● Gen 3:6-7 . . She took of its fruit and ate. She also gave some to her husband, and he ate. Then the eyes of both of them were opened.
According to 1Tim 2:14, Eve was in violation of Gen 2:16-17 when she tasted the fruit.
1 Timothy 2:14 does not say that; it just says that Eve was deceived.
In Genesis 2:16-17 we are told that God commanded Adam not to eat the fruit.
After this, Eve was created. There is no record of God speaking directly to Eve and giving her the same command, so it is reasonable to conclude that it was Adam's job to tell her. Maybe she wasn't listening when he did so, which was why she could not correctly repeat what God had said.
This would also fit in with Paul's words in 1 Timothy 2:12 about a woman
learning in silence.
But curiously, her eyes weren't opened right away.
Well, we don't know the exact time frame. Genesis 3 says that she gave some to her husband
who was with her, (not "took it home to him" as you said before.)
● Gen 3:7b . . and they perceived that they were naked;
Shazaam! Their newly acquired knowledge of good and bad kicked in with an intuitive sense of propriety; which Webster's defines as the quality or state of being proper or suitable, i.e. conformity to what is socially acceptable in conduct or speech.
There is no suggestion that they had a sense of propriety or worried about being "socially acceptable."
In other words: Adam and his wife took it upon themselves to initiate a dress code
No doubt that they were physically naked, but they were also ashamed and afraid because they had disobeyed God, which was why they hid. They were spiritually and morally naked too, and tried to cover up their shame by themselves.
Later we read that God made clothes for them from animal skins. HE covered up their shame by sacrificing an animal - just as, on the cross, HE covered our shame and took away our guilt by sacrificing his Son.
But why not bosom coverings? Why not derrière coverings too? Why only loin coverings? Well it's not too hard to figure out is it? They developed a guilt complex over sex and the human body that continues to this day;
That's reading into the text and making an assumption.
How do you know that the word translated as "loincloth" didn't mean a cloak like covering for the body?
There is no evidence that they had had sex then; how do you know they were ashamed of it?
and I sincerely believe that complex is the very reason why so many people feel that the male libido is naughty and sinful.
Who says the male libido is "naughty and sinful"? What studies have you read; where are the statistics?
Even women who have been raped or abused have found/continued to have good relationships with men and even gone on to have children.
(Those same people rarely, if ever, condemn the female libido.)
I've read plenty of magazine articles/letters about women who have had affairs and slept with many men who have got a bad reputation for themselves.
Even in a committed, loving relationship, it's possible for a woman to have a high sex drive, and there may be men who are threatened by that.
Some say there were no agents in the fruit to cause the changes in human nature that occurred in the Adams. But I'm not so sure.
Why are you concentrating on the physical properties of, and elements in, fruit when the Bible is clear that it was disobedience to God's command that was the problem?
Paul says that sin and death came into the world through Adam - not through figs, pomegranates or whatever kind of fruit that he ate.
A new study led by Chen-Yu Zhang, of Nanjing University, found that fragments of plant genetic material survive digestion and wind up swimming in the bloodstreams of humans and cows. Those tiny strands of RNA that somehow make it through the toxic acids and enzymes in the gut come from rice and the plant family that includes broccoli, brussels sprouts, cauliflower and cabbage. Zhang found that they can muffle or amplify human gene expression in various ways. The discovery could lead to ways of designing plants that act as medicine or even change our own genetic structure for the better (or the worse).
Which has nothing at all to do with Genesis 2&3. God said "don't", Adam did; sin came into the world.
Those adolescent changes aren't miraculous changes-- they're totally natural, hormonally induced, organic changes. So if kids undergo a natural kind of change because of the chemicals generated by the glands in their own bodies, then there is good reason to believe that the tree of the knowledge of good and evil actually did contain something that caused Adam and his wife to morph and develop an intuitive sense of propriety;
"Good reason to believe ..." - only if you ignore Scripture and start reading stuff into the text or finding your own explanation.
In other words they want male libido to be naughty because their forbidden-fruit intuition compels them to "feel" it's naughty.
No disrespect, but are you a Moonie? This sounds very much like one of their teachings.
On the page of scripture, their altered human nature is directly related to the fruit and to nothing else.
No, it's due to their disobedience to God, nothing else.
So instead of stretching our imaginations to construct a complex spiritual explanation, I suggest it would be better to stick with the biological one and let it go at that.
I think you are the only one stretching your imagination here. I suggest it would be far better to stick with what Scripture says - they disobeyed God, were punished and driven out of the garden.
