Eve did not sin by eating of the tree.

[DavidLamb]

I didn't say Eve didn't believe a bunch of statements that were complete lies. She believed them all right. Up until she touched the tree and didn't die and then ate from the tree and didn't die. Oh, she believed every single word up till then. And then she gave the fruit to Adam, and he ate, and "THEN, the eyes of BOTH of them were opened." "Ut oh, I got consequences, it must be because I ate of the tree.".

But here's the problem ... Eve's eating of the tree was never ever mentioned by God. What God's only concern was, "What is THIS that thou hast done?" Understand, Eve's eating is never a part of the discussion.

While God gives Adam (2) reasons for his consequences, listening to the woman instead of God and eating of the tree I told "you" singular not to eat of. (Eve wasn't there for the telling, of course.), there is only one point God focuses on when it comes to Eve.


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?"

Gen 3:12 The man said, "The woman whom You gave 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? ..."

Explain to me what, from the context, is the ONLY thing God focuses on when it comes to "What Eve has done". Does He ever bring up her eating? Well, judging her for believing lies that had nothing to do with what God commanded Adam is merely Adam's deceiving Eve about what God said. Not a single thing was true about it being a command God gave them both to obey. God did give them both (2) commands together. This one was for Adam "Alone".

I'd love to hear any scriptures or logic, reason, ...that allows for another interpretation... sticking to the meaning of the text, of course, without adding meaning not in the texts, subtracting meaning that is, and without distorting any meaning in an attempt to force the text to align with any of our beliefs.

First, Eve clearly knew of the command, because she repeated it, adding "or touch it", to the serpent. Second, Eve had certainly sinned. If she hadn't sinned, what was she punished by God for? Third, what actual difference does it make to our Christian lives and beliefs, whether Eve sinned in eating the forbidden fruit, or sinned in giving the fruit to Adam?

 

[EmethAlethia]

First, Eve clearly knew of the command,

All Eve "knew" was lies. Every bit of it. Nothing at all was truth. What she said had nothing at all to do with what God said. Nothing.

Did God tell Adam to make sure he told Eve, and all his descendants not to eat or touch the tree? Did God tell Adam to just tell Eve that? Show me where.

Since God did give both Adam and Eve two commands for them to obey together, and this one singular command was given to Adam alone, and two additional times God says it was for Adam alone, can you believe God and agree with Him that the command was for Adam alone? If not, why?

Eve never got a command from God to obey or disobey. If I tell you God commands you not to eat pizza on Tuesday, and you eat pizza on Tuesday, have you sinned if you eat pizza on Tuesday? Ok, here we go. "God commands all true Christians not to eat pizza on Tuesday."

There you go. A command God never gave to you. It's a complete lie. I made it up. That command has nothing at all to do with you, or what God said. Now, if you ever eat pizza at all on a Tuesday, you are exactly as guilty as Eve. God says Eve got her consequences because she gave the fruit to Adam and he ate. That's what God says. Disagree, great. Show me where God points to any other reason.

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?" ​

Adam ALONE got the command. Eve wasn't created yet. Next verse Adam's statement.

Gen 3:12 The man said, "The woman whom You gave to be with me, she gave me from the tree, and I ate." ​

So what topic are we on right now? Eve's eating of the fruit of the tree? Did Adam know the command of God not to eat was given only to himself? There wasn't anyone else there, right? God said he "commanded the MAN" not to eat of it. Was God not clear?

Gen 3:13 Then the LORD God said to the woman, "What is this you have done?..."​

You are familiar with a "Direct object", right? What is the "This" God is asking the woman about? Her eating? That's not a part of the discussion. Now after Eve shares that she ate, does God bring up that as a part of her consequences? Why would He. God says He commanded "the man" not to eat of it. That command has nothing to do with anyone else or God would have told Adam to make sure he shared. Adam lied. Eve believed the lie, and God focuses on only one thing with Eve, "What is this that thou hast done".

If you can come to another conclusion without adding meaning not in the text, subtracting meaning that is, or distorting meaning in an attempt to hold fast to a specific belief or belief set, and don't leave out logic and reason, making sure every ramification of every belief makes complete logical reasonable rational sense, please share it. And if I have failed to do so, please point that out as well.

because she repeated it, adding "or touch it", to the serpent.

Again, everything Eve states was a lie. A firmly believed lie, but a lie, none the less. The entire command was for the "man" not anyone else, or God would have said so, or He would have given it to them both along with the other (2) commands He gave them both.

Second, Eve had certainly sinned.

Against what? A command of God someone completely made up from whole cloth. "God commands all true Christians never to eat pizza on Tuesday's". There you go, just as made up as what Adam shared with Eve. Now, if you don't obey it you are just as guilty of sin as she was. Through one man sin entered into the world. What if it's true EXACTLY like it says?

If she hadn't sinned, what was she punished by God for?

I covered already exactly what God says she was punished for:

Gen 3:12 The man said, "The woman whom You gave to be with me, she gave me from the tree, and I ate." ​

So what topic are we on right now? Eve's eating of the fruit of the tree? Did Adam know the command of God not to eat was given only to himself? There wasn't anyone else there, right? God said he "commanded the MAN" not to eat of it. Was God not clear?

Gen 3:13 Then the LORD God said to the woman, "What is this you have done?..."​

You are familiar with a "Direct object", right? What is the "This" God is asking the woman about? Her eating? That's not a part of the discussion. Now after Eve shares that she ate, does God bring up that as a part of her consequences? Why would He. God says He commanded "the man" not to eat of it. That command has nothing to do with anyone else or God would have told Adam to make sure he shared. Adam lied. Eve believed the lie, and God focuses on only one thing with Eve, "What is this that thou hast done".

Third, what actual difference does it make to our Christian lives and beliefs, whether Eve sinned in eating the forbidden fruit, or sinned in giving the fruit to Adam?

This is less about changing lives from minorly altering a belief than it does with the concept of blindly accepting everything the vast masses of people who believe themselves to be Christians is truth.

Here's one for you. It's on our modern "Christian" definition of adultery. How many wives did David take before he committed adultery? How many women did he become "one flesh" with (take as wives) after that one event of adultery. According to scripture, how many times did Solomon commit adultery? Are there two places in scripture where God says He took two wives and they committed adultery against Him? David's only sins, according to God, were with regards to Uriah the Hittite. Even David's numbering of the people wasn't a sin. God says so. God enticed David to do so.

The problem is trying to force the scriptures to align with what we "want to believe" "as" truth, not continuously proving all things over and over again, like an open court case where the only goal is truth, and then altering our beliefs and lives to fit whatever it is that is being proven good/true." Forcing the scriptures to say what we want is a poor hermeneutic. Yes, everyone can hold to whatever they "want to believe" As" truth that way, but that only proves we love our beliefs. It certainly isn't what we do if we love truth. Does that make sense?

 

[DavidLamb]

All Eve "knew" was lies. Every bit of it. Nothing at all was truth. What she said had nothing at all to do with what God said. Nothing.

Did God tell Adam to make sure he told Eve, and all his descendants not to eat or touch the tree? Did God tell Adam to just tell Eve that? Show me where.

Since God did give both Adam and Eve two commands for them to obey together, and this one singular command was given to Adam alone, and two additional times God says it was for Adam alone, can you believe God and agree with Him that the command was for Adam alone? If not, why?

Eve never got a command from God to obey or disobey. If I tell you God commands you not to eat pizza on Tuesday, and you eat pizza on Tuesday, have you sinned if you eat pizza on Tuesday? Ok, here we go. "God commands all true Christians not to eat pizza on Tuesday."

There you go. A command God never gave to you. It's a complete lie. I made it up. That command has nothing at all to do with you, or what God said. Now, if you ever eat pizza at all on a Tuesday, you are exactly as guilty as Eve. God says Eve got her consequences because she gave the fruit to Adam and he ate. That's what God says. Disagree, great. Show me where God points to any other reason.

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?" ​

Adam ALONE got the command. Eve wasn't created yet. Next verse Adam's statement.

Gen 3:12 The man said, "The woman whom You gave to be with me, she gave me from the tree, and I ate." ​

So what topic are we on right now? Eve's eating of the fruit of the tree? Did Adam know the command of God not to eat was given only to himself? There wasn't anyone else there, right? God said he "commanded the MAN" not to eat of it. Was God not clear?

Gen 3:13 Then the LORD God said to the woman, "What is this you have done?..."​

You are familiar with a "Direct object", right? What is the "This" God is asking the woman about? Her eating? That's not a part of the discussion. Now after Eve shares that she ate, does God bring up that as a part of her consequences? Why would He. God says He commanded "the man" not to eat of it. That command has nothing to do with anyone else or God would have told Adam to make sure he shared. Adam lied. Eve believed the lie, and God focuses on only one thing with Eve, "What is this that thou hast done".

If you can come to another conclusion without adding meaning not in the text, subtracting meaning that is, or distorting meaning in an attempt to hold fast to a specific belief or belief set, and don't leave out logic and reason, making sure every ramification of every belief makes complete logical reasonable rational sense, please share it. And if I have failed to do so, please point that out as well.




Again, everything Eve states was a lie. A firmly believed lie, but a lie, none the less. The entire command was for the "man" not anyone else, or God would have said so, or He would have given it to them both along with the other (2) commands He gave them both.

Against what? A command of God someone completely made up from whole cloth. "God commands all true Christians never to eat pizza on Tuesday's". There you go, just as made up as what Adam shared with Eve. Now, if you don't obey it you are just as guilty of sin as she was. Through one man sin entered into the world. What if it's true EXACTLY like it says?

I covered already exactly what God says she was punished for:

Gen 3:12 The man said, "The woman whom You gave to be with me, she gave me from the tree, and I ate." ​

So what topic are we on right now? Eve's eating of the fruit of the tree? Did Adam know the command of God not to eat was given only to himself? There wasn't anyone else there, right? God said he "commanded the MAN" not to eat of it. Was God not clear?

Gen 3:13 Then the LORD God said to the woman, "What is this you have done?..."​

You are familiar with a "Direct object", right? What is the "This" God is asking the woman about? Her eating? That's not a part of the discussion. Now after Eve shares that she ate, does God bring up that as a part of her consequences? Why would He. God says He commanded "the man" not to eat of it. That command has nothing to do with anyone else or God would have told Adam to make sure he shared. Adam lied. Eve believed the lie, and God focuses on only one thing with Eve, "What is this that thou hast done".

This is less about changing lives from minorly altering a belief than it does with the concept of blindly accepting everything the vast masses of people who believe themselves to be Christians is truth.

Here's one for you. It's on our modern "Christian" definition of adultery. How many wives did David take before he committed adultery? How many women did he become "one flesh" with (take as wives) after that one event of adultery. According to scripture, how many times did Solomon commit adultery? Are there two places in scripture where God says He took two wives and they committed adultery against Him? David's only sins, according to God, were with regards to Uriah the Hittite. Even David's numbering of the people wasn't a sin. God says so. God enticed David to do so.

The problem is trying to force the scriptures to align with what we "want to believe" "as" truth, not continuously proving all things over and over again, like an open court case where the only goal is truth, and then altering our beliefs and lives to fit whatever it is that is being proven good/true." Forcing the scriptures to say what we want is a poor hermeneutic. Yes, everyone can hold to whatever they "want to believe" As" truth that way, but that only proves we love our beliefs. It certainly isn't what we do if we love truth. Does that make sense?

Thank you for replying. I think we'll have to "agree to disagree" on this matter. I have never come across such an idea before that only Adam was guilty.

 

[Lightbeamrider]

\

I do not have a problem with changing my beliefs.

Yes, you do, since you were proven wrong on page one and in history. The location of Adam during the interaction between the serpent and Eve is not known. So in that sense, Adam did not protect Eve, who was in a weaker position, because God spoke to Adam and Adam, by default, delegated the message to Eve. The source of the added phrase, 'and touch" may have been Adam.

 

[lrs68]

I'm sorry. Eve wasn't there when the command was given to Adam (Singular) and in every reference to God's command thereafter God uses the singular "You" stating it was only Adam He gave the command to. If you are stating that you are to obey made up commands of God someone else tells you are commands, ... God commands you to stand on one foot till I tell you differently." If you don't you are just as much a sinner as Eve was at the time.

Prove me wrong. Using scripture. Did God give Eve a different command? The "do not touch" it part. Show me where. Did God ever use the plural "You" referring to both Adam and Eve receiving the command? If made up commands of God are to be obeyed. "God commands you to fold my laundry and weed my garden." Not doing so is a sin. You said so.

That Scripture reference are her own words. And we understand that God met with Adam and Eve every evening so what is to say God didn't tell Eve since from her being created until her picking from the Tree could have been years. The Hebrew peoples believe it's possible Adam and Eve lived in the Garden for many years before being removed. But the fact that God walked with them every evening is more than enough to believe God warned Eve personally.

 

[Suze]

Also , Ch 3 V 13 , God says to Eve ; What is this that thou hast done ? . When God says this , He seems to me , to be responding to Adams statement in the previous verse ' she gave me of the tree '. It seems as if God is annoyed at Eve for giving Adam of the tree , first and foremost . God never says to Eve ; because you have eaten if the tree , and , in V 17 when God tells Adam of his sin and punishment for it , God begins with ; Because thou hast hearkened into the voice of thy wife , that comes before ' and hast eaten ' . This also backs up why , part of Eve's punishment is that she must b under her husband's rule in V 16 .

 

[lrs68]

Also , Ch 3 V 13 , God says to Eve ; What is this that thou hast done ? . When God says this , He seems to me , to be responding to Adams statement in the previous verse ' she gave me of the tree '. It seems as if God is annoyed at Eve for giving Adam of the tree , first and foremost . God never says to Eve ; because you have eaten if the tree , and , in V 17 when God tells Adam of his sin and punishment for it , God begins with ; Because thou hast hearkened into the voice of thy wife , that comes before ' and hast eaten ' . This also backs up why , part of Eve's punishment is that she must b under her husband's rule in V 16 .

Excellent observation

 

[HeIsHere]

Also , Ch 3 V 13 , God says to Eve ; What is this that thou hast done ? . When God says this , He seems to me , to be responding to Adams statement in the previous verse ' she gave me of the tree '. It seems as if God is annoyed at Eve for giving Adam of the tree , first and foremost . God never says to Eve ; because you have eaten if the tree , and , in V 17 when God tells Adam of his sin and punishment for it , God begins with ; Because thou hast hearkened into the voice of thy wife , that comes before ' and hast eaten ' . This also backs up why , part of Eve's punishment is that she must b under her husband's rule in V 16 .

Verse 16 is a prediction of what will happen not a command.

 

[Suze]

That Scripture reference are her own words. And we understand that God met with Adam and Eve every evening so what is to say God didn't tell Eve since from her being created until her picking from the Tree could have been years. The Hebrew peoples believe it's possible Adam and Eve lived in the Garden for many years before being removed. But the fact that God walked with them every evening is more than enough to believe God warned Eve personally.

We cannot take that for granted , notice in Ch 3 V 3 Eve says ; But of the tree which is in the midst of the garden , she doesn't call it the tree of the knowledge of good and evil . Why not ? I say because she never heard it called that , Adam didn't tell her what it was because he was concerned that she might b tempted to eat of it . It sounds tempting doesn't it ? Wow , a tree that bestows such knowledge ! Adam has told her about the tree in the midst of the garden . Eve continues ' neither shall ye touch it ' God never said that . I think Adam did . He was trying to protect Eve from death . His motives were kind towards Eve but , he corrupted God's Word .
Look at the punishments , V 14 , God says to the serpent ( in response to Eve's very straightforward confession in V 13 ) Because thou hast done this . In V 17 He says to Adam ' Because thou hast hearkened...'
He doesn't state what Eve's sin was in V 16 . He just tells her what her punishment is .
1st Corinthians Ch 11 V 3 and indeed that chapter goes to great lengths to tell us of the hierarchy in Christian life . I believe that God didn't tell Eve about that tree, He left that to Adam and Adam , in his love and desire to protect Eve , corrupted God's Word .
Why then did Adam eat of the tree once he had seen that Eve had eaten of the tree ? I'm not sure but I think that maybe , he thought she was about to die and he wanted to die also rather than live without her ? Maybe he thought that if she is going to know the difference between good and evil , I want to know also . Maybe when he realised that Eve had eaten and not died immediately , that he wanted a taste of it also ? I don't think we shall ever know , in this life , why Adam did that .
Last point , in 1st Timothy Ch 2 V 14 , Paul refers to Eve as having been deceived . Could it b that he's refering to Adams deception of Eve in not telling her the truth , the whole truth and nothing but the truth . Paul also says that Adam was not deceived , he knew exactly what he was doing and what the consequences of his actions would b . I'm not at all saying that any of my thoughts r 100 per cent correct , they r just my thoughts . I have so enjoyed this thread , it's great to discuss these things I think , it provokes us to study harder and become more connected to God's Word , it's a good thing to read and talk about God's Word , it helps us all , I know I've been helped in my understanding many times on here . Let's keep these kind of discussions going and talk about the Truth and what it means to us

 

[Lightbeamrider]

Explain this from scripture please. Without the knowledge of good and evil,

They would have understood good and evil as concepts

and without any command of God not to listen to anyone or anything else, how can a person sin? She wasn't tempted to do anything wrong at all.

The serpent actually told her the truth. She didn't die when she ate.

Yes she did die spiritually. Let the dead bury the dead. Jesus. The serpent lied when stating no death if she ate and it looks like you are repeating the lie of the serpent when stating she did not die.

She died when she violated the very reasons for which she was created.

And when exactly did that happen?

Same as Adam did.

Adam died when he ate, meaning separation from God.

Eve was created to be a helper suitable to him. How's she help Adam out? She helped him out of the will of God, out of the garden, ...

With the serpent as a mitigator. They could have eaten absent the serpent, in which there would be no mitigating influence. The reason the Democrats are so powerful is abortion and women voting. As a collective, women are single-issue voters and majority vote for Democrats. There is a whole debate on that online. The long-term wisdom of diluting the vote by including women. Myopic. Far too many beta males in power positions having no fear of God. Women ruling over is a sign of cultural decline in the Bible.

 

[Suze]

Excellent observation

Thank you for your kindness but , the Word is there for everyone to read and study , we shouldn't follow along with what people tell us , we need to study it for ourselves . I'm not particularly clever or observant , I just enjoy studying God's Word for myself . I also really enjoy talking about it and reading other people's observations and opinions , as long as they r actually based on what the Bible actually says .

 

[Aaron56]

There you go. A command God never gave to you. It's a complete lie. I made it up. That command has nothing at all to do with you, or what God said. Now, if you ever eat pizza at all on a Tuesday, you are exactly as guilty as Eve. God says Eve got her consequences because she gave the fruit to Adam and he ate. That's what God says. Disagree, great. Show me where God points to any other reason.

You don't understand authority and delegation.

If a Lieutenant says to a Corporal "The General said we must move from position A to position B" the Corporal cannot say "Well, the General never told me that directly so it's not an order I need to follow".

See how silly that is?

 

[Aaron56]

Both A&E committed the first sin of ignoring God because they were created with the capability of making moral choices and everyone else in the world also sinned and thus were condemned, but the way sinners may be saved was foreshadowed by the sacrifice of blood of innocent animals.

Love is not moral. Saying they were "moral beings" inserts a humanistic idea of responsibility.

They were designed to be like their Father in every way. Their power and authority lied within their relationship to God (as sons) and to each other (one flesh).

 

[Dino246]

All Eve "knew" was lies. Every bit of it. Nothing at all was truth. What she said had nothing at all to do with what God said. Nothing.

You win the prize for the dumbest thing I’ve read all day.

God’s words to Adam:

“ but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die.”
‭‭Genesis‬ ‭2‬:‭17‬ ‭NIV‬‬

Eve’s words to the serpent:

“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.’ ””
‭‭Genesis‬ ‭3‬:‭3‬ ‭NIV‬‬

If you honestly think Eve’s words “have nothing at all to do with” God’s words, then you are blind, delusional, or mentally incapacitated.

May the Lord open your eyes to the truth.

 

[Lightbeamrider]

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.

They both were made aware of being naked at the same time after eating so cause and effect argues against your premise of Eve not sinning. If she did not sin after eating, she would not have known she was naked. Yet the results are the same for both at the same time. My flesh tells me Eve was unsuitable for Adam and by extension, female descendants. Eve was last created, and the order of creation is from simple to more complex, with Eve as the apex of creation, yet Adam is held responsible because Adam was not deceived by the serpent. So they did the same thing but for different reasons under different circumstances. with common results. Awareness of nakedness and alienation from God.

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.”.

Eve was unsuitable according to your view. Have you reasoned the implications of such statements?

 

[Aaron56]

Adam and Woman shifted their focus to their survival needs only after the fall. Prior, they saw themselves as spirits clothed in flesh (that is why they did not perceive themselves to be naked) Personally, they were like their Father, God, who had no concern for provision or protection. All resources required for life were provided by their Father. They had no need.

It is only after they elevated the needs of the flesh to prominence, that they began to identify with their container. The first order of business was to hide from their Father, Who now, in their minds, threatened their existence. Why? Because they perceived that life was in the flesh and God could undo flesh as simple as He made it. They lost understanding that life was in the Spirit that was within them.

Again, the Truth is not moral. Truth is actually a person.

“I am (Jesus) the way and the truth and the life."

Life begins and ends at the connection to God, the I Am. And, because this is spiritual, it's only through revelation that we may find any logic in it: but that is for the renewing of the mind of our souls that have elevated provision and protection of the body to primacy.

The ministry of reconciliation, then, is returning man to the original state before the fall; when his identity was connected to the spirit in him which is from God. In this, man has no need for concern about provision:

Look at the birds of the air, for they neither sow nor reap nor gather into barns; yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not of more value than they?

or protection:

So why do you worry about clothing? Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow: they neither toil nor spin; and yet I say to you that even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these. Now if God so clothes the grass of the field, which today is, and tomorrow is thrown into the oven, will He not much more clothe you, O you of little faith?

Adam and Woman did not begin their existence in a vacuum. They knew themselves as they knew their Father: as spirit. We must begin there to understand why, for what reason and how we are to be reconciled to God our Father.

 

[GWH]

First, Eve clearly knew of the command, because she repeated it, adding "or touch it", to the serpent. Second, Eve had certainly sinned. If she hadn't sinned, what was she punished by God for? Third, what actual difference does it make to our Christian lives and beliefs, whether Eve sinned in eating the forbidden fruit, or sinned in giving the fruit to Adam?

Or sinned by ignoring GW/believing Satan’s lie?

 

[GWH]

Love is not moral. Saying they were "moral beings" inserts a humanistic idea of responsibility.

They were designed to be like their Father in every way. Their power and authority lied within their relationship to God (as sons) and to each other (one flesh).

Love summarizes and is the epitome of morality per Jesus and Paul. Why would anyone choose to disagree?!

Adam and Eve were intended to be like God in that way per 1John 4:6-5:1.

 

[Aaron56]

Love summarizes and is the epitome of morality per Jesus and Paul. Why would anyone choose to disagree?!

Adam and Eve were intended to be like God in that way per 1John 4:6-5:1.

Love is the epitome of relationship and representation. To reduce the gospel to morality is to replace Sinai with another list of laws.

 

[Lightbeamrider]

To reduce the gospel to morality is to replace Sinai with another list of laws.

Nobody is doing that here, so stop strawmanning. Love is a fruit of the Spirit.