Adam's Responsibility?

[OopsMartin]

We needn't assume anything, though, if Eve took Adam's commandment as God's having told them both. If I were only one of two human beings on the earth and I had heard that God commanded something to the other, I would tend to believe that it was also commanded to me as well.

Where is the verse that says that God walked with "them" in the garden?

Except that Eve said that God said "you" plural. That is what Scripture says, so either she was lying and she assumed (and we have no reason to believe she was lying) or the Scripture is accurate. If she assumed as you suggest, then she definitely lied when she said "not to touch". But nowhere in Scripture is there any indication that Eve assumed anything or that she lied. If she didn't lie, then she told the truth and what she said is exactly what happened.

And how did you think that God presented the woman to the man if He wasn't there in the garden with them? He had to actually say something.......

Again, it doesn't have to be interpreted as a lie or an assumption on Eve's part. She was one of only two human beings on the planet. Naturally she would have taken God's commandment of Adam as applying to her as well.

I was hoping for the verse(s) that state that God "walked with them" in the garden. Do you believe that God's first words to Eve were to reiterate His commandment to Adam?

I don't know what God's first words to Eve were. Do you? But I'm certain that God both spoke to Eve when He formed her and spoke to both of them when He presented her to the man.

Well, I've stuff to do. this was enjoyable Ovedya.

[Ovedya]

We needn't assume anything, though, if Eve took Adam's commandment as God's having told them both. If I were only one of two human beings on the earth and I had heard that God commanded something to the other, I would tend to believe that it was also commanded to me as well.

Where is the verse that says that God walked with "them" in the garden?

Except that Eve said that God said "you" plural. That is what Scripture says, so either she was lying and she assumed (and we have no reason to believe she was lying) or the Scripture is accurate. If she assumed as you suggest, then she definitely lied when she said "not to touch". But nowhere in Scripture is there any indication that Eve assumed anything or that she lied. If she didn't lie, then she told the truth and what she said is exactly what happened.

And how did you think that God presented the woman to the man if He wasn't there in the garden with them? He had to actually say something.......

Again, it doesn't have to be interpreted as a lie or an assumption on Eve's part. She was one of only two human beings on the planet. Naturally she would have taken God's commandment of Adam as applying to her as well.

I was hoping for the verse(s) that state that God "walked with them" in the garden. Do you believe that God's first words to Eve were to reiterate His commandment to Adam?

I don't know what God's first words to Eve were. Do you? But I'm certain that God both spoke to Eve when He formed her and spoke to both of them when He presented her to the man.

Well, I've stuff to do. this was enjoyable Ovedya.

I agree.

The brain cells are pumped now.

[exrockstar]

hey Oops, youve been studying for 35 years.

can you share with firehill how Adam sacrificed in behalf of his family?

i moved that conversation over here since this is more about Adam.

the whole caine and abel sacrificed an animal and where they learned that from.

Tell firehill about it.

I also believe that Adam learned it from God when he sacrificed the animal for coats of skins (Very likely it was a lamb), and he passed it down to his sons.

and there you have it....

innocent animals that ran around the garden died to cover Adam and Eve from their nakedness.

Adam sacrificed them.

Since the man is the one that came to represent family when sarificing, then he would make sure they are all in line.

The male maintains the order of the family as a whole and God expects him to represent.

firehill felt this is "silent" scripture but stubborness can blind the eyes.

it's right there in black and white.

[firehill]

We needn't assume anything,

The position that she told the truth is not assuming anything. All the evidence is there when all the scriptures are looked at and gathered.

We needn't assume anything though, if Eve took Adam's commandment as God's having told them both.

That's the assumption right there! 'If Eve took...' Eve didn't take the command God gave to Adam as God having told THEM because THAT would be Impossible since God told only him. 'You (Hebrew singular).

If I were only one of two human beings on the earth and I had heard that God commanded something to the other, I would tend to believe that it was also commanded to me as well.

But Eve said, God said...so it's about what God told them not what we would assume about Eve from silence.

[Ovedya]

We needn't assume anything,

The position that she told the truth is not assuming anything. All the evidence is there when all the scriptures are looked at and gathered.

We needn't assume anything though, if Eve took Adam's commandment as God's having told them both.

That's the assumption right there! 'If Eve took...' Eve didn't take the command God gave to Adam as God having told THEM because THAT would be Impossible since God told only him. 'You (Hebrew singular).

If I were only one of two human beings on the earth and I had heard that God commanded something to the other, I would tend to believe that it was also commanded to me as well.

But Eve said, God said...so it's about what God told them not what we would assume about Eve from silence.

You're confusing me, firehill.

It's simply a matter of forms of communication. There is no Scriptural evidence other than Eve's usage of the word "you" in its plural form that God told Eve separately from Adam or that he told them both together. Either or both means of communication could have been employed.

This whole thing is straining at gnats.

[firehill]

We needn't assume anything,

The position that she told the truth is not assuming anything. All the evidence is there when all the scriptures are looked at and gathered.

We needn't assume anything though, if Eve took Adam's commandment as God's having told them both.

That's the assumption right there! 'If Eve took...' Eve didn't take the command God gave to Adam as God having told THEM because THAT would be Impossible since God told only him. 'You (Hebrew singular).

If I were only one of two human beings on the earth and I had heard that God commanded something to the other, I would tend to believe that it was also commanded to me as well.

But Eve said, God said...so it's about what God told them not what we would assume about Eve from silence.

You're confusing me, firehill.

It's simply a matter of forms of communication. There is no Scriptural evidence other than Eve's usage of the word "you" in its plural form that God told Eve separately from Adam or that he told them both together. Either or both means of communication could have been employed.

This whole thing is straining at gnats.

After God created both of them (1:27) and then blessed them (1:28), in Gen 1:29 God tells THEM (you, plural) what they can eat which is every tree that has fruit with seed, so the prohibition is encompassed in what they could eat. Then Eve tells us that God told THEM (you, plural) what they couldn't eat. Both what Eve said and 1:29 support eachother.

[Ovedya]

After God created both of them (1:27) and then blessed them (1:28), in Gen 1:29 God tells THEM (you, plural) what they can eat which is every tree that has fruit with seed, so the prohibition is encompassed in what they could eat. Then Eve tells us that God told THEM (you, plural) what they couldn't eat. Both what Eve said and 1:29 support eachother.

(Gen. 1:26-30)

"And God said, Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of heaven and over the cattle and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth.

And God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.

And God blessed them; and God said to them, Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it, and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of heaven and over every living thing that moves upon the earth.

And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb yielding seed that is on the surface of all the earth and every tree which has fruit yielding seed; it shall be for you as food.

And to every animal of the earth and to every bird of heaven and to everything that creeps upon the earth, in which is a living soul, I have given every green herb for food; and it was so."

(Gen. 2:15-17)

"And Jehovah God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to work it and to keep it.

And Jehovah God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden you may eat freely,

But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, of it you shall not eat; for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die."

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.

[inhistime]

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.

[Ovedya]

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.

[Neopatriarch]

The problem with you Neo is that you have still not answered how in context 1 & 2 Timothy can be shown in a verse by verse exegesis how Paul was stopping godly Christian women from teaching correct biblical doctrine to men. If we take this verse "I do not permit a woman" (and by the way the original language actually says "I am not now permitting a woman...") . . . <snip>

Actually, the original language is Greek, not English.

The verb ἐπιτρέπω is first person, singular, present, active, indicative and nothing about this tells me whether the proscription is temporary or not. You have to determine that part from the context.

I can appreciate your passion for your complementarian mindset too.

I doubt it. But my position is similar to the one defended in this book:

Women in the Church: An Analysis and Application of 1 Timothy 2:9-15

And this argument is far too big to reproduce here.

-Neopatriarch <---in case anyone was wondering, it's partly because I'm a new father , and not just because I'm a patriarchalist.