Adam hearkened. DR

[Benadam]

In the DR bible Adam’s punishment is for; "And to Adam he said: Because thou hast hearkened to the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, "

Hi, I’m hoping for some scholarly help.

Can anyone give me nuance that may be attached to Adam’s hearkening to Eve’s voice in Genesis? Is the Hebrew wording accurately translated or is what we have the closest meaning yet missing some ?

**Thanks **

Peace

 

[Jason_W]

In the DR bible Adam’s punishment is for; "And to Adam he said: Because thou hast hearkened to the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, "

Hi, I’m hoping for some scholarly help.

Can anyone give me nuance that may be attached to Adam’s hearkening to Eve’s voice in Genesis? Is the Hebrew wording accurately translated or is what we have the closest meaning yet missing some ?

**Thanks **

Peace

well im no scholar but the rsv states And to Adam he said, "Because you have listened to the voice of your wife, and have eaten of the tree of which I commanded you.

It seems Adam was punished for listening to the voice of his wife and she was punished for listening to the voice of the serpent, instead of listening to Gods voice.

 

[Jimdandy]

Adam listened to his wife and felt compelled to do as she asked instead of reminding his wife that God had forbidden them access to that fruit for their own good.

In his desire to please his wife, he failed God, failed his wife and failed himself.

 

[puzzleannie]

In **Can anyone give me nuance that may be attached to Adam’s hearkening to Eve’s voice in Genesis? **

the last time a husband actually listened to his wife and did what she said, so naturally men from that time on have tended to ignore what their wife says?

seriously it seems the nuance is clear in the English word hearken or harken, which means to not only hear, but to really listen and to respond to the message.

I have heard in preaching that Adam as the husband was intended to guide his wife and be the leader in protecting their relationship with God (ie their marriage) and by allowing the serpent to influence his wife and failing to protect her agains the evil one’s message, he failed in his primary duty toward her, and that comprised his sin.

 

[jmeyer3131]

the last time a husband actually listened to his wife and did what she said, so naturally men from that time on have tended to ignore what their wife says?

Thank you. You had no idea how much I needed a laugh today.

 

[puzzleannie]

as you probably know by now, I am no bible scholar so I have no business even posting on this forum, but I do think the bible speaks directly to our experience today

 

[jmeyer3131]

as you probably know by now, I am no bible scholar so I have no business even posting on this forum, but I do think the bible speaks directly to our experience today

I’m no Bible scholar either. I’m just glad you decided to post today.

 

[Benadam]

Thanks everyone. I was wondering if the deception of the serpent could be implied by the word used by the author. If what Adam listened to was what the serpent told Eve.

 

[Jason_W]

Thanks everyone. I was wondering if the deception of the serpent could be implied by the word used by the author. If what Adam listened to was what the serpent told Eve.

i see what you mean. the scripture isnt very clear on whether or not Adam was tempted to become " like God" but at the same time it in no way implys he didnt know. based on the info given in the scripture i would lean towards the belief that Eve indeed told Adam they would be like God if they ate of the fruit. we know for sure both disobyed the commandment of God.

 

[Benadam]

you make a good point. I have read that Adam wanted to be like God. That implies that he was deceived. But there is a scripture that states that Adam was not deceived.

 

[rcjones]

you make a good point. I have read that Adam wanted to be like God. That implies that he was deceived. But there is a scripture that states that Adam was not deceived.

Now that you can are starting to use the hermeneutic: ‘harken’ means ‘understand’ and ‘declare’:

08085 emv shama‘ shaw-mah’

a primitive root; ;{ See TWOT on 2412} {See TWOT on 2412 @@ “2412a”}

AV-hear 785, hearken 196, obey 81, publish 17, **understand **9, obedient 8, diligently 8, shew 6, sound 3, **declare **3, discern 2, noise 2, perceive 2, tell 2, reported 2, misc 33; 1159​

This is linked to Gen 3:22 ¶ And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil:

‘To know’ also means ‘declare’:
03045 edy yada‘ yaw-dah’

a primitive root; v; {See TWOT on 848}

AV-know 645, known 105, knowledge 19, perceive 18, shew 17, tell 8, wist 7, understand 7, certainly 7, acknowledge 6, acquaintance 6, consider 6, **declare **6, teach 5, misc 85; 947​

So Adam knew what he was doing and was ‘declaring good and evil’. You could say that he was defining it for himself rather than use Gods definition. This is the essence of his wanting to be like God. We all like to make our own rules, or invent a God who tolerates our particular favorite sin. When we do so, we commit the same original sin and declare our own standard or good and evil.

This is a literal interpretation.

 

[Benadam]

Now that you can are starting to use the hermeneutic: ‘harken’ means ‘understand’ and ‘declare’:

08085 emv shama‘ shaw-mah’

a primitive root; ;{ See TWOT on 2412} {See TWOT on 2412 @@ “2412a”}

AV-hear 785, hearken 196, obey 81, publish 17, **understand **9, obedient 8, diligently 8, shew 6, sound 3, **declare **3, discern 2, noise 2, perceive 2, tell 2, reported 2, misc 33; 1159​

This is linked to Gen 3:22 ¶ And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil:

‘To know’ also means ‘declare’:
03045 edy yada‘ yaw-dah’

a primitive root; v; {See TWOT on 848}

AV-know 645, known 105, knowledge 19, perceive 18, shew 17, tell 8, wist 7, understand 7, certainly 7, acknowledge 6, acquaintance 6, consider 6, **declare **6, teach 5, misc 85; 947​

So Adam knew what he was doing and was ‘declaring good and evil’. You could say that he was defining it for himself rather than use Gods definition. This is the essence of his wanting to be like God. We all like to make our own rules, or invent a God who tolerates our particular favorite sin. When we do so, we commit the same original sin and declare our own standard or good and evil.

This is a literal interpretation.

Thank you.

I needed to know that because I think Genesis reveals that the heirarchy of the transmission of revelation was reversed from God to Adam to Eve to, Satan to Eve to Adam.

This is important to me because I believe that the process of repentence had to be complete before Seth was conceived. The statements made by Eve at the births of Cain and Seth mark the beginning and end of the process of her repentence.

If so, this points to Eve through Cain as the origin of the matriarchal culture that opposes the Patriarchs of Genesis and continues the descent of man into sin.

A common statement used by Jesus and the Apostle in Revelation to signify the ‘prostitute’ is ’ all the blood ever shed on earth is on her hands’.

There are various other ways it is said that don’t include all the blood but limits it to the blood of particular prophets to represent a historical segment I think are meant to assign the measure of culpability of the accused. In Revelation the accused is culpable for all of her crimes since all the blood spilt is on her hands. Notice it doesn’t say she spilled the blood but that the blood spilt is her fault. When Abels blood was spilt that was all the blood ever spilt on earth.

Peace be with you

 

[rcjones]

If so, this points to Eve through Cain as the origin of the matriarchal culture that opposes the Patriarchs of Genesis and continues the descent of man into sin.

You have observed some sort of trend, and have mentioned it a couple times, about the matriarchal culture opposing the patriarchal.

Eve, Rebekah, Rachel and Leah, and Tamar come to mind where one might interpret their actions as being opposed to the patriarchal. although there can be no doubt that God’s will was accomplished through their apparently fleshly actions.

Do you have others in mind, and what is the meaning or conclusions you have drawn?

 

[Benadam]

You have observed some sort of trend, and have mentioned it a couple times, about the matriarchal culture opposing the patriarchal.

Eve, Rebekah, Rachel and Leah, and Tamar come to mind where one might interpret their actions as being opposed to the patriarchal. although there can be no doubt that God’s will was accomplished through their apparently fleshly actions.

Do you have others in mind, and what is the meaning or conclusions you have drawn?

I am describing the origin and history of the primevil matriarch. The origin of the theme you study. Prostitute-bride.

Hosea lived it. It’s a story that has been repeated often in various ways which reveal various aspects of what happened to Adam and Eve. They lived the whole journey. everything up to the Incarnation is human experience within the bounds of their experience. Adam and Eve are the entire theme. Eve is the prostitute -bride.

Anyway knowing the origins and historic path of a thing is knowing it’s current activity within humanity. That spirit’s most powerfull activity is within families. The distorted bonds within families that created the people the author of genesis called the ‘daughters of men’ are duplicated within families today. I believe this is the result of dechristianized people. Having inherited centuries of Christ they enjoy the freedom from law christian culture offers yet steeped in generations of sin their conscience is dead effectively reproducing the psychological environment mentioned in Gen. 6.

 

[Ron_Conte]

I don’t agree with the dictionary approach to interpretation.
Sacred Scripture is inspired, but the dictionary is not.
So one cannot merely look up one word in the dictionary,
even if it is in the so-called original language, and find there
the true meaning of the Scripture. The true meaning is in
the text of Sacred Scripture itself, and that meaning is not
so fragile that it does not survive translation into English
or Latin or any other language.

Read the text in your native language, and you can understand
what God is saying. Any meaning that is exclusive to one language
only, and which is not found in the various translations, is probably
not truly the meaning of the text. Because the truths of Sacred
Scripture are not so tied to any particular language as to be unable
to be expressed except in that one language.

 

[rcjones]

I don’t agree with the dictionary approach to interpretation.
Sacred Scripture is inspired, but the dictionary is not.
So one cannot merely look up one word in the dictionary,
even if it is in the so-called original language, and find there
the true meaning of the Scripture. The true meaning is in
the text of Sacred Scripture itself, and that meaning is not
so fragile that it does not survive translation into English
or Latin or any other language.

Read the text in your native language, and you can understand
what God is saying. Any meaning that is exclusive to one language
only, and which is not found in the various translations, is probably
not truly the meaning of the text. Because the truths of Sacred
Scripture are not so tied to any particular language as to be unable
to be expressed except in that one language.

I see where that approach has an appeal, and I don’t know that I would disagree concerning essential matters. Do you see no value in reading in the original languages?

 

[Benadam]

I don’t agree with the dictionary approach to interpretation.
Sacred Scripture is inspired, but the dictionary is not.
So one cannot merely look up one word in the dictionary,
even if it is in the so-called original language, and find there
the true meaning of the Scripture. The true meaning is in
the text of Sacred Scripture itself, and that meaning is not
so fragile that it does not survive translation into English
or Latin or any other language.

Read the text in your native language, and you can understand
what God is saying. Any meaning that is exclusive to one language
only, and which is not found in the various translations, is probably
not truly the meaning of the text. Because the truths of Sacred
Scripture are not so tied to any particular language as to be unable
to be expressed except in that one language.

I think there would be great value in having the dictionary that defines the words the author used. I believe what is expressed would resonate more deeply within us and universally if the original concepts expressed by the author are understood.

Otherwise a I agree with everything you said. The universality of divine revelation guarantees that it can be communicated effectively in any language since it resonates within the one who receives it.

 

[Benadam]

as you probably know by now, I am no bible scholar so I have no business even posting on this forum, but I do think the bible speaks directly to our experience today

I do too. In fact I believe that is it’s primary purpose.

I find your approach to topics on the forum balanced and well grounded in the faith. That in it’self offers a subjective view that is unique and inherently able to inspire at any level.

 

[rcjones]

I am describing the origin and history of the primevil matriarch. The origin of the theme you study. Prostitute-bride.

I’m not sure we’re thinking the same thing when we say prostitute bride.

I think you’re referring to the rebellious wife who is usurping her husband’s authority. That is an interesting topic in itself.

When I use the term, I am referring to word-play where almost every woman in the bible is painted as a prostitute and as a virgin bride.
This, of course, is a literal impossibility, and it in no way attributes the characteristics to the literal women. The word play paints a picture.

Although the meaning of the shadows is up for discussion, I think the prostitute refers to the flesh and the virgin bride refers to the spirit. So when we are told to put of the old man, it is the same as coming out of mystery Babylon.

I am reminded of an old book called “Bobbed Hair, Bossy Wives, and Women Preachers!” -by Dr. John R. Rice

It was an interesting read, though I think a little overboard.

 

[Benadam]

I’m not sure we’re thinking the same thing when we say prostitute bride.

I think you’re referring to the rebellious wife who is usurping her husband’s authority. That is an interesting topic in itself.

When I use the term, I am referring to word-play where almost every woman in the bible is painted as a prostitute and as a virgin bride.
This, of course, is a literal impossibility, and it in no way attributes the characteristics to the literal women. The word play paints a picture.

Although the meaning of the shadows is up for discussion, I think the prostitute refers to the flesh and the virgin bride refers to the spirit. So when we are told to put of the old man, it is the same as coming out of mystery Babylon.

I am reminded of an old book called “Bobbed Hair, Bossy Wives, and Women Preachers!” -by Dr. John R. Rice

It was an interesting read, though I think a little overboard.

No it’s the same thing. I am studying their original manifestation in Adam and Eve’s life and subsequently in the lives of their decendents. Being that their original manifestation in man is through the archetypes that human gender is bound the very words used to express the theme makes it inhehrently the same thing.

You are finding the shadows of a duality within man that was revealed when the feminine archetype emerged as ‘Woman’. Untill then masculinity was hidden as well. Time and history dawned when Woman became prostitute. For Seth to be born the prostitute -bride process of repentence was complete. That process lived by Eve and Adam is echoed in the lives of their decendents. You are picking up on what could be the most sublime manifestations that we can apprehend. Through the lense Christ offers they are given their true object.