Adam was not deceived but chose to eat of the forbidden tree. Why?

[A-Sword-Cometh]

Canaanites are descended from Ham, there's no relation to Cain there.

Well it might not just be the Canaanites that are related to Cain if Naamah is Noah's wife.

 

[Mem]

Well it might not just be the Canaanites that are related to Cain if Naamah is Noah's wife.

If she isn't actually Emzara...the earliest known name given to Noah's wife found in the book of Jubilees (160 BCE) and attested in 2nd temple writings found in the Dead Sea Scrolls, including the text known as the Genesis Apocryphon. It isn't until much later in the Genesis Rabbah (300-500 CE), containing rabbinical interpretations of Genesis is there found commentary of her name being Naamah, the sister of Tubal-Cain, and later midrash, the Book of Jasher, states that she is Naamah, the daughter of Enoch.

Noting the "Em" in Emzara, I like this viewpoint, seeing she is a sort of repeat of Eve, em is Hebrew for mother, and zara, is reminiscent of Sarah.

 

[A-Sword-Cometh]

If she isn't actually Emzara...the earliest known name given to Noah's wife found in the book of Jubilees (160 BCE) and attested in 2nd temple writings found in the Dead Sea Scrolls, including the text known as the Genesis Apocryphon. It isn't until much later in the Genesis Rabbah (300-500 CE), containing rabbinical interpretations of Genesis is there found commentary of her name being Naamah

That heretical book is not in the Bible so it doesn't count.

 

[Mem]

That heretical book is not in the Bible so it doesn't count.

Ok then, from which book does your speculation come?

 

[A-Sword-Cometh]

Ok then, from which book does your speculation come?

Genesis 4 and Genesis 5. Adam and Eve had many sons and daughters, but of all the pre-flood races we're only given two. Cain's race ending in a woman which is pretty unusual for a genealogy. Then Seth's race ending in Noah. These are the only races we know about before the Flood. After the Flood all races existent in our time come from the Three Sons of Noah and his wife.

 

[posthuman]

That "Adam saw that nothing happened to Eve" is a pretty straight forward explanation of why Adam ate the fruit, but my attempt is in factoring in that he was not deceived into equation and how that might affect the conclusion. For example, Eve saw the fruit was good for food, and desirable for gaining wisdom. Do you think that Adam agreed with her perspective? Or did he know it was "not good" or even evil? Was the tree actually 'not good' or was it only eating of (the fruit of) it that was not good?

IOW, Were they each inherently endowed with the gift of discernment, provided with a choice, and simply chose wrongly? If so, then she eating being deceived evidences some sort of ignorance or something or other, and his choice evidences an apparent rejection of a truth that he 'knew was right,' or at the least an acceptance of a lie that he knew was wrong.

Eve believed a lie, so it follows to assume that she was deceived into choosing the lie, given that scripture is explicit in stating that she was deceived. So I guess I'm wondering what factored into her choice as much as I wonder that Adam was not deceived and what he (choose to) believe as much as why.

knowing Eve is deceived, it isn't a big leap to presume the fruit was actually not good for food and undesirable for attaining wisdom.
it would stand to reason that Adam, undeceived, didn't share that opinion -- such that he knowingly took 'poison' and did 'foolishness'

why would he do that?
an explanation is that he did see what happened to his wife - at least heard it from her: because God said he 'listened to her voice' when He judged Adam. so she says something to him - and what she said wasn't deception; otherwise we're run aground of what's written in Timothy again, because he didn't 'refuse to listen to her' as we would expect if she was trying in kind to deceive him with her.

so what does she say to him?
help me?
don't leave me alone?
isn't that the sort of thing we would say to our spouse if we had eaten poison and knew we were dying?
that, or something similar, would explain Adam's conundrum & ultimate choice, if it's the case. leaving his Father to cling to his wife.

 

[Mem]

Genesis 4 and Genesis 5. Adam and Eve had many sons and daughters, but of all the pre-flood races we're only given two. Cain's race ending in a woman which is pretty unusual for a genealogy. Then Seth's race ending in Noah. These are the only races we know about before the Flood. After the Flood all races existent in our time come from the Three Sons of Noah and his wife.

It would have to be assumed that it was Naamah if a core doctrine pivots on the continuation of Cain's bloodline. And there is one that does do that so, it's no surprise that many do.

But it is my view that, since the account of Cain's genealogy does stop at Naamah, it is likely that she perished in the deluge, and then is revived to accommodate the angel baby daddy hypothesis even though there was no need to because there is the hint of the error of man continuing even after the flood as soon as the ground was dry enough to walk upon again. I was made aware of a very interesting details of Noah's and his son's righteous? boarding of the Ark with their wives and the 'falling back' into the 'common' reverting to 'old habits' of disobeying God's instructions in their disembarking of the Ark.

 

[Mem]

knowing Eve is deceived, it isn't a big leap to presume the fruit was actually not good for food and undesirable for attaining wisdom.
it would stand to reason that Adam, undeceived, didn't share that opinion -- such that he knowingly took 'poison' and did 'foolishness'

why would he do that?
an explanation is that he did see what happened to his wife - at least heard it from her: because God said he 'listened to her voice' when He judged Adam. so she says something to him - and what she said wasn't deception; otherwise we're run aground of what's written in Timothy again, because he didn't 'refuse to listen to her' as we would expect if she was trying in kind to deceive him with her.

so what does she say to him?
help me?
don't leave me alone?
isn't that the sort of thing we would say to our spouse if we had eaten poison and knew we were dying?
that, or something similar, would explain Adam's conundrum & ultimate choice, if it's the case. leaving his Father to cling to his wife.

Scripture tells us the reason a man leaves his father and mother to cling to his wife, to become one, as God created them and called them 'man.'
We speak even when not using our gift of speech. For example, an infant 'speaks' to me by gestures, expressions, whimpers, giggles, etc. so I'm not sure it should be assumed that Eve actually used "her voice" to speak actually words. At any rate, I think it would be good that we should pay more attention to one another's representative communication in general, but that may be beside the point. Even so if we must assume that she used speech to communicate her sentiment, i.e. a thought, view, or attitude, especially one based on emotion instead of reason: synonym: view (Wordnik; emphasis mine), it is given in scripture that she 'saw' that it was good for food and desirable to make one wise..." so I confine what she might have expressed as her view to that know of what she "saw."