Adam And Eve - Just An Allegory?

[Tinky]

Shiloh357, you continue to amaze me with your posts. Your encyclopedic knowledge is astonishing.

You go, boy!

[Guest shiloh357]

As you probably know many people have written about how the NT uses Adam allegorically, especially in Paul's writings. And many also see the discrepancies between Gen. 1 and 2 as a textual indicator that, at the very least, parts of the account are not to be read as historical fact.

The NT never refers to Adam allegorically. The claim is simply false. I know what allegory is, and it is never employed in any NT passage in reference to Adam. Adam is referred to in the following places in the NT:

• Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God. (Luke 3:38)
  
  
  • Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come. (Romans 5:14)
    
    
    • For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. (1 Corinthians 15:22)
      
      
      • And so it is written, the first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit. (1 Corinthians 15:45)
        

      [*]For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. (1 Timothy 2:13 -14)

      [*]And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints, (Jude 1:14)

      Those are all of the references to Adam by name in the NT; every single one of them. Matt. 19:4-6 also refers to Adam and Eve as having been joined together by God. Jesus is the speaker and He treats them as literal historical figures. As you can see above there is not ONE allegorical reference to Adam in the NT. So these people who claim that Adam was used allegorically in the NT and specifically in Paul’s writings don’t know what they are talking about. It is just something they hope that people like you will accept uncritically and without any thoughful research.

      As for Genesis 1 and 2. The Hebrew Bible was not written in chapter and verse. Chapter and verse in the Bible didn’t come around until the 13^th century AD and it was an Englishman named Stephen Langston who rather arbitrarily added the chapter and verse breaks in the Bible. There are several places that we know of that have bad chapter breaks. That is, the chapter break occurs in the middle of the line of the thought. We often mistakenly think that the beginning of a new chapter is a the beginning of a new line of thought or a separate context. Often in the Bible a given context covers multiple chapters.

      Genesis 1 and 2 are not separate accounts. They are a single account spread over what appears to us as 2 chapters. But it is a single line of thought. But you are not really reading the text carefully at all. It doesn’t offer a second creation account at all. It narrows the focus down to the sixth day and states that after God had created the herbs and vegitation and caused the earth to bring them forth. It then says that God created Adam from the dust of the ground and it is indicated in the text that Adam would be responsible for working the ground. It then says that God planted a garden in the east in a region known as “Eden.” It is not second creation account, but a more detailed explanation of what happened on the sixth day in reference to man. That is the purpose of the author. He is funnelling down to the sixth day and the story goes on from there. Where you get the notion that there are discrepancies is beyond me. It is clear that you are simply an intellectual parrot where the claims you are making are concerned. You blindly accept them without any critical thinking or any textual research whatsoever.

      I also think common sense dictates a certain level of mythology here.

      You are really not in a position to make that kind of claim, as you demonstrate no practical or academic knowledge of the text whatsoever. You are not motivated by commonsense. You are motivated by your rejection of the claims of Scripture, which are inabled by your demonstrated ignorance of a text you are attempting to discredit. I am embarrassed for you.

      I think it is just common sense that before Adam partook of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, he did not have knowledge of good and evil, or at least a full understanding to the point that he didn't realize he was naked.

      From the text Adam knew what death was and it is shown in the text that Adam communicated this to Eve, as Eve was created some time later and was not present when God gave that warning to Adam. Adam was created perfect and had full use of his mental capacity. There was no lack of understanding. The point is not that Adam and Eve didn’t know they didn’t have clothes on. The point is that once they were separated from God, their nakedness was an object of shame. Adam and Eve were living in a supernatural environment and clothed with God’s glory. Their nakedness was not a shameful thing in that environment, but spiritual death changed all of that.

      I called it the tree of death because that is the consequence of the tree (I took a poetic license on that if you will); I understand that ultimately it is disobedience that creates sin, my point is that if God didn't want Adam to eat from the tree until the specified time why not just keep the tree out of reach until then. It was clearly not meant to be eaten from, at least at that time as God forbid it.

      So do we operate from that kind of warped logic in other contexts??? When a parent gives his sixteen year old son the keys to the family car and says be home by 10:00 pm or you will be grounded from using the car, is the parent committing entrapment? If the parent didn’t want the child to disobey him, why not just not let him take the car or go out at all?

      How did God do the exact opposite of an entrapment? I agree God didn't put a gun to Adam's head and said eat this fruit which I have forbidden, but when I read the story I see a clear progression of events that indicate Adam was poised to eat from the tree and plunge the world into sin. Like placing a tree with delicious fruit in the Garden when he didn't want Adam to eat from the tree, Adam doesn't have knowledge of good and evil, and God knowingly allows Satan into the Garden to tempt Adam. If you don't want your child to drink from the juice box when you're not at home, you simply put the juice box up where the child can't get to it, and you don't allow others to tempt the child, especially if the action brings about the child's death, it's really not that hard to figure out.

      What you are doing is assigning values to the text that are simply not there. God didn’t place a tree in the Garden that He didn’t want Adam to eat from. The Bible says that the tree was good for food. God simply told them not to eat from it. It doesn’t anywhere indicate that God was trying to entrap them at all. You clearly don’t understand what entrapment is.

      Entrapment is an act of deception where you put someone in a position to incriminate themselves. In entrapment, you get the person to commit a crime they would not have ordinarily done. For God to put the tree in the Garden and tell Adam not to eat of it, is not entrapment. Had God induced Adam’s disobedience by providing something to encourage Adam to eat the fruit that was forbidden, THAT would be entrapment.

      Given the two options, devoid of choice, or allowing us the choice of disobedience that quite literally doomed the vast majority of people to Hell, I honestly see the benevolent decision to be 'no choice'. And really, everyone born subsequent to Adam did not have a choice, we are condemned to sin via our sin nature. Seriously, if it actually comes down to the life you are living and going to Hell for eternity, or devoid yourself of choice in the matters of sin and live a blissful life in Heaven, no sane person would choose the first.

      How is there no choice? Adam always had a choice. God did not force Adam to eat. Adam was not even tempted by the devil to eat from it. Adam operated from free will to eat from the tree when Eve gave it to him to eat. We inherit a sin nature from Adam, but God has always made a way of redemption from the first chapters of Genesis until the death of Jesus on the cross. God always sent prophets calling His people to choose Him, to choose life, to choose salvation. The choice has always been there in all of God’s dealings with man. The problem is that man is unwilling to repent and to accept the fact that he is a sinner in need of a savior. Man has always rebelled against God’s pleas for him to return. God’s final act of love was to send Jesus and yet even though God has provided the way of salvation, man still chooses (just as you have chosen) to reject God’s offer.

      I submit that God does, in fact, want/require us to be devoid of free will; we can have our car in any color we want so long as it's black. It's either that or be tortured in Hell for eternity, and that is not really a free choice, now is it.

      God has allowed you to choose to harden your heart and reject Him. God has not forced anyone to love Him or follow Him. Sorry, but you don’t know what you are talking about (as usual).

      If all we have to go on is that the text says X wrote it than that's all we have to go on, the point is that we don't have to stop there. Several letters in the NT are claimed to be written by Paul, yet the general consensus is that Paul didn't write them. Sometimes the claimed author isn't really the author, it happens.

      That is internally inconsistent, though. You have already stated that you reject the Bible’s claims that Moses is the author of Pentateuch because of the lack of any outside corroborating evidence. Yet, that doesn’t seem to be problematic for you when we have no outside corroborating evidence for other ancient documents bearing the names of their authors. So when the text says, “X,” with no corroborating evidence, why is that okay for documents like the writings of Plato, Julius Caesar and Demothsenes, but when the Bible says, “X,” such claims should be rejected?

      JEPD or not, as I understand it, everyone outside the sphere of fundamentalism sees multiple authors in the Pentateuch. Exactly how many authors and who wrote what is obviously up for debate, however the key for our discussion is that it wasn't a single author. Saying how idiotic JEPD is is not going change that.

      What is fundalmentalism?? You throw that term around as if those who hold to historicity of the Bible and the authors as belong to a single group, which is really kind of untrue. I have very nonfundamental professors who hold to theological positions outside the realm of what you call “fundamentalism” and they still hold to the historicity of Moses as the author of the Pentateuch. This is just another example of your refusal to allow ignorance to keep you from parroting misinformation. You try to paint people like me with a broad brush and make a lot of over-generalizations and frankly, it only demonstrates that your understanding of these issues is about one inch deep.

      I genuinely believe that the scholarly consensus is that multiple people wrote the Pentateuch, and I am well aware that fundamentalists fervently disagree and there is a lot of material from their side, however I just don't buy it.

      Yes, "some", again we are at the divide between fundamentalist scholarship and everyone else. I know I am not exactly unbiased, but I don't have a very high opinion of fundamentalists when it comes to academic pursuits. Call me ignorant and whatever else makes you sleep at night, such is the price I pay for not being too interested in a subject.

      You don’t know anything about scholarly consensus. You are taking a bunch of liberal scholars and hold them up as the only scholarly voices on the matter. You act as if only “fundies” believe that Moses wrote the Bible and that is simply not the case. Conservatives are not "fundies." You operate from a glaring doublestandard where authorship is concerned as demonstrated above, so you can rely on sloppy, incompetent “scholars” who are desprately clinging to an archaic, out-dated theory that is on life-support, but that is your choice. I opt for competent scholars who don’t have an anti-God agenda to nurse.

[Guest shiloh357]

From what I understand, I know you disagree as we've had this conversation before, the Jews were originally polytheists and ended up worshiping one God out of their pantheon which then evolved into monotheism.

As has been demonstrated, your “understanding” is based on a lot of misinformation, and an admitted (by you) lack of knowledge regarding the Bible. Abraham was originally a polytheist in Ur. That does not mean, “the Jews” were originally polytheist. Abraham became a Monotheist in Genesis 12, and his offspring were nothing but monotheists. There is NOTHING in Jewish history that indicates that the Jews were originally polytheists and later became monotheists and they never had anything akin to a “pantheon.” Where do you come up with this stuff?

As an aside, I don't see monotheism so radical that it couldn't have been thought up by humans, in Egypt there was a pharaoh that was monotheistic (I'd say that would be a 'foreign' concept in Egypt at the time), Hinduism is really a monotheistic religion that posits various attributes being experienced in various ways, not totally unlike the Christian concept of the Trinity.

Uh, yeah the Pharoah that introduced monotheism to Egypt did so AFTER the Israelites were already monotheists. And the Israelites in Canaan were already trading with the Egyptians prior tro Akhenaten’s reign. Monotheism was already concept by that time. BTW, I didn’t say monotheism was too radical to have been thought up. I said that there simply wasn’t a point of reference for it, just like no one would have thought of a cell phone during the middle ages.

You don’t understand Hinduism, either. Hinduism doesn’t have one single concept of deity. Hinduistic concepts of “god” include “monism,” (where everything exists as one substance, patheism (everything is divine), animism (gods live in nonhuman creatures or objects), panentheism (God is in creation), and polytheism (many gods). Hardly a “monothesitic” religion. There is a minority of Hindus that are in fact monotheists, but they are a very small minority and do not define what Hinduism really is. There is no stretch of the imagination that can allow a thinking person to conclude that Hinduism is or ever was a monotheistic religion.

From what I understand, the Jews in Babylon originally believed that since they weren't able to interact with their temple that God had abandoned them, among how God could allow their suffering, so their concept of God had to grow, and it grew into a type of monotheism that wasn't restricted to geography. I'm sure you'll disagree, but there it is.

Here is a history lesson for you. The exile into Babylon was caused by the priests and others worshipping God in the same manner as the pagans worshipped their gods. That doesn’t mean the Jews were originally polytheists. Not all Jews fell into idolatry, but they suffered the same fate as those who did. Solomon allowed idol worship to exist in Israel prior to the divided kingdoms due to marrying so many foreign wives. He allowed them the freedom to worship their false gods and many of the inhabitants of Israel were enamoured with the customs and rituals, even Solomon fell into this.

Their view of God was shaped by the exilic prophets like Daniel, Jeremiah and Ezekiel, as well as the post exilic prophet, Isaiah. It didn’t grow into monotheism. They were already monotheists, but had fallen into the trap of worshipping God using the customs of the pagans and God didn’t want to be worshipped that way. He commanded as much (Deut. 12:29-31).

Aristotle was a geocentrist btw. I looked it up and the guy I was referring to was Aristarchus of Samos, the first known person to posit the Sun as the center of the solar system in the 3rd century BC.

I don't think it was so much about the church following the lead of science, back then science and theology was more or less interwoven. I think it was more of just it looks like the Earth is stationary (i.e. if we're moving why don't we fly off the Earth or feel the Earth move) with the stars, planets, and Sun moving about us across the sky, so the theology and philosophy of the day worked around that premise. I really don't see how you can work around the idea that the ancient Hebrews believed in geocentricism, it may not be explicitly mentioned in the Bible, but I have no doubt it was part of their cosmology.

The Bible makes no geocentric claims. Geocentrism is the view that the earth is at the center of universe and the universe revolves around it. The Bible makes no such claims. People often refer to Gen. 1:14-18, Josh. 10:12-31, Ps. 104:5, Job 26:7, & Is. 40:22 as evidence of geocentrism. But none of those passages teach that the earth is at the center of universe. Geocentrism comes from the Greeks, not the Hebrews. You are simply trying to frame the Bible the way you need it to be framed in order to claim that the Bible teaches geocentrism.

Again, scientists today still speak of the sun rising and setting and are not considered geocentrists for using that terminology.

To be honest I don't think scientists are on a crusade to get science into the churches. I think it is our culture's admiration of science that forces adherents to want their religion to be in sync with science. As a general rule people don't want to go against science, when they want an idea to be taken seriously they say science confirms this and that (just look at creationism, i.e. "creation science", or look into various alternative medicines and their science-sounding words and claims). So I don't think it is surprising that there is a rift between followers when it comes to evolution and the like; science is science, and it's power in the eyes of the people demands (culturally) that it be addressed.

Of course they are trying to get science (evolution in particular) into the churches. Stephen Gould and other scientists have longed argued that the church should adopt the evolutionist model and leave the issue of origins to science. They repeatedly said that the origins of life on earth are the domain of science only and that the church should simply surrender that to scientific community. In effect, all Christians should adopt and teach evolution. The rift is the result of the scientific/evolution community demonizing and black-balling anyone who dares question some of their claims. Science is expected to be viewed as infallible and many scientists with advanced degrees in science are treated as crackpots for believing in a divine creator. It is rift of worldviews where one worldview is based on a belief in God and that God is our Creator and the other worldview is humanistic and atheistic. It is the humanistic and atheistic worldview that is behind the demonization of anyone who questions the veracity of the ToE.

I agree that it is hard to admit that your theories are wrong, but I also think it is even harder to admit a foundational falsehood of your religious beliefs, like Moses wrote the Pentateuch.

The problem is that you have not provided one shred of evidence that Moses didn’t writed the Pentateuch. The text of the Bible has a legion of authors that all corroborate that Moses wrote the Pentateuch. You have NOTHING that can be taken seriously that demonstrates otherwise. Your response is, “well maybe the Bible is wrong.” As has already been demonstrated, no such other ancient document receives such criticism where authorship is concerned. The foundational falsehood lies in your ignorance-laden, hypocritical doublestandard.

I don't see academic pride as a convincing argument, and I think you are kind of stuck in a false dichotomy of JEPD or Mosaic authorship. It is entirely possible that JEPD is wrong, however certain motifs are solid, like multiple authors, and that seems to be where the field is going.

JEPD is the only mulitiple author theory out there, but then maybe aliens wrote it. That would be intellectual caliber of what I can expect from liberals in absence of a workable JEPD model. It shouldn’t be long, now.

You didn't answer my question. To be more direct, do we clearly see sin today and in the past, therefore making Adam the explanation for why sin exists? Or is what we observe only recognized as sin because Adam did what he did?

The Bible says this: Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned… (Rom. 5:12) Adam’s sin, separated Adam from God

I understand your position is that without the Garden there is no need for Christ, I just don't find it a compelling argument.

That is because you are not spiriutally or theolically equipped to understand it. You don’t understand it at all. It is really, really simple, D-9. If the story of Adam’s sinning is just an allegory, then sin is not part of reality and sin doesn’t exist. If Adam was not a real person and there was not a real fall, then there was no sin committed and we don’t inherit a sin nature from Adam that we need to be redeemed from. If Jesus died on the cross to redeem us from sin that was really just an allegory, His death was pointless. If there was no fall in the garden, then what the Bible calls “sins” are not really sins and there is nothing for us to be accountable for in God’s sight.

In fact, if there was never any fall, never any garden, never any devil/serpen, no Adam, no Eve, then there probably wasn’t a God either and so the end result of the allegorical approach is that there is nothing to be redeemed from. “Sin” is not a moral problem, but just human beings doing what it is the nature of human beings to do. In that case, it’s okay for someone to break into your house and steal your stuff because there is no perfect moral code in existence that says it is wrong for someone to do that.

If you knew in your heart that God did not exist, would you go around stealing and killing?

Probably not, but I would have no moral standard to judge those things as necessarily wrong. The human mind can justify anything, left to its self.

[Guest shiloh357]

I still think that in this modern age the best way to destroy biblical authority is to presume a literal interpretation and quite mercilessly destroy that world-view through science and the like.

People have been trying to do that for a long time, and they still haven’t been able to knock the Bible down. Do you know why? Because the Bible doesn't make any scientific claims that can be countered by science. The Christian/biblical worldview isn't a scientific worldview. It doesn't offer science anything scientific. The Bible claims that God spoke the universe into existence. Since science cannot detect God, how does science destroy that claim?? The Bible says that Jesus rose from the dead. That is not a scientific claim, so how does science destroy that claim? The literal interpretation of Genesis is that of an historical narrative, not a scientific proposition. So how do you use science to destroy an historical claim. The story of Jesus' resurrection is part of an historical narrative. How do you destroy via science, the historical claim of Jesus resurrection?

Can you name main-stream or liberal scholars that seriously think Mosaic authorship is correct?

I never claimed any liberal scholars accept Mosaic authorship. Liberal, btw, is not synonomous with mainstream. Most liberals are only “mainstream” in liberal corners. I cannot provide any liberal scholars in the mainstream that accept Mosaic authorship. There are all kinds of mainstream conservative Christian scholars (the ones who actually know what they are talking about) that believe in Mosaic authorship. Dr. Eugene Merrill, Dr. Douglas Stuart are a couple of OT scholars that come to mind. Another important voice in that matter is Alfred Edersheim, a converted Jew and biblical scholar who also held to Mosaic authorship when the JEPD delusion was all the rage.

You said in another post that Genesis is not a science book. So let me ask you a question: Does the Bible say as a matter of historical fact that we came from two people that did not originally live in a community with other humans? Does the Bible say as a matter of historical fact that the Earth was made on the same day (in the same 24 hour time span) as the universe itself? Did all life come about within 6 days of the origins of the Earth/Universe? Did birds come before land animals? Was there a world wide flood a few thousand years ago? Did we all speak the same language until a few thousand years ago? Does the Bible say these things not (just) as a spiritual message, but as factual history?

It is not a science book, yes I did say that. But now you are asking me about its historical claims. Yes the Bible makes all of those historical claims, but it doesn't say when those events occured. The Bible in Genesis doesn't answer the questions of how and when. It only answers the questions of who and why. The problem is that you are trying to hold the Bible to modern scientific precision. The Bible is pre-science and as such does not operate from modern sctientific precision in its claims about things that scientists criticize.

The thing about science is that it cannot detect God. Science as a discipline is agnostic because science can only detect what can be seen and touched in our universe. Unfortunately, that has been the seat of a worldview that maintains that only can be seen is real and exists. Scientists who depend only on science to inform them of reality treat any belief in God or the Bible as an appeal to a fairy-tale.

Scientists are not robots or automotons that only operate off cold hard logic. They are human beings with emotions and passionately held beliefs about the world about God, religion and the like, and many of them are emotionally tied to the ToE and the atheistic/humanistic world view that is enabled by the ToE. The notion of a God who created the universe is an offensive thing to their humanistic pride and they fight tooth and nail to keep such views out of the public discussion of origins. They seek to make science the only public voice on the matter and other views are demonized and those who hold them are branded as crazy. This is a spiritual battle over two worldviews. A worldview based on a belief in God and a worldview held by the left that is anti-God. For the left, science is really just a pretext for their rejection of God and the authority of His Word. It isn’t really all about science. It is the outworking of the sinful nature that hates God and is fueled by its worldview to remove itself from accountability before a holy and righteous, sovereign Creator.

[chill86]

In the fictional story...

 

 

Eve was never told by god not to eat, but she says she was Genesis 3:3. The command was only given to the MAN, to not eat, Genesis 2:16-17.

 

Eve had NOT even been created yet Genesis 2:21-22 when the command was set in Genesis 2:16-17. So Eve heard nothing from god, as she never existed when the command was given out.

 

 

Romans 5:12  Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one MAN. The woman sinned first [unless u think Eve was a man]

 

 

Just a really badly written fictional story. That is incoherent and lacks any evidence any such events even took place.

 

[Guest shiloh357]

 

  

 

 

Eve was never told by god not to eat, but she says she was Genesis 3:3. The command was only given to the MAN, to not eat, Genesis 2:16-17.

Eve had NOT even been created yet Genesis 2:21-22 when the command was set in Genesis 2:16-17. So Eve heard nothing from god, as she never existed when the command was given out. 

 

 

 

Eve didn't claim God told her.  You got that wrong.  That is what 3:3 says.  She mentions God's command but doesn't say that God told her personally. 

 

Romans 5:12  Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one MAN. The woman sinned first [unless u think Eve was a man]

 

 

 

Adam was responsible.  Eve was decieved ( I Tim 2:14) but Adam ate the fruit in direct wide-eyed disobedience to God and because He was the one given the authority over all of the works of God's hands, the fault lies with Him.   He got the commandment directly from God and so His disobedience is greater than hers because He was not tempted but willingly ate of it.

 

 

 

Just a really badly written fictional story. That is incoherent and lacks any evidence any such events even took place.

 

 

 

No just being read by someone who doesn't know anything about the Bible and is not qualified to critique it.

 

[chill86]

"Eve didn't claim God told her.  You got that wrong.  That is what 3:3 says.  She mentions God's command but doesn't say that God told her personally."

 

god told her, hence she states "but God did say" Genesis 3:3. The only time the command is set out is in Genesis 2:16-17, Eve is not present as she has not been created yet, thus she cannot even mention god's command, due to the man only existing when it is given.

 

 

"Adam was responsible"

 

Adam is not responsible for Eve. Adam is only responsible to himself as he is the one who received the command. Responsibility is with your god who did not give Eve the command at the same time as Adam, due not existing.

 

 

 

"Romans 5:12  Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one MAN"

 

Sin entered the world through one woman, not man, as the woman sinned first.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited June 3, 2013 by chill86

[Guest shiloh357]

god told her, hence she states "but God did say" Genesis 3:3. The only time the command is set out is in Genesis 2:16-17, Eve is not present as she has not been created yet, thus she cannot even mention god's command, due to the man only existing when it is given.

 

 

Eve didn't say, "God told me..."   That little phrase needs to be there for your statement to have one shred of truth to it.   Eve was simply repeating what Adam told her.   Anyone reading with any commonsense can see that.

 

 

Adam is not responsible for Eve. Adam is only responsible to himself as he is the one who received the command. Responsibility is with your god who did not give Eve the command at the same time as Adam, due not existing.

 

Biblicaly speaking, Adam was responsible for Eve.   Adam was responsible for teaching Eve what God had given Him.    God did punish Eve, but the act of sin coming into the world was committed by Adam, as Adam was the one in authority over the works of God's hands.  Adam was the federal head of all mankind and when Adam fell, all of us fell with him, including Eve.  

 

As Eve's spiritual "head"  Adam could have and should interceded on her behalf.  Instead, Adam committed high treason and handed over the world to God's sworn enemy, Satan.

 

 

"Romans 5:12  Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one MAN"

 

Sin entered the world through one woman, not man, as the woman sinned first.

[chill86..]

"Eve didn't say, "God told me..."   That little phrase needs to be there for your statement to have one shred of truth to it.   Eve was simply repeating what Adam told her."

 

Eve is not repeating anything god told her, as she is yet to be created. She is not repeating anything Adam told her either [you are adding to your god's word's] as Eve clearly states "god did say". The only time the command is set out in the words Eve uses in Genesis 3: 2-3 is when Adam is the only one existing. The command is only given to Adam, as Adam is the only one who exists.

 

The fictional writer/Eve also adds the words Genesis 3: 3 "and you must not touch it". This is not given in Genesis 2: 16-17.

 

"Biblicaly speaking, Adam was responsible for Eve.   Adam was responsible for teaching Eve what God had given Him."

 

Adam is not responsible, as Eve already knows from god she must not eat of the tree, Hence, Genesis 3: 2-3. But Eve cannot know this as she is not given this command as she hasn't been created yet, when the command is given, Genesis 2: 16-17

 

If Eve knows the law given to her by god as she states in Genesis 3: 2-3 then it is Eve who sinned first [sin entered the world through one woman].  But then she cannot know the law as she never existed to hear it in the first place.

Edited June 4, 2013 by chill86..

[OneLight]

"Eve didn't say, "God told me..."   That little phrase needs to be there for your statement to have one shred of truth to it.   Eve was simply repeating what Adam told her."

 

Eve is not repeating anything god told her, as she is yet to be created. She is not repeating anything Adam told her either [you are adding to your god's word's] as Eve clearly states "god did say". The only time the command is set out in the words Eve uses in Genesis 3: 2-3 is when Adam is the only one existing. The command is only given to Adam, as Adam is the only one who exists.

 

The fictional writer/Eve also adds the words Genesis 3: 3 "and you must not touch it". This is not given in Genesis 2: 16-17.

 

"Biblicaly speaking, Adam was responsible for Eve.   Adam was responsible for teaching Eve what God had given Him."

 

Adam is not responsible, as Eve already knows from god she must not eat of the tree, Hence, Genesis 3: 2-3. But Eve cannot know this as she is not given this command as she hasn't been created yet, when the command is given, Genesis 2: 16-17

 

If Eve knows the law given to her by god as she states in Genesis 3: 2-3 then it is Eve who sinned first [sin entered the world through one woman].  But then she cannot know the law as she never existed to hear it in the first place.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

To be clear as what scripture does say, here is Genesis 3.

 

Now the serpent was more cunning than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made. And he said to the woman, “Has God indeed said, ‘You shall not eat of every tree of the garden’?”

And the woman said to the serpent, “We may eat the fruit of the trees of the garden; but of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God has said, ‘You shall not eat it, nor shall you touch it, lest you die.’”

Then the serpent said to the woman, “You will not surely die. For God knows that in the day you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”

So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree desirable to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate. She also gave to her husband with her, and he ate. Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves coverings.

And they heard the sound of the Lord God walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the Lord God among the trees of the garden.

Then the Lord God called to Adam and said to him, “Where are you?”

So he said, “I heard Your voice in the garden, and I was afraid because I was naked; and I hid myself.”

And He said, “Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten from the tree of which I commanded you that you should not eat?”

Then the man said, “The woman whom You gave to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I ate.”

And the Lord God said to the woman, “What is this you have done?”

The woman said, “The serpent deceived me, and I ate.”

 

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.

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.”

 

To the woman He said:

“I will greatly multiply your sorrow and your conception;

In pain you shall bring forth children;

Your desire shall be for your husband,

And he shall rule over you.”

 

Then to Adam He said, “Because you have heeded the voice of your wife, and have eaten from the tree of which I commanded you, saying, ‘You shall not eat of it’:

“Cursed is the ground for your sake;

In toil you shall eat of it

All the days of your life.

Both thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you,

And you shall eat the herb of the field.

In the sweat of your face you shall eat bread

Till you return to the ground,

For out of it you were taken;

For dust you are,

And to dust you shall return.”

 

And Adam called his wife’s name Eve, because she was the mother of all living.

Also for Adam and his wife the Lord God made tunics of skin, and clothed them.

Then the Lord God said, “Behold, the man has become like one of Us, to know good and evil. And now, lest he put out his hand and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live forever”— therefore the Lord God sent him out of the garden of Eden to till the ground from which he was taken. So He drove out the man; and He placed cherubim at the east of the garden of Eden, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to guard the way to the tree of life.