Who Sinned First? Adam Or Eve?

[thessalonian]

Romans 5:12 tells us:[
"Therefore as sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned -- "

I was listening to an MP3 talk on theology of the Body by Steve Keffmeyer, which was very good

[url="http://bridegroompress.com/zencart/index.php?main_page=advanced_search_result&search_in_description=1&keyword=%22Theology%20of%20the%20Body%22&sort=20a&page=2"]http://bridegroompress.com/zencart/index.p...=20a&page=2[/url]

avaialbe for free in mp3 format and he said that man's headship over woman was withregard to serving her, part of which is the protection of her. I've heard this before from other speaker. Okay so the serpant tempted eve and Adam did not come to her defense. Was this the first sin rather than Eve partaking of the forbidden fruit?

[Guest]

eve
but she was still beautiful

[Era Might]

Sirach 25:24 says: "From a woman sin had its beginning, and because of her we all die."

I'm not sure about the details of Church teaching on this matter, but combining this passage from Sirach with what St. Paul says, it seems that Eve sinned first, but Adam's sin determined our fallen state.

[thessalonian]

Thanks EM.

[Laudate_Dominum]

Hey, that sounds like Scott Hahn's theory. hehe
Lots of big dawg Catholics have criticized that interpretation so I wouldn't treat it as though it was dogma or something. I used to think it was cool but have come to reject it for a great many reasons. One of many "findings" and "discoveries" that Dr. Hahn puts forth in his popular literature which often become confused with definitive Catholic truth. I do admit that as a theory it involves some interesting points.

[KnightofChrist]

I've alway thought while Eve sinned first Adam sinned worst. Why, well eve blamed satan for sinning, Adam blamed God.

"The woman, whom [b]thou[/b] gavest me to be my companion, gave me of the tree, and I did eat."

Edited November 28, 2007 by KnightofChrist

[carrdero]

[b]Who Sinned First? Adam Or Eve?[/b]
Neither, it was the serpent.

[Era Might]

Just to add, the passage from Sirach is interesting in light of the association of Mary as the New Eve. She is traditionally called "the cause of our salvation." This may seem to suggest that she gave us salvation, but she is the "cause" of our salvation in the same way that Eve is the cause of our death. Eve could not give us a fallen state, only the sin of Adam could accomplish that; hence St. Paul's statement that sin and death came into the world through one man. But Eve was essential to the tempting of Adam, and their actions could not be separated; hence Sirach's statement that we die because of Eve. She is the "cause of our death" in the same way that Mary is the "cause of our salvation." Not in a direct sense, because only Adam could give us death and only Christ could give us salvation, but in the sense that the two Eves were the instruments through which the acts of the two Adams were made possible. If Adam had sinned first, then I think the parallel with Christ is lost because Eve gave Adam the fruit just as Mary gave Christ the fruit of her womb -- his flesh and blood. It is because Eve truly sinned that she shares in Adam's shame; she was a full and free cooperator with the serpent. Likewise it is because Mary truly consented to be the Mother of God that she shares in Christ's glory; she was a full and free cooperator with the Holy Spirit.

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='Era Might' post='1426459' date='Nov 28 2007, 07:52 PM']Just to add, the passage from Sirach is interesting in light of the association of Mary as the New Eve. She is traditionally called "the cause of our salvation." This may seem to suggest that she gave us salvation, but she is the "cause" of our salvation in the same way that Eve is the cause of our death. Eve could not give us a fallen state, only the sin of Adam could accomplish that; hence St. Paul's statement that sin and death came into the world through one man. But Eve was essential to the tempting of Adam, and their actions could not be separated; hence Sirach's statement that we die because of Eve. She is the "cause of our death" in the same way that Mary is the "cause of our salvation." Not in a direct sense, because only Adam could give us death and only Christ could give us salvation, but in the sense that the two Eves were the instruments through which the acts of the two Adams were made possible. If Adam had sinned first, then I think the parallel with Christ is lost because Eve gave Adam the fruit just as Mary gave Christ the fruit of her womb -- his flesh and blood. It is because Eve truly sinned that she shares in Adam's shame; she was a full and free cooperator with the serpent. Likewise it is because Mary truly consented to be the Mother of God that she shares in Christ's glory; she was a full and free cooperator with the Holy Spirit.[/quote]
Awesome Era, thanks!

[ironmonk]

[quote name='thessalonian' post='1426348' date='Nov 28 2007, 02:57 PM']Romans 5:12 tells us:[
"Therefore as sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned -- "

I was listening to an MP3 talk on theology of the Body by Steve Keffmeyer, which was very good

[url="http://bridegroompress.com/zencart/index.php?main_page=advanced_search_result&search_in_description=1&keyword=%22Theology%20of%20the%20Body%22&sort=20a&page=2"]http://bridegroompress.com/zencart/index.p...=20a&page=2[/url]

avaialbe for free in mp3 format and he said that man's headship over woman was withregard to serving her, part of which is the protection of her. I've heard this before from other speaker. Okay so the serpant tempted eve and Adam did not come to her defense. Was this the first sin rather than Eve partaking of the forbidden fruit?[/quote]

How do we know that this all didn't happen while Adam had to do some personal business in the bushes? Who's trying to frame Adam?

Why didn't Eve listen to Adam when he asked her to wait outside the bushes while he did his business?

God Bless Bro!
max

[ironmonk]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' post='1426440' date='Nov 28 2007, 07:16 PM']I've alway thought while Eve sinned first Adam sinned worst. Why, well eve blamed satan for sinning, Adam blamed God.

"The woman, whom [b]thou[/b] gavest me to be my companion, gave me of the tree, and I did eat."[/quote]

Men do stupid things for women. They have a power over us. lol

God Bless,
ironmonk

[ironmonk]

On a serious note, I think the Romans 5:12 has the context of "one human". It would be interesting to have the actual Aramaic spoken, but given the other verses and Church teaching, the only logical conclusion would be to go with the "one human/person" context.

God Bless,
ironmonk

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='ironmonk' post='1426632' date='Nov 28 2007, 11:27 PM']On a serious note, I think the Romans 5:12 has the context of "one human". It would be interesting to have the actual Aramaic spoken, but given the other verses and Church teaching, the only logical conclusion would be to go with the "one human/person" context.

God Bless,
ironmonk[/quote]

Well, technically, the original language was greek

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='ironmonk' post='1426632' date='Nov 28 2007, 11:27 PM']On a serious note, I think the Romans 5:12 has the context of "one human". It would be interesting to have the actual Aramaic spoken, but given the other verses and Church teaching, the only logical conclusion would be to go with the "one human/person" context.

God Bless,
ironmonk[/quote]

Well, technically, the original language was greek

[Laudate_Dominum]

[i]heis anthropos[/i]

which means:

un hombre
one homme
ein mann
un uomo
1 人
один человек
1 남자
一個人
0110111101101110011001010010000001101101
110000101101110

[rkwright]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' post='1426429' date='Nov 28 2007, 05:59 PM']Hey, that sounds like Scott Hahn's theory. hehe
Lots of big dawg Catholics have criticized that interpretation so I wouldn't treat it as though it was dogma or something. I used to think it was cool but have come to reject it for a great many reasons. One of many "findings" and "discoveries" that Dr. Hahn puts forth in his popular literature which often become confused with definitive Catholic truth. I do admit that as a theory it involves some interesting points.[/quote]

I have read 3 of Scott Hahn's books, and if I remember correctly he talks about this in his book's about covenant love? I forget the title, but I found the interpretation, like you, as "cool" (something about the serpent saying to Adam surely you won't die, as if the serpent was threatening adam?) Is this what you are refering to, and if so can you elaborate on how it has been disputed?

Not that I take Dr. Hahn's book as dogma, but I must admit that I somewhat just accept it.

[Era Might]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' post='1426671' date='Nov 29 2007, 02:41 AM']0110111101101110011001010010000001101101
110000101101110[/quote]
I'm curious, is that an actual binary translation?

Edit: I just checked and it is.

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='Era Might' post='1426798' date='Nov 29 2007, 04:06 PM']I'm curious, is that an actual binary translation?

Edit: I just checked and it is. [/quote]
lol

I like the Japanese way the best:

1 人

It looks exactly like what it says, "one man."
I guess "one woman" would be that plus a skirt drawn on? j/k

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='rkwright' post='1426756' date='Nov 29 2007, 01:44 PM']I have read 3 of Scott Hahn's books, and if I remember correctly he talks about this in his book's about covenant love? I forget the title, but I found the interpretation, like you, as "cool" (something about the serpent saying to Adam surely you won't die, as if the serpent was threatening adam?) Is this what you are refering to, and if so can you elaborate on how it has been disputed?

Not that I take Dr. Hahn's book as dogma, but I must admit that I somewhat just accept it.[/quote]
Yeah, I believe [i]A Father Who Keeps His Promises[/i] was the first book to get into this. There was a fuller presentation on some tapes I once had that were the lectures from a college course that Hahn teaches on Genesis. I've heard that it is something of a tradition for students in this class to write a paper trying to refute Hahn's exegesis on this point. hehe

All I was trying to say is that it is an exegetical theory and not a teaching of the Church. One can hold to this theory without being a heretic, although Sungenis and Matatiks might disagree. lol

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' post='1426671' date='Nov 29 2007, 01:41 AM'][i]heis anthropos[/i]

which means:

un hombre
one homme
ein mann
un uomo
1 人
один человек
1 남자
一個人
0110111101101110011001010010000001101101
110000101101110[/quote]

How could you forget the Vulgate:

unum hóminem