1 Timothy 2:15

[methinkshe]

I cannot see how the plain reading of Scripture allows the interpretation that God said Adam and Eve must neither eat nor touch the fruit, rather than that Eve added nor touch to God's commandment not to eat when she made her reply to the Serpent.

If God had indeed told Adam (who then told Eve) that they must neither eat NOR touch, then why when God pronounced both Eve's and Adam's punishment does He say that it is because they ATE the fruit? Surely, since touching necessarily comes before eating, the punishment would be for touching? And note that Eve did not say "eat AND touch" she said "eat NOR touch" implying that either touching OR eating would bring death. So if touching alone could bring the consequence of death, why would God bother to add "or eat" since it is not possible to eat without touching? He would have said to Adam, "if you touch the fruit, you will die." And why did God clearly say to Adam, "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......." God makes no mention of "touching" anywhere.

Therefore, in spite of all the arguments put forward, I still cannot read Eve's words "nor shall you touch it" as anything other than her own additions to God's words. It requires mental somersaults and not a little imagination to infer that because Eve added "nor touch" that therefore she must have repeated what Adam said, who in turn must have repeated what God had said. It goes against the plain reading of Scripture. Moreover, I read Eve's additions to God's commandment as the first reference to legalism found in the Bible, where religious leaders love to add to what God has said, to make the burden heavier, just as Jesus accused the Pharisees of doing. Luke 11:46 And he said, Woe unto you also, ye lawyers! for ye lade men with burdens grievous to be borne, and ye yourselves touch not the burdens with one of your fingers.

Ruth

[DarkNebulaWelder]

Paul changes from plural to singular several times which also has caused problems. Typically the "she" is ignored in 1 Timothy 2:15 so that some bible translations say "women" will be saved... The problem here is that the feminine is singular and the "they" is not plural feminine. .

This is EXACTLY where I got confused...the fact that the tenses switch from singular to plural, which convolutes the object.

WOW...When I started this topic, I was expecting only a few simple responses, and now here it is, 12 pages later!!!

[DarkNebulaWelder]

I'm also wondering why God pointed out reasons to Adam and the serpent for their curses, but to Eve, he just gave the curse with no explanation.

[inhistime]

Neopatriarch said:

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

[inhistime]

Biblicist said:

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.

Hmmmm, well let's see. Eve was not easily deceived by nature, but she lacked the opportunity to have learned sound doctrine on the nature of God that would have kept her safe from deception. She did not teach that false doctrine to her husband as he already knew that it was not true. He did however follow her into sin even though he was not deceived. The sin was eating the fruit and that is what God asked her about when he asked her what she had done.

[inhistime]

Ok, just listened to this from Blue Letter Bible.org ---> Link I hope it works for you. It's a comentary by Dr. J. Vernon McGee [i like listening to him, he's got a nice speaking voice]

I'll try to write what he says verbatum, bear with me.

It was the sin of eve that brought sin into the world, and through child bearing, every time she brings someone into the world she brings a sinner into the world, that's all she can bring into the world. But Mary brought into the world the Lord Jesus. She brought the Saviour into the World and women are saved by what, childbearing, Mary brought the Saviour into the world, and don't ever say that woman brought sin into the world until you are prepared to say that woman brought the Saviour into the world. And my friend, no man provided a saviour, a woman did. However, a woman is saved by faith the same as man is saved by faith and she's to grow in love and holiness the same as man. That's all that Paul is saying here.

In this case Mr. McGee is wrong because he contradicts scripture. Paul said that by one man sin came into the world. It was a Jewish tradition that blamed the woman, but scripture does not blame her. If she had been the one that had brought sin into the world, then she would have passed that inherited sin nature on to the Messiah. But it was the man who brought sin into the world not the woman. Eve's seed was not tainted with sin and that is why it is vital that there was the virgin birth. The Messiah had to be born without original sin so that he could die for us. If he had original sin he would not have been the sinless, spotless lamb.

[inhistime]

methinkshe said:

I cannot see how the plain reading of Scripture allows the interpretation that God said Adam and Eve must neither eat nor touch the fruit, rather than that Eve added nor touch to God's commandment not to eat when she made her reply to the Serpent.

If God had indeed told Adam (who then told Eve) that they must neither eat NOR touch, then why when God pronounced both Eve's and Adam's punishment does He say that it is because they ATE the fruit? Surely, since touching necessarily comes before eating, the punishment would be for touching?

No, the eating of the fruit would cause death but the touching would lead to death because she would be tempted. The serpent understand what Eve was saying because he said in verse 5:

The serpent said to the woman, "You surely will not die! For God knows that in the day you eat from it your eyes will be opened

That the serpent says eating will not cause death, is a verification that Eve was not saying that touching would cause death. It would lead to death "lest you die".

Moreover, I read Eve's additions to God's commandment as the first reference to legalism found in the Bible, where religious leaders love to add to what God has said, to make the burden heavier, just as Jesus accused the Pharisees of doing. Luke 11:46 And he said, Woe unto you also, ye lawyers! for ye lade men with burdens grievous to be borne, and ye yourselves touch not the burdens with one of your fingers.

If this is an addition to God's word, why was God silent about charging her with this sin?

[inhistime]

Paul changes from plural to singular several times which also has caused problems. Typically the "she" is ignored in 1 Timothy 2:15 so that some bible translations say "women" will be saved... The problem here is that the feminine is singular and the "they" is not plural feminine. .

This is EXACTLY where I got confused...the fact that the tenses switch from singular to plural, which convolutes the object.

WOW...When I started this topic, I was expecting only a few simple responses, and now here it is, 12 pages later!!!

I guess you hit a hot topic, eh?

[inhistime]

I'm also wondering why God pointed out reasons to Adam and the serpent for their curses, but to Eve, he just gave the curse with no explanation.

This is tradition that God cursed Adam and Eve. However God only cursed the earth and the animals. The man had the earth cursed on his behalf but he himself was not cursed. The woman experienced consequences because her body would be changed with the increased conception, but God did not curse her either.

[methinkshe]

No, the eating of the fruit would cause death but the touching would lead to death because she would be tempted. The serpent understand what Eve was saying because he said in verse 5:

Not necessarily. Suppose the fruit was accidentally touched? Suppose one of the fruits had dropped on the ground and Adam or Eve accidentally kicked it? In any event, temptation doesn't always lead to sin. Jesus was tempted but did not sin. And as the saying goes: you may not be able to stop the birds flying over your head, but you can stop them nesting in your hair. To argue that touching would necessarily lead to death, is to argue that temptation necessarily leads to sin - and we know that is not true.

That the serpent says eating will not cause death, is a verification that Eve was not saying that touching would cause death. It would lead to death "lest you die".

Again, not necessarily. Touching in and of itself does not have to lead to death. It may or it may not. Therefore a commandment not to touch is inaccurate in the context of "if you touch OR eat you will die." The commandment would more accurately read along the lines of: "If you touch you could possibly die, but if you eat you will die." Or even: "If you touch AND eat, you will die." I find it difficult to believe that God's commandment on which hinged the future of the whole of humanity could have been as ambiguously phrased as you suggest.

If this is an addition to God's word, why was God silent about charging her with this sin?

Who knows? His thoughts are higher than our thoughts. However, if I had to make a guess that is consistent with the whole counsel of Scripture, I'd say that it was because the single commandment God had given to Adam and Eve was not to eat of the fruit of the tree. We do not read that God commanded Eve not to tell fibs or practice embroidery on God's Words. In any event, sin had not entered the world at the point when Eve added to God's words, sin entered the world the moment Adam ate of the fruit. Furthermore, we know that without the law, sin is not imputed. (Romans 5:13).

Ruth