What if only one person in the Garden sinned?

Originally posted by lemon lime
How was Eve less guilty? She knew just as Adam that they weren't supposed to take or eat of the forbidden fruit. Adam and Eve were relatively naive and had no experience with deception and lies, but they were both aware of what God had told them. Temptation was (because it is) a powerful lure... powerful enough to cause them to act in the moment instead o ...[text shortened]... of iniquity", but I think it has something to do with how and why sin is so difficult to resist.

KellyJay said that Eve wasn't directly told by God to stay away from the fruit, which seemed to imply slightly more guilt on the part of Adam. I made my post with that in mind.

Also, some Christians view that Adam was the one sinned, rather than Eve. The bible says it was Eve that was "deceived", not Adam. So if Eve was deceived, that means Adam knew what he was doing when he ate the fruit. That's why the Bible always refers to the Original Sin as "Adam's Sin".

Originally posted by KellyJay
Adam didn't stop her, He knew and did not speak up, He was actually told directly and
she wasn't. I imagine letting her would have been just as bad as doing the deed.

How would Adam know not telling her was "bad"?

He had not eaten from the Tree of Knowledge.

Originally posted by vivify
So why was Eve's punishment harsher than Adam's? For some women, labor can be torturous, and even deadly; yet, that was God's punishment for someone, who as you indicate, was the less guilty party?

After some thought (several years) God evened things up a bit by insisting on circumcision.

Originally posted by vivify
KellyJay said that Eve wasn't directly told by God to stay away from the fruit, which seemed to imply slightly more guilt on the part of Adam. I made my post with that in mind.

Also, some Christians view that Adam was the one sinned, rather than Eve. The bible says it was Eve that was "deceived", not Adam. So if Eve was deceived, that means Adam knew ...[text shortened]... when he ate the fruit. That's why the Bible always refers to the Original Sin as "Adam's Sin".

That is the way I see it too. However, I don't see any sense speculating the "what if" of what was the case.

Originally posted by RJHinds
That is the way I see it too. However, I don't see any sense speculating the "what if" of what was the case.

...except that there's a question mark over whether the story is coherent.

Originally posted by vivify
KellyJay said that Eve wasn't directly told by God to stay away from the fruit, which seemed to imply slightly more guilt on the part of Adam. I made my post with that in mind.

Also, some Christians view that Adam was the one sinned, rather than Eve. The bible says it was Eve that was "deceived", not Adam. So if Eve was deceived, that means Adam knew ...[text shortened]... when he ate the fruit. That's why the Bible always refers to the Original Sin as "Adam's Sin".

I too had assumed Adam told her what God said, but God spoke directly to both of them after it happened. They could both speak to and hear God, which means He could have easily told her beforehand not to take and eat the forbidden fruit. The Bible doesn't say He spoke to Eve before she was tempted, but it doesn't say He didn't. Genesis 3: 2-3 seems indicate that God had spoken to her about this. I suppose she could have just as easily heard about it from Adam, but there is nothing written in the 2nd and 3rd chapter of Genesis that suggests God's instructions to both of them were passed along only through Adam.

Originally posted by lemon lime
The Bible doesn't say He spoke to Eve before she was tempted, but it doesn't say He didn't.

Do you think this omission on the Bible's part is significant?

Originally posted by FMF
...except that there's a question mark over whether the story is coherent.

Most children don't seem to have much trouble understanding it. Perhaps you are trying to analyze to much. 😏

Originally posted by lemon lime
I too had assumed Adam told her what God said, but God spoke directly to [b]both of them after it happened. They could both speak to and hear God, which means He could have easily told her beforehand not to take and eat the forbidden fruit. The Bible doesn't say He spoke to Eve before she was tempted, but it doesn't say He didn't. Genesis 3: 2-3 seems ...[text shortened]... of Genesis that suggests God's instructions to both of them were passed along only through Adam.[/b]

Yes, it is obvious that she knew something about what God had said about eating from that tree, but I believe she understood that she was not even to touch it. But it is also clear that she was deceived into sin, while Adam was not deceived, but decided to listen to and follow the lead of his wife anyway.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Most children don't seem to have much trouble understanding it. Perhaps you are trying to analyze to much. 😏

I'm not talking about the indoctrination of children. I'm not interested in that. I'm talking about whether the discrepancy between what readers of the story believe it says about who said what to who and when affects what the story is purported to reveal.

Originally posted by FMF
I'm not talking about the indoctrination of children. I'm not interested in that. I'm talking about whether the discrepancy between what readers of the story believe it says about who said what to who and when affects what the story is purported to reveal.

Maybe it does. However, I believe if it is taken at face value one can get the main point of the story without digging deep into unrevealed details. It is not completely clear that this is not a partial metaphor, since we know from Revelation that the serpent dragon is really representative of Satan the devil. So it may be a mistake to try to read too much into it.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Yes, it is obvious that she knew something about what God had said about eating from that tree, but I believe she understood that she was not even to touch it. But it is also clear that she was deceived into sin, while Adam was not deceived, but decided to listen to and follow the lead of his wife anyway.

It's interesting that Satan targeted Eve for his sales pitch instead of targeting Adam, but Adam was probably more inclined to accept the fruit from Eve than to believe Satan's story over God's direction. It's a mistake to underestimate the enemy, because he clearly understands our weaknesses.

Originally posted by lemon lime
It's interesting that Satan targeted Eve for his sales pitch instead of targeting Adam, but Adam was probably more inclined to accept the fruit from Eve than to believe Satan's story over God's direction. It's a mistake to underestimate the enemy, because he clearly understands our weaknesses.

I agree.

Originally posted by RJHinds
That is the way I see it too. However, I don't see any sense speculating the "what if" of what was the case.

It's significant because it's used as justification for male dominance. God days that Adam will "rule over you (Eve)". I think this is the Bible's basis for why women are to be subject to their husbands. So that's why I'm asking if this would still be the case if Adam sinned and not Eve. Would God have said that the woman would rule over the man?

Originally posted by lemon lime
How was Eve less guilty? She knew just as Adam that they weren't supposed to take or eat of the forbidden fruit. Adam and Eve were relatively naive and had no experience with deception and lies, but they were both aware of what God had told them. Temptation was (because it is) a powerful lure... powerful enough to cause them to act in the moment instead o ...[text shortened]... of iniquity", but I think it has something to do with how and why sin is so difficult to resist.

Whether you take the story as literal or symbolic, the message is clear. There are certain aspects to our existence we cannot fathom because we are finite beings, at which point we either cling to faith in God or attempt to go our own direction.