Were there 2 liars at the fall or just 1?

[methinkshe]

Several people have expressed puzzlement concerning the usefulness/direction of this thread. I, too, am puzzled, although I have some vague recollection from another thread that it is important to the "should women teach men in church" debate, and that by proving something or other concerning Eve in Genesis, it can thus be proved that Paul writing to Timothy didn't really advise that women should not teach men in church, but something entirely different. But I cannot for the life of me remember why that should be. Sorry for my poor memory. Perhaps Firehill could explain again why it is so important to establish the point that Eve did not add to God's words, that she wasn't decieved when she said to the serpent "we must neither eat NOR TOUCH" and that she was only repeating what she had heard from God and not adding to what God had said. Sorry to be so dull-witted, but the point of the argument has totally escaped me.

If I have totally misunderstood the purpose of this thread, vis-a-vis a half-remembered debate from another thread, then I apologise. Just put it down to a brain that grows less agile and more addled with every passing year!

Ruth

[OopsMartin]

Several people have expressed puzzlement concerning the usefulness/direction of this thread. I, too, am puzzled, although I have some vague recollection from another thread that it is important to the "should women teach men in church" debate, and that by proving something or other concerning Eve in Genesis, it can thus be proved that Paul writing to Timothy didn't really advise that women should not teach men in church, but something entirely different. But I cannot for the life of me remember why that should be. Sorry for my poor memory. Perhaps Firehill could explain again why it is so important to establish the point that Eve did not add to God's words, that she wasn't decieved when she said to the serpent "we must neither eat NOR TOUCH" and that she was only repeating what she had heard from God and not adding to what God had said. Sorry to be so dull-witted, but the point of the argument has totally escaped me.

If I have totally misunderstood the purpose of this thread, vis-a-vis a half-remembered debate from another thread, then I apologise. Just put it down to a brain that grows less agile and more addled with every passing year!

Ruth

If I get your gist correctly, what you are suggesting is that the purpose of the thread is to wrongly tweek a Scripture for the purpose of laying a foundation for something that is wrong. Foul suggestion and thankfully you are in error. This kind of "reading of others words" makes you a poor listener at best.

ANY time there is a misconception about Scripture, it is important to correct it because building upon a misconception or misinterpretation will build false doctrines. Pretty much everything in Genesis is foundational since it's the history of our beginning. It's important, crucially important in ALL Scripture reading that we do not add to God's Word, to what is written for our benefit.

There has been much adding to God's Word in this section of Scripture, many negative biased assumptions that are not inherent in the written words. Some are so programed that its almost impossible for them to actually read just the written words without hearing in their minds the preconceived bias planted there.

I don't know if this is the OP's concern exactly, but it is mine.

SO

[OopsMartin]

Eve couldn't have heard about the forbidden tree, directly from God, so adam or the serpent must have told her, unless God gave eve instruction after He told adam.

Why couldn't have Eve heard about the forbidden tree directly from God? And what is so unlikely about God talking to Eve after He told Adam. Do you have some idea that God wouldn't spend time talking with Eve?

[EricH]

Because Scripture doesn't say or imply that she added to God's Word and if she didn't add to God's Word but was being truthful, then she wasn't deceived at that point. Both of these ideas are foreign to the whole of Scripture. That's why it's important. Truth is important.

All we are taliing here is about the timing of her deception. She was, however, deceived

[firehill]

Several people have expressed puzzlement concerning the usefulness/direction of this thread.

The point from the beginning, when this topic was opened has been to provide contextual evidence for one's belief about Eve's quote.

I, too, am puzzled, although I have some vague recollection from another thread that it is important to the "should women teach men in church" debate, and that by proving something or other concerning Eve in Genesis, it can thus be proved that Paul writing to Timothy didn't really advise that women should not teach men in church, but something entirely different.

If I couldn't give reason to why Paul would stop 'a woman' from teaching 'a man' by speaking of deceived Eve who didn't even teach Adam in the first place to begin with because he wasn't even deceived (as Paul said) I would be puzzled to as to the bigger picture.

But I cannot for the life of me remember why that should be. Sorry for my poor memory. Perhaps Firehill could explain again why it is so important to establish the point that Eve did not add to God's words, that she wasn't decieved when she said to the serpent "we must neither eat NOR TOUCH" and that she was only repeating what she had heard from God and not adding to what God had said. Sorry to be so dull-witted, but the point of the argument has totally escaped me.

The point of this thread is to provide contextual evidence for one's belief for which you haven't done yet. Wanna give it a try?

[firehill]

Several people have expressed puzzlement concerning the usefulness/direction of this thread. I, too, am puzzled, although I have some vague recollection from another thread that it is important to the "should women teach men in church" debate, and that by proving something or other concerning Eve in Genesis, it can thus be proved that Paul writing to Timothy didn't really advise that women should not teach men in church, but something entirely different. But I cannot for the life of me remember why that should be. Sorry for my poor memory. Perhaps Firehill could explain again why it is so important to establish the point that Eve did not add to God's words, that she wasn't decieved when she said to the serpent "we must neither eat NOR TOUCH" and that she was only repeating what she had heard from God and not adding to what God had said. Sorry to be so dull-witted, but the point of the argument has totally escaped me.

If I have totally misunderstood the purpose of this thread, vis-a-vis a half-remembered debate from another thread, then I apologise. Just put it down to a brain that grows less agile and more addled with every passing year!

Ruth

If I get your gist correctly, what you are suggesting is that the purpose of the thread is to wrongly tweek a Scripture for the purpose of laying a foundation for something that is wrong. Foul suggestion and thankfully you are in error. This kind of "reading of others words" makes you a poor listener at best.

ANY time there is a misconception about Scripture, it is important to correct it because building upon a misconception or misinterpretation will build false doctrines. Pretty much everything in Genesis is foundational since it's the history of our beginning. It's important, crucially important in ALL Scripture reading that we do not add to God's Word, to what is written for our benefit.

There has been much adding to God's Word in this section of Scripture, many negative biased assumptions that are not inherent in the written words. Some are so programed that its almost impossible for them to actually read just the written words without hearing in their minds the preconceived bias planted there.

I don't know if this is the OP's concern exactly, but it is mine.

SO

[firehill]

Because Scripture doesn't say or imply that she added to God's Word and if she didn't add to God's Word but was being truthful, then she wasn't deceived at that point. Both of these ideas are foreign to the whole of Scripture. That's why it's important. Truth is important.

All we are taliing here is about the timing of her deception. She was, however, deceived

Yes, the scriptures show when she was deceived. I wouldn't say that's all we're talking about here though.

[EricH]

The point of this thread is to provide contextual evidence for one's belief for which you haven't done yet. Wanna give it a try?

I believe I did provide my contextual reasons for the position I hold

[methinkshe]

Several people have expressed puzzlement concerning the usefulness/direction of this thread.

The point from the beginning, when this topic was opened has been to provide contextual evidence for one's belief about Eve's quote.

I, too, am puzzled, although I have some vague recollection from another thread that it is important to the "should women teach men in church" debate, and that by proving something or other concerning Eve in Genesis, it can thus be proved that Paul writing to Timothy didn't really advise that women should not teach men in church, but something entirely different.

If I couldn't give reason to why Paul would stop 'a woman' from teaching 'a man' by speaking of deceived Eve who didn't even teach Adam in the first place to begin with because he wasn't even deceived (as Paul said) I would be puzzled to as to the bigger picture.

But I cannot for the life of me remember why that should be. Sorry for my poor memory. Perhaps Firehill could explain again why it is so important to establish the point that Eve did not add to God's words, that she wasn't decieved when she said to the serpent "we must neither eat NOR TOUCH" and that she was only repeating what she had heard from God and not adding to what God had said. Sorry to be so dull-witted, but the point of the argument has totally escaped me.

The point of this thread is to provide contextual evidence for one's belief for which you haven't done yet. Wanna give it a try?

I find that difficult to answer because I've never thought in terms of "providing contextual evidence for what I believe." I am prepared to give account of my faith, but as for providing contextual evidence for what I believe - sorry, no can do. Either the Holy Spirit guides into all truth OR I must rapidly learn how to supply "contextual evidence." I prefer to rely on the former, and not attempt the latter, with a brain like mine!

Ruth

PS Which is not to say that the Bible is not my authoritative guide. It is. But it is to say that my belief is not founded on contextual evidence - it is founded on the living Lord Jesus who dwells within me through His Spirit.

[firehill]

The point of this thread is to provide contextual evidence for one's belief for which you haven't done yet. Wanna give it a try?

I believe I did provide my contextual reasons for the position I hold

Yes, you did provide your contextual reasons for the position you hold and thank you for doing so. A contextual reason you provided for the position you hold (which is that Eve added to God's command rather than spoke the truth) was Eve's quote itself in response to the serpent's question though his question (as twisted as it was) wasn't his lie of deception. The lie of deception that she later believed (one is not deceived without believing a lie), after the serpent said it was, in vv. 4 & 5.

4 "You will not surely die," the serpent said to the woman. 5 "For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil."

That she was deceived by this lie of deception is seen in v. 6.

6 When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it.'

So in fact, evidence that she didn't believe the serpent's twisted question (the elements of it) therefore she wasn't deceived at that time is seen in her very response saying, 'God said.'

Another contextual reason you gave for the position you hold is the prohibiton God gave to Adam before Eve was created BUT you left out, Gen 1:29, where they both were given the prohibition in a different form because it was encompassed in what they could eat, which therefore means that there is NO reason NOT to believe what she said God did because he spoke to them both obviously about the prohibition.

Further, to even begin with, which oops explained, that a difference between what God told Adam and what, Eve said, God said, '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.'