Go Back   Christian Guitar Forum > Christian > Theology
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Arcade Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 05-02-2012, 04:58 PM   #1
Registered User
 

Joined: Oct 2011
Posts: 48
What if only Eve had sinned, and not Adam? Or...

Just for discussion:

What do you think might have happened had Eve alone sinned, and not Adam? Would only half of the human race be under the curse of sin instead while the other half remained pure? Perhaps Adam would have remained immortal while Eve became mortal?

And would nature still be subject to the consequence of sin (disease, decay, death), or only partially, or not at all?



What if Adam and Eve had had children, and then only one or a few of their children sinned, but not the others? Would only a small subset of the human race be subject to the curse of sin?

RedFox is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old 05-02-2012, 05:07 PM   #2
Overlord of Kentls
 
Kentl's Avatar
 

Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 4,727
Well first off if that happen I would think adam would be in the garden eve would not (or wihc ever sined)

In short there would be no kids most likely.
the one who sined would die, and have no kids.
__________________
i am forever his freind
i hope he can rest in peace
Quote:
Originally Posted by scared2mosh View Post
I honestly would have guessed the actual Kentl was mulletman and vice versa...
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeepnstein View Post
Apparently, he gave you persistence by the truckload.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TFK14 View Post
Ok, the fact you spelled that right proves it.
Kentl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-02-2012, 05:15 PM   #3
PhD candidate
 
to_be_released's Avatar
 

Joined: Aug 2010
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
Posts: 861
Given that all of the animals and all of the earth also had to suffer the effect of the fall, I think that it wouldn't have made no difference if sin only entered the world through one of them.
to_be_released is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-02-2012, 05:31 PM   #4
and you were wondering??
 
Thrash's Avatar
 

Joined: Aug 2004
Location: In the bedrock of Being.
Posts: 9,813
Quote:
Originally Posted by to_be_released
Given that all of the animals and all of the earth also had to suffer the effect of the fall, I think that it wouldn't have made no difference if sin only entered the world through one of them.
Yes.
Sin entering the world skewed creation, it didn't just have a single target, that being the particular individual who committed the act. It was an inbreaking of chaos that God raised his people to make right through his leading narrative.
__________________
Hello! Come visit my blog! http://taylormweaver.wordpress.com/

Yes... I am the official "Knight Who Will Write Something On Derrida".
Bask in the wonderful glory.

"outside of a dog a book is a man's best friend... inside a dog it is too dark to read."
-groucho marx

Quote:
Originally Posted by Demon_Hunter View Post
Taylor, you just got drive-by theologied.
Thrash is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-02-2012, 06:28 PM   #5
Semper ubi sub ubi!
 
1/2-Fast Player's Avatar
 

Joined: Feb 2009
Location: Central Florida
Posts: 1,638
Suppose Adam had had sense enough to chop the tree down before Eve got to it...
__________________
I dream of a better world where chickens can cross roads without having their motives questioned.

1/2
1/2-Fast Player is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-02-2012, 06:48 PM   #6
Heaven isn't too far away
 
gtrdave's Avatar
 

Joined: Dec 2004
Location: The First State
Posts: 6,681
Send a message via AIM to gtrdave
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1/2-Fast Player View Post
Suppose Adam had had sense enough to chop the tree down before Eve got to it...
Word. Homeboy should have used a Stihl...

Back to the original question, since the woman is the one who bears the children, even if Adam had not partaken in the fruity eating the kids would still be little sinners and, as was already said, the effects of 'the fall' were already in motion.
__________________
Lead, follow and get out of the way.

youtube
facebook
cd baby
gtrdave is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-02-2012, 07:08 PM   #7
Jesus, Our God With Us
 
athanatos's Avatar
 

Joined: May 2008
Location: PA
Posts: 1,944
How does Adam as federal head fit into this picture? For Paul does not say without reason, "for in Adam all died" contrasting the second Adam, "in Christ all live." Adam, as federal head, was representative for all mankind, and this is the basis of original sin.

Not Eve.

So, how does Adam's federal headship come into play here?
__________________
my CGR glob
Ἅγιος ὁ Θεός, Ἅγιος ἰσχυρός, Ἅγιος ἀθάνατος, ἐλέησον ἡμᾶς - Revelation 4:8
Hidden?
athanatos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-02-2012, 10:49 PM   #8
הדו ליהוה כי־טוב
 
Ted Logan's Avatar
 

Joined: Nov 2002
Location: Chicago area
Posts: 9,961
Additionally to what athanatos said, Adam sinned by deliberate disobedience, whereas Eve sinned because she was deceived by Satan (Gen 3:13, 1 Tim 2:13-14). This is the foundation of Paul's argument for husbands to teach their wives rather than the other way around in 1 Tim 2:13-14 - It was Adam's responsibility to protect his wife, and he did not do it, and she was led astray. Thus, in response to Adam's failure in the Garden, husbands are enjoined never to fail in this regard again and to lead our wives as their spiritual heads (cf. Gen 3:16)

Now, I'm not a huge fan of the question because it goes into highly speculative territory, but I think the sweep of Scripture points to a few facts:

1) Adam and Eve were sufficient to stand in place of any other man or woman, that is to say that any other human beings in their place would have done the same thing.
2) Adam's sin was greater than Eve's. This is adduced from the fact that God does not curse anything as a result of Eve's sin, though there is judgment. The ground is cursed because of Adam's sin, in contrast.
3) "To dust you shall return," that is, "you shall die," is given in response to the man's sin and not the woman's (Gen 3:19).

Given 1), if either Adam or Eve had resisted the temptation, this (I think) would require either a) the inherent moral superiority of one gender, since the implication is that every single human of one gender would have resisted while every single human of the other would have fallen, or b) God desired to prevent the fall of one gender, indicating a greater concern for that gender. Since we know that God does not favor one gender over the other, it is impossible that He would create either man or woman with inherent moral superiority. Since we know that God does not love one gender more than the other, it is impossible that He would prevent one gender from sinning and not the other.

Given 2) and 3), if we speculate on Eve's sin alone, and take into account the fact that the sin of Adam results in death but both Adam and Eve know that death comes to them if they eat the fruit, we're faced with an impossibility: Eve is told (by God or Adam) that her sin will lead to death, and yet if she sins alone, death does not come into the world, since death came through Adam and not through Eve (Rom 5:12-18). Thus, given 2), it is impossible that Eve would fall without Adam also falling.

The Fall is treated in the Scriptures as a single unit, but a complex one. It is the result of the sin of both parties, but a special fault lies with Adam because he was not deceived into sin. The fault lies with Adam also in that he was formed first, so that Adam serves as her "head" in the federal sense.
__________________
Run to the Right and Jump on Things
broccolifish at SoundCloud - synthpop and chiptunes I've made

Give thanks to YHWH, for He is good!
Ted Logan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-02-2012, 10:57 PM   #9
Overlord of Kentls
 
Kentl's Avatar
 

Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 4,727
I dont really agree with any other pepole there would of done the same thing... there is no backing for this... but like you said its a very dangours area.
__________________
i am forever his freind
i hope he can rest in peace
Quote:
Originally Posted by scared2mosh View Post
I honestly would have guessed the actual Kentl was mulletman and vice versa...
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeepnstein View Post
Apparently, he gave you persistence by the truckload.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TFK14 View Post
Ok, the fact you spelled that right proves it.
Kentl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-11-2012, 04:45 PM   #10
Laborer/Philosopher
 
Chrysostom's Avatar
 

Joined: Sep 2001
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 17,842
If Adam hadn't sinned he would have been watching Eve's back, and disrupted the whole "divide and conquer" scheme that the serpent had going on -- so Eve wouldn't have sinned either.
__________________
Peace,
John

CGR Blog
Chrysostom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-11-2012, 07:53 PM   #11
Be happy
 
bobthecockroach's Avatar
 

Joined: Apr 2001
Location: Louisiana
Posts: 20,535
Important to remember that while this may be an interesting discussion (or it may not depending on how literally you read Genesis), it's ultimately meaningless. We already know that we are all under sin. And we already know that we got that way of our own (collective and individual) volition. I think that's what God was trying to tell us in Genesis. That it's our fault. God did not create us in sin. We chose sin. We wanted sin. And now we must live, and die, with the consequences of our sin.
__________________
Request a playlist
bobthecockroach is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-11-2012, 09:26 PM   #12
הדו ליהוה כי־טוב
 
Ted Logan's Avatar
 

Joined: Nov 2002
Location: Chicago area
Posts: 9,961
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobthecockroach View Post
Important to remember that while this may be an interesting discussion (or it may not depending on how literally you read Genesis), it's ultimately meaningless. We already know that we are all under sin. And we already know that we got that way of our own (collective and individual) volition. I think that's what God was trying to tell us in Genesis. That it's our fault. God did not create us in sin. We chose sin. We wanted sin. And now we must live, and die, with the consequences of our sin.
Very true. The question is not too far removed from the old "How many angels can dance on the head of a pin" canard used to criticize medieval scholastic theology. But it's better, I think, to try to show the problems inherent in the question rather than simply to dismiss it, because it obviously occupies the thoughts of some of us. I appreciate your pointing us back to the facts as they stand, and to the Scriptures. Though it might not be obvious, your response and mine had a similar intent, I think - to push us back to the universe we actually occupy and where we actually stand in relationship to God and away from hypothetical universes that don't have practical value as thought experiments. My opinion is that the lack of value lies in the fact that it's an impossible scenario, and you point out a much more practical point - that the scenario doesn't obtain.
__________________
Run to the Right and Jump on Things
broccolifish at SoundCloud - synthpop and chiptunes I've made

Give thanks to YHWH, for He is good!
Ted Logan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-13-2012, 10:18 AM   #13
Registered User
 

Joined: Oct 2011
Posts: 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chrysostom View Post
If Adam hadn't sinned he would have been watching Eve's back, and disrupted the whole "divide and conquer" scheme that the serpent had going on -- so Eve wouldn't have sinned either.
Not necessarily. He could have been unable to stop Eve from eating the fruit in time, but refused to eat the fruit when it was offered to him himself.
RedFox is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-13-2012, 10:50 AM   #14
Living the Good Life
 
doulos14's Avatar
 

Joined: Jul 2005
Location: California
Posts: 1,010
Quote:
Originally Posted by RedFox View Post
Not necessarily. He could have been unable to stop Eve from eating the fruit in time, but refused to eat the fruit when it was offered to him himself.
That's the key in my thinking. Some say it was Eve's fault, but I've always seen it as Adam's because not only was he the authority or guide to Eve, but he also willingly took the fruit unlike Eve who was deceived, so theoretically he had more of a choice.

More interesting than that is that God created a world without sin, but allowed the first sinner to be present in it. This of course led to the plan of salvation, but it could be construed that God wanted them to sin so that He could continue the rest of His plan. But that's also the test of character, because if he placed no temptation (the tree or Satan), then Adam and Eve's lack of sin would be meaningless as well, because you can't praise a child for not eating candy when there is none present.
__________________

Woohoo it is my blog
I don't need an Arcade, CPF is my Arcade
doulos14 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-13-2012, 12:43 PM   #15
Still pretty boring.
 
Ben Toast's Avatar
 

Joined: Feb 2011
Location: It's a long story.
Posts: 1,352
Send a message via Skype™ to Ben Toast
A similar debate can be presented regarding if Eve had borne other children prior to expulsion from Eden. Would they be sinless? Would they be what was known as the Nephilim?
Ben Toast is online now   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:49 PM.


Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2