Adam's Choice to Remain with Eve--The keeping of a commandment and blessing.

[ParkerD]

If you don’t believe in the fall of man, or that it lead the human race into “eternal fire”, then why do we need Christ? What exactly was the effect of the fall? (Hint: Separation from God = “eternal fire”.)

Why is it so difficult to believe that God’s instruction was perfect and there was no need to disobey Him? It’s a matter of trust and something we all struggle with to some degree. That’s the problem. We need to learn to trust Him. Completely.

Truthsilence,
Thanks for your thoughtful comments and questions.

The fall of man certainly did happen, as Paul taught, and it led to estrangement from God until the point in time that any person who is in a “fallen state” of separation from God and from God’s grace, repents and receives the atoning grace of Christ’s mercy.

I agree that without Christ, humankind would have been eternally separated and estranged from God, which is why we do need Christ.

My point has been that Adam trusted God, and Eve trusted God but also wanted knowledge because she perceived there was more to life than they were experiencing. Then Adam faced a dilemma about which commandment to break.

They still trusted God after their fall. They were redeemed from the Fall, by Christ, through His atoning grace.

Peace to you and all.

 

[larkin31]

Truthsilence,
Thanks for your thoughtful comments and questions.

The fall of man certainly did happen, as Paul taught, and it led to estrangement from God until the point in time that any person who is in a “fallen state” of separation from God and from God’s grace, repents and receives the atoning grace of Christ’s mercy.

I agree that without Christ, humankind would have been eternally separated and estranged from God, which is why we do need Christ…

Moses was “eternally and separated from God and from God’s grace”? Abraham was? Job was? Daniel was? Jeremiah was? Esther was? Sarah was? Noah was?

Honest, god-fearing Jews were to be “eternally separated from God’s grace” if the Christ was not going to come? I have never heard such a claim.

 

[Jay53]

Just curious:

What do you think would have been God’s response to Adam if, instead of eating the fruit from Eve, he had turned to God and told him that he was confused, didn’t want to disobey Him as Eve had just done, didn’t know what to do and needed guidance?

 

[ParkerD]

Moses was “eternally and separated from God and from God’s grace”? Abraham was? Job was? Daniel was? Jeremiah was? Esther was? Sarah was? Noah was?

Honest, god-fearing Jews were to be “eternally separated from God’s grace” if the Christ was not going to come? I have never heard such a claim.

Larkin31,
Yes, that is what Isaiah 53 is all about.

Note also that all those you noted, and Adam and Eve, were redeemed from the Fall, by Christ, through His atoning grace and through their repentance and sanctification. They were brought back into a condition where they could receive guidance from God and could feel His influence and blessings in their lives.

This would be why Eve said she had “gotten a man from the Lord.” (Genesis 4:1) She was a covenant believer at that point, and had felt the effect of Christ’s redemption and grace in her life. The prophets and the righteous Jews and house of Israel, God’s covenant people of the Old Testament times, also felt the effect of the grace of the Messiah, Whose coming to the earth was promised.

 

[ParkerD]

Just curious:

What do you think would have been God’s response to Adam if, instead of eating the fruit from Eve, he had turned to God and told him that he was confused, didn’t want to disobey Him as Eve had just done, didn’t know what to do and needed guidance?

Jay53,
That is a fantastic question. I had noted that one can assume Adam felt he needed to make a “quick decision” since he knew the ramifications of what Eve had done. Maybe he didn’t think he could wait for an answer, or maybe he thought God wanted him to make his own choice–the beginning of wisdom.

 

[Jay53]

Jay53,
That is a fantastic question. I had noted that one can assume Adam felt he needed to make a “quick decision” since he knew the ramifications of what Eve had done. Maybe he didn’t think he could wait for an answer, or maybe he thought God wanted him to make his own choice–the beginning of wisdom.

OK. I don’t know why one would assume that he had to make a “quick decision”, though. What was the rush? (He had to hurry and eat the apple before it turned brown? ) Unless you’re thinking that he thought Eve was going to drop dead right before his eyes - but clearly that didn’t happen.

 

[Jay53]

OK. Other foot:

What would have been God’s response to Adam if he had chosen opposite - to NOT eat the fruit and simply obey that commandment?

 

[truthsilence]

Truthsilence,
Thanks for your thoughtful comments and questions.

The fall of man certainly did happen, as Paul taught, and it led to estrangement from God until the point in time that any person who is in a “fallen state” of separation from God and from God’s grace, repents and receives the atoning grace of Christ’s mercy.

I agree that without Christ, humankind would have been eternally separated and estranged from God, which is why we do need Christ.

My point has been that Adam trusted God, and Eve trusted God but also wanted knowledge because she perceived there was more to life than they were experiencing. Then Adam faced a dilemma about which commandment to break.

They still trusted God after their fall. They were redeemed from the Fall, by Christ, through His atoning grace.

Peace to you and all.

If they had trusted God completely, they would have been satisfied in doing what He asked of them. They did not, and were not. Hence, the fall of man, from which separation from God the result. It was not good for them to disobey God, or to want more than what He was offering them. That is really twisted thinking to believe they had to choose a commandment to break.

Salvation History began with the fall, because, in His merciful love, God had a plan for us. The Mosaic Law, the Prophets, all pointed to the reconciliation of the relationship that was broken, due to disobedience, period. The fulfillment of our reconciliation with God is found only in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus, and our response to it. Should we again try and find another way?

 

[larkin31]

Larkin31,
Yes, that is what Isaiah 53 is all about.

Note also that all those you noted, and Adam and Eve, were redeemed from the Fall, by Christ, through His atoning grace and through their repentance and sanctification. They were brought back into a condition where they could receive guidance from God and could feel His influence and blessings in their lives.

This would be why Eve said she had “gotten a man from the Lord.” (Genesis 4:1) She was a covenant believer at that point, and had felt the effect of Christ’s redemption and grace in her life. The prophets and the righteous Jews and house of Israel, God’s covenant people of the Old Testament times, also felt the effect of the grace of the Messiah, Whose coming to the earth was promised.

I did not ask this. I asked if without Jesus (or, you may state, “until Jesus came”) they were not in contact with “God’s grace”? Was Moses’ soul “cut off from the grace of God” until Jesus died on the cross? Moses was long before John the Baptist.

 

[SteveVH]

SteveVH,
Although I don’t really agree with the word “guarding” unless one is reading in Spanish for the word for “to keep”, I have to wonder how you think Adam was supposed to know, if he happened to see the serpent, that this was an intruder who was dangerous to Eve and to him. After all, God had made the garden of Eden. As far as Adam could know, everything there was a good thing, except that he was not to partake of the fruit of a certain tree.

How was he to guard against something if he had no idea that it was going to happen and no idea that there was an intruder in the garden?

I have been adamant in saying that God did not “force” Adam to sin, nor did He “force” Eve to sin. He gave them commandments, and gave them choices and consequences. He let them choose. He did not “cause” them to sin. However, Adam was in a predicament once Eve had partaken of the forbidden fruit. That has been my point.

Parker:

I have a little catching up to do. The Hebrew word shamar means to guard. Much gets lost in the English translation throughout the book of Genesis. You asked how Adam could have known that the serpent was an intruder who was dangerous to Eve and to him.
The Hebrew word, nahash, translated as “serpent”, actually means a dragon (Is 27:1) or a sea monster (Jb 26:13). In any case, it wasn’t a little tree snake, but a threatening presence. So yes, Adam was very aware of Satan’s presence in the Garden. He was also aware that he was threatening his wife, Eve.

Dr. Scott Hahn discusses this in depth in his book “First Comes Love”. His contention is that the serpent, Satan himself, was threatening the physical lives of both Adam and Eve. In his rebuttal to God’s command to not eat of the tree of knowledge the serpent says “You will not die”, directly contradicting God’s promise that they would die if they ate of the fruit. But here is another translation problem. When God said “… for in the day that you eat of it you will die” the Hebrew idiom is difficult to translate into English. According to Dr. Hahn, translated verbatim it would read “you shall die die” or “you shall die the death” (when God says He found creation “very good” the Hebrew reads “good good”). God was speaking about spiritual death. Satan’s rebuttal only used the word for physical death. And he was right. They ate but didn’t die. But they did die spiritually or God was a liar. Both Adam and Eve loved their physical lives more than obeying God’s command not to eat. When they found themselves in danger they did not cry out for God to help them. Their sin was a sin of pride and they were equally guilty. Because of their sin they were put out of the Garden, their homeland, and they and their descendants would never be the same.

 

[SteveVH]

SteveVH or Jay53,

I suppose that I might as well finish this thread with a couple of other observations.

I hope readers believe that God really is omniscient, and that He knows “the end from the beginning” and knows “all things.” Since He does, and since even adequate psychological analysis of the situations facing Adam and Eve could fairly easily predict their behavior given the constraints they faced (let alone a Perfect, Omniscient and Loving God who would certainly also be able to do that), then it ought to be not so difficult to realize that for God to have a plan that included the logical expectation that Eve would eventually desire knowledge beyond what she was experiencing in the garden, and that Adam would choose to be Eve’s protector and provider (especially since God had commanded Adam as regards his relationship with Eve) after she had partaken, is not such an unusual belief–it is a logical belief.

Christ is Alpha and Omega. His power to redeem was with Him from the beginning. God knew He had that power to redeem, through His infinite grace and His ability to be perfect and to atone for all of humankind’s sins. This would be a logical part of His plan from the beginning, knowing what He knew also about Adam and Eve when He placed them in the garden of Eden, and knowing that as they fell they would need a Redeemer as would their posterity.

This does not mean God caused Adam or Eve to sin, although after Eve had partaken it does mean Adam now had conflicting commandments and needed to choose between which he would keep. It means He knew what they would logically and actually do, given the constraints of their situations, and He blessed them with a way out of the condition they would fall to, through the Redemptive power of Jesus Christ, their Savior and ours.

Choosing redemption became another choice Adam and Eve could make, and we as their posterity can make. It is not a forced choice–it is truly a choice that needs to be voluntarily chosen. It is the greatest blessing given in eternity, along with the power to choose which is itself a wonderful blessing.

Have a good day, all, and much peace to you in all that you experience.

 

[SteveVH]

Originally Posted by ParkerD

Stephen168,
I can see why that is a conclusion that can be drawn, but it is not the only conclusion that is reasonable from the text. “Gavest to be with me” refers to what Adam’s reasoning was, and that it was an important aspect of his thinking. This is why a conclusion can be drawn in fairness to Adam, that he was considering that to “be with Eve” was a commandment, not just a “nice thing to do”. If those words were not there, one could assert that Adam was blaming Eve, but those words are there, and they have specific meaning.

Parker, you seem bent on siding with Adam, regardless of what he does or says. In this case he is not only blaming Eve for giving him the forbidden fruit, but he is also blaming God for giving him Eve. In my translation (NAB) it says “The woman whom you put here with me - she gave me fruit from the tree, so I ate it.” (Gn 3:12) Adam was looking for excuses and laid the blame ultimately on God’s shoulders.

You evoke the same attitude when contending that Adam was forced to chose between which commandments to break, therefore, having no choice, he chose to side with his wife, and that somehow this was a noble choice. I realize I am more than paraphrasing here but that is the impression I have from reading your posts. I stated that God would never have put Adam in that position because that would be causing him to sin. You have stated elsewhere on this thread that God did not force Adam to sin, but you can’t have it both ways. You believe that God “commanded” Adam to be with Eve and to be fruitful and multiply and at the same time “commanded” him not to eat of the tree, therefore he would have no choice but to break one of the commandments. If I’m not right here please correct me. Adam still had a choice. Participating in sin does not constitute fidelity to your wife, nor is it pleasing to God. We must always chose God over anyone else in the universe. Adam was under no obligation to enter into Eve’s disobedience and sin. This, IMO, is the flaw in your entire line of thought. Adam was at fault, pure and simple, otherwise God, being a just and good God, would not have punished him.

 

[SteveVH]

Moving over to the next chapter, we see that Eve is aware that
“We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden:
But of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.” (Genesis 3:2,3)

So I disagree completely with what you wrote about only Adam having received the commandment not to eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. She knew she would die just as Adam would die.

How can you disagree when you just received the quote: “The Lord God gave man this order: ‘You are free to eat from any of the trees of the Garden except the tree of knowledge of good and bad. From that tree you shall not eat; the moment you eat from it you are surely doomed to die.’” (Gen 2:16, 17) (NAB)

In Chapter 3, it is not God who is speaking to Eve, but rather the serpent. Adam had already been given the command, prior to Eve even having been created. It is not strange that Adam, or even God Himself would have clued her in on the one thing they were not suppose to do, but Adam was surely given the command first.
The serpent questions Eve about what God said, but there is nothing that would give credence to the notion that only Eve had received the command from God.

 

[RebeccaJ]

If they had trusted God completely, they would have been satisfied in doing what He asked of them. They did not, and were not. Hence, the fall of man, from which separation from God the result. It was not good for them to disobey God, or to want more than what He was offering them. That is really twisted thinking to believe they had to choose a commandment to break.

Salvation History began with the fall, because, in His merciful love, God had a plan for us. The Mosaic Law, the Prophets, all pointed to the reconciliation of the relationship that was broken, due to disobedience, period. The fulfillment of our reconciliation with God is found only in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus, and our response to it. Should we again try and find another way?

hey I know you. we missed you at SoC!

 

[ParkerD]

OK. I don’t know why one would assume that he had to make a “quick decision”, though. What was the rush? (He had to hurry and eat the apple before it turned brown? ) Unless you’re thinking that he thought Eve was going to drop dead right before his eyes - but clearly that didn’t happen.

Jay53,
Adam would be evaluating what it meant for him to “be with her” when he was suddenly placed in the position of needing to decide whether to eat the forbidden fruit or not. Maybe he did think she was going to die at any moment, or at least was going to be sent away without the benefit of his help, his companionship, and his love and counsel and concern in her life if she did live still for a period of time.

The point is, being “with her” seemed a more important commandment to him at that point than not partaking of the forbidden fruit. That is why he used the words in his explanation to God about why he did what he did.

 

[ParkerD]

OK. Other foot:

What would have been God’s response to Adam if he had chosen opposite - to NOT eat the fruit and simply obey that commandment?

Another good question, but one that is not only not answered in the text of the Bible, but leads to wondering again whether God really is omniscient meaning that He knew Adam and Eve well enough and knew their personalities and even knew the future well enough to know what they would do in such a situation. Since I believe God is omniscient including knowing personalities and knowing the future, then I don’t spend time wondering about a lot of “what ifs?” in my life.

But as I had noted earlier, I don’t think it can be assumed from the text of the Bible that God would have given Adam another companion at that point, so Eve would have been sent away and Adam would have remained alone with God in the garden of Eden, and if asked about his situation I suppose he would have been told, “Adam, what do you want me to do? Eve has been sent away and she will die because of eating the forbidden fruit, and she knew that was the consequence.”

If Adam were then to ask, “What about that I need a help meet and a companion and that we are supposed to multiply and replenish the earth?” then I suppose God may be expected to say in that situation, “You had one, and I gave her to you, and she made a choice as did you. Now you are experiencing the consequence of her decision and your decision. I am not here to ‘fix things’ for either of you. Decisions have consequences, Adam.”

 

[ParkerD]

I did not ask this. I asked if without Jesus (or, you may state, “until Jesus came”) they were not in contact with “God’s grace”? Was Moses’ soul “cut off from the grace of God” until Jesus died on the cross? Moses was long before John the Baptist.

Larkin31,
What I meant in answer to your question was that the atonement covered all of human history, including the fall of Adam and Eve and continuing thereafter. It is evident that Abraham knew about the atonement of Christ as a future event.

I meant that Moses and Abraham and other prophets (including Isaiah) knew about the coming atonement of the Redeemer and Messiah, and that they were in contact with “God’s grace” because of a future event since God could know the future and could provide them “grace” through that future atonement event. God is not limited by a human time factor, particularly for the single most important event ever to occur in the history of the world. Its occurrence went backwards in time as it occurred in the Meridian of time.

Thus, Isaiah speaks of the atonement as a “past” or a “present” event even though he is writing about it as a future event in Isaiah 53 and in Isaiah 61:1-3 and in many other passages. The mercy offered by Christ covered Adam and Eve, Abraham and Moses, and all their descendants, and they knew it as they learned about it.

I hope this has explained better what I meant, and has answered your question. Have a wonderful day.

 

[ParkerD]

Parker:

I have a little catching up to do. The Hebrew word shamar means to guard. Much gets lost in the English translation throughout the book of Genesis. You asked how Adam could have known that the serpent was an intruder who was dangerous to Eve and to him.
The Hebrew word, nahash, translated as “serpent”, actually means a dragon (Is 27:1) or a sea monster (Jb 26:13). In any case, it wasn’t a little tree snake, but a threatening presence. So yes, Adam was very aware of Satan’s presence in the Garden. He was also aware that he was threatening his wife, Eve.

Dr. Scott Hahn discusses this in depth in his book “First Comes Love”. His contention is that the serpent, Satan himself, was threatening the physical lives of both Adam and Eve…

SteveVH,
I can understand that the “serpent” was a “dragon” since that also matches what John described in his vision in Revelation 12:7-9. I understand that all those identities are referring to Satan.

But there is nothing written in Genesis that shows that Adam was supposed to be “watching out” for a dragon or a serpent or Satan who was going to show up and deceive his wife and companion. Especially is this true as we observe Genesis 3:1 with the words “more subtle than any beast of the field”. That would mean that the disguise of Satan was a “subtle” disguise, not easily detected especially by someone with no experience whatsoever. We (and Dr. Hahn) have the benefit of hindsight that Adam did not have.

So, I disagree with your assertion that Eve was being threatened by Satan and Adam knew it and watched it happen and did nothing about it.

In his rebuttal to God’s command to not eat of the tree of knowledge the serpent says “You will not die”, directly contradicting God’s promise that they would die if they ate of the fruit. But here is another translation problem. When God said “… for in the day that you eat of it you will die” the Hebrew idiom is difficult to translate into English. According to Dr. Hahn, translated verbatim it would read “you shall die die” or “you shall die the death” (when God says He found creation “very good” the Hebrew reads “good good”). God was speaking about spiritual death. Satan’s rebuttal only used the word for physical death. And he was right. They ate but didn’t die. But they did die spiritually or God was a liar. Both Adam and Eve loved their physical lives more than obeying God’s command not to eat. When they found themselves in danger they did not cry out for God to help them. Their sin was a sin of pride and they were equally guilty. Because of their sin they were put out of the Garden, their homeland, and they and their descendants would never be the same.

If you’re saying that Eve and Adam knew that by partaking of the forbidden fruit, they knew that they were going to be cast into “hell” or “eternal fire”, then I disagree completely. If you’re saying that they knew they would likely be sent away from the garden of Eden and be shut out from the presence of God and thus be in a position where they would have to “go it on their own” and would eventually die, then I agree that they probably understood that consequence of their decisions.

They ate and did die in the “day” when they partook–which day was in the “Lord’s time” or in other words, less than a thousand mortal years. I have recently read a Jewish explanation of this, and it matches what I already understood about the word “day” in the context of God’s commandment to Adam and Eve.

Then your assertions drift into assumptions about Adam and Eve that are simply not there in the Genesis text, at all. They are unsupported by the text. Moses did not write text about those conclusions drawn by those who have taught such conclusions. Those conclusions are simply not true. To make decisions based on those conclusions, or draw other conclusions based on those conclusions, is to go off on a tangent that is unsupported by the text (except for the fact that “they and their descendants would never be the same”–that is true).

 

[ParkerD]

Parker, you seem bent on siding with Adam, regardless of what he does or says. In this case he is not only blaming Eve for giving him the forbidden fruit, but he is also blaming God for giving him Eve. In my translation (NAB) it says “The woman whom you put here with me - she gave me fruit from the tree, so I ate it.” (Gn 3:12) Adam was looking for excuses and laid the blame ultimately on God’s shoulders.

SteveVH,
You think Adam is blaming Eve and God, and I don’t agree. I certainly can’t make you see my point of view, or make you agree with it. You have the opportunity to choose, given the text, what you think about Adam’s decision making process–whether you learn Hebrew and read it in the Hebrew, or read whatever translation you choose to read and draw conclusions from. My conclusion is just as valid from the text as is yours, and we are going to disagree about him laying blame on someone other than himself. For Adam to explain the sequence of his decision making is not to place blame–it is to state the sequence of his thoughts and his decision arising therefrom. (By the way, the choice to use the NAB text and draw conclusions from such a text, seems like pretty poor judgment given that the text you have quoted deliberately misconstrues something that was very important–namely, a connotation change by the use of the words “put here with me” that gives a negative connotation.)

You evoke the same attitude when contending that Adam was forced to chose between which commandments to break, therefore, having no choice, he chose to side with his wife, and that somehow this was a noble choice. I realize I am more than paraphrasing here but that is the impression I have from reading your posts. I stated that God would never have put Adam in that position because that would be causing him to sin. You have stated elsewhere on this thread that God did not force Adam to sin, but you can’t have it both ways. You believe that God “commanded” Adam to be with Eve and to be fruitful and multiply and at the same time “commanded” him not to eat of the tree, therefore he would have no choice but to break one of the commandments. If I’m not right here please correct me. Adam still had a choice. Participating in sin does not constitute fidelity to your wife, nor is it pleasing to God. We must always choose God over anyone else in the universe. Adam was under no obligation to enter into Eve’s disobedience and sin. This, IMO, is the flaw in your entire line of thought. Adam was at fault, pure and simple, otherwise God, being a just and good God, would not have punished him.

God did not “cause” Adam to sin. But yet, Adam had a commandment to “multiply and replenish the earth” and had an understanding that his wife was given to him by God as a “help meet” and that it was “not good” for him to be alone and that he was to be “one flesh” with her (meaning more than just physically “one flesh”). So, he had a predicament, a quandary, a dilemma.

God foreknew that such a dilemma was going to happen in Adam’s life, because God is omniscient. God did put Adam in a position that was a dilemma. Adam did have that choice in front of him after his wife had partaken the forbidden fruit. There is no getting around it that he had commandments that led in different directions at that point.

I agree that Adam was “under no obligation to enter into Eve’s disobedience”. But he had a commandment and an understanding relating to his relationship with her. What he was obliged to do was to make a choice which commandment he was going to break, because he really did have commandments that related to his relationship with Eve, and he knew that he did.

You wrote that God “punished” Adam. That is an important assumption–a very big assumption. Death was a consequence, and “spiritual death” was a temporary consequence until Adam was going to learn about a Redeemer and a Messiah and being able to bridge the separation from God, but the consequences listed in Genesis 3:17-19 are not what I view as “punishments” and I agree with the KJV translation that uses the words “for thy sake” (meaning essentially, “for thy good”).

So we differ profoundly in our view of this entire situation and what it led to for the posterity of Adam and Eve. I view the “thorns and thistles” and the “work” of this world and this life, as necessary components in a world where we are here to grow and learn. I don’t view those aspects of this world as “punishments”. I view them as needful for the refining process that is talked about over and over in the Bible. It is not such a bad process, with Christ’s help through it all. It is a good process–a growth process, a change process, an ultimately joyful process.

 

[ParkerD]

How can you disagree when you just received the quote: “The Lord God gave man this order: ‘You are free to eat from any of the trees of the Garden except the tree of knowledge of good and bad. From that tree you shall not eat; the moment you eat from it you are surely doomed to die.’” (Gen 2:16, 17) (NAB)

In Chapter 3, it is not God who is speaking to Eve, but rather the serpent. Adam had already been given the command, prior to Eve even having been created. It is not strange that Adam, or even God Himself would have clued her in on the one thing they were not suppose to do, but Adam was surely given the command first.
The serpent questions Eve about what God said, but there is nothing that would give credence to the notion that only Eve had received the command from God.

SteveVH,
Here was our exchange of comments:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stephen168
Gen 2:17 Man (not woman) was commanded not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil or he would die.

My response was:

Moving over to the next chapter, we see that Eve is aware that
“We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden:
But of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.” (Genesis 3:2,3)

So I disagree completely with what you wrote about only Adam having received the commandment not to eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. She knew she would die just as Adam would die.

You implied that only man was commanded “not to eat…or he would die” when you added the parenthetical words “not woman”. That is what I was disagreeing with–the notion that the woman did not have the commandment as well as Adam.

Adam certainly did receive the commandment first–I agree with you there.

I never meant that only Eve had the commandment. They both had the commandment regarding the forbidden fruit and the knowledge of the primary consequence of eating it. That was all I was saying, so perhaps we both meant the same thing in that regard.

Have a good day.