If you mean to describe the act of stealing from a bank, I will acknowledge the act denotes a person who wants money and is willing to break the law to get it. I would not think they want to break the law, but rather they wanted the money and breaking the law was a means to that end.
That comment contains a contradiction.
If you cannot see it, it is understandable, why.
I can't agree because I don't actually know. There also could be a deficiency of experiential knowledge so that it allowed Adam to be persuaded or misled.
So, the Bible says Adam was not deceived, but you say he was.
That's okay with me. It's your free willed decision.
When we work off the premise that it's wrong to disobey God, it concludes with all certainty that Adam's choice/decision was wrong. So, since we're looking at two male and female images of God, without fault in a state of innocence; then as a matter of grace, it's safer for me to say that Adam didn't know what he was doing, than to say he did.
Adam did not know he was eating the fruit that God said not to eat?
That is absolutely false, and you know that better than any 5 year old... who knows that, don't you.
Not willfully as in an intention to cause harm. There could exist that deviation in your paraphrase.
Scripture denotes Adam was put in a situation where he had to choose who to believe, God or Eve.
That is not scriptural. Where did you read that, may I ask?
Please quote the verse.
Whether he willfully disobeyed would be contingent on his motive at the time. If the woman ate first and she did not die, but rather had her eyes opened, she could have been persuading Adam through questioning his reasoning to trust God, while seeing her alive and possibly telling him her eyes were opened. I don't know. He may have been focused on questioning his self and he ate to see if he was wrong, rather than he ate because he distrusted God.
That is a lot of speculation... which we can discarded, since we have no need of them.
They are not useful in this discussion.
So, I typically express that I think he ate reluctantly as if he were unsure about himself. But I don't know, so I go with grace.
That's out o' here. Gone.
I've said this and gave supporting evidence from scripture many times, that the scriptures do NOT denote that Adam was not deceived. You're referring to
1 Timothy 2:14 where Paul is expressing that Eve was the one deceived, not Adam. Of course, we know this would be true simply because the serpent is not depicted as speaking with Adam. Subsequently, we don't actually know if Adam would have fallen victim to the crafty and subtle beguiling of the serpent as Eve did. We only know
he hearkened to the woman who was deceived which he most likely didn't know, which denotes that she talked with him, he listened, and he ended up eating.
Scripture says
Adam was not deceived. 1 Timothy 2:14
You did read that. So, for you to say, "scriptures do NOT denote that Adam was not deceived", is to make one wonder what scripture you are reading.
I'm not disagreeing that Adam knew what God told him. I feel the need to say that just in case you may be equating --> Adam knew what he is doing --> with -->Adam knew God said not to eat --> therefore Adam was not deceived.
.
If you pour gasoline around McDonalds, and the set a flame to it. Then say you did not know what you were doing.
They will send you for mental evaluation.
If they find you are in your right mind, well... they will send you to prison.
I already said what I meant by Adam knew what he was doing. I spelled it out word for word.
You read it, so if you are claiming you are not sure what I meant, I'm not sure you are paying attention to what I wrote.
Like I have already said when we speculate that Adam knew what he was doing when disobeying God, it suggests he either wanted to die, or he was second guessing himself, or he may have misunderstood God, or Adam thought God was not truthful or something not yet thought of.
Or he chose to rebel against God, because he wanted to be independent of God, choosing to make his own decisions on hat is right and wrong.
You're relying on a mischaracterization of Paul's intent in
1 Timothy 2:14 to claim Adam knew what he was doing. If that were the case, then Paul would be asserting a contradiction that the woman who had to be deceived into eating, should follow the man who willfully and knowingly rejected God as untrustworthy.
Pardon me!?
I don't understand what you just said.
It's not extreme. There are prominent theologians like Aquinas that have written about the possibility that Adam ate because he didn't want to live without Eve.
So... Does a person's speculation become any less of a speculation because of who they are?
Are you saying you are not speculating, and we should accept that although it's not written, and thee is no way to verify it?
Why?
It isn't that extreme. By the way, WE are speculating precisely because we don't know. The syntax in Genesis 3 denotes God expressing that Adam hearkened to the woman and therefore the implicature limits the speculation to the exchange between Eve and Adam that was followed by Adam eating. We don't know what that exchange was, but God's judgment suggests that Adam would not have eaten if he had not listened to the woman.
If you want to believe that, that's fine by me.
However, in this discussion, I'm interested in facts - what can be known, rather than wild imaginings.
You said...
For all I know, upon finding out she had eaten, Adam was expecting her to immediately show signs of dying. But when he didn't see any, he may have wondered if He had misunderstood God, so he ate to see if the woman was correct about the fruit being good as pertains to knowledge.
That is a wild imagining, which you cannot substantiate.
Paul said,...
"Brothers, I have applied these things to myself and Apollos for your benefit, so that you may learn from us not to go beyond what is written. Then you will not take pride in one man over another."
1 Corinthians 4:6
That is a good rule, we do well to stick to. Would you not agree?
The extreme speculation is actually the one alluding to Adam knowing that God was not being truthful. That claim is that Adam was not misled by believing the woman who was deceived, but that Adam knew exactly what he was doing when he disobeyed God and began to die. And subsequently, it is said that Adam is seen blaming Eve. As I see it, that's all a mischaracterization of the events because God Himself verifies both Adam's and Eve's account that she was beguiled, and in a state of being beguiled, and that she persuaded her husband into eating the fruit.
Paul confirmed that Eve was deceived, and Adam was not. 1 Timothy 2:14
I don't see why you are having a problem accepting that.
Would you like that scripture to say something else... What would you rather it said?
I can agree we are speculating about what exactly happened when Adam was listening to Eve,
We? That would be you. Not we.
and I can agree with the descriptions of the terms willful act and deceived.
You "can agree with the descriptions of the terms willful act and deceived."?
So, you agree Adam's sin was willful, and he was not deceived?
This is not accurate. If they mean Adam knew God is a liar, then I don't believe that. If they mean he knew that God commanded him not to eat, then I would not disagree.
Are you saying you disagree with the following...
A willful act refers to an intentional, conscious, and deliberate action carried out with the purpose of achieving a specific result. It is characterized by a voluntary and knowing decision to perform an act or omission that one is aware is prohibited by law or contrary to duty.
Sources
1 2
Deceived :
To be deceived means to be caused to believe something that is not true, often through deliberate misrepresentation, lies, or misleading actions. It involves being misled or tricked, either by someone else's deceitful behavior or by one's own failure to recognize the truth. This can include being misled about facts, being manipulated into a false belief
Sources
1 2 3 4 5
What's not accurate about these?
It's right here
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;
That says Adam was forced to choose between who to believe, God or the woman?
It does not say that at all. How do you read? It simply says Adam chose to listen to his wife.
Coupled with 1 Timothy2:14 Adam willfully chose to go along with his wife in disobeying God. Not because he was misled or tricked.
That is scripture.
You are rejecting it. Why?
The syntactic markers of God's judgment in
Genesis 3:17 show Adam believing Eve's persuasion over and against God's command. Hence it was a circumstance where Adam had to make a choice of who to believe.
No. That is what you believe.
However, let me get you clear before I proceed.
What do you mean by "Adam believing Eve's persuasion"? Pease elaborate as clearly as possible.
The unwanted circumstance implies an antecedent event he did not volunteer for. The phrase "listened to" in
Genesis 3:17 denotes that Adam was persuaded by his wife and he ate.
Persuaded, as in...
be convinced by argument, or by reasons offered or suggested from reflection, etc.; to cause to believe?
Adam and Eve are shown to be believing God right up until the serpent enters the picture and the serpent is notably described as crafty and subtle. God Himself acknowledges the account that the serpent initiated the chain of events through introducing a lie presented to two male female images of God, both pure without fault in a state of innocence. The lie was slander against God, and it was delivered through subtlety.
You are saying Adam was deceived by Satan, or his wife?
Also where did you read that Adam and Eve are shown to be believing God right up until the serpent enters the picture, and how does that prevent having a choice to go contrary, and acting on it?
God specifically told Adam Not to eat. Obviously, when I say Adam was forced to choose who to believe, it acknowledges that. None of these scriptures say Adam willfully disobeyed God.
You are saying that Adam's action was not
intentional, conscious, and deliberate action carried out with the purpose of achieving a specific result?
Simple, since Adam didn't eat of it before the incident with the serpent and Eve, it infers he was believing that God was protecting them from a fruit that would bring death to him and his wife.
An inference. Okay.
If he deliberately wanted to disobey God and eat, he would have already done so. It's like a judge will use one's record to show a pattern or an isolated incident.
He deliberately disobeyed God and ate. Did he not.
He was not deceived into eating.
So, at some point... when his wife disobeyed, Adam disobeyed... doing so of his own accord.
That is the point. Adam acted of his own free will.
What you are arguing currently does not change the fact that Adam made a decision - a choice that was unforced... a willful and deliberate decision to side with his wife who disobeyed God.
Let's refocus on the topic.
By "one's own accord" implies by "one's own initiative". The actual initiative is God's Love based command to obey. Human initiative is typically considered a responsive disposition, not the origin. I do know that Adam's disposition obeyed God right up until the incident with the serpent and Eve.
I do not understand anything you said here. What you are saying here sound garbled.
Can you please quote a reference that says what you are trying to say.
I would make more sense of that. Thanks.
Then I will say no and the reason why is because there are scriptures that denote God had a plan from the beginning such as “The Lamb slain from the foundation of the world”. Such scriptures show God’s plan of salvation was set before Adam’s fall and subsequently they indicate Adam could not have altered the events.
Many people have this view. However, if one misunderstands that expression, it can be understood why they would have such a view.
That is a topic for another thread.
If you want to discuss it, start a new thread, in response to
this.
I'm not discussing that here.
