Adam And Eve

[HisChildForever]

These are just questions but they may spark debate which is why I have placed this thread in the debate forum. I initially pondered Open Mic (to get more hits, as Transmundane moves slow sometimes) but again, this might turn into a debate - the topics are kind of controversial.

And these questions may be seriously confusing, so if you need me to change some wording, please ask!

1. Why did God make man first? I believe the Scriptures say that God saw how lonely Adam was, so He made Eve. So originally, God had no intentions of making a female (well, obviously since God knows everything, He knew that He would make Eve - but the point is that God only made Eve because Adam was lonely). Therefore, God initially made only one human being - and one human being cannot reproduce alone. At this point in time, Lucifer was already in Hell, correct? The whole concept behind Lucifer's rebellion, from what I understand, is that Lucifer did not want to serve mankind. However, if God's initial plans only included one human being, why would Lucifer rebel? [b]Or[/b], if it was clear that there would be mankind (and not just "man") and if we assume God assumed Adam would not be lonely, then how was Adam supposed to continue the human race? [b]This[/b] is why I ask "Why did God make man first?" Adam was not created with feminine reproductive organs [[i]keep this in mind, it pertains to a later question[/i]] so how could he physically produce an heir? If God had made woman first, it would be easier to understand why a companion was not created right away - just as with Mary, God could have come upon Eve and impregnanted her to begin mankind.

2. Okay, Adam was created first. Again keeping the thought in mind that Eve was only created [b]because[/b] Adam was lonely, what would be the point of initially creating Adam with the appropriate male reproduction organs? Obviously there was the possibility that Adam would not be lonely and therefore he would be the sole "beginner" of the human race.

3. Adam and Eve were both immortal before they disobedied God. Why were they created this way?

4. I have heard that Catholics do not typically take the creation story to be completely literal, but since joining Phatmass and being involved in marriage discussions, it seems that the majority here do take the creation story quite literally. What is it that we are required to believe? By taking the account literally, we must reconcile that Adam and Eve's children slept with each other [incest] to continue the human race. That has always bothered me. Furthermore, men and women have the same number of ribs. That part of the story always threw me off as well.

5. Everyone sins and disobeys God. Why did Adam and Eve receive such harsh punishments? Furthermore, why do we have to suffer because of them? Yes, they committed the first sin (Eve did, technically). But God gave them free will - essentially, He gave them the option of disobeying Him. I understand the concept of free will. However, if God clearly understood that they had every capability of sinning, and if He was the one Who created them with that capability, why pour such intense condemnation upon them? And on us, for that matter?

[b]Also[/b], why did He not explain to them that they had free will? He just told them not to eat the fruit. (Why even bother making the tree??) Maybe if He explained to them that they would be punished for disobeying Him, they would have tried harder not to. It seems to me that Adam and Eve did not fully understand sin. If they did not understand the gravity of their actions, this would not be a mortal sin.

Again, I do not understand why it was necessary to punish the rest of mankind because of Adam and Eve. (I can ALMOST understand the severity of their punishments.) We did not even ask to be created. We had absolutely no control over their sin, or over our births for that matter.


I am probably missing something...but that is all for now.

[Formosus]

1. To answer number one, IMO, Satan's rebellion occurred because God revealed to the Angels what his plans were for mankind and because Satan did not wish to serve God. This doesn't necessarily mean that Adam and Eve had to be created already for Satan to rebel. Your other point that "God could have come upon Eve and impregnanted her to begin mankind." would not produce another human being but would have been like the Incarnation.

2. Its the common opinion of the Eastern fathers that mankind did not have sex before the fall, reproductive organs then would have only acquired these attributes after the fall. Before the fall man was not the same creature he is today.

3. They were immortal because death had entered the world. Our dying is a sign of imperfection and suffering, why would God create man initially in an imperfect manner intentionally?

4. The only aspects of the creation story that is necessary for salvation is that there was a real Adam, and a real Eve and they broke God's commandment.

5. For one, Adam and Eve did not ask for forgiveness for what they did. Rather they blamed each other and the serpent for the sin they committed. You can't receive forgiveness if you don't ask for it. We suffer as well because Death (sin, the passions, the baser aspects of our nature) was a result of our sin. Its a disease, but we are free from this now because Christ has come and taken up our nature and opened salvation and has given us the chance to become free from death.

All this said, the creation story is not meant to be a 100% literal truth. IMO.

[cmotherofpirl]

here is the commentary from the Haydock Catholic bible:

CHAPTER III.

Ver. 1. Why hath God? Hebrew, "Indeed hath God, &c." as if the serpent had overheard Eve arguing with herself, about God's prohibition, with a sort of displeasure and presumption. St. Augustine thinks, she had given some entrance to these passions, and the love of her own power, and hence gave credit to the words of the serpent, de Gen. ad lit. xi. 30. She might not know or reflect that the serpent could not reason thus, naturally; and she had as yet, no idea or dread of the devil. (Lombard, 2 Dist. 21.) This old serpent entered into the most subtle of creatures, and either by very expressive signs, or by the motion of the serpent's tongue, held this delusive dialogue with Eve. Moses relates what happened exteriorily; but from many expressions, and the curse, ver. 15, he sufficiently indicates, that an evil spirit was the latent actor. (Haydock) --- Of every tree. Satan perverts the word of God, giving it an ambiguous turn: in doing which, he has set heretics a pattern, which they follow. (Menochius)

Ver. 3. Not touch it. She exaggerates, through dislike of restraint, St. Ambrose. Or through reverence, she thought it unlawful to touch what she must not eat, lest perhaps, as if there could be any doubt. "God asserts, the woman doubts, Satan denies." (St. Bernard) Thus place, like Eve, between God and the devil, to whom shall we yield our assent? (Haydock) --- Perhaps we die, Hebrew, "lest ye die."

Ver. 5. God. The old serpent's aim is, to make us think God envies our happiness. (Haydock) --- Or he would have Eve to suppose, she had not rightly understood her maker, who would surely never deprive her of a fruit which would give her such an increase of knowledge, as to make her conclude she was before comparatively blind. (Menochius) --- As gods, Hebrew Elohim, which means also princes, angels, or judges. It appears, that our first parents had flattered themselves with the hopes of attaining a divine knowledge of all things. (Calmet)

Ver. 6. Woman saw, or gazed on with desire and fond dalliance. (Menochius) --- Consulting only her senses, which represented the fruit to her as very desirable, and caused her to give credit to the devil's insinuations, rather than to the express word of God. Do not unbelievers the like, when they refuse to admit the real presence and transubstantiation, thought they cannot be ignorant, that this way of proceeding always leads to ruin. --- Her husband, who, instead of reproving her for her rashness, did eat, through excessive fondness, not being able to plead ignorance, or that he was deceived. "Earth trembled from her entails, sky loured, and muttering thunder, some sad drops wept at completing the mortal sin." --- (Original [Origen?], &c.; Paradise Lost, ix. 1000.) (Haydock) --- (Genesis ii. 14.) In what light soever we consider the fault of this unhappy pair, it is truly enormous: the precept was so easy and just, the attempt to be like God in knowledge so extravagant, that nothing but pride could have suggested such woeful disobedience. By the disobedience of one man many were made sinners, Romans v. 19. This ruin of himself, and of all his posterity, Adam could not hide from his own eyes, chap. ii. 17. (Calmet)

Ver. 7. And the eyes, &c. Not that they were blind before, (for the woman saw that the tree was fair to the eyes, ver. 6.) nor yet that their eyes were opened to any more perfect knowledge of good; but only to the unhappy experience of having lost the good of original grace and innocence, and incurred the dreadful evil of sin. From whence followed a shame of their being naked; which they minded not before; because being now stript of original grace, they quickly began to be subject to the shameful rebellions of the flesh. (Challoner) --- Behold the noble acquisition of experimental knowledge! This is supposed to have taken place about a week after they had enjoyed the sweets of innocence and of Paradise, that they might afterwards be moved to repentance, when they contrasted their subsequent misery with those few golden days. They saw that they had received a dreadful wound, even in their natural perfections, and that their soul was despoiled of grace, which, of themselves, they could never regain. O! what confusion must now have seized upon them! "Confounded long they say, as stricken mute." (Milton) --- (Haydock)

Aprons, or they interwove tender branches covered with leaves round their middle; a practice, which even the wild Indians and Americans observed, when they were discovered by Columbus. They will rise up in condemnation of those pretended civilized nations, who, like the Greeks, could wrestle or bathe quite naked, without any sense of shame. (Haydock) --- Adam's fig-tree, in Egypt, has leaves above a yard long, and two feet broad. (Calmet)

Ver. 8. Afternoon air. God's presence has often been indicated by an unusual wind. (3 Kings xix. 12; Act. ii. 2.) The sovereign judge will not suffer the day to pass over, without bringing our first parents to a sense of their fault. They hid themselves, loving darkness now, because their works were evil.

Ver. 9. Where. In what state have thy sins placed thee, that thou shouldst flee from thy God? (St. Ambrose, C. 14) Some think it was the Son of God who appeared on this occasion, St. Augustine; &c. or an Angel. (Calmet)

Ver. 10. Afraid. The just man is first to accuse himself: but Adam seeks for excuses in his sin: he throws the blame on his wife, and ultimately on God. (Menochius) --- Thou gavest me. Heretics have since treated the Sovereign Good with the like insolence; saying plainly, that God is the author of sin, and that the crime of Judas is no less his work than the conversion of St. Paul. See Calvin's works, and many of the first reformers, Luther, &c. cited. (Exodus 8. 15.) (Haydock)

Ver. 13. The serpent, which thou hast made so cunning, and placed with us, deceived me. God deigns not to answer their frivolous excuses. (Menochius)

Ver. 14. Cursed. This curse falls upon the natural serpent, as the instrument of the devil; who is also cursed at the same time by the Holy Ghost. What was natural to the serpent and to man in a state of innocence, (as to creep, &c. to submit to the dominion of the husband, &c.) becomes a punishment after the fall. (St. Chrysostom) --- There was no enmity, before, between man and any of God's creatures; nor were they noxious to him. (Tirinus) --- The devil seems now to crawl, because he no longer aspires after God and heavenly things, but aims at wickedness and mean deceit. (Menochius)

Ver. 15. She shall crush. Ipsa, the woman: so divers of the fathers read this place, conformably to the Latin: others read it ipsum, viz. the seed. The sense is the same: for it is by her seed, Jesus Christ, that the woman crushes the serpent's head. (Challoner) --- The Hebrew text, as Bellarmine observes, is ambiguous: He mentions one copy which had ipsa instead of ipsum; and so it is even printed in the Hebrew interlineary edition, 1572, by Plantin, under the inspection of Boderianus. Whether the Jewish editions ought to have more weight with Christians, or whether all the other manuscripts conspire against this reading, let others inquire. The fathers who have cited the old Italic version, taken from the Septuagint agree with the Vulgate, which is followed by almost all the Latins; and hence we may argue with probability, that the Septuagint and the Hebrew formerly acknowledged ipsa, which now moves the indignation of Protestants so much, as if we intended by it to give any divine honour to the blessed Virgin. We believe, however, with St. Epiphanius, that "it is no less criminal to vilify the holy Virgin, than to glorify her above measure." We know that all the power of the mother of God is derived from the merits of her Son. We are no otherwise concerned about the retaining of ipsa, she, in this place, that in as much as we have yet no certain reason to suspect its being genuine. As some words have been corrected in the Vulgate since the Council of Trent by Sixtus V. and others, by Clement VIII. so, if, upon stricter search, it be found that it, and not she, is the true reading, we shall not hesitate to admit the correction: but we must wait in the mean time respectfully, till our superiors determine. (Haydock) Kemnitzius certainly advanced a step too far, when he said that all the ancient fathers read ipsum. Victor, Avitus, St. Augustine, St. Gregory, &c. mentioned in the Douay Bible, will convict him of falsehood. Christ crushed the serpent's head by his death, suffering himself to be wounded in the heel. His blessed mother crushed him likewise, by her co-operation in the mystery of the Incarnation; and by rejecting, with horror, the very first suggestions of the enemy, to commit even the smallest sin. (St. Bernard, ser. 2, on Missus est.) "We crush," says St. Gregory, Mor. 1. 38, "the serpent's head, when we extirpate from our heart the beginnings of temptation, and then he lays snares for our heel, because he opposes the end of a good action with greater craft and power." The serpent may hiss and threaten; he cannot hurt, if we resist him. (Haydock)

Ver. 16. And thy conceptions. Septuagint:"thy groaning." The multifarious sorrows of childbearing, must remind all mothers (the blessed Virgin alone excepted) of what they have incurred by original sin. If that had not taken place, they would have conceived with out concupiscence, and brought forth without sorrow. (St. Augustine, City of God xiv. 26.)--- Conceptions are multiplied on account of the many untimely deaths, in our fallen state. Power, which will sometimes be exercised with rigor. (Haydock) --- Moses here shews the original and natural subjection of wives to their husbands, in opposition to the Egyptians, who, to honour Isis, gave women the superiority by the marriage contract. (Diod. i. 2.) (Calmet)

Ver. 17. Thy work, sin; thy perdition is from thyself: this is all that man can challenge for his own. (Haydock)

Ver. 18. Thorns, &c. These were created at first, but they would have easily been kept under: now they grow with surprising luxuriancy, and the necessaries of life can be procured only with much labour. All men here are commanded to work, each in his proper department. The Jews were careful to teach their children some trade or useful occupation. St. Paul made tents, and proclaims, If any man will not work, neither let him eat, 2 Thessalonians iii. 10. (Calmet)

Ver. 19. Dust, as to the visible part; and thy soul created out of nothing. This might serve to correct that pride, by which Adam had fallen; and the same humbling truths are repeated to us by the Church every Ash-Wednesday, to guard us against the same contagion, the worm of pride, to which we are all so liable. Thus Adam was again assured that he should die the death, with which God had threatened him, and which the devil had told Eve would not be inflicted. (Ver. 4.) God created man incorruptible, (inexterminabilem, immortal). But by the envy of the devil, death came into the world, Wisdom ii. 23. (Haydock)

Ver. 20. The living. Hebrew chai, one who brings forth alive, (Symmachus,) or one who imparts life, in which she was a figure of the blessed Virgin. (Calmet) --- Adam gives his wife this new name, in gratitude for not being cut off by death on the very day of his transgression, as he had every reason to expect and fear he would have been, chap. ii. 17. (Haydock) --- The printed Hebrew reads here, and in many other place, Eva, he, instead of Eja, she; thus, He was the mother, ver. 12, he gave, &c. an inaccuracy unknown to the Samaritan and the best manuscripts copies. (Kennicott.)

Ver 21. Of skins, which Adam took from the beasts which he offered in sacrifice to his merciful Judge, testifying thereby that he had forfeited his life, and uniting himself to that sacrifice of the woman's promised seed, by which alone he believed the sin of the world was to be expiated. (Haydock)

Ver. 22. Behold Adam, &c. This was spoken by way of reproaching him with his pride, in affecting a knowledge that might make him like to God. (Challoner) --- "These are the words of God, not insulting over man, but deterring others from an imitation of his pride." (St. Augustine, de Gen. xi. 39.) --- For ever. The sentence is left imperfect: (Calmet) but by driving man from Paradise, God sufficiently shewed how he would prevent from eating of the tree of life, (Haydock) which Adam had not yet found. As he was now condemned to be miserable on earth, God, in mercy, prevented him from tasting of that fruit, which would have rendered his misery perpetual. (Menochius) --- He would suffer him to die, that, by death, he might come, after a life of 930 years, spent in sorrow and repentance, to the enjoyment of himself. (Haydock) --- Lest perhaps. God does not exercise his absolute power, or destroy free-will, but makes use of ordinary means and precautions, to effect his designs. (St. Augustine) (Worthington)

Ver. 24. Cherubims. Angels of the highest order, and of a very complex figure, unlike any one living creature. Theodoret supposes that God forced Adam to retire from that once charming abode, by the apparition of hideous spectres. The devils were also hindered from coming hither, lest they should pluck the fruit of the tree of life, and by promising immortality, should attract men to their service. The flaming sword, might be a fire rising out of the earth, of which Grotius thinks the pits, near Babylon, are still vestiges. These dreadful indications of the divine wrath would probably disappear, when Paradise had lost its superior beauty, and become confounded with the surrounding countries --- Thus we have seen how rapidly Moses describes the creation of all things, the fall of man, and the promised redemption. But in these few lines, we discover a solution of the many difficulties which have perplexed the learned, respecting these most important subjects. We know that the world is not the effect of chance, but created and governed by divine Providence. We are no longer at the loss to explain the surprising contrast of good and evil, observable in the same man. When we have attentively considered the Old Adam and the New, we find a clue to lead us through all the labyrinths of our Holy Religion. We could wish, perhaps, for a greater detail in Moses, but he left the rest to be supplied by tradition. He has thrown light enough upon the subjects, to guide the well-disposed, and has left sufficient darkness to humble and to confound the self-conceited and wicked, who loved darkness rather than the light. (Calmet) --- Concerning the transactions of these early times, parents would no doubt be careful to instruct their children, by word of mouth, before any of the Scriptures were written; and Moses might derive much information from the same source, as a very few persons formed the chain of tradition, when they lived so many hundred years. Adam would converse with Mathusalem, who knew Sem, as the latter lived in the days of Abram. Isaac, Joseph, and Amram, the father of Moses, were contemporaries: so that seven persons might keep up the memory of things which had happened 2500 years before. But to entitle these accounts to absolute authority, the inspiration of God intervenes; and thus we are convinced, that no word of sacred writers can be questioned. (Haydock)

[Veridicus]

1. I have come to the understanding (probably influenced a bit by reading some of Scott Hahn's stuff in all truth) is that man was initially created to be the steward of creation. He was created with immortality which means that he would not need reproductive faculties in order to accomplish this sacred duty. There is no need for an heir when you are immortal.

2. As Formosus stated, there is a traditionional understanding (which I have read somehwere in an extrabiblical source, but at present I don't remember) that Adam was without a definitive masculine reproductive faculty at Creation. As you astutely mentioned, there would be NO NEED for this sexual faculty in the absence of woman. And since Adam's primary purpose in being created was to know, love and serve God as the immortal steward of his creation, there would be no need for sexual intercourse or equipment. Like I've said, I don't know that there is an explicit Church teaching (and please instruct me of my ignorance if I am wrong...) that Adam was created man in the strictest biological sense of male reproductive physiology. And Jesus does mention that in the New Creation there would be no male or female which I assume we can imagine as a 'return' to our original created holiness in Eden. The scripture does seem to insinuate in the more personal Creation account that Eve was created to complement and bring completeness to Adam's experience of Creation.

3. Adam was created immortal in order to fulfill his ministry as the steward of creation; He was created in the image and likeness of God unlike the other animals and thus is composed of an immortal, rational soul capable of knowing, loving, and serving God. Eve was apparently the inheritor of this reality and ministry by being made of the same flesh as Adam.

4. I find it almost impossible to take the two accounts of Creation completely literally because there are a few details which seemingly contradict (like the order of creation, obviously). There is immeasurable allegorical, symbolic, and spiritual truth to each of the creation accounts and they teach us so much about mankind, his relationship to God, and the relationship between man and woman. For all intensive theological purposes, I find it useful to speak of the Creation accounts AS IF everything was a literal event unless for some reason taking it literally causes and intellectual impasse...then one must recognize that the ultimate truths of the story are relevant and eternal even if the ordering of events or poetic arranging may leave us historically befuddled. But from an anthropological and biological point of view, the creation accounts must be understood within their use for theology; I do no believe God intended us to use Genesis as a science manual. And as an aside, I don't think it says that Adam's rib didn't grow back; and in purely scientific terms, Lamarckian inheritence has been wholly disproven such that an aquired trait (having an arm or leg or rib cut off for example) is NOT passed on to children unless it affects the germline cells (eggs/sperm).

With regard to the incest; I think we just have to take this as a matter of faith; the major impetus for the trans-cultural taboo of incest seems to stem from the increased likeihood of inheriting recessive disorders. There have been some who suggest that there existed a "pool of Adams" in the first creation from whence all mankind came; thus attempting to reconcile inheritence of original sin with the seeming necessity of a larger first family to prevent incest. However, in Pius XII's encyclical "Humani Generis" he basically shuts this line of thought down pretty quickly. I accept it on faith, but have heard people I trust say then even with Pius XII's statment there is still discussion over polygenism (multiple 1st parents) within Church circles. I cannot attest to this beyond that it is what I have heard. Here is the quote reproduced at length,

"37. When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains that either after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now it is no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which, through generation, is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own."

5. Again, my personal understanding is that Adam and Eve were ejected from the Garden for more than just the 'punishment' aspect of it. The pair were given free will, but like Mary, were given excesses of grace in order to fully align themselves to God. Eden was a paradise where Adam and Eve walked in the presence of God. That first sin so damaged human nature (Eastern Theology has a different take on this I believe...so I'll wait for Apotheon to fill in the details...) that they could no longer stand in the presence of God. To behold the beatific vision in a state of sin is to be wholly obliterated by God's glory...or that's my understanding anyway.

Being in as intimate of a relationship with God as Adam and Eve undoubtedly were (they could stand in a state of Grace in his presence without being wholly obliterated), I think there is little ground to base an argument that their "ignorance" decreases the gravity of the Original Sin. They knew more well than any of us I would imagine because they knew more than any of us the closeness and intimacy with God.

And technically I would say (and I think I got this from Fulton Sheen...) that Adam committed the first sin. It was Adam's job to stand as the steward of creation and protector of his woman. Adam let the snake into the Garden which means he wasn't doing his job of being a protector of Eden. Adam did not defend Eve against the seduction of the devil. His following her into the foolery of sin was an expected result of his NOT protecting Creation from the insidious presence of Satan.

Original Sin threw the 'wrench' into creation that corrupted the splendor of the world and left human nature in a state of concupiscence. Human sexuality became a necessary aspect of propagating the human race, an activity that was wholly unnecessary before the Fall when we stood immortally in God's presence. Humanity fell hard and far from its state of Grace in Eden. We lost that closeness once taken for granted by our first parents. But this loss is the beauty expressed in one of my favorite prayers of the Church chanted by the deacon at the Easter Vigil Mass: "Oh happy fault, O necessary sin of Adam, which gained for us so great a Redeemer!"

Sorry that was kinda the rough and dirty of my understandings, but I hope it helps!

Todd W.

Edited February 2, 2009 by Veridicus

[cmotherofpirl]

Here is a list of possible articl;es that you might find useful:

[url="http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p1s2c1p6.htm"]http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/arch...sm/p1s2c1p6.htm[/url]

[url="http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p1s2c1p7.htm"]http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/arch...sm/p1s2c1p7.htm[/url]

[url="http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1998/9812frs.asp"]http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1998/9812frs.asp[/url]

[url="http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2003/0309frs.asp"]http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2003/0309frs.asp[/url]

[url="http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1994/9404otg.asp"]http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1994/9404otg.asp[/url]

[url="http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2003/0312sbs.asp"]http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2003/0312sbs.asp[/url]

[url="http://www.catholic.com/library/adam_eve_and_evolution.asp"]http://www.catholic.com/library/adam_eve_and_evolution.asp[/url]

also

Effects of Original Sin
Adam and Eve lived in a state of "original justice": the state of integrity wherein their whole beings were ordered to the will of God. With the fall, man has been deprived of the gifts our first parents enjoyed. These gifts are commonly called the "preternatural and supernatural gifts." With baptism, only the supernatural gifts are restored.

The preternatural gifts, lost in the fall, are:

infused knowledge,
absence of concupiscence, and
freedom from death and sickness.

The supernatural gifts, restored in baptism, are:
indwelling of God in our souls through grace, and
the theological virtues (faith, hope, and charity).

[HisChildForever]

I like all these answers.

As the story goes, Eve - since she filled an authoritative role by tempting Adam into eating the fruit and, in this instance, tried to exert power over Adam (when she is supposed to be HIS helpmate, not the other way around) - must now be subordinate to Adam (likewise, now women are to be subordinate to men).

But since Adam was the one who committed the first sin (by neglecting to protect Eden and Eve), thus neglecting his duty of being the guardian/authority, why was he not punished to be subordinate to Eve?

Both Adam and Eve "broke" or "reversed" their God-given roles [if we want to argue that they had roles [i]before[/i] the Fall]. So why was Eve punished for this, and not Adam?

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='HisChildForever' post='1770102' date='Feb 2 2009, 07:19 PM']I like all these answers.

As the story goes, Eve - since she filled an authoritative role by tempting Adam into eating the fruit and, in this instance, tried to exert power over Adam (when she is supposed to be HIS helpmate, not the other way around) - must now be subordinate to Adam (likewise, now women are to be subordinate to men).

But since Adam was the one who committed the first sin (by neglecting to protect Eden and Eve), thus neglecting his duty of being the guardian/authority, why was he not punished to be subordinate to Eve?

Both Adam and Eve "broke" or "reversed" their God-given roles [if we want to argue that they had roles [i]before[/i] the Fall]. So why was Eve punished for this, and not Adam?[/quote]
of course he was punished:
17 And to Adam he said, "Because you have listened to the voice of your wife, and have eaten of the tree of which I commanded you, `You shall not eat of it,'[color="#FF0000"] cursed is the ground because of you; in toil you shall eat of it all the days of your life;
18 thorns and thistles it shall bring forth to you; and you shall eat the plants of the field.
19 In the sweat of your face you shall eat bread till you return to the ground[/color],for out of it you were taken; you are dust, and to dust you shall return." (Genesis (RSV) 3)

[HisChildForever]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' post='1770127' date='Feb 2 2009, 06:34 PM']of course he was punished:
17 And to Adam he said, "Because you have listened to the voice of your wife, and have eaten of the tree of which I commanded you, `You shall not eat of it,' cursed is the ground because of you; [color="#FF0000"]in toil you shall eat of it all the days of your life;
18 thorns and thistles it shall bring forth to you; and you shall eat the plants of the field.
19 In the sweat of your face you shall eat bread till you return to the ground[/color], for out of it you were taken; you are dust, and to dust you shall return." (Genesis (RSV) 3)[/quote]

Yes, he was punished, and Eve was punished. However, I am talking, in particular, of the subordination punishment granted to Eve. She acted against her God-given role and was punished to be subordinate to Adam. However, Adam likewise acted against his God-given role but was NOT punished to subordination. Basically, they both acted contrary to their roles but only one [Eve] was directly punished for this.

[Veridicus]

[quote name='HisChildForever' post='1770131' date='Feb 2 2009, 06:36 PM']Yes, he was punished, and Eve was punished. However, I am talking, in particular, of the subordination punishment granted to Eve. She acted against her God-given role and was punished to be subordinate to Adam. However, Adam likewise acted against his God-given role but was NOT punished to subordination. Basically, they both acted contrary to their roles but only one [Eve] was directly punished for this.[/quote]

Is it that she was not subordinate before Original Sin? It seems that by taking generation from the flesh/rib of Adam she in a way would have a natural subordination. Perhaps not. I'm not sure. Just speculating. Maybe like how the Son is submissive to the Father who eternally beget him or something along those lines? I dunno....

[Tinkerlina]

[quote name='HisChildForever' post='1770131' date='Feb 2 2009, 07:36 PM']Yes, he was punished, and Eve was punished. However, I am talking, in particular, of the subordination punishment granted to Eve. She acted against her God-given role and was punished to be subordinate to Adam. However, Adam likewise acted against his God-given role but was NOT punished to subordination. Basically, they both acted contrary to their roles but only one [Eve] was directly punished for this.[/quote]

Yeah, plus the part about toiling the earth and whatnot, historically that role didn't only apply to men, so are women doubly punished? -Katie

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='Tinkerlina' post='1770366' date='Feb 2 2009, 11:32 PM']Yeah, plus the part about toiling the earth and whatnot, historically that role didn't only apply to men, so are women doubly punished? -Katie[/quote]
Eve would always have been subordinate to Adam, she was created as his helpmate.

[Tinkerlina]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' post='1770380' date='Feb 2 2009, 11:37 PM']Eve would always have been subordinate to Adam, she was created as his helpmate.[/quote]

I mean she is created FOR him...it kind of seems like God is preferring Adam over Eve. The only thing I can think of akin to how I'm seeing this is a parent with a child having another child so that the first child has someone to play with, which would take away the intrinsic value of the second child. -Katie

[KnightofChrist]

Be careful my dear sister if you focus on the negitive that will be all you see. The world would agree with what you think you see, it only sees the negitive which it uses to attack the Church.

[Tinkerlina]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' post='1770577' date='Feb 3 2009, 12:52 AM']Be careful my dear sister if you focus on the negitive that will be all you see. The world would agree with what you think you see, it only sees the negitive which it uses to attack the Church.[/quote]

She's asking for clarifications on the things which seem negative, not calling them negative point blank. -Katie

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='Tinkerlina' post='1770584' date='Feb 3 2009, 12:53 AM']She's asking for clarifications on the things which seem negative, not calling them negative point blank. -Katie[/quote]

I was responding to your last post.