1 Timothy 2:15

[inhistime]

Another great quote!

EASILY deceived? The arche enemy's attacks can hardly be considered easy for one. For two, you're conjecturing that Eve was easily deceived therefore what indicates a lack of understanding? One doesn't have to be confused about God's commands in order to be deceived by the arche enemy anyway. For what reason then could Eve have been confused about God's command? She QUOTED Him afterall. She was deceived not confused as the bible specificaly says.

Good one! You are right. Paul didn't say "And Eve fell into transgression through confusion". Let's give the woman credit for knowing what God said but after quoting accurately what God said, she then was deceived by the serpent's lies about God's motives and the equality with God that lay just outside her reach if she just ate the fruit. Last week I talked with a couple of Mormon elders who believe that same thing as Eve did. They believe that they too will be Gods and as Gods they will rule their own planet. The serpent's deception is alive and well on planet earth and it is otherwise intelligent people (including men) who are being deceived.

[DarkNebulaWelder]

Ya, but according to the Genesis account, God commands Adam re: the Tree BEFORE Eve was created, so it's not really clear where Eve directly gets her information.

It is clear where Eve got her information because Eve said "God said". The bible says that God told Eve directly what she could eat. Genesis 1:28 God says to them....then verse 29 God tells them both what they could eat. If God told her what she could eat directly, then why would he not tell her what she couldn't eat at the same time? Eve tells us "God said..." and I think we should believe her that God told her this.

Okay, now this is where I'm getting confused, because I always thought that chapter 1 was a precursor to chapter 2.....at least, as far as the account of man's creation is concerned.

In chapter 2, it clearly indicates that God created Adam (vs. 7) and commanded him not to eat of the tree (vs. 16, 17) before he created woman (vs 22)

[DarkNebulaWelder]

Another great quote!

EASILY deceived? The arche enemy's attacks can hardly be considered easy for one. For two, you're conjecturing that Eve was easily deceived therefore what indicates a lack of understanding? One doesn't have to be confused about God's commands in order to be deceived by the arche enemy anyway. For what reason then could Eve have been confused about God's command? She QUOTED Him afterall. She was deceived not confused as the bible specificaly says.

Good one! You are right. Paul didn't say "And Eve fell into transgression through confusion". Let's give the woman credit for knowing what God said but after quoting accurately what God said, she then was deceived by the serpent's lies about God's motives and the equality with God that lay just outside her reach if she just ate the fruit. Last week I talked with a couple of Mormon elders who believe that same thing as Eve did. They believe that they too will be Gods and as Gods they will rule their own planet. The serpent's deception is alive and well on planet earth and it is otherwise intelligent people (including men) who are being deceived.

How could she have quoted God accurately when she said something that was not specifically commanded by God?

[DarkNebulaWelder]

Eve is responding directly to the serpent's account of what God has said, so of course, Adam is not even involved in the conversation.

Adam should have been involved in the conversation because he knew that it was not true. Adam was not deceived remember? Since his wife was believing a lie, Adam should have defended the truth and stopped his wife from being deceived.

How could he have stopped her from being deceived when he wasn't with Eve at the time?

You're really losing me here.....Was he with Eve at the time, or not?

Forgive me, but I think my undersanding is really off. For some reason, I thought that she was alone with the serpent.

[inhistime]

Well, there are really only 4 options concerning how Eve was commanded, and what went wrong in the translation:

(1) She was quoting God, who gave her a different commandment than He gave Adam....this I do not believe, as we know that God's word doesn't change, including His commandments

God's word indeed doesn't change but God can and does add to his word without contradiction. Let me take you to a case in point. Look at what God tells Adam to eat when Adam is created. In Genesis 2:16, 17 God tells Adam that he can eat from any fruit of any tree except for one. The one tree that he is not allowed to eat from is the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Correct?

Then take a look at what God told both Adam and Eve that they could eat in chapter 1. In verse 29 it says:

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;

Here God adds to what he gives them to eat. He now adds every plant yielding seed on the surface of all the earth. He also says that they may eat from every tree which has fruit yielding seeds. Do you notice that he says "every tree" and does not list any specific tree that they may not eat from? Yet this leads us to the understanding that the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil did not have fruit that yields seeds. Why? Because God said that they could eat from every tree that has fruit yielding seed. If every fruit from every tree is allowed except for the trees that do not have fruit yielding seed, then we can see that the fruit from tree of the knowledge of good and evil was not allowed to be eaten from this reference because it does not have fruit that yields seed otherwise God lied when he said that they could eat from every tree except... God's word does not contradict itself. God can add any additional information he wants to. He is God after all and he can repeat himself in different ways and at different times if he wants to. So God did not give a different command to Eve. He just added a command for her not to touch the fruit. It is apparent that Adam didn't need this additional command but Eve did. In the end we can see why God told her not to touch the fruit. It was when she touched the fruit and held it and looked at its beauty in her hands that she had the final desire to eat it and she sinned.

(2) She was quoting Adam, who quoted God wrongly....I don't believe this, either, just because if Adam had quoted God wrongly, God surely would have condemned him for misquoting Him to Eve....i.e. adding to God's Word, which was brought up earlier.

Amen, yes you are right. To misquote God would be a sin.

This leaves 2 other options....that she misquoted either Adam, or misquoted God. Now, the Bible doesn't specify which one of them directly commanded Eve, but it goes without saying that, whomever it was, she misunderstood the commandment.

Scripture says not one word about Eve's inability to understand even a simple command. She was perfect in her creation and since women today have brains and have the ability to understand complex instructions, surely the very first woman would not have been created so simple-minded that she would not have understood an extremely simple command.

I mean, it was imperatively implied by God that the tree was STRICTLY FORBIDDEN, which perhaps she mistook as having NO PHYSICAL CONTACT with it, whatsoever....especially if Adam had re-iterated the commandment to her. Perhaps he did it in such a way that left room for error.

This option would place the blame on Adam that he was completely incapable of passing on God's word to the woman in such a way that a very simple command could be so confusing that she could not get it straight. And that is supposed to be God's choice of leadership? No, I don't think so. Adam did not mess up any command. God did not curse the ground because Adam messed up the command when he repeated it to his wife. God cursed the ground because Adam listened to his wife while she was being deceived and he did nothing.

[DarkNebulaWelder]

Also, if one is easily deceived, as Eve was, wouldn't this indicate a certain initial lack of understanding?

Adam was created first and had experiences with God that immunized him from Satan's lies. Eve was created after Adam and was not privy to Adam's special experiences with God that taught him about the difference between the creation and God himself. Because she did not have this knowledge that kept Adam from being deceived, she fell into deception. That didn't make her defective or more easily deceived by nature. It meant that she did not have the knowledge that would have kept her from deception.

Okay, well, if this is the case, then it appears that Eve was at a disadvantage, for if Eve was not privy to these "special experiences," you are implying that she was not as well-equipped as Adam to resist Satan's deception.

Wouldn't this logic imply that to put an ill-equipped Eve at the wiles of a crafty serpent, without the aid of past experiences with God?

If Eve did not have this as an advantage, then what was her defense? It appears that Adam had the discernment....it also appears that this proves the principle that, even without intuition, the fact that God commanded it is all the reason we need for obedience.

[inhistime]

Okay, now this is where I'm getting confused, because I always thought that chapter 1 was a precursor to chapter 2.....at least, as far as the account of man's creation is concerned.

In chapter 2, it clearly indicates that God created Adam (vs. 7) and commanded him not to eat of the tree (vs. 16, 17) before he created woman (vs 22)

Chapter one is a bird's eye view of the entire creation process. Chapter 2 goes back to the exact details of how mankind was created and looks at the full details not just the bird's eye view. The first command of God was after Adam was created. However God never says his commands only once. God is so interested in making sure that we do not sin that he makes sure that we understand his commands and for this he gives a second or third witness. Paul tells us that repetition is for our safety. After Eve is created God tells her what she cannot eat and he tells her that she must not even touch the fruit. This is Eve's testimony and I know of no good reason to disbelieve her testimony. Then if we go back to chapter one when Adam and Eve had both been created, God repeats what they can eat and he does so in such a way that encompasses the prohibition. He tells them that they eat every plant that yields seed and every fruit that yields seed. This command eliminates the tree of the knowledge of good and evil because it must not have had fruit that yields seeds otherwise God made a big mistake by telling them that they could eat from every tree except those trees which produce fruit without seeds.

[inhistime]

How could she have quoted God accurately when she said something that was not specifically commanded by God?

God's words are quoted in two ways. Just because the bible doesn't directly quote God, doesn't mean he didn't say it. If a person claims that God told them something and the bible doesn't contradict what they say, then this is also how we know what God said. After all many writers of the scripture said "God said" but the words are not quoted directly from God but from what God told them. This is what happened with Eve. It is amazing to me that tradition has caused us to be blind to the thought that God could speak directly to a woman. I used this same reasoning about Eve's words about God with a seminary professor. He was dumbfounded. He said that it had never even occurred to him that Eve was telling the truth. He said that he had always been taught that Eve had added to God's word. However when I reasoned it through with him, he could see from scripture that this was impossible. He had been blinded by tradition and never even considered that God could speak to a woman. It is time that we consider scripture as it is written instead of seeing it through the lens of tradition. What does scripture say? Scripture says "God said" and no where in scripture, not even one verse, contradicts Eve's testimony. That means that her testimony stands. God commands her not to touch the fruit. She was deceived and she touched and her touching was the key to her eating and then she lost her immortality. God said....and God was right.

[inhistime]

How could he have stopped her from being deceived when he wasn't with Eve at the time?

You're really losing me here.....Was he with Eve at the time, or not?

Forgive me, but I think my undersanding is really off. For some reason, I thought that she was alone with the serpent.

No, Eve was not alone with the serpent. The bible says in Genesis 3:6

she gave also to her husband with her, and he ate.

Now the Jehovah's Witnesses bible has distorted this passage because their organization teaches that Adam was not with Eve when she ate the fruit. Their bible says she gave also to her husband

when

with her. That just simply is indefensible in the Hebrew. The Hebrew says that he was with her. The word "with" is the Hebrew word "eem" and it means "equally with" or "beside". That means that Adam was right there beside her. The bible doesn't say that he showed up after she ate. The bible says that he was right there by her side. That is why God is additionally angry with Adam. Adam was not deceived but he stood there silently beside his wife while his wife was lead down the garden path of deception. He knew it was not true, yet he kept his mouth closed. He didn't lift his finger to stop the deception. He was silent. God was angry with Adam and cursed the earth because Adam listened to his wife and did nothing to stop the deception.

[inhistime]

Okay, well, if this is the case, then it appears that Eve was at a disadvantage, for if Eve was not privy to these "special experiences," you are implying that she was not as well-equipped as Adam to resist Satan's deception.

Wouldn't this logic imply that to put an ill-equipped Eve at the wiles of a crafty serpent, without the aid of past experiences with God?

Eve's advocate should have been the one who was educated on the difference between God and creation. Adam knew that he couldn't be God and that God was God and his creation was the work of his hands. Yet Eve had not seen the garden created, she had not seen the animals created and brought to her. She was the last of God's creative works and although she was intelligent and perfect in all ways, she lacked knowledge that would have kept her safe from deception. But the principle here is that the one who has the knowledge is responsible to teach the one who needs the knowledge to keep safe from deception. Adam failed Eve by keeping silent.

If Eve did not have this as an advantage, then what was her defense? It appears that Adam had the discernment....it also appears that this proves the principle that, even without intuition, the fact that God commanded it is all the reason we need for obedience.

Eve's defense is that she was deceived. She still sinned but it was God himself who answered her defense by coming to her rescue. He promised a Redeemer through her seed. Now it isn't the man's seed that the Redeemer could come through. The man was not deceived and his seed was corrupted through and through at the moment that he sinned. But Eve came from the man before he sinned. She was not counted as inheriting his sin yet she was still his DNA. She was deceived and God's bringing the Messiah through her provided his answer that those who have been deceived can be eligible for his mercy. Paul said the same thing in 1 Timothy 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;

Paul said that he found mercy because he sinned in ignorance and unbelief. His sin was still sin but it allowed God to reach out in mercy. He was not sinning with full knowledge and in rebellion as Adam's sin was. He sinned like a deceived Eve did - ignorantly in unbelief caused by deception. God was kind to Paul and gave him mercy. God was also kind to Eve in that he brought the Messiah through the seed of the woman.

Edited June 25, 2007 by inhistime