1 Timothy 2:15

[inhistime]

DarkNebulaWelder said:

Yes, but the argument to which I was responding was where Eve got her information....directly from God, or directly from Adam? That's why I brought up that scenario. Yes, the Bible IS direct on what God said to Adam, but not on what God said to Eve....or even if God directly told Eve.

Well, it appears that God thought it important enough to tell Eve what she could eat. Genesis 1:28, 29 says "God said to them...Behold I have given you every plant bearing seed..." So, which is more important, what Eve could eat or what she could not eat? If God spoke to her about what she could eat, why would he not speak to her about what she could not eat? Is it reasonable to understand that if God thought her worthy enough of a human being to speak to her directly about her food, the he would have thought her worthy enough to have given her the command to not eat of the forbidden fruit? Is this not more reasonable to assume than to assume that she either lied or that she was too ditzy to get a simple command correct?

Did you know that there are those who think that woman was never talked to directly by God because God would never stoop to talk to a woman? Yet think about the woman at the well. Jesus and the woman were alone and he talked to her. A sinful woman was worth his time and effort. God communicated directly to women because they too are his "sons". We are all sons of God all heirs together in Christ. Now why again would God not speak to Eve?

I guess the crux of my point is this.....We all know what God told Adam DIRECTLY....do not touch the fruit. We have no direct Biblical account re: where Eve got her information. We only have the account of what she told the serpent....which, since we KNOW she was not lying, was accurate. If she had been lying, surely God would have called her on it.

Absolutely, good point! Yes, if Eve had lied, we would have been told that she lied because it is not a small thing to lie about God's word.

Also, if she had received the information from Adam, then either God told Adam to command her differently, or Adam added on this information, which would have put him in direct violation of God's commandment not to add to God's word.

Now, if Adam and Eve were considered equals in the Garden, then why would God have commanded them each differently...or had added on another subset of the commandment for Eve's sake?

If God told Adam to command her differently, we would need to look at God's word to see what the evidence would be for that. Since there is no evidence, we could not take this viewpoint and hold strictly to the passage. You are also right on that if Adam added to God's word then he would have been in violation of God's command to not add to his words. Then Adam would have had to be the one whom God reprimanded about adding to God's word. Did God do that? No, not at all. God did reprimand Adam and he cursed the earth on his behalf, but God did not accuse Adam of adding to his word so once again we have no biblical evidence for this scenario.

Your next question is an absolute EXCELLENT one! Why did God give the command differently to Adam and Eve. That answer to that is one that secular feminists will not like. The answer is that equal is not sameness. Although men and women (Adam and Eve) are spiritual equals, they are different. My friend, the plain fact is that men and women think differently. And on top of that each individual has their own individual way of learning and understanding and responding. Adam obviously was not much of a curious person. Have you ever met people like that? I have, and I don't understand them. I am the kind of person who pushes and prods and lifts up the rock to look under it to figure out what it is the way it is and what that means. I am CURIOUS to the nth degree. I just want to know. My husband often does not want to tell me what he is doing because what does it matter? But it does matter to me, because I am curious. I can see Eve as a lot like me. She was curious. She wanted to know why. Why was this fruit different than the other fruit? But as long as she stayed away and didn't handle the fruit, she was okay. Then.....well we know the rest of the story. She believed the lie and she touched. God said don't touch. Eve touched because it looked so good. It wouldn't hurt would it to just touch? But look how wonderful it looked. It is beautiful and it will make her wise. She touched then she gazed with longing....and then she ate. Was it wise for God to tell her not to touch? Oh yah!

[firehill]

- First of all, as far as Paul is concerned....If he had said "God told me..." then YES, I would believe that his information came directly from God. But the phrase "God said...." is more subjective. It does not discredit the validity of the words being said, but it also doesn't specify a first-hand or second-hand account....only what those words are. There is no object...only a subject.

So when the serpent said, 'Did God really say' (a 'subjective' phrase) was he specifying thereby a first or second hand account? You'd assume it was the one of God giving the command to Adam, a RECORDED account, but why if the phrase 'did God really say' verses 'did God really tell you' is 'subjective?' Paul, wouldn't have needed to nor anybody else ever specify with the words God 'told' me in order for him/her to get across that God said something to them directly.

- Second of all, regarding the serpent.....If the term "you" used in this phrase is actually referring to BOTH of them, then it is applying to 2 different sets of commandments....the serpent only mentions Adam's command. Why, if he was speaking to Eve, would he not have incorporated the aspect of touching rather than eating?

We know that Satan is much too crafty to leave out some basic information such as this....so then, if God directly told Eve not to touch the fruit, then why wouldn't Satan have made mention of this?

How can the serpent be refering to 2 different sets of commandments when he only asked regarding the action of eating of all the trees in the garden in which case both were prohibited from eating of a certain tree? The serpent doesn't actualy mention 'Adam's command' since it was twisted. You mean that the serpent only mentions the prohibition of eating fruit verses eating AND touching, and why? The serpent was refering to the action of eating, something both were prohibited from doing. Where would be a contradiction then?

Also.....why didn't Adam speak up if the information was being relayed wrong? If Eve's "you" is plural, then why wouldn't Adam have corrected this, because obviously, if this were the case, he would be abetting a falsehood by allowing his wife to misquote HIS commandment (after all, if she was using "you" in the plural sense, she was speaking for both of them).

Why didn't Adam speak up if Eve was relaying the information incorrectly in response to the serpent assuming Adam told her of the command but she misunderstood it? Well, why didn't anybody in the entire bible? If it were wrong then it would have been contradicted by God's word else where and that we have an account of God directly speaking to Adam, giving the command does not contradict Eve's testimony. The prohibition that God said to Adam applied to Eve, yes? Well why wouldn't the prohibition (the same 'do not eat' plus different 'do not touch') that God said to Eve also apply to Adam? He touched, he then ate right behind Eve. Where's a contradiction?

Look at the footnote at the bottom of the page:

http://www.gnpcb.org/esv/search/?q=Genesis+3

'3:1 In Hebrew you is plural in verses 1-5'

To be more precdise since she also quoted God, God said 'you' plural too which ofcourse means that God spoke to them both about the prohibition.

If Eve's "you" is plural...

Eve didn't use 'you' God did. Eve used 'we' intell she quoted God.

3:1 Now the serpent was more crafty than any other beast of the field that the Lord God had made.

He said to the woman,

[Guest Biblicist]

This is a good discussion.

Question:

If God didn't hold Adam accountable as Eve's spiritual advisor and her "pastor" within their relationship, why didn't he go to Eve first since she was the one who had the conversation with Satan/The Serpent? SHE spoke to the serpent, she took the food, she ate it first, she gave it to Adam. How come God didn't come down on her first? Oh, wait, I know, "Adam, you should know better, you're older."

Frankly, if in fact Eve lied and twisted or added to what God said about the fruit, I don't see God "calling her on it. He didn't point out their specific sins, he made a general sweeping statement. "Who told you you were naked?" "What is this that you have done?" He gave them the opportunity to confess. Just as a loving father does. Allows the opportunity for repentance. This is a beautiful picture of sin, confession, repentance, and forgiveness. Adam and Eve did not just disobey God, they also refused to accept responsibility for their actions. Instead they pointed fingers. She did it, He did it, The Serpant did it. The Butler did it.

How different things would have been for them had they said, "Forgive me Lord, for I have sinned in your sight."

[Guest Biblicist]

An exerpt from an article taken from here <----- This is a very good, through article.

(3) Calvin suggests, quite generally, that the verse is speaking of the overall route which salvation takes. He does not, of course, mean that childbearing is itself redemptive or justifying, but that the pathway of saving faith is the pathway of good works - good works, in this instance, made manifest in the faithful living out of the role God has assigned to the woman.

I believe that Calvin is getting closer to Paul's intended meaning, but that his exposition is too general and does not account for some of the specific features of the text. For example, why does Paul employ the article (the childbearing)? And why does Paul carry forward Eve as the implicit antecedent into verse 15 (she will be saved), when he is speaking of Christian women generally (if they remain....)?

An examination of the soter- (salvation) terminology of the LXX (Greek version of the OT) shows that frequent usage includes ideas such as deliverance and victory (e.g. Ex. 14:13; Jdg 15:18; 1 Sam. 11:9, 13), and escape (Gen. 32:9 [32:8 Eng.]; 1 Sam. 19:12; 1 Kg. 19:17; 21:20 [20:20 Eng.]; throughout Ezekiel; cf. Joel 3:5).

I suggest that the movement in Paul's argument entails a resolution of the problem of the previous verse, meaning now not the fall in general, but the specific transgression involved. The route of escape he prescribes is the "moderation" he has argued for, in particular through the bearing of children.

Paul's point, however, cannot be limited to mere escape. This is where the unusual features of the text come into their own. The movement from singular to plural (she will be saved, if they remain...) and the unexpected article (the childbearing) are both involved here.

Clearly, Paul wants to do more than generalize about female roles; he takes us back to Genesis 3, particularly verses 15-16. Verse 15 is addressed to the serpent; verse 16 to Eve:

"And I will place enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed, and he will bruise your head, and you will bruise his heel." And to the woman, He said, "I will surely multiply your pain and your conception, and in pain you will bear sons, and toward your husband your longing will be, but he will rule over you.

[Guest]

He Said - She Said

The Trouble With SIN

But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.

Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.

James 1:14-15

Heart Of Death

But he that sinneth against me wrongeth his own soul: all they that hate me love death.

Proverbs 8:36

Heart Of Life

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

John 3:16

[Neopatriarch]

It's absurd for Paul to tell the wife that is a false teacher to "continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control" because if she is a false teacher she never began in faith, love, holiness and self-control.

No, it is not absurb. Paul has already taught that not only is it possible but the Galatians were in the same boat. In Galatians 1:2 Paul addresses his letter to the churches of Galatia. What did he say to these churches?

Verse 6:

I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you by the grace of Christ, for a different gospel;

These are believers in the churches who were "called" "by the grace of Christ" and they were deserting him for what? For another gospel. They were being deceived. Paul doesn't say that they were never believers to begin with. He says that they are deserting.

Let's see if I understand your interpretation of 1 Timothy 2:12-15 . . . (I'm going to give a very interpretive paraphrase)

12 I do not permit this particular wife to teach false doctrine to or to exercise authority over her husband; rather, she is to remain quiet. 13 Compare it to this example: Adam was formed first, then Eve; 14 and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. 15 Yet the wife who was teaching false doctrine will be preserved (or protected?) from false teaching through the Messiah

[OopsMartin]

Acts 20:29 I know that after my departure fierce wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock; 30 and from among your own selves will arise men speaking twisted things, to draw away the disciples after them.

The Greek word here is aner with the male marking. He is not using an inclusive form.

Further, if false doctrine is the concern of 2:12, then why doesn't Paul use heterodidaskaleō (from verse 3) instead of didaskō in verse 12?

Really, there is nothing in the immediate context that would lead me to believe Paul is talking about false teachers in 2:12 and it's a stretch to attempt a justification for this from the broad context. There is no clear link between 1 Tim 1:3,7 and 1 Tim 2:12 such that we should conclude 2:12 is talking about false teachers.

-Neopatriarch

Please tell me you are not trying to claim that only men can speak false doctrines. Whatever happened to your idea that women are easily deceived. does that mean you think women can be deceived but they somehow lose the ability to "share" their deceptions?

yeeeesh.

[Guest Biblicist]

Acts 20:29 I know that after my departure fierce wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock; 30 and from among your own selves will arise men speaking twisted things, to draw away the disciples after them.

The Greek word here is aner with the male marking. He is not using an inclusive form.

Further, if false doctrine is the concern of 2:12, then why doesn't Paul use heterodidaskaleō (from verse 3) instead of didaskō in verse 12?

Really, there is nothing in the immediate context that would lead me to believe Paul is talking about false teachers in 2:12 and it's a stretch to attempt a justification for this from the broad context. There is no clear link between 1 Tim 1:3,7 and 1 Tim 2:12 such that we should conclude 2:12 is talking about false teachers.

-Neopatriarch

Please tell me you are not trying to claim that only men can speak false doctrines. Whatever happened to your idea that women are easily deceived. does that mean you think women can be deceived but they somehow lose the ability to "share" their deceptions?

yeeeesh.

OBVIOUSLY, if Adam had not listened to his wife. . . Instead of taking control of the situation, he allowed her to take control. . .

Since Eve was easily disceved she became a false teacher and spread that deception to her husband. The sin here was not eating the fruit.

[Neopatriarch]

Whatever happened to your idea that women are easily deceived.

Where did I say this?

-Neopatriarch

[OopsMartin]

Whatever happened to your idea that women are easily deceived.

Where did I say this?

-Neopatriarch

Oh goodness don't know where I got the idea, but somehow thought you did. If you do not believe that women are easily deceived, then please accept my apology for an incorrect assumption.