3 Statements...Just True or False

All sin is rebellion.

Oh but Adam DID obtain mercy. Immediately.
God issued His instantaneous judgement.......redemption/forgiveness for Adam,
However the instigator interloper rebellious serpent was CONDEMNED immediately.

Speaks volumes as to who the guilty party really was in all of this.

Gen 3:14
So the LORD God said to the serpent:

“Because you have done this,
You are cursed more than all cattle,
And more than every beast of the field;
On your belly you shall go,
And you shall eat dust
All the days of your life.

Gen 3:15
And I will put enmity
Between you and the woman,
And between your seed and her Seed;
He shall bruise your head,
And you shall bruise His heel.”

https://christianchat.com/threads/3-statements-just-true-or-false.209845/post-5029694

"Speaks volumes as to who the guilty party really was in all of this. "

We all stand before God alone. He will hold us accountable for what we've alone done.

Not if we are in the Last Adam.

Fair enough. But our works will be. I only meant that God doesn't hold us accountable for the actions of others or mitigate sin based on influencing forces that act upon us.

Thats not how it worked out for the First Adam IMO.

I know that's your opinion. That's why I keep correcting it.
Sorry...I couldn't resist.

But I have God's verdict on my side bro......

True
True
True

I suppose when folks do finally make heaven their home, being right about temporal things will be very low on their list of considerations.

God's incipient judgment upon the entire cosmos and everything in it is "temporal"?

Say it isn't so bro......

Those things concern God so of course I wasn't referring to them. I was referring to your habit of always having to feel you are right and that anyone who disagrees with you is wrong.
By the way, declaring yourself to be right doesn't make you right. It just makes you adversarial.
Unfortunately, we've reached a point in our discourse where I don't see it as edifying. But I am glad we were able to communicate for a longer period this time than before.
Grace upon grace.

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.

.

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).
.
..

I do appreciate the millennium of study, and have drawn from and benefitted greatly from it, including your work. thank you. It's just that there seems to be such a shortage of female contribution of thought throughout, and I have to wonder why. Tho I've heard reasons, it's always seemed to originate from and so only mirror the masculine perspective. Yet, the image of God has a feminine side, so I'm sort of interested in it for obvious reasons. And if Adam is the closest the God as per the masculine side, then Eve is per the feminine side. She can'tve been all bad other than how lovely she might've been.

If we are going to really examine the text honestly, and take the text in light of other passages of scripture... we get what we get.


Hopeless Romantics?

Adam loved Eve... that's in the Bible.
God Loves us... that's in the Bible.
Christ loved us enough to die for us... that's in the Bible.
Lots of people love lots of people... that's in the Bible.
People in love say and do "romantic" things... that's in the Bible.
Both romance and romantic ideas are in the Bible.


Regarding Speculation:

1.) Logical Inference:
To logically infer or deduce the implications of a passage, with full consideration of the rest of scripture, is not equal to speculation.
(This is how we arrive at most doctrine, such as the trinity.)

2.) Explanatory Power:
When multiple explanations are available for an outcome, to choose the one with the greatest explanatory power is not equal to pure speculation.
(This is also a part of how we arrive at most doctrine, because it's foundational to hermeneutics. It's also how we do science.)

3.) Romantic View:
To discard a contrary view, by merely labeling it with a dismissive term, such as "romantic", isn't a logical rebuttal.
a.) Casting a view in a bad light through disparaging language doesn't constitute a rebuttal.
b.) Furthermore, the state of being "romantic" should not, in any way, even be considered as a negative thing. Romance is deeply ingrained in scripture, from beginning to end... it is part of human life, and part of scripture.
c.) If by "romantic" you did not mean "romantic love", but merely "fanciful" - then you would, by necessity of your own claim, be obligated to prove the opposing view is fanciful. We can't just dismiss a a view by disparaging it with unkind terms. Disparagement is not a rebuttal.
d.) I don't believe you meant any unkindness in any this... but we are just constantly surrounded by this tactic of dismissive language. It's all around us, even in scholarly works at times, so we often employ it without realizing it. I'm sure I do it too. And if I have, then I apologize.



Mem,
I think I've said everything on this topic that I have time for.
It's been fun, and you raised a lot of interesting points... it's always good to talk about scripture.
I'm going to exit the thread, but you are always welcome to message me in pm.
God Bless.

.

Whoa...a double contraction...can'tve. Impressive. I've never seen a contraction contracted.

"His sin was a type of Jesus Christ."

Hi all that pat on the back set aside. Maybe for those that don't understand 2 questions if I may kindly ask. What did Jesus forfeit to be with His bride and that sin that Adam and Eve did "was a type of Jesus Christ"? Explain that one?