The MOTHER of All Sin....

[jeremiah1five]

...or The Fall of the Doctrine of the Fall.

After centuries of the Gentile false doctrine of the "Fall" of mankind the truth finally comes out!

So, what is the Mother of all sin? Just as Judas was called the son of perdition, there is no passage of Scripture that says Judas was the father of perdition. And for good reason. And being the "son" of something implies being the "offspring" of it, a deriving of the thing from which it came. So, what is the Fall of the Doctrine of the Fall of mankind? It means the end of the teaching that in the man and woman in the Garden of Eden their eating the fruit from the forbidden Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, this sin caused their "Fall" from grace. It very clearly can be labeled a major teaching in the Gentile fellowship held on to all these centuries, a teaching that Scripture rightly divided and applied blows it clean out of the water. For before their sin of disobedience at eating from the forbidden tree they were already sinners to begin with, and if sinners before the so-called sin of disobedience, then that devilish doctrine of a "Fall" is a lie.
Here is the Scripture:

6 Add thou not unto his words,
Lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.
Proverbs 30:6.

And what did the man and woman in the Garden do before eating from the tree and disobeying God?
They lied. They added to God's Word.
And lying is a sin.

3 But of the fruit 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 3:3.

Adam and the woman were sinners BEFORE their sin of disobedience in eating the fruit from the forbidden tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. This means the Gentile doctrine of a fall from grace by eating from the forbidden tree is a lie. This also supports what I had been saying for a very long time and that is that God created Adam and the woman sinful, that is, "missing the mark"
And what is that "mark" they missed?
The glory of God, or the glory that is God.

There was no Fall. Never was. It was only in the fallen minds of fallen men that such a doctrine was even developed. And for a time, I and millions of others Fell for it. Oh, the irony! But now we know. Now we know that Adam and the woman were sinners before they ate from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. The Mother of ALL sin? It was their lying. And in order to have lying offspring in the human race there also has to be the Father of it. And from these two, Mother and Father, we have little sons and daughters of the "devil."

And the doctrine of a "Fall" of man? It was a lie. It was the Mother of ALL sin.

 

[Josheb]

...or The Fall of the Doctrine of the Fall.

After centuries of the Gentile false doctrine of the "Fall" of mankind the truth finally comes out!

So, what is the Mother of all sin? Just as Judas was called the son of perdition, there is no passage of Scripture that says Judas was the father of perdition.

?????

Wait. Are there people who say "Judas is the father of perdition"? Would you please cite who is that person or persons and provide prrof to that effect?

And for good reason. And being the "son" of something implies being the "offspring" of it, a deriving of the thing from which it came. So, what is the Fall of the Doctrine of the Fall of mankind? It means the end of the teaching that in the man and woman in the Garden of Eden their eating the fruit from the forbidden Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, this sin caused their "Fall" from grace. It very clearly can be labeled a major teaching in the Gentile fellowship held on to all these centuries, a teaching that Scripture rightly divided and applied blows it clean out of the water.

That is certainly a definition held by some, but it is not one held by me and many others. Please do not indict every Christian because of the beliefs of some.

For before their sin of disobedience at eating from the forbidden tree they were already sinners to begin with...

That statement contradicts Genesis 1:31 and Romans 5:12.

, and if sinners before the so-called sin of disobedience, then that devilish doctrine of a "Fall" is a lie.
Here is the Scripture:

6 Add thou not unto his words,
Lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.
Proverbs 30:6.

And what did the man and woman in the Garden do before eating from the tree and disobeying God?
They lied. They added to God's Word.
And lying is a sin.

Yes, lying was a sin but scripture makes it clear it was not the sin that cause Adam, Eve, and the world to change. Sin is not held into account where there is no law (Rom. 5:13). Sin exists where there is no law, but it's not held into account and there was no law against lying at that time. Paul explicitly states Eve was the first sinner (1 Tim. 2:14) but he also made it quite clear it was through the disobedience of one man that sin entered the world (not one woman).

Furthermore, by appealing to a proof-texted Proverbs 30:6, not only is a post-Genesis 3:6-7 text being abused to described pre-Genesis 3:6-7 conditions, but the Proverbs verse is also abused in direct contradiction to Genesis 1:31 and Isaiah 5:20. This is multiple layers of scripture misuse.

And what is that "mark" they missed? The glory of God, or the glory that is God.

I agree with you. However, you still have not proven they were created sinful. All you've done is shown the Eve was sinful from the point she lied, not the point of her creation.

There was no Fall. Never was.

I do not like the phrase "the fall," either. I prefer to use the language and phrase scripture uses. There was an act of disobedience. There were several acts of disobedience reported in Genesis 3:1-6 but scripture later explicitly and specifically explains that it was only one of those acts that cause sin to enter the world. That is how the events of Genesis 3 should be understood, and no other explanation can ever be made to contradict Genesis 1:31. God Himself declared Adam and Eve "very good," and God does not call that which is evil, "good." He does not call sinful creatures good.

It was only in the fallen minds of fallen men that such a doctrine was even developed.

Until some proof is posted you are part of the problem to be solved: sinful lies about others. Until proof is posted this op is no different than Eve's adding to God's word. Tanakh tells us God later looked down on the world and found, "the wickedness of mankind was great on the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of their hearts was only evil continually," and the He told the prophet Isaiah to tell his Jewish audience, "All of us like sheep have gone astray, each of us has turned to his own way," so the position one man's disobedience has adversely affected all humanity is not a Gentile invention. Leaven was excluded from ceremonial diets because, as the Jew Paul put it, "a little leaven leavens the whole dough." It's not a Gentile invention.

And the doctrine of a "Fall" of man? It was a lie. It was the Mother of ALL sin.

This op is a sinful waste of time and cyberspace.

• God declared Adam and Eve good, not sinful.
• Sin is evil.
• God does not call evil good.
• Therefore, Adam and Eve were not created sinful
• Adam and Eve disobeyed God, and they did so several ways.
• Despite multiple examples of disobedient, only one act was held into account because only one command given covered those specific acts. That command was the command not to eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
• It was that one act, not the other acts of disobedience, by which sin entered the world. And through sin, death came to all men because all sin.

That is the logic of scripture. It has nothing to do with Gentiles.

The logic of this op is...

• Adam and Eve lied before they ate the forbidden fruit.
• They were, therefore, sinful prior to eating the fruit.
• Because they sinned prior to eating the fruit they were created sinful.
• Therefore, the "fall" is a Gentile invention, a lie.
• Because the Gentiles invented a lie the lie is the mother of all sin.

That is not logic, scriptural or otherwise. That is nuts.


Sin did not exist in the world prior to that one man's act of disobedience. Once sin entered the world it lay in wait for every occasion to infect everyone.

Genesis 4:7
"If you do well, will not your countenance be lifted up? And if you do not do well, sin is crouching at the door; and its desire is for you, but you must master it."

Sin could not "crouch at the door" if it had never entered the world. Sin would not need to be mastered had it never entered the world. The world God made was good, but after having made the world one man's disobedience changed everything.

Romans 5:12, 19
Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned... For as through the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the One the many will be made righteous.

There was not any sin in the world before that one man disobeyed God and through that one mane's act of disobedience many were made sinners - not just him alone. A Jew wrote that, not a Gentile, and that Jews was a leading member of a religious order in Judaism that held to a strict observation of Judaic tradition and the written Law. He was NOT a Gentile.



Bad op.

 

[CrowCross]

...or The Fall of the Doctrine of the Fall.

After centuries of the Gentile false doctrine of the "Fall" of mankind the truth finally comes out!

So, what is the Mother of all sin? Just as Judas was called the son of perdition, there is no passage of Scripture that says Judas was the father of perdition. And for good reason. And being the "son" of something implies being the "offspring" of it, a deriving of the thing from which it came. So, what is the Fall of the Doctrine of the Fall of mankind? It means the end of the teaching that in the man and woman in the Garden of Eden their eating the fruit from the forbidden Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, this sin caused their "Fall" from grace. It very clearly can be labeled a major teaching in the Gentile fellowship held on to all these centuries, a teaching that Scripture rightly divided and applied blows it clean out of the water. For before their sin of disobedience at eating from the forbidden tree they were already sinners to begin with, and if sinners before the so-called sin of disobedience, then that devilish doctrine of a "Fall" is a lie.
Here is the Scripture:

6 Add thou not unto his words,
Lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.
Proverbs 30:6.

And what did the man and woman in the Garden do before eating from the tree and disobeying God?
They lied. They added to God's Word.
And lying is a sin.

3 But of the fruit 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 3:3.

Adam and the woman were sinners BEFORE their sin of disobedience in eating the fruit from the forbidden tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. This means the Gentile doctrine of a fall from grace by eating from the forbidden tree is a lie. This also supports what I had been saying for a very long time and that is that God created Adam and the woman sinful, that is, "missing the mark"
And what is that "mark" they missed?
The glory of God, or the glory that is God.

There was no Fall. Never was. It was only in the fallen minds of fallen men that such a doctrine was even developed. And for a time, I and millions of others Fell for it. Oh, the irony! But now we know. Now we know that Adam and the woman were sinners before they ate from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. The Mother of ALL sin? It was their lying. And in order to have lying offspring in the human race there also has to be the Father of it. And from these two, Mother and Father, we have little sons and daughters of the "devil."

And the doctrine of a "Fall" of man? It was a lie. It was the Mother of ALL sin.

Yeah, there was no fall...their eyes were always open. They always knew they were naked.

 

[CrowCross]

God declared Adam and Eve good, not sinful.

Better yet....VERY good.

31And God looked upon all that He had made, and indeed, it was very good.

 

[Josheb]

Better yet....VERY good.

31And God looked upon all that He had made, and indeed, it was very good.

Yes, that is noted about a third of the way through Post #2.

God emphasized the goodness of all that He had made in six days. Everything He'd made was very good, and the humans He'd made we among "all that He had made". It is therefore, completely, wholly, inescapably, irrefutably, demonstrably unscriptural and irrational to claim God made Adam and Eve sinful. God did not just make Adam and Eve good; He made them very good.

 

[jeremiah1five]

Yeah, there was no fall...their eyes were always open. They always knew they were naked.

No, the Scripture states that they were naked. They did not know they were naked let alone there was even a nakedness.
It was God who said, "WHO TOLD YOU that you were naked."

11 And he said, Who told thee that thou wast naked? Hast thou eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat? Gen. 3:10–11.

Eyes are open according to knowledge. There was such a thing as ignorance, and they were ignorant.

25 And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed. Gen. 2:24–25.

If they knew they were naked then the LORD would not have asked "WHO TOLD THEE thou wast naked" if God was the one to tell them they were naked. It wouldn't make sense. There was no one else in the Garden. Just Adam and the woman. And no, there was no "Satan" or "serpent" or "fallen angel by any other name."
Temptation comes from within, not from without. There are not two ways of temptation.

14 But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed. James 1:13–14.

And the same happened to Jesus in the desert. There was no fallen angel tempting Jesus. His temptation was from within, not from without.

 

[CrowCross]

If they knew they were naked then the LORD would not have asked "WHO TOLD THEE thou wast naked"

The question was rhetorical. Like when they were asked...where are you?

 

[Arial]

And what did the man and woman in the Garden do before eating from the tree and disobeying God?
They lied. They added to God's Word.
And lying is a sin.

3 But of the fruit 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 3:3.

Eve said that, not Adam. And it is not a lie, but an exaggeration, and it may have been her understanding of what was forbidden. God gave the command to Adam, not Eve,---which is also significant in that it is not through Eve that all mankind became a sinful being, it is through Adam. There is no record of God giving the command directly to Eve, so the possibility that she heard it from Adam, remains. And we have heard of the whispering something in the ear, and how it is changed by the time it is whispered into many different ears. We have all heard how some people change an actual event to some degree, every time they repeat the story. And we have all experienced being misunderstood or having what we said repeated back slightly altered. It is a bogus OP of nothing but opinion being presented as fact, in order to, once again, spit on "Gentile" Christians----something that is also bogus, for there are no Jewish and Gentile Christians, only Christians. Those in Christ through faith. Of God created Adam and Eve as sinful beings, then He has no place to stand as Judge,or any room for judgement of sin.

 

[Josheb]

No, the Scripture states that they were naked. They did not know they were naked let alone there was even a nakedness.

That was a good thing, according to Genesis 1:31.

It was God who said, "WHO TOLD YOU that you were naked."

11 And he said, Who told thee that thou wast naked? Hast thou eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat? Gen. 3:10–11.

Eyes are open according to knowledge.

No, their eyes were opened to the knowledge of good and evil according to their disobedience, not knowledge. The eye opening came later, and with it the knowledge of wrongdoing (sin) faithlessness (sin), unrighteousness (sin), and shame (sin).

There was such a thing as ignorance, and they were ignorant.

Yes, but ignorance of disobedience and sin is a good thing.


You are supposed to be proving Adam and Eve were created sinful and, so far, every point you make either runs into conflict with Genesis 1:31 and Romans 5:12, or it proves they were NOT sinful until they disobeyed God.

 

[Josheb]

Eyes are open according to knowledge.

Their eyes were opened according to knowledge they were not supposed to possess. What you're arguing is sinful eyes were opened by sin, and that's being attributed to God.

 

[CrowCross]

Eve said that, not Adam. And it is not a lie, but an exaggeration, and it may have been her understanding of what was forbidden. God gave the command to Adam, not Eve,---which is also significant in that it is not through Eve that all mankind became a sinful being, it is through Adam. There is no record of God giving the command directly to Eve, so the possibility that she heard it from Adam, remains. And we have heard of the whispering something in the ear, and how it is changed by the time it is whispered into many different ears. We have all heard how some people change an actual event to some degree, every time they repeat the story. And we have all experienced being misunderstood or having what we said repeated back slightly altered. It is a bogus OP of nothing but opinion being presented as fact, in order to, once again, spit on "Gentile" Christians----something that is also bogus, for there are no Jewish and Gentile Christians, only Christians. Those in Christ through faith. Of God created Adam and Eve as sinful beings, then He has no place to stand as Judge,or any room for judgement of sin.

One commentator I was reading suggested that "don't touch it" meant to touch, pluck and eat. As you pointed out there are many possibilities.
In one of their walks in the cool of the evening God may have said to Adam and Eve...don't even touch it, as in stay away from it less it temps you to eat it.

We don't know.

 

[CrowCross]

You are supposed to be proving Adam and Eve were created sinful and, so far, every point you make either runs into conflict with Genesis 1:31 and Romans 5:12, or it proves they were NOT sinful until they disobeyed God.

One must also ask...what was considered as sin at that point of time? Basically they had two rules....don't eat from the tree and be fruitful and multiply.

 

[Josheb]

One must also ask...what was considered as sin at that point of time? Basically they had two rules....don't eat from the tree and be fruitful and multiply.

I completely agree!

We might not know the answer to that question if all we had was Genesis chapters 1 through 3, but the rest of scripture expounds on the definition and nature of sin. The bottom line is sin is not good and God called everything He made "very good." Until @jeremiah1five explains how God can make something sinful, also call it good, and then later call it bad, the premise upon which the op and the rest of the thread is built fails.


Personally, I believe the first two commands can be summarized as "the law of sin and death." If you disobey God, then you die. It is that simple. It does not matter what the disobedience is, if you disobey God then you die. In the garden only one act of disobedience was cited. Any other opportunity to disobey God was unspecified, and if Romans 5:13 is applicable (and it is) then we know why the seeming and/or real additions and lies had no adverse effect (as has been asserted by this op) until the forbidden kiwi was eaten by Adam. I don't think it has yet been mentioned but Adam and Eve broke both commands, not just the second. Had Adam or Eve subdued the serpent and ruled over him then they never would have eaten the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. As I stated earlier (in agreement with the op) there was a lot of disobedience going on, but God held them accountable for only one act AND the rest of scripture explains why.

Knowing the rest of scripture, we also know the greatest commandment is to love God with everything. When that is applied to Genesis 3, we necessarily understand the unloving nature of what was happening.

What is the opposite of love? (hint: the answer is not "hate")




.

 

[CrowCross]

I completely agree!

We might not know the answer to that question if all we had was Genesis chapters 1 through 3, but the rest of scripture expounds on the definition and nature of sin. The bottom line is sin is not good and God called everything He made "very good." Until @jeremiah1five explains how God can make something sinful, also call it good, and then later call it bad, the premise upon which the op and the rest of the thread is built fails.

I too am waiting for this explanation.

Personally, I believe the first two commands can be summarized as "the law of sin and death." If you disobey God, then you die. It is that simple. It does not matter what the disobedience is, if you disobey God then you die. In the garden only one act of disobedience was cited. Any other opportunity to disobey God was unspecified, and if Romans 5:13 is applicable (and it is) then we know why the seeming and/or real additions and lies had no adverse effect (as has been asserted by this op) until the forbidden kiwi was eaten by Adam. I don't think it has yet been mentioned but Adam and Eve broke both commands, not just the second. Had Adam or Eve subdued the serpent and ruled over him then they never would have eaten the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. As I stated earlier (in agreement with the op) there was a lot of disobedience going on, but God held them accountable for only one act AND the rest of scripture explains why.

Knowing the rest of scripture, we also know the greatest commandment is to love God with everything. When that is applied to Genesis 3, we necessarily understand the unloving nature of what was happening.

What is the opposite of love? (hint: the answer is not "hate")




.

 

[Josheb]

I too am waiting for this explanation.

Pull up a chair beside me. I think it's going to be awhile. I don't see much evidence the problem is recognized (despite its having been explained).

 

[Arial]

What is the opposite of love?

Indifference?

 

[Josheb]

Indifference?

Yes!

Or, more accurately, apathy. Hatred, anger, etc. indicate some form of investment still exists. a - pathy, the absence of pathos, or emotional regard for another. In other words, the implication of the Genesis 3 account is an appalling indifference to God.

Revelation 3:15-18
I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot; I wish that you were cold or hot. So, because you are lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of My mouth. Because you say, "I am rich, and have become wealthy, and have need of nothing," and you do not know that you are wretched and miserable and poor and blind and naked, I advise you to buy from Me gold refined by fire so that you may become rich, and white garments so that you may clothe yourself, and that the shame of your nakedness will not be revealed; and eye salve to anoint your eyes so that you may see.

Ambivalence is the condition when two or more competing thoughts, emotions, motives, or choices exist. "I want to lose weight but I love Hostess cupcakes." There is no, "I want to serve God..." in the Genesis 3 account.

Genesis 3:6
When the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was desirable to make one wise...

Many construe this to be some untoward event on Eve's part, but the tree was good for food and, being good, it was a delight to the eyes. It was also desirable for making one wise, just not wise as eating it would provide. Her observations were correct, but the fact remained she had been told not to eat from it. The silence, the utter absence of any thought or concern for God, His commands, or his promises or their relationship with Him implies a rank apathy.

But there is no command prohibiting apathy.

That apathy, however, led to her disobedience, and that of her husband.

Genesis 3:6-7
When the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was desirable to make one wise, she took from its fruit and ate; and she gave also to her husband with her, and he ate. Then the eyes of both of them were opened....

Every English translation translates this as a sequence with implied causality. There's nothing indicating Eve's disobeying God when she ate the fruit had any adverse effect of her, but when she gave the fruit to Adam and he ate their eyes were opened.

Why weren't Eve's eyes opened until Adam ate?








The answers will be speculative because scripture doesn't come right out and overtly explain it, but there is one verse that gives us an indication there was a difference between Eve's action(s) and Adam's. @jeremiah1five alluded to it earlier but I don't see any evidence the further implications are understood (because they undermine the premise Adam and Eve were created sinful). Still, for those willing to venture a guess I'll take a few answers and offer my own for submission and review . I do not think it related to the "created order" where Adam was over Eve (that's the most frequent answer I've received over the years). What would cause a creature who'd heard directly from God, knew the consequences of their actions beforehand, and felt the passion of....

Genesis 2:23-25
The man said, "This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh; She shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man." For this reason, a man shall leave his father and his mother and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh. And the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed.

...to suddenly have no regard for - to be apathetic - completely indifferent to God and His command?



One last thought. We tend to think of what happened in Genesis 3:6 as a willful act of deliberate disobedience. What if it wasn't? If there was no regard for God's command and they were indifferent to the consequences then willful disobedience is irrelevant to Adam's action . If that's the case, then this is a huge "MEH" on steroids; the first of many subsequent occasions when humans acted with wanton disregard for anything - God, God's commands, their own best interests, or the known adverse consequences To spite God or act willfully in spite of God with God in mind would indicate a regard for God that is nowhere found in the Genesis 3 report. To have no regard in an otherwise good, unashamed, and sinless state is an offense so egregious it goes far beyond mere willful disobedience. All of you: Think of any occasion when someone in your life treated you as if you had no worth. Not worth less, but worthless. It's not "My will over Yours," is prideful selfishness; it's "Will? Who's will? What will? Meh."


It truly is amazing He did not incinerate all of them right then and there and start over.

It is also NOT how God made Adam and Eve. This op says they were created sinful, not good, unashamed, and sinless (Gen. 1:31; Gen. 2:25; and Rom. 5:12).

 

[Mr GLee]

After centuries of the Gentile false doctrine of the "Fall" of mankind the truth finally comes out!

So, what is the Mother of all sin? Just as Judas was called the son of perdition, there is no passage of Scripture that says Judas was the father of perdition. And for good reason. And being the "son" of something implies being the "offspring" of it, a deriving of the thing from which it came. So, what is the Fall of the Doctrine of the Fall of mankind? It means the end of the teaching that in the man and woman in the Garden of Eden their eating the fruit from the forbidden Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, this sin caused their "Fall" from grace. It very clearly can be labeled a major teaching in the Gentile fellowship held on to all these centuries, a teaching that Scripture rightly divided and applied blows it clean out of the water. For before their sin of disobedience at eating from the forbidden tree they were already sinners to begin with, and if sinners before the so-called sin of disobedience, then that devilish doctrine of a "Fall" is a lie.

I would offer the mother of sin simply another teching master other than sola scriptura. The father of lies sending out false prophets as false apostles with the oral tradition of dying mankind. . . . . . adding to the living word "neither shall you touch of it" deceived both with one false prophecy both Adam nd Eve

1. Proverbs 2:16To deliver thee from the strange woman, even from the stranger which flattereth with her words;
   
   
2. Proverbs 5:3For the lips of a strange woman drop as an honeycomb, and her mouth is smoother than oil:
   
   
3. Proverbs 5:20And why wilt thou, my son, be ravished with a strange woman, and embrace the bosom of a stranger?
   
   
4. Proverbs 6:24To keep thee from the evil woman, from the flattery of the tongue of a strange woman.
   
   
5. Proverbs 7:5That they may keep thee from the strange woman, from the stranger which flattereth with her words.
   
   
6. Proverbs 20:16Take his garment that is surety for a stranger: and take a pledge of him for a strange woman.
   
   
7. Proverbs 23:27For a whore is a deep ditch; and a strange womanis a narrow pit.
   
   
8. Proverbs 27:13Take his garment that is surety for a stranger, and take a pledge of him for a strange woman.

 

[Arial]

Why weren't Eve's eyes opened until Adam ate?

Eve was deceived, Adam was not. Eve came from Adam, Adam did not come from Eve. Being deceived is a result of simple lack of understanding or knowledge. When Adam ate bone of his bone and flesh of his flesh both had their eyes opened to knowledge they should not have had. They saw each other as unclothed and were ashamed. Which is interesting. If they were naked before, and had no shame, and no knowledge of being clothed or even what that was, but instantly tried to cover themselves and hide from God, the question is why did that now become shameful? They were now corrupted. Before they were not. And corruption is pretty ugly, needs to be covered up, and instinctively wants to hide from God.

 

[Mr GLee]

Eve was deceived, Adam was not. Eve came from Adam, Adam did not come from Eve. Being deceived is a result of simple lack of understanding or knowledge. When Adam ate bone of his bone and flesh of his flesh both had their eyes opened to knowledge they should not have had. They saw each other as unclothed and were ashamed. Which is interesting. If they were naked before, and had no shame, and no knowledge of being clothed or even what that was, but instantly tried to cover themselves and hide from God, the question is why did that now become shameful? They were now corrupted. Before they were not. And corruption is pretty ugly, needs to be covered up, and instinctively wants to hide from God.

I would offer.

Adam received the prophecy from God to be used like with Moses and Aaron Adam (Exodus 7 ) as if he was God the invisible head. And was to bring prophecy to Eve making Eve the first a prophetess to represent the whole church again Adam used to signify our invisible head .

The father of lies a murder from the beginning gave false prophecy to Eve adding to the violating the warning. Both ate Eve was the first deceived by false prophecy. Adam who was to act as Christ failed to protect the wife both deceived. Eve designed as the weaker vessel as the whole church

Exodus 7:1-3King James Version7 And the Lord said unto Moses, See, I have made thee a god to Pharaoh: and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet. Thou shalt speak all that I command thee: and Aaron thy brother shall speak unto Pharaoh, that he send the children of Israel out of his land.

1 Timothy 2:13-15King James Version1 For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.

Again both were Eve first same deception (neither shall you touch) virtue lost.


When mankind sinned they lost innocence . Naked