Who Sinned First – Adam Or Satan?

Who Sinned First – Adam Or Satan?

Bodie Hodge, M.Sc., B.Sc., PEI

Biblical Authority Ministries, June 27, 2025 (Donate)

When Christians or others speak of Adam being the first sinner, this refers to Paul’s reflection of Genesis saying:

Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned. (Romans 5:12, NKJV, all passages)

It means that sin entered the world through Adam—that he is the one credited with sin’s entrance and hence the subsequent entrance of death and suffering and the need for a Savior and a last Adam (1 Corinthians 15:45). When we look back at Genesis 3, it is true that Satan had rebelled and also the Woman (later named Eve) sinned prior to Adam.

The Fall of Satan book has more topics like this

The Sin Of The Woman (Eve)

There were several things that Eve did wrong prior to eating the fruit. When the serpent (who was speaking the words of Satan) asked in Genesis 3:1: “Has God indeed said, ‘You shall not eat of every tree of the garden’?” her response was less than perfect:

And the woman said to the serpent, “We may eat the fruit of the trees of the garden; but of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God has said, ‘You shall not eat it, nor shall you touch it, lest you die.’" (Genesis 3:2–3; emphasis added)

Compare this to what God had commanded in Genesis 2:16–17:

And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, “Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat; but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.”

Besides mimicking the serpent’s use of “God” instead of “Lord God”, the Woman made four mistakes in her response:

1.  She added the command not to touch the fruit “Nor shall you touch it”.  This is in direct contradiction with the command of Adam to tend the Garden (Genesis 2:15) which would constitute touching the tree and the fruit from time to time. It also makes the command from God to be exceptionally harsh.   

2.  She amended that God allowed them to freely eat from every tree. This makes God out to be less than gracious. 

3.  She amended that God allowed them to freely eat from every tree. Again, this makes God out to be less than gracious.   

4.  She amended the meaning of die. Let me explain, the Hebrew in Genesis 2:17 is “die die” (muwth – muwth), which is often translated as “surely die” or literally as “dying you shall die”, which indicates the beginning of dying, an ingressive sense.  In other words, if they would have eaten the fruit, then Adam and Eve would have began to die and would return to dust (which is what happened when they ate per Genesis 3:19).  If they were meant to die right then, Genesis 2:17 should have used muwth only once as is used in the Hebrew meaning dead, died, or die in an absolute sense and not beginning to die or surely die as die-die is commonly used.  What Eve said was “die” (muwth) once instead of the way God said it in Genesis 2:17 as “die-die” (muwth – muwth).  So, she changed God’s word to appear harsher again by saying they would die almost immediately.

Often, we are led to believe that Satan merely deceived Eve with the statement that “You will not surely die?” in Genesis 3:4. But we neglect the cleverness/cunningness that God indicates that the serpent had in Genesis 3:1. Note also that the exchange seems to suggest that Eve may have been willingly led: that is, she had already changed what God had said.

If you take a closer look, the serpent argued against Eve with an extremely clever ploy. He went back and argued against her incorrect words using the correct phraseology that God used in Genesis 2:17 (“die-die” (muwth–muwth)). This, in a deceptive way, used the proper sense of die that God stated in Genesis 2:17 against Eve's mistaken view. Imagine the conversation in simplified terms like this:

God says: Don’t eat or you will begin to die.

Eve says: We can’t eat or we will die immediately.

Serpent says: You will not begin to die?

This was very clever of Satan using God’s Words deceitfully against her. This is not an isolated incident either. When Satan tempted Jesus (Matthew 4), Jesus said “it is written” and quoted Scripture (Matthew 4:4). The second time, Satan tried quoting Scripture (i.e., God) deceptively just as he had done to Eve (Matthew 4:5–6). Of course, Jesus was not deceived, and corrected Satan’s twisted use of Scripture with a proper use of Scripture (Matthew 4:7). Because of Eve’s mistaken response of God’s command, it was easier for her to be deceived by Satan’s misuse of what God said.

As mentioned, another point that can be brought out about the Woman was her adoption of Satan’s reduction of “LORD God” to simply “God” in Genesis 3:3. This mimicked the way Satan addressed God when he questioned the Woman in Genesis 3:1. Satan had degraded God by not using the term God had used in Genesis 2:16-17 and the Woman followed suit. 

From her response though, she started down the slope into sin by being enticed by her own thoughts about the fruit (James 1:14–15). This culminated with her eating the forbidden fruit and giving some to her husband, who also ate.

The Woman sinned against God by eating the fruit from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil prior to Adam. However, at a closer look at the text—their eyes were not opened until after Adam ate (Genesis 3:7)—likely only moments later after they had a discussion (Genesis 3:17, “…heeded the voice of your wife…”).

Since Adam was created first (the Woman coming from him, but both being created in God’s image) and had been given the command directly and being the responsible party for his wife, it required his sin to bring about the Fall of mankind.[1] When Adam ate and sinned, they knew something was wrong and felt ashamed (Genesis 3:7). Sin and death had entered into the creation.

The Sin Of Satan

Like Eve, Satan had sinned prior to this. His sin was pride in his beauty (Ezekiel 28:15–17) and in trying to ascend and be like God (Isaiah 14:14) while in heaven (Isaiah 14:12). He was cast out when imperfection was found in him (Isaiah 14:12; Revelation 12:9; Ezekiel 28:15) and then we find his influence in the Garden of Eden (Ezekiel 28:13; Genesis 3). His sin followed the same progression we read about in James 1:14-15.

Unlike Adam, Satan was never given dominion over the world (Genesis 1:28). So, his sin did not affect the creation, but merely his own person. This is likely why Satan went immediately for those who were given dominion. Continuing in his path as an enemy of God, he apparently wanted to do the most damage, so it was likely that his deception of the Woman happened quickly.

The Responsibility Of Adam

Adam failed at his responsibilities in two ways. He should have stopped his wife from eating, since he was there to observe exactly what she was about to eat (Genesis 3:6). Instead of correcting the words of his wife (Genesis 3:17), he listened to her and ate while not being deceived (1 Timothy 2:14).

Adam also arguably failed to keep/guard the garden as he was commanded in Genesis 2:15. God, knowing Satan would fall, gave this command to Adam, but Adam did not complete the task. But God even knew that Adam would fall short and had a plan specially prepared.

Many people have asked: “Why do we have to die for something Adam did?” The answer is simple—we are without excuse since we sin too (Romans 3:23, 5:12). But then some have asked: “Why did we have to inherit sin nature from Adam, which is why we sin?” We read in Hebrews:

Even Levi, who receives tithes, paid tithes through Abraham, so to speak, for he was still in the loins of his father when Melchizedek met him. (Hebrews 7:9–10)

If we follow this logic, then all of us were ultimately in Adam when he sinned. So, although we often blame Adam, the life we have was in Adam when he sinned, and the sin nature we received was because we were in Adam when he sinned. We share in the blame and the sin as well as the punishment.

But look back further. The life that we (including Eve) have came through Adam and ultimately came from God (Genesis 2:17). God owns us and gives us our very being (Hebrews 1:3), and it is He whom we should follow instead of our own sinful inclinations.

Since this sin of Adam, we have had the need for a Savior, Jesus Christ, the Son of God who would step into history to become a man and take the punishment for humanity’s sin. Such a loving feat shows that God truly loves mankind and wants to see us return to Him. God—being the Author of life, the Sustainer of life, and Redeemer of life—is truly the One we owe all things. 

Originally here: https://answersingenesis.org/sin/original-sin/who-sinned-first-adam-or-satan/; Edited; Republished by permission.

---

[1] Further to this, there are two views. 1. The world and their perceptions were not changed partially because Adam, who was still perfect and hadn’t eaten yet, was also in a position of dominion.  Had Adam sinned first, then it is possible that the same type of scenario could have occurred. In other words, had Adam eaten first, then when the Woman would have eaten, then they would have been ashamed, sin enter, etc. When both of those who had dominion fell, then the extend of their dominion also felt repercussions, but so long as one of them still had perfection, then the world did not appear subjected to it – likely for the sake of the other.  This is why when Adam ate, they then felt ashamed. 2.  Another view though is possible, in that Adam, being the federal head for both he and his wife (1 Corinthians 11:8-12), was the only one required to eat to cause sin and death to enter. Regardless, when Adam ate, sin, shame, and death entered the creation in full force (Romans 5:12).  

Did Noah Need Oxygen Tanks On The Ark?

Did Noah Need Oxygen Tanks On The Ark? 

Bodie Hodge, M.Sc., B.Sc., PEI

Biblical Authority Ministries, June 26, 2025 (Donate) 

Why would someone ask this question? Let’s back up and look at this from a big picture. Consider what the Bible says about the voyage of the Ark (all NASB unless otherwise denoted): 

The water prevailed more and more upon the earth, so that all the high mountains everywhere under the heavens were covered. The water prevailed fifteen cubits higher, and the mountains were covered. (Genesis 7:19–20).[1] 

People then look at the earth today and note that the highest mountain is Mt. Everest, which stands just over 29,000 feet above sea level. Then they put two and two together and say that Noah’s Ark floated at least 15 cubits above Mt. Everest—and at such high altitude, people need oxygen![2] 

It sounds like a straightforward argument, doesn’t it? But did you notice that I emphasized the word today? In light of this, the solution is quite simple: the Flood did not happen on today’s earth, but rather on the earth of nearly 4,300 years ago. 

The world today is not the same as it was before the Flood, or even during the Flood. For instance, if the mountains, continents, and oceans basins of today’s earth were more leveled out (as would be expected in a global Flood), the planet’s surface water alone would cover the earth an estimated 1.66 miles deep—about 8,000 feet. Yet when I visited Cusco, Peru, which is around 11,000 feet above sea level, I didn’t need an oxygen tank. 

Andes Mountains above Cusco—well over 2 miles high—with sea fossils (closed shells, ammonites, etc.) from the Flood; Pictures by Bodie Hodge

Furthermore, atmospheric air pressure is relative to sea level. So, as rising sea levels pushed the air column higher, the air pressure at sea level would stay the same.

Psalm 104:6–9: Creation Or The Flood? 

By day 150 of the Flood, mountains began overtaking the water again as the mountain-building phase had begun (Genesis 8:2–4). Poetic Psalm 104 gives further hints of this mountain building as the valley basins sank down: 

You covered it with the deep as with a garment; The waters were standing above the mountains. At Your rebuke they fled, At the sound of Your thunder they hurried away. The mountains rose; the valleys sank down To the place which You established for them. You set a boundary that they may not pass over, So that they will not return to cover the earth. (Psalm 104:6–9) 

This section of the psalm is obviously speaking of the Flood, as water would no longer return to cover the earth—if this passage were speaking of Creation Week (as some commentators have stated), then God would have erred when the waters covered the whole earth during the Flood. 

Consider this overview of the entire Psalm continues down through history:

Psalm 104:1–5	Creation Week
Psalm 104:6–9	Flood
Psalm 104:10–35	Post-Flood

It makes sense that, because the Psalm is referring to the earth and what is in it, it begins with earth history (Creation Week). But mentions of donkeys (verse 11) and goats (verse 18) show variation within the created kind, which shows this would have taken place after the Flood. Also, a post-Flood geographic location is named (Lebanon, verse 16) as well as ships (verse 26) that indicate this psalm was not entirely a look at Creation Week.

Lost In Translation? 

While everyone agrees that Psalm 104:1–5 is referring to Creation Week, what of the argument—made by many commentators from the 1600s onward—that attributes Psalm 104:6–9 to Creation Week? One could suggest that much of this is due to the translation being viewed. Two basic variants of the translation of the Hebrew in Psalm 104:8 read: 

1. “They went up over the mountains and went down into the valleys.”
2. “Mountains rose and the valleys sank down.” 

In fact, a variety of translations yield some variant of one of these two possibilities. 

Table 1. Translations of Psalm 104:8a[3] 

Translation	Agrees with: “They went up over the mountains and went down into the valleys”	Agrees with: “Mountains rose and the valleys sank down”
New American Standard		X
New International Version	X
King James Version	X
New King James Version	X
English Standard Version		X
Holman Christian Standard		X
English translation of the Septuagint	X
Revised Version (UK)	X
Amplified Bible		X
Good News Bible	X
New English Bible	X
Revised Berkley		X
J.N. Darby’s		X
Living Bible		X
New Living Translation		X
Jerusalem Bible	X
R.G. Moulton	X
Knox Version		X
The Holy Scriptures according to the Masoretic Text (a new translation by the Jewish Publication Society)		X
Revised Standard Version		X
Young’s Literal Translation	X
King James 21st Century Version	X
Geneva Bible		X
New Revised Standard Version	X
Webster’s Bible	X
New International Children’s Version		X
Interlinear Bible		X

Obviously, there is no consensus on translation among these English versions. Looking at other languages, we see how the Hebrew was translated. 

Table 2. Some Foreign Translations of Psalm 104:8[4] 

Foreign translation	Agrees with: “They went up over the mountains and went down into the valleys”	Agrees with: “Mountains rose and the valleys sank down”
Luther’s German		X
Menge’s German		X
French Protestant Bible (Version Synondale)		X
Italian Edizione Paoline		X
Swedish Protestant		X
Spanish Reina Valera		X
Latin Vulgate (by Jerome)		X
La Bible Louis Segond 1910 (French)		X
Septuagint (Koine Greek)		X

Notice that there doesn’t seem to be a discrepancy. Of course, there are many translations, so one cannot be dogmatic, but the point is that many foreign translations agree with “mountains rising and valleys sinking down.”

Hebrew 

In Hebrew, which reads right to left, the phrase in 104:8a is literally four words. Translated into English, the phrase in question is: 

biq‘ah	yarad	har	alah
valleys	down go/sink	mountains	up go/rise/Ascend

Take note that there are no prepositions like “over” or “into.” It is literally “up go mountains, down go valleys.” It makes sense why many translations, including non-English translations, use the phrase “mountains rose and the valleys sank down”—this is what it should be.

Why Would Commentators Miss This? 

Commentaries could easily misinterpret this passage if they were based on translations that agree with “they went up over the mountains and went down into the valleys.” For example, the most popular English translation for several hundred years, the King James Version (which I love by the way), reads this way. 

Furthermore, from a logical perspective, water doesn’t flow uphill over mountains, but rather the opposite. Given language like this, commentators likely attributed this to a miraculous event during Creation Week, when many miracles were taking place anyway; also, Creation Week was referenced earlier in the chapter. Of course, the problems came when reading the rest of the context. One excellent commentator, John Gill, regarding verse 9 and the waters not returning to cover the earth, stated: 

“That they turn not again to cover the earth; as they did when it was first made, #Ps 104:6 that is, not without the divine leave and power; for they did turn again and cover the earth, at the time of the flood; but never shall more.”[5] 

Gill was forced to conclude that the waters did return to cover the earth, and he justified their return on “divine leave and power”! Yet this would mean that God breaks promises. Because we know that God does not break promises, this must be referring to the end of the Flood. 

That said, we should understand the difficulty in commenting on the passage: it is a psalm of praise to God, and thus it is not as straightforward as literal history. It is difficult to determine where the shift from Creation to the Flood occurs and where the shift from Flood to post-Flood occurs. However, there are a few more hints in the text.

A Few More Comments 

We should use clear passages in Scripture to help interpret unclear passages. Consider that God’s “rebuke” would not exist in a perfect world, where nothing would need rebuking or correcting. (Remember, a perfect God created a perfect world—Genesis 1:31, Deuteronomy 32:4). One should expect nothing less of such a God.[6] 

Therefore, during Creation Week when everything was good, there would be no need for any rebuking. If Psalm 104:6–9 were referring to Creation Week (specifically Day 3), then why the rebuke in Psalm 104:7? This implies an imperfect, not very good creation. But if Psalm 104:6–9 is referring to the Flood, then of course a rebuke would exist in a fallen world where the judgment of water had overtaken the earth. 

Additionally, note that Psalm 104:9 is clearly referencing Genesis 9:8–16 in saying that the waters would not return to cover the earth. (Some have asked how mountains and valleys could move up and down when the foundations are identified as immovable in Psalm 104:5. Keep in mind that mountains and valleys are not the foundation, but like the seas, they all sit above the foundation. 

Lastly, note that when the land appeared in Genesis 1 on Day 3, the land that was being separated from the water was dry, not wet. The text in Genesis says that the waters were gathered into one place and then the dry land appeared. It says nothing of water flowing over the land to make it wet; otherwise, wet land would have appeared and then became dry.[7] But during the Flood, the land was indeed overtaken by water that eventually stood above the land.

Conclusion 

The Hebrew phrase in Psalm 104:8a is the basis for the correct translation of mountains rising and valleys sinking. This shows that mountains and valleys during the Flood were not the same height as they are today. Even today mountains and valleys are changing their height; volcanic mountains, for instance, can grow very quickly, such as Surtsey or Paricutin (a volcanic mountain in Mexico that formed in 1943). 

Therefore, with mountains and continents leveled out and oceans basin nowhere near the depth they are today, it makes perfect sense that Noah was not at the height of modern-day Mt. Everest. Instead, the Ark would have been at sea level, where oxygen would have been nearly the same as today at sea level. Noah and those aboard the Ark would not have required oxygen.

Originally here: http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2009/07/06/did-noah-need-oxygen; Republished by permission.

---

[1] Scripture taken from the New American Standard Bible for this article.

[2] For cubit studies and lengths see: (for laymen) Hodge, B., How long was the original cubit?, Answers magazine, March 19, 2007. 

[3] Data was taken from two sources: (1) Charles Taylor, Did mountains really rise according to Psalm 104:8? TJ 12(3), 1998, 312–313, and (2) Looked up individually on Online Bible, Larry Pierce, February, 2009, or looked up separately.

[4] Ibid.

[5] Gill, J., Commentary notes, Psalm 104:9.

[6] It was due to man’s sin that the world is now imperfect and fallen.

[7] I understand some scientific models are built on this principle of land and water separating and then the land becomes dry. But the text of Scripture, I suggest, leans in the direction of dry land appearing as a more supernatural occurrence, as opposed to naturalistic; especially considering the context of a supernatural creation week.