Tom, the reason it is important to me is the fact Paul wrote Eve, not Adam, was deceived. It is also important to me because Sister White wrote "I saw ..." I agree that the passage could be interpreted in several ways, that the context allows various views. The suggestion that Adam was with Eve at the tree and silently witnessed her transgression, and then followed her example, is one possibility. But not the only one.

Since the view that Sister White recounted is also a possibility I am more inclined to go with it, since it doesn't require me to figure out why she said "I saw ..." Also, I don't have to wonder if she too was deceived, if she was a true prophet or not. This approach could be considered a "cop out", but in light of the fact it isn't a critical point, I believe it's the best way to approach it. We need to pick our battles wisely.

"TokoG&E" Nice!

Is this an open forum? I thought it was an Adventist forum. Am I mistaken about this?

Of course this is an Adventist forum. Why do you ask?

This particular forum of MSDAOL is a public forum open for even visitors who are not registered members to reply to.

MSDAOL consists of various types of forums:

1 - Some public forums where only registered members can create new topics and/or reply to existing topics.

2 - Some public forums where only registered members can create new topics and registered members and visitors can reply to existing topics.

3 - Some public forums where only authorized registered members can create new topics and registered members can reply to existing topics.

4 - Some public forums where only authorized registered members can create new topics and registered members and visitors can reply to existing topics.

5 - Some private forums into which only members of the SDA Church have access.

6 - Some private forums into which both members and friends of the SDA Church have access.

7 - Some private forums into which only invited members have access.

I hope this answers your question and any other questions that may be out there.

By the way, in case anybody is wondering, "TokoG&E" means "Tree of knowledge of good and evil."

1. Tom correctly points out my initial statement: the Hebrew text of Genesis 3:6 does not prove that Adam and Eve were together when she took the fruit, nor that they were apart from each other in terms of physical proximity at that moment.
2. I suggested an alternative interpretation from the one that had been suggested by the skeptics, pointing out that the idea of "with" here can also be understood as having reference to relationship. I indicated my opinion favoring this interpretation. However, I still hold to my first point above. Because we do not know whether the preposition "with" here meant in the physical or relational sense, the text cannot be used dogmatically on this point.
3. The word in Genesis 9:9 is indeed, as Tom points out, seeds, that is, descendants. I gave the wrong verse. What I had in mind was the previous verse 9:8 which says

????? ????? ?? ?? ??? ???? ??? ????

Literally, "And spoke God to Noah and to his sons with him, saying..." "With him" here is the masculine. In fact, here being attached to a noun, it is a possessive pronoun. Page Kelly's Hebrew Grammer, says "When attached to nouns, they function as possessive pronouns." p. 69. This one would be pronounced approximately "ito."

The feminine personal pronoun in Genesis 3:6 is also a possessive,

???

"with her." (The vowel pointing is missing here but you at least have the Hebrew consonants which was all that Moses wrote anyway.)

4. There is indeed a vast range of usage throughout the Bible. This is precisely what such language elements are for.

5. I must take exception to Tom's statement that the discussion is an attack or defense of EGW at the expense of Scripture. My objective in was to point out that the text need not be read in the way that places it in contradiction to what EGW saw. As one with knowledge of Hebrew, I find it fascinating that she so consistently agrees with the language although she did not know it.

6. I have no intention in spending energy engaging determined skeptics or parties hostile to EGW. If a mind is already closed to any other answer than its own, I entertain no illusions about opening it. If one is determined to claim direct inspiration for themselves in pushing a text where it cannot be taken by the commonly accepted usage of the language, I have no interest in debating such a person either, for again, his direct inspiration will trump whatever I say, no matter how well or how poorly I say it. I feel under no obligation to prove anything to such skeptics or prophets. My post was for the lurker.

Ah. It looks like the Hebrew fell out and was replaced by ??? marks. Wondered if that would happen. In any case, the points remain.

Thanks Larry for those clarifications. I think we are closer in our thinking on this than you or others might believe. For me, the essential aspects of the story of the fall do not depend at all on whether Adam and Eve were together at the tree or not. That is why I keep driving home the question that asks why do some, and in particular Daryl who started this topic, feel that it is so important to focus on this fact, as if that fact held some vital truth about the temptation and fall of Adam and Eve.

I would just like to also clarify that I really was not so concerned about your comments in relationship to EGW. My frustration is that the question that I keep repeating is invaribly short-circuited by the EGW trump card. (What a horribly mixed metaphor! ) My question is really not about EGW or correctness of Hebrew interpretation, but about the perception of some that this fact makes some sort of difference in how sin entered this world and in terms of how salvation is achieved as a result and the nature of mankind.

Let me cut to the chase. I have already hinted at it in some of my other posts. (Read very carefully my post on January 25 found on page 3.) The way this aspect of the story was spun from the earliest times, Eve's wandering away from Adam highlighted a key perception of the differences between men and women. From ancient times even up to our time and most certainly during EGW's time the prevailing view was that somehow Eve, the women, was more vulnerable to temptation, that she was morally weaker and that only if ever in the presence of her protector Adam, the man, that she could be protected from the wiles of the tempter. It even went so far as to paint Eve as the evil sexual seductress of Adam that led to his fall, appealing to the one sure weakness of men. Even early paintings portrayed the serpent as distinctly female. The perception was not so much that if Adam had been there with Eve, neither would have sinned. It was that even if Adam had been the one who had unconsciously wandered near the tree (This is how EGW describes it for Eve rather than a willful sneaking away from Adam.) that he would have had the superior intelligence and stronger moral fiber to see through the lies of the serpent and would have succesfully resisted. Do you see that even in the short quote from the 16th and 17th century commentators that Mike quoted? Milton really embellishes this idea in Pardise Lost.

There is little implication that the reason that they should have stuck together was that they both needed each other. Rather than taking my question as an attack on EGW one can actually use her account of the story to answer my question. Read carefully the whole 3rd chapter of Patriarchs and Prophets. Notice how EGW departs from the temptation to use this fact to even remotely follow the prevailing view that denigrates women. She even emphasizes that Adam and Eve were equals. In the end I am quite comfortable with EGW's account.

Tom

Here is one reason why this topic is important:

The angels had cautioned Eve to beware of separating herself from her husband while occupied in their daily labor in the garden; with him she would be in less danger from temptation than if she were alone. But absorbed in her pleasing task, she unconsciously wandered from his side. . . . She soon found herself gazing with mingled curiosity and admiration upon the forbidden tree. The fruit was very beautiful, and she questioned with herself why God had withheld it from them. Now was the tempter's opportunity. As if he were able to discern the workings of her mind, he addressed her: "Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?" . . . {CC 15.4}

I bolded the main reason why this topic is important.

"Of course this is an Adventist forum. Why do you ask?

This particular forum of MSDAOL is a public forum open for even visitors who are not registered members to reply to."


Someone made a comment somewhere that we act in a certain way because this was an open forum. I can't remember now the exact comment. It was that comment that prompted my question.

Depending on one's audience could shape how one used the Spirit of Prophesy, for example, as well as taking for granted certain assumptions that SDA's have.

The reason why this is an open forum is for the reason that Sabbath School in church is also open to the public, however, we should act here in an open forum as we would act there in an open Sabbath School class.

If a topic becomes too sensitive though, it can, and probably, will be moved into one of the private forums of MSDAOL where visitors can neither read nor participate.

The following quote posted in a different topic prompted me to post here and revive this topic:

quote:

---

"Satan charmed the first Adam by his sophistry, just as he charms men and women today, leading them to believe a lie. Adam did not reach above his humanity for divine power. He believed the words of Satan. But the second Adam was not to become the enemy's bondslave." {ST, December 3, 1902 par. 6}

---

This quote confuses me as I thought the conversation was between the devil and Eve rather than between the devil and Adam, unless Adam was also there and listened to and was also deceived by the devil.

I guess my question once again really is, was Adam there with Eve in front of the Tree of Knowledge of Good & Evil where the devil disguised as a serpent conversed with Eve and deceived her? If not, then how do we explain the above quote?