traditional is because Christians have all been thinking about it, collectively, for millennia... and coming to the same basic understanding.
Nothing we're talking about is new.
.
They were corrupted before they sinned with the help of the serpent who questioned God's motive for His commandment and encouraged their motivation for self instead of love, trust, and obedience to God.
Answer to #1 : True
Jesus erased our sins, but we still need to be perfected by the Father's Holy Spirit in order to be accepted into heaven.
Answer to #2 : False
Answer to #3 : True
Answer to #1 : True
Jesus erased our sins, but we still need to be perfected by the Father's Holy Spirit in order to be accepted into heaven.
Answer to #2 : False
Answer to #3 : True
Pronoun Issue?
1.) The pronoun "ye" is a first person pronoun which can be PLURAL or SINGULAR.
So if deferring to the KJV, we don't get any particular distinction between the passages.
2.) I'm not sure if the Hebrew makes any pronoun distinction between these two passages.... we could check that out.
3.) I don't believe a pronoun distinction, if one exists in Hebrew, has any significant affect on the passage.
I explain why below.
Minimal Impact of a Pronoun Distinction - If One Exists:
- Whether or not we have a pronoun distinction in Hebrew, the basic understanding of the text doesn't change.
- At the most, we merely have Eve making an additional unwarranted claim... one more claim that neither God nor Adam ever said.
- So if there is a pronoun distinction, it would only change the narrative by showing Eve was even more confused... it would NOT indicate there was some secret knowledge we all missed.
- Finally, there is no reason to waste any time on this before checking the Hebrew grammar... and neither the KJV, nor the other English translations, show any difference in pronouns (both "ye", and "you", can be singular or plural).
.
..
1.) The pronoun "ye" is a first person pronoun which can be PLURAL or SINGULAR.
So if deferring to the KJV, we don't get any particular distinction between the passages.
2.) I'm not sure if the Hebrew makes any pronoun distinction between these two passages.... we could check that out.
3.) I don't believe a pronoun distinction, if one exists in Hebrew, has any significant affect on the passage.
I explain why below.
Minimal Impact of a Pronoun Distinction - If One Exists:
- Whether or not we have a pronoun distinction in Hebrew, the basic understanding of the text doesn't change.
- At the most, we merely have Eve making an additional unwarranted claim... one more claim that neither God nor Adam ever said.
- So if there is a pronoun distinction, it would only change the narrative by showing Eve was even more confused... it would NOT indicate there was some secret knowledge we all missed.
- Finally, there is no reason to waste any time on this before checking the Hebrew grammar... and neither the KJV, nor the other English translations, show any difference in pronouns (both "ye", and "you", can be singular or plural).
.
..
