Eve's Transgression?

[Saintnow]

 

First, Brother "Saintnow," I did not quote you in order to contend with you directly, but in order to present you as an example of a commonly held view.

Second, there actually is something said "about exactly who told Eve whatever about eating of the tree;" and there actually is something that says "it was God who said not to touch the fruit."  As recorded under the inspiration of God the Holy Spirit in Genesis 3:3, Eve herself made the following claim, "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."  Eve did not give the report that Adam told her that God had said.  Eve did not give the report that God had said something to which Adam then added in giving to her.  Eve gave the report that God had said what she then quoted.  Now, either Eve spoke the truth in this statement; or she spoke a falsehood.  If she spoke the truth, then God Himself had said, "Ye [plural, which is different than the command statement in Genesis 2:17] shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it [which whole statement is different than the command statement in Genesis 2:17], lest ye die." 

I myself choose to believe that Eve was giving a truthful report.  Why?  First, because there is no indication anywhere in the context of Genesis 3 that Eve was speaking falsely when she gave this report.  Second, because if she was not giving a truthful report, then the first human sin was speaking a lie (not eating of the fruit).  Yet there is no indication anywhere in all of Scripture that Eve spoke falsely or that the first human sin was speaking falsely. 

____________________________________________________________

Brother "Saintnow,"

Now, with the remainder of my posting, I do wish to speak more directly to you.  You posted a second posting while I was yet in the midst of preparing that which I presented just above in this posting.  I desire to respond directly to that posting.

Indeed, there is a danger in doing so.  That is the reason that we should stay as close to that which is actually recorded in the Scriptures as we are able.  It is interesting that after you provided the above warning, then you yourself proceeded to engage in "things that are speculative and not directly revealed in God's Word," as follows:

Concerning the belief or lack of belief that "there was any command from God regarding touching the fruit," Eve herself did make the claim that God said it. 

I would rather contend that God did make such a command in accord with the record of God's Word concerning Eve's report to that very effect, than to completely conjecture concerning what Adam may have reported to Eve, when God's Word gives not a single word concerning any such communication on Adam's part to that effect.

I pray that this set of statements was intended as a joke.  However, even as a joke these statements present a Biblical falsehood.  First, God did not rest after He mad the man.  Rather, after the Lord God made the man, then He gave the following report in Genesis 2:18 -- "And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him."  Second, God did not only created the man in His own image; for the report of Genesis 1:26 is -- "And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them . . . ."  Again the report of Genesis 1:27 is -- "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them."  Third, it is only after God made the woman as a wife and helper meet for the man that He declared all which He had created to be "very good" and that He proceeded to rest on the seventh day.  Fourth, it was the sin of the first man Adam, not the sin of the his wife, that was committed with willful, knowing rebellion (as opposed to deception) and that caused the entire universe and the entire human race to be plagued with corruption and continuing "unrest."

 

Eve was deceived before she ate of the fruit.  Being deceived was not sin.  Touching the fruit was not sin.  If Adam would have tackled her and knocked the fruit out of her hand before she sunk her perfect little teeth into it, he would have at least temporarily prevented the fall of man but when she brought the fruit to him it was too late, she had already eaten, he took the fruit, looked at her and took the lovers leap into mutual death when he ate it.  Since their eyes did not open to death when Adam touched the fruit, but only after he ate it, obviously touching the fruit was not breaking God's command in the matter and therefore He never actually said to not touch the fruit.  Eve saying God said not to touch it came from a miscommunication or misunderstanding somewhere along the line and it was not sin however it got in there.  There was no sin until Eve ate, and then gave to her husband and he did eat......then and only then were their eyes opened and they were dead, bound to bury their dead....dead men walking with eyes opened knowing they had sinned after they ate, not after they touched.  God never commanded them not to touch.  It had to come from Adam, or maybe Eve was simply on the blonde side and had a habit of embellishing the truth a little....and even if Adam lied in telling Eve that God said not to touch it, for Adam who was not yet a sinner it was not sin.  There was only one rule given to mankind.  Before the fall of man, there was no sin in mankind, and the fall came through eating the fruit.....touching the fruit was not sin or Adam would have been open-eyed walking dead with Eve before he ate that fruit...probably would have not eaten the fruit at all, just dropped it and ran to hide in the figs with Eve...he would not have needed to eat it to be in sin since touching it would have been sin if God said not to touch it. 

Edited June 24, 2015 by Saintnow

[Saintnow]

I thought the part about nobody resting after God made woman was pretty obviously a joke.

[Saintnow]

 As recorded under the inspiration of God the Holy Spirit in Genesis 3:3, Eve herself made the following claim, "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."  Eve did not give the report that Adam told her that God had said.  Eve did not give the report that God had said something to which Adam then added in giving to her.  Eve gave the report that God had said what she then quoted.  Now, either Eve spoke the truth in this statement; or she spoke a falsehood.  If she spoke the truth, then God Himself had said, "Ye [plural, which is different than the command statement in Genesis 2:17] shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it [which whole statement is different than the command statement in Genesis 2:17], lest ye die." 

 

Eve giving a report that God said something is not proof that God actually said it.   "As recorded under the inspiration of God the Holy Spirit in  Bible in"  many places,  people ascribe sayings to God which God never said.  Because Adam did not die when he touched the fruit, but died after he ate the fruit, I have to conclude that God gave no commandment against touching the fruit and Eve was mistaken for some reason, or maybe Eve actually knowingly lied in the matter saying God said not to touch it.  If she did, for her it was not sin.  For us it would be sin.  If you can prove in the Bible that the sinless Eve would have been sinning if she lied, (and I will not accept the Ten Commandments for that proof since that Law was given to sinners and not to Adam and Eve before they were sinners)  then the addition of "do not touch" and the claim that God said it can easily be explained as a miscommunication or misunderstanding between Adam and her, or even as a blonde-headed misunderstanding or embellishment on Eve's own part which was not a lie but rather a mistake or misspoken concept.

 

 

[Pastor Scott Markle]

So then, our options are as follows:

1.  God reiterated the command to both Adam and Eve, yet Eve misrepresented God by adding the phrase concerning not touching.

Biblical evidence -- None whatsoever, just human conjecture.

2.  Adam reported God's command to Eve, yet Eve misrepresented Adam and God by adding the phrase concerning not touching.

Biblical evidence -- None whatsoever, just human conjecture.

3.  Adam misrepresented God's command to Eve by adding the phrase concerning not touching, and Eve reported Adam's misrepresentation.

Biblical evidence -- None whatsoever, just human conjecture.

4.  Adam reported God's command to Eve and added his own standard of not touching, and Eve misunderstood Adam's report by attributing the added standard to God.

Biblical evidence -- None whatsoever, just human conjecture.

5.  Adam reported God's command to Eve and added his own standard of not touching, and Eve misrepresented Adam's report by attributing the added standard to God.

Biblical evidence -- None whatsoever, just human conjecture.

Concerning all of these options, I wish to present the following warning of another --

There is a danger in claiming to know facts in things that are speculative and not directly revealed in God's word. 

6.  God reiterated the command to both Adam and Eve and added the phrase concerning not touching, and Eve reported God's command accurately.

Biblical evidence -- The biblical record of Genesis 3:3 wherein Eve reports this very quote from God, "God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die."

I myself choose to accept Eve's word on this matter for the following reasons:

1.  It is the only option that actually possesses any Biblical evidence whatsoever.
2.  Eve made this claim while she was yet in the condition of a sinless character.
3.  There is no Biblically recorded rebuke anywhere against Eve for misrepresenting either God or Adam.
4.  There is no Biblically recorded indication anywhere that Eve misrepresented either God or Adam.

So then, with the Biblical evidence of Eve's claim and without any Biblical evidence to counter that claim, I will accept her claim as the very truth.

 

Yet there is one declaration of absolute conviction that stands against this position, as follows:

No way was Eve quoting God directly or Adam's eyes would have been opened when he touched the fruit, before he ate it.  If touching the fruit was breaking God's command, Eve sinned the moment she touched it before she ate, and the same for Adam...the fall was one step, not two.  It was one sin, not two in one.

 

Eve said that God said it, but there is no recording of when God said that or exactly who he said it to.....so my conclusion is that since touching the fruit did not result in death, touching the fruit was not sin and it was not a violation of God's command and it is therefore impossible that God gave that command or Adam's eyes would have been opened before he ate of the fruit, not after. 

 

Since their eyes did not open to death when Adam touched the fruit, but only after he ate it, obviously touching the fruit was not breaking God's command in the matter and therefore He never actually said to not touch the fruit.  Eve saying God said not to touch it came from a miscommunication or misunderstanding somewhere along the line and it was not sin however it got in there.  There was no sin until Eve ate, and then gave to her husband and he did eat......then and only then were their eyes opened and they were dead, bound to bury their dead....dead men walking with eyes opened knowing they had sinned after they ate, not after they touched.  God never commanded them not to touch.

(Note: These three quotes are from three different postings by the same author, Brother "Saintnow."  Also, all emboldening and underlining was added by Pastor Scott Markle)

Throughout, the premise of this absolute conviction and absolute declaration is basically the following:

Adam's eyes were not opened to death until after the moment that he ate of the forbidden fruit, not at the moment when he touched the fruit; therefore, touching the fruit could not have been sin and thus could not have been forbidden directly by God.

Now, there are a few problems with this premise, as follows:

1.  In neither of the two reports of the command, not in the report of God's Word in Genesis 2:17 or in the report of Eve in Genesis 3:3, is there any statement whatsoever about when eyes would be opened unto anything.  Therefore, to make claims about when eyes should or should not, could or could not, would or would not be opened throughout the process is not Biblically founded, since God's Word does not reveal this information.  In fact, God's Word only gives us the report that their eyes were opened and at what point in the process this happened.  However, God's Word does not tell us exactly why this happened at the exact moment that it did.  So then, the above premise is based upon a bit of human speculation.

2.  The first sin was in fact a process, just as in the case of any sin.  First, there is the temptation, the drawing away and enticing of one's lust.  Second, there is the conception of the lust, wherein the heart and mind make the decision to engage in the sin.  Third, there is the birthing of the sinful activity itself.  Fourth, there is the bring forth of death.  In the case of Eve's and Adam's sin, this process was also present.  First, the serpent tempted Eve.  Second, Eve came to agreement in her heart with the serpent, seeing the fruit in her mind as something good for her.  Third, she took of the fruit.  Fourth, she ate of the fruit.  First, Eve tempted Adam by offering him of the fruit and inviting him to join with her in eating.  Second, Adam willfully decided to join with his wife in eating, although he was not at all deceived and thus knew full well that it was not at all good for him.  Third, Adam took of the fruit from Eve's hand.  Fourth, Adam ate of the fruit along with his wife.  In both cases the sin began with a decision, not with an action.  Yet in this case the decision was acted out within seconds, for the entire process of decision, taking, and eating could not have taken more than 4-5 seconds as a whole.  

3.  Upon what Biblical evidence may we conclude at what point the corruption of death began, whether at the point of decision, at the point of touching, or at the point of eating?  Is there any statement at all in the passage concerning precisely when this occurred?  If not, then why would we seek to make absolute declarations of interpretation upon the foundation of information that is not precisely revealed?

4.  Finally, simply as a thought question -- How long might it have taken for the conviction of conscience and the consciousness of corruption to open their eyes unto full understanding of their new sinful condition?  I would suppose that it did not take long.  However, even if it took a few seconds, the entire process of sin (decision, taking, and eating) would have been completed before the opening of the eyes unto understanding.

 

 

[Saintnow]

 

 

 

sorry, I should have dropped it.

 

Edited June 26, 2015 by Saintnow

[Saintnow]

no need to beat a dead horse...sorry

 

 

 

Edited June 26, 2015 by Saintnow

[Standing Firm In Christ]

Nor to make Eve a liar before the fall.

[Pastor Scott Markle]

sorry, I should have dropped it.

no need to beat a dead horse...sorry

Brother "Saintnow," (It would be nice to know your given last name in order that I might address you respectfully with it.)

If your above two statements were a public request for forgiveness for having not "dropped it" and having "beat a dead horse," then I wish to publicly express my forgiveness.

(Note: I fully recognize that this does not indicate your change in position or your agreement with my position on the subject under discussion-debate.)

[TheSword]

So then, our options are as follows:

1.  God reiterated the command to both Adam and Eve, yet Eve misrepresented God by adding the phrase concerning not touching.

Biblical evidence -- None whatsoever, just human conjecture.

2.  Adam reported God's command to Eve, yet Eve misrepresented Adam and God by adding the phrase concerning not touching.

Biblical evidence -- None whatsoever, just human conjecture.

3.  Adam misrepresented God's command to Eve by adding the phrase concerning not touching, and Eve reported Adam's misrepresentation.

Biblical evidence -- None whatsoever, just human conjecture.

4.  Adam reported God's command to Eve and added his own standard of not touching, and Eve misunderstood Adam's report by attributing the added standard to God.

Biblical evidence -- None whatsoever, just human conjecture.

5.  Adam reported God's command to Eve and added his own standard of not touching, and Eve misrepresented Adam's report by attributing the added standard to God.

Biblical evidence -- None whatsoever, just human conjecture.

Concerning all of these options, I wish to present the following warning of another --

6.  God reiterated the command to both Adam and Eve and added the phrase concerning not touching, and Eve reported God's command accurately.

Biblical evidence -- The biblical record of Genesis 3:3 wherein Eve reports this very quote from God, "God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die."

I myself choose to accept Eve's word on this matter for the following reasons:

1.  It is the only option that actually possesses any Biblical evidence whatsoever.
2.  Eve made this claim while she was yet in the condition of a sinless character.
3.  There is no Biblically recorded rebuke anywhere against Eve for misrepresenting either God or Adam.
4.  There is no Biblically recorded indication anywhere that Eve misrepresented either God or Adam.

So then, with the Biblical evidence of Eve's claim and without any Biblical evidence to counter that claim, I will accept her claim as the very truth.

 

Yet there is one declaration of absolute conviction that stands against this position, as follows:

Throughout, the premise of this absolute conviction and absolute declaration is basically the following:

Adam's eyes were not opened to death until after the moment that he ate of the forbidden fruit, not at the moment when he touched the fruit; therefore, touching the fruit could not have been sin and thus could not have been forbidden directly by God.

Now, there are a few problems with this premise, as follows:

1.  In neither of the two reports of the command, not in the report of God's Word in Genesis 2:17 or in the report of Eve in Genesis 3:3, is there any statement whatsoever about when eyes would be opened unto anything.  Therefore, to make claims about when eyes should or should not, could or could not, would or would not be opened throughout the process is not Biblically founded, since God's Word does not reveal this information.  In fact, God's Word only gives us the report that their eyes were opened and at what point in the process this happened.  However, God's Word does not tell us exactly why this happened at the exact moment that it did.  So then, the above premise is based upon a bit of human speculation.

2.  The first sin was in fact a process, just as in the case of any sin.  First, there is the temptation, the drawing away and enticing of one's lust.  Second, there is the conception of the lust, wherein the heart and mind make the decision to engage in the sin.  Third, there is the birthing of the sinful activity itself.  Fourth, there is the bring forth of death.  In the case of Eve's and Adam's sin, this process was also present.  First, the serpent tempted Eve.  Second, Eve came to agreement in her heart with the serpent, seeing the fruit in her mind as something good for her.  Third, she took of the fruit.  Fourth, she ate of the fruit.  First, Eve tempted Adam by offering him of the fruit and inviting him to join with her in eating.  Second, Adam willfully decided to join with his wife in eating, although he was not at all deceived and thus knew full well that it was not at all good for him.  Third, Adam took of the fruit from Eve's hand.  Fourth, Adam ate of the fruit along with his wife.  In both cases the sin began with a decision, not with an action.  Yet in this case the decision was acted out within seconds, for the entire process of decision, taking, and eating could not have taken more than 4-5 seconds as a whole.  

3.  Upon what Biblical evidence may we conclude at what point the corruption of death began, whether at the point of decision, at the point of touching, or at the point of eating?  Is there any statement at all in the passage concerning precisely when this occurred?  If not, then why would we seek to make absolute declarations of interpretation upon the foundation of information that is not precisely revealed?

4.  Finally, simply as a thought question -- How long might it have taken for the conviction of conscience and the consciousness of corruption to open their eyes unto full understanding of their new sinful condition?  I would suppose that it did not take long.  However, even if it took a few seconds, the entire process of sin (decision, taking, and eating) would have been completed before the opening of the eyes unto understanding.

 

 

If I may, I'd like to submit as a possibility that all of the steps in this process are, in essence, one singular sin that took began at the decision to disobey which took place before the touch. As you mentioned, it all probably happened in such a rapid succession as to be indistinguishable. There is no reason to think Adam took the fruit, held it for 30 minutes while he wrestled with his conscience about whether or not to eat it. It is possible that he willfully sinned before even touching the fruit and the eating of it was merely a completion of the action. Consider Matt 5:28 in which Jesus declares that the sin of adultery occurs in the heart before action is ever taken. Perhaps, then, it should be considered one all-encompassing act as opposed to a series of actions that led to a sin?

Edited June 26, 2015 by TheSword
horrible grammar...got distracted and had to fix it

[Standing Firm In Christ]

James 1:13 (KJV) 13 Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man:

James 1:14 (KJV) 14 But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.

James 1:15 (KJV) 15 Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.

[No Nicolaitans]

I have thoughts on what the "touching" of the fruit could have possibly referred to...especially with the Hebrew meaning of "touch"; however, it's conjecture, so I'm not going to post it. 

I will say this, I don't believe that it refers to simply "touching" the fruit as we think of touching something with our fingers...in other words, it's more than just a sensory perception.

[Saintnow]

 

 

Brother "Saintnow," (It would be nice to know your given last name in order that I might address you respectfully with it.)

If your above two statements were a public request for forgiveness for having not "dropped it" and having "beat a dead horse," then I wish to publicly express my forgiveness.

(Note: I fully recognize that this does not indicate your change in position or your agreement with my position on the subject under discussion-debate.)

If you concede that it is possible Eve misunderstood Adam when Adam told her what God said about the fruit, and it is possible God never actually said "do not touch it", and it is possible that Eve ascribed those words to God mistakenly and not purposely misrepresenting or lying about what God said,  then  I'll visit your church when I am out that way and tell you my last name when I get there.  Otherwise, I respect your office as a pastor carrying the burden of your flock and you can teach them however you feel led and I'd rather not get in the middle of it because I cannot concede to believing it is possible God actually told Eve not to touch the fruit, much less Adam and Eve both after He commanded Adam to not touch it or die the day he did.  Sorry.  I really don't want to beat a dead horse.

A former pastor over me around 30 yrs back pastors a church around the bay in the thumb area, I forget which city at the moment, but he is the pastor who showed me the simplicity and value of believing we have God's word preserved in English.

Edited June 27, 2015 by Saintnow

[Saintnow]

I have thoughts on what the "touching" of the fruit could have possibly referred to...especially with the Hebrew meaning of "touch"; however, it's conjecture, so I'm not going to post it. 

I will say this, I don't believe that it refers to simply "touching" the fruit as we think of touching something with our fingers...in other words, it's more than just a sensory perception.

Eve believed God said not to touch the fruit, or she lied when she said God said not to touch it.  Why does touching it have to be so complicated?  The story is not that complicated, and neither is the meaning of the word "touch".  I think people are trying to read way too much into the story.

[No Nicolaitans]

Eve believed God said not to touch the fruit, or she lied when she said God said not to touch it.  Why does touching it have to be so complicated?  The story is not that complicated, and neither is the meaning of the word "touch".  I think people are trying to read way too much into the story.

I agree, and I respect your position. It's not complicated, and at the same time, I don't believe that what I have learned through my study to be complicated either. I'm not claiming that I'm right...just sharing my thoughts... 

[Pastor Scott Markle]

If you concede that it is possible Eve misunderstood Adam when Adam told her what God said about the fruit, and it is possible God never actually said "do not touch it", and it is possible that Eve ascribed those words to God mistakenly and not purposely misrepresenting or lying about what God said,  then  I'll visit your church when I am out that way and tell you my last name when I get there.  Otherwise, I respect your office as a pastor carrying the burden of your flock and you can teach them however you feel led and I'd rather not get in the middle of it because I cannot concede to believing it is possible God actually told Eve not to touch the fruit, much less Adam and Eve both after He commanded Adam to not touch it or die the day he did.  Sorry.  I really don't want to beat a dead horse.

Brother "Saintnow,"

Respectfully, I am honestly unable to concede any of the points that you have requested for me to concede.  Indeed, I am honestly unable to concede from a position that possesses some Biblical support to a position that possesses no Biblical support.