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!

The stumbling blocks of reformed doctrines

reba said:
Adam was told by God not to eat 'that' fruit..before Eve was created...
Gen 2:16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:
Gen 2:17 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.
Gen 2:18 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.
Click to expand...

So?
 
MarkT said:
So?
Click to expand...
..
Gen 2:15 And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it.

Did Adam fail at the task of dressing and keeping the garden?

Gen 3:3 But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.
How would Eve have known this was the tree of knowledge if Adam had not told her?...

.
 
reba said:
..
Gen 2:15 And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it.

Did Adam fail at the task of dressing and keeping the garden?

Gen 3:3 But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.
How would Eve have known this was the tree of knowledge if Adam had not told her?...

.
Click to expand...

Either Adam told her or God told her. What's your point?
 
MarkT said:
According to Paul, Adam was not deceived, which is why I believe he didn't know. Also Paul only names Eve as the transgressor which tells me she caused the transgression; she caused Adam to sin. Adam never said he knew. All he said was Eve gave him the fruit. Gen. 3:12 I take Adam's words to be factually true. I don't see Adam blaming Eve.

So it's only blaming her if he knew. But I don't think he did. All he did was listen to her voice. Maybe she said something like, Eat this. it is good. I don't know. But I'm pretty sure Adam would not have eaten if he knew what it was he was eating.
Click to expand...

MarkT said:
Either Adam told her or God told her. What's your point?
Click to expand...

Re-reading the first post above to see how/if i misunderstood...
 
MarkT said:
According to Paul, Adam was not deceived, which is why I believe he didn't know.
Click to expand...
This is the only interpretation of Adam not being deceived that I find positive in it's connotation. I am therefore not inclined to argue against it. It causes me to have to re-evaluate the nuances of the phrase 'not deceived'.
Also Paul only names Eve as the transgressor which tells me she caused the transgression; she caused Adam to sin. Adam never said he knew. All he said was Eve gave him the fruit. Gen. 3:12 I take Adam's words to be factually true. I don't see Adam blaming Eve. So it's only blaming her if he knew. But I don't think he did.
Click to expand...
Again, you are very convincing. It makes perfect sense that Adam could not blame Eve, as in trying to excuse himself, if he saw nothing to excuse himself of. But the part about Paul saying she was in the transgression is indeed excluding Adam, which appears to be impossible unless he didn't know, and that is very convincing.

All he did was listen to her voice. Maybe she said something like, Eat this. it is good. I don't know. But I'm pretty sure Adam would not have eaten if he knew what it was he was eating.
Click to expand...
Gosh, Golly, or something to that effect. Could it really be that simple? I don't know. So let's see, when God says, "Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it"....rather than it being accusatory, it becomes explanatory. Genesis 3:17. The implications are many. You've given me a lot to think about. Currently I can only think of one place in scripture that might dispute that. Through one man's disobedience sin entered unto all mankind. Romans 5:14-19.
 
Last edited:
childeye said:
Mark T is proposing that Adam didn't know that Eve was giving him the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil until after he ate.
Click to expand...
Thanks, That is what i understood on matter how many times i read it... I can go with Adam not being deceived, he was not fooled , or tricked... he just did what he wanted at the time... like we all do..
 
childeye said:
This is the only interpretation of Adam not being deceived that I find positive in it's connotation. I am therefore not inclined to argue against it. It causes me to have to re-evaluate the nuances of the phrase 'not deceived'.
Again, you are very convincing. It makes perfect sense that Adam could not blame Eve, as in trying to excuse himself, if he saw nothing to excuse himself of. But the part about Paul saying she was in the transgression is indeed excluding Adam, which appears to be impossible unless he didn't know, and that is very convincing.


Gosh, Golly, or something to that effect. Could it really be that simple? I don't know. So let's see, when God says, "Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it"....rather than it being accusatory, it becomes explanatory. Genesis 3:17. The implications are many. You've given me a lot to think about. Currently I can only think of one place in scripture that might dispute that. Through one man's disobedience sin entered unto all mankind. Romans 5:14-19.
Click to expand...

If Adam knew, then he was deceived. But Paul said he wasn't deceived. Also if he knew, then the LORD would have said because you knew and ate instead of because you listened to your wife and ate.
 
reba said:
Thanks, That is what i understood on matter how many times i read it... I can go with Adam not being deceived, he was not fooled , or tricked... he just did what he wanted at the time... like we all do..
Click to expand...
That makes no sense to me. Why would he just simply eat something knowing it would kill him?
 
MarkT said:
If Adam knew, then he was deceived. But Paul said he wasn't deceived. Also if he knew, then the LORD would have said because you knew and ate instead of because you listened to your wife and ate.
Click to expand...
I know. I believe I have said the same thing. I also said that it makes no sense, that if Adam knew and willingly disobeyed God while the woman needed to be deceived into disobeying, that the man should have authority over the woman. If that's the case, then why not put the fox in charge of the henhouse?
 
childeye said:
This is the only interpretation of Adam not being deceived that I find positive in it's connotation. I am therefore not inclined to argue against it. It causes me to have to re-evaluate the nuances of the phrase 'not deceived'.
Again, you are very convincing. It makes perfect sense that Adam could not blame Eve, as in trying to excuse himself, if he saw nothing to excuse himself of. But the part about Paul saying she was in the transgression is indeed excluding Adam, which appears to be impossible unless he didn't know, and that is very convincing.


Gosh, Golly, or something to that effect. Could it really be that simple? I don't know. So let's see, when God says, "Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it"....rather than it being accusatory, it becomes explanatory. Genesis 3:17. The implications are many. You've given me a lot to think about. Currently I can only think of one place in scripture that might dispute that. Through one man's disobedience sin entered unto all mankind. Romans 5:14-19.
Click to expand...

I considered that. It is possible she convinced him to eat. Occam's razor.
 
reba said:
Many of us do things or eat things today that we know are killers... Adam was no different ...
Click to expand...
Adam was not born with sin like us. He was innocent without the knowledge of good and evil unlike us. He was made in the likeness of God. There has to be more to it than he just felt like eating it that day coincidentally, the day Eve is beguiled by the serpent.
 
childeye said:
Adam was not born with sin like us. He was innocent without the knowledge of good and evil unlike us. He was made in the likeness of God. There has to be more to it than he just felt like eating it that day coincidentally, the day Eve is beguiled by the serpent.
Click to expand...
Wasnt the law given so folks would know what was right and what was wrong?

Gen 3:3 But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.
Pro_6:23 For the commandment is a lamp; and the law is light; and reproofs of instruction are the way of life:

childeye said:
Are you saying I have never said you say sensible things to me?
Click to expand...
Just smile childeye just smile.. :)
 
MarkT said:
I considered that. It is possible she convinced him to eat. Occam's razor.
Click to expand...
If Adam was convinced to eat as Reba said, because the woman didn't die, I suppose it could be said he was not deceived as in tricked into eating. It would be nice to know what Eve said to Adam. Perhaps "look I'm not dead, it's just as the serpent said".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top