Eve NEVER took or ate of the fruit

[Woody]

Perhaps mess is the wrong word. I personally see both sides and simply do not care. Since I started this thread ... I have become uninterested because it went off the topic I presented. I am not objecting to the mess or whatever you want to call it. I am just no longer interested in the way it has been diverted.

I will leave it up to you guys to hash out. I will pop in occasionally. But I have no real interest in the topic.

[Woody]

Quote:

I never said that. I made a simple observation based on the little I know. Methinks thou dost protest too much.

Thank you Pam. This has been my observation also.

If in doubt ... I guess it is always best to ask.

[there buster]

Does 'popping in' constitute a form of dance?

Is that how angels teleport?

I'm against it.

[Woody]

Ed ... it is a Vege dance and therefore it is blessed.

[there buster]

Vegge dance?

Waltz of the Flowers?

Dance of the Sugar Plum Fairies?

I dunno. It's heathen music.

Shall We Gather at the Riverdance? Now there's one that has to be kosher.

[John317]

John317 said:

Quote:

This is the first time I have heard it suggested that we ought only to discuss or study that which we may be sure Jesus taught in the temple.

I never said that. I made a simple observation based on the little I know. Methinks thou dost protest too much.

I'm sorry but I took your observation to mean that you were questioning why we should be discussing this subect. I apologize if that is not what you meant. I'm sure that is how anyone analyzing language would understand it, but I will accept your explanation that you meant something different.

I can see that the subject is one that is unpopular for whatever reason. I am honestly shocked because I am very interested in studying every subject in the Bible and see no reason to avoid anything contained in it. Perhaps since the subject seems to be of no interest to anyone presently on this thread, we could all migrate to a subject more in harmony with our views. I have no interest in discussing a topic no one wants to discuss.

[there buster]

Come on, now, what's a guy gotta do

Shall We Gather at the Riverdance!!!!

[David Koot]

Quote:

The 'plain reading of Scripture' is not locative.

Again, your opinion... And stated here as an absolute conclusion in direct contradiction to your previous statement in the same post - "the preposition is quite common, and has a definite semantic range. It is not locative per se, although that is one of several applications of the word."

[John317]

On this thread, a serious, well-qualified student of Scripture, John317, has provided very well-researched information and documentation which does, indeed, demonstrate that precisel 1.554 x 10^7 angels can dance on the head of a pin.

If you have read the points I put up giving what I believe is the Bible reason for believing Adam and Eve were separated during the temptation, what conclusion have you drawn if any, and why?

Someone pointed out to me that a first paintings of the Temptation of Eve always showed Eve standing at the tree by herself. Nowadays it is more likely they will both be shown together.

Ed, as a student and admirer of Ellen White, what is your opinion of what she wrote in PP about the fall?

[there buster]

My opinion is my opinion.

I just thought I'd be the first to point that out.

Your assumption is that I have an opinion about what EGW wrote in PP about the fall.

An assumption about an opinion is not evidence.

Now, having saved everyone two long posts, by myself and the reply by David Koot, I will move on.

Translation: Why on earth would I, or anyone else, want to put forth any ideas and subject them to endless obstruction?

No soap.

[ChildOfGod4Ever]

...the head of a pin...

*ROFLOL!*

I have no idea what's up in this thread anymore, or if that was actually meant as an insult or not, but it caught my eye, and honestly, that was about the funniest joke I've heard around here in a long, long time!

...angels dancing on pinheads...

I'd like to see that

[John317]

Quote:

..Your assumption is that I have an opinion about what EGW wrote in PP about the fall.

I don't mind at all saying that I believe that Ellen White agrees with the Bible when it comes to this topic.

I've visited web sites and read books which claim that Ellen White was wrong about that as well as about a lot of other things that she said God showed her in vision. I think that the evidence shows that she was right.

I think that the points I brought out of the Biblical narrative show that this is the case.

[John317]

...An assumption about an opinion is not evidence.

That's true. I am not using your opinion as evidence. I was merely asking whether you believe the testimony of Jesus Christ, which is the Spirit of prophecy. Ellen White saw these things in vision, at least she did unless she was either lyng or under an ilusion. After studying her I have every confidence that she saw what she claimed she saw. I simply meant to ask if you believe the same part with regard to what she said God showed her in vision about this. I ask this because you have studied these matters for years and therefore I am certain that you must have a conviction one way or the other.

[Amelia]

All this does is prove to me that a plain lay person cannot plainly read the bible and understand it's meanings.

[Gerr]

I may be going out on a limb here. But if I am ... I am sure that someone will correct me.

Eve NEVER ate ... nor did she even take the fruit. Look it up in Genesis Chapter 3 . I just studied it this week in the lesson. And this is the conclusion I came to.

NOW ... I am being techical here. But that is ME. So ... contrary to what the lesson said ... Eve did not do the terrible deed that she is accused of.

Do I have any challengers ??

I should just stop here and leave you hanging. But that would be cruel. Let me give you a hint. Saying Eve took the fruit would be like saying Saul was a Christian.

Got it?

The scripture clearly indicates from my personal reading that it was Adam who named his wife ... Woman. It was Woman who took the fruit. Later ... after sin ... Woman was named Eve. Look at Genesis 3 and tell me if I am right.?

So .... it was Woman who took the fruit.

Sorry, but this is not atypical Redwoodism hermeneutics. Black is white, & white is black.

Gerry

[David Koot]

All this does is prove to me that a plain lay person cannot plainly read the bible and understand it's meanings.

I think a lay person can read and plainly understand the Bible, with the aid of the Holy Spirit.

[ChildOfGod4Ever]

All this does is prove to me that a plain lay person cannot plainly read the bible and understand it's meanings.

*Grins, snickers, and agrees*

Sing it, Sister!!!

[David Koot]

endless obstruction?

The issue is accuracy. Think 'peer review.'

[John317]

All this does is prove to me that a plain lay person cannot plainly read the bible and understand it's meanings.

I believe the Bible is actually fairly simple to understand. That doesn't mean there aren't parts of it that are more difficult or complex than others, but the majority of verses are so simple that a child can understand their meaning. The most essential message in the Bible, concerning faith in Christ and how we may be saved by God's grace through faith, can certainly be grasped by everyone. For instance, there are few passages of Scripture easier to understand, and yet none profounder, than John 3: 16. There are simple, easy-to-understand passages, but there are also harder-to -understand passages in such books as Job, Leviticus, Hebrews, Romans, Daniel, etc.

When it comes to the passage we are talking about here, Gen. 3: 6, I don't think anyone's salvation depends on whether they beleive that Adam was with Eve at the tree or not. The Fall is an important doctrine, and we should study to have a good understanding of it, but our salvation isn't tied in any direct way to our having a precise knowledge of all the details.

In this connection, though, it's good to keep in mind what Peter said in 2 Peter 3: 15-17, "Look on our Lord's patience as the opportunity he is giving you to be saved, just as our dear friend Paul wrote to you, using the wisdom that God gave him. This is what he says in all his letters when he writes on the subject. There are some difficult things in his letters which ignorant and unstable people explain falsely, as they do with other passages of the Scriptures. So they bring on their own destruction. But you, my friends, already know this. Be on your guard, then, so that you will not be led away by the errors of lawless people and fall from your safe position. But continue to grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ." TEV

[ChildOfGod4Ever]

The majority of verses are so simple that a child can understand their meaning. The most essential message in the Bible, concerning faith in Christ and how we may be saved by God's grace through faith, can certainly be grasped by everyone.

Yes. Children are capable of understanding. Yet children need to be taught, and it takes years and years of life-application before they really, fully understand any of it at all. The young child looks to the Bible for rules. The teenager rebels against the rules, choosing not to have others from the pages of a book control and micro-manage their entire existence, and then pays the price for throwing all of life's essential rules out the window. Or they live in terror and fear of breaking one single rule even a little bit, becoming a paralyzed legalist.

The young adult who rebelled lives with the natural consequences of that rebellion and spends a good number of years working their way out of that, usually in therapy or support groups, as well as through community services (here in the US). And finding out that God isn't to blame for their natural consequences, nor should they fear that He'll Impose unnatural consequences on them because of Salvation. The young adult who didn't rebel lives in loneliness, fear, self-loathing (upon discovery that they aren't perfect after all), and anticipation of retribution. Until they are taught that Salvation means they don't need to live in this fear anymore.

The mature adult uses their Understanding of the Gospel to help others learn it, hopefully at an earlier age, and hopefully with a right understanding of it. It's a life-long process, and the older we get, the more clearly we understand it.

At least that's what I've observed so far. But yes, it's true, a small child can understand that God Loves them no matter what they do, and that they have personal responsibility as well. I just wish that no child had ever been told, "You have a bad/unclean heart." That's just not the case at all. Usually, their hearts are in the right place, but their minds have not been properly and completely trained to apply all the Principles of the Gospel to every facet of their existence - because they are only children.

[Tom Wetmore]

All this does is prove to me that a plain lay person cannot plainly read the bible and understand it's meanings.

Originally Posted By: David Koot

I think a lay person can read and plainly understand the Bible, with the aid of the Holy Spirit.

Amelia,

Although, I am not sure if the H/S has given out much of that sort of aid since 1915... And don't let the H/S impress you with an opinion about what you read unless you run it by one of the very few, select, serious, well-qualified and well read students of Scripture, because apparently the H/S cannot or does not work without the aid of and reliance on copious reference and citation to recognized authoritative sources such as Brown-Driver-Briggs, Louw-Nida, Koehler-Baumgartner, etc.

Tom

[David Koot]

And don't let the H/S impress you with an opinion about what you read unless you run it by one of the very few, select, serious, well-qualified and well read students of Scripture, because apparently the H/S cannot or does not work without the aid of and reliance on copious reference and citation to recognized authoritative sources such as Brown-Driver-Briggs, Louw-Nida, Koehler-Baumgartner, etc.

This type of sarcasm is what tends to make places like C/A an unpleasant place. It is disappointing. I sincerely hope this type of comment will not be seen in the future.

[John317]

Originally Posted By: John317

The majority of verses are so simple that a child can understand their meaning. The most essential message in the Bible, concerning faith in Christ and how we may be saved by God's grace through faith, can certainly be grasped by everyone.

Yes. Children are capable of understanding. Yet children need to be taught, and it takes years and years of life-application before they really, fully understand any of it at all. The young child looks to the Bible for rules. The teenager rebels against the rules, choosing not to have others from the pages of a book control and micro-manage their entire existence, and then pays the price for throwing all of life's essential rules out the window.

I agree with virtually everything you said here.

I know from experience about children being able to understand most of the Bible's language because I learned how to read by reading the King James Version of the Bible in the second grade. I went to Orangewood SDA Academy where my aunt, Gladys Sims Stump, was the second grade teacher. She bought a Bible for every child in her class and we read most of it together by the end of the school year. That year she also wrote a wonderful book, entitled, Joseph and His Golden Collar, which was great fun reading with the author.

[John317]

Originally Posted By: Amelia

All this does is prove to me that a plain lay person cannot plainly read the bible and understand it's meanings.

Originally Posted By: David Koot

I think a lay person can read and plainly understand the Bible, with the aid of the Holy Spirit.

Amelia,

Although, I am not sure if the H/S has given out much of that sort of aid since 1915... And don't let the H/S impress you with an opinion about what you read unless you run it by one of the very few, select, serious, well-qualified and well read students of Scripture, because apparently the H/S cannot or does not work without the aid of and reliance on copious reference and citation to recognized authoritative sources such as Brown-Driver-Briggs, Louw-Nida, Koehler-Baumgartner, etc.

Tom

It's true that we can't really understand the Bible without the aid of the Holy Spirit. That's why it's so important to begin every Bible study with personal prayer. The only thing that limits the ability of the Holy Spirit to teach us to understand the Bible is the limits we ourselves place on Him by refusing to listen and obey. But really the Holy Spirit is there for everyone, yet sadly not everyone's willing to listen to His voice. I have close friends who don't believe in the Holy Spirit or that the Bible is anything but just another book.

[Tom Wetmore]

This type of sarcasm

That is an opinion and an assumption. What types of sarcasm would you prefer?

Quote:

...tends to make places like C/A an unpleasant place.

Again, that is a personal opinion, that is not necessarily shared by many others here.

As we have learned, a place need not continue to be occupied by those who find it unpleasant. There are indeed many other places that one might find more pleasant if one chose to explore other options.

Quote:

It is disappointing.

Again, a matter of personal opinion that casts negative aspersions on the one to whom you are directing your commentary.

As we have also been repeatedly admonished, such personal critique of another would be better handled by a PM - Oh I forgot, you never actually follow your own counsel in that regard. Never mind.

It bears noting at this juncture, that the person to whom I specifically and personal directed my post (not you) would be in a much better position to react to it and respond, since I was addressing her personal lament over the discouraging drift of this whole topic. I believe that my post was merely an echo of her sentiment capturing the pathos created by being inundated by pseudo-intellectual obfuscation of what would otherwise be plain, simple and spiritually beneficial. That spiritual benefit gets lost in the intellectual minutia and microscopic dissection of the Word.

Quote:

I sincerely hope this type of comment will not be seen in the future.

And I would sincerely hope that provocation will not be seen in the future.

Let's get to the root of the problem. The reaction is not what has made this place unpleasant. It is rather the continual unmoderated unrelenting and uncompromisingly humorless provocation by those out of touch with the spirit and intent of this place. That some are provoked to respond with sarcasm, humor, hostility, boredom and sadly for most, a quiet and hasty exit, is not the problem. If the real problem is corrected, the real source of the discontent that you are seeing expressed over and over, I think your hope could in fact be realized.

Tom