GC, here's the quote:



This is literal.

Note:

1.There was a literal Adam and Eve who were in a literal garden that originally literally had no noxious plants.
2.The question is asked how the plants got there.
3.The answer is given that Satan "by his ingenious methods of amalgamation he has corrupted the earth with tares."

She makes an application of these facts to address a given situation.

Regarding the cursing of the ground, God did not say "Ground, be cursed" but "The ground is cursed." This isn't so clear in English, but here's a translation from another language that brings out this point:



It says "maldita é a terra" (Cursed is the ground) as opposed to "maldita seja a terra por tua causa" (Cursed be the ground).

So the ground was cursed, meaning plants came up which were different than how God originally designed them, and EGW explains how these came to be this way. This explains what the cursing of the earth means. This principle can be applied to many other situations.

The quote cited speaks to this. It starts out saying, "Christ never planted the seeds of death in the system. Satan planted these seeds when he tempted Adam to eat of the tree of knowledge, which meant disobedience to God." and goes on, "The master answered, 'An enemy hath done this.' [Matt. 13:27, 28.] All tares are sown by the evil one. Every noxious herb is of his sowing, and by his ingenious methods of amalgamation he has corrupted the earth with tares."

The same principle applies to thorns as to poison. That is, "Every thorny herb is of his sowing, and by his ingenious methods of amalgamation he has corrupted the earth with tares."

Satan designed these things (which should be clear simply by considering his character.)

It doesn't make sense to say that the quote should be limited to say that Satan created the noxious plants, but God created the thorny ones. She gives the underlying principle, which is "Christ never planted the seeds of death in the system." From this, what she said afterward follows, as does the fact that God did not create thorny plants. Or ravenous beasts. Or insects that sting and bite and bring disease. All of these things come from the evil one, God's enemy, and are in harmony with his character.

gc, where exactly do you believe drugs come from? where does opium come from, for example? isnt it a drug? and isnt it derived from poppy seeds? how about valium?

what exactly do you understand "amalgamation" to mean?and how do you understand thisit seems that your interpretation is what is out of context in the quotes under discussion. she is pointing out Gods natural remedies vs drugs which are derived from "noxious herbs".
so it isnt that i have taken anything out of context, it is that you have a different way of reading it, which is your perogative, but in no sense makes me wrong. it merely means we disagree.

Tom,

You appear to be taking the quote out of its context also. Mrs. White is referring to human death when she speaks of "the seeds of death." Do we agree on this? If you want to interpret as seeds of plants with thorns and thistles, that is your personal choice, but you will convince me that is what she really meant. Again, there was not a single mention of thorns and thistles in the statement.

Would you agree with me that Mrs. White is not speaking on the topic of plants in that statement? Would you further agree with me that she is not addressing the curse spoken in Eden?

What she is saying is that Satan has managed to invent poisonous plants which have caused much death and suffering among humankind. I do not disagree in the least. I think that Satan also managed to invent the dinosaurs too, by inspiring people with his ideas. But dinosaurs were not mentioned in the Edenic Curse, and neither were poisonous plants. God said nothing about marijuana, opium poppies, poison wood (powerful enough it can kill), poison sumac, poisonous mushrooms, or any other such. He specifically said "thorns" and "thistles". If you do some gardening, you will have a solid understanding of the meaning of the curse.

On the other hand, perhaps you can find a statement for me that says Satan engineered the thorns.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

gc you seem to be contradicting yourself in these two statements.

you first say that she is not referring to plants in this quotebut your next statement says she is referring to poisonous plants...

Teresa,

You tell me. What is Mrs. White's topic in said quote?

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

you are the one refuting our understanding of what she says. so i would think you should say what it is you believe her point is if you understand it differently than the way we are reading it.

post 118515

This implies “inanimate forces” are self-acting, that they can act destructively without God’s management. I realize you aggressively oppose this idea, be that as it may, you imply it by insisting God that does not employ the forces of nature as weapons in His arsenal, and that instead He simply permits nature to naturally act destructively. You can’t have it both ways, Tom. Either God uses nature like a smart bomb to cause pinpoint death and destruction or He gives nature permission to do it (implying nature is self-acting when God permits).


Wrested from its context I would agree. However, if you take it in context it makes perfect sense. You and I both believe God does not totally withdraw His protection and allow the forces of nature to run its full, natural course because the result would the death and destruction of everything and everyone. The question is who or what would be managing the forces of nature while they are destroying the planet? I believe it would be God. I don’t know what you believe.


Since “God is love” is so obvious, should it be skipped? No way! Just because something is obvious it does not mean it should be skipped.


You imply it, Tom. You argue that if God totally withdrew His protection things would exceed His established limits. The fact God must work to prevent the forces of nature from totally annihilating everything, which is its default setting, means the regulated results are unnatural and therefore arbitrary.


It’s what you said. "Bad things may be caused by . . . inanimate forces." Since you haven’t explained how you think inanimate forces cause death and destruction it must be assumed you are implying they are self-acting.


You haven’t explained it yet, thus the assumption is perfectly logical. Again, you said if Satan isn’t responsible for causing death and destruction, then either “other evil beings” or “inanimate forces” may be causing it.


It is not accurate. It doesn’t explain who or what is managing the forces of nature when they act destructively. You have plainly stated that it is certainly not God. Therefore, who or what is? Please answer this question. Thank you.

GC, I also believe Satan is responsible for tampering with nature and causing the existence of noxious plants, toxic viruses and diseases, etc. However, I also believe God is managing the laws of nature that make it possible for Satan to pervert it. Of course, God permits Satan to pervert nature within His established and enforced limits. In other words, God does not allow Satan to do anything He isn't willing to let happen. In this sense, there isn't anything random or arbitrary about the bad things that happen. They are the result of God controlling the outcome of the choices and actions of evil men and angels. In some cases, however, God acts Himself. The Flood is one example. On other occasions, He commands holy men or angels, acting under His authority, to punish and destroy sinners. The destruction of Jericho and its inhabitants is one example.

If you don't know what the topic is, there is nothing to refute. There is in fact no disagreement. If I'm the only one making an assessment as to what the topic is (and I already gave this assessment), then unless an alternative is offered, it is presumed we are in agreement.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.