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

I've never started any serious threads before, so just going to put on my helpmet and crash gear and throw it in there.... And ooo, look at the typo I just happenstanced to make! helpmet? hmm...It's like 'helpmeet' in past tense where I meant to write 'helmet' but... WEll, I can't bring myself to go back and erase it. It's all too fitting for this topic! So...

I've learned there is a school of thought that goes something like this: since Adam was not deceived, he chose death for Eve's sake...

But however romantic this seems to me, for some reason I've found it difficult to fully accept it as anything more than speculation as to why he would, apparently, chose death if he didn't believe what the serpent said, 'surely, you will not die...'

Eve was deceived, yes, as scripture says outrightly, So, I guess I'd have to do a deeper study of the meaning of deceived to get an idea of actually transpired in this event.
Basically, she was deceived because she believed a lie, which is the closest definition I have of it to this point, and we know where that lie came from. However, we also know that Eve was not yet created when God commanded Adam of what trees he may and may not eat (ge 3:16). This is key in distinguishing between Eve's vulnerability to deception in contrast to Adam. Imo, because Adam knew exactly what God said, he could not be deceived. He didn't choose Eve, after all, he threw her under the bus, and henceforth rule 'over' her rather than reigned 'alongside' her, which is love as it is meant to be. He outrightly judged God to be a liar and chose to eat of the tree. So then, it is my position that his sin is greater because he chose 'unbelief' in God's direct word and exchanged it for the serpents lie, and that is how sin entered in through Adam.

Though, as I said before, the former theory that Adam did it for the love of Eve is so very romantic.

God put the tree of the knowledge of good and evil in the garden because He gave them a choice.

It would of never entered their minds to eat of the fruit of that tree unless an outside source tempted them so God allowed Satan to tempt Eve.

Satan tempted Eve which she said they could not eat of that tree so Satan tempted her with an alternate reality that if she ate of the tree they would be as gods an elevated position from their current position and Eve ate the fruit and sinned.

Eve was then the outside source and she tempted Adam to eat the fruit which Adam saw that nothing happened to Eve so he ate of the fruit and sinned.

Perhaps Adam not deceived means that he was not tempted by the serpent as Eve was. Adam would have committed the greater transgression because...

'submit one to another' evidences a suggestion of mutual submission

I see Noah here and there among all the Lamech who, btw, died in the flood.

I do not believe Lamech dies in the flood.

According to Gen 5:30, Lamech lived after he begat Noah five hundred ninety and five years and according to Gen 7:6 and 7:11, Noah was six hundred years old when the flood started.

So it appears Lamech died 5 years before the flood.
.

I confused Noah's father, a descendent of Seth, with the descendent of Cain, son of Methuselah, in that comment. Thank you for that clarification!

son of Methushael ^ ... another correction

This was the Lamech I was thinking of in that comment, not Lamech the son of Methuselah. The son of Methushael, Lamech, is the first to violate the primeval ordinance of marriage by having two wives, and is the last known descendent of Cain.
At any rate, one can see how interpretations might be too easily confused if quickly skimming through scripture and assuming anything rather than giving more careful consideration to each and every detail.

Actually, the last known descendant of Cain is a woman, Naamah.

Okay, the antediluvian woman, the sister of tubal-cain, and neither made it onto the Ark.

I'm not so sure about that last part.

I do not believe Lamech dies in the flood.

According to Gen 5:30, Lamech lived after he begat Noah five hundred ninety and five years and according to Gen 7:6 and 7:11, Noah was six hundred years old when the flood started.

So it appears Lamech died 5 years before the flood.
.

Was she stow-away?

Lamech had lived 182 years when he had a son and named him Noah

Lamech lived a total of 777 years, and then he died. Math makes my head spin

Even though she came from a rough family and the dark race of Cain she might have found one of the light sons of Seth that still believed in God to marry her and consequently survived the Flood.

renewed assumed I was referring to the Lamech that I quoted in a previous post, and that Lamech was the son of Methusaleh, whose death brought the flood and who is descended from the line of Seth. He lived 595 years after Noah's birth before he died, and five years later, when Noah was 600, the flood rains came. I too quickly assumed the Lamech I quoted was the same Lamech that wrote the rap about killing a man but that one is Lamech son of Methushael, who is not to be confused with Methusaleh who is descended from Seth, because Methushael is descended from Cain, Seth's older brother... and
...I don't know if this helps any with the spinning :/

This was the Lamech I was thinking of in that comment, not Lamech the son of Methuselah. The son of Methushael, Lamech, is the first to violate the primeval ordinance of marriage by having two wives, and is the last known descendent of Cain.
At any rate, one can see how interpretations might be too easily confused if quickly skimming through scripture and assuming anything rather than giving more careful consideration to each and every detail.

Lamech had lived 182 years when he had a son and named him Noah

Lamech lived a total of 777 years, and then he died. Math makes my head spin