Eve NEVER took or ate of the fruit

[D. Allan]

Perhaps the Holy Spirit leaves room for various opinions. In fact i doubt very much that she is interested at all in "opinions". However, there may be a case for being of the opinion that opinionatedness reduces the room available for her to have an effect within one's spirit. not that i'm hinting that anyone is opinionated --- for everyone is entitled to their own opinionatednesses, any yeses?

just my opinion, i here opine. :<|)

[D. Allan]

Quote:

I It wasn't until I studied into the Jewish Betrothal and Wedding ceremonies that I Understood Yeshua as my Groom, the one who makes the Promises to me, and that I, His Bride, have nothing required of me for Him to keep those.

... if we want ourselves to ever really both feel Forgiven and self-accepted because God Made us the way He wants us to be from the beginning anyway, and everything's all up to Him and not up to us in the first place

Nicely said, Child. Plant these seeds in hearts and you have made a place for the Holy Spirit to flourish! :-)

[ChildOfGod4Ever]

Perhaps the Holy Spirit leaves room for various opinions.

Hey, you know something? I think there should be room here at CA for both seriousness and fun. And personally, I think if the Jews can crack Biblical/historical jokes, then you know, so can we

Esther Trek

Hope that's not to punny for anyone

And, just so you all know, I do think there should be serious discussions here too. Definitely.

[Amelia]

The U.S.S. Yentaprise

[David Koot]

.

What types of sarcasm would you prefer?

[ChildOfGod4Ever]

You know, I think we're all going to find things about how each other posts that irritate, annoy, or confuse the tar out of us. I know I've found at least one lately that did that to me.

"An

Anna Anna

Annooyyye

A droid

A voiddd

Anno

oooyeed

Oy!"

If anyone can beat that, well, I'll be...

[David Koot]

The U.S.S. Yentaprise

Yentaprise? Indeed.

[ChildOfGod4Ever]

The U.S.S. Yentaprise

May the troublsome tribbles live long and prosper.

           \V/,

[John317]

Originally Posted By: D. Allan

Perhaps the Holy Spirit leaves room for various opinions.

Hey, you know something? I think there should be room here at CA for both seriousness and fun. And personally, I think if the Jews can crack Biblical/historical jokes, then you know, so can we

Esther Trek

Hope that's not to punny for anyone

And, just so you all know, I do think there should be serious discussions here too. Definitely.

I totally agree. People should certainly be able to joke and have fun as much as they want. This is a great place for that. Only let's try not to make it at other people's expense.

[D. Allan]

Quote:

quoting Child of God: "An

Anna Anna

Annooyyye

A droid

A voiddd

Anno

oooyeed

Oy!"

looks vaguely familiar

:-)

[David Koot]

.

looks vaguely familiar

Indeed. Where DO you get these things from?

[ChildOfGod4Ever]

I totally agree. People should certainly be able to joke and have fun as much as they want. This is a great place for that. Only let's try not to make it at other people's expense.

I think most of us could probably agree to that, though there are some who think that if we're so tough, we should be able to handle anything. There's some truth to that, but we're all human and we all want to be treated right too. I think, anyway...

Anyway, I agree - I don't think it's very mature to pick on others intentionally. I do think that some are overly sensitive as well, and are bound to take anything wrong - they've probably not been validated as much as the rest of us. There's a lot of psychology involved in that. Anyway, I think that when it's avoidable, when we know we're poking fun at someone's expense, that's wrong and we ought to be held accountable for that. But that's just me. I don't make the rules around here, thankfully :)

[John317]

Originally Posted By: John317

I totally agree. People should certainly be able to joke and have fun as much as they want. This is a great place for that. Only let's try not to make it at other people's expense.

I think most of us could probably agree to that, though there are some who think that if we're so tough, we should be able to handle anything. There's some truth to that, but we're all human and we all want to be treated right too. I think, anyway...

Anyway, I agree - I don't think it's very mature to pick on others intentionally. I do think that some are overly sensitive as well, and are bound to take anything wrong - they've probably not been validated as much as the rest of us. There's a lot of psychology involved in that. Anyway, I think that when it's avoidable, when we know we're poking fun at someone's expense, that's wrong and we ought to be held accountable for that. But that's just me. I don't make the rules around here, thankfully

Great comments.

I know people who come to CA and yet sadly do not choose to participate in discussions because they are afraid of being attacked personally for an idea or belief or maybe because they might not express it exactly right. In a Christian setting I think you'll agree this should never happen. You have to expect it in AOL chatrooms and on their discussion boards, but I hope we're different here.

For me personally, it has nothing to do with being sensitive. As you may know-- I think I've mentioned it somewhere before-- I've worked 10 hours a day for the last twenty years in a place similar to juvenile hall and I have fun climbing into the "lions den" every day with gang members and thieves and you-name-it. What it has to do with, rather, is that I don't like to see members mistreating each other and attacking someone personally because they happen to disagree over a theological issue. So I continue to encourage all of the Christian brothers and sisters here to please try to phrase our criticism in a way that it doesn't insult others personally. Attacking or criticising an idea as wrong or unreasonable is one thing; this can actually be a good thing; but making the disagreement into a personal matter, I'm sure you'll agree, is something entirely different. It's really all about the Golden Rule and being kind as Christ is to us who realize we don't deserve His kindness. It will go a long ways toward making CA a place where more people will want to come and fellowship and make friends.

[David Koot]

It would seem advantageous to nip such behaviors in the bud. Failure to do so can result in PR disasters and critical damage to the Yentaprise.

[David Koot]

For a person who is constantly 'dissing and dassing' so many disenting 'opinions, sources, quotes, etc', why all the complaining, dare I say it sounds like 'whineing'?

There is a qualitative and fundamental distinction between a discussion which focuses on ISSUES, questions opinions, asks for cites and documentation, etc., WITHOUT REGARD to who authors them--with a blindfold on, if you please--and a discussion which focuses on the individual, and attacks the messenger. Challenging the message in a appropriate way is good, and to be expected. Attacking the messenger is inappropriate and bush league to boot. It is important in preserving the safety and integrity of a discussion forum such as this, to focus on the issues, the message, in a civil and respectful way, rather than subjecting the messenger to personal attack and ridicule.

Dave

[ChildOfGod4Ever]

I just (usually) like to do this:

Use "I" statements and avoid any sentence that includes either the person's name or the word "you."

That doesn't mean I avoid discussing that which needs to be discussed. It means that I turn my sentences around. Instead of saying "You are wrong for believing that Jesus turned the water into real wine" (that debate could go on forever), I just say "I believe Jesus turned the water into grape juice."

I also avoid trying to state my beliefs/opinions as fact. For example, instead of saying "Jesus turned the water into grape juice" I say, again, "I believe Jesus turned the water into grape juice." This avoids stating something as a fact when I wasn't there and even if I had been, I still couldn't prove it conclusively. And it takes personal ownership of my own belief/opinion.

And to be quite honest, (though this probably belongs in a different thread) I like to honor those who come around here who either are not Adventist at all, or are so new to Adventism that they really don't need a lot of quotes from non-Bible-authors thrown at them. In other places on the Internet and other parts of my life, I deal very often with non-Adventists who I have no desire to ask them to switch religions. Rather, I choose to simply share Bible truth as I know it for myself with them, and then let it dawn on them themselves if they want to go looking for a new denomination/religion.

So, I just wanted to leave a plug here for that line of thought: I'd like to see us use more Bible-based texts, at least 2/3 more than what I've seen a lot of us use around here. Sometimes, it can be too easy to become dependent on the commentary of non-Bible-authors to build our own theologies upon. And not only can that hurt us personally, when we think that something we believe is "probably somewhere in the Bible, but I don't know where" -- but it can also hurt those who are new to Adventism, who don't need a flood of non-Bible-verse quotes thrown at them, sometimes from authors who they don't even accept as valid in the first place (or haven't yet accepted). And even if they have, the truth is, it's best if they learn what the Bible says before they learn what anyone else has to say on a matter. I believe it's best to use Bible quotes at least 2/3 of the time, rather than, oh, say 10% of the time.

I'm plugging that here, at the end of my comments above, because the truth is, well, it can really offend some people when we come off as not even knowing our own Bibles very well, or as being too dependent on non-Bible-authors for our daily bread. I've seen this too many times in my personal life especially. One woman who was checking out my church came to me and said, "Can you do a chapter-by-chapter (not verse-hopping) Bible study with me on the Sabbath?" I remember thinking, "Huh?" I had no idea how. She didn't come back. I don't blame her. It's not that she wasn't looking for answers, it's just that she wanted something formatted in a way that she was accustomed to as a Pentecostal. I've met other non-Adventists who also use that format, as well as other formats that I'm only becoming acquainted with recently myself. I don't think it's our job to become a stumbling block to newbies who are just checking out our denomination. I do think it's our job to make the scriptures as plain to them as is possible, and worry more about their Salvation than about drawing them into our particular body of Believers. They'll respect that more, and will find it harder to become defensive the next time they meet an Adventist. Because we put them first above our own preferred sharing practices.

Anyway, that has nothing to do with poking fun at people. Just with finding ways to avoid offending others and to hopefully bring them some Light at the same time. I don't believe all offenses can be avoided. I do believe we should be quick to apologize when we can see for ourselves that a real offense has been committed. Sure, if someone says they're offended, I think it's alright to acknowledge that by saying, "I see that you're offended at what I said..." But really, I do think it's alright to wait to take personal blame for someone else's hurt feelings until you yourself even agree that what you said was all that bad to begin with. Otherwise, if you apologize just to save their hurt feelings, it's both insincere and it pretty much gives them license to control your every word by saying, "You offended me..." every few seconds.

Tons of psychology... You know, I honestly believe all Bible students should be required to take a good Boundaries class. I've taken it, and though I don't agree with some of it's philosophies (such as using the word "No" to build up walls, rather than picking and choosing the times you invite others into some part of your personal space/life...), I do appreciate how they teach you to take personal responsibility for your own junk, and only for your own junk, while at the same time, making it clear that others are responsible for theirs, and that facts are facts, but opinions are only that: opinions.

[ChildOfGod4Ever]

Quote:

Quote:

For a person who is constantly...

There is a qualitative and fundamental distinction between ...

Alrighty, folks, this is what I'm talking about. In the first quote, a personal attack is made on the author of the quote, by the quoter. Yes, the name of the person being attacked was left out, as was the word "you." But it was still implying that the person being quoted "constantly" does a particular thing that's negative. In the author's opinion. Opinions are always debatable, yet should, at the same time be validated. So, I'll say, "You know, that could very well be true." And they should also be counterbalanced. So, I'll say, "It's always good to remember that he may have a certain perspective and is only trying to share that with you in the best way that he knows how." And then I'll ask, "How would you like to see him present his view on things?"

The best that the target of that first quote could do was to simply defend his own belief about the distinction between attacking a person and staying on-subject, without allowing himself to attack the person who quoted him and instead, he stayed on-subject. So, if anyone wanted a real life example, well, there's a good one right there.

And I'll add two more things I'd like to point out: We're here for the sake of the Gospel, no? Then let's all remember that we're human, and we all make mistakes, and that's ok. The other thing is this: you know, this is only the Internet, and most of us are under assumed nicknames. Sometimes, I think we can take ourselves and each other far too seriously for our own goods. Or, at other times, not seriously enough. I hope there's a balance in there somewhere...

Have a good night all :)

[David Koot]

Some people doth protest too much...you're picking on me, calling me names, or whatever...like I said about the kitchen. It aint personal atttack, just an observation.

If a person will make a real effort to practice kindness and courtesy, and be considerate of others, even if s/he may personally think otherwise, that can go a huge way toward making a community--online or otherwise--a pleasant place. And that is a good thing.

[David Koot]

If you don't like someones responce to your postings, you simple label them as being 'unnice', etc.

It is not the content or the ideas that is the problem. I have held differing views on many subjects, with many people on this forum. Discussing those differing views can be interesting and rewarding in many ways--if done with civility. The pursuit of truth is, itself, a laudable activity. Different perspectives--the issues--are of interest. Civilized interchange of such ideas is needed. I would anticipate that most people are familiar with societal conventions of civil behavior. If not, one might consider attendance at finishing school or the like.

[John317]

The following evidence was posted on this thread before I was aware that it was the subject of the July 4 Sabbath School lesson quarterly. So I am posting it again in the hopes that readers will look again at the subject in the light of what the lesson quarterly says about it.

The lesson quarterly speaks to the issue of the Hebrew word, im, which is here translated as "with her," and it also addresses the question of why it is a topic that we should discuss and understand.

===================================

Check out this evidence: The man wasn't with Eve when she first ate the fruit.

(1) God commanded the man not to eat of the fruit from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. (Gen. 1: 16.)

(2)Then afterwards God made the woman and brought her to Adam. (Gen. 2: 22.)

(3) The serpent is specifically said to have asked "the woman" his question about what God said, and this first question implies that this was not the first words exchanged between the woman and the serpent. (Gen. 3: 1.)

(4) Notice that during the whole conversation between the woman and the serpent, not a word is said about the man. Nor does the record report that the man says a single word either pro or con as far as the serpent's temptation of Eve is concerned. Why not? The only rational explanation, which is in harmony with the rest of Scripture, is that the man was not present during this time.

(5) The woman takes the fruit and eats it. (Gen. 3: 6.)

(6) At this point, only after eating it herself, Eve gives some of the fruit to Adam. And he eats it.

[At this point it is important to keep in mind what the New Testament says about this situation: Eve was deceived by Satan, but Adam was not deceived. Adam knew what he was doing but he decided to eat it anyway. He obviously decided he would rather die than live without his beloved wife. See 2 Cor. 11: 3; 1 Tim 2: 14. If Adam was not deceived, it is impossible to believe that he stood silently and dumb beside his beloved wife, heard Satan's temptations, and watched Eve eat the fruit without giving Eve a single word of warning of what Adam knew to be the case, that her eating the fruit would result in her death.]

(7) Finally, when God confronts Eve with what she did, she says nothing about Adam but blames the Serpent. Adam does not blame Satan or the serpent, but merely says that the woman gave him the fruit. This would be difficult to explain if they were together during the time the serpent was tempting Eve. Eve says the serpent deceived "me", not "us." (Gen. 3: 12-14).

(8) Finally, the different punishments God gives Adam and Eve show that Eve fell first, and Adam fell as a result of listening to Eve. (Gen. 3: 17-- "Because you listened to your wife".) Apparently because the woman fell first, Adam is made her ruler and she is made to give birth in pain (Gen. 3: 16).

It is most interesting that Ellen White says that in the vision God gave her of these events, Adam was not with Eve at the time Satan was tempting her. Her statement, as shown above, agrees completely with the Bible record. See Patriarchs and Prophets on the Temptation and Fall.

[WayneV]

Just couldn't let a sleeping dog lie, could your?

[John317]

Just couldn't let a sleeping dog lie, could your?

No, I couldn't, and please may I tell you why.

One of the questions on this thread was, "Doesn't Gen. 3:6 say plainly that Adam was with Eve at the tree?"

That is a fair question and deserves an answer.

The Sabbath School lesson for July 4 gives evidence that the words "with her" have nothing to do with Adam's geographical location but rather with his being Eve's companion in the garden. It also offers a partial answer to the question that was raised as to why it is significant whether or not Adam was at Eve's side while Satan was tempting her at the tree.

"Etzel is the preposition that is used to denote location beside or next to something. (See Ge. 39: 15, 18.) By contrast im denotes relationship. 'Immanuel' in Isaiah 7: 14 and 8: 8, 10 begins with the preposition im and means 'God with us.' It is a relational position and not peographical. Genesis 3: 6 therefore does not strictly demand that we see Adam positioned beside Eve when she is tempted. Adam used the same preposition in Gen. 3: 12 to remind God about the woman He had put with him. It is a relational 'with.' Had he been with her, she might not have succumbed. '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.' Ellen G. White, Patriarchs and Prophets, p. 53.

"Keeping in mind the context of today's lesson, what's the message for us in the following texts:

Prov. 11: 14-- 'Where there is no guidance, a people falls; but in an abundance of counselors there is safety.'

Eccles. 4: 9-11--'Two are better than one, because they have a good rard for their toil. For if they fall, one will lift up his fellow; but woe to him wh is alone when he falls and has not another to lift him up. Again, if two lie together, they are warm; buthow can one be warm alone?'

James 5: 16--'Therefore confess your offenses to one another, and pray for one another, that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous man has great power in its effects.'

How have you experienced the help, protection, and good advice of others? How willing are you to get, or even to give, help when needed? Bring to class [or discuss on CA] an example of when the presence and/or help of others made a big difference for you."

[Tom Wetmore]

Just couldn't let a sleeping dog lie, could your?

I'm a little confused. Is it "Let sleeping dogs lie" or "Let lying dogs sleep"?

Tom

[Tom Wetmore]

To quote Tevia from Fiddler on the Roof:

Tradition!

[melvin mccarty]

Way to go Tom! Something that started out here as light hearted trivia by Redwood was turned into 4 pages of opinionated discussion by certain serious minded folk. Cant blame Charis can we for throwing up her hands in despair! Toxic religion indeed!

mel