Trinity - Bible Teaching or Doctrine of Man

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
181

[quote]BackInAction wrote:

[quote]haney1 wrote:

[quote]BackInAction wrote:

But why didn’t God create them without the desire to want to be like God? I believe it was their desire that led them to this. This desire was created by God and then sparked by God through temptation.
[/quote]

disclaimer: I am not taking a literal stance on Gen. 1 with this post, neither am I denying it
Now that is a fascinating question. I would take the counter argument that the desire didn’t exist at first, but was instead planted by the serpent. In fact, I would argue that eve had no understanding of what it would enable her to become with out the serpent. She even added rules to the command to not eat the fruit when she said “and you must not touch it, or you will die”.

God only told them not to eat it, he never said anything about touching it.
[/quote]

Okay, maybe God didn’t put the desire in them. But then why did he create the snake that would tempt him? God created everything, didn’t he? Why create something he knew would tempt them (and succeed)?

See, this is the big problem I’m noticing. God is involved in the fall of Adam and Eve. To fix their sin that he himself had a hand in causing, he sent himself down to earth, and sacrificed himself, to himself, to fix the mistake. And I’m not even sure you can call it a sacrifice because he didn’t end up dead. He rose and, depending on how you interpret it, rose to power in heaven as either ruler or someone close to God.

This really makes sense to everyone?[/quote]

well lets not get too far ahead in the logical process by tackling the second paragraph.

So I would say the serpent is really a term used for Satan, who somehow is apparently an agent of free will in his own right. This is where the argument from Plantinga comes in.

So how does God allow free will and yet keep something from happening?

182

[quote]haney1 wrote:

[quote]BackInAction wrote:

[quote]haney1 wrote:

[quote]BackInAction wrote:

But why didn’t God create them without the desire to want to be like God? I believe it was their desire that led them to this. This desire was created by God and then sparked by God through temptation.
[/quote]

disclaimer: I am not taking a literal stance on Gen. 1 with this post, neither am I denying it
Now that is a fascinating question. I would take the counter argument that the desire didn’t exist at first, but was instead planted by the serpent. In fact, I would argue that eve had no understanding of what it would enable her to become with out the serpent. She even added rules to the command to not eat the fruit when she said “and you must not touch it, or you will die”.

God only told them not to eat it, he never said anything about touching it.
[/quote]

Okay, maybe God didn’t put the desire in them. But then why did he create the snake that would tempt him? God created everything, didn’t he? Why create something he knew would tempt them (and succeed)?

See, this is the big problem I’m noticing. God is involved in the fall of Adam and Eve. To fix their sin that he himself had a hand in causing, he sent himself down to earth, and sacrificed himself, to himself, to fix the mistake. And I’m not even sure you can call it a sacrifice because he didn’t end up dead. He rose and, depending on how you interpret it, rose to power in heaven as either ruler or someone close to God.

This really makes sense to everyone?[/quote]

well lets not get too far ahead in the logical process by tackling the second paragraph.

So I would say the serpent is really a term used for Satan, who somehow is apparently an agent of free will in his own right. This is where the argument from Plantinga comes in.

So how does God allow free will and yet keep something from happening? [/quote]

Even if we call the serpent Satan, God still created him and he did the same thing.

183

[quote]BackInAction wrote:

[quote]haney1 wrote:

[quote]BackInAction wrote:

But why didn’t God create them without the desire to want to be like God? I believe it was their desire that led them to this. This desire was created by God and then sparked by God through temptation.
[/quote]

disclaimer: I am not taking a literal stance on Gen. 1 with this post, neither am I denying it
Now that is a fascinating question. I would take the counter argument that the desire didn’t exist at first, but was instead planted by the serpent. In fact, I would argue that eve had no understanding of what it would enable her to become with out the serpent. She even added rules to the command to not eat the fruit when she said “and you must not touch it, or you will die”.

God only told them not to eat it, he never said anything about touching it.
[/quote]

Okay, maybe God didn’t put the desire in them. But then why did he create the snake that would tempt him? God created everything, didn’t he? Why create something he knew would tempt them (and succeed)?

See, this is the big problem I’m noticing. God is involved in the fall of Adam and Eve. To fix their sin that he himself had a hand in causing, he sent himself down to earth, and sacrificed himself, to himself, to fix the mistake. And I’m not even sure you can call it a sacrifice because he didn’t end up dead. He rose and, depending on how you interpret it, rose to power in heaven as either ruler or someone close to God.

This really makes sense to everyone?[/quote]

Yes it makes sense. I will say that this beleif might be a subjective truth, that we all can argue about, but this subjective truth will one day be objective truth, that none of us will be able to argue about. This is where faith comes into play. Do you have faith that will move mountains or is your faith nonexistant? I will commend my JW friends their faith is really strong, but so is Tribs, Irish, Haney1, Pats, Katz, and mine. We all come from different backgrounds but we have faith. Whether that faith is misplaced or not, we will know one day if we are right or wrong.

184

[quote]BackInAction wrote:

[quote]haney1 wrote:

[quote]BackInAction wrote:

[quote]haney1 wrote:

[quote]BackInAction wrote:

But why didn’t God create them without the desire to want to be like God? I believe it was their desire that led them to this. This desire was created by God and then sparked by God through temptation.
[/quote]

disclaimer: I am not taking a literal stance on Gen. 1 with this post, neither am I denying it
Now that is a fascinating question. I would take the counter argument that the desire didn’t exist at first, but was instead planted by the serpent. In fact, I would argue that eve had no understanding of what it would enable her to become with out the serpent. She even added rules to the command to not eat the fruit when she said “and you must not touch it, or you will die”.

God only told them not to eat it, he never said anything about touching it.
[/quote]

Okay, maybe God didn’t put the desire in them. But then why did he create the snake that would tempt him? God created everything, didn’t he? Why create something he knew would tempt them (and succeed)?

See, this is the big problem I’m noticing. God is involved in the fall of Adam and Eve. To fix their sin that he himself had a hand in causing, he sent himself down to earth, and sacrificed himself, to himself, to fix the mistake. And I’m not even sure you can call it a sacrifice because he didn’t end up dead. He rose and, depending on how you interpret it, rose to power in heaven as either ruler or someone close to God.

This really makes sense to everyone?[/quote]

well lets not get too far ahead in the logical process by tackling the second paragraph.

So I would say the serpent is really a term used for Satan, who somehow is apparently an agent of free will in his own right. This is where the argument from Plantinga comes in.

So how does God allow free will and yet keep something from happening? [/quote]

Even if we call the serpent Satan, God still created him and he did the same thing.
[/quote]

True, which leads to my question at the end of the post.

Just wondering, but when you read that story, it is described as perfect, do you ever wonder why they would throw that away for something that they didn’t even know they were missing?

Honestly, why would you give up everything you had, all of your needs provided. for some small item that probably wasn’t all it is cracked up to be?

185

[quote]haney1 wrote:

[quote]BackInAction wrote:

[quote]haney1 wrote:

[quote]BackInAction wrote:

[quote]haney1 wrote:

[quote]BackInAction wrote:

But why didn’t God create them without the desire to want to be like God? I believe it was their desire that led them to this. This desire was created by God and then sparked by God through temptation.
[/quote]

disclaimer: I am not taking a literal stance on Gen. 1 with this post, neither am I denying it
Now that is a fascinating question. I would take the counter argument that the desire didn’t exist at first, but was instead planted by the serpent. In fact, I would argue that eve had no understanding of what it would enable her to become with out the serpent. She even added rules to the command to not eat the fruit when she said “and you must not touch it, or you will die”.

God only told them not to eat it, he never said anything about touching it.
[/quote]

Okay, maybe God didn’t put the desire in them. But then why did he create the snake that would tempt him? God created everything, didn’t he? Why create something he knew would tempt them (and succeed)?

See, this is the big problem I’m noticing. God is involved in the fall of Adam and Eve. To fix their sin that he himself had a hand in causing, he sent himself down to earth, and sacrificed himself, to himself, to fix the mistake. And I’m not even sure you can call it a sacrifice because he didn’t end up dead. He rose and, depending on how you interpret it, rose to power in heaven as either ruler or someone close to God.

This really makes sense to everyone?[/quote]

well lets not get too far ahead in the logical process by tackling the second paragraph.

So I would say the serpent is really a term used for Satan, who somehow is apparently an agent of free will in his own right. This is where the argument from Plantinga comes in.

So how does God allow free will and yet keep something from happening? [/quote]

Even if we call the serpent Satan, God still created him and he did the same thing.
[/quote]

True, which leads to my question at the end of the post.

Just wondering, but when you read that story, it is described as perfect, do you ever wonder why they would throw that away for something that they didn’t even know they were missing?

Honestly, why would you give up everything you had, all of your needs provided. for some small item that probably wasn’t all it is cracked up to be?
[/quote]

Here is another way to look at it. They were deceived to the point that they would be in an “and 1” situation. Meaning, they would still have everything taken care of, but would be more powerful/knowledgeable, being like God in that regard. To them it “seemed” like a win/win.

186

[quote]haney1 wrote:

[quote]BackInAction wrote:

[quote]haney1 wrote:

[quote]BackInAction wrote:

[quote]haney1 wrote:

[quote]BackInAction wrote:

But why didn’t God create them without the desire to want to be like God? I believe it was their desire that led them to this. This desire was created by God and then sparked by God through temptation.
[/quote]

disclaimer: I am not taking a literal stance on Gen. 1 with this post, neither am I denying it
Now that is a fascinating question. I would take the counter argument that the desire didn’t exist at first, but was instead planted by the serpent. In fact, I would argue that eve had no understanding of what it would enable her to become with out the serpent. She even added rules to the command to not eat the fruit when she said “and you must not touch it, or you will die”.

God only told them not to eat it, he never said anything about touching it.
[/quote]

Okay, maybe God didn’t put the desire in them. But then why did he create the snake that would tempt him? God created everything, didn’t he? Why create something he knew would tempt them (and succeed)?

See, this is the big problem I’m noticing. God is involved in the fall of Adam and Eve. To fix their sin that he himself had a hand in causing, he sent himself down to earth, and sacrificed himself, to himself, to fix the mistake. And I’m not even sure you can call it a sacrifice because he didn’t end up dead. He rose and, depending on how you interpret it, rose to power in heaven as either ruler or someone close to God.

This really makes sense to everyone?[/quote]

well lets not get too far ahead in the logical process by tackling the second paragraph.

So I would say the serpent is really a term used for Satan, who somehow is apparently an agent of free will in his own right. This is where the argument from Plantinga comes in.

So how does God allow free will and yet keep something from happening? [/quote]

Even if we call the serpent Satan, God still created him and he did the same thing.
[/quote]

True, which leads to my question at the end of the post.

Just wondering, but when you read that story, it is described as perfect, do you ever wonder why they would throw that away for something that they didn’t even know they were missing?

Honestly, why would you give up everything you had, all of your needs provided. for some small item that probably wasn’t all it is cracked up to be?
[/quote]

Because I was sheltered without knowledge and got tempted by another.

187

[quote]honest_lifter wrote:

[quote]haney1 wrote:

[quote]BackInAction wrote:

[quote]haney1 wrote:

[quote]BackInAction wrote:

[quote]haney1 wrote:

[quote]BackInAction wrote:

But why didn’t God create them without the desire to want to be like God? I believe it was their desire that led them to this. This desire was created by God and then sparked by God through temptation.
[/quote]

disclaimer: I am not taking a literal stance on Gen. 1 with this post, neither am I denying it
Now that is a fascinating question. I would take the counter argument that the desire didn’t exist at first, but was instead planted by the serpent. In fact, I would argue that eve had no understanding of what it would enable her to become with out the serpent. She even added rules to the command to not eat the fruit when she said “and you must not touch it, or you will die”.

God only told them not to eat it, he never said anything about touching it.
[/quote]

Okay, maybe God didn’t put the desire in them. But then why did he create the snake that would tempt him? God created everything, didn’t he? Why create something he knew would tempt them (and succeed)?

See, this is the big problem I’m noticing. God is involved in the fall of Adam and Eve. To fix their sin that he himself had a hand in causing, he sent himself down to earth, and sacrificed himself, to himself, to fix the mistake. And I’m not even sure you can call it a sacrifice because he didn’t end up dead. He rose and, depending on how you interpret it, rose to power in heaven as either ruler or someone close to God.

This really makes sense to everyone?[/quote]

well lets not get too far ahead in the logical process by tackling the second paragraph.

So I would say the serpent is really a term used for Satan, who somehow is apparently an agent of free will in his own right. This is where the argument from Plantinga comes in.

So how does God allow free will and yet keep something from happening? [/quote]

Even if we call the serpent Satan, God still created him and he did the same thing.
[/quote]

True, which leads to my question at the end of the post.

Just wondering, but when you read that story, it is described as perfect, do you ever wonder why they would throw that away for something that they didn’t even know they were missing?

Honestly, why would you give up everything you had, all of your needs provided. for some small item that probably wasn’t all it is cracked up to be?
[/quote]

Here is another way to look at it. They were deceived to the point that they would be in an “and 1” situation. Meaning, they would still have everything taken care of, but would be more powerful/knowledgeable, being like God in that regard. To them it “seemed” like a win/win.[/quote]

Good point, HL.

188

Sorry for getting you guys off topic. I’m out for now. Please continue your discussion!

189

[quote]honest_lifter wrote:

[quote]haney1 wrote:

[quote]BackInAction wrote:

[quote]haney1 wrote:

[quote]BackInAction wrote:

[quote]haney1 wrote:

[quote]BackInAction wrote:

But why didn’t God create them without the desire to want to be like God? I believe it was their desire that led them to this. This desire was created by God and then sparked by God through temptation.
[/quote]

disclaimer: I am not taking a literal stance on Gen. 1 with this post, neither am I denying it
Now that is a fascinating question. I would take the counter argument that the desire didn’t exist at first, but was instead planted by the serpent. In fact, I would argue that eve had no understanding of what it would enable her to become with out the serpent. She even added rules to the command to not eat the fruit when she said “and you must not touch it, or you will die”.

God only told them not to eat it, he never said anything about touching it.
[/quote]

Okay, maybe God didn’t put the desire in them. But then why did he create the snake that would tempt him? God created everything, didn’t he? Why create something he knew would tempt them (and succeed)?

See, this is the big problem I’m noticing. God is involved in the fall of Adam and Eve. To fix their sin that he himself had a hand in causing, he sent himself down to earth, and sacrificed himself, to himself, to fix the mistake. And I’m not even sure you can call it a sacrifice because he didn’t end up dead. He rose and, depending on how you interpret it, rose to power in heaven as either ruler or someone close to God.

This really makes sense to everyone?[/quote]

well lets not get too far ahead in the logical process by tackling the second paragraph.

So I would say the serpent is really a term used for Satan, who somehow is apparently an agent of free will in his own right. This is where the argument from Plantinga comes in.

So how does God allow free will and yet keep something from happening? [/quote]

Even if we call the serpent Satan, God still created him and he did the same thing.
[/quote]

True, which leads to my question at the end of the post.

Just wondering, but when you read that story, it is described as perfect, do you ever wonder why they would throw that away for something that they didn’t even know they were missing?

Honestly, why would you give up everything you had, all of your needs provided. for some small item that probably wasn’t all it is cracked up to be?
[/quote]

Here is another way to look at it. They were deceived to the point that they would be in an “and 1” situation. Meaning, they would still have everything taken care of, but would be more powerful/knowledgeable, being like God in that regard. To them it “seemed” like a win/win.[/quote]

Not trying to be an ass because I like your post, but just a follow up question.

If God told them to not eat the fruit because they would surely die, which was truth, how is that a win/win situation?

190

What is to say that what God said is the truth? (existentially speaking) “Truth” is relative. Look how many “truths” are on this very thread.

191

[quote]BackInAction wrote:

[quote]haney1 wrote:

[quote]BackInAction wrote:

[quote]haney1 wrote:

[quote]BackInAction wrote:

[quote]haney1 wrote:

[quote]BackInAction wrote:

But why didn’t God create them without the desire to want to be like God? I believe it was their desire that led them to this. This desire was created by God and then sparked by God through temptation.
[/quote]

disclaimer: I am not taking a literal stance on Gen. 1 with this post, neither am I denying it
Now that is a fascinating question. I would take the counter argument that the desire didn’t exist at first, but was instead planted by the serpent. In fact, I would argue that eve had no understanding of what it would enable her to become with out the serpent. She even added rules to the command to not eat the fruit when she said “and you must not touch it, or you will die”.

God only told them not to eat it, he never said anything about touching it.
[/quote]

Okay, maybe God didn’t put the desire in them. But then why did he create the snake that would tempt him? God created everything, didn’t he? Why create something he knew would tempt them (and succeed)?

See, this is the big problem I’m noticing. God is involved in the fall of Adam and Eve. To fix their sin that he himself had a hand in causing, he sent himself down to earth, and sacrificed himself, to himself, to fix the mistake. And I’m not even sure you can call it a sacrifice because he didn’t end up dead. He rose and, depending on how you interpret it, rose to power in heaven as either ruler or someone close to God.

This really makes sense to everyone?[/quote]

well lets not get too far ahead in the logical process by tackling the second paragraph.

So I would say the serpent is really a term used for Satan, who somehow is apparently an agent of free will in his own right. This is where the argument from Plantinga comes in.

So how does God allow free will and yet keep something from happening? [/quote]

Even if we call the serpent Satan, God still created him and he did the same thing.
[/quote]

True, which leads to my question at the end of the post.

Just wondering, but when you read that story, it is described as perfect, do you ever wonder why they would throw that away for something that they didn’t even know they were missing?

Honestly, why would you give up everything you had, all of your needs provided. for some small item that probably wasn’t all it is cracked up to be?
[/quote]

Because I was sheltered without knowledge and got tempted by another. [/quote]

(indulge me in my assumption) I think you and HL are missing the bigger picture in my question. Eve knew what would happen if she did it, but she still did it. My 13 year old step daughter knows what will happen when she starts talking back, but for some reason she still does it. I find Eve’s as well as my daughters choice to be interesting.

Also not all things are tempting to all people. For instance God could tell me to never eat fish and I could easily comply with that. Fish has never been appealing to me, I have ate it twice in my life and both times were when I was much older. I only did it because my wife asked me to try it.

since I have laid to rest some of the other questions concerning free will, I have turned my attention to Eve and her reasoning for doing it. So forgive the rambling, I rarely get to bounce this idea off of someone.

192

[quote]BackInAction wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]BackInAction wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]BackInAction wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:
So it is more logical to sacrifice an angel to himslef so that he could correct sin? I would say the first is more logical.

I believe that God loves us so much he was willing to take the punishment of sin upon himself. Sending an angel, servant whatever the JWs call Jesus does not show Love, but shows that their Jehovah is not man enough to take the pain on himself.

My faith is that Jesus/God called us friends. John 15:13 Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends. God is Love, God is our friend and not an angel. Faith, Hope, & Love but the greatest of these is Love. He does not say Works he says Love.[/quote]

Honestly, I don’t think either is very logical. If God is infinitely powerful & wise, why did he make the mistake in the first place? Wouldn’t that mean he isn’t perfect? And in correcting it, why would he require a human sacrifice? Couldn’t he have taken sin upon himself in a more “godly” way? (Such as speaking to everyone at once, explaining the mistake). But then again, God speaking to everyone at once has never occurred in recorded history, verifiable by multiple accounts without vested interests.

Just being honest.
[/quote]
What mistake? [/quote]

It was to make up for the mistake of the creation of original sin and it being passed down from person to person. Since God created everything, he also created original sin. The fact that he had to come down in the first place to fix it means that it was a mistake.
[/quote]
God created the possibility for sin, he himself did not commit it. Original sin simply means that sin is in the world and it got there by the freewill of man.
He’s not fixing his mistake, he’s fixing ours. [/quote]

I understand that he did not commit it, but he basically set it up for us to fail, didn’t he? Like me putting a gun next to a kid that’s being bullied and telling someone to tell him it’s okay to use it. I understand what you mean, but I think the contexts that it was allowed to come into existence is a flaw on Gods part.[/quote]

He gave us freewill…If you cannot choose to do wrong, you do not have freewill. If you call giving us freewill a mistake than so be it.

193

[quote]honest_lifter wrote:

What is to say that what God said is the truth? (existentially speaking) “Truth” is relative. Look how many “truths” are on this very thread. [/quote]

I would also like to point out, it was only eve that thought it was a win\win. I find no indication that Adam thought it was a win\win.

194

[quote](indulge me in my assumption) I think you and HL are missing the bigger picture in my question. Eve knew what would happen if she did it, but she still did it. My 13 year old step daughter knows what will happen when she starts talking back, but for some reason she still does it. I find Eve’s as well as my daughters choice to be interesting.

Also not all things are tempting to all people. For instance God could tell me to never eat fish and I could easily comply with that. Fish has never been appealing to me, I have ate it twice in my life and both times were when I was much older. I only did it because my wife asked me to try it.

since I have laid to rest some of the other questions concerning free will, I have turned my attention to Eve and her reasoning for doing it. So forgive the rambling, I rarely get to bounce this idea off of someone.[/quote]

This is a perfect example of the direct correlation between faith and actions.

It intrigues you that she would do this even knowing the truth. However, does this not just suggest that she didn’t have true faith in what God had said?

195

[quote]BackInAction wrote:

Paul didn’t write Hebrews, the author is actually unknown.

Let’s switch gears a bit. We can throw passages back and forth ad nauseum, because the Bible is a big book.
My question is this, on what authority did JW’s dismantle the trinity, for which there is scriptural evidence and beyond for?
As scriptural literalists, how do you discern the angelic property of Jesus for which there is no scriptural reference for?
On what authority do you ‘demote’ Jesus to less than God and how all the sudden, after 17 centuries did you decide this is no longer true yet you apply other properties to Jesus which have no literal scriptural evidence?
Lastly, I want the exact scripture reference that proves Satan was thrown out of heaven onto the Earth in 1914…I am pretty sure those exact words are not in the Bible any where…[/quote]

From what I understand, the 1914 date was simply calculated by interpreters, but is not specifically mentioned in the Bible. [/quote]

Well that would not be literal biblical translation…I do want the answers to the above questions.

196

[quote]honest_lifter wrote:

What is to say that what God said is the truth? (existentially speaking) “Truth” is relative. Look how many “truths” are on this very thread. [/quote]

No, truth by definition is an absolute. Just because something is held to be true (subjective) does not mean it is actually true (absolute). But Absolute Truth does exist and is not relative.

197

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:

[quote]honest_lifter wrote:

What is to say that what God said is the truth? (existentially speaking) “Truth” is relative. Look how many “truths” are on this very thread. [/quote]

No, truth by definition is an absolute. Just because something is held to be true (subjective) does not mean it is actually true (absolute). But Absolute Truth does exist and is not relative.[/quote]

Of course, I absolutely agree. That is why I put the quotes around the truth. I was addressing it from the mind of Eve, who was thoroughly deceived, and therefore her “truth” was different from the absolute truth, unfortunately for her.

198

[quote]honest_lifter wrote:

[quote](indulge me in my assumption) I think you and HL are missing the bigger picture in my question. Eve knew what would happen if she did it, but she still did it. My 13 year old step daughter knows what will happen when she starts talking back, but for some reason she still does it. I find Eve’s as well as my daughters choice to be interesting.

Also not all things are tempting to all people. For instance God could tell me to never eat fish and I could easily comply with that. Fish has never been appealing to me, I have ate it twice in my life and both times were when I was much older. I only did it because my wife asked me to try it.

since I have laid to rest some of the other questions concerning free will, I have turned my attention to Eve and her reasoning for doing it. So forgive the rambling, I rarely get to bounce this idea off of someone.[/quote]

This is a perfect example of the direct correlation between faith and actions.

It intrigues you that she would do this even knowing the truth. However, does this not just suggest that she didn’t have true faith in what God had said? [/quote]

I would say no. I am sure she had faith that God would do what he said, just like my 13 year old daughter knows what I will do when she tests me. I would say it is a direct correlation to eve wanting something she couldn’t have. Just like my daughter talks back because she wants to express herself in a tone that lifts her up.

So I would say Eve wanted what she couldn’t have and just needed a little nudge in that direction. Most likely the reason why she was the target.

Just my opinion, but I do think about this line of thought often.

199

This stuck out to me. I apologize if this is out of context, and if it is, please just let me know.

What about her would have made her the target? How would Satan have known? He can’t read minds.

200

[quote]honest_lifter wrote:

This stuck out to me. I apologize if this is out of context, and if it is, please just let me know.

What about her would have made her the target? How would Satan have known? He can’t read minds.[/quote]

purely anecdotal, but here are my reasons

  1. for eve to see the tree she the fruit on that tree, she had to be near it.
  2. She added rules to what God actually said. Which technically makes eve the inventor of the first religion.
  3. I doubt Adam showed any interest in it.
  4. Eve never told Adam where it came from but he knew what it was.
  5. That would mean Adam wasn’t tempted by the fruit, but he was accepting eve’s fate as his own.

Once again this is just opinion based on my personal choices, as well as the choices of people around me, coupled with a few observations and alot of speculation.

I don’t think he read her mind, but I think she tipped her hand a little bit.