Did Adam know, when he ate it at Gen. 3:6, that Eve had given him the forbidden fruit?
Adam was not deceived.
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Did Adam know, when he ate it at Gen. 3:6, that Eve had given him the forbidden fruit?
And in the phrase "the last Adam" ("The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit"; 1 Cor 15:45), Paul is not making Adam to be Christlike, but is rather contrasting Adam
The serpent walked upright and was able to speak...kind of makes me wonder if it was more of a dragon (like you see in movies) that are able to talk and walk upright on their back legs .....The Temptation of Eve
What was the serpent of Gen. 3:1
The serpent walked upright and was able to speak...kind of makes me wonder if it was more of a dragon (like you see in movies) that are able to talk and walk upright on their back legs .....
But after God cursed him and said he would crawl on his belly the rest of his life and eat the dust of the earth.
Genesis 3:14, KJV: "And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:"
“And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.”
— Revelation 12:9 (KJV)
Revelation 20 (KJV)
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
¹ And I saw an angel come down from heaven, having the key of the bottomless pit and a great chain in his hand.
² And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years,
³ And cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal upon him, that he should deceive the nations no more, till the thousand years should be fulfilled: and after that he must be loosed a little season.
Deceiving mankind....there were 2 trees in the garden....What exactly is the serpent up to here?
This is pointless. You just keep repeating yourself and failing to engage with my arguments, which I think are more deeply rooted in the words of scripture than yours are—not less.
If God Almighty introduces death into the world because of your sin, and forces you to toil in sweat in the soil to which you will return, you’re cursed.
Anyway, keep up the abuse and I will be forced to put you on ignore.
Josephus even suggests (groundlessly) that all animals before the Fall could talk
"considering that snakes cannot do any such thing?"<< Back to Genesis 2 | On to Genesis 4 >>
This is another installment in my Q&A Bible study, which ends up resembling a commentary. I don't pretend this to be a definitive commentary but instead study notes by a student of the Bible. Read more about what I am up to if you like, and feel free to give feedback and offer your own answers to the questions asked.
By the way, I am currently working through Gen 13. I wrote the following some time ago, and will probably keep posting installments relatively quickly until I catch up to wherever I am at in my reading.
Genesis 3
The Temptation of Eve
What was the serpent of Gen. 3:1?
The real issue here is: considering that this apparent snake could speak and indeed tempt Eve so as to precipitate the disastrous Fall—if we set aside the apparent fabulous absurdity of the story—how was that possible, considering that snakes cannot do any such thing? Was it a real, then-ordinary snake? Or was it, as a popular theory has it, Satan in the form of a snake?
Which is why it is called 'Adam's transgression', because Adam owns it, not being deceived in it, but knowing full well what was happening, because he is the one that heard the commandment personally from the Lord.what in the world do you mean "if" the scripture is right???
Adam was not deceived means Adam was not deceived. not by Satan, not by his wife, not by God, not at all.
Adam is not misled in any way whatsoever.
failure. All he had to do was ask what God actually said, and then phrase of God said in a subtly accurate way, and Eve swung with all she had. And Adam like the coward he was watched it all to see what would happen.
If Eve had simply batted the fruit out of the Garden, things would have gone better.
It's called the "curse of sin and death"....Jesus took upon himself the curse...as it is written "cursed is anyone who is hung on a treethe words of scripture do not record God cursing the man or the woman.
the words of scripture record God shedding blood for their sake, at their confession, removing their garments of shame, and replacing them with garments that He Himself made for them!
I.e., intelligently speak. Not yet being cursed to lose their legs (as I think) doesn’t explain why this serpent could speak and with intelligence. And I’m just laying out the possibilities to begin."considering that snakes cannot do any such thing?"
Not now, not since God commanded him to crawl upon his belly for his evil work.
I’ll let you decide for yourself, but nothing you’ve said so far shows that.Since this beginning misstatement is at the beginning of it all, does that mean it all falls apart?
Which of course there is, as I also say later in the very same answer. Also, unless you want to say that all serpents before the Fall could talk, which I doubt you do, then obviously this was no ordinary snake."Was it a real, then-ordinary snake?"
Yes a real then-ordinary snake that could talk, and since it was commanded to crawl upon it's belly as the now-ordinary snake, it could then-ordinarily either fly or walk or crawl. Scripture doesn't say at that time, so we don't know, unless there is Scripture elsewhere showing us.
I can see how that could be taken the wrong way, and I accept the correction. To clarify, the emphasis is on “apparent.” I will reword this so it does not sound dismissive of scripture. The point isn’t to assert that talking snakes are absurd, but to bracket any concerns about plausibility that critics might have about that, in order to take up the (to me) much more interesting question of what the snake was.What it does show is the difference between reading Scripture by faith with the mind of Christ, and reading the Bible by one's own human reasoning:
"if we set aside the apparent fabulous absurdity of the story."
And, well? What is your conclusion? Found anything else you can use to dismiss the entire Q&A as “fabulous”?I for one think I will read on, to be fascinated by what fabulous human reasoning produces.
I accept the rebuke because that bit was carelessly worded and could easily be misunderstood as simply dismissive of scripture. I certainly did not mean it that way. And I have to say I'm sorry if it appeared that I wished my Bible study to be taken "seriously" rather than as a humble student offering.(If someone wants their 'study of the Bible' to be taken seriously, they really must avoid using phrases like 'fabulous absurdity' and 'popular opinion' when speaking of Scripture)
Indeed. Anyone attempting to clarify scripture, or debate about it, should bear that in mind.For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness. (1 Cor 3)
Since the curse of sin and death came through Adam (Rom 5:12) it is only right to say that Adam brought a curse upon himself, upon mankind, and upon the whole creation. Indeed God cursed the ground because of Adam: And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life (Gen 3:17)Anyway, I’m not dogmatically insisting that Adam was cursed, or that we are because he was.
Well, I agree with all of this, but "post" above was strenuously insisting that since God does not specifically say that Adam was cursed, but only that the ground was, therefore he was not actually cursed. I wouldn't insist strongly on the point, but I think we are in the right here.Since the curse of sin and death came through Adam (Rom 5:12) it is only right to say that Adam brought a curse upon himself, upon mankind, and upon the whole creation. Indeed God cursed the ground because of Adam: And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life (Gen 3:17)
In the time is which we are living, Christians are always clamoring for EXPLICIT statements about things which are implied. But that is not how God gives His revelations. He did not give us a textbook of theology. No God did not say "Adam you are cursed". But it is all implied in Genesis 3, and confirmed throughout Scripture.Well, I agree with all of this, but "post" above was strenuously insisting that since God does not specifically say that Adam was cursed, but only that the ground was, therefore he was not actually cursed.