| Author | Message | ||
| Wolfgang Registered user Username: Wolfgang Post Number: 153 Registered: 10-2005 |
Dear Dawn: When you read chapter three in Gen. you find that Eve had separated from Adam for a short time. If Adam had been with Eve, she would not have gone to that tree in the middle of the garden. Verse 6, says that she gave it to Adam. He knew that if he ate of it they would both be sinning. They had been warned about this. Read the Bible commentary so you get a better idea of the setting for the temptation of Eve at the base of that tree. Hope this is helpful. May God Bless You. Your Brother in Christ Pastor Ron Bottsford Any one find where Eve left him for a short time? | ||
| Grace_alone Registered user Username: Grace_alone Post Number: 672 Registered: 6-2006  |
What I'd like to know is which verse says that Adam would have prevented Eve from going to the tree... Sad that this guy is a pastor and doesn't know his Bible! | ||
| Grace_alone Registered user Username: Grace_alone Post Number: 673 Registered: 6-2006 |
Also, what is/was the purpose of saying that Adam was "away" from Eve? What's the objective? It can't be any more clear that they were together, and I can't understand why (or even how) anyone could dispute it. I don't get it. | ||
| Jeremy Registered user Username: Jeremy Post Number: 1929 Registered: 10-2004  |
Leigh Anne, The only objective is to agree with EGW, since she said they were not together. They have to add to/change/contradict God's Word in order to hold onto Ellen, who added to/changed/contradicted God's Word. They worry much about contradicting Ellen. Contradicting God's Word is fine, as long as it is to uphold Ellen. In other words, they put EGW above the Bible, no matter how much they try to deny it. Jeremy (Message edited by Jeremy on July 13, 2007) | ||
| Grace_alone Registered user Username: Grace_alone Post Number: 674 Registered: 6-2006 |
Thank you Jeremy. It's insane, but at least I understand the "reasoning" now!  Leigh Anne | ||
| Gcfrankie Registered user Username: Gcfrankie Post Number: 26 Registered: 1-2007 |
I have the KJV and the NAS and in both,chapter 6 verse 3 says that Eve gave also to her husband with her, and he ate. It sure does not sound like she was away from him. If I remember rightly EGW said Adam was asleep and she left his side and was confronted by the serpent. I sure would like to know how she got that idea from the above verse? It doesn't make any sense. | ||
| Jorgfe Registered user Username: Jorgfe Post Number: 375 Registered: 11-2005 |
Sounds simiar to Ellen's confusing advice about kneeling when one prays:
As you can see, the proper position is to always get down on your knees. We need not wait for an opportunity to kneel, and it is not always necessary to bow upon your knees when you pray. Gilbert Jorgensen | ||
| River Registered user Username: River Post Number: 1049 Registered: 9-2006  |
Gilbert, That made my eyeballs go round and round!  River | ||
| Jonvil Registered user Username: Jonvil Post Number: 76 Registered: 4-2007 |
I guess that's why I'm still 'in' - it's the clarity of their positions. JONVIL | ||
| Jonvil Registered user Username: Jonvil Post Number: 77 Registered: 4-2007 |
HELP!!! I'm trying the \image and nothing is happening ???? JONVIL | ||
| Jeremiah Registered user Username: Jeremiah Post Number: 246 Registered: 1-2004  |
Standing in prayer is Eastern, kneeling is Western. Generally speaking. Go back 1000 years and you'd kneel more often if you were in the West. And sitting in pews is Protestant, from when the center of worship changed from the altar to the sermon. You sit and listen to a sermon, but you stand in the presence of the Lord. That's why "traditional" churches have altars, "modern" churches are an auditorium. A change of focus from standing (or kneeling) in the presence of God to hearing about God. Both are important, of course. I suppose Ellen White didn't really have a clue where the traditions of kneeling vs standing came from. Jeremiah | ||
| Grace_alone Registered user Username: Grace_alone Post Number: 675 Registered: 6-2006 |
Okay, so the question is, if Adam was "with" Eve, what would he let her do, sit or kneel or stand? :D hehe! | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 6293 Registered: 12-2003  |
Ha! JONVIL, I'm not sure exactly which command you are using, but are you using the brackets { } around the image you want to appear? Does that help? BTW, Dawn, your pastor told you to read the Bible Commentary for clarification of this subject. The Bible Commentary he refers to is the SDA Bible Commentary. It was written by Adventist theologians and makes liberal use of Ellen White's comments. Colleen | ||
| Wolfgang Registered user Username: Wolfgang Post Number: 155 Registered: 10-2005 |
just a clarification not my pastor this is an amazing facts pastor that I wrote too. I was going to dig out my clear word to see what it has to say,but it's in the basement Im sure covered with cobwebs more way than one. Dawn | ||
| Jeremy Registered user Username: Jeremy Post Number: 1934 Registered: 10-2004 |
Dawn, Gilbert posted the "Clear Word" version of Genesis 3:6 in a previous post:
Jeremy | ||
| Xsra Registered user Username: Xsra Post Number: 32 Registered: 6-2005 |
Wolfgang, This is an interesting subject. “And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.” Gen.2:9 My thoughts are that God would not have positioned the forbidden tree in such a way that Adam or Eve or later their children could easily bump into it and thus be tempted to sin. He would have set it apart from the other trees. Eve must then have been given a choice as to whether to remain in that place or flee, and she chose to remain. There was no devil to tempt her to remain, for he was over at the tree, and we must assume the Holy Spirit cautioned her to flee that place. And yet she chose to remain! This shows us that even a sinless person can fall into sin through self will. This is also how Lucifer fell. “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.” Gen.3:6 Paul tells us "Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression." 1Tim.2:14 If Adam had been there "with her", wouldn't he have warned her? Assuredly. She then, having been warned, would no longer be "deceived". I don't accept the theory that Adam stood meekly next to her and witnessed her temptation and fall. This is an insult to Adam and to God, for God made Adam Eve's protector. This is seen by the fact that she was made from one of his ribs, signifying that he would protect her as a rib protects the vital organs the heart and lungs. The only thing now is how did Paul know these things? By inspiration: "Am I not an apostle? am I not free? have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord? are not ye my work in the Lord? If I be not an apostle unto others, yet doubtless I am to you: for the seal of mine apostleship are ye in the Lord." 1Cor.9:1,2 "For I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office" Rom.11:13 "And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues." 1Cor.12:28 If Paul was an apostle, and apostles are "first" in the church, then Paul received his inspiration directly from God. I invite your thoughts. Regards Rob (Message edited by Xsra on July 14, 2007) | ||
| Jeremy Registered user Username: Jeremy Post Number: 1935 Registered: 10-2004 |
Rob, Paul is right that Adam was not deceived. However, EGW contradicts the Bible when she says that Adam was deceived:
Jeremy | ||
| Wolfgang Registered user Username: Wolfgang Post Number: 156 Registered: 10-2005 |
Rob I tried to put it into my world,thinking that if I was about to die by doing something harmful that my husband who loves me would stop me or at least say something. I also think that my husband and I may be at home with eachother,but not always in the same room. But clearly EGW contradicts the bible. Dawn | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 6295 Registered: 12-2003 |
Xsra, to assume the tree was in an out-of-the-way place, to assume that Eve must have wandered from Adam, to assume that Adam would have necessarily protected Eve if he had been with her...these things cannot be deduced from the Biblical text. These assumptions can only occur if one goes beyond the text and tries to fill in the blanks. If we were analyzing this passage in a literature class, we wouldn't get away with making assumptions such as these that cannot be supported by the text. We have to believe what the Bible tells us, and where it is unclear, we have to be willing to be tentative. The NT tells us that Adam is the one who is held responsible for humanity's sin—1 Cor 15 and Romans 5 both tell us that as in Adam all sinned, and as in Adam all died. Eve was deceived; not Adam. Adam sinned with full knowledge. We cannot assume Adam would have protected Eve if he'd been there--the text clearly says Adam was with her. If a student had come up with the argument that Adam couldn't have been with her or he'd have protected her in an essay analyzing Genesis 2 and 3, I'd have definitely marked off points because that idea simply isn't in the text. The only reason I can see to try to make the text say Eve wandered away is that Ellen has said so. But conjecture is not Biblical exegesis. From Jeremy's quotes above it is clear that Ellen strayed FAR from the meaning of the original text! Colleen | ||
| Xsra Registered user Username: Xsra Post Number: 33 Registered: 6-2005 |
Colleen,
The Bible also tells us of a certain serpent and that the serpent spoke. Do we therefore believe that serpent had the power of speech, as much as you or I have, or do we "assume" the devil used him as his medium? There are numerous texts whereby it would be dangerous if we took them literally, such as:
But coming back to Genesis 3, If Timothy (I said Paul earlier; I meant Timothy) says Adam wasn't deceived but the woman, being deceived, was in the transgression, then shouldn't we take this literally, i.e. the serpent didn't "beguile" Adam because he wasn't at the tree? When God enquired of Adam as to how he came to know that he was naked, he said:
Was he saying: "I didn't know the fruit was from the forbidden tree. Eve gave it to me and I ate it"? I realize Gen 3:6 says Eve "gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat", but this could mean with her in the garden. I think you should be careful when rejecting Ellen to not reject the Bible also, for she agrees with the Bible in many areas in which you also agree. Rob | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 6348 Registered: 12-2003 |
Well, Rob, first of all, the Bible is full of metaphors, similes, and other figurative language. The passage about cutting off offending body parts is clearly a figurative language passage. The temptation in the garden is not a metaphor. It is a historical narrative. It's a sketch of what happened--we don't have a lot of details--but what we have, we have to read clearly. The 1 Timothy passage has Paul clearly saying that Eve was deceived but not Adam. It is an assumption to think Adam would have to be absent in order to avoid being deceived. I read the 1 Timothy passage to say that Eve was deceived but Adam wasn't. Rather, based on Romans 5 and 1 Cor 15, Adam sinned with full knowledge. Adam knew straight from God that he was not to eat from that tree (read the end of Genesis 2). Eve wasn't yet created when, in the Biblical account, God instructed Adam not to eat from that tree. Since we have only the sketchy facts available in Genesis and the secondary passages in the NT, we have to assume that Adam sinned with full knowledge--or with a clear decision. He was not deceived. This fact does not mean he wasn't with Eve at the tree. It just means that he sinned by deciding to eat instead of being deceived into eating. Eve somehow became convinced that it would be OK to eat. Adam wasn't confused. He sinned by personal decision to eat. And, apparently, he was with Eve when she was deceived and when she gave him a fruit to eat. Again, it is an assumption to decide that to avoid deception, Adam would have had to be absent—that had he been present, he, too, would have been deceived. The Bible suggests he WAS exposed to the serpent--but was not deceived. Colleen | ||
| Mwh Registered user Username: Mwh Post Number: 633 Registered: 4-2006  |
Rob: Well Adam was not deceived by the serpent while being with Eve because he knew the truth about God, he knew that he could not become God, Eve did not know the truth so she was deceived. I like the laying out of this scripture in the DVD Women in Ministry - Silenced or Set Free. Cheryl explains it further in these articles: http://strivetoenter.com/wim/2006/12/11/why-was-adam-not-deceived/ http://strivetoenter.com/wim/2006/12/14/why-adam-wasnt-deceived-part-two/ Also check out Truth or Fables: http://truthorfables.com/EGW_Contradicts.htm Search for "2. WAS ADAM WITH EVE WHEN SHE WAS TEMPTED IN THE GARDEN?" Also EGW would like us to think that the fruit of the three was an apple. About the commandment this is interesting as well: http://strivetoenter.com/wim/2006/07/02/wasnt-adam-the-only-one-given-gods-prohibition-in-the-garden/ In His wonderful grace, Martin (Message edited by mwh on July 21, 2007) |
