Any future and deemed to be disrespectful posts against this particular fundamental belief of the SDA Church will be deleted.

If this topic is to be continued in this or any other public forum of MSDAOL, what I have posted above must be followed.

Getting back to the topic.

As already posted in this topic, there are more than the writings of EGW that accepts what the text strongly and clearly implies.

I don't see anybody posting against what those Bible scholars have said.

Some scholars say that Adam was in the vicinity.
An example is that I was with my wife at the grocery store, but she was in the produce section and I was looking at soups. I was with her, but I was not at the produce section.
God Bless,
Will

Daryl,

You said, "Adam was mesmorized and Eve wasn't? Isn't that far fetched speculation?"

It is no more far-fetched speculation than to suggest anything else not found in the Scriptural record. Stop and think about it. What would your reaction be if you encountered any talking animal? Have you never been dumb-struck with amazement or surprised over something? Have you never been rendered speechless with fright? Have you never been in a situation where your wife responded more quickly than you to an emergency or in answer to a question or acted more quickly on anything?

What your whole answer appears to assume is that Eve was morally weaker and subordinate, if not somewhat inferior, to Adam and less able to resist temptation, that they were somehow not really equals in the garden. It seems to assume that Eve needed Adam to keep her out of trouble rather than they needed each other and needed to stick together as equal members of a married unit. It also appears to assume that Adam would not have been as easily beguiled by a talking serpent and that Eve was inherently more gullible or less able to understand the instruction given to them by God. It also seems to assume that if Adam had been confronted by the serpent that he would have responded differently than Eve. Look at her answer to the serpent. Does it reflect an inferior understanding of God's command?

Regarding EGW's account of the story, as Mike has already pointed out, the idea that Adam and Eve were not together at the tree is not an original thought of EGW. Mike has identified two Bible commentators one of whom predated her by at least 200 years, the other by at least 100 years, who expressed the very same idea. Milton's "Paradise Lost" published in 1667 elaborates on the plot of Satan to find Eve alone in order to tempt her. This is in fact a very old idea, the origin of which I do not know. Manuscripts dating from as early as the 3rd to 7th Centuries suggest that Adam and Eve were separated in the garden and that Eve was alone at the temptation. At least one painting from the early 15th Century shows Eve alone at the tree, although most religious art from the middle ages and Renaissance depicts Adam and Eve together. Even the idea that the serpent was a winged creature is not original to EGW. A very early Middle Ages painting clearly depicts the creature as having wings. (Strangely, some very early religious art depicted the serpent to have a distinctly female head and body.)

I think we also need to carefully consider the nature of this bit of information that EGW includes in her commentary on the Fall. If this were new information not found elsewhere that added detail to the story without contradicting Scripture, I think one should accept that it was special insight given to EGW. But when it is clear that this was not an original idea from EGW, one must be open to the possibility of her reliance on other sources informing her inspiration. And when it in fact contradicts a point of Scripture we must side with Scripture.

So my question would be, could EGW's "inspiration" for her account of the fall have been informed by the available literature of her day and long held church tradition? We are very much aware that she read widely and had a significant personal library and sent her assistants out to do research for some of her writings. Her own reading and experience undoubtedly were reflected in her writing.

And let's be perfectly clear here, to raise a question about EGW or to identify discrepancies in her writings is not a rejection of the SOP. But as has already been pointed out "the Bible is the standard by which all teaching and experience must be tested." If any authority in the Church, including EGW, differs from Scripture, I for one am not at all troubled to disregard that extra-Biblical source to the extent that there it differs from Scripture. In fact, to accept the word of anyone, including EGW, over that of Scripture is to risk rejecting Scripture as the one sure foundation of my faith in favor of that other source. This is in no way disrespectful of EGW. In fact, her very own words confirmed that this is what we are to do with all of her writings. Test them by Scripture. She was not infallible, which means she could and did make mistakes. But I am troubled that some seem to be more comfortable with questioning Scripture than they do with questioning EGW.

My questions still remain unanswered, Daryl. Why is it so important to you to place Eve alone at the tree? Why do you suppose that the early church fathers felt a need to draw this distinction between Adam and Eve, even perhaps back as far as the 3rd Century?

Tom

Bob, I agree that the Scripture account of the Fall is not as clear as Sister White’s account. Personally, I believe there is enough wiggle room to interpret it he way. I see no blatant contradiction. However, I also agree with Tom Wetmore that one does not have to categorically reject the SOP in order to disagree with her account of the Fall.

The apostle Paul provides the following insight regarding the Fall:

1 Timothy
2:11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
2:12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
2:13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
2:14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.
2:15 Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.

It may be tempting to assume Paul was sexist, but this would be an unfortunate, not to mention untrue, assumption. Whatever else this particular commentary means one thing is certain – Adam was not deceived. This seems to imply he wasn't with Eve when she was deceived, or when she made the decision to eat the forbidden fruit. So, the question might be asked - Why did Adam eat the forbidden fruit? When and where he ate it is probably not as important.

This type of discussion about EGW in reference to this topic is permissible, however, blanket statements against her writings are totally unacceptable.

1 Timothy 2:13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.

The Bible in this text clearly states that Adam was not deceived. Why, then, if Adam was there with Eve, who was obviously being deceived, then why didn't he warn her of this deception?

Also, are there any other Bible references that will shed more light on this topic?

I think it is time to look for and post some quotes from EGW's writings on this topic:

I have been shown the great love and condescension of God in giving His Son to die that man might find pardon and live. I was shown Adam and Eve, who were privileged to behold the beauty and loveliness of the Garden of Eden and were permitted to eat of all the trees in the garden except one. But the serpent tempted Eve, and she tempted her husband, and they both ate of the forbidden tree. They broke God's command, and became sinners. The news spread through heaven, and every harp was hushed. The angels sorrowed, and feared lest Adam and Eve would again put forth the hand and eat of the tree of life and be immortal sinners. But God said that He would drive the transgressors from the garden, and by cherubim and a flaming sword would guard the way of the tree of life, so that man could not approach unto it and eat of its fruit, which perpetuates immortality. {EW 125.2}

Satan commenced his work with Eve, to cause her to disobey. She first erred in wandering from her husband, next in lingering around the forbidden tree, and next in listening to the voice of the tempter, and even daring to doubt what God had said, "In the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." She thought that perhaps the Lord did not mean just what He said, and venturing, she put forth her hand, took of the fruit and ate. It was pleasing to the eye and pleasant to the taste. Then she was jealous that God had withheld from them what was really for their good, and she offered the fruit to her husband, thereby tempting him. She related to Adam all that the serpent had said and expressed her astonishment that he had the power of speech. {EW 147.2}

I saw a sadness come over Adam's countenance. He appeared afraid and astonished. A struggle seemed to be going on in his mind. He felt sure that this was the foe against whom they had been warned, and that his wife must die. They must be separated. His love for Eve was strong, and in utter discouragement he resolved to share her fate. He seized the fruit and quickly ate it. Then Satan exulted. He had rebelled in heaven, and had gained sympathizers who loved him and followed him in his rebellion. He had fallen and caused others to fall with him. And he had now tempted the woman to distrust God, to inquire into His wisdom, and to seek to penetrate His all-wise plans. Satan knew that the woman would not fall alone. Adam, through his love for Eve, disobeyed the command of God, and fell with her. {EW 148.1}

In the above quotes we have read "I have been shown.......I was shown Adam and Eve.....I saw a sadness come over Adam's countenance....."

EGW was shown. EGW saw.

These means that EGW was shown these things, that she saw these things. This clearly has gone beyond EGW's borrowing this from others. Who showed her these things? As God's messenger, the answer is obvious.

There is no contradiction here between The Bible and EGW unless someone wishes to manufacture one. The simple fact is that the Hebrew of Genesis 3:6 will not support the dogmatic assertion that Adam was with Eve at the tree.

The emphasis in the Hebrew does not fall on who was with who but it rests on the point that Eve was led in her mind to "see" the fruit as good to eat. Unless there is a change from the common word order, the first verb receives emphasis. here, "see."

Her husband "with" her has reference to relationship here, not physical position. A similar preposition and similar phrase is found just a few chapters later in the story of Noah. Look at Genesis 9:9 and 9:12. There you find in 9:9 in English "and with your seed after you." The literal Hebrew is "and to his sons WITH HIM." But where are the sons? Sons upon sons upon sons are included between Noah and ourselves, for we are sons of Noah as well. Again, here "with him" here has, in context, the main idea upon relationship, not physical location.

In 9:12 you have the same thing. A simple, relatively generic personal pronoun in the Hebrew. God makes His covenant with Noah and with every living soul which is "with you." Here again with you need not mean location but more likely, carries the relational meaning. Do not doubt that examples could be easily multipled. English translation will smooth some of these out, but the underlying Hebrew would show other items in Scripture the same way.

The fact is that there is little room here to be dogmatic on the point. If anything, the text pointis to relationship with rather than location with. It so happens that God showed Mrs. White the whole event in vision and she reports what she saw. Eve was alone. The text itself gives no hint otherwise. In the text Adam is conspicuously absent in Genesis 3:1-5.

Whatever grounds one may have for doubting that the gift of prophecy was manfiest in our midst through the life and ministry of Mrs. White, this particular incident, from the standpoint of Biblical Hebrew, is less than thin ice. There is no case here in favor of Adam’s physical presence during 3:1-5 at all. Was Adam actually with Eve at the forbidden tree? The Hebrew text neither suggests nor requires it in the least. If anything, the Scripture evidence tilts the other way.

May the word not be true of us: "O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken!" (Luke 24:25).

Pastor Larry,

Nice try.

What your explanation is really saying is that no one can understand what the Bible means, unless they first have a grasp of the Hebrew language. (The would mean that the vast majority of Bible students don't have the foggiest idea of what the Bible says/means and are dependant upon learned Bible scholars, such as yourself, for an explanation.)

As for me, one who is not versed in the Hebrew language, I will take the Bible for what it clearly states. Adam was with Eve when she ate of the fruit of the ToKoG&E.

I have offered an explanation of how events could have transpired at the time of the Fall,(and that explanation is in no way contradictory with what the Bible says in regards to the Fall of Man) but no one is willing to entertain that perspective because it would mean that they would have to reject the SOP, which it appears most everyone on this forum has chosen to place their unwavering faith in.

I suppose that we have reached another "standoff" whereby any further discussion on this topic would be fruitless.

Yes, Bob, I think your are safe in saying so. I have no reason to take your word over the SOP. And you're right - I have absolute trust and confidence in the SOP. I'm just sorry you don't. By the way, why do you trust and have confidence in the writings of Paul? Why do you accept him and not Sister White?