Were there 2 liars at the fall or just 1?

[firehill]

Well, if you look at it that way all we have is what Moses says God said and what Moses says Eve says that God said.

[tsth]

Could someone please tell me what the point of this thread is???

I just don't get it. What is it you're trying to show/ask?

Are you just trying to show the difference in the account, or are you trying to surmise that Eve did something purposely to cause the fall?

In His Love,

Suzanne

[EricH]

No, either position requires speculation. All we have is an actual quote from God, and what Eve says God said.

Well, if you look at it that way all we have is what Moses says God said and what Moses says Eve says that God said.

Either we believe what it says or anyone COULD be lying or making a mistake. How do we know they are lying or not? Scripture will tell us what is important to know. If it is not important then we cannot be building important doctrines on facts that don't exist.

There is no evidence ANYWHERE in Scripture that would lend support to an idea that Eve was lying. That is from the time that the first book was written in approximately 1470 B.C. and through all the major and minor prophets and after the last letter was written which composes the NT, in which NOT ONE MENTION is made to indicate that anyone anointed of God said that Eve was lying. Surely one of the prophets of old would have pointed out such a foundationally important piece of information.

Believing Eve requires no speculation. It may cause us to wonder why she was told more, in that we can speculate.

Except that we have an actual quote from God that omits what Eve said. Moses included the difference. I have no problem believing that Eve said what she did. What is not so clear is why she said it. You are attemptiing to fill in the blanks without textual support (as you are accusing those who say Eve was lying do). Neither side has scriptural support. All we have is what God said directly, and what Eve reported He said. They are different.

[OopsMartin]

No, either position requires speculation. All we have is an actual quote from God, and what Eve says God said.

Well, if you look at it that way all we have is what Moses says God said and what Moses says Eve says that God said.

Either we believe what it says or anyone COULD be lying or making a mistake. How do we know they are lying or not? Scripture will tell us what is important to know. If it is not important then we cannot be building important doctrines on facts that don't exist.

There is no evidence ANYWHERE in Scripture that would lend support to an idea that Eve was lying. That is from the time that the first book was written in approximately 1470 B.C. and through all the major and minor prophets and after the last letter was written which composes the NT, in which NOT ONE MENTION is made to indicate that anyone anointed of God said that Eve was lying. Surely one of the prophets of old would have pointed out such a foundationally important piece of information.

Believing Eve requires no speculation. It may cause us to wonder why she was told more, in that we can speculate.

Except that we have an actual quote from God that omits what Eve said. Moses included the difference. I have no problem believing that Eve said what she did. What is not so clear is why she said it. You are attemptiing to fill in the blanks without textual support (as you are accusing those who say Eve was lying do). Neither side has scriptural support. All we have is what God said directly, and what Eve reported He said. They are different.

Erich, I'm not accusing anyone. I'm stating what I believe to be true on the issue as are you. We disagree. We are allowed to. Let's not get in a huff.

They are different. that is one fact we can agree upon. Now the question is what to make of the difference, if anything.

Why do you make the assumption that Eve is lying? What support in Scripture do you have for NOT taking what Eve is saying as plain fact which is the normal first response? The fact of difference does not require an assumption of lying. This was my point by noting other Biblical differences. The difference itself does not point us toward a negative. We need something else to point us in that direction. Without an impetus to move us away from plain fact, we should stay in plain fact. Make any more sense?

[None]

I don't have time to read every post but has this been pointed out?:

1 Timothy 2:12-14

12)But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.

13)For[because] Adam was first formed, then Eve.

14)And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.

Acording to Paul's opinion, Eve was decieved. Paul did know his Jewish history.

[firehill]

I don't have time to read every post but has this been pointed out?:

1 Timothy 2:12-14

12)But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.

13)For[because] Adam was first formed, then Eve.

14)And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.

Acording to Paul's opinion, Eve was decieved. Paul did know his Jewish history.

I don't understand your point. I do have a question though. Can we only believe her testimony once she fell into sin or can we believe too her wittness she gave before she fell into sin?

The woman said, "The serpent deceived me, and I ate."

Why is she a liar when not a sinner but not a liar once in sin?

So she would lie to the serpent but not to God? Why? Who would she be trying to fool? I thought the serpent was the one trying to fool her. Was there two deceivers at the fall now? I thought the biblical story gives us an account of only one deceiver, the serpent. Why would she lie to the serpent? Why would she lie in front of her husband who was with her?

[OopsMartin]

I don't have time to read every post but has this been pointed out?:

1 Timothy 2:12-14

12)But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.

13)For[because] Adam was first formed, then Eve.

14)And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.

Acording to Paul's opinion, Eve was decieved. Paul did know his Jewish history.

Yes, we know that None. Eve herself tells us that. But that isn't the question at hand. However, it is also of note that she did not lie when God asked her what she did.

The question at hand is was Eve telling the truth when she said "God did say", which I believe should be our first choice unless context tells us otherwise, or was Eve lying. And if you think Eve may have been lying, what Scriptural evidence do we have to support that.

[OopsMartin]

I don't have time to read every post but has this been pointed out?:

1 Timothy 2:12-14

12)But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.

13)For[because] Adam was first formed, then Eve.

14)And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.

Acording to Paul's opinion, Eve was decieved. Paul did know his Jewish history.

I don't understand your point. I do have a question though. Can we only believe her testimony once she fell into sin or can we believe too her wittness she gave before she fell into sin?

The woman said, "The serpent deceived me, and I ate."

Why is she a liar when not a sinner but not a liar once in sin?

I noticed that also, thanks to None bringing it up.

[Guest Biblicist]

Maybe the term deceived was applied to Eve because she played into Satan's lie and became a liar, by adding to the Word of God, and that is her sin. He used confusion to cause her to expound on the order God actually gave. Whether or not he gave the order to her is moot.

Adam's sin was his passiveness during the conversation. Should he not have stepped up and spoken to Satan and pulled his wife away from there?

Their ACTION of eating the fruit had nothing to do with what was happening in their hearts. The ACTION was only an outward sign of sin in their hearts.

The sin began in their hearts. Eating the fruit was only the end result.

Just my thoughts. . .

[firehill]

Maybe the term deceived was applied to Eve because she played into Satan's lie and became a liar, by adding to the Word of God, and that is her sin.

The term was applied to her because she was deceived AS SHE SAID (you believe what she said don't you or just pick and choose when to believe what she said?). Would you have any scriptural support to back up that she added to God's word and was a liar before she ate?

She played into the serpent's lie and thereby became a liar? Was she trying to deceive Adam or the serpent or both?

Or was she dumab and a liar, a dumb liar?

He used confusion to cause her to expound on the order God actually gave. Whether or not he gave the order to her is moot.

So since 'she said to the serpent...' she tried to confuse it by lieing like it did to her?

There were two deceivers at the fall? And both deceivers were trying to deceive eachother?

Adam's sin was his passiveness during the conversation.

Do have scriptural support for that? Adam's sin was rebellion against God as the scriptures say.

Should he not have stepped up and spoken to Satan and pulled his wife away from there?

Ofcourse he should have but he rebelled instead.