The Bible does not spell out that Eve ever spoke a single word until it was that in her reply to the serpent (Genesis 3:2). Was she therefore silent until then?
Further, the Bible does not spell out that anyone ever said anything to Eve until Adam spoke in regard to her in Genesis 2:23.
Nevertheless, I believe that the Bible spells out only some of the things it teaches. (I offer my preferred explanation for this in the latter-most portion of this post). This seems plainly to be the case for the time in which the New Testament letters did not exist. A most important example of this is the fact that, nowhere in the Old Testament Scriptures is it explicitly taught that which Hebrews 11:17-19 teaches on Abraham’s thoughts in Genesis 22.
But, for particular parts of the book of Genesis, many seem to take for granted that at least certain interesting passages therein are to be interpreted by what the accounts in which these passages are found simply spell out. Thus, if the account does not spell out that a particular something WAS the case, then that account teaches that that something was NOT the case.
This taking for granted that this interpretative logic is correct for these passages is a logic that I shall call the Hermeneutics of Explicit Record, or HER for short.
Now, according to some, such as David Pawson (Youtube video titled ’ David Pawson “Unlocking the Bible” - Genesis Pt2’, @ video time 05:19-05:21)…https://youtu.be/If-471N-nYs?t=317), Genesis 2-3 implicitly teaches that Eve had not had the privilege of being warned by God Himself about the Forbidden Tree. This is because there is nowhere in these records, nor in all of the Bible, that plainly says that God had told her. And the only part of these accounts that says that God told any human of that Tree is a part that seems to say that God told it to the man (Genesis 2:17) prior to when the woman even existed (v. 22-23). Plus, the man in a family is supposed be the head of the family, such that the woman in a marriage is not the head of her family, but the man is: that he is to be the leader responsible for the good of all family members including himself, so that all those other members are to look to him as their natural leader under God. They can have opinions and such, but everything he passes on to them from God is to be their duty to believe and know, and to be his duty to tell them.
But the account does not spell out even that Eve had heard of this warning from Adam. So a hermeneutics of Explicit Record is logically impossible here, because the record itself (Genesis 3) normally is seen to plainly imply that Eve knew of God’s warning. For, even in the manner in which the serpent asks Eve of that warning, we normally see that that manner implies that Eve had prior knowledge of that warning, either from God or from Adam.
And, most importantly, notice that Eve claims that God has warned that they are not even to touch the tree and its fruit. This would naturally seem to show the she knew of the first principle of sin, which is the outward expression of desire for a wrong thing. If this is not what this shows, then it seems we must say either that Eve somehow, and for some reason or impulse, added or misquoted the warning, or that Adam, in having been the one to tell her of the warning, had himself added-misquoted God to her. Either of these possibilities would imply that the sin of doubt regarding God’s plain warning had already been committed, by either Adam or Eve, even prior to the point at which the record seems to imply that the serpent first tempted any human being.
Should we then assume that the serpent had earlier tempted Adam, and that Adam had, even prior to when it seems from the narrative that the serpent first ever tempted Eve, thereby begun to doubt? If we allow this, then it would seem that Adam had used Eve here as his own test subject, to see if eating from the tree would cause a human to die. But if that were the case, then why does the further narrative plainly spell out not only that Adam’s attempted excuse for having eaten of the tree was because of the woman that God had given him, but that Adam’s presumably main or only sin was that of listening-to-his-wife-on-the-matter-and-thereby-eating-of-the-tree (Genesis 3:17)?
Therefore, notice, again, of Eve’s reply to the serpent, in that Eve said that God had said that ‘we’ should not even touch the tree or its fruit. Prior to that point in the narrative, there is no suggestion that either of that ‘we’ had ever considered even touching it. Therefore, the most normal reading of Genesis 2-3 up to, and including, her reply is that there had been an actual conversation respectively between God and Adam and God and Eve, and thus of which Genesis 2 presupposes, and even at which it seems to hint: (1) According to the plain reading, God actually brought Eve to Adam (Genesis 2:22b); (2) according to a plain reading there must be a completely congruent implication in the fact that the record twice spells out that God placed a human individual into the garden (v. 8 & 15).
Of course, given the pausing of the narrative that constitutes the parenthetical of vs. 10-14, this second instance of that spelling-out (v. 15) can be supposed simply to serve as reminder, to the reader or hearer of the account, of that Divine placing. But this supposition discounts the plain reading of v. 22b, according to which, by normal implication, a woman is a proper human individual and gender, not a mere derivative of a man. Specifically, the normal implication, here, is that belonging to the fact that a woman’s proper channel to God is not first that of any mere creature (such as is her husband), but that of God Himself. She is as much in her right to pray directly to God, and even to receive wisdom and discernment directly from His Spirit, as is a man in his own right to so pray and receive. In short, she is no puppet that only looks like a genuine human being; She is a genuine instantiation of God’s practical and intellectual image regarding all Creation.
And, even Pawson, plainly enough, widely admits that there is much that the Bible teaches that it does not spell out.
So I think that the main reasons for why the Bible does not spell out every last thing that it teaches is because (1) the human authors, and original audiences, found much to be normally and self-evidently implied in the respective records; (2) these are only records to a point, not blow-by-blow accounts of every detail involved, the latter would having been prohibitive to a good record, and unnecessary to boot; and (3) any obvious shortfalls in our own understanding would normally imply the various completely normal ways of humans, such as study and discussion. Thus, even when the author of a text is present to a receptive group, that author often may want to help encourage each individual in the group to think, express, and discuss on the issue at hand.
In fact, I’ve heard that there is a Jewish tradition according to which the Spiritual head of an agrarian household would, at family mealtime, give the very youngest member opportunity to be the first member to express himself or herself on anything, such as by the head asking that member what he or she thinks on the topic at hand. Thus, even if the youngest is an infant who barely understands what vocalizing, as such, is good for, that infant is joined into the fact that vocalization is at once normal and encouraged.
Thus, at mealtime in such a family, for any little child that is able and wanting to communicate anything to the whole family, the child is afforded the opportunity. Agrarian families had few, if any, opportunites for whole-family address except at mealtimes. And there are few things more important to the health of a family than whole-family conversation.
So, the little child is afforded to speak his or her mind on whatever issue has come up in such gatherings, including issues on which some or all others there may think or ‘know’ that the child lacks any competence whatsoever.
One-on-one mentoring is, of course, important, and so is small-group discussion and meeting. These each are by the Human General Right of Association and Assembly. But there also must be, as often as is justifiably able, regular meetings of the whole of the people, and in which the youngest are NOT to be treated as if their only duty and right is to be receptive vessels. For, God is not a top-down, much less micromanaging, dictator; even though, due to a fallen world, there certainly are rare occasions in which He must act less or more of such a dictator. The most obvious such occasion (and perhaps the only such occasion up to the present) is that under Moses, in which the Children of Israel were paganized compromisers that, therefore, could not be that upon which the Nation of God could properly be established.
I believe that there also is nothing normal to a human (least of all to an unfallen human) to have an even temporary sole direct companionship in God in which no conversation is allowed to take place between that human and God.
Therefore, by SOME KIND OF NORMAL implication in Genesis 2, there seems to have been an at least initial direct companionship that both Adam and Eve respectively had with God (vv. 7-8; 15 & 22).