What if only one person in the Garden sinned?

What would've happened had Adam refused to eat the fruit after Eve did? Would've Eve have had been kicked out alone? Would God have taken another rib from Adam and made a woman out of it?
What if Eve became pregnant prior to eating the fruit and getting kicked out? Since since supposedly was passed down from Adam (hence the term "Adam's Sin" ), does that mean Eve's children would've been born sinless, and therefore immortal?

Also...what if Adam first took a bite of the fruit, and Eve refused? Would God have replaced Adam with a rib from Eve?

The reason I'm asking, is on account of a Jewish figure named Lilith, who was supposedly Adam's first wife before Eve. In Jewish literature, she rebelled against God, and was eventually replaced with Eve. Lilith was also created from dust, like Adam. When she was kicked out of the Garden, she became a kind of winged demon, who believed her purpose was to harm newborn infants and women in childbirth. You can read more about Lilith in the link below:

http://witcombe.sbc.edu/eve-women/7evelilith.html

Regarding my first two questions, any thoughts?

Originally posted by vivify
What would've happened had Adam refused to eat the fruit after Eve did? Would've Eve have had been kicked out alone? Would God have taken another rib from Adam and made a woman out of it?
What if Eve became pregnant prior to eating the fruit and getting kicked out? Since since supposedly was passed down from Adam (hence the term "Adam's Sin" ), does tha ...[text shortened]... ://witcombe.sbc.edu/eve-women/7evelilith.html

Regarding my first two questions, any thoughts?

What would've happened had Adam refused to eat the fruit after Eve did?

An interesting question and one on which I seem to remember starting a thread about several years ago, although I can't remember the outcome. I think it died prematurely.

Anyway, if Adam has thrown Eve under the wheels by not eating the fruit (or indulging in whatever activity the fruit represents) so to speak, then I think she would have been destroyed. I'm only guessing though.

Eve was beguiled, hinting that women are more gullible than men, and Adam was tempted by Eve, hinting that men are weak when it comes to women. Nothing new there, and I make no apology for the sexism. However Adam also did throw Eve under the wheels - he said to God "the woman YOU gave me, made me do it", indicating that Adam was a gutless coward and a liar with no sense of chivalry let alone any desire to protect his wife from God. That's mankind for you.

Of course God shows us how to behave: give up your life for your friends, protect and honour women, pay your taxes, acknowledge God and if it tastes good, eat it.

Religion over complicates the message God is sending us.

Both the Hebrew and the Greek words translated as “sin” mean to miss the mark—generally, error or failure of any kind—including, but not limited to, moral failure. Context would have to decide.

Unfortunately, the English word sin apparently has a root meaning of “guilty”. “It is not altogether clear what its ultimate origins were, but it has been linked with Latin sons ‘guilty’, and also with English sooth ‘truth’ and Sanskrit satya ‘real, true’, as if its ancestral meaning were ‘(truly) guilty’.” [John Ayto, Dictionary of Word Origins.]

So, it appears that choosing the English word “sin” to translate chata and hamartema may have been more of a theological choice than a strictly linguistic one.

__________________________________________________

It is not clear that Eve’s eating of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and bad (which, in the Hebrew, are also not strictly moral terms—but mean anything that one could label good or bad) was an act of willful disobedience—or, rather, a mistake.

Genesis 2:9 Out of the ground the LORD God made to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight and good for food, the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

Genesis 3:1 Now the serpent was more crafty than any other wild animal that the LORD God had made. He said to the woman, "Did God say, 'You shall not eat from any tree in the garden'?"
2 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 middle of the garden, nor shall you touch it, or you shall die.' "
4 But the serpent said to the woman, "You will not 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."
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, she took of its fruit and ate; and she also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate.

The texts are ambiguous enough to allow for multiple possibilities—including being confused about the two trees. Further, until eating of the tree, how would they have known what was “bad” (Hebrew ra) and what wasn’t—including disobedience, or even “death”?

Originally posted by vivify
What would've happened had Adam refused to eat the fruit after Eve did? Would've Eve have had been kicked out alone? Would God have taken another rib from Adam and made a woman out of it?
What if Eve became pregnant prior to eating the fruit and getting kicked out? Since since supposedly was passed down from Adam (hence the term "Adam's Sin" ), does tha ...[text shortened]... ://witcombe.sbc.edu/eve-women/7evelilith.html

Regarding my first two questions, any thoughts?

Very interesting indeed. My take is what you said, but then God would have figured out a way to redeem her too.
I think Adam and Eve are both redeemed and will be resurrected.
The question I ponder is if they only knew what they cost mankind. All the heartache, death, wars,etc., They would have overwhelming condemnation.
But the reason I say they are redeemed, is they believed the promise of a coming Messiah which God spoke of in Genesis 3:15.
In fact, Eve was excited when she bore Cain in Gen 4:1 and said " I have gotten a man from the Lord", thinking it might be the Messiah.
Anyone in the Old Testament who believed God's promise of the promised seed of Gen 3:15 was saved having faith in the promise to come, we are saved looking back at the promise accomplished.
Anyway, that is my take on the matter. Good post.

Originally posted by checkbaiter
Very interesting indeed. My take is what you said, but then God would have figured out a way to redeem her too.
I think Adam and Eve are both redeemed and will be resurrected.
The question I ponder is if they only knew what they cost mankind. All the heartache, death, wars,etc., They would have overwhelming condemnation.
But the reason I say they are ...[text shortened]... ved looking back at the promise accomplished.
Anyway, that is my take on the matter. Good post.

. . . but then God would have figured out a way to redeem her too.
I think Adam and Eve are both redeemed and will be resurrected.

First, I do read the story mythologically (which, as Wulebgr recently pointed out, does not mean “false” ). With that said—

Although God is the cause of the consequences, that is in line with a certain line of Hebrew thought—that God is the cause of everything, good and bad. But there really seems to be no mention of punishment here. In fact, God could be angry on the humans’ behalf, at the result of a faulty choice. His sending them out of the Garden can be seen as a grace in itself: to save them from a forever-lasting life with their insight into ra—the Hebrew word (often translated as “evil” ) for anything “bad” or painful, or unpleasant, or the cause of suffering. That is how I see the “redemption problem” for God.

Note: When it says that God clothed them with skins (Genesis 3:21), the word for “skins” can (given the vagaries of Biblical Hebrew) be read as “light”—and there is a rabbinical/midrashic reading that renders the verse as: “And YHVH God made garments of light for the man and for his wife, and clothed them.” As with most poetry, that metaphor could point to a number of possibilities . . . .

Originally posted by vivify
What would've happened had Adam refused to eat the fruit after Eve did? Would've Eve have had been kicked out alone? Would God have taken another rib from Adam and made a woman out of it?
What if Eve became pregnant prior to eating the fruit and getting kicked out? Since since supposedly was passed down from Adam (hence the term "Adam's Sin" ), does tha ...[text shortened]... ://witcombe.sbc.edu/eve-women/7evelilith.html

Regarding my first two questions, any thoughts?

Simple

Whoever was without sin would have been nailed to a cross. 😵

As Socrates once wrote, if there ever was a man to enter the world without "sin" he would surely be put to death...............as was Soctrates.

Originally posted by vivify
What would've happened had Adam refused to eat the fruit after Eve did? Would've Eve have had been kicked out alone? Would God have taken another rib from Adam and made a woman out of it?
What if Eve became pregnant prior to eating the fruit and getting kicked out? Since since supposedly was passed down from Adam (hence the term "Adam's Sin" ), does tha ...[text shortened]... ://witcombe.sbc.edu/eve-women/7evelilith.html

Regarding my first two questions, any thoughts?

Adam didn't stop her, He knew and did not speak up, He was actually told directly and
she wasn't. I imagine letting her would have been just as bad as doing the deed.

Originally posted by vistesd
[b] . . . but then God would have figured out a way to redeem her too.
I think Adam and Eve are both redeemed and will be resurrected.

First, I do read the story mythologically (which, as Wulebgr recently pointed out, does not mean “false” ). With that said—

Although God is the cause of the consequences, that is in line with a certain line of H ...[text shortened]... thed them.” As with most poetry, that metaphor could point to a number of possibilities . . . .[/b]

I suppose it can be argued that God is the cause for everything good and bad.
I think the disobedience, or sin, of Adam and Eve was a calculated risk, rather than a faulty choice ( if that is what you are saying, not sure).
There was immediate punishment or consequences. The woman would...
Gen 3:16
Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.
and to the man...
Gen 3:17-19
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;

18 Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field;

19 In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.

God cast them out of the garden because now they had a "sin nature" which is how the bible describes it. Had they been allowed to remain in the garden and they had eaten of the Tree of Life, they would have remained in that fallen state for eternity.
Their children could have been born with defects, blindness, name your disease, and forever remain that way. Satan would have made sure of it.
So yes, I think it was merciful of God to cast them out and allow them and their offspring to eventually die.
Their punishment or rather, their salvation, would be forgiven by simply believing the promise of the coming seed.
As far as the animal skins, I'm not sure about the light covering, interesting though, I will have to look more into that.
But to stay in harmony with the rest of scripture, the atonement for sin required a blood sacrifice, as I am sure you are aware. So the way I understand it, God had to slaughter an animal or two to atone for their sin and to cover them.
If you remember, they were ashamed and realized they were naked.
I think there is deeper meaning in their nakedness and their covering as you imply, I have heard different teachings that all sounded good, I don't think I will get into that.

Originally posted by checkbaiter
I suppose it can be argued that God is the cause for everything good and bad.
I think the disobedience, or sin, of Adam and Eve was a calculated risk, rather than a faulty choice ( if that is what you are saying, not sure).
There was immediate punishment or consequences. The woman would...
[b]Gen 3:16
Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply ...[text shortened]... ply, I have heard different teachings that all sounded good, I don't think I will get into that.

Well, I’ll go with “faulty choice”, though there is sufficient ambiguity for other readings. And I’ll go with “consequences”, rather than “punishment”—again with recognition of the possibility of other possible readings.

“Atonement” originally really does mean to unite, to reconcile—to make one what has been separated. It does not just mean “to pay for”.

With regard to “blood sacrifice”: I view that as a perceived requirement on the part of humankind—and so God takes care of it. (That is a Trinitarian view, and I seem to recall that you are not Trinitarian.)

That’s very brief, but I’m running out of time for this evening . . . 


(You are keeping me on my toes, however . . ./🙂 )

Originally posted by vistesd
It is not clear that Eve’s eating of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and bad (which, in the Hebrew, are also not strictly moral terms—but mean anything that one could label good or bad) was an act of willful disobedience—or, rather, a mistake.

If it was simply a mistake, and not a willful act of disobedience, then wouldn't banishing Adam and Eve from the garden, followed by cursing them to a life of hardship under the son and greatly increasing Eve's labor pangs, on top of the possibility of eternal hell fire, be a bit of an overreaction by God?

Originally posted by whodey
Simple

Whoever was without sin would have been nailed to a cross.

That's actually amazingly deep. Would God have accepted Adam as a sacrifice for the sin of Eve? There's an amazing novel that could be made from that.

Originally posted by KellyJay
Adam didn't stop her, He knew and did not speak up, He was actually told directly and
she wasn't. I imagine letting her would have been just as bad as doing the deed.

So why was Eve's punishment harsher than Adam's? For some women, labor can be torturous, and even deadly; yet, that was God's punishment for someone, who as you indicate, was the less guilty party?

Originally posted by vivify
If it was simply a mistake, and not a willful act of disobedience, then wouldn't banishing Adam and Eve from the garden, followed by cursing them to a life of hardship under the son and greatly increasing Eve's labor pangs, on top of the possibility of eternal hell fire, be a bit of an overreaction by God?

Well, I don't think that hellfire had entered into it yet (and I really don't want to read that back into the story--as you likely have already gathered, I'm not into forever-lasting hellfire as a necessary reading of the collection of texts called the Bible anyway). As for banishing, etc., I think I already addressed that.

Originally posted by vivify
That's actually amazingly deep. Would God have accepted Adam as a sacrifice for the sin of Eve? There's an amazing novel that could be made from that.

I think you just went deeper . . . (That's an affirmation, not a critique.)

Originally posted by vivify
So why was Eve's punishment harsher than Adam's? For some women, labor can be torturous, and even deadly; yet, that was God's punishment for someone, who as you indicate, was the less guilty party?

How was Eve less guilty? She knew just as Adam that they weren't supposed to take or eat of the forbidden fruit. Adam and Eve were relatively naive and had no experience with deception and lies, but they were both aware of what God had told them. Temptation was (because it is) a powerful lure... powerful enough to cause them to act in the moment instead of waiting to ask God about it. I'm not entirely sure what Paul meant by "the mystery of iniquity", but I think it has something to do with how and why sin is so difficult to resist.