How was Adam’s choice to sin any different from ours?

[BNR32FAN]

the sin was laid on Adam not Eve,

Wrong again

”To the woman He said, “I will greatly multiply Your pain in childbirth, In pain you will bring forth children; Yet your desire will be for your husband, And he will rule over you.”“
‭‭Genesis‬ ‭3‬:‭16‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

Why was Eve punished if the sin was not laid on her?

 

[BNR32FAN]

Note that in the passage, Eve does not specifically tell Adam he won't die, nor does Adam confront her about it. She gives it to him, he eats. There was no tricking or deceiving.

The bible doesn’t say anything about what Eve said. Where are you getting all this from? Are you getting this from a movie or something because none of this is actually in the Bible.

”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.“
‭‭Genesis‬ ‭3‬:‭6‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

There is no record of any dialogue at all between Adam & Eve about eating the fruit. The only thing we can infer from this is that both of them knew that it was a sin and both of them willingly indulged in it. Therefore their desire to sin was already present before they actually committed the sin. When they picked the fruit from the tree for the purpose of eating it the desire for sin was already present in them before they actually broke the commandment against eating it. They didn’t create a sinful nature for everyone who followed they already had a sinful nature from the very beginning because they are autonomous sentient beings with free will. That is the source of sin. Saying that sin is the source of our sinful nature is circular reasoning.

 

[fhansen]

If that was the case, why was God to a degree, more lenient on Eve? There was a curse, but also a promise of redemption.
Adam just got cursed. It's Adam's sin not Eve's sin.
I think Adam was aware and made the choice anyway.
it makes a lot more things make sense, like the end of marriage - there won't be a single relationship with any one person that can compete for loyalty to the relationship with God, as there was with Adam.

Adam was more culpable; it wasn't deception but rather his own pride combined with peer pressure that moved him to disobey. But to say that he had such complete knowledge that he understood what sin and death truly meant, is to go against the grain of the whole story of the fall and salvation. Adam would come to directly experience evil, which sin and death comprise. All of humanity have that experience daily in this world now, the knowledge of good and evil. And Adam and Eve presumably gained wisdom by that experience so that when God came knocking at their door, they opened it and allowed Him back in again. Presumably, we don't know anyone's eternal fate with certainty

 

[Jamdoc]

There’s a couple problems with this statement. First Eve came from Adam, second Eve didn’t have any offspring without Adam. All men are descendants of Adam. Mary was a descendant of Adam.

God gave Eve the honor though, and that it would be through a woman alone, without a male human father.

Wrong again

”To the woman He said, “I will greatly multiply Your pain in childbirth, In pain you will bring forth children; Yet your desire will be for your husband, And he will rule over you.”“
‭‭Genesis‬ ‭3‬:‭16‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

Why was Eve punished if the sin was not laid on her?

She was punished for doing wrong, but the main blame for the curse on the world, and death entering the world, was laid on Adam. Not Eve.
The scripture never refers to it as Eve's sin.

The bible doesn’t say anything about what Eve said. Where are you getting all this from? Are you getting this from a movie or something because none of this is actually in the Bible.

You're right, it doesn't, and that's the point Neither in that passage, nor in Adam telling God his excuse, is Eve said to have deceived Adam.
Where in Eve's defense, she tells God the serpent tricked her.

You're assuming Eve tricked Adam into eating it That Adam didn't know what death was and therefore ate the fruit in ignorance.
But that's not in the text.

Adam ate when given the fruit, that is all that is explicitly said.
and Adam had more culpability and had a much more serious curse placed on him.
More responsibility is laid on Adam, why?

”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.“
‭‭Genesis‬ ‭3‬:‭6‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

There is no record of any dialogue at all between Adam & Eve about eating the fruit. The only thing we can infer from this is that both of them knew that it was a sin and both of them willingly indulged in it. Therefore their desire to sin was already present before they actually committed the sin. When they picked the fruit from the tree for the purpose of eating it the desire for sin was already present in them before they actually broke the commandment against eating it. They didn’t create a sinful nature for everyone who followed they already had a sinful nature from the very beginning because they are autonomous sentient beings with free will. That is the source of sin. Saying that sin is the source of our sinful nature is circular reasoning.

That isn't in the scripture at all.
Eve gave what she believed was the consequences of eating the fruit, the serpent told her a lie, she believed the lie. She was deceived.
That is why the serpent was cursed. The serpent was given partial responsibility for deceiving Eve.

God punished the serpent for deceiving Eve, God did not punish Eve for deceiving Adam, why not if Eve deceived Adam?
Why did Adam receive the brunt of the curse, in which it didn't just affect him but all creation?

 

[Jamdoc]

Adam was more culpable; it wasn't deception but rather his own pride combined with peer pressure that moved him to disobey. But to say that he had such complete knowledge that he understood what sin and death truly meant, is to go against the grain of the whole story of the fall and salvation. Adam would come to directly experience evil, which sin and death comprise. All of humanity have that experience daily in this world now, the knowledge of good and evil. And Adam and Eve presumably gained wisdom by that experience so that when God came knocking at their door, they opened it and allowed Him back in again. Presumably, we don't know anyone's eternal fate with certainty

God wouldn't be fair if He gave them a consequence they couldn't understand for an action.
Like with a child if you tell them not to play in the street because a car might hit them and they might die they don't understand death and thus the consequence is meaningless to them and they don't know why they shouldn't play in the street.

Instead a parent will give them a consequence they do understand: punishment by the parent.

so 3 options:
1. God gave them a consequence they didn't understand, and then additionally punished them on top of death when they did something they didn't even understand.
2. They understood the consequence but didn't believe it would actually happen (what happened to Eve, someone else told her God was lying and holding things back from her, and she believed that), God therefore punishes the one who deceived.
3. They knew the consequences and made the choice for some other reason (IE Adam preferring to die with his wife than life without her), this is a full conscious choice, and therefore warrants the most severe punishment.

I think 2 and 3 are more likely, 1 is very unlikely as God's smarter than mortal parents and would know giving a consequence that made no sense would be an ineffective deterrent.

 

[fhansen]

God wouldn't be fair if He gave them a consequence they couldn't understand for an action.
Like with a child if you tell them not to play in the street because a car might hit them and they might die they don't understand death and thus the consequence is meaningless to them and they don't know why they shouldn't play in the street.

Instead a parent will give them a consequence they do understand: punishment by the parent.

so 3 options:
1. God gave them a consequence they didn't understand, and then additionally punished them on top of death when they did something they didn't even understand.
2. They understood the consequence but didn't believe it would actually happen (what happened to Eve, someone else told her God was lying and holding things back from her, and she believed that), God therefore punishes the one who deceived.
3. They knew the consequences and made the choice for some other reason (IE Adam preferring to die with his wife than life without her), this is a full conscious choice, and therefore warrants the most severe punishment.

I think 2 and 3 are more likely, 1 is very unlikely as God's smarter than mortal parents and would know giving a consequence that made no sense would be an ineffective deterrent.

This world is a stepping stone, back to the God man rejected in Eden. There's a reason God wants us here: to learn, by experience, revelation, and grace. We're all born prodigals, experiencing the pigsty, relatively speaking.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

We often hear that we are able to sin because of our “sin nature” which we inherited from Adam. How was Adam able to sin without already having a “sin nature” and how was his ability to choose sin any different from our own? It seems, biologically, socially, and psychologically Adam was just as human as us.

Adam is a figurative character representing all of us.

 

[Halbhh]

Like with a child if you tell them not to play in the street because a car might hit them and they might die they don't understand death and thus the consequence is meaningless to them and they don't know why they shouldn't play in the street.

Imagine your intelligent and promising young child (say 5-8 years old) hears an older kid suggest that parents are wrong a lot, and really, worse, they are just trying to keep kids down....

We can see how the story might read today then:


16 And the Lord God commanded the man, “You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; 17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die.” (become mortal)

Today: "Sam, I know you like to play around the car, and I want to be clear about the rules -- you and your friend can play anywhere around the farm and even play in the car too...but never take the keys and try to drive the car, because if you do, you both could die"

...Chapter 3:
3 Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the Lord God had made. He said to the woman, “Did God really say, ‘You must not eat from any tree in the garden’?”
[notice the premise slipped in under the diversion]

Today: "Did your dad really say you can't even play outside at all? Gosh!" (tsk, tsk...)

2 The woman said to the serpent, “We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden, 3 but God did say, ‘You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.’” [she has a slightly inaccurate understanding, but close enough]

Today: "No, I can play outside, but I'm to never touch the car."

4 “You will not certainly die,” the serpent said to the woman. 5 “For God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”

Today: "Your dad...(shakes head...) Driving a car is harmless. He knows that if you drive the car, you'll be just as powerful as He is, and you'll show how you are just as smart or really smarter than he is! He's just trying to keep you from doing all He can do." (gives a wise look...)

6 When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it. 7 Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves."

====​

So, they've chosen to believe or want to go with the idea that God isn't trustworthy on some level to guide them in their own best interest....

Now the best possible path for them (since they distrust God) is that they should go out and test that conceit.... learn by experience....

They should take all that freedom they've assumed to judge everything for themselves (all good and evil), and learn by experience then....

For their own sake, they should have every chance to learn: so they need to experience then all the natural consequences of their ongoing choices over time, so that they can learn.

(They will have to learn the hard way what they would have learned gradually/slowly over centuries or millennia of time while in the garden if they stayed and trusted God....)

In this way, in time, they might learn how God was right and wise and they should turn back to Him in real trust -- 'faith'.

So:
21 The Lord God made garments of skin for Adam and his wife and clothed them. 22 And the Lord God said, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.” 23 So the Lord God banished him from the Garden of Eden to work the ground from which he had been taken.

 

[Jamdoc]

This world is a stepping stone, back to the God man rejected in Eden. There's a reason God wants us here: to learn, by experience, revelation, and grace. We're all born prodigals, experiencing the pigsty, relatively speaking.

If the goal was to teach, then that is a very poor teacher.
a child learns not to touch a stove after touching one and burning their hand perhaps
but a child does not learn not to play with a gun by shooting themselves.
Mind you before the deed was done, there was no promise of redemption, no promise of resurrection.
Just if you do this, you will die.

If they had no grasp on the consequence and thus it was a poor deterrent, and God condemned through ignorance, billions of people to eternal suffering, he set us up to fail.
an analogy, God put a loaded handgun in the middle of Eden and just said "don't touch it" with the same weight of seriousness as Joe Biden telling Iran "don't"
"Don't or what?"

Is that God? did he intend to "teach us a lesson" with death and the eternal conscious torment of billions (10's of billions?) of people because Adam was ignorant? In Human justice, people who are mentally deficient are not held accountable for crimes they have done, or they get reduced penalties
or
did Adam know the consequence, and made an informed decision, and thus, God is just to have punished him? Remember the thing that Adam didn't know was "good and evil" or "right and wrong" there was no knowledge that going against God's will was wrong. God didn't give Adam the rationale of "because I said so" God gave Adam knowledge of the consequence if he did it; he would die.

Luke 12 and Hebrews 10 do show that God varies in punishment according to their knowledge.
Adam received a very severe, and very far reaching (affecting every living being in creation) punishment.
We don't even know if Adam is ever redeemed in scripture.

 

[fhansen]

God wouldn't be fair if He gave them a consequence they couldn't understand for an action.

If Adam believed God, or knew what he was going to experience, do you think he would've disobeyed? What would be the point? Adam thought that he knew better; that was the problem. He needed to come to believe God, that He was right and perfect in His wisdom after all. And that first act is called faith. It's to acknowledge God as God.

 

[fhansen]

God wouldn't be fair if He gave them a consequence they couldn't understand for an action.

God knows how bad the consequences of disobedience are. He told them about it. God knows good and evil but they didn't yet know the evil that would come, they knew only good, having never experienced anything else, nothing to contrast it with. And they didn't believe Him.

 

[Jamdoc]

If Adam believed God, or knew what he was going to experience, do you think he would've obeyed? What would be the point? Adam thought that he knew better; that was the problem. He needed to come to believe God, that He was right and perfect in His wisdom after all. And that first act is called faith. It's to acknowledge God as God.

the alternative is that Adam made an informed decision, but made a bad value judgement. Valuing his wife over God.

and while I am speculating... so are you. Because the bible does not say Adam was deceived (and in fact the results point that Adam was not deceived or ignorant, the 2 options become Adam didn't believe God or Adam valued something over God), it does not say Adam was prideful or that Adam didn't believe God's commandment either.
It just says that Eve gave the fruit, and Adam ate, and when asked, that's all Adam said, the woman you gave to me, gave me to eat, and I did eat.

Just factual statement without any motives.
So the motives become interpretation and speculation.

Eve is the one that we have a clear motive on, she was deceived, and God accepted that she had been deceived, by punishing the deceiver first, and more severely.
the serpent we have somewhat of a motive on, Jesus said he was a liar and a murderer from the beginning, he's just evil, and Isaiah 14 gives him further motive.

But Adam? we only have speculation and interpretation.

and is it such a stretch? In some people's views it would be considered romantic. That Adam chose dying with his wife over living without her, and in real world scenarios, people do commit suicide over the loss of a spouse or children, or if 2 people are very close, the death of one triggers the death of the other from small heart attacks, they essentially die of grief within days after their loved one dies (it happened to Debbie Reynolds after Carrie Fisher, her daughter suddenly died some years back), or you can say they died of a broken heart.

and I believe Adam's choice, not only cursed the entire world, but made marriage be a thing only for the current Earth, it wasn't originally intended as a means just for procreation to replace dying people, as it had been created before the fall, before people could die. But after the fall it became necessary to prevent extinction.
But once people can no longer die, it is removed from existence.

2 possibilities:
1. God made it setting us up to fail and fall
2. Man's choice to value wife over God, and further on (Genesis 6), Angel's choice to desire wives.. made God repent of creating it.

 

[fhansen]

Because the bible does not say Adam was deceived

And neither did I. But this type of speculation is going nowhere anyway. I disagree with your assessment. To me, it doesn’t sound consistent with the overall message of the bible, with historic speculations, or with reason. Informed decision? I guess we should all prefer death then, knowing what it is as we do. I guess the main thing we can say with conviction, in line with Anselm, if I recall, is that Adam sinned because he willed to sin, simple as that. We can’t go a great deal further. And we must come to do the opposite.

 

[Jamdoc]

And neither did I. But this type of speculation is going nowhere anyway. I disagree with your assessment. To me, it doesn’t sound consistent with the overall message of the bible, with historic speculations, or with reason. Informed decision? I guess we should all prefer death then, knowing what it is as we do. I guess the main thing we can say with conviction, in line with Anselm, if I recall, is that Adam sinned because he willed to sin, simple as that. We can’t go a great deal further. And we must come to do the opposite.

Isn't ultimately all sin valuing something over God?
my speculation is just what that thing was, going based on eternal consequences of it, and how God phrased His judgement. "Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife"

Lucifer's sin was pride and trying to be like God. His punishment is eternal condemnation with no chance at redemption, the lesson is "you cannot dethrone God", and He lets Lucifer try, that's part of this entire experience, God letting Lucifer try to ruin His plans and dethrone Him, to ultimately fail and have his place in torment eternally.
If Adam's sin was the same as Lucifer's.. wouldn't the punishment also be without possibility of redemption?
but if Adam's sin was not to be like God, but to value a creation over God, the punishment would be on creation, and the lesson would ultimately be that no thing is as valuable as God, and no relationship is as important as the one with God. Without God, you can have all things, and they would be bitter, ugly, and cursed, God still let Adam have his wife, God still let Adam have the world, .. but without God's blessing it is cursed, ugly, and bitter, and so all the things Adam had become utterly worthless, because they were without God, but by his own hands.

 

[fhansen]

Isn't ultimately all sin valuing something over God?
my speculation is just what that thing was, going based on eternal consequences of it, and how God phrased His judgement. "Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife"

Yes! That's good. But why did Adam allow his wife to affect/influence Him over God? That's the question. That's the sin. That's what needs to be overcome in all of humanity-so that we'll begin to value and heed God and His voice first above all else, above all created things. IOW, we need to come to love God with our whole heart, soul, mind, and strength. That's what Adam lacked in Eden and that's what God's been seeking to cultivate in us ever since, patiently, with many necessary steps down through the centuries including the giving of the Law, the Law that reflects love but that cannot accomplish the obedience in us that only love can. Augustine summed it up this way, consistent with Romans 7 and elsewhere:
"The law was therefore given in order that grace might be sought; grace was given in order that the law might be fulfilled."

And by his act Adam was also trying to be like God, following his tempter's path in his own pride. We're faced with the same decision as to who or what we'll follow. A teaching I'm familiar with puts it this way:

397 Man, tempted by the devil, let his trust in his Creator die in his heart and, abusing his freedom, disobeyed God's command. This is what man's first sin consisted of.278 All subsequent sin would be disobedience toward God and lack of trust in his goodness.

398 In that sin man preferred himself to God and by that very act scorned him. He chose himself over and against God, against the requirements of his creaturely status and therefore against his own good. Constituted in a state of holiness, man was destined to be fully "divinized" by God in glory. Seduced by the devil, he wanted to "be like God", but "without God, before God, and not in accordance with God".279

 

[Jamdoc]

Yes! That's good. But why did Adam allow his wife to affect/influence Him over God? That's the question. That's the sin. That's what needs to be overcome in all of humanity-so that we'll begin to value and heed God and His voice first above all else, above all created things. IOW, we need to come to love God with our whole heart, soul, mind, and strength. That's what Adam lacked in Eden and that's what God's been seeking to cultivate in us ever since, patiently, with many necessary steps down through the centuries including the giving of the Law, the Law that reflects love but that cannot accomplish the obedience in us that only love can. Augustine summed it up this way, consistent with Romans 7 and elsewhere:
"The law was therefore given in order that grace might be sought; grace was given in order that the law might be fulfilled."

And by his act Adam was also trying to be like God, following his tempter's path in his own pride. We're faced with the same decision as to who or what we'll follow. A teaching I'm familiar with puts it this way:

397 Man, tempted by the devil, let his trust in his Creator die in his heart and, abusing his freedom, disobeyed God's command. This is what man's first sin consisted of.278 All subsequent sin would be disobedience toward God and lack of trust in his goodness.

398 In that sin man preferred himself to God and by that very act scorned him. He chose himself over and against God, against the requirements of his creaturely status and therefore against his own good. Constituted in a state of holiness, man was destined to be fully "divinized" by God in glory. Seduced by the devil, he wanted to "be like God", but "without God, before God, and not in accordance with God".279

But the thing is, Genesis 3 isn't specific about Adam's motivations.
Genesis 3 only gave us the barest of acknowledgements of fact.
"the woman you gave to me gave me to eat and I did eat"
no motivation given
and I've always found it assumed that just like the serpent deceived Eve, that Eve deceived Adam
and the secondary rationale being it was assumed that Adam had the same desire as the serpent, to take God's place.

But considering his status is redeemable, and all man's status under him is redeemable, it seems to be a different motivation than Satan's motivation, which was overthrow God. A man valuing something over God and choosing it over God, in this case another person, who was gifted to him by God, can be seen as more redeemable because you can teach someone that without the gift giver, the gift is meaningless., without the Creator, the creation is meaningless, without the source of all Life, life is meaningless. That's a lesson that can be learned, and once learned that person can love God more than they could before the lesson was taught, because you see just how much He actually means in everything. It's like if a person gets what they thought they wanted and then realizing moments later.. they're still not happy, it isn't fulfilling, and in time, you can realize, that what was really valued, is that a gift was given by someone more valuable than the gift, and it is His favor that you truly value rather than actual gifts.

Proverbs 18

22 Whoso findeth a wife findeth a good thing, and obtaineth favour of the Lord.

So that is the lesson that can be learned, and the end result is...
Revelation 21

5 And he that sat upon the throne said, Behold, I make all things new. And he said unto me, Write: for these words are true and faithful.
6 And he said unto me, It is done. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end. I will give unto him that is athirst of the fountain of the water of life freely.
7 He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son.

If you value God, He provides, if you value things over God, you lose out and the things you have become meaningless anyway.
I think about, if Adam had valued God over Eve, didn't listen to her, and obeyed God, Okay Eve would have perished, I'm not sure how this would play into the salvation plan because this is a hypothetical, but Eve would perish, Adam would live. Would God have just.. given Adam a new wife? When Job lost his family and remained faithful in his testing, God replaced the family he had lost, and gave him more wealth than he had lost.

But main point there is, this sin can be corrected with a lesson. It's not a comfortable lesson. But it is a lesson that can teach love of God.

In Satan's case, teaching him he cannot overthrow God does not redeem him, you may subdue him with the lesson, but he'll never love God, he'll always harbor that desire to replace him and have power himself. Not if the pride is too central to him and cannot be broken. Nebuchadnezzar got humbled, his pride got broken with severe enough chastisement. Nebuchadnezzar I think, had pride in ignorance, while Satan has pride while having knowledge of the truth, a bit different I suppose.

I mean yes I am aware that I am speculating but because Adam's motivation was left blank, and could be speculated on, that's what I will do, meditate on scripture and well, I find it of less value to just.. take what is traditionally taught and roll with that. There's not really a lot of meditation done if you have a question some "great theologian" in the past had an answer and you just say "ditto"

 

[fhansen]

But the thing is, Genesis 3 isn't specific about Adam's motivations.

I don't think it matters. Because disobedience of God necessitates pride in any case, necessitates my believing that whatever I do for whatever reason I do it is superior to or more important than God's will.

 

[fhansen]

But considering his status is redeemable, and all man's status under him is redeemable, it seems to be a different motivation than Satan's motivation, which was overthrow God.

That's speculation. Adam exalted his own opinion above God's or else he could never disobey. There may well have been mitigating circumstances that lessened his culpability but to disobey God is foolishness in any case.

If you value God, He provides, if you value things over God, you lose out and the things you have become meaningless anyway.
I think about, if Adam had valued God over Eve, didn't listen to her, and obeyed God, Okay Eve would have perished, I'm not sure how this would play into the salvation plan because this is a hypothetical, but Eve would perish, Adam would live. Would God have just.. given Adam a new wife? When Job lost his family and remained faithful in his testing, God replaced the family he had lost, and gave him more wealth than he had lost.

When a created, rational being with free will comes to value God above all else, he has it all; he's "arrived". As with Abraham, we can trust that God is good and will do the right thing no matter what he asks of us. Adam wasn't there yet.

But main point there is, this sin can be corrected with a lesson. It's not a comfortable lesson. But it is a lesson that can teach love of God.

Yes, it's corrected by our coming to know God, that He's merciful trustworthy, all-wise, and incomparably lovable. Part of that lesson comes as we exist apart from Him, in a world that so often devalues and dismisses and tramples upon truth and mercy and trust and love, due to their autonomy from Him.

In Satan's case, teaching him he cannot overthrow God does not redeem him, you may subdue him with the lesson, but he'll never love God, he'll always harbor that desire to replace him and have power himself. Not if the pride is too central to him and cannot be broken. Nebuchadnezzar got humbled, his pride got broken with severe enough chastisement. Nebuchadnezzar I think, had pride in ignorance, while Satan has pride while having knowledge of the truth, a bit different I suppose.

Yes, we all play different roles. God is all about the salvation of man, leading him from satan's realm and way to His.

I find it of less value to just.. take what is traditionally taught and roll with that. There's not really a lot of meditation done if you have a question some "great theologian" in the past had an answer and you just say "ditto"

More speculation. I came to study many things, including other religions and the bible and the patristics and sometimes the thoughts of a "great theologian" or two and ended up over many years modifying or leaving behind some beliefs, some of which were very much like your own. I never just say "ditto", but only quote people who agree with me, IOW, assuming that their "greatness" may at least carry more weight than just one more guy on the internet.

 

[Jamdoc]

That's speculation. Adam exalted his own opinion above God's or else he could never disobey. There may well have been mitigating circumstances that lessened his culpability but to disobey God is foolishness in any case.

I don't know if he exalted, like we're both agreeing on, the passage itself gives very little about Adam's mindset.
Adam was given the fruit, and he ate, there was no description of his mindset, which is why this becomes open to speculation, and when he confesses, and he immediately knew he had done wrong (hence trying to hide, shame). Some people when Adam is confessing his sin, lean into the fact that he mentioned his wife that he was blaming her, as Eve had blamed the serpent but, the text doesn't really say that it just states factually, she gave the fruit, and I did eat.
There doesn't seem to be a statement of pride there just.. fact.

With Lucifer in Isaiah 14, he exalts himself, with the little horn in Daniel he exalts himself, and these are.. deadly amounts of pride these don't get redeemed.
Nebuchadnezzar, had pride, exalted himself, but God chastised him, possibly because Nebuchadnezzar's pride was out of ignorance. Nebuchadnezzar got chastised, acknowledged God, repented, and then wrote scripture.. it's wild. I like to think he actually got saved.

When a created, rational being with free will comes to value God above all else, he has it all; he's "arrived". As with Abraham, we can trust that God is good and will do the right thing no matter what he asks of us. Adam wasn't there yet.

and yet Abraham still messed up some times. both the times he lied about his wife and then.. well. Ishmael

More speculation. I came to study many things, including other religions and the bible and the patristics and sometimes the thoughts of a "great theologian" or two and ended up over many years modifying or leaving behind some beliefs, some of which were very much like your own. I never just say "ditto", but only quote people who agree with me, IOW, assuming that their "greatness" may at least carry more weight than just one more guy on the internet.

What I mean is like, some people will have a question, something ambiguous in scripture, such as Adam's motivation, and they may research it, and other people will have come with their speculation in the past, wrote about it, and people accept it as doctrine. They'll read one of those writings and say "oh well, it's because of that, matter concluded" and I'm looking at it through the lens that if it's not scripture, it's fallible, anyone can be wrong, and so these traditional great theologian writers, can be wrong, just like I can be wrong. It's their speculation, just as I am speculating.
So, in my speculation, multiple questions were being considered:
1. Why did God create marriage and then change His mind about it?
2. Why did Adam disobey God, was he tricked like Eve, did he not believe God's word about it, or was there something else?
3. Why does old testament prophecy still predict people having children on the New Earth and why is there an entire book that doesn't even mention God in canon scripture about love between a man and a woman, with sexual imagery.. when such a thing is considered temporary and done away with?

and it has been an idea that marriage is ended as a consequence of Adam's sin. Most other people seem to think marriage and procreation were creations related to the fall, in fact and excuse me for saying this I have heard of some Catholics who allegorize the forbidden fruit as being sexuality itself, and that God's original plan was Josephite marriage, citing 1 Corinthians 7:1 and Revelation 14:4

But Genesis 1 and 2 have marriage created before the fall, and God's first instruction to man being "be fruitful and multiply". So it was initially intended that men and women would fill the earth, and not die.

 

[fhansen]

I don't know if he exalted, like we're both agreeing on, the passage itself gives very little about Adam's mindset.
Adam was given the fruit, and he ate, there was no description of his mindset, which is why this becomes open to speculation, and when he confesses, and he immediately knew he had done wrong (hence trying to hide, shame). Some people when Adam is confessing his sin, lean into the fact that he mentioned his wife that he was blaming her, as Eve had blamed the serpent but, the text doesn't really say that it just states factually, she gave the fruit, and I did eat.
There doesn't seem to be a statement of pride there just.. fact.

Fait enough, perhaps, and yet we observe the traces of his family tradition in each other and within ourselves everyday: the unreasonable pride and self-righteousness that keeps us separated from God, from each other, and even from ourselves to one degree or another-and which can cause great harm to each other. Sumpthin's wrong here on planet earth, if we're willing to examine it, and only humility before God cures it.

and yet Abraham still messed up some times. both the times he lied about his wife and then.. well. Ishmael

I never said he was perfect, but his faith in God certainly serves as a model for the right way for a human to proceed.

What I mean is like, some people will have a question, something ambiguous in scripture, such as Adam's motivation, and they may research it, and other people will have come with their speculation in the past, wrote about it, and people accept it as doctrine. They'll read one of those writings and say "oh well, it's because of that, matter concluded" and I'm looking at it through the lens that if it's not scripture, it's fallible, anyone can be wrong, and so these traditional great theologian writers, can be wrong, just like I can be wrong. It's their speculation, just as I am speculating.

Sure, and that's not what I do, as I said. OTOH, if I happen to be in line with a great many believers, great and small, who've maintained a consistent belief down through the centuries, I don't mind. Either way there have been many, many opinions regarding the story of creation and the Fall, and also some weeding out of some rather absurd ones. The basic teachings on Genesis 1-3 end up comparatively minimalistic, while those chapters still provide much fodder for further pondering.

and it has been an idea that marriage is ended as a consequence of Adam's sin. Most other people seem to think marriage and procreation were creations related to the fall, in fact and excuse me for saying this I have heard of some Catholics who allegorize the forbidden fruit as being sexuality itself, and that God's original plan was Josephite marriage, citing 1 Corinthians 7:1 and Revelation 14:4

There are still people who do this, Catholics and Protestants alike. Its just a remnant of human shame that's been operable since the Fall and Catholic teaching opposes it. But marriage and procreation are simply God's will for man on earth- and aren't described or designated any other way.