Knowing Your Enemy: Satan's Attacks On SDAs

[John317]

Sincerely glad to see you back with us, Rondo. But you did it again: notice all the quotes in your posts and then your statement tacked on at the end that doesn't even really speak to the quotes.

I would like to talk to you about the covenants, but this discussion is not about them. It's about Satan's hatred for the SDA church-- and really for all true Christians-- and about his ways of attacking SDAs individually and as a church.

I believe he hates you and wants to keep you from teaching the truth. That's why Satan gets people confused about doctrines and inspires them to fight against the SDA church and against the message God raised the church up to proclaim. Satan knows that his continued existence depends on getting the SDA church to fail in its mission, and of course this means getting individual members to do anything except devote themselves to the work of practicing and teaching the Three Angels Messages.

[John317]

... And Adam did stand like a dumb dog and was right with Eve at the Tree of the Learning of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, just as it says in Gen. 3:6. Anyone that tells you that Eve wandered away from Adam and met the Serpent alone is lying, and this includes EGW.

You don't need Ellen White to know that Adam was not beside Eve while she listened to the Serpent. The evidence is clear from the Bible itself. There are many great Bible scholars who have never heard of Ellen White but who have taught that Adam and Eve were not together at the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil.

Consider some of that evidence:

1) If the man is standing right there, it wouldn't say the serpent "said [these things] TO the woman."

2) Other Scripture tell us straightforwardly that Adam wasn't fooled by the Devil. So this would be like a man watching silently as his wife is tricked into committing suicide.

3) He knew that snakes can't talk. He knew that this was the evil one that God had warned him of. So why would Adam stand there and not say anything to warn his beloved wife as she gets closer and closer to that fateful moment when she eats the fruit and begin to die?

4) Adam does not say a word the whole time.

5) Eve does not say anything to Adam about this most important decision. It seems obvious that if Adam was with her at the time of the temptation, she would have talked to him about it.

6) It was up to Adam to protect Eve, and therefore we can believe that Adam would have said or done something to protect her, since Adam knew she was venturing on dangerous territory.

8) When God calls for Adam, Adam does not blame the serpant, but he blames Eve. Why would Adam blame Eve if he had been tricked by the devil? The only way it makes sense for Adam to blame Eve is if Adam hadn't been with Eve when she was deceived by the serpeant.

9) Notice that Eve does not blame Adam. If she knew Adam had known she was being tricked by Satan but had remained silent, Eve would certainly have blamed Adam for not warning her. We would expect her to say something like, "Well, this fool of a husband stood silently by while watching me get tricked by the devil." But no, she says nothing like this, and there's only one reason for it, and that's if Adam hadn't been there when she fell into sin. But instead of blaming Adam, Eve blames only the serpant. This makes sense because it was the serpent alone that got Eve to disobey God. Adam had nothing to do with her sin.

10) God condemns Adam for "heeding the voice of his wife," not the voice of the serpent. Why? Because Adam hadn't eaten of the tree because of the serpent. Adam only ate because of his wife's offering the fruit.

11) God puts enmity between the serpant and the woman, not between the serpent and the man. Why? Because it was the woman who fell first and it was the woman who fell as a direct result of listening to the serpent.

12) Because Eve tried to ursurp the position of the husband by leading him to sin-- instead of her allowing him to lead her to obey-- God places the woman in a position of being ruled over by the man.

On top of all these points, we have the fact that Ellen White said plainly that Eve was alone at the tree and that she had wandered away from Adam. Therefore the Bible clearly supports the position of Ellen White in regard to this aspect of the temptation at the Tree of Knowledge of good and evil. All 12 points lead inevitably to only one reasonable conclusion, which is that Eve and Adam were separated at the time she was tempted and first ate of the forbidden fruit.

If you are going to dispute this, you will need to do more than merely say Ellen White is wrong or that the text says "she gave to her husband with her." The expression simply means that Eve gave some of the fruit to the companion that God had put in the garden with her. It doesn't make sense to say that Eve gave some of the fruit to her husand who was with her at the time she gave it to him. She couldn't very well give him the fruit when he wasn't with her, could she? She could only give it to him when he was with her. Her arm didn't stretch far enough so that she could give fruit to him when he was anywhere but with her. Therefore the expression "with her" isn't intended to give the impression that Adam was standing beside her at the tree while Eve was being tempted. The expression, rather, is obviously intended to emphasize that after Eve committed this terrible sin, she even went so far as to cause her beloved companion to sin also.

Please respond directly to each of my arguments here rather than make a general denial of what I've said.

[Dr. Rich]

John, I will refuse your offer since it would do no one any good and you know it. I would rather deal with with someone who is sincere with wanting to learn something. You also know that I have been there and done that and KNOW most everthing you know, so you don't need to write anything anymore to explain yourself as it appears to be a waste of my time and your time. Until you can take your stained glasses off and see the truth, then lets just let it be and see who will be right in a few more years. You are free to make fun of me (us) all you want and believe what you want. Me? I am NOT free since I am a bondservant of Jesus Christ.

However, as for Adam being with Eve; "...she took from its fruit and ate; and she gave also to her husband WHO WAS WITH HER..." Gen. 3:6.

As for those who will be the sons and daughters of God; "...with the rest of Her offspring, who KEEP the commandments of God AND hold to the words (testimony) of Jesus." Rev. 12:17

(It does NOT say they are saved by grace).

[John317]

as for Adam being with Eve; "...she took from its fruit and ate; and she gave also to her husband WHO WAS WITH HER..." Gen. 3:6.

I can see it is you who aren't reading anyone else's posts. I have gone through all of yours carefully and answered each point.

Did you read the following, in response to your statement about Gen. 3: 6?

If you are going to dispute this, you will need to do more than merely say Ellen White is wrong or that the text says "she gave to her husband with her." The expression simply means that Eve gave some of the fruit to the companion that God had put in the garden with her. It doesn't make sense to say that Eve gave some of the fruit to her husand who was with her at the time she gave it to him. She couldn't very well give him the fruit when he wasn't with her, could she? She could only give it to him when he was with her. Her arm didn't stretch far enough so that she could give fruit to him when he was anywhere but with her. Therefore the expression "with her" isn't intended to give the impression that Adam was standing beside her at the tree while Eve was being tempted. The expression, rather, is obviously intended to emphasize that after Eve committed this terrible sin, she even went so far as to cause her beloved companion to sin also.

Please respond directly.

[John317]

...As for those who will be the sons and daughters of God; "...with the rest of Her offspring, who KEEP the commandments of God AND hold to the words (testimony) of Jesus." Rev. 12:17

(It does NOT say they are saved by grace).

Nor does it say that God saved them because they worked for their salvation and merit it.

Why do they keep the commandments of God and hold to the testimony of Jesus, which is the Spirit of prophecy?

Do they keep them in order to merit justification and God's love? No, they keep the commandments because of their trust in God and because of their love for Him.

I can see you aren't reading anything I've written because if you were, you would not have written the above quote.

The fact that people obey the commandments is not proof that God doesn't save people by grace through faith. You still don't appear to understand what that is all about. Being saved by God's grace through faith is not denial of the obligation to obey God's commandments. It's all about motives and the reasons we obey God-- whether by the human will or through the power of the Spirit.

[John317]

You are free to make fun of me (us) all you want and believe what you want.

I have never made fun of you.

[Dr. Rich]

Come on John, let it go! Your arguments just don't hold water.

Here is what I mean: Why did God make the man out of the earth and then place himm into the garden and THEN make animals for the garden and THEN had the man name all of the animals and THEN God searched all over the earth for a suitable mate and couldn't find one and THEN God allowed Satan to enter into the garden and THEN both were kicked out of the Garden----when God told those He created in chapter one to multiply and fill up the whole earth?

How can you get all of the races from Adam alone? Hmmm?

John, I am not here to argue with you, just to let you know that I have a higher or different understanding of creation because of my own research. I have read what "Sky" has written about this issue too and see that he also understands many of the same things that 'we' understand.

Therefore we really don't need to argue anymore because of the clear difference between us. But please don't be surprised some day to find out what you believe just may not be the truth.

If you want to meet some time and go over things, that is ok with me, but it seems clear to me that others don't want to read the debate going on here. I will then honor them. God Bless

[John317]

Come on John, let it go! Your arguments just don't hold water.

If my arguments don't hold water, then you should be able to address the arguments directly and show that they are wrong. Why not do that-- instead of just simply claiming that they are wrong or don't hold water. If they don't hold water, it should be easy to show it.

[John317]

...Here is what I mean: Why did God make the man out of the earth and then place himm into the garden and THEN make animals for the garden and THEN had the man name all of the animals and THEN God searched all over the earth for a suitable mate and couldn't find one and THEN God allowed Satan to enter into the garden and THEN both were kicked out of the Garden----when God told those He created in chapter one to multiply and fill up the whole earth?

In the above, you're giving the order that is given in Gen. 2. But Genesis 2 doesn't give the order of the events. Gen. 1 gives the order in which God created the world.

The Bible doesn't mean for us to believe that God looked all over for mate for Adam but couldn't find one. Do you really believe that God didn't know exactly what he was going to do in making Adam and Eve?

Originally Posted By: Dr. Rich

How can you get all of the races from Adam alone? Hmmm?

Why is that a problem? Can you show that it's impossible for all the races in the world to have descended from Adam?

There's more variety among the various kinds of dogs than there are races of human beings, and I believe it's likely that God made only one pair of dogs, probably wolves.

[John317]

If you want to meet some time and go over things, that is ok with me...

Yes, I would really like that. WE'll have to plan for that some time soon. :-)

[John317]

John, I am not here to argue with you, just to let you know that I have a higher or different understanding of creation because of my own research.

.....Therefore we really don't need to argue anymore because of the clear difference between us. But please don't be surprised some day to find out what you believe just may not be the truth.

So what you seem to be saying here is that on this forum you came here to make your case, but you have lost interest in defending it with evidence and reason. And you are only here now to tell us that you have a higher understanding than others.

But that isn't how the discussion began. It began with your and Musicman talking about Paul and Ellen White being false apostles and false prophets. Since you wrote those posts, and I've responded to them, I notice you and Musicman have pretty much stopped posting on those topics, at least for the time being. However, you changed the topic to that of Adam and Eve. I'm disappointed that you didn't even apparently take the time to read what I posted about the question of whether Adam and Eve were together at the Tree, even though I have read carefully your own posts on this as well as on other subjects.

I don't view it as "arguing" so much as exchanging viewpoints and understandings. You didn't mind doing the same thing before, so I don't understand why you suddendly change your position with respect to talking about the topics. If you make posts accusing Ellen White of being a false prophet or accusing Paul et al of being a follower of Satan, I'm sure you realize that someone is going to ask you for reason and evidence. And this is really all I'm doing.

[Musicman1228]

John said, "In the above, you're giving the order that is given in Gen. 2. But Genesis 2 doesn't give the order of the events. Gen. 1 gives the order in which God created the world."

Who said? Who said that Gen. 1 is the order of Creation and Gen.2 is merely a further description of Gen. 1? What authority made the determination that Gen.2 depicted the same Creation as Gen. 1? Convention? Tradition? What?

Oral tradition is NOT that sophisticated, so if Genesis was past down via word of mouth then the events would be consecutive-listed one after the other.

If God gave Moses the information in Genesis (my belief, or a combination of the two) then that would mean God was deliberately obtuse and confusing in how He had Moses write the story-for that is what it is, a story. It is a true story of how God created the earth and mankind. Yes, God moves information around within prophecy. But God has not in any other place done what you suggest He did in telling the STORY of creation.

Genesis 1 happened BEFORE Genesis 2. Mankind was created on the 6th day of creation, Adam and Eve were created sometime AFTER that. A careful reading of the text, especially in the Septuigent, will reveal this to you.

[Dr. Rich]

This thread is about Satan's hatred for SDAs. Why would Satan be upset with Adventists? What we (mm and I) have been presenting, is a picture that the SDA group/corporate group appears to be the stone cut out w/o hands set up at the 1844 period and are the ten bride's maids found in Matt. 25 who are yelled at by the 144k who are the bondservants found in Matt. 24 and Rev. 1:1-3. I believe we made a good argument for our understanding by including references from prophecy.

We objected to using outside sources such as EGW and Paul, which led us down a trail to which we were debating and to which others here objected to. Then the subject of the bible being the word of God verses it being a book that contains the words of God was debated. After that, references were given in the bible to support each other's opinions/beliefs. One of them came up as to Adam being with Eve when she ate from the tree of wisdom. Now, is this correct--more or less?

From what we (mm and I) have already written it is clear (to me) that we already answered all of your questions even though you keep saying we have not done so. Re-hashing what was already written about is something at this point I don't want to do, especially when you state that we are 'defending' our opinions. It is my opinion that we took the offensive and you are now defending your opinion/belief.

Having said this, if you can recall, I wrote about Adam's bloodline being like pure water. You can pour pure water into pure containers for thousands of years and you will never change it from being pure water. At that time no one argued or debated this theory. I did not talk about dogs or cows or any other animal--just humans coming from Adam's blood.

I also pointed out that in chapter one (Gen) it was "God" that did the creating and in chapter two it was "The Lord God" that did the creating. Another thing pointed out that the word "flying creatures" was used in chapter one and "birds" was used in chapter two.

I referred you to the Septuagint to see that the 6 day creation shows us that God created the 'reptiles and their kind' and the 'beasts and their kind' and then 'MANKIND' (as in man and their kind) in both male and female and in the image of plural GODS. Then in the second creation thousands of years later and after Satan had already deceived everyone living on this earth, God needed human witnesses to testify (just as Jesus did thousands of years later) to the real truth about God the Creator. Jesus, as “The Lord God” then MADE the “man” out of already created earth, and set him aside (as in making him holy) in a special place (called the garden) to where new plants, reptiles, animals of the field, and birds were created to be IN this special place on this earth, but away from those who Satan had already deceived. I also said that it was THESE animals that went into the ark with Noah—not the beasts and reptiles that were in the first creation. However, to make sure Adam would make a good witness, he was tested just as everyone of us is tested today from either believing the words of Jesus or from those who never knew Jesus.

REMEMBER, this is ONLY a theory and as good as one or better than what has been passed down to most Christians living today. MM's and my theory about the two creations would agree with science to where yours will not (and never can) so you have to use your "faith" to 'just believe' that is they way it is. On the other hand, MM and I have used FACTS, both from the bible and from science, history, archeology and geology.

[John317]

...references were given in the bible to support each other's opinions/beliefs. One of them came up as to Adam being with Eve when she ate from the tree of wisdom.

Let me know what you think of the following reasons given for believing that the Bible teaches Adam and Eve were physically separated at the time when Eve was being tempted:

Consider some of that evidence:

1) If the man is standing right there, it wouldn't say the serpent "said [these things] TO the woman."

2) Other Scripture tell us straightforwardly that Adam wasn't fooled by the Devil. So this would be like a man watching silently as his wife is tricked into committing suicide.

3) He knew that snakes can't talk. He knew that this was the evil one that God had warned him of. So why would Adam stand there and not say anything to warn his beloved wife as she gets closer and closer to that fateful moment when she eats the fruit and begin to die?

4) Adam does not say a word the whole time.

5) Eve does not say anything to Adam about this most important decision. It seems obvious that if Adam was with her at the time of the temptation, she would have talked to him about it.

6) It was up to Adam to protect Eve, and therefore we can believe that Adam would have said or done something to protect her, since Adam knew she was venturing on dangerous territory.

8) When God calls for Adam, Adam does not blame the serpant, but he blames Eve. Why would Adam blame Eve if he had been tricked by the devil? The only way it makes sense for Adam to blame Eve is if Adam hadn't been with Eve when she was deceived by the serpeant.

9) Notice that Eve does not blame Adam. If she knew Adam had known she was being tricked by Satan but had remained silent, Eve would certainly have blamed Adam for not warning her. We would expect her to say something like, "Well, this fool of a husband stood silently by while watching me get tricked by the devil." But no, she says nothing like this, and there's only one reason for it, and that's if Adam hadn't been there when she fell into sin. But instead of blaming Adam, Eve blames only the serpant. This makes sense because it was the serpent alone that got Eve to disobey God. Adam had nothing to do with her sin.

10) God condemns Adam for "heeding the voice of his wife," not the voice of the serpent. Why? Because Adam hadn't eaten of the tree because of the serpent. Adam only ate because of his wife's offering the fruit.

11) God puts enmity between the serpant and the woman, not between the serpent and the man. Why? Because it was the woman who fell first and it was the woman who fell as a direct result of listening to the serpent.

12) Because Eve tried to ursurp the position of the husband by leading him to sin-- instead of her allowing him to lead her to obey-- God places the woman in a position of being ruled over by the man.

On top of all these points, we have the fact that Ellen White said plainly that Eve was alone at the tree and that she had wandered away from Adam. Therefore the Bible clearly supports the position of Ellen White in regard to this aspect of the temptation at the Tree of Knowledge of good and evil. All 12 points lead inevitably to only one reasonable conclusion, which is that Eve and Adam were separated at the time she was tempted and first ate of the forbidden fruit.

If you are going to dispute this, you will need to do more than merely say Ellen White is wrong or that the text says "she gave to her husband with her." The expression simply means that Eve gave some of the fruit to the companion that God had put in the garden with her. It doesn't make sense to say that Eve gave some of the fruit to her husand who was with her at the time she gave it to him. Eve couldn't very well give him the fruit when he wasn't with her, could she? That would be redundant. She could only give it to him when he was with her. Her arm didn't stretch far enough so that she could give fruit to him when he was anywhere but with her. Therefore the expression "with her" isn't intended to give the impression that Adam was standing beside her at the tree while Eve was being tempted. The expression, rather, is obviously intended to emphasize that after Eve committed this terrible sin, she even went so far as to cause her beloved companion to sin also.

[John317]

John said, "In the above, you're giving the order that is given in Gen. 2. But Genesis 2 doesn't give the order of the events. Gen. 1 gives the order in which God created the world."

Who said? Who said that Gen. 1 is the order of Creation and Gen.2 is merely a further description of Gen. 1? What authority made the determination that Gen.2 depicted the same Creation as Gen. 1? Convention? Tradition? What?

The authority is the evidence of the Bible itself and the way the two chapters read.

Let's look at it:

Gen 1 says that God created trees on the third day and mankind on the sixth day. Can you see that Gen. 1 is orderly and organized in the way God made things?

In Genesis 2, by contrast, it talks about the trees being in existence and then it speaks of man having been created. Then it says that God planted a garden and there God put the man.

After that it says God made the trees grow out of the ground.

This is proof that Gen. 2 is not giving the order in which God made everything. You'll notice that Gen. 2 is not even a complete record of what was made. It begins after the creation of the heavens and the earth and doesn't even mention light or the sun and the moon. Nor does it mention the creation of water. The creation of the animals is mentioned after the creation of the man but before the creation of the female.

But is Gen. 2 asking the reader to believe that is is the order in which God made the world? No. Genesis 2 assumes the reader knows the order from having read the previous chapter. Now the writer is showing the creation as having been planned by God for the benefit of mankind. The creation was like a nest that God made for humankind. It shows how God was making everything with the man and the woman in mind.

By the way, previously you said that God looked for a mate for Adam among the animals but didn't find any, so He made Eve. But that isn't what the Bible says. It simply says that Adam did not find a mate for himself among the animals he named. That is not the same as saying God didn't find any mate for Adam among the animals. Do you see the important difference?

Anyone who has studied literary narratives will tell you that Gen. 2 is a different view of the same creation that is given in Gen. 1, but Gen. 2 is like a close up shot of the creation of mankind. The same kind of technique occurs in non-biblical literature. Gen. 1 is an objective look at the creation as a whole, and in Gen. 2, we are given a more subjective look at the same creation from mankind's viewpoint and with an emphasis on the place of Adam and Eve. Adam and Eve are seen as the apex of the creation. The reader doesn't get this sense in Gen. 1 to the extent that he gets it from Gen. 2.

[John317]

Oral tradition is NOT that sophisticated, so if Genesis was past down via word of mouth then the events would be consecutive-listed one after the other.

How can you assume that he was writing on the basis of oral tradition?

We don't know for sure what the source was. It could have been ancient written records or it could have been a combination of written records and stories passed down from Noah. But in any case, Moses is not writing simply from oral tradition. He was writing it under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

When you say that Moses' writing had to be simple and couldn't have a complexity to it, I think you are underrating the intelligence and abilities of the ancient writers, including Moses. Homer, for instance, wrote only a few centuries after Moses, and he was one of the greatest writers of all time. The story of Gilgamesh also offers proof that the ancients were indeed capable of more than unsophisticated narratives.

Originally Posted By: Musicman

If God gave Moses the information in Genesis (my belief, or a combination of the two) then that would mean God was deliberately obtuse and confusing in how He had Moses write the story-for that is what it is, a story. It is a true story of how God created the earth and mankind.

Sure, it's a true story. But that doesn't mean it is not a construct. Just like Job is a true true but a human construct.

Originally Posted By: Musicman

Genesis 1 happened BEFORE Genesis 2. Mankind was created on the 6th day of creation, Adam and Eve were created sometime AFTER that.

The Bible says clearly in Gen. 2: 1-3 that God ceased creating on the sixth day. The end of Gen. 1 shows that God ended his creative work on that day. It was all declared to be "very good," and then it says that God "rested," signifying that God did no more creating after that. The creation was "finished," and God rested form all the work that He had made.

Originally Posted By: Musicman

A careful reading of the text, especially in the Septuigent, will reveal this to you.

Could you show this from the Septuagent?

[phkrause]

Originally Posted By: Dr. Rich

...references were given in the bible to support each other's opinions/beliefs. One of them came up as to Adam being with Eve when she ate from the tree of wisdom.

Let me know what you think of the following reasons given for believing that the Bible teaches Adam and Eve were physically separated at the time when Eve was being tempted:

Consider some of that evidence:

1) If the man is standing right there, it wouldn't say the serpent "said [these things] TO the woman."

2) Other Scripture tell us straightforwardly that Adam wasn't fooled by the Devil. So this would be like a man watching silently as his wife is tricked into committing suicide.

3) He knew that snakes can't talk. He knew that this was the evil one that God had warned him of. So why would Adam stand there and not say anything to warn his beloved wife as she gets closer and closer to that fateful moment when she eats the fruit and begin to die?

4) Adam does not say a word the whole time.

5) Eve does not say anything to Adam about this most important decision. It seems obvious that if Adam was with her at the time of the temptation, she would have talked to him about it.

6) It was up to Adam to protect Eve, and therefore we can believe that Adam would have said or done something to protect her, since Adam knew she was venturing on dangerous territory.

8) When God calls for Adam, Adam does not blame the serpant, but he blames Eve. Why would Adam blame Eve if he had been tricked by the devil? The only way it makes sense for Adam to blame Eve is if Adam hadn't been with Eve when she was deceived by the serpeant.

9) Notice that Eve does not blame Adam. If she knew Adam had known she was being tricked by Satan but had remained silent, Eve would certainly have blamed Adam for not warning her. We would expect her to say something like, "Well, this fool of a husband stood silently by while watching me get tricked by the devil." But no, she says nothing like this, and there's only one reason for it, and that's if Adam hadn't been there when she fell into sin. But instead of blaming Adam, Eve blames only the serpant. This makes sense because it was the serpent alone that got Eve to disobey God. Adam had nothing to do with her sin.

10) God condemns Adam for "heeding the voice of his wife," not the voice of the serpent. Why? Because Adam hadn't eaten of the tree because of the serpent. Adam only ate because of his wife's offering the fruit.

11) God puts enmity between the serpant and the woman, not between the serpent and the man. Why? Because it was the woman who fell first and it was the woman who fell as a direct result of listening to the serpent.

12) Because Eve tried to ursurp the position of the husband by leading him to sin-- instead of her allowing him to lead her to obey-- God places the woman in a position of being ruled over by the man.

On top of all these points, we have the fact that Ellen White said plainly that Eve was alone at the tree and that she had wandered away from Adam. Therefore the Bible clearly supports the position of Ellen White in regard to this aspect of the temptation at the Tree of Knowledge of good and evil. All 12 points lead inevitably to only one reasonable conclusion, which is that Eve and Adam were separated at the time she was tempted and first ate of the forbidden fruit.

If you are going to dispute this, you will need to do more than merely say Ellen White is wrong or that the text says "she gave to her husband with her." The expression simply means that Eve gave some of the fruit to the companion that God had put in the garden with her. It doesn't make sense to say that Eve gave some of the fruit to her husand who was with her at the time she gave it to him. Eve couldn't very well give him the fruit when he wasn't with her, could she? That would be redundant. She could only give it to him when he was with her. Her arm didn't stretch far enough so that she could give fruit to him when he was anywhere but with her. Therefore the expression "with her" isn't intended to give the impression that Adam was standing beside her at the tree while Eve was being tempted. The expression, rather, is obviously intended to emphasize that after Eve committed this terrible sin, she even went so far as to cause her beloved companion to sin also.

Excellent points John

[Dr. Rich]

John, I don't have any argument with you or with you opinion. It is just a theory as is mine since neither you or I were there. I am also aware of different words used in the different translations of the Septuegint and not all of them say exactly the same thing--thus creating some issues as you suggest.

This is what I know:

1. The earth is older than 6,000 years. The many facts from science proves this and shows that mankind, not to mention animals, is much older than 6k years.

2. Different races were all over the face of the earth prior to the time the bible gives for Adam--as science has proven.

3. There had to be a reason for the garden itself because God first said to fill the whole earth--not just the garden.

4. There has to be a reason we see the word "God" in chapter one and "The Lord God" in chapter two.

5. It had to take longer than 24 hours for Adam to name all of the animals before "The Lord God" took Eve out of Adam.

6. The breath of life for chapter one's creation was different than was for chapter two.

7. God placed a 'mark' on Cain so no one would mess with him IF only his parents knew about this, then he would not have to have the mark.

8. Eden as was all of the other places and rivers had been named prior to The Lord God placeing the garden where He did.

9. Large reptiles and wild beasts are what we find in the tar pits today. We do not find any 'animals of the field' as were created to fill the 'garden'.

10. Civilations can and have been revealed by the sciences to prove that mankind was here before the time Adam was created.

11. Satan was already evil by the time Adam was created--why?

Anyway, I could go on and on--but who cares? We don't know for sure one way or the other, so if you believe what EGW said then that is fine with me, but don't go saying it was the ONLY way and it is your way or the hiway. EGW said Noah preached, yet I can't find anywhere in Gen. or the words of Jesus where he did. Why would he? Just to brag?

Oh, your #11 about enmity between the snake and Eve is nonsense--what God said was between Satan and the Holy Spirit as we find in Revelation 12:17. (Check the bible reference index) Now you don't believe this, but so be it. I do!

And what scripture says that Adam knew the snake could not talk and that Adam was not fooled by Satan? Bet you can't find it in the words of Jesus or the OT.

[Musicman1228]

Originally Posted By: Dr. Rich

...references were given in the bible to support each other's opinions/beliefs. One of them came up as to Adam being with Eve when she ate from the tree of wisdom.

Let me know what you think of the following reasons given for believing that the Bible teaches Adam and Eve were physically separated at the time when Eve was being tempted:

Consider some of that evidence:

1) If the man is standing right there, it wouldn't say the serpent "said [these things] TO the woman."

2) Other Scripture tell us straightforwardly that Adam wasn't fooled by the Devil. So this would be like a man watching silently as his wife is tricked into committing suicide.

3) He knew that snakes can't talk. He knew that this was the evil one that God had warned him of. So why would Adam stand there and not say anything to warn his beloved wife as she gets closer and closer to that fateful moment when she eats the fruit and begin to die?

4) Adam does not say a word the whole time.

5) Eve does not say anything to Adam about this most important decision. It seems obvious that if Adam was with her at the time of the temptation, she would have talked to him about it.

6) It was up to Adam to protect Eve, and therefore we can believe that Adam would have said or done something to protect her, since Adam knew she was venturing on dangerous territory.

8) When God calls for Adam, Adam does not blame the serpant, but he blames Eve. Why would Adam blame Eve if he had been tricked by the devil? The only way it makes sense for Adam to blame Eve is if Adam hadn't been with Eve when she was deceived by the serpeant.

9) Notice that Eve does not blame Adam. If she knew Adam had known she was being tricked by Satan but had remained silent, Eve would certainly have blamed Adam for not warning her. We would expect her to say something like, "Well, this fool of a husband stood silently by while watching me get tricked by the devil." But no, she says nothing like this, and there's only one reason for it, and that's if Adam hadn't been there when she fell into sin. But instead of blaming Adam, Eve blames only the serpant. This makes sense because it was the serpent alone that got Eve to disobey God. Adam had nothing to do with her sin.

10) God condemns Adam for "heeding the voice of his wife," not the voice of the serpent. Why? Because Adam hadn't eaten of the tree because of the serpent. Adam only ate because of his wife's offering the fruit.

11) God puts enmity between the serpant and the woman, not between the serpent and the man. Why? Because it was the woman who fell first and it was the woman who fell as a direct result of listening to the serpent.

12) Because Eve tried to ursurp the position of the husband by leading him to sin-- instead of her allowing him to lead her to obey-- God places the woman in a position of being ruled over by the man.

On top of all these points, we have the fact that Ellen White said plainly that Eve was alone at the tree and that she had wandered away from Adam. Therefore the Bible clearly supports the position of Ellen White in regard to this aspect of the temptation at the Tree of Knowledge of good and evil. All 12 points lead inevitably to only one reasonable conclusion, which is that Eve and Adam were separated at the time she was tempted and first ate of the forbidden fruit.

If you are going to dispute this, you will need to do more than merely say Ellen White is wrong or that the text says "she gave to her husband with her." The expression simply means that Eve gave some of the fruit to the companion that God had put in the garden with her. It doesn't make sense to say that Eve gave some of the fruit to her husand who was with her at the time she gave it to him. Eve couldn't very well give him the fruit when he wasn't with her, could she? That would be redundant. She could only give it to him when he was with her. Her arm didn't stretch far enough so that she could give fruit to him when he was anywhere but with her. Therefore the expression "with her" isn't intended to give the impression that Adam was standing beside her at the tree while Eve was being tempted. The expression, rather, is obviously intended to emphasize that after Eve committed this terrible sin, she even went so far as to cause her beloved companion to sin also.

Counter evidence:

1) The Serpent could indeed address only one of the pair, if it chose to. Have not you ever listened in on a conversation where two people were talking and you were not included? This could also be another place where men (Adam, Moses, translators) asserted their domination over women by having Eve be the one that sinned? Just blame it on the woman, I say. The actual fact is that when Eve ate the fruit the UNIT named "Adam and Eve" - one flesh, had not yet sinned. It was not until Adam ate of the fruit that THEY (the pair) sinned; and this after listening to the entire conversation between the Serpent and Eve. Therefore, it was Adam's fault, not Eve's that the pair disobeyed God. Adam could have put a stop to it RIGHT THERE had he but refused to eat the fruit and grabbed Eve by the arm an pulled her away from the tree.

2) What other evidence from Scripture? You didn't cite any. I am sure it will be from Paul's writings, and that is not Scriptural evidence to me. As to the second part of the comment-see above.

3) Who said that a Serpent could not talk? How do you know? Evidence from the snakes of today does not count, as we have no first hand knowledge as to the behavior of the creatures of the first creation. Again, this is how modern assumptions affect our view of history.

4)Yep, he didn't, the coward. Eve must have been some babe for Adam to think that shutting up was the best course of action. Hey, wait a minute; any man that has been married for longer than a year knows that when faced with a determined wife it's better (we think) to keep our mouths shut. Adam was quite the negative example as to how to handle a woman.

5) John, it is obvious that you have never been married. Since when does any woman (wife, girl friend, sister, mother) consult any man for advice on anything they believe they already are certain about. Get real.

6) Again, speculation not born out in the facts. Adam and Eve were complete equals; there was no distinction of authority between them. So why would it be Adam's responsibility to 'protect' Eve from anything? Besides that, they were already in a protected Garden. Think about this; In everything but gender Adam was Eve, and Eve was Adam. That is, intellectually, emotionally they were identical twins. So what one thought the other had the same thought. Adam didn't say anything because he didn't need too, Eve was saying the same thing he would say.

7) number skipped.

8) A better question is: to whom did God speak with first after Adam and Eve fell into disobedience? God spoke to Adam first (not Eve), and God gave Adam the first 'punishment'. If the sin of the Kingdom of Heaven was all Eve's fault the why didn't God address her first, and punish her first? From the conversation that God had with the Pair it is evident that God was speaking with both of them at the same time. Adam does not say to God, "I wasn't even with her when she did this, it's all her fault". Adam doesn't blame Eve for the disobedience, he blames God; "You gave me this woman, so it's your fault".

9) To say that Adam had nothing to do with Eve's sin is fallacious. Whether Adam was with her or not she gave Adam the fruit and he ate it. They were both culpable in the sin, and both were held accountable by God for their choice. This is unlike today where Christians say to God, "You can't hold me accountable for my sin because you gave me this body that can't help sinning, so it's all your fault". Doesn't this sound familiar?

10) This argument does not evince the conditions 'on the ground' at the time of the confrontation.

The woman said, “The serpent deceived me, and I ate.” Gen. 3:13.

Eve admitted that she had been deceived when confronted by God. In this she was honest. And since Adam and Eve were a Pair this admission by Eve is the same as an admission by Adam to the same effect. The smooth words and angular logic of the Serpent actually deceived BOTH of them, so it would have been useless for Eve to blame Adam for a deception that both accepted as truth.

11) Now you have completely misrepresented what the 'woman' is in Gen. 3:15. This woman cannot be Eve, and I explained this elsewhere; but the short version is that God is speaking here of the spiritual offspring of the Serpent (otherwise evil people would actually look like snakes) and the spiritual offspring of the 'Woman' who also gives birth to spiritual offspring. Eve did not and today (now) does not give birth to any offspring much less spiritual offspring. This 'Woman' that God speaks of is the Woman from which springs her first born, Jesus Christ, and the rest of her offspring, His spiritual siblings (Rev.12:17).

12) Your comment here reflects the typical Pauline Christian misogynistic view that women are and always have been inferior to men in every way and even God has to put them in their place. PLEASE! That is NOT what happened. God cursed the Serpent. God DID NOT curse either Adam or Eve. What He did was set new conditions on their relationship based on what was going to be best for them and their life outside the Garden. If they had not disobeyed their partnership would have remained as it was.

I will not respond to anything you say with regard to EGW, as she has no standing with me at all. Any evidence that you bring forth from her will be set aside as tainted evidence, and will not be admitted by me into this discussion.

John said, "The expression simply means that Eve gave some of the fruit to the companion that God had put in the garden with her."

God said, "So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate, and she also gave some to her husband who was with her, and he ate." Gen.3:6.

I would be very careful about putting words into God's mouth that are not there. Your statement is nowhere near what God actually said, but you tried to change it to fit your paradigm, and I caught you at it. This is a perfect example of cut and paste theology that you and yours (Paul and EGW included) are so good at. You cannot take what God says a face value because if you did it would prove you wrong, so you change the words to fit the situation. The really sad thing is that you also do this with the words of God in Revelation. It's not so bad to do this in Genesis or other books of the Bible (except Daniel). But it really riles God up when you do this in Revelation. I urge you to cease and desist in your ineffective efforts to change who God is into a 'God' that reflect your idea of who He should be.

Gen. 3:6 says about Adam that he was with her at the tree of the Learning of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, but you just MUST change it to fit your theology. Heaven forbid that you would ever agree with either me or Dr. Rich about anything. That is not the big problem; you don't agree with God. Now THAT is a BIG problem. Good luck with that.

[Guest]

This could also be another place where men (Adam, Moses, translators) asserted their domination over women by having Eve be the one that sinned? Just blame it on the woman, I say.

So in other words, the Bible is not really inspired by God at all. Not even the OT. Just a bunch of male chauvinist pigs framing the way it reads to suit themselves, and make the woman look bad.

I think it's hilarious, (absurd really) how you pick and choose which parts of the Bible should be taken seriously, and which parts should be taken with a grain of salt. That's why your theology is so whacky, because you are obviously allowing yourself to be led by your own imagination.

You should try looking at scripture as the word of God sometime. It worked really well for the prophets, the disciples, and the apostles. Even Jesus said that's what it was. And He should know.

Even the translators couldn't go any farther than God allowed when it came to distorting His word. History shows that God has kept a watchful eye on His word all down through the centuries. Satan would have destroyed it long ago if it were possible. History shows that he certainly has tried. I guess the next best thing would be to get some people (like yourself) to believing it's not really the inspired word of God.

[Guest]

"Her husband who was with her" doesn't necessarily have to mean that he was with her right then and there at the tree. It could just as easily mean her husband who was with her in the garden.

The points that John made make perfect sense when you take that into account. All the evidence points in that direction:

1) If the man is standing right there, it wouldn't say the serpent "said [these things] TO the woman."

2) Other Scripture tell us straightforwardly that Adam wasn't fooled by the Devil. So this would be like a man watching silently as his wife is tricked into committing suicide.

3) He knew that snakes can't talk. He knew that this was the evil one that God had warned him of. So why would Adam stand there and not say anything to warn his beloved wife as she gets closer and closer to that fateful moment when she eats the fruit and begin to die?

4) Adam does not say a word the whole time.

5) Eve does not say anything to Adam about this most important decision. It seems obvious that if Adam was with her at the time of the temptation, she would have talked to him about it.

6) It was up to Adam to protect Eve, and therefore we can believe that Adam would have said or done something to protect her, since Adam knew she was venturing on dangerous territory.

8) When God calls for Adam, Adam does not blame the serpant, but he blames Eve. Why would Adam blame Eve if he had been tricked by the devil? The only way it makes sense for Adam to blame Eve is if Adam hadn't been with Eve when she was deceived by the serpeant.

9) Notice that Eve does not blame Adam. If she knew Adam had known she was being tricked by Satan but had remained silent, Eve would certainly have blamed Adam for not warning her. We would expect her to say something like, "Well, this fool of a husband stood silently by while watching me get tricked by the devil." But no, she says nothing like this, and there's only one reason for it, and that's if Adam hadn't been there when she fell into sin. But instead of blaming Adam, Eve blames only the serpant. This makes sense because it was the serpent alone that got Eve to disobey God. Adam had nothing to do with her sin.

10) God condemns Adam for "heeding the voice of his wife," not the voice of the serpent. Why? Because Adam hadn't eaten of the tree because of the serpent. Adam only ate because of his wife's offering the fruit.

11) God puts enmity between the serpant and the woman, not between the serpent and the man. Why? Because it was the woman who fell first and it was the woman who fell as a direct result of listening to the serpent.

12) Because Eve tried to ursurp the position of the husband by leading him to sin-- instead of her allowing him to lead her to obey-- God places the woman in a position of being ruled over by the man.

On top of all these points, we have the fact that Ellen White said plainly that Eve was alone at the tree and that she had wandered away from Adam. Therefore the Bible clearly supports the position of Ellen White in regard to this aspect of the temptation at the Tree of Knowledge of good and evil. All 12 points lead inevitably to only one reasonable conclusion, which is that Eve and Adam were separated at the time she was tempted and first ate of the forbidden fruit.

If you are going to dispute this, you will need to do more than merely say Ellen White is wrong or that the text says "she gave to her husband with her." The expression simply means that Eve gave some of the fruit to the companion that God had put in the garden with her. It doesn't make sense to say that Eve gave some of the fruit to her husand who was with her at the time she gave it to him. Eve couldn't very well give him the fruit when he wasn't with her, could she? That would be redundant. She could only give it to him when he was with her. Her arm didn't stretch far enough so that she could give fruit to him when he was anywhere but with her. Therefore the expression "with her" isn't intended to give the impression that Adam was standing beside her at the tree while Eve was being tempted. The expression, rather, is obviously intended to emphasize that after Eve committed this terrible sin, she even went so far as to cause her beloved companion to sin also.

[John317]

...THEN God searched all over the earth for a suitable mate and couldn't find one ...

This is an invention of the devil, Dr. Rich. It's a flat-out lie.

I don't know for certain if you are aware that it is false, but it is someone's lie, because the Bible says no such thing. If you can find it, let me know and quote it for me and give the reference. But one thing's for sure: you won't find it in the Scriptures.

You've claimed to have "higher knowledge" about the creation. Well, this proves rather the opposite. No one who has studied the creation story in the Bible and remembers what they read would say this if they have regard for the truth of the Scriptures.

Based on your claim to have studied the creation story so well, I have to believe that you know the Bible doesn't say any such thing as you claim here.

So, why did you say that God searched all over creation for a mate for Adam and could not find one?

[John317]

...And what scripture says that Adam knew the snake could not talk and that Adam was not fooled by Satan? Bet you can't find it in the words of Jesus or the OT.

The Bible teaches that God gave Adam the responsibility of naming the animals. Adam had to observe the animals and know them before he could name them. You can be sure that Adam knew from watching and observing the animals that none of them could talk. He certainly knew that the snakes he had seen didn't talk.

The scriptures tell us that Adam wasn't fooled.

Nevetheless, reasoning in the Scriptures tells us that after observing and naming the animals, Adam knew there were no talking snakes. Adam had to be far more intelligent than you and me.

[John317]

1) The Serpent could indeed address only one of the pair, if it chose to. Have not you ever listened in on a conversation where two people were talking and you were not included?

If Adam and Eve are standing together there at the tree, the narrative would say the serprent said those words to "them," not "to the woman." That indicates that the man was not there.

Remember that God gave the command to Adam, the man. God didn't even give the command directly to the woman. So if Adam had been present when the serpent spoke "to the woman," Adam would have told the serpent exactly what he heard God say. The fact that Eve answered this question shows she was alone, for Adam would have answered the question if he had been there. Eve wasn't even in existence when God gave the command.

This is just one piece of the evidence, but the rest of the evidence proves the truth of this conclusion.

Originally Posted By: Musicman1228

This could also be another place where men (Adam, Moses, translators) asserted their domination over women by having Eve be the one that sinned? Just blame it on the woman, I say.

Interesting comment. Your words indicate you believe the Old Testament also possibly has lies in it. Since lies don't ever come from God, we can sure that if it contains lies, those lies came from Satan. That can only mean you're suggesting that from the get-go, the Bible contains lies. Not only this, but your suggestion means that the first lies in the Bible are in regard to how Adam and Eve fell.

Can you explain what you mean by "the translators"? The translators had nothing to do with it, did they? Or are you talking principally of the translators of the LXX?

Are you, then, saying you believe it is possible or likely that Moses didn't tell the truth here and that it might be a lie that Eve was the first one who sinned? Does Dr. Rich and Wayfinder believe this?

I thought all three of you believe the Old Testament was inspired by God and didn't have lies in it from Satan. Have you changed your view of this? Your words here sound like maybe you have.

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

Apparently Adam didn't even know what his own body looked like. So it follows that when God created Eve it was because Adam needed someone of his own kind. Adam *had* to know that no other animal in the Garden could talk. Unless he found a parrot.