Does Eve Deserve More Blame Than Adam?

[Asyncritus]

You'll note I said the purported author of Genesis being that of Moshe or Moses.
"..there is hardly a biblical scholar in the world actively working on the [authorship] problem who would claim that the Five Books of Moses were written by Moses." R.E. Friedman - Author: Who Wrote The Bible?

Strange that you should have said the 'purported' author was Moses. Who did the purporting? I think Genesis was written by the actual people in the events recorded.

Why are these people working on 'the authorship PROBLEM'? Haven't they got anything better to do with their time?

And right there we have another problem. None of them would say the 5 books of Moses were written by Moses. Why not, I wonder. Friedman has a distressingly higher critical air about him, one with which I disagree profoundly.

I trust you do not agree with him.

Well, there's certainly nothing literal about it. And given Jesus spoke in Parables and idioms were quite popular at the time the Bible was written, I'll agree to disagree with you.

Well, well, well! What a ridiculous idea! What makes you say so anyway, in direct opposition to Jesus, Paul and whoever else quotes Genesis in the NT?

 

[Grazer]

Quoting something does not make it literal or mean the author who's quoting believes its literal.

Paul probably did believe in an historical Adam, he may well have believed that the earth was flat and didn't move as well.

Sent from my HTC Desire S using Tapatalk 2

 

[Sparkey]

Quoting something does not make it literal or mean the author who's quoting believes its literal.

Paul probably did believe in an historical Adam, he may well have believed that the earth was flat and didn't move as well.

Sent from my HTC Desire S using Tapatalk 2

Ad hominem circumstantial constitutes an attack on the bias of a source. This is fallacious because a disposition to make a certain argument does not make the argument false. Belittling one's opponent in order to attack their claims or invalidate their arguments is an irrelevant method. There is zero evidence that Paul believed in a "flat earth".

 

[Davies]

Paul probably did believe in an historical Adam, he may well have believed that the earth was flat and didn't move as well.

Hi Grazer,

That's a funny one. One of the smartest people I've know where I work, who is much much smarter than myself, was using the 'people believed the earth was flat' straw man to disprove the credibility of the Bible. I doubt Paul thought the earth was flat though, because Isaiah tells us the earth was round. You can drop the probably in regards to Paul believing in a historical Adam as well.

- Davies

 

[Grazer]

Hi Grazer,

That's a funny one. One of the smartest people I've know where I work, who is much much smarter than myself, was using the 'people believed the earth was flat' straw man to disprove the credibility of the Bible. I doubt Paul thought the earth was flat though, because Isaiah tells us the earth was round. You can drop the probably in regards to Paul believing in a historical Adam as well.

- Davies

And what about it moving? And what about the point about quoting something doesn't mean its literal?

 

[Davies]

And what about it moving? And what about the point about quoting something doesn't mean its literal?

Good morning Grazer,

I think we can discern genres of speech. Some books are written poetically, and some are historical, like Genesis. A good concept is to allow Scripture interpret Scripture. If something isn't explained, I don't think it would be good to reason from silence, but focus on what is given and trust it with all your heart. Overtime, I think we will learn where we've go it wrong, and when that happens, thank God for His patience and gentleness.

- Davies

 

[JCitoL]

the woman can be vary dangerous as an occultist/esotericist

Genesis 3:1-7 "Now the serpent(i.e. and lo, the devil came from the "darkness", and it) was more subtil than any beast(or: than any thing) of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden(i.e. you must not do (of) each activity which is good for you)? And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden(i.e. we can do each user activity): But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of(i.e. which is beyond) the garden(viz. the activity which for the humans is occultism/esotericism), God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it(i.e. don't do that), neither shall ye touch it(i.e. explore it), lest ye die. And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened(i.e. then there will appear occult/yogic perceptions/senses in you), and ye shall be as gods(i.e. and you will become as the God Himself), knowing good and evil(viz. beginning to be sage and mighty as Him). And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food(i.e. ostensibly looked good for the human), and that it was pleasant to the eyes(i.e. and that it ostensibly looked appropriate for the human mind), and a tree to be desired to make one wise(i.e. to make the human to be sage and mighty as God), she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat. And the eyes(i.e. and the occult/yogic perceptions/senses) of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked(i.e. and whereat from that moment on they started to perceive the physical creature/creation of God as sinful); and they sewed fig leaves(i.e. and they found great false spiritual/religious knowledge) together, and made themselves aprons(i.e. and made themselves human spirituality/religion beginning to defile the creature/creation of God thus)."

Blessings

 

[Sparkey]

And what about it moving? And what about the point about quoting something doesn't mean its literal?

Okay, let's give your side of the discussion the benefit of the doubt and agree that Paul didn't have access to telescopes. Does this mean that the bible wasn't inspired by God? I don't get your connection on this at all. How could the lack of technology during the time of Christ mean that God was limited and could not have spoken through Moses?

Recall that during the time of Abraham, God likened the number of stars to the number of grains of sand on the earth (Gen 22:17) (Heb 11:12) (Gen 15:5). This was during the time that the unaided eye could at most (from any given point of the earth) only count 3,000 stars. Even given optimal conditions, nighttime, new moon, winter - including all land masses and all bodies of water - from every point on the earth, only 6,000 could be seen. Cut that number in least half for any given point. Now, who is blind? Certainly, not the bible nor its Author, the Ancient of Days. Paul believed that God promised Abraham innumerable descendants which is more than what he could have counted by trusting his eyes over God, had he wanted to.

But now, before somebody reminds me - totopic

 

[Grazer]

Sparrow

I think you've missed the point. I'm not saying Pauls understanding of the world means that scripture isn't inspired. I'm saying that his understanding may have shaped how he interpreted Genesis and other old testament passages. Or going further, God used the culture of the time or possibly something deeper than that. Doesn't mean scripture isnt inspired but it doesn't mean Paul is right either.

I think the cultural setting and its understandings of the world are very part of the discussion on how we handle scripture and I very much don't take the view that to take it literalistically/face value solely is to take it seriously.

Sent from my HTC Desire S using Tapatalk 2

 

[Asyncritus]

Quoting something does not make it literal or mean the author who's quoting believes its literal.

Neither does it mean that he didn't. But common sense and logic indicate that he did take it literally, especially when you actually bother to read what he did say.

Paul probably did believe in an historical Adam, he may well have believed that the earth was flat and didn't move as well.

Oh yeah. Maybe he thought it was square - or maybe an oblong.

Where does that leave your statement?

 

[Grazer]

Neither does it mean that he didn't. But common sense and logic indicate that he did take it literally, especially when you actually bother to read what he did say.



Oh yeah. Maybe he thought it was square - or maybe an oblong.

Where does that leave your statement?

But the argument has always been "Paul quoted it, therefore he believes its literal" and that is just false. Paul did believe in a literal Adam but simply quoting him doesn't prove it. If I quote Romeo and Juliet, would you automatically assume I believe its literal?

Leaves my statement as it is, nothing has changed

Sent from my HTC Desire S using Tapatalk 2

 

[Asyncritus]

Sparrow

I think you've missed the point. I'm not saying Pauls understanding of the world means that scripture isn't inspired. I'm saying that his understanding may have shaped how he interpreted Genesis and other old testament passages. Doesn't mean scripture isnt inspired but it doesn't mean Paul is right either.

I think the cultural setting and its understandings of the world are very part of the discussion on how we handle scripture and I very much don't take the view that to take it literalistically/face value solely is to take it seriously.

I gathered as much from the tone of your remarks.

Don't you think God knew about cultural changes that were coming?

Or don't you think He has the ability to cause things to be written in a way which would be understandable to people of cultures other than Greek/ Hebrew ones?

 

[Sparkey]

Sparrow

I think you've missed the point. I'm not saying Pauls understanding of the world means that scripture isn't inspired. I'm saying that his understanding may have shaped how he interpreted Genesis and other old testament passages. Or going further, God used the culture of the time or possibly something deeper than that. Doesn't mean scripture isnt inspired but it doesn't mean Paul is right either.

I think the cultural setting and its understandings of the world are very part of the discussion on how we handle scripture and I very much don't take the view that to take it literalistically/face value solely is to take it seriously.

Sent from my HTC Desire S using Tapatalk 2

Okay, let's say I do miss the point, what exactly do you allege that Paul wrong about when he wrote under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit?

 

[Grazer]

Okay, let's say I do miss the point, what exactly do you allege that Paul wrong about when he wrote under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit?

I think Paul is wrong about an historical Adam. Even if Adam wasn't a literal figure, the force of Paul's point doesn't change.

Sent from my HTC Desire S using Tapatalk 2

 

[Sparkey]

You mention, "the force of Paul's point" and say Adam didn't exist. Okay, I don't agree, but for the sake of your argument, is there something else?
What are you trying to say about "Paul's point"?

 

[Grazer]

Paul is introducing Adam regarding sin and the solution. He's been building up to his point in the previous chapters. To me, I can look at Adam in a literary context and Paul's point makes sense.

There's something much deeper going on in the genesis story, I'm just not sure what exactly yet.

Sent from my HTC Desire S using Tapatalk 2

 

[Deborah13]

I'm going to add only a personal thought......I wonder if Adam could have redeemed Eve by giving his life for her like Jesus has done for us all. Since the bible does call Jesus the 2nd Adam.

Digging

Digging, you really made me think about what the scripture says.

I don't think Eve would have needed to be redeemed her action was not willful. She was literally deceived by the angel Lucifer. She saw that it the fruit was pleasing to the eye, etc. When she ate she did not see her nakedness as sinful, as being exposed. It wasn't until after Adam ate that THEY saw.
If Adam had not eatten but rather had functioned in his authority in the garden by confronting Lucifer and telling Lucifer what God had said (just as Jesus did) that would have been it. When Jesus was tempted Satan did everything he could to get Jesus to sin, to get Adam to sin he used Eve, she was nothing more than a pawn.
As far as Eve's relationship with God Adam should have been her mediator as Jesus is for us.

I am very glad I am not a husband. God has given them a very grave responsibility. It is very hard for all of us to remember that another person is not our enemy. "we do not war against flesh and blood but against powers and principalities" paraphrase. Satan will do his best to destroy a family, if he is allowed to he has the means to destroy the lives.

 

[digging]

Those are some good thought Deb,

So it might be considered that Jesus died to cover Adams sin, and as you have said if Adam had not sinned he could have asked God for his righteousness to cover Eve as Jesus righteousness covers us now?

Digging

 

[Deborah13]

Those are some good thought Deb,
So it might be considered that Jesus died to cover Adams sin, and as you have said if Adam had not sinned he could have asked God for his righteousness to cover Eve as Jesus righteousness covers us now?

Digging

No. Jesus died, literally gave His life for us and was raise from the died. But he could have been a mediator such as Moses was for the people. Even Mose's righteousness would not have been enough. He was but a man. Jesus is called the second Adam but Adam is not called the first Jesus.

 

[Sparkey]

It is the Spirit and Mind of Christ in us that speaks of the desire to cover sin.
It seems to me that we are different from the 1st Adam because we have benefited from the life and example of Jesus, the 2nd Adam. Our thoughts are influenced by the Holy Spirit. Could God have accomplished His purpose if Adam did not sin? I believe so, yes. Does Eve deserve more blame? Seems to me that the Promise was made to her seed. She was honored.