|
Forums118
Topics9,217
Posts195,975
Members1,324
| |
Most Online5,850
Feb 29th, 2020
|
|
|
S |
M |
T |
W |
T |
F |
S |
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
7
|
|
8
|
9
|
10
|
11
|
12
|
13
|
14
|
|
15
|
16
|
17
|
18
|
19
|
20
|
21
|
|
22
|
23
|
24
|
25
|
26
|
27
|
28
|
|
29
|
30
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Here is a link to show exactly where the Space Station is over earth right now: Click Here
|
|
|
Re: The truth about the fall
#9901
08/14/03 07:45 PM
08/14/03 07:45 PM
|
SDA
Charter Member
Active Member 2019
20000+ Member
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 22,256
Southwest USA
|
|
Okay, for the sake of discussion let's assume for a moment that your interpretation of Genesis 2 and 3 is correct and Sister White's is wrong, and that her predictions people would make of none effect her ministry doesn't apply to you.
If Adam was standing right there with Eve when she ate the forbidden fruit why didn't he say anything? And what was the serpent referring to when he asked if God really said, "Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?" Why didn't he ask if that's what God told Adam? Why does the serpent assume God told Eve too?
|
|
|
Re: The truth about the fall
#9902
08/14/03 08:12 PM
08/14/03 08:12 PM
|
OP
Dedicated Member
|
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 1,163
Muncie, IN
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Mike Lowe:
If Adam was standing right there with Eve when she ate the forbidden fruit why didn't he say anything? And what was the serpent referring to when he asked if God really said, "Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?" Why didn't he ask if that's what God told Adam? Why does the serpent assume God told Eve too?
First of all, being with her only means that she had not strayed away from her husband. I am not suggesting that they were tied together like Siamese twins, only that they were not necessarily in different parts of the garden.
As to the serpent's question. He was not seeking information. He was laying the groundwork for deception.
|
|
|
Re: The truth about the fall
#9903
08/15/03 04:01 PM
08/15/03 04:01 PM
|
SDA
Charter Member
Active Member 2019
20000+ Member
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 22,256
Southwest USA
|
|
If they were standing side-by-side when Eve was deceived - why didn't Adam say anything? why didn't he plead with her not to disobey God's command?
The serpent said to Eve - "Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?" And her response indicates that God did indeed warn her personally - "God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it." Notice that neither the serpent nor Eve mentions that it was Adam who warned her not to eat the forbidden fruit. Or that God warned only Adam. In the context of Genesis 3:1,3 the "ye" refers to Eve - not Adam (although it could be argued that "ye" includes both of them). Normally "ye" is plural whereas "you" is singular.
|
|
|
Re: The truth about the fall
#9904
08/15/03 05:20 PM
08/15/03 05:20 PM
|
OP
Dedicated Member
|
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 1,163
Muncie, IN
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Mike Lowe:
If they were standing side-by-side when Eve was deceived - why didn't Adam say anything? why didn't he plead with her not to disobey God's command?
Where did I say they were side-by-side?
quote:
The serpent said to Eve - "Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?" And her response indicates that God did indeed warn her personally - "God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it." Notice that neither the serpent nor Eve mentions that it was Adam who warned her not to eat the forbidden fruit. Or that God warned only Adam. In the context of Genesis 3:1,3 the "ye" refers to Eve - not Adam (although it could be argued that "ye" includes both of them). Normally "ye" is plural whereas "you" is singular.
The issue was not who told Eve. I respect you as a fellow servant of the word, but I am terribly disappointed in the way you are applying your hermeneutical skills here.
|
|
|
Re: The truth about the fall
#9905
08/15/03 07:13 PM
08/15/03 07:13 PM
|
SDA
Charter Member
Active Member 2019
20000+ Member
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 22,256
Southwest USA
|
|
Again, I'm confused. You wrote - "Moses makes it PLAIN that Eve was with her husband. I could never understand why EGW tried to hard to separate them." From this I got the impression you are saying they were together at the tree when Eve disobeyed.
Also, I have been under the impression that your main point in disagreeing with Sister White's interpretation of Genesis 2 & 3 is that since God did not personally warn Eve about eating the forbidden fruit the serpent was able to deceive her. Otherwise he could not have deceived her.
So, what is the truth about the fall according to your new interpretation?
|
|
|
Re: The truth about the fall
#9906
08/15/03 10:25 PM
08/15/03 10:25 PM
|
OP
Dedicated Member
|
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 1,163
Muncie, IN
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Mike Lowe:
Also, I have been under the impression that your main point in disagreeing with Sister White's interpretation of Genesis 2 & 3 is that since God did not personally warn Eve about eating the forbidden fruit the serpent was able to deceive her. Otherwise he could not have deceived her.
Not with the approach he took. Let's get this straight. EGW was not my focus when I made this discovery. I was researching something else when I suddenly realized that in Gen. 3 the serpent spoke to Eve while God spoke to the man in Gen. 2. My first reaction was, "She never heard it from God." As this realization sunk in the numerous questions I had always had about the story began to make sense. I actually delayed consulting EGW because I wanted to square it with God first. The most important thing I came away with is how much God loved this human race. By not telling Eve He seemed to be making her vulnerable to deception, but it also guaranteed that He would have the legal basis to rescue us from Lucifer because any possible capitulation under these circumstances would not be rebellion on her part. The serpent was crafty. God was craftier.
So, EGW got it wrong? Who cares. Only people who follow others without following the Berean example of searching to see if what is reported makes sense.
|
|
|
Re: The truth about the fall
#9907
08/16/03 02:09 AM
08/16/03 02:09 AM
|
SDA
Charter Member
Active Member 2019
20000+ Member
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 22,256
Southwest USA
|
|
Don't forget the Bereans consulted the inspired authors. They didn't rely on their own wit and wisdom. Paul did the same when he encountered Christ on the road to Damascus. Sister White's inspiration is no less inspired than Paul's. But I understand you don't believe she was. I do.
The way you put it I get the feeling you believe God anticipated the fall of Eve so He built in an excuse for her by not fully informing her of the consequences of the fall. What? First of all, there are no excuses for sin, and secondly, what can be said about Adam's fall? What excuse did he have? And does God need an excuse to demonstrate mercy and offer mankind salvation?
If Adam had not unwisely resolved to share her fate we wouldn't be in this mess today. Why? Because God would have replaced Eve with another wife and Satan and his evil angels would have been destroyed and the rest of us would have lived happily ever after.
"He did not realize that the same Infinite Power who had from the dust of the earth created him, a living, beautiful form, and had in love given him a companion, could supply her place. He resolved to share her fate; if she must die, he would die with her. {PP 56.2}
|
|
|
Re: The truth about the fall
#9908
08/16/03 01:43 PM
08/16/03 01:43 PM
|
OP
Dedicated Member
|
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 1,163
Muncie, IN
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Mike Lowe:
Sister White's inspiration is no less inspired than Paul's. But I understand you don't believe she was. I do.
You are coming rather close to misrepresentation. This may be a good time for me to bow out of this discussion since it is going round in circles anyway. It has been wonderful discussing with you. I wish you all the best.
|
|
|
Re: The truth about the fall
#9909
08/16/03 04:36 PM
08/16/03 04:36 PM
|
SDA
Charter Member
Active Member 2019
20000+ Member
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 22,256
Southwest USA
|
|
I'm sorry you're bowing out at this point. I was hoping you would explain how Eve was less guilty than Adam. If, as you say, her guilt is excusable because God purposely did not warn her personally so He could offer mankind the plan of salvation if and when Eve sinned - then what does that say about Adam's disobedience? especially in light of the fact God would have given Adam a new wife if he hadn't disobeyed. The great controversy would have ended with Eve's disobedience. Satan and the evil angels would have been destroyed. Adam and his new wife would have become the father and mother of the human race and they would have lived happily ever after.
Also, what if God had originally warned Adam when he was single before the creation of Eve (which I don't believe) - isn't it reasonable to assume that Eve would have discussed the prohibition with God off and on before she was deceived? If so, then it is true that God had warned her personally too. Thus, her standing before God would have been no different than Adam's. See what I mean? It is inconceivable to me that Eve would have never consulted with God concerning the prohibition if she had learned about it second hand from Adam or the holy angels.
|
|
|
Re: The truth about the fall
#9910
08/16/03 10:29 PM
08/16/03 10:29 PM
|
OP
Dedicated Member
|
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 1,163
Muncie, IN
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Mike Lowe:
I'm sorry you're bowing out at this point.
I have no problem continuing the discussion if you can steer clear of misrepresentation. It takes too much to conduct a discussion and have to correct misstatements as well. quote:
I was hoping you would explain how Eve was less guilty than Adam. If, as you say, her guilt is excusable because God purposely did not warn her personally so He could offer mankind the plan of salvation if and when Eve sinned - then what does that say about Adam's disobedience? especially in light of the fact God would have given Adam a new wife if he hadn't disobeyed.
Did you say "fact?" This is a conclusion unthinking theologians have come up with. If Adam "saved" Eve by eating the fruit you have set up a two-tiered system of salvation. You have also made a separation where God has none. Adam and Eve were two created from one. The act of one bound the other. Sin entered when Eve ate. Surely you would not wish to label Eve as Adam's temptress. Adam accomplished nothing by eating the fruit, save getting his tastebuds tingled.
quote:
The great controversy would have ended with Eve's disobedience. Satan and the evil angels would have been destroyed. Adam and his new wife would have become the father and mother of the human race and they would have lived happily ever after.
That is conjecture that completely ignores the fact of their creation.
quote:
Also, what if God had originally warned Adam when he was single before the creation of Eve (which I don't believe) - isn't it reasonable to assume that Eve would have discussed the prohibition with God off and on before she was deceived? If so, then it is true that God had warned her personally too. Thus, her standing before God would have been no different than Adam's. See what I mean? It is inconceivable to me that Eve would have never consulted with God concerning the prohibition if she had learned about it second hand from Adam or the holy angels.
Your statement assumes that Eve had the same history of experience as we do. There was not reason to question what Adam had reported nor to question God about it. Why would there be any doubt in her mind. Please remember we are discussing a prelapsarian condition.
|
|
|
|
|
Here is the link to this week's Sabbath School Lesson Study and Discussion Material: Click Here
|
|
|
