Apples 'n Stuff

Dave F. said:
I just went back and read Genesis 3 again and it does not say Adam was with her, only that she gave him the fruit to eat.
Click to expand...
Perhaps it's a translation issue. Here is what I see in Genesis 3:6

6 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,[a] she took of its fruit and ate, and she also gave some to her husband who was with her, and he ate. (ESV)

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)

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. (AKJV)

Any Biblical scholars out there who can shed light on this phrase?
 
LearningToLetGo said:
Perhaps it's a translation issue. Here is what I see in Genesis 3:6

6 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,[a] she took of its fruit and ate, and she also gave some to her husband who was with her, and he ate. (ESV)

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)

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. (AKJV)

Any Biblical scholars out there who can shed light on this phrase?
Click to expand...
What happened to Eve is the same thing John describes in 1 John 2:16......
" the lust of the flesh,(1) the lust of the eyes(2), and the pride of life".(3)

The tree's fruit could satisfy her body's appetite for food,(1) the tree was visually attractive(2) , and the tree could make her wise.(3)
(Flesh) (Eyes) (Pride)
I am not a Bible scholar and I don't know if there is an answer to your question. I will however say some people willingly engage with temptation and dive into sin; some let others make that decision for them. Some follow the crowd instead of standing up for what they know is right.

But it does not mattter as both Adam And Eve were guility as the rest of chapter 3 verifies.

Now.........If Eve only had eaten of the forbidden fruit, it could only have personally affected herself, and she only would have died; and had this been the case, God would have formed another woman for Adam, for the propagation of mankind, had he stood; though since he fell as well as she, it is needless to inquire, and may seem too bold to say what otherwise would have been the case.

Conjecture will may your hair fall out!!!!!!!
 
LearningToLetGo said:
Perhaps it's a translation issue. Here is what I see in Genesis 3:6

6 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,[a] she took of its fruit and ate, and she also gave some to her husband who was with her, and he ate. (ESV)

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)

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. (AKJV)

Any Biblical scholars out there who can shed light on this phrase?
Click to expand...
LTLG, that lays out a pretty convincing case, so I repent in sackcloth and ashes for questioning Adam's presence.
I have heard it said that Adam out of love for Eve, took the plunge and ate as well as Eve, thus a fore-type of Christ's love for His Church. Again, speculation but interesting.
 
crossnote said:
LTLG, that lays out a pretty convincing case, so I repent in sackcloth and ashes for questioning Adam's presence.
Click to expand...
LOL. I thank you but there is no need for that. :)

I have pondered Genesis 3 for way too many hours over the years. Part of me sees it as a fantastic metaphor for consciousness as compared to animalness, in other words: what separates us from the beasts. Another part of me sees it as a literal and historical event. However someone sees this, it has great and often under appreciated significance and is worthy of deep (some would say "rabbit hole" ;)) exploration.

Once upon a time my wife fell prey to a con artist. Now my wife is a level headed woman and not prone to doing anything exceptionally off the wall, yet one time she was conned into giving ten thousand dollars cash to a complete stranger that she had literally just met an hour before. Lookup something called "Pigeon Drop" if you are curious. Anyhow, after it was done and the strangers had left with her cash she called me in tears. She felt so stupid! She was shaking with guilt and doubt. Now, this is a very minor event compared to how the serpent manipulated Eve. Nonetheless I am sure Eve was horribly distraught and filled with guilt, as I am sure was Adam. It's for this reason I can't blame her for her actions. If anything, I feel great compassion and sympathy for Eve.

Adam and Eve were like children. They were naive, had never known deceit, and were fully incapable of detecting a lie. In other words they had no defense against the serpent and the serpent knew this. He took advantage of them. They were the greatest victims of all time, conned into bringing sin into the world and damning all mankind. And yet, is there a single person on this planet who would trade his awareness of good and evil to return to the animal state of old?
 
Last edited:
LearningToLetGo said:
LOL. I thank you but there is no need for that. :)

I have pondered Genesis 3 for way too many hours over the years. Part of me sees it as a fantastic metaphor for consciousness as compared to animalness, in other words: what separates us from the beasts. Another part of me sees it as a literal and historical event. However someone sees this, it has great and often under appreciated significance and is worthy of deep (some would say "rabbit hole" ;)) exploration.

Once upon a time my wife fell prey to a con artist. Now my wife is a level headed woman and not prone to doing anything exceptionally off the wall, yet one time she was conned into giving ten thousand dollars cash to a complete stranger that she had literally just met an hour before. Lookup something called "Pigeon Drop" if you are curious. Anyhow, after it was done and the strangers had left with her cash she called me in tears. She felt so stupid! She was shaking with guilt and doubt. Now, this is a very minor event compared to how the serpent manipulated Eve. Nonetheless I am sure Eve was horribly distraught and filled with guilt, as I am sure was Adam. It's for this reason I can't blame her for her actions. If anything, I feel great compassion and sympathy for Eve.

Adam and Eve were like children. They were naive, had never known deceit, and were fully incapable of detecting a lie. In other words they had no defense against the serpent and the serpent knew this. He took advantage of them. They were the greatest victims of all time, conned into bringing sin into the world and damning all mankind. And yet, is there a single person on this planet who would trade his awareness of good and evil to return to the animal state of old?
Click to expand...
I am more of a literalist when it comes to the early chapters of Genesis and I believe Genesis 3 is anything but a metaphor. It yields tremendous insights into man's current state of affairs, to be ignored or 'metaphorized' at one's own peril.
Although both man's and animals' bodies were formed from the dust of the ground, only into man did God breathe the breath of life and man became a living soul/being,(Gen 2:7) so I don't think A&E were in a animal state before they acquired the knowledge of good and evil. IMHO
 
crossnote said:
LTLG, that lays out a pretty convincing case, so I repent in sackcloth and ashes for questioning Adam's presence.
I have heard it said that Adam out of love for Eve, took the plunge and ate as well as Eve, thus a fore-type of Christ's love for His Church. Again, speculation but interesting.
Click to expand...
I have heard similar crossnote that he loved Eve so much he did not want her to die without him. He did not want to live without her and did not thnk of God making another mate for him.
 
crossnote said:
LTLG, that lays out a pretty convincing case, so I repent in sackcloth and ashes for questioning Adam's presence.
I have heard it said that Adam out of love for Eve, took the plunge and ate as well as Eve, thus a fore-type of Christ's love for His Church. Again, speculation but interesting.
Click to expand...

CN, WOW! It's been a looooong time since I heard that one. Sure brings back a flood of memories from Theological Cemetery. (snicker, snort)

Like you, I had heard that one as well. So, dare we meander through the myriads of wild wabbits hopping around here, originating from all the wabbit holes dug into the soil of this topic, the Genesis account leaves us with one glaring reality, and that being Adam.

It's hard for me to imagine that Adam was in proximity to that exchange between Eve and the serpent, mainly because that would mean that Adam too was deceived into utter silence, and the text makes no such charge against him. It's a pretty sure bet that had Adam heard that exchange, and kept his silence through and after it was complete, and watched Eve eat the fruit in silence, then it can be reasonably claimed that Adam too was deceived, which would upset all the order within the family and the Church of which Paul spoke on the basis of who was deceived, and who was disobedient.

I have a hard, fast rule for Hermeneutics...read not only what the test says, but also consider what it does NO say in relation to all the speculations and injections many out there are prone to make.

Genesis 3:6 does not say that Eve told Adam where the fruit came from, but it's a pretty sure bet she did since Adam was NOT in ear-shot to that exchange, and that she had already eaten of it, although the text, again, doesn't go into those other details I'm injecting into this on the basis of reason.

So, in the final analysis, we must read what is stated, read between the lines from the basis of an understanding derived from a systematic knowledge of the Bible in its entirety. That's not to say that I'm trying to turn off the spigot of fun that's spattering all manner of wild assertions and analysis. Wabbits are kind of cute, so let them hippity-hop about in their cuteness... :p 🐰

MM
 
Last edited:
Musicmaster said:
Like you, I had heard that one as well. So, dare we meander through the myriads of wild wabbits hopping around here, originating from all the wabbit holes dug into the soil of this topic, the Genesis account leaves us with one glaring reality, and that being Adam.
Click to expand...
Right, so what's yer 'wabbit'?

As to the rest of the post, as LTLG pointed out...

Genesis 3:6 ESV
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.

Genesis 3:6 NASB95
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 desirable to make one wise, she took from its fruit and ate; and she gave also to her husband with her, and he ate.

Perhaps these two versions are adding to the text, then it wouldn't be my sloppy hermeneutics but sleight of hand translating by the translating committees, who btw have a better grasp of the Hebrew text than either one of us.

According to these translations, Adam knew exactly where the fruit came from, as he was with Eve at the time, so no wabbits allowed.
 
crossnote said:
Right, so what's yer 'wabbit'?

As to the rest of the post, as LTLG pointed out...

Genesis 3:6 ESV
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.

Genesis 3:6 NASB95
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 desirable to make one wise, she took from its fruit and ate; and she gave also to her husband with her, and he ate.

Perhaps these two versions are adding to the text, then it wouldn't be my sloppy hermeneutics but sleight of hand translating by the translating committees, who btw have a better grasp of the Hebrew text than either one of us.

According to these translations, Adam knew exactly where the fruit came from, as he was with Eve at the time, so no wabbits allowed.
Click to expand...

So, given your statements above, would you agree that we can then surmise that Paul was dead wrong in saying the following:

1 Timothy 2:14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression.

For Adam to have kept his silence if he was indeed in close proximity, and therefore privy to the conversation between Eve and the serpent, something very strange would have had to be going through his head for him to have kept his silence in that exchange; either that, or he was such a woos, with no spine, that he didn't have the courage to stand up to what he saw and heard going on. That would almost suggest that he wanted to die.

What are your thoughts?

MM
 
It is all in the question the devil asked as to why Adam was silent (unless he was scared of a talking serpent). This is just my thoughts and opinion as expressed in post #16.
 
Here is the reason I call into question the broadening of some key words to place people, events and results where they don't belong:

Genesis 2:17 "but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die."

Did they die that day, as the text seems to state? No, therefore it's equally problematic to assume a broadening of the meaning in the following as also encompassing the idea that Adam was right there listening in on, and yet remaining silent diring the exchange between Eve and the serpent:

Genesis 3:6 So when the woman saw that the tree [was] good for food, that it [was] pleasant to the eyes, and a tree desirable to make [one] wise, she took of its fruit and ate. She also gave to her husband with her, and he ate.

Where it's true that Adam was with her in the garden, in the same locale, that doesn't mean he was in earshot of the serpent's voice and conversation with Eve.

To assume that he was right there, within earshot of the conversation, leads one to try and understand why he would have remained silent, which leaves us with only a hand full of possibilities:

* Adam had a death wish, and wanted to die
* Adam was deceived, thus making Paul a liar
* Adam wanted some excuse to eat that fruit as well, which, again, is a deception given what the Lord said to him directly
* Adam was a woos, and therefore too afraid to correct his wife in light of the serpent's reasonings, seeing that she was in favor of the serpent's words
* Adam remained silent for some other reason we can't even begin to fathom.

MM
 
Musicmaster said:
So, given your statements above, would you agree that we can then surmise that Paul was dead wrong in saying the following:

1 Timothy 2:14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression.

For Adam to have kept his silence if he was indeed in close proximity, and therefore privy to the conversation between Eve and the serpent, something very strange would have had to be going through his head for him to have kept his silence in that exchange; either that, or he was such a woos, with no spine, that he didn't have the courage to stand up to what he saw and heard going on. That would almost suggest that he wanted to die.

What are your thoughts?

MM
Click to expand...
Here are 4 translations..

Genesis 3:6 NASB95
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 desirable to make one wise, she took from its fruit and ate; and she gave also to her husband with her, and he ate.

Genesis 3:6 ESV
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.

Genesis 3:6 KJV
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.

Genesis 3:6 NLT
The woman was convinced. She saw that the tree was beautiful and its fruit looked delicious, and she wanted the wisdom it would give her. So she took some of the fruit and ate it. Then she gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it, too.

I try not to read into or go beyond the text, pitting Moses against Paul.
 
Musicmaster said:
Genesis 2:17 "but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die."

Did they die that day, as the text seems to state? No
Click to expand...
Who is to say how long it takes to die? Perhaps the process of dying for Adam began that day and just took many years to complete. After all, from a certain point of view we all begin to die the very moment we are conceived.
 
LearningToLetGo said:
Who is to say how long it takes to die? Perhaps the process of dying for Adam began that day and just took many years to complete. After all, from a certain point of view we all begin to die the very moment we are conceived.
Click to expand...
Plus it appears that A&E spiriual death was immediate, evidenced by their hiding from God (v.8); fear of God (v10);and blame-shifting (v.12); .
 
A woman without her man is nothing.
One principle of hermeneutics is reading the text as it is to determine meaning. The above comment reflects the same situation found by translators because original language manuscripts lack punctuation marks.
So, now, how is the meaning of the sentence determined?
Is it "a woman, without her man, is nothing" or is it "a woman, without her, man is nothing"?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top