Would you eat the apple?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Are you referring to the "you," as in "you and the man" as being in the second person?

While the woman (not yet Isha/Eve) refuted, she was wrong. God did not prohibit touching the fruit, only eating it. She added to the command of God, and was therefore wrong. Had she stuck to the script, she would have fared much better.

Yes. I/We = first person. You = second person (see the problem? English does not have a different plural form). He/She/They = third person.

And yes, when Eve (clearer than "the woman", but less precise) tried to rebut the serpent's arguments, she got God's commands wrong. But Adam, who received the command directly, said nothing.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Yes. I/We = first person. You = second person (see the problem? English does not have a different plural form). He/She/They = third person.

And yes, when Eve (clearer than "the woman", but less precise) tried to rebut the serpent's arguments, she got God's commands wrong. But Adam, who received the command directly, said nothing.

Not to be overly contentious, but... I just went through the entire passage in the Hebrew, and I'm sticking with my original assertion: Adam wasn't addressed, because he wasn't there. In every instance of 'said to the woman,' only 'the woman' is mentioned, never Adam.

The serpent certainly included both of 'them' in the supposed eye opening they were to receive, but the passage here leans far more toward the woman being alone, rather than Adam standing idly and silently by.

Calling the woman 'the woman' is far from impercise. The account is extremely explicit in its designation of Ishsha/Isha prior to the Fall, just as it is equally explicit in Adam's designating her Eve/Chavvah, the mother of all living, following the Fall. Adam's position of first had not changed, but his wife had received the promise that her seed would bring forth the redemption for their folly.

wat could adam n eve sin against,it was just da two of them,

Originally posted by danielsmith
Question for all people:

Would you still eat the apple knowing what God's response was?

Just to clarif. Would it necassarily be wrong to eat the apple?

Okay, Conrau, would you disobey God?

That's what Adam and Eve did.

Not only did they disobey God, they got punished (as did we) for it.

They were without sin. But after the fall everyone sinned.

They were kicked out of the Garden of Eden, and now Angels guard Garden

with flaming swords.

Jump a little forward a bit. Noah lived to be around 800 years old.

There is one that was older than Noah, but after that mankind

lived younger lives.

Jump back to the garden. There was no disease or anything.

After the fall, diseases came like the plague, and the plague came.

So, I ask again, would you disobey God knowing what you know now?

Philosophically it's an outstanding question. Remove the names and settings and one comes to...

If you knew that the outcome of a desicion you made was to destroy all your relationships and remove you from the only home you've ever known and force you labor to be tedious and painful, would you choose to disobey?

Originally posted by Nosrac
Okay, Conrau, would you disobey God?

That's what Adam and Eve did.

Not only did they disobey God, they got punished (as did we) for it.

They were without sin. But after the fall everyone sinned.

They were kicked out of the Garden of Eden, and now Angels guard Garden

with flaming swords.

Jump a little forward a bit. Noah lived to be around 8 ...[text shortened]... ague, and the plague came.

So, I ask again, would you disobey God knowing what you know now?

I suspect you are simplifying the issue. The popular translations of the bible assert that it wasn't until after they ate the apply that they realised that what they did was evil. Presumably they did not know that eating the apple was actually a sin against God.

Certainly they disobeyed God, but they did not know that doing so was wrong (apparently they didn't even have a system of morality). In criminal law they usually must usually be conscious that their actions are wrong in order to be convicted.

Originally posted by Conrau K
I suspect you are simplifying the issue. The popular translations of the bible assert that it wasn't until after they ate the apply that they realised that what they did was evil. Presumably they did not know that eating the apple was actually a sin against God.

Certainly they disobeyed God, but they did not know that doing so was wrong (apparent ...[text shortened]... they usually must usually be conscious that their actions are wrong in order to be convicted.

Not sure what "popular translations" you may be referring to, but the issue facing man in the Garden was pretty straightforward: either continue eating from the tree of lives (and thus continue accepting and living God's system), or eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (equivalent to choosing Satan's system over God's).

The ramifications for choosing the latter over the former was the double death, "dying (physically), you will die (spiritually)." Doubtful that either of the two representatives there understood the end result or total ramifications of their actions on the rest of mankind. The fact remains, however, they didn't think dying was all that bad, and they certainly knew what that meant.

As clear as it was to them, God had made it equally clear to us: accept the work done on the cross by the Lord Jesus Christ, and we live eternally with the Creator of the universe. Reject that gift, and we 'die' forever in a tormenting lake of fire.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Not to be overly contentious, but... I just went through the entire passage in the Hebrew, and I'm sticking with my original assertion: Adam wasn't addressed, because he wasn't there. In every instance of 'said to the woman,' only 'the woman' is mentioned, never Adam.

The serpent certainly included both of 'them' in the supposed eye opening they were t ...[text shortened]... the promise that her seed would bring forth the redemption for their folly.

I'll provide the references for this when I get home.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Not to be overly contentious, but... I just went through the entire passage in the Hebrew, and I'm sticking with my original assertion: Adam wasn't addressed, because he wasn't there. In every instance of 'said to the woman,' only 'the woman' is mentioned, never Adam.

The serpent certainly included both of 'them' in the supposed eye opening they were t ...[text shortened]... the promise that her seed would bring forth the redemption for their folly.

while i recognize your posts as typically being consistent with christianity (which i appreciate), i disagree with your assessment here. where is the evidence that adam was not present with the woman. you are making an assumption based on silence. perhaps the reason he is silent is because he abdicated his God-given role as head and therefore did not lead his wife in worship of God and taking ultimate joy in Him. just another possibility.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
I'll provide the references for this when I get home.

S. Hahn, A Father Who Keeps His Promises: God's Covenant Love in Scripture (Cincinnati: St. Anthony Messenger, 1998), 67:

"The serpent only addressed Eve throughout, but not because Adam wasn't present. (In fact, the serpent's use of Hebrew verbs in the second person plural indicates that Adam was right there all along.) By going straight to Eve, Satan was deliberately bypassing the familial structure established by God."

E. Van Wolde, Words Become Worlds: Semantic Studies of Genesis 1-11 (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1994), 17:

"[T]his pericope [is] characterized by a considerable togetherness... which appears from the fact that in all the verses of this episode the verbs and pronomial suffixes are in the plural, all in all twelve times in seven verses."

But, most interestingly:

"The woman saw that the tree was good to eat and pleasing to the eye and that it was enticing for the wisdom that it could give. So she took some of the fruit and ate it. She also gave some to her husband who was with her, and he ate it." (Gen 3:6, NJB)

Originally posted by Big Mac
while i recognize your posts as typically being consistent with christianity (which i appreciate), i disagree with your assessment here. where is the evidence that adam was not present with the woman. you are making an assumption based on silence. perhaps the reason he is silent is because he abdicated his God-given role as head and therefore did not lead his wife in worship of God and taking ultimate joy in Him. just another possibility.

you are making an assumption based on silence.
Not necessarily. All conversations prior to this one in Genesis 3 are between God and the man. The very prohibitive command itself was not given to 'them,' but to him, for them. It is an unusal development, the serpent's appearance and conversation, referencing the woman only.

perhaps the reason he is silent is because he abdicated his God-given role as head and therefore did not lead his wife in worship of God and taking ultimate joy in Him. just another possibility.
If he was present, absolutely. If he was not present, but (as you will see in my next post in response to LH) rather was confronted with a decision after the fact, he absolutely blew his opportunity to redeem the woman, opting instead to join her in her spiritual death.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
S. Hahn, A Father Who Keeps His Promises: God's Covenant Love in Scripture (Cincinnati: St. Anthony Messenger, 1998), 67:

"The serpent only addressed Eve throughout, but not because Adam wasn't present. (In fact, the serpent's use of Hebrew verbs in the second person plural indicates that Adam was right there all along.) By going straight to ...[text shortened]... e also gave some to her husband who was with her, and he ate it." (Gen 3:6, NJB)

(In fact, the serpent's use of Hebrew verbs in the second person plural indicates that Adam was right there all along.)
Respectfully, I disagree with Hahn's take on the matter on the evidence of the pronouns alone. The classification covers a multitude of situations wherein those not privvy to a conversation are included within the scope of the same.

By going straight to Eve, Satan was deliberately bypassing the familial structure established by God."
Couldn't agree more with that assessment.

"The woman saw..."
Even more interestingly, the word 'when' that prefaces that verse.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Not sure what "popular translations" you may be referring to, but the issue facing man in the Garden was pretty straightforward: either continue eating from the tree of lives (and thus continue accepting and living God's system), or eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (equivalent to choosing Satan's system over God's).

The ramifications ...[text shortened]... of the universe. Reject that gift, and we 'die' forever in a tormenting lake of fire.

I don't disagree with what you were saying (I purosely said "popular" translation because you were disagreeing with what most bibles read).

My argument is that they did not know that eating the apple was good or evil or sinful - though certainly they knew there were consequences. However, they did could not distnguish sin from good until eating the apple. So its disputable whether they committed a sin.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
The classification covers a multitude of situations wherein those not privvy to a conversation are included within the scope of the same.

Do you have any examples?