Respect for Women

[Woody]

But Paul, a man, referred to himself as a cracked pot... So you chose - weaker or broken...

TU

[Denise]

Quote:

Adam was by her side when Eve took the fruit and ate. Why did he eat it also? According to Paul, Eve was deceived, but Adam knew it was wrong. So why did Adam join his wife in eating the fruit? Again, I can explain sin so I can't explain Adam's motive.

From what I understand, read, and studied, they both were occupied in their daily labor in the garden. The angels cautioned her not to seperate from her husband, but she did. In Patriarchs & Prophets p. 27[53-54].."The angels had cautioned Eve to beware of separating herself from her husband while occupied in their daily labor in the garden; with him she would be in less danger from temptation than if she were alone. But absorbed in her pleasing task, she unconsciously wandered from his side. On perceiving that she was alone, she felt an apprehension of danger, but dismissed her fears, deciding that she had sufficient wisdom and strength to discern evil and to withstand it." and you could read more on....then on page 30 [56], "And now, having herself transgressed, she became the agent of Satan in working the ruin of her husband. In a state of strange, unnatural excitement, with her hands filled with the forbidden fruit, she sought his presence, and related all that had occurred." Her husband was with her in the garden, and after she sought him, to my understanding on what I have read and studied. I don't believe that he was right there with her in the same area when she did eat. In other words, I don't believe he was there watching her eat of the fruit.

[John317]

[jasd]

>>“Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception;<<

This is probably best read as a negative, yes?

>>...in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children;<<

No indication in the above to suggest a different read as that of the previous.

>>...and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.” Gen. 3:16<<

What, in the immediate above, indicates a shift in sense – from the preceding clauses? There is none. It simply iterates the obvious – with negative overtones – and though stating a natural order of things, there is no substantive which lets us know that the prevailing circumstance is Gd-ordained. It is simply resultant upon the fact that

man is bigger and possesses more testosterone than the woman.

I think one is better served with another text to establish the point that women – outside the seeming and ever lasting cultural milieu – is the diminished creature.

[jasd]

Not attempting to make an unequivocal point, but...

>>A close reading of the narrative shows that Adam was not with Eve at the time she was talking with the serpent (i.e., Satan). Nor was he with her while she disobeyed God and ate of the fruit.<<

Actually, a “close reading of the narrative shows”

Gen 3:6 ... she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.

‘Joined’, as in:

Eve did eat ... and afterwards, Adam ‘joined’ Eve and she “gave also unto her husband” – is used elsewhere some four dozen times – and was it the intent, it may have been used here also.

‘Met’, as in:

Eve did eat ... and afterwards, Adam ‘met’ Eve at the forbidden tree and she “gave also unto her husband” – is used some four dozen times elsewhere – and was it the intent, it may have been used here also. That said,

what Writ does relate is..., “she took ... did eat ... gave also unto her husband with her;” – that is, ‘with her’.

>>That would require Adam to stand there completely dumb while he heard and saw Eve being tricked by the Devil, yet not saying anything to warn her.<<

Several things:

/ Indeed, that would require Adam to stand there like the great, big dummy he was!

/ One might only deduce that Eve was a willful woman and Adam, growing tired of contentions, accompanied Eve – and was with her, when she took of the tree, and did eat.

/ Adam may have done so out of extreme pique.

/ Adam, to have joined Eve in eating of the tree, must have been suffering from tunnel vision at the time; and yes, probably, for love of Eve.

What simple words. How easily beguiled. Was Eve really – so clueless? Don’t think so.

>>It would show that Adam didn't really love Eve.<<

Love manifests in many forms.

>>But many things in the story indicate that Adam was elsewhere at the time of the temptation of Eve. It is no coincidence that the Devil never once addresses Adam, nor does Eve talk to Adam.<<

It may have been obvious that it was Eve who was interested. Were I the great adversary, and it appeared that it was Adam, instead, who was interested – I would have addressed him.

>>We can reasonably assume that if Adam had been there, he would have said something, and Satan would have said something to Adam also.<<

Adam, in directly disobeying Gd, leaves the reader with the notion that there is little room to assume this or that of him.

>>In Gen. 3: 17, God's words to Adam show that Adam did not eat of the fruit because he listened to the Devil but because he listened to his wife Eve.<<

It is neither here nor there re the pertinences of the narrative. Were one to attach weight to the fact that it was not the great Deceiver, but the woman by his side to whom he listened – it simply reinforces the fact that Adam was a great, big dummy...

>>And again, Adam does not blame the Devil but his wife. Why? Because Adam's eating of the fruit had nothing to do with the devil but it had everything to do with his love of Eve.<<

It may be more relevant to ponder upon the words, “The women whom thou gavest [to be] with me...” Whom thou gavest...? Really!

>>If Eve alone had disobeyed God and eaten of the fruit, sin would not have passed to all mankind. Under those circumstances, Eve would have died, but if Adam had remained faithful to God, humanity wouldn't have fallen.<<

One of the things that may be well worth dwelling upon would be – was Gd’s injunction against eating of the tree given in the ‘collective’ or in the singular ‘individually’? Genesis 2:24 apprises us that Adam and Eve were one flesh. After all, that thought, that of the collective, carries throughout Writ, for example:

take the recitation of the story of Achan – one man who sinned and brought destruction upon many...

It may be that Adam realized “What the Hey! – we are now both condemned” – and took also of the fruit – and ate...

>>Therefore, as Romans 5: 12 says, all mankind dies today because of Adam's sin, not Eve's. If it was Eve's sin that caused the Fall, the Bible would say that death came through Eve; but it does not. It says death came through Adam, the second human to sin.<<

Actually, there are a dirth of incidences in Writ incorporating the he and/or she motif. For literary ease, it is written incorporating masculine terminology – as in mankind, rather than womankind or man/womankind. That 'ease' fitted well with comparison to the unmarried Jesus Christ.

[olger]

But Paul, a man, referred to himself as a cracked pot... So you chose - weaker or broken...

Your analogy has a fundamental incoherence, Tommy.

You first claim that Paul referred to himself as a cracked pot (presumably in 2 Cor 4:7), and then attempt to create a connection to Peter's universal gender exhortation in 1 Peter 3:7.

1) Paul is not discussing creational gender distinctions in 2 Cor 4, he has already clearly communicated the will of God on that topic in several inspired letters (including 1 Corinthians).

2) The will of man needs to be broken, that the will of God might live. Thus refined, a Godly man leads & protects his family. He is a "house-band."

og

[Robert]

Quote:

Adam was by her side when Eve took the fruit and ate. Why did he eat it also? According to Paul, Eve was deceived, but Adam knew it was wrong. So why did Adam join his wife in eating the fruit? Again, I can explain sin so I can't explain Adam's motive.

I don't believe that he was right there with her in the same area when she did eat. In other words, I don't believe he was there watching her eat of the fruit.

I got this idea from 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. NIV

So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate; and she also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate. NRSV

[Robert]

Therefore, as Romans 5: 12 says, all mankind dies today because of Adam's sin, not Eve's.

True....Even Eve came from Adam's side (some translations say rib) indicating that Eve came from Adam. The word Adam is both in the singular (Adam the man) and plural (humanity). Here's a good example (note the red lettering):

Gen 5:1 This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man [plural - mankind], in the likeness of God made he him 2 Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam , in the day when they were created. 3 And Adam [the individual] lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, after his image; and called his name Seth.

1 Cor 11:8 says, "For the first man didn't come from woman, but the first woman came from man."

So, very good....You see this!

[aldona]

Originally Posted By: Denise

Quote:

Adam was by her side when Eve took the fruit and ate. Why did he eat it also? According to Paul, Eve was deceived, but Adam knew it was wrong. So why did Adam join his wife in eating the fruit? Again, I can explain sin so I can't explain Adam's motive.

I don't believe that he was right there with her in the same area when she did eat. In other words, I don't believe he was there watching her eat of the fruit.

I got this idea from 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. NIV

So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate; and she also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate. NRSV

I'm sitting here on the edge of my seat watching this develop. I can see a familiar pattern emerging.

1. The Bible states, clearly and in simple language, that Adam was WITH HER when she ate the fruit.

2. EGW states that the woman had wandered away from his side. (not only is this a passing remark, but it is used as a very important object lesson in SDA theology to illustrate why we women should never leave our husband's side.)

Now, when there is an apparent discrepancy, between EGW and the plain word of scripture, what usually happens? Who is going to win here? Which version are my fellow Adventists going to choose as the correct one, and defend vigorously by twisting the other version?

aldona

[LifeHiscost]

The blame game began after being caught and still has not stopped!!

Will our salvation be jeopardized if we accept one scenario or the other?

I prefer to accept the Word and if a woman sees herself as having no need of a man to remind her not to eat of the forbidden fruit, then it seems to me both will suffer loss, not to mention those who follow the same example.

As an example of the benefits of a companions drawing attention to danger, my wife has often saved us from possible auto accidents by being aware of oncoming traffic. That would be the principle of staying close together for the sake of the other. Seems to me one or the other of the duo, namely Adam and Eve, ignored the benefits of that arrangement and we're all paying the price today.

"And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him."Genesis 2:18 KJV

Regards!

[John317]

Quote:

Nor was he with her while she disobeyed God and ate of the fruit.

Lets take a look at the Bible itself, not an opinion....

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.

Bible correct or......?

Of course the Bible is correct. The question is whether the Bible is saying Adam was at Eve's side at the time she was talking to the Devil.

Adam was most definitely with her when she gave him the fruit. She did not send the fruit to him by messenger, and her arms were not long enough to give it to him when he was not with her. It is obvious that when it refers to his being "with her," it is not talking about his being by her side when she was conversing with the devil. It is saying that she gave some of the fruit to her companion.

If he was with her at the time she took the fruit from the tree, why didn't he just walk over and get some of the fruit himself? Why did she need to pick it and give it to him? And why did Adam stand dumb and knowing that she was being tricked and yet not say a word? The Bible is very clear that Adam was not deceived but Eve was.

It makes sense that this is the reason the Devil talked to Eve while she was alone at the tree and Adam was elsewhere in the garden.

Significantly, the servant of the Lord, Mrs. White, says that Eve was alone at the tree at the time of the temptation. She wrote that she was given visions of these events. I believe her, and I believe that the Bible supports her in that view.

I don't see it as a question of who to blame. Both are equally guilty. It was Adam's sin that caused the Fall and Death to spread to all mankind. If Eve alone had sinned but Adam had remained loyal, the Fall would not have occurred.

For me it's a matter of simply knowing what happened, not of blaming anyone.

[olger]

You stay by your husband's side Aldona, while we sort this out, it should only take a moment.

og

[aldona]

You stay by your husband's side Aldona, while we sort this out, it should only take a moment.

og

Maybe if I stayed by his side at all times it might stop some of the dangerous stuff that he does in the garage with power tools, sharp objects, high voltage etc...

aldona

[olger]

Power tools are cool.

og

[olger]

Dear CAn. It is within the scope of the inspired account to understand that "with her", could refer to Adam's geographical occupation in the Garden of Eden. "At home with my wife" could refer to us being in the same home, yet in different rooms, and it could also refer to us touching elbows. Either one is possible.

I don't see why you make such of big deal out of just one of those possiblities. Unless it is a handy bullet with which to shoot at our departed sister who wrote what God told her.

regards

og

[aldona]

Power tools are cool.

og

When I was a brand-new hospital intern, I worked under a plastic surgeon once who kept a photo album filled with "power tool vs. human" injuries.

There were always plenty of DIY "weekend warriors" coming into the emergency room with new material for his photos.

Quite a few times I threatened to bring the album home and make it compulsory viewing for my power-tool-loving husband. (who also thinks that because he is a church organist, his hands are somehow supernaturally protected.)

aldona

[LifeHiscost]

Which version are my fellow Adventists going to choose as the correct one, and defend vigorously by twisting the other version?

aldona

Sometimes I and my wife go down to the local WalMart together. If someone were to ask me later, where we were all afternoon, I would probably say I was with my wife at WalMart. That doesn't necessarily mean we were always in the same immediate vicinity. In fact, we might have been separated far enough and long enough so either one of us might pick up something (the forbidden fruit) without the other's knowledge. But I would still have the same answer were someone to ask me where I had been that afternoon.

I see no need to twist the scripture to satisfy either SOP or biblical answer.

That answer, of course, won't satisfy the person who is twisted in their attitude.

Regards!

[jasd]

>>That answer, of course, won't satisfy the person who is twisted in their attitude.<<

Pejoratives aside, what of the one who seeks answers that most closely reflect, at the least, common sense...?

If it were that there existed other [proto?] humans in the newly created earth (those created by the spoken word versus being formed of dust and receiving the breath of Gd via their nostrils) - than the sense of the simple associative “with her”, as opposed to ‘with them’ – might obtain. However, should the fact remain that

Adam and Eve were the only two people in the entirety of creation -

it would hardly do for the author of Genesis to have indulged in the superfluous “with her” should he have intended to convey that Adam was simply somewhere or t’other in the Garden or earth. That is, should they have been the only two in the entirety of creation, “with her” would have been a moot expression.

"locative, locative, locative" --your friendly real estate agent

[Woody]

Yes CoA ... interesting.

Over the years ... I have seen all kinds of convoluted theories when people try at all costs to defend each and every statement of EGW. But, they neglect the ones that says we are to compare each of her statements to the Bible and that the Bible is our only creed.

I believe EGW to be our prophet. But, I do not have to believe each and every word she ever spoke ... like some here are trying to do.

[Tom Wetmore]

And the silliness is that this is not even an original thought from EGW, as has already been pointed out. Centuries earlier, church theologians had postulated the notion of the weak vulnerable woman wandering away and that the strong male protector Adam must not have been anywhere near to easily see through the deception of Eve. Milton's Paradise Lost really embellishes this idea.

But this whole idea was really originated by the Catholic Church during the Dark Ages. (Care to defend more Catholic theology!?!?) It was all a part of the theological misogyny that decided that women were inferior and agents leading men into sin. In contrast the earliest Christian artwork, before all this theological misogyny gained a foothold in the Church, showed both Adam and Eve together at the tree, just as Scripture states it. EGW is just picking up and restating long held Church tradition on this whole story.

Tom

[Woody]

It's funny that we as SDAs talk so bad about traditions ... yet we clearly do have them ourselves.

[LifeHiscost]

Wouldn't it be something if SDA's had picked up and assumed some Catholic theology on this matter!

Not to open a can of worms but___Aww, why not, as might be ascribed to the trinity theology.

Regards!

[Robert]

It is obvious that when it refers to his being "with her," it is not talking about his being by her side when she was conversing with the devil. It is saying that she gave some of the fruit to her companion.

Adam could have been just out of hearing range. After all, if Adam could have warned her I'm sure that the serpent was being very discrete.

Rob

[John317]

Tom, political correctness or our personal prejudices against a particular view of women is no reason to reject what the Bible says. What it comes down to is the Bible evidence and the Spirit of Prophecy. Ellen White's statements are supported by the Bible evidence.

It's not a matter of blaming women. I don't blame women. If Eve had sinned but Adam hadn't, mankind wouldn't have fallen. So it is really all Adam's fault just like Romans 5 says. Adam should have done what he knew to be right. Instead he gave in to his passions for the woman, and this continues to be a major problem for men.

If you think it is anti-woman to believe that Adam was elsewhere while Eve was being tempted, that is your choice, but it is no reason to ignore the evidence. That's ignoring the truth because you don't like it, which is no basis for accepting or rejecting a viewpoint.

We need to go strictly by reason and evidence, not emotion or for reasons like political correctness or how we think it reflects on Adam or Eve.

Stick with the Bible text.

Let's use some reasoning.

Why would Eve need to pick the fruit and give it to Adam if he'd been there beside her near the tree the whole time?

And Satan says nothing to Adam? And Adam says nothing to either Eve or Satan? Yet Adam knows Eve is being tricked. He sees she is unwittingly about ready to commit suicide. He's going to lose this woman whom He loves as much as he loves himself, but he says absolutely nothing.

There are a number of other good reasons that show Adam was not with Eve at the time of the temptation or when she took her first bite of the fruit.

For instance, Adam doesn't blame the serpent, or Satan. He blames Eve. That shows that Adam wasn't tempted by Satan. It was Eve who was tempted by Satan. Adam was only tempted by Eve. We couldn't say that if Adam was there at the Tree the whole time.

Another thing in the text that shows Eve was tempted when by herself is the fact that Eve says, "The serpent deceived ME." The most natural thing for her to have said if both were at the tree, is, "The serpent deceived US." But she shows she agrees with Paul, who said that Adam was not deceived.

Thirdly, God reprimanded Adam for listening to his wife, not for listening to Satan.

The phrase, "she gave some to her husband with her," doesn't mean that he was with her at the time of the temptation. If that was the meaning, it would be a tautology. That would be like saying "she gave some to her husband who was close enough to her so that she could hand it to him." The fact that he was with her when she gave it to him is a given. How else would she give it to him?

So the statement that "he was with her" is a reference to the fact that he was her companion in the garden, not that he was beside her at the time she handed him the fruit or when she was being tempted.

There is absolutely no reason to think that the Spirit of Prophecy inspired Ellen White to merely copy the false ideas of tradition. This has nothing to do with tradition. I don't appeal to tradition or to the Catholic church. Those things are irrelevant. There are good reasons for writers such as John Milton to say what he did. They're to be found solely within the text.

[John317]

Originally Posted By: John317

It is obvious that when it refers to his being "with her," it is not talking about his being by her side when she was conversing with the devil. It is saying that she gave some of the fruit to her companion.

Adam could have been just out of hearing range. After all, if Adam could have warned her I'm sure that the serpent was being very discrete.

Rob

I agree. But if he was out of hearing range, he could have just as well been hundreds of feet away. His hearing had to be acute, so we're not to imagine he was close enough to hear that she was talking to herself or to a piece of fruit. After all, he'd had all day to observe the animals and know their ways sufficiently well enough to realize they don't talk.