Did Eve lie?

[Winman]

I thought I would start on new post on this question I asked in another. Did Eve tell a lie in the garden?

First, God's command to Adam in Genesis 2.

Gen 2:16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:
17 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.

Now, what Eve said to the serpent in Genesis 3.

Gen 3:2 And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden:
3 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.

Notice in Eve's response that she added to God's word. God never said they could not touch the fruit from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, only that they could not eat of it.

Did Eve lie here? Did she make a mistake? I would like to see what others think.

Now, I'll be right up front, I am using this as an argument against the Calvinistic doctrine of Total Depravity or Inability. I am trying to show that man always had the ability to sin, even before he actually did so.

 

[Aaron]

No. Just as the 7th Commandment is broad and encompassing, and forbids even murderous thoughts and emotions, Adam understood God's commandment not to eat of the tree was also a prohibition of touching it.

 

[Bob Alkire]

Notice in Eve's response that she added to God's word. God never said they could not touch the fruit from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, only that they could not eat of it.

Did Eve lie here? Did she make a mistake? I would like to see what others think.

Yes she did. As W.H. Griffith Thomas said in his work on Genesis: A Devotional Commentary, p. 48.

(1) She disparaged her privileges by misquoting the terms of the Divine permission as to the other trees. (2) She overstated the restrictions by misquoting the Divine prohibition. (3) She underrated her obligations by misquoting the Divine penalty.”

 

[just-want-peace]

Adam understood God's commandment not to eat of the tree was also a prohibition of touching it.

And you came to this conclusion how exactly???

 

[Marcia]

Yes she did. As W.H. Griffith Thomas said in his work on Genesis: A Devotional Commentary, p. 48.

(1) She disparaged her privileges by misquoting the terms of the Divine permission as to the other trees. (2) She overstated the restrictions by misquoting the Divine prohibition. (3) She underrated her obligations by misquoting the Divine penalty.”

Yes, but remember that Eve did not receive the command from God directly, but via Adam. From what scripture that God gives us, God only commands Adam to not eat of the tree (Gen. 2:16, 17), before Eve has been created (Gen 2: 21,22).

This is why Eve is pronounced by God in the NT as having been deceived, but Adam is referred to as having disobeyed.

 

[pinoybaptist]

...........................................>
Now, I'll be right up front, I am using this as an argument against the Calvinistic doctrine of Total Depravity or Inability. I am trying to show that man always had the ability to sin, even before he actually did so.

Now, how on earth is this going to disprove Total Depravity ?
If at all, it simply proves it.
That man, a being created from dust, is totally depraved, always had the propensity for sin, and his offspring inherits the same from the parent, and is imputed this unrighteousness and guilt, while Christ, who comes from the Father, and Himself God, born of a virgin, no propensity for sin, no interest at all in sin, and His righteousness and holiness imputed to all who were chosen in Him.

 

[webdog]

Yes, but remember that Eve did not receive the command from God directly, but via Adam. From what scripture that God gives us, God only commands Adam to not eat of the tree (Gen. 2:16, 17), before Eve has been created (Gen 2: 21,22).

This is why Eve is pronounced by God in the NT as having been deceived, but Adam is referred to as having disobeyed.

I agree with Marcia. It was passed down from Adam to her. He was probably like "Eve, don't eat of it, don't touch it, don't decorate with it, don't even look at it....just leave it alone"!

 

[Jon-Marc]

It's human nature to elaborate and embellish on the repeating of something that is heard. Of course, that embellishment left her wide open for the devil's lie and deceitfulness. She fell head over heels for the devil's lie, but what was Adam's excuse?

I heard one pastor give a very good (though assumed) explanation for him eating the fruit. He said that Adam loved Eve and didn't want to lose her, and that eating the fruit and taking her sin upon himself showed his love for her and also was symbolic of the future sacrifice of Christ for our sin Who took our sin and payment upon Himself. I like that explanation.

 

[Aaron]

Yes, but remember that Eve did not receive the command from God directly, but via Adam. From what scripture that God gives us, God only commands Adam to not eat of the tree (Gen. 2:16, 17), before Eve has been created (Gen 2: 21,22).

This is why Eve is pronounced by God in the NT as having been deceived, but Adam is referred to as having disobeyed.

So, Adam lied?

 

[pinoybaptist]

man, i don't think you even have a good grasp or idea of what Total Depravity is. I would suggest do a research, and then fight it.

 

[Aaron]

I heard one pastor give a very good (though assumed) explanation for him eating the fruit. He said that Adam loved Eve and didn't want to lose her, and that eating the fruit and taking her sin upon himself showed his love for her and also was symbolic of the future sacrifice of Christ for our sin Who took our sin and payment upon Himself. I like that explanation.

To love one's wife more than God is to symbolize Christ?

 

[Aaron]

And you came to this conclusion how exactly???

I explained it in my first post.

 

[pinoybaptist]

It's human nature to elaborate and embellish on the repeating of something that is heard. Of course, that embellishment left her wide open for the devil's lie and deceitfulness. She fell head over heels for the devil's lie, but what was Adam's excuse?

I heard one pastor give a very good (though assumed) explanation for him eating the fruit. He said that Adam loved Eve and didn't want to lose her, and that eating the fruit and taking her sin upon himself showed his love for her and also was symbolic of the future sacrifice of Christ for our sin Who took our sin and payment upon Himself. I like that explanation.

naaahh.

Adam ate because Eve ate, and nothing happened to her, so why shouldn't he ?
God ?
who he ?

 

[Winman]

man, i don't think you even have a good grasp or idea of what Total Depravity is. I would suggest do a research, and then fight it.

That's a tired old excuse. You guys say this every time. On another thread a Calvinist said this about Skandelon who was a Calvinist himself for 10 years. But because he found it to be error, now it is being said he doesn't understand the doctrine he once firmly held.

As to this thread, I just wanted to see what people would say. I don't know who is right, I don't think it can be determined. Maybe it is as Aaron said, it was understood that the fruit should not be touched. Maybe Adam told her it shouldn't be touched. Or maybe she just assumed this. Who knows?

What I am trying to show (and I don't even know if this shows it), is that Adam and Eve were not created absolutely 100% perfect. They had the ability to make errors before they sinned.

I am not saying they weren't good, they were. They had no sin, they were pure. But that is not the same as saying they were incapable of making errors.

The point is, if they had the ability to make errors or even sin (although there were no laws except one) before they ate of the fruit, then how did they change when they ate the fruit?

 

[Marcia]

So, Adam lied?

I didn't say that or imply it. I said Eve heard it indirectly and probably had it mixed up or got confused by the serpent (more likely).

 

[Marcia]

I heard one pastor give a very good (though assumed) explanation for him eating the fruit. He said that Adam loved Eve and didn't want to lose her, and that eating the fruit and taking her sin upon himself showed his love for her and also was symbolic of the future sacrifice of Christ for our sin Who took our sin and payment upon Himself. I like that explanation.

I don't like it - sorry. I find that it diminishes Adam's sin and rebellion against God. After all, Adam's act was the source of the curse on man and earth!

 

[pinoybaptist]

That's a tired old excuse. You guys say this every time.

And you guys say that all the time. Merry go round, eh ?

On another thread a Calvinist said this about Skandelon who was a Calvinist himself for 10 years.

well, i'm talking now to winman, not skandelon, and just because somebody was something for 10 years doesn't mean anything.

But because he found it to be error, now it is being said he doesn't understand the doctrine he once firmly held.

skandelon never said he held that doctrine firmly. and what is being said of him is a natural conclusion. what would you say about somebody who was a Baptist for 20 years and now is an atheist ? and didn't john himself say: they went out from us, because they were not of us ?

As to this thread, I just wanted to see what people would say.

And am i not a "people" who gave my opinion ? that your thesis actually works against you ?

I don't know who is right, I don't think it can be determined. Maybe it is as Aaron said, it was understood that the fruit should not be touched. Maybe Adam told her it shouldn't be touched. Or maybe she just assumed this. Who knows?

that's a lot of maybe's. why don't you and I stick to just what is written and see those as facts ?

fact one: God created Adam from dust.
fact two: God then created Eve from the rib of Adam as his helpmeet.
fact three: they were given a command about the tree.
fact four: the serpent was in the garden, and tempted Eve.
fact five: Eve took of the fruit, ate, gave Adam the fruit, Adam ate.
fact six: they now felt guilt, lost innocence, tried to cover their guilt with flimsy leaves.
fact seven: their disobedience and sin separated them from God.
fact eight: even the act of driving them from the garden was motivated by love on the part of God for He said, "
And the LORD God said , Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat , and live for ever: (Genesis 3:24)....imagine living forever with the effect of sin in a once sinless body ?

What I am trying to show (and I don't even know if this shows it), is that Adam and Eve were not created absolutely 100% perfect. They had the ability to make errors before they sinned.

They were created 100% perfect, that is, without sin, or God would not have surveyed His creation and called it very good. You will have to confront God Himself with your theory and tell Him He erred.

I am not saying they weren't good, they were. They had no sin, they were pure. But that is not the same as saying they were incapable of making errors.

and no Calvinist here or anywhere else, or Doctrine of Gracer here or anywhere else, ever said they were or were not capable of making errors, so I don't know why you even bother with that.

The point is, if they had the ability to make errors or even sin (although there were no laws except one) before they ate of the fruit, then how did they change when they ate the fruit?

They had a propensity towards sin, being made from dust, and until they did, in God's eyes, they were very good, and perfect, and everything in God's creation was very good, and perfect, and all these were changed when they fell because corruption set in, and life departed.

Death is the absence of life, just as darkness is the absence of light, and cold is the absence of heat.

 

[Tom Bryant]

Could Adam and Eve just simply determined that they couldn't eat the fruit unless they touched it, so they decided it would be better not to touch it either.

Adam and Eve were innocent, not perfect. They did have the capacity to choose wrong previous to their sin and fall. It is proved by the fact that they did choose to sin.

 

[Winman]

Could Adam and Eve just simply determined that they couldn't eat the fruit unless they touched it, so they decided it would be better not to touch it either.

Adam and Eve were innocent, not perfect. They did have the capacity to choose wrong previous to their sin and fall. It is proved by the fact that they did choose to sin.

Yes, this is what I am getting at. Adam and Eve were pure, they were absolutely sinless. Legally, they were very good.

But as you say, they were not perfect, they could sin or they wouldn't have.

Now, when they sinned, they were no longer pure or innocent. They were sinners. But this is a legal term, just as we say a felon today. If you have never committed a crime, you are a good citizen. But tomorrow if you rob a bank, now you are a felon. But have you changed? Aren't you the same person you were before? Did you not have the ability to rob the bank a week earlier? So, what I am trying to show is that your moral nature did not change, only your legal status.

Does anyone understand what I am saying here?

I am not saying I am right on this, these are simply questions I ask myself.

 

[Aaron]

Yes, this is what I am getting at. Adam and Eve were pure, they were absolutely sinless. Legally, they were very good.

But as you say, they were not perfect, they could sin or they wouldn't have.

Now, when they sinned, they were no longer pure or innocent. They were sinners. But this is a legal term, just as we say a felon today. If you have never committed a crime, you are a good citizen. But tomorrow if you rob a bank, now you are a felon. But have you changed? Aren't you the same person you were before? Did you not have the ability to rob the bank a week earlier? So, what I am trying to show is that your moral nature did not change, only your legal status.

Does anyone understand what I am saying here?

I am not saying I am right on this, these are simply questions I ask myself.

No, their nature changed. Before the Fall, they were naked and not ashamed, after the Fall they sewed fig leaves together to cover their nakedness.