Well Daryl, I don't see that answering your questions really answer mine. But let me give it a try. In the end I still have the same question for you.

"1 - If he had been there with Eve, then was he also deceived by the serpent as Eve was and ate the forbidden fruit at the same time as Eve?"

I would think so. But how does that make a difference? Would Adam's sin have had any different consequences had he been "deceived" while standing beside her at the tree as compared to being deceived by Eve's retelling what the serpent said to her?

"2 - If he were not there with Eve, then was he then deceived by Eve herself and ate the forbidden fruit later?"

It seems to me that there was an element of being deceived that both Adam and Eve experienced regardless of whether what the serpent said was heard firsthand or retold by Eve to Adam.

"3 - Or, in both scenarios, did he knowingly sin by eating the forbidden fruit then or later? If he knowingly ate it, then why did he knowingly eat it?"

I would say that both Adam and Eve knowingly ate the fruit. They both were quite aware of which tree God had indicated and both knowingly ate the fruit God had forbidden that they should eat. Read carefully Eve's answer to the serpent as it is clear that she correctly understood God's command about the fruit. Why did he knowingly eat it? The Genesis narrative suggests that he ate it for the same reason that Eve did.

"4 - Who had the greater sin, the one who was deceived into sinning, or the one who knowingly sinned?"

I think that this is an unnecessary distinction with regard to the story of Adam and Eve. They both sinned. They both chose to deliberately disobey God's instruction, which they both understood. They both fell for the deception of the serpent that they would not die.

The other part of the deception was that the serpent cleverly suggesting that something new and wonderful would be revealed to them, something only God knew, that their eyes would be opened. Well, in fact that part of the decpetion had an element of truth to it. Their eyes were opened and they saw themselves as naked.

An interesting play on word occurs here in the original Hebrew. The Hebrew word to describe the serpent as "clever" or "subtle" is very similar, only with a slightly different vowel sound, to the Hebrew word for "naked". And in fact, both words come from the same root word. The word describing the serpent has a connotation of "to uncover" or "to reveal" something hidden.

It occurred to me that the origin of sin started with a counterfeit revelation by an imposter. And the solution ends with the opening line of the book of Revelation, "This is the revelation of Jesus Christ..." The truth of Jesus the Messiah revealed for all to see.

Tom

Tom, apparently Adam and Eve did not rebel in the same sense Lucifer rebelled in heaven. (1) In what way do you think they differed? (2) Why did they accept the plan of salvation? (3) Why did Lucifer reject God's offer to restore him to his former position? (4) What did Paul mean when he wrote that Adam was not deceived? (5) Why did Sister White say Adam was not with Eve when she ate the forbidden? (6) Why did she say he ate it because he unwisely resolved to die with Eve? (7) Why was God willing to replace Eve and allow Adam to live forever if he hadn't eaten it?

Interesting discussion....

Let me add a new twist to it.

The Bible does not specifically state that Eve was standing at the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil when she was tempted by the serpent.

With this said, let us explore another scenario.

Eve is somewhere in the Garden, alone, when she encounters the serpent who then proceeds to tempt her to eat of the fruit of the ToKoG&E. She thinks about this over time and one day when she and Adam are walking by the ToKoG&E, she succumbs to the temptation and takes of the fruit and eats it. She then takes some of the fruit and gives it to Adam, "who was with her" and he also eats it.

I would venture to say that this does not contradict what is presented in the Bible and provides an explanation of Darryl's original question concerning the "who was with her" dilemna.

Bob D

The problem with that scenario is that it requires us to totally reject the SOP, which plainly says (1) Satan could not approach our first parents anywhere else other than at the forbidden tree, and that (2) Eve was at the tree when she dialogued with Satan, and that (3) she ate the fruit then and there (not later on somewhere else), and that (4) she brought some of it to Adam who ate it.

But I agre with you that it is not as obvious in the Genesis account that she ate it at the tree, then and there, the moment she was tempted.

John,

You should also agree that the premise that Eve was tempted at the ToKoG&E did not originate with the SOP. Almost all Biblical Scholars/Interpretors have supported that position. SOP was more or less parroting that premise.

Bob D

.... and now you're neglecting what someone else posted about the SOP.

I always find it somewhat curious that any topic of discussion on this forum usually comes down to one thing......the validity of the SOP perspective on any issue.

It would appear that the Bible is far to complicated for we finite humans to understand without the assistance of others?

I read the Biblical story of the fall of man and I see these very clear points....

1. According to the Biblical record, Eve was deceived by the serpent into believing that it was possible to be "like God" by eating of the fruit of the ToKoG&E. (The initial temptation did not neccessarily take place at the tree, as has been commonly intepreted).

2. According to the Biblical record, Adam was with Eve when she picked/ate of the forbidden fruit.

I do not agree with your position concerning the SOP, which presents a different picture than what has been shown in the Biblical account, but I can rest assured that my understanding of this Biblical record is correct.

Please note: I have become reliant upon the SOT (Source of Truth) for my understanding of what is written in the Bible.

Bob D

First, if SOT means Spirit of Truth, then I sincerely believe that the SOP comes directly from the SOT, therefore, I accept that over the interpretation of any other non-biblical sources, within or without the SDA Church. Note that I said non-biblical sources, not biblical sources.

The Bible clearly and strongly suggests that Adam wasn't with Eve at the TOKOG&E for the following reasons:

1 - The conversation was only between the devil, through the medium of the serpent, and Eve.

2 - If Adam had also been present, he would have also been included in the conversation.

3 - As Adam wasn't there, Adam blamed Eve, not the serpent, but Eve, being there, blamed the serpent, but not Adam.

The SOP clearly upholds this, which I believe is in line with what the Bible implies.

Bob, this is a Seventh-day Adventist forum. Does it really surprise you that we believe the SOP is an authoritative source of inspiration?

Daryl,

quote:

---

The Bible clearly and strongly suggests that Adam wasn't with Eve at the TOKOG&E for the following reasons:

---

What could be more clear and strong than the simple and direct statement than "her husband with her? No "suggestion" involved in a direct statement that follows immediately in context in the very same sentence the statement that she saw the fruit, took it and ate it. The explanation that "with her" designated with her in the garden seems to be a quite unncessary fact to point out. Where else than in the garden would either of them have been? The only context of the whole story was within the garden. Why would it have been necessary for Moses to emphasize that obvious fact when there was nowhere else he would have been? The fact of this discussion demonstrates that it is not the Bible which creates this lack of clarity, but other extra-Biblical sources.

quote:

---

1 - The conversation was only between the devil, through the medium of the serpent, and Eve.

---

That is correct. The conversation as recorded in Scripture only has the Serpent and Eve speaking. But that simply does not lead logically to your next point of conclusion.

quote:

---

2 - If Adam had also been present, he would have also been included in the conversation.

---

I would say that the phrase "with her" which immediately follows the conversation does imply that if the conversation and the taking the fruit occurred at the same time, he was included as a listener to the conversation. But why do you think he would have been there and included in the conversation only if he spoke up? Is it possible that he simply stood by mesmorized by a talking serpent and said nothing? Is it possible that he was afraid to speak up at that point? Have you and your wife ever been together where she spoke to others and you just listened without speaking? Being there does not require a speaking part. There are numerous stories in Scripture where multiple people are clearly present but not everyone speaks.

quote:

---

3 - As Adam wasn't there, Adam blamed Eve, not the serpent, but Eve, being there, blamed the serpent, but not Adam.

---

This really establishes nothing of substance. Have you never had occasion to discpline children, or adults for that matter, where both were fully engage in the misbehaviour and their immediate response is to start pointing the finger at one another to blame the other? That is fundamental human nature to not accept responsibility for ones own actions and try to pass the buck. It really has nothing to do with who was actually there or who was actually involved. But more to the point of what you were trying to make, don't you think that if the issue was Adam's negligence in keeping track of Eve, he would have said, "She wandered away" or "She has a mind of her own and just won't stay close to me"? Or that Eve would have said, "It's Adam's fault, he didn't keep track of me as he was supposed to do" or "Adam just was too busy doing his own thing and wasn't paying enough attention to me and let me wander away by myself"? If we are going to speculate about an explanation, why not go that direction?

Tom