Did Eve lie?

That wasn't the deception. The deception was that if they ate, they would be as gods.

 

Following is your 1st post:

Let's try this again.

Don't recall any notion of thoughts & emotions being like "kill or murder" before Jesus brought it up; long time after this incident

So, once more, where did you get this idea?

I don't intend to get into some "snipping" contest with you over this, so if you still refuse to give a simple coherent answer, I'll just drop it.

 

This is a non-sequiter to my post.

You didn't ask me what the deception was. You asked me if Adam lied.

 

I think you are spending too much effort, belaboring too much if you will, on the word "perfect".
Call it perfection, call it innocence, the fact is that they were created sinless, and everything in God's creation was perfect, unstained by sin, until these two, created in God's image, chose to believe the creature (Satan) rather than the Creator, and therefore, missed the mark (sinned).

Their moral nature did change.
They became immoral, panting after sin, inclined towards the carnal rather than the spiritual, as we all are now.
By they, I mean the natural man, apart from Adam and Eve.
We all are born with Adam's sin and disobedience imputed on us, and we all have his nature, which is one of disobedience, and that is not to say we have no sense of God, we all do, because man is by nature religious, but hardly in a sense that pleases God, which is why a new nature is added upon regeneration, or being given the new birth.

 

I wanted to chime in on this discussion. I don't know who you were discussing this topic with, but I'm pretty sure that both Calvinistic and non-Calvinistic scholars support the idea of mutability in Adam and Eve. That is the ability to change or sin.

But, I think the point you are making here is a good one. There is nothing in the record of the Fall of man that would indicate that they have lost the ability to respond to God's message of reconciliation. In fact, just the opposite seems to be the case. God confronts them, punishes them, makes them clothes and they seem to become reconciled with them. In the very next chapter they speak of the Lord giving them a child and their children pleasing God with their sacrifice (Able). Did they have to be "regenerated" in order to have the ability to do this? If so, the Bible never addresses it...

 

I think it's more than just their status changing; their nature changed and took on a bent of rebellion toward God that was not there before. This is the sin nature passed down to us - we saw it come out strongly in Cain, and then later in others. Mankind got more and more wicked until God used the flood as judgment.

 

God is incorruptible. When beholding unrighteousness He is not changed.

Man was made good, but not incorruptible. He was not made to know both good and evil. Man has become something other than what God created him to be, and that is corruption.

Two things:

1) You must understand that the Law, or the Ten Commandments, transcends Moses. They are stamped in Creation and are the foundation of the legal concept of Natural Law. It has always been wrong to lie, murder, steal, commit adultery and covet your neighbor's things. The Law is not merely verbal, so even without a verbal prohibition, sin is imputed.

Where was the verbal prohibition of violence when God judged Cain for the murder of his brother? Or when God judged the world with the Flood? Where was the verbal prohibition of deviant lusts when God judged Sodom and Gomorrah?

Adam and Eve, prior to the Fall, were good and morally upright. It wasn't that their immorality was simply winked at because of their ignorance, they had no immorality. They weren't ashamed of their nakedness because their apetites were in perfect order. They were perfect and upright.

But they were not incorruptible. Without a tempter, Eve would not have partaken.

But now, man's state is one of absolute loss and enmity with God.

2)Adam and Eve walked and talked with God. They were not innocent in matters of religion. Their understanding rivaled that of Moses, and even Paul. To say that the prohibition to eat of the fruit meant to avoid it altogether is completely compatible with Christ's teaching that the prohibition of murder is also a prohibition of anger.

 

You're the one that brought up the deception.

 

All I said, in response to another post, was that the NT says that Eve was deceived and Adam was disobedient.

 

Not really, not the deception you are talking about. See above post.

And the real deception by the serpent began when he questioned what God had said -- "Did God really say?...." That was the beginning of Satan's deception.

 

Many disagree over this. I believe Adam picked Eve over God. I believe Eve was deceived by Satan, she believed Satan and Adam used his free will and knowingly disobeyed God.

In school we had to debate this from many views. The view I gave is the one I like the best. Another view is a good one and most would accept, Adam was disobedient when he picked Eve over what he knew God had said and took of the fruit, because anything else would have put sin before he took of the fruit. If he hadn't told Eve all that God had told him about the tree would have put sin back then. I don't recall all of them today but I think there was about 6 to 10 different views that we had to work with.

 

I think people understand what you are saying, but you are applying modern legal definitions to biblical concepts and the 2 don't necessarily work together.

To apply what happened to Adam and at Eve at the time of the fall to me deciding to rob a bank is very much apples and oranges. You are taking as your default position that I am still innocent now. I disagree and the Bible says that what Adam and Eve did was very much different from my choosing to sin. It was Adam's sin by which sin entered the world (the human race). My sin does not make sin enter the world.

Everything was different once they sinned.
(1) Death entered the world
(2) sin entered the world
(3) their relationship with God was destroyed.
(4) they began to blame each other
(5) They sewed up clothes to hide, something they never had thought of doing prior to their sin.

And because Adam was, what theologioans call, our federated head (our representative) when he fell, we also fell.

Most of us understand what you are saying. We just believe the Bible contradicts what you are saying.

 

What eve said was inconsequential and irrelevant.

 

Interesting. You are saying that some of the Bible is inconsequential and irrelevant. What other Biblical passages are inconsequential and irrelevant?

 

I believe Eve said what she said because Adam had said it to her to protect them because that was his responsibility as head of their home. I wouldn't say that had to be a lie. We don't know the conversation Adam had with Eve but we can tell she got the message ok.:wavey::thumbsup:

 

I disagree. It is apparent by Adam's response to God (that was basically "hey, don't blame me, you gave her to me"), he was only looking out for self...which is the byproduct of sin. Adam had no intention of protecting anything but his backside

 

No, it symbolizes Christ's love for us in that he sacrificed Himself for us. When He hung on the cross, the Father had to turn away. He can't look on sin, and His Son had become sin for us (2 Cor. 5:21). Otherwise, we would have been eternally lost, or just utterly destroyed. The difference is that Adam couldn't take her sin away, but he chose to become a sinner so as not to lose the one he loved. In that respect Adam symbolized the sacrifice of Christ.

I believe He could ahve told God, "This woman You gave me is defection; I want a new one", and God would have done it. Maybe I'm wrong, but that's what I think. Anyway, don't take what I write as meaning that I consider it equal to scripture. It's just an opinion, a thought--nothing more. Accept or reject it; it's not worth arguing about.