Did Eve commit sin even before she ate the fruit?

[Poppy]

Genesis 3:2-3:
"And the woman said unto the serpent, 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."

But in Genesis 2:16-17 it 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."


God never said not to touch it. He only said not to eat of it! So was Eve committing sin already?


I also hope I posted this in the right area.

 

[ENOCH2010]

It appears she added to the word of God, which is wrong today. But the only law at that time was to replenish the Earth, and not to eat from the tree of knowledge.

 

[Levi]

It's interesting, not only did she add to what God said but in her addition she established an unnecessary law that went beyond God's requirements, people do that today, too. Like people claiming we have to do x, y, z, c, b, and a in order for God to accept us and 'saved', abiding isn't enough.

 

[Dodo_David]

Uh, in Genesis chapter 2, Eve was not yet in existence when God instructed Adam not to eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

We are not told who instructed Eve about that particular tree. For all we know, Eve could have simply repeated what Adam told her.

 

[Dan57]

Uh, in Genesis chapter 2, Eve was not yet in existence when God instructed Adam not to eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

We are not told who instructed Eve about that particular tree. For all we know, Eve could have simply repeated what Adam told her.

I agree... No one had to of been lying.. Its like John's gospel only saying that Mary Magdalene went to Christ tomb, while Matthew has 2 Mary's going to the tomb, and Luke says there were 3 or more women who went to the tomb (John 20:1, Matthew 28:1, Luke 24:10). Because John only focused on Mary, does not mean he contradicted the other gospel writers. I suspect Adam got the same instructions that he relayed to Eve, but Eve just repeated some additional details to the serpent that weren't recorded earlier.

 

[Levi]

I agree that Eve may not have been lying, it was what Adam maybe had told her, but in that case it would have been Adam adding to what God had told him. This is what people do all the time. Adding to the Word!

 

[Poppy]

Uh, in Genesis chapter 2, Eve was not yet in existence when God instructed Adam not to eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

We are not told who instructed Eve about that particular tree. For all we know, Eve could have simply repeated what Adam told her.

True, true.

It was probably Adam. God made it very clear that they were only forbidden to not eat of it. I really doubt God would later on add 'No touching'. Because why would God have a reason for that?

So if Adam did pass on the information to Eve, why did he add to the word? I know God can only be perfect, but that doesn't exclude that fact that Adam's mind was phenomenal. I don't think Adam would have mistaken nor forgotten what God had told him. Adam probably had the ability to remember word for word since there was no sin yet

 

[Webers_Home]

like John's gospel only saying that Mary Magdalene went to Christ tomb

While true that MM is the only one that John 20:1 reports going to the tomb;
it doesn't say that she was the only one that went. When all else fails: read
the fine print.

I agree that Eve may not have been lying, it was what Adam maybe had told her, but in
that case it would have been Adam adding to what God had told him. This is what people
do all the time. Adding to the Word!

Women seem to have a natural propensity for that rather annoying habit. For
example: one of Dr. Laura's pet peeves is women that begin their feed-back
with "in other words". Well; Laura stops them right there and says: "DON'T
interpret what I said. Just go and do it."

Buen Camino
/

 

[day]

The sin of disobedience was not the first (or more serious) sin of Adam and Eve. The initial sin was that they believed God capable of evil. They believed Satan that God had lied to them when he told them they would die in the day they ate the fruit. They also believed that God had evil intent in keeping the fruit and its positive properties from them for his own advantage. Eating the fruit was taking their well-being into their own hands rather than trust in God. Even today we try to get to heaven on our own, not trusting God's way.

 

[Dan57]

While true that MM is the only one that John 20:1 reports going to the tomb;
it doesn't say that she was the only one that went. When all else fails: read
the fine print.

Yes, that was my point... "Because John only focused on Mary, does not mean he contradicted the other gospel writers".

 

[Webers_Home]

.
At Gen 2:16-17 we have God's statement. At Gen 3:2-3 we have Eve's
statement. Of the two statements; which is the more reliable: God's
statement or Eve's statement?

In the book of Ecclesiastes, the wisdom of Solomon says that people don't
exist after death. While in the New Testament, the wisdom of Jesus says
they do. Which of the two men's wisdom is more reliable: Jesus' wisdom or
Solomon's wisdom?

One of the things that I've learned about the Bible is that while it's a truthful
record; not everything that people in the record say is true. Caveat Lector.

Buen Camino
/

 

[michaelvpardo]

Uh, in Genesis chapter 2, Eve was not yet in existence when God instructed Adam not to eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

We are not told who instructed Eve about that particular tree. For all we know, Eve could have simply repeated what Adam told her.

Spot on brother.
Romans 5:12-13
12. Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned
13. (For until the law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law.

.
At Gen 2:16-17 we have God's statement. At Gen 3:2-3 we have Eve's
statement. Of the two statements; which is the more reliable: God's
statement or Eve's statement?

In the book of Ecclesiastes, the wisdom of Solomon says that people don't
exist after death. While in the New Testament, the wisdom of Jesus says
they do. Which of the two men's wisdom is more reliable: Jesus' wisdom or
Solomon's wisdom?

One of the things that I've learned about the Bible is that while it's a truthful
record; not everything that people in the record say is true. Caveat Lector.

Buen Camino
/

I've read Ecclesiastes a few dozen times and have never gotten that out of it. What verses are you referring to? 12:6-7, maybe? But then what do the last verses mean:
Ecclesiastes 12:13-14
13. Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God and keep His commandments, for this is the whole duty of man.
14. For God will bring every work into judgment, including every secret thing, whether it is good or whether it is evil.

Given that Solomon wrote earlier:
Ecclesiastes 7:15
I have seen all things in my days of vanity: There is a just man who perishes in his righteousness, and there is a wicked man who prolongs his life in his wickedness.

If people ceased to exist after death, there would be no point in judgment. Solomon only spoke of the flesh returning to the dust, which it does, and of the spirit of a man "which goes upward." Ecclesiastes appears to have been written largely from the point of view of godlessness, or "foolishness." The bible makes references to the wisdom of Solomon, but how wise is a man that takes to himself 700 wives, princesses and 300 concubines? And the Song of Solomon is supposed to be a song about true love written by such a man (probably why I skip over that book whenever I read through the scriptures.) I find it interesting that Solomon's tribute for a year is given as six hundred, three score and six (666).

 

[Webers_Home]

I've read Ecclesiastes a few dozen times and have never gotten that out of it. What verses
are you referring to?

†. Eccl 9:5 . . For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not
any thing

†. Eccl 9:10 . .Whatever you do, do well. For when you go to sheol there will
be no work or planning or knowledge or wisdom.

Buen Camino
/

 

[michaelvpardo]

†. Eccl 9:5 . . For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not
any thing

†. Eccl 9:10 . .Whatever you do, do well. For when you go to sheol there will
be no work or planning or knowledge or wisdom.

Buen Camino
/

While these verses make it clear that the dead have no ability to do anything with regard to the living and no knowledge (of the living world) they don't tell us that the dead cease to exist. The only picture that Jesus gave us of sheol (or hades) was in the story of the rich man who dies and goes to sheol and the poor beggar, Lazarus who dies and goes to Abraham's bosom. In the narrative given by Jesus, the Rich man in sheol is powerless to do anything for himself or for his living family, yet he still exists, though isolated and in torment.
In John chapter 9, Jesus said, "I must work the works of Him who sent Me while it is day; the night is coming when no one can work." John 9:4. I believe that the Lord was referring to his coming crucifixion and death, and is in agreement with Solomon on this point. The scripture also tells us that when Jesus ascended into heaven, He sat down upon His throne, His redemptive work as our High priest actually having been completed (Hebrews 1:3 and Hebrews 7:24-27,) not that He doesn't intercede for us, but that the work of sacrifice through which we are perfected was accomplished once and for all time at the cross.
The verses that you quote from Ecclesiastes (as well as my example of John 9:4) are good proof texts to demonstrate that "Ghost" phenomenon is in reality demonic activity intended to mislead those who are unfamiliar or unbelieving of the scriptures.

 

[aspen]

Hmm....somehow, I don't think Eve's words in Genesis are quite the same as a court transcript....

 

[Quantrill]

The sin of disobedience was not the first (or more serious) sin of Adam and Eve. The initial sin was that they believed God capable of evil. They believed Satan that God had lied to them when he told them they would die in the day they ate the fruit. They also believed that God had evil intent in keeping the fruit and its positive properties from them for his own advantage. Eating the fruit was taking their well-being into their own hands rather than trust in God. Even today we try to get to heaven on our own, not trusting God's way.

Adam did not believe God capeable of evil. Adams sin was in eating the fruit. Adam was never decieved during the whole event. Eve on the other hand was decieved.

1Tim 2:14 " And Adam was not decieved, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression."

The question is, since he was not decieved, why did Adam eat of the fruit?

Quantrill

 

[Webers_Home]

The question is, since he was not decieved, why did Adam eat of the fruit?

I think most any married guy could answer that question. Adam had to
live with Eve, he didn't have to live with God. In other words: men fear
disapointing their women. They instinctiveley know it's wise to please
momma and thereby preserve peace in the home. Because of that;
women can easily persuade their man to do things contrary to his better
judgment; which is exactly what God came down on Adam for doing.

†. Gen 3:17 . . He said to Adam: Because you listened to your wife and ate
from the tree

Well of course Adam listened to his wife! Eve was the best thing that ever
happened to him. Do you really think Adam was going to risk losing her
love by quarrelling over something as silly as a piece of fruit? No way.

Buen Camino
/

 

[Quantrill]

I think most any married guy could answer that question. Adam had to
live with Eve, he didn't have to live with God. In other words: men fear
disapointing their women. They instinctiveley know it's wise to please
momma and thereby preserve peace in the home. Because of that;
women can easily persuade their man to do things contrary to his better
judgment; which is exactly what God came down on Adam for doing.

†. Gen 3:17 . . He said to Adam: Because you listened to your wife and ate
from the tree

Well of course Adam listened to his wife! Eve was the best thing that ever
happened to him. Do you really think Adam was going to risk losing her
love by quarrelling over something as silly as a piece of fruit? No way.

Buen Camino
/

'wise to please momma' you say. How worldly an expression and explanation.

Adam was unfallen and not decieved. He wasn't trying to 'please momma'. Sickening.

Quantrill

 

[Apocalypticist]

I agree... No one had to of been lying.. Its like John's gospel only saying that Mary Magdalene went to Christ tomb, while Matthew has 2 Mary's going to the tomb, and Luke says there were 3 or more women who went to the tomb (John 20:1, Matthew 28:1, Luke 24:10). Because John only focused on Mary, does not mean he contradicted the other gospel writers. I suspect Adam got the same instructions that he relayed to Eve, but Eve just repeated some additional details to the serpent that weren't recorded earlier.

I think it could be a contradiction. The authors of the Gospels may have been writing decades after the events took place and someone like Mark and Luke probably relied on witness testimony because they were not first hand witnesses themselves.

It could either happen that one witness recalls one thing at a certain time, and then years later interviewed again recalls more specific information. Or it could be a variety of witnesses attesting to what they had heard or had witnessed with the case being that a few of the gospel writers had different information given to them.

My suggestion in that case is that John's gospel reigns supreme. He was there that morning, it saying that he raced there with Peter, who he defeated in the chase. If anyone had direct information it would be John.

And there are many things John states so that it is not even a synoptic. I used to doubt that John could be trusted to the degree that the synoptics could because the synoptics were in such strong agreement but I think my earlier assumption was dangerously wrong.

 

[Webers_Home]

'wise to please momma' you say. How worldly an expression and explanation. Adam was
unfallen and not decieved. He wasn't trying to 'please momma'. Sickening.

Men will literally sell their souls to please the women they love. Like sheep to
the slaughter. It's one of the oldest facts of life in the book.

Men's propensity to sell their souls to please the women they love preceded
the fall; which tells me that it's a natural drive with which men were created
rather than catching it like a disease. In other words: right out of the box,
men were inclined to listen to women rather than listen to God.

Seeing as how that's the way God created men, then the propensity to sell
their souls to please the women they love isn't sin in and of itself. No; it's
how men choose to satisfy their drives that's oftentimes sin. I mean,
shopping for shoes with your best girl, letting her pick the movies you're
going to watch together, letting her pick the restaurant where just the two of
you are going to eat and/or taking up bird watching and roller skating just to
make her happy isn't sin; that's perfectly okay.

But if she wants them to join a swingers group, experiment with drugs, drive
real fast, sacrifice a dog in a curious ritual, burn a Koran, throw red paint on
people who wear furs and/or any number of unacceptable behaviors and her
guy goes along with it just to make her happy; now he's got problems with
The Man and there's no one to blame but himself for being such a fool.

Buen Camino
/