The Holy spirit is God's feminine nature, holy Mother

[dio9]

I have a new suggestion of the Trinity. God is our Father everyone can agree, Jesus is our savior and Son , but the holy spirit is nebulous , not clear as Father and Son. The HS is probably instead of holy spirit , holy Mother. Her characteristics as nurturer and comforter are what mothers do, Father Mother and Son make so much more sense than "holy spirit".
All creation reflects God and all creation is created nurtured and increased within the relationships of Father Mother and child. So the holy spirit is actually Holy Mother.

[Tcg]

[Replying to tam]

I must point out, there would have been no need for a savior if Adam and Eve had not eaten the bad fruit .

Bad fruit? It must have been extraspecial for God to have gotten so upset about it.

Enough said, I think you know what i am talking about.

I have no idea what you are talking about.

[William]

Adam did the same, but his sin also involved being present at the time Eve was being tempted and doing nothing to interfere with that process, ....

Where do you get the idea that Adam was present during Eves exchange with Satan?

It is written.

6 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.

That from the KJV. Now it does not surprise me that you would ask that question because the JW version say's it like this;

6 Consequently the woman saw that the tree was good for food and that it was something to be longed for to the eyes, yes, the tree was desirable to look upon.*+ So she began taking of its fruit and eating it. Afterward she gave some also to her husband* when with her and he began eating it.+ 7 Then the eyes of both of them became opened and they began to realize that they were naked.+ Hence they sewed fig leaves together and made loin coverings for themselves.+

So perhaps the Jewish version will say something different from the above versions?

6 And the woman saw that the tree was good for food and that it was a delight to the eyes, and the tree was desirable to make one wise; so she took of its fruit, and she ate, and she gave also to her husband with her, and he ate.

Nope. Looks like the JW version is the different one.

♩ "One of these things is not like the other
Two of these things are both the same
Can you see which one is not like the others
Can you see therein Adam's great shame? ♬

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 72 by William]

QUESTION Was Adam present when Eve ate the forbidden fruit?

GENESIS 3:6 reads in the King James Bible
And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.

Various translations
https://biblehub.com/genesis/3-6.htm

Some have concluded then above indicates that Adam was present during the exchange Eve had with the Serpent and when she ate the fruit. 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. Contextually and linguistically there are reasons to conclude that he was not

• 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".
  
  Linguistically. While we do not know what the time lag was between the moment when the woman starts conversing with the Serpent and when she gives some to her husband, the grammatical construction suggest a time lag of some description. 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 ... according to context.

But does not the narrative state that Adam was "with her"?

• 
  The literal translation of Genesis 3:6 reads as follows : “… with her - to the man - also - and gave - and did eat - from its fruit - and she took - and he did eat �

  So in English where and in what context do we place the "with her"? 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" is therefore 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 than indicating Adam's presence during the earlier events.



waw
http://hebrew.billmounce.com/bbh_wayyiqtol1.pdf
https://en.m.wikisource.org/wiki/Geseni ... onsecutive

[William]

[Replying to post 73 by JehovahsWitness]

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 than indicating Adam's presence during the earlier events.

There are actually two conclusions which can be drawn, from what you say, not simply just the one.

So that is error on your part.

But one might have to dig deeper in relation to that as well.

Why would Adam - who you conclude was elsewhere at the time - readily take the fruit which was offered to him by Eve and eat of it without question?

Obviously she would have either told him it was the forbidden fruit or the fruit was distinctive and he would have known it immediately, but still the question would be the same.

Thus, that Adam was with her through that temptation is more likely than he wasn't, because it is clear to the reader that there was no protest at all from Adam. He simply took the fruit that was offered to him and ate it, so him being present throughout the temptation gives the reader a clear indication as to why that would have been the most likely case.

...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.

Why is it not explicitly stated in the text since it is a foundation doctrine of the supposed fall of humanity?

The use of an imperfect consecutive in the original language ...

It is not every day one sees an argument from someone who supports a religion which claims that bible is the word of GOD and is inerrant and does not contradict itself, that there was an imperfect use of the original language...

It is far more plausible in relation to normal human behavior that Eve succumbed to the temptation because her husband was with her at the time and he did not raise a voice of protest at what was unfolding.
This would also have helped Eve make her choice. She had the silent support of her husband who was present at the time. Otherwise one would expect that Eve would seek out her husband and ask his advice.
The reason for this rests in the overall story, that Adam was taught by the GOD and that Eve got her instructions from Adam, setting up a hierarchy to which she would have been most familiar with and would naturally gravitate towards in the event of any unusual situation.

Thus, that Adam was with her through that temptation is more likely than he wasn't.

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".

This in itself does not mean that Adam was not with her at the time. He was the silent observer allowing his wife to be tempted and readily ate the fruit she offered to him, after seeing that it caused her no apparent harm, which shows the reader that he readily wanted to do so, and did so without Eve even tempting him.

Linguistically. While we do not know what the time lag was between the moment when the woman starts conversing with the Serpent and when she gives some to her husband, the grammatical construction suggest a time lag of some description. 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 ... according to context.

The context of course is the story itself. More importantly in relation to the imperfect language you say is being used here, why would someone such as yourself so readily accept (as per your reasoning in your conclusion) one scenario over the other? Why is it important for you to regard Adam in the latter than the former? In not being present at the time, but offered the fruit 'some time' after the event?

Is it because you do not wish to see Adam as an irresponsible user who would stoop to allowing his wife to be a guinea pig and secretly harbored a desire to try the fruit for himself but was too cowardly to do so?

Or is there some other reason?

[brianbbs67]

[Replying to post 74 by William]

"if Adam was such a great man, he would not have tasted of death"

[SeaPriestess]

[Replying to post 1 by dio9]

I really like your distinction about the Holy Spirit.

[dio9]

[Replying to tam]

I must point out, there would have been no need for a savior if Adam and Eve had not eaten the bad fruit .

Bad fruit? It must have been extraspecial for God to have gotten so upset about it.

Enough said, I think you know what i am talking about.

I have no idea what you are talking about.

I am referring to the garden of Eden story where Eve and Adam ate from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. If they had not been expelled from Eden there would have been no need for a savior to restore the human race. The orthodox tradition call this the fall of Man. So I am saying if the first parents had not fallen there would be no need for a savior.