Adam's Responsibility?

[firehill]

The contention so far is that God told both Adam and Eve not to eat of the tree of knowledge, not that God told Adam and Adam told Eve.

The contention is that God told ADAM then He told THEM they could eat fruit with seed (encompassing the prohibition) and He told THEM not to eat of the tree in the middle of the garden.

Despite that fact that this issue really has nothing to do with the price of tea in China, I still cannot help but think that God would have had to have told Eve the same thing that He told Adam on a separate occasion, after she was built.

He did. She said He did and so does 1:29.

It is clearly recorded in Genesis 2 that God told Adam - alone -not to eat of the tree of knowledge. It is not clearly recorded that he told Eve however (One would think that something this important would need to be plainly clear, without any ambiguity).

Yes, ALONE which is why Adam couldn't tell her God's command because it was only given to HIM alone at that point. After she was created then 1:29 occurs in history and her testimony of what God told THEM.

Where's the ambiguity in what she said God said?

So then, since we know that God told Adam clearly, we would have to assume that God also told Eve on a separate occasion not to eat of that same tree.

1:29 supports that plus what Eve said.

So, if in Eve's words, "God told us," then He would have had to repeat His commandment to Eve after she was built.

You got it.

Problems: If God had told both Adam and Eve not to eat of the tree of knowledge then He would have either had to tell them together or tell them separately on different occasions.

He told Adam ALONE first. Then after He told Adam alone, He told them together, 1;29, and Eve's testimony.

If He told them together then God would have had to wait until Eve's creation and thus risk the chance that Adam would have eaten of the tree before He had a chance to command him not to.

God risked nothing. He told Adam alone before Eve was created.

If God told them separately then He would have had to repeat the commandment to Eve.

He told Adam first, then both of them, and then both of them again.

Yet there is no record of His having done so. There is only the record of God having told Adam alone.

1:29 and Eve's testimony contradict that He only told Adam alone.

And as for me, I shall not continue with this aspect of the discussion any further, since I frankly don't see the point in it.

The point is that God gave His prohibiton to Eve not just Adam and that Adam did not tell Eve God's command. Simple.

[inhistime]

Ovedya said:

Remember that the Bible was written for man. It is not just a static accounting of "what happened" but a communication of God and man. So with that in mind it is not hard to see that God's intention for those words to be recorded were not just for Adam and Eve but also for us, the readers of the Bible. Fruit yeliding seed would have been very important information for future readers.

Genesis was written as a historic account of creation and early man. Although we can learn much from this account, its primary function is a historical record. What God told Adam and Eve is the historical record. God gave different directions for eating later after the flood.

There was only one tree that they weren't allowed to eat the fruit. The tree of life was allowed to them before the fall. With these two facts we can know for sure that there was only one tree that did not have seeds. That was a restriction anyway you see it. If you don't want to admit that then you seem to be denying the facts because you like the complementarian view and you somehow think that if you admit to the prohibition given to both of them, then you can't hold onto your view that God only speaks through men. Those who do not hold a view either way can actually get it quite easily. It is one of the easiest lessons on logic there is.

[firehill]

There was only one tree that they weren't allowed to eat the fruit. The tree of life was allowed to them before the fall. With these two facts we can know for sure that there was only one tree that did not have seeds.

Oh yeah, that other fact that they couldn't eat of the tree of life after the fall means that it must have had seed in it because they could eat it before the fall! I forgot about that one.

Another lesson on how important it is to stick to the scriptures in context and with what they do and don't say.

[Massorite]

Ovedya said: In Genesis 1 "man" is plural, meaning "mankind." In genesis 2 the phrase "the man" is specific, meaning "Adam only." God's commandment is not in Genesis 1:29 but in Genesis 2:16-17.

Yes, God's commandment to Adam is in chapter two, but God's command to Adam and Eve regarding what they could eat (which also encompassed what they could not eat) is in chapter 1. God's commandment to eat is certainly in Genesis 1:29. By this we can be sure that the tree of the knowledge of good and evil did not have fruit which had seeds. They were given freedom to eat from every tree except the one tree that didn't have seeds. This is just another way to tell them what they can and can't eat. It is a command and it is valid.

Again, arguing from a vacuum. God's commandment of what they could eat is not proof of His commanding what they could not eat. The fact is, in Genesis 2 God specifically commands Adam not to eat of a specific tree. Whether or not it had seeds is also not argued there.

You go Ovedya!

Besides where in the bible does it say whether or not the tree had seeds anyways. It doesn't so why is it even in the thread?

[Ovedya]

Chapter 2 isn't a re-creation of Adam, it is his creation spoken again in a very detailed version. This is very common in literature. It is called first the big picture and then the details. If you are an avid reader you will find this practice used often in books.

If you read back, this is exactly what I wrote in my previous answer.

Boy, I'd really hate to try and make a living off of being right all the time.

[Ovedya]

Ovedya said:

Remember that the Bible was written for man. It is not just a static accounting of "what happened" but a communication of God and man. So with that in mind it is not hard to see that God's intention for those words to be recorded were not just for Adam and Eve but also for us, the readers of the Bible. Fruit yeliding seed would have been very important information for future readers.

Genesis was written as a historic account of creation and early man. Although we can learn much from this account, its primary function is a historical record. What God told Adam and Eve is the historical record. God gave different directions for eating later after the flood.

There was only one tree that they weren't allowed to eat the fruit. The tree of life was allowed to them before the fall. With these two facts we can know for sure that there was only one tree that did not have seeds. That was a restriction anyway you see it. If you don't want to admit that then you seem to be denying the facts because you like the complementarian view and you somehow think that if you admit to the prohibition given to both of them, then you can't hold onto your view that God only speaks through men. Those who do not hold a view either way can actually get it quite easily. It is one of the easiest lessons on logic there is.

You are constructing a straw man.

Tell you what, why don't you let me tell you what my argument is....kay?

You seem content to speak where the Bible is deafeningly silent. Who am I to stop you?

(Can't wait to see how many trees of life were produced from the seeds of the original.)

[Ovedya]

There was only one tree that they weren't allowed to eat the fruit. The tree of life was allowed to them before the fall. With these two facts we can know for sure that there was only one tree that did not have seeds.

Oh yeah, that other fact that they couldn't eat of the tree of life after the fall means that it must have had seed in it because they could eat it before the fall! I forgot about that one.

Another lesson on how important it is to stick to the scriptures in context and with what they do and don't say.

Interesting, then, how you "stick" to what the Scriptures don't say.

[Ovedya]

He told Adam ALONE first. Then after He told Adam alone, He told them together, 1;29, and Eve's testimony.

...

He told Adam first, then both of them, and then both of them again.

Now He told them three times??!!

Genesis 1:29 is not the commandment!

You are beginning to frustrate me.

[Neopatriarch]

Take a look at all the translations you give. They are all present tense. Paul is not talking about the future but about the present. Along with the present tense we see the context fits the temporary prohibition. Why? Because Paul says "she will be saved if..." This can only mean that she isn't saved now. You don't allow an unsaved person to teach Christian doctrine and you don't allow an unsaved person to teach error. However since Paul says that "she WILL be saved if...", he is showing his confidence that her position in error will change in the future. That then takes off the necessary prohibition on her teaching.

The point is that Greek grammar is not the determinative consideration here. Yes, it is present tense, but whether it is temporary or not depends on context. The reason for Paul's proscription hasn't changed: "For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor." These facts are still true today. It makes sense then that the proscription would still be good for the same reasons.

It's unlikely that Paul would tell unsaved women to continue in holiness since unsaved women are not practicing holiness. No unsaved person is holy, and none of them practice holiness. (Romans 3:9-19)

If we're saved by grace alone, then how can a woman saved through childbearing

[OopsMartin]

Hello Brethren,

Had a bunch of work yesterday and today will be busy also, so may not be able to participate much although I do have some things I'd like to bring up when I have time.

Just one thought I see banging around