Then why did she die? The wages of what is death?
I think you are grasping at straws to try and prove your point.
Eve did not sin by eating of the tree.
- Thread starter EmethAlethia
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Then why did she die? The wages of what is death?
I think you are grasping at straws to try and prove your point.
Unfortunately, Eve's quote is not what God commanded Adam alone before she was created, and God uses the singular "You" with Adam when He says, "Have "You" eaten of the tree I commanded "You" not to eat of?" and again when He hands out Adam's consequences. God says the command was only for Adam. Period. Or show me where God includes Eve. Check. Does God say anywhere in scripture the command was for Eve?
If it was, why not give them both the command like He did when He commanded them to be fruitful and multiply, or to rule over all the earth? What Eve repeats has nothing to do with anything she was supposed to obey, ... and it's wrong! It's not what God commanded Adam. Show me where I'm wrong. Did Eve know it was a made-up command? No. That's not the point. If I make up an imaginary command of God, are you obligated to obey? Just prove your points.
Hear me. Eve wasn't created yet. Do you understand this part? Next. Eve got God's command wrong. Eve wasn't there; the command was for Adam alone. God says so 3 times. I believe Him. If you don't please explain why.
I blamed Adam for Eve's actions? Never that I can see. Each person is responsible for their part. I am very sincere, possibly very sincerely wrong, but by gosh, look at the evidence. I didn't create what God said. I didn't make God give the command then create Eve, then state twice more it was for Adam alone. Show me the twist. When God turns to Eve and asks, "What is THIS that thou hast done?" What was it Adam stated just prior?
I agree. Unless you can show me where I twisted the meaning of anything ... repentance would be a good thing.
I got bored with the obvious point that Eve sinned when she ignored GW and moved on to God's solution,
which is also obvious, so what shall we discuss next?
I know! How does TULIP vs. MFW apply to the sin of A&E?
Here's the problem. Say God commands Moses to do something in scripture. Are you commanded to do absolutely everything God commanded Moses? How many others has God given commands to in scripture. Are you obligated to obey all those commands as well?
In the New Testament we have a verse on whatever is not from faith is sin. In other words, "In the N.T." if you believe something is a sin, and you do it, you sinned. And if you believe something should be done, and you don't do it, it is also sin. But there was only one command given by God in the garden of Eden. And God says 3 times it was ONLY for Adam.
1.) Eve wasn't created yet when God gave the command. Obviously just for Adam, right?
2.) 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?" Sorry, not the plural "you" it's singular. Just Adam is included in the question
3.) Gen 3:17 "Then to Adam He said, "Because you have listened to the voice of your wife, and have eaten from the tree about which I commanded you, saying, 'You shall not eat from it'; Cursed is the ground because of you; In toil you will eat of it All the days of your life. " Again, all singular. Adam, alone, was the only one God gave the command to.
So, think this through. Are you responsible to obey absolutely every command God gives "specifically" to someone "Else" in scripture even though you weren't even alive at the time?
And no, Eve was not commanded to obey her husband until the consequences of the fall occurred, so she didn't need to obey him ... yet.
You are correct. The "World" was created, and sin did not enter into it until a specific person "sinned". And God says it entered through one man, "Adam", not one woman "Eve".
I agree. The source of sin is Adam, not Eve.
I would be hard pressed to say whether it is limited to flesh, and I certainly cannot find a reference to genetics, although it probably is.
Ok. possibly missing your meaning. God's command was for one individual, Adam. 1st occurrence, Eve wasn't created yet. Other two references by God also state Adam alone was given the command. ("You" singular, not plural.)
Point for you. We do not know how long the time lapse between her eating and his eating was. Probably not long, most likely the same day. However, we do know there were no consequences at all for her disobeying a command that wasn't given to her, wasn't meant for her at all, according to God, and she wasn't even told the truth of the command in the 1st place.
Think it through. You disobey a command that was never for you in the 1st place. God says so 3 times. Have you sinned? You get no consequences for God for disobeying a command He says wasn't for you. Does that make sense? You are incorrectly told to obey a command god's word says you weren't there to hear, it is highly distorted. You disobey an imaginary command of God. Where's your sin?
That is something I missed. The word for Sin and the word for transgressed have 2 different meanings. They are not synonyms.
Eve received consequences for her transgressions, not her sins or through one woman sin entered into the world. The question is, why are you saying, contrary to this scripture, exactly that. Does your bible say through one woman sin entered into the world? Do you have a different bible? Do you believe it is ok to completely change what the bible says to make it fit what you want to believe?
From what I see, I have included the major passages on the topic. I have held to the consistent meaning of the words used. I have held to context, timelines, ... so show me where I didn't hold to exactly what the word of God says and means.
You would agree with me that the very first sin was an important and unique event, right? No knowledge of good and evil and all that. Without a conscience, what's the ONLY way a person can sin? Violation of a direct command of God, right? No commandments, no conscience ... In the N.T. Whatever is not from faith is a sin.
If I honestly believe God wants me to shoot you dead, regardless of what His commandments say, if I don't, and I sincerely believed I should, I sinned. I violated my conscience with God. BUT ... Adam and Eve are not New Testament humans. And they didn't have that N.T. principle to refer to.
All that said, if Eve sinned, it wasn't by eating of the tree. God says this 3 times, and God's questioning of her is ONLY related to what Adam said was true. He never mentions her eating of the tree as a reason. Just that she gave the fruit to Adam and He ate. That's it.
Oh, me not sinning? LOL I make Paul look like a saint ... which He was.
1.) Do we believe what God says is true, i.e. sin entered into this world through Adam, not Eve?
2.) Do we believe God when He says the command was only for Adam, not Eve (3 times)?
3.) Do we believe Eve wasn't there when the command was given, and got what God said to Adam wrong due to having faulty perceptions, or a problem with recall, or that Adam made up what he told Eve and she got what he said correct?
4.) Do we believe Adam said, "The woman that thou gavest me, she gave me to eat and I ate, and God asked Eve, what is "This" thou hast done referring to Adam's previous statement?
5.) Do we believe God is in the habit of accusing people of sins and giving them conseq
Well, Eve did not get the command Adam got. We can assume Eve got really creative and invented all kinds of other reasons not to go near the tree. Or we can say Eve was created with a faulty mind or memory, perhaps Alzheimer's or something. Or ... we could make up a situation where God comes to Eve separately and gives her a completely different command.
We can make up all kinds of reasons for how she got the command not given to her by God wrong. But we have to create all of that from whole cloth. The two accounts of God's command are vastly different. Make up what you want to hold fast to whatever you want to believe on that account.
But that's the point. My goal is to accurately dissect the meaning of all that the word of God says on an issue, and alter my beliefs and life to fit. Not to alter the scriptures to fit my beliefs and make 99% of the Christians in this world be comfortable believing what they want.
The lie was what she told Satan. Satan was right. The command was for Adam only. Her eyes were not opened when she ate. God says 3 times the command wasn't for her at all. What is this that thou hast done refers to her giving Adam the fruit and getting him to eat of it. At the moment Adam ate of it they both received consequences. Adam for listening to his wife and disobeying a direct command of God. I assume you agree with me that that was sin. Eve for getting Adam to eat. "Then" BOTH their eyes were opened. Immediately ... not at some random future time.
That's what I see. You have stated nothing from scripture to change or correct the points made.
"1Ti 2:14 And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression G3847."
"Rom 5:12 Therefore, just as through one man sinG266 entered into the world, and death through sinG266, and so death spread to all men, because all sinnedG264"
G266 ἁμαρτία hamartia ham-ar-tee'-ah
From G264; sin (properly abstract): - offence, sin (-ful).
Total KJV occurrences: 174
G3847 παράβασις parabasis par-ab'-as-is
From G3845; violation: - breaking, transgression.
Total KJV occurrences: 7
It never says Eve sinned anywhere, and they are completely different words/root words with completely different meanings. You can transgress and not sin. What were the 2 purposes Eve was created for? When did she transgress both those purposes? When were their eyes opened? Did God give Eve the command not to eat of the tree. Evidence. I have it. You haven't contradicted any of the evidence ... except for changing the last word in 1Ti. 2:14
Eve died due to the consequences of transgressing the role for which she was created ... the very reason she was there was to be a helper suitable for Adam Gen. 2:18 and to be the glory of him, i.e. make him look good. 1Co. 11:7
What was the exact moment when Eve failed in the role for which she was created? When were her eyes opened?
“… and gave to her husband, WHO WAS WITH HER…”
Given that HE WAS WITH HER, when did this alleged separate event take place?
Point is yours. Good job. There was still a lapse of time. She ate first. "She took from its fruit and ate ... and she gave to her husband ..." So how does that change anything? I'm proved right in nothing happening when she ate, and there was a lapse in time.
T
TruthDefender
Guest
What do you think transgression is!? lol
T
TruthDefender
Guest
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.
T
TruthDefender
Guest
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!
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. But as one flesh, she cold not transgress the command without consequence to Adam. 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").
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.
His reasoning completely disregards Adam's responsibility toward Woman. Woman knew the command because Adam taught her. But as one flesh, she cold not transgress the command without consequence to Adam. 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").
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.
But was God referring to physical death or spiritual death? And would the death be due to God's punishment or would it be the logical outcome of their actions unless God intervened to prevent it. Remember the sequence in Genesis 1, humans are at the end of the creatin process, well after what we now call "physical laws" were set in place. Can any moral law be violated without first violating physical laws?
Obeying Adam is a non issue here, because she knew the order not to eat of the fruit came from God....
It wouild not matter if she got it second hand from Adam or 50th hand from another source.. She acknowledged and believed that the order came from God.. Just as Christians read the Bible and know it comes from God ,, They do not need to hear the sermon on the mount from Jesus Himself, they get to know what Jesus said on the mount by reading it in the Bible.. And when they acknowledge it comes from The LORD Jesus then they should continue in belief and seek to follow it as best as they can..
Again the command was "in the day you eat", not in the instant you eat. Eve died in the day she ate so the command was as much for her as it was for Adam. The fact the command came through Adam and not directly from God, does not negate her responsibility anymore than you knowing right from wrong came through your parents and not a direct command from God.
The scripture is clear. She became a sinner when she was deceived and she was deceived the moment she believed the lie the serpent told her which, was she would not die, yet she did. That her death did not occur instantaneously like you want to be is I believe, due to God's mercy and command, in that Adam and Eve were one and He would treat them as one. She died that day she ate exactly as God said would happen.
You say the only way to sin is to break a direct command of God. Where is the direct command to Eve to help Adam? It is not there. We are told, before she came on the scene, that God would make a helper for Adam Gen.2:18 but we see no direct command given to Eve.
I'm not going to keep going over the same thing ad infinitum. You haven't brought any new argument to the table. I think you need to compare scripture with scripture more to better understand what it means to sin and why we sin.
God was referring both to spiritual death which occurred the moment sin separated A&E from fellowship with God and to physical death because they were banned from the tree of life until Christ's atonement made possible resurrection to heaven.
Their deaths were due both to God's justice/moral will and to lack of human faith in/cooperation with Him.
Both physical and moral/spiritual laws cannot be violated, although they can be ignored at one's own risk/responsibility.
Notice that both-and logic often works better than either-or.
I don't believe that any wife has to obey her husband but that's just me. I pity the wife who has to live in fear of retaliation because of her disobedience to her husband. A wife is not a slave to her husband either, catering to his every whim and desire. This does not make for a happy contentfull marriage.
You are not alone.
Eph. 5:21-27. “Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ. Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything. Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless.”
The correct interpretation of this passage hinges upon keeping in mind the command for mutual submission, which agrees with the teaching of Jesus (in Matt. 20:26-28, 23:11) that the greatest in the kingdom of heaven will be the servant of all, just as he did not come to be served but to give his life.
With this understanding, we can see that Paul envisions a perfect marriage in which the husband is spiritually mature or Christlike and loves his wife sacrificially as the wife does her husband. The purpose of such love goes beyond romance to motivate spiritual and moral completion, comparable to the atonement of Christ. When the husband is NOT like Christ, perhaps the statement of Peter in Acts 5:29 applies.
Eph. 5:28-33. “In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. After all, no one ever hated his own body, but he feeds and cares for it, just as Christ does the church—for we are members of his body. For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh. This is a profound mystery—but I am talking about Christ and the church. However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband.”
In the same way that Christ loves his church body, a husband should love his wife as himself (Matt. 22:39). In verse 31 Paul quoted Gen. 2:24, and it can be inferred that the reason for becoming “one flesh” is in order to create the body we call “family”, which Paul compared to the spiritual family or “church”. “However” refers back to Eph. 5:21-25 with the implication that a loving husband will be respected by a loving wife, so there should be no division either in the family or in the church body (Rom. 16:17, 1Cor. 1:10, 11:17-19, 12:25, Eph. 4:4). Ideally, spouses would operate by consensus.