That ("no one can understand what the Bible means, unless they first have a grasp of the Hebrew language") is not at all what I am saying. Entirely apart from Hebrew, how do you delimit "with" in this place the way you do? You see, you are throwing an assertion and insisting that we must embrace it. It doesn't work that way. You don't have to know Hebrew or any other language to check the texts I've given in chapter nine.

As for the inspiration of the Spirit of Prophecy, I too have, after careful investigation, a wholehearted confidence in it. We have Hebrew inspired writings, Greek inspired writings, and English inspired writings. Nor have I found them to conflict. I am continually amazed to see how Mrs. White, with no knowledge of the biblical languages, is so consistently in harmony with them. Coincidence? After a lifetime's barrel full of writing?

Then there is Genesis 3:12. Same preposition, same deal. Adam mentions the woman which God gave to be "with me." This is just the Hebrew preposition "im" (third masculine singular) again--same as in 3:6 (but that was "im" as third feminine singular). In any case, even if this were some oblivious duel between supposed scholarship and assertion, at least you can check scholarship. Assertion brooks no checking. If that were the choice, I would prefer scholarship.

In any case, I can see there is no interest in my adding more, so I will leave it at that. The choice between skepticism and faith comes to each of us. Shalom.

Mike,

I suppose that we must again agree to disagree. BTW, I do not accept the writings of Paul as 100% inspired. He made some statements that can only be taken as personal opininion/perspective(i.e. "women should be silent in church...etc.) But that is a whole new topic, isn't it.

Pastor Larry,

I can round up a hundred different scholars and get as many different interpretations of Genesis 3:6. What does that tell you.

Keep in mind.....we have one Bible, but look at how many "different" religions have interpreted the Bible(and most of these religions have their own "scholars")so that now we have well over 1000 religions that have "gleaned" their own unique "Truths" from the Bible.

IMO, scholarship is not what it is all "cracked up to be". In fact, it appears to have created an atmosphere of "confusion" in regards to understanding the Bible.

Question: Which of the plethora of scholars has correctly interpreted Scripture?

Anyway, I feel fairly confident with my, as you call it, "assertion" that Adam was with Eve when she ate of the fruit. The Bible clearly says it and that settles it for me.

Bob, I truly do feel sorry for you. I'm sorry to say so, but I really do feel sorry for anyone who reads the writings of Paul or Ellen White, or any other inspired author, and chooses to distrust them. I'm surprised you place so much confidence in the KJV translation of the Bible, or any Bible at all. How can you be so certain the translators translated it properly? What makes you think the word "with" in Genesis 3:6 was the word Moses used?

For that matter, how do you know Moses told the truth? You see, somewhere along the way you have to place trust and confidence in the various people who made the Bible available to us, beginning with the original authors and ending with the translators. But if you set yourself up as the final authority of what and who is right and wrong, then your faith and religion is built upon an erring, fallible, uninspired creature - Self. Thanx, but no thanx.

I have not come here extolling any kind of infallibility in scholarship. But no matter what one thinks of scholarship one way or the other, a simple Hebrew preposition is a simple Hebrew preposition.

For the record, I also find the writings of Paul included in the Greek Scriptures to be inspired and infallible. You see, you and I myarsman are not even on the same page. So yes, we must agree to disagree.

I am a Seventh-day Adventist Christian. I accept the whole Bible as inspired and infallible, and wish to shape my life by what God has revealed through it.

Myarsman, not everyone here takes the SOP as inspired, although I do take Paul as such.

Larry, as myarsman put it, "Nice try." You are alone in your assertion that the "with" refers to a relational aspect rather than a spatial one. No commentaries support this point of view, including Calvin, Wesley, Henry, Clark, Geneva, or SDA. In fact, Thomas Constable has this to say about it:
"It is interesting to observe that when this sin is referred to throughout Scripture, it is not referred to as the sin of Eve–but rather as the sin of Adam! The phrase in verse 6, ‘with her,' seems to suggest that Adam was at Eve's side when she was tempted by Satan."

Also, after asserting "That ("no one can understand what the Bible means, unless they first have a grasp of the Hebrew language") is not at all what I am saying." you go on to wax eloquent on fine points of Hebrew such as "This is just the Hebrew preposition "im" (third masculine singular) again–bla, bla, bla..." You can't have it both ways; either you have to know the original languages or you don't. Personally, I like to know as much about the original as possible, unencumbered with so-called "new light". Not everything that disagrees with you is skepticism.

By the way, I am not a Seventh-day Adventist Christian. I am a Christian who chooses to fellowship with Seventh-day Adventists.

By the way, Thomas Constable's Commentary may be found at this link:

http://www.soniclight.com/constable/notes.htm

Mike,

Thank you for your concern, but your sympathy is sorely misplaced. I never said that I distrusted the writings of Paul, Moses or any other author of spiritual content.

I said that there are parts of their writings that I cannot not accept as "spiritually inspired".

How is that possible you may ask?

Well, I have learned to depend upon the Holy Spirit for guidance as I read the writings of these authors. The Holy Spirit instructs me as to what is "Spiritual Truth" and what is "personal perspective".

It is a great advantage to have the guidance of the Holy Spirit in this regard......as I am certain you can attest to.

Thru the 40+ years that I have lived on this earth I have witnessed numerous ruinations that have taken place as a result of people putting their faith in some scholar or prophet or messenger who have claimed to have the Truth from God. I have watched as the people have chosen to follow these individuals to their doom.

I do not what that kind of experience, so I have chosen to go directly to the "Source of Truth" in order to gain understanding of Truth.

It has made all the difference in the world.

So as I have said before.....Adam was with Eve when she ate of the fruit....The Bible is very clear on this point.

Bob D,

So you distinctly say that you know the voice of the Holy Spirit.

I distinctly believe that EGW knew the voice of the Holy Spirit who spoke to her very clearly and in ways that very few others experience.

If I were to choose between you and her in relation to the voice of the Holy Spirit, I would have to choose her over you, but then that is another topic.

To keep this on topic, I will end this post by saying that I take what the Holy Spirit told EGW in relation to the fact that Adam was not with Eve over what you say the Holy Spirit told you. The last EGW quotes I posted clearly stated that EGW was shown, that EGW saw. She was shown this and saw this in vision straight from the Holy Spirit.

IMO, there is an unfortunate tendency in Adventism to use EGW as the definitive answer to all questions. This has the regretable spin-off of stifling meaningful discussion, intellectual dialoge and Spritual growth. (Not to mention resorting to tactics such as the gag order imposed earlier.)

Daryl,

You seemed to have missed the point that I was attempting to make.

Yes, I do rely upon the direct influence of the Holy Spirit in order to understand the Truth in regards to this current topic of discussion.

Don't you?