Adam Was Not Deceived, But Eve Was...

[Deborah13]

his wedding to sarai was and is tradition. the chuppa!

Hi Jason, Did you find that in scripture or a Jewish teaching? I can't find it. Thanks

Issac took Rebecca into his mother's tent? Is that correct?

 

[Pizzaguy]

This is my problem with all of the literal interpretation of the Bible - in particular, the old testament, a book LOADED with symbolic and allegorical verses.

Mark, even if the story is allegorical, I think we are meant by God to read it more or less literally in order to gain what God's intent for us to learn from it. Sort of like Jesus' parable of the prodigal son...allegorical surly and symbolic...but we learn from it when we read it in a literal, straightforward way. I once heard a pastor preach about the prodigal son and he so over symbolized everything in it that the truth of the parable was completely obscured by his sermon.

I do think we are supposed to, in a way, take it literally not because it is literal, but because the story is there to teach something...

 

[Pizzaguy]

Amazing what continued questions crop up out of this simple little "Sunday School story"....

Like we were both saying..

This is a part of the bible that I find something odd: Reading it and learning from it works well.

But to STUDY this account, all you get is confused. I don't think we are supposed to study or de-cypher it.
I believe it is a 'faith' thing... learn from it and always remember who inspired it to be written, and why.

 

[Edward]

I agree Pizza. It is curious to me what was going through Adams head though.

 

[CORE]

If Adam had good reason to tell Eve not to touch the fruit, then why did he just stand there, being totally undeceived and knowing that his wife was being tempted to do what would cause death...and not do anything about it? Amazing what continued questions crop up out of this simple little "Sunday School story"....

So In the midst of talking to my Christian friend today, this idea of not even touching the apple hit me like a ton of bricks...

James 1:15
Then, after desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, gives birth to death.

The commandment about not even touching the apple, IMHO, is righteous, whether it came from God or Adam or Eve's own mind...they both were incapable of corrupting God's word before the fall.

I now believe that when Eve touched the apple, it was "symbolic" of conceiving a desire...a desire for wisdom. - Genesis 3:6

This desire gave birth to sin and ultimately death...

I guess the idea is that if you've put yourself in the position to even touch the apple, you have already conceived lust in your heart, which gives birth to sin...and as we all know, lead to death.

 

[rootstock411]

Wouldn't you ladies like to think that the Husband loved his Wife so much that he laid down his life for her? It is sort've plausible, isn't it?

A husband is supposed to lead, guide and protect his wife, not lead her into temptation or sin.

 

[Eugene]

Hi rootstock411 and welcome to CF.net in Jesus’ name.

1 Cor 10:11 Now all these things happened unto them for ensamples: and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come.

Things of the Old Testament are types of that which was to come. Adam was not deceived, but Eve being flesh of his flesh took his place with her. How can we see this come full circle as it were in Christ? Didn’t He choose to become one with fallen mankind? Adam gave his life to be one with Eve, and Jesus did the same to be one with us. In all this I don’t think God was caught off guard by Adam and Eve’s fall, else there would not have been a Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. Rev 13:8.

 

[Edward]

A husband is supposed to lead, guide and protect his wife, not lead her into temptation or sin.

I agree, but that wasn't wasn't the question. ;)

 

[CORE]

Hi rootstock411 and welcome to CF.net in Jesus’ name.

1 Cor 10:11 Now all these things happened unto them for ensamples: and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come.

Things of the Old Testament are types of that which was to come. Adam was not deceived, but Eve being flesh of his flesh took his place with her. How can we see this come full circle as it were in Christ? Didn’t He choose to become one with fallen mankind? Adam gave his life to be one with Eve, and Jesus did the same to be one with us. In all this I don’t think God was caught off guard by Adam and Eve’s fall, else there would not have been a Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. Rev 13:8.

I think if we want to bring this "full circle," we can simply refer back to the writing in Romans 5:12-2, specifically Romans 5:19:
"For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous."

I'm just not convinced that Adam gave his life because he loved Eve so much or because he wanted to be one with her.

I don't know exactly why Adam chose to eat of the fruit because scripture doesn't seem to tell us Adam's thought process....but if I had to speculate, it would've been out of selfishness or pride, just like every other sin.

It just seems like this thread is insinuating that Adam's "sacrifice" was just as selfless as Jesus Christ's

Adam's "sacrifice," if any, was done out of disobedience.

Christ's sacrifice was done out of obedience...obedience to the point of death.

 

[Eugene]

I think if we want to bring this "full circle," we can simply refer back to the writing in Romans 5:12-2, specifically Romans 5:19:
"For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous."

I'm just not convinced that Adam gave his life because he loved Eve so much or because he wanted to be one with her.

I don't know exactly why Adam chose to eat of the fruit because scripture doesn't seem to tell us Adam's thought process....but if I had to speculate, it would've been out of selfishness or pride, just like every other sin.

It just seems like this thread is insinuating that Adam's "sacrifice" was just as selfless as Jesus Christ's

Adam's "sacrifice," if any, was done out of disobedience.

Christ's sacrifice was done out of obedience...obedience to the point of death.

I do like your example of Romans 5:19 and it certainly was disobedience on Adam’s part but as a type of the second Adam Jesus, for whatever reason the first Adam chose to be one with the “flesh of my flesh†of Gen 2:23 God gave to him and you’re correct; we’re not told anywhere that I know of right off hand. A thought I have is that Adam and Eve were made of one flesh, we also were made one with Christ due to His great sacrifice for us. To me if the comparison of the first and second Adams is manifest it is one’s failure in sin and the other’s victory over it. Man’s failure without God is always sure but even then God made coverings for their sin again making them one with Him.

As you suggest that Adam though not deceived was disobedient, but was this part of God’s plan? As I said previously, In all this I don’t think God was caught off guard by Adam and Eve’s fall, else there would not have been a Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. Rev 13:8. To me the fall of Adam was God’s gain of all mankind that overcame the world in Christ because we read in Acts 15:18, Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world.

Blessings in Christ Jesus and thank for for your reply.

 

[Edward]

Perhaps Adam didn't immediately eat of the fruit, but seen the changes in Eve and was envious?

 

[Classik]

Hahahahahaahahahahahah

 

[WIP]

On a side note...why did God punish the innocent snake (a creature He created) and not Satan who was responsible for the deception? Poor snake...

Yeah, I've always wondered about this as well. Snakes are actually very cool creatures and tend to be helpful in keeping harmful rodent populations down and mainly just want to be left alone. Because of this story, many snakes are just killed for no reason at all....sad. But then, the whole of creation suffers because of the Fall, not just snakes.

As for why God does such things... I guess we'll have to be satisfied with the answer He gave Job when Job asked "why"... when we can lay the foundations of worlds and enclose seas with doors, cause the dawn to know it's place and bring rain to the land, then we can instruct God as to what He should have done.

Perhaps this is a topic for another discussion but I wonder why we associate the serpent with a physical snake. I looked at KJV, NASB, SRSV, and NIV and all of them referred to him as a "serpent." I don't know Greek or Hebrew so I can't look to the original text to translate it myself so I trust the multitude of scholars that translated these versions got it accurate.

It does go on to say that God punished him by declaring, "upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:" KJV, which may give us the idea that he was talking about snakes. Did God curse snakes or the serpent? The definition of serpent is one that is treacherous, deceitful, liar, cheat, scoundrel, etc. Serpent could just be a word describing the character of Satan perhaps?

 

[reba]

snakes don't eat dirt worms do

 

[Classik]

snakes don't eat dirt worms do

Really? Are you a snakarian?;) worms eat snakes

 

[Edward]

Snakarian? Is that a word? Snakeologist?

 

[handy]

I'm married to a herpetologist... is that close enough?

 

[Classik]

Snakarian? Is that a word? Snakeologist?

A Snakarian studies American snakes while a snakologist studies centimosnakes;)

 

[Classik]

I'm married to a herpetologist... is that close enough?

unno

 

[stovebolts]

A husband is supposed to lead, guide and protect his wife, not lead her into temptation or sin.

I agree, but that wasn't wasn't the question. ;)

If I am reading [MENTION=94403]rootstock411[/MENTION] correctly, I believe she is responding to your premise in your opening OP:

He loved her so much, that he gave his life for her, that she might be saved?

If you agree with her above, then you must disagree with your previous premise because both can't be true.