What was Adam’s sin?

Several readers noted that there is a creation myth for the complementarian weasel word reject passivity.  This creation myth is rooted in a twisted version of the real creation story in Genesis.  In this new twist on Genesis, Adam’s sin was failing to prevent Eve from being tempted into eating the forbidden fruit.  As Reject Passivity at Authentic Manhood explains:

Genesis 3 changes everything. It’s in that infamous chapter that Satan tempts Adam and Eve to do the one and only thing God had asked them not to do—to eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. God had given man “only one no in a world full of yes.”¹ But Satan tries to convince Adam and Eve to believe the lie that this one “no” must mean that God doesn’t have their best in mind and is holding out on them. Here’s how this climactic moment plays out:

“When the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate, and she also gave some to her husband who was with her, and he ate” (Gen 3:6).

Here’s the question for us as men: Where was Adam in this critical moment? Where was Adam when his wife was being tempted by Satan? You might want to believe that he wasn’t around when it happened, that maybe he was out hunting for food or building something. Unfortunately, the Bible makes it clear that he was right there “with her.” Silent. He passively stood there while his wife was under attack by Satan. In a moment when he could have spoken up and stepped into the situation and acted courageously to protect his wife, he just stood there with his manhood pants down.

Men have been living in Adam’s shadow ever since.

There are several fatal flaws with this argument, starting with the fact that God tells us in Gen 3:17 what Adam’s sin was:

17 And to Adam he said,

Because you have listened to the voice of your wife
and have eaten of the tree
of which I commanded you,
‘You shall not eat of it,’
cursed is the ground because of you;
in pain you shall eat of it all the days of your life;

Adam’s sin was listening to (obeying) his wife instead of obeying God.  We don’t need to guess what Adam’s sin was unless we are in a mood to argue with God.

But for the sake of argument, lets assume God didn’t tell us in Gen 3:17 what Adam’s sin was.  The argument is that Adam was right there when Eve was tempted/deceived by the Serpent.  But that didn’t happen in Gen 3:6 as Authentic Manhood claims.  It happened in Gen 3:1-5 (ESV):

3 Now the serpent was more crafty than any other beast of the field that the Lord God had made.

He said to the woman, “Did God actually say, ‘You[a] shall not eat of any tree in the garden’?” 2 And the woman said to the serpent, “We may eat of the fruit of the trees in the garden, 3 but God said, ‘You shall not eat of the fruit of the tree that is in the midst of the garden, neither shall you touch it, lest you die.’” 4 But the serpent said to the woman, “You will not surely die. 5 For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”

The first question is where was Eve when this conversation took place?  Was she in the center of the garden looking at the tree of knowledge of good and evil?  We don’t know for sure, but I would say probably not.  Nothing in Eve’s description of the tree suggests that she and the Serpent are looking at it:

3 but God said, ‘You shall not eat of the fruit of the tree that is in the midst of the garden, neither shall you touch it, lest you die.’”

Eve describes the tree in a way that suggests it is located out of view, in a different part of the garden.  Granted she is quoting God, so that might explain the phrasing.  But at the very least there is nothing in Gen 3:1-5 to indicate that Eve and the Serpent are in close proximity to the tree when Eve is being tempted.  Yet we know Eve was near the tree in Gen 3:6 when she took the fruit and ate it, and then gave some to Adam.  Genesis doesn’t tell us that eve was tempted (3:1-5) while she was with Adam (3:6), so we don’t know that Adam was with Eve when the Serpent tempted her.

The other question is how much time elapsed between Gen 3:1-5 and Gen 3:6?  In Gen 3:1-5 the Serpent got Eve’s hamster spinning by telling her that if she disobeyed God she could become like God.  We can see the hamster wheel still turning in the beginning of Gen 3:6:

6 So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise…

How much time elapsed while Eve’s hamster ran on the wheel?  Was it a few seconds?  An hour?  We don’t know.  We just know that time was involved for her to decide to eat the fruit, which is reinforced by the word when.

The very argument complementarians offer to disregard what God himself tells us is Adam’s sin is that Adam was right there when the Serpent tempted Eve.  But Genesis tells us no such thing.  All it tells us is that Adam was with Eve when she picked the fruit and ate it.

There is yet a third problem with this modern feminist friendly interpretation of Gen 3, and that is the fact that it takes original sin from disobeying a specific command from God, to something we must assume Adam should just have known to do.  If we reject what God tells us in Gen 3:17 and assume facts not in evidence (that Adam was with Eve in Gen 3:1-5) we still end up in a theological quagmire.  If we expand original sin from a simple act of disobedience to God, we have to then determine when Eve first desired to disobey God in order to become like God, as that would be the sin Adam would need to protect her from.  We must also determine when Adam, without having knowledge of good and evil, knew Eve was going to be tempted in this way.  We must assume that Adam could anticipate how Eve could be tempted before Eve could experience this temptation.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Authentic Manhood, Complementarian, Turning a blind eye. Bookmark the permalink.

111 Responses to What was Adam’s sin?

  1. thedeti says:

    There is also St. Paul’s later statement that Eve was deceived, and Adam was not. The serpent deceived Eve, but not Adam. Eve’s sin was listening to (and obeying) Satan and not God. Adam’s sin was listening to (and obeying) Eve and not God.

  2. ray says:

    Adam should have practiced Game on Eve. Dread Game, with sprinkles.

    If Mystery, Roosh, Dalrock, GBFM, and Rollo had only been around when Eve encountered the serpent, heck, NONE of this would have happened.

  3. Pingback: What was Adam’s sin? | @the_arv

  4. We must assume that Adam could anticipate how Eve could be tempted before Eve could experience this temptation.

    This sentence has implications in the now. Not that it says anything different about your excellent take down of the -Adams sin being passivity- nonsense, but it is true that women generally do not bother with cause and effect much. They do not test hypothetical possibilities or game out various options as part of the normal decision making process. In this way, I believe men can, in a contemporaneous way, predict a woman;s temptations, as well as her resulting actions.

  5. Gunner Q says:

    Adam was sinless until after Eve’s fall. There’s no point in questioning where he was except that manginas want to blame him for her behavior. The fact that he was sinless until after her fall is proof that he wasn’t responsible for her decisions.

  6. BillyS says:

    Good points Dalrock.

    I hadn’t thought of the possibility that Eve’s temptation was away from the tree. She might have argued Adam into coming with her to the tree to partake of it. That would also fit what is written.

    This is why it is important to not add sins (not protecting Eve) to what we are directly told. God chose not to go into too much detail for whatever reason. We should only base our beliefs on what is written, not what is not written.

  7. earl says:

    I think pointing this out pretty much takes the foundation from the shaky churchian thought.

    Adam wasn’t punished for being passive…he was punished for an action (listening to his wife over God’s command).

    What do a lot of churchian pastors preach when it comes to who husbands should listen to?

  8. squid_hunt says:

    You know, a real man wouldn’t ever let his wife sin.

  9. The Question says:

    I think it was Vox Day who said modern theology consists of arguing the Bible doesn’t mean what it says and says what it doesn’t mean. I would add that it also involves claiming the Bible means what it doesn’t say.

  10. Sigma says:

    @The Question

    Yep, in other words “Did God really say…”

  11. Per Desteen says:

    Thanks you Dalrock! I’ve had the hardest time in the past to get aquaintances to understand that the “disobedience” was not original sin, as how can you sin when you have no knowledge nor ability to judge between good and evil>

    Further, you’ll note that sin here is actually a violation of the first commandment. Eve wished to be “as God”, or an equal with no superior. She bestowed the fruit of knowledge of good and evil to Adam in God’s place. When Adam listened and obeyed he placed Eve above God.

    Pure out and out violation of the (unstated at this time) first commandment. That’s original sin.

    That’s why Eve’s curse was exactly the opposite of what she had desired when tempted. Her husband was to rule over her, and she was to desire him. Adam was cursed to provide for himself or die, not receiving his sustenance from God, forcing him to make choices, use wisdom to make ones that enhanced survival, and lead his wife instead of putting her on a pedestal.

  12. john smith says:

    The Red Pill tells us that EVERYTHING a man has been taught to believe, even his innate nature, is a lie. Well, let’s take all the lies, and the lie of man’s innate nature, back to the source. The source, and it doesn’t matter if it is religious or evolutionary, is the same.

    From a religious standpoint, there is no doubt that God is a female. The creation story is 180 degrees backwards. God created Eve in her own image. Eve, being the typical lazy female, complained to God about having to pick the fruit of the garden herself and God, her mother, said; OK, I’ll give a servant to do all the work for you and he shall be called Adam.

    Adam originally did as he was told and picked all the fruit for Eve. But eventually he tired of her lazy ass and rebelled saying to Eve and God, her mother; Fuck this. If I have to do all the work anyway, then I sure don’t need this garden or you. I’m outta here!

    Eve was so pissed at her Mother God for not providing a better servant she picked a fight with her Mother about it. Her Mother God, said to her; Look, you ungrateful little bitch, I gave you everything and all you had to do was control Adam with tools I had given you. But, nooooooooo! You are too lazy to even do that. As punishment, you will now have to pick your own fruit.

    This work Eve refused to do. So she followed Adam out of the garden vowing to use the tools her Mother God had given her, sex and guile, to convince Adam to still work for her and vowing never to make the same mistake again. She passed this vow, and the knowledge of how to use them to her daughters.

    Doesn’t this version agree completely with the evidence? Answer truthfully.

    From an evolutionary standpoint, there was originally only the double X chromosome. It replicated by simple cell division like an amoeba. But it was having a hard time surviving on its own. So the dominant X (they are not equal) mutated the subservient X into the Y chromosome with its sole purpose being to serve and assure the survival of the dominant X.

    There is a boatload of genetic science to back up the above paragraph. For example, the X carries roughly 1200 genes while the Y carries roughly 120. A female has 2400 genes fighting for her. A man has 1200 genes fighting for HER and 120 that should be fighting for him, but in reality are programmed for him to betray HIMSELF for HER.

    When a man and a woman pair off the result is 3600 genes fighting for HER and 120 maybe, but not really, fighting for HIM. Who do you think is destined to win this genetic battle for survival most every time? If you have to ask, then you are an idiot.

    Further reading is Dawkins’ Selfish Gene Theory and examining the the striking similarities between the human female and chimpanzee female genome versus the striking differences between the human male and chimpanzee male genome.

    The Red Pill is the ultimate truth and science proves it. Happy exploring. Cheers.

  13. getalonghome says:

    So Adam’s real sin, according to feminists, was not binding Eve hand and foot and keeping her away from the center of the garden to protect her from making her own choices. Got it.

  14. getalonghome says:

    Gosh, that was poorly worded. Let me try again: Adam’s real sin, according to feminists, was refusing to bind Eve hand and foot in order to keep her from making her own decisions. Got it.

    I know y’all would have figured out my meaning, but that was just sad, how i mangled that.

  15. jazzdrive3 says:

    You make some very good points. It may very well have been awhile from temptation to consummation. That’s also inherent in Lewis’s interpretation of what happened in Perelandra. The more I think about, the more I think you’re right.

    But I do think there are a few more things to consider.

    In Gen. 2:15, man is put into the garden to work it and keep it. “Work” and “keep” are the same words use to describe the priests’ jobs in the Tabernacle. Part of their task was to stand guard at the doorway, armed with swords, to prevent unauthorized entry. This is both for the good of the people (so they didn’t die) and for keeping the purity of the Tabernacle intact.

    Adam has a priestly task, and I think its safe to say that he did fail in it at some level. (Though you are right that his main sin was listening to his wife, something Abraham does later, and something Aaron does corporately when he makes the golden calf) But what happens afterward? Who takes up the guard position after man has failed in this task? An angel with a sword of fire. God gave to angels what was meant for man…at least until later on, most obviously in the New Covenant.

    Likewise, the knowledge of good and evil isn’t necessarily knowledge of basic morality. Adam and Eve knew basic right from wrong. They were culpable when they disobeyed God. Knowledge of good and evil has to do with wisdom, and it was something that God would have given them if only they had been patience and asked for it, instead of taking it prematurely. *Every* tree was meant for them.

    We see this very thing happen with Solomon, when he asks for knowledge of good and evil to govern his people. He humbles himself and asks for it. And God gives him the fruit of the tree. And Solomon uses it to build a glorious Temple full of garden imagery.

    I do think it was a failure of Adam’s priestly task. Jesus ultimately fulfills it by finally crushing the head of the serpent, something the original Adam had failed to do.

  16. Luke says:

    1) I have long understood that verse from Genesis about husbands and wives to include her desiring to RULE him, not wanting him sexually.

    2) I understood that, after Adam realized what Eve had done, he would have done best to pray to God, saying that this helpmeet had fundamentally failed him, and needed to go to the helpmeet shelter, to get gassed if not bought after 3 days. Whether God would deem Adam would get an upgrade, or do without a helpmeet thereafter I don’t know, but suspect the former.

  17. Joe says:

    So to sum up… does this mean that Eve had the discussion with the serpent at some place and not at the tree itself, then some time passes, she goes and gets Adam, and after a discussion with him they go to the tree, she eats and then gives him some to eat, which he does.
    Which then lead to the verse on how he “listened to the voice of his wife”.
    Which means that if he listened to her, he was not there to listen to the serpent.
    If so, then Adam was not with her (and thus standing by passively), since he wasn’t there to hear the serpent in the first place. He was just with her later to listen to her.

    If I’m getting that right, I stand corrected. Adam was not there.

  18. earl says:

    I’ve had the hardest time in the past to get aquaintances to understand that the “disobedience” was not original sin, as how can you sin when you have no knowledge nor ability to judge between good and evil

    I was always of the understanding disobedience was the original sin because they were disobedient to God’s command.

    Put another way…what was the biggest reason for Jesus’s glory…he was obedient to the Father’s will.

  19. Daniel says:

    Jehovah gave the command to Adam before Eve was created. It is not recorded that He gave the command directly to Eve, nor does He charge her with directly disobeying him.

    Adam had apparently relayed the command to Eve, since she knew it. Adam did not sin in failing to instruct his wife. Eve chose to listen to Satan, and disobeyed her husband.

    The fact that woman’s curse is in relation to her husband’s authority shores up the idea that her sin was in disobeying her husband.

    Modern Christian wives like to think that they answer directly to God, and reject their husband’s role as spiritual head.

  20. Opus says:

    As Dalrock may recall Milton has Eve alone at the time she is tempted by Satan,

  21. getalonghome says:

    Also, Jazzdrive3, very astute. Lots to chew on now.

  22. feministhater says:

    Modern Christian wives like to think that they answer directly to God, and reject their husband’s role as spiritual head.

    And, once again just like Eve, when they try to usurp their husband’s authority and try to get their answers elsewhere, they do not go to God but to the modern day serpents who whisper in their ears about how they can ‘have it all’ and that they don’t need to follow God’s commands. They are listening to satan. Most of life is just a rerun of the original sin over and over again.

  23. feministhater says:

    Likewise, the knowledge of good and evil isn’t necessarily knowledge of basic morality. Adam and Eve knew basic right from wrong. They were culpable when they disobeyed God.

    Nothing tells us this. In reality, you can perform tasks without understanding the morality of them and you can then be punished if you do not do what is commanded of you. Quite simply, Adam was to follow God’s commands and Eve was to follow Adam’s. No morality needed. You’re looking for a scapegoat. Adam had no wisdom to do what you require that he should have done.

    Once they ate of the fruit, they gained the knowledge/wisdom to understand why what they did was morally wrong. That is basic morality. And by eating that fruit, they also lost the ability to eat of the fruit of life and were banished from the Garden.

  24. Samuel says:

    Deceiving women: so easy a snake in a tree can do it.

  25. PAUL says:

    John Calvin, Exposition of Genesis 3:6.

    “And gave also unto her husband with her.”
    From these words, some conjecture that Adam was present when his wife was tempted and persuaded by the serpent, which is by no means credible. Yet it might be that he soon joined her, and that, even before the woman tasted the fruit of the tree, she related the conversation held with the serpent, and entangled him with the same fallacies by which she herself had been deceived. Others refer the particle hme ( immah,)” with her,” to the conjugal bond, which may be received. But because Moses simply relates that he ate the fruit taken from the hands of his wife, the opinion has been commonly received, that he was rather captivated with her allurements than persuaded by Satan’s impostures. [1] For this purpose the declaration of Paul is adduced, ‘Adam was not deceived, but the woman.’ (1Ti 2:14).
    But Paul in that place, as he is teaching that the origin of evil was from the woman, only speaks comparatively. Indeed, it was not only for the sake of complying with the wishes of his wife, that he transgressed the law laid down for him; but being drawn by her into fatal ambition, he became partaker of the same defection with her. And truly Paul elsewhere states that sin came not by the woman, but by Adam himself, (Ro 5:12). Then, the reproof which soon afterwards follows ‘Behold, Adam is as one of us,’ clearly proves that he also foolishly coveted more than was lawful, and gave greater credit to the flatteries of the devil than to the sacred word of God.

    Calvin would say the complimentarian weasels are half right. But half the truth, presented as all the truth, is a lie. Note that Calvin then goes into the real causes much more deeply. If is very profitable to read the rest of his comments on this verse.

  26. earl says:

    FWIW…I’ll bring the perspective of the Catholic church here too.

    http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p1s2c1p7.htm

    Man, tempted by the devil, let his trust in his Creator die in his heart and, abusing his freedom, disobeyed God’s command. This is what man’s first sin consisted of. All subsequent sin would be disobedience toward God and lack of trust in his goodness.

    In that sin man preferred himself to God and by that very act scorned him. He chose himself over and against God, against the requirements of his creaturely status and therefore against his own good. Constituted in a state of holiness, man was destined to be fully “divinized” by God in glory. Seduced by the devil, he wanted to “be like God”, but “without God, before God, and not in accordance with God”.

    Scripture portrays the tragic consequences of this first disobedience. Adam and Eve immediately lose the grace of original holiness.They become afraid of the God of whom they have conceived a distorted image – that of a God jealous of his prerogatives.

    The harmony in which they had found themselves, thanks to original justice, is now destroyed: the control of the soul’s spiritual faculties over the body is shattered; the union of man and woman becomes subject to tensions, their relations henceforth marked by lust and domination. Harmony with creation is broken: visible creation has become alien and hostile to man. Because of man, creation is now subject “to its bondage to decay”. Finally, the consequence explicitly foretold for this disobedience will come true: man will “return to the ground”, for out of it he was taken. Death makes its entrance into human history.

    After that first sin, the world is virtually inundated by sin There is Cain’s murder of his brother Abel and the universal corruption which follows in the wake of sin. Likewise, sin frequently manifests itself in the history of Israel, especially as infidelity to the God of the Covenant and as transgression of the Law of Moses. And even after Christ’s atonement, sin raises its head in countless ways among Christians. Scripture and the Church’s Tradition continually recall the presence and universality of sin in man’s history…

    All men are implicated in Adam’s sin, as St. Paul affirms: “By one man’s disobedience many (that is, all men) were made sinners”: “sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned.”289 The Apostle contrasts the universality of sin and death with the universality of salvation in Christ. “Then as one man’s trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one man’s act of righteousness leads to acquittal and life for all men.”

  27. John says:

    Almost certainly the original sin was using contraception, thus disobeying both the negative and positive command of God. The negative command was to not eat of the tree and the positive command was to be fruitful and fill the earth.

    If this is true, even after Eve ate the “apple” or pomegranate or other contraceptive fruit, Adam and Eve could have avoided the “original sin” had they not come together in a conjugal way until the contraceptive was flushed from their bodies. Some of the church fathers seem to corroborate this theory as they claim even after eating the fruit there was still hope for Adam and Eve. Instead, Adam and Even ate the fruit and then acted like “gods” and had relations without the possibility of having children.

    This theory also answers the idea that Eve was fallen while Adam was not for a short while. In fact, this was never true, for it was only when Adam and Even came together in full intimacy while sterile that they sinned in an irreversible way. Both sinned together, though indeed Eve was tricked and Adam did not take charge.

  28. Lovekraft says:

    Excellent comments so far (I won’t address john smith’s directly. Will leave that for others).

    The expression ‘Having your cake and eating it to’o has come into my mind recently (primarily in the South Africa gov’t calls for genocide of whites) in that you find groups use the victim card, while blatantly acting in an aggressive or deceitful manner (among other similar tactics). The ‘want their cake’ means they want to be given lenience, treated with kid gloves, affirmative action etc. “Eating it too’ means their actions and statements completely dispel the notion of them being victims, oppressed or persecuted. Feminism, in its current incarnation, falls under this.

    Now, to be able to make the claim that a group is wanting to have their cake and eat it too requires patience, attention to patterns and trends, reflection etc. It is almost like a diagnosis by a psychologist (and no, I do not claim to be an expert in this field. But decades of cultural marxism, political correctness etc has led to people making bold claims. Gloves are coming off, so to speak).

    This may be why the ‘New Agers’ want to upend the Fall structure, because as it currently stands, it shows how a certain attitude should be met with derision and punishment. So we then enter into ‘who gets to decide truth’ arguments, and that’s when it gets messy.

  29. Per Desteen says:

    @ earl

    Note that “Man” is conflated within the catechism to mean both Man and Woman. Yet in regard to the natures of Man and Woman there are rather significant differences that were used by Lucifer to produce sin into the world.

    I also note that your responses are typically the responses I receive in this discussion. Adam, lacking the knowledge of good and evil, lacked the ability to reason, make any kind of moral judgments, could not understand any kind of consequences (obedience is good, disobedience is bad), or even what a command is, or why he should not have listened to Eve. He did not even know guilt until he knew the difference between right and wrong, which is why he hid himself when God came looking. His profound ignorance even prevented him from understanding the concept of “naked” up until that point, or that “naked” was somehow bad. That last bit, that nudity was bad, carries a massive load of assumptions which I don’t want to unpack.

    Anyway, the consequences of eating the fruit come with the curse God places on Adam and Eve, and that point is the beginning of sin. Before that point Adam was an automaton, a Pinocchio.

    I will also say this, that God, being Omniscient, knew beforehand exactly what would happen, put the trees in the garden, and let all the events happen.

    As intended.

  30. ZoeBios121 says:

    Your analysis ignores the principle of Sola Feels. Eve’s sin was questioning her desire to feel good. See, because women are the only ones who can feel, they are the only dispensers of truth viz feels.

  31. Pingback: What was Adam’s sin? | Reaction Times

  32. Hmm says:

    John –

    Huh? Where dat come from?

  33. SkylerWurden says:

    Some of this is valid, but some, I think, is splitting hairs. Adam’s sin was eating the fruit. Listening to his wife led to the sin, but eating the fruit was the sin.

    I will agree that Eve’s sin was her own, however, and that Adam’s sin had nothing to do with ‘not protecting Eve from temptation” that is ridiculous. But the fact is that Adam’s eating the fruit was his sin, and that his sin was arguably greater than Eve’s.

  34. Spike says:

    Christo-feminism gets worse, Dalrock.
    On a recent parish council on man-woman relations, I was told that ”’The Patriarchal System happened because of the Fall. Under Christ, we are all equal….”
    …to which I said, ”Isn’t it amazing how the clergy of every stripe always tortures the Greek and Hebrew, then magically come up with full agreement of what feminists have always been saying, despite feminists hating your guts?”
    The problem with institutional Christianity (”churchianity”) is that we want to please everyone. Moses, the prophets, John the baptist, Jesus and the Apostles spoke truth to power. They weren’t world-pleasers. We unfortunately try to be and it neither fools, nor pleases, anyone.

  35. SkylerWurden says:

    Before that point Adam was an automaton, a Pinocchio.

    This is wrong. Adam had more free-will and o intellectual gifts pre-fall than post-fall. His will post-fall was bound to some degree, whereas pre-fall his will was perfectly ordered.

    The Original Sin of eating the fruit was the greatest sin any man ever committed.

  36. earl says:

    ”’The Patriarchal System happened because of the Fall. Under Christ, we are all equal….”

    Anything to figure out how to get it back to ‘evil Patriarchy’…and ‘blessed equality’.

  37. Sharkly says:

    Here is an idea, Eve’s first transgression may be seen an act of Feminism; in that she was envious of the man’s more Godlike creation, so she wanted to become more Godlike and was tempted and was deceived into rationalizing doing what she wanted to do to be more like God.

    Genesis 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
    It never actually says that the woman was created in God’s image. God is always referred to as Father, Son, or some other male term, when a sex is specified, never female. When God became flesh and dwelt among us He was male, with male parts, not female.
    Genesis 2:23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.
    1 Corinthians 11:7-8 For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man. For the man is not of the woman: but the woman of the man.
    I believe that the woman also bears the image of God to some degree, in that she resembles the man, and was in fact taken out of the man. She is a second generation copy, a copy of a copy of God’s likeness. And the fact that God calls the woman a weaker vessel also implies that she is less like the all powerful God. Thus Satan tempted Eve to become more like God:
    Genesis 3:5 For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”

  38. To add to Earl’s point mentioning the teaching of the Catholic Church on this issue, I think that this post by Msgr. Charles Pope also corroborates what Dalrock has written here and elsewhere: http://blog.adw.org/2017/02/adams-sin-different-eves/, particularly when Msgr. Pope says, “St. Paul speaks of Eve’s sin as being different from Adam’s. She was deceived and so sinned. Adam, however, was not deceived. His sin lay elsewhere….of Adam’s sin, God says, “You listened to your wife and ate fruit from the tree about which I commanded you, ‘You must not eat from it’” (Gen 3:17). Adam’s sin lay in his willingness to allow his wife to tempt him.” Msgr. Pope treats the issue in a very diplomatic manner, but ultimately he is saying what Dalrock has pointed out, that Adam’s sin was listening to his wife rather than to God. In addition Msgr. Pope explains how the nature and sin of Eve are relevant to St. Paul’s rule that women should not have teaching authority in the Church.

  39. MitchG says:

    Remember that Eve’s response to Satan was deceptive:

    And the woman said to the serpent, “We may eat of the fruit of the trees in the garden, 3 but God said, ‘You shall not eat of the fruit of the tree that is in the midst of the garden, neither shall you touch it, lest you die.’”

    God did not say they couldn’t touch it. He said they could not eat of the tree. In this response, Eve is exaggerating the commandment to make God sound excessively strict. I believe this conveys the sense that the hamster wheel was already turning before Satan even said a word. Her sin was committed deep in her own mind before the lies of Satan were even told to her and before she actually ate the fruit.

    This means that Adam could not have stopped Eve from sinning. Eating the fruit was just the final step in a process of rebellion that began in Eve’s mind.

  40. (blue pill pastor) “Mike, how are you doing today?”
    (red pill MGTOW Christian) “Fine pastor, fine. I’ll be at Bible study later tonight.”
    (blue pill pastor) “I was wondering Mike, how come we never see you at any of the single’s events here at the church? Are you seeing someone?”
    (red pill MGTOW Mike) “No, I just… I want to be a Christian. And the Bible is pretty clear there.”
    (blue pill pastor) “I don’t follow?”
    (red pill MGTOW Christian) “Well, Genesis 3-16 is pretty clear, a wife is to obey her husband and well, that just isn’t women today, certainly not the single women in this church.”
    (blue pill pastor, blood boiling, blood pressure spiking 190 over 120) “I see.”
    (red pill MGTOW Christian) “I mean I’ll be honest, I have never met a woman I was interested in who is interested in me who would spend her entire life obeying me. So I figure what’s the point?”
    (blue pill pastor, turning away from Mike) “Alright I get the picture, maybe it would be best if you didn’t attend church for a few weeks?”
    (Christian) “I beg your pardon?”
    (blue pill pastor) “You heard me. I’m talking to the elders. I don’t think this place is for you Mike.”

  41. feeriker says:

    (blue pill pastor) “You heard me. I’m talking to the elders. I don’t think this place is for you Mike.”

    red pill MGTOW Chtistian: “Hmmmm … yes, it appears that you’re right. How terribly misled I’ve been! I was under the distinct impression (or maybe that’s ‘I had thoroughly deluded myself into believing’) that this was part of the Body of Christ, d3dicated to not only obeying His commandments, but serving as salt and light by which to lead others to Salvation by His Grace. But now I see that you’re more afraid of women and what the World thinks than what God commands. You certainly don’t believe that He ‘has your back.’

    “So yeah, I think I’ll go find a home church made up of real> Christians who walk the talk.”

    blue pill pastor (feeling sick to his stomach): “You will continue to tithe here, won’t you, Mike?”

  42. “Hmmmm … yes, it appears”

    blue pill pastor has already left the room. none of the rest of what you typed will be heard, unfortunately

  43. MitchG says:

    @innocentbystanderboston

    A pastor is actually asking you NOT to come to church for a few weeks? WTF? Is this an allegorical tale or a real verbatim conversation with an actual pastor?

  44. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    My Great State of California has achieved another new first. The first lesbian to lead its state senate: https://apnews.com/e444ccdfd7624549b72799c305c4fec2/First-woman,-LGBT-lawmaker-to-lead-California-Senate

    SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — Sen. Toni Atkins became the first woman and first LGBT person to lead the California Senate on Wednesday, pledging to work toward changing the Capitol culture amid a reckoning over sexual misconduct.

    A rainbow flag representing gay pride hung next to the California and U.S. flags in the Capitol rotunda as the San Diego Democrat was formally elected Senate pro tempore and took the oath of office, administered by Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye.

    “It’s the first time. And it’s about time,” said Atkins, who is a lesbian. But, she said, “I came to the Senate to make progress, not history.”

    Atkins takes over as the Legislature faces ongoing scrutiny over its handling of sexual misconduct, upcoming budget negotiations and the 2018 elections.

    Democrats lost supermajorities in the Senate and Assembly when three lawmakers resigned amid allegations of sexual misconduct. …

  45. SkylerWurden says:

    God did not say they couldn’t touch it. He said they could not eat of the tree. In this response, Eve is exaggerating the commandment to make God sound excessively strict.

    I think that is reaching a little bit. If someone showed you some fruit and said: Do not eat this! You will die if you eat this! My only commandment is to not eat this!

    It would be reasonable for a person to assume they aren’t even allowed to touch it. Why wouls they go around touching the fruit anyway, if they couldn’t eat it?

    Before she sinned (by actually eating the fruit) Eve was sinless and there was no “hamster wheel”. Her will was not bound by passion and emotion yet. It was only after she willingly subjected her intellect and will to her passions and emotions that she (and her daughters) were cursed with that feminine inability to be rational.

    Man’s actual nature changed when he fell. Pre-fall there was no sin, no corruption, and no flaw in either man or woman.

  46. feeriker says:

    My Great State of California has achieved another new first. The first lesbian to lead its state senate

    Nothing to even raise eyebrows at in the Land of Fruits, Nuts, and Flakes. I won’t even be surprised when (yes, when) they elect their first openly paedophile politician.

  47. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    I knew about Vampire Romance novels, but here’s another romance subgenre, one I’d never heard of before — Time Travel Romances: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01N5MKNWZ

    I’m guessing they’re about modern women who travel back in time, and are captured and raped by barbarian men.

    Women hate this modern age as much as men do. Women just can’t admit it. So they’re left fantasizing about it instead. Dreaming about living in barbarian times, being abused by sexy savages.

  48. earl says:

    My Great State of California has achieved another new first. The first lesbian to lead its state senate:

    However when they elect a horse to the senate…they won’t be the first to do that.

  49. squid_hunt says:

    @jazzdrive3

    I find it funny you spend so many words to explain what the Bible says in about two sentences. And of course you end up with “Eve’s sin was Adam’s fault atleast in part.” which opens the door for the feminists to ignore all culpability in their behavior and is how we got to what Dalrock is refuting in this post. When you have to read that much into a sentence and split that many hairs, chances are you left exposition long ago and you’re moving on to your personal gut feelings with lots of words to mask and justify it.

  50. RedPillPaul says:

    Dalrock
    I am going to go with the complementatians veiw with what happened with the caveat that Adam actively told her not to eat but had no authority to override her free will. I look at Gods punishment to Eve for this clue. Your desire will be for your husband and he will rule over you.

    I think Adam and Eve was near the tree when the serpent tempted them because the serpent was very wise/smart/crafty. Like candy in front of the check out to encourage impulses buy, the serpent strikes up the conversation while near the tree and get Eve talking about the tree of knowlege by asking “did God really say dont eat any tree in the garden” knowing very well that there was only one tree that fits that description.

    The complementatians are “right” about Adam being near but wrong that Adam didnt do anything. Again, these things are not stated in the Bible so its speculation. I absolutely agree that Adams sin was listening to his wife as i have said many time lurking this forum that Adam would rather die with woman than live with God.

    You can enter into the frame of the complementatians but differ on their contention thay Adam didnt do anything and then smash their whole premis by stating that is the reason why God made man to rule over Eve as her punishment. God specifically gave him the authority to override her free will…like the law gives the husband the authority to nullify a vow his wife makes. Does not mean his wife cant make a vow, so she has some free will, but it can be overruled. In the state of perfection before sin, she had noone to overrule her freewill.

    I imagine complementatians would have a Windows blue screen pop in their heads when you tell them “thats the reason why God gave me the power to rule, because eve didnt listen to Adam in the first place”

  51. Paul says:

    @Dalrock :Here’s the question for us as men: Where was Adam in this critical moment? Where was Adam when his wife was being tempted by Satan?

    We all recognize this is the core issue with feminist/rebellious thinking: when it’s convenient, women suddenly are not responsible for their deeds, and the blame falls on men. In all other cases men are supposedly causing all the trouble, and the blame falls on men.

    We don’t accept this any longer.

    I’m shocked how deep this thinking is ingrained in a lot of people I otherwise respect. However, I’ve decided to fight this in my own little spot, whatever the outcome may be.

  52. Daniel says:

    And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, “Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: 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.”

    Eve says “We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden: 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.”

    There are a number of differences:
    – Eve leaves out “every” tree and “freely” eat, showing her diminished enthusiasm for the goodness of God.
    – Eve claims that God spoke to her too: “Ye shall not…” But Jehovah commanded the man: “Thous shalt not…”
    – Eve adds “neither shall ye touch it,” adding to the command and making it seem restrictive.
    – “Lest ye die” implies uncertainty, instead of “thou shalt die the death.”

  53. jbarruso says:

    Good clarification. Proximity matters little in spiritual matters. Eve was taken from Adam’s side to be his opportunity to deny himself for his bride as Jesus (the groom) would later show us. Adam failed in this regard. Not only did he fail he then acted as a coward blaming not just his wife for her sin but also blaming God for giving him this woman. A true “son” of God is selfless. He doesn’t concern himself with assessing blame which seems to be the preoccupation of most men as husbands. As if Jesus’s example isn’t sufficient Moses couldn’t have said it more clearly in Exodus 32:
    It came to |be after the morrow +that Moses |said to the people:
    You´ have sinned a great sin, and now I am going up to Yahweh.
    Perhaps I may make a propitiatory shelter about your sin.
    31 +So Moses |returned to Yahweh and |said: Oh! .this .people
    has sinned a great sin, and they |made for themselves an elohim
    of gold. 32 And now, if You should bear their sin, 7bear it. Yet if
    not, wipe me, I pray, from Your scroll which You have written.
    Generally speaking, us men are cowards not worthy of being called “sons” in the same league with Jesus and Moses and all the rest of God’s sons who we have read about. It takes more than self professed belief to be a “son” you have to actually be willing to show it by taking up your cross on behalf of others who really don’t deserve it. Adam’s failure was NOT to prevent Eve’s sin – it was a failure to offer himself as a sacrifice for his wife’s sin.

  54. James says:

    Daniel,
    That was good how you observed the difference between the “thou shalt not eat of it” and “Ye shall not.” That distinction is lost in modern English, where “you” covers both “thou” and “ye.” (“Thou” is speaking to one person, “ye” is speaking to two or more people.) I just checked Bibles in some other languages and they make this one person – more than one person distinction for these verses too.

    So, Eve was giving a slightly different version of what God said, and she was already on her way, or was more vulnerable to the serpent’s suggestions. Even though the Bible doesn’t go into great detail about what happened, the little that is there contains a lot of information when you dig deeper into it, such as what you pointed out above.

    Another thing I think about the story of the fall is that, while some say that Adam and Eve were not real persons and are only figurative, the Bible itself does consider them to be actual individuals, because it gives a genealogy of descendants, down to Noah, I believe.

  55. Sigma says:

    I find it interesting that the people who claim that Eve added to what God said are doing exactly what they are accusing Eve of doing. That is, adding to what the Word of God says, and making it say something that it does not.

    There is no place in the Bible that says that Eve misquoted God and set herself up for failure by “hamstering” about God’s commandment.

    In Genesis 2, we are told “And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: 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.” The word “thou” as appears in the King James is singular, and the verse clearly says that God commanded this to the man Adam.

    However, in Genesis 3, Eve tells the serpent “Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.” Notice the usage of the King James word “ye” which is plural. In other words, “You (plural) shall not eat of it, neither shall you (plural) touch it, or else you (plural) will die.” The differences in the quotation is significant enough to infer that this commandment was given multiple times, once to Adam alone and at least once to Adam and Eve together.

  56. James says:

    Sigma, could have been. God may have talked to them many times. But, then again, we can only speculate because the story is very brief in Genesis. Yes, it can be implied the command was given multiple times.
    Then again, Adam and not God, knowing how women are, might have said to Eve, “Don’t even touch that fruit!” Like the parking signs in New York City used to say: “Don’t even THINK of parking here!” (Very NYC humor.)

  57. James says:

    I’m glad anyway that we can discuss these things here at the crossroads of the Bible and churchianity and feminism and how all this affects our lives. I don’t have all the answers but for sure, the dialog here is edifying and most helpful.

  58. squid_hunt says:

    @jbarruso

    “True Son”

    Is that sort of like real man?

    Adam’s sin, for which he was judged was listening to his wife and eating of the fruit that he was commanded not to eat. That’s clear. Cut and dried. Plain as day. God is a true judge. God judged him for this sin and found him guilty. You’re just making the rest up. Now his response could have been to intercede, if he was innocent. He was not. His duty to God was to judge his wife and find her guilty of death for her sin. Maybe God would have made him another wife. Original sin, though, either way, rests in Adam, not Eve.

    @Sigma

    I agree with you that there’s no indication where the extra words come from. I think it’s just as likely they came from Adam as a means of protecting his wife. “God says don’t eat it. Don’t even touch it!”

    Of course, that’s not Bible, it’s just my opinion. But I do think it’s very possible.

  59. jbarruso says:

    squid_hunt says:

    “His duty to God was to judge his wife and find her guilty of death for her sin.”

    “Then neither do I condemn you,”Jesus declared. “Go now and leave your life of sin.” – John 8:11

    It is unfortunate how little we understand God’s love and what it is to be obedient to His law. It is the fault of our so-called teachers who lead us astray from truth and instead empower and encourage us in our efforts to play God.

  60. squid_hunt says:

    Funny from the guy that wants to condemn Adam for his failures, but let his wife go free. Any authority stands in the position of God by default. That’s very clear in the Bible. Most especially the husband. He’s not playing God. He’s standing in the place of God as his representative.

  61. A pastor is actually asking you NOT to come to church for a few weeks? WTF? Is this an allegorical tale or a real verbatim conversation with an actual pastor?

    Not me. It was Joseph of Jackson. He used to post here and at Mary’s.

  62. Gunner Q says:

    Red Pill Latecomer @ March 21, 2018 at 11:56 pm:
    “My Great State of California has achieved another new first. The first lesbian to lead its state senate:”

    That can’t be right… oh wait, the first lesbo to leadthe Senate. Okay.

    “Democrats lost supermajorities in the Senate and Assembly when three lawmakers resigned amid allegations of sexual misconduct.”

    If Republicans weren’t controlled opposition then they would pursue this as an election strategy. But we can’t go around revealing how many homosexual legislators are child molesters, now can we? Even though it’s an open secret anyway… normies don’t think teaching homosexuality to schoolchildren should be mandated by the legislature.

  63. Caspar Reyes says:

    Scripture is clear that “she took” first, then ate. “Took” in disobedience of the command (as far as she knew) not to touch. We might suppose as follows.

    Scene 1
    Adam to Eve: “Eve, before thou were here, God told me not to eat from this tree. So don’t eat from this tree. In fact, as Husband of the Garden and of Thee, I say, don’t even touch it.”

    Scene 2
    Eve to Serpent: “God said don’t eat it or touch it, lest ye die.”

    Serpent to Eve: “Ye will not surely die [if thou touch it].” [Interpretation: “No touching is Adam’s command, not God’s. Touch it. See? Adam’s command carries no weight.”]
    Finis

    The Adversary’s program from the beginning was to undermine the Man’s authority in his own Sphere. Everything in the churches and in the law and in society furthers this program.

  64. BillyS says:

    John Smith,

    From an evolutionary standpoint

    You continue your myth here.

    No evidence, you just assert it. Believe what you want, but worshiping something that doesn’t happen in reality will lead to poor results, even if you claim it is “red pill”.

    Getalonghome,

    I think that is more what a bunch of cuckservative preachers teach than feminists. They claim passive men messed things up in the first place. The Fall would have been prevented if Adam had been more proactive.

    Yet these same men complain if men try to keep anything from women today. They fail to see their own inconsistency.

    Jazzdrive,

    We see this very thing happen with Solomon, when he asks for knowledge of good and evil to govern his people.

    That is not what it says. He asked for Wisdom. The Tree was not called the Tree of Wisdom. The claim of the serpent was that it would make them wise, but that was a lie. Wisdom is not the same thing as the knowledge of good and evil.

    Don’t add to what is written concepts that are against what is written

    Luke,

    1) I have long understood that verse from Genesis about husbands and wives to include her desiring to RULE him, not wanting him sexually.

    It is the same phrasing used about sin and Cain just after this. So the view that the curse was Eve’s desire to rule her husband is completely accurate. Claiming it was sexual desire is idiotic and sounds like an attempt to aid women in denying the God-given role sex should play in marriage.

    Joe,

    I think the main point is that the story as written is at a high level, not a step-by-step walkthrough. We don’t know who was exactly where at any given point, except that Eve came near the tree (to get its fruit) at some point. All the rest is using our brains. Building a “passive Adam” to blame for it all is definitely stupid and ignores what God holds each accountable for.

    Daniel,

    It is not recorded that He gave the command directly to Eve, nor does He charge her with directly disobeying him.

    We have no idea what God said to them when He walked with them in the Garden “in the cool of the day.” He may or may not have told Eve directly, though it seems odd to have not said anything about it, since it was a key point.

    All that is written, here and throughout the Scriptures, indicates women are held less accountable for many things. They are also held under the authority of others, which is the part we ignore today at our peril.

    Eve may have known the true command and added her own “or touch it” to ensure (to herself) that she not sin on it. Women are more subject to being deceived and that idea fits the concept.

    MitchG,

    It was a bit different, but I was invited to fellowship elsewhere when the pastor at the church where my wife divorced me decided I was too much of a pain to him, holding him accountable for inaction and believing lies, though I suspect that holding his wife accountable was a significant player in the issue as well.

    Skyler,

    I agree with you in general, but I think Eve sinned when she touched the fruit because that was sin in her own eyes and we are told that our thoughts can make something sinful for us.

    RPPaul,

    I am going to go with the complementatians veiw with what happened with the caveat that Adam actively told her not to eat but had no authority to override her free will. I look at Gods punishment to Eve for this clue. Your desire will be for your husband and he will rule over you.

    And thus you go with your traditions over what is written. He could not “listen to her voice” if he merely ate when she handed it to them. You need to study a bit more of the Scriptures and give up your own traditions that add to them.

  65. BillyS says:

    Squid,

    I agree with you that there’s no indication where the extra words come from. I think it’s just as likely they came from Adam as a means of protecting his wife. “God says don’t eat it. Don’t even touch it!”

    Except that this still places blame on Adam for not conveying the truth right. I have heard sermons with that myself. It is foolish and I find the idea that Eve botched it up to fit more with the idea that women are more easily deceived and should not teach that is noted elsewhere in the Scriptures.

    Of course, that’s not Bible, it’s just my opinion. But I do think it’s very possible.

    At least you admit that. Many just stick to their traditions as if they were holy writ.

    jbarruso,

    You are taking that completely out of context. Jesus had no basis to condemn her per The Law. He hadn’t seen her in the act and they somehow forgot to bring the other part of the act, another violation of The Law.

    Adam was not to judge Eve, but he should have brought the situation to God if she had sinned and he had not. I am beginning to think they did it together, per what Dalrock wrote here, so the time for that may not really have been present. She may have persuaded him and then they both ate. That is fully consistent with what is written, though not required. It could also be that she had eaten and then took fruit to Adam to eat (or “dragged” him to the Tree to eat). We can only go with what is Written and that is limited and clearly an overview.

  66. RedPillPaul says:

    @jbarruso
    Adam’s sin was not that he didnt offer himself as a sacrifice for womans sin, it was listening to her over what God said.

    MAYBE if he didnt listen to her and then he blamed God for making woman so decievable your argument MAY fly but his first sin was listening to her.

    I contend that Adam did try to stop her. That he was right there when the serpent tempted Eve. If Jesus wanted to save himself and call a legion of angels, God wouldn’t have stopped Jesus free will. The only thing is if Jesus did do that, he would prove that he is not the son of God because sons of God do what they are commanded (that is proff that we are children of God, by loving him above all and doing his will)

    Eve used her freewill to gain power/wisdom. ADAM WAS NOT A COWARD for being passive. Who named all the animals? Adam did, including the serpent and behemoth and quite possibly leviathan (though he is technically a sea creature and the Bible doesnt state he named the creatures of the sea). Adam had no authority to overrule Eve’s freewill. As a punishment to Eve, she will now be overruled by her husband.

    Is it Gods fault that Cain killed Seth? God did tell Cain that he is about to fo something bad and he should master it, but God let cains freewill materialize into an action which killed his brother. Is God to blame for that?

    This goes back to the concept of responsibility without authority. Adam didnt have authority to override eve’s freewill. As her punishment, man was given that authority. Uses this favt against complementatians who try to put you on the hook for responsibility while stripping away your authority.

    Stop doing the sin of adam and listening to someone else besides God, especially complementatian false teachers. Drive that point home…I rule over you woman, and if you dont like it, take it up with God.

    The state may punish you when she runs to it and tries to usurp your authority but when God judges everyone, he wont hold it against you, and its God’s judgment we should fear.

  67. BillyS says:

    RPPaul,

    I contend that Adam did try to stop her. That he was right there when the serpent tempted Eve.

    The first part negates the second part. What evidence do you have he tried to stop her? You have to insert that into what is written, yet you cannot believe he was not physically standing there during the temptation?

  68. squid_hunt says:

    @BillyS
    [blockquote]Except that this still places blame on Adam for not conveying the truth right.[/blockquote]

    There’s nothing untrue about the way I suggested it could have occurred. If she interpreted that to come from God, that would have been a mistake on her part, but either way, would have saved her from sin if she had just obeyed. Or she may have made it up herself about the touching.

    The point is that we don’t know where that extra guidance comes from. To attribute it to anyone and claim it is factual would be false. There’s really not that much point in fighting over it because conclusive evidence doesn’t exist. In other words, it’s not important to the story or God would have included it.

  69. OKRickety says:

    squid_hunt,

    This is how to “code” a blockquote: <blockquote>Except that this still places blame on Adam for not conveying the truth right.</blockquote>

  70. TMAC says:

    I say Adam was not standing there with her. Divide and conquer has always been the best tactic. The serpent likely knew Adam would reject his recommendation and so he went through Eve instead.

    Men almost always pay attention to a naked woman’s request.

  71. RedPillPaul says:

    @Billys

    You are stuck in your own traditions. Let me clarify hoe it went down.

    Adam and Eve were near the tree of knowledge. The serpent has been waiting for an opportunity to dominion away from man (mankind). The serpent strikes a conversation with the woman that seemed innocuous at first to Adams ear (remember the Bible states that the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals that God made) and tries to get woman thinking about the tree of knowledge.

    Its a “game” tactic. If i want to seduce a woman, i try to get her thinking about sex. Same thing with the serpent. The serpent asks a question that he knows will get the woman talking about the tree of knowledge.

    Serpent: “Did God really say you cant eat from any of the trees in the garden?”

    Woman: well, there is only one tree that fits that description and that would be the tree of knowledge. If we eat it, we will die

    Serpent: BINGO! lets talk about that more. you wont die, for God know that when you eat, you will be like him, knowing good and evil.

    Adam: thats not true. I know this animal. I named him. He is crafty and lying to you, it will give you knowledge because that is what God named the tree, but you will die.

    Serpent: nonsense, you wont die. God is holding out on you. He is fooling you with the threat of death just to keep you from being like him.

    Adam: dont do it. He is lying to you

    Woman: But it looks good and is desirable for attaining wisdom. Besides, you cant tell me what to do. You dont rule me. I have free will just like you.

    Adam: Nooooo…DONT DO IT!

    Woman::chomp chomp chomp: mmmmm, this knowledge is so delicious. Listen to me Adam and have some.

    Adam: Eve, your glory…its fading

    Woman: shhhhhhh, eat this. Dont you love me? Dont you want to be with me? We can only be together if you are like me, knowing good and evil

    Adam: i love you so much, you know that…but, but….oh forget it,i would rather die with you than be seperate from you and live with God.

    Adam: Oh my badness, we are spiritually naked! Our glory, our righttousness! We cant go before God like this.

    Woman: you saw me lose my spiritual clothing when i ate the fruit. What are you complaining about. I thought you would rather die with me that live with God. Here put these leaves on. See, we aren’t naked anymore.

    GOD: Adam, Adam, where are you?

    Adam: I heard you walking and hid myself because was naked.

    God: who told you that you were naked?

    Adam: ummmm, ummmm

    God: have you ate from the tree I comanded you not to eat from?

    Adam: Its your fault! The woman you put here with me, you made her a weaker vessel then me so that she would easily be deceived while giving her the same free will i have. And you made her so beautiful that even your angels would be tempted by woman’s beauty, she gave some fruit to me and I did eat.

    God: What is it that you have done?!

    Woman: the serpent deceived me and so i ate. I just wanted to be like you.

    God:Because you have done this,“Cursed are you above all livestock and all wild animals! You will crawl on your belly and you will eat dust all the days of your life. And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring[a] and hers; he will crush your head, and you will strike his heel.

    And to the woman I will make your pains in childbearing very severe;
    with painful labor you will give birth to children.
    Your desire will be for your husband,
    and he will rule over you

    And Adam,Because you listened to your wife and ate fruit from the tree about which I commanded you, ‘You must not eat from it,’

    “Cursed is the ground because of you;
    through painful toil you will eat food from it
    all the days of your life.
    18 It will produce thorns and thistles for you,
    and you will eat the plants of the field.
    19 By the sweat of your brow
    you will eat your food
    until you return to the ground,
    since from it you were taken;
    for dust you are
    and to dust you will return.

    Adam: woman, your name is Eve because you will be the mother of all the living, but if i ruled over you before we sinned, i could have forced you to not eat….well i rule over you now. Better be worth it since now i have to work harder than i have ever known in my life just to support us….

    Aaaaand scene.

    I KNOW, I KNOW! The dialog is not in the Bible but tell me where my narative is not in line with the Bible.
    My position reconciles that Adam was not deceived,
    he was not passive,
    Keeps the goal post from moving where it is continually mans fault [basically woman had agency and man could not override freewill pre fall]
    Man and woman was “equal” pre fall as the Bible states that although Jesus was equal to God, he did not count it a thing to be grasped. Philippians 2:6

  72. squid_hunt says:

    @Ok

    Yeah, I know. Thank you. It was 50/50/90. Guessed it wrong after agonizing for a good 30 seconds…

  73. RedPillPaul says:

    @billys

    How does the first paragraph negate the other? What two paragraphs are you alluding to?

  74. BillyS says:

    RPPaul,

    I contend that Adam did try to stop her.

    This is the first part. No evidence in the exact words there that he tried to stop her, yet you claim it. That isn’t even required by later text, since listening to her voice is not necessarily trying to stop her. He could have said “sure honey, let’s eat of the fruit” when she first mentioned it. We do not know exactly what she said to him, we just know he said something since he couldn’t listen to her voice without doing so.

    That he was right there when the serpent tempted Eve.

    He did not have any time to do anything if he was standing right next to her the whole time. That would include listening to her voice and the “trying to stop her” you claim just before.

    ====

    I couldn’t be stuck in my traditions since I only came to my position fairly recently. Try again. You can make up whatever you want, that doesn’t take what is written, it is adding to it.

    All I know is that the short summary does not include all of what happened. I have made an argument for one thing that fits all of what is written (centered around being with her in the Garden) and Dalrock has noted another equally possible set of events that also mean he wasn’t with her during the temptation.

    I just know she spoke to him at some point, definitely implying she didn’t just hand it to him standing there being dumb while the serpent tempted her.

  75. RedPillPaul says:

    @billys
    Whats your problem with adam being there the whole time?

    My version you cant take the complementairian view and blame adam for anything. What is your real issue?

  76. RedPillPaul says:

    Why do you assume he didnt have enough time. Where in my narative do you find issue? My narative shows a way where there was enough time for Adam to be there and have enough time.

    I get it, you dont like me because i challenge you to think critically but i have been sticking to my points without vague ad hominem attacks

  77. jbarruso says:

    BillyS says:

    “You are taking that completely out of context. Jesus had no basis to condemn her per The Law. He hadn’t seen her in the act and they somehow forgot to bring the other part of the act, another violation of The Law.”

    I politely disagree. Jesus obeyed ONLY God’s Law fulfilled by love, NOT man’s law. Jesus said; “judge not.” The “context” is the entire Bible including most critically the gospel. The message of the adulteress is the same as the cross – Jesus courageously gave his life to stand by and then forgive those who didn’t deserve forgiveness. To free them from the voices of death and condemnation. Your rationalization and dumbing down of the Word is typical of the religious who bend and twist the truth rather than accept it as written. And what’s written is Jesus’ command to take up your cross and deny yourself. This He did while Adam failed to. One man’s obedience and another man’s disobedience. Obedience to God’s Law fulfilled by love.

  78. SkylerWurden says:

    Guys… Pre-fall Eve was not like post-fall women. All this extra reading is missing the point. Eve made the RATIONAL choice to subsume her intellect to her passions. Pre-fall, her intellect controlled her passions. She chose what to feel and when to feel it. It is only post-fall that our emotions rule our intellect and we have little control over whslat we feel. There was no sin or corruption in Eve pre-fall. Temptation is not sin. She was tempted by the snake and she willingly chose to accept the temptation. Adam was tempted by Eve and he willingly chose to accept temptation.

    God didn’t make woman an irrational rebel. Woman made herself an irrational rebel. The curse came AFTER the fall, not before.

    As to why Jesus didn’t condemn the woman, this is simple: from Jesus’ perspective, every man on earth was guilty of sin. If he’s going to start condemning people for their sins then he’s going to have to condemn literally the entire world. He openly says: those who have not sinned, cast the first stone. Then when only he remains, he makes the choice to forgive rather than condemn. The Judge has both powers, to punish or to show mercy. Jesus could have punished her, but he chose to grant mercy. He did it because she was no more guilty than anyone else.

  79. BillyS says:

    RPPaul,

    Adam would have responsibility for not speaking up if he was present during the temptation. Letting the serpent deceive his wife in front of his face would be bad, which is why I believe it did not happen. I also believe God would have noted that if it had been the issue.

    I don’t spent much time worrying about it either way.

    jbarruso,

    Believe what you want. I will take Jesus words as spoken: “Neither do I condemn you.” He didn’t say “you are not condemned.” Paul was pretty clear we are all condemned under The Law in his writings. Jesus was operating under The Law at the time. The standard for the accusation was not met and Jesus was noting that, though He did add to go and not sin any more. That would not have been important if doing so wouldn’t have bad consequences.

    Jesus was not a teddy bear that accepted everyone. He was just as righteous as God, since He was fully God. He did not ignore sin, but paid the penalty for it. Note that he rebuked his disciples all the time for falling short, even some times I personally find it a tad bit unfair. (He doesn’t care what I consider fair or unfair though.)

    Preaching a mamby pamby Jesus is part of the problem today.

    Skyler,

    He condemned the religious leaders many times, questioning who their parent was. He also chastised the 12 many times, along with the father of the possessed son. He held people accountable. His actions here were not some vague ignoring of what happened. Those accusing her already missed the boat when they didn’t bring the man she sinned with. Thus he dealt with them in a different way as well.

    I fully believe II Cor 5:18 and on. He is not holding specific sins against people right now, but that was after the Cross and Resurection, not before.

  80. RedPillPaul says:

    @Billys
    Your right that we dont need to spend too much time on it as the conversation has run most of its course but lets for a second say that you had a son who is your age. Would you be responsible for his actions? Could you override his free will?

    I think assigning responsibility to Adam prefall for Eve’s freewill choice would be a mistake and would be applying the law that came after where we as men are now responsible for her actions because After the fall, woman was placed directly under the man rather than by his side.

    Why did God state that man would rule over woman as part of her punishment? And if that is punishment, it would be safe to assume that man didnt rule over her/didnt have veto power.

    Would it be so far out there to say that Adam tried to stop her but had no veto power so he wouldn’t be responsible for her actions. If you have no veto power over your grown son, why should you be responsible for his actions.

    Why must Adam be responsible for Eve’s choices prefall when he didnt have rule/authority over her?

  81. RedPillPaul says:

    Another way to see it, Satan took a third of the angels with him by deception. Why should the 2/3 be responsible for the actions of the 1/3 that fell with Satan?

  82. sipcode says:

    Adam did not sin in the Garden. Paul clarified that in 1 Tim. Adam was RESPONSIBLE for the sin in the Garden. God did chew him out in Gen 3:17 for BLINDLY hearkening to the voice of the woman, not a commandment given to him.

    Men, stop hearkening to the voice of women. STOP IT.

  83. Paul says:

    @sipcode: “Adam did not sin in the Garden. Paul clarified that in 1 Tim.”

    No Paul did not. He said “the woman became a sinner”.

    1 Timothy 2:14 And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner.

    If you look at all relevant texts about Adam we have

    ==
    1 Co 15
    21 For *since death came through a man*, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man. 22 For as *in Adam all die*, so in Christ all will be made alive.
    ==
    Rm 5
    12 Therefore, just as *sin entered the world through one man*, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned
    14 Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not *sin by breaking a command, as did Adam*, who is a pattern of the one to come.
    15 But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the *trespass of the one man*, how much more did God’s grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many! 16 Nor can the gift of God be compared with the result of *one man’s sin*: *The judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation*, but the gift followed many trespasses and brought justification. 17 For if, by the *trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man*, how much more will those who receive God’s abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ!

    18 Consequently, just as *one trespass resulted in condemnation for all people*, so also one righteous act resulted in justification and life for all people. 19 For just as through *the disobedience of the one man* the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.

    20 The law was brought in so that *the trespass* might increase. But where *sin* increased, grace increased all the more, 21 so that, just as sin reigned in death, so also grace might reign through righteousness to bring eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
    ==

    Now the interesting question — as I have stated elsewhere — is what would have happened if Adam had not obeyed his wife and not eaten from the fruit? If you look at the above texts, it is clear that Adam sinned and is seen as the responsible one, NOT Eve. Comes with headship I guess. Or maybe this has to do with the one-flesh relationship of Adam and Eve.

    What is does make clear is the primacy of Adam over Eve, no question about it.

  84. sipcode says:

    Paul says: March 23, 2018 at 4:29 am

    That POV is all the church has ever championed and all I have ever heard, but let’s do the math….

    “Sin is transgression of the law” 1 John 3:4b. [sin = transgression]

    “the woman being deceived was in the transgression” 1Tim2:14b. [deceived = transgression]

    Sin = transgression and transgression = deceived, so deceived = sin

    Eve was deceived, transgressed and sinned — all the same thing – in the Garden.

    “Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in transgression [sinned]” 1 Tim 2:14.
    Adam was not deceived = not transgressed = not sinned …so Adam did not sin against the law in the Garden.

    Adam’s eating the fruit did not come from intentionally eating of the fruit, from deceiving self [from transgression, from sin]; Adam eating the fruit came from “hearkening to the voice of the woman.” Eve’s sin came from intentionally and willfully eating the fruit, for the purpose of becoming like God, for consuming the lusts of her eyes, and for rejecting God’s word and authority. She deceived herself, lied to herself that she did not have to live within the truth, well knowing what that truth was …and she knowingly transgressed. Adam did not transgress because he did not deceive himself, that is, knowingly eating of the fruit. Adam took on the sin of Eve, her sinful action, as being responsible for his household, much like Christ took on himself the sin of mankind, as the bride of Christ. Sin entered the world —and the oneness of the union – before Adam ever ate the fruit. To be sure, sin is a part of Adam’s nature since. This understanding of what went on in the garden is foundational to understanding marriage, and Christ.

    And note that it is no small thing that God addresses the woman first [v13+16], then the serpent [v14+15] and lastly Adam [17-19].

    Adam was responsible for her sin much as the CEO of a corporation is responsible for the sin of any employee of his corporation …corporately.

    We must all dig deeper into what scripture really says to have the proper foundation for understanding the marriage relationship, and our marriage to Christ.

  85. RedPillPaul says:

    Maybe God addressed adam first because he was looking for him. God didnt go “woman, woman, where are you”

    And Adams sin was eating the fruit because he was told by God not to. Eating of the fruit is the primary sin, harkening to the voice of woman is how it came about. Adam broke the second commad given to him (the first being “be fruitful and multiply”) the second command is what he is able to eat and not eat.

  86. OKRickety says:

    RedPillPaul,

    “Adam broke the second commad given to him (the first being “be fruitful and multiply”) the second command is what he is able to eat and not eat.”

    … God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply, ….” [Gen. 1:28 NASB]

    The LORD God commanded the man, saying, “From any tree of the garden you may eat freely; but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die.” Then the LORD God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone; I will make him a helper suitable for him.”‘ [Gen. 2:16-18 NASB]

    Although I don’t think it’s crucial to your argument, I don’t think you are correct on the order of those two commands. They certainly do appear in the text in the order you give, but, assuming the second passage is correct chronologically in itself, the command on eating was prior to Eve’s creation. As I understand it, Genesis contains one creation account (Gen. 1:1-2:3), followed by a retelling (in a different fashion) in Gen. 2:4-25. As you can see, the two commandments are in different creation accounts. Assuming both accounts are true, then, logically, the first command was not eating from the tree and the second was to be fruitful and multiply, because Eve was created after the commandment on eating was given.

  87. jbarruso says:

    sipcode says:

    “Men, stop hearkening to the voice of women. STOP IT.”

    Amen!

    Childish leaders oppress my people, and women rule over them. O my people, your leaders mislead you; they send you down the wrong road. – Isaiah 3:12

    Men as husbands are mis-leaders. Men as pastors are mis-leaders. Men as role models are mis-leaders.

    From the beginning men have held fear in their hearts for women. So afraid they won’t be loved if they don’t submit to their woman’s whim – even their need to sin as they succumb to their own fears. Well, the truth is a man has only One Love – the Lord! But as long as he continues to put his woman first, before the Lord, he will remain an outcast from Eden.

  88. ACThinker says:

    On was Adam standing next to Eve when the Serpent spoke – Gen 3:1-5
    It is currious that English as we speak it today, has no seperate word for 2nd person (you) singular and plural. At the time of the KJV or the Douy Rheims (about 1600 for both, although DR was a little earlier), English had two different words. Thee and Thou are different declensions of singular 2nd person. You is for 2nd person plural. Ye is defined as a plural form of thou. Anyhow in the KJV or DR that I accessed on line, the 2nd person is all ‘Ye’-KJV or ‘You’-DR when the serpent is talking to Eve. ***

    NOW that doesn’t negate what Dalrock said at the begining, v17 is pretty clear that Adams sin was ‘listening to his wife.’ Although the DR uses the word harkening which implies not just listening to but following the orders of. Or has been said a lot “elevating Eve’s commands above God’s making it a violation of the 1st commandment”

    Also, consider the curses. Are they telling us that things are different than they were originally? or are they to restore the original sinless creation? There is a lot of meditation that sort of thing. I mean if man wasn’t going to have to work for his food, was woman not going to have labor pains or desire her husband? Although the KJV has it as desire. the DR, a totally different translation, DR. gen3:16 “To the woman also he said: I will multiply thy sorrows, and thy conceptions: in sorrow shalt thou bring forth children, and thou shalt be under thy husband’s power, and he shall have dominion over thee.”

    Lastly does it matter how the punishment – an action ment to bring correction – is a change from the original creation? We are living under that punishment now, and work under those conditions.

    *** going to the first modern English translations (DR and KJV) is the earliest I can go. Ideally someone with Hebrew would look at as earliest a copy of the text as he could and give us a translation. Personally if I did latin, I’d go to the Latin Vulgate, originally translated in about AD350 by Jerome who knew Greek, Latin and Hebrew and probably had access to good copies of the text. And his LV copy was largely a basis for both the DR and KJV of the Modern English translations.

  89. RedPillPaul says:

    @okrickery

    As you mention, it doesnt really change my argument that adams sin was eating the fruit, and it came about by listening to his wife. But I can concede that point in the order those two comands were given. How can man be told to multiply when woman wasnt made yet?

  90. sipcode says:

    jbarruso says: March 23, 2018 at 2:09 pm

    “Well, the truth is a man has only One Love – the Lord!”

    Amen!

    For men, losing all others, INCLUDING WIFE, over confrontation, over ‘hating evil,’ or over ‘proving all things’ IS Love. That is keeping His commandments. God is a God of confrontation, and to our last breath He will confront our sin.

    One of the most dramatic revelations of men being ALONE, being ostracized for confronting is Christ’s words recorded by 3 authors:

    I suggest the most revealing: “If any man come after Me and hate not his father and mother and wife and children and brethren and sisters, yea, even his own life also, he cannot be My disciple” Luke 14:26. [See Matt and Mark below]

    This “hate” means that a man cannot put any of these people [or anything] before God, even to the point of being alienated by all of them.

    Dissecting these [and other] verses briefly is most noteworthy to a healthy and sin-resistant church:

    Jesus is speaking only to men, because ‘husbands’ are not mentioned by Him. Only adult men forsake all else for the Gospel. Only men are disciples. Only men are to ‘hate’ everyone else, when warranted.

    Women don’t ‘hate’ or forsake their husbands for the Gospel, for the Word of God. Women don’t leave the “house” or “children” or “husband” for the Gospel. She lives out the Gospel by obeying her husband. This relates back to the wife DIRECTLY glorifying her husband and not skipping over him to [somehow] glorify Christ – 1 Cor 11:7. A woman forsaking her husband and her house and her children has also contributed to the Pathological Church [in addition to men not confronting sin].

    Scripture is written to men, for men to administer. While women are to desire learning of scripture, of Jesus, men are responsible for the evangelizing and the keeping truthfully all of that scripture …of confronting others with what that truth is …to their alienation from all …’for His sake and the Gospel’s.’

    “And everyone that hath forsaken houses or brethren, or sisters or father or mother or wife or children or lands for My name’s sake …shall inherit everlasting life” Mt 19:29.

    “Verily I say unto you, There is no man that hath left house and brethren or sisters or father or wife or children or land’s for My sake and the Gospel’s , but that he shall receive one hundred fold now …with persecutions…” Mk 10:29.

  91. sipcode says:

    jbarruso says: March 23, 2018 at 2:09 pm

    “Well, the truth is a man has only One Love – the Lord!”

    Amen!

    But NOT women.

    For men, losing all others, INCLUDING WIFE, over confrontation, over ‘hating evil,’ or over ‘proving all things’ IS Love. That is keeping His commandments. God is a God of confrontation, and to our last breath He will confront our sin.

    One of the most dramatic revelations of men being ostracized for confronting [‘hating’ ALL others] is Christ’s words recorded by 3 authors:

    I suggest the most revealing: “If any man come after Me and hate not his father and mother and wife and children and brethren and sisters, yea, even his own life also, he cannot be My disciple” Luke 14:26. [See Matt and Mark below]

    This “hate” means that a man cannot put any of these people [or anything] before God, even to the point of being alienated by all of them.

    Dissecting these [and other] verses briefly is most noteworthy to a healthy and sin-resistant church:
    Jesus is speaking only to men, because ‘husbands’ are not mentioned by Him. Only adult men forsake all else for the Gospel. Only men are His disciples. Only men are to ‘hate’ everyone else, when warranted.

    Women don’t ‘hate’ or forsake their husbands [or anyone] for the Gospel, for the Word of God. Women don’t leave the “house” or “children” or “husband” for the Gospel. She lives out the Gospel by obeying her husband. This relates back to the wife DIRECTLY glorifying her husband and not skipping over him to [somehow] glorify Christ – 1 Cor 11:7. A woman forsaking her husband and her house and her children has contributed to the Pathological Church [in addition to men not confronting sin].

    Scripture is written to men, for men to administer. While women are to desire learning of scripture, of knowing Jesus, men are responsible for the evangelizing and the proving truthfully all of that scripture …of confronting others with what that truth is …to their utter alienation from all …’for His sake and the Gospel’s.’

    “And everyone that hath forsaken houses or brethren, or sisters or father or mother or wife or children or lands for My name’s sake …shall inherit everlasting life” Mt 19:29.

    “Verily I say unto you, There is no man that hath left house and brethren or sisters or father or wife or children or land’s for My sake and the Gospel’s , but that he shall receive one hundred fold now …with persecutions…” Mk 10:29.

  92. sipcode says:

    Adam did not sin in the Garden…

    …for God looks on the heart.

    There is no record of Adam’s heart of sin. God’s word CLEARLY records and emphasizes the heart of Eve, the contemptuous heart of Eve …desiring to be like God. Paul confirms this in 1 Tim 2:14, the heart condition of both Adam and Eve.

    Adam’s hearkening to the voice of Eve was not a sin …yet …until Gen 3:16 and God’s new order of “he shall rule over thee.” That is for all men now. This is why all the venom against men and God’s Word.

    God chewing out Adam in Gen 3:17 was a wisdom wake-up call [that Adam’s “It is not good for the man to be alone” built in need for a woman must be tempered]. Adam only had three laws to abide by: 1) don’t eat THAT fruit, 2) be fruitful, and 3) have dominion. While I could assume that Adam hearkening to the voice of Eve was not having dominion [surrendering his authority] and thereby a sin, scripture does not point to it as a sin. His hearkening to a woman led him to his unknowingly eating of the fruit.

    And it is noteworthy —and ominous— to emphasize that a man following the lead of a woman opens the door to his downfall. And I suggest always. Somewhere back in time, near or far, the fall of every man was instigated by a woman.

    Men, if you begin to distance yourselves from being influenced by women, and rather take your place of ‘rule’, His fruit will begin to multiply in you and the church. This is a tough task with us all having been taught to be a gentlemen [non-scriptural; effeminate 1 Cor 6:9 damnation], and with bogus non-discrimination laws …but press on.

    “Shew thyself a man.”

    “Quit you like men.”

  93. RedPillPaul says:

    Adams sin in the garder was to eat the fruit from the tree of knowledge. What did God tell him not to do?
    Eat from the tree of knowlege of good and evil.
    What did Adam do? Eat from the tree of knowledge BY listening to his wife. The sin wasnt listening/harkening to his wife per say….its listening/harkening to his wife’s voice/suggestion/command that was directly in contrast to what God said.

    God said “dont eat” , Eve said other wise.

    I agree with your point that we shouldnt listen to women, but you are mistaken to believe that Adam did not sin in the garden

  94. RedPillPaul says:

    God saw in adams heart that he would rather die with woman than live with out her and be with God.
    2/3 of the angels decided to stay with God. The other third fell with Satan

  95. BillyS says:

    sipcode,

    Adam did not sin in the Garden…

    Keep telling yourself, at least until you stand before the One who has proclaimed otherwise.

  96. BillyS says:

    Does anyone commenting lately know what a summary is? It isn’t a step-by-step list of everything, but a discussion of key steps involved. The steps noted in the overview story in Gen 3 allow for many details that were not noted. Though believe whatever you want, few really want to consider things in context, which is why some punt to an outside authority instead of studying and thinking for themselves.

  97. Paul says:

    @sipcode : And note that it is no small thing that God addresses the woman first

    No, God addressed Adam first.
    9 But the Lord God called to the man and said to him, “Where are you?”
    then Eve, then the serpent, then curses the serpent, then Eve, and then Adam. Typical chiasm.

    @sipcode: Adam did not sin in the Garden… for God looks on the heart.

    Oh my. You know that some things are sin because you just do them?
    17 .. “Because you have listened to the voice of your wife and have eaten of the tree of which I commanded you, ‘You shall not eat of it,’

    Note that the focus is on “have eaten of the tree”, NOT “listened to the voice of your wife”.
    Adam did sin by eating of the tree. Just “listening” was NOT the sin.

    Notice also how Adam kind of evades God’s question, shifts the blame to the woman and seems to even shift the blame to God, no mentioning of any seduction, why? Did he think it was natural to just do what his wife instructed him to do?
    12 The man said, “The woman whom you gave to be with me, she gave me fruit of the tree, and I ate.
    Eve at least acknowledges she was deceived, but also shifts blame
    The woman said, “The serpent deceived me, and I ate.”

  98. Paul says:

    Note that Eve does say NOTHING about that she instructed Adam to eat too.

  99. Note that the focus is on “have eaten of the tree”, NOT “listened to the voice of your wife”. Adam did sin by eating of the tree. Just “listening” was NOT the sin.

    Listening was not Adam’s sin. Of course he should listen to his wife. We all listen to our wives. OBEYING his wife when she told him to do what God told him not to do was his sin.

  100. Paul says:

    @ibb

    It was really the eating that was sin. Of course he should not have obeyed his wife into sin. It is a big warning to not idolize your wife, but always put God first.

  101. A minor note but one should always be careful about building whole conclusions on the precise wording of a translation. Would be much stronger for all sides if they drilled down to the original language and as close to the original context as possible.

  102. Swanny River says:

    Nate, what verse says the original language is more inspired?
    Why do you read an English version?

  103. Nate, what verse says the original language is more inspired?
    Why do you read an English version?

    Gee, I don’t know…

    https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2018/01/30/erasing-fathers-from-scripture/

    It is worth noting that Dr. Douglass Moo, the Chairman of the Committee on Bible Translation that produced the new father free translation of the verse above, is the same man John Piper and Wayne Grudem turned to when they wanted to make the case for women preaching to women. However, to Wayne Grudem’s credit, the translation Grudem edits (ESV) has not feminised the passage, and has actually made recent changes that are sure to offend egalitarians.

    Maybe sometimes there’s good reasons to double check the translation? Or is Dalrock above wrong in his complaining? After all, apparently the English version translated doesn’t matter.

  104. earl says:

    Listening was not Adam’s sin. Of course he should listen to his wife. We all listen to our wives. OBEYING his wife when she told him to do what God told him not to do was his sin.

    I think it was probably a packaged deal when God spelt it out.

    ‘ “Because you have listened to the voice of your wife, and have eaten from the tree about which I commanded you, saying, ‘You shall not eat from it’; Cursed is the ground because of you; In toil you will eat of it All the days of your life.’

    If we want to play the ‘frame’ game…Adam should have stayed in God’s frame and not submitted to his wife’s frame.

  105. Pingback: Headship tomorrow and headship yesterday, but never headship today. | Dalrock

  106. sipcode says:

    @ Paul

    Sorry, Paul, I did not clarify: God addresses Eve first in Gen 3:16 [before Adam in Gen 3:17], after His interrogation of each in Gen 3:9+; God started with the serpent, then Eve, then Adam [the priority of grief to God, I suspect].

    Note all God asked Adam was “Where are you?” God asked Eve “What have you done? …as if SHE really did it. God must be REALLY dumb if He accepted the so-called “Pass the buck” of Adam that all pastors teach. I suggest God knew who ate in contempt against Him. God chastised Adam for hearkening to the voice [acting on her command …giving up his authority to Eve] which led him to eating of the fruit.

    The deception that Paul speaks of in 1 Tim 2 is a conscious choice [like in Deut 30:19 and in Rom 12:2]: Eve deceived HERSELF. Her heart was wrong against God. She knew what she was eating and Genesis CLEARLY discusses this. Adam was not deceived, per Paul; he did not know what he was eating; he did not have a hard heart against the Lord. If Adam knew what he was eating, why didn’t Genesis likewise discuss this as it did for Eve?

    Adam ushered sin in for all through his household, for being one with Eve. He was corporately responsible and that is why God came to him first in Gen 3:9 and Paul speaks in Romans of his corporate sin on behalf of all mankind.

    I have a lengthy paper on ‘Adam did not sin in the Garden’ if you are interested. Just leave an email.

    Sincerely, Dave

  107. Paul says:

    @sipcode: I appreciate your response, but still think you are too speculative, while not addressing the clear texts that speak otherwise. If you address this, please share, but not via email.

    “Note all God asked Adam was “Where are you?”” <- No, the Lord asks him three questions.

    "the priority of grief to God, I suspect" <- No, it's chiasm: Adam-Eve-serpent-serpent-Eve-Adam. Adam is addressed because he is the head of Eve

    " if He accepted the so-called “Pass the buck” of Adam" <- The texts shows exactly that: Gen 3:11 .. Have you eaten from the tree that **I commanded you** not to eat from?” 12The man said, “**The woman** you put here with me—**she gave me some fruit** from the tree, and I ate it.” 13 **Then** the Lord God said **to the woman**, “**What is this** you have done?”

    "Eve deceived HERSELF" <- 1 Ti 2:14: it was the woman who was deceived

    "If Adam knew what he was eating" <- he knew he was eating from the tree the Lord commanded him not to eat from ("she gave me some fruit from the tree")

  108. Pingback: Sheila will make a man out of you. | Dalrock

  109. Nielsen says:

    I’do like to see how they explain this:
    “Your desire shall be contrary to your husband, but he shall rule over you.”

Please see the comment policy linked from the top menu.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.