Eve did not sin by eating of the tree.

[Waden21]

1.) Because of Adam’s “Choice” Every man starts out spiritually dead.

2.) Eve was not Created when Adam was given the command not to eat. Gen 2:16-17, Gen. 2:21-23

3.) God says three times the command was only for Adam (Singular) not Adam and Eve. Gen 2:16-17, Gen 3:11, Gen 3:17

4.) Eve got God’s command wrong. She adds, “Nor touch it.”. Gen. 3:3

5.) Nothing happened when Eve ate. Gen. 3:6 (Satan’s statement in Gen 3:4 was not a lie. The statement about her knowing good and evil on the day she ate of it, was. It was Adam’s eating that resulted in them both gaining the knowledge of good and evil.) There is a time laps between her eating and Adam’s eating. When He ate, “Both” of their eyes were opened. Gen 3:7

6.) When God questions Eve, the question “What is this that you have done?”, it refers to Adam’s statement, made just prior, that Eve had given him the fruit. God never asks anyone whether Eve ate the fruit as well. Eve “believed”, due to receiving incorrect information about God’s command, God’s question referred to her eating, but that was not the case. Gen. 3:12-13

7.) Eve’s consequences were for failing in the role for which she was created: To be a helper suitable for him. Gen. 2:18, 1Co. 11:7 And she didn’t fail in that role till the moment she got Adam to eat from the fruit of the tree. At that moment, her eyes were opened as well.

8.) God’s word says, “Through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, so death spread to all men.”. Rom. 5:12 If Eve’s eating was a sin, it would have to say, “Through one woman sin entered into the world.”.

I’m new to this however in my personal research I have found that most of it is told in parables I know at first this is hard to grasp but Yeshua said it him self those with God will understand and those without will not. That being said two more very important statements. Don’t be led astray false prophets and false doctrine. Also psalms chapter 2 verse four. One other thing is we will be judged by knowledge and fruits

 

[Waden21]

In the original scriptures before Greek influence
It wasn’t even an apple the word was fruit ( scholars think fig tree)
My point is if we don’t have the smallest fact correct how can we start to understand.
Plant a seed
Psalms 2:4

 

[EmethAlethia]

What do you think transgression is!? lol

All Adultery is fornication. Fornication is not ONLY Adultery, but homosexuality, premarital sex, ... That's why they are different words. All transgression is not sin. All sin is a transgression. There is a reason why it doesn't say sin. It's because that does not fit what happened as well as transgression does.

One is an exceedingly narrow word. Sin. Violation. Missing the Mark. An archery term. You missed the bullseye. The other is a lesser thing. eve was deceived (By her husband, not the serpent.) because of his deception she fell not into sin, but a transgression. The transgression wasn't disobedience to a command God says three times was only for Adam, and that her husband didn't even tell her the truth of.

Her transgression was violating the very purpose for which she was created in the first place. The role of helper and to be the glory of her husband. It's not a sin because it wasn't "commanded" like God's command to Adam before she was created, but it was a transgression of her very purpose for her existence all the same. Does that make sense?

You can't "sin" against a command that was never given to you in the first place, right?

 

[EmethAlethia]

Their eyes were opened, knowing good and evil. They were warned not to transgress! They could’ve lived forever (immortal), then they became mortal; death eventually occurred.

Again, "THEY" weren't warned. Adam was "warned"/"Commanded" not to eat. Eve wasn't there. Not her command. Nothing for her to obey or disobey. (Other than to be fruitful and multiply and get the world under subjection) God says three times this command was ONLY for Adam ALONE. Adam sinned. Eve transgressed.

She didn't sin because God didn't give her a command not to eat. Eve never sinned by eating. No violation of a command of God. She transgressed by violating her entire reason for her existence: To be a helper suitable and to be the glory of the man. One sin: Adam's. One transgression: Eve's. Although sin is also a transgression all "transgressions" are not sins. Adam sinned. Eve was in transgression. Different words. Different meanings. "Through one man Eve, sin entered into the world." doesn't seem an accurate quote to me. Everything is "Adam's sin" there is no focus in the word of God on "Eve's transgression".

 

[EmethAlethia]

How do you think it was instantaneous? What you said isn’t even logical, according to Scripture.

There were no kids when God took them out of the garden, or when they were hiding from God in the garden. It just means they went from immortality to being mortal (death occurred later, outside of the garden). Read people!

The problem is, that at the moment of Adam's sin, and Eve's transgression, a sacrifice was required so God didn't kill them. Thus the substitution of leaves for skins Gen. 3:21 The "Death" referred to, at the moment of the sin / transgression, is spiritual death, and it occurred the moment of Adam's sin/Eve's transgression.

 

[Dino246]

My point is if we don’t have the smallest fact correct how can we start to understand.

Proverbs 3:5. Understanding is not based in knowledge.

If we cannot begin to understand until we have all the facts, we will never understand. Learning is progressive and additive.

 

[Waden21]

Proverbs 3:5. Understanding is not based in knowledge.

If we cannot begin to understand until we have all the facts, we will never understand. Learning is progressive and additive.

Ok it says search for it like mining
Hard work
This verse forms part of a larger conditional statement (Proverbs 2:1-5). It suggests that if you make the eager, persistent pursuit of wisdom and understanding your priority, you will ultimately "understand the fear of the Lord and find the knowledge of God" (Proverbs 2:5)

 

[EmethAlethia]

This seems like the OP's pet project...

His reasoning completely disregards Adam's responsibility toward Woman. Woman knew the command because Adam taught her.

Explain why God gave BOTH Adam and Eve the commands to be fruitful and multiply, and to get the earth under subjection, and then gave Adam ALONE a command not to eat of the tree, and then 2 additional times repeats that that command was ONLY for Him?

Gen. 3:11 "Have YOU(Singular) eaten of the tree I commanded YOU(Singular) not to eat of."

Gen. 3:17 "Because YOU(Singular) have listened to the voice of your wife, and have eaten from the tree about which I commanded YOU(Singular), saying, 'YOU(Singular) shall not eat from it'; Cursed is the ground because of YOU(Singular); In toil YOU(Singular) shall eat of it All the days of your life."

Eve's consequences were, according to God, for her having giving the "Fruit" to Adam and getting him to eat. She thought it was for her eating, but God's response was about what Adam said she did, not about eating of the tree.

Gen 3:11 And He said, "Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten from the tree of which I commanded you not to eat?" 12 And the man said, "The woman whom Thou gavest to be with me, she gave me from the tree, and I ate." 13 Then the LORD God said to the woman, "What is this you have done?"

But as one flesh, she cold not transgress the command without consequence to Adam.

If Eve "Sinned" she would have to have violated a command of God. Obedience to her husband is a consequence of the fall that is not something she was required to do prior. Unless she was unwilling to be fruitful and multiply or to subdue the earth, she wasn't in violation of any command of God. i.e. no sin. But, she did violate the entire purpose for which God created hers, to be a helpmeet suitable and be his glory ... by getting Him to eat ... "THEN" the eyes of BOTH of them were opened. Adam's sin, and Eve's transgression at the same moment.

In fact, had Adam refused the fruit he would have been the first Redeemer: God could not have separated them without loss to Adam, and, with no sin (in this scenario), Adam would have been faultless, not deserving of punishment. Had he been faithful to God, Woman would have been restored by her connection to Adam, had she maintained it. ("the unbelieving wife has been sanctified through her believing husband").

Oh wow hermeneutical contortionism. Eve could not sin with no knowledge of good and evil, and she was given no command of God to violate but the two God gave the two of them. Her eating changed nothing, and never would have. Like I said GOD SAYS THREE TIMES THE COMMAND WAS FOR ADAM ALONE! Not her as well. Not all humanity after them. For Adam alone. God says it. Refute that and we can go from there.

This requires wisdom, not knowledge of the Hebrew language. Adam was charged with administrating his Father's commands... first to his wife. And then to his offspring. (This is the priesthood of the sons of God.) Woman knew the command because Adam taught her the command: it was his duty to her as his wife AND first offspring.

Adam taught the precepts of men as the commandments of God. God never ever even hinted that Eve got any consequences for eating because three times He says the commandment was ONLY for Adam.

 

[Dino246]

All Adultery is fornication. Fornication is not ONLY Adultery, but homosexuality, premarital sex, ... That's why they are different words. All transgression is not sin. All sin is a transgression. There is a reason why it doesn't say sin. It's because that does not fit what happened as well as transgression does.

Nice attempt, but it fails. You're trying to apply a logical principle in the wrong place. "All apples are fruit, but not all fruit are apples" is a correct application. Sin and transgression are the same thing.

You're playing semantic games with one translation and should be doing your homework with several.

The transgression wasn't disobedience to a command God says three times was only for Adam, and that her husband didn't even tell her the truth of.

Nowhere in Scripture is it stated that the command was only for Adam.

Nowhere in Scripture does it say her husband "didn't even tell her the truth of (sic)".

You're inventing things to prop up your failing position.

The truth is that Eve was obviously aware of the command, so either God told her, or Adam told her. There are no other options.

Her transgression was violating the very purpose for which she was created in the first place. The role of helper and to be the glory of her husband. It's not a sin because it wasn't "commanded" like God's command to Adam before she was created, but it was a transgression of her very purpose for her existence all the same. Does that make sense?

Wrong, and hypocritical. Above, you claim that Eve did not sin because she was not told the command. Now you say she transgressed because she violated her purpose... but Scripture holds no record of Eve being told her purpose, so how can she be guilty? Ridiculous.

Eve was deceived and fell into transgression, which is sin. She was not charged with "original sin" because she was deceived. Just accept the truth that Scripture presents and stop wasting your time arguing against it.

You can't "sin" against a command that was never given to you in the first place, right?

Wrong. God holds guilty all humans regardless of their awareness of His requirements for holiness. Romans 3:23 states that ALL have sinned.

 

[Dino246]

Explain why God gave BOTH Adam and Eve the commands to be fruitful and multiply, and to get the earth under subjection, and then gave Adam ALONE a command not to eat of the tree, and then 2 additional times repeats that that command was ONLY for Him?

Gen. 3:11 "Have YOU(Singular) eaten of the tree I commanded YOU(Singular) not to eat of."

Gen. 3:17 "Because YOU(Singular) have listened to the voice of your wife, and have eaten from the tree about which I commanded YOU(Singular), saying, 'YOU(Singular) shall not eat from it'; Cursed is the ground because of YOU(Singular); In toil YOU(Singular) shall eat of it All the days of your life."

Prove it. Prove that every use of "you" here is singular and specific. Show us your imagined Hebrew chops.

Adam taught the precepts of men as the commandments of God.

There is no biblical evidence for your assertion.

 

[Waden21]

The problem is, that at the moment of Adam's sin, and Eve's transgression, a sacrifice was required so God didn't kill them. Thus the substitution of leaves for skins Gen. 3:21 The "Death" referred to, at the moment of the sin / transgression, is spiritual death, and it occurred the moment of Adam's sin/

Wonderful. Prove me wrong. Sin entered into the world through one woman ... ok. the scriptures are wrong and you are right. Prove it.

The problem is, she ate and did not die ... later she gave to Adam. And THEN both there eyes were opened. How long was the time period in-between? Eve wasn't there. Only Adam. Three times God ONLY addresses Adam (You singular) with regards to eating the tree. Never Eve. The only time God addresses Eve it is with regards to Adam's statement: The woman that You (singular) gave to me gave to me from the tree and I ate." God turns to Eve and says "What is THIS that you have done?". "This" refers directly to the statement.

The only way for anyone to sin, apart from the knowledge of good and evil is to disobey a direct command of God. There was no command of God to Eve to obey Adam or not to eat of the tree. Prove your point.


Nope. Nothing at all happened when she ate. Not a thing. Prove your point.

God didn't command Eve ANYTHING. Adam's misrepresenting God said (Not that this isn't happening right now.) is the "deception" that occurred. If Adam had simply stated "God told me if I ever ate of the fruit of the tree I'd die." Odds are much better we'd still be in Eden. But He altered what God said, told Eve a lie, she bought it, and they, and we suffered for it.


Oh, there were consequences, but not for "sinning" or sin entered into the world through one woman and Jesus would have to been born a woman to correct that original sin. Eve failed to be a helper suitable for Adam (The reason she was created) when? At what moment? Adam was created to be the glory of God. Eve to be the glory of man. To make them "Look Good". At what moment did Adam fail in the role for which He was created? At what moment did Eve fail in the role for which she was created?

I don't have a problem with being wrong. Just prove it from the scriptures.

This is my point
Arguing about a a parable
Not planting a seed
All the while missing the point of the scripture.
The scripture is about the pursuit of flesh over our Father.
It is about Adam and Eve his imperfect perfection falling and any of us could think that we are not. The literal meanings are far more than the words
In the book.
The bible is made from the original scripture and it doesn’t say apple it says fruit. It’s talking about their fruits ( your fruits) the fruits they produce.
They did something to go against God.
It was both of them. The argument that it was her or him is irrelevant God holds man accountable he made him King.
Think for a minute I you really research ( like mining for silver) you will find that the original language has much different meaning. And in that research you will find Gods love is compared only to a spouse. Nothing else yet the law is to love nothing more than him. But they Both ate of the fruit

 

[GWH]

In the original scriptures before Greek influence
It wasn’t even an apple the word was fruit ( scholars think fig tree)
My point is if we don’t have the smallest fact correct how can we start to understand.
Plant a seed
Psalms 2:4

Scholars think a figurative tree.

 

[GWH]

This is my point
Arguing about a a parable
Not planting a seed
All the while missing the point of the scripture.
The scripture is about the pursuit of flesh over our Father.
It is about Adam and Eve his imperfect perfection falling and any of us could think that we are not. The literal meanings are far more than the words
In the book.
The bible is made from the original scripture and it doesn’t say apple it says fruit. It’s talking about their fruits ( your fruits) the fruits they produce.
They did something to go against God.
It was both of them. The argument that it was her or him is irrelevant God holds man accountable he made him King.
Think for a minute I you really research ( like mining for silver) you will find that the original language has much different meaning. And in that research you will find Gods love is compared only to a spouse. Nothing else yet the law is to love nothing more than him. But they Both ate of the fruit

The spiritual meanings are conveyed via parabolic/allegorical/figurative words.

 

[Dino246]

This is my point
Arguing about a a parable
Not planting a seed
All the while missing the point of the scripture.
The scripture is about the pursuit of flesh over our Father.
It is about Adam and Eve his imperfect perfection falling and any of us could think that we are not. The literal meanings are far more than the words
In the book.
The bible is made from the original scripture and it doesn’t say apple it says fruit. It’s talking about their fruits ( your fruits) the fruits they produce.
They did something to go against God.
It was both of them. The argument that it was her or him is irrelevant God holds man accountable he made him King.
Think for a minute I you really research ( like mining for silver) you will find that the original language has much different meaning. And in that research you will find Gods love is compared only to a spouse. Nothing else yet the law is to love nothing more than him. But they Both ate of the fruit

You are assuming that the text is a parable but there is NOTHING in the text suggesting that.

If the text is a parable, and not literal history, what else in Genesis 1-11 is parable? What else do you rip away from the foundation in order to support your view? What is left upon which any scriptural truth is based?

 

[GWH]

You are assuming that the text is a parable but there is NOTHING in the text suggesting that.

If the text is a parable, and not literal history, what else in Genesis 1-11 is parable? What else do you rip away from the foundation in order to support your view? What is left upon which any scriptural truth is based?

Do you also demean the parables of Jesus for not being literal history?

 

[Waden21]

You are assuming that the text is a parable but there is NOTHING in the text suggesting that.

If the text is a parable, and not literal history, what else in Genesis 1-11 is parable? What else do you rip away from the foundation in order to support your view? What is left upon which any scriptural truth is based?

Firstly I don’t want a verbal fight I am assuming we are here for similar reasons mine is to speak with believers and learn more.
I can’t say if it is not a true story ( the creation of Adam Eve and so on ) That is not what I am saying at all. What I am saying is the message the delivery is for those who seek tirelessly . Not for those who are nether hot nor cold. The fact is original scripture said nothing about an apple . The Ha-Satin is a member of divine counsel the Accuser the tempter. The evil serpent is in all off us. The devil is a made up character fist documents are from the Greeks. Around 130 AD .
I don’t want an argument what I would like is to find people who actually search for the truth like I do not that they agree with everything I might feel like I know . However someone who has researched Hebrew Aramaic Greek language and history. I want a friend that digs like it says to. To be honest if it says to work as if you are mining ( and remember back then there was no heavy equipment) sitting in the AC in a chair reading a book with hundreds of translations and versions ( emphasis on versions ) would not be what I’m looking for. I however never turn down speaking to anyone such as yourself because the word says to plant seeds.

 

[Dino246]

Do you also demean the parables of Jesus for not being literal history?

I don't demean anything. The gospels are records of actual events; Jesus telling the parables is literal history. However, the events described in the parables are not necessarily literal history.

 

[Dino246]

Firstly I don’t want a verbal fight I am assuming we are here for similar reasons mine is to speak with believers and learn more.
I can’t say if it is not a true story ( the creation of Adam Eve and so on ) That is not what I am saying at all. What I am saying is the message the delivery is for those who seek tirelessly . Not for those who are nether hot nor cold. The fact is original scripture said nothing about an apple . The Ha-Satin is a member of divine counsel the Accuser the tempter. The evil serpent is in all off us. The devil is a made up character fist documents are from the Greeks. Around 130 AD .
I don’t want an argument what I would like is to find people who actually search for the truth like I do not that they agree with everything I might feel like I know . However someone who has researched Hebrew Aramaic Greek language and history. I want a friend that digs like it says to. To be honest if it says to work as if you are mining ( and remember back then there was no heavy equipment) sitting in the AC in a chair reading a book with hundreds of translations and versions ( emphasis on versions ) would not be what I’m looking for. I however never turn down speaking to anyone such as yourself because the word says to plant seeds.

I'm not here for a fight either. I just see no value in diminishing foundational passages of Scripture to "parable" in order to promote a particular (secondary) interpretation.

 

[GWH]

Firstly I don’t want a verbal fight I am assuming we are here for similar reasons mine is to speak with believers and learn more.
I can’t say if it is not a true story ( the creation of Adam Eve and so on ) That is not what I am saying at all. What I am saying is the message the delivery is for those who seek tirelessly . Not for those who are nether hot nor cold. The fact is original scripture said nothing about an apple . The Ha-Satin is a member of divine counsel the Accuser the tempter. The evil serpent is in all off us. The devil is a made up character fist documents are from the Greeks. Around 130 AD .
I don’t want an argument what I would like is to find people who actually search for the truth like I do not that they agree with everything I might feel like I know . However someone who has researched Hebrew Aramaic Greek language and history. I want a friend that digs like it says to. To be honest if it says to work as if you are mining ( and remember back then there was no heavy equipment) sitting in the AC in a chair reading a book with hundreds of translations and versions ( emphasis on versions ) would not be what I’m looking for. I however never turn down speaking to anyone such as yourself because the word says to plant seeds.

It is great to meet another truthseeker on CC.
You will appreciate two key seeds in Scripture: 1Tim. 2:3-4 & 2Thes. 2:10.

 

[GWH]

I don't demean anything. The gospels are records of actual events; Jesus telling the parables is literal history. However, the events described in the parables are not necessarily literal history.

Correct, because the spiritual meaning is what is important.
Why not view the story in Genesis 3 the same way?
That would increase rather than diminish its significance.