Adam's Responsibility?

[Ovedya]

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

[Ovedya]

No. The accounts are complementary (like the sexes). I don't understand how such a conlcusion can be arrived at by piecing together the chronological events of history, at creation as recorded in the bible? Please explain.

God created Adam (chp 2) then woman (chp 2). In chp 1 v.29 we see that after both are created (which is after 2:22) then 1:29 in history as an event occurs.

They are complimentary, but they are not intended to be a chronology of events. This is where many believers err; they take Genesis 1-2 as a chronological recording of history only, and ignore the focus of those two chapters entirely.

In Genesis 1 and 2 God is working from the general to the specific. Genesis 1 is the narration of God's creation as a whole: He created light, air, the heavens and the earth, the birds, the fish, trees, animals, and finally humans. The words employed in Genesis 1 are "corporate." They refer to all plants, all animals, all humans, etc. Genesis 2 describes a specific even which takes place in the garden. It describes what God did when he created the first man, where He placed him, and what He told him.

There needn't be any attempt to try and "marry" the two chapters together to produce a full picture of the chronological events in creation, because that's not what God intended when He ordered them in our Bible. Attempting to figure out what God said, to whom He said it, and how He said it, is therefore futile, and it entirely misses the point of the first two chapters in Genesis.

Said who?

The Biblical Hebrew and Discourse Linguistics book edited by Robert D. Bergen and produced from a conference of 90 professionals linguists 60 of whom were working translators, members of Wycliffe Bible Translators, completely disagrees with you. The Hebrew grammar is clear that chapter 2 is to be taken sequentially. I have shown the quotes and the grammar in my DVD series "Women in Ministry Silenced or Set Free?" The grammar is also backed up by the Apostles Bible which is an English translation of the Septuagint. We can see from that translation how the early Greek translation from before Jesus' day understood the sequential events.

Impressive. But the common reader will typically read chapter one before he reads chapter two. If your 90 professional linguists have a problem with that then they can take it up with the author.

My argument stands.

[Ovedya]

When did God ever remove the "temporary prohibition" of women teaching or asserting authority over men?

[firehill]

When did God ever remove the "temporary prohibition" of women teaching or asserting authority over men?

When did he place a temporary prohibition on them, plural? Where at creation?

[Neopatriarch]

Wait. In post #106 you appealed to the original language to justify your claim that 1 Timothy 2:12 says "I am not now permitting a woman...", but now you

[Ovedya]

I was just thinking again about the "chronology of events" that's being discussed here, and I realized that something does not make sense.

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.

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.

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). 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.

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

Now, it is contended here that God included this commandment with a restrictive word in Genesis 1 regarding trees with seeds in them. But the fact is that such an important commandment would not have been so ambiguous. Would Eve, hearing God's mention of "fruit with seeds," have understood that He was restricting her from eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge? How could she possibly have known that the fruit of the tree of knowledge did not contain seeds? She would have had to have picked a piece of fruit and open it up to see that there were no seeds. And in picking that fruit she would have been tempted to eat of 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. 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. If God told them separately then He would have had to repeat the commandment to Eve. Yet there is no record of His having done so. There is only the record of God having told Adam alone.

So the only logical conclusion in my mind is that God told Adam and then Adam told Eve. Either God said, "Adam, you shall not..." and he told Eve, "We shall not.." or God told Adam, "You shall not..." and he repeated the message to Eve who took it to mean that "We shall not..."

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.

[Ovedya]

When did God ever remove the "temporary prohibition" of women teaching or asserting authority over men?

When did he place a temporary prohibition on them, plural? Where at creation?

At creation? Where at creation do you find Eve asserting authority over Adam?

[firehill]

Now, it is contended here that God included this commandment with a restrictive word in Genesis 1 regarding trees with seeds in them. But the fact is that such an important commandment would not have been so ambiguous. Would Eve, hearing God's mention of "fruit with seeds," have understood that He was restricting her from eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge? How could she possibly have known that the fruit of the tree of knowledge did not contain seeds? She would have had to have picked a piece of fruit and open it up to see that there were no seeds. And in picking that fruit she would have been tempted to eat of it.

we would have to assume that God also told Eve on a separate occasion not to eat of that same tree.

Your post was interestng but for now I will say this. Eve did say that God said, 'you (plural) must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the MIDDLE of the garden.' So how would she know which trees had fruit with seed and which didn't when God told them both after she was created that they could have every tree with fruit that had seed? The one in the middle of the garden she was told by God not to eat, and so she would have been able to understand that the other trees had fruit with seed.

What's there to assume besides God didn't tell her (along with Adam on a seperate occasion)?

If you're going to try to understand the level of knowledge she had then you at least have to listen to what knowledge she SAID had. Who's really straining at gnats here?

3 but God did say, 'You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.' "

[inhistime]

Ovedya said:

Impressive. But the common reader will typically read chapter one before he reads chapter two. If your 90 professional linguists have a problem with that then they can take it up with the author.

My argument stands.

I don't think you will find a commentary that agrees with you. You are standing but on thin ice in the middle of a river. Who agrees with you? Chapter one is before chapter two, however we know the male wasn't created twice. There are no contradictions. 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.

Sounds to me like you think you know more than those who make their living off of translating the bible. If you can just dismiss their arguments, then I don't think I can help you. No argument will suffice, it seems, because God agrees with only you.

[inhistime]

Neopatriarch said:

The anarthrous γυνή, "woman," functions as a generic noun here as in v 9 and v 12 (Wallace, Greek Grammar, 253-54), appropriate in the statement of a general truth. (William D. Mounce, Pastoral Epistles, Word Biblical Commentary, ed. Bruce M. Metzger, David A. Hubbard, and Glenn W. Barker, no. 46 (Nashville: T. Nelson, 2000), 117-118).

My point then is that "a woman" is not referring to a specific woman, but to a typical member of a group. It applies to women in general.

The problem here is that "a woman" can be generic or specific depending on the context. There is nothing in the grammar that denies that it can be specific. So let's look at the context. If "a woman" isn't a specific woman, then who is the "she" and who are the "they" of verse 15?

I am still waiting.....