A Blog of Geek Eccentricities
Even Augustine doesn't agree with Paul on this line.
Come on, in the scripture Eve turns and hands Adam the fruit for him to eat. "She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it." Gen. 3:6b He is as guilty as Eve because of his silence. Sorry Paul!
Eve was blond. 'nuff said.
If a nekkid woman handed you some fruit to eat, would you decline? According to some of his writings, Augustine would not have. Oh, the power of the woman ...
This passage is quite puzzling, but a couple of things should be noted. Firstly, the passage says that Adam was not deceived, yet, as Rev. J points out, Genesis 3 and other passages make it clear that Adam ate the fruit and Adam sinned. Second, as a good Wesleyan, you should be aware that the translation you have posted glosses over an important distinction: a more accurate translation would say "the woman fell into transgression," which is exactly what NKJV says (HCSB, NASB, KJV, etc., also use either the noun "transgression" or the verb "to transgress"). The distinction between 'sin' and 'transgression' was of course a favorite of Wesley's. So Paul's teaching here would seem to be that the woman, being deceived, became a transgressor, but Adam, undeceived, sinned. Milton interprets this as Adam choosing Eve over God. As I discussed here, I have no idea what this has to do with the prohibition on women teaching, but the passage is certainly not intended to let Adam off the hook - Adam probably has MORE guilt than Eve under this verse (and others throughout Scripture).
The argument does not exclude Adam from having become a sinner, just that he was not deceived.
Am I being asked in those two verses accurately summarize Genesis?Or am I being asked if I agree with the use Paul (if he wrote Timothy) makes of that summary to say women should sit down and shut up.
John -- do you agree with Paul's argument for the subordination of women?
WEll since 1 & 2 Timothy are not often considered to have actually been written by Paul the question is a little off.But whoever wrote it I disagree totally (and would even if I Believed in the original sin line it is based upon). IT is not a good reading of Genesis. And was Eve really decieved in the first place?
Like others, I don't think these verses are trying to exonerate Adam. They simply point out what Genesis proclaims- Eve was tricked into sin while Adam sinned of his own volition. If anything, this makes Adam more culpable.As to the subordination of women, the author of 1 Timothy never says that God forbids women to have authority in the Church. He only states that he (the author) doesn't like it. Had this author (Paul or otherwise) truly felt that God forbids female leadership, he could have said so. Instead, the author clearly articulates that he is expressing his opinion. Thus verse 12 should be regarded as a human suggestion, not a Divine command.So let us consider that suggestion. Based on v. 13-14, the author seems to think that all women are as gullible as Eve. But since most of us know that women are no more prone to gullibility than men, we know that the author’s opinion is based on a faulty assumption and therefore can be ignored.
I agree with John W -- the passage clearly reference's Paul's personal opinion, and not a divine commandment. And his argument is sloppy, as it is factually inaccurate.This can make for a difficult issue with the inspiration of the Scriptures.
Post a Comment