Darius, you seem to think your interpretation of Genesis 2 is more credible than Sister White's. Why should I believe you and not her? If you are willing to blow off her insights why shouldn't I be willing to blow off yours? Whose to say she's wrong and you're right? It's your word against hers. You claim to be in agreement with the Bible and so does she.

And you seem to think you have rightly divided and divined the truth and that Sister White somehow failed to understand it correctly. Call it what you want but in my mind it comes down to whether or not I believe you or her. Whenever she wrote - "I saw..." - we must assume she was sharing the truth and not her own preconceived opinions or commonly held misconceptions. To willfully disregard a "I saw..." from the pen of inspiration is to disregard the word of God.

"I saw that the holy angels often visited the garden, and gave instruction to Adam and Eve concerning their employment, and also taught them concerning the rebellion of Satan and his fall. The angels warned them of Satan, and cautioned them not to separate from each other in their employment, for they might be brought in contact with this fallen foe. The angels enjoined upon them to closely follow the directions God had given them, for in perfect obedience only were they safe. And if they were obedient, this fallen foe could have no power over them. {1SG 20.1}

"God instructed our first parents in regard to the tree of knowledge, and they were fully informed relative to the fall of Satan, and the danger of listening to his suggestions. He did not deprive them of the power of eating the forbidden fruit. He left them as free moral agents to believe His word, obey His commandments, and live, or believe the tempter, disobey, and perish. They both ate, and the great wisdom they obtained was the knowledge of sin and a sense of guilt. The covering of light about them soon disappeared, and under a sense of guilt and loss of their divine covering, a shivering seized them, and they tried to cover their exposed forms. {SR 37.1}

You also seem to think Eve could not have been "deceived" if God had warned her personally not to eat of the forbidden fruit. Why not? She understood the prohibition perfectly, even took the liberty to do some creative interpreting of her own, so how would that change anything - even if God had not personally warned her? Whether she was persuaded or deceived it still reflects the fact she understood the prohibition perfectly. So I don't see how it changes anything if God warned her personally or not - so far as her being deceived. I don't feel like I have to believe Adam warned her second hand in order to believe she was deceived and not persuaded or whatever. What kind of God would forget or refuse to warn Eve not to eat the forbidden fruit? Certainly not the loving God we serve!

If I have come to a conclusion that is different than yours then I must also conclude that your observations and conclusions contradict a direct "Thus saith the Lord." Please refer to the inspired quotations above.

But still... if it is true, as you assert, that we cannot be deceived if we are warned personally by God then what about all the rest of us who neve heard the voice of God, who have only read His ancient warnings second hand in the Bible? can we hope to escape Satan's final deception and delusion?

You see, I do not believe God's word is any less effective if I receive it first hand or second hand. His word shall not return unto Him void. The word of God is as powerful as the voice of God.

Isaiah
55:11 So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper [in the thing] whereto I sent it.

John
13:20 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that receiveth whomsoever I send receiveth me; and he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me.
17:20 Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word;
20:29 Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed [are] they that have not seen, and [yet] have believed.

Perhaps I'm missing your point? Can you please explain why it makes a difference in your mind, as far as Eve being deceived, whether she was warned by God first hand or by Adam or holy angels second hand?

What was she deceived into believing? that God had prohibited eating the fruit? that she would die the day she ate it? or what? And how does the serpent's deception relate to Eve's source of information (i.e., first hand or second hand)?

Also, do you agree with Sister White or Moses regarding Adam's location when Eve ate the forbidden fruit? or, do you believe like I do that she makes it clearer than Moses does (i.e., she went and found him rather than him being with her)?

Genesis
3:6 And when the woman saw that the tree [was] good for food, and that it [was] pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make [one] wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.

She was deceived into believing that God had not forbidden the eating of the fruit from that tree. That is why she ate it.

Moses makes it PLAIN that Eve was with her husband. I could never understand why EGW tried to hard to separate them. She often gives the impression that Eve erred by separating from her husband thus providing an opening for the devil. The problem with that is that it means that Eve sinned before she was tempted by the devil. You have to accept the fact that EGW was fallible and made mistakes, even when she said "I was shown."

An interesting thought about "I was shown." If you think that those words mean that whatever follows is without error you have an interesting situation in which this prophet wrote a lot of stuff she knew was not without error. The truth is, once you accept the fact that an individual is used by God, "I was shown" means nothing.