Who Sinned First?

[William]

Adam or Eve?

[PinSeeker]

[Eve's] sin was effected by her having been deceived, which is not the case with Adam.

This point is more important than this discussion appears to recognize, particularly with reference to the OP and the relevance of that question to human sin.

Exactly.

Given Adam's mandate expressly implied by Genesis 2:15 ("to tend [the garden] and watch over it"), I think we can say that Adam allowed his wife to be tempted—whether or not he was standing there with her as it happened (as I believe he was). If Adam had properly executed his mandate, the serpent would not have been in the garden in the first place. That is how Adam would be held accountable for her being deceived.

I think we're just sort of missing, here, so to speak. I don't mind anyone saying Adam allowed Eve to be tempted, but to me that unintentionally insinuates that Adam had some sort of control over Satan's actions, which is absurd. I think we can agree that Adam could possibly have either a.) quelled Satan's attempt to deceive Eve, or b.) corrected Eve once Satan had made his attempt to deceive Eve, or c.) corrected Eve after Satan had deceived Eve. More on this below -- and I'll just say right now that I think the correct answer is 'c' -- but really, it matters not a terrible lot what the correct answer is; the outcome is what is important. Eve was deceived, and yes, Adam failed and sinned -- and in multiple ways -- against God, and also against Eve.

I don't have a particular "problem," really with the statement that if Adam had properly executed his mandate, the serpent would not have been in the garden in the first place, but that also seems to make an erroneous insinuation -- again, probably unintentionally -- that God was somehow surprised that Adam did not properly execute his mandate and had to make some sort of snap decision and change His plan on the fly, and that is surely not the case. God was in control then, He is now, and forever will be, which I feel certain you agree with.

You and I do agree, however, that Adam could also have exposed the serpent's deception but did not, but deliberately chose instead to follow his wife into transgression.

Sure. This is what I've been saying.

No, the deception inflicted by Satan had already occurred ...

This presupposes that Adam was not with her at the time, but the text suggests that he was. It says that, upon listening to the serpent, the woman took of its fruit and also gave some to her husband "who was with her" (v. 6).

It presupposes no such thing. Yes, Adam was there with her at the time. This point is not worth arguing, to me, but the text surely does not insinuate any time lapse from the conversation between Eve and Satan to her deception. I'm being a little facetious here, but she didn't go off and ponder the conversation for any period of time and finally come to the erroneous conclusion that Satan was right. I most certainly agree with you concerning verse 6.

Bible commentators have a curious aversion to accepting that Adam was standing there with her—as do you, it seems—but, if he was (as the text suggests and I believe), then William would be correct that "Adam remaining silent contributed directly to Eve being deceived."

It is very curious, but I have no such aversion. See above.

Adam and Eve both knew of the command; that's clearly the force of the text. Satan deceived Eve. Adam could have corrected Eve and kept her, um, "straight," but did not. He failed in his responsibility to God (to obey Him and love Him with all his heart, mind, soul and strength) and his responsibility to the wife God had given him (to love her and to give himself up for her).

One hundred percent. Moreover, I don't think anybody disagrees with this.

Addendum: Please read my response to William below for further details, and please comment as needed, if you feel so inclined.

Sure.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

I think in general terms we agree the story presents Adam as the first to sin and that his sin was allowing his wife to be tempted by the Serpent.

One hundred percent.

See above, in particular:

I don't mind anyone saying Adam allowed Eve to be tempted, but to me that unintentionally insinuates that Adam had some sort of control over Satan's actions, which is absurd. I think we can agree that Adam could possibly have either a.) quelled Satan's attempt to deceive Eve, or b.) corrected Eve once Satan had made his attempt to deceive Eve, or c.) corrected Eve after Satan had deceived Eve. Really, it matters not what the correct answer is -- though I lean toward answer c -- the outcome is what is important. Eve was deceived, and yes, Adam failed and sinned -- and in multiple ways -- against God, and also against Eve.

Adam could have prevented Eve from being deceived. The script says that he stood by and simply watched.

Exactly.

And again I say -- although it's really not such a big honkin' deal that we disagree on this -- that I don't mind anyone saying Adam allowed Eve to be tempted, but to me that unintentionally insinuates that Adam had some sort of control over Satan's actions, which is absurd. I would still maintain that Eve was deceived, and Adam then failed to correct her, to -- and this may be the best way to put it -- save her from acting on that deception and eating the fruit. This is really the larger pattern of God's Word as far as this goes. We can look at a passage like Isaiah 53 and see this:

• "All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned -- every one -- to his own way; and the LORD has laid on Him (Jesus) the iniquity of us all."

And also Romans 3:

• ",,,all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified by His (God the Father's) grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus (God the Son)..."

It is not the intention of the thread to debate on whether being deceived is sinful or not. We can agree that Eve was deceived and I can agree that Eve's being deceived was the fault of Adams inactivity in being unwilling to step up to the plate and defend his wife from the Serpents deceptive temptations.

Do you agree or disagree that Adam was also culpable for failing to protect or guard the garden (Gen. 2:15), made evident by the presence of the serpent? Clearly, the deception could not have taken place if Adam had fulfilled that obligation.

Hm. You seem to think, John, that Satan's presence in Eden was Adam's fault. Am I right in hearing that from you? Because if so, I very much disagree with that, and wonder what might give you that idea.

Eve obviously thought that the god had commanded not to touch the fruit ...

It is not necessary that she truly thought God had commanded this. It could be that she knew God commanded against partaking of the fruit and interpreted a prohibition against even touching it (i.e., she knew that part wasn't something God had said). As some biblical commentators have pointed out, and so have you, this was also a sin. The serpent asked, "Did God really say?" And Eve replied that God said something he did not expressly say. So, upon hearing her arrogate to herself the function of prophet by elaborating upon what God had said, the serpent saw an opening and took it.

Even assuming that it was Eve who added to the gods command ... Adam failed to correct her and this directly relates to how the Serpent cunningly used Adam's silence and Eve's misinformation to further present his argument and talk Eve into touching the forbidden fruit. Once Eve touched the fruit and no harm came to her, it was a score for the Serpent, and Eve, now convinced, then bit into it, which was the actual command the god had said not to do. Then Eve passed the friut to Adam who - since no harm had befallen his wife - had no problem taking a bite himself.

Makes sense to me.

The god did not instruct the pair "not to touch the fruit". That was added.

It certainly was.

If Adam told her not to touch the fruit then Adam is the one who added to the gods command. So not only is it clear that Adam was the first to sin, but also, if adding to the words of the god are counted as sin, then we are that much nearer to knowing what the first sin was that Adam committed first.

All of that would follow if, and only if, Adam was the one who added to God's word. The obvious problem is that there's nothing in the text to suggest he did. Adam could have told his wife precisely (and only) what God had commanded, and yet Eve took it upon herself to interpret God's command, thus arrogating to herself the function of prophet—a function she was not given. We are agreed that Adam was the first to sin, but I see no reason to believe it was him who added to God's word; the sin for which he was already guilty was profound enough as it is.

I don't really have any problem with any of this part of the conversation. All I would urge -- and I think we all know who is more likely to respond positively to that urge -- is care with the text. I do agree that Eve adds the comment that "neither shall you touch" the fruit, and that it is possible that that is meant by Moses (via the Holy Spirit) to convey that Eve viewed God's instructions as open to human modification. I think it's also possible that she added that little comment thinking she needed to add more force to God's command, or something like that. And it's also possible, I guess, that Adam added that in when relating God's command to Eve. But really -- REALLY -- I don't think it matters what the answer to this is.

Yes, "the god" and "the Serpent"... that is quite telling.

Grace and peace to you both.

[John Bauer]

I don't mind anyone saying Adam allowed Eve to be tempted, but to me that unintentionally insinuates that Adam had some sort of control over Satan's actions, which is absurd. ... [repeated several times]

No, it does not insinuate that Adam had any control over the serpent's actions. Such an inference is so utterly absurd that I'm baffled you could even draw it. I realize I haven't known you very long but I'm not accustomed to you making such absurd leaps. Saying that Adam allowed Eve to be tempted implies that he had control over the serpent's presence, not his actions. He wouldn't have been in the garden at all if Adam had executed his God-given mandate to keep careful watch over the garden.

I don't have a particular "problem," really with the statement that if Adam had properly executed his mandate, the serpent would not have been in the garden in the first place, but that also seems to make an erroneous insinuation -- again, probably unintentionally -- that God was somehow surprised that Adam did not properly execute his mandate and had to make some sort of snap decision and change His plan on the fly, and that is surely not the case. God was in control then, He is now, and forever will be, which I feel certain you agree with.

Here is another absurd leap. How on earth does Adam's failure entail God being surprised by it and having to change his plan? That just does not follow. Like, at all. That train plumb jumped its track, and it's quite the wreck. Think about it this way: There is no contradiction involved in saying that God decreed this series of events, including Adam's failure to execute his God-given mandate. He was neither surprised by it nor had to change any plans. He decreed Adam's failure, the serpent's presence, the deception, the fall, the whole works, inasmuch as the spotless Lamb was foreknown or chosen "before the foundation of the world" (1 Pet. 1:20).

Again, if Adam had properly executed his mandate, the serpent would not have been in the garden in the first place.

You seem to think, John, that Satan's presence in Eden was Adam's fault. Am I right in hearing that from you? Because if so, I very much disagree with that, and wonder what might give you that idea.

In that same post to which you were responding—in the very sentence you quoted, in fact—I said what gave me that idea. Please address it. Also, it is hoped that your reason for disagreeing doesn't involve an absurd leap like the ones above.

I think we can agree that Adam could possibly have either

a.) quelled Satan's attempt to deceive Eve, or
b.) corrected Eve once Satan had made his attempt to deceive Eve, or
c.) corrected Eve after Satan had deceived Eve.

More on this below -- and I'll just say right now that I think the correct answer is 'c' -- but really, it matters not a terrible lot what the correct answer is; the outcome is what is important. Eve was deceived, and yes, Adam failed and sinned -- and in multiple ways -- against God, and also against Eve.

Let's not forget:

d.) prevented the serpent from being in the garden at all.

Again, all four options are all things Adam could have done but did not. These are the ways in which Adam sinned.

It presupposes no such thing. Yes, Adam was there with her at the time.

William said, "Adam remaining silent contributed directly to Eve being deceived" (Jan. 12, 2021).

You replied, "No, the deception inflicted by Satan had already occurred" (Jan. 13, 2021).

If Adam was standing there with Eve when the serpent was deceiving her, but he was neither rebuking the serpent nor correcting Eve, then his silence was directly contributing to her being deceived. Adam and Eve are standing there and the serpent begins addressing them, "Did God really say?" Thus, the deception had not "already occurred"—it was "occurring," present tense. And Adam's silence was directly contributing because he could have said something but did not. If you disagree, then please describe for me how Adam could be standing there silently with Eve while the serpent is deceiving her, and yet somehow his silence is NOT contributing to her deception. Right now I have no idea how that's supposed to make sense.

This point is not worth arguing, to me, but the text surely does not insinuate any time lapse from the conversation between Eve and Satan to her deception.

Okay. But then who said the text DOES insinuate such a time lapse? I thought I had read every post in this thread. Did I miss something?

I think it's also possible that she added that little comment thinking she needed to add more force to God's command, or something like that.

Me too.

[PinSeeker]

I don't mind anyone saying Adam allowed Eve to be tempted, but to me that unintentionally insinuates that Adam had some sort of control over Satan's actions, which is absurd. ... [repeated several times]

No, it does not insinuate that Adam had any control over the serpent's actions. Such an inference is so utterly absurd that I'm baffled you could even draw it. I realize I haven't known you very long but I'm not accustomed to you making such absurd leaps.

John. John. I said 'unintentional.' Surely you agree that someone can say something that conveys a different -- even far different -- meaning that what is intended. I never said, "Well, that's what you're saying, and that's what you really mean." Ease up, my friend. Ease up.

Saying that Adam allowed Eve to be tempted implies that he had control over the serpent's presence, not his actions. He wouldn't have been in the garden at all if Adam had executed his God-given mandate to keep careful watch over the garden.

Very much disagree:

As far as Adam goes, all we really know -- because it's all that's really written -- is that God put Adam in the garden of Eden to work it and keep it, and commanded him not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (Genesis 2:15-17). There is nothing there to hear any command to "repel invaders." This is before the Fall, remember, and there is not yet any such thing as sin or death.

As far as Satan goes, we don't know -- because we are not told -- how Satan came to be in Eden. Since that is the case, I think the only thing we can really conclude as far as that goes is that God allowed him in the Garden. We know from the story of Job -- God was the one Who made Job accessible to Satan, and also gave him limits on how far he could go -- that Satan can do nothing outside of God's authority. Now, if we then want to ask why God allowed Satan into paradise, well, the only thing we can really do as far as that goes is to acknowledge God's sovereignty and Isaiah, saying, "as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are (His) ways higher than (our) ways and (His) thoughts than (our) thoughts," and Paul, saying, "Who has known the mind of the Lord?"

I don't have a particular "problem," really with the statement that if Adam had properly executed his mandate, the serpent would not have been in the garden in the first place, but that also seems to make an erroneous insinuation -- again, probably unintentionally -- that God was somehow surprised that Adam did not properly execute his mandate and had to make some sort of snap decision and change His plan on the fly, and that is surely not the case. God was in control then, He is now, and forever will be, which I feel certain you agree with.

Here is another absurd leap. How on earth does Adam's failure entail God being surprised by it and having to change his plan? That just does not follow. Like, at all. That train plumb jumped its track, and it's quite the wreck. Think about it this way: There is no contradiction involved in saying that God decreed this series of events, including Adam's failure to execute his God-given mandate. He was neither surprised by it nor had to change any plans. He decreed Adam's failure, the serpent's presence, the deception, the fall, the whole works, inasmuch as the spotless Lamb was foreknown or chosen "before the foundation of the world" (1 Pet. 1:20).

Again, John, I said 'unintentional.' I did say 'probably,' but still, yes, I said 'unintentional.' Again, surely you agree that someone can say something that conveys a different -- even far different -- meaning that what is intended. I never said, "Well, that's what you're saying, that's what you really mean." Ease up, my friend. Ease up. All I was saying was, if that really were the intended meaning of someone making the statement you made, then that would imply that God was not absolutely in control of... things. So, fabulous -- you agree that God was neither surprised no had to change any plans. Yes, He decreed Adam's failure, the serpent's presence, the deception, the fall, the whole works... all that. Yes, 1 Peter 1:20. Great. I wasn't accusing you of anything, so there's no need to react as if I had/was. Wow.

Again, if Adam had properly executed his mandate, the serpent would not have been in the garden in the first place.

Again. Very much disagree. See above. And below.

You seem to think, John, that Satan's presence in Eden was Adam's fault. Am I right in hearing that from you? Because if so, I very much disagree with that, and wonder what might give you that idea.

In that same post to which you were responding—in the very sentence you quoted, in fact—I said what gave me that idea. Please address it. Also, it is hoped that your reason for disagreeing doesn't involve an absurd leap like the ones above.

Okay, quit with the "absurd" nonsense. Or we can end this conversation right here. Having said that, I'm assuming that you're referring to Adam's mandate to work and keep the Garden (v.15). I think my comment on that above is quite sufficient but I will elaborate a bit on it here:

• As for what it meant to work the Garden, I don't think there is any disagreement on that. This is before the Fall, of course, so work did not come as a result of sin, nor is it something to be avoided; productive work is part of God's good purpose for man in creation, both then and now, and it also gives us some insight that there will be work to be done for us after Jesus's return and the institution of the new heaven and new earth.

• I think the specific issue here is what exactly it means, then, to keep the Garden. If you are seeing at least part of that to be the guardian of the Garden, I agree, but again, this is before the Fall, and there is as yet no sin and no death. Sin and death are the results of the Fall, which at the point of which we are speaking (Genesis 2) is still yet to come. Part of the mandate to Adam is certainly to be the guardian of the Garden, but this is to be understood in the same sense as a priest who maintains sanctity of, cares for, and ministers to his flock. For Adam this means all of creation. No small thing, for sure, but again, this is before the Fall, before sin and death were in the world.

I think we can agree that Adam could possibly have either
a.) quelled Satan's attempt to deceive Eve, or
b.) corrected Eve once Satan had made his attempt to deceive Eve, or
c.) corrected Eve after Satan had deceived Eve.
More on this below -- and I'll just say right now that I think the correct answer is 'c' -- but really, it matters not a terrible lot what the correct answer is; the outcome is what is important. Eve was deceived, and yes, Adam failed and sinned -- and in multiple ways -- against God, and also against Eve.

Let's not forget:
d.) prevented the serpent from being in the garden at all.
Again, all four options are all things Adam could have done but did not. These are the ways in which Adam sinned.

Nope. Not (d). God allowed Satan into the garden before Adam sinned. Why God allowed Satan into the Garden we don't know. All we do know from the text is that he was a beast like any other beast of the field, except that he was more crafty (Genesis 3:1). I would really say, too, John, that option (a) is not really a possibility either, although just for discussion purposes we can certainly throw that out there. But God's purposes cannot be thwarted; all of Scripture testifies to this, i.e., Job 42, Psalm 2, and many, many other passages.

It presupposes no such thing. Yes, Adam was there with her at the time.

William said, "Adam remaining silent contributed directly to Eve being deceived" (Jan. 12, 2021).

You replied, "No, the deception inflicted by Satan had already occurred" (Jan. 13, 2021).

If Adam was standing there with Eve when the serpent was deceiving her, but he was neither rebuking the serpent nor correcting Eve, then his silence was directly contributing to her being deceived. Adam and Eve are standing there and the serpent begins addressing them, "Did God really say?" Thus, the deception had not "already occurred"—it was "occurring," present tense. And Adam's silence was directly contributing because he could have said something but did not. If you disagree, then please describe for me how Adam could be standing there silently with Eve while the serpent is deceiving her, and yet somehow his silence is NOT contributing to her deception. Right now I have no idea how that's supposed to make sense.

I agree that Adam was right there through the whole incident. Is it not possible, in your mind, that, when the conversation between the serpent and Eve had taken place, at that very moment, the deception was complete, and Adam's failure was not to step in and correct/rectify/quell it? If not, that's kind of astonishing. I mean, I can understand just disagreeing, but to not be able to acknowledge that possibility is just astonishing. Nothing further.

This point is not worth arguing, to me, but the text surely does not insinuate any time lapse from the conversation between Eve and Satan to her deception.

Okay. But then who said the text DOES insinuate such a time lapse? I thought I had read every post in this thread. Did I miss something?

Good grief. Nobody, John. Nobody insinuated a time lapse. I know you don't believe there was one, and neither do I. To recount;

• I had said, "No, the deception inflicted by Satan had already occurred."

• You replied, "This presupposes that Adam was not with her at the time."

• I then said, "It presupposes no such thing" and that "Adam was there with her at the time." And I said, "...the text surely does not insinuate any time lapse from the conversation between Eve and Satan to her deception," and that -- facetiously speaking, and I was very clear about that -- "(Eve) didn't go off and ponder the conversation for any period of time and finally come to the erroneous conclusion that Satan was right."

All I was doing was making a point I thought necessary to refute your assertion that what I originally said presupposed, in some way, that Adam was not with Eve at the time.

I think it's also possible that she added that little comment thinking she needed to add more force to God's command, or something like that.

Me too.

Awesome.

This response of yours was quite, um, interesting... the tone of it, anyway. The discussion, in and of itself, is interesting, and, well, fun, and worthwhile, I think. But your tone I could do without... It's a little surprising, actually.

Grace and peace to you.

[heistrue]

[Replying to William in post #1]

It was a joint action.

I asked "Who sinned first?" In relation to "joint action", which of the pair sinned first? Who crossed the line first. Who was first over the line?

They turned and hid from God together.

I asked "Who sinned first?" not "Who hid first?".

, NB, the woman was not commanded to not eat the fruit of the tree in the middle of the garden...soooo,, it was the man Adam who sinned by disobeying .

[heistrue]

[Replying to William in post #1]

It was a joint action.

I asked "Who sinned first?" In relation to "joint action", which of the pair sinned first? Who crossed the line first. Who was first over the line?

They turned and hid from God together.

I asked "Who sinned first?" not "Who hid first?".

, NB, the woman was not commanded to not eat the fruit of the tree in the middle of the garden...soooo,, it was the man Adam who sinned by disobeying .

Now it is really a moot point, as Eve's reply to the serpent was incomplete, but correct to a point but incomplete just the same. God only told Adam about not to eat from that tree, he obviously told her. He may not have explained it in full.. God said; see the passage;
3 but about the fruit of the tree in the middle of the garden God said, 'You are neither to eat from it nor touch it, or you will die.'"
4 The serpent said to the woman, "It is not true that you will surely die;
5 because God knows that on the day you eat from it, your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil."

haha, the serpent got it correct but Eve got it wrong.. so, BTW where was Lucifer in all of this ? He was, supposedly, Gods most beautiful Angel. He was so beautiful it seems, that he thought that it was he who was God..

[heistrue]

I don't mind anyone saying Adam allowed Eve to be tempted, but to me that unintentionally insinuates that Adam had some sort of control over Satan's actions, which is absurd. ... [repeated several times]

No, it does not insinuate that Adam had any control over the serpent's actions. Such an inference is so utterly absurd that I'm baffled you could even draw it. I realize I haven't known you very long but I'm not accustomed to you making such absurd leaps. Saying that Adam allowed Eve to be tempted implies that he had control over the serpent's presence, not his actions. He wouldn't have been in the garden at all if Adam had executed his God-given mandate to keep careful watch over the garden.

I don't have a particular "problem," really with the statement that if Adam had properly executed his mandate, the serpent would not have been in the garden in the first place, but that also seems to make an erroneous insinuation -- again, probably unintentionally -- that God was somehow surprised that Adam did not properly execute his mandate and had to make some sort of snap decision and change His plan on the fly, and that is surely not the case. God was in control then, He is now, and forever will be, which I feel certain you agree with.

Here is another absurd leap. How on earth does Adam's failure entail God being surprised by it and having to change his plan? That just does not follow. Like, at all. That train plumb jumped its track, and it's quite the wreck. Think about it this way: There is no contradiction involved in saying that God decreed this series of events, including Adam's failure to execute his God-given mandate. He was neither surprised by it nor had to change any plans. He decreed Adam's failure, the serpent's presence, the deception, the fall, the whole works, inasmuch as the spotless Lamb was foreknown or chosen "before the foundation of the world" (1 Pet. 1:20).

Again, if Adam had properly executed his mandate, the serpent would not have been in the garden in the first place.

You seem to think, John, that Satan's presence in Eden was Adam's fault. Am I right in hearing that from you? Because if so, I very much disagree with that, and wonder what might give you that idea.

In that same post to which you were responding—in the very sentence you quoted, in fact—I said what gave me that idea. Please address it. Also, it is hoped that your reason for disagreeing doesn't involve an absurd leap like the ones above.

I think we can agree that Adam could possibly have either

a.) quelled Satan's attempt to deceive Eve, or
b.) corrected Eve once Satan had made his attempt to deceive Eve, or
c.) corrected Eve after Satan had deceived Eve.

More on this below -- and I'll just say right now that I think the correct answer is 'c' -- but really, it matters not a terrible lot what the correct answer is; the outcome is what is important. Eve was deceived, and yes, Adam failed and sinned -- and in multiple ways -- against God, and also against Eve.

Let's not forget:

d.) prevented the serpent from being in the garden at all.

Again, all four options are all things Adam could have done but did not. These are the ways in which Adam sinned.

It presupposes no such thing. Yes, Adam was there with her at the time.

William said, "Adam remaining silent contributed directly to Eve being deceived" (Jan. 12, 2021).

You replied, "No, the deception inflicted by Satan had already occurred" (Jan. 13, 2021).

If Adam was standing there with Eve when the serpent was deceiving her, but he was neither rebuking the serpent nor correcting Eve, then his silence was directly contributing to her being deceived. Adam and Eve are standing there and the serpent begins addressing them, "Did God really say?" Thus, the deception had not "already occurred"—it was "occurring," present tense. And Adam's silence was directly contributing because he could have said something but did not. If you disagree, then please describe for me how Adam could be standing there silently with Eve while the serpent is deceiving her, and yet somehow his silence is NOT contributing to her deception. Right now I have no idea how that's supposed to make sense.

This point is not worth arguing, to me, but the text surely does not insinuate any time lapse from the conversation between Eve and Satan to her deception.

Okay. But then who said the text DOES insinuate such a time lapse? I thought I had read every post in this thread. Did I miss something?

I think it's also possible that she added that little comment thinking she needed to add more force to God's command, or something like that.

Me too.

Adam did indeed watch his woman eat first and for a good reason, she did not " SURLY die " after eating the piece of fruit...the " die " in this context is that when ever we sin we " die to God " in all things. God is so Perfect and Pure in all aspects that God can not be with or near imperfection...The great gift of free will is why all this came about, regardless of the temptation...Yes, Adam should have stopped his wife from eating the fruit, but as she did not die on the spot, he too ate...Also again, God did NOT say to NOT touch the tree. Adam's job was, after all, to tend the trees, have to touch the tress it to do that.. God Bless you all.

[heistrue]

[Eve's] sin was effected by her having been deceived, which is not the case with Adam.

This point is more important than this discussion appears to recognize, particularly with reference to the OP and the relevance of that question to human sin.

Exactly.

Given Adam's mandate expressly implied by Genesis 2:15 ("to tend [the garden] and watch over it"), I think we can say that Adam allowed his wife to be tempted—whether or not he was standing there with her as it happened (as I believe he was). If Adam had properly executed his mandate, the serpent would not have been in the garden in the first place. That is how Adam would be held accountable for her being deceived.

I think we're just sort of missing, here, so to speak. I don't mind anyone saying Adam allowed Eve to be tempted, but to me that unintentionally insinuates that Adam had some sort of control over Satan's actions, which is absurd. I think we can agree that Adam could possibly have either a.) quelled Satan's attempt to deceive Eve, or b.) corrected Eve once Satan had made his attempt to deceive Eve, or c.) corrected Eve after Satan had deceived Eve. More on this below -- and I'll just say right now that I think the correct answer is 'c' -- but really, it matters not a terrible lot what the correct answer is; the outcome is what is important. Eve was deceived, and yes, Adam failed and sinned -- and in multiple ways -- against God, and also against Eve.

I don't have a particular "problem," really with the statement that if Adam had properly executed his mandate, the serpent would not have been in the garden in the first place, but that also seems to make an erroneous insinuation -- again, probably unintentionally -- that God was somehow surprised that Adam did not properly execute his mandate and had to make some sort of snap decision and change His plan on the fly, and that is surely not the case. God was in control then, He is now, and forever will be, which I feel certain you agree with.

You and I do agree, however, that Adam could also have exposed the serpent's deception but did not, but deliberately chose instead to follow his wife into transgression.

Sure. This is what I've been saying.

No, the deception inflicted by Satan had already occurred ...

This presupposes that Adam was not with her at the time, but the text suggests that he was. It says that, upon listening to the serpent, the woman took of its fruit and also gave some to her husband "who was with her" (v. 6).

It presupposes no such thing. Yes, Adam was there with her at the time. This point is not worth arguing, to me, but the text surely does not insinuate any time lapse from the conversation between Eve and Satan to her deception. I'm being a little facetious here, but she didn't go off and ponder the conversation for any period of time and finally come to the erroneous conclusion that Satan was right. I most certainly agree with you concerning verse 6.

Bible commentators have a curious aversion to accepting that Adam was standing there with her—as do you, it seems—but, if he was (as the text suggests and I believe), then William would be correct that "Adam remaining silent contributed directly to Eve being deceived."

It is very curious, but I have no such aversion. See above.

Adam and Eve both knew of the command; that's clearly the force of the text. Satan deceived Eve. Adam could have corrected Eve and kept her, um, "straight," but did not. He failed in his responsibility to God (to obey Him and love Him with all his heart, mind, soul and strength) and his responsibility to the wife God had given him (to love her and to give himself up for her).

One hundred percent. Moreover, I don't think anybody disagrees with this.

Addendum: Please read my response to William below for further details, and please comment as needed, if you feel so inclined.

Sure.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

I think in general terms we agree the story presents Adam as the first to sin and that his sin was allowing his wife to be tempted by the Serpent.

One hundred percent.

See above, in particular:

I don't mind anyone saying Adam allowed Eve to be tempted, but to me that unintentionally insinuates that Adam had some sort of control over Satan's actions, which is absurd. I think we can agree that Adam could possibly have either a.) quelled Satan's attempt to deceive Eve, or b.) corrected Eve once Satan had made his attempt to deceive Eve, or c.) corrected Eve after Satan had deceived Eve. Really, it matters not what the correct answer is -- though I lean toward answer c -- the outcome is what is important. Eve was deceived, and yes, Adam failed and sinned -- and in multiple ways -- against God, and also against Eve.

Adam could have prevented Eve from being deceived. The script says that he stood by and simply watched.

Exactly.

And again I say -- although it's really not such a big honkin' deal that we disagree on this -- that I don't mind anyone saying Adam allowed Eve to be tempted, but to me that unintentionally insinuates that Adam had some sort of control over Satan's actions, which is absurd. I would still maintain that Eve was deceived, and Adam then failed to correct her, to -- and this may be the best way to put it -- save her from acting on that deception and eating the fruit. This is really the larger pattern of God's Word as far as this goes. We can look at a passage like Isaiah 53 and see this:

• "All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned -- every one -- to his own way; and the LORD has laid on Him (Jesus) the iniquity of us all."

And also Romans 3:

• ",,,all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified by His (God the Father's) grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus (God the Son)..."

It is not the intention of the thread to debate on whether being deceived is sinful or not. We can agree that Eve was deceived and I can agree that Eve's being deceived was the fault of Adams inactivity in being unwilling to step up to the plate and defend his wife from the Serpents deceptive temptations.

Do you agree or disagree that Adam was also culpable for failing to protect or guard the garden (Gen. 2:15), made evident by the presence of the serpent? Clearly, the deception could not have taken place if Adam had fulfilled that obligation.

Hm. You seem to think, John, that Satan's presence in Eden was Adam's fault. Am I right in hearing that from you? Because if so, I very much disagree with that, and wonder what might give you that idea.

Eve obviously thought that the god had commanded not to touch the fruit ...

It is not necessary that she truly thought God had commanded this. It could be that she knew God commanded against partaking of the fruit and interpreted a prohibition against even touching it (i.e., she knew that part wasn't something God had said). As some biblical commentators have pointed out, and so have you, this was also a sin. The serpent asked, "Did God really say?" And Eve replied that God said something he did not expressly say. So, upon hearing her arrogate to herself the function of prophet by elaborating upon what God had said, the serpent saw an opening and took it.

Even assuming that it was Eve who added to the gods command ... Adam failed to correct her and this directly relates to how the Serpent cunningly used Adam's silence and Eve's misinformation to further present his argument and talk Eve into touching the forbidden fruit. Once Eve touched the fruit and no harm came to her, it was a score for the Serpent, and Eve, now convinced, then bit into it, which was the actual command the god had said not to do. Then Eve passed the friut to Adam who - since no harm had befallen his wife - had no problem taking a bite himself.

Makes sense to me.

The god did not instruct the pair "not to touch the fruit". That was added.

It certainly was.

If Adam told her not to touch the fruit then Adam is the one who added to the gods command. So not only is it clear that Adam was the first to sin, but also, if adding to the words of the god are counted as sin, then we are that much nearer to knowing what the first sin was that Adam committed first.

All of that would follow if, and only if, Adam was the one who added to God's word. The obvious problem is that there's nothing in the text to suggest he did. Adam could have told his wife precisely (and only) what God had commanded, and yet Eve took it upon herself to interpret God's command, thus arrogating to herself the function of prophet—a function she was not given. We are agreed that Adam was the first to sin, but I see no reason to believe it was him who added to God's word; the sin for which he was already guilty was profound enough as it is.

I don't really have any problem with any of this part of the conversation. All I would urge -- and I think we all know who is more likely to respond positively to that urge -- is care with the text. I do agree that Eve adds the comment that "neither shall you touch" the fruit, and that it is possible that that is meant by Moses (via the Holy Spirit) to convey that Eve viewed God's instructions as open to human modification. I think it's also possible that she added that little comment thinking she needed to add more force to God's command, or something like that. And it's also possible, I guess, that Adam added that in when relating God's command to Eve. But really -- REALLY -- I don't think it matters what the answer to this is.

Yes, "the god" and "the Serpent"... that is quite telling.

Grace and peace to you both.

well, Adam did not deliberatly sin and defy God, he was fooled and he failed the test. Also he had the authority of demand that the serpent go out of the garden in the first instance. Here is the lesson, it is that all of mankind is imperfect....Romans 7': 7 Therefore, what are we to say? That the Torah is sinful? Heaven forbid! Rather, the function of the Torah was that without it, I would not have known what sin is. For example, I would not have become conscious of what greed is if the Torah had not said, "Thou shalt not covet."v
8 But sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, worked in me all kinds of evil desires - for apart from Torah, sin is dead.
9 I was once alive outside the framework of Torah. But when the commandment really encountered me, sin sprang to life,
10 and I died. The commandment that was intended to bring me life was found to be bringing me death!
11 For sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, deceived me; and through the commandment, sin killed me.
Amen, bless you all.

[John Bauer]

John. John. I said "unintentional." Surely you agree that someone can say something that conveys a different -- even far different -- meaning that what is intended.

Of course. But this was not just a different meaning, unintentional or otherwise. It was an absurd inference—literally so illogical as to be incomprehensible. Let me illustrate the point by using an unrelated, imaginary conversation:

PETER: "Jeffrey is on his way over. He should be here in about an hour."

BRENDA: "That unintentionally insinuates that your car won't start."

PETER: "What? It insinuates nothing of the sort. That is so absurd it doesn't even make sense."

ROSE: "I did say 'unintentionally'."

Yes, well, that hardly helps things, does it? Calling it "unintentional" does not solve the utter absurdity of the inference. Now, you would likely disagree that your inference was absurd, which is fine—and I honestly believe there is a rational course of premises at work here, some of which are hidden—but then I would invite you to properly demonstrate how it logically does follow. Evidently you have not made your case, so this is an opportunity to do so. Let's tease out those hidden premises. How do you get from (1) "Adam allowed his wife to be deceived" to (2) "that means he could in some way control the serpent's actions"? How do you get from (3) "Adam was derelict in his duties" to (4) "which took God by surprise, requiring him to change his plan"? On the face of it, these just don't follow. Even if you think these are "unintentional" consequences, they are still so illogical as to be incomprehensible (i.e. absurd). There have to be hidden premises at work which allow it to logically follow.

Addendum 1: On the other hand, if someone had said, "Adam caused his wife to be deceived," then I could see how that might imply Adam had some sort of control over Satan's actions. But that is not what was said, and we must deal with what was actually said, that through dereliction of his sacred duties—to God, to his wife, to the garden, to himself—Adam allowed (made provision for) his wife to be deceived.

Addendum 2: If you think calling things "absurd" sets an unpleasant tone, I would remind you that it began with you. Surely if you meant nothing uncivil by it, you can allow others to mean nothing uncivil by it. (And, indeed, I meant it strictly as a logical criticism, not a personal one. I do not become emotionally invested in forum posts.)

Very much disagree:

We might not be disagreeing as much as you think.

I referred to Adam's God-given mandate to keep careful watch over the garden, and to this you replied, "All we really know is that God put Adam in the garden of Eden to work it and keep it" (and referring to the same biblical passage I cited, Gen. 2:15). Yes, well, you and I have just said the same thing, haven't we? I said "keep careful watch over" and you said "keep," both of which are interpreting the same Hebrew word (שָׁמַר, shamar).

"There is nothing there," you said, "to hear any command to 'repel invaders'." Sure, okay. But can we candidly admit that nobody said anything about invaders? Let's stick to what people are actually saying and the arguments that they are actually making. In that vein, are you saying that nothing in the text suggests keeping careful watch over the garden? (I would say there is, and I would point to that Hebrew word and what its semantic range indicates). Or are you perhaps saying that keeping such watch doesn't include protecting the garden from a deceiving serpent? (I would say that it does, given Adam's sacred duties to God, to his wife, to the garden, and to himself.)

Moving along. I said that if Adam had properly executed this mandate, the serpent would not have been in the garden at all. You replied that God allowed the serpent to enter the garden. Okay, but I fail to see how this conflicts with what I said. Let me describe the scenario step-wise:

1. God places Adam in the garden with a mandate.

2. God allows the serpent to enter the garden.

3. When Adam hears the serpent's deceiving tongue, he immediately kicks the serpent out.

4. Thus, Adam fulfills his mandate (which prevents his wife from being deceived).

As you can see, interjecting that God allowed the serpent to enter the garden doesn't change anything. Again, as I said, Adam did not execute his mandate—that is, step 3 never took place. He stood there silently as the serpent deceived his wife. That is how Adam allowed his wife to be deceived, as William said. True, it was by God's decree that the serpent entered the garden, but that did not somehow relieve Adam of his sacred duties which included, among other things, keeping careful watch over the garden. In other words, step 3 should have happened (so, yes, we certainly ought to include "D," that Adam could have "prevented the serpent from being in the garden at all.")

Addendum 3: Yes, the question of why God allowed the serpent to enter the garden is an interesting one. But no matter what the answer turns out to be, the point stands that step 3 should have happened but it did not. That is how Adam allowed his wife to be deceived.

I would really say, too, John, that option (a) is not really a possibility either [that Adam could have "quelled Satan's attempt to deceive Eve"].

As you can see (given the picture I have painted above), if step 3 had been followed, that would amount to Adam putting the kibosh on Satan's attempt to deceive Eve.

Allow me to emphasize here that I am not trying to convince you. I am only trying to show that my argument is consistent with and makes sense in light of the relevant biblical texts (and is not adversely impacted by your responses, which have not amounted to rebuttals). I am also trying to show that not only is William not wrong but he is in fact correct.

I think the specific issue here is what exactly it means, then, to "keep" the Garden. If you are seeing at least part of that to be the guardian of the Garden, I agree, but again, this is before the Fall, and there is as yet no sin and no death. Sin and death are the results of the Fall, which at the point of which we are speaking (Genesis 2) is still yet to come.

I'm not sure why you're taking the time to explain that this was before the fall, because that is already very obvious. Adam was given that mandate to keep careful watch over the garden and, yes, that was before the fall. But something else was there prior to the fall: the deceiving serpent, which is relevant to Adam's mandate (remember step 3).

Part of the mandate to Adam is certainly to be the guardian of the Garden, but this is to be understood in the same sense as a priest who maintains sanctity of, cares for, and ministers to his flock. For Adam this means all of creation. No small thing, for sure ...

It seems, to me, that it applied to the garden. Genesis 2:15 says that God "took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to work it and keep it." He was to keep careful watch over "it"—the garden.

Now, I think you and I would agree that there was an implicit eschatological reality of eventually spreading the garden to the four corners of the world—G. K. Beale makes a strong case for this in his book The Temple and the Church's Mission (2004)—but let's be mindful of what the text says, as you so often emphasize.

Let's assume that you are right, that this should be understood as a priestly role, maintaining the sanctity of the garden. That is certainly consistent with my world-view. However, let it be understood that this doesn't change my argument at all. By not removing the deceiving serpent when he began to spew his guile, Adam failed this priestly role of maintaining the sanctity of the garden. (And, yes, this was before the fall.)

I agree that Adam was right there through the whole incident. Is it not possible, in your mind, that, when the conversation between the serpent and Eve had taken place, at that very moment, the deception was complete, and Adam's failure was not to step in and correct/rectify/quell it? If not, that's kind of astonishing. I mean, I can understand just disagreeing, but to not be able to acknowledge that possibility is just astonishing. Nothing further.

I mean, sure, you can go ahead and be astonished at your completely fabricated scenario. Yeah, neat. Sounds fun. In the meantime, I'll be over here, waiting, quite happy to agree that one of the duties to his wife which Adam failed to exercise was instructing and correcting her according to what God had said, after the serpent deceived her. Again, it seems as if Adam said nothing that whole time. That was his failure and it was sinful. Perhaps I have not been as clear as I thought I was being. I hope that it is now clear at last.

I wasn't accusing you of anything, so there's no need to react as if I had/was. Wow.

This is a very strange response from you, for I was not reacting as if you had accused me of something. Nothing personal was either perceived or intended—on my end, at least. I was criticizing the logic of your inference, calling it an absurd train wreck. That's not personal (having to do with you or me), that's logical (having to do with your arguments). And if I am wrong, if it actually was entirely logical, then I've asked you to show me how. You are talking to someone who is self-consciously fallible and comfortable with being wrong.

Okay, quit with the "absurd" nonsense. Or we can end this conversation right here.

I am willing to cease calling things "absurd" but it has to be a two-way street, for you were the one who opened that door. If you want to close it again, I'll respect that.

[JehovahsWitness]

d.) prevented the serpent from being in the garden at all.

Adam was not in a position nor was he charged to prevented the serpent from being in the garden .

• Biblically humans are inferior life forms to spirits. Expecting a human to stop a spirit from going somewhere is like expecting an ant to stop a train.

• There are some that takes the approach that a snake literally spoke to Eve but even in that case the bible explains God created all the creatures on earth. If snakes were present in the garden it was by His divine will and purpose. It is illogical to assume Adam could have stopped snakes being present in the garden if an omnipotent God willed for them to be there.

• If snakes were not one of the creatures God presented to Adam to name, since he (Adam) is not spoken of as having any experience outside the garden, he would have had no knowledge of the existence of snakes. There is no way then, barring being directly instructed by God, could Adam be held responsible for keeping them out.

• Glaring in its absence is the divine mandate to free/protect the garden of all snakes. Adam was instructed to name the animals and the indication was that he did so, but at no point do we hear of him being told to keep snakes away.

• The fact that Eve displayed no fear or astonishment upon encountering the creature indicates snakes were not unfamililiar to her. It also indicates snakes were not considered harmful or dangerous, so there would have been no reason for Adam to take the initiative to "clear the garden of snakes" or protect its borders from them.

Whether we view "the Serpent" as a spirit creature or as a literal speaking snake, it is illogical to assume Adam should be held responsible for its presence in the garden.






JW







RELATED POSTS


Who was Lilith?
viewtopic.php?p=1038506#p1038506

[JehovahsWitness]

GENESIS 3:6b - NWT

So she began taking of its fruit and eating it.+ Afterward, she also gave some to her husband when he was with her, and he began eating it.

That Adam was "with" his wife during the final event in the sequence is clear, what is somewhat ambiguous is whether he was "with her" earlier, ie whether or not Adam was present during her earlier conversation with Satan and subsequent actions.



The literal translation of Genesis 3:6b (see below) reads as follows : “… with her - to the man - also - and gave - and did eat - from its fruit - and she took - and he did eat ”. Thus the "with her" could refer to Adam's presence beside her OR "with her" as in ...

- present in the garden (but not necessarily at her side/beside her)
- complicitness in her decision although not necessarily present her when she made said decision

• Contextually the narrative presents the fact that only the woman “… saw that the tree was good" and only speaks of the woman taking the fruit and eating rather than “… they saw" and "they took".

• Adams presence beside Eve during her conversation with the Serpent also presents us with the puzzeling question of his complete silence during the exchange.

• The Hebrew verb translated as “gave” is in the imperfect tense and is associated with the conjunction "waw/vav" which indicates a temporal or logical sequence. Thus a translator can legitimately translate the phrase as "and she gave " "and then she gave" , or "afterwards she gave" ect ...

• Evidently Adam would have to be "with her" in order for her to give him the fruit, rendering the above "when she was with him" perfectly acceptable especially after the temporal adverbial phrase "afterwards she gave" ( see above).

CONCLUSION whether or not Adam was actually present during Eve's conversation with Satan and her subsequent eating of the fruit is not explicitly stated in the text. The use of an imperfect consecutive in the original language certainly allows for the reading that Adam was only "with her [Eve]" during what is expressed in the final clause, reflecting their duplicity of outcome rather indicating Adam's presence during the earlier events.



[ * ] waw
https://en.m.wikisource.org/wiki/Geseni ... onsecutive



RELATED POSTS

Was it reasonable that Eve BELIEVE the snake?
viewtopic.php?p=1040358#p1040358

Who sinned first? Adam or Eve?[Gen 3:6]
viewtopic.php?p=1029137#p1029137

Would God not EXPECT his law to be broken ? ("set up To fail")
viewtopic.php?p=390066#p390066

Does Genesis indicate Adam and Eve literally had no way of grasping what the Word "good" meant?
viewtopic.php?p=1040394#p1040394

Did Adam and Eve understand the punishment (notion of death)?
viewtopic.php?p=849053#p849053

Why did Eves punishment involve increased birth pains?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 03#p801703

For more details please go to other posts related to...

SATAN THE DEVIL , ADAM and ... THE DECEPTION OF EVE