Women pastors

[firehill]

The perhaps you could briefly explain why the serpent chose to beguile Eve and not Adam.

Aaahhhh. Your question is based on your belief that Adam wasn't with her. No wonder you ask.

[Ovedya]

The perhaps you could briefly explain why the serpent chose to beguile Eve and not Adam.

Aaahhhh. Your question is based on your belief that Adam wasn't with her. No wonder you ask.

Sigh....The verse neither states nor implies that he was with her.

So why should we assume that he was?

Read the two sentences I gave above as examples.

[firehill]

It wasn't forgetting; it was ignorance, says Josh, 10: "Eve was new in the Garden of Eden." In other words, Eve was new in the garden and didn't know her way around.

I like this one. Didn't Adam have an experience with the animals and the difference between them and God? Didn't he name the serpent? Did not Eve lack the same knowledge and experience that Adam had of the difference between God and creation?

[Marnie]

The order of creation is the reason that Paul gave: "For Adam was created first."

No it's not as I've been explaining...

The account says that Eve gave the fruit to Adam but does not say that he was there.

The serpent asked in plural, 'you' and Eve responded in plural, 'you'. And the text says he was with her.

We're not getting back into this here, firehill, regardless of how badly you want to. The text does not state or imply that Adam was with her at all.

Of course it does. How can you think otherwise?

For the reasons I stated. Adam did nothing. Which would make his sin all the more greater. In such a scenario Adam would be guilty of being beguiled by the serpent himself, and of eating of the fruit.

No. the verses neither states or implies that he was with her.

Aww, man, you're killing me dude! Did you read the text???

I did.

"Mother fixed us all dinner. Then she served it to us."

Were we all in the kitchen with mother when she fixed us dinner?

"John bought a ring for Janice. Then he gave it to her."

Was Janice with John when he bought the ring?

How about.... Why are you putting up your pup tent up in the wind?

You can't sustain your argument.

How can this be? We always agree on everything???

[OopsMartin]

Even if you don't accept my connection there, the very least the verse teaches is that a woman cannot teach a man because the first woman was deceived. Either way, a woman is not permitted to teach a man..

I don't see the sense in that at all. Neither is it ever stated anywhere else in Scripture.

What kind of spiritual law is this......

The fact that Eve was deceived is directly connected to the fact that she engaged in conversation with the cleverest of all creature. Now if you wanted to suggest that any woman that engaged in a similar conversation with the same clever creature stands a good chance of being deceived you might have more logic behind you. But just because Eve was deceived does not mean she is predisposed to being deceived, nor does it mean that all females would be predisposed to being deceived...... anymore than it means that all men are predisposed to willfully knowingly deliberately choosing to sin.

The perhaps you could briefly explain why the serpent chose to beguile Eve and not Adam. Convenience perhaps? Because she just happened to be "in the neighborhood" of the tree?

Or perhaps: A) Because he wanted to subvert God-s divine order (Which is keeping with his character, considering the fact of his rebellion), B) Because he knew the woman was more open to deception; or even, maybe C) Both.

You are suggesting that the serpent thought Eve was weaker mentally, so that is why he approached her. ahahahaha Where in Genesis does it suggest that?

FACT: we don't know precisely why the serpent approached the woman. we can assume a lot of different reasons but we don't know. But I do think it is a travesty when good Christians paint the first woman as a mockery of a human, a sub-human weak willed, over emotional mentally inferior. What is wrong with God that He would do such a thing. What is wrong with us that we would think God would do such a thing.

Then we have this divine order business. Just because God created the male first does not make the male more divine than the female, neither does it make him superior, neither does it automatically give him special privileges. We cannot arbitrarily assign motives to God that He did not state.

However if we diligently read Genesis we will see that God did indeed had a purpose for creating the man first and it had nothing to do with any "divine order". It had to do with God deciding that there was a particular lesson that the man needed to learn right off the bat. And that lesson was that it was not good for the man to be alone. Once that lesson was learned then God finished the creation of humanity as He said He would do.

[Ovedya]

The order of creation is the reason that Paul gave: "For Adam was created first."

No it's not as I've been explaining...

The account says that Eve gave the fruit to Adam but does not say that he was there.

The serpent asked in plural, 'you' and Eve responded in plural, 'you'. And the text says he was with her.

We're not getting back into this here, firehill, regardless of how badly you want to. The text does not state or imply that Adam was with her at all.

Of course it does. How can you think otherwise?

For the reasons I stated. Adam did nothing. Which would make his sin all the more greater. In such a scenario Adam would be guilty of being beguiled by the serpent himself, and of eating of the fruit.

No. the verses neither states or implies that he was with her.

Aww, man, you're killing me dude! Did you read the text???

I did.

"Mother fixed us all dinner. Then she served it to us."

Were we all in the kitchen with mother when she fixed us dinner?

"John bought a ring for Janice. Then he gave it to her."

Was Janice with John when he bought the ring?

How about.... Why are you putting up your pup tent up in the wind?

You can't sustain your argument.

How can this be? We always agree on everything???

lol. We don;t have to agree on everything, sis. How boring would that be?

[firehill]

You could only come to this conclusion IF you take Paul to be meaning that Eve is the prototypical female which you havn't even established as being implied nor stated in the context of the passage! Pauls connection of creational order and who was decived shows that Eve is not being refered to here as the prototypical female.

If Paul is not referring to Eve in this passage, then who in the world is he referring to?

1 Timothy 2:13 + 14 For Adam was first formed, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.

Verse 13 and 14 are obviously connected because they are a continuation of the same thought. Since Eve was the first woman, and Eve is the only 'woman' he is, or could be talking about in verse 14.

Please go back and read my posts. Paul speaks of Eve in vv.13 & 14. And apparently we see the same connection of v. 13 TO v.14.

[Marnie]

The order of creation is the reason that Paul gave: "For Adam was created first."

No it's not as I've been explaining...

The account says that Eve gave the fruit to Adam but does not say that he was there.

The serpent asked in plural, 'you' and Eve responded in plural, 'you'. And the text says he was with her.

We're not getting back into this here, firehill, regardless of how badly you want to. The text does not state or imply that Adam was with her at all.

Of course it does. How can you think otherwise?

For the reasons I stated. Adam did nothing. Which would make his sin all the more greater. In such a scenario Adam would be guilty of being beguiled by the serpent himself, and of eating of the fruit.

No. the verses neither states or implies that he was with her.

Aww, man, you're killing me dude! Did you read the text???

I did.

"Mother fixed us all dinner. Then she served it to us."

Were we all in the kitchen with mother when she fixed us dinner?

"John bought a ring for Janice. Then he gave it to her."

Was Janice with John when he bought the ring?

How about.... Why are you putting up your pup tent up in the wind?

You can't sustain your argument.

How can this be? We always agree on everything???

lol. We don;t have to agree on everything, sis. How boring would that be?

You want to be right, don't you?

lol just messin' with you. I was wondering how long we could keep this debate going. Was he...wasn't he? Oy vey. I could use a cup of coffee, I don't know about you.

[Ovedya]

Even if you don't accept my connection there, the very least the verse teaches is that a woman cannot teach a man because the first woman was deceived. Either way, a woman is not permitted to teach a man..

I don't see the sense in that at all. Neither is it ever stated anywhere else in Scripture.

What kind of spiritual law is this......

The fact that Eve was deceived is directly connected to the fact that she engaged in conversation with the cleverest of all creature. Now if you wanted to suggest that any woman that engaged in a similar conversation with the same clever creature stands a good chance of being deceived you might have more logic behind you. But just because Eve was deceived does not mean she is predisposed to being deceived, nor does it mean that all females would be predisposed to being deceived...... anymore than it means that all men are predisposed to willfully knowingly deliberately choosing to sin.

The perhaps you could briefly explain why the serpent chose to beguile Eve and not Adam. Convenience perhaps? Because she just happened to be "in the neighborhood" of the tree?

Or perhaps: A) Because he wanted to subvert God-s divine order (Which is keeping with his character, considering the fact of his rebellion), B) Because he knew the woman was more open to deception; or even, maybe C) Both.

You are suggesting that the serpent thought Eve was weaker mentally, so that is why he approached her. ahahahaha Where in Genesis does it suggest that?

FACT: we don't know precisely why the serpent approached the woman. we can assume a lot of different reasons but we don't know. But I do think it is a travesty when good Christians paint the first woman as a mockery of a human, a sub-human weak willed, over emotional mentally inferior. What is wrong with God that He would do such a thing. What is wrong with us that we would think God would do such a thing.

Then we have this divine order business. Just because God created the male first does not make the male more divine than the female, neither does it make him superior, neither does it automatically give him special privileges. We cannot arbitrarily assign motives to God that He did not state.

However if we diligently read Genesis we will see that God did indeed had a purpose for creating the man first and it had nothing to do with any "divine order". It had to do with God deciding that there was a particular lesson that the man needed to learn right off the bat. And that lesson was that it was not good for the man to be alone. Once that lesson was learned then God finished the creation of humanity as He said He would do.

You laugh. But you cannot argue against what Paul wrote: "For the man was created first."

There was plainly a reason that the serpent chose Eve. To deny such is in contrast to the part of the verse which states that he was the most crafty of all the beasts.

Nobody is making a mockery of women, nor is it an insult to women to have the protection of the God-ordained order which He established in the creation. In creation all things are ordered and perfect. The evidence is plain just by looking at it.

[Ovedya]

lol just messin' with you. I was wondering how long we could keep this debate going. Was he...wasn't he? Oy vey. I could use a cup of coffee, I don't know about you.

I could use 4.