Eve did not sin by eating of the tree.

[Patrick0269]

I read the story of Adam and Eve with symbolism. Because we know Satan was the snake, that means there is symbolism attached and shouldn't be read like they ate a literal piece of food and thus, sin came into the world because Satan isn't a literal snake, he's a Cherub.

I think problems arise when people try and read the story of Adam and Eve literally. Like, the idea that God placed a literal tree in a literal forest and said "don't eat that one", like a massive temptation beacon. If God is holy, and scripture calls us to be holy as He is holy, and scripture tells you NOT to create "stumbling blocks" of temptation for other people (Paul talks about this constantly and Jesus gives the idea of throwing temptation in front of a child, that its better for them to be tossed in the sea with a millstone around their neck ), then how are you supposed to read the story?

I have a huge study on this, but I'll sum up... The garden wasn't really a garden, it's the Temple of God. The tree, wasn't really a tree, it's a scroll of knowledge and Adam and Eves job was to tend God's Temple. If you look at it from that point of view, it would make sense why God would put something in His own Temple, but tell them NOT to read from it (ingest like food) or they will die. It also makes sense why God then warded it off and protected it, lest they become immortal (without repentance, without the aid of God, etc) because of the information. Also why the Torah is called the Tree of Life.

But simply put, what sin did they commit? Disobedience. God told them not to do it, they did. That's all there is to it.

I need Bible text

 

[Patrick0269]

That passage does not say that “God would not put a stumbling block before his children causing them to fall” which is what I questioned.

Genesis 2:8-9

It plainly says that God planted the trees for fruit, and that he also planted the tree of life and the tree of knowledge of good and evil. And then told Adam not to eat from the tree of good and evil. So I don’t know what you’re reading.. I said nothing about the stumbling block. Those are your words.

 

[Delvianna]

I need Bible text

For what specifically? Because if you say everything, this is a study within itself, and one that even summed up is 7 pages long (that I've written). So to give you literally every piece of scriptural argument, is far too long to post in this thread. Is there something you'd like that maybe is more specific?

 

[Patrick0269]

For what specifically? Because if you say everything, this is a study within itself, and one that even summed up is 7 pages long (that I've written). So to give you literally every piece of scriptural argument, is far too long to post in this thread. Is there something you'd like that maybe is more specific?

I’m saying that plainly states that God said he planted trees and there was a river in this and that. Symbolism isn’t in the Bible. If you’re going to base something from a Bible verse then I need two or three more verses to back it up. By two or three witnesses so shall it be established.

 

[Patrick0269]

I’m saying that plainly states that God said he planted trees and there was a river in this and that. Symbolism isn’t in the Bible. If you’re going to base something from a Bible verse then I need two or three more verses to back it up. By two or three witnesses so shall it be established.

Everybody’s entitled to their own interpretation, but that doesn’t make it right. Backing it up with other Bible verses makes it right. But everybody’s entitled to their own opinion.

 

[Delvianna]

I’m saying that plainly states that God said he planted trees and there was a river in this and that. Symbolism isn’t in the Bible. If you’re going to base something from a Bible verse then I need two or three more verses to back it up. By two or three witnesses so shall it be established.

Symbolism absolutely is in the bible.

Hosea 12:10​

"I have also spoken by the prophets, and I have multiplied visions, and used similitudes, by the ministry of the prophets." (KJV)

Numbers 12:6​

"If there be a prophet among you, I the LORD will make myself known unto him in a vision, and will speak unto him in a dream."

Genesis 40:8​

"...Do not interpretations belong to God?..."

If there's no symbolism, what are you interpreting?

Then you have Pharaoh's dream (Genesis 41:25-27)
Nebuchadnezzar's dream (Daniel 2:36-45)

And then all of Jesus's parables.
The sower, the wheat and tares, the mustard seed, the leaven, the hidden treasure, the unmerciful servant, the wicked tenants, the two sons, the 10 virgins, the talents, the sheeps and the goats.

Daniels visions he's had that Gabriel came and interpreted and lets not forget the symbolism that's described in Revelation with the 7 lamp stands and the 2 olive trees.

There's a lot more, but there's a few examples.

 

[CS1]

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.”.

That is a interesting take. If we read the text. Eve said "3But of t he 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

God did not say do not touch it . God did say do eat of it. Eve seems to make a statement about God command that seem to be unreasonable to her. Yet she did it. Therefore she did sin.

 

[Dino246]

It plainly says that God planted the trees for fruit, and that he also planted the tree of life and the tree of knowledge of good and evil. And then told Adam not to eat from the tree of good and evil. So I don’t know what you’re reading.. I said nothing about the stumbling block. Those are your words.

Actually, they weren’t.

Quest posted this: "we know God would never put a stumbling block before his children causing them to fall."

In response, I posted this: "What verse of Scripture tells us that?"

In response to my post, you posted this: "Genesis 2:8-9".

 

[Patrick0269]

Symbolism absolutely is in the bible.

Hosea 12:10​

Numbers 12:6​

Genesis 40:8​

If there's no symbolism, what are you interpreting?

Then you have Pharaoh's dream (Genesis 41:25-27)
Nebuchadnezzar's dream (Daniel 2:36-45)

And then all of Jesus's parables.
The sower, the wheat and tares, the mustard seed, the leaven, the hidden treasure, the unmerciful servant, the wicked tenants, the two sons, the 10 virgins, the talents, the sheeps and the goats.

Daniels visions he's had that Gabriel came and interpreted and lets not forget the symbolism that's described in Revelation with the 7 lamp stands and the 2 olive trees.

There's a lot more, but there's a few examples.

God never lies. So if he said it, it is true. Here are some examples. Num23:19. Heb6:18. Tit1:2. Psalms 89:34. 1Sam15:29.

 

[DavidLamb]

Does anyone give thought about the prevailing narrative surrounding the garden of Eden? According to your narrative Adam and Eve had no knowledge of good or evil until the Lord introduced it to the world in the form of a fruit. You claimed it was God who planted the tree in the midst of the garden, and by doing so brought good and evil into the world. Had they not eaten the fruit the world would never have known evil neither would they know good. Because Adam and Eve ate the fruit they passed down knowledge of good and Evil through their offspring, however they did not introduce good and Evil into the world. Based on your narrative Satan had no part in sin entering the world.

(Sorry, I tried posting my reply yesterday evening, but there was something wrong with the site which meant that it wouldn't take my post, or let me start the reply again by clicking on the link in the notification email.) Yes, God planted the whole Garden of Eden. That does not mean that He brought evil into the world. Sin/evil is disobedience of God. God had said that Adam and Eve could eat the fruit of every tree in the Garden, except the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. The fact that Adam and Eve chose to listen to Satan's lies rather than obeying God is not God bringing evil into the world.

So, let me get this straight because I am confused with your logic. Satan and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil who you claim was not Satan were in the garden, yet the tree was a greater threat to Adam and Eve salvation. They were warn to stay away from an evil tree, but was never warned to stay away from Satan! Moses never said that God put the tree in the midst of the garden, and we know God would never put a stumbling block before his children causing them to fall.

I don't just claim that the tree was not Satan. I say that God's word does not indicate that the tree was Satan. The Bible makes clear that the serpent was Satan. The serpent/Satan was talking with Eve about the tree, so the tree cannot have been Satan. You call it an evil tree, but nowhere in the Bible is it called an evil tree. You also say that they were warned to stay away from it. They weren't. They were told that they were forbidden from eating from it, not from going near it. As for God not putting the tree in the middle of the garden, the Bible says He did:

(Gen 2:8-9 NKJV) The LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden, and there He put the man whom He had formed. And out of the ground the LORD God made every tree grow that is pleasant to the sight and good for food. The tree of life was also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

When Jesus said, “a tree is known by its fruit, a good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit,” He used a tree as a metaphor to explain a person’s character. If Jesus use a tree as a metaphor for people could be that Moses would use a tree as a metaphor to represent a person also. Is it possible that person was Satan sense literal trees do no possess a knowledge of good and evil? You continue to convince yourself that the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was a literal tree.

I agree that when Jesus spoke of a good tree bearing good fruit, and a bad tree bad fruit, He was using metaphor or picture-language. The context tells us what He is meaning by the trees and their fruit:

(Mat 7:15-20 NKJV) "Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves. You will know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes from thornbushes or figs from thistles? Even so, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Therefore by their fruits you will know them.

I can't find an equivalent explanation in the words foubnd in the early chapters of Genesis that give any indication that the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was not an actual tree.

 

[Gideon300]

Does anyone give thought about the prevailing narrative surrounding the garden of Eden? According to your narrative Adam and Eve had no knowledge of good or evil until the Lord introduced it to the world in the form of a fruit. You claimed it was God who planted the tree in the midst of the garden, and by doing so brought good and evil into the world. Had they not eaten the fruit the world would never have known evil neither would they know good. Because Adam and Eve ate the fruit they passed down knowledge of good and Evil through their offspring, however they did not introduce good and Evil into the world. Based on your narrative Satan had no part in sin entering the world.

So, let me get this straight because I am confused with your logic. Satan and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil who you claim was not Satan were in the garden, yet the tree was a greater threat to Adam and Eve salvation. They were warn to stay away from an evil tree, but was never warned to stay away from Satan! Moses never said that God put the tree in the midst of the garden, and we know God would never put a stumbling block before his children causing them to fall.

When Jesus said, “a tree is known by its fruit, a good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit,” He used a tree as a metaphor to explain a person’s character. If Jesus use a tree as a metaphor for people could be that Moses would use a tree as a metaphor to represent a person also. Is it possible that person was Satan sense literal trees do no possess a knowledge of good and evil? You continue to convince yourself that the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was a literal tree.

Does anyone give thought about the prevailing narrative surrounding the garden of Eden? According to your narrative Adam and Eve had no knowledge of good or evil until the Lord introduced it to the world in the form of a fruit. You claimed it was God who planted the tree in the midst of the garden, and by doing so brought good and evil into the world. Had they not eaten the fruit the world would never have known evil neither would they know good. Because Adam and Eve ate the fruit they passed down knowledge of good and Evil through their offspring, however they did not introduce good and Evil into the world. Based on your narrative Satan had no part in sin entering the world.

So, let me get this straight because I am confused with your logic. Satan and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil who you claim was not Satan were in the garden, yet the tree was a greater threat to Adam and Eve salvation. They were warn to stay away from an evil tree, but was never warned to stay away from Satan! Moses never said that God put the tree in the midst of the garden, and we know God would never put a stumbling block before his children causing them to fall.

When Jesus said, “a tree is known by its fruit, a good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit,” He used a tree as a metaphor to explain a person’s character. If Jesus use a tree as a metaphor for people could be that Moses would use a tree as a metaphor to represent a person also. Is it possible that person was Satan sense literal trees do no possess a knowledge of good and evil? You continue to convince yourself that the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was a literal tree.

I don't why you have a problem taking the scriptures literally. Why not a tree? Adam and Eve had to eat something. Were all the trees symbolic? They would have starved to death!

 

[Lovette]

9.) And while Eve was commanded to Obey Adam, that was a consequence of the fall. The "Exact same wording in Gen. 3:16 is only duplicated once more in the Hebrew O.T. 15 verses later in Gen. 4:7.

Pick a meaning that fits in both places.

Gen 3:16 To the woman He said, "I will greatly multiply Your pain in childbirth, In pain you will bring forth children; Yet your desire will be for your husband, And he will rule over you."

Gen 4:7 "If you do well, will not your countenance be lifted up? And if you do not do well, sin is crouching at the door; and its desire is for you, but you must master it."

A more fitting translation is, "yet your desire will be contrary against your husband", "yet its desire will be contrary against yours."

 

[Gideon300]

I read the story of Adam and Eve with symbolism. Because we know Satan was the snake, that means there is symbolism attached and shouldn't be read like they ate a literal piece of food and thus, sin came into the world because Satan isn't a literal snake, he's a Cherub.

I think problems arise when people try and read the story of Adam and Eve literally. Like, the idea that God placed a literal tree in a literal forest and said "don't eat that one", like a massive temptation beacon. If God is holy, and scripture calls us to be holy as He is holy, and scripture tells you NOT to create "stumbling blocks" of temptation for other people (Paul talks about this constantly and Jesus gives the idea of throwing temptation in front of a child, that its better for them to be tossed in the sea with a millstone around their neck ), then how are you supposed to read the story?

I have a huge study on this, but I'll sum up... The garden wasn't really a garden, it's the Temple of God. The tree, wasn't really a tree, it's a scroll of knowledge and Adam and Eves job was to tend God's Temple. If you look at it from that point of view, it would make sense why God would put something in His own Temple, but tell them NOT to read from it (ingest like food) or they will die. It also makes sense why God then warded it off and protected it, lest they become immortal (without repentance, without the aid of God, etc) because of the information. Also why the Torah is called the Tree of Life.

But simply put, what sin did they commit? Disobedience. God told them not to do it, they did. That's all there is to it.

No, Satan was not the snake. He was a Serpent. He was not cursed with the form of the snake until after he deceived Eve. Satan has various names that describe aspects of his nature and character.

If the trees in Eden where all figurative, Adam and Eve would have starved to death. The tree of the knowledge of good and evil and the tree of life were a test. God knew what Adam would choose, but that does not mean that He forced them to disobey.

I don't know why people can't take the account of man's creation and fall at face value.

Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28 recount the fall of Satan when he decided he wanted to be like God. He was previously Lucifer, but his light was put out. He became Satan, the accuser, and the Devil, the adversary.

 

[GWH]

No, Satan was not the snake. He was a Serpent. He was not cursed with the form of the snake until after he deceived Eve. Satan has various names that describe aspects of his nature and character.

If the trees in Eden where all figurative, Adam and Eve would have starved to death. The tree of the knowledge of good and evil and the tree of life were a test. God knew what Adam would choose, but that does not mean that He forced them to disobey.

I don't know why people can't take the account of man's creation and fall at face value.

Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28 recount the fall of Satan when he decided he wanted to be like God. He was previously Lucifer, but his light was put out. He became Satan, the accuser, and the Devil, the adversary.

Viewing parables as conveying spiritual truth is the right value!
Satan is the evil spirit, and believing him causes separation from the good God's tree of life.
Stop focusing on physical fruit!

 

[Gideon300]

Viewing parables as conveying spiritual truth is the right value!
Satan is the evil spirit, and believing him causes separation from the good God's tree of life.
Stop focusing on physical fruit!

I want to know why you consider the account as a parable? The fruit is only one aspect. Is Satan a metaphor or a real created being? Is evil real or just metaphorical? You are wandering into dangerous territory if you start thinking like that.

 

[Delvianna]

No, Satan was not the snake. He was a Serpent. He was not cursed with the form of the snake until after he deceived Eve. Satan has various names that describe aspects of his nature and character.

If the trees in Eden where all figurative, Adam and Eve would have starved to death. The tree of the knowledge of good and evil and the tree of life were a test. God knew what Adam would choose, but that does not mean that He forced them to disobey.

I don't know why people can't take the account of man's creation and fall at face value.

Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28 recount the fall of Satan when he decided he wanted to be like God. He was previously Lucifer, but his light was put out. He became Satan, the accuser, and the Devil, the adversary.

I'm sorry but none of that makes sense. If he was cursed to be a literal snake, then Jesus spoke to a snake when Satan tempted him?
If they would have "starved" to death, how is that possible when death wasn't a thing until after they sinned?

I don't know how people can take this literally... it makes absolutely zero logical sense and only ends up contradicting scripture.

 

[Quest]

Jesus is from the third heaven. Contrary to popular belief Satan and his angels were never in the third heaven with God.

 

[Bible_Locket]

Eve and then Adam fell because the serpent was permitted to tempt them.

Eve was deceived because of her innocence.

Adam's failure to lead Eve to obey the command God expressly told Adam, is strictly Adam's responsibility.

But,it is all God's plan.They were never meant not to eat of that tree.

 

[GWH]

I want to know why you consider the account as a parable? The fruit is only one aspect. Is Satan a metaphor or a real created being? Is evil real or just metaphorical? You are wandering into dangerous territory if you start thinking like that.

If it quacks like a parable...

Satan personifies evil. He is described as the leader of demonic angels, but angelology is a lacuna in Scripture.

God created theoretical evil or the possibility of rejecting Him as an option that actualizes MFW/free human personality. As such it is necessary and even good (Gen. 1:31). Of course, it was wrong for Satan (1John 3:8) and humanity (Rom. 5:12) to make evil actual by choosing to Sin or reject Faith in God’s Lordship. Sin is ignoring God/God’s Word.

Do not wander into thinking figurative language does/can not convey spiritual/ultimate truth.

 

[Gideon300]

If it quacks like a parable...

Satan personifies evil. He is described as the leader of demonic angels, but angelology is a lacuna in Scripture.

God created theoretical evil or the possibility of rejecting Him as an option that actualizes MFW/free human personality. As such it is necessary and even good (Gen. 1:31). Of course, it was wrong for Satan (1John 3:8) and humanity (Rom. 5:12) to make evil actual by choosing to Sin or reject Faith in God’s Lordship. Sin is ignoring God/God’s Word.

Do not wander into thinking figurative language does/can not convey spiritual/ultimate truth.

You must think I'm stupid or ignorant. I've read the new testament and I know what a parable is. I also know that God says what He means and means what He says. There is zero reason to assume that the creation account and the fall of man is a parable. If you have evidence to the contrary, tell me what it is.