|
Forums118
Topics9,199
Posts195,632
Members1,323
| |
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
|
31
|
|
|
|
Here is a link to show exactly where the Space Station is over earth right now: Click Here
|
|
|
|
Here is the link to this week's Sabbath School Lesson Study and Discussion Material: Click Here
|
|
Re: Was Adam Actually With Eve At The Forbidden Tree?
#17350
01/29/05 11:21 PM
01/29/05 11:21 PM
|
|
|
But we can leave off with this line of reasoning, and return to the topic at hand. Just bear in mind that certain writings that may authoritatively answer a question for you are not held in the same esteem by me. Therefore we must find a source of authority we can both agree on.
Also, don't go on about this being an SDA forum therefor you must bla, bla, bla... If this website and this forum is open to the public, and parts of it are, the burden in on you, the conservative SDA forum member and believer in EGW, to convince the unconvinced, Adventist or Gentile, of the validity of the authorities you bring forward.
|
 Reply
 Quote
|
|
|
Re: Was Adam Actually With Eve At The Forbidden Tree?
#17351
01/31/05 05:07 PM
01/31/05 05:07 PM
|
SDA
Charter Member
Active Member 2019
20000+ Member
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 22,256
Southwest USA
|
|
Once again, the Bible says Adam was with Eve in the Garden, but it doesn't say they were together when Satan deceived Eve. Paul makes it clear Adam was not deceived, therefore, it is obvious to me that Adam was not present when Eve ate the fruit. Since he wasn't deceived he obviously ate the fruit intending to share her fate. It makes perfect sense to me. But I realize it doesn't make sense to everybody. Oh well.
People who "rely" on the Spirit to guide them, to help them sift through the "uninspired" stuff in the Bible, or the SOP, make me nervous. I cannot believe God would require us to believe His word and then expect us to follow the Spirit instead. In situations where the Bible doesn't provide clear guidance I, too, trust in the Spirit to lead me. But when it comes to facts and figures I believe the Bible and the SOP are the sole source of inspiration.
|
|
Reply
Quote
|
|
|
Re: Was Adam Actually With Eve At The Forbidden Tree?
#17352
02/01/05 01:13 AM
02/01/05 01:13 AM
|
|
|
Mike,
As posted earlier.....
The Bible does not state that Eve was at the ToKoG&E when she was tempted by the serpent.
Since the Bible does state that Adam was with Eve when she ate of the fruit, the logical conclusion is that she did not eat of the fruit when she was initially tempted, but that she waited until the time that she was "with" Adam to yield to the temptation.
Yes, she was deceived, but again, that does not mean that she immediatedly yielded to the temptation to eat of the fruit.
(One small point.....We men have a hard time accepting the possibility that Adam was present when Eve ate of the fruit, because we like to think that Adam would have attempted to intervene and prevent Eve from sinning.....like any strong masculine male would. We have a difficult time accepting the possibility that perhaps Eve had exerted her will upon Adam and had perhaps told him to hold his peace while she spoke with the serpent and then yielded to temptation. Keep this in mind....When God cursed Eve he stated that she would be "subject to her husband". Perhaps He did this because of her "strong-willed" attitude at the ToKoG&E.....Anyway, that is just a thought...)
I understand that you accept the SOP as being fully inspired of God and I feel that it is fruitless to continue debating that issue. I think that you are very much aware of what I believe in this regards.
One last thing.......
Jesus promised the Holy Spirit to all who would choose to follow Him. The NT is filled with examples of how the Holy Spirit influenced the lives of the Early Christian Believers.....and not just the apostles.
The work of the Holy Spirit is to "lead us into all Truth". The Holy Spirit that influences my life has lead me to believe that "Adam was with Eve" when she ate of the fruit. Of course, this is in conflict with the account presented in the SOP, but that is not an issue with me, as it is with those who still place their trust in the authenticity of the SOP.
This is the quandary that you and others are faced with....You are convinced of the validity of the SOP, even when there appears to be a conflict with what is clearly presented in the Bible. Fortunately, I am not faced with that quandary.
What it comes down to is this....
We will each have to come to terms with this individually. The discussion on this forum has resolved nothing.
|
|
Reply
Quote
|
|
|
Re: Was Adam Actually With Eve At The Forbidden Tree?
#17354
02/02/05 11:27 PM
02/02/05 11:27 PM
|
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Larry Kirkpatrick:
...The fact is that there is little room here to be dogmatic on the point...
Larry has made an important point that is at the foundation of the questions that I asked earlier that remain unanswered. Dogmatism, one way or the other, on this point misses the whole point of the story as recorded in Genesis 3.
However I am disappointed that notwithstanding a caution against dogmatism, Larry does proceed to be dogmatic. He insists upon a singular perspective on this point by concluding, "The Hebrew text neither suggests nor requires it in the least" with regard to the idea that the Hebrew word for "with" points to "relationship" rather than "location".
While I am reluctant to challenge a Seminary graduate's rendition of the literal Hebrew text, I have to point out what appears to me to be an error regarding what Larry says about Genesis 9:9. The literal word in Hebrew is not "sons". It is literally "seed" which is most accurately understood as "decendents". And quite to the contrary to Larry's assertion the phrase "with him" does not appear in the original Hebrew text from what I have been shown.
To reinforce the need to avoid dogmatism on this point, the word "with" appears over 6,000 times in Scripture. There are a number of different words in the original languages that can be translated as "with". Each of those words tend to have varied menaings that only become clear by the context in which they are used, especially in Hebrew. And frequently the word is merely supplied in the English translation to make sense to English speaking people.
The Hebrew word for "with" used in Genesis 3:6 is in fact just as validly understood in context as having a connotation of location or proximity as opposed to relationship or association. For example, it is translated as "by" in Genesis 25:11, "from between" in Gen 48:12, "beside" in Joshua 7:2 and "accompanying" in 2 Samuel 6:4. In each of those texts the Hebrew word is is clearly understood to have a close proximity connotation. Likewise the Hebrew word is translated in Exodus 22:14, Ezra 5:2, 7:13 and Daniel 7:13 as "with" to show location in connection with something or someone else. There are numerous other examples, which only reinforces the point that from Scripture one should be careful about being too dogmatic this point.
But I still come back to my original question. Why is it so important for some to be so dogmatic on this point? I remain distressed that this has turned into an effort to defend or attack EGW at the expense of Scripture. Scripture should always be our primary source of authority on any point, but it seems that it is being forced to conform to EGW, rather than the other way around. Given that this is happening in a publically open section of this forum, does it not occur to anyone how this comes across to those who do not know of EGW? (I think we have already seen the ineffectiveness of using EGW to settle an argument over a disputed point of Scripture if one side does not regard her as inspired on a par with Scripture. I fyou cna not prove it solely from Scripture, you lose not only the argument but any oppotunity to dialog effectively and credibly on Scripture in the future.)
Consequently, the main point of the narrative is being lost sight of and nobody seems at all interested in even considering why it might be important, or not, where Adam was during to whole story. Anybody care to return the focus to the Scriptual account?
|
|
Reply
Quote
|
|
|
|
|
