The serpent could not directly deceive Adam

[Malachi]

Eve ate some and gave some to Adam which means he gave in with Eve and ate it also.

That is true, but that was not Satanic deception. It was pure foolishness (and disobedience).

 

[Malachi]

If Adam loved Eve greater than life it's self, he may have eaten to be with Eve in death, rather than be alive and alone.

Except it showed that he loved Eve more than he loved God who was His Creator and Benefactor. One must then conclude that Adam was an ingrate.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Here's an interesting question....what fd Eve ate and Adam didn't? Would we need Jesus? How would that scenario play out?

Well one thing's clear....it would not be useful as an analogy to illustrate Christ and his bride. That much we know.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Yes it is true that we cannot be certain of Adams motives or intentions.

Right. But it isn't his motives and intentions that make it a useful analogy. What he did itself is what makes it an applicable analogy.
If his motives and intentions were even a little Godly it would simply make the analogy even better. My opinion is he prolly did it out of love for his wife knowing she had condemned herself to die.

whether Jesus died to save us from a justly deserved death, or from a merciless prosecutor is still a major theological debate...

'Merciless prosecutor' suggests injustice, which we know can't possibly be the case.
When you're guilty, a merciless prosecutor has no bearing on the fact that you're guilty and deserving of punishment. It doesn't change that fact. A merciless prosecutor is only a threat to a person being unjustly accused.

 

[Douglas Summers]

Someone has argued that the devil could not succeed in convincing Adam to eat the forbidden tree. Noticing how malleable woman was he went to her and succeeded.

And woman also has remained the man's weakness

I don't know about your first sentence.....but your second sentence is certainly true.

 

[Douglas Summers]

I think Adam ate because he realized the fate of his wife....and didn't want her to be alone in Gods justice. Of course I have no scripture to back it up.

Here's an interesting question....what fd Eve ate and Adam didn't? Would we need Jesus? How would that scenario play out?

But "what if" did not happen. Don't confuse or distract from what God teaches us. It takes away from the sound word of God and the seriousness of the consequences of disobedience and treats the word of God as a novel.

 

[childeye]

Except it showed that he loved Eve more than he loved God who was His Creator and Benefactor. One must then conclude that Adam was an ingrate.

Aren't we all? Besides, we're just speculating.

 

[childeye]

Right. But it isn't his motives and intentions that make it a useful analogy. What he did itself is what makes it an applicable analogy.
If his motives and intentions were even a little Godly it would simply make the analogy even better. My opinion is he prolly did it out of love for his wife knowing she had condemned herself to die.

I would say that you are probably a hopeless/hopeful romantic, but I like that, since you project no guile.

'Merciless prosecutor' suggests injustice, which we know can't possibly be the case.
When you're guilty, a merciless prosecutor has no bearing on the fact that you're guilty and deserving of punishment. It doesn't change that fact. A merciless prosecutor is only a threat to a person being unjustly accused.

Yes indeed, I am speaking about unjustly accused as in without any mitigation, as in a perverse desire to see the downfall of another sentient being. And also unjustly tempted in the garden by the same perverse person who unjustly accuses.

How exactly do we know that it can't possibly be the case? After all, what is justification by faith, and why is it that there is no condemnation in Christ, but there is certain condemnation in the letter of the law?

For I have considered considerably that Christ prays, "forgive them, for they know not what they do", pertaining to those who have scorned him, beaten him with cruelty, and crucified him. Is he lying and they know exactly what they're doing? Then Stephen, before dying, even while being stoned says, "lay not this sin to their charge". Why was he too, so sincerely and adamantly forgiving? And Paul who was Saul, in triumph overseeing the stoning of Stephen, then becomes a major preacher of the Gospel after scales fall from his eyes. What do those scales imply? All of these indicate a Gospel power that declares a faith of True Love, that is under siege.

Moreover, Satan is identified as both the tempter and accuser of mankind, the god of this world that blinds people in unbelief. And they are his works that Jesus comes to destroy, not Adam and Eve's works. Exactly how are we to be presented Holy and blameless, if we are certainly guilty and deserving of punishment? And finally, to that end, why are we judged according to what measure we judge others? Assuming that God is Holy and not naïve, it is not logical that God can make it so that those who are forgiven much, love much, and that those who are forgiven little, love little, unless the accusation is unjust.

 

[Deborah13]

Here's an interesting question....what fd Eve ate and Adam didn't? Would we need Jesus? How would that scenario play out?

I think,
Nothing would have happened. Eve's eyes were not opened to the knowledge of good and evil until after Adam ate, too. She would not have known good and evil.
The sin nature passes to the children from their father, not their mother.
Jesus was born without the sin nature because God was His father.

 

[Classik]

Misogyny is hatred for women. It has nothing to do with this.


As to this, it is pure speculation. Disregard it. We will never know why Eve had wandered off from Adam's side.

We'd ask God or them

 

[childeye]

I think,
Nothing would have happened. Eve's eyes were not opened to the knowledge of good and evil until after Adam ate, too. She would not have known good and evil.
The sin nature passes to the children from their father, not their mother.
Jesus was born without the sin nature because God was His father.

For what it's worth, I like this, but I think Eve would have known good and evil and Adam would not.

 

[Deborah13]

For what it's worth, I like this, but I think Eve would have known good and evil and Adam would not.

Why?

 

[childeye]

Why?

Because she ate and Adam didn't.

 

[Deborah13]

Because she ate and Adam didn't.

So God would have commend her even though she did not have the knowledge of good and evil?

 

[childeye]

So God would have commend her even though she did not have the knowledge of good and evil?

I'm not sure I understand the question. I've re-read your post #29, and I would point to your statement that her eyes were not opened until after Adam ate. I cannot conclude that as definitely true, since the scripture may be referring to an overall consequence rather than implying that their eyes were opened at the same time. Scripture indicates that she ate first, and then persuaded Adam, for God says that he should not have hearkened to the woman.

 

[Deborah13]

I'm not sure I understand the question. I've re-read your post #29, and I would point to your statement that her eyes were not opened until after Adam ate. I cannot conclude that as definitely true, since the scripture may be referring to an overall consequence rather than implying that their eyes were opened at the same time. Scripture indicates that she ate first, and then persuaded Adam, for God says that he should not have hearkened to the woman.

Did sin enter the world through Eve or Adam?

 

[childeye]

Did sin enter the world through Eve or Adam?

Through Adam.

 

[Deborah13]

Through Adam.

So I think that if Eve had the knowledge good and evil [sin and death], before Adam did, sin would have entered the world through her.

 

[JohnDB]

Through Adam.

Everything reproduces after its own seed...
But the Seed of the woman was promised.
Galatians 3:16(NIV)

 

[JohnDB]

So I think that if Eve had the knowledge good and evil [sin and death], before Adam did, sin would have entered the world through her.

It's one of those paradox symbols.
Through agency of the woman (she was Adam's taste tester) it was deemed good food for making one wise...now again through this symbol of the bride of Christ again we had salvation come to mankind. (Jesus, by agency of a nation of priests...though not because of the actions of the nation)