Eve NEVER took or ate of the fruit

[John317]

Quote:

Yes, but what is the Bible saying here? That he was right beside her.... like a potted plant?

So, when Adam stays by his wife's side, he is "like a potted plant."

But Eve was supposed to stay by his side because this was her God-given role.

Followed by a long exposition on male supremacy and why we should learn to love the idea of "submission."

Interesting.

aldona

We need to look at the text and evidence with an open mind. That is, not refuse to consider something because it's feared it might lend support to some unwanted idea.

Take the first four points. Are they inaccurate or false?

(1) God commanded the man not to eat of the fruit from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. (Gen. 1: 16.)

(2)Then afterwards God made the woman and brought her to Adam. (Gen. 2: 22.)

(3) The serpent is specifically said to have asked "the woman" his question about what God said, and this first question implies that this was not the first words exchanged between the woman and the serpent. (Gen. 3: 1.)

(4) Notice that during the whole conversation between the woman and the serpent, not a word is said about the man. Nor does the record report that the man says a single word either pro or con as far as the serpent's temptation of Eve is concerned. The text is absolutely silent as regards the man from verse 1 until it says Eve gave some of the fruit to him.

[David Koot]

There is one additional option for translating the Hebrew word: "also."

[olger]

You may have misunderstood my analogy, Aldona. It is used to represent positional fixation, not passivity. Although, most plants are passive...now that I think about it .

Carry on Sister,

olger

[John317]

There is one additional option for translating the Hebrew word: "also."

So the Amplified: "and she gave some also to her husband, and he ate."

The Five Books of Moses (Robert Alter, a Jewish translator): "And she gave some also to her man, and he ate."

The TANAKH The Holy Scriptures (Jewish Publication Society): "She also gave some to her husband, and he ate."

James Moffatt: "She also gave some to her husband, and he ate."

The Modern Language Bible (The New Berkeley Version) says, "He ate it with her."

How much sense does it make to say that someone gave something to someone who was close to their location? Of course they were both in the same basic location at the time someone handed something to a second party. If, then, we are only saying that they were physically close to them at the time they were given something by another person, it wouldn't make any sense at all, because it goes without saying that you can't give something to someone who is NOT located near you. Therefore, the use of "with her" must mean something other than the fact that he was close to her location.

In view of the above, doesn't it make better sense to conclude that "with her" (if in fact that is how it should be translated) carries the sense of "the one with her in the garden"?

[John317]

Quote:

But the bible does not say that man was elsewhere. It states he was with her.

Please consider the following evidence regarding whether Gen. 3: 6 states that the man was with Eve at the tree during the temptation:

The Amplified: "and she gave some also to her husband, and he ate."

The Five Books of Moses (Robert Alter, a Jewish translator): "And she gave some also to her man, and he ate."

The TANAKH The Holy Scriptures (Jewish Publication Society): "She also gave some to her husband, and he ate."

James Moffatt: "She also gave some to her husband, and he ate."

The Modern Language Bible (The New Berkeley Version) says, "He ate it with her."

It is also possible that "with her" (if in fact that is how it should be translated) carries the sense of "the one with her in the garden."

Quote:

And right now I don't want to know what Ellen has written. I just want solo scriptura.

I appreciate the importance of solo scriptura. That is why all of the evidence comes only from the Bible. I only added the note at the end about what Ellen White has written because there are people who might want to know what she said about it.

Quote:

I know all the commentary I've read says it's obvious that man wasn't with her when she was tempted; OBVIOUS? Why is it obvious? Maybe man was blinded by the beauty and temptation of woman that he just went along with the whole thing? Isn't that just another way of reading between the lines to fill in something that isn't there?

I have to agree with all those commentaries that the evidence makes it obvious that Adam was not with Eve when she was tempted. However, it is very important for each of us to learn these things on our own and judge the evidence for ourselves. That is why I made the evidence available for everyone to examine and see if they can find any major flaws in either the evidence or in the reasoning. I will certainly appreciate any contribution you can make toward this goal.

[David Koot]

Just got back from my evening visits, and had a bit more time to dig. Checking Brown-Driver-Briggs, I find this preposition is understood as pertaining to relationship, kinship, companionship. Checking Louw-Nida, (Hebrew OT) I find, among others, "a marker of an additive relation, with an implication that what is added is of a similar class or kind."

[John317]

...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.

Could you explain briefly what you understand the relationship to be between the gospel and the feasts?

Quote:

...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.

Is the New Covenant law that God writes on our hearts the same law that God wrote on the tables of stone at Mt. Sinai? Does this New Covenant law include the seventh-day Sabbath? And does it include the first four commandments?

Does the Holy Spirit write that law on our hearts and enable us to obey it?

Quote:

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.

What do you understand the day of Penticost to mean for the Christian? What did it point to beyond the death and resurrection of Christ?

Quote:

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.

Isn't it true in fact that one in Judaism need not even believe in God or in the Messiah? One need not even believe in God's promises, right?

[John317]

Just got back from my evening visits, and had a bit more time to dig. Checking Brown-Driver-Briggs, I find this preposition is understood as pertaining to relationship, kinship, companionship. Checking Louw-Nida, (Hebrew OT) I find, among others, "a marker of an additive relation, with an implication that what is added is of a similar class or kind."

That supports the idea that it connotes more than mere location but has rather to do with the fact that he was "her man," as Robert Alter translates it. It makes sense then that she would want to share the fruit with the one who was intimate with her. After all, she had already eaten some of it, and now she wanted him to experience it with her.

Looks like you have some resources I don't have. That's great.

Are those books still in print? I would like order them at the Berean book store if they're available. Could you give me their full titles and the publisher? Thanks.

[David Koot]

Yes, B-D-B is published through Princeton Theological Seminary, but I think an edition may be available through Eerdmans. Google on Brown-Driver-Briggs, I would suggest. I have used both the hard copy and the software version. Software is included in the Logos Scholar edition, as is Louw-Nida for the Hebrew O.T. Publisher is Logos Research Systems. However, the lexicon I highly recommend, and the one which would be appropriate for your level of scholarship, is Koehler-Baumgartner, published by Eerdmans. Hard copy price is $600. and some change, but the C-D (came out as 'chicken dance' first time around! Oh help!!!) version is around $150. That is THE definitive reference work.

As a point of interest, this exercise demonstrates some of the challenges of Bible translation. The preposition at issue has a semantic range, and there are grammatical issues as well. The more accurate versions render it as it reads. Some of the others stray from that strict accuracy, thus leading to no little confusion. That confusion may be resolved along the lines you have suggested. But, not everyone is as meticulous, and not a few are rather quick to trumpet their own opinions, which may or may not be in harmony with the text as it reads. As a general rule, I would suggest that the building blocks are the words, and larger concepts cannot violate those building blocks.

Regards, Dave

[David Koot]

Ahhh, one more lexical aid for casual study, which I should have included above:

"A Concise Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament: Based upon the Lexical Work of Ludwig Koehler and Walter Baumgartner"

While this is not the authoritative edition, it does contain some helpful features, and is good as a starting point. Google on the title. It is available thru Amazon for 25 bucks or so.

Dave

[Tom Wetmore]

WOW!! That is a very lot of effort to try to overcome the plain, simple and obvious meaning of the Scripture which says, "She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it."

Why is that necessary? Why is it so important to prove that Adam was elsewhere? What difference does it make, really? Does it change the outcome? Or the ultimate solution?

And still no answer to these simple questions. I still ask WHY?

Does nobody have the answer to these questions? Surely one of those numerous authoritative sources must give a reason why we must prove that Adam was out of the picture at the temptation and not "with" Eve, despite what is obvious from a plain reading of Scripture.

Tom

[David Koot]

And still no answer to these simple questions. I still ask WHY?

[David Koot]

Reflecting on the questions repeated in a recent post . . .

On this thread, a serious, well-qualified student of Scripture, John317, has provided very well-researched information and documentation which does, indeed, on its face address the questions which were repeated above. The questions addressed in the quoted post have, in fact, been answered at length, and in detail. What about those answers? What about the merits of that work product? I have not so far seen any response to that presentation. Is there some question in regard to their validity? If so, on what textual basis?

[Tom Wetmore]

Originally Posted By: Tom Wetmore

And still no answer to these simple questions. I still ask WHY?

One specific issue which has been addressed in the last several posts in that of accuracy, and what the verse really says. It is not a question of 'proving' something, as you say. It is a matter of understanding what the text says. That is the value of checking the original, and of lexical aids. The following steps have been taken:

1) Check BHS (Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia)

2) Check the usage pattern of the Hebrew word in the OT

3) Check NIDOTTE

4) Check B-D-B

5) Check Louw-Nida (Hebrew OT)

Summarizing the findings, the preposition is quite common, and has a definite semantic range. It is not locative per se, although that is one of several applications of the word. It also evokes the concept of 'also' and 'like kind,' etc. B-D-B identifies this use of the word as pertaining to relationship. Louw-Nida lists the several semantic domains, one of which pertains to relationship.

All of that just begs the question, which apparently you really do not understand. So, why is accuracy on this point so important. From the beginning my point has been what difference does it make whether Adam was at Eve's elbow at the tree, or elsewhere in the garden? Why do we even need to know or understand their exact location? Does it change the essential points of the story? Why do you need to go to all the trouble of refuting the idea that they were together at the tree?

Originally Posted By: David Koot

Thus, the following is not correct:

Quote:

what is obvious from a plain reading of Scripture.

And that would be your opinion. And really now David, obvious is as beauty, in the eye of the beholder. Who are you to tell me what I find obvious? It is obvious to me and to many others, including the majority of translators.

Quote:

The 'plain reading of Scripture' is not locative.

Again, your opinion... And stated here as an absolute conclusion in direct contradiction to your previous statement in the same post - "the preposition is quite common, and has a definite semantic range. It is not locative per se, although that is one of several applications of the word."

The truth is that it has a very similar semantic range as the English word "with" which includes each of the connotative meanings that you have identified for the Hebrew equivalent. My point is, given that range, why are you and John so vigorously trying to rule out the locative possibility? It would seem more correct to say it is ambiguous as used in this verse, both in Hebrew and in the majority of English translations.

Quote:

That is a judgment call of the particular translator.

The judgment call of the majority of translators that translate it quite consistently. Why? Because obviously to most of them, that was the plain reading of Scripture.

Quote:

Thus, the question might rather be, 'Why would a student be insistent on a locative meaning to this preposition?' since the text does not call for a locative reading.

I'm not. Why are you insisting so vigorously that it is not possible?

Quote:

This suggests an agenda, and selecting a particular version for the purpose of supporting that agenda.

Exactly my point!

WHY?

Tom

[John317]

... Surely one of those numerous authoritative sources must give a reason why we must prove that Adam was out of the picture at the temptation and not "with" Eve, despite what is obvious from a plain reading of Scripture.

Tom

The only "reason" for the study of what the Bible says about this is to ascertain exactly what the Bible does in fact say about it.

I think it is yet to be proved that the Bible's reading is as "plain" on that point as you're suggesting.

Please consider the following evidence regarding whether Gen. 3: 6 states that the man was with Eve at the tree during the temptation:

The Amplified: "and she gave some also to her husband, and he ate."

The Five Books of Moses (Robert Alter, a Jewish translator): "And she gave some also to her man, and he ate."

The TANAKH The Holy Scriptures (Jewish Publication Society): "She also gave some to her husband, and he ate."

James Moffatt: "She also gave some to her husband, and he ate."

The Modern Language Bible (The New Berkeley Version) says, "He ate it with her."

It is also possible that "with her" (if in fact that is how it should be translated) carries the sense of "the one with her in the garden."

I believe that if one carefully goes through point by point the evidence I've presented from the Bible alone, one will conclude that Adam was not with Eve at the time of her temptation by Satan at the tree.

Please study it and then if you believe my evidence and reasoning is in error, I would only sincerely ask that you show me how I am in error. I'm not interested in believing something that isn't true. I'm willing to change my point of view on this, but I have to be persuaded of the truth on the basis of evidence and reason.

[Tom Wetmore]

All that still begs the question, "Why?"

I too wish only to believe that which is true. But what difference does it make if it is absolutely true that Adam was on the other side of the garden, out of sight and earshot? What difference does it make if he was in fact standing at Eve's elbow, completely dumbstruck by the whole experience? And what difference does it make if we really don't know for sure one way or the other?

Why burn up all this time and energy and good will for a point that doesn't matter in the final analysis?

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

How much you wanna bet that when Jesus taught in the temple, the *placement* of Adam when Eve or Woman ate the fruit was probably *not* one of the topics du jour?

[John317]

All that still begs the question, "Why?"

I too wish only to believe that which is true. But what difference does it make if it is absolutely true that Adam was on the other side of the garden, out of sight and earshot? What difference does it make if he was in fact standing at Eve's elbow, completely dumbstruck by the whole experience? And what difference does it make if we really don't know for sure one way or the other?

Why burn up all this time and energy and good will for a point that doesn't matter in the final analysis?

For me it is simply in order to understand the Bible. As the word of God, everything it contains is important. Jesus Himself said, "Man shall live by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God."

In addition, I think it is important to understand as much as possible about the Bible's testimony regarding the temptation and Fall. God had it inspired for a reason, and that reason is that we should learn from it. I think it does make a difference whether Adam was at the tree with Eve or not, just as it makes a difference whether God commanded Adam alone not to eat of the tree-- or whether God gave the command to both Adam and Eve. Adam was chosen by God as the representative of the human race. This comes out in a number of Bible verses. Death came on the human race because of Adam's sin, not because of Eve's. Also, the Bible says that Adam was not deceived but Eve was. That is an extremely important verse for understanding what happened at the Fall. In a way, what Adam did in sinning was much worse than what Eve did when she took the fruit and ate of it. She actually believed Satan's lie. Adam did not believe it, he knew it was a lie, yet He ate the fruit anyway.

[Woody]

How much you wanna bet that when Jesus taught in the temple, the *placement* of Adam when Eve or Woman ate the fruit was probably *not* one of the topics du jour?

I am with you on this one Pam. I started this whole mess innocently. But now I wish I hadn't. It is far off of what I had intended.

[John317]

How much you wanna bet that when Jesus taught in the temple, the *placement* of Adam when Eve or Woman ate the fruit was probably *not* one of the topics du jour?

One could say the same about most of the things in the Bible, that Jesus probably did not teach them in the temple. This is the first time I have heard it suggested that we ought only to discuss or study that which we may be sure Jesus taught in the temple.

No one is saying here that this subject is the most important thing in the Bible. There are many subjects of greater importance, such as the cross of Christ, the new birth, sanctification, the law and the gospel, the New Covenant, righteousness by faith, etc. Yet it also is a major part of the Bible narrative, that is, the story of the Fall of our first parents. Why not study it? Why not do all we can to arrive at the truth about what the Bible says on this topic? Does the Bible give us enough information to find out the truth? If it does, why not know it? I believe it does, but in order to know that for sure, we need to study the narrative and discover what it teaches us. There is no reason not to, unless it is that we are afraid of what we will find.

[there buster]

On this thread, a serious, well-qualified student of Scripture, John317, has provided very well-researched information and documentation which does, indeed, demonstrate that precisel 1.554 x 10^7 angels can dance on the head of a pin.

While the unserious, unqualified student of human wisdom, has provided on unsupported assumptions and opinions that the actual number is several orders of magnitude less, perhaps only 1.274 x 10^4.

How can we know who is 'serious and well-qualified?' I guess we'll just have to take the word of THE AUTHORITY.

As for myself, being a pure SDA for more than 4 generations on both sides of the family, I am certain no self-respecting Adventist Angel would dance anywhere!

[Woody]

Quote:

This is the first time I have heard it suggested that we ought only to discuss or study that which we may be sure Jesus taught in the temple.

Since I agreed with Pam's post ... I will state that this was NOT what I interpreted Pam to be saying. I would not want to put words in Pam's mouth as you have done. But I would tend to agree with the both of you. IS that possible to do? I felt that Pam was just saying that this was not a HOT topic as far as she was concerned. I did not hear her say that "we ought only to discuss or study that which we may be sure Jesus taught in the temple".

Perhaps it would be better for us to both ask Pam what she meant and did not mean before jumping to conclusions.

[John317]

Originally Posted By: rudywoofs

How much you wanna bet that when Jesus taught in the temple, the *placement* of Adam when Eve or Woman ate the fruit was probably *not* one of the topics du jour?

I am with you on this one Pam. I started this whole mess innocently. But now I wish I hadn't. It is far off of what I had intended.

Show that it's a mess. What makes it a mess? Go through the points and the reasoning and show how they are wrong.

Why the resistence to the subject? Or is the resistence to the thesis? Why?

Why spend all the time condemning the subject of whether Adam was with Eve when she first took of the fruit, but no time at all seriously studying the evidence itself?

Some have mentioned a motivation related to male dominance. Is that perhaps what the resistence to a close examination of the subject is all about?

[there buster]

I concur. Every caring SDA should be willing to take a stand against dancing angels.

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

John317 said:

Quote:

This is the first time I have heard it suggested that we ought only to discuss or study that which we may be sure Jesus taught in the temple.

I never said that. I made a simple observation based on the little I know. Methinks thou dost protest too much.