What's new
By:
Filters
Christian Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Does Eve Deserve More Blame Than Adam?

  • Thread starter VirginShallConceive
  • Start date
Yes Deb,

We really are just thinking a little outside of the box here.....these are just 'wonderings' really....

I agree about Moses because he was an imperfect man, what I was theorizing about is only IF Adam had not sinned....and would have stayed or become righteous....

Digging
 
Grazer said:
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.
Click to expand...

Do you mean wrong as in not even being a real figure in the genealogy of Jesus?
 
digging said:
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
Click to expand...
It kinda looks to me like Paul is trying to get Adam off the hook, while in Genesis 3, God hands out punishments to Adam, his wife, and the serpent . . . because they apparently sinned.
 
I was wondering how many post I was going to have to go through before someone posted what actually happened, they were together when they ate the fruit, Adam in my opinion used Eve as a guinea pig, to see if she died after she ate, seeing she did not die, and probably not wanting her to attain godhood over him took and ate also

my opinion both guilty equally
 
thisnumbersdisconnected said:
Could you elaborate on that? I don't see it at all.
Click to expand...
Maybe "off the hook" was a little extreme. However, it does seem that Paul is pushing Adam farther toward the edge of the hook, while leaving Eve hooked to the crime scene.



What do you see?

"Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression." -1 Timothy 2:11-14
 
vocalyocal said:
I was wondering how many post I was going to have to go through before someone posted what actually happened,
Click to expand...

:toofunny I liked that!






vocalyocal said:
they were together when they ate the fruit, Adam in my opinion used Eve as a guinea pig, to see if she died after she ate, seeing she did not die, and probably not wanting her to attain godhood over him took and ate also

my opinion both guilty equally
Click to expand...
I honestly don't believe I have ever heard that one before. Hmmm . . . .




What do you think of Paul's take on the situation?

"Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression." -1 Timothy 2:11-14
 
P31Woman said:
If the story of Adam is a myth what do you think?
Click to expand...
I asked the question because maybe Grazer didn't take Adam's listing in the genealogy of Jesus into consideration before he came to his conclusion. I just wanted to clarify.
 
VirginShallConceive said:
I asked the question because maybe Grazer didn't take Adam's listing in the genealogy of Jesus into consideration before he came to his conclusion. I just wanted to clarify.
Click to expand...


You are hearing the influence of Paul Enns teaching. Here are some of his quotes.

"Accepting Paul's assumptions about human origins means the scientific and archaeological evidence must be ignored or mainstream theories [i.e., theories of evolution by whatever name] must be replaced with better ones.

I speak as a biblical scholar, not a scientist. But ignoring evidence is not a reasonable option. And reconfiguring the evidence to support Paul's assumptions of a 6000 year-old earth and two humans as parents of the entire human race is, quite simply, impossible."



"...What if we affirm that Paul's view of human origins does not settle the matter for us today? Of course, this leaves us with a pressing question: how do we think about Adam today?

This is where the conversation begins for those wishing to maintain a biblical faith in a modern world. And whatever way forward is chosen, we must be clear on one thing: we have all left "Paul's Adam." We are all "creating Adam," as it were, in an effort to reconcile Scripture and the modern understanding of human origins."

 
P31Woman said:
You are hearing the influence of Paul Enns teaching. Here are some of his quotes.

"Accepting Paul's assumptions about human origins means the scientific and archaeological evidence must be ignored or mainstream theories [i.e., theories of evolution by whatever name] must be replaced with better ones.

I speak as a biblical scholar, not a scientist. But ignoring evidence is not a reasonable option. And reconfiguring the evidence to support Paul's assumptions of a 6000 year-old earth and two humans as parents of the entire human race is, quite simply, impossible."



"...What if we affirm that Paul's view of human origins does not settle the matter for us today? Of course, this leaves us with a pressing question: how do we think about Adam today?

This is where the conversation begins for those wishing to maintain a biblical faith in a modern world. And whatever way forward is chosen, we must be clear on one thing: we have all left "Paul's Adam." We are all "creating Adam," as it were, in an effort to reconcile Scripture and the modern understanding of human origins."
Click to expand...
Welcome to this thread, P31Woman. :wave

That is interesting. I have never heard of Paul Enns, except maybe from you in a different thread. I can't really remember. You seem to be well-read and are always throwing out names of authors that I've never heard of. I like that, though. I like learning new things.



What is your take on Paul's view?

"Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression." -1 Timothy 2:11-14

Are you a 1T211 Woman? :o
 
I'll be perfectly honest Paul was never known to be a ladies man, in fact his life as a single man was declared to be his gift, I believe he was a bit cynical of women in general
 
vocalyocal said:
I was wondering how many post I was going to have to go through before someone posted what actually happened, they were together when they ate the fruit, Adam in my opinion used Eve as a guinea pig, to see if she died after she ate, seeing she did not die, and probably not wanting her to attain godhood over him took and ate also

my opinion both guilty equally
Click to expand...

LOL I've thought of that too. When she didn't die.... I hope that's not true.
 
vocalyocal said:
I'll be perfectly honest Paul was never known to be a ladies man, in fact his life as a single man was declared to be his gift, I believe he was a bit cynical of women in general
Click to expand...
I agree. It is overwhelmingly easy to come to that conclusion by simply reading his words.

Period.
 
VirginShallConceive said:
Welcome to this thread, P31Woman. :wave

That is interesting. I have never heard of Paul Enns, except maybe from you in a different thread. I can't really remember. You seem to be well-read and are always throwing out names of authors that I've never heard of. I like that, though. I like learning new things.



What is your take on Paul's view?

"Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression." -1 Timothy 2:11-14

Are you a 1T211 Woman? :o
Click to expand...

I never looked at it as Paul's view.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I think it means Adam knew full well what he was doing was wrong whereas the woman was decieved.

I call what Adam did a "high handed sin" when you know what you are doing is against God's command but you go ahead and do it anyway.

In the OT there was no sacrifice for that type of sin. That's the type of sin David lost his son over.

BTW, if you notice he points first to creation order......
 
Last edited by a moderator:
P31Woman said:
I never looked at it as Paul's view.
Click to expand...


P31Woman said:
I think it means Adam knew full well what he was doing was wrong whereas the woman was decieved.

I call what Adam did a "high handed sin" when you know what you are doing is against God's command but you go ahead and do it anyway.

In the OT there was no sacrifice for that type of sin. That's the type of sin David lost his son over.

BTW, if you notice he points first to creation order......
Click to expand...
But don't you agree that Paul is clearly putting more blame on Eve than he is Adam?

To me, it's as plain as day.
 
VirginShallConceive said:
But don't you agree that Paul is clearly putting more blame on Eve than he is Adam?

To me, it's as plain as day.
Click to expand...

Again this for me has nothing to do with Paul. This is God's word. He (God) is instructing us.

No I don't see it that way. In fact I see him saying Adam was not decieved.....Adam was not tricked.....Adam deliberately sinned against God.
 
Paul penned this too:

Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, in this way death spread to all men, because all sinned. (Romans 5)

and
For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead also comes through a man. For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive. (2 Corinthians 15) HCSB
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top