Why put the blame of sin on Eve and not Adam?

[Valke2]

Eve is less guilty, imo, than Adam. God did not tell Eve not to eat from the tree. SHe heard it from Adam.

THere’s a midrash that says man was not completed until after he ate from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. That it was only after this that the 6th day ended.

Of course, we do not believe in original sin (we=jews).

 

[LilyM]

I don’t think there is anything to indicate that Adam was immortal prior to eating the apple. If so, why have a tree of immortality in the Garden as well?

Not that Adam WAS immortal, but that God was prepared to OFFER him immortality as a reward for obedience - it COULD have been thus and thus was how God ultimately desired and preferred things to be.

God certainly didn’t prefer or desire for man to fall into sin and become inevitably doomed to death, though he knew that it would happen, given man’s weakness and Satan’s powers of persuasion.

 

[Valke2]

Not that Adam WAS immortal, but that God was prepared to OFFER him immortality as a reward for obedience - it COULD have been thus and thus was how God ultimately desired and preferred things to be.

God certainly didn’t prefer or desire for man to fall into sin and become inevitably doomed to death, though he knew that it would happen, given man’s weakness and Satan’s powers of persuasion.

I don’t know about that. We have a very different view of the Eden story than Christians.

 

[Valke2]

Not that Adam WAS immortal, but that God was prepared to OFFER him immortality as a reward for obedience - it COULD have been thus and thus was how God ultimately desired and preferred things to be.

God certainly didn’t prefer or desire for man to fall into sin and become inevitably doomed to death, though he knew that it would happen, given man’s weakness and Satan’s powers of persuasion.

What would have happened if Adam chose to eat from the Tree of Life first?

 

[Eileen_T]

tom.wineman:

You must have heard the old joke, Adam blamed Eve, Eve blamed the serpent and the serpent didn’t have a leg to stand on

Actually, Adam blamed GOD.

"The woman whom THOU gavest to be with me, she gave me fruit of the tree, and I ate" (Gen. 3:12).

 

[KarenNC]

Not that Adam WAS immortal, but that God was prepared to OFFER him immortality as a reward for obedience - it COULD have been thus and thus was how God ultimately desired and preferred things to be.

God certainly didn’t prefer or desire for man to fall into sin and become inevitably doomed to death, though he knew that it would happen, given man’s weakness and Satan’s powers of persuasion.

It could just as easily have been, and more in line with Christian teachings about the nature of God, that things happened exactly as God ultimately desired them to happen.

How do you reconcile an omnipotent (all powerful, no constraints upon Him other than those that are self-imposed) God who is omniscient (knows every possible outcome of every action before the action is even contemplated, by Him or by humanity) who would set up the circumstances as they are/were, with a God who is also purportedly omnibenevolent (desiring nothing but good for His creations)?

Why would an omnibenevolent being knowingly create a human and place it in a situation (created by said being) wherein it is inevitable (but only, one must presume because the omnipotent, omniscient being desires it to be so for some reason) that the human will contravene laws set up by the omnipotent, omniscient being and then be doomed to death by the same omnipotent, omniscient being?

I simply cannot see how, if one presumes that there is a singular omnipotent, omniscient God, that that God is also omnibenevolent. Two out of the three possibly, but not all three.

An omnibenevollent deity who was omniscient but not omnipotent could desire something for humanity, but be unable to change the situation for some reason.

An omnibenevolent deity who was omnipotent but not omniscient might set into motion situations whose outcome He is not able to predict, though being omnipotent, could, one presumes, change those that did not work out as planned (brings to mind the story of Noah, actually).

 

[pedja]

Why blame any of the three?

Ask yourself this question.

Why did God place the Tree in the Garden in the first place?

God basically gave Adam and Eve the choice- to choose to live without God. So if there would ever come a time in which they would decided to do so, taking and eating the fruit would be the way how they would express their decision.

So even the tree was put in the garden out of love and not because God wanted to lead them into temptation.

Btw, it wasn’t an apple, was it?

 

[Valke2]

Genesis 3:17 And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;

A thought just ocurred to me. I read posts talking about how various things in the Torah are really about Jesus, how Mary is the new covenant, Jesus was the second Adam, or whatever. So I thought i would point out that God tells Abraham to do whatever his wife, Sarah tells him. So it must be that Abraham and Sarah are the second Adam and Eve and Judaism is the natural extension of the Eden story.

 

[YADA]

Actually, more literallly translated the servant says somethig like surely, you will “not die the death” It reads like “Die, die”

Which can be seen as the death of the soul not so much as a bodily death. And Adam and Eve were together when the devil made his temptation. God had given Adam the command to “care for [protect] and till” the garden. I am not a great Hebrew linguist but I had a scripture professor [who also spent a sabatical year studying the Dead Sea Scrolls] who could read and write hebrew [ancient biblical hebrew]. He said the command given to Adam was like the command given to the Levite priests in the care of the Arc and the Tabernacle of the Lord. They were commanded to protect even unto death what was given to their care.

Now, that being the case, the original sin is less an eating of the fruit of the forbidden tree [definitly a sin] but Adam’s not protecting the Garden from the intrusion of the Seprent and not trusting in God’s life-giving power. They ate for fear of bodily death at the hands - so to speak] of the serpent without trusting in God’s care and power to preserve the lifde of the soul.

He aso said that the depiction of the serpent as a snake is probably not what was understood… The dragon [similarly of Revelation] probably being a better translation.

 

[rmcmullan]

This might be way too Mormon for y’all but let me give it a shot:

There were two trees in the Garden of Eden. The one they could partake of freely (the Tree of Life) and the one they were not allowed to touch (the Tree of Knowledge). Why couldn’t they eat from that tree? It was the knowledge of good and evil. If you ate from that tree, you would loose your innocence and then be cut off from the other tree. Otherwise, you would live for ever in your sins and then be forever cut off from the presence of God.

The decision of which tree to live by was up to Adam and Eve. But they had to choose one or the other. In the perfect world God had created, there was no death nor was there any creation. Eve wanted children and Adam supported her. What Satan told them, that “if they would eat from the tree of knowledge, they would be like the gods, knowing good and evil” wasn’t that wrong. The part about them not dying was though.

 

[MariaG]

A thought just ocurred to me. I read posts talking about how various things in the Torah are really about Jesus, how Mary is the new covenant, Jesus was the second Adam, or whatever. So I thought i would point out that God tells Abraham to do whatever his wife, Sarah tells him. So it must be that Abraham and Sarah are the second Adam and Eve and Judaism is the natural extension of the Eden story.

Jesus was the New Adam, that is the term you are looking for.

Problem with that particular theory of Abraham being the new Adam is that the reason Jesus and Mary are referred to as such is that lack of original sin. Abraham and Sarah, both were born with the original sin of Adam.

But I would agree with you that Judaism is the natural extension of the Eden story, but I would further submit to you that Jesus is the long looked for Messiah and Catholicism is the natural extension of Judaism .

 

[Valke2]

Jesus was the New Adam, that is the term you are looking for.

Problem with that particular theory of Abraham being the new Adam is that the reason Jesus and Mary are referred to as such is that lack of original sin. Abraham and Sarah, both were born with the original sin of Adam.

But I would agree with you that Judaism is the natural extension of the Eden story, but I would further submit to you that Jesus is the long looked for Messiah and Catholicism is the natural extension of Judaism .

Point taken. The Sabbath in Judaism is meant to, in a sense take us back to Eden, to resotre the balance that existed before the tree. THat is why, in part, the land in Israel is to remain unharvested every 7 years, the sabbath year. SO that it returns to the state it was in Eden. WHen we give ownership back to God, in a sense.

 

[rmcmullan]

Adam and Eve were given conflicting commandments. They were told to go forth and multiply but also to not eat of the tree of knowledge. They had to choose on or the other.

Because the world God had created was perfect, there was no death nor creation. In order for them to go forth and multiply, the world could no longer be according to God’s design. It would have been subject to the actions of Adam and Eve. So they would have to eat of the tree of knowledge and exert their own will above God’s. So even in their “passive” state of (what appeared to be) complete obedience, they were actually disobeying the commandment to go forth and multiply.

 

[Valke2]

Adam and Eve were given conflicting commandments. They were told to go forth and multiply but also to not eat of the tree of knowledge. They had to choose on or the other.

Because the world God had created was perfect, there was no death nor creation. In order for them to go forth and multiply, the world could no longer be according to God’s design. It would have been subject to the actions of Adam and Eve. So they would have to eat of the tree of knowledge and exert their own will above God’s. So even in their “passive” state of (what appeared to be) complete obedience, they were actually disobeying the commandment to go forth and multiply.

There’s nothing in the creation story to suggest that the world was perfect. God HImself only calls it good and very good. I don’t see how they were disobeying the commandment to be fruitful and multiply. (It doesn’t actually say “go forth”). The very fact that God commands them to be fruitful supports the belief that there was actually creation before they ate from the tree.

Perhaps one of the ways in which we are created in God’s image is that we are to impose limitations on our power. Just as God does not exercise His power completely over our lives and allows free will, Adam and Eve were expected to exercise some degree of control over their power by not eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. This is one reason given for obeying the laws of Kashrut in Judaism. to remind us that not all is available to us, despite our power to make it so. The importance of self imposed limitations on power.

 

[rmcmullan]

Valke2, I hope you saw the warning that this was a pretty Mormon teaching, I can understand if you don’t accept with only my say so. That would be a CAF first! You probably would be more comfortable considering it something interesting to ponder.

So here’s a couple of things to ponder which are important to the case I’m trying to make:

1. Adam and Eve would not die unless they ate from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. And there’s no record of them having any offspring while in the garden. Did this extend to all of God’s creations in the garden? Did any of the plants or animals die or procreate?
2. Did the winds, plant and creatures of the garden obey God’s will? How about after the fall?

 

[Valke2]

Valke2, I hope you saw the warning that this was a pretty Mormon teaching, I can understand if you don’t accept with only my say so. That would be a CAF first! You probably would be more comfortable considering it something interesting to ponder.

I hope my post didn’t come off as too argumentative. When you say we are made perfect, do you mean Adam and Eve or all all mankind?

1. Adam and Eve would not die unless they ate from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. And there’s no record of them having any offspring while in the garden. Did this extend to all of God’s creations in the garden? Did any of the plants or animals die or procreate?

I have to believe that procreation was possible prior to eating from the tree. Not only is Adam and Eve given such a commandment prior to eating from the tree, but the animals themselves are commanded to do so (Gen. 1:22). And since they didn’t eat from the tree, I have to assume that eating from the tree was not a prerequisite. Also, this commandment, both to the animals and to Adam and Eve, is framed as a blessing, so it is hard to imagine that such a blessing would be predicated on the commission of a sin.

1. Did the winds, plant and creatures of the garden obey God’s will? How about after the fall?

. The Bible is primarily a story featuring God and man, so the actions of animals and weather obeying God’s will aren’t somehting I’ve thought about. But, in addition to what I stated above, we have God using the weather in Noah and Exodus. We have His speech to Job where He recounts his dominion over over all, including weather, the leviathians, etc. We have the Psalms tellsing us how the Mountains skip like rams in praise of God’s glory… So I would say yes, the animals, mountains, winds, etc. remained obedient to God’s will.

 

[rmcmullan]

Valke2, thanks for indulging me. I really like this topic. Since the topic is “Why pick on Eve”, I thought I’d lead off with a few quotes. Again, I have to present them as food for thought, because of their Mormonly nature. This is the actual quote:

2 Nephi 2: 22 And now, behold, if Adam had not transgressed he would not have fallen, but he would have remained in the garden of Eden. And all things which were created must have remained in the same state in which they were after they were created; and they must have remained forever, and had no end.
23 And they would have had no children; wherefore they would have remained in a state of innocence, having no joy, for they knew no misery; doing no good, for they knew no sin.

As a Mormon, since this is scripture, I can accept the “all things which were created must have remained in the same state in which they were after they were created” without any problem. For you, you’re going to have to test it. And it’s central to the question whether or not Original sin was a choice or a sin. It was a sin in the sense Man was cut off from God but there was a Savior provided to reconcile Man and God and it might have been, I dunno, maybe “unwise” to remain in a state of innocence. Being a Dad, I find this fairly easy to relate to because much as I love little kids, I know they need to grow up.

One last quote, which is more directly concerned with the OP:

Some people believe Adam and Eve committed a serious sin when they ate of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. However, their fall was a necessary step in the plan of life and a great blessing to all of us. Because of the Fall, we are blessed with physical bodies, the right to choose between good and evil, and the opportunity to gain eternal life. None of these privileges would have been ours had Adam and Eve remained in the garden.

 

[rbarcia]

That is my logical deduction as well.

So you are saying it was God’s will for Adam and Eve to sin? That God is the author of sin and that it’s His fault?

God foreknew, but did not foreordain sin. It was not God’s will for Adam to sin.

You sound like a calvanist.

 

[Valke2]

Valke2, thanks for indulging me. I really like this topic. Since the topic is “Why pick on Eve”, I thought I’d lead off with a few quotes. Again, I have to present them as food for thought, because of their Mormonly nature. This is the actual quote:

As a Mormon, since this is scripture, I can accept the “all things which were created must have remained in the same state in which they were after they were created” without any problem. For you, you’re going to have to test it. And it’s central to the question whether or not Original sin was a choice or a sin. It was a sin in the sense Man was cut off from God but there was a Savior provided to reconcile Man and God and it might have been, I dunno, maybe “unwise” to remain in a state of innocence. Being a Dad, I find this fairly easy to relate to because much as I love little kids, I know they need to grow up.

One last quote, which is more directly concerned with the OP:

Theres a Jewish midrash that teaches that God did not complete the creation of man until after he ate from the tree. THat this was the final part of man’s creation. (The Midrash says that this all happened on the 6th day). So while the scriptual support is different, the theology is similar. God being a father and man being a “child” prior to eating from the tree is also something we discuss, although I don’t know how widespread the acceptance of this midrash is among orthodox jews.

So, under the Mormon theology, it was God’s plan that we eat from the tree? If so, then the real sin of Adam and Eve must not have been eating from the tree, but perhaps hiding from God and not taking responsibility for their actions.

Jews believe that teshuva (repentence/return) was created before the world. So that when man sinned, as God knew he would, there would be a method in place for repentence. Adam and Eve didn’t try to repent, but rather tried to hide from God. The real original sin?

 

[rmcmullan]

So, under the Mormon theology, it was God’s plan that we eat from the tree? If so, then the real sin of Adam and Eve must not have been eating from the tree, but perhaps hiding from God and not taking responsibility for their actions.

Yes, I think it’s true to say that God’s plan that A&E eat from the tree of knowledge. It wasn’t really a sin in the sense that we live under now and can be forgiven at confession. It required a Savior to atone for the world. The sin was really deciding to follow our own free will instead of being subject to Him. That was what got A&E ousted from the garden and cut off from the presense of the Lord. But in another sense it wasn’t a sin because God wants what’s best for us and, well, to use the parent/child analogy, not allowing your children to grow up, is holding them back. He doesn’t want to hold us back from developing our full potential but he can’t support a sinful world. Even with a Savior to redeem the ones who will develop their full potential, He knows some will last. It’s a painful decision for everyone. Painful but necessary.

Back to the role of Eve. My wife keeps telling me that Eve was wiser because she understood better what lay ahead. Adam is to be commended for his observance of duty and obedience but he missed (or would not accept) the consequences of eating from the Tree of Knowledge. Once Eve had partaken though, he was forced into a decision. He chose to stay with her and to face the fallen world together when he partook. Ha, it’s love story in the end!