inhistime

If that were so Eve wouldn't have suffered the consequences of her sin. But she did. Adam was responsible for sin entering into the rest of humanity because he sinned deliberately and knowingly. How do you arrive at that conclusion? Eve was deceived and THEN sinned. Adam KNEW and then sinned. Both suffered the consequences of sin. The order and how sin occurred is important as Paul confirms in the NT verses that give you so much difficulty. Ruth Eve didn't bring rebellion into the world because she sinned in a deceived state. She was thoroughly deceived and believed at the time and no longer believed God that they would die if they ate of the fruit. Adam on the other hand sinned in rebellion and his sin is the only sin that was brought into the world. We inherit rebellion from Adam and not Eve because only Adam ate of the fruit with the full knowledge that what God said was the truth. He knew the truth and ate anyway. Eve died for her sin but she didn't bring rebellion because she didn't sin in rebellion. God has shown us through his word that he judges motives and there are degrees of punishment. God judged Adam's sin as more serious than Eve's because of Adam's knowledge. We know for certain that Adam was not deceived because God's word tells us that. We also know that God knew Adam's heart. If God said that Adam's sin brought sin into the world, we just need to believe that God judged his motives and God pronounced the sad judgment that was passed on to all of us. The next thing that we need to know is that God can bring mercy for those who sin ignorantly and in unbelief. Paul claimed that mercy because he sinned ignorantly (1 Timothy 1). Eve received that mercy and through her came the Messiah. We can praise God everyday that he gives us mercy to those who don't deserve it. Jesus died for us and he is the righteous judge who judges the motives and the intent of each heart. All we can do is praise God that he is fair and a just judge.

Ovedya said: Genesis was written as a historic account of creation and early man. Although we can learn much from this account, its primary function is a historical record. What God told Adam and Eve is the historical record. God gave different directions for eating later after the flood. There was only one tree that they weren't allowed to eat the fruit. The tree of life was allowed to them before the fall. With these two facts we can know for sure that there was only one tree that did not have seeds. That was a restriction anyway you see it. If you don't want to admit that then you seem to be denying the facts because you like the complementarian view and you somehow think that if you admit to the prohibition given to both of them, then you can't hold onto your view that God only speaks through men. Those who do not hold a view either way can actually get it quite easily. It is one of the easiest lessons on logic there is.

Neopatriarch said: The problem here is that "a woman" can be generic or specific depending on the context. There is nothing in the grammar that denies that it can be specific. So let's look at the context. If "a woman" isn't a specific woman, then who is the "she" and who are the "they" of verse 15? I am still waiting.....

I don't think you will find a commentary that agrees with you. You are standing but on thin ice in the middle of a river. Who agrees with you? Chapter one is before chapter two, however we know the male wasn't created twice. There are no contradictions. Chapter 2 isn't a re-creation of Adam, it is his creation spoken again in a very detailed version. This is very common in literature. It is called first the big picture and then the details. If you are an avid reader you will find this practice used often in books. Sounds to me like you think you know more than those who make their living off of translating the bible. If you can just dismiss their arguments, then I don't think I can help you. No argument will suffice, it seems, because God agrees with only you.

They are complimentary, but they are not intended to be a chronology of events. This is where many believers err; they take Genesis 1-2 as a chronological recording of history only, and ignore the focus of those two chapters entirely. In Genesis 1 and 2 God is working from the general to the specific. Genesis 1 is the narration of God's creation as a whole: He created light, air, the heavens and the earth, the birds, the fish, trees, animals, and finally humans. The words employed in Genesis 1 are "corporate." They refer to all plants, all animals, all humans, etc. Genesis 2 describes a specific even which takes place in the garden. It describes what God did when he created the first man, where He placed him, and what He told him. There needn't be any attempt to try and "marry" the two chapters together to produce a full picture of the chronological events in creation, because that's not what God intended when He ordered them in our Bible. Attempting to figure out what God said, to whom He said it, and how He said it, is therefore futile, and it entirely misses the point of the first two chapters in Genesis. Said who? The Biblical Hebrew and Discourse Linguistics book edited by Robert D. Bergen and produced from a conference of 90 professionals linguists 60 of whom were working translators, members of Wycliffe Bible Translators, completely disagrees with you. The Hebrew grammar is clear that chapter 2 is to be taken sequentially. I have shown the quotes and the grammar in my DVD series "Women in Ministry Silenced or Set Free?" The grammar is also backed up by the Apostles Bible which is an English translation of the Septuagint. We can see from that translation how the early Greek translation from before Jesus' day understood the sequential events.

Logic tells me that the event of 2:7 happened before the event of 1:29. So there is no 'rule of logic' which chapter is to be read first because they complement eachother. First in history these events happened before the event of 1:29:

Yes, God's commandment to Adam is in chapter two, but God's command to Adam and Eve regarding what they could eat (which also encompassed what they could not eat) is in chapter 1. God's commandment to eat is certainly in Genesis 1:29. By this we can be sure that the tree of the knowledge of good and evil did not have fruit which had seeds. They were given freedom to eat from every tree except the one tree that didn't have seeds. This is just another way to tell them what they can and can't eat. It is a command and it is valid. Again, arguing from a vacuum. God's commandment of what they could eat is not proof of His commanding what they could not eat. The fact is, in Genesis 2 God specifically commands Adam not to eat of a specific tree. Whether or not it had seeds is also not argued there. Not true. When God tells them they can eat from every tree that has fruit that yields seeds, it is the same as saying that they can eat from every tree in the garden except from the tree that doesn't have fruit that yields seeds. Otherwise you have a contradiction here. Did not God say that they can eat from every tree? There is a prohibition implied here or else we have a contradiction. "There is no implied commandment at all. The verse does not quote God as saying, "Eat only from trees that produces seeds." If I pointed to an auditorium full of chairs and said, "I have set up these chairs for you to sit in," I am not specifically commanding you to avoid sitting in certain types of chairs. Some of the chairs may have blue sashes on them and some may have red sashes on them. My telling you to sit does not include a commandment to not sit in the chairs with the red sashes on them. Where is the verse or biblical teaching that the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil did not have seeds? God said: Gen 1:29 Then God said, "Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the surface of all the earth, and every tree which has fruit yielding seed; it shall be food for you; God said that he has given YOU (plural) every tree for food. Every tree is given for food that has fruit yielding seed. Since in chapter two God said that every tree was given to them for food except for one tree, then we can logically deduce that there was only one tree that produced fruit that didn't have fruit with seeds. They can eat from: (chapter two) Every tree but one.... (chapter one) Every tree with fruit that yields seed... Therefore only one tree had fruit that did not yield seeds because only one tree was forbidden to them. It is only simple logic and this is simple enough for anyone to understand unless they come to the passage with preconceived ideas that won't allow them to see it.

Yes, it is present, active, indicative and there is nothing that makes extend into the future past Paul's life. The context of verse 11 & 15 shows the extent of the prohibition. She must learn the truth (verse 11) and verse 15 she must continue in the truth and have self-control to stay away from deception. Once the conditions are removed the prohibition is no longer in operation. I have a friend who is a complementarian and we get along quite nicely. In my DVDs I make it clear that this is not an issue for Christians to divide over and complementarians deserve our love and respect as fellow Christians. I have been in contact with Andreas concerning my objections to his view of 1 Timothy 2:15 (which view he admits that not even CBMW accepts as true a viable option) and he was not able to answer my objections. He told me that my objections are valid and worthy of being asked. Now if his view was solid, then it would stand up to scrutiny. It does not. I noticed you quoted me about my asking you once again for your exegesis of 1 Timothy 1 & 2 but you said nothing about producing it. Are you working on it? Do you have any leg to stand on? I am respectfully waiting. It won't separate you from me as a Christian, but it makes what you say a lot less credible.

Yes, God's commandment to Adam is in chapter two, but God's command to Adam and Eve regarding what they could eat (which also encompassed what they could not eat) is in chapter 1. God's commandment to eat is certainly in Genesis 1:29. By this we can be sure that the tree of the knowledge of good and evil did not have fruit which had seeds. They were given freedom to eat from every tree except the one tree that didn't have seeds. This is just another way to tell them what they can and can't eat. It is a command and it is valid. Again, arguing from a vacuum. God's commandment of what they could eat is not proof of His commanding what they could not eat. The fact is, in Genesis 2 God specifically commands Adam not to eat of a specific tree. Whether or not it had seeds is also not argued there. Not true. When God tells them they can eat from every tree that has fruit that yields seeds, it is the same as saying that they can eat from every tree in the garden except from the tree that doesn't have fruit that yields seeds. Otherwise you have a contradiction here. Did not God say that they can eat from every tree? There is a prohibition implied here or else we have a contradiction.

Yes, God's commandment to Adam is in chapter two, but God's command to Adam and Eve regarding what they could eat (which also encompassed what they could not eat) is in chapter 1. God's commandment to eat is certainly in Genesis 1:29. By this we can be sure that the tree of the knowledge of good and evil did not have fruit which had seeds. They were given freedom to eat from every tree except the one tree that didn't have seeds. This is just another way to tell them what they can and can't eat. It is a command and it is valid.

Hmmm.... Where does it say in the Bible that Adam was credited with the fall because he sinned willfully and with knowledge? "But death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned after the likeness of Adam's transgression, who is a type of Him who was to come." (Rom. 5:14) Notice that it does not say, "After the likeness of Eve's transgression." It does not say that Eve was a type of Him who was to come. Adam is the head of the old creation. The old creation is called "Adamic" because of this. The name "Adam" in the following verse is actually the title given to fallen humanity, the old creation: "For just as in Adam all die..." (1 Cor. 15:22a) Adam is the head of the old creation and so therefore the transgression of his sin is passed on to all who are in the old creation. I disagree. The attribution of sin to Adam was not because he was male, but because he was the head of the old creation. He was the first one created. Jesus is the firstborn of the new creation and so is the head of the new creation. I don't disagree with this. In Christ is the finish of the old creation and, as the firstborn of the new creation He is the head of the new creation, which is the Body of Christ, and the Bride of Christ (Even the New Jerusalem). Hos 6:7 But like Adam they have transgressed the covenant; There they have dealt treacherously against Me. Adam was the one who dealt treacherously because he sinned when he was not deceived. 1Ti 2:14 And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression. Adam brought rebellion into the world because he sinned with rebellion in that he dealt treacherously with God. It was his motive that scripture attributes to his sin, never because he was the first created. Yes, scripture very clearly says that it was only Adam who brought sin into the world and we know from the OT that it was the way he sinned - treacherously against God. Paul says that he himself had sinned ignorantly and in unbelief and he found mercy. 1Ti 1:13 even though I was formerly a blasphemer and a persecutor and a violent aggressor. Yet I was shown mercy because I acted ignorantly in unbelief; Eve found mercy because she had fallen into sin because of deception. She did not bring rebellion into the world. Adam did not sin because of deception and his deliberate decision to sin brought rebellion into the world. Hmmm... In Hosea 6:7 "Adam" is used as the corporate term for "man." The word "transgression" in Hebrew is given to mean, "To pass over (or through)...to go beyond." It indicates an action which is in contrast to the keeping of a law or rule. To "rebel" against God is to engage in an act of war against him. Adam's "transgression" was not an act of war. It was an act of weakness to an overwhelming desire to please himself, and even to please his mate. As the head of the old creation, however, this sin was charged against him. Note that in God's punishment of him, He commanded that he should till the ground all the days of his life. This is God's punishment: For man to labor for his food rather than to tend a garden which provided freely for him. Thereore, man's punishment was literally to labor over the fallen world. Hmmmmm... So you are saying that Hosea 6:7 has "man" transgressing like "man"? You are really trying to disregard scripture. Try to find an expert that says that this is not the first man Adam. The truth is that Adam dealt treacherously with God by his deliberate sin. You can say that it was an act of weakness but God doesn't say that. If Adam had a defense about his weakness, surely he would have said to God that he sinned because he was such a weak man. No, scripture does not verify this at all. Adam sinned deliberately and with knowledge of the truth. He brought sin into the world and there is no "Eve" that we can blame his sin for. The blame rests solely on Adam's shoulders since the way he sinned (treacherously against God) was rebellion and it alone brought rebellion into the world. The idea that Adam sinned to please his mate is another myth. Where does the scripture give this as his motive? When God asked him about what he did, does Adam say that he sinned because he wanted to please his mate? No. He blames God for giving him the woman (the woman whom YOU gave me) and he blames the woman for giving him the fruit. He says nothing about a desire to please her. His act is an act of rebellion and is rightfully called treacherous.

Hmmm.... Where does it say in the Bible that Adam was credited with the fall because he sinned willfully and with knowledge? "But death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned after the likeness of Adam's transgression, who is a type of Him who was to come." (Rom. 5:14) Notice that it does not say, "After the likeness of Eve's transgression." It does not say that Eve was a type of Him who was to come. Adam is the head of the old creation. The old creation is called "Adamic" because of this. The name "Adam" in the following verse is actually the title given to fallen humanity, the old creation: "For just as in Adam all die..." (1 Cor. 15:22a) Adam is the head of the old creation and so therefore the transgression of his sin is passed on to all who are in the old creation. I disagree. The attribution of sin to Adam was not because he was male, but because he was the head of the old creation. He was the first one created. Jesus is the firstborn of the new creation and so is the head of the new creation. I don't disagree with this. In Christ is the finish of the old creation and, as the firstborn of the new creation He is the head of the new creation, which is the Body of Christ, and the Bride of Christ (Even the New Jerusalem). Hos 6:7 But like Adam they have transgressed the covenant; There they have dealt treacherously against Me. Adam was the one who dealt treacherously because he sinned when he was not deceived. 1Ti 2:14 And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression. Adam brought rebellion into the world because he sinned with rebellion in that he dealt treacherously with God. It was his motive that scripture attributes to his sin, never because he was the first created. Yes, scripture very clearly says that it was only Adam who brought sin into the world and we know from the OT that it was the way he sinned - treacherously against God. Paul says that he himself had sinned ignorantly and in unbelief and he found mercy. 1Ti 1:13 even though I was formerly a blasphemer and a persecutor and a violent aggressor. Yet I was shown mercy because I acted ignorantly in unbelief; Eve found mercy because she had fallen into sin because of deception. She did not bring rebellion into the world. Adam did not sin because of deception and his deliberate decision to sin brought rebellion into the world.

Adam did represent Eve after the fall (plus Caine and Abel and sisters). are you familiar with sacrificial offering? Who do you think taught Caine and Abel (who were males) to sacrifice in Gen 4? you do know they sacrificed..right? which, if you got your study cap on, can conclude that since Caine murdered Able they already had a family because they were both sacrificing in behalf of their families. edited to say: can you find in scirpture where God showed Adam how to sacrifice? i was just curious if you knew of this? not that it'll satisfy you but wondered if you knew about this. Adam did not represent Eve regarding her sin. God did not call Adam to account for Eve's sin, he called him to account for his own sin. Regarding the rest of your comments that is an argument from silence. If God had wanted Adam to represent Eve, then the first place he would have called him to represent her was after the fall. If God didn't call Adam to account for Eve's sin but he called Eve to account for her own sin, then your argument doesn't even get off the ground in the first place. No, Adam brought sin into the world because he sinned in rebellion without being deceived. Eve even though she sinned by being deceived was still answerable to God for herself. I'll bet she wished that Adam could have answered for her.

Where does the bible say that Adam was credited with bringing sin into the world because he was the first one created? No, Adam was credited because he sinned willfully and with knowledge. Adam was not deceived so his rebellion brought rebellion into the world. Eve fell into sin, she did not walk into sin with her eyes wide open in rebellion. She was fully deceived and therefore she could not bring the sin of rebellion into the world. When we attribute sin to Adam because he was male and because he was the first one created, then we are attributing favoritism to God. But if we understand as scripture says that Adam's sin was different than Eve's and God judges the motives of one's heart, then we surely can understand why sin came through Adam. Jesus too is the last Adam because just as Adam brought rebellion into the world through his act of rebellion, so Christ brings righteousness through his righteousness. When we were "in" Adam we fell with him. When we are "in" Christ his righteousness is attributed to us on our behalf. Praise God that Christ took my sins and your sins and allowed me to be "in" him. This is the very basis of Christianity.