PDA

View Full Version : What significance is there that Satan caused Eve to doubt God's word?



Studyin'2Show
Nov 10th 2008, 09:09 PM
*******The following has been moved from this thread http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?t=146428 on the Genesis geneaologies************

**snip**

Hey crawfish, since you focus on the message behind the actual words, what do you think is the significance of the fact that the serpent in the garden did one major thing to seduce the woman (and then man) to sin against God. He caused her (then him) to doubt the actual word of God. :(

Genesis 3:4 - Then the serpent said to the woman, “You will not surely die.

God Bless!

crawfish
Nov 10th 2008, 09:54 PM
Thanks for the link, Unfortunately you were right. It is extremely weak. Sort of like a long walk to nowhere. :dunno: I guess the answer to my original question from your pov is that the people and the numbers are not meant to be accurate so it doesn't matter. I'm still looking for someone to chime in who believes they are accurate but still doesn't accept them as an accurate timeline from Adam to Isaac. I'd like to understand the logic behind that viewpoint. Hey crawfish, since you focus on the message behind the actual words, what do you think is the significance of the fact that the serpent in the garden did one major thing to seduce the woman (and then man) to sin against God. He caused her (then him) to doubt the actual word of God. :(

Genesis 3:4 - Then the serpent said to the woman, You will not surely die.

God Bless!

God's first command shows that there can be a subtle difference between the literal interpretation of God's words (physical death within 24 hours) and God's actual meaning (spiritual death, eventual physical death). There is a big difference between doubt and honest searching for truth.

Studyin'2Show
Nov 10th 2008, 11:12 PM
God's first command shows that there can be a subtle difference between the literal interpretation of God's words (physical death within 24 hours) and God's actual meaning (spiritual death, eventual physical death). There is a big difference between doubt and honest searching for truth.That wasn't the question but thanks for the dialog anyway. :)

God Bless!

crawfish
Nov 10th 2008, 11:41 PM
That wasn't the question but thanks for the dialog anyway. :)

God Bless!

Understood...but I knew what you were getting at, and decided to go one step further. ;)

Studyin'2Show
Nov 11th 2008, 12:32 AM
Understood...but I knew what you were getting at, and decided to go one step further. ;)Actually, I wasn't going anywhere. I was genuinely curious as to your insight into the symbolism on that. If you hadn't noticed by now my motivation is a bit different than what you're probably used to. ;) I've always been curious. I wondered if you see any symbolism in the fact that the enemy caused Eve (then Adam) to doubt what God had said. Simple as that. :)

God Bless!

crawfish
Nov 11th 2008, 01:22 PM
Actually, I wasn't going anywhere. I was genuinely curious as to your insight into the symbolism on that. If you hadn't noticed by now my motivation is a bit different than what you're probably used to. ;) I've always been curious. I wondered if you see any symbolism in the fact that the enemy caused Eve (then Adam) to doubt what God had said. Simple as that. :)

God Bless!

Ahh. Yes, I do. It is deception on the part of the serpent to allude to physical death when he knows that there is more to it. He was correct in implying that Eve "would not die" the moment that she ate the fruit; but he knew the complete truth, but appealed to Eve's sinful desire to blind her to that truth. Nothing the serpent said was completely untrue - as always, the best lies are always crouched in truth.

I think the crux of the story is the decision that was made - man chose to live with knowledge rather than eternally in ignorance. It is a representation of reality - our ability and willingness to oppose God outside of God's natural order. We all make this same decision, every day, and that is the crux of our sinful nature.

Studyin'2Show
Nov 11th 2008, 04:20 PM
I think the crux of the story is the decision that was made - man chose to live with knowledge rather than eternally in ignorance. It is a representation of reality - our ability and willingness to oppose God outside of God's natural order. We all make this same decision, every day, and that is the crux of our sinful nature.Do you think it was wise for man to choose to eat from the Tree of Knowledge rather than eating from the Tree of Life? Also, do you think that Adam and Eve realized after eating that they had indeed literally died spiritually?

God Bless!

crawfish
Nov 11th 2008, 07:53 PM
Do you think it was wise for man to choose to eat from the Tree of Knowledge rather than eating from the Tree of Life? Also, do you think that Adam and Eve realized after eating that they had indeed literally died spiritually?

God Bless!

Not wise, but once the knowledge has been given, there was no going back. It is certainly implied that they knew they had sinned even before God confronted them; it doesn't say if they knew what their punishment would be, only that they knew they had done wrong.

Studyin'2Show
Nov 11th 2008, 08:18 PM
I think they must have felt or somehow known that spiritual death had indeed come to them. Why else would they hide themselves? They could have just hidden the evidence of the eaten fruit if they hadn't realized that they themselves had actually changed. I believe their actions speak for themselves. It was more than just guilt. I'm the mom of three from 8 to 19 so believe me, I've seen disobedience. When I ask my 8yr old if she did something wrong she only says yes if she know she's caught red handed. Adam and Eve weren't. It wasn't like they were still eating and couldn't attempt to hide it.

crawfish
Nov 11th 2008, 09:53 PM
I think they must have felt or somehow known that spiritual death had indeed come to them. Why else would they hide themselves? They could have just hidden the evidence of the eaten fruit if they hadn't realized that they themselves had actually changed. I believe their actions speak for themselves. It was more than just guilt. I'm the mom of three from 8 to 19 so believe me, I've seen disobedience. When I ask my 8yr old if she did something wrong she only says yes if she know she's caught red handed. Adam and Eve weren't. It wasn't like they were still eating and couldn't attempt to hide it.

I've got three kids as well, from ages 11 to 16, and I've seen the same thing. What we know from the story: their "eyes were opened", meaning that they understood things that they did not understand before. They understood their disobedience, and they (symbolically) understood their transparency, or nakedness, to God for the first time. They knew they couldn't hide their sin. I have no doubt they felt a difference within themselves, but did they know the extent of their situation? Did they know how much of a price they were going to have to pay? To that, I'd have to say no.

Just a random thought - this is probably a big difference between accepting something as history and accepting something as allegory. As history, it makes sense to try and "fill in the holes" - to speculate on the events that were not discussed or detailed. As allegory, there is scant reason to do this. In allegory, every thing in the story has some symbolic content - but since the story exists only in allegory, it is being presented in its entirety; there are no holes to fill.

Lamplighter
Nov 11th 2008, 10:44 PM
Just a random thought - this is probably a big difference between accepting something as history and accepting something as allegory. As history, it makes sense to try and "fill in the holes" - to speculate on the events that were not discussed or detailed. As allegory, there is scant reason to do this. In allegory, every thing in the story has some symbolic content - but since the story exists only in allegory, it is being presented in its entirety; there are no holes to fill.

It's a real historical event, written by somebody who was not there for a first hand eyewitness account, hence the allegory parts. Adam and Eve did not write down themselves the events of the fall, so the Holy Spirit led men to document the events from second hand sources many years later. I can't say for sure if Moses wrote the Pentateuch(first 5 books of the Bible) or not, but I can say that Genesis was inspired by the Holy Spirit.

IamBill
Nov 12th 2008, 01:47 AM
....
What we know from the story: their "eyes were opened", meaning that they understood things that they did not understand before. They understood their disobedience, and they (symbolically) understood their transparency, or nakedness, to God for the first time. They knew they couldn't hide their sin. I have no doubt they felt a difference within themselves, but did they know the extent of their situation? Did they know how much of a price they were going to have to pay? To that, I'd have to say no.

Hello :)
Sounds good if we leave out the rest.
And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons.

meaning -They surly learned to sew :lol:
meaning - They surly knew "something" happened to them
But nowhere do I see where it is implied that they "understood" anything
...except that they were now - naked
could it be as simple as it sounds ? that they had never seen their physical bodies before ?
In 3:8 they - hid themselves from God
And they heard the voice of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day: and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God amongst the trees of the garden.

WHY ? ..guilt ? knowledge, understanding of what they did ?
10 And he said, I heard thy voice in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked; and I hid myself.
doesn't sound like Adam knows exactly what happened, makes no attempt to lie about it ...but he IS - "afraid" !

God knows that someone either -"told" him ...or he ate the fruit
11 And he said, Who told thee that thou wast naked? Hast thou eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat?

Notice God did not refer to the tree by it's "name"? -"the knowledge of good and evil" (which, remember, according to GOD will cause -"to Die" ...regardless of name, the fruit causes death)

2:17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.
3:17 And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;

Perhaps it is all just as simple as- Adam and Eve became 100% physical human flesh ? That maybe the "Fruit" took away the "bodies" that will be given (or actually restored) to us upon resurrection/rapture
...in the "twinkling of an eye" ?

crawfish
Nov 12th 2008, 03:05 AM
Perhaps it is all just as simple as- Adam and Eve became 100% physical human flesh ? That maybe the "Fruit" took away the "bodies" that will be given (or actually restored) to us upon resurrection/rapture
...in the "twinkling of an eye" ?

So...you're suggesting that before they sinned, A&E were incorporeal beings? Only souls?

Studyin'2Show
Nov 12th 2008, 03:11 PM
So...you're suggesting that before they sinned, A&E were incorporeal beings? Only souls?I actually believe their spirit that they had received from God was their covering. When that died, they saw the nakedness of man that had been beneath. That's just my opinion, and not anything I would be dogmatic about. ;)

God Bless!

σяєяυииєя
Nov 12th 2008, 03:38 PM
Another point,

Could be that, God was protecting them as long as they allowed Him to do so, by keeping the conditions under which the promise was given.

So when A&E fell -in other words they expressed to God, they did not want the Gospel Order- now God could not protect them anymore. Therefore they had not access to the tree of life, nor to its fruit. And died.

See you

IamBill
Nov 12th 2008, 04:23 PM
So...you're suggesting that before they sinned, A&E were incorporeal beings? Only souls?

I am only expressing what is "actually written"

Answer - No ...but having been created In 'God the Fathers' image and likeness,(and from the dust of the Earth) they were Both. difference being that before the "fruit", "incorporeal" was their natural perspective which masked the "corporeal". the fruit, then stripping them of the incorporeal perception (or maybe reversed their perspective)

"And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked..."

And if this is indeed 'the case', it would also explain why it is so hard for the Fleshy(corporeal) mind to grasp or perceive it.

IamBill
Nov 12th 2008, 06:49 PM
.....
what do you think is the significance of the fact that the serpent in the garden did one major thing to seduce the woman (and then man) to sin against God. He caused her (then him) to doubt the actual word of God. :(

Genesis 3:4 - Then the serpent said to the woman, “You will not surely die.

God Bless!

I have wondered about this too. (her, Then him). As far as I've picked up on though, is that Eve added to Gods words (for whatever reason) - "God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die."
What is interesting is that the serpent is so often depicted as hanging from, or entwined within the branches. - Touching it ! :lol:

...."You will not surely die"

could be that they saw with their own eyes that "neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die" - was not true
...problem was, that is Not what God said.(which is in itself is a very important lesson)
:)

jesuslover1968
Nov 12th 2008, 06:54 PM
*******The following has been moved from this thread http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?t=146428 on the Genesis geneaologies************

**snip**

Hey crawfish, since you focus on the message behind the actual words, what do you think is the significance of the fact that the serpent in the garden did one major thing to seduce the woman (and then man) to sin against God. He caused her (then him) to doubt the actual word of God. :(

Genesis 3:4 - Then the serpent said to the woman, You will not surely die.

God Bless!

Are you asking about why he tackled the woman first, or just the significance, period?

Studyin'2Show
Nov 12th 2008, 07:16 PM
Are you asking about why he tackled the woman first, or just the significance, period?Nope. We were having a discussion in another thread and I was thinking about truth in scripture. Another poster had been speaking of symbolism and I was wondering what significance he saw in that the very first sin was caused because mankind began to doubt what God had said. I guess you could go deeper and say that mankind began to doubt the character of God as well. But no, the question had nothing to do with her being a woman.

God Bless!

jesuslover1968
Nov 12th 2008, 07:42 PM
Nope. We were having a discussion in another thread and I was thinking about truth in scripture. Another poster had been speaking of symbolism and I was wondering what significance he saw in that the very first sin was caused because mankind began to doubt what God had said. I guess you could go deeper and say that mankind began to doubt the character of God as well. But no, the question had nothing to do with her being a woman.

God Bless!

Okay. I was just curious. :)

σяєяυииєя
Nov 13th 2008, 03:56 AM
Thats a very interesting point Bill,


As far as I've picked up on though, is that Eve added to Gods words (for whatever reason) - "God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die."

You know A&E should have had a much better mind, vitality, memory, they did not need books, etc. In this case Eve was kind of playing "Telephone (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_whispers)".

But to be a loyal channel she had to quote God`s words.

Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him.

Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar. Proverbs 30:5,6.

________
ρєαє αη∂ ѕσ σятн

kevinvr
Nov 14th 2008, 02:31 AM
When I ask my 8yr old if she did something wrong she only says yes if she know she's caught red handed. Adam and Eve weren't. It wasn't like they were still eating and couldn't attempt to hide it.

He he, Yep, I sure have seen that too. Adam said Eve did it, Eve said the snake did it, the snake didn't have a leg to stand on :lol:!

I always wonder whether anything would have changed if Adam said, "no, I won't" to Eve? hmm..

Alaska
Nov 21st 2008, 10:14 PM
God's first command shows that there can be a subtle difference between the literal interpretation of God's words (physical death within 24 hours) and God's actual meaning (spiritual death, eventual physical death). There is a big difference between doubt and honest searching for truth.

There never was a declaration that the day they ate of the fruit of that tree they would die the same day.

The other wrong meaning is that it was meant to be only a "spiritual" death. Howbeit the above quote couples spiritual death with eventual physical death. So is there reference in Genesis to how they were to die spiritually or that that they had already died spiritually by eating the fruit?

Define spiritual death. How were they spiritually alive?
There was no condemnation in that they could not have a bad conscience because they did not have the concept of right and wrong in a moral sense. Eating of the tree awakened their realization to right and wrong and guilt. That awakening was a rude introduction into guilt, shame and condemnation. Before this, they did not possess a conscience capable of such an experience. Is this the meaning of spiritual death?

Or is it that the faith-Gospel of the NT is what reveals the concept of spiritual death and we are able by that to look retrospectly on what happened in the beginning?

Their creation was to be forever living and never growing old, to not return to the dust from whence they were made.
Their physical death, being the right understanding of their dying for eating the fruit, is established beyond any doubt by the statement in reference to physical death in Gen 3:19.

brakelite
Nov 22nd 2008, 12:18 AM
God told Adam that in the day he eats of the forbidden fruit, (or disobeys God) in the Hebrew thou shalt surely die means dying thou shalt die, before Eve was made. So it was up to Adam to relate to Eve God's commandment. Now we know that Eve misquoted God's commandment when speaking to the serpent, we don't know if that was Adam's fault in misquoting God or simply Eve's mistake. But I tend to think that God would have reiterated the command on more than one occasion because of it's huge significance, so Eve was without excuse. I am sure that both A&E knew what death was. God would have ensured that they knew what it meant, although experience always increases awareness. That first innocent lamb that clothed them would have made both suffer terribly. They would then have been so acutely aware that their sin was the cause of that innocent lambs death. What an object lesson! Every dead tree, insect, animal, bird from then on would have been a reminder of their transgression.
But did they understand what death meant immediately after their sin? Yes. The scriptures say that they were hiding because they were afraid. Now what were they afraid of? Who were they hiding from? God? Of course, but why? Up till then their relationship with Him was one of close intimate personal one on one face to face conversation. Nothing but love, peace and harmony existed between the three. Until the forbidden fruit episode. Then something changed. All of a sudden A&E are afraid of God. Why? I can see no other reason for their fear other than that they believed He was coming to kill them! After all, is that not what He said would happen? That they would die? Then isn't it clear that they believed that He would carry out His sentence? But praise God He offered them the gospel instead. That day they would have died but for Jesus, the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.
That they eventually died of course. But the difference is that they died with hope.Instead of fig leaves (their own righteousness) they were clothed by the Lamb (Christ's righteousness.)

looking4jesus
Nov 22nd 2008, 12:39 AM
*******The following has been moved from this thread http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?t=146428 on the Genesis geneaologies************

**snip**

Hey crawfish, since you focus on the message behind the actual words, what do you think is the significance of the fact that the serpent in the garden did one major thing to seduce the woman (and then man) to sin against God. He caused her (then him) to doubt the actual word of God. :(

Genesis 3:4 - Then the serpent said to the woman, You will not surely die.

God Bless!

It all has to do with free will and obeying God.
Adam and Eve were the only humans that actually had free will with no sin. We know how it ended. Since Adam and Eve we are all born with a sinful flesh. Free will is so pescious to God its what makes man different and also in the image of God. The whole Bible is simply about obeying God making choices that are aligned with his word.
God Bless
Randy

Studyin'2Show
Nov 22nd 2008, 02:39 AM
But did they understand what death meant immediately after their sin? Yes. The scriptures say that they were hiding because they were afraid. Now what were they afraid of? Who were they hiding from? God? Of course, but why? Up till then their relationship with Him was one of close intimate personal one on one face to face conversation. Nothing but love, peace and harmony existed between the three. Until the forbidden fruit episode. Then something changed. All of a sudden A&E are afraid of God. Why? I can see no other reason for their fear other than that they believed He was coming to kill them! After all, is that not what He said would happen? That they would die? Then isn't it clear that they believed that He would carry out His sentence? But praise God He offered them the gospel instead. That day they would have died but for Jesus, the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.
That they eventually died of course. But the difference is that they died with hope.Instead of fig leaves (their own righteousness) they were clothed by the Lamb (Christ's righteousness.)Okay, so you're saying they did indeed expect to physically die. Death is the wage of sin. However, God made a substitute to take the death that was required of them 'on that day'. I was reading Revelation 21 when it list all those who will be cast into the lake of fire. Last on the list is 'ALL LIARS'. Okay, so which of us doesn't BELONG in that lake? Adam and Eve deserved to die that very day, but for the grace of God and the blood of the lamb. Thanks brakelite! :)

God Bless!

IamBill
Nov 22nd 2008, 03:19 AM
God told Adam that in the day he eats of the forbidden fruit, (or disobeys God) in the Hebrew thou shalt surely die means dying thou shalt die, before Eve was made. So it was up to Adam to relate to Eve God's commandment. Now we know that Eve misquoted God's commandment when speaking to the serpent, we don't know if that was Adam's fault in misquoting God or simply Eve's mistake. But I tend to think that God would have reiterated the command on more than one occasion because of it's huge significance, so Eve was without excuse. I am sure that both A&E knew what death was. God would have ensured that they knew what it meant, although experience always increases awareness. That first innocent lamb that clothed them would have made both suffer terribly. They would then have been so acutely aware that their sin was the cause of that innocent lambs death. What an object lesson! Every dead tree, insect, animal, bird from then on would have been a reminder of their transgression.
But did they understand what death meant immediately after their sin? Yes. The scriptures say that they were hiding because they were afraid. Now what were they afraid of? Who were they hiding from? God? Of course, but why? Up till then their relationship with Him was one of close intimate personal one on one face to face conversation. Nothing but love, peace and harmony existed between the three. Until the forbidden fruit episode. Then something changed. All of a sudden A&E are afraid of God. Why? I can see no other reason for their fear other than that they believed He was coming to kill them! After all, is that not what He said would happen? That they would die? Then isn't it clear that they believed that He would carry out His sentence? But praise God He offered them the gospel instead. That day they would have died but for Jesus, the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.
That they eventually died of course. But the difference is that they died with hope.Instead of fig leaves (their own righteousness) they were clothed by the Lamb (Christ's righteousness.)

10 And he said, I heard thy voice in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked; and I hid myself.
:hmm: that doesn't leave much to the guessing
.. imho

Studyin'2Show
Nov 22nd 2008, 01:07 PM
10 And he said, I heard thy voice in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked; and I hid myself.
:hmm: that doesn't leave much to the guessing
.. imhoThat's the WHY they were afraid, not the WHAT they were afraid of. I believe that was his point. imho

God Bless!

divaD
Nov 22nd 2008, 02:46 PM
I have wondered about this too. (her, Then him). As far as I've picked up on though, is that Eve added to Gods words (for whatever reason) - "God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die."
What is interesting is that the serpent is so often depicted as hanging from, or entwined within the branches. - Touching it ! :lol:

...."You will not surely die"

could be that they saw with their own eyes that "neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die" - was not true
...problem was, that is Not what God said.(which is in itself is a very important lesson)
:)



Eve didn't add to God's word. She wouldn't even know how to. This would make her the first sinner, since adding to the word of God would be a major sin. What you're basically suggesting, Eve sinned even before the serpent caused her and Adam to sin.
I just don't buy that. Not everything that God told Adam and or Eve was recorded in the Bible. Obviously, God first instructed the man, then the man instructed the woman. Whatever Eve knew about this tree, she was instructed via Adam, and not directly by God.


Genesis 2:15 And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it.
16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:
17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die


The woman wasn't even formed yet. The Lord God commanded Adam and not the woman. You won't be able to find anywhere in Scripture where the Lord God personally commanded the woman to do or not to do anything. The only logical conclusion, the Lord God gave instructions to the man. The man in turn, instructed his wife.

Alaska
Nov 22nd 2008, 05:16 PM
The woman wasn't even formed yet. The Lord God commanded Adam and not the woman. You won't be able to find anywhere in Scripture where the Lord God personally commanded the woman to do or not to do anything. The only logical conclusion, the Lord God gave instructions to the man. The man in turn, instructed his wife.


And the fact that she "added" to what God told Adam is only an assumption.
Why not look charitably on Eve so that what she answered the serpent was in fact what she had been told by Adam and what Adam had told Eve was what God had actually told Adam. Why could it not be that we get a general-effect instruction in what is recorded what God said to Adam, while Eve's words reveal detail to what God had told Adam?
To make an issue of what Eve said as if it was a sin is judgemental to say the least and pure speculation. There is not enough evidence to even begin to suggest that she was in error by what she said in response to the serpents question.

Gen. 3:
2 And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden:

3 But of the 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.

Alternatively to the view that Eve's words reflect what Adam had told her which in turn was what God had told Adam and the former statement in the 2nd chapter is only the general message and not the full discourse between Adam and God, consider the idea that Adam wanted to make sure that the woman wouldn't eat of it so he put a tighter restriction to not even touch it out of love for her.
So where on earth do these preachers get off in their high horse mentality that somehow Eve added to God's word and how that it would make a difference anyway? If anything, if Adam had told her to not even touch it, this would indicate an effort ot ensure obedience. Where is the harm in this? Attacking and accusing Eve seems legalistic and Pharisaical.
Where is the evidence or even the reason to bring such a charge against her?

But to the real question of the significance of Lucifer causing Eve to doubt, the answer is that the same tactics are used by many preachers to get out from under obedience to NT commandments and instruction in favour of their own tradition, which does not agree with the Word.
The line of reason and tactics we see in Gen 3 from the serpent are identical to what we often see come forth from the pulpit.
First, it is questioned whether it really means what it says, then deny the need to obey by virtue of a reason for why it was really written to begin with.
Examples of highjacked NT commandments and order:

The amount of money is not an indicator of how God has blessed you spiritually. Luke 16
The NT disallows women from taking the floor or addressing the assembly in a formal gathering or service. 1 Cor 14 The men are 'head' and thereby possess the role of spokespersons in that venue.
The Lord's supper was not a little piece of wafer but a full scaled meal where the poor of the saints would come and enjoy a hearty meal along with the rest of the believers in remembrance of the Lord's death.
By works a man is justified and not by faith alone. James 2
Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery and if a woman divorce her husband and marry another she commits adultery
Love your enemies, don't kill them

divaD
Nov 22nd 2008, 05:44 PM
And the fact that she "added" to what God told Adam is only an assumption.
Why not look charitably on Eve so that what she answered the serpent was in fact what she had been told by Adam and what Adam had told Eve was what God had actually told Adam. Why could it not be that we get a general-effect instruction in what is recorded what God said to Adam, while Eve's words reveal detail to what God had told Adam?
To make an issue of what Eve said as if it was a sin is judgemental to say the least and pure speculation. There is not enough evidence to even begin to suggest that she was in error by what she said in response to the serpents question.

Gen. 3:
2 And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden:

3 But of the 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.

Alternatively to the view that Eve's words reflect what Adam had told her which in turn was what God had told Adam and the former statement in the 2nd chapter is only the general message and not the full discourse between Adam and God, consider the idea that Adam wanted to make sure that the woman wouldn't eat of it so he put a tighter restriction to not even touch it out of love for her.
So where on earth do these preachers get off in their high horse mentality that somehow Eve added to God's word and how that it would make a difference anyway? If anything, if Adam had told her to not even touch it, this would indicate an effort ot ensure obedience. Where is the harm in this? Attacking and accusing Eve seems legalistic and Pharisaical.
Where is the evidence or even the reason to bring such a charge against her?

But to the real question of the significance of Lucifer causing Eve to doubt, the answer is that the same tactics are used by many preachers to get out from under obedience to NT commandments and instruction in favour of their own tradition, which does not agree with the Word.
The line of reason and tactics we see in Gen 3 from the serpent are identical to what we often see come forth from the pulpit.
First, it is questioned whether it really means what it says, then deny the need to obey by virtue of a reason for why it was really written to begin with.
Examples of highjacked NT commandments and order:

The amount of money is not an indicator of how God has blessed you spiritually. Luke 16
The NT disallows women from taking the floor or addressing the assembly in a formal gathering or service. 1 Cor 14 The men are 'head' and thereby possess the role of spokespersons in that venue.
The Lord's supper was not a little piece of wafer but a full scaled meal where the poor of the saints would come and enjoy a hearty meal along with the rest of the believers in remembrance of the Lord's death.
By works a man is justified and not by faith alone. James 2
Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery and if a woman divorce her husband and marry another she commits adultery
Love your enemies, don't kill them






Hi Alaska. Great post! Word for word, I pretty much see this exactly as you do.

IamBill
Nov 22nd 2008, 06:01 PM
That's the WHY they were afraid, not the WHAT they were afraid of. I believe that was his point. imho

God Bless!

:) IMHO ...it was why and what.

17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die
In no way whatsoever do I believe that was a DEATH THREAT and that A/E were now expecting God to hunt them down to kill them because they disobeyed.

...which is what that point implies.

Studyin'2Show
Nov 22nd 2008, 06:20 PM
:) IMHO ...it was why and what.

17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die
In no way whatsoever do I believe that was a DEATH THREAT and that A/E were now expecting God to hunt them down to kill them because they disobeyed.

...which is what that point implies.Were they not afraid of the death that they had been told would come that day? They were wrong because they were not considering the grace of God, of course. There are still many, many people both saved and un-saved that are waiting for God to strike them down for something they have done.

Alaska
Nov 22nd 2008, 06:39 PM
Were they not afraid of the death that they had been told would come that day?


It is an assumption that they would die the same day.
What Eve said to the serpent reflects a clearer understanding as she received from Adam. She did not say "we will die the same day".
A more retrospect understanding or interpreting of what is recorded in the 2nd chapter, is that if they ate of that fruit it would cause them to die, as though a colon was placed after the 1st part of the sentence:

17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof : thou shalt surely die.

Death would be the result as being caused by the disobedience that day.
It is reasonable to understand it this way in hindsight because we find they did not die the same day and that God did not lie therefore he could not have meant that they would die the same day.
So what did he mean?
If it is assumed that he meant they would die the same day then he lied.

But the scriptures give us meaning by God's statements that reveal what verse 17 meant all along but which we learn later in chapter 3:
19 In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.

This verse 19 above is the interpretation by way of retrospection of the fulness of what God meant in Gen 2:
17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

The meaning of 2:17 never meant that they would physically die the same day. That is a premature jumping to a conclusion without letting the scriptures interpret themselves as we see 3:19 interprets 2:17.

Lest we say God lied, which he cannot do.

Another example of jumping the gun on meaning of scripture is where Noah goes into the Ark.
It is assumed by the general wording in Genesis that they went in 7 days before the rain actually started coming down.
Jesus revealed they went in on the same day the rain began.
Classic issue of the general versus the specific as in the general view of day 6 of Gen. 1 and the specific overlap of some of the specifics of day 6 as clarified in Genesis 2.

IamBill
Nov 22nd 2008, 06:47 PM
I have wondered about this too. (her, Then him). As far as I've picked up on though, is that Eve added to Gods words (for whatever reason) - "God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die."
What is interesting is that the serpent is so often depicted as hanging from, or entwined within the branches. - Touching it ! :lol:

...."You will not surely die"

could be that they saw with their own eyes that "neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die" - was not true
...problem was, that is Not what God said.(which is in itself is a very important lesson)
:)


Eve didn't add to God's word. She wouldn't even know how to. This would make her the first sinner, since adding to the word of God would be a major sin. What you're basically suggesting, Eve sinned even before the serpent caused her and Adam to sin.
I just don't buy that. Not everything that God told Adam and or Eve was recorded in the Bible. Obviously, God first instructed the man, then the man instructed the woman. Whatever Eve knew about this tree, she was instructed via Adam, and not directly by God.


Genesis 2:15 And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it.
16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:
17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die


The woman wasn't even formed yet. The Lord God commanded Adam and not the woman. You won't be able to find anywhere in Scripture where the Lord God personally commanded the woman to do or not to do anything. The only logical conclusion, the Lord God gave instructions to the man. The man in turn, instructed his wife.

Wow that was amazing, all that, which is none of what I said or suggested !

anyway..
1, Of all the pure speculation and blanks that can be filled, It doesn't mean it was written with even the minutest "hole" intended to be filled in. So regardless of who told who, how or when, It is written that God told Adam, and that Eve(regardless of how she came by this knowledge) "Repeated/uttered" words that GOD did NOT SAY concerning that tree.
All I suggested is that "THAT is what the serpent played on. He showed them he could touch it without dieing. (the seed of doubt)

As far as suggesting that I am suggesting Eve sinned first. . . It appears that it is you who is passing the judgment on her (if anyone is), I am not, in fact, the suggestion itself makes no sense to me as it is NOT written that God had directly told Eve of the tree, or had yet said, Not to add to his words -so it is impossible that Eve could be guilty of a sin that did not yet exist.

:)

divaD
Nov 22nd 2008, 07:33 PM
As far as suggesting that I am suggesting Eve sinned first. . . It appears that it is you who is passing the judgment on her (if
anyone is),



Please explain to me how I could be passing judgment on Eve? I'm not the one suggesting that Eve added to the word of God, but if she did, then this would be a sin if she intentionally did this, even if this wasn't defined as a sin yet.

It's one thing to add to the word of God by error and misunderstanding, but it would be inexcusable to do it intentionally. If Eve actually added to the word of God, like many have suggested, then what were her intentions for doing so? Also, if I'm misunderstanding you, I do humbly apologize. But still, I don't believe that Eve added to the word of God, nor could have added to it. I believe that Alaska summed it up rather well in a prev post.

IamBill
Nov 22nd 2008, 08:59 PM
:) Diva, because noone else(including me) has suggested that Eve sinned first, or that adding anything was a sin at the time, their is no need to defend Eve here ;)
...................
However, you do keep telling me that Eve did not add to what God said concerning the tree. The Bible indeed shows that she did add. what I think you are mistaking/thinking is that I consider this as guilt/blame on her part when I do not nor am I suggesting it. in fact, I do believe it most likely that Adam relayed the info. to her since it is Not written that God directly told Her.

Gods words -
But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die

Eves words -
But of the 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.

you see it isn't a matter of the female being to blame :rolleyes: :)
It is a matter of God telling ADAM "thou shalt not eat of it ...and Adam doing it.

The "significance" as posed by the question -

what do you think is the significance of the fact that the serpent in the garden did [B]one major thing to seduce the woman (and then man) to sin against God. He caused her (then him) to doubt the actual word of God.
Is as I have suggested - the added words -which were Not what God said, created the opening to plant the seed of doubt. Which indeed happened, notice the serpent's response to that ? "Ye shall not surely die".
:hmm: WHY did they believe the serpent when they BOTH knew God said they would die from "eating it" ? ? just because it said so ? :lol:

Or maybe that because the simple Truth was that they could "touch it" all day every day if they wanted to. God told Adam not to "eat of it".

:)

Studyin'2Show
Nov 22nd 2008, 09:26 PM
The meaning of 2:17 never meant that they would physically die the same day. That is a premature jumping to a conclusion without letting the scriptures interpret themselves as we see 3:19 interprets 2:17.

Lest we say God lied, which he cannot do.Then we go back to the issue of WHY they were afraid and WHAT they were afraid of when they decided to hide from God. And btw, no one has even suggested that God has lied. :o God forbid!

Ironically, the thread has gone off on a rabbit trail with most not addressing the question of the OP. What significance is there in the fact that the first sin came because the enemy caused man to doubt what God had said? In other words, do you think that means we should be aware that is a tactic he uses and therefore take great care that we do not doubt God's words?

IamBill
Nov 22nd 2008, 09:43 PM
Were they not afraid of the death that they had been told would come that day? They were wrong because they were not considering the grace of God, of course. There are still many, many people both saved and un-saved that are waiting for God to strike them down for something they have done.

""Were they not afraid of the death that they had been told would come that day? ""

:)
Nope, the serpent was successful at casting doubt of that before they ate it.
He made them 'think' that God was keeping/hiding something great about the fruit of that tree.
This is what they were "expecting to happen"
5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.

then your eyes shall be opened- implying great revelation of knowledge, how much of THAT did-happen ?
7 And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons.

"beguiled" is putting it lightly !

Studyin'2Show
Nov 22nd 2008, 09:53 PM
""Were they not afraid of the death that they had been told would come that day? ""

:)
Nope, the serpent was successful at casting doubt of that before they ate it.
He made them 'think' that God was keeping/hiding something great about the fruit of that tree.
This is what they were "expecting to happen"
5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.

then your eyes shall be opened- implying great revelation of knowledge, how much of THAT did-happen ?
7 And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons.

"beguiled" is putting it lightly !So why hide from God? At that point if it was simply about believing the serpent they would have thought they were more like God. Why not say, "See, look we're like you now!" Hiding shows that they were afraid. But really, this is not the issue i wanted to discuss. Do you have any comment on the question of the OP?

IamBill
Nov 22nd 2008, 10:23 PM
So why hide from God? At that point if it was simply about believing the serpent they would have thought they were more like God. Why not say, "See, look we're like you now!" Hiding shows that they were afraid. But really, this is not the issue i wanted to discuss. Do you have any comment on the question of the OP?

Yes, my last one was in post #37 :)

to this question - Because what the serpent said was untrue, they found this out After eating. why hide ? because they "saw that they were naked".
Put it this way, God placed "his image and likeness" in the garden, but only Adam and Eve (the Flesh and blood) walked out from it. doing from then on what the physical flesh and blood Has to do.

:)

Alaska
Nov 23rd 2008, 12:02 AM
The Bible indeed shows that she did add.


Since there is more than one way to read 2:17, one being in complete agreement with 3:19 as its interpretation, then I believe your wording should reflect more openly that your above quote is what you believe, howsoever strongly, and not that it is impossible for it to be any other way.
If you believe it is impossible for it to mean anything else than how you see it, that is your choice. It is just that stating things using the phrase "I believe" comes across more palatable than how you have chosen to come across.
Alternative explanations that are reasonable have shown there is reasonable doubt to the alleged "adding to God's Word" that Eve allegedly committed.
I believe a judgement call has been made on Eve as an act of jumping to conclusions without enough evidence or even reason for the allegation to even begin to make sense.

The significance, or I should say one significant point, found in the account is that it gives us instruction on what to watch out for with regard to the enemies devices. The scriptures equip us so as to not be ignorant of his devices as I refer to in another post that relates to the significance referred to in the OP.


And btw, no one has even suggested that God has lied. :o God forbid!


My point was that since God stated what he stated in 2;17 and that in 3:19 sentence is pronounced by Him as a fulfillment of His originally generally-stated declaration of their punishment, which final pronouncement does not provide for what many suppose 2:17 had to mean, (that they would die the same day), a choice is presented to the proponents of the idea that 2:17 HAD to mean that they were to die the same day.
Choice, I say, for if the assumption that 2:17 really meant that they were to die the same day, then God lied because they did in fact not die the same day.
If we assume that what God meant when he said something would happen after a certain event; and it doesn't happen, and without any stated reason for it not happening, then it is wiser to conclude that the assumption of what we thought he meant was wrong. He cannot lie.

It is assumed that God meant that the day they ate it, the same day they would die. The fact that they did not die the same day, but well over 800 years AFTER they ate it, should be enough evidence that the assumption that they would die the same day was simply that; an assumption.
A wrong assumption.

Did God mean that they would assuredly die the same day they ate it?
After they ate it, did they die the same day?

I believe the intransigence on the belief that he meant that they were to die the same day is unreasonable.

Man became a living soul after breath was breathed into his physical body.
Death as the consequences for eating that fruit would mean death of the physical body since his life is defined in the context of his physical body. His death is pronounced as such in 3:19 as support of life being defined as being connected with his physical body.

Alaska
Nov 23rd 2008, 12:26 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alaska http://bibleforums.org/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?p=1877669#post1877669)



The meaning of 2:17 never meant that they would physically die the same day. That is a premature jumping to a conclusion without letting the scriptures interpret themselves as we see 3:19 interprets 2:17.
Lest we say God lied, which he cannot do.


Response from Studyin'2Show



Then we go back to the issue of WHY they were afraid and WHAT they were afraid of when they decided to hide from God. And btw, no one has even suggested that God has lied. http://bibleforums.org/images/smilies/redface.gif God forbid!


Perhaps there is a misunderstanding. It seems that Studyin'2Show may have thought that I was making some kind of connect between why they were afraid and whether or not 2:17 meant that they would die the same day.
The question of why they were afraid is an entirely separate question to what I was addressing. I have not even begun to address that question or even entertained it by anything that I have written here.

Studyin'2Show
Nov 23rd 2008, 12:58 AM
Yes, my last one was in post #37 :)

to this question - Because what the serpent said was untrue, they found this out After eating. why hide ? because they "saw that they were naked".
Put it this way, God placed "his image and likeness" in the garden, but only Adam and Eve (the Flesh and blood) walked out from it. doing from then on what the physical flesh and blood Has to do.

:)I think maybe everyone is missing the point of the question in the OP. :confused The question was really about the way the enemy uses deception to get us to question God's word and had nothing to do with A&E hiding or what day they would die or anything of the sort. :rolleyes: But alas, I guess I must not have been plain enough. :dunno:

Alaska
Nov 23rd 2008, 01:19 AM
What significance is there in the fact that the first sin came because the enemy caused man to doubt what God had said? In other words, do you think that means we should be aware that is a tactic he uses and therefore take great care that we do not doubt God's words?

Obviously we are "not ignorant of his devices" as Paul said because of the examples of what he has done are there for us in the Word.

Another point to be learned from the account is that he uses truth to lie.
By using a partial truth to bolster something deceitful is often called a half truth.
He used the truth that they would know good from evil as the result of eating suggesting they wouild gain something by doing so. Which was true but it wasn't rightly divided in that they lost a lot more than they gained.

True, they did not surely die immediately after eating the fruit, and Satan appears to have known that, but they were to die nonetheless and he tricked them into death by using that half truth. It is easier to trick someone into something when what you say is partly true and therefore can be stated in genuineness to a small degree.


I think maybe everyone is missing the point of the question in the OP. :confused The question was really about the way the enemy uses deception to get us to question God's word and had nothing to do with A&E hiding or what day they would die or anything of the sort. :rolleyes: But alas, I guess I must not have been plain enough. :dunno:

You did finally become plain enough in your rewording of what you meant to express in the OP by your quote I placed at the top of this page. I agree, it was not plain to begin with and some confusion seemed to arise because of it but some interesting points connected to what happened at the beginning have been discussed nevertheless and perhaps though not intended by you to have been discussed, I believe it has served a good purpose.
Perhaps you could have worded your OP in a way to get ideas from others as they read what happened as a way to analyse the extent of the subtilty and devices Satan used so that his devices discovered in what he did then can be applied to our lives now as a way of instruction to know what to watch out for.

IamBill
Nov 23rd 2008, 01:22 AM
I seems you are not reading my posts Alaska.

Gods words -
But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die

Eves words -
But of the 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.

the rest is speculation, so yes I will stick to what is written God did not say "neither shall ye touch it"... A N Y W H E R E

IamBill
Nov 23rd 2008, 01:43 AM
I think maybe everyone is missing the point of the question in the OP. :confused The question was really about the way the enemy uses deception to get us to question God's word and had nothing to do with A&E hiding or what day they would die or anything of the sort. :rolleyes: ...snip .. :dunno:
No doubt :lol:

This is what I replied to -

*******The following has been moved from this thread http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?t=146428 on the Genesis geneaologies************

**snip**

Hey crawfish, since you focus on the message behind the actual words, what do you think is the significance of the fact that the serpent in the garden did one major thing to seduce the woman (and then man) to sin against God. He caused her (then him) to doubt the actual word of God. :(

Genesis 3:4 - Then the serpent said to the woman, You will not surely die.

God Bless!

and here I can only repeat myself, (then try to explain what I have Not said)
:dunno:
sorry :hug:

Studyin'2Show
Nov 23rd 2008, 02:15 PM
Isn't English an interesting language? :lol: So easily misunderstood. :) This thread actually came from a discussion crawfish and I were having in another thread concerning creation. Rather than to continue to derail that thread, I moved the discussion here. This is pretty much my position in a nutshell. For those who see Genesis 1, 2, and really even 3 as purely symbolic I can understand, though I don't agree. But once you get into scripture that details things like this: Adam lived 130 years then had Seth then lived an additional 800 years and died. All his years were 930 years. How do you discount this as nonfactual? That I do not understand. Yet many, many believers question these facts. :dunno: I wanted to understand if he (or anyone else) saw a significance to the fact that the enemy's first tactic was to cause God's people to doubt His word. And how that significance should influence what we see as factual and what we see as fictional.

IamBill
Nov 23rd 2008, 08:04 PM
Isn't English an interesting language? :lol: So easily misunderstood. :)
;) aye, I think when the tone of voice and expressions are removed and then limited to a choice of a few smilies, it gets difficult.


..snip... For those who see Genesis 1, 2, and really even 3 as purely symbolic I can understand, though I don't agree.
I agree with you, though I also think there is much symbolism involved, It Has to be 'first' read literally, and understood "literally".


But once you get into scripture that details things like this: Adam lived 130 years then had Seth then lived an additional 800 years and died. All his years were 930 years. How do you discount this as nonfactual? That I do not understand. Yet many, many believers question these facts. :dunno:
I personally have no problem understanding this stuff, but trying explain would lead to derailment.
I guess maybe some people would pick up "moby dick" to read ...then toss it because they never heard of or seen a white Whale. (no, not comparing fiction to the Bible) ...know what I mean ?
As far as dieing that day, they did, Just like God said they would, it's just that it turns out that -God was not talking about "the flesh" dieing.
"significance" I can't really expand on what I had said. ..."neither shall ye touch it" ...may be just - the hole that the serpent got his hook into.


I wanted to understand if he (or anyone else) saw a significance to the fact that the enemy's first tactic was to cause God's people to doubt His word. And how that significance should influence what we see as factual and what we see as fictional.
:hmm: Absolutely, *IF*there is anything (truly)fictional in the Bible, it would be best to disregard and read as if literal truth, Understand the meaning (moral of the story) ---THEN go ahead and look for the symbolic(which can vary like the sands of the sea). I mean, It's not about whether a snake can talk or not.

BTW, I do believe that the serpents words which are documented are still
misleading people today. this though depends on whether one believes God would use sarcasm.
:dunno: