Eve NEVER took or ate of the fruit

[Woody]

I may be going out on a limb here. But if I am ... I am sure that someone will correct me.

Eve NEVER ate ... nor did she even take the fruit. Look it up in Genesis Chapter 3 . I just studied it this week in the lesson. And this is the conclusion I came to.

NOW ... I am being techical here. But that is ME. So ... contrary to what the lesson said ... Eve did not do the terrible deed that she is accused of.

Do I have any challengers ??

I should just stop here and leave you hanging. But that would be cruel. Let me give you a hint. Saying Eve took the fruit would be like saying Saul was a Christian.

Got it?

The scripture clearly indicates from my personal reading that it was Adam who named his wife ... Woman. It was Woman who took the fruit. Later ... after sin ... Woman was named Eve. Look at Genesis 3 and tell me if I am right.?

So .... it was Woman who took the fruit.

[David Koot]

Eve NEVER ate ... nor did she even take the fruit. Look it up in Genesis Chapter 3.

Gimme a break! It says right there that she did it!

[olger]

Perhaps this verse will be helpful "But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtlety, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ" (2 Corintians 11:3).

og

[ChildOfGod4Ever]

Well, I dunno - I'll have to study that. But it sure takes the cake :D

[ChildOfGod4Ever]

Hey, I just looked up Gen. 3:6 in the KJV:

Quote:

6 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.

Should I look this up in the Hebrew or something? Were extra words added to the text?

[ChildOfGod4Ever]

Oh, duh, RW, you're just being punny, aren't you?

It's true that the woman wasn't called Eve until later. But she was the same person, right?

Yet I do see your point. Only the Greeks called Saul "Paul." And only the Greeks called it "Christianity." The Hebrew Believers, being mostly Jews/Israelis from Diaspora, most likely called him "Sha'ul" or "Saul." And they called Jesus "Y'su" or "Y'shua" as well. And the Believers were practicing "The Way" not "Christianity."

[John317]

Oh, duh, RW, you're just being punny, aren't you?

It's true that the woman wasn't called Eve until later. But she was the same person, right?

Yet I do see your point. Only the Greeks called Saul "Paul." And only the Greeks called it "Christianity." The Hebrew Believers, being mostly Jews/Israelis from Diaspora, most likely called him "Sha'ul" or "Saul." And they called Jesus "Y'su" or "Y'shua" as well. And the Believers were practicing "The Way" not "Christianity."

Yes, the Bible doesn't say Adam or anyone else called her Eve until after the Fall. Before that, according to Gen. 2: 23, Adam simply called her Wo-man because she was taken out of the man. But Eve was the same person who ate of the fruit and then gave it to Adam.

These are all interesting travia but nothing more.

[ChildOfGod4Ever]

These are all interesting travia but nothing more.

I disagree with the idea (and still like you, Robert, just so you know) that these are nothing more than mere trivia.

These facts have changed my whole life. I now have a greater appreciation for the one "sect" we Adventists either don't usually know about, or love to ignore, the Messianic Jews. Sure, they're Zionists who often disagree with some of our Fundamental Beliefs, because they have a different perspective on certain portions of the Bible than we have. And they could turn right around and say they believe that some of our practices are just as trivial and some of us would say that some of their practices are. But that doesn't change the fact that my personal life has been greatly enriched by the knowledge of what 1st Century "Christianity" in the Hebraic communities, with their cultural customs and language largely remaining intact, was like, well beyond 150 A.D. It's worth investigating further. In fact, I'm going to throw out the challenge, for anyone who desires to take it up, to study more into that particular culture, both then, and now.

[John317]

Originally Posted By: John317

Yes, the Bible doesn't say Adam or anyone else called her Eve until after the Fall. Before that, according to Gen. 2: 23, Adam simply called her Wo-man because she was taken out of the man. But Eve was the same person who ate of the fruit and then gave it to Adam.

These are all interesting travia but nothing more. [/quote']

I disagree with the idea (and still like you, Robert, just so you know) that these are nothing more than mere trivia.

These facts have changed my whole life. I now have a greater appreciation for the one "sect" we Adventists either don't usually know about, or love to ignore, the Messianic Jews. Sure, they're Zionists who often disagree with some of our Fundamental Beliefs, because they have a different perspective on certain portions of the Bible than we have. And they could turn right around and say they believe that some of our practices are just as trivial and some of us would say that some of their practices are. But that doesn't change the fact that my personal life has been greatly enriched by the knowledge of what 1st Century "Christianity" in the Hebraic communities, with their cultural customs and language largely remaining intact, was like, well beyond 150 A.D. It's worth investigating further. In fact, I'm going to throw out the challenge, for anyone who desires to take it up, to study more into that particular culture, both then, and now.

The trivia I was referring to is the fact that the Bible doesn't call Eve by that name until after the Fall. It's also not real important that Jesus' mother called Him Yeshua or that James is the Greek name for Jacob. Those things are interesting but they have absolutely nothing to do with the important issues facing Christianity. That is what I mean by trivia. Facts, yes, and interesting to know, but not terribly important.

[ChildOfGod4Ever]

Originally Posted By: ChildOfGod4Ever

The trivia I was referring to is the fact that the Bible doesn't call Eve by that name until after the Fall. It's also not real important that Jesus' mother called Him Yeshua or that James is the Greek name for Jacob. Those things are interesting but they have absolutely nothing to do with the important issues facing Christianity. That is what I mean by trivia. Facts, yes, and interesting to know, but not terribly important.

I respectfully disagree. I did not understand the Gospel at all, even though I was raised Adventist all my life, until I studied how the Messianic Jews, and the Hebrew Believers of the 1st Century, ues(ed) the Feasts of the Lord (one of which is Shabbat, see Lev. 23) to celebrate what Redemption through Yeshua really means. It wasn't until I studied into the Jewish Betrothal and Wedding ceremonies that I Understood Yeshua as my Groom, the one who makes the Promises to me, and that I, His Bride, have nothing required of me for Him to keep those.

If we want to end the wife-abuse, if we want our daughters to stop trying to be perfect in order to get the boys to even look their way, if we want ourselves to ever really both feel Forgiven and self-accepted because God Made us the way He wants us to be from the beginning anyway, and everything's all up to Him and not up to us in the first place...

We'll take such things more seriously. I realize you don't agree with that. I'm ok with it. But it really does make a difference to me, and I've watched it make a difference to others. Also, such knowledge makes it much easier for us as Adventists to minister to the Jewish populations that are often hidden in our own communities. And it makes it easier for us to say that we've taken the time to do the research, and to understand such things as, for instance, the "last supper" as presented in Luke as well as in John, and such parables as the "Prodigal Son" -- because when placed in their proper Jewish historical and cultural contexts, we glean greater truths than we once had before, which are good for Teaching, Exhorting, etc...

Also, the meanings of the Feasts of the Lord, as celebrated starting with Passover and ending with the Feast of Booths, outline the story of Redemption, even including the birth of Yeshua (this is part of the Sukkot celebration, because Yeshua was born in a "sukka" or a "stable"). We need not bother ourselves with part-Christian/part-pagan-rooted customs, when we have the knowledge of the way that Yeshua and the "disciples" (His Rabbinical Followers: talmid) celebrated everything - and why. It's the "why" that matters most. When we more closely examine that, we can see that it does indeed matter, and these things aren't so trivial after all.

And, in case I've stepped on some toes, I'll go for both feet: I find nowhere in the Bible that says that any of the disciples, nor "Jesus," nor any of their followers during the 1st Century, kept Christmas or Easter in the common Christan traditions we hold so dear today. Even in the Greek, that one word that was translated as "Easter" (Acts 12:4) is really "pascha". The Hebrew for Passover is "Pesach." I kinda think it wasn't Easter (Oester/Astarte/etc.) I kinda think it's just two different languages interpreting the same word to mean the same thing: our English word, "Passover."

Note the historical timing of Acts 12:4. This was after the death and resurrection of Yeshua. I ask, why would Luke, a man apparently not born in Israel, care to call it "pascha" rather than "The Day of Astarte" (which had been celebrated for thousands of years among the pagans already)? He obviously wrote in Greek, and probably spoke mostly Greek. And he wrote Acts under the tutilidge of "Paul" a man who, though he didn't depend on his Jewish credentials for being good enough to preach the Jewish Gospel, was all in all, a very good Jew. It seems to me that Sha'ul cared a great deal about the Feasts, or he would have called it the Day of Astarte rather than Passover. I'm also noting that Luke's audience was Greek, not Jewish. If it didn't matter, this would have been further reason to use "Astarte" rather than "pascha."

The way I see it is this: if Judaism was good enough for Yeshua, and for His Followers, it's good enough for me, and I look at those Jews who believe He's the Messiah as being completed Jews and that we're invited to join them... Not under the letter of the law (the threat of hell for not keeping it perfectly, or even at all), but simply because we feel like having a good time. Yeshua is my Pascal Lamb, and so I don't need a shank-bone or whatever - He is present with me when I keep Passover, by choice, because I want to, because it's actually rather fun and yet educational about the Gospel at the same time

The issues that face Christianity today, and Adventism today, are issues that right historical and cultural understandings do solve, and quite nicely and Biblically, at that. Rather than just passing these things off as foreign to your ears and mind, and assuming that they have nothing substantial or important to offer, I challenge you to investigate them more thoroughly for yourself. I won't think less of you if you don't, of course, but I'll point this out: before I studied into these things for myself, and found my Lord's heart for me, I would have judged you for not studying them for yourself. In the end, that's the greatest gift they've afforded me - I see you as part of the Bride, and have no need or desire to dislike you as a person, regardless of your actions.

[John317]

Originally Posted By: John317

The trivia I was referring to is the fact that the Bible doesn't call Eve by that name until after the Fall. It's also not real important that Jesus' mother called Him Yeshua or that James is the Greek name for Jacob. Those things are interesting but they have absolutely nothing to do with the important issues facing Christianity. That is what I mean by trivia. Facts, yes, and interesting to know, but not terribly important.

I respectfully disagree. I did not understand the Gospel at all, even though I was raised Adventist all my life, until I studied how the Messianic Jews, and the Hebrew Believers of the 1st Century, ues(ed) the Feasts of the Lord (one of which is Shabbat, see Lev. 23) to celebrate what Redemption through Yeshua really means. It wasn't until I studied into the Jewish Betrothal and Wedding ceremonies that I Understood Yeshua as my Groom, the one who makes the Promises to me, and that I, His Bride, have nothing required of me for Him to keep those.

If we want to end the wife-abuse, if we want our daughters to stop trying to be perfect in order to get the boys to even look their way, if we want ourselves to ever really both feel Forgiven and self-accepted because God Made us the way He wants us to be from the beginning anyway, and everything's all up to Him and not up to us in the first place...

We'll take such things more seriously. I realize you don't agree with that. I'm ok with it. But it really does make a difference to me, and I've watched it make a difference to others. Also, such knowledge makes it much easier for us as Adventists to minister to the Jewish populations that are often hidden in our own communities. And it makes it easier for us to say that we've taken the time to do the research, and to understand such things as, for instance, the "last supper" as presented in Luke as well as in John, and such parables as the "Prodigal Son" -- because when placed in their proper Jewish historical and cultural contexts, we glean greater truths than we once had before, which are good for Teaching, Exhorting, etc...

Also, the meanings of the Feasts of the Lord, as celebrated starting with Passover and ending with the Feast of Booths, outline the story of Redemption, even including the birth of Yeshua (this is part of the Sukkot celebration, because Yeshua was born in a "sukka" or a "stable"). We need not bother ourselves with part-Christian/part-pagan-rooted customs, when we have the knowledge of the way that Yeshua and the "disciples" (His Rabbinical Followers: talmid) celebrated everything - and why. It's the "why" that matters most. When we more closely examine that, we can see that it does indeed matter, and these things aren't so trivial after all.

And, in case I've stepped on some toes, I'll go for both feet: I find nowhere in the Bible that says that any of the disciples, nor "Jesus," nor any of their followers during the 1st Century, kept Christmas or Easter in the common Christan traditions we hold so dear today. Even in the Greek, that one word that was translated as "Easter" (Acts 12:4) is really "pascha". The Hebrew for Passover is "Pesach." I kinda think it wasn't Easter (Oester/Astarte/etc.) I kinda think it's just two different languages interpreting the same word to mean the same thing: our English word, "Passover."

Note the historical timing of Acts 12:4. This was after the death and resurrection of Yeshua. I ask, why would Luke, a man apparently not born in Israel, care to call it "pascha" rather than "The Day of Astarte" (which had been celebrated for thousands of years among the pagans already)? He obviously wrote in Greek, and probably spoke mostly Greek. And he wrote Acts under the tutilidge of "Paul" a man who, though he didn't depend on his Jewish credentials for being good enough to preach the Jewish Gospel, was all in all, a very good Jew. It seems to me that Sha'ul cared a great deal about the Feasts, or he would have called it the Day of Astarte rather than Passover. I'm also noting that Luke's audience was Greek, not Jewish. If it didn't matter, this would have been further reason to use "Astarte" rather than "pascha."

The way I see it is this: if Judaism was good enough for Yeshua, and for His Followers, it's good enough for me, and I look at those Jews who believe He's the Messiah as being completed Jews and that we're invited to join them... Not under the letter of the law (the threat of hell for not keeping it perfectly, or even at all), but simply because we feel like having a good time. Yeshua is my Pascal Lamb, and so I don't need a shank-bone or whatever - He is present with me when I keep Passover, by choice, because I want to, because it's actually rather fun and yet educational about the Gospel at the same time

The issues that face Christianity today, and Adventism today, are issues that right historical and cultural understandings do solve, and quite nicely and Biblically, at that. Rather than just passing these things off as foreign to your ears and mind, and assuming that they have nothing substantial or important to offer, I challenge you to investigate them more thoroughly for yourself. I won't think less of you if you don't, of course, but I'll point this out: before I studied into these things for myself, and found my Lord's heart for me, I would have judged you for not studying them for yourself. In the end, that's the greatest gift they've afforded me - I see you as part of the Bride, and have no need or desire to dislike you as a person, regardless of your actions.

I don't disagree with anything you said here. Actually I have a great interest in the feasts you speak of.

You misunderstood what I meant in my original posts, no doubt because I didn't explain myself too well. I was simply meaning that the important things have to do with teaching the gospel and such things as the Third Angels Messages. I'm not denying the things you said at all about the positive results from studying the Jewish feasts, etc. I'm glad God could bless you through the influence of Messianic Jews and your knowledge of the Jewish past. There is certainly a great deal to learn there and many insights to be gained.

I wanted to ask you about Acts 20: 16, where it says Paul wanted to go to Jerusalem by the day of Pentecost. See also 1 Cor. 16: 8. Do you believe Paul intended to take part in celebrating Pentecost or did he want to go there in order to preach to all the people he knew would congregate in Jerusalem at that time?

Two books you might be interested in and which I would like to know your opinion about:

Practical Lessons by F.C Gilbert Gilbert was an SDA with a Jewish background. His book concerns the meaning of the symbols in the Old Testament, particularly those related to the sanctuary service and the feasts.

With Jesus In the His Sanctuary by Leslie Hardinge. It is about the same subject as Gilber's book.

Finally, I would like to invite to you take part in a discussion presently taking place on CA on a thread about Leviticus.

[Amelia]

*Tacking on

It can also be looked at this way. God only commanded man not to eat of the tree. And the way this chapter is written, it appears that God made this command prior to woman being created.

Quote:

gen 2:16 And the Lord God commanded the man, "You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; 17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die."

And apparently "man" becomes "Adam" out of the blue in Gen 2:20. God doesn't name him and he doesn't name himself.

[ChildOfGod4Ever]

*Tacking on

It can also be looked at this way. God only commanded man not to eat of the tree. And the way this chapter is written, it appears that God made this command prior to woman being created.

Quote:

gen 2:16 And the Lord God commanded the man, "You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; 17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die."

And apparently "man" becomes "Adam" out of the blue in Gen 2:20. God doesn't name him and he doesn't name himself.

Awwe That's just cute *Snickers*

[John317]

*Tacking on

It can also be looked at this way. God only commanded man not to eat of the tree. And the way this chapter is written, it appears that God made this command prior to woman being created.

Quote:

gen 2:16 And the Lord God commanded the man, "You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; 17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die."

And apparently "man" becomes "Adam" out of the blue in Gen 2:20. God doesn't name him and he doesn't name himself.

Poor Adam. Lucky to have a name at all, looks like.

I believe it can be shown from the Bible that Eve took and ate the fruit when Adam was somewhere else. Ellen White says so too. Also she says that God did not tell Eve directly about not eating from the tree, but He told Adam and then Adam and the angels told Eve.

[ChildOfGod4Ever]

I don't disagree with anything you said here. Actually I have a great interest in the feasts you speak of.

You misunderstood what I meant in my original posts, no doubt because I didn't explain myself too well. I was simply meaning that the important things have to do with teaching the gospel and such things as the Third Angels Messages. I'm not denying the things you said at all about the positive results from studying the Jewish feasts, etc. I'm glad God could bless you through the influence of Messianic Jews and your knowledge of the Jewish past. There is certainly a great deal to learn there and many insights to be gained.

I wanted to ask you about Acts 20: 16, where it says Paul wanted to go to Jerusalem by the day of Pentecost. See also 1 Cor. 16: 8. Do you believe Paul intended to take part in celebrating Pentecost or did he want to go there in order to preach to all the people he knew would congregate in Jerusalem at that time?

Two books you might be interested in and which I would like to know your opinion about:

Practical Lessons by F.C Gilbert Gilbert was an SDA with a Jewish background. His book concerns the meaning of the symbols in the Old Testament, particularly those related to the sanctuary service and the feasts.

With Jesus In the His Sanctuary by Leslie Hardinge. It is about the same subject as Gilber's book.

Finally, I would like to invite to you take part in a discussion presently taking place on CA on a thread about Leviticus.

I agree with you that the most important things are things like teaching the Gospel. All I'm saying here is that, though it was "taught" to me for 25 years before it ever occurred to me to ask Mr. Google, "Have any Jews ever accepted Jesus?", I didn't actually "get" the True Gospel (the one where my works don't create my Value in God's Eyes) until I spent the next 7 years Receiving Answers to that Question about Jews and Jesus, and how it turns out that He's my Jewish-style Spiritual Husband, and that I get to enjoy all the Rights and Privilidges within the Contract that He Signed on the Cross.

To me, this is of utmost importance, and it's relevant to everyone. Just comparing Spiritual Marriage to, say, a traditional American wedding, is not right. It places far too much of a heavy yoke on the bride/wife, when really, it just wasn't meant to be that way. It's like saying, "Honey, as long as you do everything you said you would, I'll love you. But if you mess up once... That's it, I'll hate you, call you a bad wife, threaten you with divorce, get tired of you, cheat on you or use porn, and eventually completely emotionally check-out-of the marriage. After all, you made all these promises, now you have to keep them perfectly, or else..." And then we compare God to that kind of husband? Have we lost our minds? Yet that's the God we see when we don't look at Him through Jewish eyes. I swear, there's a reason for why God has preserved the State of Israel, to some degree, to this day: it's the only way the rest of us would ever have access to the truth about His Husbandly Character.

I'm glad you and I agree on the feasts. I just prefer not to separate them from the Gospel when teaching it and enjoying celebrating it. To me, they are one and the same: Echad in Adonai.

Thank you for the book references, and for your kind understanding. I apologize if I've misunderstood you. I defend my position on this topic as well as I know how because it is near and dear to my heart. It is one of God's main Callings in my life, and He's worked incredibly hard to make that Clear to me.

Oh, and regarding Penticost. That's the Feast of Shavuot. That's the time of the Giving of the Law on Mt. Sinai to Israel in the Desert, and later, the time of the Giving of the Law of God's Love for us written on our hearts (the New Covenant mentioned in Jeremiah), through the Holy Spirit, to those Israelites who had chosen to Accept His Son as their Sacrifice on their behalf, for their inability to keep the Law.

As far as I'm concerned, what I know up to this present moment is this: Shaul was doing both. Just as the Holy Spirit had done at "Penticost" early in the book of Acts. It wasn't merely taking advantage of a gathering: it was also being part of it and enjoying it, and as part of partaking in a Jewish custom, Paul most likely found the opportunity to get up to "the podium" and give a speech. That's normal at pretty much any Jewish celebration or worship time. It's part of Jewish tradition to have kind of an "open mic" as it were. Sure, there are set customs that are followed by those who teach or give a homely or whatever. But pretty much anyone who has reached a given age and been through certain rites can do it.

The real kicker is this: Judaism, then and now, is actually a rather loose religion. No one is looked down on for not participating in any particular tradition. You don't have to be on your death-bed: it's completely free-will and you're Loved and Accepted no matter what. I really appreciate that about Judaism, and it bothers me when it's reflected otherwise in the media or in our sanctuaries and Sabbath Schools. We honestly have got to bother getting to know our Jewish Family a heap better before we try to teach anyone even one word about them. As far as I'm concerned, they are not only part of our Family, but we are Invited to become part of theirs, because they are His.

Oh, hey, could you link me over to that other thread?

[Amelia]

We can lay to rest that Adam was else where in the garden and didn't know what Eve was up to; unless you all decide that this woman and man are not Adamn & Eve.

Quote:

Gen 3:6 When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it

[Amelia]

But then again, God does not call out to Adam, He calls out to man.

Quote:

Gen 3:9 But the Lord God called to the man, "Where are you?" 10 He answered, "I heard you in the garden, and I was afraid because I was naked; so I hid."

[Amelia]

Eve gets her name prior to banishment.

Quote:

Gen 3:20 Adam named his wife Eve, because she would become the mother of all the living.

21 The Lord God made garments of skin for Adam and his wife and clothed them.

22 And the Lord God said, "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever." 23 So the Lord God banished him from the Garden of Eden to work the ground from which he had been taken. 24 After he drove the man out, he placed on the east side of the Garden of Eden cherubim and a flaming sword flashing back and forth to guard the way to the tree of life.

[ChildOfGod4Ever]

Eve gets her name prior to banishment.

Ah, I stand corrected

*Sings a happy tune...*

[John317]

Oh, hey, could you link me over to that other thread?

http://clubadventist.com/forum/ubbthread...true#Post133426

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

HEY

are we grabbing at straws or making mountains out of

mole hills here

FACT: GOD'S creation sin againt HIM so JESUS the son

came down to restore the creation.

and that is that

lets keep it simple so the devil does not play with our minds.

Absolutely spot on... imho

[Tom Wetmore]

There is significance to the naming of the woman by the man after the fall. The name "Adam" simple means "man". It was the identity God as his creator gave to him. God created woman a part of man. The two were one, to be as an inseparable unit. Thus the pre-fall identity was "Of-man" or if you will "Part of man" the other half of the whole unit.

The significance of naming anything in Biblical times was an act of dominion or control over it. To name something was to define its essential characteristics, to mark it for ownership. Notice that pre-fall that even though God was the creator of the animals and by rights could name them, he delegated that authority to the man because God gave him dominion over the animals. But as someone already noted, God did not actually give Adam a name. Perhaps this is a subtle hint of God's respect for man's free will, freedom of self-determination, to be able to define himself.

That the naming of Eve came after the fall is significant. It signals a shift in the man/woman relationship that sin made. The curse of sin started a separation of identity for the pair. As the curse of sin articulated by God said, the man shall rule over the woman. And Adam's first act of dominion was to define her, to give her a name. He was still Adam, but now she wasn't simply part of him. Woman was now redefined by the man. God didn't do it. Sin did that. The fracturing of the marital unity had begun. And that is not trivial.

Tom

[olger]

Those are some good points, Tom. It is also true that Adam named his wife prior to sin & rebellion (Genesis 2:23). Giving the name Eve to her was a restatement of Adam's authority as the federal head of the human race. Notice that he was kind to her--not naming her "She-who-is-easily-deceived" or "gullible" or "wanderer." He still loved her, though that loved was now fractured by the consequences of iniquity. What do you think?

best wishes,

olger

[David Koot]

The significance of naming anything in Biblical times was an act of dominion or control over it. To name something was to define its essential characteristics, to mark it for ownership.

[Norman Byers, N.D.]

Quote:

Quote:

Originally Posted By: Redwood

Eve NEVER ate ... nor did she even take the fruit. Look it up in Genesis Chapter 3.

Gimme a break! It says right there that she did it!

Right on David.

2Co 11:3 But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtlety, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.

The serpent deceived the woman who is Eve. Same person. Scripture is easy to understand when it is written in plain english as this subject is. There's no need to try and confuse the things that are plainly revealed to us, there's enough in the Bible that we don't understand.

2Ti 2:23 But foolish and unlearned questions avoid, knowing that they do engender strifes.