An honest inquiry into the nature of Christology by a Trinitarian

[DavidTree]

Christ, the True Son of God.

All I can say to the above is that I believe the writer has based the concept of Sonship relative to being begotten, on a preconceived ideas of how the trinity ought to work. Such human assumptions have added to what scripture actually teaches.
Should we be surprised that "modern scholars" would downgrade the literal begotten status of the Son of God to nothing more than a metaphor?

The Bible refers to Christ as God’s Son at least 120 times. Forty-eight times using the phrase “Son of God.”
Regarding the genuineness of Christ’s Sonship, He is called the “only begotten” six times, “the firstborn” four times, “the firstbegotten” once and God’s “holy child” twice.
Not once does the Bible even so much as hint that Jesus is only a Son in a metaphorical sense. The Bible means what it says and says what it means.
Four verses say He was “begotten” prior to His incarnation so this cannot be applied to His birth on earth from Mary as some have chosen to believe. These verses say that He “proceeded forth from,” “came out from” or “camest forth from” the Father.

The evidence on this subject is overwhelming. Christ truly is the literal begotten Son of God who was brought forth from the Father before all creation.
The example verses below with the help of the Thayer dictionary also reveal that Jesus was brought forth/born of the Father before the world was, then much later, He came into the world.
“I Came Out from God”
Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon:
G1831 (ἐξέρχομαι-exerchomai) – To come forth from physically, arise from, to be born of.
G2064 (ἔρχομαι-erchomai) – To come from one place to another.
John 8:42 “Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, you would love me: for I proceeded forth [G1831] AND came from God; neither came [G2064] I of myself, but he sent me.”
John 16:27-28 “For the Father himself loveth you, because you have loved me, and have believed that I came out [G1831-exercomai] from God. 28 I came forth [G1831] from the Father, and am come [G2064] into the world: again, I leave the world, and go to the Father.”
John 17:7-8 “Now they have known that all things whatsoever you have given me are of you. 8 For I have given unto them the words which you gavest me; and they have received them, and have known surely that I came out [G1831] from you, and they have believed that you did send me.”
Compare:
Matt 12:43-44 “When the unclean spirit is gone out (G1831, ἐξέρχομαι exerchomai ) of a man, he walketh through dry places, seeking rest, and findeth none. 44 Then he saith, I will return into my house from whence I came out (G1831, ἐξέρχομαι exerchomai ) ; and when he is come, he findeth it empty, swept, and garnished.”

So beware of anyone trying to deceive you and trick you into thinking Jesus merely "came out from the presence of the Father", but did not truly originate from the Father.
This is a lie from the devil.
It is true that the Son obviously left the presence of His Father and went out from His presence, but that is included. The focus is on Christ's origin in heaven, and that is His Father. The message here encompasses BOTH Christ originating from His Father, AND leaving the presence of the Father to be sent into this world.
Both concepts are clearly presented.


There is overwhelming evidence in Scripture showing that Jesus claimed to be the Son of God. It would be far too much to comment upon in detail here. Suffice it to say that certain of the Jews regarded His claim as blasphemous (Mark 14:60-65 John 10:36). They said He was claiming to be God (John 5:18, 10:30-33). It was this claim of Sonship that He was challenged with at His trial (Matthew 26:63, Luke 22:70). The Jews said His claims made Him worthy of death (Mark 14:64, John 19:7, see also John 8:56-59). Jesus was mocked for claiming to be the Son of God (Matthew 27:40-43). It was on this point of Sonship with God that Satan challenged Christ in the wilderness (Matthew 4:3-6, Luke 4:3-9). Peter, when confessing Christ to be “the Son of the living God” (Matthew 16:16), was told by Jesus that it had not been “flesh and blood” that had revealed this to him but His Father in Heaven (Matthew 16:17). Jesus said very clearly that He was the Son of God (Matthew 16:16-17, John 3:16, 5:25-26, 9:35, 10:36, 11:4, 19:7). At His trial he claimed to be the Son of God (Matthew 26:64, Mark 14:62, Luke 22:70-71). It was this claim that brought about the sentence of death against Him (Mark 14:64, John 19:7).
The demons also addressed Jesus as the Son of God (Matthew 8:29, Mark 3:11, 5:7, Luke 4:41). The man in the tombs possessed of a devil also called Christ the Son of God (Luke 8:27-29). The Roman centurion said he believed that Christ was the Son of God (Mark 15:39). The disciples confessed Christ to be the Son of God (Matthew 14:33, 16:16, John 1:49, 11:27). Philip (the evangelist) explained to the Ethiopian eunuch that Christ was the Son of God (Acts 8:37). The first thing Paul taught after his 'blindness' was that Christ is the Son of God (Acts 9:20). Paul’s continuing theme was that God had sent His Son into the world to die (Romans 1:4, 8:3, 32, 2 Corinthians 1:19, Galatians 2:20, Ephesians 4:13 etc.). Not surprisingly, John's little letters, as does the book of Hebrews, constantly refer to Christ as the Son of God (1 John 3:8, 4:15, 5:5, 5:10, 5:12-13, 5:20, Hebrews 4:14, 6:6, 7:3, 10:29). That Christ is the Son of God was also the testimony of John the Baptist (John 1:32-34) – and so the list goes on.
Some say that Christ is a son only because of the virgin birth at Bethlehem, but if this were true, then John, when writing his Gospel (to show that Jesus was the Christ, the Son of God), made a serious mistake. This is because he did not even mention the birth of Jesus or the events of Bethlehem. The only thing in this respect he did say was that the Word was made flesh (John 1:14). This must be the briefest of references to Christ’s incarnation that it is possible to make. If John had wanted to show that the only reason why Christ was called the Son of God was because of the virgin birth then surely he would have at least mentioned where the angel Gabriel visited Mary saying that the child she was going to bear would be called the Son of God (Luke 1:35). As it was he did not even mention it. The prime reason therefore for Christ being called the Son of God cannot be His birth at Bethlehem. There must be another reason.
The “signs” that John gave were signs of Christ’s divinity. Anyone can claim to be a son of God as a result of creation. The above overwhelming number of references to Jesus being not just a son, but the only begotten Son of God, must encompass far far more than a created being such as are angels.

What are the four verses that state: "Jesus was begotten before He came into the world."

Thank you

 

[Rockson]

It is ULTRA IMPORTANT that we read the scriptures the Way that the Holy Spirit directed.

Well David please it's yes ultra important to read the scriptures as directed but it's not ULTRA IMPORTANT to accept your interpretation that Adam was not there with Eve. It doesn't clearly state that and if anything seems to lean the other direction that he was.

I mean how do you get Adam wasn't with Eve when she was tempted, out of this, "she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her..." Gen 3:6

Look I can accept it's a possibility he wasn't but you can't just arbitrarily say it was so.....with respect consider that's merely speculative.

 

[Dizerner]

the word "with" has a meaning

 

[DavidTree]

Well David please it's yes ultra important to read the scriptures as directed but it's not ULTRA IMPORTANT to accept your interpretation that Adam was not there with Eve. It doesn't clearly state that and if anything seems to lean the other direction that he was.

I mean how do you get Adam wasn't with Eve when she was tempted, out of this, "she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her..." Gen 3:6

Look I can accept it's a possibility he wasn't but you can't just arbitrarily say it was so.....with respect consider that's merely speculative.

God said it = in Genesis chapter 3

The question is "Do you want to SEE?"

 

[DavidTree]

the word "with" has a meaning

Yes it does and it does not directly state that He was with her at the exact time the Serpent deceived Eve.

 

[Dizerner]

Yes it does and it does not directly state that He was with her at the exact time the Serpent deceived Eve.

It doesn't "directly" state Adam was in the same universe either.

Maybe he beamed over from a parallel universe.

Or maybe we shouldn't go outside the text, and realize it says he was "with her."

 

[DavidTree]

Well David please it's yes ultra important to read the scriptures as directed but it's not ULTRA IMPORTANT to accept your interpretation that Adam was not there with Eve. It doesn't clearly state that and if anything seems to lean the other direction that he was.

I mean how do you get Adam wasn't with Eve when she was tempted, out of this, "she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her..." Gen 3:6

Look I can accept it's a possibility he wasn't but you can't just arbitrarily say it was so.....with respect consider that's merely speculative.

i AGREE 100% with you on this: "not ultra important to accept my interpretation".

i am asking you to only accept our FATHER'S words.

 

[DavidTree]

It doesn't "directly" state Adam was in the same universe either.

Maybe he beamed over from a parallel universe.

Or maybe we shouldn't go outside the text, and realize it says he was "with her."

Maybe we should believe the exact account given by the Holy Spirit and confirmed by the Apostle Paul.

What do ya think?

 

[Rockson]

God said it = in Genesis chapter 3

The question is "Do you want to SEE?"

Sure. Put down the verse right here on the page and show me what exact words are saying Adam was not there when Eve was tempted. I'll even again put it down for you .....

" and gave also unto her husband with her..." Gen 3:6

So HOW do you get out of that Adam was not with her and to say it in such a dogmatic fashion like you do. Much appreciated if you'd talk about the actual words. Thanks.

 

[DavidTree]

Sure. Put down the verse right here on the page and show me what exact words are saying Adam was not there when Eve was tempted. I'll even again put it down for you .....

" and gave also unto her husband with her..." Gen 3:6

So HOW do you get out of that Adam was not with her and to say it in such a dogmatic fashion like you do. Much appreciated if you'd talk about the actual words. Thanks.

Start here: PART 1
The text is CLEAR

Now the serpent was more cunning than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made. And he said to the woman, “Has God indeed said, ‘You shall not eat of every tree of the garden’?”


2And the woman said to the serpent, “We may eat the fruit of the trees of the garden; 3but of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God has said, ‘You shall not eat it, nor shall you touch it, lest you die.’ ”


4Then the serpent said to the woman, “You will not surely die. 5For God knows that in the day you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”


6So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree desirable to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate.

Where is Adam in these verses? not here

If you acknowledge that in these verses Adam is not present by direct presentation of the scripture then you are not adding to God's words.

This is only PART 1

 

[DavidTree]

It doesn't "directly" state Adam was in the same universe either.

Maybe he beamed over from a parallel universe.

Or maybe we shouldn't go outside the text, and realize it says he was "with her."

If you carefully read all of the text you will see that Adam was not present when Eve was deceived.

Adam comes into the picture AFTER Eve is deceived = read carefully all the way thru and especially when God enters the scene.

 

[Rockson]

Start here: PART 1
The text is CLEAR

OK let's see it.

Now the serpent was more cunning than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made. And he said to the woman, “Has God indeed said, ‘You shall not eat of every tree of the garden’?”
2And the woman said to the serpent, “We may eat the fruit of the trees of the garden; 3but of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God has said, ‘You shall not eat it, nor shall you touch it, lest you die.’ ”
4Then the serpent said to the woman, “You will not surely die. 5For God knows that in the day you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”6So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree desirable to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate.

Where is Adam in these verses? not here

But hold it now David. You quoted half of verse 6! Right after the words she took of it's fruit and ate ARE THE WORDS,
" and gave also unto her husband with her..." Gen 3:6
So why are you handling this Bible verse the way you are? You cut off 8 words from verse 6.

If you acknowledge that in these verses Adam is not present by direct presentation of the scripture then you are not adding to God's words.

Sorry David but one DOES NOT have to acknowledge that Adam was not present the only thing we can take from it was that Adam was not saying anything. That's no proof he wasn't right there. Look a sly salesperson can come to my door and talk to my wife and I'm right there not saying a word. You can't say that's not a possibility regardless of how you assert it's not possible. I'd kindly suggest you should at least admit that.

This is only PART 1

Well give me Part 2. I don't mind saying I'm wrong if I can clearly see the scripture ACTUALLY says this. I turn the mic back to you.

 

[GeneZ]

Yes it does and it does not directly state that He was with her at the exact time the Serpent deceived Eve.

She handed Adam the same fruit she had just eaten from and offered it to him.... So he had to be nearby.
He most likely did hear it would make him like the Lord. For if I remember correctly what we were shown
when the text was being exegeted from the Hebrew the Hebrew indicates he ate in a manner that was
without hesitation and he kept munching it down. He just took it and kept eating. He was highly motivated.

So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, that it was pleasant to the eyes, ​

and a tree desirable to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate. She also gave to her ​

husband with her, and he ate. " Genesis 3:6​

grace and peace ...................

 

[Johann]

So beware of anyone trying to deceive you and trick you into thinking Jesus merely "came out from the presence of the Father", but did not truly originate from the Father.
This is a lie from the devil.
It is true that the Son obviously left the presence of His Father and went out from His presence, but that is included. The focus is on Christ's origin in heaven, and that is His Father. The message here encompasses BOTH Christ originating from His Father, AND leaving the presence of the Father to be sent into this world.
Both concepts are clearly presented.

??????!!!!!!!

A rather lengthy post

Christ, the True Son of God.

All I can say to the above is that I believe the writer has based the concept of Sonship relative to being begotten, on a preconceived ideas of how the trinity ought to work. Such human assumptions have added to what scripture actually teaches.
Should we be surprised that "modern scholars" would downgrade the literal begotten status of the Son of God to nothing more than a metaphor?

The Bible refers to Christ as God’s Son at least 120 times. Forty-eight times using the phrase “Son of God.”
Regarding the genuineness of Christ’s Sonship, He is called the “only begotten” six times, “the firstborn” four times, “the firstbegotten” once and God’s “holy child” twice.
Not once does the Bible even so much as hint that Jesus is only a Son in a metaphorical sense. The Bible means what it says and says what it means.
Four verses say He was “begotten” prior to His incarnation so this cannot be applied to His birth on earth from Mary as some have chosen to believe. These verses say that He “proceeded forth from,” “came out from” or “camest forth from” the Father.

The evidence on this subject is overwhelming. Christ truly is the literal begotten Son of God who was brought forth from the Father before all creation.
The example verses below with the help of the Thayer dictionary also reveal that Jesus was brought forth/born of the Father before the world was, then much later, He came into the world.
“I Came Out from God”
Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon:
G1831 (ἐξέρχομαι-exerchomai) – To come forth from physically, arise from, to be born of.
G2064 (ἔρχομαι-erchomai) – To come from one place to another.
John 8:42 “Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, you would love me: for I proceeded forth [G1831] AND came from God; neither came [G2064] I of myself, but he sent me.”
John 16:27-28 “For the Father himself loveth you, because you have loved me, and have believed that I came out [G1831-exercomai] from God. 28 I came forth [G1831] from the Father, and am come [G2064] into the world: again, I leave the world, and go to the Father.”
John 17:7-8 “Now they have known that all things whatsoever you have given me are of you. 8 For I have given unto them the words which you gavest me; and they have received them, and have known surely that I came out [G1831] from you, and they have believed that you did send me.”
Compare:
Matt 12:43-44 “When the unclean spirit is gone out (G1831, ἐξέρχομαι exerchomai ) of a man, he walketh through dry places, seeking rest, and findeth none. 44 Then he saith, I will return into my house from whence I came out (G1831, ἐξέρχομαι exerchomai ) ; and when he is come, he findeth it empty, swept, and garnished.”

So beware of anyone trying to deceive you and trick you into thinking Jesus merely "came out from the presence of the Father", but did not truly originate from the Father.
This is a lie from the devil.
It is true that the Son obviously left the presence of His Father and went out from His presence, but that is included. The focus is on Christ's origin in heaven, and that is His Father. The message here encompasses BOTH Christ originating from His Father, AND leaving the presence of the Father to be sent into this world.
Both concepts are clearly presented.


There is overwhelming evidence in Scripture showing that Jesus claimed to be the Son of God. It would be far too much to comment upon in detail here. Suffice it to say that certain of the Jews regarded His claim as blasphemous (Mark 14:60-65 John 10:36). They said He was claiming to be God (John 5:18, 10:30-33). It was this claim of Sonship that He was challenged with at His trial (Matthew 26:63, Luke 22:70). The Jews said His claims made Him worthy of death (Mark 14:64, John 19:7, see also John 8:56-59). Jesus was mocked for claiming to be the Son of God (Matthew 27:40-43). It was on this point of Sonship with God that Satan challenged Christ in the wilderness (Matthew 4:3-6, Luke 4:3-9). Peter, when confessing Christ to be “the Son of the living God” (Matthew 16:16), was told by Jesus that it had not been “flesh and blood” that had revealed this to him but His Father in Heaven (Matthew 16:17). Jesus said very clearly that He was the Son of God (Matthew 16:16-17, John 3:16, 5:25-26, 9:35, 10:36, 11:4, 19:7). At His trial he claimed to be the Son of God (Matthew 26:64, Mark 14:62, Luke 22:70-71). It was this claim that brought about the sentence of death against Him (Mark 14:64, John 19:7).
The demons also addressed Jesus as the Son of God (Matthew 8:29, Mark 3:11, 5:7, Luke 4:41). The man in the tombs possessed of a devil also called Christ the Son of God (Luke 8:27-29). The Roman centurion said he believed that Christ was the Son of God (Mark 15:39). The disciples confessed Christ to be the Son of God (Matthew 14:33, 16:16, John 1:49, 11:27). Philip (the evangelist) explained to the Ethiopian eunuch that Christ was the Son of God (Acts 8:37). The first thing Paul taught after his 'blindness' was that Christ is the Son of God (Acts 9:20). Paul’s continuing theme was that God had sent His Son into the world to die (Romans 1:4, 8:3, 32, 2 Corinthians 1:19, Galatians 2:20, Ephesians 4:13 etc.). Not surprisingly, John's little letters, as does the book of Hebrews, constantly refer to Christ as the Son of God (1 John 3:8, 4:15, 5:5, 5:10, 5:12-13, 5:20, Hebrews 4:14, 6:6, 7:3, 10:29). That Christ is the Son of God was also the testimony of John the Baptist (John 1:32-34) – and so the list goes on.
Some say that Christ is a son only because of the virgin birth at Bethlehem, but if this were true, then John, when writing his Gospel (to show that Jesus was the Christ, the Son of God), made a serious mistake. This is because he did not even mention the birth of Jesus or the events of Bethlehem. The only thing in this respect he did say was that the Word was made flesh (John 1:14). This must be the briefest of references to Christ’s incarnation that it is possible to make. If John had wanted to show that the only reason why Christ was called the Son of God was because of the virgin birth then surely he would have at least mentioned where the angel Gabriel visited Mary saying that the child she was going to bear would be called the Son of God (Luke 1:35). As it was he did not even mention it. The prime reason therefore for Christ being called the Son of God cannot be His birth at Bethlehem. There must be another reason.
The “signs” that John gave were signs of Christ’s divinity. Anyone can claim to be a son of God as a result of creation. The above overwhelming number of references to Jesus being not just a son, but the only begotten Son of God, must encompass far far more than a created being such as are angels.

Jesus, The Son of God - As It Reads

JESUS, THE ONLY BEGOTTEN SON OF GOD “While he yet spake, behold, a bright cloud overshadowed them: and behold a voice out of the cloud, which said, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him.” — Matthew 17:5 “But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is […]

asitreads.com

Are you a Adventist?

 

[Johann]

Sure. Put down the verse right here on the page and show me what exact words are saying Adam was not there when Eve was tempted. I'll even again put it down for you .....

" and gave also unto her husband with her..." Gen 3:6

So HOW do you get out of that Adam was not with her and to say it in such a dogmatic fashion like you do. Much appreciated if you'd talk about the actual words. Thanks.

and gave also to her husband with her; that he might eat as well as she, and partake of the same benefits and advantages she hoped to reap from hence; for no doubt it was of good will, and not ill will, that she gave it to him; and when she offered it to him, it is highly probable she made use of arguments with him, and pressed him hard to it, telling him what delicious food it was, as well as how useful it would be to him and her.

The Jews infer from hence, that Adam was with her all the while, and heard the discourse between the serpent and her, yet did not interpose nor dissuade his wife from eating the fruit, and being prevailed upon by the arguments used; or however through a strong affection for his wife, that she might not die alone, he did as she had done:

6 וַתֵּ֣רֶא vat·Te·re saw הָֽאִשָּׁ֡ה ha·'ish·Shah And when the woman כִּ֣י ki for טוֹב֩ tOv [was] good הָעֵ֨ץ ha·'Etz that the tree לְמַאֲכָ֜ל le·ma·'a·Chal for food וְכִ֧י ve·Chi for תַֽאֲוָה־ ta·'a·vah- [was] pleasant ה֣וּא hu and that it לָעֵינַ֗יִם la·'ei·Na·yim, to the eyes וְנֶחְמָ֤ד ve·nech·Mad to be desired הָעֵץ֙ ha·'Etz and a tree לְהַשְׂכִּ֔יל le·has·Kil, to make [one] wise וַתִּקַּ֥ח vat·tik·Kach she took מִפִּרְי֖וֹ mip·pir·Yo of the fruit thereof וַתֹּאכַ֑ל vat·to·Chal; and did eat וַתִּתֵּ֧ן vat·tit·Ten and gave גַּם־ gam- also לְאִישָׁ֛הּ le·'i·Shah another עִמָּ֖הּ 'im·M

H5980 עֻמָּה `ummah (oom-maw') n-f.
1. conjunction, i.e. society.
2. mostly adverb or preposition (with prepositional prefix), near, beside, along with.
[from H6004]
KJV: (over) against, at, beside, hard by, in points.
Root(s): H6004

Strong's #5980: AHLB#1358-J (N2)

1358) Mo% (Mo% AhM) ac: ? co: People ab: ?: The pictograph o is a picture of the eye, the m is a picture of the sea representing mass. Combined these mean "see a mass". A large group of people in one location.
A) Mo% (Mo% AhM) ac: ? co: People ab: ?: A large group of people in one location. Those who are with or near each other.
Nm) Mo% (Mo% AhM) — People: [Hebrew and Aramaic] [freq. 1876] |kjv: people, nation, folk, men| H5971*, H5972*
Nf4) Timo% (Timo% Ah-MYT) — Neighbor: [freq. 12] |kjv: neighbor, another, fellow| H5997*
B) Mmo% (Mmo% AhMM) ac: Hide co: ? ab: ?: [Unknown connection to root;]
V) Mmo% (Mmo% Ah-MM) — Hide: [freq. 3] (vf: Paal, Hophal) |kjv: hide, dim| H6004*
J) Mfo% (Mfo% AhWM) ac: ? co: With ab: ?: Through the idea of being together.
Nf2) Tmfo% (Tmfo% AhW-MT) — At: [ms: tme] [freq. 32] |kjv: against, beside, answerable, at, hand, point| H5980*
M) Mio% (Mio% AhYM) ac: ? co: With ab: ?: Through the idea of being together in a group.
Nm) Mio% (Mio% AhYM) — With: [Hebrew and Aramaic] [ms: Me] [freq. 47] |kjv: with, unto, as, neither, between, among, to, toward, like, by, mighty| H5868*, H5973*, H5974*
6 and~she~will~SEE(V) (וַתֵּרֶא / wa'tey're) the~WOMAN (הָאִשָּׁה / ha'i'shah) GIVEN.THAT (כִּי / ki) FUNCTIONAL (טוֹב / tov) the~TREE (הָעֵץ / ha'eyts) to~NOURISHMENT (לְמַאֲכָל / lê'ma'a'khal) and~GIVEN.THAT (וְכִי / wê'khi) YEARNING (תַאֲוָה / ta'a'wah) HE (הוּא / hu) to~the~EYE~s2 (לָעֵינַיִם / la'ey'na'yim) and~be~CRAVE(V)~ing(ms) (וְנֶחְמָד / wê'nehh'mad) the~TREE (הָעֵץ / ha'eyts) to~>~make~CALCULATE(V) (לְהַשְׂכִּיל / lê'has'kil) and~she~will~TAKE(V) (וַתִּקַּח / wa'ti'qahh) from~PRODUCE~him (מִפִּרְיוֹ / mi'pir'yo) and~she~will~EAT(V) (וַתֹּאכַל / wa'to'khal) and~she~will~GIVE(V) (וַתִּתֵּן / wa'ti'teyn) ALSO (גַּם / gam) to~MAN~her (לְאִישָׁהּ / lê'i'shah) WITH~her (עִמָּהּ / i'mah) and~he~will~EAT(V) (וַיֹּאכַל / wai'yo'khal)

RMT: and the woman saw that the function of the tree is for nourishment and that he is a yearning to the eyes, and the tree is a craving for making calculations, and she took from his produce and she ate, and she gave also to her man with her, and he ate,

WITH: (masc.: עים / im) (עים / im) Through the idea of being together in a group. Alternate Translations: among, by; away (when prefixed with "from~"). Strong's: #5868, #5973


( masc., עים / im ) Translation: WITH Definition: Through the idea of being together in a group. Alternate Translations: by; away from (when prefixed with "from~") KJV Translations: with, unto, as, neither, between, among, to, toward, like, by, mighty Strong's Hebrew #: h.5868, h.5973 Strong's Aramaic #: a.5974

--------------------------------------------------------------

The illusive hope of being like God excited a longing for the forbidden fruit. “The woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a pleasure to the eyes, and to be desired to make one wise (הַשְׂכִּיל signifies to gain or show discernment or insight); and she took of its fruit and ate, and gave to her husband by her (who was present), and he did eat.” As distrust of God's command leads to a disregard of it, so the longing for a false independence excites a desire for the seeming good that has been prohibited; and this desire is fostered by the senses, until it brings forth sin. Doubt, unbelief, and pride were the roots of the sin of our first parents, as they have been of all the sins of their posterity. The more trifling the object of their sin seems to have been, the greater and more difficult does the sin itself appear; especially when we consider that the first men “stood in a more direct relation to God, their Creator, than any other man has ever done, that their hearts were pure, their discernment clear, their intercourse with God direct, that they were surrounded by gifts just bestowed by Him, and could not excuse themselves on the ground of any misunderstanding of the divine prohibition, which threatened them with the loss of life in the event of disobedience” (Delitzsch). Yet not only did the woman yield to the seductive wiles of the serpent, but even the man allowed himself to be tempted by the woman.


@Rockson-I ain't going to be overly dogmatic as to-Was Adam WITH-or in close proximity-with Eve. Although I must confess I believe they were TOGETHER.

J.

 

[Rockson]

@Rockson-I ain't going to be overly dogmatic as to-Was Adam WITH-or in close proximity-with Eve. Although I must confess I believe they were TOGETHER.

Nor am I really. I guess my point is from the text alone the other poster certainly cannot declare he wasn't and be so dogmatic about it. Not saying this about that other poster but many times when people impose a meaning on say passage A , not totally warranted they usually connect to it B, C, and D some doctrine or way of thinking they want to establish. Good to point out A doesn't necessarily declare what they're saying and that they need to demonstrate that it does.

 

[Wrangler]

Where does it say "he was with her" at the moment of deception upon Eve???

Is thisyour level of reading comprehension? That you deny anything that is not explicit? This double standard reveals an entrenched rationalization for your eisegesis. Funny how you don't apply that to the absence of a trinity verse, something like The nature of God is a trinity - consisting of the Father, Son & Holy Spirit who are co-equal, co-substantial and co-eternal - and if you do not believe this, you cannot be saved but are damned to hell forever.

Fact is, explicit communication is mostly not necessary and anyone who has had a pet or cared for a baby knows this to be true. Let's read the account in context.

GE 2:22 The Lord God brought her to the man ... GE 3:6 The woman stared at the fruit. It looked beautiful and tasty. She wanted the wisdom that it would give her, and she ate some of the fruit. Her husband was there with her, so she gave some to him, and he ate it too.​

​

Given there is no reference to the man and woman separating from GE 2:22 and no reference to the husband rejoining her at verse GE 3:6, the implication is he remained with her during the seduction of the serpent. If anything, GE 3:6 reinforices that he remained with her during the entire time.

Such is the case throughout all of literature. A man puts his gun in his desk drawer. He later goes to retrieve it ... We are to expect things to be unchanged unless we are told otherwise.

 

[Wrangler]

Do you even recognize Jesus’ title <The Word of God> is NOT in John 1:1?

Because the evidence for your doctrine is so weak, you must resort to the common use of the word ‘word’ with a title in another book. You cannot take parts of a persons title and presume that generic word refers to a person whose title contains that word.

This explains why later in the book the Apostles were finally convinced Jesus was from God. IF what you say is true, they’d be talking about him being God incarnate, which they never did.

As it is, I believe as the Apostles believed; that Jesus is truly FROM God.

Now we understand that you know everything, and there’s no need to question you. From this we believe that you came from God.”
John 16:30

Wrangler, all of us have the same Beginning

Not an answer to my question. Do you even recognize Jesus’ title <The Word of God> is NOT in John 1:1?

 

[DavidTree]

She handed Adam the same fruit she had just eaten from and offered it to him.... So he had to be nearby.
He most likely did hear it would make him like the Lord. For if I remember correctly what we were shown
when the text was being exegeted from the Hebrew the Hebrew indicates he ate in a manner that was
without hesitation and he kept munching it down. He just took it and kept eating. He was highly motivated.

So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, that it was pleasant to the eyes, ​

and a tree desirable to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate. She also gave to her ​

husband with her, and he ate. " Genesis 3:6​

grace and peace ...................

As of right now you are assuming Adam was there = that is adding to God's words what it does not say!

The Holy Spirit does not include Adam in Verses 1 thru 6a = so why do you include Adam.

Here is verse 6b. "She also gace to her husband and he ate" = this is where SCRIPTURE brings Adam into the scene of the crime.

God verifies this as well = IF you OPEN your EYES

Shall we go on or have you completely convinced yourself before seeking every word that comes from the Mouth of God?

 

[Wrangler]

Should you not obey the FATHER who commands us to believe in the LORD Jesus Christ and ALL that HE spoke and commanded.

Sad change of subject.

It's as if your mind goes into a mantra to avoid the cognitive dissonance.

(BTW, no translation refers to Jesus as capital-LORD.)