Darius, you're biased and selective acceptance of the authority of the Bible and the SOP hinders your ability to understand the truth. It also hinders your ability to contribute in any meaningful way to this study. It boils down to your word against the Bible's or the SOP's.

Dave, I see that you inserted the word "audibly" into the text. That is your choice.

MM, beware of false assumptions.

Darius, the text does not say the conversation was inaudible. In fact the text supports more that it was audible.

quote:

---

Gen 3:1-6 NASB Now the serpent was more crafty than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said to the woman, "Indeed, has God said, 'You shall not eat from any tree of the garden'?" (2) The woman said to the serpent, "From the fruit of the trees of the garden we may eat; (3) but from the fruit of the tree which is in the middle of the garden, God has said, 'You shall not eat from it or touch it, or you will die.'" (4) The serpent said to the woman, "You surely will not die! (5) "For God knows that in the day you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil."

---

What permission do you find in the context to say that “he said” / “she said” doesn’t’ mean that words were exchanged audibly?

It seems somewhere else someone mentioned that you do not take the creation story literally. If that’s the case, you’re free to your opinion. But if your point depends on this belief, you really need to first convince everyone that it’s just an allegory.

Unless you take the whole story allegorically, you don’t have permission to assume that the conversation between Eve and the serpent was inaudible as you say. Of course if the basis for your belief is that the text is allegorical, then you can have it mean whatever you want. You can then always be right. But that doesn’t make for a very fruitful discussion, and it certainly doesn't have any relationship with the truth.

Jeff

Jeff, when was the last time Satan tempted you audibly? Do you believe you are at a higher level of consciousness/intelligence than the Woman was?

What I don't understand is if the Bible and SOP are wrong on a literal creation week then how is it possible to believe in the Adam, Eve and fall story at all?

Redfog

That is the kind of thinking I would expect from my kindergartner, not from you. The writers of the Bible were wrong on many things but that doest not make their work completely unreliable. It is a characteristic of humans that they are occasionally wrong. Being wrong is not the end of the world.

That's a rather silly thing to say in light of verses like this:

quote:

---

Most of all, you must understand this: No prophecy in the Scriptures ever comes from the prophet's own interpretation. No prophecy ever came from what a person wanted to say, but people led by the Holy Spirit spoke words from God.
2 Peter 1:20 - 21 NCV

---

So, if "The writers of the Bible were wrong on many things," and the scripture never comes from what the authors wanted to say or their own interpretation, that would mean the Holy Spirit led the authors in the wrong way.

I can see why one would be so against religion with an outlook like that. Most confusing.

Darius, you chastise people for saying that “with her’ doesn’t mean “with her”, then you say that “he said” / “she said” doesn’t’ mean “he said” / “she said”. It seems like you get to make up the rules as you go. You can’t accuratly judge everything by your own personal experience you know. That leaves a rather narrow, albeit convenient worldview. And to imply that I think I have a higher level of consciousness/intelligence than Eve because I say the serpent spoke to Eve audibly is not a reasonable conclusion and only diverts from the topic.

Since we’re diverting off topic, I might as well go there. To be honest, and maybe a little blunt, I get the feeling that you’ve made up your own religion. You pick and choose which scriptures are wrong; you pick and choose which verses you take literally, almost as if the choice were arbitrary. I think it’s not arbitrary at all though. I think that you’ve merely created in your own mind your own idea of how things are based upon your own experiences. If, for example, Paul doesn’t live up to how you think the Gospel aught to be, you discount those parts.

The Bible is what it is. It’s either true or it isn’t. If the same Spirit of truth inspires two different authors, what they write aught to be truth. If Paul’s writings or parts of his writings contain error, then what is the basis for the stuff you think contains errors or not? Near as I can tell, the only basis is your own contrived religion. I suppose it’s convenient that way that you’re never wrong, but then that would require that truth is relative to whatever you think it is, rather than what it really is.

You can’t gain truth by claiming that only *some* parts of scripture are truthful and then pick and choose the ones that agree with how you think it aught to be, and still be credible with anyone. You can’t be credible because you have no logical basis for how you determine what is error and what isn’t. The Bible is just another book if you get to pick the parts you like and ignore the rest. The Bible is the basis for belief in Christianity. Otherwise, you might as well be Buddhist. If you reconcile your beliefs against only your beliefs, where’s the standard?

Darius, I’m sorry this is getting long, but my fingers just keep typing. I want you to know that I admire that you are willing to stand up for what you believe even if it goes against what everyone else is saying. That’s a good trait, I think. However, my biggest point of contention is that you stand up for what you believe against a backdrop of your own making, and you don’t really defend your belief…I’m not really sure you even define your belief. Also, it would probably help your credibility orders of magnitude if you were a bit more direct in your conversation. You speak to people as if you’re the schoolmaster, which above coming off arrogant, seems you usurp the title from the rightful Owner.

Back on topic, when people have explained why “with her” doesn’t necessarily mean “with her” they went back to the original languages, back to the solid foundation, and made their arguments from there. When you said that “he said” / “she said” doesn’t mean they actually spoke to each other, you used your own personal experience and made your arguments from there. What credibility have you established that your personal experience should convince me?

But if you want me to answer your question with anecdotes, yes, I’ve audibly heard the devil speak to me through people who’ve tried to get me to do things that are wrong…sometimes successfully. But really, whether it was audible or not, does it really either way require that Adam was either present or not with Eve at the forbidden tree when she was deceived?

Jeff