Women Not Guilty of the Fall [Archive]

View Full Version : Women Not Guilty of the Fall

cubanito

13th August 2007, 06:38 PM

1Cor 15:21,22 and 1Ti 2:13 make very clear that the cause of the fall was the WILLFUL disobedience of Adam.

We have no record of God commanding Eve not to eat of the forbidden fruit. At most she was deceived, and Adam who was probably standing right there failed to protect her.

One of the facts that accrues towards the Bible being of Divine origin is the very fact that the Biblical record makes it clear that the fall is the fault of the MAN, and not the woman. Given the patriarchal, mysogynistic culture in which the Bible was written, this is a remarkable fact. ALL other ancient religions from India (read what the TRUE meaning of ying/Yang is) to the Greeks (Pandora's box) blamed WOMEN for all the evils of the world. This is inherent from the very account of Genesis, and made crystal clear by Paul.

Not so the Bilble.

It is in the same passage that Paul absolves Eve from being the cause of the Fall, Paul restricts women from Church leadership. To say that Paul makes women is a mysoginist, or culturally conditioned is ridiculous. Paul is arguing from the very first principles, and not some cultural setting. Paul is absolving Eve for causing the Fall, contrary to Paul's rabbinical training, cultural upbringing as both Jew and Roman. It is ignorant and/or biased to view Paul as anti-woman when he champions women so boldly!

Additionally, in Paul's day no Rabbi would teach women. Yet Paul commands that they be taught. Yes Paul wants women silent during Church service, and we may debate the meaning of that, remembering that services back then were rather different than today with "questions from the audience" being allowed. However, in those same passages Paul desires that women learn.

This is no different than Jesus' attitude, which scandilized by His willingness to speak and teach women, which was "below" Rabbis and "holy men." However, Jesus never named a woman disciple either (contrary to Gnostic sources and modern imaginings).

There is a clear balance here. Women are held as valuable as men, as worthy to be saved or taught as men, and even absolved from causing the Fall. However, they are portrayed in Scripture as more easily deceived, and not meant to lead men. When Deborah co-led Israel, she concluded by a song MOCKING Israel that God had to raise up a woman for the lack of a corageous man.

JR

I just wanted to make that clear.

DeaconDean

14th August 2007, 03:30 AM

While on the surface, I must admit, you make a good argument. However, somebody told Eve not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, and from all evidence, it seems to have been Adam:

"And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." -Gen. 2:16-17 (KJV)

" And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden: But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it," -Gen. 3:2-3 (KJV)

But I also submit to your good sir, that even though woman did not cause the fall, she nevertheless, was guilty of another sin: lying.

"But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die." -Gen. 3:3 (KJV)

God told Adam that he could not eat of that tree. And from all evidence, he passed that knowledge on to Eve. But, however, nowhere in God's command to Adam did He tell him that he couldn't touch it.

So, while sin entered the world from Adam's wilfull disobedience of God's command, Eve is guilty of lying also.

If you are going to be "sematic" about Eve being decieved, and:

We have no record of God commanding Eve not to eat of the forbidden fruit.

Explain to me sir, who taught Abel that the only "acceptable" sacrifice to God was a blood sacrifice?

There is no record of that in the scriptures.

God Bless

Till all are one.

desmalia

14th August 2007, 04:56 PM

cubanito

14th August 2007, 08:12 PM

1- I did not mean to declare that for certainty Eve did not sin, what Paul says (1Ti 2:13) is that "she came to be in transgression by being deceived" which is a rather neutral position. It is almost as if she made a mistake, rather than a wilful choice. This is borne out by God's curses in Genesis. God curses the serpent "because you have done this." (Gen 3:14). He also curses Adam "because you listened to the voice of your wife and have eaten..." (3:17). But while God does curse the woman, He never actually blames her. Read Gen 3:16 very carefully and compare it to the other verses. Punishment IS meted out, but at no time is actual blame assigned to Eve. Read it again, slowly. The serpent is blamed, then cursed. Adam is also blamed, then THE GROUND is cursed because of Adam, and Adam's curse is a result of the GROUND being cursed. Eve is just plain cursed, but never actually blamed. Genesis dosen't blame her, and Paul EXONERATES her. Paul makes it clear that whatever Eve's sin was, it was NOT wilful direct disobedience to a command of God. Eve was simply deceived. That's the Scriptures, plain and simple, and utterly amazingly in contradiction to all the cultures anywhere NEAR the Jews. How such exoneration of women could be written by such a fanatically patriarchial societys is amazing.

2- We do not know God who told Eve about the tree. To claim she was lying about not touching it ASSUMES that she either heard it from God, or that Adam told her the command wo embelishment. As Eve's husband, Adam would have been within his rights to have added to God's command the part about not touching it.

Suppose the owner of a store makes me manager. The owner informs me that a certain item is not to be sold, I can sell anything else, but this one item is for display only. The owner now leaves and tells me to run the store as I see fit, so long as I keep this rule. Now as the supervisor I convey that the Forbidden Display Item (FDI) is not to be sold. In fact, just to be sure nobody messes with it and maybe unintentionally breaks it, I tell the other employees I do not want them to touch the Forbidden Display Item (FDI) at all.

Well, along comes Sammy Snake and asks about the FDI to some clerk, and she, INNOCENTLY misunderstanding that the supervisors' dierctions came UNCHANGED from the store owner, say "Sorry Mr. Snake, we can neither sell nor touch the FDI."

Is the clerk lying? Well, is it a lie when you honestly say an error which you think truthful? No, YOU ARE DECEIVED!! There are wilful lies, there are honest errors of miscommunication, and sometimes there is just plain confusion and poor memory. From reading Scripture it is crystal clear that Eve's error was not wilful.

Look, I get most of my theology from television. Having watched many "sitcoms" I am quite familiar with how innocent miscommunications can turn into major disasters. Or if you prefer, think of Bush being accused of lying about WMD in Iraq. Did Bush lie? It seems more likely Bush, along w the Clintons, the Ruskies, the French and even Saddam himself were just fooled.

Accusing Eve of lying BEFORE she even ate of the fruit is non-sensical. She did not even KNOW how to lie at that point! It is also directly opposed to Scripture which plainly teaches that she was DECEIVED. You ought be ashamed raising false witness to your own grandmammy that way...

2- Whatever her sin was, it was NOT the cause of the Fall. I can't exactly say for sure if Eve sinned or not in the garden. the Bible is somewhat fuzzy there. It's almost as she was walking along and fell in a hole, like a passive error. I do not know. But the main point is that the world is cursed because of ADAM. It was ADAM who owned the world, Eve was subject to him. It was Adam who had for certain heard God's command. It was Adam who chose his wife over God, wilfully, both eyes open.

3- Furthermore, because Eve was never actually blamed by God, the direct curse of wilful sin comes to us from ADAM ALONE. This is of crucial importance. It is why a virgin birth (the seed of the woman) occured: only a man who was fully man and descendant ot man, but not born of a man's corrupting seed could be free of God's curse. Now I realize I am skating dangerously close to the monastic fantasy of virginal purity here. "All heresy is exageration of Truth." It is heretical to believe that somehow a virgin woman is "above" or "purer" than a duly married mother. But there is a nugget of Truth in the MOUNTAIN of medieval corrupted hay. That nugget is that while Mary was sinful to the core, just like the rest of us, like all women she had uncursed seed within her. There was that strange posibility that if somehow a man could be made of a woman's seed alone, that Man would be free of the curse of God. In theological parlance, a Man born of a sinful virgin woman would be free of the original sin inherited by Adam. This plays out double: Joseph's line held the legal right to the Throne of David, yet also the curse that no descendant of that line would ever again sit on the Throne of David. Eve's line was also royal, but had no legal claim to the throne, but also no curse from God. Joseph's adoption of Jesus provides the legal framework for Jesus' claim to the Davidic throne; while Eve provides the genetic basis. Actually, I could go on, there are other pararell ways by which Jesus could save the world, even cursed Moabites like Ruth, being a descendant of Moabites, yet was free of the Moabite curse. Same for how Jesus, a descendant of Judah, could yet also be Priest (see Hebrews), thus reunifying the True "Triple Tiara" first broken at the sin of Moses who resisted being God's spokesperson. Oh guys, this could go on and on and on... This is a MAJOR theme in Scripture: How God makes the impossible possible by a curious, often miraculosu, quirk of semantics!!

Guys, Satan has been credited with a smooth deceitful tounge, "the devil in the details" and of being subtle.

I tell you this from Proverbs: while the simple hearted and the children of God prance like gazelles unharmed through His grounds, the wise of this world are ensnared at every turn by traps so cunningly laid that even Satan fell into them!

Our God is an AWESOME God!! He protects the childhearted, the simple minded can Trust in him with no fear. Yet let he who thinks himself wise, even Satan himself in all his cunning malevolance try to play chess with God and they lose every time.

I have children. Sometimes they "beat" me at chess. I delight in my defeats. Like God, I am weak because of them.

Now, do you really think it is because I can not outplay a 10yo?

Ok, so I lost it back there somewhere....it's just that God, well, I kind of admire God. He is just cooler than the Fonz, is all.

JR

mwduke

14th August 2007, 09:33 PM

I think the verse from 1Cor is valid to support your argument, but the 1Tim verse is not. It is taken out of context, and if you read the entire chapter you will see that Paul is actually saying the opposite of what you purport--that women, indeed, introduced sin to the world.

1Tim 2:13, 14:

13For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner.

Project 86

14th August 2007, 10:40 PM

DeaconDean

14th August 2007, 11:24 PM

Thank you for posting that verse. That is the first verse that came to mind when reading the thread.

Same here, even though all I was trying to do was show that even though sin entered through Adam's wilfull disobedience, Eve wasn't innocent either. She was equally guilty.

Oh well.

God Bless

Till all are one.

HypnoToad

15th August 2007, 01:04 AM

Suppose the owner of a store makes me manager. The owner informs me that a certain item is not to be sold, I can sell anything else, but this one item is for display only. The owner now leaves and tells me to run the store as I see fit, so long as I keep this rule. Now as the supervisor I convey that the Forbidden Display Item (FDI) is not to be sold. In fact, just to be sure nobody messes with it and maybe unintentionally breaks it, I tell the other employees I do not want them to touch the Forbidden Display Item (FDI) at all.

Well, along comes Sammy Snake and asks about the FDI to some clerk, and she, INNOCENTLY misunderstanding that the supervisors' dierctions came UNCHANGED from the store owner, say "Sorry Mr. Snake, we can neither sell nor touch the FDI."

Is the clerk lying? Well, is it a lie when you honestly say an error which you think truthful? No, YOU ARE DECEIVED!! There are wilful lies, there are honest errors of miscommunication, and sometimes there is just plain confusion and poor memory. From reading Scripture it is crystal clear that Eve's error was not wilful.
You stop the analogy too soon. Yeah, the added part of not touching may just be an honest mistake, but what if that clerk then SOLD the item? The clerk knows that's not allowed, and you can't "accidentally" sell it.

You ought be ashamed raising false witness to your own grandmammy that way...Now, wait a minute.

It may be our HONEST view that Eve sinned. If she didn't, perhaps we were deceived in being taught this.

Yet, you claim us to be guilty of bearing false witness.

The situations are, for all intents and purposes, identical. How are we guilty, yet Eve was not?

Whatever her sin was, it was NOT the cause of the Fall. I can't exactly say for sure if Eve sinned or not in the garden. the Bible is somewhat fuzzy there."Fuzzy"??

"And Adam was not deceived, but the woman, because she was fully deceived, fell into transgression." - 1Tim.2:14.

You can't "fall into sin" and not sin.

Eve was still cursed - do you really think God would curse her if she were innocent?

DeaconDean

15th August 2007, 02:43 AM

1- I did not mean to declare that for certainty Eve did not sin, what Paul says (1Ti 2:13) is that "she came to be in transgression by being deceived" which is a rather neutral position. It is almost as if she made a mistake, rather than a wilful choice. This is borne out by God's curses in Genesis. God curses the serpent "because you have done this." (Gen 3:14). He also curses Adam "because you listened to the voice of your wife and have eaten..." (3:17). But while God does curse the woman, He never actually blames her. Read Gen 3:16 very carefully and compare it to the other verses. Punishment IS meted out, but at no time is actual blame assigned to Eve. Read it again, slowly. The serpent is blamed, then cursed. Adam is also blamed, then THE GROUND is cursed because of Adam, and Adam's curse is a result of the GROUND being cursed. Eve is just plain cursed, but never actually blamed. Genesis dosen't blame her, and Paul EXONERATES her. Paul makes it clear that whatever Eve's sin was, it was NOT wilful direct disobedience to a command of God. Eve was simply deceived. That's the Scriptures, plain and simple, and utterly amazingly in contradiction to all the cultures anywhere NEAR the Jews. How such exoneration of women could be written by such a fanatically patriarchial societys is amazing...Accusing Eve of lying BEFORE she even ate of the fruit is non-sensical. She did not even KNOW how to lie at that point! It is also directly opposed to Scripture which plainly teaches that she was DECEIVED. You ought be ashamed raising false witness to your own grandmammy that way...

Lets take the time to read what Matthew Henry comments about this section:

"Some think Eve received the command, not immediately from God, but at second hand by her husband, and therefore might the more easily be persuaded to discredit it. He took advantage by finding her near the forbidden tree, and probably gazing upon the fruit of it, only to satisfy her curiosity. Those that would not eat the forbidden fruit must not come near the forbidden tree. Avoid it, pass not by it, Prov. 4:15. 4. Satan tempted Eve, that by her he might tempt Adam; so he tempted Job by his wife, and Christ by Peter. It is his policy to send temptations by unsuspected hands, and theirs that have most interest in us and influence upon us...That which the devil aimed at was to persuade Eve to cut forbidden fruit; and, to do this, he took the same method that he does still. He questioned whether it was a sin or no, v. 1. He denied that there was any danger in it, v. 4. He suggested much advantage by it, v. 5. And these are his common topics. 1. He questioned whether it was a sin or no to eat of this tree, and whether really the fruit of it was forbidden. Observe, (1.) He said to the woman, Yea, hath God said, You shall not eat? The first word intimated something said before, introducing this, and with which it is connected, perhaps some discourse Eve had with herself, which Satan took hold of, and grafted this question upon. In the chain of thoughts one thing strangely brings in another, and perhaps something bad at last. Observe here, [1.] He does not discover his design at first, but puts a question which seemed innocent: "I hear a piece of news, pray is it true? has God forbidden you to eat of this tree?’’ Thus he would begin a discourse, and draw her into a parley. Those that would be safe have need to be suspicious, and shy of talking with the tempter. [2.] He quotes the command fallaciously, as if it were a prohibition, not only of that tree, but of all. God had said, Of every tree you may eat, except one. He, by aggravating the exception, endeavours to invalidate the concession: Hath God said, You shall not eat of every tree? The divine law cannot be reproached unless it be first misrepresented... In answer to this question the woman gives him a plain and full account of the law they were under, v. 2, 3. Here observe, [1.] It was her weakness to enter into discourse with the serpent. She might have perceived by his question that he had no good design, and should therefore have started back with a Get thee behind me, Satan, thou art an offence to me. But her curiosity, and perhaps her surprise, to hear a serpent speak, led her into further talk with him. Note, It is a dangerous thing to treat with a temptation, which ought at first to be rejected with disdain and abhorrence...It was her wisdom to take notice of the liberty God had granted them, in answer to his sly insinuation, as if God has put them into paradise only to tantalize them with the sight of fair but forbidden fruits. "Yea,’’ says she, "we may eat of the fruit of the trees, thanks to our Maker, we have plenty and variety enough allowed us.’’ Note, To prevent our being uneasy at the restraints of religion, it is good often to take a view of the liberties and comforts of it. [3.] It was an instance of her resolution that she adhered to the command, and faithfully repeated it, as of unquestionable certainty: "God hath said, I am confident he hath said it, You shall not eat of the fruit of this tree;’’ and that which she adds, Neither shall you touch it, seems to have been with a good intention, not (as some think) tacitly to reflect upon the command as too strict (Touch not, taste not and handle not), but to make a fence about it: "We must not eat, therefore we will not touch. It is forbidden in the highest degree, and the authority of the prohibition is sacred to us.’’ [4.] She seems a little to waver about the threatening, and is not so particular and faithful in the repetition of that as of the precept. God has said, In the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die; all she makes of that is, Lest you die. Note, Wavering faith and wavering resolutions give great advantage to the tempter. 2. He denies that there was any danger in it, insisting that, though it might be the transgressing of a precept, yet it would not be the incurring of a penalty: You shall not surely die, v. 4. "You shall not dying die,’’ so the word is, in direct contradiction to what God had said. Either, (1.) "It is not certain that you shall die,’’ so some. "It is not so sure as you are made to believe it is.’’ Thus Satan endeavours to shake that which he cannot overthrow, and invalidates the force of divine threatenings by questioning the certainty of them; and, when once it is supposed possible that there may be falsehood or fallacy in any word of God, a door is then opened to downright infidelity. Satan teaches men first to doubt and then to deny; he makes them sceptics first, and so by degrees makes them atheists...He avers his contradiction with the same phrase of assurance that God had used in ratifying the threatening. He began to call the precept in question (v. 1), but, finding that the woman adhered to that, he quitted that battery, and made his second onset upon the threatening, where he perceived her to waver; for he is quick to spy all advantages, and to attack the wall where it is weakest: You shall not surely die. This was a lie, a downright lie; for, [1.] It was contrary to the word of God, which we are sure is true. See 1 Jn. 2:21, 27. It was such a lie as gave the lie to God himself. [2.] It was contrary to his own knowledge. When he told them there was no danger in disobedience and rebellion he said that which he knew, by woeful experience, to be false. He had broken the law of his creation, and had found, to his cost, that he could not prosper in it; and yet he tells our first parents they shall not die. He concealed his own misery, that he might draw them into the like: thus he still deceives sinners into their own ruin. He tells them that, though they sin, they shall not die; and gains credit rather than God, who tells them, The wages of sin is death...First, Discontent with their present state, as if it were not so good as it might be, and should be. Note, No condition will of itself bring contentment, unless the mind be brought to it. Adam was not easy, no, not in paradise, nor the angels in their first state, Jude 6. Secondly, Ambition of preferment, as if they were fit to be gods. Satan had ruined himself by desiring to be like the Most High (Isa. 14:14), and therefore seeks to infect our first parents with the same desire, that he might ruin them too."

http://bible1.crosswalk.com/Commentaries/MatthewHenryComplete/mhc-com.cgi?book=ge&chapter=3#Ge3_3

You have your opinions, I have mine.

Eve was just as guilty as Adam. Even though God acredited sin to Adam, Eve had just as big a hand in it as Adam did.

God Bless

Till all are one.

DeaconDean

15th August 2007, 03:17 AM

Let me put it another way. What was one of Adam's primary duties in the Garden?

"And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it." -Gen. 2:15 (KJV)

We don't know anything about the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

So what I say here, is one possible explanation of what may have happened. Conjecture, if you will.

Have you ever seem a Wisteria vine? As long as it is kept trimed, pruned, and kept up, it makes a beautiful ornamental tree. But let it get out of control and it can quickly become like the kudzu vine. Adam was told to dress and keep the garden. He could have very well have had to trim and/or prune the tree. Since he was to dress and keep the garden, he surely would have had to come into contact with everything.

Notice what God said to Adam:

"And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it. And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." -Gen. 2:15-17 (KJV)

Notice what Eve said to the serpent:

"And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden: But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die." -Gen. 3:2-3 (KJV)

They are almost identical. Yet here, she adds to what God had commanded.

Notice what Matthew Henry said:

"God hath said, I am confident he hath said it, You shall not eat of the fruit of this tree;’’ and that which she adds, Neither shall you touch it, seems to have been with a good intention,"

Her intentions may have been good, but that is not what God said. God said: "thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." not "Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die".

And as far as I know, God is the only person who is allowed to add to, or take away from His words.

"Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart." -Mt. 5:27-28 (KJV)

In the OT laws, adultery only included the act. Now under the NT, looking with lust is now adultery.

And who was it that changed the OT law? Jesus Christ, God in the flesh.

It is not given to us to add to or take away from God's own words. And Eve added to God's own words. She lied. She was guilty of perjury. "Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?"

God did not say they couldn't touch it, only that they couldn't eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

Furthermore:

"Eve sinned. No greater damning words can be found than, "…she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat…." (Gen. 3: 6). In all of God's dealings with man, beginning with Adam and Eve, God has had laws. These laws have been reasonable and for man's own good and happiness. Sin is a failure to keep God's law (I Jn. 3: 4). God had told Adam and Eve not to eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil (Gen. 2: 17). After the same fashion, when man today goes against God's law and commandments, man sins. Sin separates man and God (Isa. 59: 1, 2). Sin brings about spiritual death and Eve spiritually died "…the day that thou eatest thereof…" (Gen. 2: 17)...Eve blamed. Typical of impenitent sinners, Eve blamed another for her sin. "And the woman said, The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat" (Gen. 3: 13). Yes, the devil beguiled Eve, but she participated in the matter. The scriptures teach, "Submit yourselves therefore to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you" (Jas. 4: 7). Eve did not submit to God and she also failed to resist the devil. Yet, she failed to accept the responsibility for her sin... In conclusion, we need to learn from a study of the fall of Eve so that we can avoid a similar fall. Remember, she listened, looked, desired, sinned, attempted to hide, and blamed another. To the converse, Jesus overcame Satan's temptation (Matt. 4: 1-11). The consequences of Jesus' triumphant victory are greater than the negative impetus of Eve's sin (Rom. 5). By focusing on how Jesus overcame, we can also more successfully resist the devil."

http://www.bibletruths.net/Archives/BTAR285.htm

Either you preach, and/or teach God's word just as it is, or don't do it at all.

"For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book." -Rev. 22:18-19 (KJV)

So I say again: "Either you preach, and/or teach God's word just as it is, or don't do it at all."

But since I'm in the wrong, I'll take my leave of this subject.

I'm outta here.

God Bless

Till all are one.

cubanito

15th August 2007, 12:55 PM

`
So I say again: "Either you preach, and/or teach God's word just as it is, or don't do it at all."

But since I'm in the wrong, I'll take my leave of this subject.

I'm outta here.

God Bless

Till all are one.

If I have offended, or seemed to imply this was some major doctrine to get divisive about I am truly sorry.

That I think DeaconDean is wrong on this is not meant as any form of insult. I may very well be the one who is wrong. It is certainly I who needs prove his case, as the historical interpretation of these verses is clearly against mine.

But we are Fundys. While we may esteem Church tradition, and give consideration to what greater men than us have commented on the Scrptures, eventually our final authority is the Scriptures. We each stand before God the Father, clothed and introduced by the Son, to give an account of how well we allowed God the Spirit to illuminw the Scriptures before us. So, as I argue, I do so with my brothers, not so as to injure, but as to learn together---and have some fun in the process.

I will shortly accuse Matthew Henry of adding to the Scriptures. When I do so, it is not that I am a better man, but rather that it does not matter who is the better man, but only what the Scriptures say as each one of us understands it. I mean no offense to y'all, really, and I apologize if any taken.

JR

cubanito

15th August 2007, 01:24 PM

Nowhere in Scripture does it say where Eve got the idea the tree was not to be touched. It may have been her own invention, or Adam may have added it and Eve misunderstood it as coming from God.

To say that Eve added to the word of God is in fact to add to finalized Scripture. Thus, while I greatly respect the work of Matthew Henry, in this instance it is he who adds to Scripture. It is likely that just as Eve added to the command of god by misunderstanding, that Henry also did not think through clearly this passage of Scripture and thus, inadvertantly, falsely accuses Eve.

Whether Adam or Eve added the "do not touch" part is not made clear in Scripture. If it was Adam, he was within his rights to do so, but should have made it clear (did he?) that it was his own added command, and not God's.

As to "being ashamed to raise false witness against our grandmammy", I regret writing that. It was meant as a joke, but I can certainly see it being taken offensively.

JR

cubanito

15th August 2007, 01:39 PM

Explain to me sir, who taught Abel that the only "acceptable" sacrifice to God was a blood sacrifice?

There is no record of that in the scriptures.

God Bless

Till all are one.

Neither is there a record of WHY Cain's sacrifice was not acceptable to God. You read in later commands about blood sacrifice back into this incident, and thus, inadvertantly add to Scripture.

Perhaps Cain's heart was grudging, perhaps he selected from among the half rotten grain or fruit (Scripture mentions Abel selecting from the first of his flocks, and gives no statement as to Cain's selection process). Perhaps it was simply the Sovereign Inscrutable decision of God to accept Able, and not Cain. We do not know.

So, you see, much of what we THINK we know, we really only assume. Later, when the Mosaic code was instituted, there were sacrifices of both animals and crops. I will concede there is probably typology involved, as well as in God providing animal skins for covering instead of man made leafs, BUT this is speculative typology. Scripture does NOT say that Cain's sacrifice was not proper because it was not an animal.

It is VERY easy to read one's suppositions, based on later knowledge, into a situation. Given a 6,000 yo account, this will happen to even the most scrupolous person. It leads to UNINTENTIONALLY adding to God's word.

JR

cubanito

15th August 2007, 01:58 PM

Interesting topic!

I think that when Paul discussed Adam and Eve he was illustrating how Satan attacks by using our natures against us. He knew that the best way to cause Adam to fall would be to use Eve to get to him. Women may be more easily deceived, whereas man is perhaps more easily swayed by the charms of a woman. Neither Adam nor Eve is solely to blame for the fall. Both participated, just in different ways.

God has given man and woman different natures, designed for His glory, and I believe also to show us little glimpses of His divine nature (ie. the submission & headship relationship). But if we ignore what Scripture tells us about how to conduct ourselves we stray from glorifying Him, and we miss out on the opportunity to know Him more intimately. We deny the very purpose for the natures He gave us.

And I do agree that Paul's words on the issue of women in church were very liberating and do point to clear equality of men and women. But we are designed to fulfill different roles in life. Women were not created for the purpose of being authority in the church. Period. It's not that women are inferior, it's simply that we were designed for other purposes.

Agreed, and it warms the heart to see a woman in today's culture recognize the inherent weakness of her own gender. Neither men nor women are "superior." Each has strengths and weaknesses, though all are puny before God, or even wangels. A woman is better at "manipulating" people (I use the term only in it's positive sense), it is precisely that strength at interpersonal sensitivity that makes it easier to deceive her.

Men focus more readily on facts than on people, so they are more difficult to deceive directly. However, men are more easily brought to open rebellion, especially at the provocation of a woman.

BOTH genders sinned at the fall, but only Adam's sin was wilful, open rebellion. Only his sin caused the Fall. Eve was deceived.

JR

Hentenza

15th August 2007, 02:01 PM

Well guys, maybe my mind just works differently but here are my thoughts. I never claimed to be sane.:cool:

Genesis 3:2-7
2 The woman said to the serpent, "We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden, 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.' " 4 "You will not surely die," the serpent said to the woman. 5 "For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil."
6 When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it. 7 Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves.

These verses seem to point to a sequence of events in the order presented. Verse 6 implies that Adam was with Eve though this sequence. In other words, Adam was present at the time of the deception. If that is the case then:
1. Adam did not correct Eve regarding her comment about touching the tree of life.
2. Adam did not correct Eve regarding the deception by the serpent.
3. Adam did not correct Eve regarding eating the fruit.

To me this implies that both were deceived at the same time and are both equally guilty of disobedience.

I will now hear your comments. Keep flames to a minimum please.^_^^_^:P

cubanito

15th August 2007, 04:14 PM

My dear, lovely, fireproofed Henteza, whom I love as any man would love another here at my office in South Miami Beach. Can i please state categorically you are wrong wo offending you? Have we fundys yet the capacity to argue forcefully w one another wo taking it personally? Or do we also join the "Chuch of the namby pamby?"

I don't know Hebrew. I've heard it said that some Hebrew scholars find in the grammar used that there is a strong suggestion that Adam was right there standing next to eve. They get this becuase of the tense of Eve giving Adam to eat of the fruit as being an immediate occurence. However, as I do not know Hebrew, and I do not think this is a proven fact, I prefered to leave it out of my argument. So on this we agree, and I thank u for bringing it up.

Now, as both being deceived at the same time. My dear lovely Henteza, as best I can be agreeable while disagreeing: No, you are plainly wrong. Paul makes it clear there was a difference in the manner of how Eve "deceived, came to be in sin" and Adam who knowingly chose to listen to Eve rather than God.

Additionally, if indeed Adam was standing right next to Eve during her temptation, then Adam's sin is clearly the greater by your own list. Adam was supposed to protect his wife. Adam was the one receiving this commandment directly from God, a commandment that did not explicitly say that Eve was not allowed to eat of the fruit.

Yes, read Gen 3:16 again. God commanded the man, BEFORE Eve's fashioning, not to eat of the tree. Suppose all u want, but nowhere do we actually read that this command applied to Eve, except by implication and extention. One could say that since she was one of Adam's ribs, well then, a command to Adam was a command to Eve. But that is very indirect and requires a level of sophistication that only we, who know the difference between Good and evil can make (at least in part, I do not say we have Omniscience, but that we are more crafty than Adam or Eve).

Fact is, nowhere is it written that Eve was told not to eat of this tree by God. Now, she got that idea from somewhere. Maybe she was told by God later. Maybe Adam decided to extend the command to her. If Adam decided on his own to extend the command of God to Eve, and even to add to it the "do not touch" part, he had every right to do so. Eve was part of him, made subordinate to him as a helper, and he was in charge of protection. There would have been no sin in Adam commanding Eve.

If Adam was standing right next to Eve, he tacitly approved of Eve violating Adam's command to Eve, BUT there is no record of God directly giving Eve the same command.

My point is that Eve's sin was NOT the same as Adam's. For "the serpent deceived Eve." (2Cor 11:3) while "Adam was NOT deceived, but the woman being deceived has come to be in transgression." (1Ti 2:13).

Notice the phraseology there on Eve's "sin", it is rather odd. It doe not say that Eve directly sinned, but that "the woman being beguiled hath fallen into transgression. (ASV, RV)
14And it was not Adam who was deceived, but (Y (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=61&chapter=2&version=49#cen-NASB-29731Y))the woman being deceived, fell into transgression. (NASB)

14And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.(KJV)

Notice all these translations, how they skirt around saying directly that she actively, directly, rebelliously sinned.

Whatever went on, it is clear that 1-Adam's sin was different than Eve's 2- that is was Adam's sin that caused the fall

What would have happened had Adam refused the fruit? What if is a dangerous game, and I won't play this one. I prefer to stick to my Scriptures, and not add to them what is not there.

Adam caused the fall, with help from Eve MAYBE, but it was Adam's fault. That is remarkably different than all other myths of the area explaining how evil came into the world, which generally blamed women.

JR

cubanito

15th August 2007, 05:35 PM

You stop the analogy too soon. Yeah, the added part of not touching may just be an honest mistake, but what if that clerk then SOLD the item? The clerk knows that's not allowed, and you can't "accidentally" sell it.

Now, wait a minute.

It may be our HONEST view that Eve sinned. If she didn't, perhaps we were deceived in being taught this.

Yet, you claim us to be guilty of bearing false witness.

The situations are, for all intents and purposes, identical. How are we guilty, yet Eve was not?

"Fuzzy"??

"And Adam was not deceived, but the woman, because she was fully deceived, fell into transgression." - 1Tim.2:14.

You can't "fall into sin" and not sin.

Eve was still cursed - do you really think God would curse her if she were innocent?

OK first the apology, again. It was wrong of me to acuse anyone, even though I meant it lightly and half in jest, of bearing false witness against Eve. Sometimes my writing mix of humor, logic and indivdual rhapsody gets confusing. I should keep my emotions in better check, and sincerely, y'all have my apologies.

Second, you are correct that I cut off the analogy too quickly. But the whole analogy is off on a more fundamental reason. Call the store owner J and the supervisor A. J said to A: "A, you may not sell the FDI." Now, perhaps A assumed that meant no one could sell the FDI, but that is not what J said. Only that A could not sell it, leaving it unspecified as to what a clerk could do. Thus, the clerk was guilty of violating what she understood, but if A gave the clerk misinformation, then the clerk was in fact only guilty of violating what A had said. If A was standing right next to her in tacit approval then the clerk might have been confused.

But scrap the whole analogy. It is purely my invention.

The fact is that it is nowhere recorded that God commanded Eve, even through Adam. Gen 2:17 says the man was commanded not to eat of it. It does not say "neither you nor any of your ribs" may eat of it. What God intended of Eve we are left to speculate, maybe God did tell Eve later on. Maybe God considered any rib of Adam to be Adam, and thus to fall under the same command. Maybe, maybe, maybe....and that is my point, one should not accuse on the basis of maybe.

All we know FOR SURE is that 1- Eve violated what she THOUGHT was God's command 2-Someone added the "do not touch part" 3-The sin of Adam and Eve were of different orders, for the woman was "deceived", "beguiled" whereas the man wilfully disobedient. 4- For through one MAN came the Fall, not one couple.

Why is this important? Well, supose one says that through one couple sin came into the world. Well then, following Paul, there'd have to be a sinless couple to redeem the world....co-redemptrix Immaculate conception anyone?

Now as to God not punishing the innocent. I never claimed Eve was totally innocent, rather that her sin was not of open rebellion, and I can go no further than the curious terminology that Paul uses to describe it. to build a monumental case on such a single verse is, well, shaky. However, I can add to this that during the curses, God never actually blames Eve. He blames then curses both the serpent and Adam. But He only curses Eve, no blame openly assigned.

Does God punish the innocent? Well, the whole ground was cursed because of Adam. Did the tigers sin? Did the bushes sin so that God have them grow thorns? Did the minerals of the Earth sin that they may now conspire to erupt out of volcanoes and produce dust bowls?

No, and yet animals feel the pain of creation gone wrong, suffering a sin they clearly could not commit. I grant you minerals do not feel, and probably neither bushes; but are you going to tell me animals can't suffer? And I do NOT want to open the can of worms re sin and suffering inside human wombs!

I have no "neat and complete" answer to "the problem of pain." Yet clearly we see that "all of creation groans" under the curse brought upon it by Adam. God is God, He does as He pleases and because He is the DEFINITION of Good, whatever He does IS Good. We are on VERY shaky grounds applying our human conscience and culturally conditioned morality to judge Him!!

That God cursed Eve has no bearing on wether she sinned or not. She was cursed right along with all creation under Adam, BECAUSE of Adam.

Now, did Eve sin? yes, I think she did, but in a rather odd way. I will go no further than paul's curious term that she "fell into transgression."

Legally speaking, the Fall is the fault of Adam alone. Thus it was a single man, the second Adam, that could redeem the world.

Assign the Fall to Eve in any way, and you invalidate Paul's argument, and open the door for such titles as the Co-Redemptrix, Queen of Heaven, the Immaculate, Ascended, Everlasting Virgin Mother of God, the Church and all such titles to be applied to a simple Jewish teenager who, if we were kind to her, would let her rest in peace and stop asking her to pray for us "now and in the hour of our death."

No, Eve was not at fault for the Fall, neither could any of her gender redeem us in any way....yet, because she did contribute in some way to the fall (everything is always more complicated with women) then her gender, and her gender alone, would provide after countless generations of suffering the birth of sons, the uncursed seed which would then be the Redeemer of all, even her. Since Eve stood there defenseless in front of the snake, someday her seed, and her seed alone, should crush the head of that deceiving snake, for Adam having failed his duty to protect, God would literally come out of the woman's womb unaided to defend her, and in fact all of us.

The Bible is like the ocean, where children may safely play on the shores, but whose depths swallows entire generations of commentaries by the greatest minds, without even a ripple on the surface. Praise be to God!

JR

Hentenza

15th August 2007, 06:24 PM

cubanito

15th August 2007, 07:03 PM

Dr Adler is pleased w my progress.

Like a lot of what I type, it may or may not be true, but I try to stick to what Scripture says. If I honestly, respectfully, soberly and after reflection think that truly greater men than me, like Calvin and Mathew Henry are not in line with Scripture, well, I will go w my best understanding until someone can convince me I'm wrong.

Coming here, and in my men's group, to argue passionately even to the point of unintentionally offending, is my way of trying to keep my "heretical score" down to a manageable level. It is also loads of fun.

JR

HypnoToad

15th August 2007, 08:40 PM

I never claimed Eve was totally innocentThere's your problem right there.

Your OP, the very title of the thread is "NOT GUILTY".

If she's not "totally innocent", then she is guilty. You can't be "sort of" guilty. It's like being "sort of" pregnant - you either are or are not. You can't "sort of" sin - you either did or did not. And Scripture is clear, if you break one, you are guilty of all. So, a "little, almost" sin is equally damning as any other sin. Therefore, Eve must be equally guilty.

DeaconDean

16th August 2007, 01:07 AM

I will shortly accuse Matthew Henry of adding to the Scriptures. When I do so, it is not that I am a better man, but rather that it does not matter who is the better man, but only what the Scriptures say as each one of us understands it. I mean no offense to y'all, really, and I apologize if any taken.

I do believe you are worng. If you will take the time to re-read the commentary Matthew Henry provides, and the next one I will provide, they both say the same thing. So it isn't MH adding to scriptures.

Nowhere in Scripture does it say where Eve got the idea the tree was not to be touched. It may have been her own invention, or Adam may have added it and Eve misunderstood it as coming from God.

To say that Eve added to the word of God is in fact to add to finalized Scripture. Thus, while I greatly respect the work of Matthew Henry, in this instance it is he who adds to Scripture. It is likely that just as Eve added to the command of god by misunderstanding, that Henry also did not think through clearly this passage of Scripture and thus, inadvertantly, falsely accuses Eve.

Whether Adam or Eve added the "do not touch" part is not made clear in Scripture. If it was Adam, he was within his rights to do so, but should have made it clear (did he?) that it was his own added command, and not God's.

As to "being ashamed to raise false witness against our grandmammy", I regret writing that. It was meant as a joke, but I can certainly see it being taken offensively.

Here, let me quote John Gill:

Genesis 3:2

Ver. 2. And the woman said unto the serpent,.... Or to him that spoke in the serpent, which she might take to be a messenger from heaven, a holy angel: had she known who it was, she might be chargeable with imprudence in giving an answer, and carrying on a conversation with him; and yet even supposing this, she might have a good design in her answer; partly to set the matter in a true light, and assert what was truth; and partly to set forth the goodness and liberality of God, in the large provision he had made, and the generous grant he had given them: from this discourse of Eve and the serpent, no doubt Plato {g} had his notion of the first men discoursing with beasts:

we may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden; of all and every one of them, which is to be understood, excepting the one after mentioned; so far are we from being debarred from eating of any, which the speech of the Serpent might imply, that they were allowed to eat of what they pleased, but one.

{g} In Politico, ut supra, (apud Euseb. Praepar. Evangel. l. 12.) c. 14.

Genesis 3:3

Ver. 3. But of the fruit of the tree, which is in the midst of the garden,.... This tree stood near the tree of life, as is highly probable, since that is described in the same situation, Ge 2:9 she does not give it any name, which perhaps was not as yet given it; or she was not acquainted with it, its name in the preceding chapter being given by anticipation; and most likely it is, it had its name from the event, and as yet was without one:

God hath said, ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die: here the woman is charged by some both with adding to, and taking from the law of God; and if so, must have sinned very heinously before she eat of the fruit; but neither of them are sufficiently proved; not the former by her saying, "neither shall ye touch it", which though not expressed in the prohibition, is implied, namely, such a touching the fruit as to pluck it off the tree, take it in the hand, and put it to the mouth, in order to eat it: nor the latter by these words, "lest ye die", or "lest perhaps ye die" {h}; as if it was a matter of doubt, when it was most strongly assured; for the word used is not always to be understood of doubting, but of the event of a thing; see Ps 2:12 and may be rendered, "that ye die not" {i}; which would certainly be the case, should they pluck the fruit and eat of it.

{h} Np "ne forte", V. L. Tigurine version, Fagius. {i} ina mh apoyanhte, Sept.

http://www.freegrace.net/gill/

Neither is there a record of WHY Cain's sacrifice was not acceptable to God. You read in later commands about blood sacrifice back into this incident, and thus, inadvertantly add to Scripture.

Perhaps Cain's heart was grudging, perhaps he selected from among the half rotten grain or fruit (Scripture mentions Abel selecting from the first of his flocks, and gives no statement as to Cain's selection process). Perhaps it was simply the Sovereign Inscrutable decision of God to accept Able, and not Cain. We do not know.

So, you see, much of what we THINK we know, we really only assume. Later, when the Mosaic code was instituted, there were sacrifices of both animals and crops. I will concede there is probably typology involved, as well as in God providing animal skins for covering instead of man made leafs, BUT this is speculative typology. Scripture does NOT say that Cain's sacrifice was not proper because it was not an animal.

It is VERY easy to read one's suppositions, based on later knowledge, into a situation. Given a 6,000 yo account, this will happen to even the most scrupolous person. It leads to UNINTENTIONALLY adding to God's word.

JR

As far as Cain was concerned, John Gill also comments:

"Genesis 4:4

Ver. 4. And Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of his flock,.... As he was a shepherd, his flock consisted of sheep; and of the firstlings of these, the lambs that were first brought forth, he presented as an offering to the Lord; and which were afterwards frequently used in sacrifice, and were a proper type of Christ, Jehovah's firstborn, the Lamb of God that takes away the sin of the world, a Lamb without spot and blemish; fitly signified by one for his innocence, harmlessness, and meekness:

and of the fat thereof; which is to be understood either of the fat properly, which in later time was claimed by the Lord as his own, Le 3:16 or of the fattest of his flock, the best lambs he had; the fattest and plumpest, and which were most free from defects and blemishes; not the torn, nor lame, nor sick, but that which was perfect and without spot; for God is to be served with the best we have. Josephus {f} says it was milk, and the firstlings of his flock; and a word of the same letters, differently pointed, signifies milk; and some learned men, as Grotius and others, have given into this sense, observing it to be a custom with the Egyptians to sacrifice milk to their gods: but the word, as here pointed, is never used for milk; nor were such sacrifices ever used by the people of God; and Abel's sacrifice is called by the apostle yusik, a "slain" sacrifice, as Heidegger {g} observes:

and the Lord had respect to Abel, and to his offering; as being what he had designed and appointed to be used for sacrifice in future time, and as being a suitable type and emblem of the Messiah, and his sacrifice; and especially as being offered up by faith, in a view to the sacrifice of Christ, which is of a sweet smelling savour to God, and by which sin only is atoned and satisfied for, see Heb 11:4. God looked at his sacrifice with a smiling countenance, took, and expressed delight, well pleasedness, and satisfaction in it; and he first accepted of his person, as considered in Christ his well beloved Son, and then his offering in virtue of his sacrifice: and this respect and acceptance might be signified by some visible sign or token, and particularly by the descent of fire from heaven upon it, as was the token of acceptance in later times, Le 9:24 and Theodotion here renders it, he "fired" it, or "set" it on "fire"; and Jarchi paraphrases it,

"fire descended and licked up his offering;''

and Aben Ezra,

"and fire descended and reduced the offering of Abel to ashes;''

so Abraham Seba {h}.

{f} Antiqu. l. 1. c. 2. sect. 1. {g} Hist. Patriarch. Exercit. 5. sect. 20. {h} In Tzeror Hammor, fol. 8. 2.

Genesis 4:5

Ver. 5. But unto Cain and to his offering he had not respect,.... Not because of the matter of it, as some have thought; but because it was not offered in faith and sincerity, but in a formal and hypocritical manner, without any regard to the Messiah and his sacrifice, and without any view to the glory of God: no notice was taken, no approbation was given of it by the above token, or any other; so that it was manifest to Cain himself, that God did not approve of it, or was well pleased with it, as with his brother's:

and Cain was very wroth; with God, to whom he offered it, because he did not accept of it, and with his brother, because he and his sacrifice were preferred to him and his:

and his countenance fell; the briskness and cheerfulness of his countenance went off, and he looked dejected; and instead of lifting up his face towards heaven; he looked with a down look to the earth; he looked churlish, morose, and sullen, ill natured, full of malice and revenge, and as if he was studying which way to vent it; he knit his brows and gnashed his teeth, put on a surly countenance; and there might be seen in his face all the signs, not only of grief and disappointment, but of rage and fury; though {i} some interpret it of shame and confusion.

{i} R. Jonah apud R. Sol. Urbin. Ohel Moed, fol. 9. p. 2.

http://www.freegrace.net/gill/

If people will just do a little digging, they will find great things out there.

And I am forced to agree with XianJedi.

Your OP, the very title of the thread is "NOT GUILTY".

If she's not "totally innocent", then she is guilty. You can't be "sort of" guilty. It's like being "sort of" pregnant - you either are or are not. You can't "sort of" sin - you either did or did not. And Scripture is clear, if you break one, you are guilty of all. So, a "little, almost" sin is equally damning as any other sin. Therefore, Eve must be equally guilty.

And I did agree with you that Eve did not cause sin to enter the world. That happened because of Adam's wilfull disobedience. But Eve wasn't innocent either. She was guilty of several sins. And in the end, it doesn't matter whether or not God told her of the command not to eat of the tree, she knew of it because she said so to the serpent. After she disobeyed, she sinned, period. She knew not to eat, and yet she did. Then she refused to accept the blame. So XianJedi is correct. Eve sinned and therefore was guilty.

And that is what we have been trying to prove to you.

Oh well, I'm outta here.

God Bless

Till all are one.

cubanito

16th August 2007, 05:20 PM

Thank you for returning, DeaconDean.

I take no offense at being told I am wrong. Rather, it is a much better thing to read than something like, "I feel..." or "You just don't get it." On this you are hot, I am cold (or the other way around if it please thee) bu8t neither of us is lukewarm. An this is what I want: honest debate without undue worry about your feelings or mine.

Now, I think it is you, and Henry, and Gill, and the overwhelming majority of commentaries and great men of God that have been wrong. That this opinion of mine seems to be shared by no one else causes me no distress at all. That is after all the hallmarlk of a fundy. He stands there pounding on the Scriptures oblivious to all the traditions, commentaries, learned opinions, titles and numbers of those opposed to what he honestly thinks. He keeps his mind open only to what argument can be brought from Scripture. If Gill, Henry, the "Pope" or the janitor makes a reasonable observation from Scripture, the fundy should concede. If not, no matter how many "great men" you quote, it is irrelevant.

Henry, Gil whomever may say what they please, but Scripture NOWHERE records Eve receiving this command from God. Scripture is altogether silent on how the "do not touch" got added, or as you note, the decreased in tensity of punishment from "dying you shall die" to "lest you die" occured.

You can blame Eve for it, but to do so YOU ADD TO SCRIPTURE, and are GUILTY of the sin you accuse Eve of! Very bad form indeed...

The OP did not say Eve was innocent, rather that she (women) was not guilty of the fall. I am glad you have finally accepted the plain Scriptural fact that it was because of Adam, and Adam alone, that sin entered the world. It was because of Adam, and Adam alone, that the GROUND was cursed. This is essential, for if Eve had any judicial part in bringing the Fall, then according to Paul's argument, a woman would also need be co-Redemptrix.

I never said Eve was guilteless. She was guilty of violating what she THOUGHT God had said, and perhaps even more. It is POSSIBLE that God did communicate this command to her directly and this is not recorded. But one does not judge someone on the basis of possible.

Now, it has been posted here that one is either guilty or not. Wether that is true or not I am not sure. In man's jurisdiction there are degrees of guilt. If you accidentally run over someone with a car, you are guilty of manslaughter, perhaps more, but not homicide 1. But these are man's laws, again, what does the Scripture say? Not what does Henry, or Gil, or Calvin or whomever, what does Scripture say?

1- In Genesis God blames then curses the snake. He also blames then curses the ground for Adam's sake and at least indirectly curses Adam with fruitless toil. But Eve He never blames. He curses Eve, but He never directly blames her. Read Gen 3:16 up and down, nowhere is Eve blamed by God.

2- Paul has a curious way of ascribing sin to Eve. You can claim that no one just "falls into sin" all you want, but, according to Paul, this is exactly what happened to Eve. Now I read no Greek, but every translation I check has similar phrasing. I do NOT claim to fully understand what all went on there, but it is clear her "falling into sin" was of a different cause and action than Adam's. As I say everything seems to be more complicated with women. Really, I am not surprised that even in this first act of Eve I can't quite make out what happened. But there are the Scriptures, with that curious turn of a phrase...

We can agree to disagree. You can post all the commentaries you want, but you will only convince me if you can show me from Scripture where I am wrong.

Until then I continue saying that given the attitude towards women both among the Jews and in all surrounding cultures, it is AMAZING that the Bible does not blame Eve for the Fall.

JR

cubanito

16th August 2007, 05:38 PM

And yes, a woman can in fact be "a little bit pregnant;" but I do understand your point. God's standard is Perfect, the slightest deviation misses the mark and is therefore 100% sin. However, there is that curious way in which sin is ascribed to Eve by Paul, a man very careful in his choice of words.

Something I struggle with is the question of "is all sin equally evil?" Logic tells me that yes, the slightest deviation in god's eye is intolerable. Yet something is not quite right there, and we all know it. The Scriptures certainly seem to rank some sins as worse than others, such as "causing one of these little ones to stumble." I do not know the answer to this, and it's off topic to dwell on it.

The point is, something odd occurs with Eve's sinfulness here, something that is not clearly and at length dissected in Scripture. Given these Scriptural "hints,"
I think the safest thing is not to judge Eve so harshly. In any case, you've already admitted the main point: the Fall was not caused by Eve, and the faul is laid squarely on Adam's shoulder.

As to Cain's sacrifice, your post seems to indicate that it was not what was offered, "as some have thought, but because it was not offered in faith and sincerity." Well, you asked:

"Explain to me sir, who taught Abel that the only "acceptable" sacrifice to God was a blood sacrifice?

There is no record of that in the scriptures.

Then you post a commentary that contradicts the idea that the acceptableness of the sacrifice rested on it being of blood. Now, please excuse the offense, but did you even read what you posted? Because it goes againt your point completely!

Look, I think in saying that Cain's sacrifice was unacceptable was due to "lack of sincerity" or whatever else is ALSO adding to Scripture. We are simply not told WHY God had "no regard" for the sacrifice of Cain, and the only hint is that Abel took from "the first" (the best?) of his flock. We just can not say for sure.

Commentaries time and again add to Scripture. It would be far better to simply admit that on this or that there is simply no clear Scripture. This is one reason I do enjoy Calvin. Time and again he interrupts the train of thought to clearly state that this or that opinion is merely one of his own PREFERENCE, but has no definitive Scriptural backing. Would so many others have had the willingness to admit this! Now there are times, many times, when Calvin does not do this, and exegetes a passage far beyond Scriptural bounds. In fact, there are times that Calvin is so annoyed with Scriptures unwillingness to fit into his box that he plainly says the written Word of Scripture is wrong! Even so, I prefer this, to blame the text or suggest somebody copied it wrong than to IGNORE the text and build an entire fantasy world from thin air.

I am NOT impressed by most commentaries.

I AM impressed by Scripture.

JR

DeaconDean

18th August 2007, 11:31 PM

cubanito, as a once Sunday school teacher, Sunday school director, and as a student of seminary, I must say, yes scriptures are what is required. But you show me one minister, one Sunday school teacher, one seminary professor who has not turned to commentaries, theologies, articles, essays, or works of some other type to clairfy the Word of God.

But since you are showing a clear cut refusal of commentaries and other material, it behoves us to discuss anything further.

Therefore, I will remove myself from any further theological discussions with you. You have your opinons and I have mine.

I'm outta here.

God Bless

Till all are one.