The first order of business is to restate Genesis 3:6 in it's entirety: "When the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was desirable to make [one] wise, she took from its fruit and ate; and she gave also to her husband with her, and he ate" per the NASB.

Linguistics: Language Rules Constrain Language Meaning

The second order of business is for us to look into the word "saw" by examining the definition for the source Hebrew word רָאָה (raah) - Strong's Hebrew: 7200 for which we find "to see" along with it's conjugates.

The third order of business is to verify the accuracy of translation, so here is the Hebrew:

(Genesis 3:6 with points/vowels) וַתֵּ֣רֶא הָֽאִשָּׁ֡ה כִּ֣י טֹוב֩ הָעֵ֨ץ לְמַאֲכָ֜ל וְכִ֧י תַֽאֲוָה־ ה֣וּא לָעֵינַ֗יִם וְנֶחְמָ֤ד הָעֵץ֙ לְהַשְׂכִּ֔יל וַתִּקַּ֥ח מִפִּרְיֹ֖ו וַתֹּאכַ֑ל וַתִּתֵּ֧ן גַּם־ לְאִישָׁ֛הּ עִמָּ֖הּ וַיֹּאכַֽל׃

(Genesis 3:6 consonants only) ותרא האשה כי טוב העץ למאכל וכי תאוה־הוא לעינים ונחמד העץ להשכיל ותקח מפריו ותאכל ותתן גם־לאישה עמה ויאכל׃

We find that some English translations introduce some confusion into Genesis 3:6 by applying rules for translation which result in a different context than that which the Hebrew illuminates. Here is the explanation:

• The first word of Genesis 3:6, וַתֵּ֣רֶא (conjuctive waw [וַּ]; verb "raah" [תֵ֣רֶא]: Qal, consecutive imperfect, third person feminine singular) in Hebrew, was wrongly translated as "when" and "saw" in the verse's opening phrase "when the woman saw"
• The first word of Genesis 3:6 וַתֵּ֣רֶא is a compound word being a conjuction of "so" (conjuctive waw [וַּ]) prepended to "raah" (תֵ֣רֶא - "saw")
• Truly, the Hebrew word "ki" translates to "when" (see also the Hebrew word כִּ֗י [ki] definition)
• The first 2 occurrences of "that" are the Hebrew word "ki" in Genesis 3:6
• The third "that" in Genesis 3:6 has no supporting Hebrew word behind it
• The verb "took" is a compound word being a conjuction ("so") prepended to the Hebrew word "laqach" (לָקַח Strong's 3947 -- to take)

These facts result in the following more accurate translation compared to the NASB quoted near the top of this page:

"so saw, the woman, when the tree was good for food, and when it was a delight to the eyes, and the tree was desirable to make wise, so she took from it's fruit and ate, and she gave also to her husband with her, and he ate" (Genesis 3:6).

In grammar, a verb may have a perfect tense or an imperfect tense, (1) "perfect" meaning "a completed action, an action completed in the past" and (2) "imperfect" meaning "an incomplete action, an action to complete in the future". In Genesis 3:6, the verbs "saw", "took", "ate", "gave", and "ate" are all imperfect tense, that is, all the verbs indicate a conclusion for the action in the future, so these facts result in an even more accurate translation:

"so has been seeing, the woman, when the tree was good for food and when it was a delight to the eyes, and the tree was desirable to make wise, so she has been taking from it's fruit and has been eating, and she has been giving also to her husband with her, and he has been eating" (Genesis 3:6).

This even more accurate translation follows profoundly with "so having been opened, the eyes of the two of them, and they have been knowing when they were naked and they have been sewing fig leaves so they have been making themselves coverings" (Genesis 3:7 based on the Hebrew, but the NASB translated Genesis 3:7 as "Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves loin coverings" which erroneously translated the imperfect tense [action incomplete in past] verbs as the perfect tense [action complete in past]).

The English language's present perfect progressive (a.k.a. present perfect continuous) verb tense matches the Biblical Hebrew language's imperfect tense for verbs. Thus the flow forcefully includes fluid, smooth, and meaningful perspective of action currently underway at the time of the recorded words in Genesis.

The English present perfect continuous "has been seeing" verb phrase is the appropriate translation of the Hebrew word רָאָה (raah) - Strong's Hebrew: 7200 based on the Hebrew word's construction in Genesis 3:6 since the present perfect progressive indicates something that continues from the past into the present as well as possibly into the future.

The conjunction "so" indicates "then follows", so this first sample sentence "the hunter knows a forest hike during a severe storm would be challenging, so he proceeded into the forest for the hunt" enables the potential of the hunter travelling into the woods in clear weather, but the first sample sentence does not inherently indicate that local weather conditions came into existence at the time the hunter was entering the forest. The first sample sentence does not inherently indicate the hunter never enters the forest during a severe storm, in fact, the hunter may have entered the forest to obtain food for his hungry wife and 4 children during a prolonged severe storm. This first sample sentence lacks conclusive evidence to indicate current weather conditions, so the hunter may be trying to beat a storm on the horizon, or the hunter may see clear weather all around before journeying into the forest; moreover, perhaps as single a single man, the hunter may enjoy the challenge of stormy weather while hunting, so he may want to enter the forest during a severe storm.

Reassembling the first sample sentence into this second sample sentence, "the hunter knows a forest hike during a severe storm would be challenging, so he seeing when the storm broke into clear weather he proceeded into the forest for the hunt", then time reference for the weather's localized transition origin in time is introduced by the word "when"; in other words, in this scenerio the word "when" establishes dependency upon the local weather conditions having changed from stormy weather to clear weather for the inference that the hunter encountered ease of forest travel while hunting. The point is greater context provides greater meaning.

The words "so" in the Genesis 3:6 passage indicates that something "then follows" influenced by the something previous, but the words "so" do not indicate coming into existense based on the merit of the word "so"; rather, context of addiional words beyond the word "so" are necessary to indicate something coming into existense. The word "so" could legitimately be translated "then follows". With scripture, greater context not only comes from the internal words of a scriptural passage, but other passages of scripture may contribute context as well.

Here is an effort attempting to translate the NASB version of Genesis 3:6 consistently by applying the word "when" for the verb prefix of ו according to the NASB's translation of the first Hebrew word of וַתֵּ֣רֶא in Genesis 3:6 to the additional four verbs which contain the prefix ו as a part of these words (I braced the original Hebrew word for your comparison purposes, and I hyphenated multiple English words together where possible in order to indicate that the hyphenated words translate from the adjacent Hebrew word):

When {וַתֵּ֣רֶא [both when and saw] +} the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was desirable to make [one] wise, when-she-took {וַתִּקַּ֥ח} from its fruit when-ate {וַתֹּאכַ֑ל +}; when-she-gave {וַתִּתֵּ֧ן} also to her husband with her, when-he-ate {וַיֹּאכַֽל} (Genesis 3:6 the "+" explained is that the NASB left out "she" with this verb breaking consistency with the other verbs - the fourth verb could be when-she-ate - the first verb has "she" in it but there is a Hebrew word "הָֽאִשָּׁ֡ה" supporting the English words "the woman" so I do not attempt the hyphenation).

It is clearly evident that "when" fails as the translation for Hebrew prefix ו, in fact, "so when" also fails as the translation. Properly translated, the prefix ו means "so", not "when", not "so when", but merely "so".

A quick cross reference to the Septuagint (the Greek) is helpful.

καὶ εἶδεν ἡ γυνή ὅτι καλὸν τὸ ξύλον εἰς βρῶσιν καὶ ὅτι ἀρεστὸν τοῖς ὀφθαλμοῖς ἰδεῖν καὶ ὡραῖόν ἐστι τοῦ κατανοῆσαι καὶ λαβοῦσα τοῦ καρποῦ αὐτοῦ ἔφαγε· καὶ ἔδωκε καὶ τῷ ἀνδρὶ αὐτῆς μετ᾿ αὐτῆς καὶ ἔφαγον (Genesis 3:6)

The first word, καὶ, is a conjunction, so it can be represented as "and" for Genesis 3:6.

The second word, εἶδεν, is a verb (aorist indicative active third person singular), so the Septuagint's second word should be translated "seeing", or more precisely, "has been seeing" for Genesis 3:6.

Here is the translation of the Septuagint for Genesis 3:6:

and has been seeing, the woman, that the tree is good for food and that it is pleasing to the eyes to behold, and is beautiful for contemplating, and having taken the fruit of it, she ate, and she gave also to her husband with her, and they ate.

The Hebrew and Greek are largely equivalent!

The fourth order of business is to dive deeply into the recorded words of Genesis 3:6.

In Genesis 3:6, the verb "seeing" has multiple components, such as:

• "seeing" denotes Eve's action of seeing
• "seeing" connotes Eve's condition of perceiving

The passage does not state that the woman is "seeing by choosing" nor "choosing by seeing", so the word "seeing" is perception, a state of being; meanwhile, no part of "seeing" represents choice.

Within the creation account (Genesis 2:4-25 into Genesis 3:1-19), I desire to draw the focus to Eve's transition recorded immediatley prior to eating the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (Genesis 3:6)..

The first two occurrences of the conjunction "and" in Genesis 3:6 indicates the first clause as well as the second clause as well as the third clause were true: in other words, according to the rules of logic, each of these clauses are conditionals, and all the conditionals were true according to Eve who "seeing":

• when the tree was good for food
• when it was a delight to the eyes
• the tree was desirable to make wise

The first and second conditionals are time referenced (a relative time is specified) by the word "when"; furthermore, the first 2 conditionals are based on perception which travels inward for persons.

The third conditional is not time referenced; furthermore, the third conditional is based on Eve's internal state which travels outward for persons.

Eve's prior condition respecting her perception of (how she saw) the tree may seem mysterious, but Eve did attribute to God as saying "You shall not eat from it or touch it, or you will die" (Genesis 3:3); therefore, Eve did not specifiy her own condition, rather, she attributed the words to God.

Since the Genesis 3:6 passage straightaway states "so seeing, the woman, when the tree was good for food, and when it was a delight to the eyes", then drawing a legitimate conclusion that the first 2 conditionals were influenced by the immediately previous conversation with the immediately prior clause which were the words of the serpent "You surely will not die! 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." (Genesis 3:4-5) is a valid conclusion.

The Genesis 3:6 passage does not open with the statement of "so the eyes of woman were opened to see"; in comparison, Genesis 3:7 does state "Then the eyes of both of them were opened" which referred to the results of Adam and Eve eating of the tree; therefore, a legitimate conclusion can be drawn that at least one of the conditionals of Genesis 3:6 was based on a pre-existing state of Eve prior to eating of the tree, so the non-time referenced third conditional was a pre-existing condition for Eve is a valid conclusion.

Using the process of elimination for the conditionals in Genesis 3:6, it is evident that the first 2 conditionals, both indicating perception transition, cannot be a pre-existing state of Eve prior to eating of the tree, so, with both of the first two conditionals eliminated as contenders, then the sole remaining conditional is the only contender, that is, the third conditional is the only contender as a pre-existing state of Eve prior to eating of the tree.

The conjunction "and" between the second conditional and third conditional indicates the last 2 conditionals both occur as true. The word "and" is accurate according to the Hebrew, but the word "so" is inaccurate according to the Hebrew; nonetheless, for an example only, if the conjunction "so" was in the place of "and", then "so" would indicate the latter (third) conditional then follows the prior (second) conditional. Thus, since the conjuction of "and" is accurate, then the third conditional inherits no dependency from the perception transition that occurred in the first 2 conditionals.

With that being written, the third conditional (last conditional) of "and the tree was desirable to make wise" stands on its own merit as the context for a pre-existing condition of Eve prior to eating of the tree; in other words, Eve's desire was already her state of being.

Therefore, the third conditional of the Genesis 3:6 passage reveals Eve's fruit of the flesh.

The Genesis 3:6 passage is absent of indicating that Eve had a pre-existing condition that she saw the tree as evil for food.

The Genesis 3:6 passage explicity exposes the condition of Eve seeing "when the tree was good for food".

The Genesis 3:1-5 passsage indicates that the serpent and Eve discussed the trees of the garden then the focus of the conversation narrowed to the tree of the knowledge of good and evil

SO Eve's attention was on the tree of the knowledge of good and evil

SO "seeing" is "attention" even "pointed attention" in the context of Genesis 3:1-6

AND temptation development is evident

Eve's attention ("seeing") then follows Eve's condition ("desirable").

Notice, Eve's condition was lust/desire (lust and desire are the same word in Greek, hence I use them interchangably in this subject matter context).

Behold temptation and desire and sin and death as part of the creation account (Genesis 2:4-25 into Genesis 3:1-19).

Now see temptation and desire and sin and death laid out in the book of James (James 1:14-15).

James, a slave of God, wrote "each one is tempted when he is carried away and enticed by his own desire. Then when desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and when sin is accomplished, it brings forth death (James 1:14-15).

Alternatively, this passage of James can safely be rendered "each one is tempted when he is carried away and enticed by his own lust. Then when lust has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and when sin is accomplished, it brings forth death (James 1:14-15)

"Desire" is a state of being, and there is no choice nor freewill within the definition of "desire" (see also the meaning of the Hebrew word חָמַד (chamad, desire))

In order of inclusion within the passage by James:

1. James wrote of one's temptation
2. James wrote of a person "carried away" "by his own lust"
3. James wrote of a person "enticed by his own lust"
4. James wrote "when lust has conceived"
5. James wrote "it gives birth to sin"
6. James wrote "when sin is accomplished, it brings forth death"

James exposes cause and effect with respect to much including the lust of the flesh - and earthy flesh is the first state of men which is enmity with God.

We can scroll back to initial cause in the James passage which is number 2 in the list above.

The initial cause is a person "carried away" "by his own lust".

James did not write that a person chooses the person's state of being (desire/lust).

James did not write that a person chooses to be "carried away" by the person's state of being (desire/lust).

James wrote that a person's state of being (desire/lust) carries the person away; in other words, the person's fleshly lust is driving the person.

God kindly had James describe "desire" to us with "you desire and do not have" (James 4:2) which is perfectly complemented by the dictionary definition of "desire" being "the feeling that accompanies an unsatisfied state" (Princeton University WordNet [2010, accessed 18 May 2020 {opens to wordnetweb.princeton.edu}]).

See that James did not write "you see so you desire" in James 4:2; therefore , "sight" is not bound by James to "desire". This is highly relevant to both "seeing" and "desirable" in Genesis 3:6. Accordingly it is the "desire" that births sin, not the "sight", not "seeing" in Genesis 3:6, absolutely yes for "desirable" in Genesis 3:6, truly "when desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin" (James 1:15).

Notice the concurrent nature of the phrases "you desire and do not have" (James 4:2). A complimentary corollary is "you are satisfied and do have". With "you desire and do not have" (James 4:2), James cohesively ties desire with lack of possession; on the other hand, "you are satisfied and do have" ties satisfaction with possession.

James words of "you desire and do not have" (James 4:2) scripturally define "desire" as a state of being, not a choice by the person for James did not write "you choose to desire", but rather "desire" as a dissatisfied state of being because of not possessing something.

Behold, James clearly defines "desire/lust" as a dissatisfied state of being because of not possessing something when he wrote "you desire and do not have" (James 4:2), so desire is a driver of man, and James 4:2 contributes to revealing the truth within the conditionals of Genesis 3:6.

As James indicates, a person's fleshly desire drives the person, and Eve was driven by her flesh respecting the third conditional.

Cause and effect need to be seen (as in "seeing"/perceiving) to understand the creation account.

For our purposes, distinguishing Eve's transition points contrasted against Eve's non-transition point prior to eating the fruit is the impetus of this portion of research, so, scripturally speaking, transition is the effect.

Knowing the scriptural effect means that the cause must be determined based upon scripture.

As evidenced by scripture, there is no indication that Eve was transitioned by free will.

As evidenced by scripture, there is no indication that Eve was transitioned by choice.

As evidenced by scripture, Eve was transitioned by her lust/desire (as a reminder, see the James quotation above).

The word "seeing" expresses the denotation and connotation illustrated with:

• "seeing" denotes Eve's action of seeing in the present tense as well as future tense
• "seeing" connotes Eve's condition of perception

Context Defined In Genesis 3:6 - "Seeing" = "Visualizing"

The visual aspect of "she seeing, the woman, when the tree was good for food" is intensified by the subsequent clause of "and when it was a delight to the eyes" in Genesis 3:6

See that the word "seeing" in the first clause gets compounded by the word "eyes" in the second clause.

Lord Jesus says "The eye is the lamp of the body; so then if your eye is clear, your whole body will be full of light. But if your eye is bad, your whole body will be full of darkness. If then the light that is in you is darkness, how great is the darkness!" (Matthew 6:22-23)

The tree cannot be good for food (Genesis 3:6) because man would die after eating of the tree (Genesis 2:17).

Despite God commanding not to eat of the tree, Eve seeing the tree as good for food and a delight to her eyes reveals Eve's "eye condition".

Context Distinction In Genesis 3:6 - "Seeing" ≠ "Believing"

These nouns describe different applications: perception and persuasion

The competition is: seeing versus believing

Belief/faith is defined scripturally in relation to thing's not seen, as in "Now belief is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen" (Hebrews 11:1).

Therefore the verb "seeing" is inequal to the verb "believing".

Therefore the noun "sight" is inequal to the noun "belief".

Therefore the permutations of the noun/verb "sight"/"seeing" is inequal to the permutations of the noun/verb "belief"/"believing".

Written another way, regarding nouns, perception (sight) is inequal to persuasion (belief).

We find "seeing" in Genesis 3:6 with "she seeing, the woman, when the tree was good for food", yet we find "belief" leading to "believing" contextually in the "the conviction of things not seen" (Hebrews 11:1).

Thus, "believing", as in "not seen", cannot replace "seeing" in Genesis 3:6 because the tree was "seen". Adam was told NOT to eat of the tree, but Adam was NOT told the tree was inedible (Genesis 2:16-17).

Lord Jesus explains that seeing is different from believing when He says "seeing they do not see" (Matthew 13:13). This cannot be legitimately restated as "believing they do not believe". The Lord also says "Did I not say to you that if you believe, you will see the glory of God?" (John 11:40), so seeing is dependent on believing.

Definition Distinction In Genesis 3:6 - "Seeing" ≠ "Freewill"

This competition is: seeing versus freewill

The word "seeing" represents the act of "seeing" in the present flowing into "seeing" in the future.

The word "freewill" represents a person's autonomously comprehensive determination (i.e. a person's exclusive ability to choose things and/or actions autonomously).

Therefore the word "seeing" is inequal to the word "freewill" (including "free will choice").

The word "seeing" is a verb, but the word "freewill" is a noun.

A noun is a person, place, or thing; on the other hand, a verb is an action.

A noun is inequal to a verb.

Therefore "seeing" (verb) is inequal to "freewill" (noun).

Considering source versus recipient respecting "seeing" and "freewill".

Perception happens to a person, so "seeing" travels into a person.

Choice emanates from a person, so "freewill" travels out of a person.

A person is the "source" when referring to "freewill" or "freewill choice".

A person is the "recipient" when referring to "seeing" or "perceiving".

These concepts behind "seeing" are the opposite the concepts behind "free will".

Written another way, perception (seeing) is inequal to choice (freewill).

An inversion of context occurs within Genesis 3:6 when "freewill" is erroneously applied to "seeing" by self willed persons (2 Peter 2:9-10).

Conclusions For Genesis 3:6 - "Seeing" = "Perceiving"

Definitions are crucial to communication!

The word "seeing" is the present continuous verb tense conjugate of the verb "see", so the definition of the word "see" is "to perceive with the eyes; to perceive mentally" according to The Free Dictionary (accessed 2020-06-06) [links to TheFreeDictionary.com].

Therefore, the definition of "seeing" is "perceiving with the eyes; perceiving mentally".

Perception indicates awareness, and perception's input is one of the five senses: visual, aural, tactile, olfactory, and sapidity.

Respecting "see" with it's conjugates, including "seeing", the meaning:

1. does not denote nor connote the word "choose" nor it's conjugates
2. does not express nor imply the word "freewill" nor it's variants
3. does not indicate a transition
4. does not express equality with the verb "believe" nor it's conjugates

The word "seeing" denotes visual reception.

The word "seeing" connotes awareness of a concept.

The word "seeing" represents a condition of perception existing; in other words, "seeing" exposes a state of being chronologically during the current time, yet the state of being may have existed before the current time, but the state of being will persist into the future after the current time.

The verb "seeing" is equal to the verb "perceiving".

Neither perception ("sight") nor persuasion ("belief"/"faith") indicate a change of condition; in other words, for a transition to be represented for perception or persuasion then a concept of transition must be expressed clearly within surrounding text.

Both perception ("sight") and persuasion ("belief"/"faith") indicate a condition, a state of being.

Perception ("sight") signifies awareness. Perception is based on the temporal (physical).

Persuasion ("belief"/"faith") signifies acknowledgement. Persuasion is based on the reality (spiritual).

Let's look at some equivalencies in scripture with HIGH relevance to the discussion at hand:

• We believers, "we walk by faith, not by sight" (2 Corinthians 5:7)
• We believers, "we walk by persuasion, not by perception" (2 Corinthians 5:7)
• We believers, "we walk by belief, not by visual" (2 Corinthians 5:7)

Persuasion is distinguished from perception in 2 Corinthians 5:7.

Belief (persuasion), with it's variants, is illegitimate as a translation for the Hebrew word רָאָה (raah) in Genesis 3:6 because persuasion (1) defies definitions, (2) dismantles context, and (3) most importantly breaks scripture, such as Matthew 6:22-23, Hebrews 11:1, and 2 Corinthians 5:7.

Sight (perception), with it's variants, is legitimate as a translation for the Hebrew word רָאָה (raah) in Genesis 3:6 because perception (1) maintians definition's integrity, (2) agrees contextually, and (3) most importantly scriptural harmony remains intact, such as Matthew 6:22-23, Hebrews 11:1, and 2 Corinthians 5:7.

The Truth (John 14:6) About Genesis 3:6

As thoroughly and completely outlined above:

• The Genesis 3:6 passage contains the present tense, not the past tense
• The Genesis 3:6 passage indicates "seeing", not "believing", this conclusively because:
  • "Sight" and "seeing" are directionally inward for man.
  • "Belief"/"faith" and "believing" are directionally outward for man.
  And, the word "believing" cannot replace the word "seeing", in part nor in whole, because of "we walk by belief, not by sight" (2 Corinthians 5:7).
• The Genesis 3:6 passage indicates "seeing", not "choosing", this conclusively because:
  • "Sight" and "seeing" are directionally inward for man.
  • "Choice" and "choosing" are directionally outward for man.
  And, the word "choosing" cannot replace the word "seeing", in part nor in whole, because "choosing" opposes the direction of "seeing".
• The Genesis 3:6 passage indicates a transition for Eve respecting:
  • when the tree was good for food
  • when it was a delight to the eyes
  So this was Eve's sight, that is, her fleshly lust manifested.
• The Genesis 3:6 passage indicates a pre-existing state for Eve (no transition) of her desire for it is written "the tree was desirable to make wise" (the word "when" is not there), so Eve's desire was already a part of Eve, that is, her fleshly lust.
• The Genesis 3:6 passage indicates Eve was driven by her desire, and we find James, the slave of God, wrote "you desire and do not have" (James 4:2) as well as "each one is tempted when he is carried away and enticed by his own desire. Then when desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and when sin is accomplished, it brings forth death (James 1:14-15), so Eve was carried away and enticed by her own desire, that is, she was not carried away and enticed by her seeing.

---

Return to main essay "Almighty God's Awesome Creation In Amazing Splendor"