I think I would probably usually bow out instead of continuing along in this debate, because it qualifies somewhat for the angels-dancing-on-the-head-of-a-pin category, but here's why I'm not going to disappear: because, even though we're niggling over gnats -- and this was something I didn't originally recognize and thus made a smart-ass comment I've since deleted -- ya'll seem to be asserting that Eve's somewhat expanded statement about the prohibition around the FTKGE is somehow an after-the-fact proof of husbands ruling over wives from prior to The Fall. [My mind is reeling just thinking about this, because I suppose the camp that thinks that two phrases not being identical is justification for wife-ruling is probably further divided into three sub-camps: one that believes wife-ruling began before Creation because it was always God's intention; one that believes wife-ruling began at the moment God created Adam; and one that believes wife-ruling began at the moment God formed Eve out of Adam's angulars.]
Here goes:
We don't know that Eve retained any memory from her time as Adam, but that she remembered the conversation from that time is a more direct logical deduction (as also would be God having repeated the instructions to Eve after he formed her from the female angular organs originally in Adam) than working backwards from the proof to take the potentially reasonable conjecture of Adam relaying false information to indicate that it proves something that preceded it.
The idea that Eve retained memory from her time as part of Adam is an idea that, as far as I can see, you've invented yourself with no scriptural statement on it, in order to fill in the blanks in a way that you personally feel sounds more reasonable.
So far so good . . .
But my point was not to say that I'm 100% correct, but rather to counter a previous statement of your own:
Or, perhaps, it's even more accurate to understand that Adam didn't have to tell Eve, because Eve was Adam when Adam was given the instruction -- as Eve was still part of Adam at that point in the narrative:
. . . but you've done a bait and switch. First you accurately label as speculation my statement [above] that was part of asserting that (a) Eve still having memories is more directly logically deductive than is (b) using Eve's having stated an extra phrase to attempt to prove the existence of wife-ruling prior to The Fall. Then, second, you assert that your point was to counter a previous statement I'd made about how Eve
was Adam when Adam was given the FTKGE instruction(s), but your entire subsequent argument does nothing to counter that Eve was previously part of Adam; instead, you return to debating against my admitted speculation about Eve having memory from when she was Adam. Once you did that, you weren't arguing with me or refuting me; instead you were debating the Straw Keith.
Here are all the posts where I asserted scriptural support references for assuming that Eve had memories from back when she was still Adam:
.............sigh.............
; and
.............Yawn.............
And here's what I actually did say about my acknowledged speculation about Eve having memories from back when she was just an itch in Adam's crotch:
We don't know that Eve retained any memory from her time as Adam, but [the notion] that she remembered the conversation from that time is a more direct logical deduction (as also would be God having repeated the instructions to Eve after he formed her from the female angular organs originally in Adam) than working backwards from the proof to take the potentially reasonable conjecture of Adam relaying false information to indicate that it proves something that preceded it.
Next is what I agree with in your most recent post:
I agree we don't have all the details written down. So:
The idea that Eve retained memory from her time as part of Adam is an idea that, as far as I can see, you've invented yourself with no scriptural statement on it, in order to fill in the blanks in a way that you personally feel sounds more reasonable.
I recognise we don't have all the details <snip>
Yes, God could well have said more to Adam, and even directly to Eve, but we don't know this. What we do know is:
1) God made Adam (2:7)
2) God told Adam "you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil" (2:17)
3) God made Eve (2:22)
4) Eve said "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" (3:3)
Now it is possible that God did say "neither shall ye touch it". But to assume that is to add to scripture, because we are not told that He said that. <snip>
My explanation for why Eve was wrong is then slightly speculative, as it isn't all directly stated in the text, <snip>
<snip>
<snip>Maybe it's wrong.
The point is that it is not "even more accurate to understand that Adam didn't have to tell Eve", because that is an inference based on extrabiblical reasoning and read into the text, which itself does not indicate anything of the sort.
We agree that all details are not included in Scripture; that I invented the possibility of Eve having memories from back during her Adam days; that I invented that possibility because I believe it is more reasonable; that we don't know if God said more to Adam or Eve; that God made Adam; that God gave Adam FTKGE instructions; that God made Eve [let's just stipulate here that God made everything]; and that Eve reported to the serpent FTKGE instructions slightly expanded beyond what we know for a fact God gave Adam.
We are also in
partial agreement that it is
not "even more
accurate to understand that Adam didn't have to tell Eve, because that is an inference based on extrabiblical reasoning and read into the text, which itself does not indicate anything of the sort." We agree on that last one, because
I am at fault for faulty phrasing. What I meant to convey should have been "even more reasonable to speculate" instead of "even more accurate to understand;" I should have proofread that better. Had I written, "Or, perhaps, it's even more reasonable to speculate that Adam didn't have to tell Eve," I would instead continue to stand by it 100%. Or at least 90%, because, given that we're both speculating, just about anything we conjectured that didn't
contradict actual scripture would be within the realm of possibility. After all, we are talking about our All-Powerful Heavenly Father here, right?
But it remains important to keep in mind that I am not the only one between us who is speculating.
We also do
not agree on the following:
nevertheless I am extremely careful not to invent any additional details if at all possible, and stick solely to what is written down, because I am well aware that anything I invent has a very slim chance of being right. However if we assume "Eve was wrong", then we are not adding anything to scripture.
My explanation for why Eve was wrong is then slightly speculative, as it isn't all directly stated in the text, but it is what I see as the most likely explanation based on the evidence we see, including the order of the text, and without putting words in the mouth of God.
- This is conjecture on my part, but am I correct in assuming that you might also disagree with stating that you are "extremely careful not to invent any additional details if at all possible, and stick solely to what is written down, because [you're] well aware what what [you] invent has a very slim chance of being right"? (a) I've already acknowledged that I speculated about the possibility of Eve having memories from when she was part of Adam, but aren't you also inventing details in equal measure by asserting that God didn't tell Adam not to touch the fruit or that God didn't tell Eve not to eat and/or touch the fruit just because it doesn't state either one? Aren't you also giving yourself latitude to work around the stricture to "stick solely to what is written down?" On the other hand (b) I cannot agree with your assertion that anything you would invent would have a very slim chance of being right, because I've already grown to have more faith in your reasoning abilities than that; the fact that we're disagreeing about wife-ruling or the ever-presence of husband headship doesn't put a dent in my respect for your general authoritativeness.
- I don't agree, though, with your liberal use of the word 'wrong,' as it either definitionally shifts in its usage or I would wholeheartedly disagree with you. If, by 'wrong,' you mean that Eve made the 'wrong' (i.e., immorally disobedient) choice when she ate of the FTKGE or encouraged Adam to do so as well, I thoroughly agree with you, but if, by 'wrong,' you mean that Eve said the 'wrong' (i.e., factually incorrect) thing when she talked about God saying that He'd prohibited touching the FTKGE, then you are indeed adding to Scripture. We simply do not know whether God did or did not speak to Eve (or even Adam) about touching or not touching the FTKGE.
- If you're asserting that your speculation is more slight than my speculation, I'd also disagree with that.
I would also disagree with what I infer as your assertion that you've included a dispositive timeline to bolster your premise.
God could well have said more to Adam, and even directly to Eve, but we don't know this. What we do know is:
1) God made Adam (2:7)
2) God told Adam "you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil" (2:17)
3) God made Eve (2:22)
4) Eve said "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" (3:3)
In the context of a forum thread in which the universal-in-time headship of husbands over wives (or males over females) is being asserted -- and more especially in such a discussion in which husbands
ruling over their wives is being asserted -- I believe you've left out some salient and highly relevant verses in between 2:7 and 3:3, as well as one after 3:5 when the serpent made the eat-the-fruit pitch (all CVOT):
Gen. 2:15:
Then Yahweh Elohim took the human and settled him in the
garden of Eden to serve it and to keep it.
No mention of rule here.
Gen. 2:18:
And Yahweh Elohim said: It is
not good for
the human to
be alone by
himself
. I shall make for him a
helper as his complement.
His
complement, not his supervisee. His complement. The yang for his yin. This doesn't disprove headship, but it certainly provides no support for a
ruler/rulee relationship.
Gen. 2:19,20:
Yahweh Elohim had
formed from the ground every animal of the field and every flyer of the heavens; and He brought each one
to the human to see what he would
call it. And whatever the human would
call it, each
living soul, that was
its name. So the
human was calling the names of every domestic
beast, of every flyer of the heavens and of every animal of the field; yet for the
human no helper was available as his complement.
Gen. 2:23:
The human said, This time, it is
bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh. This shall be called woman, for this was taken from her man.
Gen. 2:24:
Therefore a
man shall forsake his father and his mother; he will cling to his wife, and both of them will be one flesh.
One flesh. Not a foot and a footstool. Not a captain and his ship. One flesh. Other human beings aren't even in the picture yet to provide anyone who would
have a mother and a father, and yet Divine Word says that a man shall forsake his parents, cling to his wife, and both of them will be one flesh. We do tend to understand this to refer to "becoming one flesh;" i.e., in a sexual sense. But we have a message here that says that the
husband will cling, and that
both of them will be
one flesh. Tell me this doesn't sound like they're partners.
And, given that the context of this discussion is whether husbands were created by Yahweh to rule their wives, Gen. 3:6 begs to be included:
Then the woman saw that the tree was good for food, that it brought a yearning to the eyes and that the tree was desirable for gaining insight. So she took of its fruit and ate. She also gave some to her husband with her, and he ate.
I invite you to be very careful not to add anything to this scripture, not even to add our awareness that Eve and Adam will be cursed by God for this disobedience. It is quite popular (especially, not coincidentally, among men) to assume that what occurred with the eating of the FTKGE was an abandonment on Adam's part of his responsibility to head, lead or rule Eve. What does one base that assumption on, though? I assert that it's less reasonable to assume that Adam already had a significant form of headship over Eve than it is to infer from Gen. 3:6 that there was nothing at all unnatural about Eve having just as much right as Adam to take the lead, because taking the lead is exactly what she did. As others have already pointed out, Adam ("
her husband ")was clearly
right there ("
with her") while Eve conversed with the serpent, while Eve "
saw that the tree was good for food" and that it "
was desirable for gaining insight," and while Eve took and ate the FTKGE (either that or Adam ate along with her). In Gen. 3:17, God tells Adam that he's cursed because "
you hearkened to your wife's voice and ate from the only tree that I instructed you" not to eat. God says the curse was for Adam's
disobedience, not for his failure to lead or rule.
I do apologize for my inartful use of "acceptable to understand" when I should have written "reasonable to speculate." If that was the sole inspiration for you taking what I know to be your valuable time, Samuel, to wrestle with me about these concepts, though, I am not entirely sorry that I made that error, because wrangling with these concepts has been very productive for me. My thoughts on the subject were far less formed when I first dropped in on this thread than they have become at this point. I find I'm increasingly persuaded that the headship itself began with the curse, and I also find that I remain unconvinced that we husbands have ever been tangibly admonished to
rule over our wives -- and no matter what interpretation or lack of interpretation we put on Eve having said the words, "
and you shall not touch it," to the serpent, it proves nothing either way about leadership or disobedience. Eating the fruit was Eve's disobedience of Yahweh, not of Adam.
