Adam's Responsibility?

[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.

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.

Not true. When God tells them they can eat from every tree that has fruit that yields seeds, it is the same as saying that they can eat from every tree in the garden except from the tree that doesn't have fruit that yields seeds. Otherwise you have a contradiction here. Did not God say that they can eat from every tree? There is a prohibition implied here or else we have a contradiction.

[inhistime]

Neopatriarch said: Actually, the original language is Greek, not English.

Yes, it is present, active, indicative and there is nothing that makes extend into the future past Paul's life. The context of verse 11 & 15 shows the extent of the prohibition. She must learn the truth (verse 11) and verse 15 she must continue in the truth and have self-control to stay away from deception. Once the conditions are removed the prohibition is no longer in operation.

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.

I have a friend who is a complementarian and we get along quite nicely. In my DVDs I make it clear that this is not an issue for Christians to divide over and complementarians deserve our love and respect as fellow Christians. I have been in contact with Andreas concerning my objections to his view of 1 Timothy 2:15 (which view he admits that not even CBMW accepts as true a viable option) and he was not able to answer my objections. He told me that my objections are valid and worthy of being asked. Now if his view was solid, then it would stand up to scrutiny. It does not.

I noticed you quoted me about my asking you once again for your exegesis of 1 Timothy 1 & 2 but you said nothing about producing it. Are you working on it? Do you have any leg to stand on? I am respectfully waiting. It won't separate you from me as a Christian, but it makes what you say a lot less credible.

[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.

Not true. When God tells them they can eat from every tree that has fruit that yields seeds, it is the same as saying that they can eat from every tree in the garden except from the tree that doesn't have fruit that yields seeds. Otherwise you have a contradiction here. Did not God say that they can eat from every tree? There is a prohibition implied here or else we have a contradiction.

"There is no implied commandment at all. The verse does not quote God as saying, "Eat only from trees that produces seeds."

If I pointed to an auditorium full of chairs and said, "I have set up these chairs for you to sit in," I am not specifically commanding you to avoid sitting in certain types of chairs. Some of the chairs may have blue sashes on them and some may have red sashes on them. My telling you to sit does not include a commandment to not sit in the chairs with the red sashes on them.

Where is the verse or biblical teaching that the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil did not have seeds?

[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.

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.

Not true. When God tells them they can eat from every tree that has fruit that yields seeds, it is the same as saying that they can eat from every tree in the garden except from the tree that doesn't have fruit that yields seeds. Otherwise you have a contradiction here. Did not God say that they can eat from every tree? There is a prohibition implied here or else we have a contradiction.

"There is no implied commandment at all. The verse does not quote God as saying, "Eat only from trees that produces seeds."

If I pointed to an auditorium full of chairs and said, "I have set up these chairs for you to sit in," I am not specifically commanding you to avoid sitting in certain types of chairs. Some of the chairs may have blue sashes on them and some may have red sashes on them. My telling you to sit does not include a commandment to not sit in the chairs with the red sashes on them.

Where is the verse or biblical teaching that the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil did not have seeds?

God said:

Gen 1:29 Then God said, "Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the surface of all the earth, and every tree which has fruit yielding seed; it shall be food for you;

God said that he has given YOU (plural) every tree for food. Every tree is given for food that has fruit yielding seed. Since in chapter two God said that every tree was given to them for food except for one tree, then we can logically deduce that there was only one tree that produced fruit that didn't have fruit with seeds.

They can eat from:

(chapter two) Every tree but one....

(chapter one) Every tree with fruit that yields seed...

Therefore only one tree had fruit that did not yield seeds because only one tree was forbidden to them.

It is only simple logic and this is simple enough for anyone to understand unless they come to the passage with preconceived ideas that won't allow them to see it.

[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.

Not true. When God tells them they can eat from every tree that has fruit that yields seeds, it is the same as saying that they can eat from every tree in the garden except from the tree that doesn't have fruit that yields seeds. Otherwise you have a contradiction here. Did not God say that they can eat from every tree? There is a prohibition implied here or else we have a contradiction.

"There is no implied commandment at all. The verse does not quote God as saying, "Eat only from trees that produces seeds."

If I pointed to an auditorium full of chairs and said, "I have set up these chairs for you to sit in," I am not specifically commanding you to avoid sitting in certain types of chairs. Some of the chairs may have blue sashes on them and some may have red sashes on them. My telling you to sit does not include a commandment to not sit in the chairs with the red sashes on them.

Where is the verse or biblical teaching that the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil did not have seeds?

God said:

Gen 1:29 Then God said, "Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the surface of all the earth, and every tree which has fruit yielding seed; it shall be food for you;

God said that he has given YOU (plural) every tree for food. Every tree is given for food that has fruit yielding seed. Since in chapter two God said that every tree was given to them for food except for one tree, then we can logically deduce that there was only one tree that produced fruit that didn't have fruit with seeds.

They can eat from:

(chapter two) Every tree but one....

(chapter one) Every tree with fruit that yields seed...

Therefore only one tree had fruit that did not yield seeds because only one tree was forbidden to them.

It is only simple logic and this is simple enough for anyone to understand unless they come to the passage with preconceived ideas that won't allow them to see it.

Or unless they are speaking where the Bible does not speak.

Logic tells me to read chapter two after chapter one, not the other way around.

(Gen. 1:11)

"And God said, Let the earth sprout grass, herbs yielding seed, and fruit trees bearing fruit according to their kind with their seed in them upon the earth; and it was so."

Of all the verses on creation only the grass, herbs, and trees sprout from the earth. The other items of creation were created by the speaking forth of God. This indicates that there were already seeds in the earth when God spoke them forth from the earth. The plants of the earth were not created in full maturity, but "sprouted" (brought forth) from the earth.

So logic demands that we ask, "From where did the tree of the knowledge of good and evil come?" And furthermore, "Where did the tree of life come from?" Both the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil are unique trees, not like any other. Their fruit is also unique - not like any other of the trees in the garden. Either God created them in full maturity or they sprouted from seed like the other trees.

If the tree of the knowledge of good and evil had no seeds, then neither did the tree of life, because they were both unique. Therefore, if God implied in verse 29 that trees not bearing seed should not be eaten, then the tree of life would have been included in the prohibition. Logically then, God created the tree of life not to be eaten, since it was without seed.

Do you believe that God created the tree of life not to be eaten?

Are you prepared to argue that the tree of life was included in the "implied prohibition" in verse 27?

[firehill]

Or unless they are speaking where the Bible does not speak.

Logic tells me to read chapter two after chapter one, not the other way around.

(Gen. 1:11)

"And God said, Let the earth sprout grass, herbs yielding seed, and fruit trees bearing fruit according to their kind with their seed in them upon the earth; and it was so."

Of all the verses on creation only the grass, herbs, and trees sprout from the earth. The other items of creation were created by the speaking forth of God. This indicates that there were already seeds in the earth when God spoke them forth from the earth. The plants of the earth were not created in full maturity, but "sprouted" (brought forth) from the earth.

So logic demands that we ask, "From where did the tree of the knowledge of good and evil come?" And furthermore, "Where did the tree of life come from?" Both the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil are unique trees, not like any other. Their fruit is also unique - not like any other of the trees in the garden. Either God created them in full maturity or they sprouted from seed like the other trees.

Logic tells me that the event of 2:7 (Adam being created) happened before the event of 1:29 (which occurs after 2:22, God tells them what they could eat which encompasses what they counldn't). So there is no 'rule of logic' which chapter is to be read first because they complement eachother. First in history these events happened before the event of 1:29:

8 Now the LORD God had planted a garden in the east, in Eden; and there he put the man he had formed. 9 And the LORD God made all kinds of trees grow out of the ground

[Ovedya]

Or unless they are speaking where the Bible does not speak.

Logic tells me to read chapter two after chapter one, not the other way around.

(Gen. 1:11)

"And God said, Let the earth sprout grass, herbs yielding seed, and fruit trees bearing fruit according to their kind with their seed in them upon the earth; and it was so."

Of all the verses on creation only the grass, herbs, and trees sprout from the earth. The other items of creation were created by the speaking forth of God. This indicates that there were already seeds in the earth when God spoke them forth from the earth. The plants of the earth were not created in full maturity, but "sprouted" (brought forth) from the earth.

So logic demands that we ask, "From where did the tree of the knowledge of good and evil come?" And furthermore, "Where did the tree of life come from?" Both the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil are unique trees, not like any other. Their fruit is also unique - not like any other of the trees in the garden. Either God created them in full maturity or they sprouted from seed like the other trees.

Logic tells me that the event of 2:7 happened before the event of 1:29. So there is no 'rule of logic' which chapter is to be read first because they complement eachother. First in history these events happened before the event of 1:29:

8 Now the LORD God had planted a garden in the east, in Eden; and there he put the man he had formed. 9 And the LORD God made all kinds of trees grow out of the ground

[firehill]

Or unless they are speaking where the Bible does not speak.

Logic tells me to read chapter two after chapter one, not the other way around.

(Gen. 1:11)

"And God said, Let the earth sprout grass, herbs yielding seed, and fruit trees bearing fruit according to their kind with their seed in them upon the earth; and it was so."

Of all the verses on creation only the grass, herbs, and trees sprout from the earth. The other items of creation were created by the speaking forth of God. This indicates that there were already seeds in the earth when God spoke them forth from the earth. The plants of the earth were not created in full maturity, but "sprouted" (brought forth) from the earth.

So logic demands that we ask, "From where did the tree of the knowledge of good and evil come?" And furthermore, "Where did the tree of life come from?" Both the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil are unique trees, not like any other. Their fruit is also unique - not like any other of the trees in the garden. Either God created them in full maturity or they sprouted from seed like the other trees.

Logic tells me that the event of 2:7 happened before the event of 1:29. So there is no 'rule of logic' which chapter is to be read first because they complement eachother. First in history these events happened before the event of 1:29:

8 Now the LORD God had planted a garden in the east, in Eden; and there he put the man he had formed. 9 And the LORD God made all kinds of trees grow out of the ground

[firehill]

While we're looking for 'Adam's responsibilty' a biblical foundation is starting to develope:

K-plunk:

2:7the LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.

Here we have God making the human.

K-plunk:

16 And the LORD God commanded the man, "You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; 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."

Here we have God commanding ONLY (see previous posts for the singular command's relevence) the man.

K-plunk:

18 The LORD God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him."

Here we have God purposing to create a helper suitable for him TO alieve his ALONESS, and equal to him. Adam CONFIRMS what God made her for in relation to him which was TO BE WITH him, not to be under him or ruled over:

K-plunk:

3:12 The man said, "The woman you put here with me"

K-plunk:

21 So the LORD God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man's ribs and closed up the place with flesh. 22 Then the LORD God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.

Here we have God having completed what He said he was going to do!

K-plunk:

27 So God created man in his own image,

in the image of God he created him;

male and female he created them.

28 God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground." 29 Then God said, "I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. 30 And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air and all the creatures that move on the ground

[firehill]

Ovedya:

There is no record that God told the woman not to eat of that tree. There is no record at all that God spoke to the woman at all until He confronted them both with their transgression. It is likely that Adam instructed Eve not to eat of that tree.

Not true.

We've also found this:

In 2:28 when God blessed them and told them to be fruitful and multiply, He could have only said that to them after the woman was created (after 2:22) because had God told the man to be fruitful and multiply before the woman was created then he wouldn't have learned his need for the woman. And besides, he couldn't multiply without a partner. So we have God speaking to them both after the woman was created.