THE FIRST LIE

[Free]

It is dangerous to form doctrine around such presumption. As I stated earlier, there is no reason to believe that God didn't tell them to not touch that fruit at some point and it is implied in the command to not eat it.

So it is dangerous to reason doctrine based upon only that which GOD said was true? And exactly where is my presumption, or what is it that i have said that is not supported by scripture? There is every reason to accept that there was only One Truth in the Beginning because it is the only spoken: and to think that GOD might have said somehting else is indeed a dangerous assumption and cannot be supported or justified by scripture, since you would be believing something GOD never said was true.

And because I already know precisely where you are going with this whole thread and what you are wanting to say but can't because it is in violation of the TOS, I am going to say right back to you that what you want to say is no different than what I have presented except that you don't attribute the words to God and instead make heresy of it all.

Could Eve have made it up? Yes. Could Satan have told her earlier? Not likely since he doesn't enter the story until this point and she wouldn't have mistaken him for God. Could God have told them earlier and it just isn't something that was recorded? Yes.

By your belief, GOD told Adam one commandment, but told Eve somehting else. Where does that make sense?

No, that is something I did not say nor is it even implied in what I have said. As I clearly stated:

"Firstly, we don't know if God never said that to them. Secondly, touching the fruit would indicate a desire to eat it, or in the very least to invite temptation to eat it, and in order to eat it, it must be touched. So in the command to not eat of that fruit, it is implied that it should not be touched."

And:

"we don't know all of what God told Adam and Eve. We know that God said not to eat the fruit but it would be error to conclude that that is all God ever said to them regarding it."

When, then, can one find any proveable doctrine, given the facts are incomplete? Aren't you saying that the WORD of GOD is not the whole truth, since there might be more HE never said and had recorded? What then can you stand on firmly, for your interpretations of truth?

And yet your position does this very thing. We simply do not know where Eve got the idea that they were not to even touch the fruit. However, the only two possible explanations I can think of that don't lead to error and heresy are that she either lied, or God simply told them at some other point and it is not recorded. I believe my position is the much stronger and more plausible.

As to whether or not the Bible shows us the complete truth? Of course not. It's all true but it is far from comprehensive. To think that God never had any other conversations with Adam and Eve while in the Garden is simply absurd.

If we put our faith in only what GOD spoke, how then can we error in our interpretations, given the Word is perfect and holy? Did not the Preacher say that after seeking out all the was written of the TRUTH by men, he found out and admonishes us that the books of men are endless, studying them just wearies out the flesh, and the best a man can do is to Fear GOD and keep His Commandments (believe His Word)? (Eccl 12:10-14)

Certainy, 'my' doctrine is simple, because the TRUTH is simple (IICOR11:3), else only the wise would understand. My faith is in GOD's WORD, and my doctrine is derived soley by it. If you find an assumption, let me know, or show me how it is so.

You do presume something in this and it is error.

 

[Free]

It is dangerous to form doctrine around such presumption. As I stated earlier, there is no reason to believe that God didn't tell them to not touch that fruit at some point and it is implied in the command to not eat it.

I'm just asking because I know He told Adam before He made Eve....but when did He tell Eve. If He didn't then she got her info from Adam. And if Adam had not eaten would there have been a fall?

Genesis 27
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.
18 And the Lord God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.

I believe I have just answered this in the post above.

 

[childeye]

What a subtle lie that would propose the option of freedom to a people who were already free.

 

[enlightened]

It is IMPOSSIBLE that Eve made it up (don't touch), because this would violate the fact that the devil told the first lie (JN8:44). Why can you not understand this reasoning? You find fault with my interpretation, even though all I have said is what is already written, and I accept the Word as being complete. I do not make excuses or believe things not written, as others do. Did not the devil tell the first lie? and did he not deceive Eve? Then the two events are one; and, since the LORD twice iterated the Commandment to Adam during his trial and sentencing, and neither time did HE ever mention not touching the 'forbidden' fruit, then it is clear that even though Eve spoke untruth, she innocently spoke such because it was what she was told was the truth. In other words, her testimony is the proof she was already deceived. Now, if you want to believe there might be more said which was not recorded, that is fine, I would not argue the point. I, however, cannot believe in things not written, so i'm locked into the interpretation I have. And I believe the LORD wrote enough for us to determine the truth of the matter, not wanting us to be ignorant of the beginning of sin, nor the depravity of man.

Tell me: assuming the serpent was one who was ignorant of the Commandment when he approached Eve and asked his question, could he then take what Eve said was the truth, go to the center of the Garden and know for certain which one of the two trees he could eat from, and which one he could not? Is best odds are 50/50! So what? What good then was Eve's knowledge to keep one from sinning, which meant death?

 

[enlightened]

What a subtle lie that would propose the option of freedom to a people who were already free.

If it is the serpent's question you are referring to, he made no proposition of anything, rather, he merely asked a question. He asked her if it was true that they could not eat from all the trees in the Garden, which, while being true since there was one tree they could not eat from, was also false because not all the trees were excluded. In other words, he posed it as a true/false question, but it is impossible to answer it as such, since the Commandment was the Law to eat from All except one (the exception to the Law).

If you are referring to the serpent's telling Eve she could eat freely from the 'forbidden' tree, then you are wrong that it is a subtle lie, rather, it is blatant lie against Truth, and is therefore not subtle at all. If I tell you that Jesus is not the only Begotten Son of God (which HE IS), is this being subtle? Does it persuade you to believe it?

 

[childeye]

What a subtle lie that would propose the option of freedom to a people who were already free.

If it is the serpent's question you are referring to, he made no proposition of anything, rather, he merely asked a question. He asked her if it was true that they could not eat from all the trees in the Garden, which, while being true since there was one tree they could not eat from, was also false because not all the trees were excluded. In other words, he posed it as a true/false question, but it is impossible to answer it as such, since the Commandment was the Law to eat from All except one (the exception to the Law).

If you are referring to the serpent's telling Eve she could eat freely from the 'forbidden' tree, then you are wrong that it is a subtle lie, rather, it is blatant lie against Truth, and is therefore not subtle at all. If I tell you that Jesus is not the only Begotten Son of God (which HE IS), is this being subtle? Does it persuade you to believe it?

Genesis 3:4-5

New International Version (NIV)

4 “You will not certainly die,” the serpent said to the woman. 5 “For God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”


I am refering to the proposition that the serpent said,"you shall not surely die". Therein is the implication that God is a liar. Note in verse 5, the serpent also implies that God is keeping them from something that would add to them and make them like unto God. These are what I view as subtle and suggestive without actually saying God is a liar and keeping you down. Adam was made in God's Image. He already was like God. Hence I said, "what a subtle lie that would propose the option of freedom to a people who were already free".

 

[Elijah674]

What a subtle lie that would propose the option of freedom to a people who were already free.

If it is the serpent's question you are referring to, he made no proposition of anything, rather, he merely asked a question. He asked her if it was true that they could not eat from all the trees in the Garden, which, while being true since there was one tree they could not eat from, was also false because not all the trees were excluded. In other words, he posed it as a true/false question, but it is impossible to answer it as such, since the Commandment was the Law to eat from All except one (the exception to the Law).

If you are referring to the serpent's telling Eve she could eat freely from the 'forbidden' tree, then you are wrong that it is a subtle lie, rather, it is blatant lie against Truth, and is therefore not subtle at all. If I tell you that Jesus is not the only Begotten Son of God (which HE IS), is this being subtle? Does it persuade you to believe it?

Genesis 3:4-5

New International Version (NIV)

4 “You will not certainly die,†the serpent said to the woman. 5 “For God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.â€


I am refering to the proposition that the serpent said,"you shall not surely die". Therein is the implication that God is a liar. Note in verse 5, the serpent also implies that God is keeping them from something that would add to them and make them like unto God. These are what I view as subtle and suggestive without actually saying God is a liar and keeping you down. Adam was made in God's Image. He already was like God. Hence I said, "what a subtle lie that would propose the option of freedom to a people who were already free".

That is fact. No more Adam + Eve from there on! It was from that point forward that a plan was put in place where they could choose life which is conditional.

--Elijah

 

[childeye]

What a subtle lie that would propose the option of freedom to a people who were already free.

If it is the serpent's question you are referring to, he made no proposition of anything, rather, he merely asked a question. He asked her if it was true that they could not eat from all the trees in the Garden, which, while being true since there was one tree they could not eat from, was also false because not all the trees were excluded. In other words, he posed it as a true/false question, but it is impossible to answer it as such, since the Commandment was the Law to eat from All except one (the exception to the Law).

If you are referring to the serpent's telling Eve she could eat freely from the 'forbidden' tree, then you are wrong that it is a subtle lie, rather, it is blatant lie against Truth, and is therefore not subtle at all. If I tell you that Jesus is not the only Begotten Son of God (which HE IS), is this being subtle? Does it persuade you to believe it?

Genesis 3:4-5

New International Version (NIV)

4 “You will not certainly die,” the serpent said to the woman. 5 “For God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”


I am refering to the proposition that the serpent said,"you shall not surely die". Therein is the implication that God is a liar. Note in verse 5, the serpent also implies that God is keeping them from something that would add to them and make them like unto God. These are what I view as subtle and suggestive without actually saying God is a liar and keeping you down. Adam was made in God's Image. He already was like God. Hence I said, "what a subtle lie that would propose the option of freedom to a people who were already free".

That is fact. No more Adam + Eve from there on! It was from that point forward that a plan was put in place where they could choose life which is conditional.

--Elijah

Are you refering to the Old Testament of choosing life via keeping the commandments of God wherein lies the curse of death?