God's Design for Man and Woman

[doug yowell]

Are the following true statements or false?

Feel free to answer them any way you believe.

companion to take the place of Eve.

6) Sin came upon all mankind through the sin of one man.

THis question is the prince/pauper of question #4. It is somewhat redundant as the answer to it has been already explained by the answer to #4.Yes on #6.

[John317]

Many Christians and Jews have believed on the basis of the Bible narrative that Eve was alone at the tree. So it has nothing to do with Ellen White. The great poet, John Milton, never heard of Ellen White, yet he wrote that Eve was alone at the tree. Many great Bible commentators have made the same conclusion.

Originally Posted By: Musicman1228

....I don't care a wit what EGW and a 'great many Bible commentators' have concluded; all I care about is what that particular Scripture literally says.

But you want us to care what you say, right?

Since you dismiss so easily what everyone else says, how can you logically ask us to consider what you say? Where's the sense in that?

The thing that's important is not who believes what, but the reasons people can give for their beliefs-- whether it is valid reasoning in the Scriptures. That's what counts. I think in this case, the most reasonable and most biblical explanation is the one believed in by John Milton and Ellen White. Some of the reasons are given on the previous posts.

[doug yowell]

Are the following true statements or false?

Feel free to answer them any way you believe.

7) After sin, God made woman the head of the man.

Many women act as if the answer to this question is true ("your desire shall be towards your husband...") and many others (both men and women)view the idea of "headship" as being descriptive rather than perscriptive. God's declaration immediately following mankind's fall is that ..."he shall rule over you". Inspiration validates that authority line in I Cor.11:3-10, I Pet. 3:1,5,6, I Tim.2:11-15 and other texts.So there is no other valid Biblical answer than no to #7.(Exploring the purpose and meaning of headship is a good future question to explore.)

[doug yowell]

[John317]

....God unobfuscatingly tells Adam (and the rest of humanity) that the reason he (and the rest of humanity)is being punished/cursed is because "you have heeded the voice of your wife, and (you)have eaten from the tree..." not "because you allowed your wife to heed the voice of the serpent and eat of the tree". Are you willing to accept the Scripture as it reads?

A most excellent point. God tells Adam directly that he had listened to the voice of his wife. God does not tell Adam that he listened to the voice of the serpent. Nor does Adam blame the serpent in any way. Rather, Adam blames his wife.

How can we explain this if Adam had indeed listened to the voice of the serpent?

Moreover, Eve strangely does not blame Adam, which she clearly would have had every reason to, if indeed Adam had stood by like a dumb dog and didn't even bark while she was being led as a lamb to the slaughter.

After all the Bible is very clear that Adam was not deceived but Eve was. Which can only mean that Adam ate the fruit with his eyes wide open and knowing the true identify of the One who tempted Eve.

God does not blame Adam for standing by passively and stupidly while listening to the temptation and watching Eve eat the fruit without raising a voice of warning. Doesn't it seem very strange that God didn't even mention this terribly significant failure on Adam's part?

I would think, at the very least, that God would have asked Adam why he stood without uttering a word while he knew his beloved wife was on the point of committing suicide?

What explanation can anyone offer for this, assuming that Adam was with Eve during the entire temptation? Was Adam perhaps in a daze or hypnotic state?

[John317]

...8) In the Garden the woman was to protect the man.

False. The Bible says nothing about "protection". Eve's purpose was to help Adam RULE the creation. Genesis 1:28, Genesis 2:18, 22-23.

SoP may say TRUE.

I think the question again is irrelevant. Adam should have been able to stand for God regardless of whether Eve was there or not. This implies some weakness in Adam and casts Adam as not actually being fit to RULE as God commanded Adam to do. It also implies that God did not make Adam perfect as the Scripture asserts Adam was.

As the story turns out it was Eve who needed the protection. Either Adam fell down on his duty to protect his wife or she indeed on her own proved too weak. Given her weakness how then could she logically protect Adam.

SoP actually says Adam was to protect Eve in the Garden. WE could deduce this from the story.

That is, Adam had the responsibility of protecting Eve against the tempter. For one thing, Adam knew more about life and about the garden since God had instructed him directly about the animals and about the tempter.

You're right that Adam fell down on his duty.

He allowed Eve to take over his position of teacher and protector.The roles that God had ordained for man and woman were reversed. He became the passive partner and she became the active agent in teaching and temping him. Notice that Adam was seduced by means of his love of Eve's beauty. Because of his love of her, he fell for Satan's lies, casting away all reason in order to fulfill his forbidden desires.

[John317]

I agree. #7 appears clearly on the basis of other Scripture to be a big fat no-no.

[doug yowell]

Was Adam perhaps in a daze or hypnotic state?

Only if he thought that he had actually misinterpreted the passage in Gen. 3.

[John317]

Originally Posted By: John317

Are the following true statements or false?

Feel free to answer them any way you believe.

companion to take the place of Eve.

6) Sin came upon all mankind through the sin of one man.

THis question is the prince/pauper of question #4. It is somewhat redundant as the answer to it has been already explained by the answer to #4.Yes on #6.

Yes, you're right: it is somewhat redundant because it approaches the same issue-- that of how sin was transferred to mankind--from a different perspective.

[John317]

Yep!! Yip yip, hurrah. :-)

[skyblue888]

Did anyone mention the fact that Eve disobeyed the command to stay close to Adam's side?

I may have missed this.

sky

[doug yowell]

Originally Posted By: miz3

...8) In the Garden the woman was to protect the man.

I think the question again is irrelevant. Adam should have been able to stand for God regardless of whether Eve was there or not. This implies some weakness in Adam and casts Adam as not actually being fit to RULE as God commanded Adam to do. It also implies that God did not make Adam perfect as the Scripture asserts Adam was.

As the story turns out it was Eve who needed the protection. Either Adam fell down on his duty to protect his wife or she indeed on her own proved too weak. Given her weakness how then could she logically protect Adam.

I don't agree with the irrelevant part. Protection of the "weaker sex" is an integral part of the male makeup. Given the contemporary push to erradicate any role distinctions between men and women both in and out of the Church of God, the question opens up the doors to understanding the original design that God intended for those created in His image.The unspoken idea is that women no longer need men's protection but that she can do just as good a job as he can of protecting herself and him if necessary.Surely there were inherent possibilities within the perfect human race to be deceived or succumb to one's own self-preserving desires. The original design included differences in the sexes that became weaknesses when God's directions were ignored. As you noted, it was Eve who needed protection from being deceived which would indicate a violation of her designed role,while Adam exibited no proclivity to deception.I think this to be an important point due to the insistence by those who argue that the original design saw no "headship" role but rather an all inclusive system of whoever felt led.

[doug yowell]

Did anyone mention the fact that Eve disobeyed the command to stay close to Adam's side?

I may have missed this.

sky

You did. I think it's been mentioned on several occasions as EGW's addition to the story, though I don't think it originated with her.

[miz3]

Originally Posted By: miz3

...8) In the Garden the woman was to protect the man.

I think the question again is irrelevant. Adam should have been able to stand for God regardless of whether Eve was there or not. This implies some weakness in Adam and casts Adam as not actually being fit to RULE as God commanded Adam to do. It also implies that God did not make Adam perfect as the Scripture asserts Adam was.

As the story turns out it was Eve who needed the protection. Either Adam fell down on his duty to protect his wife or she indeed on her own proved too weak. Given her weakness how then could she logically protect Adam.

I don't agree with the irrelevant part. Protection of the "weaker sex" is an integral part of the male makeup. Given the contemporary push to erradicate any role distinctions between men and women both in and out of the Church of God, the question opens up the doors to understanding the original design that God intended for those created in His image.The unspoken idea is that women no longer need men's protection but that she can do just as good a job as he can of protecting herself and him if necessary.Surely there were inherent possibilities within the perfect human race to be deceived or succumb to one's own self-preserving desires. The original design included differences in the sexes that became weaknesses when God's directions were ignored. As you noted, it was Eve who needed protection from being deceived which would indicate a violation of her designed role,while Adam exibited no proclivity to deception.I think this to be an important point due to the insistence by those who argue that the original design saw no "headship" role but rather an all inclusive system of whoever felt led.

Good point Doug.

The word irrelevant should not have been used.

I should have just plain said that the statement is wrong and then kept my explanation as it was.

[John317]

....

3) Eve was alone at the tree at the time she was tempted and ate of the forbidden fruit.

[John317]

Did anyone mention the fact that Eve disobeyed the command to stay close to Adam's side?

Yes, it is question number 11, which several have agreed is true:

12) Eve was given specific instructions not to leave Adam's side because it would be easier for her to Fall for Satan's temptations if she were alone.

[skyblue888]

Ha okay, obviously I had missed that.

sky

[doug yowell]

OK, we know it was absolutely impossible for Adam to have been away from her when she gave him the fruit. He had to be within arms' length of Eve when she handed Adam the fruit. There was no mail and no Fedex. So it's an established fact that the man and his woman were somewhere together when he received and ate the fruit.

Somewhere together does not necessitate within an arm's length. I think the Bible has given us here an important insight into the real origin of either baseball or football's forward pass, depending on your interpretation.

[miz3]

OK, we know it was absolutely impossible for Adam to have been away from her when she gave him the fruit. He had to be within arms' length of Eve when she handed Adam the fruit. There was no mail and no Fedex. So it's an established fact that the man and his woman were somewhere together when he received and ate the fruit.

Actually the Bible statement does not make it necessary for Adam to be with Eve at the tree. "Her husband with her" may well simply be saying that she gave some to the companion that God made to be with her in the Garden. In other words, there's no reason to suppose that "with her" is a reference to geographical location. The context certainly give us good reason to believe that he was not standing at her side when she was being tempted by the talking snake. Surely Adam knew that God had not introduced him to any such animals. Therefore if he was listen to Eve converse with a snake, why would Adam not have warned her that something was not quite right here?

Agreed, Adam was with Eve within touching distance when she gave Adam the fruit. Wherever "that" is?

Because Genesis puts Eve eating the fruit in one sentence and giving the fruit to Adam in another sentence I tend to believe that the two incidents took place in two different parts of the garden. However, just reading the Bible only does not make this thinking automatically correct. Nor does it make this thinking automatically wrong.

This is why I say it is fuzzy. Ultimately, either way I think Adam is most assuredly a "dumb dog" and because we inherit such genes from him we also have a history that says "dumb dog".

If someone wants to read the Bible differently in this case than I do, I don't think that is critical to the ultimate outcome. To me a "dumb dog" is capable of doing any "dumb" thing including "watching unmoved while his wife is raped". Why the "dumb dog" does this clearly is not rational. In fact such "dumb dog" activities are never rational.

SIN IS NEVER RATIONAL!

Thus, since in the course of "sin" whether Adam watched "dumb doggedly" through the whole stupid thing or Adam only "dumb doggedly" ate at Eve's invitation to me is irrelevant because none of those behaviors is RATIONAL.

When "sin" is committed either by active means or passive means it is never rational. Our "dumb dog" by definition will never act or behave in a "rational way".

If we use the Bible and the Bible only I am satisfied with whatever a person wishes to believe concerning this because it does not change the ultimate outcome.

For those who believe one way or the other based on "other sources" that is fine also because if those none Biblical sources settle the question for them that is fine.

Like I said I believe SoP settles the issue with certain finality and that is fine. Thus, I see no need to dispute this particular issue.

[miz3]

Can you not see any difference between Adam not saying much after Eve ate the fruit, and his not saying much while she was being tempted and BEFORE she ate it and while he still had opportunity to warn her?

I see a huge difference there.

It would be like someone saying there is no difference between the man who watches silently while another man seduces and rapes his wife, and the man who learns of the rape later and then stands silently.

Are these equivalent in your mind's eye?

They may not be "equivalent" but they are indeed "degrees" of "dumb doggedness".

When a person "sins" the sin may not be equivalent in "outcome" and "consequences" however "sin is sin" and you are just as lost regardless of the "equivalency issue".

Thus, the outcome is the same. This is what I am talking about.

Regardless to what degree Adam was a "dumb dog" to me is not vital. What is vital is that either way we look at it Adam was a "dumb dog" and the consequences or outcome is the same either way.

[olger]

I am surprised that "helicopter" isn't in here posting.

Anyway,

`oG

[phkrause]

I am surprised that "helicopter" isn't in here posting.

`oG

huh?

[John317]

I am surprised that "helicopter" isn't in here posting.

Anyway....

LOL

[John317]

olger, it says your PMs are full. :-(

[John317]

Based on the assumption that Adam was at Eve's side and heard every word that passed between his beloved wife and the snake, please give us a description of what you believe was going on in Adam's mind while he stood like a dumb dog listening, watching, and thinking.

Remember that at this point, Adam was a perfect man and his brain had great reasoning powers, having just come from the Creator's hands.