Who Sinned First, Adam Or Eve? (paradise, belief, scripture, creation)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
As someone has already observed, the only thing that God had told Adam not to do was to eat the fruit of the "tree of knowledge of good and evil". Does that mean that doing anything else was OK? Taking a chainsaw to Eve, for instance. And if Adam and Eve had no knowledge of good and evil before eating the fruit, how could God be so cross about them doing so -- after all, they wouldn't have known that it was wrong.
Before they ate the fruit, they were in a state of innocence. They did not have a sin nature. They had a perfect relationship with God and with each other.
The Only sin possible was to disobey God by eating the fruit. That was the entire purpose for God putting the tree in the garden and then giving them the command Not to eat it. It was a volitional test for them. It gave their volition something to work with.
They had no knowledge of good and evil until after they ate the fruit, as Genesis 3:22 says. To say otherwise is to disregard what the Bible says about it.
I've written twice in other threads about original sin and the reason for it. It was to bring the entire human race that would exist down through all of future human history under the umbrella of grace. The details are given in those other posts.
Before they ate the fruit ... they had a perfect relationship with God and with each other.
They had no knowledge of good and evil until after they ate the fruit ... original sin ... was to bring the entire human race ... under the umbrella of grace.
I don't disagree at all. And I was - as you can see from my post - arguing against, not for, the point that you quote. But it's also vitally important that we know what the Hebrew words in the text actually mean. For instance this word "knowledge" of good and evil (i.e. the Hebrew word that's actually used here) means practical or applied knowledge, personal intimacy with, rather than "head" knowledge (awareness of). Because, as you say, Adam and Eve were created in God's image and initially "had a perfect relationship with God" they could share in his perception of the nature of good and evil, which is exactly why their disobedience could be a sin in the first place (which it couldn't have been if they had no idea what wrong was). This whole narrative is one of those where by simply using an English-language Bible we can take hold of words in their English meaning and thus completely misunderstand the nature of the passage. This narrative - if you get all the words as in their true meanings - is absolutely astonishing and a real revelation - it really does make sense of God's purpose, of sin and atonment, of the necessity for redemption in Jesus Christ the Messiah and of the Holy Spirit. The whole lot. And we tend to miss it because we use translations that are not necessarily inaccurate but that don't actually allow us to see the significance of or the in-depth meaning of the words in question. The word used to describe the snake being a prime example of this. And missing the point means that the story appears to have loose ends or illogicalities, which means that people start to regard it as just a legend or primitive story, which is a great shame!
And to address the actual question, I don't think that we need to divide up Adam and Eve for this purpose to "put the blame" on one or the other: I really think that the point here is that it was the choice of them both. This narrative is about the relationship between man/woman (humanity) and God.
Before they ate the fruit, they were in a state of innocence. They did not have a sin nature. They had a perfect relationship with God and with each other.
The Only sin possible was to disobey God by eating the fruit. That was the entire purpose for God putting the tree in the garden and then giving them the command Not to eat it. It was a volitional test for them. It gave their volition something to work with.
They had no knowledge of good and evil until after they ate the fruit, as Genesis 3:22 says. To say otherwise is to disregard what the Bible says about it.
I've written twice in other threads about original sin and the reason for it. It was to bring the entire human race that would exist down through all of future human history under the umbrella of grace. The details are given in those other posts.
So at that time... One of them could have slain the other and it would not have been a sin? because they hadn't eaten of the fruit? Is that what you are saying?
I don't disagree at all. And I was - as you can see from my post - arguing against, not for, the point that you quote. But it's also vitally important that we know what the Hebrew words in the text actually mean. For instance this word "knowledge" of good and evil (i.e. the Hebrew word that's actually used here) means practical or applied knowledge, personal intimacy with, rather than "head" knowledge (awareness of). Because, as you say, Adam and Eve were created in God's image and initially "had a perfect relationship with God" they could share in his perception of the nature of good and evil, which is exactly why their disobedience could be a sin in the first place (which it couldn't have been if they had no idea what wrong was). This whole narrative is one of those where by simply using an English-language Bible we can take hold of words in their English meaning and thus completely misunderstand the nature of the passage. This narrative - if you get all the words as in their true meanings - is absolutely astonishing and a real revelation - it really does make sense of God's purpose, of sin and atonment, of the necessity for redemption in Jesus Christ the Messiah and of the Holy Spirit. The whole lot. And we tend to miss it because we use translations that are not necessarily inaccurate but that don't actually allow us to see the significance of or the in-depth meaning of the words in question. The word used to describe the snake being a prime example of this. And missing the point means that the story appears to have loose ends or illogicalities, which means that people start to regard it as just a legend or primitive story, which is a great shame!
And to address the actual question, I don't think that we need to divide up Adam and Eve for this purpose to "put the blame" on one or the other: I really think that the point here is that it was the choice of them both. This narrative is about the relationship between man/woman (humanity) and God.
So since Jesus reconciled the sin of Adam/Eve (original sin) then there aren't anymore sinners.. right? it was the law that made the sinners and Jesus fulfilled the law.. right?
So in paying the debt of Adam/Eve... Jesus erased all the sin that had and would be committed... that is called Universal Salvation...
So since Jesus reconciled the sin of Adam/Eve (original sin) then there aren't anymore sinners.. right? it was the law that made the sinners and Jesus fulfilled the law.. right?
Wrong. What Jesus did was to restore that access to God that was taken away when the fruit was eaten. As soon as the fruit had been eaten, Adam and Eve could no longer live in Eden (could no longer be in God's immediate presence) because they now possessed their own value set that conflicted with those of God. They could therefore no longer be allowed to eat from the tree of live (which previously had been available for them to chose) and had to be sent out of Eden. Animal sacrifice had to be made (in making those clothes) and contact with God had to be via a priest on the other side of the temple curtain. What changed with Jesus was that the curtain was torn, the sacrifice made once and for all and the opportunity for contact restored. It doesn't mean for one moment that sin itself has been abolished or that responsibility for our actions has been taken away. We are promised a "new heaven and a new earth" - a new Eden in which we can eat of that tree of life - but this is available through Jesus. It's not universalism.
In short, although they are opposite poles, the fruit did not create sin and Jesus did not abolish sin. They are both to do with relationships. The one was the means by which we became distanced from God and the other the means by which we can be reunited.
Wrong. What Jesus did was to restore that access to God that was taken away when the fruit was eaten. As soon as the fruit had been eaten, Adam and Eve could no longer live in Eden (could no longer be in God's immediate presence) because they now possessed their own value set that conflicted with those of God. They could therefore no longer be allowed to eat from the tree of live (which previously had been available for them to chose) and had to be sent out of Eden. Animal sacrifice had to be made (in making those clothes) and contact with God had to be via a priest on the other side of the temple curtain. What changed with Jesus was that the curtain was torn, the sacrifice made once and for all and the opportunity for contact restored. It doesn't mean for one moment that sin itself has been abolished or that responsibility for our actions has been taken away. We are promised a "new heaven and a new earth" - a new Eden in which we can eat of that tree of life - but this is available through Jesus. It's not universalism.
Good point..
What about this:
Proverbs 3:13;18 Blessed is the man who finds wisdom, the man who gains understanding, [Wisdom] is a tree of life for those who take firm hold of it. Those who cling to it are blessed.
Rev. 22:2 down the middle of the great street of the city. On each side of the river stood the tree of life, bearing twelve crops of fruit, yielding its fruit every month. And the leaves of the tree are for the healing of the nations.
Proverbs 11:30 The fruit of the righteous is a tree of life, and he who wins souls is wise.
Proverbs 15:4 The tongue that brings healing is a tree of life, but a deceitful tongue crushes the spirit.
Proverbs 13:12 Hope deferred makes the heart sick, but a longing fulfilled is a tree of life.
After eating the fruit in the garden...
Genesis 3:22 And the LORD God said, "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever."
So do you think that the Proverbs description of the tree of life is different than the Genesis and Revelation tree of life?
It doesn't sound like a bad thing in Proverbs... Perhaps the OT understanding of tree of life is different from our understanding... Jesus came to make a way for all to eat from the tree of life.
Are you saying that he didn't make the way or that he only made the way for some?
So do you think that the Proverbs description of the tree of life is different than the Genesis and Revelation tree of life?
It doesn't sound like a bad thing in Proverbs... Perhaps the OT understanding of tree of life is different from our understanding... Jesus came to make a way for all to eat from the tree of life.
Are you saying that he didn't make the way or that he only made the way for some?
You ask hard but good questions! I may be wrong, but yes I do think that the Proverbs descriptions (all of which refer to "a tree of life" and seem allegorical) are different from the Genesis and Revelation ones (which refer in concrete terms to "the tree of life"). In any event it's interesting that the two special trees in Eden seem to be mutually exclusive. Before Adam & Eve ate from the tree of good/evil God seems to have wanted them to eat from the tree of life (he put it prominently in the middle of the garden and told them to eat, 'yes eat' of any tree other than the good/evil one), but once they'd taken the "wrong" fruit then they had to be removed from Eden before they could get at the eternal life. And I think that was more for their own good than as a punishment. An eternity of being afraid and trying to hide from God doesn't sound like any kind of fun. That's one reason why I don't think we see that tree again until the new heaven and the new earth of Revelation.
And I would say that Jesus made the way for everyone - but we choose whether to go along it or not.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
just to clarify ...
