Were there 2 liars at the fall or just 1?

[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?

I find that difficult to answer because I've never thought in terms of "providing contextual evidence for what I believe."

If you are going to believe that Eve added to God's word then you should be able to supply scriptural context that supports your belief. Scriptural context doesn't support presuppositions.

[OopsMartin]

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.

Ruth, it is very important for all Christians to learn basic skills in reading and studying God's Word so that they know they are reading it correctly and believing the truth. The Holy Spirit does indeed guide us into all truth AS we study God's Word and AS we seek to obey His Word. But you are gravely mistaken if you think you can sit on your hind end and God is going to drop all understanding into your mind. "I just know it's so", just isn't going to convince anyone and is the ripest of fields for any and all kinds of deceptions to be introduced into your mind. Whatever sounds good to you is not the criteria for determining truth.

The Living Lord Jesus, as The Living Word of God, gave us the Bible, the written Word to read, to sudy, to understand and follow. So YES you need to have contextual evidence for what you believe if you want to be sure you are believing rightly. And if you don't want to study, that is your choice and you will reap the rewards. But do not think that such a response is acceptable in a forum where serious study of God's Holy Word is being done.

[EricH]

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."

If you are going to believe that Eve added to God's word then you should be able to supply scriptural context that supports your belief. Scriptural context doesn't support presuppositions.

We have the evidence. We have God's actual quote, then we have Eve's statement that adds to that quote.

[OopsMartin]

We have the evidence. We have God's actual quote, then we have Eve's statement that adds to that quote.

The quote does not give you evidence that she added to anything, because we do not know all of God's actual words to her. We were not there to hear it. We cannot assume it. All we know is that Eve said, God said. Just because her words of what God said to her are different than what God said to Adam, does not mean that God did not say them to her. There is no law of logic that says God cannot say it differently. There would be nothing wrong with God making the restriction more precise when He gave it to Eve.

We also cannot assume that Adam gave the restriction to Eve instead of God Himself. We have no basis to not believe that when Eve said God said, she meant that He said it to her.

Assumptions are simply NOT evidence.

[eric]

We have the evidence. We have God's actual quote, then we have Eve's statement that adds to that quote.

The quote does not give you evidence that she added to anything, because we do not know all of God's actual words to her. We were not there to hear it. We cannot assume it. All we know is that Eve said, God said. Just because her words of what God said to her are different than what God said to Adam, does not mean that God did not say them to her. There is no law of logic that says God cannot say it differently. There would be nothing wrong with God making the restriction more precise when He gave it to Eve.

We also cannot assume that Adam gave the restriction to Eve instead of God Himself. We have no basis to not believe that when Eve said God said, she meant that He said it to her.

Assumptions are simply NOT evidence.

..

quite so. This whole thread is full of possibilities, assunptions, and posters opinions. No solid evidence can be found as to who said what to whom and where or when it was said.

[firehill]

We have the evidence. We have God's actual quote, then we have Eve's statement that adds to that quote.

God said to Adam, 'You must not eat of it.' But where, in Genesis is that event recorded? Where did God say that to Adam?

This is an actual quote from God. The point here is that not all the events that did happen and not all of what God said to them are recorded. God told Adam his command twice at least but the second time is not recorded.

Besides the serpent didn't even question the woman on what God said to Adam, he questioned what God said to THEM, and the woman replied what God told THEM. So why is thier exchange of words even treated as if it was about what God told Adam before Eve was created?

The woman, when she quoted God, said that they were told not to eat of the tree that is in the middle of the garden. In neither of the forms of command given to Adam did God speak of the tree's location. In 1:29, though God tells them which trees they may eat from, every tree having fruit with seed.

The woman said to the serpent, "We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden, but God did say, 'You (plural) must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the MIDDLE of the garden, and you (plural) must not touch it, or you (plural) will die.

Now the LORD God had planted a garden in the east, in Eden; and there he put the man he had formed.And the LORD God made all kinds of trees grow out of the ground

[eric]

firehill,

God said to Adam, 'You must not eat of it.' But where, in Genesis is that event recorded? Where did God say that to Adam?

firehill it is recorded in Gen.2:17. Please go back and read post # 102.

[firehill]

firehill,

God said to Adam, 'You must not eat of it.' But where, in Genesis is that event recorded? Where did God say that to Adam?

firehill it is recorded in Gen.2:17. Please go back and read post # 102.

I was refering to the construction of the sentence. Though I don't read Hebrew.

chp 2

17 but you MUST NOT EAT FROM THE TREE of the knowledge of good and evil, FOR WHEN YOU EAT OF IT you will surely die."

chp 3

17 To Adam he said, "Because you listened to your wife and ate from the tree about which I commanded you, 'YOU MUST NOT EAT OF IT,'

"Cursed is the ground because of you;

through painful toil you will eat of it

all the days of your life.

In other words same things are communicated but just in different ways.

[OopsMartin]

firehill,

God said to Adam, 'You must not eat of it.' But where, in Genesis is that event recorded? Where did God say that to Adam?

firehill it is recorded in Gen.2:17. Please go back and read post # 102.

I was refering to the construction of the sentence. Though I don't read Hebrew.

chp 2

17 but you MUST NOT EAT FROM THE TREE of the knowledge of good and evil, FOR WHEN YOU EAT OF IT you will surely die."

chp 3

17 To Adam he said, "Because you listened to your wife and ate from the tree about which I commanded you, 'YOU MUST NOT EAT OF IT,'

"Cursed is the ground because of you;

through painful toil you will eat of it

all the days of your life.

In other words same things are communicated but just in different ways.

OK I get it. You are saying that according to 2:17 God did not say "you must not eat of it", He said you "MUST NOT EAT FROM THE TREE of the knowledge of good and evil". So He is saying in gist the same thing but in a different manner. Thus, you are comparing the fact that God may have said things differently to the woman with more preciseness than He said to the man in general.

Interesting point. I wouldn't have thought of it. I think it takes reading things over and over and over again and again to see things we don't pick up in quick readings. We tend to make a lot of assumptions about things we've heard a lot about. You'd make a good scientist firehill. Keep sticking to the facts.

[firehill]

firehill,

God said to Adam, 'You must not eat of it.' But where, in Genesis is that event recorded? Where did God say that to Adam?

firehill it is recorded in Gen.2:17. Please go back and read post # 102.

I was refering to the construction of the sentence. Though I don't read Hebrew.

chp 2

17 but you MUST NOT EAT FROM THE TREE of the knowledge of good and evil, FOR WHEN YOU EAT OF IT you will surely die."

chp 3

17 To Adam he said, "Because you listened to your wife and ate from the tree about which I commanded you, 'YOU MUST NOT EAT OF IT,'

"Cursed is the ground because of you;

through painful toil you will eat of it

all the days of your life.

In other words same things are communicated but just in different ways.

OK I get it. You are saying that according to 2:17 God did not say "you must not eat of it", He said you "MUST NOT EAT FROM THE TREE of the knowledge of good and evil". So He is saying in gist the same thing but in a different manner. Thus, you are comparing the fact that God may have said things differently to the woman with more preciseness than He said to the man in general.

Interesting point. I wouldn't have thought of it. I think it takes reading things over and over and over again and again to see things we don't pick up in quick readings. We tend to make a lot of assumptions about things we've heard a lot about. You'd make a good scientist firehill. Keep sticking to the facts.

Yes, thank you. That is what i'm saying. I wish I could read Hebrew though. That would help!