Did Eve lie?

[Aaron]

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).

That wasn't the deception. The deception was that if they ate, they would be as gods.

 

[Winman]

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.

That is a good point, and I knew that. But is that an evil thing? God himself said man has become as us, to know good and evil. If it is evil to know between good and evil, then God would be evil.

Do you see what I am saying? The change shown was not evil.

Gen 3:22 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:

The only change I see that happened when they sinned is that they became aware. They became self-conscious (knew they were naked), and they became sin-conscious (hid themselves from the presence of the Lord).

And this is why I asked about Eve. If Eve added to the word of God, that is a sin, or at least it became so later on in Revelations 22.

Rev 22: 18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

But because there was no law against adding to the word of God in the garden, it was not sin. For sin is the transgression of the law, and Paul says where there is no law, no sin is imputed.

Rom 5:13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.

1 John 3:4 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.

So, if Eve did add to God's word, she committed a sin. But there was no law against it, and neither could should she comprehend between good and evil. So therefore no sin was imputed to her.

But she still did something wrong. So how was man worse after they sinned?

Like I said, I am just trying to understand this, I am not saying I am correct. I want to see how others feel about this.

 

[just-want-peace]

I explained it in my first post.

Following is your 1st post:

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.

Let's try this again.

Don't recall any notion of thoughts & emotions being like "kill or murder" before Jesus brought it up; long time after this incident

So, once more, where did you get this idea?

I don't intend to get into some "snipping" contest with you over this, so if you still refuse to give a simple coherent answer, I'll just drop it.

 

[Marcia]

That wasn't the deception. The deception was that if they ate, they would be as gods.

This is a non-sequiter to my post.

You didn't ask me what the deception was. You asked me if Adam lied.

 

[pinoybaptist]

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.

I think you are spending too much effort, belaboring too much if you will, on the word "perfect".
Call it perfection, call it innocence, the fact is that they were created sinless, and everything in God's creation was perfect, unstained by sin, until these two, created in God's image, chose to believe the creature (Satan) rather than the Creator, and therefore, missed the mark (sinned).

Their moral nature did change.
They became immoral, panting after sin, inclined towards the carnal rather than the spiritual, as we all are now.
By they, I mean the natural man, apart from Adam and Eve.
We all are born with Adam's sin and disobedience imputed on us, and we all have his nature, which is one of disobedience, and that is not to say we have no sense of God, we all do, because man is by nature religious, but hardly in a sense that pleases God, which is why a new nature is added upon regeneration, or being given the new birth.

 

[Skandelon]

That is a good point, and I knew that. But is that an evil thing? God himself said man has become as us, to know good and evil. If it is evil to know between good and evil, then God would be evil.

Do you see what I am saying? The change shown was not evil.

Gen 3:22 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:

The only change I see that happened when they sinned is that they became aware. They became self-conscious (knew they were naked), and they became sin-conscious (hid themselves from the presence of the Lord).

And this is why I asked about Eve. If Eve added to the word of God, that is a sin, or at least it became so later on in Revelations 22.

Rev 22: 18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

But because there was no law against adding to the word of God in the garden, it was not sin. For sin is the transgression of the law, and Paul says where there is no law, no sin is imputed.

Rom 5:13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.

1 John 3:4 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.

So, if Eve did add to God's word, she committed a sin. But there was no law against it, and neither could should she comprehend between good and evil. So therefore no sin was imputed to her.

But she still did something wrong. So how was man worse after they sinned?

Like I said, I am just trying to understand this, I am not saying I am correct. I want to see how others feel about this.

I wanted to chime in on this discussion. I don't know who you were discussing this topic with, but I'm pretty sure that both Calvinistic and non-Calvinistic scholars support the idea of mutability in Adam and Eve. That is the ability to change or sin.

But, I think the point you are making here is a good one. There is nothing in the record of the Fall of man that would indicate that they have lost the ability to respond to God's message of reconciliation. In fact, just the opposite seems to be the case. God confronts them, punishes them, makes them clothes and they seem to become reconciled with them. In the very next chapter they speak of the Lord giving them a child and their children pleasing God with their sacrifice (Able). Did they have to be "regenerated" in order to have the ability to do this? If so, the Bible never addresses it...

 

[Marcia]

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

...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.

I think it's more than just their status changing; their nature changed and took on a bent of rebellion toward God that was not there before. This is the sin nature passed down to us - we saw it come out strongly in Cain, and then later in others. Mankind got more and more wicked until God used the flood as judgment.

 

[Aaron]

That is a good point, and I knew that. But is that an evil thing? God himself said man has become as us, to know good and evil. If it is evil to know between good and evil, then God would be evil.

God is incorruptible. When beholding unrighteousness He is not changed.

Man was made good, but not incorruptible. He was not made to know both good and evil. Man has become something other than what God created him to be, and that is corruption.

The only change I see that happened when they sinned is that they became aware. They became self-conscious (knew they were naked), and they became sin-conscious (hid themselves from the prescence of the Lord).

And this is why I asked about Eve. If Eve added to the word of God, that is a sin, or at least it became so later on in Revelations 22.

Rev 22: 18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

But because there was no law against adding to the word of God in the garden, it was not sin. For sin is the transgression of the law, and Paul says were there is no law, no sin is imputed.

Rom 5:13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.

1 John 3:4 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.

So, if Eve did add to God's word, she committed a sin. But there was no law against it, and neither could should she comprehend between good and evil. So therefore no sin was imputed to her.

But she still did something wrong. So how was man worse after they sinned?

Two things:

1) You must understand that the Law, or the Ten Commandments, transcends Moses. They are stamped in Creation and are the foundation of the legal concept of Natural Law. It has always been wrong to lie, murder, steal, commit adultery and covet your neighbor's things. The Law is not merely verbal, so even without a verbal prohibition, sin is imputed.

Where was the verbal prohibition of violence when God judged Cain for the murder of his brother? Or when God judged the world with the Flood? Where was the verbal prohibition of deviant lusts when God judged Sodom and Gomorrah?

Adam and Eve, prior to the Fall, were good and morally upright. It wasn't that their immorality was simply winked at because of their ignorance, they had no immorality. They weren't ashamed of their nakedness because their apetites were in perfect order. They were perfect and upright.

But they were not incorruptible. Without a tempter, Eve would not have partaken.

But now, man's state is one of absolute loss and enmity with God.

2)Adam and Eve walked and talked with God. They were not innocent in matters of religion. Their understanding rivaled that of Moses, and even Paul. To say that the prohibition to eat of the fruit meant to avoid it altogether is completely compatible with Christ's teaching that the prohibition of murder is also a prohibition of anger.

 

[Aaron]

This is a non-sequiter to my post.

You didn't ask me what the deception was. You asked me if Adam lied.

You're the one that brought up the deception.

 

[Marcia]

You're the one that brought up the deception.

All I said, in response to another post, was that the NT says that Eve was deceived and Adam was disobedient.

 

[Marcia]

You're the one that brought up the deception.

Not really, not the deception you are talking about. See above post.

And the real deception by the serpent began when he questioned what God had said -- "Did God really say?...." That was the beginning of Satan's deception.

 

[Winman]

I wanted to chime in on this discussion. I don't know who you were discussing this topic with, but I'm pretty sure that both Calvinistic and non-Calvinistic scholars support the idea of mutability in Adam and Eve. That is the ability to change or sin.

But, I think the point you are making here is a good one. There is nothing in the record of the Fall of man that would indicate that they have lost the ability to respond to God's message of reconciliation. In fact, just the opposite seems to be the case. God confronts them, punishes them, makes them clothes and they seem to become reconciled with them. In the very next chapter they speak of the Lord giving them a child and their children pleasing God with their sacrifice (Able). Did they have to be "regenerated" in order to have the ability to do this? If so, the Bible never addresses it...

I welcome you to this discussion, you make great points. And as I have pointed out to the Calvinists many times, the story of Cain shows that God himself said Cain could have given an acceptable sacrifice. God also says that sin will desire Cain, but that Cain will rule over sin.

Gen:6 And the LORD said unto Cain, Why art thou wroth? and why is thy countenance fallen?
7 If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him.

And we know Cain was not regenerated as shown in the NT.

1 John 3:12 Not as Cain, who was of that wicked one, and slew his brother. And wherefore slew he him? Because his own works were evil, and his brother's righteous.

 

[Winman]

God is incorruptible. When beholding unrighteousness He is not changed.

Man was made good, but not incorruptible. He was not made to know both good and evil. Man has become something other than what God created him to be, and that is corruption.

Two things:

1) You must understand that the Law, or the Ten Commandments, transcends Moses. They are stamped in Creation and are the foundation of the legal concept of Natural Law. It has always been wrong to lie, murder, steal, commit adultery and covet your neighbor's things. The Law is not merely verbal, so even without a verbal prohibition, sin is imputed.

Where was the verbal prohibition of violence when God judged Cain for the murder of his brother? Or when God judged the world with the Flood? Where was the verbal prohibition of deviant lusts when God judged Sodom and Gomorrah?

Adam and Eve, prior to the Fall, were good and morally upright. It wasn't that their immorality was simply winked at because of their ignorance, they had no immorality. They weren't ashamed of their nakedness because their apetites were in perfect order. They were perfect and upright.

But they were not incorruptible. Without a tempter, Eve would not have partaken.

But now, man's state is one of absolute loss and enmity with God.

2)Adam and Eve walked and talked with God. They were not innocent in matters of religion. Their understanding rivaled that of Moses, and even Paul. To say that the prohibition to eat of the fruit meant to avoid it altogether is completely compatible with Christ's teaching that the prohibition of murder is also a prohibition of anger.

Well, I think I have to agree with you and Marcia, it does seem that corruption did pass upon their moral natures. But I tell ya, it happened quick, for their very first son Cain committed murder. And Cain was worried that others might slay him.

So, if man's moral nature corrupted, it sure didn't take long.

And I agree with you about man being judged without the law. God did flood the world because of man's evil before the law. And even Paul said death passed on man before the law.

Rom 5:13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.
14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.

Once again, these verses seem to come under the doctrine of Federal Headship. Adam's sin and death being imputed to man, so that Jesus's righteousness and life could be imputed to him later.

 

[Bob Alkire]

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.

Many disagree over this. I believe Adam picked Eve over God. I believe Eve was deceived by Satan, she believed Satan and Adam used his free will and knowingly disobeyed God.

In school we had to debate this from many views. The view I gave is the one I like the best. Another view is a good one and most would accept, Adam was disobedient when he picked Eve over what he knew God had said and took of the fruit, because anything else would have put sin before he took of the fruit. If he hadn't told Eve all that God had told him about the tree would have put sin back then. I don't recall all of them today but I think there was about 6 to 10 different views that we had to work with.

 

[Tom Bryant]

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.

I think people understand what you are saying, but you are applying modern legal definitions to biblical concepts and the 2 don't necessarily work together.

To apply what happened to Adam and at Eve at the time of the fall to me deciding to rob a bank is very much apples and oranges. You are taking as your default position that I am still innocent now. I disagree and the Bible says that what Adam and Eve did was very much different from my choosing to sin. It was Adam's sin by which sin entered the world (the human race). My sin does not make sin enter the world.

Everything was different once they sinned.
(1) Death entered the world
(2) sin entered the world
(3) their relationship with God was destroyed.
(4) they began to blame each other
(5) They sewed up clothes to hide, something they never had thought of doing prior to their sin.

And because Adam was, what theologioans call, our federated head (our representative) when he fell, we also fell.

Most of us understand what you are saying. We just believe the Bible contradicts what you are saying.

 

[Revmitchell]

What eve said was inconsequential and irrelevant.

 

[Crabtownboy]

What eve said was inconsequential and irrelevant.

Interesting. You are saying that some of the Bible is inconsequential and irrelevant. What other Biblical passages are inconsequential and irrelevant?

 

[fbcodr]

I believe Eve said what she said because Adam had said it to her to protect them because that was his responsibility as head of their home. I wouldn't say that had to be a lie. We don't know the conversation Adam had with Eve but we can tell she got the message ok.:wavey::thumbsup:

 

[webdog]

I believe Eve said what she said because Adam had said it to her to protect them because that was his responsibility as head of their home. I wouldn't say that had to be a lie. We don't know the conversation Adam had with Eve but we can tell she got the message ok.:wavey::thumbsup:

I disagree. It is apparent by Adam's response to God (that was basically "hey, don't blame me, you gave her to me"), he was only looking out for self...which is the byproduct of sin. Adam had no intention of protecting anything but his backside

 

[Jon-Marc]

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

No, it symbolizes Christ's love for us in that he sacrificed Himself for us. When He hung on the cross, the Father had to turn away. He can't look on sin, and His Son had become sin for us (2 Cor. 5:21). Otherwise, we would have been eternally lost, or just utterly destroyed. The difference is that Adam couldn't take her sin away, but he chose to become a sinner so as not to lose the one he loved. In that respect Adam symbolized the sacrifice of Christ.

I believe He could ahve told God, "This woman You gave me is defection; I want a new one", and God would have done it. Maybe I'm wrong, but that's what I think. Anyway, don't take what I write as meaning that I consider it equal to scripture. It's just an opinion, a thought--nothing more. Accept or reject it; it's not worth arguing about.