Was Eve correct in rejecting God?

reply to post by jmdewey60


The bible does not anywhere say that hell is a place of punishment for man. Hell means dead, like hades. It is a state of being. Hell as punishment is a lie. God is a God of loving kindness, not cruelty. He says he will outright kill the wicked. While that may seem harsh, it is not cruel. It would be against the nature of God to do that to his creation. He would be in effect sinning against himself. the bible doesn't teach it, it is a doctrine of man. What better way to control the masses than to say 'give me your money & God won't burn you for eternity'. 'Keep your money if you want to, & may God forgive your sins' doesn't make the church rich...

Originally posted by honestyblaze
reply to post by newcovenant

 

The reason that the world has come to this sorry mess is because of that original rebellion. If Adam hadn't listened to her, he would have passed his perfection on to us. instead, we got sickness & death. Unfortunately, God gave them both free will. Eve willingly ignored God's instruction, so she did in fact reject God. Man has been allowed to follow his own path since then, & this world is the result of that. Man's government of man is an abysmal failure... All because Eve thought she would have something better than God had already given them. She believed a lie & was misled, but she knew what would result from disobedience... That is how they lost paradise for their offspring. If you believe the Bible, anyway.

Your answer is quite good. I do not think I could have said better myself, but there are some minor details that might be expanded upon.

First, I'd say that it is very fortunate that God gave them free will, otherwise I wouldn't have it myself, and I like my free will very much, thank you. It is very unfortunate what they did with it, but God's decision is something that I am very much thankful for.

Second, Eve didn't willingly ignore God's order. The Bible says that she was throughoutly beguilled. The greek word "eksapathaos" used to refer to her is a stronger form of apathaos (to be fooled). Eve was convinced that she was doing the right thing, that her decision was the best one. She deserved to be punished all the same, though.

Third, Adam did willingly ignore God's order. The Bible says that he was not fooled. He knew that his decision was the wrong one, but went forward with it all the same. That's why he gets the blame for what happened.

reply to post by jmdewey60


Leanh is right. Jesus pointed out the sins of the pharisees, so they twisted the doctrine to put the shoe on the other foot. it was spin. Jesus was just a man, & he made fools of them. like polititians do, they accuse their accusers of doing the thing they are accused of.. Jesus never sinned against God. He didn't sin against them either. He told the truth. They didn't like the truth, so they used their own doctrines as the basis for law. That was the only way they could accuse him. If they had used God's doctrines, they would have found no sin in him, as Pontius Pilate did.

reply to post by Leahn


On the 2nd point there, say I was very drunk, & I did something terrible (it happens!), was the sin to get drunk, or to do the deed under the influence? Am I still accountable because I was drunk? I would like to think that God holds me responsible for what I can control, which would be the drinking, but would I stop being responsible after a certain point of drinking? If Eve was not under her own control, would God not have forgiven her? Adam did sin more because he wasn't under any influence except his love for Eve. His love for God should have been greater though. Love the giver, not the gift... I like you perspective on this stuff.

Originally posted by honestyblaze
reply to post by Leahn

 

On the 2nd point there, say I was very drunk, & I did something terrible (it happens!), was the sin to get drunk, or to do the deed under the influence? Am I still accountable because I was drunk? I would like to think that God holds me responsible for what I can control, which would be the drinking, but would I stop being responsible after a certain point of drinking? If Eve was not under her own control, would God not have forgiven her? Adam did sin more because he wasn't under any influence except his love for Eve. His love for God should have been greater though. Love the giver, not the gift... I like you perspective on this stuff.

To get drunk is a sin by itself, but the sin would be the deed, not getting drunk. An unintentional murder was still considered a murder by mosaic law, even if you didn't have any kind of blame on the death of the person. The Bible specifically uses an example of an axe whose handle brakes and the blade flies and kills someone. It is an accident. Yet, you were a murdered all the same, and you were punished by being forced to live on one of the Refuge Cities until the death of the High Priest.

So, you're still accountable even if you are drunk. Eve was under her own control. She did not her lose free will because she was fooled.

It is the opinion of some Jewish scholars and mine, and this is just an opinion, that Eve's sin was overstepping her authority. She took a decision by herself when she should have consulted her husband beforehand. Even if she was completely convinced that she was doing the right thing, she still ought to have brought the situation to her husband (or God) before doing anything. However, this is my opinion, and not something that is supported biblically.

reply to post by honestyblaze

The bible does not anywhere say that hell is a place of punishment for man.

It does, so you are wrong about that.
You also are wrong about the other thing, about being dead.
You are just ignoring things you don't like and picking some really obscure texts out of the OT and pretending like they prove your opinion is correct.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
It does, so you are wrong about that.
You also are wrong about the other thing, about being dead.
You are just ignoring things you don't like and picking some really obscure texts out of the OT and pretending like they prove your opinion is correct.

edit on 16-11-2011 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)

No, it doesn't, and he is correct about his assessments. You just have never studied the Bible enough to know what you are talking about.

reply to post by honestyblaze

. . . If they had used God's doctrines, they would have found no sin in him, . . .

Nope.
This is the fantasy religion I was talking about, how you believe in a perfect law that is pristine from God's mouth, to the Bible in your hand. That is a self-induced delusion. If all that was true, then there was no reason for Jesus to ever come here and do what he did. When it says, "The Jews" in the Gospel of John, it means the Sadducees, who were the conservative priesthood types who stuck with the straight written law of Moses. Those were the ones who had Jesus killed, not the Pharisees.
Jesus came to end the old covenant by replacing it with the new covenant and there is a reason for that, because it is not something that really works. That does not mean there are not good parts to it and Jesus acknowledges two lines from it but otherwise Jesus said you must be more righteous than the Pharisees to enter the kingdom, and that righteousness can only be by faith, which is the following of the Holy Spirit into the ways of righteousness and not by reading lines off a page.

reply to post by Leahn

No, it doesn't, . . .

All I have to do is a word search and the first hit I got was:

Matthew 23:33
You snakes, you offspring of vipers! How will you escape being condemned to hell?

So it took me about ten seconds to prove you wrong.

reply to post by jmdewey60


yeah, it's much nicer to be dead than alive burning in hell. tell me where the bible says that. i guarantee you cannot. You are ignorant. Jesus did not sin against God. Simple

Originally posted by jmdewey60
Nope. This is the fantasy religion I was talking about, how you believe in a perfect law that is pristine from God's mouth, to the Bible in your hand. That is a self-induced delusion. If all that was true, then their was no reason for Jesus to ever come here and do what he did.

You clearly have no idea of what you're talking about.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by Leahn

 

No, it doesn't, . . .

All I have to do is a word search and the first hit I got was:

Matthew 23:33
You snakes, you offspring of vipers! How will you escape being condemned to hell?

So it took me about ten seconds to prove you wrong.

Hell means the place of the dead. The punishement for the wicked is obliteration. The passage says exactly what he said it says.

reply to post by jmdewey60


'Condemned to hell' still means dead. you have proven nothing. The WORD hell means DEAD. It is not a place! Gehenna is a place that the dead were burned. Gehenna is symbolically referred to as hell. Nobody got out of Gehenna, it was a place of the dead, a garbage dump. What does Dead mean if it doesn't mean dead? 'The living are aware that they will die, the dead are conscious of nothing at all'.. read ecc 9:5 & 6. & you don't need to be rude at all, thanks

reply to post by Leahn


I would say they were both sins. The drinking more so because that is a sober decision.. The deed would be lesser because I would be influenced. The story of the axe... Would that really be murder, which I think would imply intent, or would it be killing? We are not told not to kill, but not to murder, so I wonder if intent is the difference....

reply to post by jmdewey60

lol. So the pharisee's weren't Jewish? Enough said

Originally posted by honestyblaze
'Condemned to hell' still means dead. you have proven nothing. The WORD hell means DEAD. It is not a place! Gehenna is a place that the dead were burned. Gehenna is symbolically referred to as hell. Nobody got out of Gehenna, it was a place of the dead, a garbage dump. What does Dead mean if it doesn't mean dead? 'The living are aware that they will die, the dead are conscious of nothing at all'.. read ecc 9:5 & 6. & you don't need to be rude at all, thanks

The word "hell" is a proto-indo-german word that means "to cover, to be hidden from view". It's first documented use, as far as I could find out, was the use by agricultors when cultivating potatoes and covered them to protect against frost. The potatoes were said to be "helled" or "in hell". To word "hell" itself does not appear in the Bible, as it was written in Ancient Hebrew and Koine (Common) Greek. The word you're looking for actually is "Hades", which means "tomb, place of burial".

Hell was originally used to translate Hades because when you are buried, you are covered with soil, and you're hidden from view. It made sense to use the word to translate Hades back then when it was first used.

Gehenna (Valey of Hinnon) was a place close to Jerusalem where they burned the garbage, and also burned the bodies of the criminals, since burial was a sacred ceremony and only good people could be buried. It is a fitting analogy for the ultimate destruction as that is what happens when you throw something on fire. The brimstone (sulfur) part comes from the fact that the fire was kept everburning with the use of sulfur stones.

Originally posted by honestyblaze
reply to post by jmdewey60

 

lol. So the pharisee's weren't Jewish? Enough said

Seriously, you need to get educated because you are showing your ignorance and you would be embarrassed if you knew enough to be.

Originally posted by honestyblaze
reply to post by Leahn

 

I would say they were both sins. The drinking more so because that is a sober decision.. The deed would be lesser because I would be influenced. The story of the axe... Would that really be murder, which I think would imply intent, or would it be killing? We are not told not to kill, but not to murder, so I wonder if intent is the difference....

Murder is defined as "unjustified killing of another human being". Intention doesn't play a role on whether it is defined as murder or not, but merely justification.

reply to post by jmdewey60

just FYI, my opinion is not in the Bible. I'm good but I'm not God... My opinion doesn't come into it as it is irrelevant. The Bible teaches me, not the other way around.

Originally posted by honestyblaze
reply to post by jmdewey60

 

yeah, it's much nicer to be dead than alive burning in hell. tell me where the bible says that. i guarantee you cannot. You are ignorant. Jesus did not sin against God. Simple

You are just picking and choosing what suites your personal preference for hell, that's obvious. My intention is not to go there in the first place, not to decide what accommodations I am going to request.
The God who is the God and Father of Jesus, that God Jesus did not sin against.
The fabricated God of the Jews, Jesus sinned against, big time.